Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pak: McChrystal
The U.S. military commander in Afghanistan says he has evidence that factions of Pakistani and Iranian spy services are supporting insurgent groups that carry out attacks on coalition troops. Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are being aided by "elements of some intelligence agencies," Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal wrote in a detailed analysis of the military situation delivered to the White House earlier this month. McChrystal went on to single out Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency as well as the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as contributing to the external forces working to undermine U.S. interests and destabilize the government in Kabul. The remarks reflect long-running U.S. concerns about Pakistan and Iran, but it is rare that they have been voiced so prominently by a top U.S. official. McChrystal submitted his assessment last month, and a declassified version was published Sunday on the Washington Post website. The criticism of Pakistan is a particularly delicate issue because of the United States' close cooperation with Islamabad in pursuing militants and carrying out drone airstrikes in the nation's rugged east. "Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan," McChrystal wrote, adding that senior leaders of the major Taliban groups are "reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's ISI." The ISI has long-standing ties to the Taliban, but Pakistani officials have repeatedly claimed to have severed those relationships in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. More recently, the ISI has been a key U.S. partner in the capture of a number of high-level Al Qaeda operatives, including alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But U.S. officials have also complained of ongoing contacts between the spy service and Taliban groups. U.S. frustration peaked last year when Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other U.S. officials secretly confronted Pakistan with evidence of ISI involvement in the suicide bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul. Since then, U.S. officials have sought to avoid public criticism of the Pakistani service as part of an effort to defuse tensions in the relationship. Indeed, U.S. officials in recent months have said that the ISI had become more committed to the counter-terrorism cause after one of the service's own facilities in Lahore was the target of a suicide bombing. McChrystal's comments are the first public indication in months that the United States continues to see signs of ISI support for insurgent groups. Experts said elements of the ISI maintain those ties to hedge against a U.S. withdrawal from the region and rising Indian influence in Afghanistan. "There is a mixture of motives and concerns within the ISI that have accounted for the dalliances that have gone on for years" with insurgent groups, said Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA counter-terrorism official. Iran has traditionally had an adversarial relationship with the Taliban, and McChrystal's report says that Tehran has played "an ambiguous role in Afghanistan," providing developmental assistance to the government even as it flirts with insurgent groups that target U.S. troops. "The Iranian Quds Force is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups and providing other forms of military assistance to insurgents," McChrystal said in the report. The Quds Force is an elite wing of the Revolutionary Guard that carries out operations in other countries. McChrystal did not elaborate on the nature of the assistance, but Iran has been a transit point for foreign fighters entering Pakistan. Experts also cited evidence that Iran has provided training and technology in the use of roadside bombs. U.S. intelligence officials said Iran appears to calibrate its involvement to tie down U.S. and coalition troops without provoking direct retaliation. Iran's aim "is to make sure the U.S. is tied down and preoccupied in yet another theater," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. "From Iran's point of view, it's an historical area of interest and too good an opportunity to pass up."
NWFP(Pukhtunkhwa) working on new strategy to raise literacy
PESHAWAR: The Frontier government has prepared a strategy proposing innovative measures to ensure every child is attending school by 2015, an official said.
The plan has been worked out by the Education Sector Reforms Unit (ESRU), a think tank of the elementary and secondary education department, which offers some ‘out of the box’ solutions to enhance enrolment and prevent children’s leaving schools.
The NWFP has lower primary enrolment and higher dropout ratio in secondary education as compared to Punjab and Sindh, as according to official statistics around 2.8 million children are out of school at the moment.
The Frontier government is bound to ensure enrolment of every child in school as per the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals by 2015, and the target is unlikely to be met because there is a need of 22,000 new schools, which will require resources worth Rs5 trillion.
Apart from unprecedented resource mobilisation, construction of these schools will take at least 110 years because the implementing agencies with existing capacity can hardly build 200 schools a year.
The proposed strategy, however, gives an alternative plan that will reduce the cost at least 20 times, making it possible to enrol out-of-school children, Raja Saad Khan, programme director of ESRU and architect of the plan, told Dawn here on Thursday.
A summary, already approved by the provincial minister for elementary and secondary education, had been submitted to Chief Minister Ameer Haider Khan Hoti, whose policy speech on April 10 last year soon after taking vote of confidence provided the basis for the strategy, he maintained.
The strategy recommends initiating second shifts in existing school buildings, which have no utility after official school timing. This step would save money and time to be consumed on construction of new schools, said the official.
Similarly, he said, the communities could be approached for provision of buildings for schools free of cost, while teachers could be provided by the government.
There were many areas where equal opportunity of schooling was not available for boys and girls, thus second shifts for girls in boys’ schools and vice versa, could be started to address this deficiency, he said.
Similarly, if buildings or sufficient rooms are available, second shifts of high school can be started in middle schools, and middle classes can be started in primary schools’ buildings in evening shifts.
The proposed strategy recommends that female teachers should be recruited in all future primary schools (boys and girls) and schooling up to primary should be co-education.
The official argued that this step would reduce the burden of establishing two schools in the same locality and it would also help counter dropouts usually caused by corporal punishment.
It is also suggested to gradually convert existing boys’ primary schools into co-education with the consent of community.
Construction of even a two-room school building involves an estimated cost of Rs3.2 billion, which can be saved if an approach of housing public sector schools in rented buildings is adopted.
Similarly, Saad said, the government had been advised to encourage the private sector to construct purpose-built buildings to be hired on rental basis by the government for housing schools, adding: ‘This will not only save money for the government, but will also attract investment in the education sector.’
To counter teachers’ absenteeism in remote areas, the strategy offers an innovative approach of hiring unemployed trained married couples, offering them teachers’ jobs in these hard areas with incentives.
The official explained that in areas like Kohistan there was no dearth of school buildings, but the main problem was availability of teachers because no one among the teachers wanted to be posted there.
However, under this approach, couples could be motivated to offer their services in these areas, he observed.
Another ‘out of the box’ approach of this strategy is offering employment to female students during their studies in backward districts.
It has been suggested that female students, when reach Class 8, should be given guaranteed jobs.
After matriculation, they should be admitted for training with reasonable monthly stipend in the Regional Institute for Teachers’ Education before they are posted in their respective areas.
Launching of campaigns for enhancing enrolment and steps for improving monitoring of teachers’ performance are also part of the proposed strategy.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Loud explosion heard in Hungo
HUNGO: A loud explosion has been heard in Hungo.According to the sources, a deafening blast has been heard in Hungo city and police efforts are underway to pinpoint the location of the explosion.
Displaced families face miserable Eid
JALOZAI CAMP: The internally displaced persons (IDP) uprooted by conflict with the Taliban face a miserable Eidul Fitr, with no cash to splash on celebrations and a longing to return to homes they fear no longer exist.
“All I want is to go back home this Eid,” said Khalida Bibi, a 10-year-old girl standing in a queue to collect packages from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) at the Jalozai camp, southeast of Peshawar.
In a family of 10 brothers and sisters, Khalida remembers presents, money and new clothes for Eid festivals at home in Bajaur, where the government launched a military operation against the Taliban near the Afghan border last year.
“When we were at home in Bajaur, we enjoyed Eid a lot. We wore new clothes, new shoes and had our wrists full of bangles. We got money and gifts,” Khalida said.
Old clothes: “This year, we’ll wear old clothes on Eid because we have no money to buy new ones,” she said, her green tunic and blue headscarf slightly grubby.
The UN said about two million Pakistanis were displaced as a result of fighting between the army and the Taliban, which the United States branded an existential threat to the nuclear-armed country.
Officials say 1.65 million have since returned home, but a fresh operation launched this month in the Khyber district, a major supply route for US and NATO troops in Afghanistan, has displaced another 56,000 to 100,000 people.
While most IDPs seek shelter with friends and relatives, many of the poorest have crammed into 17 dusty refugee camps where morale is low despite handouts from charities and assistance from UN agencies.
“We celebrate Eid in terrible circumstances. We’re sad and worried. Our home was destroyed during the operation,” said Bibi Gul, a 40-year-old mother of 11 who fled fighting in the Mohmand Agency.
Shamsur Rehman, a 21-year-old from Bajaur, wears a brown shalwar kameez as he watches UNHCR staff distribute Eid packages.
“When I was in Bajaur, all our friends got together on Eid. We used to beat drums, dance and sing. We had a lot of fun. Now everything is finished,” said the father of one.
“I don’t know when I’ll go home, when peace will be restored and I can sing and dance again on Eid,” he added.
Economic malaise: With inflation at 11.17 percent, shopkeepers believe even well-off families were spending less on Eid luxuries as the country struggles from extremist attacks, fighting with militants and economic malaise. afp
“All I want is to go back home this Eid,” said Khalida Bibi, a 10-year-old girl standing in a queue to collect packages from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) at the Jalozai camp, southeast of Peshawar.
In a family of 10 brothers and sisters, Khalida remembers presents, money and new clothes for Eid festivals at home in Bajaur, where the government launched a military operation against the Taliban near the Afghan border last year.
“When we were at home in Bajaur, we enjoyed Eid a lot. We wore new clothes, new shoes and had our wrists full of bangles. We got money and gifts,” Khalida said.
Old clothes: “This year, we’ll wear old clothes on Eid because we have no money to buy new ones,” she said, her green tunic and blue headscarf slightly grubby.
The UN said about two million Pakistanis were displaced as a result of fighting between the army and the Taliban, which the United States branded an existential threat to the nuclear-armed country.
Officials say 1.65 million have since returned home, but a fresh operation launched this month in the Khyber district, a major supply route for US and NATO troops in Afghanistan, has displaced another 56,000 to 100,000 people.
While most IDPs seek shelter with friends and relatives, many of the poorest have crammed into 17 dusty refugee camps where morale is low despite handouts from charities and assistance from UN agencies.
“We celebrate Eid in terrible circumstances. We’re sad and worried. Our home was destroyed during the operation,” said Bibi Gul, a 40-year-old mother of 11 who fled fighting in the Mohmand Agency.
Shamsur Rehman, a 21-year-old from Bajaur, wears a brown shalwar kameez as he watches UNHCR staff distribute Eid packages.
“When I was in Bajaur, all our friends got together on Eid. We used to beat drums, dance and sing. We had a lot of fun. Now everything is finished,” said the father of one.
“I don’t know when I’ll go home, when peace will be restored and I can sing and dance again on Eid,” he added.
Economic malaise: With inflation at 11.17 percent, shopkeepers believe even well-off families were spending less on Eid luxuries as the country struggles from extremist attacks, fighting with militants and economic malaise. afp
General Calls for More U.S. Troops to Avoid Afghan Failure
NewYorkTimes
WASHINGTON — The top military commander in Afghanistan warns in a confidential assessment of the war there that he needs additional troops within the next year or else the conflict “will likely result in failure.”
The grim assessment is contained in a 66-page report that the commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, submitted to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30, and which is now under review by President Obama and his top national security advisers.
The disclosure of details in the assessment, reported Sunday night by The Washington Post, coincided with new skepticism expressed by President Obama about sending any more troops into Afghanistan until he was certain that the strategy was clear.
His remarks came as opposition to the eight-year-old war within his own party is growing.
General McChrystal’s view offered a stark contrast, and the language he used was striking.
“Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible,” General McChrystal writes.
A copy of the assessment, with some operational details removed at the Pentagon’s request to avoid compromising future operations, was posted on The Post’s Web site.
In his five-page commander’s summary, General McChrystal ends on a cautiously optimistic note: “While the situation is serious, success is still achievable.”
But throughout the document, General McChrystal warns that unless he is provided more forces and a robust counterinsurgency strategy, the war in Afghanistan is most likely lost.
Pentagon and military officials involved in Afghanistan policy say General McChrystal is expected to propose a range of options for additional troops beyond the 68,000 American forces already approved, from 10,000 to as many as 45,000.
General McChrystal’s strategic assessment could well fuel the public anxiety over the war that has been fast increasing in recent weeks as American casualties have risen, allied commanders have expressed surprise at the Taliban’s fighting prowess, and allegations of ballot fraud Afghanistan’s recent presidential elections have escalated.
In a series of interviews on the Sunday morning talk shows, Mr. Obama expressed skepticism about sending more American troops to Afghanistan until he was sure his administration had the right strategy to succeed.
“Right now, the question is, the first question is, are we doing the right thing? Are we pursuing the right strategy?” Mr. Obama said on CNN. “When we have clarity on that, then the question is, O.K., how do we resource it?”
Mr. Obama said that he and his top advisers had not delayed any request for additional troops from General McChrystal because of the political delicacy of the issue or other domestic priorities.
“No, no, no, no,” Mr. Obama said when asked on CNN’s “State of the Union” whether General McChrystal had been told to sit on his request.
Mr. Obama said his decision “is not going to be driven by the politics of the moment.”
In an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Mr. Obama said his top priority was to protect the United States against attacks from Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
“Whatever decisions I make are going to be based first on a strategy to keep us safe, then we’ll figure out how to resource it,” the president said. “We’re not going to put the cart before the horse and just think by sending more troops we’re automatically going to make Americans safe,” he said.
Mr. Obama and his advisers have said they need time to absorb the assessment of the Afghanistan security situation that General McChrystal submitted three weeks ago — a separate report from the general’s expected request for forces — as well as the uncertainties created by the fraud-tainted Afghan elections.
“General McChrystal’s strategic assessment of the situation in Afghanistan is a classified pre-decisional document, intended to provide President Obama and his national security team with the basis for a very important discussion about where we are now in Afghanistan and how to best to get to where we want to be,” Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said Sunday night in a statement.
In his report, General McChrystal issues a withering critique of both his NATO command and the Afghan government. His NATO command, he says, is “poorly configured” for counterinsurgency and is “inexperienced in local languages and culture.”
“The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF’s own errors,” General McChrystal says, referring to NATO, “have given Afghans little reason to support their government.”
The general also describes an increasingly savvy insurgency that uses propaganda effectively and is using the Afghan prison system as a training ground. Taliban and Qaeda insurgents represent more than 2,500 of the 14,500 inmates in Afghanistan’s overcrowded prisons.
“These detainees are currently radicalizing non-insurgent inmates,” the report concludes.
Mr. Morrell declined to comment on details of the assessment.
Until Sunday, details of General McChrystal’s report had not been made public.
Members of Congress were briefed on the reports and allowed to read copies of it in secure offices on Capitol Hill, but the lawmakers were not allowed to take notes.
General McChrystal has publicly stated many of the conclusions in his report: emphasizing the importance of protecting civilians over just engaging insurgents, restricting airstrikes to reduce civilian casualties, and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces and accelerating their training.
The Afghan government has about 134,000 police officers and 82,000 soldiers, although many are poorly equipped and have little logistical support.
General McChrystal has also signaled that he will seek to unify the effort of American allies that operate in Afghanistan, and possibly to ask them to contribute more troops, money and training.
Military officers said Sunday that General McChrystal had effectively completed his formal request for forces, and was prepared to send the proposal up through his hierarchy for review by Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of American forces in the Middle East; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
WASHINGTON — The top military commander in Afghanistan warns in a confidential assessment of the war there that he needs additional troops within the next year or else the conflict “will likely result in failure.”
The grim assessment is contained in a 66-page report that the commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, submitted to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30, and which is now under review by President Obama and his top national security advisers.
The disclosure of details in the assessment, reported Sunday night by The Washington Post, coincided with new skepticism expressed by President Obama about sending any more troops into Afghanistan until he was certain that the strategy was clear.
His remarks came as opposition to the eight-year-old war within his own party is growing.
General McChrystal’s view offered a stark contrast, and the language he used was striking.
“Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible,” General McChrystal writes.
A copy of the assessment, with some operational details removed at the Pentagon’s request to avoid compromising future operations, was posted on The Post’s Web site.
In his five-page commander’s summary, General McChrystal ends on a cautiously optimistic note: “While the situation is serious, success is still achievable.”
But throughout the document, General McChrystal warns that unless he is provided more forces and a robust counterinsurgency strategy, the war in Afghanistan is most likely lost.
Pentagon and military officials involved in Afghanistan policy say General McChrystal is expected to propose a range of options for additional troops beyond the 68,000 American forces already approved, from 10,000 to as many as 45,000.
General McChrystal’s strategic assessment could well fuel the public anxiety over the war that has been fast increasing in recent weeks as American casualties have risen, allied commanders have expressed surprise at the Taliban’s fighting prowess, and allegations of ballot fraud Afghanistan’s recent presidential elections have escalated.
In a series of interviews on the Sunday morning talk shows, Mr. Obama expressed skepticism about sending more American troops to Afghanistan until he was sure his administration had the right strategy to succeed.
“Right now, the question is, the first question is, are we doing the right thing? Are we pursuing the right strategy?” Mr. Obama said on CNN. “When we have clarity on that, then the question is, O.K., how do we resource it?”
Mr. Obama said that he and his top advisers had not delayed any request for additional troops from General McChrystal because of the political delicacy of the issue or other domestic priorities.
“No, no, no, no,” Mr. Obama said when asked on CNN’s “State of the Union” whether General McChrystal had been told to sit on his request.
Mr. Obama said his decision “is not going to be driven by the politics of the moment.”
In an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Mr. Obama said his top priority was to protect the United States against attacks from Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
“Whatever decisions I make are going to be based first on a strategy to keep us safe, then we’ll figure out how to resource it,” the president said. “We’re not going to put the cart before the horse and just think by sending more troops we’re automatically going to make Americans safe,” he said.
Mr. Obama and his advisers have said they need time to absorb the assessment of the Afghanistan security situation that General McChrystal submitted three weeks ago — a separate report from the general’s expected request for forces — as well as the uncertainties created by the fraud-tainted Afghan elections.
“General McChrystal’s strategic assessment of the situation in Afghanistan is a classified pre-decisional document, intended to provide President Obama and his national security team with the basis for a very important discussion about where we are now in Afghanistan and how to best to get to where we want to be,” Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said Sunday night in a statement.
In his report, General McChrystal issues a withering critique of both his NATO command and the Afghan government. His NATO command, he says, is “poorly configured” for counterinsurgency and is “inexperienced in local languages and culture.”
“The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF’s own errors,” General McChrystal says, referring to NATO, “have given Afghans little reason to support their government.”
The general also describes an increasingly savvy insurgency that uses propaganda effectively and is using the Afghan prison system as a training ground. Taliban and Qaeda insurgents represent more than 2,500 of the 14,500 inmates in Afghanistan’s overcrowded prisons.
“These detainees are currently radicalizing non-insurgent inmates,” the report concludes.
Mr. Morrell declined to comment on details of the assessment.
Until Sunday, details of General McChrystal’s report had not been made public.
Members of Congress were briefed on the reports and allowed to read copies of it in secure offices on Capitol Hill, but the lawmakers were not allowed to take notes.
General McChrystal has publicly stated many of the conclusions in his report: emphasizing the importance of protecting civilians over just engaging insurgents, restricting airstrikes to reduce civilian casualties, and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces and accelerating their training.
The Afghan government has about 134,000 police officers and 82,000 soldiers, although many are poorly equipped and have little logistical support.
General McChrystal has also signaled that he will seek to unify the effort of American allies that operate in Afghanistan, and possibly to ask them to contribute more troops, money and training.
Military officers said Sunday that General McChrystal had effectively completed his formal request for forces, and was prepared to send the proposal up through his hierarchy for review by Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of American forces in the Middle East; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
Friday, September 18, 2009
CPC to expand intra-Party democracy: communique
Xinhua.com
BEIJING-- A communique issued Friday upon the closing of a four-day plenary session of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee said the Party's internal democracy was "the lifeblood of the Party" and the CPC would "expand intra-Party democracy to develop people's democracy."
The Fourth Plenary Session of the 17th CPC Central Committee endorsed the decision of the CPC Central Committee on major issues on strengthening and improving Party building under the new circumstances.
The communique said the Party would firmly push forward the intra-Party democracy by sticking to "democratic centralism," with democracy as a base and centralism as a guide.
The Party must "ensure the democratic rights of its members" and strengthen the intra-Party democracy at the grassroots level.
It would "extensively absorb the will and views of all Party members and bring their initiative and creativity to a full play," the document said.
"The CPC will ensure the unity of people of all ethnic groups by intensifying the Party's strength and unity," it said.
The communique said the Party would uphold and improve its leadership system.
It would also improve the systems of Party congress, Party officials' elections and democratic decision-making mechanism within the CPC.
It said the Party must stick to a democratic, open, competitive, credible and vigorous mechanism of selecting Party officials in order to foster more excellent cadres.
Party officials must be "revolutionary, young, knowledge-based and professional" and the CPC must explore extensively to select cadres to ensure the Party boasts excellent members, it said.
Moral integrity should be highlighted when selecting officials and their ability of "promoting scientific development and social harmony" should be improved, it added.
The communique said the Party's grassroots organizations were the foundation of the entire Party work and its combat power, and were "fighting bastions" in implementing the CPC policies.
Efforts should be made to boost the vitality of grassroots Party committees and members, it said.
Hu Jintao, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, delivered a work report at the session, which was held here from Sept. 15 to 18.
Some delegates to the 17th CPC National Congress who were in charge of Party affairs at the grassroots, and experts and scholars on Party building studies also attended the meeting.
Dueling marches pit Iran hardliners vs. reformers
.jpg)
Tens of thousands of protesters — many decked out in the green colors of the reform movement and chanting "Death to the dictator!" — rallied Friday in defiance of Iran's Islamic leadership, clashing with police and confronting state-run anti-Israel rallies.
In the first major opposition protests in two months, demonstrators marching shoulder-to-shoulder raised their hands in V-for-victory signs on main boulevards and squares throughout the capital.
Lines of police, security forces and plainclothes Basij militiamen kept the two sides apart in most cases. At times they waded into the protesters with baton charges and tear gas volleys. The demonstrators responded by throwing stones and bricks, and setting tires ablaze.
Hard-liners attacked two senior opposition leaders who joined the protests. Former pro-reform President Mohamad Khatami was shoved and jostled, gripping his black turban to keep it from being knocked off as supporters rushed in to protect him, pushing away the attackers and hustling him away.
The protests were a significant show of defiance after supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei explicitly banned anti-government marches on Quds Day, an annual memorial created by Iran's Islamic Republic to show support for the Palestinians and denounce Israel. Quds is Arabic for Jerusalem.
It was also a show of survival. The opposition has been hit hard by a fierce crackdown in which hundreds have been arrested since disputed June 12 presidential elections sparked Iran's worst political turmoil in decades. Friday's protests could escalate the confrontation — hard-line clerics have demanded the arrest of any opposition leaders who defy Khamenei's order and back protests on Quds Day.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who the opposition contends won re-election by fraud, delivered a nationally televised address, railing against Israel and the West.
Speaking before a crowd of supporters at Tehran University, he questioned whether the Holocaust was a "real event" and called it a pretext for the creation of Israel. He said the Jewish state was founded on "a lie and a mythical claim."
Outside the university, while the speech blared on loudspeakers, opposition protesters shouted "liar, liar!"
U.S. officials denounced the Iranian leader's comments on the Holocaust, which Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called "hateful." She said President Barack Obama would not meet with Ahmadinejad during next week's gathering of world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly.
In protests around Tehran and other Iranian cities, demonstrators chanted "Not Gaza, not Lebanon — our life is for Iran" in a challenge of the government's priority of supporting Palestinian militants in Gaza and Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas instead of focusing on problems at home.
The Quds Day rallies, which attracted several hundred thousand people, far outnumbered the tens of thousands who turned out for the opposition — a reflection of the government's freedom to rally supporters.
Opposition supporters wearing green T-shirts and wristbands poured onto main boulevards and squares in the capital, waving green banners and balloons, and pictures of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims to be the rightful winner of the election. "Death to the dictator!" they shouted.
Just hundreds of yards away, crowds of Ahmadinejad supporters marched carrying huge photographs of the president and supreme leader Khamenei. Some chanted, "Death to those who oppose the supreme leader!"
A group of hard-liners attacked Khatami nearby, surging toward him as his supporters shoved them away and surrounded the cleric, witnesses said.
Elsewhere, government supporters also tried to attack the main opposition leader, Mousavi, when he joined another march. As supporters scuffled with the attackers, Mousavi was rushed into a car and driven away, a witness said.
All the witnesses spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of government retaliation.
The government imposed restrictions on journalists, allowing them to cover the Quds Day rallies but not opposition protests. As often happens during opposition demonstrations, Internet access and phone service was frequently cut, apparently in a state attempt to sever protesters' communications.
In one of Tehran's main squares, Haft-e Tir, security forces wielding batons and firing tear gas tried to break up an opposition march, and were confronted by protesters throwing stones and bricks, witnesses said. Several policemen were seen being taken away with slight injuries.
Protesters set bonfires during another clash in the city, and young men and women wrapped green scarves over their faces against the clouds of tear gas.
At least 10 protesters were seized by plainclothes security agents in marches around the city, witnesses said.
The pro-government Quds Day rallies were held around the country, and the opposition staged competing rallies in several cities. In Shiraz to the south, police rushed protesters with batons, scuffling with them, witnesses said. Footage put out by the opposition showed hundreds of protesters fleeing a police charge in the northern city of Rasht.
Hundreds of thousands marched in support of Mousavi in the weeks after the June election, until police, Basij militiamen and the elite Revolutionary Guard crushed the protests, arresting hundreds. The opposition says 72 people were killed in the crackdown, though the government puts the number at 36. The last significant protest was on July 17.
The Quds Day occasion was established in 1979 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the revolution that created Iran's Islamic Republic. Customarily on Quds Day, Iranians gather for pro-Palestinian rallies in various parts of Tehran, marching through the streets and later converging for the prayer ceremony.
In his speech, Ahmadinejad hailed the commemoration as a "day of unity" for Iranians and denounced criticism of the election.
Karzai Apparent Afghan Election Winner,CIA Chief
In an exclusive VOA interview, CIA director Leon Panetta says that even if suspect ballots are discounted, President Hamid Karzai will in all likelihood win re-election.
"It's clear that there was some degree of corruption and fraud involved in the election," Panetta said. "It's being viewed now by the commissions involved in counting those votes. I think what appears to be the case is that even after they eliminate some of the votes that resulted because of fraud, that Karzai will still - still looks like the individual who's going to be able to win that election."
The preliminary final results have Mr. Karzai with enough votes to avoid a runoff with former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah. Mr. Karzai has angrily denied major fraud and denounced the media for what he says are exaggerated reports of electoral corruption.
The election comes at a crucial time as the U.S. ponders its strategy in Afghanistan and whether more troops are needed. The Taliban has expanded its influence and ratcheted up attacks on NATO troops.
CIA chief Panetta says that the Taliban fighters of 2009 are not necessarily the same as the Taliban of 2001, and that in fact there is no single Taliban. He says there are different groups, usually along tribal lines, fighting for different reasons.
"It's a mixed bag. You don't have just one brand of Taliban," Panetta noted. "The ones that we're most concerned with, however, are those that are obviously engaging in military action, are taking American lives, and are operating in a way that we see as much more effective and much more efficient in terms of warfare. And that's what concerns us, it concerns the president of the United States."
Panetta says the Taliban attacking NATO troops are still getting help from across the border in Pakistan.
"Well, we think that they continue to receive encouragement from al-Qaida in Pakistan, and they continue to receive encouragement from the terrorists who are located in Pakistan, and that because of that relationship we view them very much as a threat to peace in Afghanistan," Panetta said.
The CIA has come under fire for using rough interrogation techniques on al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. The so-called enhanced interrogation techniques were ordered by senior officials in the Bush administration. Speaking to agency employees in April, President Obama initially promised not to investigate or prosecute CIA officers after Justice Department memos disclosing the rough methods surfaced. But in August Attorney General Eric Holder ordered an investigation of CIA officers for alleged abuse of detainees. Panetta, who is a political appointee to the CIA job, vehemently opposed the action.
Asked what he says to angry CIA officers who feel betrayed by the Obama administration's action, he says he tells them to stay focused.
"I think that if we get trapped by the politics of the past it'll take away our future and impact on our ability to do our jobs. So my message to the people at the CIA is, let's do our job, let's stick together," Panetta said. "If we do, I think we can deal with whatever takes place politically in Washington because in the end what Washington needs and what this country needs is a CIA that is focused on doing its job."
The probe is expected to cover both direct CIA employees and contractors. Despite his opposition, Panetta says he and the agency will cooperate with the inquiry.
Hamid Karzai rejects second round
AFGHAN President Hamid Karzai has ruled out calling a second round of elections over fraud allegations that have cast a shadow over US deliberations on whether to send more troops.
Preliminary results from Afghanistan's second presidential election put Mr Karzai on track to defeat rival Abdullah Abdullah without a second round, but European Union observers said nearly one-quarter of votes could be fraudulent.
Asked whether he would agree to a second round to ease concerns about the election's legitimacy, Mr Karzai told CNN: "That is not in my authority to do."
"Taking it to a second round or a runoff by engineering it in that direction, that is itself fraud and not the right thing to do. It's against (the) Afghan constitution," he said. "We cannot claim a wrong and then commit another wrong in order to make a right."
Mr Karzai did not exclude inviting Mr Abdullah into a coalition government but said he would do so only to unite the country, not to respond to fraud allegations, which he insisted were false.
Senior US officials acknowledged they were in a bind over how to handle the election.
US President Barack Obama has made fighting extremism in Afghanistan a top priority and is weighing calls to again boost the US military force in the country, which is set to reach 68,000 this year.
"I would tell you that there is no question that the nature of the election in Afghanistan has complicated the picture," Defence Secretary Robert Gates said.
Mr Karzai, first installed in the wake of the US-led military operation that ousted the Taliban in 2001, enjoyed a warm relationship with former president George W. Bush, but Mr Obama has distanced himself from the Afghan leader.
Vice-President Joe Biden said that if Afghans doubted the legitimacy of Mr Karzai's government in a second term, it "makes everything considerably more difficult".
"That's why we have to follow the process to the end here," Mr Biden, who as a senator reportedly stormed out of a dinner with Mr Karzai, told CNN. "But to be honest to you, it would make this very hard to have a sustainable policy if the government with whom we're co-operating is viewed as illegitimate by the people - in this case, the people of Afghanistan. But that's not determined yet."
Echoing earlier remarks to reporters in Kabul, Mr Karzai acknowledged there might have been irregularities but insisted there was no systematic fraud.
"It's unfortunately mainly in the international community that these allegations are coming," Mr Karzai said. "I can assure you, the vote was true and fair."
His remarks came on one of the deadliest days for Western troops in Kabul. A bomber destroyed a vehicle of NATO-led forces, killing 10 Afghan civilians and six Italian soldiers.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi later said he hoped to bring home his country's 3250 troops "as soon as possible", but only in consultation with NATO allies.
Britain's main opposition Conservative Party, which leads in polls ahead of elections due next year, called for more commitment by NATO in Afghanistan and said it would consider sending more troops should it win office.
But Liam Fox, Britain's shadow defence secretary, warned in an address to a Washington think tank that any build-up would be futile without an accompanying strategy to persuade insurgents to give up violence.
"Unless we have identified a more comprehensive political solution for Afghanistan, any increase in troop members alone would merely maintain the status quo, which is arguably an increasingly dysfunctional state apparatus surrounded by a burgeoning insurgency," Mr Fox said at The Heritage Foundation.
Militants, extremists created deliberately: Zardari
LAHORE : President Asif Ali Zardari has said that the extremists and militants were created decades ago by a deliberate policy to employ religious fanaticism for the achievement of certain strategic objectives.
The President made this comment in his wide ranging address and discourse with British intelligentsia gathered at London’s International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) - a prestigious and one of the high profile Think Tanks, a day after he arrived in the British capital from Dubai.
Militants and militancy were not created in a vacuum, he said, adding that they have been the product of a deliberate policy to fight the rival ideology.
The free world adopted a novel strategy that was based on the exploitation of religion to motivate Muslims around the world to wage jehad, stated President Zardari.
The President reminded the audience that Afghan Jehadi leaders were described as “Moral equivalents of George Washington.”
President Zardari further said that the strategy may have worked well but some serious mistakes were also made as the world abandoned Afghanistan in a hurry and no thought was given to its stability after the withdrawal of foreign forces.
After the retreat of foreign forces, Afghanistan was abandoned and left at the mercy of the warlords and the jehadis which, he said was a grave mistake.
Zardari also recalled the conversation Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto had with the then American President George Bush Senior in 1989, warning of the grave implications of abandoning Afghanistan in a hurry. She told the US President, “Mr. President, I fear we have created a Frankenstein that will come back to haunt us,” President Zardari told the audience.
Zardari said that Pakistan paid the heaviest price of this policy as it ended up with over 2.5 million drug addicts, stunted economic activity and millions of Afghan refugees on its soil which it has been hosting for decades and is still hosting.
He said that the situation of Pakistan was further compounded when the international community gave material and moral support to dictatorships in Pakistan for its own ends.
The dictatorship in Pakistan has been running with the hare and hunting with the hound and played hide and seek with militants for its own political survival, the President viewed adding, “Years of dancing with the dictator has encouraged the crisis of today.”
About fighting the militants, the President said that there was no doubt that Pakistan faced enormous challenges but “greater is our resolve to overcome those challenges.”
He said it was a crisis situation which also offered opportunities. “In times like these we must recognize and seize opportunities, he said and called for taking urgent and bold decisions.
“We can no longer avoid taking firm decisions,” the President said, adding that a decision delayed was “not a problem avoided but a crisis in waiting.”
He said that contrasted with the dictatorship of the past the democracy in Pakistan had taken on the militants head on. “We are determined to fight and we know how to fight,” he said.
He said that democracy in Pakistan had given political ownership to the war against militants as a result of which the Parliament, the state institutions and the whole nation was united against terrorists.
About the wonders achieved by national consensus against militancy, the President said that the dramatic power of national consensus was demonstrated recently in Swat and Malakand where the militants were on the run and the internally displaced persons had started returning their homes in safety.
Extremists and militants who challenge the state and our ideology wherever they may be in Pakistan will be chased and eliminated, the President said.
Reinforcing his commitment to end militancy, the President declared, “Let me assure you that we have not come this far at this price, to fail.”
The President also urged the international community for its support and understanding in “our national efforts to fight militants.” “We expect our friends and allies to make a correct assessment of the challenges we face and to help us,” the President said.
While acknowledging that some support had come from the world community the President said, “This support needs to be reinforced.”
Zardari also rejected the blames that were being laid at the door of Pakistan and said “We need active regional co-operation and understanding rather than resorting to blame game.”
The President also reminded the audience of the struggle in Pakistan for the restoration of democracy. Shaheed Benazir Bhutto made the ultimate sacrifice, so that our nation may live in democracy, he said.
The President said that democracy was gaining ground in Pakistan. Today there was a functional Parliament, an independent judiciary, a vibrant civil society, a fiercely free media and a robust political discourse among political parties, he added. The President said that the real challenge that lay ahead was “to make democracy sustainable, indeed irreversible.”
“The challenge could be met easily if we demonstrated to our people and the world that democracy indeed was delivering,” he observed.
The President said that although some difficult decisions had already been taken to stabilize the economy, Pakistan needed greater economic opportunities to better the lot of its teeming millions.
“It is important that Pakistan is allowed market access to the countries of European Union. We need trade and not aid,” he stressed.
About peace in the region the President said that Pakistan was confronted with the challenge of building a peaceful neighbourhood.
The government was pursuing a conscious policy of building cooperative relationships with Afghanistan and India, he stated adding, “We believe that regional dialogue and cooperation is the way forward.
The president further said that the terrorist attacks were also directed against the peace process with India.
“Terrorist attacks are always directed at democracy. They are also directed against the peace process with India that we have initiated,” is how the President described the terror attacks.
The President called upon the international community to beef up support for the democratic government to fight the militants by strengthening Pakistan’s economy and democracy.
Voicing hope that the democratic world will play its part in assisting Pakistan, the President assured that “Pakistan will deliver on its part to make the world a safer and better place to live.”
The President said that a democratic Pakistan is the world’s best guarantee for the triumph of moderation among Muslims of the world.
Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Spokesman to the President Farhatullah Babar, Secretary General to the President Salman Farooqi, Chairman Pakistan Peoples Party Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Aseefa Bhutto Zardari, Sanam Bhutto, Pakistan High Commissioner to UK Wajid Shamsul Hassan, writers, intellectuals and diplomats also attended.
Indemnity for Baloch leaders to be announced
ISLAMABAD: Under the proposed package for Balochistan, the government will announce indemnity for all Baloch leaders and workers as it is necessary for removal of all cases against Baloch leaders.
A private TV channel while quoting government sources said President Asif Ali Zardari would visit Quetta and hold a grand jirga and all dissident Baloch leaders would be invited to the jirga.
According to sources, the president during his visit to the province is likely to announce indemnity for all Baloch leaders and workers.
The package will include solutions to issues related to economics and politics and the province will get 12 per cent shares in the federal assets in the province such as the gas infrastructure, mines and the Gawadar Port.
Meanwhile, Secretary General Baloch National Party (BNP) Sadiq Raisani while talking to a private TV channel termed the proposed package for Balochistan a tactic, saying the Baloch people have no hopes from any package.
He said hundreds of people lost their lives while nearly 8,000 Baloch leaders and workers are languishing in jails and torture cells and cases have been filed against hundreds of people, adding that the entire system has been silent over injustices with the Baloch people since 1940.
The BNP leader further said that the people of Balochistan have their own package which is to end the occupation over Baloch land and that the people of Balochistan will not accept any package for the province.
Mir Hasil Khan Bazinjo of National Party while talking to a private TV channel said that practical steps including tracing missing people, release of Baloch leaders and withdrawing of FC from the province were needed before announcing any package.
President Awami National Party (ANP) Balochistan, Commander Khudad Khan while talking to a private TV channel termed the proposed package a positive development, saying it would be difficult to say before the announcement of the package.
Asked about the issue of the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti, he said that the courts wil have to decide as the issue was in court
A private TV channel while quoting government sources said President Asif Ali Zardari would visit Quetta and hold a grand jirga and all dissident Baloch leaders would be invited to the jirga.
According to sources, the president during his visit to the province is likely to announce indemnity for all Baloch leaders and workers.
The package will include solutions to issues related to economics and politics and the province will get 12 per cent shares in the federal assets in the province such as the gas infrastructure, mines and the Gawadar Port.
Meanwhile, Secretary General Baloch National Party (BNP) Sadiq Raisani while talking to a private TV channel termed the proposed package for Balochistan a tactic, saying the Baloch people have no hopes from any package.
He said hundreds of people lost their lives while nearly 8,000 Baloch leaders and workers are languishing in jails and torture cells and cases have been filed against hundreds of people, adding that the entire system has been silent over injustices with the Baloch people since 1940.
The BNP leader further said that the people of Balochistan have their own package which is to end the occupation over Baloch land and that the people of Balochistan will not accept any package for the province.
Mir Hasil Khan Bazinjo of National Party while talking to a private TV channel said that practical steps including tracing missing people, release of Baloch leaders and withdrawing of FC from the province were needed before announcing any package.
President Awami National Party (ANP) Balochistan, Commander Khudad Khan while talking to a private TV channel termed the proposed package a positive development, saying it would be difficult to say before the announcement of the package.
Asked about the issue of the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti, he said that the courts wil have to decide as the issue was in court
Suicide Blast Kills 25 in Pakistan
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A suicide car bomb attack on Friday in a Shiite marketplace in northwest Pakistan has killed at least 25 people and wounded 36, a police commander in the city of Kohat said.
The attack flattened a two-story hotel and a number of shops at the Kacha Pakha bazaar. Rescue teams worked through the afternoon to pull victims from the rubble. The bomb contained more than 300 pounds of explosives, Ali Hassan Khan, the police commander, said
Kohat is a market town in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province about 30 miles south of the volatile city of Peshawar and 100 miles west of the capital, Islamabad.
The Kohat district is predominantly Sunni Muslim, and its outlying areas have long served as a safe haven for Taliban fighters. But there are a number of Shiite communities in the district as well, and sectarian violence there has been chronic and deadly.
A crowd of Shiite residents in Kohat town, angry at the failure of the police to provide security in their vulnerable neighborhoods, attacked a police car with rocks when it arrived at the scene of the blast on Friday.
Recent operations by the police and government security forces against Taliban militants have further heightened tensions in the district.
The News International, an English-language newspaper in Pakistan, reported the arrests of 22 suspected Taliban insurgents on Monday — along with the seizure of dozens of weapons and 11 pounds of hashish — followed by eight more arrests on Thursday.
The police also demolished the houses of two fugitive insurgents in the Kohat district, the paper said, which resulted in the reprisal bombing of the home of a member of a pro-government militia.
Also Thursday, a bomb exploded in a Kohat electronics shop, injuring at least three people. Five neighboring shops were demolished by the bomb, which had been planted in a barrel of clarified butter.
The attack flattened a two-story hotel and a number of shops at the Kacha Pakha bazaar. Rescue teams worked through the afternoon to pull victims from the rubble. The bomb contained more than 300 pounds of explosives, Ali Hassan Khan, the police commander, said
Kohat is a market town in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province about 30 miles south of the volatile city of Peshawar and 100 miles west of the capital, Islamabad.
The Kohat district is predominantly Sunni Muslim, and its outlying areas have long served as a safe haven for Taliban fighters. But there are a number of Shiite communities in the district as well, and sectarian violence there has been chronic and deadly.
A crowd of Shiite residents in Kohat town, angry at the failure of the police to provide security in their vulnerable neighborhoods, attacked a police car with rocks when it arrived at the scene of the blast on Friday.
Recent operations by the police and government security forces against Taliban militants have further heightened tensions in the district.
The News International, an English-language newspaper in Pakistan, reported the arrests of 22 suspected Taliban insurgents on Monday — along with the seizure of dozens of weapons and 11 pounds of hashish — followed by eight more arrests on Thursday.
The police also demolished the houses of two fugitive insurgents in the Kohat district, the paper said, which resulted in the reprisal bombing of the home of a member of a pro-government militia.
Also Thursday, a bomb exploded in a Kohat electronics shop, injuring at least three people. Five neighboring shops were demolished by the bomb, which had been planted in a barrel of clarified butter.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Obama to measure progress of Afghan war
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration cited general objectives, including security and government development, as part of its plan to measure success in Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to a plan provided to Congress on Wednesday.
Each general objective will have a series of "metrics," measurements that will be used to gauge progress in each area, according to a copy of the plan obtained from a member of Congress who was briefed on the plan's contents.
The objectives include:
• Disrupting terrorist networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan;
• Helping Pakistan enhance its civilian, constitutional government;
• Developing Pakistan's counterinsurgency capabilities;
• Increasing international involvement in stabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan;
• Defeating the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and securing the Afghan population;
• Training more Afghan security forces;
• Improving the capability of the Afghan government while reducing corruption.
In March, President Obama said the administration "will not blindly stay the course" in Afghanistan and will set "clear metrics" to gauge progress.
The metrics used to calculate progress will start from conditions on July 17 as measured by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the plan says.
Obstacles stand in the way of success. For example, the winner of Afghanistan's presidential election held Aug. 20 has yet to be determined because of extensive allegations of voter fraud.
Many of the details remain classified, the report says.
One member of Congress said it will be hard to measure ultimate success.
"What they didn't get into is at what point do they consider those objectives met," said Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, a Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee. "When is the war over?"
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that winning the war will probably require additional troops.
Mullen said he expects that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, will ask for more troops. The request is not likely until after McChrystal's assessment of conditions in Afghanistan has been reviewed by the White House and the Department of Defense.
Obama said Wednesday that the assessment will determine whether there is a need for more troops. "You have to get the strategy right and then make determinations about resources," Obama said.
There are also plans to hire a panel of outside experts to review the same material and make their own judgments about success in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration cited general objectives, including security and government development, as part of its plan to measure success in Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to a plan provided to Congress on Wednesday.
Each general objective will have a series of "metrics," measurements that will be used to gauge progress in each area, according to a copy of the plan obtained from a member of Congress who was briefed on the plan's contents.
The objectives include:
• Disrupting terrorist networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan;
• Helping Pakistan enhance its civilian, constitutional government;
• Developing Pakistan's counterinsurgency capabilities;
• Increasing international involvement in stabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan;
• Defeating the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and securing the Afghan population;
• Training more Afghan security forces;
• Improving the capability of the Afghan government while reducing corruption.
In March, President Obama said the administration "will not blindly stay the course" in Afghanistan and will set "clear metrics" to gauge progress.
The metrics used to calculate progress will start from conditions on July 17 as measured by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the plan says.
Obstacles stand in the way of success. For example, the winner of Afghanistan's presidential election held Aug. 20 has yet to be determined because of extensive allegations of voter fraud.
Many of the details remain classified, the report says.
One member of Congress said it will be hard to measure ultimate success.
"What they didn't get into is at what point do they consider those objectives met," said Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, a Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee. "When is the war over?"
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that winning the war will probably require additional troops.
Mullen said he expects that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, will ask for more troops. The request is not likely until after McChrystal's assessment of conditions in Afghanistan has been reviewed by the White House and the Department of Defense.
Obama said Wednesday that the assessment will determine whether there is a need for more troops. "You have to get the strategy right and then make determinations about resources," Obama said.
There are also plans to hire a panel of outside experts to review the same material and make their own judgments about success in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Michelle Obama At a New Farmer’s Market
First Lady Michelle Obama celebrated the opening of a new farmers market near the White House on Thursday.
‘US spending more in Afghanistan than in Pakistan’
WASHINGTON: The United States is spending much more on the war in Afghanistan and also in terms of non-military aid for the country, as compared to Pakistan, Islamabad’s Ambassador to the US Hussain Haqqani said on Wednesday.Haqqani made the comments at the US Senate during a discussion on “Fighting Insurgencies with Laptops”, organised by the One Laptop per Child (OLPC), a non-profit organisation.
Haqqani said the US was spending 30 times more on per-capita basis in the war in Afghanistan than what it was on Pakistan. “Similarly, the United States is spending eight times more on its non-military assistance to Afghanistan as compared to its spending on Pakistan,” he pointed out.Haqqani unequivocally stated that Pakistan should not be bracketed with Afghanistan. He stressed that Afghanistan was the country’s neighbour and Pakistan enjoyed brotherly ties with the war-torn country. However, Pakistan’s strength and assets were tangible and formidable, he said.The term ‘Af-Pak’ was “unwarranted and counter to the geo-political realities,” the ambassador added.
Haqqani said the US was spending 30 times more on per-capita basis in the war in Afghanistan than what it was on Pakistan. “Similarly, the United States is spending eight times more on its non-military assistance to Afghanistan as compared to its spending on Pakistan,” he pointed out.Haqqani unequivocally stated that Pakistan should not be bracketed with Afghanistan. He stressed that Afghanistan was the country’s neighbour and Pakistan enjoyed brotherly ties with the war-torn country. However, Pakistan’s strength and assets were tangible and formidable, he said.The term ‘Af-Pak’ was “unwarranted and counter to the geo-political realities,” the ambassador added.
Obama junks Bush's European missile defense plan
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama abruptly canceled a long-planned missile shield for Eastern Europe on Thursday, replacing a Bush-era project that was bitterly opposed by Russia with a plan he contended would better defend against a growing threat of Iranian missiles.
The United States will no longer seek to erect a missile base and radar site in Poland and the Czech Republic, poised at Russia's hemline. That change is bound to please the Russians, who had never accepted U.S. arguments, made by both the Bush and Obama administrations, that the shield was intended strictly as a defense against Iran and other "rogue states."
Scrapping the planned shield, however, means upending agreements with the host countries that had cost those allies political support among their own people. Obama called Polish and Czech leaders ahead of his announcement, and a team of senior diplomats and others flew to Europe to lay out the new plan.
"Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies," Obama said in announcing the shift.
The replacement system would link smaller radar systems with a network of sensors and missiles that could be deployed at sea or on land. Some of the weaponry and sensors are ready now, and the rest would be developed over the next 10 years.
The Pentagon contemplates a system of perhaps 40 missiles by 2015, at two or three sites across Europe. That would augment a larger stockpile aboard ships. The replacement system would cost an estimated $2.5 billion, compared with $5 billion over the same timeframe under the old plan. The cost savings would be less, however, because the Pentagon is locked into work on some elements of the old system.
The change comes days before Obama is to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the United Nations and the Group of 20 economic summit. Medvedev reacted positively, calling it a "responsible move."
"The U.S. president's decision is a well-thought-out and systematic one," said Konstantin Kosachev, head of the foreign affairs committee in the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament. "Now we can talk about restoration of the strategic partnership between Russia and the United States."
At the same time, Russia's top diplomat warned that Moscow remains opposed to new punitive sanctions on Iran to stop what the West contends is a drive toward nuclear weapons.
The spokesman of Iran's parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy, Kazem Jalali, called the decision positive, though in a backhanded way.
"It would be more positive if President Obama entirely give up such plans, which were based on the Bush administration's Iran-phobic policies," Jalali told The Associated Press.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iran's changing capabilities drove the decision, not any concern about the Russians, but he acknowledged that the replacement system was likely to allay some of Russia's concerns.
American reaction quickly split along partisan lines. Longtime Republican supporters of the missile defense idea called the switch naive and a sop to Russia. Democrats welcomed the move, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling it "brilliant."
"The administration apparently has decided to empower Russia and Iran at the expense of the national security interests of the United States and our allies in Europe," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.
The Democratic chairman of that committee, Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, told the AP the shift reflected a proper understanding of the current threat from Iran.
"It's about short- and medium-range missiles," Skelton said.
The Obama administration said the shift is a common sense answer to the evolution of both the threat and the U.S. understanding of it. Iran has not shown that it is close to being able to lob a long-range missile, perhaps with a nuclear warhead, at U.S. allies in Europe. The Bush administration had calculated that Iran might be able to do that as soon as 2012, but the new assessment pushes the date back to 2018 or later.
Iran has improved its ability to launch shorter-range missiles, however, and despite the crude nature of some of those weapons the Pentagon now considers them a greater short-term threat.
The United States will join international talks with Iran next month, a major shift that makes good on Obama's campaign pledge to engage the main U.S. adversary in the Middle East.
The new government in Washington had never sounded enthusiastic about the Bush administration's European missile defense arrangement, in part because Russia's adamant opposition was getting in the way of repairing damaged ties with Moscow and partly because some in the new administration felt Russia had a point. Moscow said the system could undermine its own deterrent capability.
Almost as Obama spoke at the White House, the Russian ambassador was summoned there to get the news from national security adviser James Jones.
It is unclear whether any part of the future system would be in Poland or the Czech Republic. Gates said it might, and he also said he hopes Poland will still approve a broad military cooperation agreement with the United States.
In an interview, the Pentagon's point-man on missile defense, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, stressed that development of the old ground-based interceptor system would not stop.
The United States still assumes Iran is driving toward a long-range, intercontinental ballistic missile, and the system once planned for Poland would provide additional defense against that eventual threat, Cartwright said.
The United States will no longer seek to erect a missile base and radar site in Poland and the Czech Republic, poised at Russia's hemline. That change is bound to please the Russians, who had never accepted U.S. arguments, made by both the Bush and Obama administrations, that the shield was intended strictly as a defense against Iran and other "rogue states."
Scrapping the planned shield, however, means upending agreements with the host countries that had cost those allies political support among their own people. Obama called Polish and Czech leaders ahead of his announcement, and a team of senior diplomats and others flew to Europe to lay out the new plan.
"Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies," Obama said in announcing the shift.
The replacement system would link smaller radar systems with a network of sensors and missiles that could be deployed at sea or on land. Some of the weaponry and sensors are ready now, and the rest would be developed over the next 10 years.
The Pentagon contemplates a system of perhaps 40 missiles by 2015, at two or three sites across Europe. That would augment a larger stockpile aboard ships. The replacement system would cost an estimated $2.5 billion, compared with $5 billion over the same timeframe under the old plan. The cost savings would be less, however, because the Pentagon is locked into work on some elements of the old system.
The change comes days before Obama is to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the United Nations and the Group of 20 economic summit. Medvedev reacted positively, calling it a "responsible move."
"The U.S. president's decision is a well-thought-out and systematic one," said Konstantin Kosachev, head of the foreign affairs committee in the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament. "Now we can talk about restoration of the strategic partnership between Russia and the United States."
At the same time, Russia's top diplomat warned that Moscow remains opposed to new punitive sanctions on Iran to stop what the West contends is a drive toward nuclear weapons.
The spokesman of Iran's parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy, Kazem Jalali, called the decision positive, though in a backhanded way.
"It would be more positive if President Obama entirely give up such plans, which were based on the Bush administration's Iran-phobic policies," Jalali told The Associated Press.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iran's changing capabilities drove the decision, not any concern about the Russians, but he acknowledged that the replacement system was likely to allay some of Russia's concerns.
American reaction quickly split along partisan lines. Longtime Republican supporters of the missile defense idea called the switch naive and a sop to Russia. Democrats welcomed the move, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling it "brilliant."
"The administration apparently has decided to empower Russia and Iran at the expense of the national security interests of the United States and our allies in Europe," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.
The Democratic chairman of that committee, Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, told the AP the shift reflected a proper understanding of the current threat from Iran.
"It's about short- and medium-range missiles," Skelton said.
The Obama administration said the shift is a common sense answer to the evolution of both the threat and the U.S. understanding of it. Iran has not shown that it is close to being able to lob a long-range missile, perhaps with a nuclear warhead, at U.S. allies in Europe. The Bush administration had calculated that Iran might be able to do that as soon as 2012, but the new assessment pushes the date back to 2018 or later.
Iran has improved its ability to launch shorter-range missiles, however, and despite the crude nature of some of those weapons the Pentagon now considers them a greater short-term threat.
The United States will join international talks with Iran next month, a major shift that makes good on Obama's campaign pledge to engage the main U.S. adversary in the Middle East.
The new government in Washington had never sounded enthusiastic about the Bush administration's European missile defense arrangement, in part because Russia's adamant opposition was getting in the way of repairing damaged ties with Moscow and partly because some in the new administration felt Russia had a point. Moscow said the system could undermine its own deterrent capability.
Almost as Obama spoke at the White House, the Russian ambassador was summoned there to get the news from national security adviser James Jones.
It is unclear whether any part of the future system would be in Poland or the Czech Republic. Gates said it might, and he also said he hopes Poland will still approve a broad military cooperation agreement with the United States.
In an interview, the Pentagon's point-man on missile defense, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, stressed that development of the old ground-based interceptor system would not stop.
The United States still assumes Iran is driving toward a long-range, intercontinental ballistic missile, and the system once planned for Poland would provide additional defense against that eventual threat, Cartwright said.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
High prices dampen shopping in Peshawar
TheNews.com
PESHAWAR: Spiralling prices have dampened Eid shopping in the provincial metropolis, The News learnt Wednesday.During the last several years, Peshawarites were scared of visiting the public places because of the fear of bomb blasts and other sabotage activities. This year, however, the reason for little number of shoppers in various markets, as compared to previous years, is high prices of almost everything. Besides food items, including flour, sugar, vegetables, fruits and meat, the prices of clothes, both readymade and cloth, shoes and other items have increased manifold.
On the other hand, lack of business activities, unemployment and low income have made it very difficult to celebrate Eid with traditional zeal. Saleem Khan, a shopkeeper of readymade garments, told The News that most people blamed small traders and shopkeepers for the growing prices. About shopping as compared to last year, he said though a huge number of people were visiting bazaars before and after Iftar, most of them were doing window-shopping.Mrs Sardar, a housewife, complained that after Ramazan, the shopping for Eid was yet another test for the middle-class families. Children had demanded a lot of things but they intended to purchase the most essential items, as they could not afford to buy everything, which had been demanded.
Salman and Yasir, two friends studying at the University of Peshawar, expressed their dissatisfaction over the government efforts to control price-hike and said the rulers had nothing to do with problems of a common man. They said they had been visiting shops and bazaars for the last two hours, but did not find any shop selling commodities on reasonable prices.Meanwhile, a brief survey of famous shopping bazaars such as Shaheen Bazaar, Meena Bazaar, Arbab Road, Cantonment, Gora Bazaar and Board Bazaar revealed that the prices of shoes had increased by 10 to 25 per cent, while prices of cloth and clothes by 20 to 30 per cent, as compared to the prices of last year on the eve of Eidul Fitr.The provincial government has already announced release of advance salary for the month of September and the number of shoppers is likely to increase during the next couple of days.
PESHAWAR: Spiralling prices have dampened Eid shopping in the provincial metropolis, The News learnt Wednesday.During the last several years, Peshawarites were scared of visiting the public places because of the fear of bomb blasts and other sabotage activities. This year, however, the reason for little number of shoppers in various markets, as compared to previous years, is high prices of almost everything. Besides food items, including flour, sugar, vegetables, fruits and meat, the prices of clothes, both readymade and cloth, shoes and other items have increased manifold.
On the other hand, lack of business activities, unemployment and low income have made it very difficult to celebrate Eid with traditional zeal. Saleem Khan, a shopkeeper of readymade garments, told The News that most people blamed small traders and shopkeepers for the growing prices. About shopping as compared to last year, he said though a huge number of people were visiting bazaars before and after Iftar, most of them were doing window-shopping.Mrs Sardar, a housewife, complained that after Ramazan, the shopping for Eid was yet another test for the middle-class families. Children had demanded a lot of things but they intended to purchase the most essential items, as they could not afford to buy everything, which had been demanded.
Salman and Yasir, two friends studying at the University of Peshawar, expressed their dissatisfaction over the government efforts to control price-hike and said the rulers had nothing to do with problems of a common man. They said they had been visiting shops and bazaars for the last two hours, but did not find any shop selling commodities on reasonable prices.Meanwhile, a brief survey of famous shopping bazaars such as Shaheen Bazaar, Meena Bazaar, Arbab Road, Cantonment, Gora Bazaar and Board Bazaar revealed that the prices of shoes had increased by 10 to 25 per cent, while prices of cloth and clothes by 20 to 30 per cent, as compared to the prices of last year on the eve of Eidul Fitr.The provincial government has already announced release of advance salary for the month of September and the number of shoppers is likely to increase during the next couple of days.
Rights Group in Pakistan Seeks Answers on Christian’s Death
NewYorkTimes
LAHORE, Pakistan — A Christian man detained on blasphemy charges was found dead in his jail cell on Tuesday in eastern Pakistan. Human rights groups here said he appeared to have been killed , perhaps in collusion with the authorities.
The death of the Christian, Robert Fanish, 20, is part of a rising trend of violence against minorities in Pakistan, a panel of Pakistani human rights groups said in a news conference on Wednesday. It follows the burning deaths of six Christians in July, and mob attacks against Christian houses and a church in March and June.
“This is a pattern,” said Asma Jahangir, the chairwoman of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, a prominent watchdog group that is independent of the government.
Local police officials say Mr. Fanish committed suicide, a claim his family and human rights groups dismissed.
Christians are a tiny minority in Pakistan, with the poorest living at the bottom of the social hierarchy. They are constitutionally barred from running for president.
Mr. Fanish was arrested on Saturday in the village of Jathikai and charged with blasphemy, a statute often used against minorities in Pakistan, human rights groups say. A Muslim family accused him of desecrating a Koran, but his local supporters said the family claimed that he had been admiring their daughter.
Whatever the case, he was taken to a jail in Sialkot, the district capital, and after two days of police questioning he was found dead in his cell, touching off Christian riots.
On Wednesday, the provincial government ordered an investigation into the death and are investigating whether to charge the jail staff with negligence.
The inspector general of prisons for Punjab Province, Kokab Nadeem Warriach, declined to say whether he believed that Mr. Fanish’s death was allowed or perpetrated by police guards. He said in a telephone interview that three prison officials had been suspended, and that the investigation ordered by the provincial government would conclude this week.
The police said Mr. Fanish had hanged himself in his cell, using a strip of material ripped from his clothing. The Joint Action Committee for People’s Rights, an alliance of more than 30 human rights groups, said in a statement that it had talked to witnesses who saw marks of torture on his body.
The group said evidence in the case “raises strong suspicion of the involvement of the jail officials” in Mr. Fanish’s death.
Ms. Jahangir said local politicians often colluded with attackers, covering up their crimes, partly out of a deep-seated prejudice against minorities — Christians and Ahmadis, a minority sect in Islam — and out of a reflexive sympathy with other Muslims.
“These militants who attack minorities are protected by local politicians,” she said. “They protect them and keep their names out of police reports.”
That was what happened in the burning case in July, where the Muslim mob was whipped into a frenzy, apparently by the local leader of a mainstream political party.
Militants, Ms. Jahangir said, “are trying to enforce their will by attacking minorities.”
“They want to grab power,” she said. “They want to make people slaves.”
LAHORE, Pakistan — A Christian man detained on blasphemy charges was found dead in his jail cell on Tuesday in eastern Pakistan. Human rights groups here said he appeared to have been killed , perhaps in collusion with the authorities.
The death of the Christian, Robert Fanish, 20, is part of a rising trend of violence against minorities in Pakistan, a panel of Pakistani human rights groups said in a news conference on Wednesday. It follows the burning deaths of six Christians in July, and mob attacks against Christian houses and a church in March and June.
“This is a pattern,” said Asma Jahangir, the chairwoman of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, a prominent watchdog group that is independent of the government.
Local police officials say Mr. Fanish committed suicide, a claim his family and human rights groups dismissed.
Christians are a tiny minority in Pakistan, with the poorest living at the bottom of the social hierarchy. They are constitutionally barred from running for president.
Mr. Fanish was arrested on Saturday in the village of Jathikai and charged with blasphemy, a statute often used against minorities in Pakistan, human rights groups say. A Muslim family accused him of desecrating a Koran, but his local supporters said the family claimed that he had been admiring their daughter.
Whatever the case, he was taken to a jail in Sialkot, the district capital, and after two days of police questioning he was found dead in his cell, touching off Christian riots.
On Wednesday, the provincial government ordered an investigation into the death and are investigating whether to charge the jail staff with negligence.
The inspector general of prisons for Punjab Province, Kokab Nadeem Warriach, declined to say whether he believed that Mr. Fanish’s death was allowed or perpetrated by police guards. He said in a telephone interview that three prison officials had been suspended, and that the investigation ordered by the provincial government would conclude this week.
The police said Mr. Fanish had hanged himself in his cell, using a strip of material ripped from his clothing. The Joint Action Committee for People’s Rights, an alliance of more than 30 human rights groups, said in a statement that it had talked to witnesses who saw marks of torture on his body.
The group said evidence in the case “raises strong suspicion of the involvement of the jail officials” in Mr. Fanish’s death.
Ms. Jahangir said local politicians often colluded with attackers, covering up their crimes, partly out of a deep-seated prejudice against minorities — Christians and Ahmadis, a minority sect in Islam — and out of a reflexive sympathy with other Muslims.
“These militants who attack minorities are protected by local politicians,” she said. “They protect them and keep their names out of police reports.”
That was what happened in the burning case in July, where the Muslim mob was whipped into a frenzy, apparently by the local leader of a mainstream political party.
Militants, Ms. Jahangir said, “are trying to enforce their will by attacking minorities.”
“They want to grab power,” she said. “They want to make people slaves.”
Japan's new PM, cabinet to take power
TOKYO : Japan's new centre-left government is due to take power on Wednesday in a fresh start for Asia's top economy, which has been under conservative rule for almost all of the post-war era.Yukio Hatoyama, head of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), was to be voted in as prime minister two and a half weeks after his party's stunning election victory changed the country's political landscape."I'm thrilled with the joy of creating history, and at the same time I feel the very grave responsibility for creating history," Hatoyama told reporters in the morning as he came out of his house.Prime Minister Taro Aso and his cabinet resigned en masse early Wednesday, paving the way for the launch of the new government. Aso was in office for less than a year amid sagging voter support ratings.Japan's usually risk-averse voters, tired with a stagnant political system and years of economic malaise, took a chance on Hatoyama's untested DPJ when they threw out Aso's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) on August 30."It will be the start of a new era," Hidekazu Kawai, political science professor emeritus of Gakushuin University, told AFP."But that is not to say the public is euphoric. Voters are very cool and keenly watching whether the DPJ can pull off their agenda. The people are dissatisfied with the LDP. They are also anxious about the DPJ."The landmark change comes a year after the collapse of US investment bank Lehman Brothers triggered the global economic turmoil that hit Japan's export-led economy like few others and raised unemployment to a post-war high.Hatoyama, a US-trained engineering scholar and scion of a political dynasty, has promised to make politics work for the people and to undo an "iron triangle" that existed between the LDP, big business and the state bureaucracy.
He has promised sweeping change on many fronts, from boosting social welfare without raising taxes, to cutting greenhouse emissions and redefining Japan's place in the world by seeking closer ties with its Asian neighbourhood.The start of his government "will be the dawn of Japan's new politics," Hatoyama told DPJ members on the eve of taking power.Within days of taking office, Hatoyama will head to the United States to meet world leaders next week at the United Nations General Assembly, a climate change summit, and a G20 meeting in Pittsburgh on the world economy.Having criticised "US-led globalism" and signalled plans to scale down some ties with the US military, Hatoyama will seek to assure President Barack Obama -- whose message of "change" he echoed -- that Japan is a reliable partner.Japan's Diet legislature was scheduled to open its special lower house session at 1:00 pm local time (0400 GMT) and to elect key posts including the speaker, with Hatoyama expected to be confirmed around 0530 GMT.The upper house was to convene afterwards to confirm his appointment.As new prime minister, Hatoyama is then expected to confirm his cabinet ministers, who traditionally accept their posts in visits to the premier's residence, before the new leader addresses national media.Emperor Akihito was scheduled to welcome the new legislators and hand them their Diet certificates at a palace ceremony in the evening.
He has promised sweeping change on many fronts, from boosting social welfare without raising taxes, to cutting greenhouse emissions and redefining Japan's place in the world by seeking closer ties with its Asian neighbourhood.The start of his government "will be the dawn of Japan's new politics," Hatoyama told DPJ members on the eve of taking power.Within days of taking office, Hatoyama will head to the United States to meet world leaders next week at the United Nations General Assembly, a climate change summit, and a G20 meeting in Pittsburgh on the world economy.Having criticised "US-led globalism" and signalled plans to scale down some ties with the US military, Hatoyama will seek to assure President Barack Obama -- whose message of "change" he echoed -- that Japan is a reliable partner.Japan's Diet legislature was scheduled to open its special lower house session at 1:00 pm local time (0400 GMT) and to elect key posts including the speaker, with Hatoyama expected to be confirmed around 0530 GMT.The upper house was to convene afterwards to confirm his appointment.As new prime minister, Hatoyama is then expected to confirm his cabinet ministers, who traditionally accept their posts in visits to the premier's residence, before the new leader addresses national media.Emperor Akihito was scheduled to welcome the new legislators and hand them their Diet certificates at a palace ceremony in the evening.
Carter: Racism plays major role in opposition to Obama
(CNN)
Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that racial politics played a role in South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's speech to Congress last week and in some of the opposition the president has faced since taking office.
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," Carter told NBC News. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."
"That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply," Carter said.
Carter made similar remarks at an event at his presidential center in Atlanta, Georgia, The Associated Press reported Tuesday, pointing to some protesters who have compared Obama to a Nazi. "Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," the former president said at the Carter Center, according to AP. "It's deeper than that."
He grouped Wilson's shout of "You lie!" during Obama's speech in that category, according to AP. "I think it's based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president," he said.
"The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect."
The House voted Tuesday to formally disapprove of Wilson's behavior during the joint session of Congress. The resolution was approved largely along party lines, with Republicans calling the measure unnecessary partisan politics.
Wilson apologized to the White House last week, but congressional Democrats said he owed the chamber a similar statement of regret.
Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that racial politics played a role in South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's speech to Congress last week and in some of the opposition the president has faced since taking office.
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," Carter told NBC News. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."
"That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply," Carter said.
Carter made similar remarks at an event at his presidential center in Atlanta, Georgia, The Associated Press reported Tuesday, pointing to some protesters who have compared Obama to a Nazi. "Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," the former president said at the Carter Center, according to AP. "It's deeper than that."
He grouped Wilson's shout of "You lie!" during Obama's speech in that category, according to AP. "I think it's based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president," he said.
"The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect."
The House voted Tuesday to formally disapprove of Wilson's behavior during the joint session of Congress. The resolution was approved largely along party lines, with Republicans calling the measure unnecessary partisan politics.
Wilson apologized to the White House last week, but congressional Democrats said he owed the chamber a similar statement of regret.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Squandering the Moment
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)