Karzai Hands Decision on US Troop Immunity to Elders

[randolph85]

Karzai Hands Decision on US Troop Immunity to Elders


A Loya Jirga – or assembly of Afghanistan's tribal elders – will decide on whether US forces operating in Afghanistan after 2014 should have legal immunity from prosecution in local courts, President Hamid Karzai said Monday.

Speaking at a press conference in Kabul, Karzai said that US President Barack Obama warned him last week that if US troops were not granted immunity from Afghan law then they will leave Afghanistan.

Karzai revealed that the final decision on the matter will lie with the Afghan people, represented by tribal elders, within the next eight or nine months.

"The Afghan government can't decide on this. This is up to the Afghan nation to decide. The Loya Jirga will decide," he said.

"Just as we want them [the US] to respect our sovereignty, the US is also strict about the immunity of its troops in Afghanistan. They did the same with Japan, Germany, Turkey and other countries. But the people of Afghanistan will decide on how and under which circumstances of the impunity, the Loya Jirga will be convened to decide on it.

The US officials said that if this doesn't happen we will leave Afghanistan and there will no relationship between us."

In his first public address since visiting Washington last week, Karzai said negotiations over the long-term security pact with the US will continue for another eight to nine months, although US officials' are eager to sign the agreement as soon as possible.

Regarding the peace process, Karzai said that Afghans want peace with those who seek the good of their country, but for those with other interests, the fight will continue.

"We will make peace with those who think for the benefit of the country, we welcome them. But those who want to work to benefit of the foreigners, we will fight them. So, we will make peace with those Afghan Taliban who are really thinking about their country," he said.

"We want peace together with development," he added.

This comes as US President Barack Obama confirmed that the two presidents agreed US forces will hand over all security responsibility nationwide to Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) by next spring instead of next summer. The US forces will remain in Afghanistan in a support capacity.

The decision has received much criticism from Afghan political leaders and analysts who doubt the abilities of the country's security forces.

Meanwhile, Isaf spokesman Gen. Gunter Katz said on Monday that the Afghan air force will be fully equipped by 2016 and that the Nato-led forces will continue their enduring support for ANSF after 2014.

[Toramana]

Is the neutron bomb the only solution to the Afghan problem?

A couple of days ago, speaking in the House of Lords, former British Labour Defence Minister Baron John Gilbert suggested that UK should drop a neutron bomb on the Pak-Afghan border for creating impassable sanitary cordons between the two countries.
"Your Lordships may say that this is impractical, but nobody lives up in the mountains on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan except for a few goats and a handful of people herding them," Baron Gilbert is quoted as saying by the Press Trust of India. "If you told them that some ERRB (Enhanced Radiation/Reduced Blast) warheads were going to be dropped there and that it would be a very unpleasant place to go, they would not go there."

The statement might be disregarded as idle talk of an 85-yer-old former functionary, but several factors prompt to attach a little more importance to it than may come to mind at first glance.

For one, Baron Gilbert, despite being retired from active service, still remains an influential member of the defence and intelligence community in the UK.

But what is more important, the statement reflects the present state of affairs surrounding Afghanistan in view of the expected withdrawal of NATO troops form the country. Britain at the moment has around 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, while the US keeps a much larger contingent which at the moment numbers around 66,000. The numbers are going to be reduced, but at the moment no one can tell for sure to what extent.

Recently, the US and British media reported that while no final decision has been made, the US top military brass is mulling the idea of keeping around 10,000 troops (the options range from 6,000 to 15,000) after the announced withdrawal. To understand the exact figure, one must ask what the troops are going to do there.

Their mission is definitely not going to be "security and assistance" as it has been over the 11 years of their presence in the occupied country. These goals could not be achieved with the 100 plus thousand, and while the number of foreign troops is reducing and the number of "insider attacks" by Afghan troops against the coalition is increasing, the chances of achieving these goals are coming close to zero. And the Taliban are only too eager to wait till the number of foreign troops gets down to the critical point to launch a decisive offensive.

If that is the most probable prospect, then why should the US (and, probably, its allies) want to leave behind any number of soldiers risking their lives like it happened as far back as 1842 when the whole British contingent in Kabul was slaughtered by Afghans?

The answer is simple. Afghanistan plays a specific role in the US strategic plans of imposing its geopolitical pressure on the whole area embracing the Middle East, Central and South Asia. Therefore, it is crucial for the US to maintain at least four or five military bases on its territory for an unlimited and unspecified period of time. Ten to fifteen thousand troops is just the exact number needed for the bases' maintenance.

But this needs at least relative stability. The present Afghan leadership (or whatever leaders are imposed on Afghanistan after the 2014 troops withdrawal and "general elections") are obviously incapable of guaranteeing it.

This leaves only two options. One is trying to establish some dialogue with the Taliban. But neither side seems eager to do this. And recently one of the most vocal instruments of the US "humanitarian" global policy, the Human Rights Watch, unequivocally stated that it is opposed to such dialogue, urging the US administration not to provide immunity to the Taliban fighters in return for peace talks.

But if the negotiation process looks out of question and the West-sponsored leaders lack the capacity to ensure stability in the country, that leaves open only one option – the tactics of the scorched earth.

And in this context, Lord Gilbert's suggestion comes in more than handily.

Is the neutron bomb the only solution to the Afghan problem?: Voice of Russia

[faye]

more private security thugs may return to afghanistan, for protection purposes of the mining industry.
As Iraq, Afghan wars end, private security firms adapt | Reuters