Militants resurface in Peshawar suburbs

PESHAWAR: After almost six months of silence, militants are again resurfacing in Peshawar and have struck in various localities recently, a source confided to The News. “There are reports that the law and order situation in the city and parts of the country is likely to see an ugly turn in the coming few days as militants in surrounding tribal areas are regrouping,” said the source. In Peshawar, militants seem to have re-launched their strikes by killing a leader of the Safi Amn Lashkar in Mohmand Agency, Feroz Mohmand, in Rashid Garhai Sunday evening and later blowing up the shrine of Hazrat Mian Umar Baba in Chamkani in the early hours of Monday. Though no casualty was reported, villagers in Chamkani ran out of their houses after hearing the huge blast at around 3 a.m. Officials of the bomb disposal unit (BDU) estimated that around 1.5 kilograms of explosives were placed near the grave, causing cracks in the mausoleum but no casualty as nobody was present there. Another shrine was attacked a few days back in Sheikh Mohammadi village where the caretaker, Mushtaq Hussain, was killed. Previously, the shrine of revered Pashto poet Abdur Rahman Baba in Hazarkhwani and other shrines in Chamkani, Regi, Sheikhan, Badaber and other villages were bombed. Recently, apart from suffering 12 rocket attacks, the Ghazi Baba police post in Matani was attacked by 50 to 60 armed men a few days back. The attack was retaliated, resulting in the killing of two assailants, both belonging to the Frontier Region Kohat. Police claimed security in the city had already been beefed up after tipped off by the security agencies about the attacks on important places and establishments by the terrorists in coming days. Vehicles entering the city and cantonment limits are being thoroughly searched again. “We have been conducting raids every morning in rural parts of Peshawar. We have hired two platoons from the Frontier Constabulary which are deployed along with as many platoons of police in Hamidi Machine area to counter any attack from Darra Adamkhel,” Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Operations Peshawar Karim Khan told The News. Killers of two women from Asiya Gate also claimed to be members of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). They placed a piece of paper with the bodies of Falak Naz and her mother Dilshada in Ranu Garhai, claiming the two had been punished for adultery. “We are still investigating into the case but it is yet to be established whether the act was committed by the militants or other criminals,” remarked Karim Khan. Sources disclosed that militants from Pastawuna and Zoa in Frontier Region Kohat and FR Peshawar, where they are gaining strength, are probably operating in Chamkani, Urmarh and Shamshatoo areas. “Internally displaced persons (IDP) coming from Bajaur, Mohmand Agency, Malakand and southern districts are also posing a threat to the security of the city,” said the source. Peshawar witnessed the worst law and order since 2007 as suicide bombings, blasts, rocket barrages, kidnapping for ransom and other heinous crimes had touched the highest level. Out of 80 suicide attacks in 2009, 16 occurred in Peshawar alone, killing hundreds of people and leaving scores wounded. Five major bombings took place in Peshawar within only eight days last year. The provincial capital witnessed two suicide attacks during the month of April, one on the US Consulate and another close to a rally of Jamaat-e-Islami in Qissa Khawani Bazaar. The attack on Pir Bala police checkpost in last week of April was also reported to be a suicide hit. Except the month of April, the first half of the current year was, however, far better as compared to the corresponding period last year.

U.S. Soldiers Strain Against Rules of Engagement

Riding shotgun in an armored vehicle as it passed through the heat and confusion of southern Afghanistan this month, an Army sergeant spoke into his headset, summarizing a sentiment often heard in the field this year. “I wish we had generals who remembered what it was like when they were down in a platoon,” he said to a reporter in the back. “Either they never have been in real fighting, or they forgot what it’s like.” The sergeant was speaking of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and the circle of counterinsurgents who since last year have been running the Afghan war, and who have, as a matter of both policy and practice, made it much more difficult for troops to use airstrikes and artillery in the fight against the Taliban. No matter the outcome of his meeting on Wednesday in Washington over caustic comments he and his staff made about President Obama and his national security team, the general, or his successor, faces problems from a constituency as important as his bosses and that no commander wants to lose: his own troops. As levels of violence in Afghanistan climb in another deadly summer, there is a palpable and building sense of unease among troops surrounding one the most confounding questions about how to wage the war: when and how lethal force should be used. Since last year, the counterinsurgency doctrine championed by those now leading the campaign — often called population-centric tactics — has assumed an almost unchallenged supremacy in the ranks of the American military’s career officers. The doctrine, which has been supported by both the Bush and Obama administrations, rests on core assumptions, including that using lethal force against an insurgency intermingled with a civilian population is often counterproductive. Since General McChrystal assumed command, he has been a central face and salesman of this idea, and he has applied it to warfare in a tangible way: by further tightening rules guiding the use of Western firepower — airstrikes and guided rocket attacks, artillery barrages and even mortar fire — to support troops on the ground. “Winning hearts and minds in COIN is a coldblooded thing,” General McChrystal was quoted as telling an upset American soldier in the Rolling Stone profile that has landed him in trouble. “The Russians killed 1 million Afghans, and that didn’t work.” COIN is the often used abbreviation for counterinsurgency. The rules have shifted risks from Afghan civilians to Western combatants. They have earned praise in many circles, hailed as a much needed corrective to looser practices that since 2001 killed or maimed many Afghan civilians and undermined support for the American-led war. But the new rules have also come with costs, including a perception now frequently heard among troops that the effort to limit risks to civilians has swung too far, and endangers the lives of Afghan and Western soldiers caught in firefights with insurgents who need not observe any rules at all. Young officers and enlisted soldiers and Marines, typically speaking on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs, speak of “being handcuffed,” of not being trusted by their bosses and of being asked to battle a canny and vicious insurgency “in a fair fight.” Some rules meant to enshrine counterinsurgency principles into daily practices, they say, do not merely transfer risks away from civilians. They transfer risks away from the Taliban. Before the rules were tightened, one Army major who had commanded an infantry company said, “firefights in Afghanistan had a half-life.” By this he meant that skirmishes often were brief, lasting roughly a half-hour or a little more. The Taliban would ambush patrols and typically break contact and slip away as patrol leaders organized and escalated Western firepower in response. Now, with fire support often restricted, or even idled, Taliban fighters seem noticeably less worried about an American response, many soldiers and Marines say. Firefights often drag on, sometimes lasting hours, and costing lives. The United States’ material advantages are not robustly applied; troops are engaged in rifle-on-rifle fights on their enemy’s turf. One Marine infantry lieutenant, during fighting in Marja this year, said he had all but stopped seeking air support while engaged in firefights. He spent too much time on the radio trying to justify its need, he said, and the aircraft never arrived or they arrived too late or the pilots were reluctant to drop their ordnance. “I’m better off just trying to fight my fight, and maneuver the squads, and not waste the time or focus trying to get air,” the officer said. Several infantrymen have also said that the rules are so restrictive that pilots are often not allowed to attack fixed targets — say, a building or tree line from which troops are taking fire — unless they can personally see the insurgents doing the firing. This has lead to situations many soldiers describe as absurd, including decisions by patrol leaders to have fellow soldiers move briefly out into the open to draw fire once aircraft arrive, so the pilots might be cleared to participate in the fight. Moments like those bring into sharp relief the grand puzzle faced by any outside general trying to wage war in Afghanistan. By its own definitions, an American counterinsurgency campaign seeks for support from at least two publics — the Afghan and the American. Efforts to satisfy one can undermine support in the other. The restrictions on using fire support are part of a larger bundle of instructions, known as rules of engagement, that guide decisions on how troops can interact with Afghans, and how they can fight. The rules have shifted frequently over the years, gradually becoming tighter and tighter. Each change, often at the urging of the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai, has shown the delicacy of the balance. NATO needs the Afghan government’s support. But restrictions that are popular in Kabul have often alienated soldiers and Marines whose lives are at stake, including rules that limit when Western troops can enter Afghan homes. Such rules, soldiers and Marines say, concede advantages to insurgents, making it easier for them to hide to fight, to meet and to store their weapons or assemble their makeshift bombs. It is an axiom of military service that troops gripe; venting is part of barracks and battlefield life. Troops complain about their food, their equipment, their lack of sleep, delays in their transportation and the weather where they work. Complaints about how they are allowed to fight are another matter and can be read as a sign of deeper disaffection and strains within the military over policy choices. One Army colonel, in a conversation this month, said the discomfort and anger about the rules had reached a high pitch. “The troops hate it,” he said. “Right now we’re losing the tactical-level fight in the chase for a strategic victory. How long can that be sustained?” Whatever the fate of General McChrystal, the Pentagon’s Afghan conundrum remains. No one wants to advocate loosening rules that might see more Afghan civilians killed. But no one wants to explain whether the restrictions are increasing the number of coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base, and seeding disillusionment among those sent to fight.

Obama 'angry' after reading McChrystal's remarks

President Barack Obama was "angry" after reading Gen. Stanley McChrystal's remarks about colleagues in a Rolling Stone article, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday. McChrystal -- the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan -- has been recalled to Washington to explain his actions to the president. He is expected to meet with Obama in the Oval Office on Wednesday, Gibbs said. Gibbs refused to speculate about McChrystal's fate, but told reporters "all options are on the table." McChrystal is prepared to resign if the president has lost confidence in him, a national security official told CNN. But most of the Pentagon brass hopes he will be upbraided by the commander-in-chief but sent back to continue the mission. Obama, questioned about McChrystal before a Cabinet meeting Tuesday afternoon, said he had not made a decision. "I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed poor judgment, but I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make that final decision," he said. The White House will have more to say after Wednesday's meeting, Gibbs said. He noted, however, that McChrystal did not take part in a teleconference Obama had with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other top officials on Tuesday. The "magnitude and graveness" of McChrystal's mistake in conducting the interview for the article were "profound," Gibbs said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said McChrystal had "made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment." Several elected officials have strongly criticized McChrystal but deferred to the president on the politically sensitive question of whether the general should keep his position. A couple of key congressmen, however, have openly called for McChrystal's removal. McChrystal apologized Tuesday for the profile, in which he and his staff appear to mock top civilian officials, including the vice president. Two defense officials said the general fired a press aide over the article, set to appear in Friday's edition of Rolling Stone. "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened," McChrystal said in a Pentagon statement. "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard." In the profile, writer Michael Hastings writes that McChrystal and his staff had imagined ways of dismissing Vice President Joe Biden with a one-liner as they prepared for a question-and-answer session in Paris, France, in April. The general had grown tired of questions about Biden since earlier dismissing a counterterrorism strategy the vice president had offered. "'Are you asking about Vice President Biden,' McChrystal says with a laugh. 'Who's that?'" "'Biden?' suggests a top adviser. 'Did you say: Bite Me?'" McChrystal does not directly criticize Obama in the article, but Hastings writes that the general and Obama "failed to connect" from the outset. Sources familiar with the meeting said McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the room full of top military officials, according to the article. Later, McChrystal's first one-on-one meeting with Obama "was a 10-minute photo op," Hastings writes, quoting an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f---ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss (McChrystal) was disappointed." The article goes on to paint McChrystal as a man who "has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict," including U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, special representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and national security adviser Jim Jones. Obama is not named as one of McChrystal's "team of rivals." Of Eikenberry, who railed against McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan in a cable leaked to The New York Times in January, the general is quoted as saying, "'Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, "I told you so.'" Hastings writes in the profile that McChrystal has a "special skepticism" for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating Taliban members into Afghan society and the administration's point man for Afghanistan and Pakistan. "At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry, according to the article. 'Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke,' he groans. 'I don't even want to open it.' He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance. "'Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg,' an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail." Both Democrats and Republicans have been strongly critical of McChrystal in the wake of the story. House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, called McChrystal the latest in a "long list of reckless, renegade generals who haven't seemed to understand that their role is to implement policy, not design it." McChrystal is "contemptuous" of civilian authority and has demonstrated "a bull-headed refusal to take other people's judgments into consideration." Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, became the first member of the Senate Democratic leadership to call for McChrystal to step down, telling CNN that the remarks were "unbelievably inappropriate and just can't be allowed to stand." Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, deferred to Obama on the question of a possible McChrystal resignation. He said the controversy was sending a message of "confusion" to troops in the field. I think it has "a negative effect" on the war effort, he said. Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, urged a cooling off period before a final decision is rendered on the general. My "impression is that all of us would be best served by just backing off and staying cool and calm and not sort of succumbing to the normal Washington twitter about this for the next 24 hours." Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Jim Webb of Virginia -- also key senators on defense and foreign policy issues -- were each strongly critical of McChrystal's remarks, but noted that the general's future is a decision for Obama to make. Karzai weighed in from abroad, urging Obama to keep McChrystal as the U.S. commander in Afghanistan. The government in Kabul believes McChrystal is a man of strong integrity who has a strong understanding of the Afghan people and their culture, Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar said. A U.S. military official said Tuesday that McChrystal has spoken to Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and other officials referenced in the story, including Holbrooke, Eikenberry and Jones. An official at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul said Eikenberry and McChrystal "are both fully committed" to Obama's Afghan strategy and are working together to implement the plan. "We have seen the article and General McChrystal has already spoken to it," according to a statement from an embassy official, making reference to McChrystal's apology. "I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome," McChrystal said in the closing to his apology. Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates, however, struck a less optimistic tone during an interview with CNN on Tuesday. The comments made by McChrystal and other top military aides during the interview were "not off-the-cuff remarks," he said. They "knew what they were doing when they granted the access." The story shows "a deep division" and "war within the administration" over strategy in Afghanistan, he contended. McChrystal and his staff "became aware" that the Rolling Stone article would be controversial before it was published, Hastings told CNN Tuesday. He said he "got word from (McChrystal's) staff ... that there was some concern" about possible fallout from the story. Obama tapped McChrystal to head the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan in the spring of 2009 shortly after dismissing Gen. David McKiernan.

Gen. McChrystal recalled to Washington after controversial remarks.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, America's top military commander in Afghanistan, has been recalled to Washington amid his controversial remarks about colleagues in a Rolling Stone article, officials said. McChrystal was summoned to attend a meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan in person rather than by video conference, a senior administration official said Tuesday. "He has been recalled to Washington," another official said. McChrystal apologized Tuesday for the profile, in which the general and his staff appear to mock top civilian officials, including the vice president. Two defense officials said the general has also fired a press aide over the article, set to appear in Friday's edition of Rolling Stone magazine. "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened," McChrystal said in a Pentagon statement. "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard." In the profile written by Michael Hastings, the author writes that McChrystal and his staff had imagined ways of dismissing Vice President Joe Biden with a one-liner as they prepared for a question-and-answer session in Paris in April. The general had grown tired of questions about Biden since earlier dismissing a counterterrorism strategy the vice president had offered. Video: Kerry on McChrystal remarks RELATED TOPICS Stanley McChrystal Afghanistan War Joe Biden Rolling Stone LLC "'Are you asking about Vice President Biden?' McChrystal says with a laugh. 'Who's that?'" "'Biden?' suggests a top adviser. 'Did you say: Bite Me?'" McChrystal does not directly criticize President Barack Obama in the article, but Hastings writes that the general and Obama "failed to connect" from the outset after the president took office. Sources familiar with the meeting said McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the room full of top military officials, according to the article. Later, McChrystal's first one-on-one meeting with Obama "was a 10-minute photo op," Hastings writes, quoting an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f---ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss (McChrystal) was disappointed." The article goes on to paint McChrystal as a man who "has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict," including U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and National Security Adviser Jim Jones. Obama is not named as one of McChrystal's "team of rivals." Of Eikenberry, who railed against McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan in a cable leaked to The New York Times in January, the general said, "'Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, "I told you so.'" Hastings writes in the profile that McChrystal has a "special skepticism" for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating Taliban members into Afghan society and the administration's point man for Afghanistan and Pakistan. "At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry, according to the article. 'Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke,' he groans. 'I don't even want to open it.' He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance." "'Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg,' an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail." The White House did not immediately issue public comment on the article. A U.S. military official said Tuesday that McChrystal has spoken to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and officials referenced in the story, including Holbrooke and National Security Adviser Jones. An official at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul said Eikenberry and McChrystal "are both fully committed" to Obama's Afghan strategy and are working together to "implement" the plan. "We have seen the article and General McChrystal has already spoken to it," according to a statement from an embassy official, making reference to McChrystal's apology. "I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome," McChrystal said in the closing to his apology.