Kat's Catches

By John and Kat

This morning's epistles from Kat are a tour de force. I haven't time to set all the links but this first of several transmissions will get us started. What follows can be called a "second draft" since Kat's emails are first. But a quick check tells me some of the links don't work or may be incomplete. The content, however, is too important not to publish, mistakes and all. I have to go missing now for a few hours, so anyone is invited to amend or correct in the comments.

JB

~~~��~~~

 

 Nato and US attack Cam's troops date - James Lyons - 41 minutes ago David Cameron's plan to pull troops out of Afghanistan before the next election was dealt a triple blow yesterday. ...

Karzai's shift  BBC News - 2 hours ago After a meeting with Hamid Karzai, guest columnist Ahmed Rashid considers why the Afghan leader has become frustrated with his Western backers. ...

What Afghans Are Thinking - Swampland -

This is startling--and more than a little discouraging:

KABUL � Afghans in two crucial southern provinces are almost completely unaware of the September 11 attacks on the United States and don't know they precipitated the foreign intervention now in its 10th year, a new report showed on Friday...

Few Afghans in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, Taliban strongholds where fighting remains fiercest, know why foreign troops are in Afghanistan, says the "Afghanistan Transition: Missing Variables" report to be released later on Friday.

The report by The International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) policy think-tank showed 92 percent of 1,000 Afghan men surveyed in Helmand and Kandahar know nothing of the hijacked airliner attacks on U.S. targets in 2001.

"The lack of awareness of why we are there contributes to the high levels of negativity toward the NATO military operations and made the job of the Taliban easier," ICOS President Norine MacDonald told Reuters from Washington.

The report also finds that "55% of interviewees believe that the international community is in Afghanistan for its own benefit, to destroy or occupy the country, or to destroy Islam."

It's important to remember that poll after poll also shows that Afghans overwhelmingly dislike the Taliban and don't want to live under its control. Still, America's prospects for propping up an arguably illegitimate president who constantly trashes us to a population that doesn't understand why on earth we're in their country except maybe to destroy Islam are... daunting, to say the least.

 

Survey: Few Afghans Know Why NATO Invaded -- News from Antiwar.com

With NATO officials busily plotting another several years of occupation in the Lisbon Summit, the people of Afghanistan are by and large being left out. Not just of the planning, but even the reason behind the war.

After almost a decade of military occupation, a new survey by the International Council on Security and Development revealed that 92 percent of the Afghan men surveyed had never even heard of 9/11, the ostensibly casus belli for the entire conflict.

�The lack of awareness of why we are there contributes to the high level of negativity toward the NATO military operations,� http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AI2U720101119 insisted ICOS President Norine MacDonald. It was unclear however whether the few Afghans who had heard of 9/11 were any more upbeat about the seemingly endless war.

The poll also showed majority support in Southern Afghanistan for secession and the creation of an independent Pashtunistan (potentially including some of Pakistan�s tribal regions), and that 40 percent of the population believed NATO was occupying Afghanistan as part of a goal to destroy Islam.

Though the report from ICOS stressed the importance of communication with the Afghans it seems that such efforts will inevitably be dwarfed by the deleterious effect military occupation has on public opinion. MacDonald urged NATO to make it clear why Afghans� future is �better with us than with the Taliban,� but recent NATO comments suggest not many officials even buy this anymore, http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/19/2010/11/17/nato-envoy-eye-watering-violence-in-afghanistan-after-troops-leave/ leaving open the question of why the Afghans would.

Via antiwar.com... U.S. wants to widen area in Pakistan where it can operate drones

ISLAMABAD - The United States has renewed pressure on Pakistan to expand the areas where CIA drones can operate inside the country, reflecting concern that the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan is being undermined by insurgents' continued ability to take sanctuary across the border, U.S. and Pakistani officials said.

The U.S. appeal has focused on the area surrounding the Pakistani city of Quetta, where the Afghan Taliban leadership is thought to be based. But the request also seeks to expand the boundaries for drone strikes in the tribal areas, which have been targeted in 101 attacks this year, the officials said.

Pakistan has rejected the request, officials said. Instead, the country has agreed to more modest measures, including an expanded CIA presence in Quetta, where the agency and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate have established teams seeking to locate and capture senior members of the Taliban.

The disagreement over the scope of the drone program underscores broader tensions between the United States and Pakistan, wary allies that are increasingly pointing fingers at one another over the rising levels of insurgent violence on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Senior Pakistani officials expressed resentment over what they described as misplaced U.S. pressure to do more, saying the United States has not controlled the Afghan side of the border, is preoccupied by arbitrary military deadlines and has little regard for Pakistan's internal security problems.

"You expect us to open the skies for anything that you can fly," said a high-ranking Pakistani intelligence official, who described the Quetta request as an affront to Pakistani sovereignty. "In which country can you do that?"

U.S. officials confirmed the request for expanded drone flights. They cited concern that Quetta functions not only as a sanctuary for Taliban leaders but also as a base for sending money, recruits and explosives to Taliban forces inside Afghanistan.

"If they understand our side, they know the patience is running out," a senior NATO military official said.

The CIA's drone campaign in Pakistan has accelerated dramatically in recent months, with 47 attacks recorded since the beginning of September, according to The Long War Journal, a Web site that tracks the strikes. By contrast, there were 45 strikes in the first five years of the drone program.

But Pakistan places strict boundaries on where CIA drones can fly. The unmanned aircraft may patrol designated flight "boxes" over the country's tribal belt but not other provinces, including Baluchistan, which encompasses Quetta.

"They want to increase the size of the boxes, they want to relocate the boxes," a second Pakistani intelligence official said of the latest U.S. requests. "I don't think we are going to go any further."

He and others spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the clandestine nature of a program that neither government will publicly acknowledge.

Pakistani officials stressed that Quetta is a densely populated city where an errant strike is more likely to kill innocent civilians, potentially provoking a backlash. Unlike the semi-autonomous tribal territories, Baluchistan is considered a core part of Pakistan.

U.S. officials have long suspected there are other reasons for Islamabad's aversion, including concern that the drones might be used to conduct surveillance of Pakistani nuclear weapons facilities in Baluchistan.

In interviews in Islamabad, senior Pakistani officials voiced a mix of appreciation and apprehension over the U.S. role in the region.

The high-ranking Pakistani intelligence official said the CIA-ISI relationship is stronger than at any times since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that the two spy services carry out joint operations "almost on a daily basis."

"I wish [our] countries understood each other the way the CIA and ISI understand each other," the official said. But he also traced Pakistan's most acute problems, including an epidemic of militant violence, to two decisions by the government to collaborate with the United States.

Using the ISI to funnel CIA money and arms to mujaheddin fighters in the 1980s helped oust the Soviets from Afghanistan, the official said, but also made Pakistan a breeding ground for militant groups.

Similarly, Pakistan's cooperation since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has been key to the capture of al-Qaeda operatives and the success of the drone campaign. But it has inflamed radical elements in the country and made Islamabad a target of terrorrist attacks.

"We'd not have been here if we had not supported the Afghan jihad, if we had not supported [the response to] 9/11," the official said, adding that it was "our fault. We should have stood up."

Barring the CIA from flying drones over Quetta, the official said, is one area in which Pakistan is now taking a stand.

In other areas, CIA-ISI cooperation has deepened. The agencies have carried out more than 100 joint operations in the past 18 months, including raids that have led to the capture of high-ranking figures including Mullah Barader, the Taliban's former military chief.

The Pakistani intelligence official said the operations have been "mainly focused on Quetta." Teams based there rely on sophisticated surveillance technology and eavesdropping equipment provided by the CIA. When a raid or capture is attempted, the ISI is in the lead.

The aim is "to capture or arrest people based on intel primarily provided by Americans," the Pakistani intelligence official said. The effort has been underway for a year, the official said, but "now the intensity is much higher."

Nevertheless, U.S. and Pakistani officials acknowledged that they have no high-profile arrests or other successes to show for their efforts. The NATO military official said there had been "intelligence-led" operations against Taliban targets in Quetta in recent months but described them as "small scale" in nature.

The two sides disagree sharply over the importance of the Quetta Shura, the leadership council led by Mullah Mohammed Omar that presides over the Afghan Taliban. Some senior Pakistani officials refuse to use the term "Quetta shura," calling it a U.S. construct designed to embarrass Pakistan.

"I'm not denying the individual presence of members" of the Taliban in or near Quetta, a senior Pakistani military official said. "But to create the impression there is a body micromanaging the affairs of the Afghan Taliban . . . is very far-fetched."

The push to expand the drone strikes has come up repeatedly in recent months, Pakistani officials said. The United States has also urged Pakistan to launch a military offensive in North Waziristan, a redoubt for militant groups including al-Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban and the Haqqani network, considered the most lethal foe of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Pakistani officials ruled out a sweep anytime soon, saying the country's military is still consolidating its hold on territory in Swat and South Waziristan, where tens of thousands of residents were displaced during operations to oust militants last year.

The senior Pakistani military official said U.S. expectations have little to do with Islamabad's own national security calculations.

"You have timelines of November elections and July x'11 drawdowns - you're looking for short-term gains," the official said, referring to President Obama's pledge to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July. "Your short-term gains should not be our long-term pain."

Correspondents Karin Brulliard in Islamabad and Joshua Partlow in Kabul contributed to this report.

Study: Most Afghans Unaware Of 9/11 Terror Attacks

A US-based think-tank claimed in a report released Friday that most Afghan civilians in two of the war-torn nation's most volatile southern provinces are unaware of the 9/11 terror attacks in the United States and the reasons for the presence of foreign troops in their country.

The International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) said its findings were based on surveys conducted in October 2010 in Afghanistan's southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand, as well as the northern provinces of Parwan and Panjshir.

While 500 people participated in the surveys conducted in Parwan and Panjshir, some 1,000 Afghans participated in those conducted in Helmand and Kandahar. The surveys in southern Afghanistan were conducted in the Kandahar districts of Zhari, Panjwai and Kandahar City and the Helmand districts of Lashkar Gah, Marjah, Nawa, Sangin, and Garmsir.

According to the ICOS report, about 92% of the Afghans who took part in the surveys conducted in the south are unaware of the September 2001 terror attacks in the US or the actual reasons for the presence of US and allied troops in Afghanistan.

The report, titled "Afghanistan Transition: Missing Variables," said most of those interviewed in the south were not beneficiaries of the international development efforts progressing in their country, and were unsure of the objectives of the NATO and US military mission in Afghanistan. ...

Afghan incomprehension is Washington's first problem By David Ignatius [Yeah, I know, but he gives more stats than other sources -- and he includes the US's stupid ideas for wooing Afghan support.] Nov 20

America�s first problem in Afghanistan is that the Afghan people in the key battleground don�t understand why we�re there: When pollsters read a simple summary of the September 11, 2001, attack and its aftermath to a sample of 1,000 young men in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, only 8 percent said they knew about this event.

The poll results convey a stark reality about this war: People in the Pashtun region of southern Afghanistan resent foreign fighters. Most don�t comprehend why they have come, or how they might offer a better future than would the Taliban. They feel that America and its allies don�t respect their traditions.

When President Hamid Karzai complains about US military tactics, as he did in a recent interview with The Washington Post, he�s expressing what many Afghans feel. Rather than getting furious at Karzai�s outbursts, which is the normal reaction of US officials, perhaps it�s worth listening more carefully. After nine years of war, the Afghans want their country back.

[...]

The numbers show the Afghans remain wary, even as US troops pound the Taliban: 50 percent of those polled in October think recent military operations are bad for the Afghan people; 58 percent think it�s wrong to work with foreign forces; 55 percent oppose military operations against the Taliban in their area; 72 percent say that foreigners disrespect their religion.

President Barack Obama premised his strategy last December on the idea that as US forces drove the Taliban from Kandahar and Helmand, local governance would improve and support for the insurgency would dry up in these key provinces. There has been some movement in that direction in recent months.

Here are some indications that Obama�s core assumptions are still unproven: Only 31 percent of those polled believe that NATO forces are protecting the population; 51 percent say their view of NATO forces is either more negative or the same compared to a year ago; 65 percent say that foreign forces kill more civilians than do the Taliban.

Perceptions of the Afghan army and police are improving in Helmand and Kandahar, but not sufficiently that people are confident they can take control. Fifty-two percent say the Afghan army is effective, and 39 percent say that about the police. However, on the big question of transferring power, 61 percent believe that the Afghan security forces will be unable to provide security in areas from which foreign forces are withdrawing.

And here are the most chilling numbers of all: In the region that was Osama bin Laden�s stronghold, 81 percent say Al-Qaeda will come back if the Taliban returns to power, and 72 percent say that Al-Qaeda will then use Afghanistan as a base for attacks against the West.

MacDonald thinks it�s not too late to turn these trends around. She argues that the US and its allies need to make clear why they�ve come, and explain why Afghans will have a better future working with the coalition and the Afghan government. People want electricity, for example, so she suggests a simple choice: Future with us, lights on; future with Taliban, lights off.

To improve the US� image with young Afghans, MacDonald has an innovative plan for a �marriage allowance� scheme to help them finance their most passionate ambition.

General David Petraeus has stepped up the �enemy-centric� side of counterinsurgency, tripling the number of US special-operations raids compared to a year ago. But MacDonald�s polling data make clear that the �protect the population� isn�t succeeding yet. The trends are improving, but not enough.

 

Human Security Gateway - Afghanistan Transition: Missing Variables

States is beefing up its ...

New US Plan in Afghanistan: 'Awe and Shock' Wired News (blog) - Spencer Ackerman - 17 hours ago

Behold the US's new counterinsurgency tool in Afghanistan: the M1 Abrams tank, your ultimate in 30-year old precision firepower. ...

Kandahar death squads undermine US tactics

Despite partnership, a growing mistrust Washington Post - Joshua Partlow -  Early this month, an Afghan soldier allegedly turned his rifle on his American partners and shot dead two US soldiers in Helmand province.

Embedded Marines teaching Afghans to fend for themselves Stars and Stripes - Jon Rabiroff - 6 hours ago Tough love and other interpersonal skills are what US military representatives in Helmand and Kandahar provinces are using to manage their complicated ...

Liam Fox: British forces could be moved from most violent parts of Helmand  Telegraph.co.uk - James Kirkup - 50 minutes ago

The Marine Corps plans to use a company of Abrams tanks in areas of northern Helmand province where British forces were held to a stalemate by the Taliban ...

Showdown on START  Washington Post - 1 hour ago PRESIDENT OBAMA'S claim that it is "a national security imperative" that the US Senate ratify a nuclear arms treaty with Russia before the end of the year ...

NATO backs new 10-year strategy, missile shield

Lisbon, Nov 20 (DPA) NATO leaders at a summit Friday in Lisbon approved a 10-year strategy aimed at allowing the alliance to operate far beyond Europe, and agreed that NATO needs the equipment to counter new weapons, especially ballistic-missile attacks.

NATO's last 'strategic concept' dates back to 1999. Since then, the alliance has spent almost eight years fighting in Afghanistan and has had to deal with new threats such as terrorism, cyberwar and piracy, none of which featured strongly in the 1999 document.

'Here you have NATO's road map for the next 10 years: our new strategic concept has just been adopted by the heads of state and government,' NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told journalists as he waved a copy of the 11-page document.

The concept is meant to guide NATO's 28 member states as they reform their armed forces and plan joint operations over the next decade.

'This summit will go down in NATO history. The strategic concept is clear and open, and it shows that we are all working on the same foundation,' German Chancellor Angela Merkel said.

Shortly afterwards, US President Barack Obama told journalists during a break in the summit, 'I'm pleased to announce that - for the first time - we've agreed to develop missile defence capability that is strong enough to cover all NATO European territory and populations, as well as the United States.'

The US is already developing a long-range system of anti-missile rockets and is planning to bring parts of that system to Europe, starting with Aegis-class ships in the Mediterranean (2011) and later bringing land-based rockets to Romania (2015) and Poland (2018).

The NATO decision mandates the alliance to create a computer programme which would allow a NATO commander to use the US and short-range European systems as a single unit to shoot down attacks.

'It offers a role for all of our allies. It responds to the threats of our times. It shows our determination to protect our citizens from the threat of ballistic missiles,' Obama said.

NATO leaders are expected to invite Russia to start talks on linking its early-warning system to the NATO one. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is due to join the summit Saturday and is widely tipped to agree to such talks.

'Tomorrow, we look forward to working with Russia to build our cooperation with them in this area as well, recognising that we share many of the same threats,' Obama said.

The strategic concept, meanwhile, repeats the alliance's core commitment for each member state to defend all the others, but calls on it to improve its defences against threats such as cyber attacks.

Members will 'develop further our ability to prevent, detect, defend against and recover from cyberattacks,' it reads.

It also calls on members to improve their cooperation with 'any nations and relevant organisations across the globe that share our interest in peaceful international relations.'

The concept does not name those countries, but in previous speeches Rasmussen has specified Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, as well as the UN, World Bank and European Union.

Relations between NATO and the EU are particularly fraught because Turkey, a NATO member, and Cyprus, an EU member, have long vetoed systematic cooperation.

The concept stresses that the EU is a 'unique and essential partner for NATO' but only commits the alliance to making 'our contribution to create more favourable circumstances' for cooperation.

The concept for the first time calls on NATO to set up a permanent force designed to train security forces in third countries, and to create an 'appropriate but modest civilian crisis management capability' to liaise with civilian groups such as the EU and UN.

On Saturday, the summit is scheduled to discuss Afghanistan, in addition to the Russia meeting.

Rasmussen says a NATO missile defense shield will 'bind' allies Deutsche Welle - As well as adopting a new 10-year strategic concept at its Lisbon summit, NATO has invited Russia to cooperate on a missile defense shield. ...

NATO General Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen presents the alliance's new ...  FAS Strategic Security Project (blog) - Hans M. Kristensen - The new Strategic Concept adopted today by NATO represents one step forward and a half step backward for the alliance's nuclear ...

US sick of asking Australia for troops - National News - National - General - Macedon Ranges Weekly

THE United States has repeatedly asked for more Australian troops to be sent to war-torn Afghanistan and for Australia to take control of the coalition forces in Oruzgan province, but has been rebuffed on both counts.

The revelation comes after repeated denials by the Australian government and Defence Force hierarchy that NATO commanders had asked Australia to boost its contingent of 1550 troops.

The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, are attending a NATO conference in Lisbon this weekend, at which the leaders of coalition countries will begin to set a timetable for transition next year - the process of turning small regions over to Afghan forces.

The Herald has been told US General Stanley McChrystal, who was sacked this year after publicly criticising the President, Barack Obama, made at least three written requests in 2008 and last year after it became clear Dutch forces would withdraw from Oruzgan, which they did in August.

''These were more than just 'scoping documents','' a source said. ''These were full-blown requests.''

Senior Defence Force officers have often refused to pass on to government recommendations on troop movements, and requests for increases, because they know the requests will be rejected, sources said.

Another Defence source said yesterday US officers regularly said they were ''sick and tired of Australia not doing enough � they'd like us to be doing more''. However, they realised the Australian government was set against sending more troops.

''Any discussion on leadership [in Oruzgan] is quickly terminated by Australian politicians,'' a third source said.

There has been speculation about US requests to Australia since Mr Obama reviewed his Afghanistan strategy last year, but until now there has been no confirmation of any written requests from US commanders to their Australian counterparts.

When asked at a Senate hearing in May whether Australia had been asked to take leadership of Oruzgan, the then defence minister, John Faulkner, replied ''absolutely not''.

Last year, the then prime minister Kevin Rudd denied Australia had been asked to provide more troops, describing its contribution as ''about right''. The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, recently described Australia's contribution as ''proportionate''.

Sources have said the requests from General McChrystal were sent to successive commanding officers of Task Force 633, which controls all Australian forces in Afghanistan. At least one request was made late last year, when the Pentagon was still pushing Mr Obama to send at least an extra 30,000 troops and US planners wanted their allies to also increase troop numbers and take on more responsibility.

They said Australian officers provided contingency plans in support of the requests, one of which included sending a brigade of Australian troops to Oruzgan - about 3000 men.

One source disparaged the Lisbon conference, saying its main aim was for ''politicians to give the domestic audience something to grab onto'' whether or not the stated strategic goals are possible.

General McChrystal expressed his displeasure about Canberra's limitations on Australian forces in a phone call to the Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, late last year.

After that, American officers were pleased when Senator Faulkner persuaded Mr Rudd to allow Australia's special forces to have a greater role outside of Oruzgan.

There was speculation Australia would take control in Oruzgan when the Dutch withdrew, but shortly before the withdrawal, it was announced the US would take leadership of a new Australian-dominated force.

A plan to deploy Australian special forces deeper into hostile Taliban territory - at the risk of greater casualties - was canvassed at this month's summit of American and Australian political leaders in Melbourne.

The top US military commander, Admiral Mike Mullen, confirmed the idea of permanently basing Australian SAS and commandos in Kandahar - one of the most restive areas in Afghanistan - was raised during talks with Air Chief Marshal Houston.

Australia's 320 special forces troops in Afghanistan are based in Oruzgan, but some regularly make the hazardous journey to Kandahar for operations.

Bishop calls on Gillard to come clean on NATO requests for more troops - National News - National - General - Brimbank Weekly

Stop the rot, Gillard tells Karzai  Sydney Morning Herald - 5 hours ago

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has told Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai to stamp out the rampant corruption that has plagued the war-ravaged nation. ...

How to Negotiate with the Taliban Qantara.de - 30 minutes ago

The war against the Taliban is passing the nine-year mark and NATO forces are waning in their commitment to a never-ending counterinsurgency war. ...

Military hopes to enlist villagers to fight Taliban  Denton Record Chronicle - Sebastian Abbot - ?2 hours ago? SANGIN, Afghanistan � When members of the Alikozai tribe rose up against the Taliban in this insurgent stronghold, neither coalition ...

Security forces detain Kandahar Taliban leader DVIDS - 4 hours ago KABUL, Afghanistan � Afghan and coalition forces detained an important leader in the central Kandahar Taliban network and several terrorist suspects in the ...

Afghanistan: on the road to transition?  - 12 hours ago The Friendship gate: never was a crossing so ill-named for two nations whose relationship is far from being cordial, Pakistan and Afghanistan. ...

Where does he come up with this stuff? Biden: Afghans May Control Some Provinces as Early as January  Department of Defense - Lisa Daniel - 12 hours ago WASHINGTON, Nov. 19, 2010 � NATO's International Security Assistance Force may be able to start transitioning security of some Afghan ...

NATO revises goal for police mentoring teams Stars and Stripes - Seth Robson - 6 hours ago

HOHENFELS, Germany � NATO has scaled back its ambitions for police development teams after European nations failed to provide any of the 143 additional teams that the command in Afghanistan said it needed earlier this year.

Peggy Beauplet, a spokeswoman at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, said in an e-mail Thursday that Europe had yet to add to 38 teams operating in Afghanistan, despite the fact that 143 more teams were requested to be in place by October.

That requirement has grown to 227 more of the 15- to 20-man teams, but Beauplet said NATO is focusing on getting 91 more �priority� Police Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams � soldiers and military and civilian police that mentor their Afghan counterparts.

�This is the number that we need in our key terrain areas, where most of the population is,� she said, adding ...

We've been hearing the same thing every few months for the past 10 years. 'Equipment not reaching soldiers'  BBC News - 18 hours ago

Christina Schmid, whose husband Staff Sergeant Olaf Schmid died over a year ago as he tried to defuse a bomb in Helmand Province, says although the kit is ...

Help for the helpless Montreal Gazette - Amy Minsky - ?Nov 19, 2010? ... 2010 Medic Sergeant Tyrone Jordan, left, treats an Afghan child wounded in an explosion in southern Afghanistan's Helmand province.

Marjah residents take on the Taliban  Asia Times Online - ?Nov 18, 2010? ... district of Helmand say they have formed an armed force to fend off the Taliban, in the first movement of its kind in the restive southern province.

Taliban tenacity, ineffective governance negating Pak army gains in S.Waziristan  56 minutes ago

Wana (Pakistan), Nov 20 (ANI): Although the Pakistan army had launched a major offensive in South Waziristan one year ago, bands of fighters continue to assert their presence with gunfire, rockets and roadside bombs, and people who have little faith in the government's promises, have expressed wariness about returning to the region.

"We have very little trust in the government, because no promises were kept in the past," The Washington Post quoted one tribal elder from the town of Makeen, as saying.

"We are happy to go back - but unarmed, wearing our shawls on our shoulders, not hanging guns," said a Mehsud elder interviewed in Tank, adding, "We don't want any more bloodshed on our soil."

A recent UN survey of people displaced from South Waziristan found that about 45 percent want to return immediately, but most said that they would first require food, health care, schools and water, and the majority said that they had heard nothing about a government resettlement package.

The Taliban, for its part, appears to have heard about the resettlement plan, as in Tank and Dera Ismail Khan, pamphlets have appeared warning refugees to stay put.

"We urge the Mehsuds not to return to Waziristan at this point, as they would come under attack during our clashes with the security forces," Azam Tariq, a Pakistani Taliban spokesman, told one local journalist in a recent phone interview. "Stay away from Waziristan."

Even as US officials express frustration about North Waziristan, they also point out Pakistan's need to consolidate gains. A recent White House report to Congress noted that an absence of government authority has resulted "in short-lived military gains that allow militants to regroup in these areas."

Major General Rizwan Akhtar, the commander in South Waziristan, said that this was one reason his soldiers probably would remain in place for another two years, at the request of local leaders.

The Pakistani army confronts the challenges similar to the obstacles faced by US soldiers in Afghanistan, as it is up against an indigenous enemy that blends in easily, a vacuum in local governance, a skeptical population and, military officials contend, a desolate border that insurgents easily cross, the paper said.

"I'm sure the bulk of it is in Afghanistan," the commander of the army division based here, Maj. Gen. Rizwan Akhtar, said of the Taliban leadership his troops purged from South Waziristan.

South Waziristan is one of six areas, including the Swat Valley, where about 140,000 Pakistani troops are engaged against Taliban militants. More than 2,600 soldiers have been killed in those and other counter-terror operations since 2001, according to the army.

The current operations are "stabilization" efforts, not active offensives, said Lt. Gen. Asif Yasin Malik, who commands all troops in Pakistan's northwest. According to military officials, in South Waziristan, 35,000 soldiers now focus on guarding roads, providing security for development projects and towns, and preparing for the return of about 41,000 displaced families, the first batch of which is scheduled to arrive next month, the paper added.

Under the resettlement plan, 8,000 families are slated to voluntarily return next month to 13 relatively secure villages. Each family is to receive 300 dollars, winterised tents and food rations, said Arshad Khan, director of the FATA Disaster Management Authority.

Military officials confidently said villagers would provide security for their own settlements, according to British-era tribal regulations, the paper said.

"This is a test case," said a senior Pakistani government official who was closely involved in the resettlement plan but was not authorized to speak publicly about it. "Their return is the key to the security of South Waziristan." (ANI)

Pakistan. Drone attack kills at least three suspected terrorists Ottawa Citizen - ?53 minutes ago? A US drone attack destroyed a vehicle in Pakistan's tribal district of North Waziristan on Friday, killing at least three suspected militants, ...

US knows repercussions of drone operations expansion: FO  DAWN.com - ISLAMABAD: Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit on Saturday said the United States has been clearly conveyed that action against militants in Pakistani ...

Top Al Qaeda leader killed in US drone attack  Sify - ?15 hours ago?

Islamabad, Nov 19 (IANS) A senior Al Qaeda leader, Mufti Ali Muhammad, has reportedly been killed along with two of his accomplices in a US drone strike ...

After major South Waziristan offensive, Pakistan still faces serious obstacles  Washington Post - Karin Brulliard, Haq Nawaz Khan - ?17 hours ago? WANA, PAKISTAN - A cricket tournament was held last week in this South Waziristan town for the first time in eight ...

It's Time to Tell the Truth About the CIA's Secret Drone War in Pakistan  Huffington Post (blog) - Nov 18, 2010

There are some things it is really best not to mention when you are the newly appointed American ambassador to Islamabad. The CIA's covert drone programme ...

US drones kill 20 on eve of Eid Pakistan Observer - Tariq Saeed - ?Nov 17, 2010? Peshawar�The CIA operated American drones have again struck on the North Waziristan Agency Tuesday morning this time killing at least twenty people and ...

Pak: Taliban Militants Torch 10 NATO Oil Tankers  Outlook

Suspected Taliban militants in northwestern Pakistan today torched 10 oil tankers ferrying oil supplies for NATO troops in Afghanistan in, police said. ...

Report alleges Pakistan ISI freed Rohde's Taliban kidnappers Politico (blog) - After New York Times's reporter David Rohde escaped from his Taliban captors in Pakistan last year, the Pakistani intelligence services interrogated two of ...

After David Rohde's Escape, A Taliban Feud Huffington Post

Bicycle bombers kill 4, wound 31 in east Afghanistan Reuters Africa - Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said the hardline Islamist group had carried out the attack and that the target had been Afghan police and intelligence ...

Twin blasts kill 3, wound 29 in E Afghanistan Xinhua

Pak-US relations have improved qualitatively, says Gates  Daily Times - 11 hours ago US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has brushed aside suggestions about Pakistan being responsible for the problems US is facing in combating the ...

Pak border areas epicentre of terrorism: Mullen Economic Times

WASHINGTON: Border areas of Pakistan alongside neighbouring Afghanistan is the "epicentre of terrorism" in the world and the Pakistan army continues to be ...

The Endgame for Afghanistan Asia Sentinel (blog)

Iran can of necessity play a major role in saving the US's bacon in Afghanistan

Last month an extraordinary diplomatic development occurred in Rome with the potential to seed a long-term solution for Afghanistan's security and stability. For the first time, the government of Iran sent a special representative to a multinational forum on transition of power to the Afghan government, ahead of the impending drawdown of NATO troops from mid-2011.

Given the long chill in US-Iranian relations, the welcome for the Iranian representative from the US and Europeans grabbed attention. The American delegate declared ambivalently that he had "no problem with their presence so far,' while the German chairperson remarked that having Iran at the table is "good news' and "proves that we are on the right track.'

For interested regional parties like Iran, India and Russia, the challenge is to forge common ground to ensure that the fledgling Afghan state does not fall back into internal chaos or become a playground for machinations of neighboring states with a pedigree of weaponizing Sunni Islamist fundamentalism.

By virtue of geographical location � as well as historical, cultural and political influence, Iran is an indispensable power for securing an Afghanistan that remains free from domination of any single regional power such as Pakistan. Iran has a fervent anti-Taliban and anti�Al Qaeda posture because these two movements appeal to Sunni zealotry and threaten Iran's control over its southeastern Sunni majority province, Sistan-e-Balochistan. Abdolmalek Rigi, the executed former leader of Jundullah, a secretive Sunni terrorist outfit trying to overthrow Iranian rule in Sistan, sought joint training and assistance from the Taliban and Al Qaeda. He was a product of Pakistan's Binoria seminary in Karachi, a hotbed of Sunni jihadi elements from around the world and notorious as the school of the Taliban.

The haze around Iran's nuclear program and its tussle with the US has somewhat clouded memories of Tehran's pragmatic cooperation with Washington in 2001 to unseat the Taliban after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Notwithstanding Iran's subsequent decrying of the US military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, Tehran found the American-initiated ousters of Saddam Hussein on its western frontier and of the Taliban on its eastern frontier strategically advantageous. ...

Pro/con: Should US immediately withdraw troops from Afghanistan? Duluth News Tribune

Russia-Iran-India alliance in Afghanistan Pakistan Daily Mail -  INDIA is so desperate to retain a role for itself in Afghanistan that it has started blackmailing the USA and the west. Former Indian Foreign Secretary's ...

Haqqani Network leaders detained in Afghan east and north  Long War Journal - Bill Roggio

The terrorist facilitator was detained just six days after the Taliban's failed suicide assault on Forward Operating Base Fenty in the Behsud district in ...

Suicide attack facilitator captured in Nangarhar overnight http://www.dvidshub.net/news/60532/suicide-attack-facilitator-captured-nangarhar-overnight

Taliban are killers: Malik The Nation,
Pakistan - He said that the Taliban are killers and they are neither Muslims nor Pakistanis. While was talking to officials and 'jawans' of Islamabad Police at Police ...

Expert pleads for delinking of civilian, military operations in Afghanistan  Deutsche Welle - Jennifer Abramsohn - ?Nov 17, 2010? Europeans should argue for decoupling civilian from military operations in Afghanistan at the upcoming NATO summit, the head of the EU Institute of Security ...

Newsline � Blog Archive � Masters, Not Friends? 17 Nov By Zafar Hilaly

The message that we needed to convey to the Obama team at the recent Washington confab was that we have reached a point in our vexed relationship when the haggling has to end. It�s no longer a question of what we will do in return for how much. We can do no more for all the money in the world and, notwithstanding the spin, what�s good for America is no longer good for Pakistan.

That we did not convey this message is obvious from the impression that most took away from the talks and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi�s subsequent media briefing in Lahore. He boasted that all is well with the Pak-US relationship, and that all stresses and strains had been removed. Of course, one way of removing differences is by agreeing to all the demands of the other side, just as a sure way to end a war is to surrender. And this, sadly, is what many think has happened.

The impression here is that in return for the $2 billion that the military will receive from 2012 to 2016, it has finally agreed to mount the long-awaited operation in North Waziristan targeting the Afghan Taliban (Haqqani) sheltering there. Obama�s generals have been calling for such action so that they can show positive results from the much-touted �surge� presently under way. Obama has been told that the thinning out/withdrawal that he has promised next year won�t look good unless they can show a significant weakening in the Taliban�s fighting capability. General Petraeus is petrified that unless he achieves measurable success, it will appear that he is leaving with his tail between his legs rather than his head held high. And that, inter alia, would blow his chance for a shot at the US presidency. Regardless, Pakistan must not oblige and the reasons are self evident.

The Haqqani Taliban have not attacked Pakistan. They are not harbouring Al-Qaeda. They do not maintain operational links with the TTP or foreign militants and criminal elements. If they did, and we had irrefutable evidence of this, it would be a valid reason to take them on. But merely because they oppose the American occupation of their country, their presence in Pakistan, however unwelcome, is not sufficient reason to take them on. We cannot afford to alienate the population of an entire sub region, or sever our ties with the Afghan Taliban, or stand our present Afghan policy on its head.

So many and harmful are the consequences of warring with the Afghan Taliban on behalf of the US, that it hardly bears contemplation. Their present struggle against US occupation would probably metamorphose into a struggle for achieving a Pashtun homeland with the Judas, Pakistan, replacing the US as the main enemy. Old and dormant irredentist claims would be revived with the ensuing fratricide straining the loyalties of Pakistan�s Pashtuns. Frankly, it is unthinkable that the government should in return for two billion dollars and American threats and blandishments risk rending the febrile modus vivendi that exists among the different ethnic groups in the country. Besides, where is the sense in, on the one hand, using the goodwill built up with the Taliban over years of interaction to prod and cajole them into negotiations with Kabul while, on the other hand, attacking them in North Waziristan.

Moreover, an army operation will inevitably lead to mass dislocation and destruction of lives and property. South Waziristan, after the earlier operation, remains a tortured land with its displaced population wallowing in misery in makeshift camps in Tank and Dera Ismail Khan. Worse, the militants have not been cowed. According to Rahimullah Yusufzai, the army is facing �a growing number of attacks from militants belonging to the TTP.� A similar operation in North Waziristan would not only invite attacks from the TTP, but also the Afghan Taliban and not only in the FATA region, but also in our towns and cities.

Nor, given the vastly forbidding terrain in North Waziristan, would an army operation be very effective. In the past they have had no long-term benefit and only alienated the hapless population. The Haqqani Taliban would, in any case, do what militants invariably do when such operations are launched: relocate to other parts of the tribal areas.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, an army operation conducted under American duress will not sit well with the public at home. It would make an unpopular government even more so and, because the military would be spearheading the action, damage the army�s recently restored popularity. Furthermore, belief that the current war is almost entirely American-driven will receive a powerful boost. And if, as a result, the public were to conclude definitively that the war is not �our� war, the loss in every meaningful sense would outweigh the little that may be gained militarily or financially.

Judging by the remarks of the Corps Commander, Peshawar, Lt Gen Asif Yasin, the six brigades presently in North Waziristan are insufficient to launch an operation. In fact, he has gone to the extent of declaring that the army will not be ready till 2012 to conduct such an operation. That is just as well because by that time the situation should have become clarified to the extent that the utility of such operations would become clearer.

Having once been close to those who make and implement foreign policy, one was struck by how much governments are influenced by extraneous matters such as the need to be seen as succeeding; to reap dividends that favourable publicity promise regimes that are faring badly at the polls; to prove that policies which may be floundering are in fact working and to proffer any remark or praise uttered by outsiders as a sign of success. Although understandable, such considerations are unacceptable when core national interests are involved.

The Americans have had it their way with us for quite some time. They came to Afghanistan with our backing and that of the world community to eliminate Al-Qaeda � a task which, for all practical purposes, was achieved years ago. They are now hanging on to defeat the Taliban, sit atop strategic pipeline routes, threaten Iran by the construction of air fields and bases ringing Iran, and to contain China. (One is discounting the allegation that the US has a more sinister purpose of destabilising Pakistan and seizing our nukes). These aims were never part of the international agenda or that of the US. And it was also not why Pakistan lent its forces and territory for the cause.

But even if Mr Qureshi, by some miracle, had developed the spunk to say this to his American interlocutors, he would have been dissuaded to do so by the establishment. They probably contend that, as in the past, they can have their cake and eat it at the same time, and that such confrontational talk is unnecessary. However, not this time. The small print attached to the civilian and military giveaways won�t, one suspects, be overlooked by Congress and the Obama team.

We will know soon enough.

Six F-16 aircrafts to arrive in Pakistan today | AAJ News  20th November

US Administration will hand over six more F-16 Block-52 fighter jets, which will enter in Pakistan territory on Saturday flying by Pakistani pilots.

The jets will land at the Shahbaz Airbase of Pakistan Air Force (PAF) in Jacobabad.

These fighter planes would be kept at Shahbaz Airbase, which had been turned into a formal operation base, and Pakistan would utilise these planes for its operational objectives, they maintained.

According to Pak-US agreement, it had been decided that in the first phase, US would hand over 3 F-16 Block C fighter jets to Pakistan, whereas in the second phase five F-16 Block 52 C fighter jets would be handed over within one and a half months. While overall a total of 18 fighter jets would be inducted in the PAF fleet by the end of this year.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan - ANALYSIS: State collusion with the Taliban? �Farhat Taj

The lashkar leaders have many complaints against the federal government as well as the security forces of Pakistan. They argue that the Taliban are carrying out criminal acts with impunity against the people of Adeyzai and that state authorities are doing nothing about it. They also accuse the authorities of not even permitting the lashkar to take any action against the Taliban in the surrounding areas

There is a small village in rural Peshawar, Adeyzai, located on the border with Darra Adam Khel in FATA. The village is also in close proximity to Khyber Agency and FR Peshawar in FATA. The Taliban based in all the three FATA areas have been attacking people in Adeyzai, but Darra Adam Khel Taliban have been in the forefront.

The late Haji Malik of the village formed an anti-Taliban lashkar consisting of 200 to 300 armed volunteers in 2008, in the face of a complete collapse of the state�s writ in the village due to a Taliban incursion from Darra Adam Khel. The police could not come out of the police station. People, including policemen, were publicly killed and kidnapped. Girls� schools were bombed. The lashkar has successfully countered the Taliban. Law and order was restored, girls� schools started functioning again, and the police were back on normal duty.

But to do so, the lashkar people had to render many sacrifices. In November 2009, Haji Malik was target killed in a suicide attack by the Taliban. In November 2010, the new lashkar leaders, including Dilawar Khan and Noor Malik, were twice attacked, but they survived. Between November 2009 and 2010, there have been several clashes with the Taliban in which at least 40 lashkar people have been killed and many injured. These also included women and children, who died when Taliban-fired rockets fell on the houses of the lashkar leaders and volunteers. Despite all odds, the lashkar, made mostly of local farmers and workers, continued to protect Adeyzai from Taliban onslaughts under the leadership of Dilawar Khan, after the assassination of Haji Malik. ...

Some Pak politicians helping Taliban, claims captured terrorist  Nov 19

U.S. Turns to a 'Taliban Beater'  Wall Street Journal - ?Nov 17, 2010? American officials in Afghanistan used to call Col. Abdul Razzik a "malignant actor" who must be sidelined. Now they hail the suspected drug lord as a hero ...[?This one is a must read. Odd bedfellows indeed. JB]

Train Afghan troops? Good luck with that Globe and Mail - ?Nov 18, 2010? What explains Prime Minister Stephen Harper's sudden change of heart on Afghanistan? One day he's vowing to shut the door and turn out the lights on the ...

Afghan Mission Cranbrook Daily Townsman - ?Nov 18, 2010? Ever since 2008, the Prime Minister of this country, Stephen Harper, has told Canadians that there would be no military mission for Canada in Afghanistan ...

British Defence Secretary welcomes Canadian commitment to Afghan mission - 08:15 GMT, November 18, 2010 British Secretary of State for Defence Dr Liam Fox has welcomed the news that 950 Canadian troops will remain in Afghanistan in ...

MPs must OK Afghan mission Victoria Times Colonist - ?Nov 18, 2010? There are at least three compelling reasons for a full debate and vote in Parliament before the Afghan mission is extended for another three years. ...

Travers: Afghanistan shift blurs Harper leadership image Toronto Star - James Travers - ?Nov 17, 2010? OTTAWA�Conservatives worked long, hard and successfully to associate �strong� and �leader� with Stephen Harper. ...

In Afghanistan, the jihadists talking peace aren't the ones making war Telegraph.co.uk (blog) - Praveen Swami - For months now, figures linked to the Taliban have been holding a not-so-secret dialogue with Mr Karzai. Mr Karzai believes that Pakistan, the patron of his ...

NATO reads weakness in Taliban leader Mullah Omar's annual Eid statement  Nov 16th, I think.

Maldives quietly hosts another round of Taliban peace talks  Asian Tribune - ?1 hour ago? The Taliban team has been headed by an ex-Mujahideen -Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a key leader of armed Talibani opposition. Around 50 people were in the meeting, ...

Afghan troops are plagued by Taliban mice | The Sun |News|Campaigns|Our Boys 19 Nov

BRITAIN'S toughest troops are calling for more equipment to battle new insurgents in Helmand - MICE.

The Tail-iban terrors invade 2 Para's tents and gnaw away at food and clothes.

Our soldiers pleaded for help - and families launched Operation Mousetrap to end the threat to the camp in Nahr-e Saraj.

One private's wife bought 15 traps for �6.50 and sent them from her home in Newport, Isle of Wight. She said: "This is one equipment shortage we wives can sort out.

"My husband rang to say they were over-run with mice. They are eating everything. We enclose more traps in the parcels of goodies we send.

"I'm sure they will help end this invasion."

A spokesman at the Newport hardware shop that sells the traps said: "Most popular is the Big Cheese at �1.30 for three."

The MoD urged the public NOT to send traps as the Paras now have enough.

Troop Morale Dips as Winter Drives Taliban Indoors Slate Magazine (blog) - ?Nov 18, 2010? Winters in Afghanistan are tough on the Taliban. It's difficult to transport supplies, campfires are easily spotted, and with supply lines cut off, ...

Americans can no longer conceal their defeat in Kandahar Operations: Taliban  The Nation, Pakistan - ?3 hours ago? The White House has determined July 2011 as the deadline to begin withdrawing their defeated invader forces from Afghanistan. It is therefore necessary for ...

Making bread to fight the Taliban  Public Radio International PRI - 15 hours ago A new program aims to curb terrorism and fight the Taliban by teaching former Taliban fighters to make bread.

Taliban on run, Maj. Gen. Campbell says  Clarksville Leaf Chronicle - Jake Lowary - Nov 18, 2010 Campbell said the effort, now five days long, has severely disrupted the Taliban. "There's a laundry list of stuff we found," Campbell said of two or three ...

Have (infinite) war, will travel  Asia Times Online - Pepe Escobar - Nov 17, 2010