Troops withdrawal from Aghanistan to start by 2010-end: report
Afghanistan News.Net
Sunday 29th November, 2009 (IANS)
International forces will begin a lengthy process of withdrawing from Afghanistan by the end of 2010 under a detailed roadmap to be agreed at an international conference here January, according to a report Sunday.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has set out detailed ‘benchmarks’ for the process of ‘Afghanisation’ amid growing calls for the withdrawal of British troops, more than 200 of whom have been killed in that country since 2001.
According to Brown’s roadmap reported by The Observer, the process will begin with the Afghan government identifying – within three months – additional troops to send to the troubled Helmand province for training.
The plan, according to the newspaper, also envisages:
– Police training plans within six months.
– The appointment of nearly 400 provincial and district governors within nine months.
– Five thousand additional Afghan troops to be trained by Britain in Helmand and thousands more in other parts of the country within12 months.
– Afghan security forces taking the lead in five out of the country’s 34 provinces by the end of 2010, with control in one or two districts in Helmand also handed over.
The Jan 28 conference in London is expected to be attended by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the foreign ministers of 42 other countries involved in Afghanistan.
It will not set a timetable for withdrawal but Brown indicated that the process of local troops and police assuming control would allow international troops to begin to leave, the paper reported.
Afghan teenagers say they were beaten in US military jail
Afghanistan News.Net
Saturday 28th November, 2009
US reports about alleged abuses in the secretive Bagram jail in Afghanistan, have angered human rights workers.
A report in The Washington Post published Saturday has quoted two Afghan teenagers who said they were beaten by interrogators while being held at the Bagram air base jail this year.
They also say they suffered sleep deprivation and sexual humiliation.
The teenagers alleged they were held for weeks without access to representatives of the Red Cross.
Human rights workers have reported similar abuses at Bagram jail in the past.
President Obama ordered the closure of secret CIA detention centres soon after taking office, but the Bagram facility, which is run by military Special Operations forces, is not subject to the presidential order.
Bin Laden could have been captured in 2001
Afghanistan News.Net
Sunday 29th November, 2009
A US Senate report has revealed that US forces could have captured Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan in late 2001.
The report, prepared by the Foreign Relations Committee Democratic staff, said calls for US reinforcements to surround Bin Laden were rejected by officials in former President George W. Bush’s administration and military commanders at the time.
The failure to kill or capture the al-Qaeda allowed him to simply walk into Pakistan’s unregulated tribal areas, leading to far-reaching consequences, including the protracted Afghan insurgency.
The report said that while the vast array of American military power was kept on the sidelines, US commanders chose to rely on air strikes and untrained Afghan militias to pursue Bin Laden in the mountainous area known as Tora Bora.
“On or around 16 December, two days after writing his will,” it said, “Bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan’s unregulated tribal area.”
Bin Laden is still thought to be hiding in the area.
The report added that the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed Bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who still attracts a steady flow of money and inspires fanatics worldwide.
The report also rebuffed claims by former Bush administration officials that intelligence about Bin Laden’s location was inconclusive.
Obama prepares to reveal troop numbers for Afghanistan
Afghanistan News.Net
Monday 30th November, 2009
President Barack Obama is expected to announce on Tuesday that he will approve the sending of 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan.
The White House has said the Obama speech will communicate a strategy that has already been discussed with top aides, commanders and international allies, including French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Mr Obama has also communicated with with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.
The speech will be explicit about benchmarks for Afghanistan’s government and the rooting out of extremism in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The president is expected to say that the American commitment in Afghanistan is not open-ended.
The final strategy was supposedly settled on Sunday, when top US officials including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Michael Mullen met.
General Stanley McCrystal, the NATO and US commander in Afghanistan was also involved by video link.
Pak army claims killing eight Taliban militants in Waziristan
Afghanistan News.Net
Monday 30th November, 2009 (ANI)
Islamabad, Nov. 30 : Pakistani security forces killed eight Taliban insurgents in northwest tribal areas as part of the ongoing military offensive in South Waziristan, officials said.
“Four militants were killed and several others were wounded in search operations in different parts of Bara,” The Dawn quoted a senior military official, as saying.
Also on Sunday, four militants were killed in Wana, the capital of South Waziristan where the military launched a massive ground and air offensive against the Taliban on October 17.
“Troops retaliated after militants fired rockets at their camp in Wana. Four militants were killed and two were arrested,” a local military spokesman said.
The toll could not be confirmed as the area is out of bounds for journalists and most aid workers.
Ground troops and attack helicopters last week launched a fresh operation against militants in Khyber, which is on the main route for NATO supplies heading to foreign troops in Afghanistan.
Zardari asks NWFP Governor to finalize rehabilitation and reconstruction plan
Afghanistan News.Net
Monday 30th November, 2009 (ANI)
Islamabad, Nov. 30 : Even as the Pakistani military enters the last leg of its ground offensive against the Taliban in South Waziristan, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari has directed the NWFP Governor Owais Ghani to chart out a rehabilitation and reconstruction plan for the tribal agency. he Dawn quoted Zardari’s spokesman Farhatullah Babar, as saying that the finalized plan will be put into action soon after the operation officially ends in South Waziristan AgencyThe short-term measures under the plan would include the rehabilitation of the displaced people, and repairing of the damaged infrastructure.
In the medium term, new developmental projects will be undertaken that provide new economic opportunities to the people.
And the long-term measures would be taken to reform the militant mindset through education, social and political reforms. It would also include mega development projects through public private partnership.
Demoralised UK troops fear defeat at home
Afghanistan News.Net
Monday 30th November, 2009 (ANI)
London, Nov.30 : British pessimism over Afghanistan is demoralising soldiers, say the country’s commanders
Britain is at serious risk of losing its way in Afghanistan because rising defeatism at home is demoralising the troops on the front line, military commanders have warned.
High-ranking officers, including a former commander of the SAS, have expressed deep concern that the country is in danger of “talking ourselves into a defeat back home” as the war reaches a critical stage.
They say there is “surprise and disappointment” among members of the forces at the constant pessimism in the UK over the conflict, and what looks like a lack of appreciation for what they are achieving at great personal risk and in extremely difficult circumstances.
Such is the level of concern about the impact of this “negativity” that a number of senior officers have now taken the step of publicly speaking out, The Independent reports.
They have told The Independent that, in their view, the British people are not getting a true picture of what is going on, and that any loss of public support as a result of this will have highly damaging consequences for the campaign.
There is also anxiety that the Taliban will step up their attacks and attempt to kill more members of the forces in order to create further anxiety at home, fuelling calls for troops to be pulled out.
Lieutenant-General Sir Graeme Lamb, a former SAS commander who has been brought in to play a key role in Nato’s new Afghan strategy, said: “We must be wary of talking ourselves into a defeat back home. We hear people saying the fight isn’t worth it. Does that mean all the sacrifices which have been made, the deaths and the injuries have been for nothing?
“The troops do not think that is the case – they are stating that belief by what they are doing every day in a dangerous situation.
They are the men and women in the arena, and they are certainly not giving up,” he added.
Taliban now using donkey ’suicide’ bombs against foreign troops in Afghanistan
Afghanistan News.Net
Monday 30th November, 2009 (ANI)
London, Nov. 30 : In their latest ploy to cause maximum damage to international forces stationed in Afghanistan, the Taliban is using donkey ’suicide’ bombs to attack British troops in southern Afghanistan.
Recently, a senior British Army officer and six other military personnel survived an attack when a tethered donkey laden with explosives was detonated as their armoured vehicle passed in southern Afghanistan.
“We’d spotted the donkey tethered to a tree as we were on our way down south to monitor an operation that had been going on that day, but thought nothing of it. There are donkeys around everywhere,” The Times quoted an officer, as saying.
The donkey ’suicide’ bombs have even led to circulation of several jokes among the British soldiers.
“When we realised what had happened it wasn’t long before the first donkey jokes started to come out – ‘drop the dead donkey’ was one, and ‘pain in the ass’ another,” a soldier said.
Troops in Afghanistan have been attacked by a boy with a wheelbarrow full of explosives and a bicycle with a bomb attached, but the explosion south of Garmsir in southern Helmand province is thought to be the first using tethered livestock.
Taliban slaughters animals in suicide attacks
Afghanistan News.Net
Monday 30th November, 2009
In their latest ploy to cause maximum damage to international forces stationed in Afghanistan, the Taliban is using donkey suicide bombs to attack British troops in southern Afghanistan.
Recently, a senior British Army officer and six other military personnel survived an attack when a tethered donkey laden with explosives was detonated as their armoured vehicle passed in southern Afghanistan.
“We’d spotted the donkey tethered to a tree as we were on our way down south to monitor an operation that had been going on that day, but thought nothing of it. There are donkeys around everywhere,” The Times quoted an officer, as saying.
Troops in Afghanistan have been attacked by a boy with a wheelbarrow full of explosives and a bicycle with a bomb attached, but the explosion south of Garmsir in southern Helmand province is thought to be the first using tethered livestock.
Obama makes commitment for thousands more troops
Afghanistan News.Net
Tuesday 1st December, 2009
President Barack Obama has commited 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan in an expensive war buildup.
The first new Marines will join the fight by Christmas in an effort to escalate the advance against the Taliban.
President Obama said his goal in sending the troops is to fast-track the training of Afghan soldiers and police toward hastening an eventual US pullout.
There will be about 5,000 dedicated trainers amongst the 30,000 new troops.
The US military already maintains a force of more than 100,000 in Afghanistan.
President Obama, speaking on a national broadcast, ended three months of deliberations on troop support for the Afghanistan conflict.
He vowed to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a safe haven for al-Qaeda boss Osama bin Laden.
After the speech, senior US officials said Obama would underscore the troop commitment by stabilising Afghanistan and ensuring the end of corruption; endemic in the Karzai government.
The commitment has been seen as a political gamble for Obama, which may weigh on his chances for another term in the White House.
Portions of the US population have become highly pessimistic about success in Afghanistan and wary about more US soldiers and Marines being put in harm’s way.
A new survey on Tuesday showed only 35 percent of Americans now approve of Obama’s handling of the war while 55 percent disapprove.
Prior to his speech, President Obama asked NATO alliance partners in Europe to add 5,000 to 10,000 troops to the separate international force in Afghanistan.
While indications were the allies would agree to sending some troops, the war has little support in Europe.
NATO allies currently have around 40,000 troops on the ground.
It is Barack Obama’s war in Afghanistan now
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 2nd December, 2009 (IANS)
If it is possible to own something even while simultaneously disowning it, President Barack Obama did it as he announced his much awaited Afghanistan strategy.
As he took full ownership of a war nearly a year after he reluctantly inherited it, the overarching sentiment of Obama’s new strategy seems to be that he cannot wait to get out of Afghanistan. His enunciation that ‘the nation that I am most interested in building is our own’ was by far the clearest exposition of his foreign policy goals at a time when America is besieged by debilitating economic crises.
His strategy, while favorably answering his military commanders’ request for enough resources, also seeks to reassure his core political constituency of his resolve to begin withdrawal in a specific timeframe. He spoke of a ’successful conclusion’ to the war but took care not to define what that really meant in recognizable sense.
Contrary to expectations in some quarters, Obama steadfastly stayed away from an open-ended commitment to stay in Afghanistan even as he announced 30,000 more U.S. troops to be deployed early in 2010. In the same breath he also announced July 18, 2011 as the date to begin transferring U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.
‘There are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan,’ he aid.
‘But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own,’ Obama said.
This assertion appears to open possibilities for India to refashion its own approach toward a region in which it has a direct stake. Before the speech there was a perception that Obama would signal a long-term engagement in Afghanistan if only to reassure Pakistan that India may not step in to fill the vacuum. However, his categorical rejection of an open-ended engagement may mean that New Delhi could be expected to shoulder aspects of nation building that the Obama administration is not inclined to.
The president took care to tell both Afghanistan and Pakistan how he sees US relations with them outside of the exigent military involvement.
‘I want the Afghan people to understand – America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect – to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron,’ Obama said.
His message to Pakistan was equally friendly: ‘In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust,’ he said. ‘The Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed,’ Obama said.
In financial terms the additional troop deployment will cost America $30 billion this year, or roughly a million dollars a soldier per year. It is anybody’s guess whether the threat to the U.S. emanating out of Afghanistan-Pakistan region is so severe and so direct that it is willing to spend such large sums without really communicating what a successful conclusion of that effort would look like.
The US would have spent close to $300 billion by the time it begins its proposed withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan in July, 2011. The return on investment of this magnitude is likely to remain questionable at best.
(Mayank Chhaya is the editor of South Asia Daily in the US. He can be contacted at m@literateworld.com)
Obama has given with one hand and taken with the other, says ex-envoy
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 2nd December, 2009 (ANI)
Washington, Dec.2 :Former US Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalizad has said that by announcing the deployment of an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, US President Barack Obama has probably indulged in the time-old practice of giving with one hand and taking with the other.
“If you put in a timeline you encourage the enemy to outwait you, to regard the strategy as not enduring. When I was ambassador,the Taliban sent me a message saying ‘you have all the watches,but we have all the time’. It may encourage the Taliban and others in the region to assume we don’t have the staying power,and therefore, make the job harder,” The Telegraph quoted Khalizad as telling CNN in an interview.
Khalizad opines that Obama should perhaps be given credit for being deliberately vague.
“He did not say how many troops would be pulled out in July 2011 or how quickly. There was no end-date. He gave scant clues of the strategy behind his exit strategy, but clearly believes that without a deadline the Afghan government would not get its act together,” he says.
“Perhaps that’s all July 2011 is, a whip. And it may work. The Taliban may indeed bide their time, but in their absence an army can be established, sound government developed, schools constructed and legal agriculture propagated. The extremist militia might return when Nato forces are much reduced or even gone completely, but the challenge facing them would be all the greater,” he adds.
Anlaysis blasts Obama for trickery on US troop deployment in Afghanistan
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 2nd December, 2009 (ANI)
New York, Dec.2 : Former US President George W. Bush can no longer be held responsible for the bloody war in Afghanistan, for his successor-President Obama has decided to take that burden into his shoulders, an analysis appearing in CBS says.
According to the analysis, Obama might just have committed what could be the biggest political blunder of his years in office, and it adds that he has done so “knowingly, deliberately, and without blinders on.”
It further goes on to criticise Obama for leaving sceptical Americans no choice: by setting a firm timetable to begin withdrawing troops.
It says that by twinning his troop increase (30,000) with a timetable to withdraw from Afghanistan by the middle of 2011, Obama has pulled off a bit of a trick.
“He’s given Americans and Congress a meter reading, that, once triggered, will close down the conflict,” it says.
Obama has allowed himself and his commanders room to keep a heavy presence in Afghanistan beyond his firm term, but he has created a strategy and structure that renders that option prohibitively expensive.
His timetable all but guarantees that his request for more troops now will be funded by a reluctant Democratic Congress.
In an hour-long interview today with a small number of political analysts and columnists, Obama said he was prepared for the political onslaught, particularly from within his own party.
“This has been an entirely transparent process,” Mr. Obama said today, adding: “There’s no Gulf of Tonkin here. We are having a wholesome debate about the best strategy forward and I am being held fully accountable to members of Congress, all of whom I think are going to be interested in holding me accountable and making sure that this strategy works. And if it doesn’t, I think there is going to be enormous interest on the part of the American people and on the part of Congress in keeping me to my word that this is not a constant escalation.”
Even US thinks India behind Afghan insurgency: Gilani
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 2nd December, 2009 (IANS)
Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has said that not only he but also US think tanks believe the Indian intelligence service is behind ‘a lot of interference in Afghanistan’.
To a query on Indian involvement, Gilani told the German magazine Der Spiegel Tuesday: ‘In fact, to some extent there is a lot of interference in Afghanistan. This is not only our opinion, but also the belief in the United States.’
‘I am not saying that there is. But the insurgency in Afghanistan has been analysed by many experts, including from American think tanks, and they have mentioned this.’
On the war against terrorism in Pakistan, the prime minister said: ‘The people we are fighting are militants. They are not from Pakistan, they are Uzbeks, they are from Chechnya, they are Arabs and Afghans. And they cooperate with foreign agents to disturb the peace in Pakistan.’
He stressed that ‘the insurgencies are driven by foreign elements’.
Gilani admitted that ‘the world is always only focusing on terrorism when it comes to Pakistan. This has, of course, harmed the reputation of our country.’
He went on to say that the ‘drone attacks are counterproductive’.
‘The political and the military leadership have been very successful in isolating the militants from the local tribes. But once there is a drone attack in their home region, they get united again. This is a dangerous trend, and it is my concern and the concern of the army.’
Pak concerned about ‘negative implications’ of US revamped Afghan strategy
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 2nd December, 2009 (ANI)
Frankurt, Dec.2 : Close on the heels of President Obama’s announcement of the revamped Afghan strategy, Pakistan has said that it is concerned about the negative implications of the new US policy in Afghanistan.
Interacting with media persons while accompanying Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on his maiden visit to Germany, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said US Security Adviser General James Jones had called Gilani to take him into confidence on the Afghan strategy, but added that Islamabad is concerned about the massive surge in troops in the neighbour country.
“Our issue is not how you deploy them (US troops in Afghanistan) and how you use them. We are only concerned about the negative implications. The more you coordinate with military authorities of Pakistan, the better it will be,” The Daily Times quoted Qureshi, as saying.
Islamabad has been continuously asking the Obama administration to consult it before finalising any new policy for Afghanistan.
It has also expressed concerns regarding the US plans of deploying more troops in Helmand province, and fears that sending more soldiers in the region would force the Taliban to flee, which would then create more trouble in the insurgency hit Balochistan.
It worth mentioning here that the US President Barack Obama has announced sending n additional 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan by next summer. He also said that he plans to have all surviving American troops back home by July 2011.
Obama has also sought to reassure NATO allies and the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan that he was not abandoning the war effort, while pressurising them to make sure they hold up their end of the bargain.
Pak-US do not need joint command against Taliban, Al-Qaeda: Qureshi
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 2nd December, 2009 (ANI)
London, Dec.2 : Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has said that Pakistan and the US do not need a joint command as far as taking action against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is concerned.
Highlighting the need for enhanced cooperation between Islamabad and Washington, Qureshi told a British news agency that the Obama administration should consult Pakistan on its Afghan policy, failing which more trouble would be created for Islamabad.
Replying to a question, Qureshi reiterated Pakistan’s demand for unmanned aircrafts so that it could target extremist hideouts on its own, and maintained that the US missile strikes were proving counterproductive.
Qureshi said Pakistan is concerned about the negative implications of the new US strategy policy for Afghanistan and wanted better coordination between the US and the Pakistan Army, The Nation reports.
It worth mentioning here that the US President Barack Obama has announced sending n additional 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan by next summer. He also said that he plans to have all surviving American troops back home by July 2011.
Announcing the new Afghanistan strategy at the United States Military Academy Obama said: “As Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.”
Obama sought to reassure NATO allies and the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan that he was not abandoning the war effort, while pressurising them to make sure they hold up their end of the bargain.
India key partner on way forward in Afghanistan, Pakistan: Roemer
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 2nd December, 2009 (ANI)
New Delhi, Dec.2 : Following President Barack Obama’s December 1 announcement of the new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the U.S. Ambassador to India, Timothy J. Roemer, said: “Our core goal in Afghanistan and Pakistan-to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat terrorist networks-is an aspiration we share with India.”
“We must unite in the commitment of our civilian resources, and provide the tools for economic development and humanitarian aid to eliminate the extremist violence that is the enemy of peace, faith, democracy, tolerance, fundamental freedoms and human rights,” he added.
Roemer also said that President Obama has announced significant and closely coordinated military and civilian resources for Afghanistan, and directed “us to work together to strengthen the Afghan National Security Forces so that the Afghans can take the lead in reclaiming and governing their own country.”
“We are helping to create jobs for the Afghans which are critical to undermining the appeal of the brutal extremists whilensuring sustainable, economic growth in the long term, with agriculture as our top development priority.
The President also announced substantial civilian resources for Pakistan. He noted that we are enhancing the Pakistani government’s capacity to meet the immediate needs of its people, facilitate sustainable economic growth, and building on Pakistan’s success in the fight against the militancy and global terrorism that threatens not only Pakistan’s stability, but the peace of its neighbors and the world.”
Ambassador Roemer noted, “In order for this new strategy to be effective, the U.S. and Pakistan must work together to hold terrorists accountable for their actions and to offer terror networks no safe haven.”
Ambassador Roemer stated: “India is a key, global partner of the United States and we value the positive role India continues to play in the region, including its significant humanitarian contributions to Afghanistan. Our nations share a common goal-to see a world free of the global terrorism that threatens our people where they worship, live, work, and study. We are committed to working steadfastly together to accomplish this goal.”
Obama briefed Zardari ahead of announcing Afghan surge
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 2nd December, 2009 (ANI)
Islamabad, Dec.2 : US President Barack Obama briefed Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari about the new Afghan strategy just before announcing a surge of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
A statement issued by the government here, said: “Obama mentioned the broad outlines of the policy a few hours before its launch and reaffirmed US commitment to a long-term partnership with Pakistan for security and stability.”
The White House also released the details of the conversation between the two leaders.
While acknowledging Pakistan’s anti-insurgency efforts, Obama, during his chat, stressed that Washington is committed to ensure stability in the region and defeat the Al-Qaeda.
“The two presidents agreed that the close partnership between Pakistan and the United States is vital to success, and President Obama promised to continue to assist Pakistan in its efforts against extremists,” The Dawn quoted the White House statement, as saying.
President Obama has announced that 30,000 additional troops would be sent to Afghanistan by the first part of the next year.
Obama, however, also vowed to start pulling out of Afghanistan by the middle of 2011.
Obama, while announcing the revamped AFPAK strategy, said the United States cannot afford an ‘open-ended commitment’, and that it was time for Afghans to take more responsibility for their country.
CIA expansion in Pak, more drone attacks, part of Obama’s revamped AFPAK plans
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 2nd December, 2009 (ANI)
Washington, Dec.2 : While President Obama has decided to send in more troops to Afghanistan to facilitate the ‘war on terror’ in that country, US officials believe that problems emanating from Pakistan would prove far more intractable than the Afghan chaos.
According to administrative officials, Obama is aware about the expanding threat from Pakistan based outlawed organisations, and has therefore signed off a plan by the Central Intelligence Agency to expand C.I.A. activities in that country.
The CIA’s plan includes expanding of drone attacks in the lawless tribal region along the Pakistan Afghanistan border and sending more spies.
“The C.I.A. plan calls for widening the campaign of strikes against militants by drone aircraft, sending additional spies to Pakistan and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the C.I.A.’s overall budget for operations inside the country,” The New York Times reported.
Officials said the enhanced operations could well see more drone attacks in areas, including Balochistan, where top Afghan Taliban commanders are believed to have taken refuge.
President Obama has announced that 30,000 additional troops would be sent to Afghanistan by the first part of the next year.
Obama, however, also vowed to start pulling out of Afghanistan by the middle of 2011.
Obama, while announcing the revamped AFPAK strategy, said the United States cannot afford an’open-ended commitment’, and that it was time for Afghans to take more responsibility for their country.
Speaking in front of 4,000 cadets at the United States Military Academy here, he vowed to “bring the war to a successful conclusion”
“I see firsthand the terrible ravages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow. So no, I do not make this decision lightly,” Obama said.
Obama underlined that America was not the only country concerned with the war, asking US’ allies to step up their commitment.
“This is not just America’s war. The days of providing a blank check are over,” Obama said, in what appeared to be a clear message to Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Obama to send additional 30,000 troops to war-ravaged Afghanistan
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 2nd December, 2009 (ANI)
West Point (New York, US), Dec.2 : US President Barack Obama on Tuesday said that he would be sending an additional 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan by next summer. He also said that he plans to have all surviving American troops back home by July 2011.
Addressing cadets and officers at West Point, Obama said: “As Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.”
Obama sought to reassure NATO allies and the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan that he was not abandoning the war effort, while pressuring them to make sure they hold up their end of the bargain.
“The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas – such as agriculture that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people,” he added.
He also said that the United States would not tolerate Pakistan allowing its territory to be a safe haven for militants and urged Islamabad to fight the “cancer” of extremism.
“We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear,” Obama said further.
The accelerated timetable was unveiled in the high-stakes speech, and left some Pentagon planners surprised, as they expected a 12 to 18-month period for deploying forces to bolster the 68,000 U.S. troops already in the war zone.
These U.S. troops, plus an expected extra contingent from NATO allies, Obama said, “will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.”
“Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully, for what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility. What’s at stake is the security of our allies and the common security of the world,” he said.
It is expected that the fresh American troop surge will cost the national exchequer approximately 30 billion dollars and push the cost of military operations in Afghanistan to nearly 95 billion dollars for this fiscal year. (ANI + inputs)
US can ill afford to ignore terror safe havens in Pakistan: Clinton
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 2nd December, 2009 (ANI)
Washington, Dec.2 : US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that it is imperative to demolish the syndicate of terrorism that operated out of the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that Washington can ill afford to ignore the fact that Pakistan is a terror safe haven.
Addressing American business executives, Clinton underlined that the US cannot afford to overlook threats emanating from ‘far-off places’, as it can have catastrophic effects, which was evident from the 9/11 attacks.
She said that it was important that Washington remained committed to Pakistan, which is facing an existential threat from the Al-Qaeda.
“It is also in Pakistan where, after all, they (Al Qaida terrorists) have found safe haven and where we have a nuclear-armed country facing increasing challenges to its writ of authority,” The Dawn quoted Clinton, as saying.
“We have made a commitment to provide more assistance to Pakistan that is going to be accountable and transparent, but which we hope sends a message to the people of Pakistan that there is a better future,” he added.
Commenting on President Obama’s revamped Afghan strategy, the top US official said the new policy demonstrated that the US is committed to take on the continuing threat from not only those who want to destroy Afghanistan, but Pakistan also.
“The US is committed to taking on the continuing threat of those who not only are fighting to destabilise Afghanistan, but beyond that, Pakistan, the larger region, and continue to assault and threaten our own country, our interests, and our values,” Clinton said.
The Obama administration, she said, believes that the stability of countries far away like Afghanistan and Pakistan is directly related to America’s own security.
“As long as countries like that struggle to control their borders, extend their sovereignty, the door is open to the bad actors,” she said.
Obama’s Afghan strategy draws fire
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 2nd December, 2009 (IANS)
US President Barack Obama’s new strategy for the conflict in Afghanistan has drawn sharp criticism from both opposition Republicans and within the ranks of his own Democrats.
Obama unveiled the plan – anchored by the deployment of 30,000 more troops to the war zone – in a national address Tuesday evening.
The reinforcements are to surge into Afghanistan by July – with a timeframe a year later for the beginning of withdrawals and the transfer of security responsibility to the Kabul government, depending on conditions on the ground.
Obama’s strategy seeks to delicately balance the need to prevail in Afghanistan while accommodating the growing scepticism in the US over the prospects for success, with polls showing Americans increasingly opposed to the war.
If his strategy fails, left-wing Democrats can claim more troops should not have been sent in the first place, while Republicans will blame it on setting a target date for withdrawals.
After months of complaining that Obama has moved too slowly in weighing his options, Republicans applauded the force buildup, which will expand the US presence to 98,000 troops. But they hammered Obama for setting a timeframe for beginning pullouts, arguing a date could prompt the Taliban to go underground and wait out the surge.
‘Dates for withdrawal are dictated by conditions. The way that you win wars is to break the enemy’s will, not to announce dates that you are leaving,’ said Senator John McCain, Obama’s opponent in the 2008 presidential election.
‘It may convey the impression that we are going to be there for a short period of time, and the Taliban just have to wait us out.’
Former vice president Dick Cheney, who along with Obama predecessor George W. Bush adamantly resisted setting withdrawal deadlines for Iraq, lashed out at the White House for setting a pullout timeframe in Afghanistan.
Cheney said it sends the wrong signal to Afghans, who, by knowing the US plans to leave, may see a long-term benefit in siding with the Taliban.
‘Those folks … begin to look for ways to accommodate their enemies,’ he said in an interview with Politico. ‘They’re worried the United States isn’t going to be there much longer, and the bad guys are.’
Obama addressed the criticism during his speech at the US Military Academy at West Point in New York, saying an exit strategy will keep pressure on the international community and Afghan government to achieve results.
‘The absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government,’ Obama said. ‘It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.’
Despite Republican criticism, Obama can still expect widespread support from the opposition party that has long called for sending more troops to Afghanistan. But the move has divided the president’s own Democrats, who control both chambers of Congress.
Moderate Democrats have backed Obama’s plan, but those further on the left have been among the biggest critics, preferring withdrawal and arguing that more troops will only further entangle the US in a prolonged quagmire.
Congressional Democrats also worry that with polls showing the public has turned against them and the Afghan war, they could lose their majority in 2010 by-elections.
‘I certainly continue – and I think my colleagues continue – to question the wisdom of sending in tens of thousands of more troops into Afghanistan,’ Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said.
Obama has reached ‘the wrong conclusion’, said Representative Jim McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts. ‘If our fight is truly with Al Qaeda, then we’re in the wrong country. They have moved to Pakistan. I’ve seen this movie before, and it doesn’t have a happy ending.’
Obama refuted that criticism – explicitly rejecting comparisons to the Vietnam War – saying that to ‘muddle through’ with current troop levels would ‘permit a slow deterioration’.
‘It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan,’ he said, ‘because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.’
Gates says Afghanistan is the epicente of Jihad
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 2nd December, 2009
The US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has referred to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area as the “epicentre of extremist jihadism.”
Testifying about the new US Afghan war strategy to the US Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, Gates said the region needed to be stabilised.
He said the US did not want to fail in the border region, where already one superpower, the Soviet Union, had suffered defeat.
He said such a defeat would lead to severe consequences for America and the world.
Mr Gates said the US must remain strong in the region to become a reliable strategic partner, and especially to re-establish good military relations with Pakistan.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also testified about the importance of Pakistan before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.
She said that the United States and its allies would need to have an enduring commitment to the region, unlike in the past.
She said the US would increase its diplomatic presence in Pakistan and would expand support to Pakistan’s military and civilian communities.
US troops told there are only one hundred al-Qaeda in Afghanistan
Afghanistan News.Net
Thursday 3rd December, 2009
Intelligence officials in the US have been angered by suggestions that President Obama is sending 30,000 more troops to fight only one hundred al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan.
Responding to an ABC News story that mentioned to the intelligence community estimate on the number of Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, US intelligence officials described the story as an irresponsible assessment.
The officials have argued that even though the al-Qaeda numbers are small, their influence with the Taliban makes them far more harmful than their numbers would indicate.
They said while only about one hundred al-Qaeda operatives remain in Afghanistan, their real centre is Pakistan, where their leadership works tightly with leaders of the Afghan Taliban.
The assessment has been referred to in the US as “Obama’s secret,” with some media pundits saying the president deliberately omitted mentioning the numbers in his speech on Tuesday night.
Top officials on Wednesday defended Obama’s surge decision, arguing that the US military needs to take on the Taliban as a way to keep Afghanistan from falling under al-Qaeda influence.
“Crunch time” for Pak to act following Obama raising concern about terror safe havens
Afghanistan News.Net
Thursday 3rd December, 2009 (ANI)
Washington, Dec.3 : President Barack Obama’s revamped Afghan strategy and his clear cut talks highlighting the presence of terror safe havens on Pakistani soil has probably for the first time delivered a message to Islamabad that it is time it starts acting against those terror sanctuaries.
According to analysts, following Obama’s specific talk about Al-Qaeda’s leadership’s presence in Pakistan, the onus is now on Islamabad, which has until now remained in a state of denial.
“For the first time, Obama was very categorical about these safe havens and sanctuaries. It’s now going to be much more difficult for those in Pakistan who have been in a state of denial about it,” The Washington Post quoted analyst Ahmed Rashid, as saying.
“It’s really crunchtime,” Rashind added.
Pakistan fears that the massive surge in Afghanistan would result in the spill over of Afghan guerrilla fighters into Pakistan, deteriorating the situation inside the country further.
The Obama administration’s decision to send in more troops has Pakistan under conflicting political pressures. While the US wants to eliminate al-Qaeda sanctuaries along the Afghan border, the Army is focused on rooting out the Taliban, which has wrecked havoc in the country in the recent past.
“Our military and civilian leaders need to speak with one voice, so the Americans can see we mean business. But we have to keep our own long-term interests in mind, while taking on the extremist groups that are of concern to them,” said Imtiaz Gul, a political analyst.
Despite President Obama’s opinion that Pakistan and Afghanistan face a ‘commom enemy’ and the US offering billions of dollar in aid to help Islamabad overcome the current chaotic condition, a majority of Pakistanis blame Washington itself for the mess, experts believe.
“The U.S. is seen as an occupier in Afghanistan, and there’s no way that can be turned around. A Taliban victory in Afghanistan would be ‘terrible for Pakistan,’ but that the United States had created the problem and must clean up the mess before it leaves,” said Pervez Hoodbhoy, Islamabad based nuclear physicist and defence analyst.
Hikmet Karzai, Director of the Center for Conflict and Peace Studies in Kabul, said the addition of troops would not help resolve the issue, but would only aggravate the conflict.
Karzai said the problem would persist for years to come, unless both Pakistan and Afghanistan discuss the actual cause of the trouble.
“Unless we really solve the challenge and the issue of Pakistan, I think you can bring in 50,000 more soldiers, 100,000 more soldiers, but in my view we will still have this problem. I think we’re going to be in this mess for a very long time,” Karzai said.
Most US troops will be sent to Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan
Afghanistan News.Net
Thursday 3rd December, 2009 (ANI)
Kabul, Dec.3 : Of the 30,000 additional American troops to be deployed in Afghanistan in the summer of 2010, most will be sent to the southern part of that country, as it is perceived to be the stronghold of the Taliban, an American military official said here.
The New York Times quotes the official as saying further that the deployment would be in an area including Helmand and Kandahar provinces, seen as the financial and spiritual base of the Taliban.
Two combat brigades, one from the Marines and one from the Army, will go to the south, while another Army brigade will be sent to eastern Afghanistan, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Army combat brigades usually comprise about 5,000 soldiers.
The flow of forces will begin “in earnest” next month, the official said, and a majority of troops will be deployed by next summer.
In Helmand, the new Marine brigade will nearly double the Marines’ 10,000-strong force. When these troops are combined with British forces, Helmand may end up with well over 20,000 troops, as many as were typically deployed in Baghdad. Helmand covers a far larger territory than Baghdad but has about one-fourth of the population.
The boost will give the Marines the troops they believe they need to attack Taliban sanctuaries that safeguard drug runners, bomb makers and fighters in Helmand, the official said.
Speaking to reporters at his headquarters in Kabul on Wednesday, the American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, said the new American deployment, along with expected NATO reinforcements, was “sufficient.”
“I think that we’re going to have exactly what we need to move forward,” said the general, who had earlier sought a fourth brigade.
Excluding support units, about one-quarter of the new forces will serve as trainers for Afghan forces. The rest will be traditional combat units teamed with Afghan security forces.
The three new brigades will join the equivalent of what are now roughly five United States combat manoeuvre brigades and two training brigades, and bring the total number of American troops in Afghanistan to almost 100,000.
The biggest troop increase will be in Helmand, where Marines and British troops are battling insurgents skilled at using fertilizer and diesel fuel to manufacture bombs that tear apart armoured vehicles. Almost one of three NATO and American fatalities this year was in Helmand.
Afghanistan, Pakistan rattled by US 2011 troop exit plan
Afghanistan News.Net
Thursday 3rd December, 2009 (ANI)
Islamabad, Dec.3 : President Barack Obama’s timetable for deploying additional American forces in Afghanistan next summer and his decision to start withdrawing them from July 2011, has rattled both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
According to a report in the New York Times, Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta said the announcement that American troops could begin leaving in 18 months served as a kind of shock therapy, but caused anxiety.
“Can we do it?” he asked. “That is the main question. This is not done in a moment. It is a process.”
In Pakistan, many have argued that the short timetable diminished any incentive for Pakistan to cut ties to Taliban militants who were its allies in the past, and whom Pakistan might want to use to shape a friendly government in Afghanistan after the American withdrawal.
“The most serious issue, as far as we see it, is the exit date,” said a senior Pakistani security official who spoke anonymously because he was not allowed to speak publicly.
“It will have serious implications,” he added.
Though American officials went out of their way to assure senior leaders of both countries of Washington’s continued support, lower-ranking politicians and military or intelligence officials are sceptical.
Leaders in both countries, at least publicly, offered near silence or only a tepid embrace of the Obama plan on Wednesday.
President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan, who has been lashed in the Pakistani media for being too close to the United States, did not comment on the speech. Neither did President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who has been smarting ever since he was forced to accept that he did not win the presidential election outright.
In Afghanistan, a statement from the presidential palace noted only that the government welcomed Obama’s new strategy for the support it offered in development and training for Afghan institutions and in protecting the Afghan people.
It also commended the plan for the recognition that terrorists were operating in the region beyond Afghanistan’s borders in Pakistan.
That acknowledgment was precisely what offended many in Pakistan, where the official reaction was limited to a short statement issued by the Foreign Office welcoming Obama’s “reaffirmation of partnership.”
Politicians, analysts and media commentators, meanwhile, filled the void with scepticism, concern or outright rejection of the Obama plan, and particularly its timetable.
“Is it in Pakistan’s interest to antagonize the Afghan Taliban now, if they will be in power two or three years down the road?” said Ahmed Rashid, author of “Descent Into Chaos.”
He added: “Will the Americans actually deliver after the withdrawal, when the value of Pakistan decreases?”
“Pakistanis are not convinced that another military surge will address the issue,” said Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States.
“This is bombs and bullets bereft of a political strategy,” she added.
Pakistani newspapers also struck a sceptical tone.
The News, acknowledged in an editorial that Obama was trying to change the substance of American-Pakistani relations, but said that the trust deficit was so deep that “it is unlikely that Islamabad will be more attentive to an apparently war-weary U.S. and NATO than it was to a fire-breathing
The Pakistani military sees India as the biggest threat in the region and is frustrated that the United States does not seem to acknowledge that.
This disconnect has been a major irritant in relations, particularly as Indian influence in Afghanistan grows.
30,000 U.S. troops not fighting 100 Al Qaeda terrorists
Afghanistan News.Net
Thursday 3rd December, 2009 (ANI)
New York, Dec.3 : Intelligence officials have disputed suggestions that President Obama is sending 30,000 more troops to fight 100 Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, arguing that their influence with the Taliban makes them far more harmful than their numbers would indicate.
Responding to an ABC News story that referred to the intelligence community estimate on the number of Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan as “Obama’s secret,” and something he deliberately omitted mentioning in his speech Tuesday night, Fox News quoted officials as describing it as an irresponsible assessment.
While intelligence officials confirmed that only about 100 Al Qaeda operatives remain in Afghanistan and their “center of gravity” is in Pakistan, they said “their leadership works tightly with leaders of the Afghan Taliban.”
The Taliban follow a brutal version of strict Wahhabi Islamic law, banning all “un-Islamic” activity and committing numerous human rights violations, including restricting all freedom for women.
Al Qaeda’s goal to divorce all Muslim countries from foreign influence would be warmly received by a Taliban-led government in Afghanistan, as was the case in the 1990s.
Top officials on Wednesday defended Obama’s surge decision, arguing that the U.S. military needs to take on the Taliban as a way to keep Afghanistan from falling into hands that Al Qaeda can exploit.
Obama faces tough sell on Afghan strategy
Afghanistan News.Net
Thursday 3rd December, 2009 (IANS)
US President Barack Obama’s effort to pitch his new strategy for Afghanistan began Wednesday with top officials appearing in Congress to explain the plan and answer tough questions from sceptical lawmakers.
Republicans and Democrats alike grilled Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defence Secretary Robert Gates for hours, reflecting the clear lack of consensus on how to move forward in the increasingly unpopular conflict.
Democrats on the left wing of the party spoke disapprovingly of Obama’s plans to deploy 30,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan, while Republicans objected to the 18-month timeframe that Obama set for beginning a withdrawal.
Obama’s strategy of escalating the war while at the same time announcing a plan for ending it exposed the plan to allegations that it was contradictory and would be tough to sell to a war-weary American public.
Criticism of the timeframe was led by John McCain, Obama’s centre-right opponent in the 2008 presidential election, even as the Arizona senator and fellow Republicans applauded the decision to send more troops.
McCain pressed Gates to explain the flexibility of the July 2011 timeframe for initiating a pullout while questioning the wisdom of announcing a date, saying it sends the wrong signal to the Taliban about the US commitment to Afghanistan.
He argued that the administration cannot set an ‘arbitrary’ date while claiming decisions to withdraw will be based on ‘conditions on the ground’.
‘Those are two incompatible statements. You either have a winning strategy and do as we did in Iraq, and then once it’s succeeded then we withdraw,’ McCain said. ‘Or we – as the president said – we will have a date beginning withdrawal of July 2011. Which is it? It’s got to be one or the other.
‘It’s got to be the appropriate conditions, or it’s got to be an arbitrary date. You can’t have both.’
Gates replied that the administration will conduct an extensive review of the progress and adjust the strategy as necessary.
‘If it appears that the strategy is not working, and we are not going to be able to transition in 2011, then we will take a hard look at the strategy itself,’ he said.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, entered the exchange: ‘The July 2011 date is a day we start transferring responsibility and transitioning. It’s not a date that we’re leaving.’
McCain responded: ‘Then it makes no sense for (Obama) to have announced the date.’
As Republicans continued to push the issue, Gates eventually acknowledged that Obama can alter the timeframe, saying: ‘The president as commander-in-chief always has the option to adjust his decision.’
Moderate Democrats have backed Obama’s plan, but those further on the left have been among the biggest critics, preferring a withdrawal and arguing that more troops will only deepen the quagmire. Congressional Democrats worry further that with polls showing the public has turned against them and the Afghan war, they could lose their majority in the November 2010 by-elections.
Democrats raised questions about whether an Afghan government plagued by corruption and sagging credibility was worth defending.
‘It seems to me that the large influx of US combat troops will put more US Marines on street corners in Afghan villages, with too few Afghan partners alongside them,’ said Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan.
Clinton rebuffed the criticism, saying a surge accompanied by a timeframe helps keep pressure on the Afghan government and the international coalition to achieve results quickly.
‘I don’t believe we have locked ourselves into leaving, but what we have done … is to signal very clearly to all audiences that the United States is not interested in occupying Afghanistan,’ she said. ‘We are not interested in running the country.’
Some Democrats have suggested they will move to block the $30 billion the administration will need to may for the surge, but Obama will likely have enough Democrats and the backing of most Republicans to ensure the money is budgeted.
US signals flexibility in Afghan withdrawal date
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 2nd December, 2009 (IANS)
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday the timeframe for beginning troop withdrawals from Afghanistan can be adjusted if more time is needed to stabilize the country.
Gates said in December 2010 the administration will review the new strategy outlined by President Barack Obama Tuesday night and determine whether the timeframe for starting a pullout in 18 months can be met.
‘The president as commander-in-chief always has the option to adjust his decision,’ Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee during testimony to elaborate on Obama’s revised strategy for the eight-year-old conflict. Proceeding with a drawdown will be based on conditions on the ground, Gates said.
Obama announced he is deploying 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan to reverse Taliban gains in the last couple years, but also set a July 2011 date for initiating a pullout and transitioning security responsibility to the Afghan government.
Gates appeared with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen to defend the plan and faced tough questions from lawmakers.
Obama’s plan has left the Democrats divided, with many opposing the deployment of the additional troops that will expand the US force to 98,000 by this summer. Republicans, while applauding the buildup, have criticized the establishment of a timeframe for withdrawals, saying it sends the wrong signal to the Taliban.
US has no intention of leaving Afghanistan in 2011: Gen Jones
Afghanistan News.Net
Friday 4th December, 2009 (IANS)
Assuring India that the US has no intention of leaving Afghanistan in a hurry, a top official has said President Barack Obama’s decision to start pulling out in 2011 indicated no disagreement with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s advise to stay the course there.
‘The president and the prime minister did have discussions about this’ during Manmohan Singh’s state visit here last week, Obama’s National Security Advisor General James Jones told reporters Friday. ‘The US has no intention of leaving Afghanistan in the near future, certainly not in 2011,’ he said when asked if the pullout decision indicated a disagreement with Manmohan Singh’s assessment that a premature talk of exit would only encourage terrorists.
‘And we are very confident that by the application of over 100,000 US troops and a significant increase of NATO and non-NATO contributing countries we would be able to achieve the conditions by which the Afghans can take more responsibility for the conduct of their internal affairs,’ Jones said.
That would allow the US to be able to start to bring some of its troops home, ‘the rate at which it will happen would be conditioned obviously on the situation on the ground,’ he said. ‘But when you have a situation like this it simply can’t be that this is going to go on for ever.’
Obama had decided ‘to focus everybody’s attention on a reasonable time frame in which we can see real change Jones said. ‘And on not there has been no disagreement.’ On the contrary to ‘put it positively there has been full agreement on this with Obama’s military and civilian advisors as also the international community.’
‘So I’ll take it as a positive not a negative,’ Jones said. ‘If we would do our job right between now and then this will have a good result.’
(Arun kumar can be contacted at arun.kumar@ians.in)
7,000 troops to join Afghan surge: Nato chief
Afghanistan News.Net
Friday 4th December, 2009 (IANS)
Seven thousand more troops from 25 countries are to join the 30,000-strong US surge in Afghanistan, Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Friday.
This will take the total number of foreign troops in Afghanistan to around 140,000, Rasmussen said without disclosing how many of the contributing countries were members of the Nato.
Rasmussen said that a recent announcement by US President Barrack Obama giving July 2011 as the deadline for the US troops to start withdrawing did not signal a decision to quit Afghanistan.
‘It will not be a run for the exit. It will be a well coordinated and well prepared transition to Afghan-led responsibility in provinces and districts where conditions so permit,’ the Nato chief said in Brussels.
NATO supreme allied commander confident of success in Afghanistan
Afghanistan News.Net
Saturday 5th December, 2009
Some 43 nations Friday vowed their support to help win the war in Afghanistan, a move that encouraged NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe.
“This conference with 43 nations represented, led by Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, was extremely successful,” U.S. Navy Adm. James G. Stavridis (pictured) said. “I’m really pleased to have seen the results of that, which were striking.”
Reports from NATO headquarters indicate at least 25 nations will send additional troops to Afghanistan. Stavridis, who also serves as the U.S. Commander of European Command, said he is very confident that at least 5,000 new NATO troops will be sent to Afghanistan, with several thousand more to be committed next year.
“This is very much an alliance effort,” Stavridis said. “After today’s conference with the foreign ministers, I’m extremely confident about where we’re headed in Afghanistan.”
The talks were held just days after President Barack Obama announced his strategy to win the war in Afghanistan. Part of the strategy revealed Dec. 1 was the authorization of an additional 30,000 U.S. troops.
That would bring the total number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to 100,000. Most of the additional troops would arrive in country in the first part of 2010, the president said.
Obama said his strategy is aimed at reversing the Taliban’s momentum and will increase Afghanistan’s security capabilities over the next 18 months. A military counterinsurgency is only part of the strategy, though.
Other pieces include a civilian surge to improve the country, and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
The president got some reassurance Friday after calling for other nations to pitch in as he announced his strategy.
“Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan,” he said earlier this week. “Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.”
NATO takes on Taliban in south of Afghanistan
Afghanistan News.Net
Saturday 5th December, 2009
A major operation has been launched in southern Afghanistan against the Taliban.
The operation named Khareh Cobra, or Cobra’s Anger, involves 1,050 NATO troops, involing 900 U.S. Marines and sailors and British forces, together with 150 Afghan soldiers and police.
The U.S. forces in the main comprise Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 7 and 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion.
The offensive, targeting a Taliban stronghold in the Now Zad valley of Helmand province, is programmed to catch and kill insurgents, seize weapons and explosives, including landmines and improvised explosive devices, and disrupt drug-running. Helmand province generates the largest share of Afghanistan’s opium crop, which supplies 90% of the world’s heroin.
Prior to the Taliban taking hold in Now Zad, the city was the second largest in Helmand Province. The city is now deserted as inhabitants fled the fighting. U.S. Marines have a company stationed there, along with 150 Afghan soldiers and police.
U.S. Central Command Chief General David Petraeus told AP Friday the offensive will lay the groundwork for the arrival of some 30,000 additional U.S. troops, many of whom will be deployed in the south.
General Petraeus said the military has been working for months to extend security around key towns in southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban influence is strong.
Fort Hood army reserves arrive in Afghanistan
Afghanistan News.Net
Saturday 5th December, 2009
Undeterred by the November 5 massacre at Fort Hood, in Texas, an Army Reserve unit from the base has deployed to Afghanistan as planned.
The unit which had soldiers killed and wounded during the massacre, left Fort Hood on Friday morning.
Maj. Laura Suttinger, commander of the 467th Medical Detachment, said the unit’s soldiers are more dedicated than ever to the mission.
“I think they decided that same day of the shootings that they were more dedicated than ever in honor of the soldiers that we lost and have stood firm in that commitment,” he said. “They were all very dedicated, caring soldiers, and they will not be forgotten. We’re carrying on in their honor.”
Three soldiers from the Madison, Wisconsin-based unit were killed during the shooting: Maj. Libardo Caraveo, 52, of Woodbridge, Va., Capt. Russell Seager, 41, of Racine, Wisc., and Sgt. Amy Krueger, 29, of Kiel, Wisc.
Members of the unit will be better able to help soldiers overseas since surviving this tragedy themselves, 1st Sgt. James McLeod, of the unit, said. “Even though we lost our fallen comrades, ‘no one is going to stop us from completing our mission’ is really what their goal is.”
No existential threat from Taliban : Gilani
Afghanistan News.Net
Saturday 5th December, 2009 (ANI)
London , Dec.5 : Days after President Obama expressed concern about Pakistan based ‘terror hot beds’, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has vehemently refuted the notion about any existential threat posed by the Taliban.
In an interview with an Arab television here, Gilani stressed that Pakistan was fighting the war on terror for its own interest, and that Afghanistan’s stability was of prime concern for Islamabad as well.
“One thing I tell you, this is our own war and we are fighting it for the interest of our own country,” Gilani said.
Earlier, in an interview with the BBC before concluding his four-day visit to the UK and Germany, Gilani strongly rejected the notion about Pakistan carrying out military operation’s against banned extremist organisations on behest of foreign countries.
“We are not mercenaries or service providers either, and nobody has to judge our performance,” The News quoted Gilani, as saying.
While appreciating President Obama’s revamped Afghan policy, Gilani said his government is studying the US plan to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and also examining its implications on the country.
“We would like to see what precisely would be its impact on Pakistan,” he said.
Replying to a question about Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Omar’s presence in Pakistan, Gilani said: “If any credible and actionable information will be passed on to Pakistan, we are ready to act.”
Al-Qaeda leadership in Quetta, claims US diplomat
Afghanistan News.Net
Saturday 5th December, 2009 (ANI)
Peshawar, Dec.5 : While the US has been raising concern about the presence of top Taliban commanders in Pakistan, it has now claimed that some Al-Qaeda leaders are also hiding in Quetta, capital of Balochistan.
Addressing media persons here, the US consul-general in Peshawar, Candace Putnam said there are intelligence inputs which shows that some Al-Qaeda leaders are sitting in Quetta.
“I don’t know where Osama bin Laden is on any given day, but we do know that some of the leadership is sitting in Quetta and that they travel back and forth from Afghanistan to Pakistan,” Putnam said.
Putnam said Islamabad is also aware about Al-Qaeda’s presence, but it has refused to accept that fact.
“We know that they are there. And I think your government also knows this. Whether they want to say this in public or not but I think they know they are there,” she said.
Meanwhile, Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit has rebuked Putnam’s claims as ’speculation’ and ‘misleading’.
“This is but sheer speculation. If there is any credible information, it should be shared with us through government channels rather than making misleading statements through the media,” The Dawn quoted Basit, as saying.
Basit claimed that Pakistan’s own intelligence shows that the Taliban leadership was in Afghanistan.
“Otherwise, they would have long been handled, given our unflinching commitment against violent extremism. Our actions against terrorism speak for themselves,” he added.
Pak home to Mullah Omar for most of the time : Petraeus
Afghanistan News.Net
Saturday 5th December, 2009 (ANI)
Lahore, Dec.5 : While Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has denied the presence of the Taliban leadership in the country, US Central Command Chief General David Petraeus has reiterated that top Taliban leaders have taken refuge in the country, and that Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Omar stays most, if not all, of the time in Pakistan.
In an interview to the National Public Radio (NPR), General Petraeus pointed out that various Taliban commanders were hiding across Pakistan, particularly in Balochsitan .
“The Afghan Taliban were located in various locations in Pakistan… typically in Balochistan. It’s called the Quetta shura. I’m not sure that folks will say (the Taliban) right inside the city (Quetta) or precisely, it will move around and so forth. But… has historically been centred on that city,” he said.
General Petraeus highlighted that that the Siraj Haqqani network, believed to be operating from North Waziristan, was a “big concern”, and added that the Taliban pose an existential threat to that country.
“The TTP (Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan) and the Afghan Taliban were a threat to our Pakistani partners or even a trans-national threat in terms of extremism,” said the top US military official.
“The leader of the Haqqani network is a big concern because, although their leadership tends to be occupying an area on the Pakistani side of the border, the Haqqani network is one of the syndicate of extremist elements that operate in the eastern part of Afghanistan,” he added.
General Petraeus also acknowledged that the US is also to blame for the creation of such extremist organisations, and admitted that Washington had funded the mujahideens to wage war against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan.
“The existence of these organisations, their initial development was actually a reaction to Soviet occupation (of Afghanistan) and funded by, among others, some of the US contribution to the anti-Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.We funded many of them when they were the mujahideen who were fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan,” he said.
Rawalpindi mosque demolished on Prophet Muhammad’s orders: Pak Taliban
Afghanistan News.Net
Saturday 5th December, 2009 (ANI)
Rawalpindi, Dec.5 : The Tehreeke-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has taken responsibility for Friday’s ghastly suicide attack on the Parade Lane mosque here, saying the mosque was “demolished on the orders of Prophet Muhammad”.
TTP chief Waliur Rehman Mehsud told the BBC that the prime target in the attack were military officers, and warned about more such attacks on army personnel in the near future.
“Our militants attacked the military officers (our primary target) and we will continue to attack the army. The civilians killed in the attack were relatives of army personnel and their deaths did not matter,” Mehsud said.
At least 39 people were killed and 45 others injured in the suicide attack carried out by three attackers.
According to media reports, two-star generals were among the people killed in the attack.
The Dawn reported that a colonel also died in the attack while several senior military officers, including a former vice army chief, retired general Mohammad Yousuf, were among the injured.
Clinton rejects Pak’s apprehensions over new Afghan policy
Afghanistan News.Net
Saturday 5th December, 2009 (ANI)
Washington, Dec.5 : US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has played down Pakistan’s apprehensions regarding President Obama’s revamped Afghan strategy,and said that Washington is committed to ending the trust deficit between countries.
Political quarters and the media in Pakistan are apprehensive about the new Afghan plan, as they believe the massive surge of troops in Afghanistan could lead to extremists crossing into Pakistan.
Speaking on television, Clinton said she has had talks with the Pakistani leadership, and they have expressed satisfaction over the new Afghan strategy, which also addresses the problems of that country.
“In the personal conversations I’ve had with Pakistani leaders in the last couple of days, there’s a sigh of relief,” The News quoted Clinton, as saying.
“There’s a feeling that, okay, so the United States is committed not only to Afghanistan and the fight against the Afghan Taliban, but you’re committed to this partnership with Pakistan,” she said.
Clinton said she actually believed that the Pakistani media had responded to the issue much better than what she actually anticipated.
“I think we’re making a little progress. I actually thought the press accounts were better than I would have anticipated,” she said.
Meanwhile, Obama’s Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke has also stressed that Pakistan was taken on board over the Afghan strategy well in advance.
Holbrooke said both the civil and military officials were approached and taken under confidence over the new Afghan policy before President Obama announced sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
“We are talking to Pakistan government over matters relating to US drone strikes in Pakistan but nonetheless, there are no reports on drone attacks in Afghanistan,” he said while responding to a query about whether Washington is in talks with Islamabad to expand drone strikes in the country.
‘Concerned’ India wants US to stay in Afghanistan till peace, stability returns
Afghanistan News.Net
Sunday 6th December, 2009 (ANI)
New Delhi, Dec.6 : Expressing concern over President Obama’s plan to start pulling American troops out of Afghanistan by mid-2011, top government sources here have said that America must not vacate war-ravaged Afghanistan until the establishment of peace and stability there.
Sources said, ever since President Obama unleashed his revamped Afghan strategy, according to which the US would be sending an additional 30,000 troops, Indian authorities are reportedly in touch with the White House, and are convinced that Washington is not adopting any ‘exit strategy’.
New Delhi believes that the situation in Afghanistan is so grave that the planned US surge would not be able to resolve the quagmire in the next 18 months.
While the United States has stressed that it shares its goal of dismantling Pakistan and Afghanistan-based terror safe havens with India, sources clarified that New Delhi has no intention of sending troops to Afghanistan.
U.S. Ambassador to India Timothy J. Roemer had said: “Our core goal in Afghanistan and Pakistan-to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat terrorist networks-is an aspiration we share with India.”
“We must unite in the commitment of our civilian resources, and provide the tools for economic development and humanitarian aid to eliminate the extremist violence that is the enemy of peace, faith,democracy, tolerance, fundamental freedoms and human rights,” said Roemer, hours after President Obama’s announcement of the new Afghan policy.
Obama had on Tuesday, said he was ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan by next summer to counter a resurgent Taliban and had plans to begin a troop withdrawal in 18 months. The goal, Obama said, was to speed up the battle against Taliban insurgents, secure key population centres and train Afghan security forces so they can take over and clear the way for a U.S. exit.
Violence has escalated as tens of thousands of additional foreign troops, mainly Americans, have been deployed in response to an escalating Taliban insurgency which has claimed record numbers of military and civilian lives so far in 2009.
India, Russia likely to make a strong statement on terrorism during PM visit
Afghanistan News.Net
Sunday 6th December, 2009 (ANI)
New Delhi, Dec. 6 : India and Russia are likely to make a strong statement against terrorism and the threat posed to Central Asia and Afghanistan by rising Islamic fundamentalism during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s three-day visit to Moscow between Sunday and Tuesday.
Dr. Singh has said that he hopes to use his trip to the Russian capital to reinforce the India-Russia Strategic Partnership, as he believes that this is a factor that will ensure both peace and stability in an evolving International situation.
Prime Minister Singh will be meeting Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
“The India-Russia partnership is based on the solid foundation of a long-standing friendship, deep mutual trust and a strong convergence of Interests,” Singh said.
Earlier, in an interaction with Russian media here, Singh described “Russia is a big power and could control the conduct of Pakistan.”
Both countries are expected to review the status of their bilateral relationship in key areas of defence, civil nuclear technology and hydrocarbons.
Global and regional issues such as the recovery of global economy, energy security, climate change , nuclear disarmament and reform of international institutions will also feature in the talks in Moscow.
The Indian Prime Minister will also interact with the India-Russia CEOs’ Forum, which is led by Reliance Group Chairman Mukesh Ambani.
A meeting with Russian scholars and intellectuals is also scheduled. The trip concludes on Tuesday. By Naveen Kapoor
Taliban blow up two government schools in Khyber Agency
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 9th December, 2009 (ANI)
Peshawar, Dec. 9 : Two boy’s schools were blown up by the Taliban in Khyber Agency on Wednesday.
According to officials, the attack took place in Bara town, situated 20 kilometres south of provincial capital Peshawar.
The blast was so powerful that it destroyed the two school buildings completely, but luckily no one was hurt in the incident.
“Both main school buildings were completely destroyed,” The News quoted Shafeerullah Wazir, the top administrative official of Agency, as saying.
“Militants buried large quantities of dynamite around the outer walls of the government-run high school and primary school. Both the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Islam was involved in this act,” Wazir added.
Pressure from India would help US dismantle Pak based terror hot beds: Mullen
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 9th December, 2009 (ANI)
Washington, Dec.9 : US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen has suggested that pressure from India on Pakistan’s western border with Afghanistan would eventually help America to destroy and dismantle the terror safe haven present in the lawless tribal region along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
“I look at this, strategically, over the long run that it’s the pressure brought from the east, if you will, on the western border of Pakistan and the pressure in Afghanistan that will eventually allow us to get at and eliminate those safe havens,” Mullen told PBS’s News Hour.
Backing President Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, Mullen said Afghanistan’s stability is very important for Pakistan’s future.
“I also believe that Pakistan’s future will in great part be driven by what kind of country Afghanistan is, stable or unstable, and that a stable, supportive government in Afghanistan will be very helpful to how Pakistan looks at its future and the decisions it makes,” he said.
The top US official also rejected sending any troops to Pakistan apart from a small contingent for training Pakistan’s military, that too on the request of that country’s leadership.
“There (on the Pak-Afghan border), we have got troops, a small number of troops, training, at the Pakistani government and Pakistani military request, as they address this fight, but outside that kind of training support, no other troops,” Mullen said.
Taliban warns Seoul against sending more troops
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 9th December, 2009 (IANS)
The Taliban Wednesday warned the South Korean government against sending 500 soldiers to Afghanistan to take part in the fight against insurgents, saying Seoul must be prepared for ‘bad consequences’ if the troops are deployed.
South Korea had around 200 troops in Afghanistan until late 2007 as part of the international coalition forces that toppled the Taliban regime in late 2001. It withdrew its forces after Taliban kidnapped 21 Korean Christian missionaries.
In return for the release of 19 hostages, Seoul ‘had promised to pull out its soldiers from Afghanistan and will never try to send their forces again in future’, a Taliban statement emailed to media said. The insurgents killed two hostages before releasing the rest in August 2007.
‘If they send their forces to Afghanistan and break their promise, then they should also be prepared for bad consequences,’ the statement said, adding that the Taliban ‘will never resort to a soft approach anymore’.
South Korea officially announced it would send up to 350 soldiers to protect around 100 civilian reconstruction workers by next year, but other NATO leaders have said its contribution would be around 500 troops.
The South Korean deployment would be part of 7,000 reinforcements from more than 20 non-US countries to be sent to Afghanistan by mid-2010. US President Barack Obama has also ordered 30,000 additional American soldiers to join the 68,000 US troops already stationed there.
The reinforcements would bring the total of international troops in Afghanistan to nearly 150,000 – the largest foreign military presence since 2001.
Pak Taliban chief vows to strike Army in winter with devastating force
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 9th December, 2009 (ANI)
Lahore, Dec, 9 : The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) chief Hakeemullah Mehsud has warned that the Taliban would take on the Pakistan Army with more intent during the winter season.
“We will wait till January for our offensive since we are stronger during the snowing season,” Mehsud told CNN over telephone.
Mehsud said the military offensive in South Waziristan has not hampered their objectives and that the insurgents remain determined for war against the security forces present in the region.
“We have conserved our energy and have not lost our morale.The leadership of my organisation is safe,” he said, while refusing to divulge details of his whereabouts.
When asked about Monday’s bomb blast outside Peshawar’s district court, Mehsud neither accepted nor denied Taliban’s hand in the strike.
“Being occupied in other matters, I have not been able to contact my colleagues there, so I will not be able to take responsibility at this time,” he said.
On Monday, a suicide bomber blew himself up at the Peshawar Session Court complex entrance killing nine people and injuring over 45.
This was the second attack in less than a month, which targeted the court premises in Peshawar. Earlier on November 19, a suicide bomber had killed 19 people outside the Peshawar Judicial Complex.
‘Pakistan-Afghanistan border epicentre of Islamic extremism’
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 9th December, 2009 (IANS)
America is focused on the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan in its war on terror as it is the epicentre of global Islamic extremism and the origin of the Sep 11 terror attack, according to the US military chief.
‘Al Qaeda still plots and plans, especially in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is the epicentre of global Islamic extremism, the origin of the 9/11 attacks,’ Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told foreign correspondents here Tuesday.
‘And should we be hit again, I am convinced the planning, training and financing as well as leadership will emanate from there. That’s why we are so focused on it,’ he said. ‘That’s why we believe this mission is in our vital national security interest and those of our allies and friends.
‘And while I focus on the region and talk, let’s say, about Central Asia or India and Pakistan and Afghanistan, per se, there’s an international aspect of this. This is a global … the terrorism problem is a global problem,’ Mullen said in response to a question.
‘This is the centre of what I call the epicentre. And so I think the leadership from many countries, including Saudi Arabia, to help solve these problems is absolutely vital in terms of how we move ahead,’ he said when asked what role he saw for the Middle Eastern nation.
‘The whole issue of reconciliation and reintegration (with the Taliban) is a critical part of our overall strategy, and those that can facilitate that would certainly be more than welcome,’ he added, when asked if the US wanted Saudi Arabia to engage with the Taliban mediation approaches.
The admiral said it was most important to recognise the US mission ‘to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda, to degrade the Taliban’s influence, and to prevent Afghanistan or Pakistan from becoming safe havens’ as ‘a regional challenge’.
A key part of the President Barack Obama’s strategy is to strengthen cooperation with Pakistan and to improve the level of coordination across and within those border regions, he said.
‘I believe that to the degree we can do this, we can certainly help the Pakistanis themselves get at those safe havens.’
Pak sees ‘ally’ Taliban as long-term proxy to limit India’s influence in Afghanistan: NYT
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 9th December, 2009 (ANI)
New York, Dec.9 : While the United States has been pushing Pakistan to do more against terror organisations such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operating from terror safe havens based inside the country, the Pakistani military is hesitant to carry out a defining operation fearing retaliation, but more importantly, because it wants to use the banned organisations against Indian interests in Afghanistan, an editorial has said.
According to an editorial in The New York Times, while the Pakistan Army, under immense pressure from the international community, has initiated action against the extremists in Swat and South Waziristan, it does not seem to be committed to root out militancy from the country.
“In part, they are hesitating because of legitimate fears of retaliation. But there are also many Pakistani officials, and not just in the intelligence services, that continue to see the Taliban as an ally and long-term proxy to limit India’s influence in Afghanistan,” the editorial said.
It also highlighted that President Obama’s revamped and comprehensive AFPAK strategy and the objective of dismantling the Taliban, Al-Qaeda would not succeed until the Pakistani leadership gets into the act seriously, and stops diverting attention from the real issue.
“There is no chance of defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda unless Pakistan’s leaders stop temporizing (and in some cases collaborating) and get fully into the fight,” the editorial said.
The editorial said that the Pakistani military leadership continued to shelter the Taliban even after receiving billions of dollars in aid during President George Bush’s regime, and added that Obama must demand Islamabad to do more while finding ways to bolster the country’s weak civilian leadership and pacify the massive anti-American feeling which persists in the troubled nation.
Six in ten feel Obama right to send more troops to Afghanistan
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 9th December, 2009 (ANI)
Washington, Dec.9 : A healthy 60 percent of Americans favour US President Barack Obama’s new troop surge, according to the Quinnipiac survey, which has a two percent margin of error.
But according to the survey accessed by Politico, only 26 percent think Obama deserves this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.
Forty One percent say the Nobel committee’s choice of Obama for the award causes them to think less of it, while six percent say it makes them think better of the prize and 49 percent say it makes no difference.”
Public support for the war in Afghanistan is up nine percentage points in the last three weeks, as American voters say 57 – 35 percent that fighting the war is the right thing to do.
Approval of Obama’s handling of the war is up seven points in the same period, from a 38 – 49 percent negative November 18 to a 45 – 45 percent split, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
American voters approve 58 – 37 percent of President Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more combat troops to the war-torn nation, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds.
Among women, 31 percent think Obama deserves the award, compared to only 19 percent of men.
Seventy-three percent of blacks, 29 percent of Hispanics and 18 percent of whites think so.
Ex-UK army chief says PM Brown was clueless about Afghanistan developments
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 9th December, 2009 (ANI)
London, Dec.9 : Britain’s former chief of army staff, Gen. (retired) Sir Richard Dannat has said that Prime Minister Gordon Brown was clueless about developments in Afghanistan.
Fifty-eight-year-old General Dannatt claimed that it took two years for Brown to finally “get it”.
He told the Daily Star that Brown had failed to grasp the importance of defeating the Taliban.
It was the second time the general has attacked the PM over his handling of Our Boys in Helmand.
The ex-Chief of the General Staff slammed Downing Street in July saying a lack of helicopters was putting lives at risk.
He retired in September but has refused to step down quietly.
He has joined the Tories as their military adviser and has become a thorn in Brown’s side.
Taliban expand terror campaign in Pakistan’s Punjab
Afghanistan News.Net
Wednesday 9th December, 2009 (IANS)
Islamabad, Dec 9 (IANS/AKI) Taliban militants have used a ceasefire agreement between the Pakistani security forces and North Waziristan Taliban leader Hafiz Gul Bahadur to remobilise and expand their operations.
As the military began its offensive against militants in South Waziristan in mid-October, those aligned with Pakistan’s Tehrik-e-Taliban began launching terror attacks in Peshawar, capital of North West Frontier Province.
But this week’s suicide attacks in the heart of eastern Punjab province are the latest wave in a daring campaign driven by Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud to destabilise the government and outmanoeuvre the military.
Working with the Islamist militant group Laskhar-i-Jhangvi, the Taliban has launched several recent attacks.
On Tuesday, militants targeted Pakistan’s ISI military intelligence services in a car bomb attack in Multan area that killed 12 people, including security personnel. Several houses collapsed because of the high intensity of the blast.
Late Monday, militants targeted the busy Moon Market in Lahore and at least 49 civilians were killed, while last Friday, armed militants bombed a high profile target, a military mosque situated in the garrison town of Rawalpindi where senior military officials gathered for Friday prayers.
A major general, brigadier and many other officers, as well as their family members including 17 children died.
The Taliban was quick to accept responsibility for the Rawalpindi massacre.
Mufti Waliur Rahman Mehsud, chief of the Taliban in South Waziristan, told the media that military officers in the mosque were the ‘primary targets’ of the bombing.
Waliur Rahman warned that the Taliban would continue to target the army and his grim prediction has been realised in the past 24 hours.
According to militant sources, they claimed to have outmanoeuvred the armed forces when they struck the peace deal with two Taliban groups including commander Gul Bahadur and commander Mullah Nazir from the Shakai region of South Waziristan.
Before he was killed in a drone attack in August, Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud had urged Gul Bahadur to retain the long running agreement with the military as he believed it would help militants escape through the region in the case of a military operation.
Baitullah Mehsud was killed but his strategy worked when the Pakistan army came with full force to destroy the sanctuaries of the Taliban.
Most of the militants had already left the area and settled in North Waziristan.
From there they regrouped and made their base in the Orakzai tribal region from where they carried out attacks in Peshawar.
Once they had consolidated their positions around Peshawar, the TTP gave the green light to its Punjab cells who carried out the attacks in Rawalpindi, Lahore and now in Multan.
The Taliban’s increasingly violent strategy has been executed as President Asif Zardari is facing fresh scrutiny over the amnesty granted to him by former president Pervez Musharraf in relation to alleged corruption and embezzlement.
In such a turbulent period, the amnesty, known as the National Reconciliation Ordinance, could jeopardise the rule of Zardari’s Pakistan Peoples Party and the coalition government.
Frequent high profile attacks by the militants have placed Pakistan in a quagmire without any sign of a solution.
nikolaykotev
![Happy Birthday to......... [FP!] :-)](http://static.flickr.com/2600/4172097360_acd82e2e9e_t.jpg "Happy Birthday to......... [FP!] :-)")
Recent Comments