Bharat Rakshak

RajeshA wrote:Not A Good Time To Be A Pushy Pushtun: Strategy Page

A major defeat for the drug gangs is the Japanese crackdown on the export of acetic anhydride. This is the weak link of the heroin business. It's all a matter of upsetting the processing of the annual production of 10,000 tons of opium (worth about $45 a pound) to 1,300 tons of heroin (worth about $1,600 a pound). This requires 2,600 tons of acetic anhydride, an industrial chemical. This is a clear liquid that is flammable and poisonous if you inhale it. The key to crippling the Taliban money machine is intercepting the chemical needed to convert opium into heroin. Japan has been a major source of illegal exports of this chemical to Pakistan (where it is smuggled from Karachi to Afghanistan.) All industrial nations have problems with the growing flood of Afghan heroin, and thus have an incentive to help with the international crackdown on illegal acetic anhydride exports. While heroin is compact, and can be smuggled in a few kilograms ("keys") at a time, acetic anhydride is a bulk industrial product that is hazardous to handle and difficult to hide. There are dozens of smugglers active supplying over 200 tons of acetic anhydride a month to the Afghan drug lords. These entrepreneurs do not have their own private armies, and tend to operate in well policed areas. Despite the incentives drawing in many players, the acetic anhydride smugglers are a vulnerability for the Afghan drug lords, and their Taliban employees.

Obama's envoy Holbrooke 'in heated row' with Karzai

Haroon Siddique
guardian.co.uk, Friday 28 August 2009 02.02 BST

The US special envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, had a heated row with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, in the aftermath of the election, according to reports. Sources described the meeting as "a dramatic bust up" and "explosive", according to the BBC.

Holbrooke is said to have challenged Karzai over allegations of ballot-stuffing and fraud and suggested that a run-off to decide the next president – which would be held if no candidate obtained more than 50% of the votes – would boost the credibility of the democratic process.

Karzai reportedly reacted angrily to Holbrooke's criticisms, which also focused on deals struck by the incumbent president with warlords in a bid to garner support before the election. The tense meeting, held on the day after the poll, was said to have been noticeably briefer than a discussion Holbrooke held with Karzai's main rival for president, Abdullah Abdullah.

Abdullah and international observers have been critical of the conduct of the vote. Britain's ambassador, Mark Sedwill, said on Wednesday that the authorities were investigating 200 allegations of electoral fraud, 35 to 40 of which could be "material to the outcome" if upheld.

With 17% of the votes counted, Karzai had 45% of the votes compared with Abdullah's 35%, according to the official election commission. The final election result is not expected until 17 September, with a preliminary result expected between 3 and 7 September.

A spokesman for the US embassy in Kabul rejected reports that there had been shouting, or that Holbrooke had stormed out of the meeting. A spokesman for the presidential palace also denied that there had been a row.

Relations between the US and Afghanistan have been strained since Barack Obama entered the White House. Senior figures in Washington have criticised the alleged incompetence and corruption of Karzai's administration, while Karzai has hit back by insisting he is not a puppet of the international community.

US plans to push for a western-style chief executive to work under the president are seen as reflecting a lack of faith in the ability of whoever wins the election to curb corruption and extend the influence of the Kabul government in the face of Taliban advances.

From ENRON Entanglements to UNOCAL Bringing the Taliban to Texas and Controlling Afghanistan-By Tom Turnipseed

The Bush Administration's entanglement with ENRON is beginning to unravel as it finally admits that Enron executives entered the White House six times last year to secretly plan the Administration's energy policy with Vice-President Cheney before the collapse of the Texas-based energy giant. Meanwhile, even more trouble for our former-Texas-oil-man-turned-President is brewing with reports that unveil UNOCAL, another big energy company, for being in bed with the Taliban, along with the U.S. government in a major, continuing effort to construct pipelines through Afghanistan from the petroleum-rich Caspian Basin in Central Asia. Beneath their burkas, UNOCAL is being exposed for giving the five star treatment to Taliban Mullahs in the Lone Star State in 1997. The "evil-ones" were also invited to meet with U.S. government officials in Washington, D.C.

According to a December 17, 1997 article in the British paper, The Telegraph, headlined, "Oil barons court Taliban in Texas," the Taliban was about to sign a "£2 billion contract with an American oil company to build a pipeline across the war-torn country. ... The Islamic warriors appear to have been persuaded to close the deal, not through delicate negotiation but by old-fashioned Texan hospitality. ... Dressed in traditional salwar khameez,Afghan waistcoats and loose, black turbans, the high-ranking delegation was given VIP treatment during the four-day stay."

Due on-stream in three years, Kashagan is one of a dwindling group of giant oilfields, as cheaper and more accessible ones dry up. Only 11 such giant fields were found in the 1990s, down from 29 in the 1960s, according to investment bank Simmons & Co.

‘All the big oilfields have now been gobbled up and Kashagan is the last pearl in the crown of the world oil industry. That's why oil companies are fighting for it so stubbornly,’ Poletayev said.

Expected to produce the equivalent of 10 per cent of Europe's energy needs once at the height of its production, Kashagan can make Kazakhstan a new global source of non-OPEC energy.

It is at the heart of a tussle between Russia, China and Europe, reflecting the challenges faced by the West in maintaining its place as the market of choice for oil producers, and Europe's battle to reduce its reliance on Russia for energy.

The main question is where the oil will go. One option is to ship it by tanker across the Caspian Sea to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline that runs to Europe. BP leads that pipeline, but is not a partner in Kashagan.

Such a route is likely to irritate Russia: Moscow wants to boost its role as Europe's leading energy supplier by persuading operators to feed the oil into a separate, Russia-bound line run by the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, for transit to Europe.

But the oil could also flow east to energy-hungry China, or — a more controversial possibility — to southern markets via Iran. No single operator holds a deciding majority. The consortium's media department in Kazakhstan said it could not comment on possible export routes.

Afghanistan- A War For Gas And Oil Pipelines…
August 5, 2009 ·

Afghanistan: The BBC reported the US special envoy to Afghanistan, Holbrooke, held an "explosive" meeting with Afghan President Karzai about the 20 August election. In strong language Holbrooke reportedly raised US concerns about ballot-stuffing and fraud, as claimed by a number of candidates. The US envoy also supposedly said a second-round run-off could make the election process more “credible.”

The BBC reported a number of senior sources have confirmed the details of the meeting between Karzai and Holbrooke, on 21 August, the day after the elections. They described the meeting as "explosive" and "a dramatic bust-up". Holbrooke is said to have twice raised the idea of holding a second round run-off because of concerns about the voting process.

Comment: At this point, the press reports show that the pro-Karzai vote count is steadily pulling away from that for Abdullah Abdullah, his closest competitor. Fraud or not, Karzai appears to be on a course to win the election in the first round.

If that is the case, most Afghans won’t care, considering him the lesser of two evils. The Taliban already denounced the election as illegitimate, but they think all elections are illegitimate, unless they hold them. The Pashtun south voted to survive, by not voting.

On the other hand, should the Tajik Abdullah Abdullah win, most observers predict nation-wide rioting will occur, against the northerner. A so-called western-style “credible outcome” is not possible in Afghanistan without generating violence. Besides, the “credible outcome” is irrelevant to the Afghans; it is a marketing piece in the US and NATO countries as a metric of progress. {So who is US fooling? and what makes Hole broke think he is some Viceroy?}

During the Soviet occupation, outbursts of this kind, assuming the report is accurate, were common and resulted in strained relations that helped shorten the Soviet occupation. The Afghans proved at that time they really could take care of their affairs without outside help. The post-Soviet Najibullah government survived for two years, but the process was neither antiseptic nor bloodless. The Warsaw Pact collapsed sooner than the Najibullah government.

This revives a nagging NightWatch question. Before and during the Soviet occupation, the Afghan Army was almost as good the Pakistan Army, man per man. Afghan pilots flew modern Soviet aircraft in the 1980s. Soldiers manned and operated modern air defenses. The monarchy and the socialist republic fielded over 200,000 soldiers, who were glad to get out of the village and enjoyed getting a steady paycheck.

The forces loyal to Kabul made the central government the warlord of warlords. Only the US introduction of the Stinger missile into the arsenal of the mujahedin in 1986 undermined a successful security system that kept Islamic radicalism in check.

The question is: how come the Soviets could sustain a large and effective Afghan Army between 1979 and 1992, but the US cannot after 8 years, thousands of American dead and wounded and billions of dollars of aid?

The answer seems to be that the Soviet-built Afghan Army was primarily recruited from Pashtuns and built upon a foundation of Soviet support since the 1920s. The US-built Afghan National Army was started from scratch, for reasons that remain a mystery; was underpowered, under-equipped and under-manned from the start in 2001; and is recruited from Tajiks and Uzbeks from the north.

Pashtuns seem to make the better soldiers vice killers, but the Taliban have the Pashtun recruiting franchise. Feedback welcome.

US wants 20,000 more troops to fight Taliban

British and American soldiers to shoulder brunt of surge's next phase
By Kim Sengupta in Kabul

The commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan will ask for 20,000 more international troops as part of his new strategic plan for the alliance's war against a resurgent Taliban, The Independent has learned.

The demand from General Stanley McChrystal will almost certainly lead to more British soldiers being sent to the increasingly treacherous battlegrounds of Helmand, the Taliban heartland, despite growing opposition to the war.

General McChrystal, tasked with turning the tide in the battle against the insurgency on the ground, has given a presentation of his draft report to senior Afghan government figures in which he also proposes raising the size of the Afghan army and police force.

Related articles
Pakistan suicide bomber training camp destroyed
American rift with Karzai worsens over 'drug-dealer' ally
Leading article: A general who spoke military truth to political power

But the request for troop reinforcements will come at a time of intensifying public debate about the role of the Nato mission. Last month saw a record number of troop deaths and injuries in a conflict that has claimed more than 200 British soldiers since the start of the US-led invasion in 2001. British losses rose sharply last month with 22 deaths, making it the bloodiest month for UK forces since the Falklands war. August has been the deadliest month for American troops in the eight-year war. Most of the deaths have come from lethal roadside bombs that Western troops appear unable to combat effectively. For the first time, the American public now views the fight against the Taliban as unwinnable, according to the most recent opinion polls.

The conduct of the Afghan government has not helped the mood on either side of the Atlantic. While US, British and other foreign troops are dying in what is supposedly a mission to rid Afghanistan of al-Qa'ida militants and make the country safe for democracy, the incumbent President stands accused of forging alliances with brutal warlords and overseeing outright fraud in an attempt to "steal" the national elections, the results of which are still being counted.

Last week, General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, intervened against a backdrop of heightened debate about the UK's military role. He stressed that the objective of the war was "to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a sanctuary for al-Qa'ida and other extremists".

According to General McChrystal's draft plan, the number of Afghan troops would rise from 88,000 to 250,000, and the police force from 82,000 to 160,000 by 2012. These increases are higher than expected, with previous suggestions that the totals would be raised to 134,000 and 120,000 for the army and police respectively.

The US commander will, however, ask other Nato countries to send further reinforcements and will travel shortly to European capitals to discuss the issue. It is widely expected that the UK will send up to 1,500 more troops. At the same time, a force of 700 sent to help provide security for the Afghan elections last week on a temporary basis will become a permanent presence.

Following the withdrawal from Iraq, British military commanders, backed by the then Defence Secretary, John Hutton, had recommended in the spring that up to 2,500 extra troops could be sent to Afghanistan. However, following lobbying from the Treasury, Gordon Brown agreed to only the temporary deployment of 700. Criticism of the decision by senior officers has led, it is claimed, to Downing Street changing its stance.

General McChrystal, who replaced Gen David McKiernan as Nato chief in Afghanistan earlier this year, was originally due to produce his strategic report this month, but decided to wait until after the Afghan presidential election. According to Western and Afghan sources he is continuing to take soundings from various quarters and the finalised document is due out after it becomes clear whether or not a second round of voting is needed to decide the outcome of the poll.

As part of an initial troop surge overseen by General McChrystal, the US has already committed to boosting its forces from 31,000 to 68,000 this year. However Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan was told by commanders in Afghanistan last week that those numbers would not be enough for what is being viewed as defining months of fighting to come.

In his meeting with Afghan officials, General McChrystal is reported to have stated that the extra troops would be needed to enforce a new policy of maintaining a presence in the areas captured from insurgents. This will provide security for residents and allow reconstruction and development.

Other Nato nations have the option of focusing on the training of Afghan security forces. However, say American officials, failure by Nato countries to "step up to the plate" would mean the shortfall would be covered by the US.

Diplomatic sources have also revealed that plans are being drawn up to sign a "compact" between Afghanistan and the US which will reiterate Washington's commitment to the security of Afghanistan while the Afghan government pledges to combat corruption and reinforce governance. Unlike previous international agreements over Afghanistan, the compact will be bilateral, without any other governments being involved. The timing of the agreement is due to coincide with a visit by Mr Karzai to New York, if, as expected, he emerges the election winner.

Gordon Brown paved the way for peace talks with Taliban warlords on a surprise visit to Afghanistan yesterday.

The Prime Minister signalled the major shift in strategy as he met British troops, American commanders and Afghan leaders in Helmand province.

A source close to Mr Brown said: "The more reconciliation the better." {wah, wah}

The move came as a Royal Marine was killed during a foot patrol in Helmand - bringing the UK death toll to 208 - and as a raft of opinion polls showed most Britons want our troops pulled out.

Mr Brown also announced new stateof-the-art equipment to protect our 9,000-strong force from deadly roadside bombs.

Officials said 270 new armoured vehicles were on their way to the front line, with extra drones and unmanned spy planes to scour the ground.

Mr Brown also revealed that efforts to train Afghan soldiers and police to take over the burden of battling Taliban insurgents were to be accelerated - so Britain can plan an earlier exit.

But it was the suggestion that the allies are prepared to sit down with moderate Taliban leaders that signalled the biggest change in policy.

During his visit to the sprawling Camp Bastion HQ, Mr Brown held talks with General Stan McChrystal, the man in charge of US President Barack Obama's review of the conflict.

The allies insisted there will be no amnesty for murderous Taliban fighters.

But a diplomatic official said: "After the election a lot of people will tilt one way or the other - but many are not really committed to the Taliban agenda. They are with them for tactical reasons and can be brought back into the mainstream."

In a long-awaited review of strategy, General Stanley McChrystal compares the campaign to a bull's futile charges against a matador - with the bull getting weaker with each small "cut" that is inflicted.

His graphic analogy forms the centrepiece of a wholesale review of the way the eight-year-long war in Afghanistan has been prosecuted, which will be delivered to US Central Command on Monday.

Coalition strategy in Afghanistan failing, admits US

David Kilcullen, a senior adviser to McChrystal.

"A government that is losing to a counter-insurgency isn't being outfought, it is being out-governed. And that's what's happening in Afghanistan," Kilcullen told Australia's National Press Club.

Afghanistan strategy not working, US commander McChrystal to tell ObamaTop American commander to liken US military to bull charging at matador

Massoud was assassinated two days before the September 11 attacks. Two al Qaeda operatives of Tunisian origin posing as Moroccan-Belgian journalists met with Massoud to "interview" him. A camera was stuffed with explosives, which the operatives detonated, killing Massoud. Four days later, Fahim took over as the effective leader of the Northern Alliance.

Massoud's assassination has been widely interpreted as an important precursor to the 9/11 attacks. As the 9/11 Commission documented, al Qaeda's killing of Massoud was coordinated with a Taliban offensive to destroy the Northern Alliance once and for all, and both might have been linked to al Qaeda's plans to attack the United States at roughly the same time. The idea was to eliminate Massoud, the Northern Alliance's most capable leader, destroy the Northern Alliance as an effective fighting force, and enable the Taliban to take full control over all of Afghanistan. This would have made it harder for the U.S. military to respond to the 9/11 attacks by using the Northern Alliance to go after al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

But this strategic logic could also take in personally ambitious figures in the Northern Alliance willing to cooperate with al Qaeda to advance their own agendas. We know the Northern Alliance warlord Abdul Rasul Sayyaf facilitated the assassins' entry into Northern Afghanistan. But what of Fahim? It was his job to vet foreign visitors. So how would he explain the fact that two fake journalists from Tunisia, posing as Moroccans, with Belgian passports -- along with their equipment, including the camera that they proposed to use to record their interview with Massoud -- were never physically screened?

Hillary Mann Leverett, Middle East analyst and former State Department and National Security Council official. She is the CEO of STRATEGA, a political risk consultancy. She was the director of Iran and Afghanistan Affairs at the National Security Council. From 2001 to 2003, she negotiated with the Iranians over Afghanistan, al-Qaeda and Iraq.

This means, first of all, getting everyone to the table who needs to be there -- including Hamas, an organic movement with deep roots and broad reach that speaks for many Palestinians. It also means keeping them {Israelis} at the table, even when, especially in the short-term, Palestinians continue to try to attack Israelis.

Obama will also need to manage Israel's threat perceptions so that Israeli actions do not eviscerate possibilities for diplomatic progress. Israel frequently overstates the strategic significance of threats to its security -- as with home-made rockets landing in Sderot. At the same time, Israel commonly understates or ignores the destructive impact of its own actions, whether in the form of ongoing settlement activity or grossly disproportionate exercises of military force.

In his first comments on the Middle East following his inauguration, Obama said: "Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats" (emphasis added). We can only hope that the inclusion of the adjective "legitimate" means that the president will be willing to take a significant, even critical, step beyond President Bush and President Clinton's reflexive and uncritical endorsement of anything Israel did in its self-defined pursuit of "security." If President Obama is not willing to do this, then the man who helped bring peace to Northern Ireland will soon be relegated to the long list of failed U.S. envoys who preceded him in the Middle East.

West faces losing battle over Afghan poll fraud

(Ahmad Masood/Reuters)
Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, casts his vote: the West fears that huge fraud has seriously tarnished the election
James Hider in Kabul and Tim Reid in Washington

Widespread and systematic fraud during the Afghan presidential elections has tarnished the legitimacy of any future government and undermined the Nato campaign there, Western and Afghan officials have admitted.

Two more British soldiers were killed yesterday and the commander of the Nato forces in Afghanistan warned President Obama that the eight-year war was in a “serious” state and that big changes were needed if victory was to be achieved.

General Stanley McChrystal is understood to have recommended in a strategic review that counter-insurgency efforts be focused on protecting civilians rather than fighting militants.

August was one of Nato’s bloodiest months in Afghanistan, with 74 soldiers killed. More than 300 have died so far this year, making 2009 the worst year for Western forces since the Taleban were overthrown.

Related Links
US faces failure of Afghan elections

The latest British casualties — killed by a bomb while on foot patrol in Helmand — were from 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland. They bring to 19 the number of British troops killed in August.

David Kilcullen, one of the architects of Nato’s anti-insurgency campaign, said that the failure of the Afghan Government to provide basic services in many areas was allowing the Taleban to establish its own courts, hospitals and security. “A government that is losing to a counter-insurgency isn’t being outfought, it is being outgoverned,” he said.

There have been more than 2,500 complaints about the August 20 vote, 691 of them involving serious charges of vote rigging, meaning that they could affect the overall outcome of the election.

One international election observer, who asked not to be named, said: “The pattern is of systematic and widespread fraud, which really does call into question the legitimacy of the election. This is large scale and it is across the country.”

Ahmad Nader Nadery, head of the Afghan Free and Fair Election Foundation, said the scale of the vote rigging was serious. The fraud presents Washington with a dilemma: to back President Karzai, who is already seen as an unreliable partner, after a disputed and discredited first-round victory or to force a second-round run-off. The latter could lead to months of political paralysis and a rapid erosion of support for a war that less half of Americans now view as worthwhile.

SwamyG wrote:So why is Karzai being dumped?

ramana wrote:
Hope this clears up things.

SwamyG wrote:George F. Will - Time to Get Out of Afghanistan. George is a commentator from the Conservative side of politics in Unkilland.

Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

ramana wrote:What do you think he means? And more importantly what did the phrase mean to you?

CRamS wrote:

Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

What does he mean?

Nato air strike in Afghanistan 'kills scores of Taliban militants and civilians'
As many as 40 Afghan civilians were feared to be among the 90 people killed in a Nato air strike that hit two fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban.

By Ben Farmer in Kabul

Members of the security forces walk at the site of a NATO airstrike which destroyed two fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban in northern Kunduz Photo: AFP
Afghan witnesses said the tankers were hit in the early hours of Friday in the northern province of Kunduz as a crowd of villagers gathered round one of the stolen vehicles to collect fuel when it became stranded in a river.

Mahbubullah Sayedi, a spokesman for the provincial government, said: "Some 90 people were killed in this incident and most of them are Taliban.

"A small number of the casualties are local civilians, including a few children who had come to take free fuel."

A spokesman for Nato-led forces said its planes had blown up the trucks and killed a large number of insurgent fighters, but were investigating claims civilians had also died.

The United Nations chief in Afghanistan said he was "very concerned" about reports of civilians casualties. "As an immediate priority, everything possible must be done to ensure that people wounded by this attack are being properly cared for, and that families of the deceased are getting all the help they need," he said.

However, a statement from the German army, which has troops in Kunduz, said 56 militants had been killed, adding that civilians had not been hurt.

Claims of civilian casualties are fiercely contested because they have become a source of intense friction between Afghan officials and President Hamid Karzai's western backers.

Taliban militants have been accused of using civilians as human shields, or deliberately provoking battles in populated areas to incur civilian casualties for propaganda.

The incident is the biggest accusation of civilian deaths since General Stanley McChrystal took charge of Nato-led forces vowing he was more interested in protecting Afghans than hunting the Taliban.

New tactical advice has cut the number of air strikes in recent months.

The Nato spokesman said two tankers carrying fuel for international forces were stolen at 10pm on Thursday evening by a band of insurgents which included Chechen fighters.

They were later spotted on the banks of the Kunduz river, near the Tajikistan border, and blown up "after assessments that only insurgents were present".

Mohammad Daud, 32, who was helping ferry wounded to hospital, said the hijackers had been trying to transport the tankers across a river to villages in Angorbagh.

When one became stuck in the river, the fighters called for villagers to take the fuel.

He said: "Villagers rushed to the fuel tanker with any available container that they had, including water buckets and pots for cooking oil.

"There were 10 to 15 Taliban on top of the tanker. This was when they were bombed. Everyone around the fuel tanker died." Mohammad Sarwar, a tribal elder in the province, said Taliban fighters had hijacked the tankers and were offering fuel to a crowd of people when the crowd was bombed.

"We blame both the Taliban and the government for this." Afghan officials said Chechens were among the dead.

In May, the Afghan government accused United States warplanes of killing 140 civilians in a bombing in Farah province.

A US investigation later put the civilian death toll at 26, though an independent investigation by human rights workers said it was closer to 90.

shyamd wrote:For the first time ever, US has opened contracts with Private contractors to provide protection for the 50 US military bases in Afghanistan. Instead of being confined to protecting facilities or people in rear areas, the firm that wins the contract will need to defend around 50 advanced American army bases throughout the Afghan theatre. Contracts will be awarded in December 1st. So far around 15 companies have expressed interests. Some are already protecting installations such as the US embassy and airports in Afghanistan.

KABUL : Private security guards at the US Embassy in Kabul were pressured to participate in naked pool parties and perform sex acts to gain
promotions or assignment to preferable shifts, reports ABC News.

A guard who is a US military veteran, said top supervisors of the ArmorGroup were not only aware of the "deviant sexual acts" but helped to organise them.

"It was mostly the young guys fresh from the military who were told they had to participate," said the guard.

"They were not gay but they knew what it took to get promoted," said the guard, spoke on condition that ABC News not publish his name.

The State Department said it was investigating the allegations and the circumstances surrounding the photographs which show naked and barely clothed men fondling one another. The guard who spoke with ABC News said the drunken parties had been held regularly for at least a year and a half.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... d=tsmodule
For starters, Laghmani was the only senior Pashtun to hold a key intelligence post. Most are Tajiks from northern Afghanistan who know as little about the troubled Pashtun regions of southern and eastern Afghanistan as an Indiana farm boy would about gangs in the Bronx. Posted in Kandahar and then in Kabul, Laghmani had the contacts and the cunning to catch many Taliban involved in kidnappings, bomb attacks and drug-trafficking.

Laghmani also was the CIA's most reliable Afghan expert on al-Qaeda. A former Afghan security adviser told TIME that Laghmani had knowledge of who within the Taliban were sheltering Osama bin Laden's band. It was his sleuthing that ran down links between the Pakistani intelligence services and the bombers of the Indian embassy in Kabul in 2008. This success made Laghmani powerful enemies in Pakistan, especially those in the intelligence apparatus who still secretly back the Taliban. The Taliban, too, celebrated the kill. "We were looking for him for a long, long time, but today we succeeded," exulted Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid.

ramana wrote:What do you think he means? And more importantly what did the phrase mean to you?

There have been concerns that Pakistan's intelligence agents have been providing intelligence to the Taleban and there is a need to counter this.

A suicide attack last week killed the head of the National Directorate of Security, an Afghan agency equivalent to a combined CIA and FBI.

Karzai 'victory' provokes fresh crisis between Kabul and West

Even opponents of the President have closed ranks behind him after the UN ordered a recount into the disputed election results

By Kim Sengupta in Kabul

A Nato soldier takes position as Afghan police carry a man injured in a blast outside the military airport in Kabul yesterday

Afghanistan was plunged into crisis over its disputed elections yesterday, with Hamid Karzai passing the 50 per cent threshold to make him outright winner but locked in an escalating confrontation with the West over allegations of massive fraud.

To add to the growing chaos, the two monitoring bodies for the election were at loggerheads. A United Nations- backed commission, the Election Complaints Commission (ECC), with Western representatives forming a majority, yesterday ordered a recount of ballots because of the alleged voting malpractice. But that demand was challenged by a second, Afghan-dominated body, the Independent Election Commission (IEC), which went on to publish the results, effectively giving Mr Karzai victory.

In proceedings descending into near farce, the chief electoral officer of the IEC claimed the recounting order had been lost in translation. He had, he continued, sent it back to the ECC "because the Persian version of the document did not match the English version". The official, Daoud Ali Najafi, declared at first that the ECC demand contradicted the polling criteria for the election. He later stated that if the order was indeed to carry out recounts, "we will have to do it, but it will take a long time, maybe two or three months".
Commando killed in raid to free UK journalist

Britain offers to host summit on Afghan future
With almost 92 per cent of the polling sites tallied, Mr Karzai has 54.1 per cent of the vote with his main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, far behind on 28.3 per cent. The rest of the votes to be counted are from the Pashtun south, the President's constituency, which should add to his majority.

Video: Karzai gets ahead with 54.1% of vote

However ballots from more than 600 polling stations have been quarantined and there have been 720 major charges of fraud which could lead to large numbers of votes being declared invalid. In the event of Mr Karzai being stripped of his majority, a run-off would be necessary with Dr Abdullah. However the delay mentioned by Dr Najafi means this would not be possible until the winter, when much of northern Afghanistan is cut off by snow. In that eventuality, the second round could not take place until next spring.

The polls, presented as defining evidence of Afghanistan's democratic evolution and at the centre of American and British policy in the region, have had an increasingly divisive influence in sectarian terms. In the eyes of many in the country, they have brought the democratic process into disrepute.

While Western diplomats and opposition politicians register their disgust over reports of ballot stuffing, a growing number of Afghans, not all of them Karzai supporters, are resentful of what they consider undue foreign influence over the election.

The US and UK have consistently stressed that these elections, unlike the ones of five years ago, are Afghan- organised – a sign of the progress made in establishing civic society since the war. The ECC comprises an American, a Canadian and a Dutch national – all UN-appointed – and two Afghans selected by a local human rights organisation and the supreme court. Yet it is this body, with foreigners a majority and, by all accounts, dominant in making decisions, which has sweeping powers – nullifying votes it deems to be fraudulent, ordering recounts of votes, or ordering fresh voting.

One Afghan analyst, Waheed Mujhda, said: "There is a view among the Pashtuns in particular that the Americans don't want Karzai and they are trying to delay his victory as long as possible. But a lot of all Afghan people, of all sections of society, are getting annoyed because this is a sovereign nation, but it is foreigners lecturing to us what to do in our election."

The unravelling of the electoral process comes against the backdrop of a relentless war. Yesterday morning, as the ECC was sending its recount order to the IEC, a suicide bomber blew himself up at Nato's security gate at Kabul airport, killing three civilians. While the disputed victory for Mr Karzai was being announced at the city's Intercontinental Hotel, fierce fighting erupted at Kunar, in the east of the country, with four American soldiers killed.

At the press conference, Dr Najafi was repeatedly asked why his organisation had passed as valid ballot returns which showed Mr Karzai winning by "incongruous" margins of 95 per cent and 98 per cent. He responded: "If all the documentation is right then we pass them even if they are 95 per cent. That is usual in Afghanistan."

In an interview with Le Figaro newspaper Mr Karzai said he was "not a puppet of the United States" and attacked the British and American media for "lacking respect" over the electoral process and attempting to "delegitimise" the future government of Afghanistan. There had been fraud in the election, he admitted, but it was not something which could be avoided in a growing democracy.

Today is Ahmed Shah Masoud Day, commemorating the murder of the legendary Tajik Northern Alliance commander by al-Qa'ida eight years ago. Masoud is the beloved hero of the Tajiks and if, as expected, the Tajik candidate Dr Abdullah announces today that he rejects Mr Karzai's claim of victory, his declaration could be accompanied by angry Tajik protests.

Post-election: What happens next?

First scenario Declare Mr Karzai the winner as he has passed the 50 per cent benchmark, certifying the results with only a perfunctory attempt at checking the fraud allegations. Protests from Abdullah and other candidates would follow.

Second scenario A more thorough examination of ballot stuffing claims, with partial reruns if necessary. Mr Karzai will still emerge as the winner in this narrative, and the West can claim that all attempts have been made to establish fairness. Protests from Abdullah and others may ensue anyway.

Third scenario Unsparingly rigorous checks on the fraud, with Mr Karzai stripped of his majority and a second round forced. However, the timescale, with the Afghan winter closing in, may mean this would be impossible until next Spring – and the Pashtun supporters of the President would claim that he had been prevented from returning to power by the US.

Afghanistan: Update. President Karzai holds 54.1 percent of the presidential vote, enough to avoid a run-off election that would be required if the percentage were below 50 percent, Al Jazeera reported today, citing the Independent Election Commission. With 91.6 percent of the votes tallied, primary rival Abdullah Abdullah has fallen to 28.3 percent of the vote. Results from 600 polling stations will be set aside because of possible irregularities, and there will be recounts at some stations

Afghans have voted in two elections. As a historical footnote, no one ever asked them if they wanted US-style democracy. The US imposed it, backed by military force. The significance is that the only way to know the kind of government the Afghans prefer is based on behavior, which favors the Taliban in the 12 Pashtun provinces and follows the ethnic leadership in the others. This is a study in democracy, sort of.

Insurgent group Hizbi Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) is working "to find a solution to the Afghan problem" while in contact with Western officials and politicians, said a senior leader, DPA reported today.

Comment: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is the ultimate political opportunist. His overtures to Kabul signify his assessment that political change may be imminent. For example, over the weekend, news services reported Karzai’s promise to amnesty the Taliban who want it. Hekmatyar could be positioning himself to take advantage of an amnesty so as to be a leader in a reconstituted government some months in the future.

NW assesses that political power sharing is in limina. With a few compromises by the Taliban, they could be sharing power in Kabul. Karzai also seems to sense it because military victory is possible by neither side and Afghans are tiring of eight more years of conflict, now about to enter its 30th year since the Soviet invasion. His behavior shows that he has no confidence in US political backing and is becoming openly hostile. His fallback position is to deal with his native Pashtuns.

Afghanistan’s only period of relative peace – from large scale civil war -- was during the Taliban rule between 1996 and 2001, but even then the Taliban fought desultory operations against the Tajiks and Uzbeks. In the early years, prior to the invitation for the Saudi terrorists to come to Afghanistan from Sudan, the Taliban mantra was that they were the bringers of peace and law and order. And it was true. A peace agenda could unite Karzai and Mullah Omar without much change by either side.

Power sharing is relatively peaceful, but not permanent. One side always tries to breakout and take all the power usually by force. But it can last for years, under skillful management. A power sharing arrangement would provide a time period for the withdrawal of foreign troops, an end state Karzai is starting to share with Omar. They could easily reach agreement on this issue as well, again with small compromises by both sides. Stay tuned. Power sharing talks are coming, after the election is sorted out.

In the past century, American soldiers have fought all over the world. But no place seems to confuse them more than Afghanistan. Mind, 21,000 more troops is meaningless and purposeless under US military counter-insurgency doctrine.

The difference between a confrontation and a conflict is that a party with no modern military power can win a confrontation and lose every conflict. See Rupert Smith’s, The Utility of Force. The Allies are not losing any conflicts; they are losing the confrontation, i.e., the consent of the governed. Karzai embodies this. We don’t seem to want him, but he lives in Afghanistan and he does not seem to want us, which is a much more serious condition for us.