Afghanistan News & Discussion

[shyamd]

US Fine-Tunes Iran Supply Network to Afghanistan
Also Seeks Formula for Fast Exit from War
US military planners have rationalized Iran routes for US supplies and personnel to Afghanistan to three in secret confabs with Iranian counterparts. In Washington, Barack Obama's staff is hunting for the magic formula for a quick US exit from the Afg
The Perfect Stick-and-Carrot Ploy
Obama's Double Iran Game: Cooperation - with Military Option in Background
Out of the blue, a Washington think tank concludes Israel has credible military capabilities for destroying Iran's nuclear program, contradicting all US official estimates. Tehran suspects the publication is an ulterior card up Obama sleeve.
The Perfect Stick-and-Carrot Ploy – II
Long-Range Aerial Capability Demonstrated in Sudan Raid
The Israeli attack in Sudan on the Iranian arms shipment for Hamas was closely coordinated with US defense secretary Robert Gates and sanctioned by the White House.

Route accross Iran from Iraq
Use of Bandar Abbas port
Use of Chabhahar port
Airlift equipment into Iran from Qatar.

[SaiK]

http://deccanherald.com/Content/Apr3200 ... 127758.asp How many Pakistanis will want to live in such a Caliphate?

I have a different take.. is it not Pakistanization of Taliban Land?, where the truth is?

[Gerard]

President Karzai's Taleban-style laws for women put troop surge at risk

President Karzai of Afghanistan provoked international outrage yesterday with draconian Taleban-era restrictions on women and laws that explicitly sanction marital rape.

Article 132 says. “Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband.”

Article 133 reintroduces the Taleban restrictions on women’s movements outside their homes, stating: “A wife cannot leave the house without the permission of the husband” unless in a medical or other emergency.

[ramana]

This is all about moderate Taliban. All those laws are with US approval.

[RajeshA]

It has become clear that Obama has decided to adopt Pakistan once again, with huge sums of money pouring in. The reasons being American captivity in Afghanistan, a few odd-jobs considered unfinished there, and Pakistani Nukes.

The question is, what would force USA to do a 180° turn!

US captivity in Afghanistan is forcing US to pay ransom money to Pakistan. Thus American presence in Afghanistan has become the singular largest national security threat for India. The way to change that is to get America kicked out of (freed from) Afghanistan!

But then people ask, "wouldn't that harm India's interests by letting Afghanistan fall to the Taliban and Al Qaida?" I say, we need an alternative containment policy for Taliban. The American policeman's way of doing things is hurting us too much.

We need an Indian-Russian-Iranian-CARs-Northern Alliance axis to do the job, and we will probably be able to do a much better job at it. We also need America on our side, but an America looking from outside in and not from inside out like a prisoner, as it has become now.

As long as America is in the neighborhood, the Taliban become stronger, as even the less radicalized among the Pakistanis, especially Pakjabis, are forced to take their side in a situation - are you with America or with Islam?. Pakjabis need to be served a different question - "would you let the Pakhtoon run you over and take away your women, or will you hit back?" Even that question would be better pose-able when America has left Afghanistan! It will truly become a Pakhtoon-Pakjabi War only after America has left.

So let us sit with the Russians and Iranians, who see their interests challenged when America starts arranging for new supply routes avoiding both Russia and Iran, passing through Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, and into Afghanistan; and let us discuss with them how best to force USA out through political and diplomatic pressure. The Europeans have lost all interest in staying put in the Hindukush. You hear that all the time. They would be more than willing to bring back their soldiers from the region. Even Obama does not really have the stamina for a long war.

USA has done its part for India, in destabilizing Pakistan by poking in the hornet's nest. The Taliban can carry on from now on.

USA must out now!

[Rishi]

Attention gurulog, aamlog and lurkerlog. Himal Mag (a peacenik publication of quality) has a Af-Pak special in its April 2009 edition.

http://himalmag.com/index.php

In the Magazine
April 2009
himal Volume 22 No 4
Seamus Murphy
Table of Contents

Commentary: Release of the Pashtun knot (Region)

Locked in their nation-state dogmas, will the citizens of Southasia be able to control the cancerous spread of violence from the Pashtun region?

Afghanistan unravelling
By: Aunohita Mojumdar

A date for presidential elections has finally been agreed upon, but little else about the country’s near future is clear.

The Taliban primer
By: Rahimullah Yusufzai

Who is Baitullah Mahsud?

The establishment of a Taliban emirate
By: Kamran Arif

Under the terms of the ‘peace deal’ in PATA, the militants have gained everything and the government nothing.

Mullah Radio
By: Manzoor Ali

By using illegal FM radio broadcasts, militants in Pakistan are gaining the stature of a parallel government, yet with no credibility.

Stunted development
By: Ahmed Dawi

The only ones that seem convinced of the efficacy of international aid to Afghanistan are the aid agencies themselves.

In the shades of grey
By: An ETT Soldier

Amidst the conflict and chaos, one US soldier sees hope in Afghanistan.

Essay: Violence as nation-building
By: Aziz Hakimi

The issue is not who should rule Afghanistan, but rather how. And the answer is devolution of power and local governance under a constitution that can be owned by all.

[Philip]

While "Uncle Tom" and "Abdul",have decided to give each other "blow-jobs" as usual,Afghanistan is at the crossroads,with elections round the corner,where puppet Karzai,has fallen foul of the US because of his "corrupt relatives and cronies"! Imagine that being a reason for dumping him in the region of Af-Pak where money talks and the US has been the godfather of corrupt practices for decades where if one remembers,Gen. Musharrat the bandicoot got $15 billion for his loyalty to the US! No,the real reason is that Karzai is perceived by Pak as being too close to India,which is helping hugely in restoring the infrastructure of the country and bringing back a semblence of normal life to the Afghans.If the Taliban,that is Pak by default,are to win,they need a climate of chaos in the country,where the people are left with no other alternative than the Taliban.Pak has convinced the US that India should be eliminated from Afghanistan totally so that it can have a free hand in affairs there,giving it the strategic depth that it desperately wants.

The waqr that th US and NATO are waging in the country has also come in for some very sharp criticism,especially from British commanders,who while Obama calls for more NATO involvement in the Afghan War,have given their cut and dried version of events on the battlefield.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... orces.html

Nato accused of failures in Afghanistan by head of Britain's Armed Forces

The head of the Armed Forces has accused Nato allies of "failing to resource" the military mission in Afghanistan, as Gordon Brown agreed to send as many as 1,000 more British troops to the country.

By Thomas Harding, Patrick Hennessy and James Kirkup
Last Updated: 11:27PM BST 03 Apr 2009

The criticism from Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup and the Prime Minister's decision to increase Britain's commitment came as Nato leaders met amid a growing rift over European members' refusal to send more troops to Afghanistan.

At a weekend summit of Nato members in Strasbourg that began last night, Mr Brown and Barack Obama, the US President, are making another attempt to persuade France, Germany and other European allies to put more of their troops on the front line to fight the Taliban.

Britain condemns Karzai for sanctioning marital rape
Nato 'must do more to reduce Afghan civilian casualties'
Britain's place in Afghanistan: an analysis
G20: What's next? A Nato summit on Afghanistan
Gordon Brown and Nato allies face pressure to send more troops to Afghanistan
Barack Obama's Afghan strategy at risk over new Nato Chief

But European governments are refusing to deploy more combat troops, offering only police officers to train the Afghan security forces and civilian experts.

At a joint press conference in Strasbourg with Mr Obama, President Nicholas Sarkozy of France again ducked the call for more soldiers.

"We totally endorse and support America's new strategy in Afghanistan. We are prepared to do more in terms of police training. We are helping Afghanistan rebuild," he said.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup said that while the strategy in tackling the Taliban was right, Nato has failed to provide enough troops or equipment on the ground.

"The problem is that we have failed to resource the strategy accurately," he said.

Asked if that was shifting the blame, the Chief of the Defence Staff replied: "Nonsense, it's blaming Nato for not resourcing the strategy that it set out in the first place."

In a Channel Four interview to be broadcast on Monday, Sir Jock was asked if the Afghan mission had enough men and materiel. He replied: "No it hasn't."

Sir Jock's comments are latest criticism of European allies by the British government. John Hutton, the Defence Secretary, suggested earlier this year that European Nato members are "freeloading" on the military sacrifice made by America and Britain.

Whitehall sources point to new figures that show a shortfall in commitment by both France and Germany in terms of troops on the ground. Britain has 4.2 per cent of its Armed Forces in Afghanistan. France and Germany have just over one per cent of their military deployed.

Britain has been resisting calls to announce an increase in its numbers in Afghanistan, hoping to maintain pressure on the Europeans to do more.

But as he arrived in Strasbourg, Mr Brown changed tack, offering a short-term boost in British troop numbers which officials said was conditional on other nations "sharing the burden" of NATO's Afghan mission.

Britain already has 8,300 troops in Afghanistan, second only to the United States. That figure could now rise above 9,000 this summer in a four-month deployment to boost security around the Afghan presidential election due in August.

The deployment, said to be in the "high hundreds", would be the largest single increase in UK personnel in Afghanistan for several years.

Officials were unable to provide an exact timetable for the likely arrival and departure of the extra UK forces. It is thought that the extra troops could come from 12 Mechanised Brigade, whose planned deployment to Iraq has been cancelled as Britain winds down its mission there.

A British official travelling with the Prime Minister said: "There is obviously a significant threat from the Taliban to disrupt these elections. A democratic, smooth-running Afghanistan is clearly in the interests of Britain.

"A democratic Afghanistan will mean more security on the streets of Britain.

"Therefore we are prepared to consider a temporary increase in our troops in Afghanistan to cover the elections, subject to appropriate burden-sharing."

However, Mr Brown may face awkward questions about the elections, where President Hamid Karzai is seeking re-election.

Mr Karzai has reportedly signed off a law passed by his parliament which would legalise rape within marriage and bar women from seeking work, education or medical treatment without their husband's agreement.

Mr Karzai's opponents have accused him of selling out basic human rights for women in return for the votes of conservative Shia Muslims in the elections.

On Friday, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato Secretary-General, suggested that European countries may be justified in withholding more troops as a result.

Mr Scheffer told the BBC: "How can I defend this, and how can the British defend this, when our boys and girls are dying there in defence of universal values, and here is a law that fundamentally violates human rights?"

:: Dispatches: Afghanistan: Mission Impossible? is on Channel 4 on Monday 6 April at 8pm.

[gandharva]

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/0 ... istan.html

[svinayak]

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/0 ... istan.html

179.

It's just so hard to swallow that once kandhar was in India and that people were once Hindus.....how time changes.....

Later Budhhism came....and it vanished too...

Afghanistan has a violent history. Most of it is due to radical islam and illiteracy.

I think the only way to solve this problem is to teach the kids, the new generation, about some peacefull way of living...be it buddhism, jainism, hinduism....anything thats not radical islam.

That will make a huge difference in there lives, and then they will realize that there's no use in fighting for uselss ideologies.

Send in some buddhist monks please !
Posted by worldpeace April 2, 09 09:24 PM

[putnanja]

Obama’s flawed Afghan strategy - M.K. Bhadrakumar

...
The hyped-up new U.S. strategy — “stronger, smarter and comprehensive” — is essentially based on nine different postulates. One, there is a fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Two, the al-Qaeda poses an existential threat to Pakistan. Three, Pakistan’s ability to meet the al-Qaeda threat is tied to its own strength and security. Four, Pakistan needs U.S. help but must be made accountable while receiving it. Five, the Taliban’s gains in Afghanistan must be reversed and a more capable and accountable Afghan government needs to be promoted. Six, the “surge” should have both military and civilian components and they need to be integrated. Seven, the requisite of enduring peace is that there should be reconciliation among former enemies. Eight, the al-Qaeda can be isolated and targeted on the pattern of the “Sunni Awakening” process successfully undertaken in Iraq. Nine, international participation is necessary, especially NATO’s.

...
In other words, Mr. Obama’s “regional policy” means the U.S. intends to pursue its new Afghan strategy while other countries will be offered the historic opportunity to help Washington achieve its objective. Arguably, other countries, especially regional players, are bound to wonder if this does not smack of U.S. unilateralism. Indeed, a hard-nosed Moscow commentator noted: “The message is very clear: the U.S. will fight and conduct reforms in any case, while others are being invited to help. This is a very harsh approach, reminiscent of George W. Bush’s unilateral actions.” In other words, the geopolitical agenda of the U.S.’ Afghan enterprise remains intact.

Evidently, the strategy is deeply flawed. That raises the question: why such a strategy at this juncture? On balance, Mr. Obama runs the risk of getting into a quagmire of the sort that imperilled Lyndon Johnson when he inherited a war that consumed him. Therefore, the high probability is that such a “maximalist” strategy has been deliberately crafted at this stage at the outset of the Obama presidency with intent that it can always be finessed as the war progresses and if the commanders on the field fail to deliver.
...

[ramana]

Zbig at work here.

[putnanja]

US wants soft India in Kabul

The US wants greater Indian soft-power in Afghanistan, meaning an increase in Delhi’s investment and more intensive engagement in development projects.

...
“For the first time since Partition, India, Pakistan and the US have a common threat (terrorism).… It is in the interest of all three to work together,” said Holbrooke after a meeting with foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon and the Indian ambassador to Afghanistan, Jayant Prasad. Holbrooke also met the national security adviser.

This is a view that contrasts with India’s. Only yesterday, home minister P. Chidambaram said India was surrounded by a “ring of fire”, meaning that forces of de-stabilisation in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh were threatening India. Unless these forces were tackled, India’s stability would continue to be threatened. Among these forces, the biggest threat was from fundamentalist elements in Pakistan. The US needed to do more to tackle them in Pakistan.

Delhi does not yet see a move in that direction from Washington.

...

[Gerard]

Dispatches From the Edge: The Afghan Rubik’s Cube

But manipulated just right, the puzzle is solvable.

For instance, while the Taliban have united to fight, Mullah Omar—through Saudi Arabian King Abdullah—also made a peace offering that no longer requires the western forces to withdraw before opening talks. The plan proposes setting a timetable for withdrawal, forming a “consensus government,” and consolidating the Taliban forces into a national army.

To make all the cubes fit together, the Obama administration will have to recognize that the United States is only one player at the table, and that the interests of other parties, both inside and outside Afghanistan, must be given equal weight. It will also need to revisit the Bush administration’s ill-advised nuclear agreement with New Delhi, which not only increases tensions in the region, but also threatens to unravel a critically important international nuclear treaty.

[shyamd]

Iran ready to train Afghan police

Old but interesting article:
AFGHANISTAN: US AND INDIA MULL WAYS TO CONTAIN THE TALIBAN

Aunohita Mojumdar 3/23/09

Print this article Email this article

In the past, a visit to India by a CIA director could have set off a storm of protest and political jousting in New Delhi. But given the troubling Taliban issue in neighboring Pakistan, Indians’ perception of the United States is changing. These days, the emerging US-Indian partnership is developing into an important element of Washington’s stabilization plan for Afghanistan.

When newly minted CIA Director Leon Panetta visited India recently, he was greeted only by a mild protest from leftist parties over his meeting with Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram. Panetta was in India to discuss Afghanistan, the ’Af-Pak’ situation and India’s role in a new American regional policy initiative. Highlighting the importance of emerging US-Indian ties, the March 19 foray to New Delhi marked Panetta’s first overseas trip since his Senate confirmation. It also followed visits by other senior US intelligence officials, including one earlier in March by FBI Director Robert Mueller. After his visit to India, Panetta went on to Islamabad for talks with Pakistani leaders.

Further emphasizing Washington’s growing interest in New Delhi’s Afghanistan approach, on March 21 President Barack Obama’s special envy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, told an audience in Brussels that India would be a "major factor in resolving" the situation in Afghanistan. Holbrooke also appeared to echo Indian concerns that Pakistan has replaced Afghanistan as the epicenter of the threat posed by international terrorists.

"We must recognize that the heart of the threat to the United States, to the European Union, to Australia, to many other countries in the world including India and, I stress, including Pakistan itself, comes from . . . western Pakistan," Holbrooke told participants at the Brussels security conference.

Since the fall of the Taliban in late 2001, India, which provided support and supplies to the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, has had extensive bilateral contacts with the Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s administration. Afghanistan has become the largest beneficiary of Indian aid, receiving $1.2 billion since 2001.

Through its embassy in Kabul -- as well as four consulates in Jalalabad, Kandahar, Herat and Mazar-i Sharif -- India is now able to project its influence across Afghanistan. That fact has caused consternation in Pakistan, with Islamabad calling on Kabul to curb New Delhi’s "anti-Pakistani" activities within the country, charges that range from spying to training militants operating against Pakistan.

For its part, India has consistently accused Pakistan of supporting anti-Indian and anti-Western militants. It has also drawn repeated attention to Pakistan’s unwillingness to allow Indian goods overland access to Afghanistan -- through Pakistani territory -- forcing India to route supplies for its projects through the more circuitous Iranian port of Bandar Abbas.

India’s low public profile may soon change. Given the considerable agreement between the United States and India on Afghanistan policy, New Delhi appears poised to assume a larger role in Afghan stabilization efforts.

T.C.A. Raghavan, a senior Indian diplomat overseeing the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran division in the External Affairs Ministry, recently welcomed the ’Af-Pak’ approach of developing a "coordinated policy" on Afghanistan and Pakistan. "We have always seen [the region] as a single issue," he said during a March 18 seminar on Afghanistan, organized by the Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad Institute for Asian Studies, a think-tank funded by his ministry.

Raghavan also welcomed the "inclination to see Iran as a stabilizing element," adding that Tehran’s role in Afghanistan "cannot be minimized." The diplomat also embraced American promises to strengthen the Afghan army and remarked that the US commitment to increase its troop level in Afghanistan was a positive step and a sign of its resolve to remain committed to stabilization efforts.

While India has officially dismissed talk of sending Indian troops into Afghanistan, there is increasing talk within Indian circles of a "regional force" that could replace the "international forces" currently operating under a NATO mandate. Ved Pratap Vaidik, a scholar and analyst with close links to the government, articulated this view forcefully. He called for "a deadline for the removal of foreign forces" from Afghanistan.

It is "time for a regional solution," he said, adding that "foreign [i.e. western] forces should be replaced by regional forces." Vaidik suggested a maximum deadline of three years for this withdrawal.

India has been wary of attempts to talk to the Taliban, insisting on strict parameters for any such dialogue. India’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Jayant Prasad, told EurasiaNet last year that talking with terrorists or those who did not accept democracy and political pluralism was akin to accepting that "you can fry snowballs."

While India has had considerable links with Iran and Russia, its developing ties with the United States over the past decade have overshadowed, but not mitigated, these historical linkages. India will send representatives to the SCO meeting to be held in Moscow March 27, as well as the international meeting on Afghanistan in The Hague on March 31.

Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon was in Washington earlier in March for consultations that included the ’Af-Pak’ issue. Both Holbrooke and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen are expected in India on April 8 to discuss the results of the forthcoming US strategic review on Afghanistan.

[Gerard]

Taliban execute eloping pair in Afghanistan

Taliban publicly executed a man and girl on Monday for eloping when she was already engaged to marry someone else, an official said

[Gerard]

U.N. spent U.S. funds on shoddy projects

Investigators found that projects reported as "complete" were actually so shoddily built that they were unusable, the report said. For example:

•A bridge near Kandahar cost $250,000, had to be overhauled by other contractors and still was not safe. The U.N. claimed the bridge was damaged by flood, but a colonel in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers told investigators that "falls between absolute incompetence and a lie; the project was improperly constructed."

•An airstrip in the southern town of Qalat, originally budgeted at $300,000, cost $749,000 and could not accommodate military planes.

•A $375,000 headquarters for Afghanistan's central bank lacked electricity or plumbing, and basement flooding destroyed stacks of local currency.

Investigators found that UNDP withdrew $6.7 million from a U.S. line of credit without permission in 2007, months after the project had ended. UNDP has yet to explain what happened to that money, the report says.

[ashish raval]

Old stuff from my saved files on Afghanistan Cave complexes. It is nice introduction to cave network in Afghanistan. I have uploaded it.

http://rapidshare.com/files/221285183/A ... 4.pdf.html

[Tilak]

X-Posted : Reference thread - lists of terrorist attacks

Rahul, you are correct. I think Sify had already been informed.

Time for an update ?



BTW : Layth Al Libbi got his 72..

[ShauryaT]

Children of Taliban: PBS Video

[SSridhar]

Afghanistan: Can India Really Help ? - Chinmaya Gharekhan

[ramana]

SSridhar and other gurus, I am wondering if we should start a monthly compilation of the attacks in TSP-Afganistan or the AfPak area? Date, place, perpetrators, target characteristics and casualties. Will give us an idea of the creeping ****banization.

What do you all tihnk?

[SSridhar]

Ramana, it would be a good idea, especially if the Afghan-TSP map is pock-marked with the incidents. Any volunteers ?

[SSridhar]

x-post

US-Tajikistan sign transit deal

The transit of cargoes destined to support Western troops
in Afghanistan could begin as soon as one month from now, Boucher said

[SwamyG]

Ramana & Sridhar: Google Maps can be used for such markings. Google Maps - Icons Overview

[Lalmohan]

British paras being courtmartialled for assaulting a young (british) soldier in afghanistan

Para abuse

apparently the youngster was accused of being a coward and then given some rough justice

[Bhaskar]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US-e ... 451937.cms


Maybe... Just Maybe... The Orbat report of Indian Troop deployment to Afghanistan just may be true...

I see a considerable difference the tone Holbrooke used then what he did a few weeks ago...
If not militarily ... Then India might certainly put up it's sleeves and come up with more projects in Afghanistan... The Pakistanis are gonna be damn pissed

[shyamd]

Talks on Iranian corridor for US troops, supplies to Afghanistan on fast track

On March 27, DEBKA-Net-Weekly 390 revealed exclusively Barack Obama's plans "to transform the Khomeinist Islamic Republic's clenched fist against America into a helping hand by formally asking Tehran to permit the passage to Afghanistan of fresh US troops, weapons and supplies across Iranian territory."

In its follow-up of April 3, our military sources reported that US defense secretary Robert Gates, Chief of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and transport command chief Gen. Duncan J. McNabb, have laid before the president a detailed plan, which had been cleared in back-door meetings between US and Iranian officers.

DEBKAfile's sources ask how much leverage against Iran's drive for a nuclear bomb will be left to Washington when the US becomes dependent on Tehran for its war supplies to Afghanistan.

Tuesday, April 28, US envoy Dennis Ross set out on an extensive tour for pouring oil on troubled waters in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Bahrain and Qatar. He is accompanied by the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, Lt. Gen. John R. Allen, and National Security Council official Puneet Talwar.

Like secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who promised in Beirut this week that the US was not selling Lebanon out by dealing with Syria, Ross will try and reassure America's Arab friends that Washington's new ties of friendship and strategic cooperation with Tehran will not be at their expense.

According to DEBKA-Net-Weekly's April 3 report, the US Air Base at Al Udeid in Qatar would be the main hub for the air corridor taking US transport planes over the Persian Gulf, crossing the Iranian border and flying over southern and central Iran up to their destination, the US airbase near Kandahar in southern Afghanistan.

The sea route would hinge on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' main naval base at Chah-Bahar, which is situated on the Arabian Sea near Iran's border with Pakistan.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly's Iranian sources note that Chah-Bahar has two sections, a small, run-down civilian harbor for small craft arriving from India and Pakistan, and a spanking new, modern military facility, home to Iran's main submarine force.

The US planners rated this section of Chah-Bahar an ideal port of call for US provisions to reach Afghanistan by a predominantly sea route. From this Arabian Sea port, consignments would head north through Iran's Sistan-va-Baluchistan up to the Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan border intersection and then turn east by convoy to their destination at Kandahar.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly will continue to track the progress of US-Iran deals in future exclusive reporting and analysis.

[SSridhar]

Afganistan: the high cost of failure

[shyamd]

'Witness for Jesus' in Afghanistan

US soldiers have been encouraged to spread the message of their Christian faith among Afghanistan's predominantly Muslim population, video footage obtained by Al Jazeera appears to show.

Military chaplains stationed in the US air base at Bagram were also filmed with bibles printed in the country's main Pashto and Dari languages.

In one recorded sermon, Lieutenant-Colonel Gary Hensley, the chief of the US military chaplains in Afghanistan, is seen telling soldiers that as followers of Jesus Christ, they all have a responsibility "to be witnesses for him".

"The special forces guys - they hunt men basically. We do the same things as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them down," he says.

"Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom. That's what we do, that's our business."

Local language Bibles

The footage, shot about a year ago by Brian Hughes, a documentary maker and former member of the US military who spent several days in Bagram, was obtained by Al Jazeera's James Bays, who has covered Afghanistan extensively.

Bays also obtained from Hughes a Pashto-language copy of one of the books he picked up during a Bible study lesson he recorded at Bagram.

A Pashto speaker confirmed to Bays that it was a Bible.

In other footage captured at Bagram, Sergeant Jon Watt, a soldier who is set to become a military chaplain, is seen giving thanks for the work that his church in the US did in getting Bibles printed and sent to Afghanistan.

"I also want to praise God because my church collected some money to get Bibles for Afghanistan. They came and sent the money out," he is heard saying during a Bible study class.

It is not clear that the Bibles were distributed to Afghans, but Hughes said that none of the people he recorded in a series of sermons and Bible study classes appeared to able to speak Pashto or Dari.

"They weren't talking about learning how to speak Dari or Pashto, by reading the Bible and using that as the tool for language lessons," Hughes said.

"The only reason they would have these documents there was to distribute them to the Afghan people. And I knew it was wrong, and I knew that filming it … documenting it would be important."

Pentagon officials have so far not responded to a copy of the footage provided to them, but the distribution of Bibles in a place as politically sensitive as Afghanistan is bound to cause deep concern in Washington, our correspondent says.

Guidelines

It is not clear if the presence of the Bibles and exhortations for soldiers to be "witnesses" for Jesus continues, but they were filmed a year ago despite regulations by the US military's Central Command that expressly forbid "proselytising of any religion, faith or practice".


It is not clear any of the local language Bibles were distributed to Afghans
But in another piece of footage taken by Hughes, the chaplains appear to have found a way around the regulation known as General Order Number One.

"Do we know what it means to proselytise?" Captain Emmit Furner, a military chaplain, says to the gathering.

"It is General Order Number One," an unidentified soldier replies.

But Watt says "you can't proselytise but you can give gifts".

The footage also suggests US soldiers gave out Bibles in Iraq.

In his address to a Bible study group at Bagram, Afghanistan, Watt is recorded as saying: "I bought a carpet and then I gave the guy a Bible after I conducted my business.

"The Bible wasn't to be 'hey, I'll give you this and I'll give you a better deal because that would be wrong', [but] the expressions that I got from the people in Iraq [were] just phenomenal, they were hungry for the word."

The footage has surfaced as Barack Obama, the US president, prepares to host Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's president, at a summit focusing on how to tackle al-Qaeda and Taliban bases dotted along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan's president, will also take part in the talks in Washington, scheduled for May 5 and 6.

[Sanjay M]

Well, witness this:



Seeing/hearing is believing. They really are that stupid. Maybe they think they're still in the Philippines. Or Kansas.

[Sanjay M]

I wonder if the Taliban have similar conversations?

"You know suicide is against Islam, right?"
"Yes, but it's okay if you're giving it to them as a gift"
"YEEHAAWW!"

[JE Menon]

What a bunch of morons... Disappointing!!!

[ramana]

Harpers Weekly May 2009 issue lead article is about the same topic and the title is even more provocative.

[svinayak]

Well, witness this:

Seeing/hearing is believing. They really are that stupid. Maybe they think they're still in the Philippines. Or Kansas.

Occupying forces are always like that.
This concept of helping the region to stabilize are all for media and to distract.

All imperial powers or global like imperial power do their expansion on the basis of religion. Modernism has not removed this aspect of history.

[Sanjay M]

Americans Build Massive Camp Leatherneck in Helmand:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02325.html

[tripathi]

Four UK servicemen killed in Helmand

[Gerard]

Sign of the Times: Afghanistan War Costs Higher Than Iraq

[Sanjay M]

Times of London:

Karzai Offers Power-Sharing Deal to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar

How ridiculous - with Hekmatyar of all people?!

[Tilak]

Times of London:

Karzai Offers Power-Sharing Deal to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar

How ridiculous - with Hekmatyar of all people?!

<Oracle Mode on >

This is a perfect setup, by the US(Jernails+Foggybottomites).. who prodded Karzai to talk to Hekmatyar, much to his chagrin. And subsequently negotiations were held in Saudi under US diktats/direction.

Us is looking for a regime change in Afghanistan, which at the present looks hard to comeby. As Karzai is slated to win the upcoming elections. Watch how US will "express outrage" soon and try to bring down the house on him..

</Oracle Mode on>

The controversial move follows the announcement of Mohammed Qasim Fahim, another former warlord, as Karzai’s running mate, a choice that had plunged diplomats into despair.

Fahim, a commander for the Northern Alliance, has been cited in reports by Human Rights Watch and other agencies for his role in massacres and criminal activities. “All the people most responsible for getting Afghanistan into the mess it’s in are coming back,” said a western diplomat.

Fahim is Pro-India. hes a "war criminal" , and americans through Turks negotiating with Hetkmatyar(who razed Kabul) is worth conducting talks with .

Folks.. Changer and Hopeling have signalled at "exit strategy" earlier ... and by following the Senate hearings of John Kerry it looks like they have a time line.. Hope our MEA babus are awake to smell the fresh brew... or should I say doo?

[Philip]

More on Karzai's Hekmatyar gambit.The US must remember that famous saying of the Raj,that "you cannot buy an Afghan-you can only rent him".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 256675.ece

Karzai in move to share power with warlord wanted by US
Extremist on America's list of most-wanted terrorists is to hold talks with the Afghan government in coming weeks

Christina Lamb and Jerome Starkey, Kabul
ONE of Afghanistan’s most wanted terrorists is to be offered a power-sharing deal by the government of President Hamid Karzai as the country’s warlords extend their grip on power.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who is on America’s “most wanted” terrorist list, is to hold talks with the Kabul government within the next few weeks.

Hekmatyar is the leader of Hezb-i-Islami, which has been fighting Nato troops alongside the Taliban. The hardline group is responsible for many attacks in the eastern and central regions, including the massacre of 10 French soldiers in Sarobi last year. It controls Kapisa province, just 50 miles north of Kabul.

The party is expected to be offered several ministries and provincial governorships in return for laying down its arms and agreeing not to disrupt the presidential elections due in August.

Hekmatyar will not be offered a post but will be asked to go into exile in Saudi Arabia for three years, after which his name would be removed from the US list.

The controversial move follows the announcement of Mohammed Qasim Fahim, another former warlord, as Karzai’s running mate, a choice that had plunged diplomats into despair.

Fahim, a commander for the Northern Alliance, has been cited in reports by Human Rights Watch and other agencies for his role in massacres and criminal activities. “All the people most responsible for getting Afghanistan into the mess it’s in are coming back,” said a western diplomat.

In the 1980s Hekmatyar was a leading recipient of US aid for those fighting the Soviet army, but he always preached anti-Americanism.

Following the fall of the Taliban in 2001, he returned from exile in Iran to take up arms against his former paymasters. In April 2002 the CIA tried to kill him with an unmanned Predator drone and his organisation was branded a terrorist group.

A representative of Richard Holbrooke, President Barack Obama’s regional envoy, has met Daoud Abedi, an Afghan-American businessman close to Hekmatyar, and the US administration will fund an Afghan government department to conduct negotiations with Hezb-i-Islami and the Taliban.

It will be headed by Arif Noorzai, the former tribal affairs minister, and will receive $69m (£45m) of largely US money to offer sweeteners to win over the Taliban.

The focus on such political negotiations is the result of a growing recognition that the Taliban will not be defeated militarily, despite 21,000 additional American troops.

Karzai has come under pressure from the Obama administration to make his government less corrupt. Last week, on a visit to Washington, he was given a stormy reception during a private lunch with senators.

However, it looks increasingly as if the United States will be forced to live with him. Nominations closed on Friday for the presidential elections and Karzai seems to have secured the support of most of his rivals.

Karzai did not hide his fury at the civilian airstrike by American forces last Monday, one of the deadliest since 2001. Officials in the western province of Farah claimed that more than 100 civilians had been killed by American bombs. Tribal elders said the bombs were dropped long after the fight was “won” and the Taliban were retreating at the time.

The villagers’ version was backed by a US air force report that shows the fighting was already over when the planes attacked Bala Boluk.

“The jets hit several enemy fighting positions and a compound in which enemy personnel had gathered after the fight,” said the report.