Monday, February 1, 2010

Afghan may have considerable geological deposits

Afghanistan may have as much as a trillion dollars of mineral and petroleum reserves, according to initial estimates by the US Geological Survey. The article mentions that China has already signed a $3 billion contract with the Afghan government to develop the world's biggest copper mine. If the USGS verifies the preliminary estimates, the Afghan government will have considerable revenues for a myriad of reconstruction projects. However, this is all contigent on coming to terms with the Taliban and other insurgent groups and in finding ways to reduce corruption in the government and among warlords. Afghan president Karzai is reported to be arranging meetings with some of the Taliban and insurgents in hopes of settling their differences peacefully. This might require Karzai to specify a date for having the US-led occupation leave the country. Whatever happens, it would be ironic to learn that Afghanistan indeed has the minerals and petroleum that early findings suggest.

Back in the late 1990s, a US corporation had been interested in building a pipeline through Afghanistan that would have carried oil from the Casbian Sea area through Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. The recent disclosure of substantial geological deposits indicates that there may be much more than US corporations and the US government considered.

Bob

----------------------------------

Afghan ‘Geological Reserves Worth A Trillion Dollars’

http://www.outlookAfghanistan.net/news_Pages/main_news.html#01


KABUL - Afghanistan, one of the world's poorest countries, is sitting on mineral and petroleum reserves worth an estimated one trillion dollars, President Hamid Karzai said Sunday. The war-ravaged nation could become one of the richest in the world if helped to tap its geological deposits, Karzai told reporters. "I have very good news for Afghans," Karzai said. "The initial figures we have obtained show that our mineral deposits are worth a thousand billion dollars -- not a thousand million dollars but a thousand billion," he said.

He based his assertion, he said, on a survey being carried out by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), due to be completed in "a couple of months". The USGS, the US government's scientific agency, has been working on the 17-million dollar survey for a number of years, Karzai said.

While Afghanistan is not renowned as a resource-rich country, it has a wide range of deposits, including copper, iron ore, gold and chromites, as well as natural gas, oil and precious and semi-precious stones. Little has been exploited because the country has been mired in conflict for 30 years, and is embroiled in a vicious insurgency by Islamist rebels led by the Taliban.

More than 100,000 foreign troops under US and NATO command are battling the insurgents, with another 40,000 due for deployment this year. China and India have bid for contracts to develop mines, with the Chinese winning a copper contract. An iron ore contract is due to be awarded later this year.

In 2007, China's state-owned metals giant Metallurgical Group Corporation (MCC) signed a three-billion-dollar contract to develop the Aynak copper mine -- one of the world's biggest -- over the next 30 years. First discovered in 1974, the site, 30 kilometers (20 miles) south of Kabul in Logar, is estimated to contain 11.3 million tones of copper. The Hajigak iron ore mine in Bamyan province, north of Kabul, is currently under tender, with one Chinese and half a dozen Indian firms bidding. The contract is for exploitation of almost two billion tones of high-grade ore, involving processing, smelting, steel production and electricity production. (AFP)

Sunday, January 31, 2010

US marines facing a deadly war against Taliban's unconventional tactics

Jason Gutierrez reports for Agence France-Presse on US marine thoughts on their situation in the southeast of Marjah in Afghanistan. The marines who are quoted describe very dangerous conditions and also how they think about just getting back to their families in the states. There is no reference here to larger military goals, although one is left with a sense of pessimism. Marjah is the town the Marines hope to take from the Talabin. It is a town where the farmers grow poppy and and the Talabin intimidate local people from in any way supporting the foreign troops. In short, this appears to be another Afghan locale that will be affected by military assaults from both sides, leaving the people and farmers in worse conditions than they have had.

Bob


-------------------------------

Published on Sunday, January 31, 2010 by Agence France-Presse
US Marines Facing a 'Different War' in Afghanistan
by Jason Gutierrez

SOUTHEAST OF MARJAH, Afghanistan - For the US Marines deployed to the battlefields of southern Afghanistan, life is fragile and thoughts focus on the day they see their families again, but something about this war is different.

An Afghan farmer watches on as US Marines patrol near a military base near Marjah, central Helmand. For US Marines deployed to the battlefields of southern Afghanistan, the war is changing with a major offensive on the Taliban urban stronghold of Marjah where the militants are offering stiff resistance.(AFP/Christophe Simon)They are preparing for an offensive on Marjah, one of the Taliban's big urban strongholds in the southern province of Helmand, but progress is slow with the militants apparently preferring fight to flight.

The Marines will soon be joined by tens of thousands more soldiers, the lion's share of the 30,000-strong troop surge promised by US President Barack Obama in December to try and turn around the grinding Afghan war.

A foot patrol for one platoon of Marines ends with a dash under a hail of bullets across a heavily-mined poppy field.

The soldiers have been pinned down in a muddy mound, the thorny weeds cutting through skin. They recover soon enough, however, manoeuvring away from the Taliban's crosshairs and driving them away with heavy machine-gun fire.

"I pray in the morning and at night, hoping that someone up there is looking after me," says Lance Corporal Justin Blancas, serving with the Marines 1st Battalion, 6th Regiment Alpha Company's 2nd Platoon.

"I have already made my peace with God because this war is different, it's not conventional," the 23-year-old bespectacled Chicago native says.

"These Taliban have learned their lesson. They adapt as fast as we do, but we are bound by our strict rules. They are not," he adds, panting after a 100-metre dash for cover behind an abandoned mud house.

"It can be a death run like this every day."

The US and NATO troop surge is set to swell the foreign force to 150,000 this year, but Afghan and Western officials are also talking about a political solution to end the Taliban-led insurgency as its enters its ninth year.

To force the Taliban leadership to the negotiating table however, US military officials have said there needs to be greater success on the battlefield -- and this is where the Marines come in.
But the challenges on the ground are immense. Fields are littered with improvised explosive devices (IEDs) responsible for most of the deaths of foreign troops in Afghanistan, which hit a record 520 fatalities last year. Related article: January Afghan death rate signal of tough 2010
The Taliban are also entrenched in their strongholds holding sway over the population and setting up shadow governments across the country, meaning they have the local intelligence that the Marines desperately need.

"Marjah has also been a stronghold by the Taliban for some time. They know where we are coming and can stage ambushes anytime," says one sergeant who asks not to be named.
Five Marines were killed in southern Afghanistan in two days of January alone in IED blasts and ambushes.

Platoon commander Lieutenant David Emison, a Virginia native and the first Marine in his family, still sports a busted lip and chipped teeth sustained from a recent bomb blast that killed a sergeant.

"They (the Taliban) make very powerful IEDs out here. If you step on them, you don't get a second chance," says Emison, the group's tactician, whose 25-year-old wife is pregnant with their second child back home.

He says that after the incident, he has tried to become more careful about where he treads, but knows that a blast could take any of them anytime.

The ex-college wrestler pushes away ugly thoughts and believes the unpopular war Obama inherited from the past administration will have a positive outcome.

"It does not pay to be scared," he says.

Blancas, meanwhile, arms himself with his assault rifle, two rosaries and prayer cards stuffed in his pockets as the Marines prepare a full-on assault on Marjah in the coming weeks or months.
Marjah has a population of at least 60,000. Built in the 1950s with US government help, it was intended to be a model agricultural town with an irrigation system flowing from the Helmand river.

But instead of legitimate crops, poor farmers plant opium poppy, the trafficking and sale of which bankrolls the Taliban movement.

The Marines' mission is to show US strength, assist in installing government control in Helmand province and let the local population know they have arrived.

The challenge however is huge. Taliban militants harass the villagers at night, warning them of trouble if they help US troops. Under the cover of darkness, they also plant IEDs in fields the Marines have to cross.

For father-of-one Blancas, it all comes down to one simple thing.

"We do what we have to do, but I plan to be out of the corps soon and be daddy. I just have to stay alive till then."

© 2010 Agence France-Presse

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/31-1

Friday, January 29, 2010

US anti-terrorism in Afghanistan

The article by Anand Gopal that follows is said to be the most extensive report on American counterterrorism in Afghanistan that has been written to date. The goal of counterterrorism is to kill or capture those suspected of being insurgents or supporters of insurgents. Special forces as well as regular US military units are involved. Those captured are sent to "black site" prisons and then to the prison at Bagram, just north of Kabul. Prisoners have no access to lawyers. Gopal writes that Bagram is often compared to Guantanamo.

While counterterrorism aims to kill terrorists in hit-and-run missions, counterinsurgency ideally aims also to secure areas, win the loyalty of local Afghans, and then to initiate reconstruction or development projects. Both strategies end up killing innocent civilians. But, in theory, the goal of counterinsurgency is to win the support of the local people, not just kill or capture those who are Taliban or who offer support to the Taliban.

Withal, both strategies are predicated on the questionable assumption that military force is necessary to win the "war," and must precede other efforts.

Bob

----------------------------------

Obama’s Secret Prisons Night Raids, Hidden Detention Centers, the "Black Jail," and the Dogs of War in Afghanistan By Anand Gopal

[The research for this story was supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism.]

One quiet, wintry night last year in the eastern Afghan town of Khost, a young government employee named Ismatullah simply vanished. He had last been seen in the town’s bazaar with a group of friends. Family members scoured Khost’s dust-doused streets for days. Village elders contacted Taliban commanders in the area who were wont to kidnap government workers, but they had never heard of the young man. Even the governor got involved, ordering his police to round up nettlesome criminal gangs that sometimes preyed on young bazaar-goers for ransom.
But the hunt turned up nothing. Spring and summer came and went with no sign of Ismatullah. Then one day, long after the police and village elders had abandoned their search, a courier delivered a neat, handwritten note on Red Cross stationary to the family. In it, Ismatullah informed them that he was in Bagram, an American prison more than 200 miles away. U.S. forces had picked him up while he was on his way home from the bazaar, the terse letter stated, and he didn’t know when he would be freed.

Sometime in the last few years, Pashtun villagers in Afghanistan’s rugged heartland began to lose faith in the American project. Many of them can point to the precise moment of this transformation, and it usually took place in the dead of the night, when most of the country was fast asleep. In the secretive U.S. detentions process, suspects are usually nabbed in the darkness and then sent to one of a number of detention areas on military bases, often on the slightest suspicion and without the knowledge of their families.

This process has become even more feared and hated in Afghanistan than coalition airstrikes. The night raids and detentions, little known or understood outside of these Pashtun villages, are slowly turning Afghans against the very forces they greeted as liberators just a few years ago.
One Dark Night in November

It was the 19th of November 2009, at 3:15 am. A loud blast awoke the villagers of a leafy neighborhood outside Ghazni city, a town of ancient provenance in the country’s south. A team of U.S. soldiers burst through the front gate of the home of Majidullah Qarar, the spokesman for the Minister of Agriculture. Qarar was in Kabul at the time, but his relatives were home, four of whom were sleeping in the family’s one-room guesthouse. One of them, Hamidullah, who sold carrots at the local bazaar, ran towards the door of the guesthouse. He was immediately shot, but managed to crawl back inside, leaving a trail of blood behind him. Then Azim, a baker, darted towards his injured cousin. He, too, was shot and crumpled to the floor. The fallen men cried out to the two relatives remaining in the room, but they — both children — refused to move, glued to their beds in silent horror.

The foreign soldiers, most of them tattooed and bearded, then went on to the main compound. They threw clothes on the floor, smashed dinner plates, and forced open closets. Finally, they found the man they were looking for: Habib-ur-Rahman, a computer programmer and government employee. Rahman was responsible for converting Microsoft Windows from English to the local Pashto language so that government offices could use the software. He had spent time in Kuwait, and the Afghan translator accompanying the soldiers said they were acting on a tip that Rahman was a member of al-Qaeda.

They took the barefoot Rahman and a cousin of his to a helicopter some distance away and transported them to a small American base in a neighboring province for interrogation. After two days, U.S. forces released Rahman’s cousin. But Rahman has not been seen or heard from since.

"We’ve called his phone, but it doesn’t answer," says his cousin Qarar, the spokesman for the agriculture minister. Using his powerful connections, Qarar enlisted local police, parliamentarians, the governor, and even the agriculture minister himself in the search for his cousin, but they turned up nothing. Government officials who independently investigated the scene in the aftermath of the raid and corroborated the claims of the family also pressed for an answer as to why two of Qarar’s family members were killed. American forces issued a statement saying that the dead were "enemy militants [that] demonstrated hostile intent."
Weeks after the raid, the family remains bitter. "Everyone in the area knew we were a family that worked for the government," Qarar says. "Rahman couldn’t even leave the city because if the Taliban caught him in the countryside they would have killed him."

Beyond the question of Rahman’s guilt or innocence, however, it’s how he was taken that has left such a residue of hate and anger among his family. "Did they have to kill my cousins? Did they have to destroy our house?" Qarar asks. "They knew where Rahman worked. Couldn’t they have at least tried to come with a warrant in the daytime? We would have forced Rahman to comply."

"I used to go on TV and argue that people should support this government and the foreigners," he adds. "But I was wrong. Why should anyone do so? I don’t care if I get fired for saying it, but that’s the truth."

The Dogs of War

Night raids are only the first step in the American detention process in Afghanistan. Suspects are usually sent to one among a series of prisons on U.S. military bases around the country. There are officially nine such jails, called Field Detention Sites in military parlance. They are small holding areas, often just a clutch of cells divided by plywood, and are mainly used for prisoner interrogation.

In the early years of the war, these were but way stations for those en route to Bagram prison, a facility with a notorious reputation for abusive behavior. As a spotlight of international attention fell on Bagram in recent years, wardens there cleaned up their act and the mistreatment of prisoners began to shift to the little-noticed Field Detention Sites.

Of the 24 former detainees interviewed for this story, 17 claim to have been abused at or en route to these sites. Doctors, government officials, and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, a body tasked with investigating abuse claims, corroborate 12 of these claims.
One of these former detainees is Noor Agha Sher Khan, who used to be a police officer in Gardez, a mud-caked town in the eastern part of the country. According to Sher Khan, U.S. forces detained him in a night raid in 2003 and brought him to a Field Detention Site at a nearby U.S. base. "They interrogated me the whole night," he recalls, "but I had nothing to tell them." Sher Khan worked for a police commander whom U.S. forces had detained on suspicion of having ties to the insurgency. He had occasionally acted as a driver for this commander, which made him suspicious in American eyes.

The interrogators blindfolded him, taped his mouth shut, and chained him to the ceiling, he alleges. Occasionally they unleashed a dog, which repeatedly bit him. At one point, they removed the blindfold and forced him to kneel on a long wooden bar. "They tied my hands to a pulley [above] and pushed me back and forth as the bar rolled across my shins. I screamed and screamed." They then pushed him to the ground and forced him to swallow 12 bottles worth of water. "Two people held my mouth open and they poured water down my throat until my stomach was full and I became unconscious. It was as if someone had inflated me." he says. After he was roused from his torpor, he vomited the water uncontrollably.

This continued for a number of days; sometimes he was hung upside down from the ceiling, and other times blindfolded for extended periods. Eventually, he was sent on to Bagram where the torture ceased. Four months later, he was quietly released, with a letter of apology from U.S. authorities for wrongfully imprisoning him.

An investigation of Sher Khan’s case by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and an independent doctor found that he had wounds consistent with the abusive treatment he alleges. U.S. forces have declined to comment on the specifics of his case, but a spokesman said that some soldiers involved in detentions in this part of the country had been given unspecified "administrative punishments." He added that "all detainees are treated humanely," except for isolated cases.

The Disappeared

Some of those taken to the Field Detention Sites never make it to Bagram, but instead are simply released after authorities deem them to be innocuous. Even then, some allege abuse. Such was the case with Hajji Ehsanullah, snatched one winter night in 2008 from his home in the southern province of Zabul. He was taken to a detention site in Khost Province, some 200 miles away. He returned home 13 days later, his skin scarred by dog bites and with memory difficulties that, according to his doctor, resulted from a blow to the head. U.S. forces had dropped him off at a gas station in Khost after three days of interrogation. It took him ten more days to find his way home.

Others taken to these sites never end up in Bagram for an entirely different reason. In the hardscrabble villages of the Pashtun south, where rumors grow more abundantly than the most bountiful crop, locals whisper tales of people who were captured and executed. Most have no evidence. But occasionally, a body turns up. Such was the case at a detention site on an American military base in Helmand province, where in 2003 a U.S. military coroner wrote in the autopsy report of a detainee who died in U.S. custody (later made available through the Freedom of Information Act): "Death caused by the multiple blunt force injuries to the lower torso and legs complicated by rhabdomyolysis (release of toxic byproducts into the system due to destruction of muscle). Manner of death is homicide."

In the dust-swept province of Khost one day this past December, U.S. forces launched a night raid on the village of Motai, killing six people and capturing nine, according to nearly a dozen local government authorities and witnesses. Two days later, the bodies of two of those detained — plastic cuffs binding their hands — were found more than a mile from the largest U.S. base in the area. A U.S. military spokesman denies any involvement in the deaths and declines to comment on the details of the raid. Local Afghan officials and tribal elders, however, steadfastly maintain that the two were killed while in U.S. custody. American authorities released four other villagers in subsequent days. The fate of the three remaining captives is unknown.

The matter might be cleared up if the U.S. military were less secretive about its detention process. But secrecy has been the order of the day. The nine Field Detention Sites are enveloped in a blanket of official secrecy, but at least the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations are aware of them. There may, however, be others whose existences on the scores of military bases that dot the country have not been disclosed. One example, according to former detainees, is the detention facility at Rish Khor, an Afghan army base that sits atop a mountain overlooking the capital, Kabul.

One night last year, U.S. forces raided Zaiwalat, a tiny village that fits snugly into the mountains of Wardak Province, a few dozen miles west of Kabul, and netted nine locals. They brought the captives to Rish Khor and interrogated them for three days. "They kept us in a container," recalls Rehmatullah Muhammad, one of the nine. "It was made of steel. We were handcuffed for three days continuously. We barely slept those days." The plain-clothed interrogators accused Rehmatullah and the others of giving food and shelter to the Taliban. The suspects were then sent on to Bagram and released after four months. (A number of former detainees said they were interrogated by plainclothed officials, but they did not know if these officials belonged to the military, the CIA, or private contractors.)Afghan human rights campaigners worry that U.S. forces may be using secret detention sites like Rish Khor to carry out interrogations away from prying eyes. The U.S. military, however, denies even having knowledge of the facility.

The Black Jail

Much less secret is the final stop for most captives: the Bagram Internment Facility. These days ominously dubbed "Obama’s Guantanamo," Bagram nonetheless offers the best conditions for captives during the entire detention process.

Its modern life as a prison began in 2002, when small numbers of detainees from throughout Asia were incarcerated there on the first leg of an odyssey that would eventually bring them to the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the years since, however, it has become the main destination for those caught within Afghanistan as part of the growing war there. By 2009, the inmate population had swelled to more than 700. Housed in a windowless old Soviet hangar, the prison consists of two rows of serried cage-like cells bathed continuously in white light. Guards walk along a platform that runs across the mesh-tops of the pens, an easy position from which to supervise the prisoners below.

Regular, even infamous, abuse in the style of Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison marked Bagram’s early years. Abdullah Mujahed, for example, was apprehended in the village of Kar Marchi in the eastern province of Paktia in 2003. Mujahed was a Tajik militia commander who had led an armed uprising against the Taliban in their waning days, but U.S. forces accused him of having ties to the insurgency. "In Bagram, we were handcuffed, blindfolded, and had our feet chained for days," he recalls. "They didn’t allow us to sleep at all for 13 days and nights." A guard would strike his legs every time he dozed off. Daily, he could hear the screams of tortured inmates and the unmistakable sound of shackles dragging across the floor.

Then, one day, a team of soldiers dragged him to an aircraft, but refused to tell him where he was going. Eventually he landed at another prison, where the air felt thick and wet. As he walked through the row of cages, inmates began to shout, "This is Guantanamo! You are in Guantanamo!" He would learn there that he was accused of leading the Pakistani Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (which in reality was led by another person who had the same name and who died in 2006). The U.S. eventually released him and returned him to Afghanistan.
Former Bagram detainees allege that they were regularly beaten, subjected to blaring music 24 hours a day, prevented from sleeping, stripped naked, and forced to assume what interrogators term "stress positions." The nadir came in late 2002 when interrogators beat two inmates to death.

The U.S. Special Forces also run a second, secret prison somewhere on Bagram Air Base that the Red Cross still does not have access to. Used primarily for interrogations, it is so feared by prisoners that they have dubbed it the "Black Jail."

One day two years ago, U.S. forces came to get Noor Muhammad, outside of the town of Kajaki in the southern province of Helmand. Muhammad, a physician, was running a clinic that served all comers — including the Taliban. The soldiers raided his clinic and his home, killing five people (including two patients) and detaining both his father and him. The next day, villagers found the handcuffed corpse of Muhammad’s father, apparently dead from a gunshot.

The soldiers took Muhammad to the Black Jail. "It was a tiny, narrow corridor, with lots of cells on both sides and a big steel gate and bright lights. We didn’t know when it was night and when it was day." He was held in a concrete, windowless room, in complete solitary confinement. Soldiers regularly dragged him by his neck, and refused him food and water. They accused him of providing medical care to the insurgents, to which he replied, "I am a doctor. It’s my duty to provide care to every human being who comes to my clinic, whether they are Taliban or from the government."

Eventually, Muhammad was released, but he has since closed his clinic and left his home village. "I am scared of the Americans and the Taliban," he says. "I’m happy my father is dead, so he doesn’t have to experience this hell."

Afraid of the Dark

Unlike the Black Jail, U.S. officials have, in the last two years, moved to reform the main prison at Bagram. Torture there has stopped, and American prison officials now boast that the typical inmate gains 15 pounds while in custody. Sometime in the early months of this year, officials plan to open a dazzling new prison — that will eventually replace Bagram — with huge, airy cells, the latest medical equipment, and rooms for vocational training. The Bagram prison itself will be handed over to the Afghans in the coming year, although the rest of the detention process will remain in U.S. hands.

But human rights advocates say that concerns about the detention process still remain. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that inmates at Guantanamo cannot be stripped of their right to habeas corpus, but stopped short of making the same argument for Bagram. (U.S. officials say that Bagram is in the midst of a war zone and therefore U.S. domestic civil rights legislation does not apply.) Unlike Guantanamo, inmates there do not have access to a lawyer. Most say they have no idea why they have been detained. Inmates do now appear before a review panel every six months, which is intended to reassess their detention, but their ability to ask questions about their situation is limited. "I was only allowed to answer yes or no and not explain anything at my hearing," says Rehmatullah Muhammad.

Nonetheless, the improvement in Bagram’s conditions begs the question: Can the U.S. fight a cleaner war? This is what Afghan war commander General Stanley McChrystal promised this summer: fewer civilian casualties, fewer of the feared house raids, and a more transparent detention process.

The American troops that operate under NATO command have begun to enforce stricter rules of engagement: they may now officially hold detainees for only 96 hours before transferring them to the Afghan authorities or freeing them, and Afghan forces must take the lead in house searches. American soldiers, when questioned, bristle at these restrictions — and have ways of circumventing them. "Sometimes we detain people, then, when the 96 hours are up, we transfer them to the Afghans," says one U.S. Marine, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "They rough them up a bit for us and then send them back to us for another 96 hours. This keeps going until we get what we want."

A simpler way of dancing around the rules is to call in the U.S. Special Operations Forces — the Navy SEALS, Green Berets, and others — which are not under NATO command and so are not bound by the stricter rules of engagement. These elite troops are behind most of the night raids and detentions in the search for "high-value suspects." U.S. military officials say in interviews that the new restrictions have not affected the number of raids and detentions at all. The actual change, however, is more subtle: the detention process has shifted almost entirely to areas and actors that can best avoid public scrutiny: Special Operations Forces and small field prisons.
The shift signals a deeper reality of war, American soldiers say: you can’t fight guerrillas without invasive raids and detentions, any more than you could fight them without bullets. Through the eyes of a U.S. soldier, Afghanistan is a scary place. The men are bearded and turbaned. They pray incessantly. In most of the country, women are barred from leaving the house. Many Afghans own a Kalashnikov. "You can’t trust anyone," says Rodrigo Arias, a Marine based in the northeastern province of Kunar. "I’ve nearly been killed in ambushes but the villagers don’t tell us anything. But they usually know something."

An officer who has worked in the Field Detention Sites says that it takes dozens of raids to turn up a useful suspect. "Sometimes you’ve got to bust down doors. Sometimes you’ve got to twist arms. You have to cast a wide net, but when you get the right person it makes all the difference."

For Arias, it’s a matter of survival. "I want to go home in one piece. If that means rounding people up, then round them up." To question this, he says, is to question whether the war itself is worth fighting. "That’s not my job. The people in Washington can figure that out."
If night raids and detentions are an unavoidable part of modern counterinsurgency warfare, then so is the resentment they breed. "We were all happy when the Americans first came. We thought they would bring peace and stability," says former detainee Rehmatullah. "But now most people in my village want them to leave." A year after Rehmatullah was released, his nephew was taken. Two months later, some other villagers were grabbed.

It has become a predictable pattern: Taliban forces ambush American convoys as they pass through the village, and then retreat into the thick fruit orchards that cover the area. The Americans then return at night to pick up suspects. In the last two years, 16 people have been taken and 10 killed in night raids in this single village of about 300, according to villagers. In the same period, they say, the insurgents killed one local and did not take anyone hostage.
The people of this village therefore have begun to fear the night raids more than the Taliban. There are now nights when Rehmatullah’s children hear the distant thrum of a helicopter and rush into his room. He consoles them, but admits he needs solace himself. "I know I should be too old for it," he says, "but this war has made me afraid of the dark."

Anand Gopal has reported in Afghanistan for the Christian Science Monitor and the Wall Street Journal. His dispatches can be read at anandgopal.com. He is currently working on a book about the Afghan war. This piece appears in print in the latest issue of the Nation magazine. To catch him in an audio interview with TomDispatch’s Timothy MacBain discussing how he got this story, click here.

Copyright 2010 Anand Gopal

Thursday, January 28, 2010

US efforts to build a Taliban army and counterforce are questionable

The part of the US strategy in Afghanistan that concerns counterinsurgency implies a number of tactics. One is to clear out the Taliban from villages and surrounding areas, village by village. Two is to secure them so that the Taliban cannot return to the villages. Three is start reconstruction projects, which will create jobs and generate demand for local businesses.

US forces do not have the resources to advance this counterinsurgency policy very far, or in a sustainable way. Therefore, the Obama administration is betting that, in time, there will be an Afghan army capable of dealing with the Taliban. There seem to be two plans for doing this.

The first, and dominant, plan is to build up the Afghan army so that its soldiers can take responsibility for the counterinsurgency efforts in the countryside. The article below indicates that there is little progress in creating a viable Afghan army.

The second plan, just being reported in various sources, is to pay rank-and-file members of the Taliban who pledge to leave the insurgency. Underlying this strategy is the assumption that many young Afghan men have been members of the Taliban for economic reasons. The Taliban pay their rank-and-file recruites monthly wages, while there are few or no opportunities beyond the Taliban. The US now plans to offer these men a wage and job to leave the Taliban.

This plan has been addressed in an early blog and raises the issues of how long the US will have to go on paying the Afghans, whether the jobs they will be given are of value to the villages and surrounding areas, and whether the recruits will be able or willing to secure these places from Taliban incursions. We don't see much merit in this approach, unless the elders or other leaders in the villages can be included in the process and be convinced that the plan is in the interest of their tribes.

Bob

--------------------------
Juan Cole, Informed Comment, January 28, 2010
Cole's comments and references on the parts of Obama speech that focus on Afghanistan

Understandably, President Obama concentrated on domestic issues, especially job creation, in his State of the Union address. But there were a few paragraphs toward the end about foreign affairs that I want to talk about. While I thought the speech generally strong, and the flash polls suggest that the public did, as well, I felt that there were significant problems with the foreign policy passages that signal trouble ahead.

' In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans – men and women alike. We are joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitment, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am confident we will succeed.'

This passage was one of the few lauded by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell in the Republican response. But it is among the weaker parts of the speech.

1. Reserve Col. Lawrence Sellin, a Ph.D. and a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, summarized the problems with training the Afghan army:

a. The US has already spent more than $17 bn. since 2001 building the Afghanistan National Army, but without much success.

b. Although the government of President Hamid Karzai claims that the army numbers 100,000 now, in fact some battalions are at half strength and not combat ready. The chance that the ANA can be expanded to 240,000 effective soldiers for another $16 bn. in a year or two is slim to none.

c. If a new Afghan army can be built at all, it will take at least 4 years, and it is not plausible that US troops will withdraw beginning in 2011. Moreover, Memos of US ambassador Karl Eikenberry in Kabul insist that President Hamid Karzai is unreliable and refuses to try to take command of the country, so that he is not deploying the army he already has. The profound divisions within the Obama camp, among the most experienced Afghan hands, make it anything but certain that the counter-insurgency strategy of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to which Obama committed himself, can succeed.

d. Veteran NBC war correspondent Richard Engel maintains that staff officers work short hours and are corrupt. Only some of the small companies of troops deployed in the countryside can effectively be said to be at war. Even these are 90% illiterate, and some have received only 2 weeks of 'show and tell' training. Drug use is rampant among troops, and some 25 percent go AWOL. See Engle on the Rachel Maddow show:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economyAs is often the case, in this paragraph Obama was attempting to please both right and left, with a troop escalation advertised as a mere prelude to withdrawal. But the task, of training an effective 240,000-man AFghanistan National Army is an enormous one and cannot be even partially completed by summer 2011.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Three issues: tribal forms of gov, jobs,Afghan expats

Spiegel Online
01/26/2010 05:04 PM

A New Look at Afghanistan
'Civil Society Is Very Much Alive'

Can civilian reconstruction efforts help win Afghan "hearts and minds"? In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, Afghanistan expert Almut Wieland-Karimi discusses why tribal forms of government may be more suitable to Afghanistan, the wisdom of using employment rates as a benchmark for success and how expat Afghans can help the reconstruction effort.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: NATO foreign ministers are gathering in London on Thursday to discuss the path forward for the Western alliance's engagement in Afghanistan. You have advised the conference's participants to listen to the Afghans more. What does that mean?

Wieland-Karimi: Afghanistan's civil society is very much alive. We just finally have to listen to the ongoing debates. In the country's big cities, in particular, intellectuals, journalists and tribal representatives are debating how Afghanistan should best be governed and organized.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What proposals are currently being discussed?

Wieland-Karimi: Western powers always present free elections as the most desirable outcome. But the latest presidential elections -- with all their irregularities and reports of fraud -- have disillusioned many Afghans. From people close to President Hamid Karzai and even Taliban representatives, we are currently hearing suggestions to hold a loya jirga, the traditional tribal gathering, in addition to elections. The possibility of such a convention is even mentioned in the Afghan Constitution.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What would such a gathering look like?

Wieland-Karimi: In the 18th century, a loya jirga formed the basis for the modern Afghan nation. Nowadays, it would most likely be a mix of traditional and more modern elements, with regional representatives and tribal leaders participating. One of the issues they could debate is the question of whether a presidential system can really work in a traditionally decentralized nation like Afghanistan. One potential alternative would be a more federal system and the chance for Afghans to elect their governors directly. They are currently appointed by the president in Kabul.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Would President Karzai ever support an idea like this, given that it could reduce his power?

Wieland-Karimi: That depends on the framing of such a proposal. Would Karzai perceive it as a project of the Western powers intended to drive him out of power? Or would he have to see it as a proposal made by Afghan civil society, which would be much harder for him to dismiss?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Once again, the Americans are floating the idea of negotiating with Taliban fighters directly. How could that work?

Wieland-Karimi: Everyone talks about the Taliban, but it's not a homogenous group. Sure, we see Taliban fighters with an ideological agenda determined to transform Afghanistan into a safe haven for terror groups, such as al-Qaida. But many of the current Taliban fighters are Afghan men aged 25 or less -- and out of work. The Taliban offers them money, work and food. That is a very attractive offer to many young people. However, such fighters could be considered "moderates" since they lack of an ideological agenda. They could be open to concrete offers made by the Afghan government or the Western powers.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Could you estimate how many Taliban fighters could be seen as "moderates"?

Wieland-Karimi: Serious estimates are difficult to make, but we know that roughly 70 percent of the Afghan people are under 25 years old. Our goal should be to win the "hearts and minds" of this group, particularly of the young men. They need work, and getting them to work should be the key focus of our dialogue. We are used to measuring progress in miles of streets or hospitals being built, but it would make much more sense to use the level of employment for young male Afghans as an essential benchmark.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: In 2002, at the beginning of the NATO mission, there was a huge amount of enthusiasm in the local civil society for Western aid. Has it all evaporated since then?

Wieland-Karimi: Not necessarily. Young Afghans desire work and good prospects, just like their contemporaries in other countries. But it's true that this enthusiasm has declined considerably over the past eight years. People in Afghanistan have simply had to deal with too many setbacks.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Will your proposals be placed on the agenda for discussion in London?

Wieland-Karimi: There are many good ideas on the table. As always, the problem lies in the implementation. Afghan civil society needs to become the focus of our activities. Once a local village has been pacified, civil aid workers need to start the reconstruction effort. Still, the big question remains: What group of civilians can fulfill this mission?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Couldn't the military help out? For instance, soldiers who have been specifically trained to interact with Afghan natives?

Wieland-Karimi: I don't think that's a good idea. We need close coordination between the military and civilian helpers. But both sides should focus on what they do best. A good proposal, however, is to get more Afghan expats involved in the civilian aid project. The Americans -- with their Afghan expat community of almost 500,000 -- have relied on this group heavily. A civilian aid worker who speaks the native language and is familiar with the cultural attitudes of the country is an invaluable asset. We have about 100,000 Afghan expats living in Germany. We should try much harder to make them a part of our civilian effort in Afghanistan. But, so far, our government has hardly tried this.

Interview conducted by Gregor Peter Schmitz
URL:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,674080,00.html

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Million-dollar program assumes some Taliban can be paid to leave insurgency

It is safe to assume that some rank-and-file Taliban have joined the insurgency because the Taliban provides a monthly pay check, one that is higher than the Karzai government pays its own soliders. There is high unemployment throughout the country and the US-led occupation has overall done little to improve, and much to undermine, economic conditions. Given these conditions, wage and job incentives may work, provided they are, or lead to, long-term employment.

The article does not indicate what kind of jobs will be provided. Will the jobs be in the police force or Afghan army? Who will train them, our military officers or for-profit contractors? If the jobs created are jobs to help rebuild the Afghan economy and they spur an increase in Afghan enterprises, then it may turn out to be good for Afghanistan.

The reporters of the article also point out that some Taliban leaders will be offered "positions" in the Afghan government or governance structure.

One important point the reporters of the article make is that the new program, called the Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund, implies there is a recognition on the part of US generals that there is no military solution to resolve the Afghanistan war. It remains to be seen whether spending unknown millions on this program will be effective, sustainable, and with a minimum of corruption or rip offs. Past experience in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan does not hold out much promise.

If the US military command is able to create a program leading to long-term jobs that help to rebuild the country, then the Obama administration may learn something on what to do with the large unemployment problem in the United States. What an irony that would be? Or Farce?

Bob

---------------------------------
Taliban 'buy out' fund to cost hundreds of millions
Hamida Ghafour and David Sapsted, Foreign Correspondents
Last Updated: January 26. 2010 2:33PM UAE

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100126/FOREIGN/701259829/1138

LONDON // An international fund amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars will be established this week in a bid to buy off Taliban leaders in Afghanistan.An outline for the strategy, which will be principally funded by the US, Japan and Britain, was reported to have been drafted at a meeting in Abu Dhabi two weeks ago of top-level diplomats from 20 countries.
The announcement of the establishment of the Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund, which will seek to “split the Taliban” by luring into mainstream politics any leaders not connected to, or ready to break their links with, al Qa’eda is due to be announced at the end of Thursday’s summit on Afghanistan in London.

Some will see the plan as the most public acknowledgement yet that there is no military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan.

But, assuming the scheme is approved on Thursday, it will represent the most comprehensive political attempt to draw the sting out of the insurgency since the fall of the regime in 2001.

According to The Times yesterday, the draft communiqué to be issued at the end of the conference also foresees Afghan troops “taking the lead and conducting the majority of operations in the insecure areas of Afghanistan within three years and taking responsibility for physical security within five years”.

Diplomatic sources in London yesterday stressed that this did not mean that a timetable was being drawn up for the withdrawal of the Nato-led force in Afghanistan, currently 110,000 strong. However, it will be the proposal for the “bribes” fund that will cause most controversy. Until now, many in the West had regarded opening a dialogue with the Taliban as appeasement.The new scheme’s aim will be to offer Taliban fighters jobs and training programmes while their leaders will be offered roles in the governance of the country in talks with the government of President Hamid Karzai.

The British prime minister, Gordon Brown, told reporters yesterday: “Over the long-term, we can split the Taliban. I believe there are many people who will be brought over, but they have to renounce violence, and be part of the democratic process.”A senior diplomat in London added: “The strategy of trying to lure fighters away from the Taliban has been going on for some time. This new proposal is of a whole different dimension: it will be structured, very well financed and aimed at bringing local warlords into the mainstream.

“It’s a carrot-and-stick approach. On the ground, there will be up to 40,000 more troops this year making things uncomfortable for the Taliban. The carrot is the money and a place within the power structure of Afghanistan.”In recent months, there have been an increasing number of reports of US involvement in negotiations with representatives of Mullah Mohammad Omar and other Taliban commanders, offering cash and jobs in a bid to get them to lay down their arms.
French, Italian and US troops have also been reported to have made cash payments on the ground, either to persuade Taliban fighters to lay down their weapons or simply to give safe passage to supply columns passing through their territories.Mr Karzai told the BBC last week that the United States and Britain had previously been opposed to his scheme to offer the Taliban money and jobs, but that they now had been won over to the idea.

He denied the scheme was a bribe. “If we call it bribery, then we are all taking bribes overseas because employment is something we are looking in all countries all over the world. It’s what young people seek, just like in America,” he said.The president also pointed out that, currently, the Taliban could afford to pay its volunteers more than his government could afford to pay its own soldiers.Political leaders have been quietly attempting to soften up public opinion over bringing the Taliban in from the cold. Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, recently described the Taliban as part of the “political fabric” of Afghanistan.

David Miliband, the UK foreign secretary, also said recently: “When people say to me: ‘Should the Afghan government be talking to the Taliban?’, I have a simple answer: yes, they should.”Kai Eide, the chief United Nations envoy in Afghanistan, has called for some Taliban leaders to be removed from a UN list of terrorists as a prelude to talks, while even Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of the foreign force in Afghanistan, said yesterday that he believed the Taliban had a role to play in government.

“I think any Afghans can play a role if they focus on the future, and not the past,” he told the Financial Times. “As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there’s been enough fighting.” However, military commanders are also making it plain that the carrot-and-stick approach will also involve plenty of stick.Major Gen Nick Carter, the commander of 45,000 Nato troops in Helmand province, said yesterday that a major offensive would be launched to “assert the control” of the Afghan government in areas currently controlled by the Taliban. “Helmand is very much a work in progress, with parts simply ungoverned. If they’re governed at all, it’s by parallel governments, provided often by the Taliban.

“If we’re going to win the argument on behalf of the Afghan government, then we need to assert the government’s control over those areas which are at the moment ungoverned.”Not everyone is happy with the idea of trying to buy off Taliban fighters. Adam Holloway, a British Conservative MP and member of the defence select committee in the House of Commons, described the plan as “ridiculous”.“That’s buying them off, that’s not reconciliation,” he said. “To think you are going to reconcile people to a corrupt, remote and unwanted government in Pashtun areas is ridiculous.

“It might work temporarily. There is no perfect solution, but if you think it is just about money, it is not going to work. It just symbolises they haven’t got it right.”Clare Lockhart, chief executive of the Institute for State Effectiveness, a think tank in Washington, and a former adviser to the UN and Afghan government, said unemployment was one of the root causes of insurgency and must be addressed.

“One of the reasons why young men are joining up various armed forces – whether the government forces, armed insurgent groups or just criminal gangs – is that there is no employment or livelihood. So it is very circular,” she said.“To address some of the root causes of instability one does need to focus on job creation.”

hghafour@thenational.aedsapsted@thenational.ae

Monday, January 25, 2010

The Afghanistan War is costly and makes us less safe

Phyllis Bennis is the author of the following article. She focuses on the human and economic costs of the war and contends that the US occupation makes us less safe, not more safe. We could, she writes, use the money to fund jobs for a green economy or for health care for some of the tens of millions who do not have insurance.

Bennis' new book will be published in the next week: Ending the US War in Afghanistan: A Primer. See a short bio at the end of the article.

Bob

---------------------------

Published on Monday, January 25, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

Afghanistan: This War Won't Work
by Phyllis Bennis

The recent Taliban attacks on Kabul provide another wake-up call about why this war in Afghanistan simply isn't going to work. It won't bring security to Afghans. It won't turn Afghanistan into a democracy. And it won't make us safer.

In fact, the war killed more people in Afghanistan last year than the year before-40 percent more civilians, according to the United Nations. And the body count this year is already shaping up to be higher than last year. That goes for U.S. troops too.

And President Obama's escalation, the 30,000 new troops he just announced he's sending to Afghanistan? That's not helping either. The Taliban have mostly stayed in the countryside, based in the small villages where almost 80 percent of Afghans live. But now, after Obama announced that the additional troops would be deployed in Afghanistan's "population centers," meaning the cities, guess where the Taliban headed for their most recent assault?

The same thing happens when U.S. troops go after Taliban or al-Qaeda targets-they may or may not kill the "right" person, but they consistently do kill a whole bunch of people guilty only of being in the very wrong place at the very wrong time. The "wrong" people get killed.
And what happens then? The grieving and outraged family, friends, and tribe members of those "wrong" people get angry. Very angry. They start to hate those who killed their family members-us-even if they never did before. And some of them turn to violence when they never would have before. This isn't new-military and political leaders acknowledge that we're creating more terrorists than we're killing. And still the policymakers aren't hearing it.

So it doesn't make us safer. And here at home we have another problem too. Alongside the horrifying human cost-young soldiers killed, others coming home with horrifying life-shattering injuries, others returning to face traumatic brain injury and PTSD-we have to pay the financial cost for this war.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost us $950 billion. Yes, BILLION. That's not counting the $137 billion Congress appropriated for spending between now and September. And that also doesn't count the cost of those 30,000 new troops going to Afghanistan, which will cost roughly $30 billion more just for their first year.

Altogether, that means by the end of this year we will have spent about $1.08 trillion. Yes, TRILLION-a number so big it's practically incomprehensible.

What else could we do with that money? Well, just the cost of the current escalation could provide about six million people with health care. Or generate 600,000 well-paid green jobs.
Which is more likely to make us safer? Opposition to the U.S. war in Afghanistan, which peaked at almost 60 percent just a month or so ago, has dropped after Obama's escalation speech at West Point. We've got a lot of work to do to make sure his administration knows this war won't make us safer, and it just costs too much-too many lives and too much money. Are you listening, President Obama?

Distributed by Minuteman Media
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies [1]. Her books include Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer [2] and more recently Ending the Iraq War: A Primer [3]. If you want to receive her talking points and articles on a regular basis, click here [4] and choose "New Internationalism."

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/25-7