U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan
The New York Times
A bleak Ghazni Province seems to offer little, but a Pentagon study says it may have among the world’s largest deposits of lithium.
By JAMES RISEN
Published: June 13, 2010
Excerpts from and Comments on Risen's article.
The principal point of this article is that The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.
The reserves of deposits have previously been unknown — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium. They could eventually turn Afghanistan— into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe. Our viewpoint on this site has always identified the importance of Afghanistan's geographical location in a regional context where there are substantial oil reserves. Oil, pipelines, competition among major powers for oil and control over its distribution, and the corruption and environmental degradation that follows oil exploration and production - these are what we focused on. Now, with the discovery of rich mineral and metal deposits, Afghanistan's strategic position will grow in importance and perhaps generate even more international interest and conflict - and reasons for the US to keep troops in the country.
An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.
The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said.
While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war.
“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday. “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”
....Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact.
Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.
The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources.
....At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.
....The mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency.
....So far, the biggest mineral deposits discovered are of iron and copper, and the quantities are large enough to make Afghanistan a major world producer of both, United States officials said. Other finds include large deposits of niobium, a soft metal used in producing superconducting steel, rare earth elements and large gold deposits in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan.
Just this month, American geologists working with the Pentagon team have been conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan where they believe there are large deposits of lithium. Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large of those of Bolivia, which now has the world’s largest known lithium reserves.
A version of this article appeared in print on June 14, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.
Monday, June 14, 2010
US offenses in Marja and Kandahar are failing
In the following article by Gareth Porter, I quote from and comment on the article.
McChrystal Faces Massive Failure in Afghanistan in Next Few Months
By Gareth Porter, IPS NewsPosted on June 13, 2010, Printed on June 14,
2010http://www.alternet.org/story/147190/
Gareth Porter compiles evidence to document and further confirm that the US-led offenses in Afghanistan are not going well. Porter examines the recent attack on Marja in Helmand Province and the planned attack on Khandahar, which has already led to some US military incursions or probes. In both cases, Porter writes, the failures stem from the lack of support from the populations and leadership. Their attitudes, in turn, reflect the continuing strength and influence of the Taliban (or certain groups of Taliban) to remain an intimidating presence in both provinces.
Porter writes: On Thursday, McChrystal's message that his strategy will weaken the Taliban in its heartland took its worst beating thus far, when he admitted that the planned offensive in Kandahar City and surrounding districts is being delayed until September at the earliest, because it does not have the support of the Kandahar population and leadership.
The evidence is troubling in Marja as well. Equally damaging to the credibility of McChrystal's strategy was the Washington Post report published Thursday documenting in depth the failure of February's offensive in Marja.
Porter thinks that such failures are likely to be repeated over and over again in media coverage in the coming months.
The basic premise of the US Kandahar operation is unconfirmed, namely that the populations of Marja and Kandahar would welcome US-led forces and cooperate with them in identifying the Taliban insurgents in their respective areas. But it is now clear that McChrystal has understood for weeks that the most basic premise of the operation turned out to be false.
"When you go to protect people, the people have to want you to protect them," said McChrystal, who was in London for a NATO conference.
He didn't have to spell out the obvious implication: the people of Kandahar don't want the protection of foreign troops.
Afghan President Karzai has not helped to facilitate the US-led operations, which focus on driving the Taliban out of the two provinces. Why? because Karzai has made no secret of his preference for a negotiated settlement rather than continued efforts to weaken the Taliban by occupying key Taliban strongholds.
A recent detailed report by the National Editor of the Post, Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the first detailed evidence of the systematic non-cooperation of the population of the district-sized area called Marja with U.S. troops.
Chandrasekaran reported that female U.S. Marines tried to get Afghan women to come to a meeting last week, but that not a single woman showed up. And despite a NATO offer to hire as many as 10,000 residents for labor projects on irrigation projects, only about 1,200 have signed up.
The Taliban have killed about a dozen people in Marja for collaborating with occupation forces,
and many more have been warned to stop, according to Chandrasekaran's report.
....Chandrasekaran also reported that representatives of rural development and education projects came to Marja initially and then retreated to the province centre. They appear to be as convinced as the population that the Taliban will continue to be a powerful presence in the region.
Taliban influence continues despite the deployment of nearly 15,000 U.S., British and Afghan troops to control Marja's population, representing a ratio of one occupying soldier for every two members of the population....The fact that the U.S.-NATO forces could not clear the Taliban from Marja despite such an unusually heavy concentration of troops is devastating evidence that the McChrystal strategy has failed.
Porter thinks that the continuing lack of progress could well lead to the swift unraveling of political support for the war on the part of the elected and unelected political elite, as occurred in the Iraq War in the second half of 2006. The collapse of elite political support for the Iraq War followed months of coverage of sectarian violence showing the U.S. military had lost control of the war.
The US generals think that more time (and perhaps more troops) will solve the problem
and change the attitudes of the population in Helmand and Kandahar. General McChrstal and CENTCOM chief Gen. David Patraeus may now be counting on pressure from the Republican Party to force President Barack Obama to reverse his present position that withdrawal of U.S. troops will begin next year.
That was the view expressed Thursday by retired Army lieutenant colonel and former Petraeus aide John Nagl, a leading specialist on counterinsurgency who is now president of the Centre for a New American Security.
Porter assumes that political considerations of the Obama administration will lead it to go along with what the Generals want. After the organization's annual conference, Nagle told IPS that Obama will have to shift policy next year to give more time to McChrystal, because he would otherwise be too vulnerable to Republican attacks on his Afghanistan policy going into the 2012 election campaign.
© 2010 IPS News All rights reserved.View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/147190/
McChrystal Faces Massive Failure in Afghanistan in Next Few Months
By Gareth Porter, IPS NewsPosted on June 13, 2010, Printed on June 14,
2010http://www.alternet.org/story/147190/
Gareth Porter compiles evidence to document and further confirm that the US-led offenses in Afghanistan are not going well. Porter examines the recent attack on Marja in Helmand Province and the planned attack on Khandahar, which has already led to some US military incursions or probes. In both cases, Porter writes, the failures stem from the lack of support from the populations and leadership. Their attitudes, in turn, reflect the continuing strength and influence of the Taliban (or certain groups of Taliban) to remain an intimidating presence in both provinces.
Porter writes: On Thursday, McChrystal's message that his strategy will weaken the Taliban in its heartland took its worst beating thus far, when he admitted that the planned offensive in Kandahar City and surrounding districts is being delayed until September at the earliest, because it does not have the support of the Kandahar population and leadership.
The evidence is troubling in Marja as well. Equally damaging to the credibility of McChrystal's strategy was the Washington Post report published Thursday documenting in depth the failure of February's offensive in Marja.
Porter thinks that such failures are likely to be repeated over and over again in media coverage in the coming months.
The basic premise of the US Kandahar operation is unconfirmed, namely that the populations of Marja and Kandahar would welcome US-led forces and cooperate with them in identifying the Taliban insurgents in their respective areas. But it is now clear that McChrystal has understood for weeks that the most basic premise of the operation turned out to be false.
"When you go to protect people, the people have to want you to protect them," said McChrystal, who was in London for a NATO conference.
He didn't have to spell out the obvious implication: the people of Kandahar don't want the protection of foreign troops.
Afghan President Karzai has not helped to facilitate the US-led operations, which focus on driving the Taliban out of the two provinces. Why? because Karzai has made no secret of his preference for a negotiated settlement rather than continued efforts to weaken the Taliban by occupying key Taliban strongholds.
A recent detailed report by the National Editor of the Post, Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the first detailed evidence of the systematic non-cooperation of the population of the district-sized area called Marja with U.S. troops.
Chandrasekaran reported that female U.S. Marines tried to get Afghan women to come to a meeting last week, but that not a single woman showed up. And despite a NATO offer to hire as many as 10,000 residents for labor projects on irrigation projects, only about 1,200 have signed up.
The Taliban have killed about a dozen people in Marja for collaborating with occupation forces,
and many more have been warned to stop, according to Chandrasekaran's report.
....Chandrasekaran also reported that representatives of rural development and education projects came to Marja initially and then retreated to the province centre. They appear to be as convinced as the population that the Taliban will continue to be a powerful presence in the region.
Taliban influence continues despite the deployment of nearly 15,000 U.S., British and Afghan troops to control Marja's population, representing a ratio of one occupying soldier for every two members of the population....The fact that the U.S.-NATO forces could not clear the Taliban from Marja despite such an unusually heavy concentration of troops is devastating evidence that the McChrystal strategy has failed.
Porter thinks that the continuing lack of progress could well lead to the swift unraveling of political support for the war on the part of the elected and unelected political elite, as occurred in the Iraq War in the second half of 2006. The collapse of elite political support for the Iraq War followed months of coverage of sectarian violence showing the U.S. military had lost control of the war.
The US generals think that more time (and perhaps more troops) will solve the problem
and change the attitudes of the population in Helmand and Kandahar. General McChrstal and CENTCOM chief Gen. David Patraeus may now be counting on pressure from the Republican Party to force President Barack Obama to reverse his present position that withdrawal of U.S. troops will begin next year.
That was the view expressed Thursday by retired Army lieutenant colonel and former Petraeus aide John Nagl, a leading specialist on counterinsurgency who is now president of the Centre for a New American Security.
Porter assumes that political considerations of the Obama administration will lead it to go along with what the Generals want. After the organization's annual conference, Nagle told IPS that Obama will have to shift policy next year to give more time to McChrystal, because he would otherwise be too vulnerable to Republican attacks on his Afghanistan policy going into the 2012 election campaign.
If Porter is correct, then the Afghan war and occupation will continue to require a major investment of US dollars, along with deaths, injuries, destruction of towns and infrastructure, corruption at all levels of government, the need to bribe Taliban to protect trucks carrying supplies to US troops, and the consequent self-defeating alienation from the occupation.
© 2010 IPS News All rights reserved.View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/147190/
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Bribes in Afghanistan may be funding Taliban
The US military and US government prove to be endless in the ways that try to recreate, justify, and implement the US-led war and occupation in Afghanistan. The following article addresses the issue of how US money ends up as bribes to Taliban fighters. Why? The Taliban are needed to protect US supply trucks. What a sheer waste of money and resources, not to mention the casualties to US and allied troops and the greater destruction and casualties suffered by Afghani civilians. This war goes on not to advance "democratic values." It goes on because US leaders believe that Afghanistan is important to their larger interests in the oil-rich Central Asia and Middle East regions. It goes on because our bloated military-industrial complex needs wars to justify its continued government support. US wars yield great harm, hatred of the US, and a distraction from, or underfunding of, many other efforts needed to confront the monumental crises confronting the US and the world.
Kucinich: ‘We may be funding our own killers in Afghanistan’
By Sahil KapurTuesday, June 8th, 2010
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0608/kucinich-war-critics-rebuke-usfunded-bribes-afghan-militants
Share
Click for New York Times story: US-backed 'bribes' in Afghanistan may be funding Taliban
On June 7, the day Afghanistan became America’s longest-ever war, the New York Times reported on an ongoing investigation poised to prove that private security companies "are using American money to bribe the Taliban" to fuel combat and thus enhance demand for their services. The news follows a "series of events last month that suggested all-out collusion with the insurgents," the Times said.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a leading opponent of the war, wondered, "Is the U.S. paying for attacks on U.S. troops?”
"Our troops are dying in Afghanistan, and now it turns out we may be funding their killers," Kucinich said in a statement e-mailed to Raw Story, renewing his longstanding call for a pullout. "Our continued presence in Afghanistan is detrimental to our security."
"The American people are paying to prop up a corrupt government that may be using our money to pay private companies to drum up business by paying the insurgents to attack our troops," he said.
Kucinich’s motion in March to implement a swift withdrawal of US troops from the region failed by a margin of 365-65 in the House.
"In the coming weeks, Congress is expected to be asked to give another $33 billion for war efforts... I will be bringing this report to the personal attention of individual Members of Congress prior to the vote on any additional war funding," the Ohio congressman said.
The Times interviewed a NATO official in Kabul who "believed millions of dollars were making their way to the Taliban."
A White House spokesperson did not return a request for comment.
Robert Greenwald, an ardent war critic and director of the 2009 documentary "Rethink Afghanistan," viewed the Times story as vindication for his message.
“Supporting a corrupt elite in a civil war does nothing to make us safer, costs the United States billions of dollars, and it’s not working,” Greenwald told Raw Story.
It "confirms what we have heard numerous times from our friends, co workers and producers in Afghanistan. The United States is effectively funding both sides of the war all too often," he said.
The administration and large bipartisan majorities in Congress continue to support and fund 8-year-long military operations in Afghanistan, warning that a pullout could lead to a Taliban takeover and greater threats to American interests.
Richard Holbrooke, US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, told reporters Monday that the US, Japan, Britain and other countries have “committed” roughly “200 million dollars” to fund peace efforts in Afghanistan, Agence-France Presse reports. The Afghanistan Peace and Reconciliation Program aims to reintegrate Taliban fighters who have renounced violence into Afghan society.
Kucinich: ‘We may be funding our own killers in Afghanistan’
By Sahil KapurTuesday, June 8th, 2010
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0608/kucinich-war-critics-rebuke-usfunded-bribes-afghan-militants
Share
Click for New York Times story: US-backed 'bribes' in Afghanistan may be funding Taliban
On June 7, the day Afghanistan became America’s longest-ever war, the New York Times reported on an ongoing investigation poised to prove that private security companies "are using American money to bribe the Taliban" to fuel combat and thus enhance demand for their services. The news follows a "series of events last month that suggested all-out collusion with the insurgents," the Times said.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a leading opponent of the war, wondered, "Is the U.S. paying for attacks on U.S. troops?”
"Our troops are dying in Afghanistan, and now it turns out we may be funding their killers," Kucinich said in a statement e-mailed to Raw Story, renewing his longstanding call for a pullout. "Our continued presence in Afghanistan is detrimental to our security."
"The American people are paying to prop up a corrupt government that may be using our money to pay private companies to drum up business by paying the insurgents to attack our troops," he said.
Kucinich’s motion in March to implement a swift withdrawal of US troops from the region failed by a margin of 365-65 in the House.
"In the coming weeks, Congress is expected to be asked to give another $33 billion for war efforts... I will be bringing this report to the personal attention of individual Members of Congress prior to the vote on any additional war funding," the Ohio congressman said.
The Times interviewed a NATO official in Kabul who "believed millions of dollars were making their way to the Taliban."
A White House spokesperson did not return a request for comment.
Robert Greenwald, an ardent war critic and director of the 2009 documentary "Rethink Afghanistan," viewed the Times story as vindication for his message.
“Supporting a corrupt elite in a civil war does nothing to make us safer, costs the United States billions of dollars, and it’s not working,” Greenwald told Raw Story.
It "confirms what we have heard numerous times from our friends, co workers and producers in Afghanistan. The United States is effectively funding both sides of the war all too often," he said.
The administration and large bipartisan majorities in Congress continue to support and fund 8-year-long military operations in Afghanistan, warning that a pullout could lead to a Taliban takeover and greater threats to American interests.
Richard Holbrooke, US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, told reporters Monday that the US, Japan, Britain and other countries have “committed” roughly “200 million dollars” to fund peace efforts in Afghanistan, Agence-France Presse reports. The Afghanistan Peace and Reconciliation Program aims to reintegrate Taliban fighters who have renounced violence into Afghan society.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Afghan women, subjugated in the past and present, face an uncertain future
What would a truce with the Taliban mean for the liberation of the country's women?
By Miranda Simon
Afghanistan, Sunday, May 9, 2010.
http://www.salon.com/news/afghanistan/index.html?=mwt/broadsheet/2010/06/04/peacejirga_women
Mothers of slain teenage sons, men marred by mine blasts and tearful widows were among Afghans who spoke out Sunday at a conference billed as the first major gathering of victims of decades of war in their country.
As the third and final day of Afghanistan's three-day peace conference gets underway, it's worth asking what its implications are for the country's women. After all, the "jirga" is focused on a proposal to offer money and jobs to the Taliban -- a group not exactly known for valuing the rights of women -- if they give up their violent ways.
Soon after President Obama took office, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reaffirmed her commitment to Afghan women, and resistance to the Taliban. Now, President Obama is backing Karzai's proposal and, according to the Guardian's Jonathan Steele, many women in Afghanistan do too, despite potential setbacks to their freedoms. After interviewing a diverse sample of Afghan women, he came to the conclusion that their desire for peace trumps their desire for liberation.
Salon took these thorny issues to professor Robert Crews, an expert on Afghanistan at Stanford University, and co-editor of the book "The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan," in search of some much-needed clarity.
Why is President Karzai reaching out to the Taliban, and why do you think the U.S. has backed this decision?
Karzai came to power promising amnesty for Taliban fighters and has repeated various versions of an amnesty proclamation since. The international community has mostly pretended that they are not real political actors. Karzai doesn't have that luxury.
It's not clear that Washington is on board. The Pentagon still thinks it can fight its way to victory and that the Taliban can be defeated on the battlefield. It has given lip service to the idea of giving menial employment to the lowest-level Taliban fighters, but I'm not so sure they are even serious about that.
Women’s rights groups are worried about the prospect of the Taliban being permitted to hold jobs in Kabul. What do you think of this?
I think we need to look at the big picture. What is the position of women there today? How do they fare under Karzai? It's not pretty. The current government also has a judiciary that implements, in a haphazard way, a kind of Islamic law. Adulterers are imprisoned. Women are not stoned to death by state courts, but they are also not well protected from domestic and other forms of violence.
Support for Karzai's theft of the election took a lot of wind out of the sails of civil society feminists who had looked to Europe and the U.S. for help. Great power politics are the order of the day, and everyone seems to know that now. Laura Bush and Cherie Blair made much of liberating Afghan women in October 2001, but who seriously talks about that anymore? The failed follow-through has bred cynicism in all quarters.
The Guardian has reported that many women in Afghanistan welcome this policy change toward the Taliban. Why do you think that is?
I think one of the mistakes that our media have made post-2001 has been to act as if there is only one Afghan public opinion. There is more than one "Afghan woman."
What's clear is that more and more people are simply fed up with war. That doesn't make one "pro" or "anti" Taliban. It's just a survivalist stance of sorts. The U.S. and NATO can't beat them, a lot of Afghans back them, so, what I think a lot of Afghans are saying is that some kind of political compromise has to be reached. My fear is that this sentiment is not compatible with American great power interests. So while the U.S. may be talking about liberating women -- and protecting them from the Taliban -- we should be very cautious about their statements.
Do you think the Taliban movement has changed since it began in 1996? If so, is it a better or worse deal for women?
There have been many changes, regarding technology, organization and a host of other issues, but the critical transformation has come as a result of their loss of power: The principal Taliban leaders seem to have devoted some time to thinking about how they lost the support of the Afghan people. This is not "modernization" per se, but it speaks to a craving for popular legitimacy. This is also not "democratic politics," but it does reflect an interest on the part of Taliban elites in creating some popular assent for their rule.
But while the Taliban appear to have been studying the mistakes they made while in power, it's not yet clear how much their policies would change with respect to women. It's important to note that different gender policies prevailed in different regions, and, in many cases, some of the policies that we now associate with the Taliban were, in fact, introduced by the mujahedin before 1996, for example, removing women from public broadcasting. We should also recall the context of civil war that has prevailed in the country since 1978. This is not to give the Taliban a pass, but to note that the gender politics of Afghanistan have a history that predates 1996 or 2001.
By Miranda Simon
Afghanistan, Sunday, May 9, 2010.
http://www.salon.com/news/afghanistan/index.html?=mwt/broadsheet/2010/06/04/peacejirga_women
Mothers of slain teenage sons, men marred by mine blasts and tearful widows were among Afghans who spoke out Sunday at a conference billed as the first major gathering of victims of decades of war in their country.
As the third and final day of Afghanistan's three-day peace conference gets underway, it's worth asking what its implications are for the country's women. After all, the "jirga" is focused on a proposal to offer money and jobs to the Taliban -- a group not exactly known for valuing the rights of women -- if they give up their violent ways.
Soon after President Obama took office, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reaffirmed her commitment to Afghan women, and resistance to the Taliban. Now, President Obama is backing Karzai's proposal and, according to the Guardian's Jonathan Steele, many women in Afghanistan do too, despite potential setbacks to their freedoms. After interviewing a diverse sample of Afghan women, he came to the conclusion that their desire for peace trumps their desire for liberation.
Salon took these thorny issues to professor Robert Crews, an expert on Afghanistan at Stanford University, and co-editor of the book "The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan," in search of some much-needed clarity.
Why is President Karzai reaching out to the Taliban, and why do you think the U.S. has backed this decision?
Karzai came to power promising amnesty for Taliban fighters and has repeated various versions of an amnesty proclamation since. The international community has mostly pretended that they are not real political actors. Karzai doesn't have that luxury.
It's not clear that Washington is on board. The Pentagon still thinks it can fight its way to victory and that the Taliban can be defeated on the battlefield. It has given lip service to the idea of giving menial employment to the lowest-level Taliban fighters, but I'm not so sure they are even serious about that.
Women’s rights groups are worried about the prospect of the Taliban being permitted to hold jobs in Kabul. What do you think of this?
I think we need to look at the big picture. What is the position of women there today? How do they fare under Karzai? It's not pretty. The current government also has a judiciary that implements, in a haphazard way, a kind of Islamic law. Adulterers are imprisoned. Women are not stoned to death by state courts, but they are also not well protected from domestic and other forms of violence.
Support for Karzai's theft of the election took a lot of wind out of the sails of civil society feminists who had looked to Europe and the U.S. for help. Great power politics are the order of the day, and everyone seems to know that now. Laura Bush and Cherie Blair made much of liberating Afghan women in October 2001, but who seriously talks about that anymore? The failed follow-through has bred cynicism in all quarters.
The Guardian has reported that many women in Afghanistan welcome this policy change toward the Taliban. Why do you think that is?
I think one of the mistakes that our media have made post-2001 has been to act as if there is only one Afghan public opinion. There is more than one "Afghan woman."
What's clear is that more and more people are simply fed up with war. That doesn't make one "pro" or "anti" Taliban. It's just a survivalist stance of sorts. The U.S. and NATO can't beat them, a lot of Afghans back them, so, what I think a lot of Afghans are saying is that some kind of political compromise has to be reached. My fear is that this sentiment is not compatible with American great power interests. So while the U.S. may be talking about liberating women -- and protecting them from the Taliban -- we should be very cautious about their statements.
Do you think the Taliban movement has changed since it began in 1996? If so, is it a better or worse deal for women?
There have been many changes, regarding technology, organization and a host of other issues, but the critical transformation has come as a result of their loss of power: The principal Taliban leaders seem to have devoted some time to thinking about how they lost the support of the Afghan people. This is not "modernization" per se, but it speaks to a craving for popular legitimacy. This is also not "democratic politics," but it does reflect an interest on the part of Taliban elites in creating some popular assent for their rule.
But while the Taliban appear to have been studying the mistakes they made while in power, it's not yet clear how much their policies would change with respect to women. It's important to note that different gender policies prevailed in different regions, and, in many cases, some of the policies that we now associate with the Taliban were, in fact, introduced by the mujahedin before 1996, for example, removing women from public broadcasting. We should also recall the context of civil war that has prevailed in the country since 1978. This is not to give the Taliban a pass, but to note that the gender politics of Afghanistan have a history that predates 1996 or 2001.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Afghan police not doing the job in Marja
Just Foreign Policy News on the Web carries headlines and excerpts during the week from various news source. You can see their daily news items at: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/598. The following item focuses on why and how Afghan police officers stationed in Marja, Afghanistan, are ineffective, even counterproductive, and continuing to be dependent on American supervision and support.
Afghanistan....Afghan Police Earn Poor Grade For Marja Mission
C. J. Chivers, New York Times, June 1, 2010http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/world/asia/02marja.html
Marja, Afghanistan - Three months after arriving in the most dangerous area of Afghanistan's Helmand Province, a contingent of specialized Afghan police officers has logged a mediocre performance while being almost wholly dependent on American supervision and support, Westerners who work with the officers said.
The conduct of Marja's interim police, from a unit American officials describe as the Interior Ministry's most promising force, has been undercut by drug use, petty corruption and, at times, a lack of commitment in the face of the ordinary hardships and duties of uniformed life.
When the force first arrived in late winter, entire units refused to stand guard or clean their living areas, several Marines said, and in northern Marja, police shifts often still abandon checkpoints during the sweltering midday heat, disappearing for lunch breaks lasting hours. Some officers have deserted the force.
The police also seem unschooled in rules of engagement, which risks putting their behavior at cross-purposes with Western units trying to earn civilian support. Police officials themselves say they have inadequate equipment and face a complex, dangerous mission.This early assessment, of a high-profile unit on a much publicized mission, underlined anew the difficulties in creating Afghan forces that can operate independently and be entrusted with the nation's security - an essential step toward drawing down Western forces after nine years of war.
It also raises questions about any timetable for Afghan self-sufficiency. American officials and contractors say it will take much longer for the units to be nurtured to self-reliance and a higher level of skill. For now, the police in Marja perform limited duties. American units create the space in which they operate, and provide their logistical, medical and military support.
[...]
The police also said that establishing connections with residents had been difficult. Part of their problem, they said, was that many sergeants are Tajik, and do not speak Pashto, southern Afghanistan's dominant language.
[...]
Afghanistan....Afghan Police Earn Poor Grade For Marja Mission
C. J. Chivers, New York Times, June 1, 2010http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/world/asia/02marja.html
Marja, Afghanistan - Three months after arriving in the most dangerous area of Afghanistan's Helmand Province, a contingent of specialized Afghan police officers has logged a mediocre performance while being almost wholly dependent on American supervision and support, Westerners who work with the officers said.
The conduct of Marja's interim police, from a unit American officials describe as the Interior Ministry's most promising force, has been undercut by drug use, petty corruption and, at times, a lack of commitment in the face of the ordinary hardships and duties of uniformed life.
When the force first arrived in late winter, entire units refused to stand guard or clean their living areas, several Marines said, and in northern Marja, police shifts often still abandon checkpoints during the sweltering midday heat, disappearing for lunch breaks lasting hours. Some officers have deserted the force.
The police also seem unschooled in rules of engagement, which risks putting their behavior at cross-purposes with Western units trying to earn civilian support. Police officials themselves say they have inadequate equipment and face a complex, dangerous mission.This early assessment, of a high-profile unit on a much publicized mission, underlined anew the difficulties in creating Afghan forces that can operate independently and be entrusted with the nation's security - an essential step toward drawing down Western forces after nine years of war.
It also raises questions about any timetable for Afghan self-sufficiency. American officials and contractors say it will take much longer for the units to be nurtured to self-reliance and a higher level of skill. For now, the police in Marja perform limited duties. American units create the space in which they operate, and provide their logistical, medical and military support.
[...]
The police also said that establishing connections with residents had been difficult. Part of their problem, they said, was that many sergeants are Tajik, and do not speak Pashto, southern Afghanistan's dominant language.
[...]
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Direct spending by US government on Afghan and Iraq wars
The daily Internet, TV, radio program, Democracy Now, included the following item on its list of "headlines" today, June 1, 2010. See the full array of headlines and the featured topic of the program at: http://www.democracynow.org. The figures cited in the headline are incomplete. For example, they do not include the benefits for discharged soldiers or for those who need long-term, sometimes life-time, medical care and financial support. Check out Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes book, The Three Trillion Dollar War, to get a better idea of the full costs of the Iraq War - and implicitly the Afghan War. Nonetheless, the figures, along with other related sources, document that the costs of these two wars, with the costs increasing for the Afghan war and occupation, are adding greatly to the financial burden of US citizens and to the soaring national debt.
US Spending on Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan Tops $1 Trillion
And the amount of money spent on the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has now surpassed the $1 trillion mark. The National Priorities Project Cost of War counter says the milestone was reached Sunday morning. To date over $747 billion has been appropriated for the war in Iraq and $299 billion for the war in Afghanistan. The US is spending over $136 billion on the wars this year.
US Spending on Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan Tops $1 Trillion
And the amount of money spent on the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has now surpassed the $1 trillion mark. The National Priorities Project Cost of War counter says the milestone was reached Sunday morning. To date over $747 billion has been appropriated for the war in Iraq and $299 billion for the war in Afghanistan. The US is spending over $136 billion on the wars this year.
Media attention on Afghanistan War is down
Here are excerpts from the following article, focusing on the relative lack of media attention to the futile and destructive US-led military occupation of Afghanistan.
America’s Forgotten War
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/americas_forgotten_war_20100528/
Posted on May 28, 2010
By Bill Boyarsky
Excerpts:
News on Afghanistan "war" lost amidst other crises: "...the oil spill, intractable unemployment and the rest—for it has definitely diverted attention from his biggest disaster: the Afghanistan war."
The lack of a serious debate and media attention on the Afghanistan quagmire is probably good for Obama, but bad for the country. Some reasons. "Casualties are rising, passing 1,000. The Afghanistan war’s cost in February alone was $6.7 billion, USA Today reported. At this rate, there may not be enough money to pay for the health care reform that Obama sees as his legacy.
Boyarsky refers to Pew Reserch Center survey findings. "For the week of May 17-23, Afghanistan was in seventh place in the overall standings. For newspapers, the war was 10th. It was seventh for online, sixth for network television and 10th for cable TV. Afghanistan coverage didn’t register for radio. The oil rig explosion, the 2010 elections, the economic crisis and the Mexican president’s Washington visit all occupied more space or time."
Tom Rosensteil, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, responds to a question from Boyarsky. "With the death toll rising and the number of Americans in Afghanistan increasing, why the poor coverage?....“'One factor is that, historically, if Americans—and the American news media is a reflection of them—have pressing domestic concerns … the domestic concerns seem to come out first,' he said."
Moreover: "The few prominent opponents and critics of the war can’t catch their attention.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s resolution for withdrawal from Afghanistan within 30 days was defeated in the House. Peace candidates in the current election campaigns, such as Marcy Winograd, who is running against Rep. Jane Harman in a Democratic primary in Southern California, are scarce.
And there has been minimal coverage of legislation requiring President Obama to develop a flexible timetable for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Reps. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., and Walter Jones, R-N.C. Obama has said he wants to begin withdrawing troops in July 2011, but that obviously isn’t a firm enough promise for Feingold. The senator also disagreed with Obama’s goal of denying al-Qaida “a safe haven,” stopping Taliban advances and strengthening Afghanistan’s government. This made little sense to Feingold, who said, “A large open-ended expensive military presence in Afghanistan is not the way to defeat al Qaeda.” He inserted the Feingold-McGovern measure as an amendment to a spending bill, but it was voted down, 18-80."
America’s Forgotten War
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/americas_forgotten_war_20100528/
Posted on May 28, 2010
By Bill Boyarsky
Excerpts:
News on Afghanistan "war" lost amidst other crises: "...the oil spill, intractable unemployment and the rest—for it has definitely diverted attention from his biggest disaster: the Afghanistan war."
The lack of a serious debate and media attention on the Afghanistan quagmire is probably good for Obama, but bad for the country. Some reasons. "Casualties are rising, passing 1,000. The Afghanistan war’s cost in February alone was $6.7 billion, USA Today reported. At this rate, there may not be enough money to pay for the health care reform that Obama sees as his legacy.
Boyarsky refers to Pew Reserch Center survey findings. "For the week of May 17-23, Afghanistan was in seventh place in the overall standings. For newspapers, the war was 10th. It was seventh for online, sixth for network television and 10th for cable TV. Afghanistan coverage didn’t register for radio. The oil rig explosion, the 2010 elections, the economic crisis and the Mexican president’s Washington visit all occupied more space or time."
Tom Rosensteil, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, responds to a question from Boyarsky. "With the death toll rising and the number of Americans in Afghanistan increasing, why the poor coverage?....“'One factor is that, historically, if Americans—and the American news media is a reflection of them—have pressing domestic concerns … the domestic concerns seem to come out first,' he said."
Rosensteil added other reasons. (1) "War fatigue" from the years of coverage on the Iraq "war." (2) "mainstream news business is short of money...." "Covering a war is expensive." (3) "editors and other media managers don't think people are interested."
Furthermore: "...there’s not much political debate over the war, and without controversy there’s not much interest on the blogs and among cable’s so-called analysts, who have become more influential than old-fashioned reporters."Moreover: "The few prominent opponents and critics of the war can’t catch their attention.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s resolution for withdrawal from Afghanistan within 30 days was defeated in the House. Peace candidates in the current election campaigns, such as Marcy Winograd, who is running against Rep. Jane Harman in a Democratic primary in Southern California, are scarce.
And there has been minimal coverage of legislation requiring President Obama to develop a flexible timetable for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Reps. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., and Walter Jones, R-N.C. Obama has said he wants to begin withdrawing troops in July 2011, but that obviously isn’t a firm enough promise for Feingold. The senator also disagreed with Obama’s goal of denying al-Qaida “a safe haven,” stopping Taliban advances and strengthening Afghanistan’s government. This made little sense to Feingold, who said, “A large open-ended expensive military presence in Afghanistan is not the way to defeat al Qaeda.” He inserted the Feingold-McGovern measure as an amendment to a spending bill, but it was voted down, 18-80."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
