Afghanistan News & Discussion

[surinder]

Brother of Afghan Leader Is Said to Be on C.I.A. Payroll : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world ... wanted=all

Apparently, Karzai's brother is also heavily involved in the drug trade. These shenanigans become a strategic threat when they reduce the anti-Taliban side's credibility vis-a-vis the Taliban. So far, the Taliban is still winning the unpopularity contest.

Forget the brother, Hamid Karzai himself was a CIA asset. He was plucked out of the anonymity to head A'stan.

[shyamd]

They were all oil execs.

NYT Link

"The relationship between Mr. Karzai and the C.I.A. is wide ranging, several American officials said. He helps the C.I.A. operate a paramilitary group, the Kandahar Strike Force, that is used for raids against suspected insurgents and terrorists. On at least one occasion, the strike force has been accused of mounting an unauthorized operation against an official of the Afghan government, the officials said.

Mr. Karzai is also paid for allowing the C.I.A. and American Special Operations troops to rent a large compound outside the city — the former home of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban’s founder. The same compound is also the base of the Kandahar Strike Force. “He’s our landlord,” a senior American official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Mr. Karzai also helps the C.I.A. communicate with and sometimes meet with Afghans loyal to the Taliban. Mr. Karzai’s role as a go-between between the Americans and the Taliban is now regarded as valuable by those who support working with Mr. Karzai, as the Obama administration is placing a greater focus on encouraging Taliban leaders to change sides.

The Obama administration has repeatedly vowed to crack down on the drug lords who are believed to permeate the highest levels of President Karzai’s administration. They have pressed him to move his brother out of southern Afghanistan, but he has so far refused to do so.

Other Western officials pointed to evidence that Ahmed Wali Karzai orchestrated the manufacture of hundreds of thousands of phony ballots for his brother’s re-election effort in August. He is also believed to have been responsible for setting up dozens of so-called ghost polling stations — existing only on paper — that were used to manufacture tens of thousands of phony ballots.

“The only way to clean up Chicago is to get rid of Capone,” General Flynn said.

In the interview in which he denied a role in the drug trade or taking money from the C.I.A., Ahmed Wali Karzai said he received regular payments from his brother, the president, for “expenses,” but said he did not know where the money came from. He has, among other things, introduced Americans to insurgents considering changing sides. And he has given the Americans intelligence, he said. But he said he was not compensated for that assistance.

A former C.I.A. officer with experience in Afghanistan said the agency relied heavily on Ahmed Wali Karzai, and often based covert operatives at compounds he owned. Any connections Mr. Karzai might have had to the drug trade mattered little to C.I.A. officers focused on counterterrorism missions, the officer said.

“Virtually every significant Afghan figure has had brushes with the drug trade,” he said. “If you are looking for Mother Teresa, she doesn’t live in Afghanistan.”

The debate over Ahmed Wali Karzai, which began when President Obama took office in January, intensified in June, when the C.I.A.’s local paramilitary group, the Kandahar Strike Force, shot and killed Kandahar’s provincial police chief, Matiullah Qati, in a still-unexplained shootout at the office of a local prosecutor.

The circumstances surrounding Mr. Qati’s death remain shrouded in mystery. It is unclear, for instance, if any agency operatives were present — but officials say the firefight broke out when Mr. Qati tried to block the strike force from freeing the brother of a task force member who was being held in custody.

“Matiullah was in the wrong place at the wrong time,” Mr. Karzai said in the interview.

Counternarcotics officials have repeatedly expressed frustration over the unwillingness of senior policy makers in Washington to take action against Mr. Karzai — or even begin a serious investigation of the allegations against him. In fact, they say that while other Afghans accused of drug involvement are investigated and singled out for raids or even rendition to the United States, Mr. Karzai has seemed immune from similar scrutiny.

Senior Afghan investigators say they know plenty about Mr. Karzai’s involvement in the drug business. In an interview in Kabul this year, a top former Afghan Interior Ministry official familiar with Afghan counternarcotics operations said that a major source of Mr. Karzai’s influence over the drug trade was his control over key bridges crossing the Helmand River on the route between the opium growing regions of Helmand Province and Kandahar.

The former Interior Ministry official said that Mr. Karzai was able to charge huge fees to drug traffickers to allow their drug-laden trucks to cross the bridges.

But the former officials said it was impossible for Afghan counternarcotics officials to investigate Mr. Karzai. “This government has become a factory for the production of Talibs because of corruption and injustice,” the former official said.

Some American counternarcotics officials have said they believe that Mr. Karzai has expanded his influence over the drug trade, thanks in part to American efforts to single out other drug lords.

[Kailash]

Good writeup about emerging trends in Afghan-India relations. If we need to involve ourselves militarily

[SSridhar]

A Way Out of the Afghan Quagmire - Najibullah Lafraie

. . .there is an alternative approach. It calls for replacement of western forces with an international Muslim peacekeeping force under UN control, a focus on training and equipping the Afghan army and police, a new political setup through an intra-Afghan dialogue, and seeking a regional understanding involving Afghanistan and its neighbours as well as other regional and world powers.

How can McChrystal counter the Taliban propaganda that the western “infidel” troops are in Afghanistan because of their animosity to Islam?

Najibullah Lafraie was Afghan Foreign Minister from 1992-1996 and now teaches at the University of Otago, New Zealand.

[ramana]

The Brits used Indian Muslims in occupied Iraq after WWI. What that does is to radicalize the occupying troops when they come into contact with the faithfools.

[Pranav]

Mobile phone service is an important strategic tool in fighting insurgency.

The people despise the Taliban, but they are very afraid to be seen talking to international forces. The mobile phone provides a way out. One would need diesel generators to power the base stations, and for the public, there are cheap wind-up mobile phone chargers.

There are already a few mobile operators in Afghanistan, and their networks should be expanded to the smaller towns and villages, and along the highways. The international community already spends tens of billions on Afghan security operations. Comparatively, this is not such a big investment to make, and would be at least partially recouped through commercial revenues.

In the mean time, intelligence sources should be provided with sat phones - I suppose this may already be happening.

With the support of the population, it is not hard to defeat an insurgency. The real question is whether the key players really want to do so, or are looking for ways to hand over power to "good Taliban". Until the intentions of the key players become transparent, people will keep sitting on the fence and hedging their bets.

[Philip]

With US puppet-in-waiting,Abdullah Abdullah realising thaqt his chances in the second round of the Afghan election look bleak,he has decided along with his Yanqui masters to boycott the polls,to besmirch Karzai and cast doubt on his inevitable victory.The US is now trying to armtwist Karzai into accepting Abdullah into a power sharing deal as it knows that there is a limit to its manipulation of the Afghan election,where billions are being thrown to the ungodly just as was done in Iraq.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 12782.html

Abdullah to call for Afghan poll boycott

Last-minute talks under way to salvage run-off elections as President's rival threatens to withdraw

Kim Sengupta in Kabul

The elections in Afghanistan, meant to showcase the progress made towards democracy, are in fresh disarray, sowing fear and uncertainty about the country's future. The campaign manager of Abdullah Abdullah, the challenger to President Hamid Karzai, said last night that his man intends to call today for a boycott of next Saturday's election run-off. This was organised after the first round of polls became mired in corruption and controversy. Dr Abdullah will now call for a spring poll.


Last night, however, frantic talks were being held between the Abdullah and Karzai camps, brokered by the United Nations, US and Britain. The restarted negotiations centred on the division of ministries between the two protagonists.

Senior diplomatic sources said that the UN was desperate to avoid a second-round run-off because of the security and logistical problems. The main sticking point appeared to be the demands of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the former mujahedin commander who is demanding his share of portfolios in a coalition government.

Dr Abdullah, the former foreign minister, will hold a public rally today, at which he is expected to announce whether or not he will continue in the contest. Although Dr Abdullah himself has remained silent, his supporters have been busy spreading the word that their candidate will withdraw because there is bound to be malpractice in the next round of voting as well.

Yesterday Dr Abdullah cancelled a visit to India for a "leadership conference" where he would have met senior US political figures. The Americans, who had played a key part in forcing President Karzai to accept a second round, now appear to accept that a further vote would have little legitimacy.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the Afghan-born former US ambassador to the country, who had been attempting to broker a deal between Mr Karzai and Dr Abdullah, said the latter was dropping out for two reasons. "First, he does not have much money left, and second, he thinks that, given the situation, he's likely to lose, and maybe he'll get less votes than he did in the first round, which would be embarrassing."

There is a widespread consensus that Mr Karzai, coming from the majority Pashtun population, will emerge the winner. Dr Abdullah is of mixed Pashtun and Tajik parentage, but his support is broadly restricted to the Tajik community. Other minority groups, such as the Hazaras and Uzbeks, appear to have been bought off by deals made with the incumbent.

According to Afghan sources, Dr Abdullah, aware that his bargaining position would be weaker following a defeat, has been pressing for a power-sharing arrangement under which a number of his supporters would receive ministerial posts. Mr Karzai, still smarting from being forced into the run-off, has insisted that any deal would have to wait until after the voting.

The political crisis in Afghanistan comes against the background of another crisis – that of the deteriorating security situation. As the electoral process was unfurling in Kabul, US President Barack Obama was deep in consultation with his advisers on future strategy in a war that is being increasingly called his "Vietnam". General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has asked for up to 40,000 more troops. Vice-President Joe Biden, however, opposes further deployment of forces and wants to concentrate on a counter-terrorist mission, hunting al-Qa'ida along the Pakistani border and beyond.

Both courses would necessarily entail further American and Nato losses, with questions already being asked in America and Europe about why their soldiers are fighting and dying for an Afghan government that is internationally labelled as corrupt.

The extent of ballot-rigging at the last election was illustrated by the latest inquiries into the manipulation of women's votes, which has a particular irony, say critics, as one reason given by the US and Britain for the invasion of 2001 was female emancipation. In at least a dozen cases men turned up at polling stations carrying bundles of voting cards supposedly from female members of extended families.

The second-round ballot was supposed to eliminate such corrupt practices. Last week Dr Abdullah presented a list of demands to be met for him to remain in the run-off. This included the sacking of the chief of the Independent Election Commission, Azizullah Lodin, seen as a Karzai placeman, the removal of a large number of election monitoring staff whose performance had been suspect, and the closure of hundreds of "ghost polling stations" where large-scale ballot stuffing was supposed to have taken place.

The commission stated that Mr Lodin cannot be fired while the voting process continued. It agreed to the replacement of 200 election officials, but announced it will open 6,322 sites, up from 6,167 in the first round and significantly above the 5,817 recommended by the United Nations.

Haroun Mir, head of Afghanistan's Centre for Research and Policy Studies, said that Dr Abdullah is thought to have pressed for a caretaker government and fresh elections early next year, by which time Mr Karzai would have had less of a grip on the state apparatus to influence voting.

"Even now a compromise is something which would be welcomed by the Afghans and the international community. If voting goes ahead without Dr Abdullah taking part, there would be questions of legitimacy over Mr Karzai's win," he said.

However another analyst, Waheed Mujhda, said: "There is a feeling among Afghans that this second round was the wish of the foreigners as a way of punishing Karzai. It was the West which wanted it, not Afghans."

Mr Karzai's campaign spokesman, Noor Akbari, said that Dr Abdullah should not be allowed to avoid the second round: "In our constitution we have no other way but to go through with an election. If anybody boycotts, it's a crime and it's an illegal act."

The constitution, in fact, says no such thing. However, it does stipulate that the leader of country must be chosen in an election which is transparently fair and recognised as being such. That is a condition which looks unlikely to be fulfilled in the next turbulent chapter of democracy coming to Afghanistan.

[Gagan]

[Pranav]

With US puppet-in-waiting,Abdullah Abdullah realising thaqt his chances in the second round of the Afghan election look bleak,he has decided along with his Yanqui masters to boycott the polls,to besmirch Karzai and cast doubt on his inevitable victory.The US is now trying to armtwist Karzai into accepting Abdullah into a power sharing deal as it knows that there is a limit to its manipulation of the Afghan election,where billions are being thrown to the ungodly just as was done in Iraq.

How do you conclude Abdullah is the puppet? It's not Abdullah whose brother is a CIA agent.

[Muppalla]

Read the comments section. The sentiment to withdraw from Afghanistan seems to be on the high in US.

Matthew Hoh resigns to stir debate on Afghanistan. Mission accomplished.

[Philip]

Karzai declared President!
Congratulations your excellency from BR!

Dr.Abdullah Abdullah saw the writing on the wall and preferred to run away to fight another day,as his chances of winning were remote,despite the full backing of the US.So all the efforts of the US's State Dept.,Pentagon,CIA,White House,blah,blah amounted to nothing.Another efeat for Uncle Sam ,this time in the badlands of Afghanistan.The White House should've taken a long hard look at ancient British writings on the subject before committing their men into a land where no firang has defeated the Afghans in war before and now in an election!

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

Afghanistan: Hamid Karzai declared president
Afghanistan's election commission has declared that Hamid Karzai is the president after it cancelled Saturday's scheduled run-off.

Published: 11:58AM GMT 02 Nov 2009

President Hamid Karzai addresses the press at the Presidential Palace in Kabul Photo: Getty

The chief electoral officer confirmed that a second vote would not take place, a day after Mr Karzai's main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, said he would not take part.

Earlier, the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon said the UN would respect and support any decision by the Afghan Independent Election Commission on whether to organise a second presidential ballot.

Related Articles

Afghanistan: election run-off cancelled
Abdullah Abdullah pulls out of election run-off
British forces 'bloodiest year since the Falklands'
British soldier killed in Afghanistan
Q&A: What will happen next in Afghanistan?

"The United Nations and the international community will stand together and walk together with the next government and the people of Afghanistan," he said.

Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister, pulled out of the contest on Sunday, citing fears of a repeat of the fraud which marred August's first round.

Mr Ban reiterated that last week's deadly attack on a guesthouse for UN staff in Kabul, which was claimed by the Taliban insurgent militia, would not deter the world body from fulfilling its mission in Afghanistan.

"Many Afghans seem to be worried about what lies ahead, if the international support will hold firm," said Mr Ban.

"There has been speculation that the United Nations will evacuate Afghanistan... We will not be deterred, cannot be deterred and must not be deterred and the work of the United Nations will continue."

[shyamd]

Declaring Karzai president without runoff - US setback, Taliban gain

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis

November 2, 2009, 4:13 PM (GMT+02:00)
Hamid Karzi wins second term by default

The Independent Election Commission in Kabul declared Hamid Karzai president and cancelled the second round of elections Monday, Nov. 2, the day after his only challenger Abdullah Abdullah bowed out. It acted as UN secretary Ban Ki-moon landed in Kabul for a surprise visit and met both candidates. He ran up against Abdullah's steadfast refusal to take part in the runoff scheduled for Nov. 7, protesting it would be no freer or fairer than the first round of August 20 which was marred by wholesale election fraud.

US objectives in Afghanistan have come out of these chain of events badly battered, while the Taliban has been offered a political victory on a silver platter.

The UN secretary's surprise visit touched off rumors that he had come to Kabul to bury the hatchet between the two candidates and encourage them to lead a unity government. This would have obviated the need for a second round of voting. According to DEBKAfile's sources, the American plan was to offer Abdullah the premiership with executive powers leaving Karzai as president in name only. But by Monday afternoon, Abdullah was far from acceding to this plan.

His refusal and the cancellation of the second-round runoff have left Kabul in extreme political uncertainty on top of the military limbo resulting from the delayed White House decisions on strategy.

Will Karzai secure his second term by asking the Supreme Court to approve his 48.6 percent victory in the first round? Or will a unity government emerge for Karzai with Abdullah or some of the scores of candidates who vied against him in the first round?

However this mess resolves itself, the United States does not come out well. It is forced to accept a president whose national mandate is highly questionable and the last man Barack Obama wanted was to see ensconced in the presidential palace for another five years. The US Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal has warned that no constructive strategy would work in the country as long as a government riddled with corruption remained in place in Kabul. Last week, US sources tried claiming that Karzai's influential brother was on the CIA payroll, hoping Hamid would take the hint and move aside. He did not.

Meanwhile, US casualties in Afghanistan peaked in October, American troops began pulling in their horns as the winter weather closed in on the country and the White House continued to broadcast uncertainty about its next steps in Afghanistan.

After the election shambles, the US president will be hard pressed to stand by the principle he has reiterated often that to win the war in Afghanistan, the people must first be won over, when Karzai lingers on in the face of his plunging popular credibility. The Taliban can claim they were vindicated in disrupting an election process which proved to have been flawed.

[ramana]

The Abdullah^2 withdrawl is a PR disaster for all those involved, yet it saves Afghan lives in the run-up to the run-off. And all that declarations of rigging have diminished Karzai. Its a disaster all around.

[Johann]

Abdullah Abdullah was with Massoud since 1986, and represented the Northern Alliance for years.

Massoud of course survived against the Soviets on support from Western agencies when the Pakistanis cut him off. In the 1990s it was Russian, Iranian and Indian aid. In the late 1990s the CIA resumed aid.

Karzai's close relationship with the CIA for many years is also public record.

Some of the former Northern Alliance's leadership support Karzai, some oppose him - but which is which depends on when you're asking!

This was a perceptive article from back in May of this year

http://www.aopnews.com/opinion/tahir_afghan_pres.shtml

According to many experts, the major challenger to President Karzai is Dr. A. Abdullah. Dr. Abdullah had previously served as Karzai's Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was also a close aide of the late Mujahideen leader, Ahmad Shah Masood. Dr. Abdullah is supposedly representing the United Front, an alliance comprised mostly of former Mujahideen leaders and other political groups who are opposed to President Karzai.

Unfortunately for Dr. Abdullah, Mohammad Qasim Fahim, another important member of the United Front decided to go against the alliance and will instead be Karzai's choice for first Vice President, replacing Ahmad Zia Masood, the brother of the late Ahmad Shah Masood. Fahim's decision to go along with Karzai has now caused a major split in the votes Dr. Abdullah was hoping to get from Mujahideen supporters and Tajiks. In essence, this effectively neutralizes any threat from Dr. Abdullah for the presidency. Many Tajiks, especially in Panjshir province, see Fahim as Ahmad Shah Masood's successor. Another person that will take away Tajik votes from Dr. Abdullah is Abdul Latif Padram, a Tajik who founded the Afghanistan National Congress party. Karzai can count on Tajik votes thanks to Fahim, and he is also keeping Karim Khalili as his second Vice President, thus ensuring a large number of Hazara votes as well.

Dr. Abdullah selected Humayun Shah Asefi as his first Vice President and Cheragh Ali Cheragh as his second Vice President. These men are not really known throughout the general population and cannot bring in the kind of votes Dr. Abdullah needs to beat Karzai in August. It would have been wiser for him to pick Mohammad Mohaqiq as one of his Vice Presidents as that would have clearly put the Hazaras in his corner. While Khalili is admired by many Hazaras, Mohaqiq is much more respected since he played a much more direct role in defending the Hazaras against the Taliban offensives.

It seems that Dr. Abdullah's fate will be that of his fellow Panjshiri, Mohammad Yunis Qanuni. Qanuni ran against Karzai in the 2004 presidential elections and lost very badly. Karzai got 55.4% of the votes, and Qanuni came in second with 16.3% of the votes. Disunity ruined Qanuni's chances of becoming President as well. Qanuni's campaign was badly damaged when Ahmad Zia Masood decided to join Karzai's ticket, thus bringing a large percentage of votes from Mujahideen supporters and Tajiks over to Karzai.

[Gerard]

Australian Strategic Policy Institute
Finding a way forward in Afghanistan

This Policy Analysis examines a coalition counter-insurgency strategy in a state of flux following a sobering campaign assessment by the Commander of the International Security Assistance Force, General Stanley McChrystal, and the deeply flawed August 20th Afghan presidential election. Mr Khosa also discusses the implications of the resulting policy debate in Washington for Australia’s military and civilian commitment in Afghanistan.

[ramana]

So Karzai's candidacy reflects the national coalition of Pashtuns, Tajik and Hazaras by way of his choice for VPs!

[Johann]

Ramana,

It seems like Karzai has split Tajik opinion, but he had enough (Fahim and Rabbani) on board to win.

Its the same story with the Hazara.

That is the underlying reason why despite fraud Abdullah's support base is weak, as is that of the other competing candidates. Its the reason Karzai won in 2004.

Keep in mind that although Karzai dropped Fahim as defence minister after 2004 the Afghan National Army and Afghan intelligence is strongly Tajik and ex-Northern Alliance.

So while many ex-NA leaders (except Abdullah!) lost out 2004-09, the Tajiks as a whole still benefited from Karzai's rule, particularly all the NATO funds poured in to expanding the Afghan National Army.

[Muppalla]

Caution: This could be a totally wrong news.

http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/200 ... for-8.html

US Offers Taliban 6 Provinces for 8 Bases
By Aamir Latif, IOL Correspondent

ISLAMABAD – The emboldened Taliban movement in Afghanistan turned down an American offer of power-sharing in exchange for accepting the presence of foreign troops, Afghan government sources confirmed.

"US negotiators had offered the Taliban leadership through Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil (former Taliban foreign minister) that if they accept the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan, they would be given the governorship of six provinces in the south and northeast," a senior Afghan Foreign Ministry official told IslamOnline.net requesting anonymity for not being authorized to talk about the sensitive issue with the media.

He said the talks, brokered by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, continued for weeks at different locations including the Afghan capital Kabul.

Saudi Arabia, along with Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, were the only states to recognize the Taliban regime which ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.

Turkish Prime Minister Reccap Erodgan has reportedly been active in brokering talks between the two sides.

His emissaries are in contact with Hizb-e-Islami (of former prime minister Gulbadin Hikmatyar) too because he is an important factor in northeastern Afghanistan."

A Taliban spokesman admitted indirect talks with the US.

"Yes, there were some indirect talks, but they did not work," Yousaf Ahmedi, the Taliban spokesman in southern Afghanistan, told IOL from an unknown location via satellite phone.

"There are some people who are conveying each others’ (Taliban and US) messages. But there were no direct talks between us and America," he explained.

Afghan and Taliban sources said Mutawakkil and Mullah Mohammad Zaeef, a former envoy to Pakistan who had taken part in previous talks, represented the Taliban side in the recent talks.

The US Embassy in Kabul denied any such talks.

"No, we are not holding any talks with Taliban," embassy spokeswoman Cathaline Haydan told IOL from Kabul.

Asked whether the US has offered any power-sharing formula to Taliban, she said she was not aware of any such offer.

"I don't know about any specific talks and the case you are reporting is not true."

Provinces for Bases

Source say that for the first time the American negotiators did not insist on the "minus-Mullah Omer" formula, which had been the main hurdle in previous talks between the two sides.

The Americans reportedly offered Taliban a form of power-sharing in return for accepting the presence of foreign troops.

"America wants 8 army and air force bases in different parts of Afghanistan in order to tackle the possible regrouping of Al-Qaeda network," the senior official said.

He named the possible hosts of the bases as Mazar-e-Sharif and Badakshan in north, Kandahar in south, Kabul, Herat in west, Jalalabad in northeast and Ghazni and Faryab in central Afghanistan.

In exchange, the US offered Taliban the governorship of the southern provinces of Kandahar, Zabul, Hilmand and Orazgan as well as the northeastern provinces of Nooristan and Kunar.

These provinces are the epicenter of resistance against the US-led foreign forces and are considered the strongholds of Taliban.

Orazgan and Hilmand are the home provinces of Taliban Supreme Commander Mullah Omer and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"But Taliban did not agree on that," said the senior official.

"Their demand was that America must give a deadline for its pull out if it wants negotiations to go on."

[shravan]

Afghan Policeman Shoots Five UK Soldiers Dead

[Muppalla]

Afghan National Police penetrated by Taliban at 'every level'

The attack is said to bear the hallmarks of the Haqqani network of insurgents blamed for a number of attacks on Western targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Jalaluddin Haqqani, a Pashtun leader based in north Waziristan, Pakistan, has been labelled as one of the most wanted Taliban by US forces with a $3 million reward on his head.

[Philip]

Growing British cry for withdrawal from Afghanistan.Here Chomsky is being used as a moral force to lend support to the govt. which is also at least privately in favour of withdrawal.How do you then deal with Uncle Obama? It may be significant that Kim Howells,a strong pro-Israel MP,now in a key govt. post as head of the Brit Intel and Sec. Committee is urging withdrawal.

http://heathlander.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... n-history/

Noam Chomsky: Afghanistan invasion was ‘one of the most immoral acts in modern history’05Nov09

Today Kim Howells, Labour MP and chairman of the British Intelligence and Security Committee, urged a withdrawal from Afghanistan – significant given that he was the former Labour foreign office minister and a strong supporter of the war. Support for the war is waning in both the US and Britain while, as Johann Hari points out (via), “[a]t the other end of the gun-barrel, 77 per cent of Afghans in the latest BBC poll say the on-going US air strikes are ‘unacceptable’, and the US troops should only remain if they are going to provide reconstruction assistance rather than bombs”.

Despite this, Obama is preparing to significantly expand US commitment in Afghanistan, while the air strikes – which according to counter-insurgency expert Lt. Col. David Kilcullen kill approximately 98 civilians for every two ‘insurgents’ – continue. October was the deadliest month thus far for US forces in Afghanistan, while, as lenin reports,

“The latest analysis [.pdf] from what used to be known as the Senlis Council says that 80% of the territory of Afghanistan currently experiences “heavy” insurgent activity. 17% experiences what they call “substantial” insurgent activity. And a mere 3% of the territory, in a region called Sari Pul where the dominant language is Dari Persian and the dominant ethnicity Uzbek, experiences only “light” insurgent activity. The number of insurgents, as estimated by the US, has risen from 7,000 in 2006 to about 25,000 today, which slightly more than the total number of insurgents reported killed.”

In this context, I thought it might be worth posting Noam Chomsky’s recent appearance on HARDtalk. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the program, it involves HARDman Stephen Sackur interrupting and talking over his guests or berating them with belligerent non-sequiturs in an effort to appear HARD. Nonetheless, Chomsky’s arguments – on Afghanistan and much else besides – are as important now as they ever were, so give these a watch.

Part 1:
Part 2:
Part3:
You can watch/listen to his recent talks at SOAS (‘Crisis and the Unipolar Moment’) and the LSE (‘Human Rights in the 21st Century’), while you’re at it.

Further reading:

- Everything you have been told about Afghanistan is wrong, Johann Hari

- Afghanistan as a Bailout State, TomDispatch

- A ruined tea party, and a brewing inferno, Lenin’s Tomb

[Pranav]

On one hand the guys who call the shots in the West are not very supportive of a non-Taliban government, and on the other hand, there is pressure on Karzai over appointments.

Yes, a clean govt is a crying need, but bosses of the West are not going to back the Afghan govt, then Karzai also needs his warlords, unsavory though they may be.

Need to plan for a post-withdrawal scenario.

[RamaY]

Corruption cannot be seen as a bad thing in Afpak context. Massa is doing exactly the same with talibannies and TFTA-pakis. So Karzai cannot be blamed for doing what he is doing to keep his a$$ safe.

If I were PM of India, I would fund a couple of divisions in Afghan National Army. One never knows when the Afpak region needs them.

[ramana]

Op-Ed Pioneer, 6 Nov 2009

EDITS | Saturday, November 7, 2009 | Email | Print |


US can’t dither on Afghanistan

Hiranmay Karlekar

One can understand US President Barack Obama’s difficulties in hammering out a new military policy for Afghanistan. On the one hand, Gen Stanley A McChrystal, the commander of American forces in the country, wants at least 40,000 troops more to shore up counter-insurgency operations, and Adm Mike Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, more funds — the figure going round in Washington is $ 50 billion — for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to a report by Elizabeth Bumiller in The New York Times of November 4, this would be on top of the $ 130 billion the Congress has authorised for the period from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010. On the other, the liberal Left in the Democratic Party and Vice-President Joseph Biden oppose both demands. In Afghanistan, he has to do business with President Hamid Karzai whom he and his advisers like Mr Biden and Mr Richard Holbrooke, his pointsman for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Mr Peter Galbraith have criticised openly and sharply.

While his desire not to blunder into a course of action which would be disastrous for the US makes sense, he will do well to remember that the delay in finalising a policy and the manner in which the conflicting viewpoints are being aired, gives the impression of a divided American political establishment and a vacillating President. The result is a growing feeling that the US may either choose a self-defeating soft option or, even if it goes for the right course, will leave when the going gets tough and the body bags coming home become more numerous.

This will enable the Taliban and Al Qaeda to resist more tenaciously in the hope of victory tomorrow. It will also encourage Islamabad, which is now supposed to be in the midst of a fierce offensive against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, commonly referred to as Pakistani Taliban, not to extend the same against the Afghan Taliban waxing under the leadership of men like Sirajuddin Haqqani holed up in North Waziristan. Pakistan would continue considering them as strategic instruments with which to re-establish its dominance over Afghanistan after the US and Nato forces leave, much in the same way after its Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate and the US Central Intelligence Agency had helped create the Taliban in 1994.

This aspect has been discussed endlessly, particularly in the context of the known Pakistani design to gain ascendancy over Afghanistan in quest of strategic depth against India. Even those in that country who consider the idea hare-brained and support to the Taliban and Al Qaeda dangerous, will be inclined not to act against them for fear of retribution when they take over. Nor should the US be surprised if Mr Karzai seeks to protect his back in the event of an American withdrawal leaving him to deal with a resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda, by striking alliances the US disapproves of. Significantly, Ahmed Rashid writes in Descent into Chaos: How the war against Islamic extremism is being lost in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia that “the US attack on Iraq was critical to convincing Musharraf that the United States was not serious about stabilising the region, and that it was safer for Pakistan to preserve its own national interest by clandestinely giving the Taliban refuge”. In the present instance, read delay in policy formulation in place of the Iraq war.

To a large extent, Mr Karzai’s dependence on men like Gen Abdul Rashid Dostum and Marshal Mohammad Fahim Khan, is a result of the failure of the US under President George W Bush and the West generally to provide adequate funds for war-ravaged Afghanistan’s reconstruction and enough troops and equipment to prevent a Taliban revival. In fact, the planning, money and troops that should have gone to stabilising Afghanistan and helping President Karzai to consolidate his position went to Iraq. It would be grossly unfair to blame him now for the mess that his country is getting to become. But is a conveinent scape goat

Unfortunately, the US and its allies have been doing precisely this, ignoring not only the severe shortcomings in their own efforts but also the fact that one cannot radically transform the character of a country’s Government and root out historically entrenched corruption by waving a magic wand. Which country in the world is free from corruption? Would the economic crisis currently afflicting the world have occurred without gargantuan corruption and inefficiency in the world of American big finance? Did the US Government not contribute to it by relaxing controls during the incumbency of President Bill Clinton? And what about the massive expenses scam by British MPs and Ministers? And what about corruption in Pakistan which would now be a recipient of fresh and massive doses of US financial and military aid? Besides, can Mr Karzai or anyone else wish away Gen Dostum and Marshal Fahim Khan, the latter a former Defence Minister of Afghanistan? {The real reason is the Karzai alliance with these two men who are the former NA warlords. The only people who could object to these men are the TSP jihadis. the corruption charge is a stick to beat Karzai for his alliance with these two people. And that benefits only TSP. Recall Ms Fair's comment to US Congress that US has to create space for TSP to act on its terrorists.}

Unfortunately, neither Mr Obama nor Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain seems to realise all this or the fact that their efforts to compel him to do their bidding can only undermine his position. Two examples would illustrate this point. The manner in which they arm-twisted him into accepting a run-off in the recent presidential election and his submission clearly indicated that he was bending unwillingly to pressure, which in turn could only have severely eroded his standing with Afghans who value defiant courage and independence above everything else in men, and look down upon those who stoop. Equally damaging was Mr Obama’s congratulatory message after Mr Karzai was finally declared elected President, admonishing him for failing to take on corruption and the drug trade, which he did not do during his first term, and his public commitment to do so, which followed.

One wonders whether Mr Obama’s attitude towards Mr Karzai stems from the fact that his advisers on Afghanistan include people known to be close to Pakistan which makes no secret of its hostility towards the Afghan head of state. Whatever it is, he will now have to deal with Mr Karzai and the sooner he finds a way of doing it without the former’s position the better it will be for both the US and Afghanistan. And he should announce his policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan before the military situation on the ground deteriorates further.

So now we understand the US charade of distancing from Karzai and the hope that Abdullah^2 win could have reduced the former NA space.

[NRao]

The thinking that a potential vacuum left behind, IF the US leaves (which I doubt very much), will ONLY be filled by Pakistan and the Taliban is a little to wild.

One has to remember that a US absence will necessarily trigger the old alliances in the region. Irrespective of the Iranian nuclear issues.

[Prem]

Not to mention Iran will be in much better position to negotiate with alliance partners , even Nuke tech, Bums and all . For Uncle its a Blanket or Crocodile fix, cant leave after the embrace.

[Lalmohan]

actually what the pakjabis don't realise is that america being in afghanistan is now their last best hope of staying together as a nation. soon as unkil leaves, the civil war will get worse, iran will intervene, jehadis will rampage, shia-sunni slugfest will begin, terror attacks/refugee crisis in India forcing retalliation... rogue nukes JDAM'ing everywhere... so paklurks, smoke that in your chillums tonight!

[ramana]

MMS wants world to stand firm on Afghanistan

Manmohan wants world to stand firm on Afghanistan

Sandeep Dikshit


Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso (right) and Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt at the India-EU Summit in New Delhi on Friday. —


NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday urged the international community to stay the course in Afghanistan and called upon the West to introduce a more open and friendly visa regime to enable greater people-to-people movement.

Dr. Singh said stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan was of vital importance to India than any other nation as it stood to be affected more by the turmoil in the two countries.

He, however, appreciated the efforts of the international community in bringing stability in Afghanistan. He sincerely hoped that it would be willing to stay the course in recognising the problem.

The Prime Minister was talking to reporters along with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt (whose country heads the European Union) and European Commission President Jose Manuel Borosso at the end of the 10th India-EU Summit,

...

[Pranav]

Here is a twist to watch out for: Dostum has been close to Turkey, but Turkey has now undergone a change. The present Govt of Turkey is closer to Islamism than to Turkic nationalism. Turkish PM was in Pakiland recently. You can expect Paks to put pressure on Dostum through Turkey. Putin and the CARs need to take care of Dostum independently of Turkey.

[Philip]

Mounting rage in Britain against repeated folly in Afghanistan,"Our Vietnam".

http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepag ... olumn.html

THE Taliban have claimed responsibility for the cowardly slaughter of five of our brave boys in Afghanistan. How big of them.
It brings the total of UK service personnel killed this year to 93, the highest annual figure since the Falklands War in 1982.

Our guys and girls have done a magnificent job. They face impossible conditions, battling a brutal enemy in unforgiving terrain and with massive underfunding.

Britain tried to conquer this land once before. And that was when we were the most powerful nation on earth.

In the 1980s, Russia sent in 620,000 troops and failed. They lost 15,000 men in a 10-year battle. We have around 9,000 men and women out there.

Surely this latest outrage is the last straw?

There will undoubtedly be some who still believe the UK and coalition troops should remain in Afghanistan until the job is finally done.

Supporters of this unjust occupation believe that, if we withdrew now, those men will have died in vain and the Taliban and their cohorts in al-Qaeda will have won.

That is all very noble - and there's no doubt the boys on the ground would never opt to withdraw.

But you have to ask whether we should be trying to bring democracy to a country which clearly does not hold the same values as us.

Why should our soldiers continue to lose their lives and suffer appalling injuries trying to help a country which seems no further forward now than it was a century ago?

The tribal situation and difficult landscape make things nearly impossible for our troops. This is our Vietnam.

This is the price our troops are paying for our politicians' misguided ideals.

Even if the troops managed to suppress the Taliban, they would return as soon as we left. As for the country being used as a terrorist training ground, if Afghanistan wasn't available the warlords would simply find somewhere else.

Gordon Brown must know that ultimately the campaign in Afghanistan will fail.

Even former Labour minister and intelligence and security watchdog Kim Howells has called for the "great majority" of British troops to be withdrawn.

Howells believes efforts should focus on securing the UK borders against terrorist attack. But when has Westminster ever paid attention to their strategists?

The other apparent motive for being there is to block the flow of heroin. If the UK Government is really worried about drugs ending up on our streets, then why not spend the billions of pounds being squandered in Afghanistan to increase security at our ports?

As long as we deploy our troops in Afghanistan, we will continue to lose our people because there is no achievable or definable end.

Unless all the agencies that should be delivering change in Afghanistan are publicly held to account, it is the blood of our servicemen and women that will ultimately pay for their failure. What will it take to bring them home?

[Pranav]

Intense angst amongst Tajiks regarding the vote fraud. Karzai has Fahim on his side, but Fahim is not nearly as popular amongst Tajiks as Abdullah. Tajiks have a right to be disappointed with the way the election was conducted. Karzai needs to take these people on board.

Powerful Afghan Governor Challenges President : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1257458 ... lenews_wsj

After Afghanistan election, governors seek distance from 'illegal' Karzai : http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1107/p06s ... tml?page=1

[Lalmohan]

Gordon Brown speaking yesterday/this morning spoke very clearly about the need to support the troops in fighting the 'menace of terrorism against us emanating from Afghanistan and Pakistan'... the first time I've heard it said explicitly about Pakistan by someone at his level.

[Philip]

The US and its allies are ready to "beat the retreat" .

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 908806.ece

Allies ‘may abandon northern Helmand’
Nato source claims that British and American troops could focus on more populated areas of Afghanistan in a policy shift.

Poppies evoke foreign field of Afghanistan
A new strategy for Afghanistan that could lead to a British troop withdrawal from a former Taleban stronghold in northern Helmand province sparked immediate controversy yesterday.

According to a senior Nato source, Western military commanders in Afghanistan are considering a radical shift in policy that would see British and US forces conduct a tactical pull-out from most of northern Helmand, including the town of Musa Qala. The source said that the plan to withdraw from northern Helmand would be considered if proposed reinforcements, currently being examined by President Obama, were not approved. General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Kabul, has asked for 40,000 more troops but President Obama has yet to make a decision.

British military sources said, however, that a withdrawal from Musa Qala would be viewed as a defeat and could not be countenanced. They said it would also be a betrayal of the governor of the district, who risked his life to take a stand against the insurgents.

Mullah Abdul Salaam, a former Taleban commander, switched sides to become district governor of Musa Qala only hours before British troops from 52 Brigade and Afghan soldiers retook the town from insurgent control in December 2007. British troops had withdrawn from Musa Qala in 2006 after a “deal” with the local tribal elders, but the Taleban seized control until the arrival of 52 Brigade.

Poppies evoke foreign field of Afghanistan
Afghans have waited eight years for security

The plans now being considered in Kabul would pull British and American troops out of the towns of Musa Qala and Nawzad to focus on stabilising the highly populated central areas of the province. The only remaining Western forces in the north of the province would be those defending the hydro-electric dam at Kajaki.

The plans are the most radical among options being considered by General McChrystal under a broader plan to shift forces towards the defence of more populous areas of the country, ceding outlying and remote areas. The new doctrine is focused on concentration of forces around population centres, main arteries and economic corridors with the ultimate aim of protecting the population and allowing intensive reconstruction.

A senior Nato officer confirmed that proposals existed for a pull-out from Nawzad and Musa Qala, but said: “No decision has been made.”

The senior British military sources insisted that total withdrawal from Musa Qala was not an option but acknowledged it was possible that the area in which troops currently operated in the district could be reduced to make available more resources for enhancing security in places such as Kandahar and Lashkar Gah.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, also denied that Britain was planning to pull out of Musa Qala, but he confirmed on the BBC Andrew Marr show that Nato’s International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) would be focusing more on Afghanistan’s main population centres.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “Focusing on people, not territory, is not a retreat, it is the strategy set out by the Prime Minister in April and by General McChrystal in his recent review of strategy for Isaf. Nevertheless there are currently no plans to withdraw from any area of Helmand.”

US forces in eastern Afghanistan have already begun withdrawing from a number of combat outposts, mostly in remote areas close to the porous Pakistan border. Lieutenant-Colonel Todd Vician, US Army spokesman, confirmed that US forces have so far withdrawn from six outposts, four in Nuristan province and two in Paktika province.

Brigadier James Cowan who commands 11 Light Brigade in Helmand, denied that British troops might withdraw from outlying towns in the province. “We are here to protect Helmand, we have no plans whatsoever to withdraw,” he said.

[Muppalla]

How the US Funds the Taliban

On October 29, 2001, while the Taliban's rule over Afghanistan was under assault, the regime's ambassador in Islamabad gave a chaotic press conference in front of several dozen reporters sitting on the grass. On the Taliban diplomat's right sat his interpreter, Ahmad Rateb Popal, a man with an imposing presence. Like the ambassador, Popal wore a black turban, and he had a huge bushy beard. He had a black patch over his right eye socket, a prosthetic left arm and a deformed right hand, the result of injuries from an explosives mishap during an old operation against the Soviets in Kabul.


But Popal was more than just a former mujahedeen. In 1988, a year before the Soviets fled Afghanistan, Popal had been charged in the United States with conspiring to import more than a kilo of heroin. Court records show he was released from prison in 1997.

Flash forward to 2009, and Afghanistan is ruled by Popal's cousin President Hamid Karzai. Popal has cut his huge beard down to a neatly trimmed one and has become an immensely wealthy businessman, along with his brother Rashid Popal, who in a separate case pleaded guilty to a heroin charge in 1996 in Brooklyn. The Popal brothers control the huge Watan Group in Afghanistan, a consortium engaged in telecommunications, logistics and, most important, security. Watan Risk Management, the Popals' private military arm, is one of the few dozen private security companies in Afghanistan. One of Watan's enterprises, key to the war effort, is protecting convoys of Afghan trucks heading from Kabul to Kandahar, carrying American supplies.

Welcome to the wartime contracting bazaar in Afghanistan. It is a virtual carnival of improbable characters and shady connections, with former CIA officials and ex-military officers joining hands with former Taliban and mujahedeen to collect US government funds in the name of the war effort.

In this grotesque carnival, the US military's contractors are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American supply routes. It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting. And it is a deadly irony, because these funds add up to a huge amount of money for the Taliban. "It's a big part of their income," one of the top Afghan government security officials told The Nation in an interview. In fact, US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon's logistics contracts--hundreds of millions of dollars--consists of payments to insurgents.

Understanding how this situation came to pass requires untangling two threads. The first is the insider dealing that determines who wins and who loses in Afghan business, and the second is the troubling mechanism by which "private security" ensures that the US supply convoys traveling these ancient trade routes aren't ambushed by insurgents.

A good place to pick up the first thread is with a small firm awarded a US military logistics contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars: NCL Holdings. Like the Popals' Watan Risk, NCL is a licensed security company in Afghanistan.

What NCL Holdings is most notorious for in Kabul contracting circles, though, is the identity of its chief principal, Hamed Wardak. He is the young American son of Afghanistan's current defense minister, Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak, who was a leader of the mujahedeen against the Soviets. Hamed Wardak has plunged into business as well as policy. He was raised and schooled in the United States, graduating as valedictorian from Georgetown University in 1997. He earned a Rhodes scholarship and interned at the neoconservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute. That internship was to play an important role in his life, for it was at AEI that he forged alliances with some of the premier figures in American conservative foreign policy circles, such as the late Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick.

Wardak incorporated NCL in the United States early in 2007, although the firm may have operated in Afghanistan before then. It made sense to set up shop in Washington, because of Wardak's connections there. On NCL's advisory board, for example, is Milton Bearden, a well-known former CIA officer. Bearden is an important voice on Afghanistan issues; in October he was a witness before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where Senator John Kerry, the chair, introduced him as "a legendary former CIA case officer and a clearheaded thinker and writer." It is not every defense contracting company that has such an influential adviser.

But the biggest deal that NCL got--the contract that brought it into Afghanistan's major leagues--was Host Nation Trucking. Earlier this year the firm, with no apparent trucking experience, was named one of the six companies that would handle the bulk of US trucking in Afghanistan, bringing supplies to the web of bases and remote outposts scattered across the country.

At first the contract was large but not gargantuan. And then that suddenly changed, like an immense garden coming into bloom. Over the summer, citing the coming "surge" and a new doctrine, "Money as a Weapons System," the US military expanded the contract 600 percent for NCL and the five other companies. The contract documentation warns of dire consequences if more is not spent: "service members will not get food, water, equipment, and ammunition they require." Each of the military's six trucking contracts was bumped up to $360 million, or a total of nearly $2.2 billion. Put it in this perspective: this single two-year effort to hire Afghan trucks and truckers was worth 10 percent of the annual Afghan gross domestic product. NCL, the firm run by the defense minister's well-connected son, had struck pure contracting gold.

Host Nation Trucking does indeed keep the US military efforts alive in Afghanistan. "We supply everything the army needs to survive here," one American trucking executive told me. "We bring them their toilet paper, their water, their fuel, their guns, their vehicles." The epicenter is Bagram Air Base, just an hour north of Kabul, from which virtually everything in Afghanistan is trucked to the outer reaches of what the Army calls "the Battlespace"--that is, the entire country. Parked near Entry Control Point 3, the trucks line up, shifting gears and sending up clouds of dust as they prepare for their various missions across the country.

The real secret to trucking in Afghanistan is ensuring security on the perilous roads, controlled by warlords, tribal militias, insurgents and Taliban commanders. The American executive I talked to was fairly specific about it: "The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money." That is something everyone seems to agree on.

Mike Hanna is the project manager for a trucking company called Afghan American Army Services. The company, which still operates in Afghanistan, had been trucking for the United States for years but lost out in the Host Nation Trucking contract that NCL won. Hanna explained the security realities quite simply: "You are paying the people in the local areas--some are warlords, some are politicians in the police force--to move your trucks through."

Hanna explained that the prices charged are different, depending on the route: "We're basically being extorted. Where you don't pay, you're going to get attacked. We just have our field guys go down there, and they pay off who they need to." Sometimes, he says, the extortion fee is high, and sometimes it is low. "Moving ten trucks, it is probably $800 per truck to move through an area. It's based on the number of trucks and what you're carrying. If you have fuel trucks, they are going to charge you more. If you have dry trucks, they're not going to charge you as much. If you are carrying MRAPs or Humvees, they are going to charge you more."

Hanna says it is just a necessary evil. "If you tell me not to pay these insurgents in this area, the chances of my trucks getting attacked increase exponentially."

Whereas in Iraq the private security industry has been dominated by US and global firms like Blackwater, operating as de facto arms of the US government, in Afghanistan there are lots of local players as well. As a result, the industry in Kabul is far more dog-eat-dog. "Every warlord has his security company," is the way one executive explained it to me.

In theory, private security companies in Kabul are heavily regulated, although the reality is different. Thirty-nine companies had licenses until September, when another dozen were granted licenses. Many licensed companies are politically connected: just as NCL is owned by the son of the defense minister and Watan Risk Management is run by President Karzai's cousins, the Asia Security Group is controlled by Hashmat Karzai, another relative of the president. The company has blocked off an entire street in the expensive Sherpur District. Another security firm is controlled by the parliamentary speaker's son, sources say. And so on.

In the same way, the Afghan trucking industry, key to logistics operations, is often tied to important figures and tribal leaders. One major hauler in Afghanistan, Afghan International Trucking (AIT), paid $20,000 a month in kickbacks to a US Army contracting official, according to the official's plea agreement in US court in August. AIT is a very well-connected firm: it is run by the 25-year-old nephew of Gen. Baba Jan, a former Northern Alliance commander and later a Kabul police chief. In an interview, Baba Jan, a cheerful and charismatic leader, insisted he had nothing to do with his nephew's corporate enterprise.

But the heart of the matter is that insurgents are getting paid for safe passage because there are few other ways to bring goods to the combat outposts and forward operating bases where soldiers need them. By definition, many outposts are situated in hostile terrain, in the southern parts of Afghanistan. The security firms don't really protect convoys of American military goods here, because they simply can't; they need the Taliban's cooperation.

One of the big problems for the companies that ship American military supplies across the country is that they are banned from arming themselves with any weapon heavier than a rifle. That makes them ineffective for battling Taliban attacks on a convoy. "They are shooting the drivers from 3,000 feet away with PKMs," a trucking company executive in Kabul told me. "They are using RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] that will blow up an up-armed vehicle. So the security companies are tied up. Because of the rules, security companies can only carry AK-47s, and that's just a joke. I carry an AK--and that's just to shoot myself if I have to!"

The rules are there for a good reason: to guard against devastating collateral damage by private security forces. Still, as Hanna of Afghan American Army Services points out, "An AK-47 versus a rocket-propelled grenade--you are going to lose!" That said, at least one of the Host Nation Trucking companies has tried to do battle instead of paying off insurgents and warlords. It is a US-owned firm called Four Horsemen International. Instead of providing payments, it has tried to fight off attackers. And it has paid the price in lives, with horrendous casualties. FHI, like many other firms, refused to talk publicly; but I've been told by insiders in the security industry that FHI's convoys are attacked on virtually every mission.

For the most part, the security firms do as they must to survive. A veteran American manager in Afghanistan who has worked there as both a soldier and a private security contractor in the field told me, "What we are doing is paying warlords associated with the Taliban, because none of our security elements is able to deal with the threat." He's an Army veteran with years of Special Forces experience, and he's not happy about what's being done. He says that at a minimum American military forces should try to learn more about who is getting paid off.

"Most escorting is done by the Taliban," an Afghan private security official told me. He's a Pashto and former mujahedeen commander who has his finger on the pulse of the military situation and the security industry. And he works with one of the trucking companies carrying US supplies. "Now the government is so weak," he added, "everyone is paying the Taliban."

To Afghan trucking officials, this is barely even something to worry about. One woman I met was an extraordinary entrepreneur who had built up a trucking business in this male-dominated field. She told me the security company she had hired dealt directly with Taliban leaders in the south. Paying the Taliban leaders meant they would send along an escort to ensure that no other insurgents would attack. In fact, she said, they just needed two armed Taliban vehicles. "Two Taliban is enough," she told me. "One in the front and one in the back." She shrugged. "You cannot work otherwise. Otherwise it is not possible."

Which leads us back to the case of Watan Risk, the firm run by Ahmad Rateb Popal and Rashid Popal, the Karzai family relatives and former drug dealers. Watan is known to control one key stretch of road that all the truckers use: the strategic route to Kandahar called Highway 1. Think of it as the road to the war--to the south and to the west. If the Army wants to get supplies down to Helmand, for example, the trucks must make their way through Kandahar.

Watan Risk, according to seven different security and trucking company officials, is the sole provider of security along this route. The reason is simple: Watan is allied with the local warlord who controls the road. Watan's company website is quite impressive, and claims its personnel "are diligently screened to weed out all ex-militia members, supporters of the Taliban, or individuals with loyalty to warlords, drug barons, or any other group opposed to international support of the democratic process." Whatever screening methods it uses, Watan's secret weapon to protect American supplies heading through Kandahar is a man named Commander Ruhullah. Said to be a handsome man in his 40s, Ruhullah has an oddly high-pitched voice. He wears traditional salwar kameez and a Rolex watch. He rarely, if ever, associates with Westerners. He commands a large group of irregular fighters with no known government affiliation, and his name, security officials tell me, inspires obedience or fear in villages along the road.

It is a dangerous business, of course: until last spring Ruhullah had competition--a one-legged warlord named Commander Abdul Khaliq. He was killed in an ambush.

So Ruhullah is the surviving road warrior for that stretch of highway. According to witnesses, he works like this: he waits until there are hundreds of trucks ready to convoy south down the highway. Then he gets his men together, setting them up in 4x4s and pickups. Witnesses say he does not limit his arsenal to AK-47s but uses any weapons he can get. His chief weapon is his reputation. And for that, Watan is paid royally, collecting a fee for each truck that passes through his corridor. The American trucking official told me that Ruhullah "charges $1,500 per truck to go to Kandahar. Just 300 kilometers."

It's hard to pinpoint what this is, exactly--security, extortion or a form of "insurance." Then there is the question, Does Ruhullah have ties to the Taliban? That's impossible to know. As an American private security veteran familiar with the route said, "He works both sides... whatever is most profitable. He's the main commander. He's got to be involved with the Taliban. How much, no one knows."

Even NCL, the company owned by Hamed Wardak, pays. Two sources with direct knowledge tell me that NCL sends its portion of US logistics goods in Watan's and Ruhullah's convoys. Sources say NCL is billed $500,000 per month for Watan's services. To underline the point: NCL, operating on a $360 million contract from the US military, and owned by the Afghan defense minister's son, is paying millions per year from those funds to a company owned by President Karzai's cousins, for protection.

Hamed Wardak wouldn't return my phone calls. Milt Bearden, the former CIA officer affiliated with the company, wouldn't speak with me either. There's nothing wrong with Bearden engaging in business in Afghanistan, but disclosure of his business interests might have been expected when testifying on US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. After all, NCL stands to make or lose hundreds of millions based on the whims of US policy-makers.

It is certainly worth asking why NCL, a company with no known trucking experience, and little security experience to speak of, would win a contract worth $360 million. Plenty of Afghan insiders are asking questions. "Why would the US government give him a contract if he is the son of the minister of defense?" That's what Mahmoud Karzai asked me. He is the brother of President Karzai, and he himself has been treated in the press as a poster boy for access to government officials. The New York Times even profiled him in a highly critical piece. In his defense, Karzai emphasized that he, at least, has refrained from US government or Afghan government contracting. He pointed out, as others have, that Hamed Wardak had little security or trucking background before his company received security and trucking contracts from the Defense Department. "That's a questionable business practice," he said. "They shouldn't give it to him. How come that's not questioned?"

I did get the opportunity to ask General Wardak, Hamed's father, about it. He is quite dapper, although he is no longer the debonair "Gucci commander" Bearden once described. I asked Wardak about his son and NCL. "I've tried to be straightforward and correct and fight corruption all my life," the defense minister said. "This has been something people have tried to use against me, so it has been painful."

Wardak would speak only briefly about NCL. The issue seems to have produced a rift with his son. "I was against it from the beginning, and that's why we have not talked for a long time. I have never tried to support him or to use my power or influence that he should benefit."

When I told Wardak that his son's company had a US contract worth as much as $360 million, he did a double take. "This is impossible," he said. "I do not believe this."

I believed the general when he said he really didn't know what his son was up to. But cleaning up what look like insider deals may be easier than the next step: shutting down the money pipeline going from DoD contracts to potential insurgents.

Two years ago, a top Afghan security official told me, Afghanistan's intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security, had alerted the American military to the problem. The NDS delivered what I'm told are "very detailed" reports to the Americans explaining how the Taliban are profiting from protecting convoys of US supplies.

The Afghan intelligence service even offered a solution: what if the United States were to take the tens of millions paid to security contractors and instead set up a dedicated and professional convoy support unit to guard its logistics lines? The suggestion went nowhere.

The bizarre fact is that the practice of buying the Taliban's protection is not a secret. I asked Col. David Haight, who commands the Third Brigade of the Tenth Mountain Division, about it. After all, part of Highway 1 runs through his area of operations. What did he think about security companies paying off insurgents? "The American soldier in me is repulsed by it," he said in an interview in his office at FOB Shank in Logar Province. "But I know that it is what it is: essentially paying the enemy, saying, 'Hey, don't hassle me.' I don't like it, but it is what it is."

As a military official in Kabul explained contracting in Afghanistan overall, "We understand that across the board 10 percent to 20 percent goes to the insurgents. My intel guy would say it is closer to 10 percent. Generally it is happening in logistics."

In a statement to The Nation about Host Nation Trucking, Col. Wayne Shanks, the chief public affairs officer for the international forces in Afghanistan, said that military officials are "aware of allegations that procurement funds may find their way into the hands of insurgent groups, but we do not directly support or condone this activity, if it is occurring." He added that, despite oversight, "the relationships between contractors and their subcontractors, as well as between subcontractors and others in their operational communities, are not entirely transparent."

In any case, the main issue is not that the US military is turning a blind eye to the problem. Many officials acknowledge what is going on while also expressing a deep disquiet about the situation. The trouble is that--as with so much in Afghanistan--the United States doesn't seem to know how to fix it.

[Sanjay M]

Only way to fix it is to re-draw the borders. The existing borders are a result of British imperial war, and Karzai is a Kaangress-like inheritor of this.

Sideline Karzai and create de-facto Pashtun authority, even if it isn't "officially" recognized. Create a de-facto unofficial Pashtun state from Southern Afghanistan, and have it impose Pashtun ethnic culture as its stamp, using Pashtun ethnic nationalism as its driving force.

This will make Pakis gulp and swallow hard. If they complain, don't acknowledge to them that this Pashtun state exists, since it wouldn't exist officially, but would be a de facto reality on the ground.

This would solve the problem of Karzai's uppetiness, by sidelining him. It would also solve the problem of Pak non-cooperation by creating a Pashtunistan stick to threaten them with.
If Pakis complain and give blackmail threats like "support for Pashtun nationalism will only inflame the Taliban fundamentalist problem" then US can just give an official reply that "no such Pashtun state exists, nor is it supported by us, and furthermore any rise in Taliban fundamentalism will only fuel further Pashtun ethnic nationalism"

So the US should just give a counter-blackmail reply, without acknowledging the existence of any de facto Pashtun state.

Again, this is how you hold Pak's feet to the flames, and get them to comply.
You make sure they understand that a US withdrawal would cause Afghanistan to collapse into ethnic states, and that this could then lead to ethnic pieces of Pakistan breaking away to join them.
Make sure they understand that the blackmail game works both ways.


I personally feel that Afghanistan is an artificial patchwork only held together by Karzai's Kaangress-style cronyism. Forget about trying to prop up this unnatural sickly beast - just chop it up back into its true parts, and let the real ethnic identities assert themselves over religion to eclipse it.

[Sanjay M]

Bibi sez:

US Ambassador to Kabul Opposes More Troops

[ramana]

Interesting times ahead. Its just like South Vietnam's Diem who lost favor with the US Ambassador. What they didn't understand is with Diem gone they too were gone soon after.

[Pranav]

How the US Funds the Taliban
...
Two years ago, a top Afghan security official told me, Afghanistan's intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security, had alerted the American military to the problem. The NDS delivered what I'm told are "very detailed" reports to the Americans explaining how the Taliban are profiting from protecting convoys of US supplies.

The Afghan intelligence service even offered a solution: what if the United States were to take the tens of millions paid to security contractors and instead set up a dedicated and professional convoy support unit to guard its logistics lines? The suggestion went nowhere.
...
The trouble is that--as with so much in Afghanistan--the United States doesn't seem to know how to fix it.

Real fak-ap.

Amrullah Saleh seems to be trying but it looks like there is a deliberate policy of encouraging anarchy.

[kshirin]

Lalmohan

7/7 changed British perceptions on their friendly next door Pakistani neighbour. That would have been the incentive to support several seminars on Balochistan iin London, considering that pre-Partition they were thinking of the tribal areas + Balochistan as an alternative to formation of Pakistan befoe they decided on the latter. Someone must be regretting that decision now.

[Sanjay M]

Interesting times ahead. Its just like South Vietnam's Diem who lost favor with the US Ambassador. What they didn't understand is with Diem gone they too were gone soon after.

And the partition of Vietnam was unnatural and unsustainable, no matter how many troops the US poured into the fire.
Likewise, the US should take a lesson, and see that the British partition of Pakhtunistan is also unsustainable. It is this imperialist partition of their land which has kept it in chaos and thus vulnerable to Islamist machinations, and has similarly led to the corrupt Karzai kleptocracy.

No point in fighting nature. Only a re-drawing of borders and a reunification of the Pashtun lands will achieve a lasting solution that sees the Taliban and AlQaeda purged from the region, and endures for long after any American withdrawal. Only a reunified Pashtun state will have the political cohesion to competently administer over the people there, with least corruption and best results in eliminating Taliban with minimal US support. Anything less would collapse as soon as US troops leave, bringing the problem back to square zero.

Even though "allies" like Pak and Karzai won't like it at all, the US should proceed towards supporting Pashtun nationalism, even while maintaining plausible deniability over this.
Hell, Pak continues its support for jihadis and Karzai's govt continues its corruption, both under the cover of plausible deniability. The best lever that US has against them is to support a Pashtun reunification and re-drawing of borders at the de facto level, even while not formally acknowledging it outright.