Bharat Rakshak

Posted: **15 Oct 2008 12:53**

Posted: **17 Oct 2008 03:03**

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2008_pg1_3

Petraeus mounts war strategy review

* Reassessment of stragegy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq to begin next month

WASHINGTON: United States General David Petraeus, who will head Central Command from October 31, has launched a major reassessment of the regional strategy, warning that the lack of development and the spiralling violence in Afghanistan will probably make it “the longest campaign of the long war”, The Washington Post reported on Thursday.

The review will formally begin next month, but experts and military officials involved said Petraeus is already focused on at least two major themes: government-led reconciliation of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the leveraging of diplomatic and economic initiatives with nearby countries that are influential in the war.

“The effort in Afghanistan is going to be the longest campaign of the long war,” Petraeus told the newspaper on Wednesday.

Reconciliation of moderate Taliban insurgents who are willing to ally with the Afghan government is emerging as one main thrust of Petraeus’ approach, according to officials and experts who have discussed it with him recently. Petraeus agreed but stressed that any outreach needs to be done in conjunction with the Afghan government.

Afghanistan and Pakistan experts consulted so far include Shuja Nawaz, author of “Crossed Swords: Pakistan, Its Army, and the Wars Within,” whom Petraeus consulted during a private lunch in Washington last week, and Ahmed Rashid, author of “Descent into Chaos”.

The effort would embrace all of Afghanistan’s neighbours and possibly extend to India, which has had a long-standing rivalry with Pakistan, the report said. “There may be opportunities with respect to India,” Petraeus said, according to the newspaper. app

Posted: **18 Oct 2008 18:50**

Remember the photos of the german soldiers on Afghanistan?

They came, they saw, then left the Afghan war without a single mission
Published Date: 09 October 2008
By Jerome Starkey
in Kabul
GERMANY has admitted its Special Forces have spent three years in Afghanistan without doing a single mission, and are now going to be withdrawn.

More than 100 soldiers from the elite Kommando Spezialkrafte regiment, or KSK, are set to leave the war-torn country after their foreign minister revealed they had never left their bases on an operation.

The KSK troops were originally sent to Afghanistan to lead counter-terrorist operations.

But Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the foreign minister, admitted they had not been deployed "a single time" in the last three years, despite a desperate shortage of Special Forces units in the country.

Troops from Britain's Special Boat Service and the SAS work round the clock, across Afghanistan, alongside US navy Seals and Delta Force, to target terrorists, arrest drug lords and rescue hostages.

The KSK were part of the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom, which spearheads the international hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Senior military officials last night blasted the KSK commanders for keeping the troops in camp. One western military official accused Germany of "sitting on the sidelines while the rest of the world fights".

He said: "It's just unbelievable to think there have been 100 highly-trained troops sitting doing nothing for three years, while everyone else has worked their socks off. It's no good sending troops if they don't do anything. They might as well have stayed at home."

Another source said: "It's ludicrous that they would be here and not contributing."

Berlin is under almost constant pressure from the rest of Nato to increase its troop contribution and scrap special national caveats which prevent German troops deploying to volatile parts of the country, like Helmand. Last year it emerged that Norwegian troops, fighting alongside their German allies, were forced to abandon a battle at tea-time because German pilots refused to fly emergency medical helicopters in the dark.

Mr Steinmeier claimed the KSK's inactivity as an excuse to withdraw the Commandos from Afghanistan.

Posted: **18 Oct 2008 19:20**

^^^

Obama came to Berlin some time back and held a huge rally of 215,000 people and many millions listened to him on their TV screens. Too bad the photo doesn't show me at the rally.

He made a public appeal to all Germans, that USA and Germany together should make an effort to jointly see to it, that the Taliban in Afghanistan is defeated and the West's counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan wins. I think, the Germans started sweating then and there.

If Steinmeier doesn't order the 100 troops back to Germany right away, and Obama comes to power (as is expected), there will be so much pressure on Germans to do something more than just send a couple of boy-scouts for sunbathing all the way to Afghanistan. The Germans could always say NO to George W. Bush, because he became so unpopular, but saying NO to the Black Barack Obama is not going to be that easy.

So if the German troops are still in Afghanistan, the hurdle for the Americans would be much less to get those soldiers to take up some tasks with risk factor higher than zero, but if the soldiers are pulled out right away, then it will be far more difficult for Americans to get the Germans in again.

For all that Americans have done for Germany, it is probably the peak of cowardice and betrayal but that is just the way it is. If the Germans don't act now, there pants will be stinking of shit for the next 10 years.

Posted: **18 Oct 2008 22:22**

It was not good that he was touring the world as if he had already been elected president.

For those of you who are in the US and can vote, I suggest voting for something other than the 2 parties the media has decided you should vote for.

Posted: **20 Oct 2008 15:15**

Tory heavweight on how US/NATO is losing the Afghan battle to the Taliban after visit.REad this shocking tale of the true nature of the kabul/Karzai regime,the Taliban and the state of the Afghan nation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 66926.html

David Davis: We are losing Taliban battle

In an alarming dispatch from Afghanistan, the Conservative MP reveals the rampant corruption that has infected public life and threatens to destroy Nato's hopes of bringing peace to this traumatised country

Monday, 20 October 2008

'We need a new strategy,' says Tory MP David Davis, on a factfinding mission to Afghanistan

It is time to face facts in Afghanistan: the situation is spiralling downwards, and if we do not change our approach, we face disaster. Violence is up in two-thirds of the country, narcotics are the main contributor to the economy, criminality is out of control and the government is weak, corrupt and incompetent. The international coalition is seen as a squabbling bunch of foreigners who have not delivered on their promises. Although the Taliban have nowhere near majority support, their standing is growing rapidly among some ordinary Afghans.

In Kabul, foreign delegations huddle behind concrete and barbed wire, often with the Afghans' main roads shut. That causes jams throughout the city, exacerbated by convoys of armoured four-wheel drives loaded with bodyguards that push their way through the traffic. These vehicles carry warning signs telling ordinary Afghans that the occupants reserve the right to shoot anyone who comes within 50 metres. Afghans veer between resentment of the high-handed foreigners and fear of the Taliban, who appear to be inexorably seizing the provinces around the city.

In Britain's area of responsibility, Helmand, the governor admits the Taliban control most of the province. While we were, properly, celebrating the delivery of the turbine to the Kajaki dam, we were being forced out of one of the richest poppy growing areas, and the Taliban fought their way to within 12km of Lashkar Gar, the provincial capital. Time after time, our soldiers win tactical victories, only to have the advantage lost because of a lack of coherent international strategy.

The regime we are defending is corrupt from top to bottom. While the President's brother faces accusations of being a drug baron, some three-quarters of the Afghan National Police actively steal from the people. The irony is that Afghan expectations of government are traditionally low, and their faith in President Hamid Karzai was initially high.

The government appears to have been run for the financial benefit of 20 families. From the allocation of mineral rights to the awarding of contracts, ministers frequently intervene to favour families and friends. Even more disturbing, the beneficiaries of this corruption are old-time warlords and faction leaders responsible for past atrocities. Today, they operate with impunity, even over acts of violence and attempted murder. Many public officials, from police chiefs to governors to ministers, have acquired multi-million dollar fortunes in office.

This angers the ordinary Afghan, whose family may have to get by on £10 a week. The government exercises enormous patronage through the appointment of officials, most notably governors and police chiefs. A chief of police post in a district which includes a narcotic trafficking route can sell for $150,000. The new chief recovers his "investment" by demanding a cut in the proceeds of corruption from his juniors. At the bottom of this pyramid, officers make money out of ordinary Afghans by exacting "tolls"at roadblocks and by straight theft and extortion. An Afghan trying to take produce from Lashkar Gar to Kandahar will typically pay at 12 roadblocks – destroying any value he might gain from growing anything other than opium.

It can be worse. An Afghan doctor was stopped and arrested by police, who demanded a $20,000 ransom – a fortune. He borrowed the money and paid. The alternative was death.

For an ordinary Afghan trying to scratch a living out of the arid soil, this must be almost unbearable, particularly so when he sees rapists and murderers, even failed suicide bombers, released without charge after payment of a bribe.

That is the regime we are defending and are perceived to be supporting.

The Taliban play on this. They offer a system of courts which is fast, decisive, and effective. An Afghan living in a non-Taliban part of a southern province, who has a dispute – over property, immigration rights, or a criminal matter – is quite likely to go to the Taliban area and ask them to arbitrate. They will summon both parties, hear their petitions, spend a few days collecting evidence – and then issue, and enforce, a judgement.

They can be vicious and evil at times. They hanged an old woman for the crime of talking to a foreign development officer. They behead people who oppose them or help Nato. These executions are carried out in town centres, where they strike most terror.

The Taliban make about 40 per cent of their funds from drug trafficking, which Nato, and the UK, facilitated by initially naive and incompetent policies. This allows the Taliban another grip on the rural population.

So the ordinary Afghan must feel caught between competing protection rackets in the police, the Taliban, the narco-bandits and the warlords.

There are some glimmers of light. The Afghan Attorney General is in a battle with warlords and cabinet ministers, although, without action from the President, he cannot win.

Helmand, the province defended by the British, is near the centre of this maelstrom of crime and violence. It has recently got a governor, Gulab Mangal, who appears determined to crack down on crime and corruption.

A senior Foreign Office official tells the story of two brothers and their attractive sister who were stopped at a roadblock. The officer had the brothers arrested and dragged the girl to his office, presumably intent on rape. An ordinary soldier knocked the officer out and called Governor Mangal's new helpline, rescuing the girl and brothers. So there are signs of change.

Afghan despair at this breakdown of justice has been a factor in the Taliban resurgence. In the past few years, it has led to 14,500 deaths. Monthly deaths of Allied soldiers here now exceed those in Iraq. Aid workers are being kidnapped and killed. The major road network is largely unusable because of risk of attack. In Helmand, we control five town centres, but rural areas and roads are dominated by the Taliban. Kandahar is little better. The problem is spreading.

So we need a new strategy. It should include a new command structure that co-ordinates the various forces. Short term, we need more coalition troops – ones that will fight, unlike some Nato forces. In the longer term, we need a bigger Afghan National Army – one British officer said at least double its projected size. To match Iraq it would need to be at least five times its projected size.

Most of all, we must deliver a much better life for ordinary Afghans. That requires better justice. At the national level, the impunity of the drug barons, warlords, and political influence peddlers must be broken. This will take high-profile trials of powerful people. At the local level, it means a quicker, more traditional justice by councils of tribal elders. And it means root and branch reform or replacement of the Afghan National Police.

Along with more rapid development efforts and a more focused counter-narcotics effort, this will deliver a better life for Afghans, and deny the Taliban legitimacy.

Whoever wins the US presidential election will have a clean slate on Afghanistan, and should tell the Karzai government that Western support comes with a price, namely clean government and decent justice. Mr Karzai himself faces elections next September. His success is not guaranteed. The biggest election issues will be justice and security.

There are other good omens. It seems that in the past few months the Pakistani government has at last started doing something about the Taliban safe houses in the tribal areas. Back in Britain, the newly promoted General David Richards has experience of Afghanistan, and a clear-eyed view of the need to increase force levels to achieve an acceptable outcome. At last, the West has stopped deluding itself that it is winning this battle, and will recognise that the consequences of not rethinking our strategy are too dreadful to contemplate.

David Davis is the MP for Haltemprice and Howden and the former shadow home secretary. He has recently returned from a 10-day fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.

Posted: **20 Oct 2008 19:06**

Link

How to wind down the Afghan war

M.K. Bhadrakumar

While the opinion among American politicians favours a vaguely Afghan variant of the Iraqi “surge,” the silver lining is Washington’s sheer unaffordability of an open-ended war in Afghanistan.

Slowly, imperceptibly, it is becoming official American thinking that a United States “exit strategy” in Afghanistan ought to involve reconciliation with the Taliban. U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates admitted as much recently. He said: “There has to be ultimately, and I’ll underscore ultimately, reconciliation as part of the political outcome to this [war]. That’s ultimately the exit strategy for all of us.” True, he spoke with caveat s but his statement marked a beginning since it was made in the approach to a historic transition of political power in Washington.

Mr. Gates’ admission was long in coming, and was prompted by the cascading opinion among the U.S.’ allies, including close allies such as Britain and Canada, that the war cannot be won. Ironically, this is a “second coming” of sorts. A reconciliation with the Taliban would be essentially based on what Supreme Leader Mullah Omar promised at the eleventh hour in those fateful days of late September 2001 from his Kandahar hideout via Pakistani intermediaries — that, yes, he would verifiably sequester his movement from the al-Qaeda and ask Osama bin Laden to leave the Afghan soil, provided the U.S. acceded to his longstanding request to accord recognition to his regime in Kabul rather than treat it selectively. Of course, the U.S. administration ignored the cleric’s offer and instead pressed ahead with the plans that were already far too advanced to launch a “war on terror” in Afghanistan.

An “exit strategy” must be candid. But there is still ambivalence on the part of the U.S. to admit what, at a comparable point in the trajectory of the 25-year-old Afghan civil war, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev did with grace and all humility when he said in 1985 that Afghanistan had become a “bleeding wound” for the USSR. Any number of Soviet ‘experts’ genuinely believed at that time — like their American counterparts today — that if Moscow had given one last push, the war in Afghanistan could have been won. But the Soviet leadership saw that it would be a pyrrhic victory. After all, a point comes during a war when it no longer seems to matter who won or who lost.

Today, Afghanistan is poised on such a threshold. That is why there is a sense of disquiet in the region when powerful American politicians, who include not only Mr. Gates but also Barack Obama and John McCain, still speak about robustly conducting the war. The bipartisan opinion among American politicians seems to favour a vaguely Afghan variant of the Iraqi “surge.” They seem captivated by the new head of the U.S. Central Command and his Roman name — David Petraeus — who claimed “victory” in the war in Iraq.

The silver lining is the sheer unaffordability of an open-ended war in Afghanistan for the U.S. economy. Then, there is a very distinct possibility that like any leading presidential hopeful on the campaign trail, Mr. Obama might not have said the last word on Afghanistan. That is, if we are to believe the compassion and disarming honesty with which he recounted the intellectual journey of his unusual life in his poignant memoir Dreams from My Father.
Ten commandments

Mr. Obama’s new thinking will need a compass of 10 commandments. One, do not allow political instincts to be smothered by spooks, strategists and soldiers who surround statesmen. They don’t see the human condition. They are adept at “managing” conflicts rather than ending them. The Afghans have suffered enough. The pressing question is: how fundamental is the Afghan war to the global struggle against terrorism? Political violence in Afghanistan is primarily rooted in local issues and “warlordism” is an ancient trait.

Two, Taliban is not the problem and it can be made part of the solution provided its variant of “Islamism” is properly understood. Ultimately, the objectives of nation-building and legitimate governance in an environment of overall security that allows economic activities and development can only be realised by accommodating local priorities and interests. Washington has been far too prescriptive, creating and then controlling a regime in Kabul. But such a regime will never command respect among Afghans. Deploying more NATO troops or creating an Afghan army is not the answer. There is a crisis of leadership. Peace is indivisible and must include the vanquished as well.

Three, an inter-Afghan dialogue is urgently needed. The Afghans must be allowed to regenerate their traditional methods of contestation of power in their cultural context and to negotiate their cohabitation in their tribal context.

Four, the U.S. has been proved wrong in believing that imperialism and hubris could trump nationalism. Prolonged foreign occupation is triggering a backlash. It is time for the foreign forces to leave. A timeline is necessary.

Five, the agenda of the war must be transparent. It needs to be appreciated that the U.S. decided to invade Afghanistan. The backdrop of the September 11 attacks and George W. Bush’s dubious election victory in 2000 engendered compulsions. The invasion was avoidable. The war should never have escalated beyond what it ought to have been — a low-intensity fratricidal strife. In other words, a solution to the conflict has to be primarily inter-Afghan, leading to the formation of a broad-based government free of foreign influence, where the international community can be a facilitator and guarantor.

Six, the geopolitics of the region is casting shadows. The war provided a context for the U.S. military presence in Central Asia; NATO’s first-ever “out of area” operation; a turf which overlooks the two South Asian nuclear weapon states, Iran and China’s Xinjiang; and a useful toehold on a potential transportation route for Caspian energy bypassing Russia and Iran.

But Afghanistan is far too fragile to bear the weight of a heavy geopolitical agenda. Quite clearly, the regional consensus is breaking down. That can only prove lethal as time passes and the war increasingly gets viewed in zero-sum terms by the regional protagonists. The incipient signs are appearing — Russia’s warnings about NATO supply routes; creation of a Collective Security Treaty Organisation force in Central Asia; India-Pakistan rivalries; Iran’s activism vis-À-vis the forces of Afghan resistance, etc.

Seven, the war should not have been an American enterprise. Nor should it have space for the arrogance of power. Unfortunately, the U.S. uses the United Nations as a fig-leaf but pretty much decides on the war strategy. Eight, the Afghan problem is linked to wider questions of regional security, especially the situation around Iran. The U.S.’ “Great Central Asia” policy and containment strategy towards Russia, NATO’s expansion, etc. are other factors at work. Therefore, the involvement of the regional powers in any Afghan settlement becomes imperative — a regional summit, for instance. Washington’s contrary approach is needlessly paving the way for competitive politics. The current attempt to get Saudi Arabia to manipulate or splinter the Taliban can only complicate matters.

Nine, the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s role in it are intertwined. But Gen. Petraeus’ strategy seems to be to hire Pashtun mercenaries to fight the war so that western casualties remain low and western public opinion doesn’t militate against the war. The strategy will take the situation in the Afghan-Pakistan tribal areas to anarchic levels and spread the war into Pakistan. Historically, the tribal areas constituted the buffer for Pakistan’s western marches.
Pakistan problem

Finally, this brings us to the “Pakistan problem.” This is also where Mr. Obama has got his sums seriously wrong. He has said harsh things about Pakistan not doing enough in the war but surprisingly for someone who lived among Pakistanis, he hasn’t introspected why this happened. He’s not seeing why Pakistan is unable to evolve a coherent strategy in the “war on terror.” There is no running away from the fact that it is the U.S.’ “war on terror” in Afghanistan that has destabilised Pakistan. The Pakistani people are not extremists, nor do they clamour for the Shariah law. Their opposition is not per se to their country’s leadership — civilian and military — but to its pusillanimous collaboration with the U.S. war effort.

Yet under American pressure, the Pakistani army, which is the backbone of the state, is launching forth in the tribal areas despite its lack of self-confidence and conviction. If this paradigm is pressed further down the road, a scenario like the one in Iran in the 1970s may well develop. The conditions are slowly ripening, although a charismatic leadership is lacking to capitalise on the groundswell of popular frustration.

Thus, Pakistan’s long-term stability is also linked to the departure of the foreign forces from Afghanistan. In all likelihood, any prospect of Pakistan disengaging from the U.S.’ war itself would have a calming effect on the tribal regions. Meanwhile, the new Pakistani leaders — in Islamabad and especially in Peshawar — would do well to make a reasonably convincing effort to appear to be their own masters in their own house. Equally, Mr. Obama should allow them to do that.

(The writer is a former Ambassador and an Indian Foreign Service officer.)

Do our diplomats(who have experienced Paki perfidy first hand) believe that a stable Pak is in India's interest and not all Pakis are anti-India?

Posted: **21 Oct 2008 13:26**

Here is a sad event that took place.It also underscores the hatred of the whiteman/woman by Afghan extremists.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... htmlKilled for being Christian

By Jerome Starkey in Kabul, Kim Sengupta and Beauregard Tromp
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
Gayle Williams was shot dead on a quiet tree-lined street in Kabul

Jean MacKenzie: Can we keep shrugging off the danger?
Leading article: The dangers of aiding Afghanistan

Gayle Williams worked with the poorest and most unfortunate of the children in Afghanistan, young boys and girls who had lost limbs to landmines and bombs. She was dedicated to her task of teaching them the basic skills needed to survive in a harsh and violent land. Yesterday the 34-year-old British woman was murdered while walking along a quiet, tree-lined street in Kabul on her way to work.

She believed in living among the people she served, staying in a modest private house, shunning an armed escort in favour of using her own two feet. She made an easy target for the two gunmen who had been lying in wait for her. One of the men got off the motorcycle, walked up to Ms Williams and opened fire at close range. She was already dead by the time her killers had weaved their way through the crowd at Kart-e-Char, leaving her corpse in a pool of blood.

"The men on the motorcycle stopped in front of the lady. They took out a gun and shot her on the spot. Then they rode off," said Daolad Khan, who was working on a building site directly opposite the murder scene. Mohammed Gul, a shopkeeper, added: "They knew what they were doing, they knew she would be there. She was hit many times on the chest and the body, no one could have lived after such an attack."

Ms Williams had been in the country for two and a half years, working for a charity called Serve Afghanistan, which helps disabled children and adults to learn to live with their handicaps. A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, declared that she had been executed "because she was working for an organisation which was preaching Christianity in Afghanistan". Converting from Islam to Christianity is a capital offence in Afghanistan but friends and colleagues of Ms Williams stressed that while the organisation she worked for was Christian in its beliefs, she was extremely careful not to try to convert Afghans.

Mike Lythe, the head of the charity and a friend of Ms Williams, said: "This is a tragedy. She was working with disabled children, blind and deaf children, children hurt and maimed by the fighting. She knew the dangers, but Afghanistan is where she wanted to be."

Her mother, Pat Williams, who lives in London, and sister Karen, who has settled in Johannesburg, received the news of the death yesterday afternoon and were considering flying to Kabul. "Gayle was serving a people that she loved, and felt God called her to be there for such a time as this," her mother said last night.

"We know her life was blessed and she was a blessing to those around her," she added. "No one could have asked for a more humble daughter with a more loving heart. She died doing what she felt the Lord had called her [to] and she is definitely with him."

In one of her newsletters to friends and family, Ms Williams had written: "God has an amazing plan for this country and even though things so often look hopeless we can focus on Him knowing that He is able to see His plans and purposes fulfilled in Afghanistan."

Six months ago, Ms Williams had been pulled out of Kandahar and recalled to Kabul, after the abduction and murder of an Afghan colleague. In her newsletter, she explained that she and other charity workers were being watched: "We have been told that our office was under surveillance but no one could be held or charged due to insufficient evidence". On the same day United Nations security officials warned that armed men had been moving into Kandahar with the aim of kidnapping foreigners, and the decision was taken to evacuate Serve staff to Kabul.

Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban, has seen a series of bombings and shootings and at the time the Afghan capital was regarded as a place of relative safety. Since then Kabul has experienced an increase in violence. Ms Williams abided by safety instructions issued to aid workers, varying her route and clothing, leaving home at different times. But this did not save her from the gunmen and the murder added to fears among expatriates who are already feeling beleaguered in an Afghan capital being encircled by a resurgent Taliban.

Aid workers, in particular, have become targets. Three women – a British-Canadian, a Canadian and a Trinidadian-American – along with their Afghan drivers were killed outside Kabul two months ago. In another sign of unravelling security, Houmayun Assefy, a grandson of the Afghan king, Zahir Shah, was kidnapped in the city centre on his way home. Ms Williams' death also came on the day that a suicide bomber killed two German soldiers and five children in an attack in Kunduz in the north of the country, another area previously deemed to have been relatively safe.

Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary, condemned the murder yesterday. "Her killing was a callous and cowardly act by people who would take Afghanistan back to the dark days of the Taliban tyranny which scarred the country for so long," he said.

But for many in Afghanistan, the dark days are already back, with Taliban attacks happening with increasing frequency and in ever closer proximity to the capital Kabul. Nato commanders privately admit that a lack of cohesion in Western strategy has bolstered the insurgents. And yesterday General John Craddock, the head of Nato forces in Europe, warned that the West was "wavering". "That impedes operational progress and brings into question the relevance of the alliance here in the 21st century." General Sir David Richards, the new head of the British Army, believes that a "surge" of around 30,000 troops is needed to counter the Taliban.

Western politicians and military commanders have repeatedly stated, however, that a purely military victory in Afghanistan is not feasible, and that reconstruction and development of the country are vital components of a settlement. The prospect of this taking place, however, would be greatly undermined if the departure of aid groups from the country accelerates following Ms Williams' death.

"Obviously it makes aid workers very worried about staying in Afghanistan," said Mr Lythe of Serve. "I think other attacks may take place. It seems to be the policy of the Taliban to destabilise the country by trying to knock out aid work and drive out NGOs."

Ms Williams grew up in the town of Empangeni in KwaZulu Natal before moving to England with her mother. After attending secondary school in London, she returned to South Africa and studied biokinetics and occupational therapy at Zululand University. She subsequently returned to London where she worked with disabled and deprived children.

An avid cyclist and canoeist, she had always had a fascination with Afghanistan and was determined to work there. The pressure of working under constant pressure, however, was taking its toll. Mr Lythe recalled: "A group of us went on a walking holiday to Tajikistan recently and Gayle told us how wonderful it was to be able to relax, not to worry about things like keeping herself covered up in public. But she knew that it was a holiday, she needed to go back to her work. She was passionate about her work."

Posted: **21 Oct 2008 16:13**

Some reports indicated that she was a missionary preaching Christianity?

Posted: **21 Oct 2008 18:03**

The Dawn's India correspondent,Javed Naqvi,on India's Afghan dilemna,quoting our former envoy,Mr.Bhadrakumar extensively.It brings into focus the quagmire that Afghanistan has become and the the price that the countries involved are paying,including India.On one point,Naqvi is spot on.There are NO "good or bad" Taliban! Any attempt to label tham as such is an exercise in self-delusion.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/jawed/jawed.htm

The insult and the injury: India’s Afghan policy faces a severe test
By Jawed Naqvi

WHEN a couple of years ago the king of Saudi Arabia visited New Delhi for the first time in half a century, he did something so horrific that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s establishment is understandably keen to cover it up. The king insulted his hosts by refusing to pay a customary visit to the shrine of Mahatma Gandhi, which no other leader had yet dared to do to the revered icon of peace.

He apparently used the fiction that his religion forbade him from visiting non-Muslim shrines. Not even President Pervez Musharraf was so discourteous. When he first came to Delhi for the 2001 Agra summit, he offered flowers at the Rajghat to the man with whom his country’s founding fathers had major ideological differences.

Not by symbolism alone, the king’s visit to New Delhi preceded by a few weeks another by a better-camouflaged obscurantist President George W. Bush. And the two are now engaged in divining a vague, alleged difference between good and bad Taliban, presumably in the belief that there are good and bad zealots.

If they succeed in their mission, a project assiduously pursued by a dominant section of the Pakistani establishment, India would be willy-nilly offered to choose between a rock and a hard place. There are strong suggestions that this may have been one of the facets of the meeting that Indian and Pakistani national security advisers held in Delhi last week.

After a long time both governments in Islamabad and New Delhi are on the same wavelength with the Americans and the Saudis alike. It has required India to eject its non-aligned worldview, or whatever was left of it since the end of the Soviet Union, in the process abandoning its traditionally close ties with Iran and other third world comrades.

The two anti-Iran votes at the IAEA and recent comments by the Indian prime minister that he would not want Iran to become another nuclear power in the region (while maintaining a farcical smile over Israel’s undeclared but widely acknowledged arsenal) were part of a calculated manoeuvre. It amounted to a de facto policy U-turn in order to shape a new one in which the United States, Saudi Arabia, Israel and US-administered Afghanistan are ranged against Iran and whoever else happens to stand in Washington’s way of the hydrocarbons-rich Caspian region.

The bouquet of grovelling compliments that President Bush got from Prime Minister Singh in Washington was of a piece with the new willingness of the current Indian establishment to pay any price to endear itself to the group of countries Delhi regarded with suspicion not too long ago. Is India bracing to change its Afghan policy in accordance with the new mantra that anoints the existence of good Taliban? It could be early to say but the omens are numerous.

For a long time it was the practice with the Indian establishment to look for links for its woes in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country to the gaggle of Islamic fanatics straddling the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, usually sweeping the ISI too into the frame. The last time this formula came into play was with the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. Pakistan’s NSA Ali Mahmud Ali Durrani vehemently denied this assertion when he visited Delhi recently. And his Indian counterpart M.K. Narayanan paid him rich tributes at a dinner speech without any mention of the Kabul attack.

But Narayanan went out of his way to herald quite possibly a brand new stance between the two countries. He said, as far as one could discern, that the fulcrum of terror was now located in the domestic fautlines of both countries. This would seem to justify the several coercive, if dubious, actions taken by many Indian states almost always targeting alleged Muslim terrorists the homegrown variety. No longer the hunt for them in the neighbourhood. It was also a nudge to Pakistan to tackle its domestic war with fanatics.

But what if Pakistan, the UK and the United States, with Saudi encouragement, revived the thesis that the war in Afghanistan was unwinnable without involving some of the Taliban groups currently battling governments on both sides of the Durand Line being wooed? How would New Delhi ever come to accept that?

M.K. Bhadrakumar, former point man for Indian foreign ministry’s Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan desk, and now an avowed critic of its evident drift, believes that the choices before India are difficult. As the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates too indicated earlier this month: “There has to be ultimately, and I’ll underscore ultimately, reconciliation as part of the political outcome to this (war). That’s ultimately the exit strategy for all of us.” It may not be far-fetched to imagine that India’s new proximity with Saudi Arabia had factored in the kingdom’s importance in the resolution of the Afghan tangle if indeed there can be one.

If there were reconciliation with the Taliban, says Bhadrakumar, it “would essentially be in the nature of picking up the threads from October 2001 when the US invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban regime”. That was when Taliban leader Mullah Omar promised at the eleventh hour from his hideout in Kandahar that he would verifiably sequester his movement from Al Qaeda and ask Osama bin Laden to leave Afghan soil, provided the US acceded to his longstanding request to accord recognition to his regime in Kabul rather than engage it selectively. According to this analyst the US administration ignored the cleric’s offer and instead pressed ahead with the plan to launch a “war on terror”.

The “unaffordability” of an open-ended war in Afghanistan is projected to influence thinking in Washington if the crisis in the US economy deepens, though that threshold is not nigh. The war should be “affordable”, according to Bhadrakumar, if the new head of US Central Command, General David Petraeus, can somehow make it more “efficient”, which is what he did in Iraq.

But that would not get the regime in Kabul any respect among the Afghans. Other regional powers, including Russia and Iran, do not see the US or Nato getting out of Afghanistan any time soon. Tehran has been alleging that the US strategy in Afghanistan is essentially to perpetuate its military presence and has raised the ante there. After having supported the US intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 Tehran has reheated an old relationship.

It invited former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani, who led the anti-Taliban coalition of the Northern Alliance in the 1990s to visit Iran. Receiving him in Tehran this month, the speaker of the Iranian Majlis Ali Larijani told Rabbani that the presence of foreign forces was creating “insecurity” and is causing rampant drug trafficking.

Russian statements regarding the US role in Afghanistan too have become critical by the day. Moscow seems to have assessed that the US-led war is getting nowhere and blame-game had begun. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov utilised the annual UN General Assembly forum to launch a broadside against Washington.

He said: More and more questions are being raised as to what is going on in Afghanistan. First and foremost, what is the acceptable price for losses among civilians in the ongoing anti-terrorist operation? Who decides on criteria for determining the proportionality of the use of force?

In the changing equations in Afghanistan, India will need the trust of all key players, which include Saudi Arabia and Iran even as they represent opposite ends of the ethnic divide. We all know how everyone who has waded into the territory has come out severely bruised. To turn the saying on its head, the Saudi-led search for good Taliban may add a smarting bruise to the insult India has endured at the hands of the monarch.

Posted: **22 Oct 2008 13:26**

More on the Taliban vs "Christians".

Christians in Kabul are warned: you are being watched by Taliban agents

By Jerome Starkey in Kabul and Kim Sengupta
Wednesday, 22 October 2008

Excerpt:
Kabul's Christian community is on high alert amid claims that their congregations are under surveillance by Taliban agents after Monday's killing of Gayle Williams, the Christian charity worker shot dead in the street on her way to work.

Afghan intelligence officials have warned missionaries they may be followed home from church. Investigators close to the murder inquiry said yesterday they were considering the possibility that Ms Williams knew her killers.....

Posted: **30 Oct 2008 12:57**

From The TimesOctober 30, 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 042891.ece

Deafness is the new scourge of British troops in Afghanistan

Michael Evans, Defence Editor
Hundreds of soldiers are returning from Afghanistan suffering from severe and permanent damage to their hearing because of the overwhelming noise of intense combat.

Nearly one in ten soldiers serving with one regiment have hearing defects that could bar them from further frontline service and affect their civilian job prospects, The Times has learnt.

The number of hearing injuries is one of the untold stories of Britain’s military campaigns, evoking comparisons with the thunder of battle in the two world wars and the Korean War.

Many of the soldiers involved in the most violent clashes with Shia militias in Iraq in 2004 and 2005 also returned with permanent hearing impairment. But in Afghanistan roadside bombs, ferocious close-combat clashes with the Taleban and 500lb bombs dropped by coalition aircraft have burst eardrums, caused tinnitus and, in some cases, resulted in total deafness.

Hidden army of casualties in Afghanistan
Soldier's dilemma - save ears or save life

The Royal British Legion said that in the past three years it had dealt with 1,195 hearing loss claims against the Ministry of Defence.

Through a series of freedom of information requests The Times has unearthed the gravity of the situation.

Of 411 soldiers in the Grenadier Guards – which should have 580 but is suffering chronic manpower shortages – 37 have severe hearing problems. Nearly 240 of 691 soldiers in the 1st Battalion The Royal Anglians, which returned from a six-month tour of duty in Afghanistan last October, suffered hearing difficulties; 35 were categorised as either undeployable or with limited deployment potential.

The 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment (Worcesters and Foresters), which also returned last October, has 34 of 555 soldiers with hearing problems. Two Royal Marine commando units have reported hearing defects.

The MoD said that noise-induced hearing loss was a serious risk, but that earplugs and ear defenders were issued to all troops. However, unlike the US Army, ear protection is not rigidly enforced except in helicopters. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People has launched a campaign to improve ear protection for the Armed Forces. Angela King, a senior audiology specialist at the institute, said: “Repeated exposure to gunfire, even if it doesn’t do traumatic mechanical damage, could lead to permanent hearing loss because of damage to the sensory cells in the inner ear.”

The MoD said that compensation ranged from £5,250 for a blast injury with minimal or no sensorial hearing loss to £46,000 for total deafness. These figures are due to increase to £5,775 and £92,000 respectively.

PS:Indian Army.Are you taking serious note of this?

Posted: **30 Oct 2008 18:41**

Mullah Omar should not be part of peace talks: Washington

This is the attempt to identify 'good Taliban' vis-a-vis 'bad' Taliban. Frankly, the proof of the pudding is only when the 'good Taliban' hand over or help track all the 'bad Taliban', not missing even a single one of them,

Posted: **30 Oct 2008 18:52**

Philip wrote:

Any attempt to label tham as such is an exercise in self-delusion.

Stephen Cohen, the Pakistani expert, has openly stated (link to article in the TSP thread) that Pakistan should be allowed to maintain terrorists/militants as part of its foreign policy -- so the differentiation between "good" and "bad" taliban is being done so that the jihadi movement can be directed away from western interests and towards countries like India and Afghanisthan.

Posted: **30 Oct 2008 18:54**

SSridhar wrote:Mullah Omar should not be part of peace talks: Washington

This is the attempt to identify 'good Taliban' vis-a-vis 'bad' Taliban. Frankly, the proof of the pudding is only when the 'good Taliban' hand over or help track all the 'bad Taliban', not missing even a single one of them,

They are playing with fire. That is not a problem if you know how to handle fire properly. I am no so sure Unkil has done that or can do that in this case.

But ofcourse it is a nice touch if the real aim is to keep the dog at India's door.

Posted: **30 Oct 2008 20:20**

Do our diplomats(who have experienced Paki perfidy first hand) believe that a stable Pak is in India's interest and not all Pakis are anti-India?

Their perceptions were formed from the early years after the Partition and dont take inot account the sustained Isalmization that has taken over TSP psyche. A stable non Islamised Pakistan which is not a terrorist state is a good thing but then will have to wait for pigs to fly.

Posted: **30 Oct 2008 20:29**

Pigs is no more a problem. Isloo is now full of them. Pakistan must cooperate with Amreeka and try to combine drone technology with indigenous wild boars.

Posted: **30 Oct 2008 20:32**

RajeshA its that very cooperation I worry about and not any varahas.

Posted: **31 Oct 2008 02:36**

Was talking to a Tajik beauty whose parents reside in Kabul. Word on the ground is people are very concerned about the Talibs making a comeback.

She said that Tajiks will not take the challenge quietly and in the worst case would opt for partitioning afghanistan.

Obviously this will have disastrous consequences for pakistan as the talibs will opt for concentrating their attention to re-purifying the lands east of durand line.

Posted: **31 Oct 2008 03:03**

Paul, See the GG thread. Brooking expert notes NA is arming.

Posted: **31 Oct 2008 03:30**

Yup, it does add up.

Last time Taliban was getting all military support including aircover from PAF. Not sure how Pakistan can provide support in this round.

India has no choice but to align with the old alliance.

The BIG question is not India, but who the US will align with.

The cold war era warriors in pentagon want to continue supporting the jihadists....need to see if Obama can steer the titanic opinion of US foreign policy in the right direction.

Posted: **31 Oct 2008 04:22**

The black and white demarcation is a thing of the past. Today US is engaging India and Pakistan at the same time, playing the role of a good friend and a strategic partner to both. Similarly there is no reason, for US or India to take sides very openly. There is no reason for India to come out strongly for the Northern Alliance and against the Taliban. India should give every help possible to ensure that the Northern Alliance have the necessary training, and arms and any other resources, so that the Taliban does not think of overrunning them as they did in the 90s. We can reach some understanding with the Russians and the Iranians on this very vital regional interest.

At the same time, India can engage the Taliban, the Pushtun Warlords, Pushtun civil society, Pushtun diaspora and look for ways to reach an entente, and find ways how we can cooperate and trade. The more dialogue the better.

Similarly USA would be having a dog in every party. That is the whole Paetreus doctrine. If it is possible to work with some group, one should work with that group.

If there is sufficient engagement with Taliban, they may even be willing to allow the people to avail of some radio and television, so that the people can listen to programs broadcast from elsewhere outside Pushtun areas. For that, India could have some aid program for the Pushtuns. When the Taliban have the responsibility of ruling their lands, they also would have to provide for administration and would need outside help. Pakistan's economy is itself in ICU. India can be a good partner here.

My point is simply, that India need not make a stark choice for any single party in Afghanistan. In 1996 when Taliban overran Afghanistan, Pakistan still had a hyphenated status with India. 12 years thence India has broken that orbit and we should act more confidently in the region. In fact, India can play a vital role in assuring that those Taliban, who are not seen in favor in Islamabad also get a say in the affairs of the new setup.

Posted: **31 Oct 2008 05:40**

There is no pro India taliban to talk to. India just needs to firm up its old alliance with NA, Russia, Iran, Tajikistan and uzbeks. Jointly we can smash the paki-taliban nexus even if US runs away from the battle.

Posted: **31 Oct 2008 08:15**

Afghanistan tests waters for overture to Taliban - Carlotta Gall in NY Times

Security has deteriorated to the point that a growing chorus of Western diplomats, NATO commanders and Afghans has begun to argue that the insurgency cannot be defeated solely by military means. Some officials in Kabul contend that the war against the insurgents cannot be won and are calling for negotiations.

Important parts of the strategy would be to exploit what diplomats here say are fissures in the Taliban, to separate what amounts to day-wage fighters from the movement’s hard-core elements, whom many officials consider to be “irreconcilable,” and to divide the Taliban from Al Qaeda.

But some officials fear that without a turnaround in the security situation, the Afghan government and the international forces here will not be in a strong bargaining position.

Behind the scenes, there has also been quiet work by people like Abdullah Anas, an Algerian who fought in Afghanistan with the mujahedeen during the Soviet occupation in the 1980s. For the last two years, in an effort supported by Mr. Karzai, Mr. Anas has been lobbying influential Muslim clerics and international leaders of jihads in an attempt to draw the Taliban away from Al Qaeda and to bring peace to Afghanistan, according to an Afghan military attaché working on the plan.

“The problem is not going to be solved by war,” Mr. Anas said in a telephone interview from London. Neither NATO nor the insurgents could win the war outright, he said, and he predicted that fighting could continue for 10 more years at the cost of some 100,000 casualties.He said that two main issues stand between the sides: the presence of foreign forces and the system of government. Afghans from all sides, all ethnicities, including all the mujahedeen groups, should come together to work it out, he said. {These pathetically and hopelessly divided groups can never reconcile. Past two hundred years of history is proof of that}

The involvement of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was of symbolic importance because of his standing in the Muslim world, diplomats and Afghan government officials said. The king hosted some 50 Afghan representatives in Mecca at an iftar dinner. Among those who attended were Mr. Karzai’s brother, Qayum Karzai, and the head of the Council of Clerics of Afghanistan, Maulvi Fazl Hadi Shinwari. Also present were two former Taliban officials who have remained under government protection in Kabul since their release from United States custody: Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, a former Taliban foreign minister, and Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, who served as the Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan.Active representatives of the Taliban were also said to be present.

“Al Qaeda has an international agenda, and Taliban have their own agenda, which is Afghanistan,” said Mr. Muttawakil, who was seen as a moderate member of the Taliban government and now supports peace talks.

At the same time, government and Western officials in Afghanistan say they have had increasing contact from members of the Taliban who want to give up the fight.

“I’m not saying the Taliban is on the brink of fragmenting, I’m just saying that we are seeing fissures, fracture lines, questionings,” one Western diplomat said earlier this year.

Even as Afghans grow increasingly weary of the fighting, some Taliban, like the prominent commander Jalaluddin Haqqani, are likely to remain out of the reach of any negotiation, military officials say. Mr. Haqqani maintains close links with Al Qaeda and has been behind some of the worst attacks in Afghanistan this year.

“There are some that will never be reconciled,” Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, the United States military spokeswoman at Bagram Air Base, said last week.

Posted: **31 Oct 2008 09:20**

CNN was reporting on TV a Taliban attack on an Afghan ministry in Kabul.

Suicide bomber storms Afghan ministry, kills five

KABUL, Oct 30: Taliban commandos stormed an Afghan ministry in the heart of Kabul on Thursday, shooting their way into the building where one of them blew himself up and killed five people.

The bomb exploded in a conference room underneath the office of the minister, Abdul Karim Khoram, but he was not in the building at the time, ministry spokesman Hameed Nasiri Wardak said.

“I can say that the target was the minister,” he said. Khoram was badly wounded in a suicide blast in Kandahar in May.

President Hamid Karzai condemned the daring attack, calling it an attempt to hinder government efforts to secure dialogue with the militants to end a seven-year resistance movement.

Three assailants opened fire on the police guards outside the ministry of information and culture before entering its cavernous hall, where the suicide bomber launched the attack, said Amir Mohammad, a police guard who was wounded in the blast.

“They (attackers) were running. They opened fire on our guard first and then they entered” the building, Mohammad said from his hospital bed in Kabul.

The powerful blast threw Mohammed onto the street, where he lay unconscious among shattered glass and pools of blood.

Five people were killed in the attack, including a policeman, three ministry employees and another civilian, the interior ministry said in a statement.

Another 21 were wounded, said Abdul Fahim, a spokesman for the health ministry which supervises the hospitals where the injured were taken.

“Our enemies are trying to undermine the recent efforts by the government for a peaceful solution to end the violence,” Karzai said in a statement. Senior Afghan and Pakistani officials vowed on Tuesday to seek dialogue with the Taliban to end violence. The pledge was agreed at a jirga as part of a process initiated by US President George W. Bush and his Afghan and Pakistani counterparts in 2006.

The Afghan government has said it wants talks with Taliban leaders in an effort at reconciliation. The Taliban’s former ambassador to Pakistan said the two sides recently had contacts in Saudi Arabia.

The ministry that was attacked is in the centre of the city, at a busy intersection lined with shops. One of the side walls of the building collapsed, while glass littered the roads nearby and office equipment was scattered over the area. The light-blue metal gates were twisted from being flung open.

Taliban’s claim

Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, told the AP three militants stormed the building by throwing hand-grenades at the guards at the main gate.

A man named Naqibullah from the Khost province carried out the suicide attack, Mujahid said. The other two men fled, he said.

“The suicide bomber targeted foreign experts,” he said.

It was not possible to confirm if there were any foreign nationals in the building at the time.

Abdul Rahim, a witness, said he heard machine-gun shots and saw a policeman lying on the ground, then saw the explosion that rocked the building.

While militants regularly use suicide attacks against Afghan and foreign forces around the country, they have been rare in Kabul.

On July 7, a suicide attacker set off explosives outside the gates of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, killing more than 60 people and wounding 146.

Separately, four policemen were killed on Thursday in Panjwayi district of the Kandahar province when their vehicle struck a newly planted mine, said Zulmai Ayubi, the provincial governor’s spokesman. He blamed the Taliban for the attack.—AP/AFP

Looks like Lok Sabha attack.

Posted: **31 Oct 2008 09:32**

Abdul Karim Khoram, the I&B minister is ethnic Pashtun and belongs to H-e-I of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's party. So the attack could be intra-Taliban attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karim_Khoram

Posted: **31 Oct 2008 10:21**

BRFite

Joined: 27 Sep 2008 04:36 pm
Posts: 149 There is no pro India taliban to talk to. India just needs to firm up its old alliance with NA, Russia, Iran, Tajikistan and uzbeks. Jointly we can smash the paki-taliban nexus even if US runs away from the battle.

India does not have civilizational contacts with the Ghilzai branch of the Pashtun. We have lost it.

Posted: **31 Oct 2008 12:27**

vavinash wrote:There is no pro India taliban to talk to. India just needs to firm up its old alliance with NA, Russia, Iran, Tajikistan and uzbeks. Jointly we can smash the paki-taliban nexus even if US runs away from the battle.

The Taliban hold on Afghanistan remained tentative, because the major powers did not recognize them. Secondly the people were not really enthralled by their rule, partly because they could not provide any infrastructure or services. Of course sticks and executions also played a role, but that is a separate issue. So India can provide the Taliban a means of providing their people a more efficient if not necessarily a more benign administration. I am sure the Pushtuns would appreciate that.

We need to remember one thing. Earlier the Taliban was the ISI child and they were somewhat obliged to the Pakjabis. In the mean time much water has flowed down the Indus. Pakistan has been a fickle friend, first being an accomplice in American takeover of Afghanistan in 2001, at times bombing the Taliban, at times raising Lashkars to fight against them, etc. The Taliban have since grown up, and now think much more independently. They will always have issues with the Pakjabis. With Indians far fewer issues. Their problems with India is more of a brainwash problem conducted by their earlier Pakistani minders. Surely we can try to undo that.

Secondly India can also ensure that the definition of good Taliban and bad Taliban takes place differently. Good Taliban should not be just the Sarkari Taliban bred by the Pakistanis. India can look for some dogs of ours in the fight.

India's visiting card should be, "How can we help?", as has been up till now there, and by which respect and affection for India is at an all time high in Afghanistan.

Posted: **31 Oct 2008 12:31**

ramana wrote:Abdul Karim Khoram, the I&B minister is ethnic Pashtun and belongs to H-e-I of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's party. So the attack could be intra-Taliban attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karim_Khoram

Gulbudin Hekmatyar was reported to have taken part in the Makkah talks recently. It could therefore be the handiwork of Taliban/Al Qaeda group that is opposed to these talks. Hekmatyar has been sidelined for a long time now. The US is trying to drive a wedge between the Taliban. IMHO, they will not be very successful.

The Wedge, the Surge and the Awakening tactics are being tried under Gen. Petraeus.

BTW, Khoram, as Culture minister has banned Indian TV channels & soaps recently for polluting their Islamic way of life.

Posted: **31 Oct 2008 16:59**

US and NATO commanders are not initiating offensive operations against Taliban. They keep their forces in fortified compounds and only respond when attacked.

The only exception is the South on the Pakistan border. There, too, US, British, Danish and Afghanistan forces stage only occasional attacks, while the other foreign contingents are prevented by their governments from proactive combat, except in self-defense.

Even in the South, US commanders say US-British tactics are outdated and too sluggish to cope with swiftly changing conditions in the field and keep up with the Taliban’s lightening movements from place to place by vehicle, animal or on foot.
-----------------------
But many field operatives reckon that it is too late to start recruitingthe Pakhtun tribes(My comment: Note what I said in the TSP forum about Petraeus toying with the idea of sending Iraq style militia in Afghan/TSP tribal areas. ) after seven years of warfare. There are many Pashtun chiefs who are just sitting on the fence, watching.

Every US raid on their turf causes these chiefs to run to the Taliban.

Mushy most certainly played both sides of the conflict, Zardari, does not look like attacking Taliban-al Qaeda sanctuaries in TSP, although he pledged support for the US war, if the US helped him get elected.

Zardari has lost no time in picking up the contacts cultivated by his slain wife Benazir Bhutto in circles associated with Taliban.

Posted: **31 Oct 2008 17:24**

i think the only thing that will work in afghanistan is to keep the paks and wahabbis out and buy out the least unfriendly side and have them take over. military presence and hearts and minds will not win here

Posted: **31 Oct 2008 20:39**

I think the Embassy was bombed precisely for the reason that Ghilzais were being cultivated.

Pashtun chiefs always sit on the fence and join the winning side for the winning side wont win unless they join. So thats the vicious circle. Its coralling TSP that will convivne them which is the winning side. And US/UK will nurture TSP as long as India is there.

The game is not over till India does the needful taking advantage of the clogging elsewhere.

Posted: **31 Oct 2008 23:36**

There is a *serious* manpower problem for the West in Afghanistan, and always has been.

Military offensives can displace insurgents from an area, and from control over communities in that area

*Securing* success in Counter-insurgency means maintaining and enduring presence in a community. Without that insurgents will creep back in to the vacuum.

Neither the current Afghan government, nor the West has enough manpower to do that (neither did the Soviets or their partners the Afghan communist government, which despite its weakness attempted to violently force reforms of a kind that would have been difficult for the population to accept even in the best of circumstances).

Instead they conduct spoling attacks, which prevent insurgents from concentrating forces to the point where they can take control of those few areas where the state does have a presence.

This was the problem in Iraq as well. The way around it was to turn local communities from footballs in the conflict, sick of being kicked around and fought over in to players in their own right, by giving them money and guns *directly*, instead of handing to a waiting for a weak and ineffective state.

Of course there are additional problems with such an approach in Afghanistan at this point. It will not defeat the Taliban, only deny it victory. The ultimate problem remains the historical difficulty of consolidating the Afghan state's internal legitimacy and reach.

Posted: **01 Nov 2008 18:14**

This will go under subscription in a few days so posting in full.

'To Talk To Terrorists Is Like Frying Snowballs'
The Indian ambassador in Afghanistan on why his embassy or its staff didn't celebrate Diwali this year and what it means to stay back after the July 7 bombings
AUNOHITA MOJUMDAR ON JAYANT PRASAD
Outlook India
The year 2008 has been one of the most challenging for both Afghanistan as well as India's presence here. For one, the July 7 bombing of the Indian embassy killed five of its staff, including two diplomats, shocking the international community as well as the Afghans. Worse, the security situation continues to deteriorate here amidst talk of negotiating with the Taliban, rearming the tribal militia and increasing the presence of international troops. Simultaneously, pressure has been mounted on Pakistan to deal with the sanctuaries of terrorism on its soil.

The Indian embassy or its staff didn't celebrate Diwali to commiserate with their colleagues who lost their lives. On that day, however, Indian ambassador to Afghanistan Jayant Prasad talked to Aunohita Mojumdar. Excerpts:

Indian Embassy Bombing

The Indian government has identified the ISI as the perpetrator or the brains behind the July 7 blasts. What's your assessment about how far Pakistan was complicit in it?

It's not for me to speculate on the details of this event which is still being investigated by concerned agencies here. Suffice it for me to underline what is publicly known: that there was complicity and support, on the basis of which we were alerted before the attack. We had specific warnings on June 23 and July 1 on the imminence of a terrorist strike on the Indian mission. Which is why we were able to take precautionary measures. Unfortunately, we lost five of our colleagues, but the number of Afghans who died in the area contiguous to the embassy was 54 and over 100 seriously injured. But for the protective measures we were able to take, the embassy might have come crashing down that morning. That protective measure was based on specific intelligence inputs from friendly governments.

What impact did the traumatic event have on you and your feelings about being here?

I have thought a great deal about that event and I'm ready to talk freely about the collective impact of this tragic incident on the members of this mission. It had an impact in general, and specifically it had a different impact. The general impact was to make us aware of the fragility of the situation here in Afghanistan and the fragility of life itself.

There was a more immediate impact caused by confronting the process of senseless killing of five of our dear colleagues. All of us were shaken initially because the event challenged our conventional assumptions about human behaviour. We came face to face with the human propensity for evil, death and destruction. But I'd say, paradoxically, the incident had an impact that was opposite to that intended by the perpetrator of the attack. They had sought to weaken our resolve and capacity to work in Afghanistan. Actually, the staff officers rallied around in a most admirable way. Not one official opted to return to India though the option was offered, since posts in the embassy and all consulates are volunteer posts in Afghanistan.

In fact one officer who had earlier sought to return to India for family reasons came to me soon after the incident and asked for a week's leave to go to India. He wanted to explain to his wife that he had decided to stay on in Kabul because he felt impelled to do so by the sacrifice of his colleagues and that he was staying for that reason and not staying away from his family for any other reasons. Mrs Malti Rao and Mrs Sunita Mehta took the remains of their (respective) husbands, Venkat Rao and Brig Mehta, back to India the same day in the evening in the special aircraft that the government had flown in for the purpose. They displayed exemplary courage and dignity. That too was inspiring for the officers and staff of the region.

The Indian government's reaction was that India remained fully committed to its assistance for rebuilding Afghanistan.One final element was the supportive reaction of the Afghan people and government. It provided us great psychological support. The governor of a province I had not met called to say India and Indians were sweating it out in Afghanistan for the development of this country and now that Indian diplomats and official had been killed in a terrorist attack, the bond of sweat had become a bond of blood. And I think this was the sentiment that sustained us.

After every such incident, most of the international community hunkers down and indeed that very day most institutions were on high alert and most international personnel had their movement restricted. Did you consider closing down the embassy at any point?

Well, everything was shattered in the mission and all the windows and doors had broken. Luckily there was no major structural damage. The consular wing, which was our public dealing wing, had completely come down. We couldn’t use the embassy building for two days, so we were functioning from the courtyard. But I must say that even the local people did not hunker down. The foreign minister, Dr (Rangir Dadfar) Spanta, was on the spot 20 minutes after the incident when he was told by the security there could be a follow-on attack and he was told not to come. But he was still there. The defence minister General (Rahim)Wardak was there soon thereafter at Brigadier Ravi Mehta’s residence together with the National Security Adviser. The French ambassador walked into the broken chancery soon after, showing great courage and completely disregarding his own security instructions. So I think there was tremendous solidarity. Members of parliament walked into the chancery that evening while the special team from India was still there. The deputy speaker of the Wolesi jirga walked across. He is a neighbour. So it was not as if we hunkered down because Indians don’t hunker down and terrorists incidents are not new to us so we have a normal way of dealing with the situation and I would say that there is nothing special about the officers and men of the Indian mission and that this is the way any other Indian mission would have reacted.

Democracy in Afghanistan

How do you view the situation here today? The concept of building democracy in Afghanistan -- there are some things very different from the way we would build democracy. You have a Parliament without political parties, and now the concept of rearming the militias because you cannot build a national army very fast. Is this what is needed here now? Does this need a change of direction?

We have a very well established of Indian diplomacy: we do not really believe that a democratic model can be exported to another environment. It is sui generis to societal structure and historical traditions of every society. It is really for the Afghan people to sit and decide as to what constitutional make up they should have and what kind of accommodations they should experiment with. After all, the Afghan Constitution was evolved through a process of the loya jirga and it is a fledgling democracy--it is very new. It has to develop the conventions and practices over a period of time. If you look at our own experiment -- the decentralisation to the third tier of government -- that came 50 years after our Constitution. So you’ll have to give this experiment more time.

There's a general assumption shared across the spectrum that the situation has become much worse than it was in previous years, that there has been progressive deterioration. Still, people have not lost hope. I feel there's a silver lining to the situation today. That there was an incremental deterioration in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and now you have a precipitate decline in security.There's a crisis now on our hands. But a crisis tends to concentrate the mind. There is a lot of churning, thinking and consultation and something good might come out of the process.

India-Afghanistan

Can you define the special relationship between Afghanistan and India and how this has changed?

There was a hiatus in the India-Afghanistan relationship which has been a strong relationship since independence. From the period 1979 onwards, we lost contact with the Afghan people though there were government to government relations. Then there was the period from 1992-96 when there was a gap -- the mujahideen were fighting amongst themselves -- and then the Taliban came between 1996 and 2001. So in the present context we are looking at end 2001 and beginning 2002.

The relationship between India and Afghanistan goes back to cultural and civilization ties but the essence of it today is to build a modern partnership. Our expectations of our involvement in Afghanistan are fairly simple and straightforward. We want the unity, integrity, stability and prosperity of Afghan people and Afghan society. There is absolutely a full consonance of interests between India and Afghanistan.

You mentioned the period between 1996 and 2001. At that time also, India had close relations in trying to help the Afghan people counter the Taliban...

Yes, indeed. We were one of the few voices which wanted a more active support for those who had the vision of a democratic and pluralist Afghanistan and we did provide assistance to Commander Masood at that time and in that context links had not been broken off completely. But we were not able to be present in all parts of Afghanistan as we were earlier and as we are today.

International Presence in Afghanistan

What is our view of the huge international presence here--both the military and non military?

The international presence here is based on successive annual UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and India is happy that countries involved here are working within the UN mandate. The only supplement is that this process has to be much more Afghan-led. This realisation is now there in the commitment to build the Afghan army and has to reflect itself in other domains.

Another supplement to the international engagement would be that a prerequisite for success in Afghanistan is greater regional cooperation. Afghanistan as a landlocked country has always done well when it has served as a trade hub between central and south Asia and between Iran and South Asia. And now, of course, given the importance of energy, Afghanistan should ideally become a trade energy and transportation hub between two different parts of Asia. It would be a duty of all Afghanistan’s neighbours to be helpful and supportive in achieving this objective.

India-Afghanistan != India-Pakistan-Afghanistan

How concerned are you about the stability of the region, especially what we have seen over the last one year?

Let me not mince words to say that we are happy that Afghanistan and Pakistan are now engaged in some kind of revival of Track-II diplomacy. With the return of democracy in Pakistan, we hope it will have a good impact in tackling problems. Currently, a mini jirga is taking place between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These are positive signs in the sense that if the parameters under discussion are what were decided earlier, it might have a positive impact. The loya jirga itself in its major decision last year talked about not allowing sanctuaries and training centres for terrorists and that would be the key to resolving the problems being faced by Afghanistan.

Is there anything to indicate that Pakistan is changing its attitude?

This has to be tested against actual performance.Expression of intent, I'm afraid, is not going to be enough.h.

There are some who think the relationship between India and Pakistan is intricately linked to that between Afghanistan and Pakistan and that movement on the Indo-Pak relationship is necessary for movement on Afghan-Pak relations.

Absolutely not. India does not view its relationship with any third country predicated on, or in reaction to, or refraction of its relationship to any other country.

Improvement in the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan and Pakistan and India will have a positive resonance but that doesn't mean they are linked. We are conducting our own composite dialogue with Pakistan which came under a certain strain after the July 7 attack on the embassy. We are hoping that the conducive atmosphere for resuming our dialogue with Pakistan is in the process of being created. We have already engaged in a full dialogue with Pakistan across the spectrum for that reason.

The basic issue is we don't see how that (Indo-Pak relations) is related to the problem of dealing with insurgency in Afghanistan or how that's related to improvement in Pak-Afghan relations.

But Pakistan seems to think so.

Pakistan seems paranoid about our development activity here and we have, at different levels, tried to tell them about what we are doing here. Pakistan has a mission here and it must be reporting on what we are doing here. What we are doing is very transparent and open. We have modest-sized consulates overseeing development activity and we have a medium-sized embassy in Kabul. Most of my diplomatic colleagues here marvel at how we manage with so few people running a development assistance programme, the envelope of which is over a billion dollars today.

What are the implications of the talks that the Afghan government is initiating with the Taliban?

Our view is that it is unexceptionable for all governments to talk to all alienated individuals and groups. We do that too. But we have to be circumspect about the circumstances in which we talk and with whom we talk. Evidently, you cannot talk with anyone outside the pale. For instance, terrorists who believe in settling political issues with violence. Or with those who do not accept democracy and political pluralism. Or do not believe in human rights and fundamental freedoms and those that don't operate within constitutional bounds. If you do, then it is to accept that you can fry snowballs.

What India is doing in Afghanistan

How is the Indian assistance different from that of others?

Indian presence and Indian support are different from how other countries approach Afghanistan in many significant ways. We are present all over Afghanistan and we are in all major domains of activity: humanitarian assistance, infrastructure projects, small development projects with quick gestation and capacity building in government.

We came in with humanitarian assistance which meant, for example, setting up camps for putting the Jaipur limb on disabled people, providing food assistance and medical services. We set up five medical missions which still continue and we promised a million tonnes of foodgrain assistance which we unfortunately could not ship across to Afghanistan through Pakistan because of objections and then we decided to convert it into high protein biscuits.

The second part of our program includes the three major infrastructure projects -- the Nimroz project connecting Seistan province in Iran to the Kandahar-Herat highway, the Pul-e-Khumri transmission line and the Chimtala sub station which is part of a scheme we are working together with the World Bank and ADB to bring Uzbek electricity to Kabul which will be completed and handed over by end-November this year.The third big project in this sector is in the Western province of Herat where we are building the 42 mw Salma dam on the Hari Rud river.

The third element is something we introduced three years ago when Dr Manmohan Singh came here. He wanted us to think of inventive schemes where we had quick gestation projects, not executed by Indian agencies but by the local provinces. And in the social sector, setting up clinics and schools, even small irrigation works, electrification, micro hydel or putting in an array of solar cells for powering institutions. This is called the small development project program. We had 50 such projects -- typically less than $1 million each -- in all parts of Afghanistan, conceived and executed by local and provincial governance. This has been a great success. The first part of this program is over. In fact, the projects are spread all over Afghanistan and this is the second major aspect of our assistance that, unlike other donors who have their provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) in particular areas, or who have concentrated in certain areas, we are located in terms of development assistance all over the entire territory of Afghanistan. We have projects in every part of Afghanistan from the solar power of a teacher’s training institute in Badakshan in the Northeast to a cold storage for fresh fruit in Kandahar in the South. We have in the South West this unique road construction project in Nimroz which has been completed and handed over. In the heart of Afghanistan, which is Kabul, we supplied Tata buses, we have set up the Sulabh shauchalaya (public conveniences) which are extremely popular and the Pul e Khumri transmission line to bring electricity to Kabul.

The fourth element of our aid, which I consider the most important, is to rebuild the state structure in Afghanistan and here let me say that we have the biggest state building program in Afghanistan compared to any other country and these are the biggest programs that India has for any third country. From both ends, it is a first. We offer 500 placements in our institutions under the ITEC program.

Another element is the 500 undergraduate and graduate scholarships that we are giving to Afghan nationals to study in India. Apart from this we have specially conceived programs for special people. Right now, in Kabul, we have two programs -- one of which is being run by SEWA to train 1000 war widows and destitute and orphans. They are being trained in four different types of occupations so that they can stand on their own feet. Then the CII is executing another development program here to train 1000 Afghan youngsters in different trades like masonry, plumbing, machining electric work and women in industrial stitching and tailoring.

If these programs are successful then they can be replicated in other parts of Afghanistan. Without spreading our personnel all over Afghanistan, because we have done these programmes smartly. The Afghan trainers in these programs have been trained by us and they are the ones who are imparting training. We are developing a local capacity for Afghans to train themselves. We have also conceived a system of capacity development within Afghan national institutions, especially the central ministries where we have some middle rank officials from India on deputation here in a trilateral agreement in cooperation with UNDP.

Unlike consultants who are placed by other foreign governments in ministries, here we have made clear that our personnel are strictly there as mentors and guides and for developing training modules for maximising the output of Afghan pubic servants. This has been a great success because there is a demand for more such mentors and guides to be brought from India.Currently, we have 25 of them working in different departments in Kabul. They are strongly discouraged from giving advice on taking decisions. Their terms of reference preclude them from this type of activity. The ministries and departments who do not have CAP officers are asking for them which is a good sign.

All our projects and programmes are completely Afghan-led in the sense that we are not executing a single project or providing any type of assistance that the Afghan government has not asked us for.

And if I may say so, it may sound like a boast but we have taken on some of the most difficult projects that have been executed here. Take, for example, the Nimroz road project handed over last month. This was a 218 km road which is different from the tremendous road resurfacing program undertaken by many western donors all over Afghanistan. This is a completely brand new road which has been built in a desert area without any previous foundation.

The Salma dam project is being constructed in an inhospitable terrain, 170 kms away from any road head. Also power transmission lines being built in collaboration with the World Bank and the ADB. The hardest part of the project was to bring the power lines over the Salang pass and this was higher than any place the power grid corporation has built such lines anywhere, and this was successfully done. The most difficult part of the line construction came our way, so we are very proud of having successfully executed these projects. Of the three infrastructure projects, one is complete; the second will be completed in two months time and the third, where we have some real serious logistical difficulties, is somewhat behind schedule, i.e. the Salma dam.

Is there also a different perception of viewing assistance to this country that is different from other donors?

What I feel is that we are doing things in this domain that are natural to us, which we have done in our neighbourhood earlier and we can’t actually think of doing things in a different way. Because, many countries -- who are unfamiliar with south Asian culture topography, society -- bring their foreign models here and they go through a process of learning. Our advantage is that we didn’t have to have a long learning curve here.

Posted: **01 Nov 2008 20:05**

Good to read about the various programs, that India is carrying on in Afghanistan.

Posted: **01 Nov 2008 21:08**

S, X-Post in the Great Game thread please for continuity.

Posted: **02 Nov 2008 20:26**

RajeshA wrote:Good to read about the various programs, that India is carrying on in Afghanistan.

Am certain that there will be amny more which he wouldn't have outlined for obvious reasons!!!

(as a jingo,atleast i hope so)

Posted: **03 Nov 2008 12:34**

India needs to publicise its development activities in Afghanistan and publicise it well.

This is especially so if we are spending a billiion dollars as claimed on this foreign aid mission.

Next to the US, that is the biggest aid contribution from any single country made to Afghanistan if I'm not mistaken. The rest have just been making pledges of aid but delivering little.

Posted: **03 Nov 2008 15:20**

sum wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Good to read about the various programs, that India is carrying on in Afghanistan.
Am certain that there will be amny more which he wouldn't have outlined for obvious reasons!!!
(as a jingo,atleast i hope so)

India gifted Airbus aircraft to Ariana and has also been training ANA officers in Indian military schools apart from imparting training to Afghan Police personnel and Administration staff in Mussorie. India also revived the Indira Gandhi Hospital in Kabul after the Taliban were evicted and also rebilt a school that we were running there. Truly, India's involvement in Afghanistan has been tremendous.

Posted: **05 Nov 2008 19:25**

British Intelligence brought a taleban represantative to London to meet with British officials. Also travelled to France and Germany. Apparently the talks between west and taliban brokered by Bandar and Prince Turki haven't come to anything.

Bharat Rakshak

Afghanistan News & Discussion

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion: Part IV