Ramanisblog

Tag: War in Afganistan

  • Pakistan covertly aiding Taliban: report

    Duplicity, thy name is Pakistan.
    KABUL/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Pakistan was actively collaborating with the Taliban in Afghanistan while accepting U.S. aid, leaked U.S. military reports showed, a disclosure likely to increase pressure on Washington’s embattled ally.

    The revelations released by the online organization WikiLeaks emerged as Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned of greater NATO casualties in Afghanistan as violence mounts over the summer.

    The Taliban said they were holding captive one of two U.S. servicemen who strayed into insurgent territory, and that the other had been killed. The reported capture will further erode domestic support for America’s nine-year-old war.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100726/pl_nm/us_afghanistan_10

  • Video: Family of alleged CIA bomber speaks

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/07/video-family-of-alleged-cia-bomber-speaks/

  • Europe and Afghanistan.

    Why should EU share US’s perception?They know what had happened with 14 member coalition for Operation Desert Storm.What did they gain out of it?Nearly all leaders of the countries who were a party to that decision have lost their jobs.Nor do the people of these countries want these wars of US.Every country has the right to decide its options.
    Afghanistan is not and should not be just the United States’ fight. Al Qaeda has used its sanctuaries in Afghanistan and Pakistan to plot and launch attacks on European cities. We welcome the news that some of America’s 42 military partners in Afghanistan plan to send more troops.

    It was not an easy call. As President Obama said in his Nobel acceptance speech last week, “In many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public.” And in Europe any ambivalence has long been replaced by fierce demands for withdrawal.

    Still, NATO’s announcement that an additional 7,000 troops will be going falls short of what is needed, and has too many casualty-limiting caveats attached.

    That isn’t good for Afghanistan or NATO, which has never fully shouldered the burden of this mission. And it is unfair to the American people, who are being asked to make disproportionate sacrifices for what is, emphatically, a common fight.

    When more closely parsed, the NATO numbers look even less impressive. Almost 2,000 will come from countries outside the alliance (including Australia, South Korea, Sweden and aspiring NATO members, Georgia, Ukraine, Macedonia and Montenegro). And more than half of the new NATO troops will come from just three member states: Britain, whose force will go up to 10,000; Italy, which will go to roughly 4,000; and Poland, which will total 2,800.

    So far, neither France, which has 3,750 troops there, nor Germany, with roughly 4,300, has agreed to send any additional troops.

    Meanwhile, the Netherlands, with roughly 2,200, will withdraw its forces in the course of 2010; Canada, with 2,800, will be leaving by 2011. That means as American troop levels rise from 68,000 to 98,000 by next summer, allied troop levels are not likely to go much higher than the present 38,000.

    Immediately after 9/11 there was a spontaneous outpouring of European support for the United States and offers of assistance in Afghanistan under the common defense clause of the NATO treaty. The Bush administration arrogantly spurned that offer, and then proceeded to alienate European opinion with its disastrous war in Iraq. Trans-Atlantic cooperation on Afghanistan still has not recovered.

    The challenge for President Obama and European leaders is to overcome that unhappy recent history before it does more damage to the war effort in Afghanistan and to the NATO alliance. Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, and France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, have repeatedly stated that their countries have a stake in the future of Afghanistan and the future of NATO. But both are wary of pushing their voters too far, too fast. (Both have essentially postponed their decisions on further troop contributions until late next month.)

    Democratically elected leaders cannot ignore public skepticism, but they should not surrender to it when they know better. Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy must educate their voters to the harsh reality that Europe will also pay a high price if the Taliban and Al Qaeda get to retake Afghanistan and further destabilize Pakistan.

    There is a lot Europe can do in addition to sending more troops. Afghanistan also needs more skilled civilian advisers to work with President Hamid Karzai’s new cabinet appointees. And it urgently needs help reconstructing its dysfunctional national police force — a job the United Nations initially assigned to Germany, which fumbled it. NATO had it right in 2001. Defeating Al Qaeda is a matter of common defense. President Obama is right to insist that the allies do more. Now Europe’s leaders need to demand more of themselves.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/opinion/14mon1.html?_r=1&hp

  • Obama’s Afghanistan speech: How it sounded to Afghans

    True.

    Afghans walk through a market in Kabul, Afghanistan on Wednesday.
    MUSADEQ SADEQ/AP
    Obama’s Afghanistan speech: How it sounded to Afghans
    Obama’s Afghanistan speech set a timeline for withdrawal, but some Afghans worry that by sending more troops the US aims to occupy their country – a fear the Taliban may use to to recruit fighters.

    By Ben Arnoldy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
    from the December 2, 2009 edition
    Print this Buzz up! Email and share Republish E-mail newsletters RSS
    KABUL, AFGHANISTAN – It’s not just Americans who are concerned about the wisdom of escalating the Afghan war. Many Afghans also say it’s a waste to send more troops.

    “One American soldier costs about $1 million a year,” says Jabar Wafaie, a security guard from restive Uruzgon Province working in Kabul. “The troops that are already here, they can do well now, if they wanted they could destroy the Taliban.”

    Across ethnic lines, Afghans interviewed in Kabul have concluded that foreign troops must not be working hard, or perhaps prefer to have an excuse to occupy.

    Critical to the coalition’s success here is convincing Afghans that they can trust its promises of security and handover – and thus need not side with the Taliban.

    But President Barack Obama’s speech Tuesday night, in which he pledged 30,000 more troops and set a timeline of July 2011 to begin withdrawal, appeared to do little to convince Afghans that the US aims only to stabilize and leave their country.

    AFGHAN LEADERS GIVE MIXED REVIEWS

    Some Afghan leaders, however, heard within the speech – particularly in the timeline and clear denial of intent to occupy – the promises needed for them to go out and change people’s perceptions.

    “[Mr. Obama] may not be convincing the normal people or the Taliban, but by saying these things in the speech, this gives to the politicians, scholars, and spiritual leaders a free hand now. We are the ones … to win over our people,” says Khalid Pashtun, a member of Parliament from the southern province of Kandahar.

    The timeline, he says, will be a powerful tool for starting reconciliation talks with the Taliban because the removal of foreign troops was always one of their preconditions. Now the Taliban and their recruits can believe the US doesn’t intend to stay forever, and in the short-term will apply extra pressure with the additional troops, he says.

    Others are not so sanguine.

    “For the Taliban, this is good news,” says Waliullah Rahmani, director of the Kabul Center for Strategic Studies. That’s because the insurgents can wait out the 18 months and feel confident they can prevail if the US begins to leave. “If the Afghan government [remains] in the same situation that is today, it cannot remain in power for [even] a month when the US leaves.”

    NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal reiterated Wednesday in Kabul that the president’s plan prioritizes building up the Afghan security forces so that eventually they “have the capacity to deal with [the Taliban] effectively.”

    As for the short term, he said, the 18-month timeline “is not an absolute.” It does not mark the end of all foreign troops in the country and won’t allow the Taliban to play out the clock, he said. “To a degree, the insurgents cannot afford to leave the battlefield while the government of Afghanistan expands its capability … because that gives the government a good opportunity to make its case effectively to the people.”

    AFGHAN PERCEPTIONS KEY TO SUCCESS

    At times, McChrystal’s use of the language of counterinsurgency bordered on an post-modern sense of war as perception alone.

    “There are force ratios and there are physical things, but mostly it is in people’s minds,” he said. The task is to build the confidence of the Afghan security forces, convince the insurgents they cannot contest territory, and “most importantly, to convince the people in the middle that the government is going to be able to do this.”

    Afghans, however, suggest that they cannot live on perceptions and patriotism alone. The money for additional US troops would better be spent raising the salaries of the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police, says Mr. Wafaie, the security guard. Late last month, pay raises of $45 a month were announced, putting starting salaries at around $165. But it may not suffice.

    Joining the Taliban comes with side benefits – members can stay in their home village and enjoy local power and prestige – that the government must counter by offering higher salaries, Wafaie says.

    But perceptions also play a role, he concedes. The Taliban have convinced many people in his home province of Uruzgon that the US means to occupy. He worries that the only message that will come through from Obama’s speech is that more US troops are coming in 2010, not that they also intend to begin leaving in 2011.

    “The additional 30,000 troops is going to be a good opportunity for the Taliban to recruit more,” he says.

    That doesn’t mean Afghans favor an immediate withdrawal either. Jalil Obaidy, a medical student from Farah Province, says Afghanistan needs foreign troops’ help for security.

    “But people say they are helping the government and at the same time helping the Taliban,” he adds. “Instead of sending more troops to Afghanistan, they have to work hard” against the Taliban.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1202/p06s01-wosc.html