Thread: Whats new in Afghanistan?

Johny Howard recently said Afghanistan was more dangerous to Aussie soldiers than Iraq.
A senior British military commander wants US special forces to get out of his region of Afghanistan (Helmand) because of their over reliance on bombing raids and resultant civilian casualties.
The Taliban is resurgent, the central government a joke.
The sole good news is their opium crop. Or am I missing something?

Another shining jewel in the sceptre of western foreign policy, I think Afghanistan deserves it's own thread.
Any news, views, reviews on Afghanistan, this is the place.

From The Guardian:-


UK officer calls for US special forces to quit Afghan hotspot



High civilian toll as teams rely on air strikes to provide cover

Declan Walsh in Islamabad and Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday August 10, 2007
The Guardian


US soldiers disembark from a Chinook helicopter in the Ghazni province of Afghanistan. Photograph: Nicolas Asfouri/AFP/Getty images


Tension between British and American commanders in southern Afghanistan erupted into the open yesterday as a senior UK military officer said he had asked the US to withdraw its special forces from a volatile area that was crucial in the battle against the Taliban.
British and Nato defence officials have consistently expressed concern about US tactics, notably air strikes, which kill civilians, sabotaging the battle for "hearts and minds" and infuriating Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president.
Des Browne, the defence secretary, recently raised the issue with Robert Gates, his US counterpart, and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato's secretary general, admitted last month that an increasing number of civilian casualties was undermining support for alliance troops. He said Nato commanders had changed the rules of engagement, ordering their troops to hold their fire in situations where civilians appeared to be at risk.
Yesterday, a senior British commander was quoted in the New York Times as saying that in Sangin, in the north of Helmand province, which had been calm for a month, there was no longer a need for special forces. "There aren't large bodies of Taliban to fight any more," he said. "We are dealing with small groups and we are trying to kick-start reconstruction and development."
Twelve-man teams of US special forces had been criticised for relying on air strikes for cover when they believed they were confronted by large groups of Taliban fighters and their supporters.
Unnamed British officers were quoted yesterday as saying the US had caused the lion's share of casualties in their area and that after 18 months of heavy fighting since British forces arrived in Helmand they were finally making headway in securing key areas, but were now trying to win back support from people whose lives had been devastated by bombing.
The newspaper estimated the number of civilian casualties this year in Helmand at close to 300 - most caused by foreign and Afghan forces, not the Taliban. Human rights and aid groups estimate that 230 Afghan civilians were killed throughout the south of the country last year.
Nato officers admit they are troubled by the high toll. One medic told the Guardian that during a 14-day period last month, British soldiers rescued 30 Afghan civilians wounded in bombings or firefights - half of whom were children.
The US and Nato yesterday denied the British commander had asked US special forces to leave his area of operations. However, Mr Browne, visiting British and Nato troops in Afghanistan, said the commander was expressing a personal view.
"It is the reporting of an observation of a British officer on a particular part of the American military," he told reporters in Kabul. "That may be his view, but it is not the view of the Helmand taskforce commander, it is not the view of our government, it is not the view of the Americans, it is not the view of the alliance. These things can be said in the heat of battle. These are very difficult circumstances."
After a meeting with Mr Karzai, Mr Browne said the British-led Helmand force has made "enormous progress in driving back the Taliban in the north of the province". He added: "The forces' progress has been followed by targeted development projects that are making a difference to ordinary Afghans' lives."
British officers say US special forces are cavalier in their approach to the civilian population. The tensions were illustrated by an incident the Guardian witnessed in Sangin earlier this summer.
A British patrol was abandoned by its American special forces escort in the town for several hours. Stranded in central Sangin, British officers tried to establish radio contact with the Americans, who had disappeared without warning, and swore impatiently when they could not.
The British criticisms intensified after the Americans led them to their proposed site for a new Afghan patrol base in the town - beside a graveyard and a religious shrine. "Sensitivity is not their strong suit," said one British officer.
Most British soldiers work well with regular American troops and some speak admiringly of them. But US special forces units are a different matter.
They operate under a different chain of command, with their own rules on everything from dress code to the use of weapons. Whereas the British troops operate under Nato command, the American special forces are commanded from the US-led coalition in Bagram airbase outside Kabul. That means the Americans can call on a wider range of airstrikes, and also that British officers have little control over which munitions are dropped in populated areas.
The British military spokesman in Helmand, Lt Col Charlie Mayo, said the special forces had supported seven British-led operations in Helmand since last April. He said that relations between the two sides were "excellent".
"To work together effectively we have to have bloody good cooperation and we have to mutually support each other," he said. Col Mayo stressed that the British commander who had a problem with special forces had requested them to leave Sangin town only, not all of Helmand.
Officers also argue that where Taliban fighters mount ambushes from inside heavily populated areas, civilian deaths are unavoidable. "When you are working in a high intensity counter insurgency environment like this, regrettably you are going to have civilian casualties," Col Mayo said. In London, British officials confirmed UN forecasts that southern Afghanistan's opium poppy crop, based in Helmand, will exceed last year's record. Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch Brown described the figures as "extremely disappointing".

The Brit's seem to think Afghanistan is now the real front line against Terrorism, not Iraq. I doubt BP and Shell would agree though.

Afghanistan becomes main focus for UK



Patrick Wintour
Wednesday August 8, 2007
The Guardian


The Foreign Office has decided that Afghanistan, and not Iraq, is the frontline in its battle to defeat terrorism, even if it may take decades to improve the country - as well as far greater international coordination than at present.
The UK military also wants to concentrate its forces in Helmand province, an area described by Tony Blair as the crucible in which the battle for the 21st century will be fought.
Ministers want improved coordination under the banner of the UN, and not just Nato, but suspect the US wants to maintain independence for part of its military operations aimed at al-Qaida in the country. Britain is backing the idea of a strong military, diplomatic and reconstruction coordinator.
Paddy Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, has been mentioned in British circles, but he is reluctant to take the job. In the spring, in a sign of British commitment to Afghanistan, Britain appointed one of its most highly regarded diplomats, Sherard Cowper-Coles as ambassador, and expanded the size of what would normally be a run-of-the-mill embassy. Ministers believe that if Afghanistan falls into the hands of the Taliban, Pakistan may also fall, with dire consequences for British security.
The decision by David Miliband, the foreign secretary, to go to Kabul was intended as a symbol that the UK regards Afghanistan and Pakistan as vital to fighting terrorism.
Britain has been pressing for greater cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan, but recognises that the border means little to local tribes. It still believes its counter-insurgency techniques are working, and the fact that the Pakistan and Afghan government will hold a joint parliament next week shows there is a mood to cooperate. However, the foreign office minister Mark Malloch Brown has conceded that Britain may need to review its policy on the link between the military and development workers in its reconstruction work. The UN, where Lord Malloch Brown used to work, has always opposed development and military workers operating next to one another as it confuses the local population.

The Foreign Office does not seem to favour a radical change in policy in battling against opium production in Helmand, saying greater security will gradually lead farmers to sow alternative and currently less profitable crops. The ministerial view is that Afghanistan is winnable and that British troops can act as a force for good - which is less easy to argue in Iraq. Nevertheless, the government is nervous that any withdrawal from Iraq this autumn will be criticised by allies of the Bush administration, especially if the report by general David Petraeus deems that the troop surge has been successful.

More good news.

Civilian death toll rises in the bloody battle of Helmand

The number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan's Helmand province has fast become the conflict's most controversial element, and now threatens to undermine Britain's entire war effort. Attempts to stop the resurgence of the Taliban are uniting the population against UK troops. Amid the mounting death toll of innocent Afghans, fissures are appearing between British and American commanders over who is most to blame. Crisis talks between military officers and the country's government over 'collateral damage' continue.

New unpublished figures confirm that the rate of civilian casualties is accelerating. They also reveal that, for the first time since current operations began in Helmand last year, the number of innocent people killed by international troops has eclipsed those killed by the Taliban. No one knows how many have died, only that the numbers are high. Forty minutes before the four children arrived at Sangin compound, I saw two wounded women arrive at its gates and beg for treatment.

Using hospital data from the region, however, independent researchers have substantiated at least 348 civilian deaths caused by British, Nato and US operations in Helmand in the first six months of the year. Another 118 were injured. Last year international forces killed 320.
The true total of civilian victims is certain to be higher, as Shaikh did not have access to the numbers of civilians treated at Helmand's military hospitals.

FROM- Civilian death toll rises in the bloody battle of Helmand | World | The Observer

At least in Afghanistan we are not bothering to mutter that we are bringing 'freedom and democracy'.

Hmmmm Iraqi leader installed by the US ....... Afghan leader installed by the US ...... Endless support for Paki dictator ...... CIA created and supplied arms to mujahideen (now known as Taliban) ..... American gov't supplied Iraq with weapons during Iran-Iraq war ...... US firm supplied hot cells to Iran.


I am trying to make sense of all this.

Anyone?

Britain boosts troops, aid to Afghanistan

Associated Press August 17, 2007
KABUL, Afghanistan - As its military winds down efforts in Iraq, Britain is pouring more soldiers and aid money into Afghanistan to fight a resurgent Taliban and a booming drug trade it says poses a direct threat to the nation.

Britain's ambassador in Kabul said the government began increasing its focus on Afghanistan shortly before the end of former Prime Minister Tony Blair's tenure in June and has made it even more of a priority under Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Afghanistan "matters to us because a high proportion of the terrorism investigations in the U.K. can be traced back to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area," Sherard Cowper-Coles said in an interview this week. "It matters to us because 90 percent of the heroin on British streets comes from Afghanistan."


Britain will increase its troop strength in Afghanistan to 7,700 by year end, up from 7,000 today and 3,600 a year ago, in what Cowper-Coles labeled a "sensible tactical adjustment" based on commanders' advice.

On the aid front, Britain's Department for International Development will spend more than $200 million in Afghanistan this year, one of Britain's top aid commitments per capita anywhere in the world.

"We very much believe that there is no military solution. Equally there is no entirely nonmilitary solution," Cowper-Coles said. "We've got to keep up the military pressure on the Taliban but at the same time we've got to use the other strands in our strategy to try to contain and gradually bring down the insurgency."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,4733780.story?

Return To Tora Bora

What???
You mean there's more going on in Afghanistan than air raids on civilians?

Here's a cool map of the Tora Bora region and its proximity to Pakistan.

"UN horrified by surge in opium trade in Helmand"



Despite 7,000 UK troops, Taliban-backed production up 48%

The sprawling and violent province is now the world's single largest source of illegal drugs - greater than coca from Colombia, cannabis from Morocco or heroin from Burma, countries with populations up to 20 times greater.

Full article UN horrified by surge in opium trade in Helmand | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

And how about this little gem :-

"Twenty years ago US police arrested a young Afghan emigrant at his hotel room in Caesars Palace, Las Vegas. The Afghan, who introduced himself as Mr E, tried to sell a bag of heroin to an undercover detective. At his trial, prosecutors said it was worth $2m.

Now Mr E - or Mr Wasifi - is the director general of the Afghan government's main anti-corruption agency."

How anti-corruption chief once sold heroin in Las Vegas | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

Yep, we sure know how to pick our allies.

Youtube is back so just wanted to share this video...... it's about Afghanistan and it's people....



Watch it!

Well it seems that the Taliban is short 19 South Koreans, they had 23 but immediately murdered 2, then let 2 go because they were sick, now all of them are gone and the ragheads only got $20,000,000 for em.
So now the S Koreans have legitimized the kidnap/murder of any civillian that is in the country.

Kidnapping is a way of life in parts of the world simply because it works. No surprise that it's usually soft target westerners that are spirited away, because we have a weakness that places a greater value on the life of our citizens than certain subspecies, they know it, as do we, but the difference is we fear the admission because we're rooted in denial.

Money paid for the Korean lives will go towards feeding and equipping the Taliban, resulting in the death of far more western soldiers and civilians than the handful of lives recovered, and of course there's an unending supply of more hostages.

Aside from the money aspect, we do need to grasp the principle of instantly and without regard slaughtering those terrorists and other enemies of anything remotely decent the moment their release is demanded as part of any negotiations for the release of hostages. The logic here is that if enemies of civilisation want someone released it can only be detrimental to us to have them released.

Either remove the self imposed handcuffs of democratic niceties in dealing with the absurdly belligerent, or negotiate an honourable capitulation by giving them the keys to every seat of government in the free world.

Very correct you are but it will never come to pass.

You still hear the liberals crying and screaming about what was done at Mi Lai and Bill Calley and what a prick he was or is. War is not a pretty thing and should be left to warriors and not politicians.

Originally Posted by keda

of course there's an unending supply of more hostages.

then perhaps war profiteers (the PC term is independent contractors) and proselytizing christians should stay out of afghanistan

Originally Posted by keda

Aside from the money aspect, we do need to grasp the principle of instantly and without regard slaughtering those terrorists and other enemies of anything remotely decent the moment their release is demanded as part of any negotiations for the release of hostages. The logic here is that if enemies of civilisation want someone released it can only be detrimental to us to have them released.

Whilst I certainly don't approve of CIA 'extraordinary rendition' and government sponsored kidnapping, should we really give up the principles of Freedom and Democracy ('Oh! Say can you see...') and slaughter all those Americans?

(...that is who you were talking about, wasn't it?)

A question , one I'm sure some of you keyboard pundits can answer. With the resurgence of the taliban and the prospects of another record opium harvest in areas under their control would it not be an idea if the US put some more effort into this area if for no other reason than a lot of that opium is going to end up on American streets as heroin. Anyone ?

Originally Posted by raycarey

then perhaps war profiteers (the PC term is independent contractors)

Hey there NUMB NUTS, how many of them have they taken hostage and sold back for a ransom???

Originally Posted by NathairCeann

A question , one I'm sure some of you keyboard pundits can answer. With the resurgence of the taliban and the prospects of another record opium harvest in areas under their control would it not be an idea if the US put some more effort into this area if for no other reason than a lot of that opium is going to end up on American streets as heroin. Anyone ?

I believe US forces have been doing some aerial pesticide spraying on the quiet. But two problems-
1- you poison people too
2- you kill all crops locally, not just poppy fields.

IS PEACE POSSIBLE WITH THE TALIBAN? Might well be the only option- they control much more of the country than the Karzai government, and are clandestinely supported from Pakistan, & possibly Iran. Good article:-

What the increasingly confident Taliban want in exchange for peace

GRAEME SMITH
September 12, 2007


KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- The Taliban and their allies say they are ready to accept President Hamid Karzai's invitation to peace talks, but with tough conditions that show the insurgents' rising confidence about bargaining with the embattled Afghan government.
The Taliban's demands include an immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops and a rewrite of the Afghan constitution, according to interviews The Globe and Mail has conducted with key figures who would be integral to any political settlement.
Hope for negotiations surfaced after Mr. Karzai said on Sunday that he wants to talk with the insurgents - a statement he has made with increasing frequency as the violence rises. But this time, the Taliban took the unusual step of answering the President, issuing a statement on Monday saying they are prepared to meet with him.
Kabul is investigating the Taliban's invitation, a presidential spokesman said yesterday, adding that insurgents who want to negotiate will not be arrested.
But Kabul will need to make more substantial promises to get talks started, said Qari Yousef Ahmadi, a Taliban spokesman, reached by telephone at an undisclosed location.
"The government hasn't made any serious attempt to talk with us," Mr. Ahmadi said. "If they want to talk, we have two demands: All foreign troops must leave, and we must have an Islamic democracy in Afghanistan."
The Taliban spokesman was vague about his definition of Islamic democracy. Afghanistan's constitution already defines it as an Islamic republic, but it also sets aside a quarter of seats in parliament for women and makes other provisions that give the country a more moderate character than it had under the Taliban.
"The United States brought democracy to Afghanistan, but it was un-Islamic," Mr. Ahmadi said. "We need democracy, but under the laws of Islam."
Although he did not elaborate, he mentioned that another insurgent group has been thinking along similar lines: Hizb-i-Islami, the largest band of gunmen that fights alongside the Taliban.
That group's leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, recently gave a video response to questions from a researcher for The Globe and Mail, outlining his requirements for a ceasefire.
Like the Taliban, the old warlord listed the removal of foreign troops as his first demand.
But he also offered a more detailed political scheme: "Afghan people must sit together and reach the decision that the foreign troops should leave," he said. "The Americans must accept this, and they must leave. We will never participate in meetings in which they don't discuss this issue."
He continued: "Power should be handed over to a temporary government, and they will have a meeting of tribal elders, a new constitution, and work under Islamic rules. We should have real and fair elections, which follow Islamic rules. Under these circumstances, I am ready for negotiations."
Both Mr. Hekmatyar and Mr. Ahmadi remain in hiding; the former has been designated by the United States as a terrorist and supporter of al-Qaeda.
The name Ahmadi is likely a pseudonym, sometimes assumed by different Taliban spokesmen in hopes of avoiding the fate of their predecessors who have been killed or captured.
This points to one of many hurdles for a political settlement: The United Nations has formally designated the Taliban and other insurgent groups in Afghanistan as terrorists, making it politically and legally difficult for the Kabul government to reach a compromise.
"If they're labelled as terrorists, how can they talk?" said Maulana Fazlur Rahman, who heads one of Pakistan's largest religious parties, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, which voices support for the Taliban but disavows any direct link with violence.
"The key lies in the hands of the Americans," Mr. Rahman said during an interview earlier this month in Islamabad.
"They should empower the Afghan government to talk with the Taliban. But the atmosphere is not yet conducive."
The Taliban spokesman agreed that the terrorist designation might hamper talks. During recent negotiations with the government of South Korea for the release of hostages, Mr. Ahmadi said, the Taliban believed that the United States was trying to stop the discussion because it violated the principle of not negotiating with terrorists.
In the end, however, the success of the Korean talks shows pragmatism can overcome such objections, Mr. Ahmadi said.
........................

Whatever compromise might eventually be accepted by the Taliban would probably be hard for the international community to swallow, Mr. Rahman said.
"The West accepts Islam as a religion, but not as a state system, and this is unfortunate," he said.
*****
globeandmail.com: What the increasingly confident Taliban want in exchange for peace

Oh dear, looks like the Taliban have gone all hard line again, or is it just invective prior to holding talks?

Taliban reject overture from Afghanistan's government

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan: The Taliban will "never" negotiate with the Afghan authorities until U.S. and NATO forces leave the country, a spokesman for the group said Sunday, again rebuffing an overture for peace talks from President Hamid Karzai.

Karzai had said Saturday that he would be willing to meet personally with the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, and give militants a position in the government in exchange for peace.

Karzai's peace overture came as insurgency-related violence continued to climb. Thirty people, mostly army soldiers, were killed in a suicide bomb attack on a military bus Saturday in Kabul.

The death toll this week includes more than 165 militants killed during two battles between the Taliban and joint Afghan-coalition forces, and the 30 soldiers and civilians killed in the Kabul suicide bombing.

Militant attacks and military operations have killed more than 4,600 people so far this year, most of them insurgents, according to the AP count.

Full article-
Taliban reject overture from Afghanistan's government - International Herald Tribune

Allies losing Afghanistan war, Australian minister warns: report Australia's new government has warned NATO and its allies they will lose the war against hardline Taliban forces in Afghanistan unless they urgently change tactics, a report said Monday.

The country's new Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon issued the stark warning at a meeting in Edinburgh last week of eight nations engaged in the conflict, including the United States, The Australian newspaper said...

The minister's comments to the closed-door gathering were based on classified intelligence assessments prepared for the previous Australian government of John Howard which painted a bleak picture of the Afghan conflict.

"The previous government would have us believe that good progress is being made in Afghanistan. The reality is quite a different one," Fitzgibbon told The Australian after returning from the meeting in Britain.

"We are winning the battles and not the war, in my view. We have been very successful in clearing areas of the Taliban but it's having no real strategic effect," he said.

Allies losing Afghanistan war, Australian minister warns: report - Breaking News - World - Breaking News

Nothing new in Afghanistan it seems.

Parallels with Iraq no doubt.

Nobody’s saying who fired the missile that got him, but top Al Qaeda freakazoid Abu Laith al-Libi is now officially a dead terrorist. More to follow...heh

Al-Qaida commander in Afghanistan killed - Yahoo! News