EDITORIAL:NEW YORK TIMES:
Unless something happens soon, Israelis, Palestinians and other Arabs may squander the best chance for Middle East peace in nearly a decade. President Obama is committed to serious negotiations and, for now, there is a lull in regional violence. But all of the region’s major players are refusing to do what is needed to keep their own people safe and move the peace process forward.
Mr. Obama has called on the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to freeze all settlement construction as a way to demonstrate his government’s commitment to trading land for peace.
Mr. Netanyahu, who accepted the idea of a two-state solution only grudgingly, has hinted that he might agree to a temporary freeze. In the meantime, his government has approved 455 new permits for construction in the West Bank and said that work on 2,500 units now in progress must also be completed.
That may play well in Israeli polls, but it has given Arab leaders a powerful excuse to do nothing.
Mr. Obama has been urging Arab states to demonstrate their own commitment to a peace deal by signaling a greater acceptance of Israel — by granting overflight rights for Israeli commercial planes or opening consular or trade offices in Israel.
Instead of championing the idea, the United States’ closest regional allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are refusing to make any of their own gestures and are actively discouraging other Arab states from acting. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has refused to agree to a three-way meeting with Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu in New York later this month unless Israel agrees to a complete freeze.
Is there any way out of this stalemate?
The White House’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, is back in the region this week trying to talk sense to all sides. He needs to tell them that Mr. Obama’s patience is not unlimited and that the lull in violence is almost certainly temporary.
He must remind the Egyptians and the Saudis, who are constantly looking over their shoulders at Iran, that a peace deal is the best way to check extremism and Tehran’s power. And the Gulf states, which insist that they are less mired in ancient hatreds, must be urged to step out of the shadow of Riyadh and Cairo and do what they already know is necessary.
President Obama needs to prod Mr. Netanyahu toward bolder action by making a direct — and better — case to a skeptical Israeli public on why a settlements freeze and reviving peace talks is in its interest.
Mr. Obama is still hoping to bring the Israeli and Palestinian leaders together at the United Nations this month to announce the resumption of peace talks. To pull that off, he is going to have to press all of the region’s leaders a lot harder.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Mitchell have already invested eight months on confidence-building and incremental diplomacy. If there is no breakthrough soon, they may have to place their own deal on the table.
M WAQAR..... "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary.Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --Albert Einstein !!! NEWS,ARTICLES,EDITORIALS,MUSIC... Ze chi pe mayeen yum da agha pukhtunistan de.....(Liberal,Progressive,Secular World.)''Secularism is not against religion; it is the message of humanity.'' تل ده وی پثتونستآن
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Obama warns Wall Street against risky behavior
www.philly.com
NEW YORK - Lecturing Wall Street on its own turf, President Obama warned financial leaders yesterday not to use the recovering economy to race back into "reckless behavior" that could cause a new meltdown. He declared that a bailout-weary public would not break their fall again.
Obama insisted that there is an urgent need for tighter financial regulation, and he cautioned his audience not to try to block it. He spoke on the first anniversary of the collapse of the Lehman Bros. investment bank, the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. The anniversary was a stark reminder of a financial crisis that has spread into a deep recession despite huge federal bailouts of major companies.
"It is neither right nor responsible, after you've recovered with the help of your government, to shirk your obligation to the goal of wider recovery, a more stable system, and a more broadly shared prosperity," Obama said.
The president's speech reflected public sentiment that taxpayers were immeasurably harmed by last year's financial collapse - and that, barring change, it could happen again. As investment giants return to profitability, millions of Americans are still coping with unemployment, home foreclosures and retirement portfolios that got washed away in the storm.
For symbolic emphasis, Obama spoke from venerable Federal Hall on Wall Street.
"Unfortunately, there are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment," Obama told a quiet audience of leaders from the investment sector.
"So I want them to hear my words," Obama said. "We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis. . . . Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences."
Obama's reach goes only so far; his bid for huge regulatory change is up to Congress.
The president's plan has yet to gain serious traction on Capitol Hill, as Democratic leaders have been consumed by the health-care debate and staff members are still wrestling with the complexities. The plan is being fought by a determined financial-services lobby with a major assist from big-business groups. Infighting among regulators who oversee the various portions of the sprawling financial architecture has further slowed the process.
But the sluggish pace is expected to pick up in coming weeks. Democrats aim to stick to their promise of completing the bill by year's end, a timeline Obama badly wants to keep, but they face long odds.
Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who once considered being Obama's commerce secretary, was among GOP lawmakers who responded to the president's message with caution.
He said, "We must be wary of the reality that - in an attempt to address yesterday's failures - Congress will put in place regulatory schemes which will fundamentally undermine risk taking."
Anticipating such criticism, Obama shot back against those pushing for less regulation.
"Do you really believe that the absence of sound regulation one year ago was good for the financial system?" he said. "Do you believe the resulting decline in markets and wealth and unemployment, the wrenching hardship that families are going through all across the country, was somehow good for our economy?"
Much of Obama's speech was a recap of his proposals, first outlined in June.
He has sought tougher capital requirements for banks, arguing that banks' buying of exotic financial products without keeping enough cash in reserve was a key cause of the crisis. He wants more openness for the markets in which banks trade the most complex products.
Obama's plan also would give the Federal Reserve new oversight powers and impose conditions designed to discourage companies from getting too big. And he proposes a consumer-protection agency to make rules for financial products, so people know what they are buying.
The House Financial Services Committee, led by Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), who supports much of Obama's plan, is expected in October to take up the first piece of the legislation, which would establish an agency focused on consumer protections. The panel has already passed legislation intended to curb excessive compensation at financial institutions.
Obama's plan could face significant revisions in the Senate, where Democrats have joined Republicans in questioning whether more power should be given to the Federal Reserve.
Industry is working particularly hard to kill or at least weaken the consumer protection agency, which it says would lead to increased costs for consumers, and various corporate interests are fighting the new rules for complex financial transactions, arguing they could stifle legitimate commerce.
Obama defends auto bailout, touts new fuel rules
LORDSTOWN, Ohio -- President Obama took his economic recovery message on the road Tuesday, defending the controversial auto bailout during an appearance at a General Motors plant in the heart of the struggling Rust Belt.
Obama also announced the official implementation of tighter auto fuel efficiency standards, a change that advocates herald as necessary to reduce dependence on foreign oil and to address climate change.
"In the midst of a deep recession and financial crisis, the collapse of the auto industry would have caused enormous damage to our economy," Obama told an enthusiastic crowd of autoworkers.
"So we intervened for one simple and compelling reason: Your survival and the success of our economy depended on it."
The president added he believed "that if GM retooled and reinvented itself for the 21st century, it would be good for American workers, good for American manufacturing and good for America's economy."
"I'm pleased to report that's exactly what's begun to happen at this plant and at others. And I'll tell you what: I will double down on the American people and all of you any day of the week," he said.
The Treasury Department poured $19.4 billion into GM and $4 billion into Chrysler Corp. before their bankruptcy filings.
The department then agreed to give another $30 billion to GM and $8 billion to Chrysler to fund their operations during and immediately after the bankruptcy process, loans that it hopes will be repaid mostly through the sale of stock in both firms at some point in the future.
By paying for the rescue with funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program originally set up to fix the nation's banking system last fall, the White House was able to reshape the auto industry without any congressional action.
"As long as you've still got an ounce of fight left in you, I'll have a ton of fight left in me," Obama said. "I've said it before; I'm skinny but I'm tough."
The president said tighter auto emissions standards are also necessary for a long-term recovery in the auto industry.
A new national standard aimed at increasing gas mileage and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution "creates an even playing field," he said. "It's an action that is long overdue. It will give our auto companies clarity and stability and predictability."
The new requirements, initially unveiled in May, require the auto industry to make new vehicles that can average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.
The White House estimates that each new vehicle will cost an additional $1,300 to reach the 2016 standards but said the cost will be made up over three years.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said Tuesday that consumers should save $3,000 over the life of a car by getting better gas mileage.
Obama also announced the official implementation of tighter auto fuel efficiency standards, a change that advocates herald as necessary to reduce dependence on foreign oil and to address climate change.
"In the midst of a deep recession and financial crisis, the collapse of the auto industry would have caused enormous damage to our economy," Obama told an enthusiastic crowd of autoworkers.
"So we intervened for one simple and compelling reason: Your survival and the success of our economy depended on it."
The president added he believed "that if GM retooled and reinvented itself for the 21st century, it would be good for American workers, good for American manufacturing and good for America's economy."
"I'm pleased to report that's exactly what's begun to happen at this plant and at others. And I'll tell you what: I will double down on the American people and all of you any day of the week," he said.
The Treasury Department poured $19.4 billion into GM and $4 billion into Chrysler Corp. before their bankruptcy filings.
The department then agreed to give another $30 billion to GM and $8 billion to Chrysler to fund their operations during and immediately after the bankruptcy process, loans that it hopes will be repaid mostly through the sale of stock in both firms at some point in the future.
By paying for the rescue with funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program originally set up to fix the nation's banking system last fall, the White House was able to reshape the auto industry without any congressional action.
"As long as you've still got an ounce of fight left in you, I'll have a ton of fight left in me," Obama said. "I've said it before; I'm skinny but I'm tough."
The president said tighter auto emissions standards are also necessary for a long-term recovery in the auto industry.
A new national standard aimed at increasing gas mileage and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution "creates an even playing field," he said. "It's an action that is long overdue. It will give our auto companies clarity and stability and predictability."
The new requirements, initially unveiled in May, require the auto industry to make new vehicles that can average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.
The White House estimates that each new vehicle will cost an additional $1,300 to reach the 2016 standards but said the cost will be made up over three years.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said Tuesday that consumers should save $3,000 over the life of a car by getting better gas mileage.
Hamid Karzai could face new vote after Afghanistan election recounts
Ballots from about a tenth of Afghanistan's polling stations are to be recounted after evidence surfaced of widespread fraud, possibly forcing President Hamid Karzai to face another round of voting.
News of the recount came as a bitter split emerged inside the international community today over how to deal with the election debacle. The split led to the abrupt departure of the top American official in the United Nations mission, Peter Galbraith, who had pushed for a more aggressive response to vote-rigging than that pursued by his boss, the Norwegian head of the mission, Kai Eide.
The personal split, following a head to head row over the UN's strategy, mirrors a wide difference of opinion among troop-contributing nations involved in the war, over how to deal with overwhelming evidence of fraud committed by a government their soldiers are fighting to maintain.
After a meeting of European foreign ministers in Brussels, the German minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier said: "We will press for an investigation of all fraud allegations. It is important that the elected president is recognised and respected by the entire population of Afghanistan."
With over 90% of the votes counted from the first round on 20 August, Karzai leads with 54% of the vote against 28% by his closest challenger, Abdullah Abdullah. Today it was announced that a ruling by the UN-backed Election Complaints Commission meant that votes from 2,500 polling stations out of a total of 26,300, would have to be recounted.
It was unclear how votes would be affected, but it raised the possibility that Karzai's total could diminish to below 50%, in which case he would have to fight a second round against Abdullah.
However, the recount is likely to take weeks and might not be completed until the onset of the Afghan winter in the mountain provinces, making a second round impractical. Nato officials say they are confident a resolution will be found, but the sudden departure of Galbraith underlined the disagreements and anxiety within the international community in Kabul.
The UN spokesman there, Aleem Siddique, said Galbraith was "currently on mission to New York".
"Peter Galbraith remains an integral part of the UN mission leadership, both Mr Galbraith and Mr Eide are committed to supporting a credible election outcome. In any hotly contested election there are bound to de differences of opinion. However, on the issue of these elections, both the UN envoy and his deputy are united in ensuring a credible outcome for Afghan's voters," Siddique said.
Diplomats said Galbraith had been the target of withering criticism from the Karzai government and some of the Afghan press, for his outspoken style and his insistence that the ECC, which is made up of three foreign and two Afghan commissioners, should take an aggressive approach towards the Afghan-run Independent Election Commission (IEC). Eide has insisted the IEC take the lead, for fear of giving the impression the process was being dictated by foreigners.
Siddique said the two men remained in close touch and would meet up at the end of the month to report to the UN in New York.
News of the recount came as a bitter split emerged inside the international community today over how to deal with the election debacle. The split led to the abrupt departure of the top American official in the United Nations mission, Peter Galbraith, who had pushed for a more aggressive response to vote-rigging than that pursued by his boss, the Norwegian head of the mission, Kai Eide.
The personal split, following a head to head row over the UN's strategy, mirrors a wide difference of opinion among troop-contributing nations involved in the war, over how to deal with overwhelming evidence of fraud committed by a government their soldiers are fighting to maintain.
After a meeting of European foreign ministers in Brussels, the German minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier said: "We will press for an investigation of all fraud allegations. It is important that the elected president is recognised and respected by the entire population of Afghanistan."
With over 90% of the votes counted from the first round on 20 August, Karzai leads with 54% of the vote against 28% by his closest challenger, Abdullah Abdullah. Today it was announced that a ruling by the UN-backed Election Complaints Commission meant that votes from 2,500 polling stations out of a total of 26,300, would have to be recounted.
It was unclear how votes would be affected, but it raised the possibility that Karzai's total could diminish to below 50%, in which case he would have to fight a second round against Abdullah.
However, the recount is likely to take weeks and might not be completed until the onset of the Afghan winter in the mountain provinces, making a second round impractical. Nato officials say they are confident a resolution will be found, but the sudden departure of Galbraith underlined the disagreements and anxiety within the international community in Kabul.
The UN spokesman there, Aleem Siddique, said Galbraith was "currently on mission to New York".
"Peter Galbraith remains an integral part of the UN mission leadership, both Mr Galbraith and Mr Eide are committed to supporting a credible election outcome. In any hotly contested election there are bound to de differences of opinion. However, on the issue of these elections, both the UN envoy and his deputy are united in ensuring a credible outcome for Afghan's voters," Siddique said.
Diplomats said Galbraith had been the target of withering criticism from the Karzai government and some of the Afghan press, for his outspoken style and his insistence that the ECC, which is made up of three foreign and two Afghan commissioners, should take an aggressive approach towards the Afghan-run Independent Election Commission (IEC). Eide has insisted the IEC take the lead, for fear of giving the impression the process was being dictated by foreigners.
Siddique said the two men remained in close touch and would meet up at the end of the month to report to the UN in New York.
UN accuses Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza
www.timesonline.co.uk
A fact-finding team from the United Nations has accused Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza. The investigation set up by the Human Rights Council concluded that Israeli forces had been systematically reckless in their use of white phosphorus during the Gaza war earlier this year.
The investigators said in their report: “The mission believes that serious consideration should be given to banning the use of white phosphorus in built-up areas.”
They singled out three Israeli attacks using white phosphorus — which is deployed as a smokescreen — saying that they were disproportionate or excessive under international law.
They said that Israel failed to take “all feasible precautions” in using white phosphorus shells in the attack on the UN Relief and Works Agency compound in Gaza City on January 15 despite the presence of up to 700 civilians. It also criticised the use of white phosphorus in attacks on Al Quds and Al Wafa hospitals.
The report accused Israel of breaking international law by deliberately attacking civilians, using Palestinians as “human shields” and torturing detainees. It added that the continuing Israeli blockade of Gaza could constitute persecution — a crime against humanity.
The Times was the first newspaper to expose Israel’s use of white phosphorus in civilian areas of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, which was aimed at stopping Hamas rockets being fired at Israel.
It began on December 27 last year and ended on January 18. An Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem, said last week that 773 of the 1,387 Palestinians killed were civilians.
The report said that Palestinian armed groups had also committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity by indiscriminately firing rockets at civilians in southern Israel.
The mission urged the UN Security Council to give both sides six months to investigate and prosecute offenders before turning the matter over the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, a recommendation unlikely to be followed by the council.
The mission was set up in April by the UN Human Rights Council, which has a record of criticising Israel. It was led by Richard Goldstone, a South African judge who headed a commission on political violence in his homeland. Israel refused to co-operate with the investigation and yesterday dismissed its findings as prejudged.
A fact-finding team from the United Nations has accused Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza. The investigation set up by the Human Rights Council concluded that Israeli forces had been systematically reckless in their use of white phosphorus during the Gaza war earlier this year.
The investigators said in their report: “The mission believes that serious consideration should be given to banning the use of white phosphorus in built-up areas.”
They singled out three Israeli attacks using white phosphorus — which is deployed as a smokescreen — saying that they were disproportionate or excessive under international law.
They said that Israel failed to take “all feasible precautions” in using white phosphorus shells in the attack on the UN Relief and Works Agency compound in Gaza City on January 15 despite the presence of up to 700 civilians. It also criticised the use of white phosphorus in attacks on Al Quds and Al Wafa hospitals.
The report accused Israel of breaking international law by deliberately attacking civilians, using Palestinians as “human shields” and torturing detainees. It added that the continuing Israeli blockade of Gaza could constitute persecution — a crime against humanity.
The Times was the first newspaper to expose Israel’s use of white phosphorus in civilian areas of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, which was aimed at stopping Hamas rockets being fired at Israel.
It began on December 27 last year and ended on January 18. An Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem, said last week that 773 of the 1,387 Palestinians killed were civilians.
The report said that Palestinian armed groups had also committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity by indiscriminately firing rockets at civilians in southern Israel.
The mission urged the UN Security Council to give both sides six months to investigate and prosecute offenders before turning the matter over the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, a recommendation unlikely to be followed by the council.
The mission was set up in April by the UN Human Rights Council, which has a record of criticising Israel. It was led by Richard Goldstone, a South African judge who headed a commission on political violence in his homeland. Israel refused to co-operate with the investigation and yesterday dismissed its findings as prejudged.
Afghan rift bared as US military chief challenges Barack Obama
www.timesonline.co.uk
Deep rifts at the heart of Western policy on Afghanistan were laid bare yesterday when President Obama’s top military adviser challenged him to authorise a troop surge that his most senior congressional allies have said they will oppose.
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that more US troops as well as a rapid increase in the size and capability of the Afghan army were needed to carry out the President’s own strategy for prevailing in Afghanistan as the eighth anniversary of a debilitating war approaches.
His remarks to a Senate hearing came as Bob Ainsworth, the British Defence Secretary, said that the Taleban had proven a resilient enemy. “We’re far from succeeding against them yet but I reject that we’re not making progress,” he said at King’s College London.
Mr Obama also rejected claims that Afghanistan was turning into a quagmire akin to Vietnam, but his immediate dilemma is political: approving a surge could trigger a high-level mutiny within his own party. Making matters worse, a new poll showed that public support for the war has slumped since April.
“Each historical moment is different,” Mr Obama said in an interview published yesterday. “You never step into the same river twice, and so Afghanistan is not Vietnam.”
The call for more troops is supported by military commanders and Senate Republicans, including Senator John McCain, who warned yesterday that a “wait and see” approach to a surge risked repeating the “nearly catastrophic mistakes” that the US made in Iraq.
General Stanley McChrystal, in charge of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, is expected to make specific troop requests to add to the 68,000 already committed to Afghanistan within the next fortnight.
A central plank of his strategy, led by General Graham Lamb, of Britain, would be to try to induce low and middle-ranking Taleban fighters to fight for the Government, repeating tactics pioneered by General Lamb in Iraq two years ago, Admiral Mullen said. Britain has about 9,000 troops in the country. If he accepts his commanders’ recommendations, Mr Obama will have to remake the case for a war that had overwhelming public support until this year. He has a tough fight to persuade fellow Democrats that new troops are needed.
Democratic senators lined up yesterday to reject calls for more US combat troops. Senator Russ Feingold warned that he and “a growing chorus” of Democrats would refuse to back sending more reinforcements.
Calling for a flexible timetable for withdrawal, he insisted that “continuing to build up troops in Afghanistan is the exact formula to increase support for the Taleban”.
The argument was echoed in London by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which warned that the continued presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan could be more destabilising than withdrawal.
Admiral Mullen’s appearance before the Senate Armed Forces Committee was ostensibly an uncontroversial renomination for two more years as America’s most senior uniformed officer. In practice, he had to walk a tightrope, defending General McChrystal’s recent assessment of the Afghan security situation while explaining his failure so far to state the number of extra troops he needs, and making the case for a surge without prejudging the decisions of his Commander-in-Chief.
“I support a properly resourced, classically pursued counter-insurgency strategy,” he told the committee. “You can’t do that from offshore and you can’t do that just by killing the bad guys. You have to be there.”
Asked by Mr McCain if the preferred Democratic solution of leaving security to a strengthened Afghan army would suffice, Admiral Mullen said: “No, sir.” Mr McCain then referred to speculation that Mr Obama had delayed tackling the issue of specific troop numbers because of the drain on his time and political capital caused by the healthcare debate. “I believe the President can do both,” his former opponent in the White House race said.
Yesterday the debate was decorous. It is likely to turn acrimonious in the weeks ahead as Republicans train their fire on delays that they will argue have put American lives at risk.
When Admiral Mullen revealed that General Lamb had initiated an effort to win over Taleban fighters, he was asked why it had taken so long. “It has not been an area of focus,” he said.
Asked how the Taleban could have the initiative against the world’s most powerful military despite having no tanks or aircraft, the admiral replied: “They’re very good at it. It’s their country. They know how to fight.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, one of an influential cross-party trio likely to frame the congressional response to Mr Obama’s next move on Afghanistan, alluded to a new CNN poll showing a 14 per cent drop in public backing for the war. He asked Admiral Mullen: “Do you understand that you’ve got one more shot back home?” The admiral said that he did.
Deep rifts at the heart of Western policy on Afghanistan were laid bare yesterday when President Obama’s top military adviser challenged him to authorise a troop surge that his most senior congressional allies have said they will oppose.
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that more US troops as well as a rapid increase in the size and capability of the Afghan army were needed to carry out the President’s own strategy for prevailing in Afghanistan as the eighth anniversary of a debilitating war approaches.
His remarks to a Senate hearing came as Bob Ainsworth, the British Defence Secretary, said that the Taleban had proven a resilient enemy. “We’re far from succeeding against them yet but I reject that we’re not making progress,” he said at King’s College London.
Mr Obama also rejected claims that Afghanistan was turning into a quagmire akin to Vietnam, but his immediate dilemma is political: approving a surge could trigger a high-level mutiny within his own party. Making matters worse, a new poll showed that public support for the war has slumped since April.
“Each historical moment is different,” Mr Obama said in an interview published yesterday. “You never step into the same river twice, and so Afghanistan is not Vietnam.”
The call for more troops is supported by military commanders and Senate Republicans, including Senator John McCain, who warned yesterday that a “wait and see” approach to a surge risked repeating the “nearly catastrophic mistakes” that the US made in Iraq.
General Stanley McChrystal, in charge of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, is expected to make specific troop requests to add to the 68,000 already committed to Afghanistan within the next fortnight.
A central plank of his strategy, led by General Graham Lamb, of Britain, would be to try to induce low and middle-ranking Taleban fighters to fight for the Government, repeating tactics pioneered by General Lamb in Iraq two years ago, Admiral Mullen said. Britain has about 9,000 troops in the country. If he accepts his commanders’ recommendations, Mr Obama will have to remake the case for a war that had overwhelming public support until this year. He has a tough fight to persuade fellow Democrats that new troops are needed.
Democratic senators lined up yesterday to reject calls for more US combat troops. Senator Russ Feingold warned that he and “a growing chorus” of Democrats would refuse to back sending more reinforcements.
Calling for a flexible timetable for withdrawal, he insisted that “continuing to build up troops in Afghanistan is the exact formula to increase support for the Taleban”.
The argument was echoed in London by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which warned that the continued presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan could be more destabilising than withdrawal.
Admiral Mullen’s appearance before the Senate Armed Forces Committee was ostensibly an uncontroversial renomination for two more years as America’s most senior uniformed officer. In practice, he had to walk a tightrope, defending General McChrystal’s recent assessment of the Afghan security situation while explaining his failure so far to state the number of extra troops he needs, and making the case for a surge without prejudging the decisions of his Commander-in-Chief.
“I support a properly resourced, classically pursued counter-insurgency strategy,” he told the committee. “You can’t do that from offshore and you can’t do that just by killing the bad guys. You have to be there.”
Asked by Mr McCain if the preferred Democratic solution of leaving security to a strengthened Afghan army would suffice, Admiral Mullen said: “No, sir.” Mr McCain then referred to speculation that Mr Obama had delayed tackling the issue of specific troop numbers because of the drain on his time and political capital caused by the healthcare debate. “I believe the President can do both,” his former opponent in the White House race said.
Yesterday the debate was decorous. It is likely to turn acrimonious in the weeks ahead as Republicans train their fire on delays that they will argue have put American lives at risk.
When Admiral Mullen revealed that General Lamb had initiated an effort to win over Taleban fighters, he was asked why it had taken so long. “It has not been an area of focus,” he said.
Asked how the Taleban could have the initiative against the world’s most powerful military despite having no tanks or aircraft, the admiral replied: “They’re very good at it. It’s their country. They know how to fight.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, one of an influential cross-party trio likely to frame the congressional response to Mr Obama’s next move on Afghanistan, alluded to a new CNN poll showing a 14 per cent drop in public backing for the war. He asked Admiral Mullen: “Do you understand that you’ve got one more shot back home?” The admiral said that he did.
Afghan rift bared as US military chief challenges Barack Obama
Deep rifts at the heart of Western policy on Afghanistan were laid bare yesterday when President Obama’s top military adviser challenged him to authorise a troop surge that his most senior congressional allies have said they will oppose.
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that more US troops as well as a rapid increase in the size and capability of the Afghan army were needed to carry out the President’s own strategy for prevailing in Afghanistan as the eighth anniversary of a debilitating war approaches.
His remarks to a Senate hearing came as Bob Ainsworth, the British Defence Secretary, said that the Taleban had proven a resilient enemy. “We’re far from succeeding against them yet but I reject that we’re not making progress,” he said at King’s College London.
Mr Obama also rejected claims that Afghanistan was turning into a quagmire akin to Vietnam, but his immediate dilemma is political: approving a surge could trigger a high-level mutiny within his own party. Making matters worse, a new poll showed that public support for the war has slumped since April.
“Each historical moment is different,” Mr Obama said in an interview published yesterday. “You never step into the same river twice, and so Afghanistan is not Vietnam.”
The call for more troops is supported by military commanders and Senate Republicans, including Senator John McCain, who warned yesterday that a “wait and see” approach to a surge risked repeating the “nearly catastrophic mistakes” that the US made in Iraq.
General Stanley McChrystal, in charge of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, is expected to make specific troop requests to add to the 68,000 already committed to Afghanistan within the next fortnight.
A central plank of his strategy, led by General Graham Lamb, of Britain, would be to try to induce low and middle-ranking Taleban fighters to fight for the Government, repeating tactics pioneered by General Lamb in Iraq two years ago, Admiral Mullen said. Britain has about 9,000 troops in the country. If he accepts his commanders’ recommendations, Mr Obama will have to remake the case for a war that had overwhelming public support until this year. He has a tough fight to persuade fellow Democrats that new troops are needed.
Democratic senators lined up yesterday to reject calls for more US combat troops. Senator Russ Feingold warned that he and “a growing chorus” of Democrats would refuse to back sending more reinforcements.
Calling for a flexible timetable for withdrawal, he insisted that “continuing to build up troops in Afghanistan is the exact formula to increase support for the Taleban”.
The argument was echoed in London by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which warned that the continued presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan could be more destabilising than withdrawal.
Admiral Mullen’s appearance before the Senate Armed Forces Committee was ostensibly an uncontroversial renomination for two more years as America’s most senior uniformed officer. In practice, he had to walk a tightrope, defending General McChrystal’s recent assessment of the Afghan security situation while explaining his failure so far to state the number of extra troops he needs, and making the case for a surge without prejudging the decisions of his Commander-in-Chief.
“I support a properly resourced, classically pursued counter-insurgency strategy,” he told the committee. “You can’t do that from offshore and you can’t do that just by killing the bad guys. You have to be there.”
Asked by Mr McCain if the preferred Democratic solution of leaving security to a strengthened Afghan army would suffice, Admiral Mullen said: “No, sir.” Mr McCain then referred to speculation that Mr Obama had delayed tackling the issue of specific troop numbers because of the drain on his time and political capital caused by the healthcare debate. “I believe the President can do both,” his former opponent in the White House race said.
Yesterday the debate was decorous. It is likely to turn acrimonious in the weeks ahead as Republicans train their fire on delays that they will argue have put American lives at risk.
When Admiral Mullen revealed that General Lamb had initiated an effort to win over Taleban fighters, he was asked why it had taken so long. “It has not been an area of focus,” he said.
Asked how the Taleban could have the initiative against the world’s most powerful military despite having no tanks or aircraft, the admiral replied: “They’re very good at it. It’s their country. They know how to fight.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, one of an influential cross-party trio likely to frame the congressional response to Mr Obama’s next move on Afghanistan, alluded to a new CNN poll showing a 14 per cent drop in public backing for the war. He asked Admiral Mullen: “Do you understand that you’ve got one more shot back home?” The admiral said that he did.
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that more US troops as well as a rapid increase in the size and capability of the Afghan army were needed to carry out the President’s own strategy for prevailing in Afghanistan as the eighth anniversary of a debilitating war approaches.
His remarks to a Senate hearing came as Bob Ainsworth, the British Defence Secretary, said that the Taleban had proven a resilient enemy. “We’re far from succeeding against them yet but I reject that we’re not making progress,” he said at King’s College London.
Mr Obama also rejected claims that Afghanistan was turning into a quagmire akin to Vietnam, but his immediate dilemma is political: approving a surge could trigger a high-level mutiny within his own party. Making matters worse, a new poll showed that public support for the war has slumped since April.
“Each historical moment is different,” Mr Obama said in an interview published yesterday. “You never step into the same river twice, and so Afghanistan is not Vietnam.”
The call for more troops is supported by military commanders and Senate Republicans, including Senator John McCain, who warned yesterday that a “wait and see” approach to a surge risked repeating the “nearly catastrophic mistakes” that the US made in Iraq.
General Stanley McChrystal, in charge of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, is expected to make specific troop requests to add to the 68,000 already committed to Afghanistan within the next fortnight.
A central plank of his strategy, led by General Graham Lamb, of Britain, would be to try to induce low and middle-ranking Taleban fighters to fight for the Government, repeating tactics pioneered by General Lamb in Iraq two years ago, Admiral Mullen said. Britain has about 9,000 troops in the country. If he accepts his commanders’ recommendations, Mr Obama will have to remake the case for a war that had overwhelming public support until this year. He has a tough fight to persuade fellow Democrats that new troops are needed.
Democratic senators lined up yesterday to reject calls for more US combat troops. Senator Russ Feingold warned that he and “a growing chorus” of Democrats would refuse to back sending more reinforcements.
Calling for a flexible timetable for withdrawal, he insisted that “continuing to build up troops in Afghanistan is the exact formula to increase support for the Taleban”.
The argument was echoed in London by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which warned that the continued presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan could be more destabilising than withdrawal.
Admiral Mullen’s appearance before the Senate Armed Forces Committee was ostensibly an uncontroversial renomination for two more years as America’s most senior uniformed officer. In practice, he had to walk a tightrope, defending General McChrystal’s recent assessment of the Afghan security situation while explaining his failure so far to state the number of extra troops he needs, and making the case for a surge without prejudging the decisions of his Commander-in-Chief.
“I support a properly resourced, classically pursued counter-insurgency strategy,” he told the committee. “You can’t do that from offshore and you can’t do that just by killing the bad guys. You have to be there.”
Asked by Mr McCain if the preferred Democratic solution of leaving security to a strengthened Afghan army would suffice, Admiral Mullen said: “No, sir.” Mr McCain then referred to speculation that Mr Obama had delayed tackling the issue of specific troop numbers because of the drain on his time and political capital caused by the healthcare debate. “I believe the President can do both,” his former opponent in the White House race said.
Yesterday the debate was decorous. It is likely to turn acrimonious in the weeks ahead as Republicans train their fire on delays that they will argue have put American lives at risk.
When Admiral Mullen revealed that General Lamb had initiated an effort to win over Taleban fighters, he was asked why it had taken so long. “It has not been an area of focus,” he said.
Asked how the Taleban could have the initiative against the world’s most powerful military despite having no tanks or aircraft, the admiral replied: “They’re very good at it. It’s their country. They know how to fight.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, one of an influential cross-party trio likely to frame the congressional response to Mr Obama’s next move on Afghanistan, alluded to a new CNN poll showing a 14 per cent drop in public backing for the war. He asked Admiral Mullen: “Do you understand that you’ve got one more shot back home?” The admiral said that he did.
Changes in law planned to curb terror
PESHAWAR: The government is introducing major changes to the anti-terrorism law to give sweeping powers to law-enforcement agencies and courts to effectively deal with militancy and terrorism, sources told Dawn.
‘We are living in a changed environment. The new environment has thrown some new challenges and it has emerged that the existing anti-terror law is inadequate and too weak to deal with the new challenges,’ a senior official said.
In early May, shortly before the military launched operation Rah-i-Rast, army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and suggested major amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997. ‘The ball has been rolling since then,’ a military officer said. ‘We need laws to deal with the scourge.’
Some government officials complained that deliberations on the issue had taken too long, while law-enforcement and intelligence agencies continued to round up militants, not only from Swat and Malakand but also other parts of the region.
‘They are being bailed out quicker than babies’ diapers are changed,’ an official remarked.
According to another official, the bill containing the proposed amendments should have been at the Prime Minister’s Secretariat by Sept 3. Over 600 detained militants were awaiting trial, the sources said.
The Minister of State for Law, Mr Afzal Sandhu, acknowledged that the amendments were being finalised and expressed the hope that these would be ready a week after the Eid. ‘We are holding discussion with all stakeholders, including the army,’ the minister told Dawn.
‘A bill containing the amendments will be tabled in parliament if it is in session or promulgated as an ordinance,’ he said.
An official said the military’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch headed by the adjutant general who reports to Gen Kayani was interacting with the federal law division to deliberate on and push through the amendments.
The amendments include doing away with the discretionary powers of anti-terrorism courts to grant bail and remand of the accused.
They provide for procuring and recording evidence through modern communication systems, including video-conferencing, to protect potential witnesses and also to hold trials in prisons for security reasons.
One of the amendments proposes to grant powers to the government instead of the superintendents of police to hold a suspect under preventive detention and increase the remand period to 60 days from 30 days, after informing the ATC of the suspect’s identity and place of detention.
The remand period should not be less than 10 days in any case. It has been proposed that magistrates in Malakand appointed under the Nizam-i-Adl Regulation of 2009 be given special powers to grant remands of terrorism suspects.
‘We have seen that when a court bails out a terrorist or a hardened criminal, witnesses are usually scared of deposing against him which affects the trial. The NAB Ordinance of 1999 and Control of Narcotics Substance Act (CNSA) of 1997 placed similar restrictions on courts,’ an official explained.
Acknowledging that public witnesses are usually reluctant to appear before courts to give evidence against suspects for fear of retribution, it has been proposed that a suspect’s confession before an SP or a senior military officer should be considered valid and given due weightage.
Another proposed amendment seeks forfeiture of the property of offenders involved in terrorism.
Currently, the penalty of forfeiture of property was available only in cases related to hijacking and kidnapping for ransom, the official said. ‘We want the law to be more stringent and tough,’ he said.
It has been proposed that the period for completion of investigation should be extended from seven days to 90 days to allow investigators to gather evidence in what have become more sophisticated and organised terrorism incidents.
It has been proposed that sections relating to publication of proclamation of offenders in national dailies and appointment of advocates for absconding accused in terrorism cases may be deleted from the statute book.
In the existing ATA, a convict has been granted a period of 30 days to appeal against conviction, while the state has been given only 15 days to appeal against acquittal.
A proposed amendment seeks to increase the period of appeal for the state to 30 days to help consolidate and substantiate its case.
More significantly, it has been proposed that the onus to prove innocence should be on the accused.
‘Ordinarily, a suspect is innocent unless proven guilty, while what we are proposing to do is to shift the burden of proving innocence on the suspects who would be considered guilty unless proven innocent,’ the official said.
It has also been proposed to do away with Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that provides for search in the presence of ‘two or more respectable inhabitants of a locality’.
The official said the amendments, if approved, would help the government prosecute terrorists and make them pay for their deeds that caused massive losses of life and property.
‘The public wants all terror leaders to be caught and executed publicly. At the very least what we can do is to ensure that the terrorists don’t get away by finding loopholes in our legal system,’ he said.
‘We are living in a changed environment. The new environment has thrown some new challenges and it has emerged that the existing anti-terror law is inadequate and too weak to deal with the new challenges,’ a senior official said.
In early May, shortly before the military launched operation Rah-i-Rast, army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and suggested major amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997. ‘The ball has been rolling since then,’ a military officer said. ‘We need laws to deal with the scourge.’
Some government officials complained that deliberations on the issue had taken too long, while law-enforcement and intelligence agencies continued to round up militants, not only from Swat and Malakand but also other parts of the region.
‘They are being bailed out quicker than babies’ diapers are changed,’ an official remarked.
According to another official, the bill containing the proposed amendments should have been at the Prime Minister’s Secretariat by Sept 3. Over 600 detained militants were awaiting trial, the sources said.
The Minister of State for Law, Mr Afzal Sandhu, acknowledged that the amendments were being finalised and expressed the hope that these would be ready a week after the Eid. ‘We are holding discussion with all stakeholders, including the army,’ the minister told Dawn.
‘A bill containing the amendments will be tabled in parliament if it is in session or promulgated as an ordinance,’ he said.
An official said the military’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch headed by the adjutant general who reports to Gen Kayani was interacting with the federal law division to deliberate on and push through the amendments.
The amendments include doing away with the discretionary powers of anti-terrorism courts to grant bail and remand of the accused.
They provide for procuring and recording evidence through modern communication systems, including video-conferencing, to protect potential witnesses and also to hold trials in prisons for security reasons.
One of the amendments proposes to grant powers to the government instead of the superintendents of police to hold a suspect under preventive detention and increase the remand period to 60 days from 30 days, after informing the ATC of the suspect’s identity and place of detention.
The remand period should not be less than 10 days in any case. It has been proposed that magistrates in Malakand appointed under the Nizam-i-Adl Regulation of 2009 be given special powers to grant remands of terrorism suspects.
‘We have seen that when a court bails out a terrorist or a hardened criminal, witnesses are usually scared of deposing against him which affects the trial. The NAB Ordinance of 1999 and Control of Narcotics Substance Act (CNSA) of 1997 placed similar restrictions on courts,’ an official explained.
Acknowledging that public witnesses are usually reluctant to appear before courts to give evidence against suspects for fear of retribution, it has been proposed that a suspect’s confession before an SP or a senior military officer should be considered valid and given due weightage.
Another proposed amendment seeks forfeiture of the property of offenders involved in terrorism.
Currently, the penalty of forfeiture of property was available only in cases related to hijacking and kidnapping for ransom, the official said. ‘We want the law to be more stringent and tough,’ he said.
It has been proposed that the period for completion of investigation should be extended from seven days to 90 days to allow investigators to gather evidence in what have become more sophisticated and organised terrorism incidents.
It has been proposed that sections relating to publication of proclamation of offenders in national dailies and appointment of advocates for absconding accused in terrorism cases may be deleted from the statute book.
In the existing ATA, a convict has been granted a period of 30 days to appeal against conviction, while the state has been given only 15 days to appeal against acquittal.
A proposed amendment seeks to increase the period of appeal for the state to 30 days to help consolidate and substantiate its case.
More significantly, it has been proposed that the onus to prove innocence should be on the accused.
‘Ordinarily, a suspect is innocent unless proven guilty, while what we are proposing to do is to shift the burden of proving innocence on the suspects who would be considered guilty unless proven innocent,’ the official said.
It has also been proposed to do away with Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that provides for search in the presence of ‘two or more respectable inhabitants of a locality’.
The official said the amendments, if approved, would help the government prosecute terrorists and make them pay for their deeds that caused massive losses of life and property.
‘The public wants all terror leaders to be caught and executed publicly. At the very least what we can do is to ensure that the terrorists don’t get away by finding loopholes in our legal system,’ he said.
Eid across country on same day: Bilour
PESHAWAR: Senior PUKHTUNKHWA Minister Bashir Ahmed Bilour Tuesday said the tradition of two Eids will be ended and Eid will be celebrated across the country on the same day this year.In a statement issued here, the Minister said the practice of celebrating Eids on different days has always been ridiculed. Therefore, this year the government has decided that only one Eid will be celebrated.He said he will participate in the Ruet-e-Hilal Committee on September 19 along with the Provincial Minister for Religious Affairs and other officials.The Senior Minister directed the police to ensure fool-proof security on the eve of Eid and during Eid shopping.
Pakistan May Take Back Khyber Region from Militants in 10 Days
www.bloomberg.com
Pakistan forces will regain control of the northwest Khyber region, near a key supply route for international troops in Afghanistan, in the next 10 days after destroying a militant network, a government official said.
“We want to demolish the network and command system of the group that is backed by the Taliban,” Tariq Hayat Khan, the government’s political agent in the tribal region, said in a telephone interview today from Peshawar, capital of the North West Frontier Province. Later, troops will “go for the criminals and militants hiding in the mountains.”
The Khyber Agency, to the west of Peshawar, is on the main land route through Pakistan into Afghanistan where NATO-led forces are fighting a resurgent Taliban, mostly in the country’s south. Militants have destroyed trucks carrying supplies and escaped into the area’s rugged mountains.
The Lashkar-e-Islam group, believed to have 600 guerrillas in the Khyber region, is led by Mangal Bagh and backed by Taliban militants based in the South Waziristan tribal area, Khan said. It is involved in kidnapping for ransom, drug dealing and other crimes, he said.
This month’s army operation has killed about 150 militants, Khan said. The military turned its attention to tribal regions including South Waziristan and Khyber after Taliban militants were driven from the Swat Valley to the north. Only a few thousand people have fled the area because of fighting, said Khan, who is the chief administrator for the region.
Interior Minister Rehman Malik says the Taliban is in disarray after the defeat in Swat, where two top leaders were detained last week, and the death in a U.S. missile strike of Baitullah Mehsud, the group’s leader in South Waziristan.
The Khyber administration is recruiting local people into a security force after its more than 700 staff refused to work following threats by militants, Khan said.
Pakistan forces will regain control of the northwest Khyber region, near a key supply route for international troops in Afghanistan, in the next 10 days after destroying a militant network, a government official said.
“We want to demolish the network and command system of the group that is backed by the Taliban,” Tariq Hayat Khan, the government’s political agent in the tribal region, said in a telephone interview today from Peshawar, capital of the North West Frontier Province. Later, troops will “go for the criminals and militants hiding in the mountains.”
The Khyber Agency, to the west of Peshawar, is on the main land route through Pakistan into Afghanistan where NATO-led forces are fighting a resurgent Taliban, mostly in the country’s south. Militants have destroyed trucks carrying supplies and escaped into the area’s rugged mountains.
The Lashkar-e-Islam group, believed to have 600 guerrillas in the Khyber region, is led by Mangal Bagh and backed by Taliban militants based in the South Waziristan tribal area, Khan said. It is involved in kidnapping for ransom, drug dealing and other crimes, he said.
This month’s army operation has killed about 150 militants, Khan said. The military turned its attention to tribal regions including South Waziristan and Khyber after Taliban militants were driven from the Swat Valley to the north. Only a few thousand people have fled the area because of fighting, said Khan, who is the chief administrator for the region.
Interior Minister Rehman Malik says the Taliban is in disarray after the defeat in Swat, where two top leaders were detained last week, and the death in a U.S. missile strike of Baitullah Mehsud, the group’s leader in South Waziristan.
The Khyber administration is recruiting local people into a security force after its more than 700 staff refused to work following threats by militants, Khan said.
Pakistan Army Said to Be Linked to Swat Killings
NewYorkTimes
MINGORA, Pakistan — Two months after the Pakistani Army wrested control of the Swat Valley from Taliban militants, a new campaign of fear has taken hold, with scores, perhaps hundreds, of bodies dumped on the streets in what human rights advocates and local residents say is the work of the military.
In some cases, people may simply have been seeking revenge against the ruthless Taliban, in a society that tends to accept tit-for-tat reprisals, local politicians said.
But the scale of the retaliation, the similarities in the way that many of the victims have been tortured and the systematic nature of the deaths and disappearances in areas that the military firmly controls have led local residents, human rights workers and some Pakistani officials to conclude that the military has had a role in the campaign.
The Pakistani Army, which is supported by the United States and in the absence of effective political leadership is running much of Swat with an iron hand, has strenuously denied any involvement in the killings. The army has acknowledged that bodies have turned up, but its spokesmen assert that the killings are the result of civilians settling scores.
“There are no extrajudicial killings in our system,” said Col. Akhtar Abbas, the army spokesman in Swat. “If something happens, we have a foolproof accountability system.”
But neighbors of the victims and Swat residents say there is something more going on than revenge killings by civilians.
A senior politician from the region and a former interior minister, Aftab Ahmed Sherpao, said he was worried about the army’s involvement in the killings. “There have been reports of extrajudicial killings by the military that are of concern,” he said. “This will not help bring peace.”
Pakistan’s military operations against the Taliban in Swat, begun in May under public pressure from the United States, has been hailed by Washington as a showcase effort of the army’s newfound resolve to defeat the militants. The American ambassador, Anne W. Patterson, visited Mingora, the biggest town in Swat, last week, becoming the first senior American official to go to Swat since the army took over.
Now, concerns over the army’s methods in the area threaten to further taint Washington’s association with the military, cooperation that has been questioned in Congress and has been politically unpopular in Pakistan.
The number of killings suggests that the military is seeking to silence any enthusiasm for the Taliban and to settle accounts for heavy army casualties, said a senior provincial official who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprimand by the army.
A sullen, uncertain atmosphere prevails in Mingora, where people interviewed last week in shops, homes and government institutions nervously complained of the arbitrary and unpredictable army rule.
Bodies, some with torture marks and some with limbs tied and a bullet in the neck or head, have been found on the roads of Mingora and in rural areas that were militant strongholds.
Reports on Sept. 1 in two national daily newspapers, Dawn and The News, said the bodies of 251 people had been found dumped in Swat.
The Human Rights Commission, a nongovernmental organization, disputed that all the victims had been killed by civilians, saying last month that there were credible reports of retaliatory killings by the military. It said that witnesses had seen mass graves and that in some cases, the bodies appeared to be those of militants.
The exact number of alleged killings was impossible to calculate because the presence of human rights monitors was limited by the authorities, the commission said. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which investigates illegal killings, was ordered by the military to leave Swat last month over matters unrelated to the killings, a senior Pakistani government official and the Red Cross said.
In one case, a family filed a petition with the army command last week describing the alleged killing of their son while in military custody. The army has initiated an inquiry, Colonel Abbas, the military spokesman in Swat, said.
The family of the man, Akhtar Ali, 28, said he was arrested at his electrical shop in Mingora in the early evening of Sept. 1 by a group of soldiers. Four days later, Mr. Ali’s body was returned to the family home “tortured to death,” a petition signed by his mother, Jehan Sultana, said.
Colonel Abbas said the army did not acknowledge that Akhtar Ali had been in military custody. If the inquiry found that a member of the army was guilty of the death, he would be disciplined, he said, “whatever the rank.”
According to the family’s account, family members went to army headquarters in Mingora the day after his arrest. “We were assured he would be released,” the petition said. A day or two later they were told he would be home the next day.
Instead, at 6 a.m. on Sept. 5, security forces dropped his body on the doorstep, the statement said. “There was no place on his body not tortured,” the petition said. Nails were “hammered into his body, and cigarettes burned into the skin.”
The petition said Mr. Ali had no relationship with the Taliban.
In another alleged retaliatory killing, a man in his mid-20s, also called Akhtar Ali, was arrested in Mingora on July 22, shortly after the army declared the city safe.
His father, Aziz Ullah, said Mr. Ali had been taken away by soldiers near the family home. The next morning, Mr. Ali’s body was found on the street not far from where he had been picked up, Mr. Ullah said.
“He had spoken in the mosque in favor of the Taliban, but he never picked up a gun,” he said.
The Human Rights Commission report said residents also described mass graves in Kukarai village and in an area between the villages of Daulai and Shah Dheri. Witnesses said some of the bodies in the graves appeared to be those of Taliban militants, the report said. The army has rejected any suggestion that soldiers were involved.
The chief spokesman for the military, Gen. Athar Abbas, said the graves were the result of the Taliban killing their wounded as they retreated and dumping the bodies. The military was dealing with arrested militants through the courts and was seeking changes in the law of evidence to ensure more convictions, General Abbas said.
About 250 to 300 people told the commission of suspected retaliatory killings, a commission official said. In some cases, five people told the group about the same single episode, he said.
A well-to-do landlord, Sher Shah Khan, who had criticized what he termed the army’s early reluctance to confront the militants, said he was not worried about the reports. “If the security services kill in the same manner as the Taliban killed, people have no problem.”
But the principal of a girls’ school, Ziauddin Yousafzi, said the military was making examples of the wrong people.
“The state cannot be barbaric,” he said. “If people see the bodies of the top leaders of the Taliban rather than the body of people like Akhtar Ali, they will be jubilant.”
MINGORA, Pakistan — Two months after the Pakistani Army wrested control of the Swat Valley from Taliban militants, a new campaign of fear has taken hold, with scores, perhaps hundreds, of bodies dumped on the streets in what human rights advocates and local residents say is the work of the military.
In some cases, people may simply have been seeking revenge against the ruthless Taliban, in a society that tends to accept tit-for-tat reprisals, local politicians said.
But the scale of the retaliation, the similarities in the way that many of the victims have been tortured and the systematic nature of the deaths and disappearances in areas that the military firmly controls have led local residents, human rights workers and some Pakistani officials to conclude that the military has had a role in the campaign.
The Pakistani Army, which is supported by the United States and in the absence of effective political leadership is running much of Swat with an iron hand, has strenuously denied any involvement in the killings. The army has acknowledged that bodies have turned up, but its spokesmen assert that the killings are the result of civilians settling scores.
“There are no extrajudicial killings in our system,” said Col. Akhtar Abbas, the army spokesman in Swat. “If something happens, we have a foolproof accountability system.”
But neighbors of the victims and Swat residents say there is something more going on than revenge killings by civilians.
A senior politician from the region and a former interior minister, Aftab Ahmed Sherpao, said he was worried about the army’s involvement in the killings. “There have been reports of extrajudicial killings by the military that are of concern,” he said. “This will not help bring peace.”
Pakistan’s military operations against the Taliban in Swat, begun in May under public pressure from the United States, has been hailed by Washington as a showcase effort of the army’s newfound resolve to defeat the militants. The American ambassador, Anne W. Patterson, visited Mingora, the biggest town in Swat, last week, becoming the first senior American official to go to Swat since the army took over.
Now, concerns over the army’s methods in the area threaten to further taint Washington’s association with the military, cooperation that has been questioned in Congress and has been politically unpopular in Pakistan.
The number of killings suggests that the military is seeking to silence any enthusiasm for the Taliban and to settle accounts for heavy army casualties, said a senior provincial official who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprimand by the army.
A sullen, uncertain atmosphere prevails in Mingora, where people interviewed last week in shops, homes and government institutions nervously complained of the arbitrary and unpredictable army rule.
Bodies, some with torture marks and some with limbs tied and a bullet in the neck or head, have been found on the roads of Mingora and in rural areas that were militant strongholds.
Reports on Sept. 1 in two national daily newspapers, Dawn and The News, said the bodies of 251 people had been found dumped in Swat.
The Human Rights Commission, a nongovernmental organization, disputed that all the victims had been killed by civilians, saying last month that there were credible reports of retaliatory killings by the military. It said that witnesses had seen mass graves and that in some cases, the bodies appeared to be those of militants.
The exact number of alleged killings was impossible to calculate because the presence of human rights monitors was limited by the authorities, the commission said. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which investigates illegal killings, was ordered by the military to leave Swat last month over matters unrelated to the killings, a senior Pakistani government official and the Red Cross said.
In one case, a family filed a petition with the army command last week describing the alleged killing of their son while in military custody. The army has initiated an inquiry, Colonel Abbas, the military spokesman in Swat, said.
The family of the man, Akhtar Ali, 28, said he was arrested at his electrical shop in Mingora in the early evening of Sept. 1 by a group of soldiers. Four days later, Mr. Ali’s body was returned to the family home “tortured to death,” a petition signed by his mother, Jehan Sultana, said.
Colonel Abbas said the army did not acknowledge that Akhtar Ali had been in military custody. If the inquiry found that a member of the army was guilty of the death, he would be disciplined, he said, “whatever the rank.”
According to the family’s account, family members went to army headquarters in Mingora the day after his arrest. “We were assured he would be released,” the petition said. A day or two later they were told he would be home the next day.
Instead, at 6 a.m. on Sept. 5, security forces dropped his body on the doorstep, the statement said. “There was no place on his body not tortured,” the petition said. Nails were “hammered into his body, and cigarettes burned into the skin.”
The petition said Mr. Ali had no relationship with the Taliban.
In another alleged retaliatory killing, a man in his mid-20s, also called Akhtar Ali, was arrested in Mingora on July 22, shortly after the army declared the city safe.
His father, Aziz Ullah, said Mr. Ali had been taken away by soldiers near the family home. The next morning, Mr. Ali’s body was found on the street not far from where he had been picked up, Mr. Ullah said.
“He had spoken in the mosque in favor of the Taliban, but he never picked up a gun,” he said.
The Human Rights Commission report said residents also described mass graves in Kukarai village and in an area between the villages of Daulai and Shah Dheri. Witnesses said some of the bodies in the graves appeared to be those of Taliban militants, the report said. The army has rejected any suggestion that soldiers were involved.
The chief spokesman for the military, Gen. Athar Abbas, said the graves were the result of the Taliban killing their wounded as they retreated and dumping the bodies. The military was dealing with arrested militants through the courts and was seeking changes in the law of evidence to ensure more convictions, General Abbas said.
About 250 to 300 people told the commission of suspected retaliatory killings, a commission official said. In some cases, five people told the group about the same single episode, he said.
A well-to-do landlord, Sher Shah Khan, who had criticized what he termed the army’s early reluctance to confront the militants, said he was not worried about the reports. “If the security services kill in the same manner as the Taliban killed, people have no problem.”
But the principal of a girls’ school, Ziauddin Yousafzi, said the military was making examples of the wrong people.
“The state cannot be barbaric,” he said. “If people see the bodies of the top leaders of the Taliban rather than the body of people like Akhtar Ali, they will be jubilant.”
Top US Military Officer Says More Troops Likely Needed in Afghanistan
U.S. Navy Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that the United States probably will need to send more troops to Afghanistan to win the war against Taliban and al-Qaida insurgents.
U.S. military officials say they are in a race against time and mounting opposition from the American public to reverse the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, where violence has reached its highest level since the Taliban was ousted from power in 2001.
Mullen discussed the troop levels in testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee. "A properly resourced counter-insurgency probably means more forces and without question, more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan people and to the development of good governance," he said.
Mullen did not say how many more soldiers would be needed, but he said he expects a request for additional troops in the next two weeks from U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal, the top American and NATO commander in Afghanistan.
The United States now has about 62,000 troops in Afghanistan, nearly double the number from last year. The number of American forces in Afghanistan is slated to reach 68,000 by year's end.
Despite President Barack Obama's earlier decision to send an additional 17,000 combat troops and 4,000 trainers for Afghan forces, U.S. officials say the security in areas infiltrated by the Taliban continues to worsen.
Admiral Mullen says that if the Taliban retake control of Afghanistan, the country will again be a safe haven for terrorist groups like al-Qaida. "It is the epicenter of terrorism right now. It is very clear that in fact al-Qaida is diminished while it is living in Pakistan, and this is a Pakistan-Afghanistan issue. They are by no means dead. It is a very serious threat," he said.
Mullen called for patience with U.S. and NATO efforts in Afghanistan as the American public and some members of Congress are becoming increasingly uneasy about the conflict.
A recent CNN survey shows that 58 percent of Americans oppose the war, while 39 percent support it.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, Democrat Carl Levin says the Pentagon should not send any additional troops to Afghanistan until the United States takes more aggressive action to expand Afghanistan's armed forces. "Providing the resources needed for the Afghan Army and Afghan police to become self-sufficient would demonstrate our commitment to the success of a mission that is in our national security interest, while avoiding the risks associated with a larger U.S. footprint," he said.
Some members of Congress are urging the Obama administration to learn from the Iraq War, where a surge in U.S. forces helped to quell violence.
"Every day we delay in implementing this strategy and increasing the number of troops there - which we all know is vitally needed - puts more and more young Americans who are already there, their lives in danger," said
Republican Senator John McCain, who says more troops should be deployed quickly.
Admiral Mullen says the situation in Afghanistan will continue to deteriorate without a renewed U.S. commitment.
He says General McChrystal found conditions worse than he expected when he took command a few months ago.
This year has been the deadliest for foreign forces in Afghanistan since the conflict began nearly eight years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)