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.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
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.
Changes in law planned to curb terror
PESHAWAR: The government is introducing major changes to the anti-terrorism law to give sweeping powers to law-enforcement agencies and courts to effectively deal with militancy and terrorism, sources told Dawn.
‘We are living in a changed environment. The new environment has thrown some new challenges and it has emerged that the existing anti-terror law is inadequate and too weak to deal with the new challenges,’ a senior official said.
In early May, shortly before the military launched operation Rah-i-Rast, army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and suggested major amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997. ‘The ball has been rolling since then,’ a military officer said. ‘We need laws to deal with the scourge.’
Some government officials complained that deliberations on the issue had taken too long, while law-enforcement and intelligence agencies continued to round up militants, not only from Swat and Malakand but also other parts of the region.
‘They are being bailed out quicker than babies’ diapers are changed,’ an official remarked.
According to another official, the bill containing the proposed amendments should have been at the Prime Minister’s Secretariat by Sept 3. Over 600 detained militants were awaiting trial, the sources said.
The Minister of State for Law, Mr Afzal Sandhu, acknowledged that the amendments were being finalised and expressed the hope that these would be ready a week after the Eid. ‘We are holding discussion with all stakeholders, including the army,’ the minister told Dawn.
‘A bill containing the amendments will be tabled in parliament if it is in session or promulgated as an ordinance,’ he said.
An official said the military’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch headed by the adjutant general who reports to Gen Kayani was interacting with the federal law division to deliberate on and push through the amendments.
The amendments include doing away with the discretionary powers of anti-terrorism courts to grant bail and remand of the accused.
They provide for procuring and recording evidence through modern communication systems, including video-conferencing, to protect potential witnesses and also to hold trials in prisons for security reasons.
One of the amendments proposes to grant powers to the government instead of the superintendents of police to hold a suspect under preventive detention and increase the remand period to 60 days from 30 days, after informing the ATC of the suspect’s identity and place of detention.
The remand period should not be less than 10 days in any case. It has been proposed that magistrates in Malakand appointed under the Nizam-i-Adl Regulation of 2009 be given special powers to grant remands of terrorism suspects.
‘We have seen that when a court bails out a terrorist or a hardened criminal, witnesses are usually scared of deposing against him which affects the trial. The NAB Ordinance of 1999 and Control of Narcotics Substance Act (CNSA) of 1997 placed similar restrictions on courts,’ an official explained.
Acknowledging that public witnesses are usually reluctant to appear before courts to give evidence against suspects for fear of retribution, it has been proposed that a suspect’s confession before an SP or a senior military officer should be considered valid and given due weightage.
Another proposed amendment seeks forfeiture of the property of offenders involved in terrorism.
Currently, the penalty of forfeiture of property was available only in cases related to hijacking and kidnapping for ransom, the official said. ‘We want the law to be more stringent and tough,’ he said.
It has been proposed that the period for completion of investigation should be extended from seven days to 90 days to allow investigators to gather evidence in what have become more sophisticated and organised terrorism incidents.
It has been proposed that sections relating to publication of proclamation of offenders in national dailies and appointment of advocates for absconding accused in terrorism cases may be deleted from the statute book.
In the existing ATA, a convict has been granted a period of 30 days to appeal against conviction, while the state has been given only 15 days to appeal against acquittal.
A proposed amendment seeks to increase the period of appeal for the state to 30 days to help consolidate and substantiate its case.
More significantly, it has been proposed that the onus to prove innocence should be on the accused.
‘Ordinarily, a suspect is innocent unless proven guilty, while what we are proposing to do is to shift the burden of proving innocence on the suspects who would be considered guilty unless proven innocent,’ the official said.
It has also been proposed to do away with Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that provides for search in the presence of ‘two or more respectable inhabitants of a locality’.
The official said the amendments, if approved, would help the government prosecute terrorists and make them pay for their deeds that caused massive losses of life and property.
‘The public wants all terror leaders to be caught and executed publicly. At the very least what we can do is to ensure that the terrorists don’t get away by finding loopholes in our legal system,’ he said.
‘We are living in a changed environment. The new environment has thrown some new challenges and it has emerged that the existing anti-terror law is inadequate and too weak to deal with the new challenges,’ a senior official said.
In early May, shortly before the military launched operation Rah-i-Rast, army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and suggested major amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997. ‘The ball has been rolling since then,’ a military officer said. ‘We need laws to deal with the scourge.’
Some government officials complained that deliberations on the issue had taken too long, while law-enforcement and intelligence agencies continued to round up militants, not only from Swat and Malakand but also other parts of the region.
‘They are being bailed out quicker than babies’ diapers are changed,’ an official remarked.
According to another official, the bill containing the proposed amendments should have been at the Prime Minister’s Secretariat by Sept 3. Over 600 detained militants were awaiting trial, the sources said.
The Minister of State for Law, Mr Afzal Sandhu, acknowledged that the amendments were being finalised and expressed the hope that these would be ready a week after the Eid. ‘We are holding discussion with all stakeholders, including the army,’ the minister told Dawn.
‘A bill containing the amendments will be tabled in parliament if it is in session or promulgated as an ordinance,’ he said.
An official said the military’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch headed by the adjutant general who reports to Gen Kayani was interacting with the federal law division to deliberate on and push through the amendments.
The amendments include doing away with the discretionary powers of anti-terrorism courts to grant bail and remand of the accused.
They provide for procuring and recording evidence through modern communication systems, including video-conferencing, to protect potential witnesses and also to hold trials in prisons for security reasons.
One of the amendments proposes to grant powers to the government instead of the superintendents of police to hold a suspect under preventive detention and increase the remand period to 60 days from 30 days, after informing the ATC of the suspect’s identity and place of detention.
The remand period should not be less than 10 days in any case. It has been proposed that magistrates in Malakand appointed under the Nizam-i-Adl Regulation of 2009 be given special powers to grant remands of terrorism suspects.
‘We have seen that when a court bails out a terrorist or a hardened criminal, witnesses are usually scared of deposing against him which affects the trial. The NAB Ordinance of 1999 and Control of Narcotics Substance Act (CNSA) of 1997 placed similar restrictions on courts,’ an official explained.
Acknowledging that public witnesses are usually reluctant to appear before courts to give evidence against suspects for fear of retribution, it has been proposed that a suspect’s confession before an SP or a senior military officer should be considered valid and given due weightage.
Another proposed amendment seeks forfeiture of the property of offenders involved in terrorism.
Currently, the penalty of forfeiture of property was available only in cases related to hijacking and kidnapping for ransom, the official said. ‘We want the law to be more stringent and tough,’ he said.
It has been proposed that the period for completion of investigation should be extended from seven days to 90 days to allow investigators to gather evidence in what have become more sophisticated and organised terrorism incidents.
It has been proposed that sections relating to publication of proclamation of offenders in national dailies and appointment of advocates for absconding accused in terrorism cases may be deleted from the statute book.
In the existing ATA, a convict has been granted a period of 30 days to appeal against conviction, while the state has been given only 15 days to appeal against acquittal.
A proposed amendment seeks to increase the period of appeal for the state to 30 days to help consolidate and substantiate its case.
More significantly, it has been proposed that the onus to prove innocence should be on the accused.
‘Ordinarily, a suspect is innocent unless proven guilty, while what we are proposing to do is to shift the burden of proving innocence on the suspects who would be considered guilty unless proven innocent,’ the official said.
It has also been proposed to do away with Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that provides for search in the presence of ‘two or more respectable inhabitants of a locality’.
The official said the amendments, if approved, would help the government prosecute terrorists and make them pay for their deeds that caused massive losses of life and property.
‘The public wants all terror leaders to be caught and executed publicly. At the very least what we can do is to ensure that the terrorists don’t get away by finding loopholes in our legal system,’ he said.
Eid across country on same day: Bilour
PESHAWAR: Senior PUKHTUNKHWA Minister Bashir Ahmed Bilour Tuesday said the tradition of two Eids will be ended and Eid will be celebrated across the country on the same day this year.In a statement issued here, the Minister said the practice of celebrating Eids on different days has always been ridiculed. Therefore, this year the government has decided that only one Eid will be celebrated.He said he will participate in the Ruet-e-Hilal Committee on September 19 along with the Provincial Minister for Religious Affairs and other officials.The Senior Minister directed the police to ensure fool-proof security on the eve of Eid and during Eid shopping.
Pakistan May Take Back Khyber Region from Militants in 10 Days
www.bloomberg.com
Pakistan forces will regain control of the northwest Khyber region, near a key supply route for international troops in Afghanistan, in the next 10 days after destroying a militant network, a government official said.
“We want to demolish the network and command system of the group that is backed by the Taliban,” Tariq Hayat Khan, the government’s political agent in the tribal region, said in a telephone interview today from Peshawar, capital of the North West Frontier Province. Later, troops will “go for the criminals and militants hiding in the mountains.”
The Khyber Agency, to the west of Peshawar, is on the main land route through Pakistan into Afghanistan where NATO-led forces are fighting a resurgent Taliban, mostly in the country’s south. Militants have destroyed trucks carrying supplies and escaped into the area’s rugged mountains.
The Lashkar-e-Islam group, believed to have 600 guerrillas in the Khyber region, is led by Mangal Bagh and backed by Taliban militants based in the South Waziristan tribal area, Khan said. It is involved in kidnapping for ransom, drug dealing and other crimes, he said.
This month’s army operation has killed about 150 militants, Khan said. The military turned its attention to tribal regions including South Waziristan and Khyber after Taliban militants were driven from the Swat Valley to the north. Only a few thousand people have fled the area because of fighting, said Khan, who is the chief administrator for the region.
Interior Minister Rehman Malik says the Taliban is in disarray after the defeat in Swat, where two top leaders were detained last week, and the death in a U.S. missile strike of Baitullah Mehsud, the group’s leader in South Waziristan.
The Khyber administration is recruiting local people into a security force after its more than 700 staff refused to work following threats by militants, Khan said.
Pakistan forces will regain control of the northwest Khyber region, near a key supply route for international troops in Afghanistan, in the next 10 days after destroying a militant network, a government official said.
“We want to demolish the network and command system of the group that is backed by the Taliban,” Tariq Hayat Khan, the government’s political agent in the tribal region, said in a telephone interview today from Peshawar, capital of the North West Frontier Province. Later, troops will “go for the criminals and militants hiding in the mountains.”
The Khyber Agency, to the west of Peshawar, is on the main land route through Pakistan into Afghanistan where NATO-led forces are fighting a resurgent Taliban, mostly in the country’s south. Militants have destroyed trucks carrying supplies and escaped into the area’s rugged mountains.
The Lashkar-e-Islam group, believed to have 600 guerrillas in the Khyber region, is led by Mangal Bagh and backed by Taliban militants based in the South Waziristan tribal area, Khan said. It is involved in kidnapping for ransom, drug dealing and other crimes, he said.
This month’s army operation has killed about 150 militants, Khan said. The military turned its attention to tribal regions including South Waziristan and Khyber after Taliban militants were driven from the Swat Valley to the north. Only a few thousand people have fled the area because of fighting, said Khan, who is the chief administrator for the region.
Interior Minister Rehman Malik says the Taliban is in disarray after the defeat in Swat, where two top leaders were detained last week, and the death in a U.S. missile strike of Baitullah Mehsud, the group’s leader in South Waziristan.
The Khyber administration is recruiting local people into a security force after its more than 700 staff refused to work following threats by militants, Khan said.
Pakistan Army Said to Be Linked to Swat Killings
NewYorkTimes
MINGORA, Pakistan — Two months after the Pakistani Army wrested control of the Swat Valley from Taliban militants, a new campaign of fear has taken hold, with scores, perhaps hundreds, of bodies dumped on the streets in what human rights advocates and local residents say is the work of the military.
In some cases, people may simply have been seeking revenge against the ruthless Taliban, in a society that tends to accept tit-for-tat reprisals, local politicians said.
But the scale of the retaliation, the similarities in the way that many of the victims have been tortured and the systematic nature of the deaths and disappearances in areas that the military firmly controls have led local residents, human rights workers and some Pakistani officials to conclude that the military has had a role in the campaign.
The Pakistani Army, which is supported by the United States and in the absence of effective political leadership is running much of Swat with an iron hand, has strenuously denied any involvement in the killings. The army has acknowledged that bodies have turned up, but its spokesmen assert that the killings are the result of civilians settling scores.
“There are no extrajudicial killings in our system,” said Col. Akhtar Abbas, the army spokesman in Swat. “If something happens, we have a foolproof accountability system.”
But neighbors of the victims and Swat residents say there is something more going on than revenge killings by civilians.
A senior politician from the region and a former interior minister, Aftab Ahmed Sherpao, said he was worried about the army’s involvement in the killings. “There have been reports of extrajudicial killings by the military that are of concern,” he said. “This will not help bring peace.”
Pakistan’s military operations against the Taliban in Swat, begun in May under public pressure from the United States, has been hailed by Washington as a showcase effort of the army’s newfound resolve to defeat the militants. The American ambassador, Anne W. Patterson, visited Mingora, the biggest town in Swat, last week, becoming the first senior American official to go to Swat since the army took over.
Now, concerns over the army’s methods in the area threaten to further taint Washington’s association with the military, cooperation that has been questioned in Congress and has been politically unpopular in Pakistan.
The number of killings suggests that the military is seeking to silence any enthusiasm for the Taliban and to settle accounts for heavy army casualties, said a senior provincial official who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprimand by the army.
A sullen, uncertain atmosphere prevails in Mingora, where people interviewed last week in shops, homes and government institutions nervously complained of the arbitrary and unpredictable army rule.
Bodies, some with torture marks and some with limbs tied and a bullet in the neck or head, have been found on the roads of Mingora and in rural areas that were militant strongholds.
Reports on Sept. 1 in two national daily newspapers, Dawn and The News, said the bodies of 251 people had been found dumped in Swat.
The Human Rights Commission, a nongovernmental organization, disputed that all the victims had been killed by civilians, saying last month that there were credible reports of retaliatory killings by the military. It said that witnesses had seen mass graves and that in some cases, the bodies appeared to be those of militants.
The exact number of alleged killings was impossible to calculate because the presence of human rights monitors was limited by the authorities, the commission said. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which investigates illegal killings, was ordered by the military to leave Swat last month over matters unrelated to the killings, a senior Pakistani government official and the Red Cross said.
In one case, a family filed a petition with the army command last week describing the alleged killing of their son while in military custody. The army has initiated an inquiry, Colonel Abbas, the military spokesman in Swat, said.
The family of the man, Akhtar Ali, 28, said he was arrested at his electrical shop in Mingora in the early evening of Sept. 1 by a group of soldiers. Four days later, Mr. Ali’s body was returned to the family home “tortured to death,” a petition signed by his mother, Jehan Sultana, said.
Colonel Abbas said the army did not acknowledge that Akhtar Ali had been in military custody. If the inquiry found that a member of the army was guilty of the death, he would be disciplined, he said, “whatever the rank.”
According to the family’s account, family members went to army headquarters in Mingora the day after his arrest. “We were assured he would be released,” the petition said. A day or two later they were told he would be home the next day.
Instead, at 6 a.m. on Sept. 5, security forces dropped his body on the doorstep, the statement said. “There was no place on his body not tortured,” the petition said. Nails were “hammered into his body, and cigarettes burned into the skin.”
The petition said Mr. Ali had no relationship with the Taliban.
In another alleged retaliatory killing, a man in his mid-20s, also called Akhtar Ali, was arrested in Mingora on July 22, shortly after the army declared the city safe.
His father, Aziz Ullah, said Mr. Ali had been taken away by soldiers near the family home. The next morning, Mr. Ali’s body was found on the street not far from where he had been picked up, Mr. Ullah said.
“He had spoken in the mosque in favor of the Taliban, but he never picked up a gun,” he said.
The Human Rights Commission report said residents also described mass graves in Kukarai village and in an area between the villages of Daulai and Shah Dheri. Witnesses said some of the bodies in the graves appeared to be those of Taliban militants, the report said. The army has rejected any suggestion that soldiers were involved.
The chief spokesman for the military, Gen. Athar Abbas, said the graves were the result of the Taliban killing their wounded as they retreated and dumping the bodies. The military was dealing with arrested militants through the courts and was seeking changes in the law of evidence to ensure more convictions, General Abbas said.
About 250 to 300 people told the commission of suspected retaliatory killings, a commission official said. In some cases, five people told the group about the same single episode, he said.
A well-to-do landlord, Sher Shah Khan, who had criticized what he termed the army’s early reluctance to confront the militants, said he was not worried about the reports. “If the security services kill in the same manner as the Taliban killed, people have no problem.”
But the principal of a girls’ school, Ziauddin Yousafzi, said the military was making examples of the wrong people.
“The state cannot be barbaric,” he said. “If people see the bodies of the top leaders of the Taliban rather than the body of people like Akhtar Ali, they will be jubilant.”
MINGORA, Pakistan — Two months after the Pakistani Army wrested control of the Swat Valley from Taliban militants, a new campaign of fear has taken hold, with scores, perhaps hundreds, of bodies dumped on the streets in what human rights advocates and local residents say is the work of the military.
In some cases, people may simply have been seeking revenge against the ruthless Taliban, in a society that tends to accept tit-for-tat reprisals, local politicians said.
But the scale of the retaliation, the similarities in the way that many of the victims have been tortured and the systematic nature of the deaths and disappearances in areas that the military firmly controls have led local residents, human rights workers and some Pakistani officials to conclude that the military has had a role in the campaign.
The Pakistani Army, which is supported by the United States and in the absence of effective political leadership is running much of Swat with an iron hand, has strenuously denied any involvement in the killings. The army has acknowledged that bodies have turned up, but its spokesmen assert that the killings are the result of civilians settling scores.
“There are no extrajudicial killings in our system,” said Col. Akhtar Abbas, the army spokesman in Swat. “If something happens, we have a foolproof accountability system.”
But neighbors of the victims and Swat residents say there is something more going on than revenge killings by civilians.
A senior politician from the region and a former interior minister, Aftab Ahmed Sherpao, said he was worried about the army’s involvement in the killings. “There have been reports of extrajudicial killings by the military that are of concern,” he said. “This will not help bring peace.”
Pakistan’s military operations against the Taliban in Swat, begun in May under public pressure from the United States, has been hailed by Washington as a showcase effort of the army’s newfound resolve to defeat the militants. The American ambassador, Anne W. Patterson, visited Mingora, the biggest town in Swat, last week, becoming the first senior American official to go to Swat since the army took over.
Now, concerns over the army’s methods in the area threaten to further taint Washington’s association with the military, cooperation that has been questioned in Congress and has been politically unpopular in Pakistan.
The number of killings suggests that the military is seeking to silence any enthusiasm for the Taliban and to settle accounts for heavy army casualties, said a senior provincial official who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprimand by the army.
A sullen, uncertain atmosphere prevails in Mingora, where people interviewed last week in shops, homes and government institutions nervously complained of the arbitrary and unpredictable army rule.
Bodies, some with torture marks and some with limbs tied and a bullet in the neck or head, have been found on the roads of Mingora and in rural areas that were militant strongholds.
Reports on Sept. 1 in two national daily newspapers, Dawn and The News, said the bodies of 251 people had been found dumped in Swat.
The Human Rights Commission, a nongovernmental organization, disputed that all the victims had been killed by civilians, saying last month that there were credible reports of retaliatory killings by the military. It said that witnesses had seen mass graves and that in some cases, the bodies appeared to be those of militants.
The exact number of alleged killings was impossible to calculate because the presence of human rights monitors was limited by the authorities, the commission said. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which investigates illegal killings, was ordered by the military to leave Swat last month over matters unrelated to the killings, a senior Pakistani government official and the Red Cross said.
In one case, a family filed a petition with the army command last week describing the alleged killing of their son while in military custody. The army has initiated an inquiry, Colonel Abbas, the military spokesman in Swat, said.
The family of the man, Akhtar Ali, 28, said he was arrested at his electrical shop in Mingora in the early evening of Sept. 1 by a group of soldiers. Four days later, Mr. Ali’s body was returned to the family home “tortured to death,” a petition signed by his mother, Jehan Sultana, said.
Colonel Abbas said the army did not acknowledge that Akhtar Ali had been in military custody. If the inquiry found that a member of the army was guilty of the death, he would be disciplined, he said, “whatever the rank.”
According to the family’s account, family members went to army headquarters in Mingora the day after his arrest. “We were assured he would be released,” the petition said. A day or two later they were told he would be home the next day.
Instead, at 6 a.m. on Sept. 5, security forces dropped his body on the doorstep, the statement said. “There was no place on his body not tortured,” the petition said. Nails were “hammered into his body, and cigarettes burned into the skin.”
The petition said Mr. Ali had no relationship with the Taliban.
In another alleged retaliatory killing, a man in his mid-20s, also called Akhtar Ali, was arrested in Mingora on July 22, shortly after the army declared the city safe.
His father, Aziz Ullah, said Mr. Ali had been taken away by soldiers near the family home. The next morning, Mr. Ali’s body was found on the street not far from where he had been picked up, Mr. Ullah said.
“He had spoken in the mosque in favor of the Taliban, but he never picked up a gun,” he said.
The Human Rights Commission report said residents also described mass graves in Kukarai village and in an area between the villages of Daulai and Shah Dheri. Witnesses said some of the bodies in the graves appeared to be those of Taliban militants, the report said. The army has rejected any suggestion that soldiers were involved.
The chief spokesman for the military, Gen. Athar Abbas, said the graves were the result of the Taliban killing their wounded as they retreated and dumping the bodies. The military was dealing with arrested militants through the courts and was seeking changes in the law of evidence to ensure more convictions, General Abbas said.
About 250 to 300 people told the commission of suspected retaliatory killings, a commission official said. In some cases, five people told the group about the same single episode, he said.
A well-to-do landlord, Sher Shah Khan, who had criticized what he termed the army’s early reluctance to confront the militants, said he was not worried about the reports. “If the security services kill in the same manner as the Taliban killed, people have no problem.”
But the principal of a girls’ school, Ziauddin Yousafzi, said the military was making examples of the wrong people.
“The state cannot be barbaric,” he said. “If people see the bodies of the top leaders of the Taliban rather than the body of people like Akhtar Ali, they will be jubilant.”
Top US Military Officer Says More Troops Likely Needed in Afghanistan
U.S. Navy Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that the United States probably will need to send more troops to Afghanistan to win the war against Taliban and al-Qaida insurgents.
U.S. military officials say they are in a race against time and mounting opposition from the American public to reverse the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, where violence has reached its highest level since the Taliban was ousted from power in 2001.
Mullen discussed the troop levels in testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee. "A properly resourced counter-insurgency probably means more forces and without question, more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan people and to the development of good governance," he said.
Mullen did not say how many more soldiers would be needed, but he said he expects a request for additional troops in the next two weeks from U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal, the top American and NATO commander in Afghanistan.
The United States now has about 62,000 troops in Afghanistan, nearly double the number from last year. The number of American forces in Afghanistan is slated to reach 68,000 by year's end.
Despite President Barack Obama's earlier decision to send an additional 17,000 combat troops and 4,000 trainers for Afghan forces, U.S. officials say the security in areas infiltrated by the Taliban continues to worsen.
Admiral Mullen says that if the Taliban retake control of Afghanistan, the country will again be a safe haven for terrorist groups like al-Qaida. "It is the epicenter of terrorism right now. It is very clear that in fact al-Qaida is diminished while it is living in Pakistan, and this is a Pakistan-Afghanistan issue. They are by no means dead. It is a very serious threat," he said.
Mullen called for patience with U.S. and NATO efforts in Afghanistan as the American public and some members of Congress are becoming increasingly uneasy about the conflict.
A recent CNN survey shows that 58 percent of Americans oppose the war, while 39 percent support it.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, Democrat Carl Levin says the Pentagon should not send any additional troops to Afghanistan until the United States takes more aggressive action to expand Afghanistan's armed forces. "Providing the resources needed for the Afghan Army and Afghan police to become self-sufficient would demonstrate our commitment to the success of a mission that is in our national security interest, while avoiding the risks associated with a larger U.S. footprint," he said.
Some members of Congress are urging the Obama administration to learn from the Iraq War, where a surge in U.S. forces helped to quell violence.
"Every day we delay in implementing this strategy and increasing the number of troops there - which we all know is vitally needed - puts more and more young Americans who are already there, their lives in danger," said
Republican Senator John McCain, who says more troops should be deployed quickly.
Admiral Mullen says the situation in Afghanistan will continue to deteriorate without a renewed U.S. commitment.
He says General McChrystal found conditions worse than he expected when he took command a few months ago.
This year has been the deadliest for foreign forces in Afghanistan since the conflict began nearly eight years ago.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Suspected US Missile Kills 4 in Northwest Pakistan
By VOA News
Pakistani officials say a suspected missile strike from a U.S. drone (unmanned aircraft) has killed at least four militants in the North Waziristan tribal region bordering Afghanistan.
The officials say the missile was fired early Monday at a Taliban vehicle in a village near the region's main town of Miran Shah.
Pakistani officials say U.S. unmanned aircraft are believed to have fired more than 40 missiles at suspected al-Qaida and Taliban strongholds in northwest Pakistan in recent months.
American officials rarely discuss the missile strikes, which Pakistan has publicly criticized as counterproductive and a violation of its sovereignty.
On Sunday, a roadside bomb killed three soldiers in western Khyber region, where Pakistani forces launched an offensive against Taliban militants earlier this month.
Taliban militants frequently attack convoys that travel through the Khyber Pass to deliver supplies to U.S. and NATO troops in neighboring Afghanistan. Pakistan has faced strong U.S. pressure to crack down on the militants.
In other news, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik says Pakistani forces are closing in on the commander of the Taliban in Swat, Maulana Fazlullah.
Pakistani forces have retaken control of much of the Swat Valley from the Taliban since beginning an offensive there in April.
In other violence Sunday, two women and two children were killed in a landmine blast in the Dera Bugti district of Baluchistan. Authorities say the landmine had been planted near a house.
Pakistani officials say a suspected missile strike from a U.S. drone (unmanned aircraft) has killed at least four militants in the North Waziristan tribal region bordering Afghanistan.
The officials say the missile was fired early Monday at a Taliban vehicle in a village near the region's main town of Miran Shah.
Pakistani officials say U.S. unmanned aircraft are believed to have fired more than 40 missiles at suspected al-Qaida and Taliban strongholds in northwest Pakistan in recent months.
American officials rarely discuss the missile strikes, which Pakistan has publicly criticized as counterproductive and a violation of its sovereignty.
On Sunday, a roadside bomb killed three soldiers in western Khyber region, where Pakistani forces launched an offensive against Taliban militants earlier this month.
Taliban militants frequently attack convoys that travel through the Khyber Pass to deliver supplies to U.S. and NATO troops in neighboring Afghanistan. Pakistan has faced strong U.S. pressure to crack down on the militants.
In other news, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik says Pakistani forces are closing in on the commander of the Taliban in Swat, Maulana Fazlullah.
Pakistani forces have retaken control of much of the Swat Valley from the Taliban since beginning an offensive there in April.
In other violence Sunday, two women and two children were killed in a landmine blast in the Dera Bugti district of Baluchistan. Authorities say the landmine had been planted near a house.
U.N. rights boss targets Gulf states, Afghanistan
GENEVA - Women around the world are denied fundamental freedoms, the top United Nations human rights official said on Monday, citing in particular the Gulf states, Sudan and Afghanistan.
"Women's rights continue to be curtailed in too many countries," and efforts must be made to address this, Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights told the U.N. Human Rights Council.
She pointed to a "severe backlash against women's rights" in the contested Afghan elections and urged authorities there to take care to stamp out violence related to the vote.
In its latest three-week session, which Pillay opened on Monday, the Council will assess violations around the world, including allegations of war crimes during Israel's invasion of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip in December and January.
It will be the first session of the 47-state body in which a U.S. delegation participates as a voting member, following its election in May.
Washington is expected to back Israel, a close ally, during the Gaza debate set for September 29.
While citing some positive developments in the Gulf region -- including the election of four women to Kuwait's parliament and the appointment of the first female deputy minister in Saudi Arabia -- Pillay said "the overall situation of women falls well short of international standards."
Gulf countries must remove the many exceptions they invoked when ratifying key international human rights treaties, and grant full rights and freedoms for women, she said.
In Sudan, which has signed many rights pacts, a pattern of discrimination against women nevertheless persists, according to the U.N. rights chief who grew up in apartheid-era South Africa.
Lubna Hussein, a former U.N. staff member in Sudan, was sentenced to prison last week by a Khartoum court on charges of dressing indecently in trousers.
Pillay welcomed her subsequent release, after a journalists' union paid her fine, but called on Sudan to "take all necessary steps to address the equality gap".
PEOPLE SMUGGLING
She also voiced alarm that migrants who pay traffickers to attempt to cross the Mediterranean, Caribbean, Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden are risking their lives in search of a better life.
"Today, on the assumption that boats in distress carry migrants, ships pass them by ignoring their pleas for help, in violation of international law," Pillay said in her remarks prepared for the session.
"In many cases, authorities reject these migrants and leave them to face hardship and peril, if not death, as though they were turning away ships laden with hazardous waste," she said.
Migrants are turned away without being given a chance to lodge their requests for asylum, she said. Italy was accused by the U.N. refugee agency this year of mistreating Africans who were stopped from crossing the sea to Europe and diverted to Libya.
"Women's rights continue to be curtailed in too many countries," and efforts must be made to address this, Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights told the U.N. Human Rights Council.
She pointed to a "severe backlash against women's rights" in the contested Afghan elections and urged authorities there to take care to stamp out violence related to the vote.
In its latest three-week session, which Pillay opened on Monday, the Council will assess violations around the world, including allegations of war crimes during Israel's invasion of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip in December and January.
It will be the first session of the 47-state body in which a U.S. delegation participates as a voting member, following its election in May.
Washington is expected to back Israel, a close ally, during the Gaza debate set for September 29.
While citing some positive developments in the Gulf region -- including the election of four women to Kuwait's parliament and the appointment of the first female deputy minister in Saudi Arabia -- Pillay said "the overall situation of women falls well short of international standards."
Gulf countries must remove the many exceptions they invoked when ratifying key international human rights treaties, and grant full rights and freedoms for women, she said.
In Sudan, which has signed many rights pacts, a pattern of discrimination against women nevertheless persists, according to the U.N. rights chief who grew up in apartheid-era South Africa.
Lubna Hussein, a former U.N. staff member in Sudan, was sentenced to prison last week by a Khartoum court on charges of dressing indecently in trousers.
Pillay welcomed her subsequent release, after a journalists' union paid her fine, but called on Sudan to "take all necessary steps to address the equality gap".
PEOPLE SMUGGLING
She also voiced alarm that migrants who pay traffickers to attempt to cross the Mediterranean, Caribbean, Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden are risking their lives in search of a better life.
"Today, on the assumption that boats in distress carry migrants, ships pass them by ignoring their pleas for help, in violation of international law," Pillay said in her remarks prepared for the session.
"In many cases, authorities reject these migrants and leave them to face hardship and peril, if not death, as though they were turning away ships laden with hazardous waste," she said.
Migrants are turned away without being given a chance to lodge their requests for asylum, she said. Italy was accused by the U.N. refugee agency this year of mistreating Africans who were stopped from crossing the sea to Europe and diverted to Libya.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Barack Obama: cynical Republicans trying to kill health care reform
Mr Obama told CBS's 60 Minutes programme on Sunday that regardless of their efforts he had enough support to pass a far-reaching overhaul of a system that was leaking money like a sieve and leaves tens of millions Americans uninsured.
"I think right now you've got just a political environment where there are those in the Republican party who think the best thing to do is just to kill reform, that that will be good politics," he said.
"I believe that we will have enough votes to pass not just any health care bill, but a good health care bill that helps the American people, reduces costs, actually over the long-term controls our [budget] deficit."
Republicans say they oppose Mr Obama's reforms because they come with a hefty price tag of $900 billion and accuse Democrats of seeking a government takeover of health care.
But Mr Obama said, for many, the real agenda is simply to politically cripple his presidency by shooting down the reforms as they did the last time a young Democrat arrived in the White House with similar ideas - Bill Clinton.
"I think there're some who see this as a replay of 1993-94," he said.
"You know, young president comes in, proposes health care. It crashes and burns and then the Republicans use that to win back the House [of Representatives] in the subsequent election ... I think there are some people who are dusting off that play book."
Mr Obama reiterated a pledge to take full responsibility for the failure if his reforms do not put the brakes on the soaring costs of health insurance in America.
"You know, I intend to be president for a while and once this bill passes, I own it," he said.
"And if people look and say, 'You know what? This hasn't reduced my costs. My premiums are still going up 25 percent, insurance companies are still jerkin' me around,' I'm the one who's going to be held responsible."
"I think right now you've got just a political environment where there are those in the Republican party who think the best thing to do is just to kill reform, that that will be good politics," he said.
"I believe that we will have enough votes to pass not just any health care bill, but a good health care bill that helps the American people, reduces costs, actually over the long-term controls our [budget] deficit."
Republicans say they oppose Mr Obama's reforms because they come with a hefty price tag of $900 billion and accuse Democrats of seeking a government takeover of health care.
But Mr Obama said, for many, the real agenda is simply to politically cripple his presidency by shooting down the reforms as they did the last time a young Democrat arrived in the White House with similar ideas - Bill Clinton.
"I think there're some who see this as a replay of 1993-94," he said.
"You know, young president comes in, proposes health care. It crashes and burns and then the Republicans use that to win back the House [of Representatives] in the subsequent election ... I think there are some people who are dusting off that play book."
Mr Obama reiterated a pledge to take full responsibility for the failure if his reforms do not put the brakes on the soaring costs of health insurance in America.
"You know, I intend to be president for a while and once this bill passes, I own it," he said.
"And if people look and say, 'You know what? This hasn't reduced my costs. My premiums are still going up 25 percent, insurance companies are still jerkin' me around,' I'm the one who's going to be held responsible."
US could shift Afghanistan focus towards eastern provinces
www.guardian.co.uk/
The primary focus of the US war strategy in Afghanistan could shift towards the eastern provinces bordering Pakistan and away from the south of the country, where British forces are heavily engaged, under a plan being finalised by commanders.
Senior military officials are said to believe the Afghan Taliban's ability to find sanctuary and support across the porous border with Pakistan ‑ plus the suspected presence in the lawless tribal Waziristan area of al-Qaida leaders including Osama bin Laden ‑ has made a bigger effort in the east essential if the insurgency is to be defeated.
Any move by General Stanley McChrystal, the US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, to concentrate firepower and resources away from Helmand, in the south, could be resisted by British commanders leading an increasingly lethal struggle with insurgents there.
Additional US military pressure along the eastern border would also cause concern in Pakistan, where US aerial drone attacks on al-Qaida and Taliban targets in Waziristan and the Pakistani army's US-driven spring offensive against Pakistani Taliban in Swat are blamed for growing instability.
Asked whether Pakistan was being urged by Washington to launch more Swat-style offensives on its side of the border, a senior Pakistani official insisted Islamabad, not the Americans, would decide.
"Waziristan is sovereign Pakistani territory," the official said. "We will decide what happens there, and when it happens."
Fighting along the Pakistani side of the border appears to be spreading.
Reports today said Pakistani helicopter gunships had killed 22 militants and destroyed three hideouts in attacks in the Khyber region, which abuts Peshawar. Around 150 insurgents are thought to have died in the area over recent weeks.
US officials, speaking during a recent visit by Barack Obama's special representative in the region, Richard Holbrooke, said particular attention should be paid to Jalaluddin Haqqani and other insurgent leaders in eastern Afghanistan's mountains.
According to an account in the Washington Post, Major General Curtis Scaparrotti, US commander of forces in the east, said Haqqani "is the central threat" in the area and "he's expanded that reach".
Other commanders said Haqqani ‑ whose forces were formerly most active in Afghanistan's Khost province ‑ had been advancing as far south as Paktia and Paktika provinces.
This month, McChrystal presented the broad outline of his Afghanistan strategic review to Obama, placing greater importance on the need to protect Afghan civilians and increase security as a means of encouraging political and economic development.
But the specifics of the new strategy, including the location and number of expected additional troops deployments, are still being debated.
McChrystal, who took charge in June, is said to have questioned whether the fight in the south is as crucial to defeating the insurgency as the British government has always maintained.
Reports from Washington indicate that he could ask for up to 45,000 additional troops, which would take the number of US forces well above 100,000.
US forces in the east currently total around 7,000 after McChrystal's predecessor, General David McKiernan, doubled their number. Some of the 21,000 extra troops sent to Afghanistan by Obama earlier this year also reinforced the British in the south.
The new strategy faces problems at home as well as in Afghanistan. Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat speaker of the US House of Representatives and a key Obama ally, said at the weekend that she saw little support in Congress or the country for an escalation in Afghanistan.
Holbrooke, whose remit includes both Afghanistan and Pakistan, has dealt with the two countries as one connected problem since taking up his post earlier this year, to the annoyance of officials in Islamabad. He has also clashed with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, over the conduct of last month's still undecided presidential election.
In a move linked to the new US emphasis on winning over the Afghan population, the Obama administration will issue guidelines intended to give prisoners at the US-run Bagram detention centre greater latitude in challenging their detention, the New York Times reported today.
The newspaper said each of the approximately 600 detainees would be assigned a US military official who would have the authority to look for evidence, including witnesses and classified material, for any detainee challenging his detention. A military-appointed review board would hear the challenges.
Bagram detainees ‑ some of whom have been held for more than five years ‑ currently have no access to lawyers or the right to hear the accusations against them.
The primary focus of the US war strategy in Afghanistan could shift towards the eastern provinces bordering Pakistan and away from the south of the country, where British forces are heavily engaged, under a plan being finalised by commanders.
Senior military officials are said to believe the Afghan Taliban's ability to find sanctuary and support across the porous border with Pakistan ‑ plus the suspected presence in the lawless tribal Waziristan area of al-Qaida leaders including Osama bin Laden ‑ has made a bigger effort in the east essential if the insurgency is to be defeated.
Any move by General Stanley McChrystal, the US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, to concentrate firepower and resources away from Helmand, in the south, could be resisted by British commanders leading an increasingly lethal struggle with insurgents there.
Additional US military pressure along the eastern border would also cause concern in Pakistan, where US aerial drone attacks on al-Qaida and Taliban targets in Waziristan and the Pakistani army's US-driven spring offensive against Pakistani Taliban in Swat are blamed for growing instability.
Asked whether Pakistan was being urged by Washington to launch more Swat-style offensives on its side of the border, a senior Pakistani official insisted Islamabad, not the Americans, would decide.
"Waziristan is sovereign Pakistani territory," the official said. "We will decide what happens there, and when it happens."
Fighting along the Pakistani side of the border appears to be spreading.
Reports today said Pakistani helicopter gunships had killed 22 militants and destroyed three hideouts in attacks in the Khyber region, which abuts Peshawar. Around 150 insurgents are thought to have died in the area over recent weeks.
US officials, speaking during a recent visit by Barack Obama's special representative in the region, Richard Holbrooke, said particular attention should be paid to Jalaluddin Haqqani and other insurgent leaders in eastern Afghanistan's mountains.
According to an account in the Washington Post, Major General Curtis Scaparrotti, US commander of forces in the east, said Haqqani "is the central threat" in the area and "he's expanded that reach".
Other commanders said Haqqani ‑ whose forces were formerly most active in Afghanistan's Khost province ‑ had been advancing as far south as Paktia and Paktika provinces.
This month, McChrystal presented the broad outline of his Afghanistan strategic review to Obama, placing greater importance on the need to protect Afghan civilians and increase security as a means of encouraging political and economic development.
But the specifics of the new strategy, including the location and number of expected additional troops deployments, are still being debated.
McChrystal, who took charge in June, is said to have questioned whether the fight in the south is as crucial to defeating the insurgency as the British government has always maintained.
Reports from Washington indicate that he could ask for up to 45,000 additional troops, which would take the number of US forces well above 100,000.
US forces in the east currently total around 7,000 after McChrystal's predecessor, General David McKiernan, doubled their number. Some of the 21,000 extra troops sent to Afghanistan by Obama earlier this year also reinforced the British in the south.
The new strategy faces problems at home as well as in Afghanistan. Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat speaker of the US House of Representatives and a key Obama ally, said at the weekend that she saw little support in Congress or the country for an escalation in Afghanistan.
Holbrooke, whose remit includes both Afghanistan and Pakistan, has dealt with the two countries as one connected problem since taking up his post earlier this year, to the annoyance of officials in Islamabad. He has also clashed with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, over the conduct of last month's still undecided presidential election.
In a move linked to the new US emphasis on winning over the Afghan population, the Obama administration will issue guidelines intended to give prisoners at the US-run Bagram detention centre greater latitude in challenging their detention, the New York Times reported today.
The newspaper said each of the approximately 600 detainees would be assigned a US military official who would have the authority to look for evidence, including witnesses and classified material, for any detainee challenging his detention. A military-appointed review board would hear the challenges.
Bagram detainees ‑ some of whom have been held for more than five years ‑ currently have no access to lawyers or the right to hear the accusations against them.
Opposition leader Abdullah calls for criminal inquiry into vote rigging
www.timesonline.co.uk
Afghanistan’s opposition leader has called for a criminal investigation into allegations of massive vote rigging in last month’s elections — and accused his rival, President Hamid Karzai, of treason in an exclusive interview with The Times.
Abdullah Abdullah, the country’s former foreign minister, charged Mr Karzai with “state-engineered fraud” in the August 20 polls. “It’s worse than a crime, it’s treason,” he said, adding that Mr Karzai “doesn’t think about the country, he thinks only of himself. He has been caught red-handed.”
Mr Abdullah is trailing Mr Karzai in partial results published by the Independent Elections Commission (IEC), an organisation that he claims is under the control of the President’s supporters. A UN-backed elections watchdog ordered the IEC to begin a massive recount of votes last week, saying that it had unearthed “clear and convincing evidence of fraud”.
Although Mr Karzai narrowly passed the 50 per cent threshold that would allow him to avoid a run-off, the recount could push his support back below that level, meaning that the country might have to vote for a second time.
The IEC has given warning that the process could take months, by which time Afghanistan’s harsh winter will have set in, possibly precluding another vote until the spring. The process could leave the country rudderless for months at a time when the Taleban is re-emerging as a dangerous force. Both sides have rejected international calls for a unity government.
“What’s at stake is Afghanistan, the future of this country,” said Mr Abdullah. “The country will die because of this sort of thing. Fraud is the extension of this corruption which prevailed in this system.”
Mr Abdullah acknowledged that although an investigation was required, there was at present no independent judiciary to take up the task. He said that an interim government was needed to run the country, not only to take it through the end of Mr Karzai’s mandate, which expired officially in May, but also to prevent him from manipulating a second round of voting.
“Let’s get to an interim situation so he’s not on top of that. There has to be some new measures because we’ll go the same path with the same people,” said Mr Abdullah, reeling off examples of ministries and government institutions that he claimed had been used by Mr Karzai to manipulate the original election.
One of those compromised institutions is the Arbakai, the government-sponsored tribal militias that protect many of the country’s highways and official institutions. Mr Abdullah said that funds set aside to allow the Arbakai to guard polling centres — a move blocked at the last minute by the international community over fears of voter intimidation — had been siphoned off to pay tribal elders to vote for Mr Karzai.
That allegation has been backed up by international election monitors, who cited numerous witness testimonies indicating that the Arbakai had been manipulated to support the president’s re-election campaign.
Observers said that Arbakai cash had been handed out to tribal elders in Gardez, the capital of the southeastern province of Paktia, to convince their communities to vote for Mr Karzai, in particular by accepting the voting cards of women who did not go to polling stations on election day because of security concerns.
Witnesses said that some of the elders had been paid $4,000, (£2,395) and one as much as $8,000, to ensure their loyalty.
“That’s everybody’s tax dollars directly going to corruption,” said Mr Abdullah. “Hopefully we can save the process. If we can’t, I don’t think this situation can sustain itself. This jeopardizes the remaining opportunity that we have, which is the support of the international community. Your soldiers are dying and on top of every other problem there is illegitimate rule for another five years.”
His comments came during a weekend which saw a fresh surge of violence, as Taleban militants killed 45 people, including five American soldiers, in a number of attacks and bombings across the country.
Last week, the International Council on Security and Development, an independent think-tank operating in Afghanistan, warned that the Taleban had established a permanent presence in 80 per cent of the country and a “substantial” presence in a further 17 per cent of it.
Afghanistan’s opposition leader has called for a criminal investigation into allegations of massive vote rigging in last month’s elections — and accused his rival, President Hamid Karzai, of treason in an exclusive interview with The Times.
Abdullah Abdullah, the country’s former foreign minister, charged Mr Karzai with “state-engineered fraud” in the August 20 polls. “It’s worse than a crime, it’s treason,” he said, adding that Mr Karzai “doesn’t think about the country, he thinks only of himself. He has been caught red-handed.”
Mr Abdullah is trailing Mr Karzai in partial results published by the Independent Elections Commission (IEC), an organisation that he claims is under the control of the President’s supporters. A UN-backed elections watchdog ordered the IEC to begin a massive recount of votes last week, saying that it had unearthed “clear and convincing evidence of fraud”.
Although Mr Karzai narrowly passed the 50 per cent threshold that would allow him to avoid a run-off, the recount could push his support back below that level, meaning that the country might have to vote for a second time.
The IEC has given warning that the process could take months, by which time Afghanistan’s harsh winter will have set in, possibly precluding another vote until the spring. The process could leave the country rudderless for months at a time when the Taleban is re-emerging as a dangerous force. Both sides have rejected international calls for a unity government.
“What’s at stake is Afghanistan, the future of this country,” said Mr Abdullah. “The country will die because of this sort of thing. Fraud is the extension of this corruption which prevailed in this system.”
Mr Abdullah acknowledged that although an investigation was required, there was at present no independent judiciary to take up the task. He said that an interim government was needed to run the country, not only to take it through the end of Mr Karzai’s mandate, which expired officially in May, but also to prevent him from manipulating a second round of voting.
“Let’s get to an interim situation so he’s not on top of that. There has to be some new measures because we’ll go the same path with the same people,” said Mr Abdullah, reeling off examples of ministries and government institutions that he claimed had been used by Mr Karzai to manipulate the original election.
One of those compromised institutions is the Arbakai, the government-sponsored tribal militias that protect many of the country’s highways and official institutions. Mr Abdullah said that funds set aside to allow the Arbakai to guard polling centres — a move blocked at the last minute by the international community over fears of voter intimidation — had been siphoned off to pay tribal elders to vote for Mr Karzai.
That allegation has been backed up by international election monitors, who cited numerous witness testimonies indicating that the Arbakai had been manipulated to support the president’s re-election campaign.
Observers said that Arbakai cash had been handed out to tribal elders in Gardez, the capital of the southeastern province of Paktia, to convince their communities to vote for Mr Karzai, in particular by accepting the voting cards of women who did not go to polling stations on election day because of security concerns.
Witnesses said that some of the elders had been paid $4,000, (£2,395) and one as much as $8,000, to ensure their loyalty.
“That’s everybody’s tax dollars directly going to corruption,” said Mr Abdullah. “Hopefully we can save the process. If we can’t, I don’t think this situation can sustain itself. This jeopardizes the remaining opportunity that we have, which is the support of the international community. Your soldiers are dying and on top of every other problem there is illegitimate rule for another five years.”
His comments came during a weekend which saw a fresh surge of violence, as Taleban militants killed 45 people, including five American soldiers, in a number of attacks and bombings across the country.
Last week, the International Council on Security and Development, an independent think-tank operating in Afghanistan, warned that the Taleban had established a permanent presence in 80 per cent of the country and a “substantial” presence in a further 17 per cent of it.
A Somber Warning on Afghanistan
GENEVA — Western powers now in Afghanistan run the risk of suffering the fate of the Soviet Union there if they cannot halt the growing insurgency and an Afghan perception that they are foreign invaders, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former U.S. national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter.
In a speech opening a weekend gathering of military and foreign policy experts, Mr. Brzezinski, who was national security adviser when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in late 1979, endorsed a British and German call, backed by France, for a new international conference on the country. He also set the tone for a weekend of somber assessments of the situation.
He noted that it took about 300 U.S. Special Forces — fighting with Northern Alliance troops — to overthrow Taliban rule after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.
Now, however, with about 100,000 U.S. and allied troops in Afghanistan, those forces are increasingly perceived as foreign invaders, much as the Soviet troops were from the start, Mr. Brzezinski said.
For President Barack Obama, Afghanistan is the foreign policy issue that has “perhaps the greatest need for strategic review,” said Mr. Brzezinski, who met with Mr. Obama during the presidential campaign last year, and endorsed his candidacy but was not a formal adviser.
“We are running the risk of replicating — obviously unintentionally — the fate of the Soviets,” Mr. Brzezinski said in his speech Friday night.
The presence of so many foreign troops underpins an Afghan perception that the Americans and their allies are hostile invaders and “suggests transformation of the conflict is taking place,” he added.
A new international conference would help devise a more refined strategy, Mr. Brzezinski said in a brief interview Sunday. Using the military to support a development strategy would help prolong the European presence, he suggested — “our European friends are less likely to leave us in the lurch.”
If the United States is left alone in Afghanistan, Mr. Brzezinski said Friday night, “that would probably spell the end of the Alliance.”
A discussion on Afghanistan on Saturday featured, among others, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British foreign secretary’s special representative for Afghanistan and a former British ambassador to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
“All is not doom and gloom in Afghanistan,” Sir Sherard told the conference, the Global Strategic Review of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, a nongovernment organization. But “walking away would destroy everything that has been achieved.”
“The pullout option is not one that any government could responsibly follow,” he added, emphasizing, that America’s role was crucial. “While Obama remains committed, we remain committed.”
In calling last weekend for a conference on Afghanistan, Britain and Germany seemed anxious both to dispel the tension that has arisen surrounding the election there last month, in which foreign observers say there were clear incidents of fraud, and to shift emphasis away from the rising numbers of foreign troops.
Sir Sherard suggested the solution lay in devolving political power back to tribal elders who have traditionally held sway in Afghanistan, and funneling money for development through them.
With 68,000 troops from the United States expected by the end of the year and some 40,000 from other countries, numbers — and the rising number of deaths and casualties — are going to influence not only hostile Afghans but Western public support for the Afghan mission.
Speakers at the conference said that Americans are unlikely for long to support maintaining many times the number of troops from Britain, Germany and France, the three European allies who have sent the most soldiers to Afghanistan.
What is needed now is “the intelligent application of military force” alongside long-promised development strategies, Sir Sherard said, evoking what he called a dream that, by 2011, a truckload of pomegranates would be able to pass unhindered from Afghanistan through Pakistan and into India, that Western students could study Afghan archaeological ruins, and that posters in the Pashto language inviting Pashtuns to “come on over” from the Taliban would be tattered remnants — unneeded rather than unheeded — on the roadsides of southern Afghanistan.
“That,” he stressed, “is the dream.”
In a speech opening a weekend gathering of military and foreign policy experts, Mr. Brzezinski, who was national security adviser when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in late 1979, endorsed a British and German call, backed by France, for a new international conference on the country. He also set the tone for a weekend of somber assessments of the situation.
He noted that it took about 300 U.S. Special Forces — fighting with Northern Alliance troops — to overthrow Taliban rule after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.
Now, however, with about 100,000 U.S. and allied troops in Afghanistan, those forces are increasingly perceived as foreign invaders, much as the Soviet troops were from the start, Mr. Brzezinski said.
For President Barack Obama, Afghanistan is the foreign policy issue that has “perhaps the greatest need for strategic review,” said Mr. Brzezinski, who met with Mr. Obama during the presidential campaign last year, and endorsed his candidacy but was not a formal adviser.
“We are running the risk of replicating — obviously unintentionally — the fate of the Soviets,” Mr. Brzezinski said in his speech Friday night.
The presence of so many foreign troops underpins an Afghan perception that the Americans and their allies are hostile invaders and “suggests transformation of the conflict is taking place,” he added.
A new international conference would help devise a more refined strategy, Mr. Brzezinski said in a brief interview Sunday. Using the military to support a development strategy would help prolong the European presence, he suggested — “our European friends are less likely to leave us in the lurch.”
If the United States is left alone in Afghanistan, Mr. Brzezinski said Friday night, “that would probably spell the end of the Alliance.”
A discussion on Afghanistan on Saturday featured, among others, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British foreign secretary’s special representative for Afghanistan and a former British ambassador to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
“All is not doom and gloom in Afghanistan,” Sir Sherard told the conference, the Global Strategic Review of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, a nongovernment organization. But “walking away would destroy everything that has been achieved.”
“The pullout option is not one that any government could responsibly follow,” he added, emphasizing, that America’s role was crucial. “While Obama remains committed, we remain committed.”
In calling last weekend for a conference on Afghanistan, Britain and Germany seemed anxious both to dispel the tension that has arisen surrounding the election there last month, in which foreign observers say there were clear incidents of fraud, and to shift emphasis away from the rising numbers of foreign troops.
Sir Sherard suggested the solution lay in devolving political power back to tribal elders who have traditionally held sway in Afghanistan, and funneling money for development through them.
With 68,000 troops from the United States expected by the end of the year and some 40,000 from other countries, numbers — and the rising number of deaths and casualties — are going to influence not only hostile Afghans but Western public support for the Afghan mission.
Speakers at the conference said that Americans are unlikely for long to support maintaining many times the number of troops from Britain, Germany and France, the three European allies who have sent the most soldiers to Afghanistan.
What is needed now is “the intelligent application of military force” alongside long-promised development strategies, Sir Sherard said, evoking what he called a dream that, by 2011, a truckload of pomegranates would be able to pass unhindered from Afghanistan through Pakistan and into India, that Western students could study Afghan archaeological ruins, and that posters in the Pashto language inviting Pashtuns to “come on over” from the Taliban would be tattered remnants — unneeded rather than unheeded — on the roadsides of southern Afghanistan.
“That,” he stressed, “is the dream.”
Three dead, five injured in Khyber roadside bomb attack
ISLAMABAD: A bomb blast killed three paramilitary troops in Bara District of Khyber Agency on Sunday, where security forces are pressing ahead with an offensive to secure a major supply route for foreign forces in Afghanistan.
Also in the northwest, a suicide bomber attempted to attack a security post in the Swat Valley but was killed before he could strike. The incidents show that the region is still dangerous despite the recent arrests of five militant commanders there.
The blast in the Mandiknas area of Khyber targeted a security convoy and was detonated by remote control, said Sadiq Khan, an official at the Khyber agency administrator office. Two soldiers died at the scene and four were wounded. One of the injured soldiers later died at a hospital.
Pakistan began its latest offensive in the Khyber tribal region on September 1st and says it has killed more than 150 militants. The fighting has caused thousands of residents to flee.
Militants have frequently attacked trucks traveling through the Khyber pass carrying supplies to NATO and US troops in landlocked Afghanistan.
Pakistan is under intense US pressure to crack down on al-Qaida and Taliban militants along the Afghan border.
In April, it launched a major offensive in the Swat Valley that succeeded in retaking much of it from Taliban control. On Friday, the army announced the capture of five top Taliban commanders from the Swat Valley, including spokesman Muslim Khan.
On Sunday, a suicide bomber attempted to attack a checkpoint close to a fuel station in the region, but security forces fired on his vehicle from a distance and it exploded, killing him, said Maj. Mohammad Mushtaq of the Swat media center.
Also in the northwest, a suicide bomber attempted to attack a security post in the Swat Valley but was killed before he could strike. The incidents show that the region is still dangerous despite the recent arrests of five militant commanders there.
The blast in the Mandiknas area of Khyber targeted a security convoy and was detonated by remote control, said Sadiq Khan, an official at the Khyber agency administrator office. Two soldiers died at the scene and four were wounded. One of the injured soldiers later died at a hospital.
Pakistan began its latest offensive in the Khyber tribal region on September 1st and says it has killed more than 150 militants. The fighting has caused thousands of residents to flee.
Militants have frequently attacked trucks traveling through the Khyber pass carrying supplies to NATO and US troops in landlocked Afghanistan.
Pakistan is under intense US pressure to crack down on al-Qaida and Taliban militants along the Afghan border.
In April, it launched a major offensive in the Swat Valley that succeeded in retaking much of it from Taliban control. On Friday, the army announced the capture of five top Taliban commanders from the Swat Valley, including spokesman Muslim Khan.
On Sunday, a suicide bomber attempted to attack a checkpoint close to a fuel station in the region, but security forces fired on his vehicle from a distance and it exploded, killing him, said Maj. Mohammad Mushtaq of the Swat media center.
Troops close in on Fazlullah, says Malik
ISLAMABAD: Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik has warned the chief of the banned Lashkar-e-Islam Mangal Bagh to lay down arms and renounce violence otherwise he would meet the same fate as other terrorists.
Spokesman Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan Swat Muslim Khan and other commanders would be put on trial in accordance with the law, said the interior minister while talking to media men after meeting with a delegation led by President Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Fata Malik Waris Khan Afridi on Sunday.
The interior minister said that the dragnet around chief of the banned Tehrik-e-Taliban Swat Maulvi Fazalullah has really been tightened and he would not be able to escape. Muslim Khan has disclosed many things during interrogation, said Malik.
The interior minister went on to say the ‘Zaliman’ who used children for suicide bombings would be eliminated soon. He said that due to the insurgency in Fata, no development schemes had been carried out in the region during the last 10 years but steps were now being taken to eliminate terrorism so that development schemes could be initiated. Special zone for reconstruction in tribal areas would also be constituted, he said.
The interior minister appealed to the Khasadar personnel, who refused to perform their duties in Bara Tehsil after threats by Lashkar-e-Islam Chief Mangal Bagh, to come back to their duties.
He said that all political parties were taken into confidence before starting operation Rah-e-Rast and now it was clear that the nation and the political leadership of the country were united against anti state elements
Spokesman Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan Swat Muslim Khan and other commanders would be put on trial in accordance with the law, said the interior minister while talking to media men after meeting with a delegation led by President Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Fata Malik Waris Khan Afridi on Sunday.
The interior minister said that the dragnet around chief of the banned Tehrik-e-Taliban Swat Maulvi Fazalullah has really been tightened and he would not be able to escape. Muslim Khan has disclosed many things during interrogation, said Malik.
The interior minister went on to say the ‘Zaliman’ who used children for suicide bombings would be eliminated soon. He said that due to the insurgency in Fata, no development schemes had been carried out in the region during the last 10 years but steps were now being taken to eliminate terrorism so that development schemes could be initiated. Special zone for reconstruction in tribal areas would also be constituted, he said.
The interior minister appealed to the Khasadar personnel, who refused to perform their duties in Bara Tehsil after threats by Lashkar-e-Islam Chief Mangal Bagh, to come back to their duties.
He said that all political parties were taken into confidence before starting operation Rah-e-Rast and now it was clear that the nation and the political leadership of the country were united against anti state elements
Russian envoy cautions US on Afghan troops surge
ThefrontierPost.com
KABUL : Russia's ambassador to Afghanistan has some advice for top NATO commanders fighting the Taliban based on the Soviet Union's bitter experience battling Islamist insurgents here in the 1980s: Don't bring more troops. "The more troops you bring the more troubles you will have here," Zamir Kabulov, a blunt-spoken veteran diplomat, told The Associated Press in an interview. In 2002, he noted, there were roughly 5,000 U.S. soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and the Taliban controlled just a small corner of the country's southeast. "Now we have Taliban fighting in the peaceful Kunduz and Baghlan (provinces) with your (NATO's) 100,000 troops," he said this week, sitting on a couch in the Russian Embassy in Kabul. "And if this trend is the rule, if you bring here 200,000 soldiers, all of Afghanistan will be under the Taliban." Kabulov served as a Soviet diplomat in Afghanistan from 1983 to 1987, during the height of the Kremlin's 10-year Afghan war, when Soviet troop levels peaked at 140,000. The Soviet war here, which is estimated to have cost the lives of 14,500 Soviet soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Afghans, ended in 1989 in a humiliating withdrawal. Kabulov has little sympathy for the U.S. or NATO. He said the U.S. and its allies are competing with Russia for influence in the energy-rich region. But the 55-year-old envoy speaks from experience, and NATO leaders have sought his advice. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, asked Kabulov a number of "precise" questions about the Soviet war at a diplomatic function last month, the Russian envoy said. McChrystal is supervising the expansion of U.S. combat forces to 68,000 and is likely to soon request thousands of more troops. Forty-one other NATO countries have another 35,000 troops here Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis, a public affairs officer assigned to the NATO commander's staff, said: "Gen. McChrystal is a voracious student of Afghan history and welcomes any opportunity to learn from people with experience in Afghanistan or perspectives on our situation here. That certainly includes the Russians." While Kabulov called raising troop levels a mistake, he said he approved of McChrystal's overall strategy, which includes holding and clearing Taliban areas, training more Afghan security forces and better-coordinated intelligence efforts. But he said the NATO commander faces daunting challenges. The U.S. and NATO, he said, made the same fundamental mistake the Kremlin made after its December 1979 invasion, when Soviet special forces killed President Hafizullah Amin and Moscow replaced Amin's Communist regime with another judged more loyal. "We should have left Afghanistan as soon as possible after the job had been done," Kabulov said. "It should not have taken more than six months. Same as you. You came and you stayed. And all the problems have started." In some ways, Kabulov, named ambassador to Afghanistan by then President Vladimir Putin in 2004, is an unlikely figure to be advising NATO. The New York Times said in October 2008 that he served covertly as the KGB's Kabul resident, or top officer, during the Soviet war. But when asked about this, Kabulov insisted he was just a diplomat. "My career was quite transparent and well known," he said. His only role in Afghanistan during the Soviet war, he said, was as the embassy's second secretary, serving as press attache, from 1983 to 1987. While NATO has made some of the same mistakes the Soviets made in Afghanistan, in some ways the Kremlin was more successful, Kabulov said. The Soviets, he asserted, were better than NATO at providing security in major cities and along main highways. And he said the Soviets completed more major construction and development projects. The Soviet government bankrolled those efforts out of its own pocket, he said, in contrast to the U.S. and its Western allies, which have made what amount to charity appeals at donor conferences. "We never arranged international conferences with high pledges of dozens of billions of dollars which never came to this country," he said. And Kabulov said the Soviets trained and employed Afghans, rather than importing highly paid and, in his view, pampered foreign contractors. When it comes to Westerners, he said, "guards also need guards." Today, Kabulov said, Afghanistan remains a strategic prize because of its location near the gas and oil fields of Iran, the Caspian Sea, Central Asia and the Persian Gulf. Russia has a major stake in NATO's success in Afghanistan, Kabulov said. If the alliance withdraws before Afghanistan is stabilized, he said, the aftershocks could weaken Moscow's allies throughout former Soviet Central Asia. Kabulov said Russia has questions about NATO's intentions in Afghanistan, which he said lies outside of the alliance's "political domain." He suggested that Moscow is concerned that NATO is building permanent bases in the region. "We agreed and supported the United States and later on NATO operation in Afghanistan under the slogan of counterterrorism" after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., he said. "And we believed that this agenda is a genuine one and there is no other hidden agendas. But we are watching carefully what is going on here with the expansion of NATO's military infrastructure in all of Afghanistan." From Russia's perspective, Kabulov said, NATO should accomplish its goals in Afghanistan and quickly leave. "We want NATO to successfully and as soon as possible complete its task and to say goodbye and to go back to their own geographical and political domain," he said. "But before their departure they should help establish a real, independent, strong, prosperous, peaceful Afghanistan with self-sustainable government."
KABUL : Russia's ambassador to Afghanistan has some advice for top NATO commanders fighting the Taliban based on the Soviet Union's bitter experience battling Islamist insurgents here in the 1980s: Don't bring more troops. "The more troops you bring the more troubles you will have here," Zamir Kabulov, a blunt-spoken veteran diplomat, told The Associated Press in an interview. In 2002, he noted, there were roughly 5,000 U.S. soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and the Taliban controlled just a small corner of the country's southeast. "Now we have Taliban fighting in the peaceful Kunduz and Baghlan (provinces) with your (NATO's) 100,000 troops," he said this week, sitting on a couch in the Russian Embassy in Kabul. "And if this trend is the rule, if you bring here 200,000 soldiers, all of Afghanistan will be under the Taliban." Kabulov served as a Soviet diplomat in Afghanistan from 1983 to 1987, during the height of the Kremlin's 10-year Afghan war, when Soviet troop levels peaked at 140,000. The Soviet war here, which is estimated to have cost the lives of 14,500 Soviet soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Afghans, ended in 1989 in a humiliating withdrawal. Kabulov has little sympathy for the U.S. or NATO. He said the U.S. and its allies are competing with Russia for influence in the energy-rich region. But the 55-year-old envoy speaks from experience, and NATO leaders have sought his advice. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, asked Kabulov a number of "precise" questions about the Soviet war at a diplomatic function last month, the Russian envoy said. McChrystal is supervising the expansion of U.S. combat forces to 68,000 and is likely to soon request thousands of more troops. Forty-one other NATO countries have another 35,000 troops here Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis, a public affairs officer assigned to the NATO commander's staff, said: "Gen. McChrystal is a voracious student of Afghan history and welcomes any opportunity to learn from people with experience in Afghanistan or perspectives on our situation here. That certainly includes the Russians." While Kabulov called raising troop levels a mistake, he said he approved of McChrystal's overall strategy, which includes holding and clearing Taliban areas, training more Afghan security forces and better-coordinated intelligence efforts. But he said the NATO commander faces daunting challenges. The U.S. and NATO, he said, made the same fundamental mistake the Kremlin made after its December 1979 invasion, when Soviet special forces killed President Hafizullah Amin and Moscow replaced Amin's Communist regime with another judged more loyal. "We should have left Afghanistan as soon as possible after the job had been done," Kabulov said. "It should not have taken more than six months. Same as you. You came and you stayed. And all the problems have started." In some ways, Kabulov, named ambassador to Afghanistan by then President Vladimir Putin in 2004, is an unlikely figure to be advising NATO. The New York Times said in October 2008 that he served covertly as the KGB's Kabul resident, or top officer, during the Soviet war. But when asked about this, Kabulov insisted he was just a diplomat. "My career was quite transparent and well known," he said. His only role in Afghanistan during the Soviet war, he said, was as the embassy's second secretary, serving as press attache, from 1983 to 1987. While NATO has made some of the same mistakes the Soviets made in Afghanistan, in some ways the Kremlin was more successful, Kabulov said. The Soviets, he asserted, were better than NATO at providing security in major cities and along main highways. And he said the Soviets completed more major construction and development projects. The Soviet government bankrolled those efforts out of its own pocket, he said, in contrast to the U.S. and its Western allies, which have made what amount to charity appeals at donor conferences. "We never arranged international conferences with high pledges of dozens of billions of dollars which never came to this country," he said. And Kabulov said the Soviets trained and employed Afghans, rather than importing highly paid and, in his view, pampered foreign contractors. When it comes to Westerners, he said, "guards also need guards." Today, Kabulov said, Afghanistan remains a strategic prize because of its location near the gas and oil fields of Iran, the Caspian Sea, Central Asia and the Persian Gulf. Russia has a major stake in NATO's success in Afghanistan, Kabulov said. If the alliance withdraws before Afghanistan is stabilized, he said, the aftershocks could weaken Moscow's allies throughout former Soviet Central Asia. Kabulov said Russia has questions about NATO's intentions in Afghanistan, which he said lies outside of the alliance's "political domain." He suggested that Moscow is concerned that NATO is building permanent bases in the region. "We agreed and supported the United States and later on NATO operation in Afghanistan under the slogan of counterterrorism" after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., he said. "And we believed that this agenda is a genuine one and there is no other hidden agendas. But we are watching carefully what is going on here with the expansion of NATO's military infrastructure in all of Afghanistan." From Russia's perspective, Kabulov said, NATO should accomplish its goals in Afghanistan and quickly leave. "We want NATO to successfully and as soon as possible complete its task and to say goodbye and to go back to their own geographical and political domain," he said. "But before their departure they should help establish a real, independent, strong, prosperous, peaceful Afghanistan with self-sustainable government."
Power breakdown, water shortage Several localities of Peshawar hit badly
PESHAWAR: A major fault at a local grid station coupled with the routine power outages particularly at Sehr and Iftar times made life a living hell for the residents of most of localities of the provincial metropolis, while the Peshawar Electric Supply Company (Pesco) remained the least concerned about the miseries of the consumers.
Residents of Faqirabad, Zaryab Colony, Afghan Colony, Sethi Town, Saeedabad, Yousafabad, Faisal Town, Momin Town, Amjad Colony Charsadda Road and other areas of the city complained that prolonged loadshedding had already made life miserable for them but the grid station wherefrom they were provided electricity developed a major fault two days ago, resulting in complete blackout in the areas.
The angry consumers said they lodged innumerable complaints with the Pesco authorities but those fell on deaf ears. They said that majority of the available phone numbers of Pesco complaint offices remained continuously busy as if they had put the receivers off. And whenever, they managed to the talk to the official on duty, they received a blunt reply that there was a major fault in the grid station and it would take sometime to repair.
The residents were of the opinion that the Pesco authorities were showing no interest in repairing the grid station. They said that the persistent power breakdown had also resulted in acute water shortage in most of the affected areas, multiplying the miseries of the people in the holy month of Ramazan.
When contacted, the Pesco spokesman Shaukat Afzal told The News that there was some fault in the grid station, which had been repaired before Sehr time, but when the power supply was resumed the transformer went out of order again. He said now the faulty transformer had been changed and the matter was resolved. He claimed that uninterrupted power supply to the entire area had been restored.
Residents of Faqirabad, Zaryab Colony, Afghan Colony, Sethi Town, Saeedabad, Yousafabad, Faisal Town, Momin Town, Amjad Colony Charsadda Road and other areas of the city complained that prolonged loadshedding had already made life miserable for them but the grid station wherefrom they were provided electricity developed a major fault two days ago, resulting in complete blackout in the areas.
The angry consumers said they lodged innumerable complaints with the Pesco authorities but those fell on deaf ears. They said that majority of the available phone numbers of Pesco complaint offices remained continuously busy as if they had put the receivers off. And whenever, they managed to the talk to the official on duty, they received a blunt reply that there was a major fault in the grid station and it would take sometime to repair.
The residents were of the opinion that the Pesco authorities were showing no interest in repairing the grid station. They said that the persistent power breakdown had also resulted in acute water shortage in most of the affected areas, multiplying the miseries of the people in the holy month of Ramazan.
When contacted, the Pesco spokesman Shaukat Afzal told The News that there was some fault in the grid station, which had been repaired before Sehr time, but when the power supply was resumed the transformer went out of order again. He said now the faulty transformer had been changed and the matter was resolved. He claimed that uninterrupted power supply to the entire area had been restored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)