In this bulletin:

Taliban Kills 2 Sisters for Crime of Teaching

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS - Published: December 10, 2006 - GHWANDO, Afghanistan, Dec. 9 (AP) — Following up on a death threat, Taliban militants broke into a house and fatally shot two teachers and three other family members, bringing to 20 the number of educators killed in attacks this year, officials and a relative said Saturday.

A NATO spokesman, meanwhile, said an investigation had begun into allegations that British troops fired at civilians, killing one and wounding six, after a suicide-bomb attack on their convoy last weekend.

The Taliban attack on two teachers, who were sisters living in the same house, happened overnight in a village in the Narang district of eastern Kunar Province. After climbing over the home’s outer wall with a ladder, gunmen killed the two teachers, their mother and grandmother and a 20-year-old male relative and wounded a younger male relative, said Dr. Ghaleb, a family relative who, like many Afghans, goes by one name.

The sisters had been warned in a letter from the Taliban to quit teaching, said Gulam Ullah Wekar, the provincial education director. It said their work went against Islam, and if they continued they would “end up facing the penalty.”

Five Afghan civilians, including two female teachers, killed in east - Text of report in English by Afghan independent Pajhwok news agency website

Kabul, 9 December: Unidentified armed men shot dead five members of a family, including four women, in the Narang District of the eastern Konar Province last night.

The tragic incident emerged in the Ghundo village of the district, a source at the press office of the Interior Ministry told Pajhwok Afghan News on Saturday [9 December].

The source said the attackers killed Ziaul Haq, head of the family, and four women, while a child was injured. Provincial Governor Shalizai Didar confirmed the incident and blamed enemies of the country, the term Afghan officials use for Taleban, for the carnage.

The governor said two of the slain women were schoolteachers. Didar said he had called a meeting comprising local elders and officials of the security agencies to pursue the culprits and bring them to book. Four civilians were killed by armed men in the Korangal District of the same province last month.

Boy and girl killed on charges of adultery in Kunar
Pajhwok 12/08/2006 By Abdul Mueed Hashimi 

ASADABAD - A boy and a girl have been killed for allegedly committing adultery in the eastern Kunar province. Samiullah, a resident of Noor Gal district, where the incident occured, said a boy and an unmarried girl were caught having illegal sex and were killed by villagers.

Eyewitness Samiullah, who came from Noor Gul district to Asadabad, told Pajhwok Afghan News the girl named Lal Bibi was killed by the villagers for having allegedly illicit relation with a boy, however, he would not mention name of the boy. Samiullah would not give more details about the incident.

Confirming killing of the boy, provincial police chief Abdul Jalal Jalal, said only boy was killed he had no information about killing of the girl.

Governor of Kunar Shalizai Didar also affirmed the incident, but he said it was happened some 20 days back and the person involved in killing was arrested by the local police. He said further investigations were going on.

Under the Islamic Sharia law, any kind of extramarital sex is unlawful and harshly punishable. According to Shariah if married couple were involved in sex they would be stoned to death in public after their confessing of committing the crime or testimony of at least four true witnesses. If unmarried person commits the crime, he would be thrashed 100 lashes in public.

UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL IN AFGHANISTAN, TOM KOENIGS, WELCOMES TODAY’S LAUNCH OF THE ACTION PLAN ON PEACE, RECONCILIATION AND JUSTICE - Kabul, 10 th December 2006

Fifty-eight years ago today saw the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration established the rights of every citizen before the state and has become among the most widely translated documents anywhere.

Today as the world commemorates this event, Afghanistan has marked an historic occasion of its own with the launch of an Action Plan on Peace, Reconciliation, and Justice.

This is a remarkable step, and especially so for a country that has suffered so much and in which conflict remains all too present. Reconciliation means building peace and harmony between the victims of violations and the state. That is why the launch of this Action Place by President Karzai, the highest representative of the state, is so important.

I applaud this courageous move. The decades of human rights violations in Afghanistan have left huge numbers of victims whose suffering needs proper recognition and respect. Launching an Action Plan is only a first step towards coming to terms with this legacy, but it shows that the dignity of victims is being respected. It also gives hope that the truth may be established, that justice may be achieved, and that tolerance, solidarity, and trust may be restored.

Implementation will require perseverance and meaningful participation by all. The United Nations – in particular UNAMA and the High Commissioner for Human Rights – will do everything possible to realize the promises made to the peoples of the world in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on this very day, 58 years ago.

Taliban Says Might Join Afghan Tribal Peace Talks

By REUTERS Published: December 9, 2006 - SPIN BOLDAK, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Taliban insurgents said on Saturday they might join proposed tribal councils aimed at ending mounting violence in Afghanistan, if they were asked.

Afghanistan and Pakistan plan separate and joint councils, or jirgas, in both countries in a bid to stem an insurgency that has triggered the worst fighting since the Taliban's strict Islamist government was ousted from Kabul in 2001.

But they have not agreed on who will take part, and where or when the jirgas will be. Key government and political leaders on both sides say at least moderate elements of the resurgent Taliban must be included in any talks to end the fighting.

``The Taliban are Afghanistan's biggest political and military power and without them no system will succeed,'' Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousuf said by satellite telephone from a secret location.

Kabul has several times offered talks with the Taliban, subject to strict conditions such as the abandonment of all foreign support, which the guerrillas have rejected each time.

Yousuf said the Taliban had not been invited to the jirgas. He said if they were, they would set conditions.

``So far, it appears that it is only a government-level jirga between Pakistan and Afghanistan. If any group is ignored, it will be nothing but a political meeting,'' Yousuf said. ``Those who call the Taliban weak are foolish.''

The aim of the jirgas along the uncontrolled frontier is to unite tribal elders divided by colonial boundaries and revitalize local and traditional rule where government rule is useless.

Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf agreed on the jirgas during talks with President Bush in Washington in September.

Support for the Taliban has grown over the past year, fueled by the illegal opium trade, growing dissatisfaction at the failure of the government and foreign forces to improve living standards and the rebels' ability to pay more for fighters.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri met officials in Kabul on the jirgas this week but no agreement was reached.

Afghan and NATO leaders -- the alliance heads security in the country with 32,000 soldiers -- say the best strategy is to develop a non-drugs economy and create jobs and development to back military victories.

Proposed Pak-Afghan jirgas: ‘Peace on border not possible without Pushtun help’

Daily Times 10 December 2006 - PESHAWAR: The proposed grand peace jirgas, consisting of Afghans and Pakistanis, will prove to be a futile attempt to restore peace in the region until Pushtun political parties from both sides are involved in the process, said Awami National Party (ANP) Chief Asfandyar Wali Khan on Saturday.

“If both Islamabad and Kabul are sincere in re-establishing peace in the region, they will have to involve mainstream Pushtun political leaders and religious leaders in the jirgas as well,” Asfandyar said while talking to reporters after addressing a party convention at Bacha Khan Markaz.

“It seems astonishing that Afghan President Hamid Karzai consults Pushtun leaders, including National Assembly Opposition Leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Mahmood Khan Achakzai, but our own government pays no attention to include them in the peace jirgas,” he said. He alleged that peace jirgas in FATA consisted of only pro-government tribal elders, adding that they had failed to resolve FATA’s problems. He said the government would have to include nationalist political leaders, even those who oppose President Pervez Musharraf’s policies, if it wanted to secure its western border. He said the government had not taken Pushtun leaders into confidence before initiating talks with Afghanistan.

He said the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) would only harm itself if it resigned from parliament and its resignations would have no affect on the government. He said the ANP was not in favour of resignation of opposition parties from assemblies, adding that the MMA leadership would again change its decision over the issue of resignations. He said the ANP’s stance over the Protection of Women Act was clear and it had voted in favour of the act. However, he said, the act would fail to bring about the expected changes in the lives of the country’s women and would prove to be ineffective for the task. “The ANP wants the government repeal the Hudood laws,” he said.

Earlier, addressing the ANP’s Women’s Convention, Asfandyar said that the event proved that Pushtuns were “neither Taliban nor terrorists”. He criticised the remarks of the government for linking Pushtuns with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, stating that the government should make efforts for dispelling the impression in the international community. “The Pushtuns, however, are divided in two parts; one part (referring to religious parties) wants to fight with global forces for their own interests, but the other segment, the Pushtun mainstream, are with the international community and want to live peacefully,” he said. staff report

Afghan observer says Pakistani foreign minister's visit achieves nothing - Text of report by Iranian radio from Mashhad on 9 December

[Presenter] In an interview with my colleague, Afghan observer Mr Wahed Mozhdah said that the Pakistani foreign minister's [Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri's] visit to Afghanistan was symbolic and the Afghan government achieved nothing from it. He said that Pakistan's proposal to form tribal jergas [councils] along the Pakistani-Afghan border was clarified for Afghan officials. In fact, Pakistan does not seem ready to come up with a specific plan for establishing these jergas. Please listen to Mr Mozhdah.

[Mozhdah] I believe that the Pakistani foreign minister's visit to Afghanistan was similar to the visits of other Pakistani officials, such as Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. The main objective of the visit was to show that the two neighbouring countries enjoy friendly ties and there is no tension between them. I believe that the Afghan government achieved nothing from this symbolic visit. There were reports that Mr Kasuri had some proposals for the government of Afghanistan on reinforcing security and fighting terrorism. However, this has not been confirmed by Afghan officials and the government of Afghanistan has not singled out any specific achievement of this visit.

Before Mr Kasuri's arrival, observers thought that the Pakistani foreign minister would mainly discuss the formation of tribal jergas along the borders. However, no date has been specified for this and it seems as though Pakistan is not ready nor do they want such jergas to be formed in the near future.

In my opinion, this was a formal visit and we cannot expect such formal and symbolic plans to achieve anything.

Afghan TV sees Pakistani reluctance to hold trans-border peace council

Text of commentary by Afghan independent Aina TV on 9 December

[Presenter] Afghan officials had said that the tribal leaders of the two countries would meet by the end of this month, but Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri postponed specifying a date for the jerga [council]. This comes at a time when Pakistan has been accused of being reluctant to convene the regional peace jerga. Will Afghanistan achieve its goals at this jerga? Please listen to Aina TV's political commentary on this issue:

[Commentator] Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri's visit to Kabul was this country's first action regarding the convening of a trans-Durand regional peace jerga since the tripartite meeting between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States of America in Washington. The date for convening this peace jerga, which it is believed will improve security in Afghanistan, was expected to be announced. Nevertheless, Afghan government officials had said that this jerga would be held by the end of this month and Kasuri postponed specifying a date for this jerga.

In addition, during his official talks and news conference, he talked about the importance of an atmosphere of confidence and good ties between Afghanistan and Pakistan. On the contrary, [Afghan President] Hamed Karzai underlined that his people's patience has run out because of the violence controlled from the Pakistan's side of the border. Some time ago, both Afghan and NATO officials had accused Pakistan of supporting terrorism.

This comes at a time when President Hamed Karzai, during the Pakistani foreign minister's visit to Kabul, called this country the main base for terrorism and emphasized that if Afghanistan had full authority in the war on terror, it would fight it at its base. Despite diplomatic efforts to prepare the ground for convening the trans-Durand regional peace jerga between the tribal leaders of the two countries, the Pakistani foreign minister in his remarks, which represent Pakistan's actual demands in Afghanistan, insisted on NATO's failure and the Taleban's victory and proposed to a number of foreign ministers of NATO member countries to establish a coalition government in Afghanistan with the Taleban and without Hamed Karzai.

According to Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist, these remarks depressed the Westerners. In reaction, a number of Western officials said that the Pakistani foreign minister had demanded that NATO should yield to the Taleban.

Some time ago, Pervez Musharraf said that NATO and the Afghan army were unable to defeat the Taleban. His remarks do not differ from the remarks of the Pakistani foreign minister in which he proposed the establishment of a coalition government with the Taleban in Afghanistan. In general, these remarks as well as Pakistan's reluctance to convene the regional peace jerga between the tribal elders of the two countries to ensure stability and security in Afghanistan demonstrate that it will be a long time before Afghan officials achieve the anticipated outcome.

"Pakistan using delaying tactics in convening Jirga"
Pajhwok 12/08/2006 By Zubair Babakarkhel 

KABUL - Political experts have termed lack of interest and struggle to delay peace Jirga a realpoliticking of Pakistan that wants to exploits every opportunity.

It has been decided that the Jirga would hold two sessions. Presidents of both the countries and other representatives will attend its two meetings of the Jirga. First meeting of the Jirga will be held in Kabul while its second meeting will be held in Pakistan. Addressing a press conference, Minister for the Parliamentary Affairs Dr Farooq Wardak Wednesday said Pakistan had made no serious efforts for constituting peace Jirga and had always tried to create hurdles for its formation.

Dr Farooq, who is also head of the Secretariat of the Commission for the preparation of the Jirga, said high-ranking officials, administrative delegations of both the houses of the parliament, chiefs of provincial councils, two influential people of every province and representatives of the refugees would attend the Jirga.

He said Pakistan had not formed any mechanism that they might take the issue of date, nature and participants of the Jirga with them. To a question, he said: "Unfortunately, it seemed to us that there was not enough knowledge about the Jirga in Pakistan, may be they are struggling to delay the meeting."

He said Pakistan had not formed any mechanism that they might take the issue of date, nature and participants of the Jirga with them.

Some political experts are of the view that Pakistan politicians want their own benefits in holding the Jirga. Mohammad Asif Baktash, head of Afghanistan Mil-i-Tarqi Party, told Pajhwok Afghan News that Pakistan government and InterServices Intelligence Agency (ISI) did not want that honest representatives of the people might attend the meeting.

He said: "It is realpoliticking of Pakistan that does not want to show quick reaction in this regard, with the passage of time, they want to make preparation for the Jirga following their own sweet will." He opined perhaps Afghans could not get the benefits they had pinned on the Jirga.

Another political expert Mohammad Qasim Akhgar said Pakistan little interest showed Islamabad wanted to get own benefits from the Jirga. He said: "Pakistan wants to delay the formation of Jirga to serve its own interest." Haji Alam Gul, a tribal elder of Nangarhar, said Jirga might prove successful when both parties took part in it with great sincerity.

Pakistan embassy in Kabul declined to comment on the issue. Presidential spokesman Karim Rahimi has said several times in the recent past that hones representatives of Pakistan should partake in the Jirga.

India for fighting 'real causes' in Afghanistan
DHARAM SHOURIE, UNITED NATIONS, (PTI) Outlook India - Dec 08

Expressing concern over the prevailing insecurity in Afghanistan, India has asked the international community to concertedly fight its "real causes" including revival of Taliban, al Qaeda and other extremist groups in the country as well as existence of cross border safe havens for them.

During a debate on the situation in Afghanistan in the 15-member Security Council, several speakers, including Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram, blamed lack of effective governance, widespread corruption, the inefficiency of police service, growing narcotics trade and continued war lordism for insecure condition in parts of the country.

But Indian Ambassador Nirupam Sen cautioned against focussing on only these areas, asserting that these are not real causes of insecurity.

"These are factors which thrive on insecurity and serve to exacerbate it," he said and asked the international community to focus on the roots of insecurity in the process of rebuilding and strengthening the Afghan state.

"The snakes are still swirling because of cross border dimension," he said without naming Pakistan. Attempts at stability and security would be unavailing unless this aspect is addressed, he emphasised.

It is important, Sen told the Council, to confront Taliban and not strike deals with them. "We believe that the cost of tolerating the spiralling violence is infinitely higher than any cost we might bear in quelling it through firm law enforcement action."

Taleban commander arrested in Afghan Ghazni Province - Text of report in English by Afghan independent Pajhwok news agency website

Ghazni City, 9 December: Security officials said they had arrested a suspected Taleban commander during a joint operation with NATO troops in Qara Bagh District of the southern Ghazni Province.

Police chief of the district Abdol Wali Tufan told Pajhwok Afghan News the detained commander was identified as Mullah Mohammad Osman.

The joint operation was launched after the law-enforcement agencies received reports that militants were planning attacks in the area. The raid was conducted in Kisho village of the district.

Tufan said the detained commander was under investigations with the police. He hoped the information obtained would help the law-enforcement agencies arrest his other colleagues.

Taleban, on the other hand, said none of their men was arrested by the police or NATO troops. Mohammad Anas Sharif, calling himself a Taleban commander in the area, distanced himself from the man named Mohammad Osman.

NATO denies civilian casualties in east Afghan operation - Text of report by Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press news agency

Jalalabad, 9 December: There has been a battle in Laghman. According to reports from Alisheng District of Laghman Province, there was clash between NATO forces and antigovernment elements in this district yesterday [8 December] during which NATO aircraft bombed the area. Local residents say five civilians were martyred in the aerial bombing.

The NATO press office in Kabul sent an email to Afghan Islamic Press [AIP] confirming the clash and the use of aircraft in Alisheng District but denying the claim that civilians were murdered as a result of the aerial operation.

On the other hand, the residents of Mehtarlam, the capital of Laghman Province, told AIP that a large number of Afghan and foreign forces had moved towards Alisheng District and aircraft were also flying in the area.

The local authorities have also confirmed a clash in that district but have not commented on civilian casualties.

Two Afghan interpreters killed in blast in south - Text of report in English by Afghan independent Pajhwok news agency website

Kandahar city, 9 December: Two Afghan interpreters, working with the NATO troops, were killed in a landmine blast in southern Urozgan Province.

Spokesman for the NATO troops in Kandahar Maj Jason Chalk told Pajhwok Afghan News the incident took place on Friday afternoon [8 December]. He said a NATO convoy was on patrol when one of the vehicles hit a landmine. Two Afghan interpreters were killed and the vehicle was damaged.

Regarding any harm to NATO troops in the blast, the spokesman said their men remained unhurt. Provincial officials in Urozgan are tight-lipped about the incident.

Meanwhile, the Taleban claimed responsibility for the explosion. Purported spokesman Yusof Ahmadi told this news agency they had destroyed a NATO tank in the Roishan area of Urozgan.

Without mentioning the exact number, he said all the soldiers, travelling in the vehicle, had been killed.

Taliban recruits in Pakistan seek revenge for NATO bombings

AFP Danny Kemp 09 December 2006 - QUETTA - Elderly Mohammed Nabi  pounded his fist on the rug at his mudbrick house in southwest  Pakistan and told how the Taliban recruited his cousin to avenge  NATO bombings across the border.

"He didn't say he was going for jihad, he said he was going to Afghanistan
to visit our ancestral village about two months ago," raged the
white-bearded Afghan refugee who has lived in a dusty village near Quetta
for 25 years. "Then we got news a few weeks back that he had been martyred."

A fighter who came back alive told Nabi that his younger cousin Ghulam
Ahmed died in a major NATO offensive in southern  Afghanistan's Pashmul area
in late October -- after stepping on a landmine likely planted by the
militants themselves.

Nabi said Ahmed left his home in a neighbouring village and crossed the
porous desert border to fight after hearing about  civilian deaths in other
NATO bombings around the Taliban's  birthplace of Kandahar, where some
members of the family still  live.

The old man wiped his eyes and alleged his cousin was "under the  control of
his teachers" at a local Islamic school. "There is a  local group of
Afghans, they are backing the local people and  sending recruiting people."

He said he did not condone the actions of his cousin, who left a  widow and
children, but added: "If the West does not address the  real problems and
bombs a whole village to kill one Taliban you  cannot expect there to be
peace."

His old friend Yar Khan spit tobacco into a copper pot and said that in
their village alone five people have gone to Afghanistan this year to fight
foreign soldiers. And, he said, another 40 have gone from nearby hamlets.
Some 20 have died.

"We know there is a group that collects youngsters and sometimes they tell
their parents they are going to Quetta for a visit. Then suddenly they hear
after a month or two months that they have been killed," said Khan.

The pair ask that the name of their village not be revealed for fear of a
visit from Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's spy agency which
monitors the movements of all western visitors to Quetta.

Stories like these may bode ill for Islamabad as it comes under increasing
pressure to help curb the violence in Afghanistan that is at its bloodiest
since 2001. More than 3,500 people have died there this year so far.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has claimed that Taliban supremo Mullah
Mohammad Omar is himself hiding in Quetta. A British army officer alleged
in May that the insurgents' leaders were based in the dustbowl city.

President Pervez Musharraf, who cut Pakistan's links to the Taliban
following the September 11, 2001 attacks, strongly denies any official aid.

He says Pakistan shows its commitment through the 80,000 troops lining the
2,500-kilometre (1,500-mile) border with Afghanistan and military
operations including an airstrike on a religious school in October that
killed 80 suspected militants.

Most of those troops however are in the wild northwestern tribal regions.

In dirt-poor southwestern Baluchistan province, which borders the southern
Afghan provinces where NATO faces the stiffest resistance, the job is
largely down to police and paramilitary forces.

Baluchistan police chief Chaudhry Mohammed Yaqub defended Pakistan's
efforts, but argued that it is difficult when there are few or no
immigration restrictions on who crosses what is the most porous section of
the frontier.

"There is every possibility that amongst these 700,000 Afghan  refugees in
Baluchistan there are people who sympathise with the  Taliban, but if
somebody goes over the border legally we do not know  who is going to
fight," he said.

He insisted there were no Taliban training facilities in Baluchistan and
that no native Pakistanis were going over to fight, only Afghan refugees,
of whom there are more than three million in  Pakistan.

The police chief scoffed when asked if senior Taliban leaders had gone to
ground in Quetta. "It doesn't make any sense" for Pakistan to shelter them when Islamic extremists have twice tried to kill Musharraf, he said.

Yaqoob too has been on the receiving end -- a car bomb planted  by an Afghan
group blew out the windows of his office in November.

The police chief said his men have arrested and deported more  than 150
Afghan Taliban in recent weeks in Quetta and its suburbs,  including 47
suspects last week and others who were being treated in  hospitals here.

Hardline religious groups however said the most recent batch of  detainees
were in fact students -- a reminder of the international  concerns about
whether Pakistan's 12,000 controversial Islamic  schools, or madrassas, fuel
militancy.

The party that runs most of this country's madrassas, Jamiat  Ulema-e-Islam
(JUI) is strong in Quetta. It openly offers its "moral  support" to the
Taliban, while denying that it actually funds or  trains fighters.

"It is Muslims' duty to support the Taliban, we are giving them  political
support and pray for them," said Noor Mohammed, JUI  patron-in-chief for
Quetta and a former senior MP for Pakistan's  main alliance of Islamic
parties.

"If somebody is able to go and practically take part in that  fighting, he
can do, and we praise them too," added the bearded  cleric, fingering jade
prayer beads and sipping green tea in his  backstreet office.

Mounting civilian deaths in Afghanistan and the presence of  "infidel"
Western troops justify the Taliban's actions, he said. In  the yard outside,
party activists park their bikes and wipe their  feet on a painted Stars and
Stripes.

But he said it was impossible for his party to give the Taliban  any
military or financial support, as Pakistani security forces and  "foreign
intelligence personnel are hunting for Taliban people".

"In this reign of terror nobody will even think of providing  practical help
for the Taliban," he said.

He also saids it was "beyond imagination" that Pakistani  authorities are
backing the militia when they are "busy arresting  anyone with a beard or a
turban".

But Musharraf raised eyebrows last month when he admitted that  some retired
ISI officials who worked with the Taliban in the 1990s  may be helping the
rebels.

Some local politicians voice suspicions that the government, the  imams and
the Taliban are still in league.

"The government is failing to stop infiltrators across the  border because
it is supporting them," said Hasil Khan Bizanjo,  secretary general of the
secular National Party, which represents  ethnic Pashtuns.

Mohammed Nabi, the grieving refugee, agreed. "I have just one  message -- I
ask Pakistan to stop interfering in Afghanistan."

Now we must face the facts and talk to the Taliban in Afghanistan

Jason Burke - Sunday December 10, 2006 The Observer

One immutable law of insurgency warfare is that, while conventional armies need to win, insurgents need only to avoid losing. The disagreeable truth is that, though we are not losing the war in Afghanistan, we are not winning. Neither, looking at the current situation, are we likely to.

This means a fairly stark choice. We can struggle on, as in Iraq, losing men and money for years until an Afghan version of the James Baker report tells us to change tack - or we change tack now.

We need to work out what went wrong. Letting Afghanistan rot for four years after the war of 2002 was a tragic error. The Americans, who were then responsible for the southeast, showed a cavalier disregard for reconstruction, treating the region as a hunting ground for special forces.

On successive trips to Afghanistan, I saw local people go from pragmatic and relatively hopeful, to sulking and disappointed, to bluntly antagonistic. The Taliban's strategic good sense made a tough job tougher. Soldiers from the Parachute Regiment sent into Helmand province this spring were well prepared. Sadly, their mission changed when they got to Afghanistan. From tough peacekeeping, it became fierce 'war fighting'.

The celebrated 'inkspots of security' that would allow much-needed reconstruction never appeared. To complicate matters further, the Brits were surrounded by Americans, Canadians, Danes and others, few of whom were following the same doctrine and easily slipped into the traps laid by the Taliban, who cynically encouraged 'collateral damage'. The result is now brutally clear. The Taliban have been forced out of some areas but are stronger than ever across the south-east region. The city of Kandahar is beyond their grasp - not that they want it for the moment - but the roads and the countryside are largely theirs.

We need to admit that there is unlikely to be a significant improvement in the near future. There is no sign that the crucial safe havens exploited by the Taliban in Pakistan are likely to disappear soon. The movement's ideological, ethnic, religious, commercial, political and military networks there would take decades to dismantle - even if Islamabad found the will or means to do so. In addition, the pitifully weak commitment of key Nato partners, such as France and Germany, is unlikely to stiffen soon. The French are pulling troops out, while the Germans' rules of engagement render them useless.

One senior British officer recently back from Afghanistan told me last week that, given a free hand and five years, General David Richards, the British Nato commander, could overcome the insurgency. This might be true, but he is not going to get either. The officer also had radical proposals to deal with drugs - we should buy up the opium, negotiate with dealers, avoid razing the drug fields - all of which are very unlikely to be implemented.

There are also the sensitivities of Western populations. Partly because of the bitter experience of Iraq, European voters are not keen on the Afghan fighting and will not tolerate high casualties or expense. The Taliban know this. With these problems, the vicious cycle of 'no security, so no reconstruction, so no security' will not be broken. We won't lose the war, but neither will the Taliban.

Several things should be done quickly. Special forces should target senior Taliban leaders while other military operations are limited to bolstering the Afghan police and army. President Karzai's faltering government must be forced to make an example of the most corrupt officials and the worst drug dealers.

We need more money and soldiers in areas that are still stable to show those in places now run by the Taliban what they are missing. We need pressure on the Pakistanis and a sophisticated package of social, economic and political measures to eat away at Taliban support along their side of the frontier. And we need to remember that the Taliban are not a monolithic bloc but are composed of numerous factions.

There is a hard core of fanatics who will fight to the last. But they can be isolated because others can be bought off, frightened, reasoned with or tempted into a partnership with the central Afghan government. That means talking to the Taliban, unpalatable though that may seem.

Sadly, a pragmatic approach is the best bet to avoid a long-drawn-out, expensive and unsuccessful war. We cannot afford more errors.

Opposition to Afghan Mission Grows in Canada

December 7, 2006 - Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research

- More Canadian adults believe their armed forces should not be taking part in the War on Terrorism, according to a poll by The Strategic Counsel released by CTV and the Globe and Mail. 61 per cent of respondents oppose sending troops to Afghanistan, up eight points since October.

Afghanistan has been the main battleground in the war on terrorism. The conflict began in October 2001, after the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.

Canadians renewed the House of Commons in January. The Conservative party—led by Stephen Harper—received 36.3 per cent of the vote, and secured 124 seats in the 308-member lower house. Since February, Harper leads a minority administration after more than 12 years of government by the Liberal party.

In May, the House of Commons extended Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until February 2009. At least 506 soldiers—including 44 Canadians—have died in the war on terrorism, either in support of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom or as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

On Dec. 5, Canadian brigadier-general David Fraser expressed disappointment with the coverage of the mission in Afghanistan, declaring, "The story Canadians are receiving is like an iceberg. They’re only seeing one-third of it. What was reported this past summer was my operations in Sangin and Helmand; what I did to fight the Taliban. No one reported the fact that I spent $20 million building roads, schools, wells and training and mentoring an Afghan corp commander."

Polling Data - Do you support or oppose sending troops to Afghanistan?

Source: The Strategic Counsel / CTV / The Globe and Mail
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,000 Canadian adults, conducted on Dec. 3, 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

Is it time for an Afghanistan Study Group?

Rudyard Griffiths sees lessons for Canada in America's mistakes in Iraq

The Toronto Star Dec. 10, 2006. 01:00 AM - Last week in the United States, a blue-ribbon panel provided President George W. Bush with a bleak assessment of American failures in Iraq and a road map to exit the war-torn country and re-stabilize the Middle East.

The Iraq Study Group, headed up by Bush family adviser James Baker and 9/11 co-chair and Democrat Lee Hamilton, put forward a slew of recommendations that fundamentally challenged the White House's four-year "stay-the-course" policy. Key among these was the insistence that the U.S. use economic "disincentives and incentives" to draw Iran and Syria into diplomatic talks on Iraq's future. Equally refreshing, the ISG urged a shift in U.S. strategy away from "war fighting" to training Iraqi forces and quadrupling aid to the troubled country to $5 billion per year.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his advisers would do well to consider the ISG's recommendations in light of an increasingly tough mission Canadian troops, aid workers and diplomats face in Afghanistan. To start, our troops are in danger in southern Afghanistan in large part because of the breakdown of meaningful diplomatic links with Pakistan and Iran.

The government of Pakistan's creation of "autonomous" tribal zones along its border with Afghanistan this summer has established a safe haven and fertile recruiting ground for the suicide bombers who are killing Canadians and Afghans. Iran is also supposedly providing increasing support for the insurgency in the Kandahar region to put pressure on what it sees as hostile U.S. and NATO forces arrayed along its eastern border.

As suggested by the Iraq Study Group, we should be using economic "disincentives and incentives" to bring Pakistan and Iran into regional negotiations to stabilize southern Afghanistan. Pakistan's unwillingness to police its borders is a serious threat to our troops and Canada should take a hard line with the government in Islamabad, including threats of sanctions.

The other page we should take from the ISG playbook is to acknowledge that large-scale combat operations, the kind we were involved in earlier this fall, are a strategic dead-end.

Killing large numbers of Taliban in set-piece battles using high-tech artillery, close air support, and now Leopard tanks, only fuels the counter-insurgency. If the U.S. has finally figured this out in Iraq and commits to massive increases in aid spending and a laserlike focus on training indigenous security forces, then why don't we do the same in Afghanistan?

Finally, we should pay heed to the ISG's most important act of truth-telling: the U.S troop commitment in Iraq is not open-ended. Canadians, too, must acknowledge our military and aid resources are not unlimited.

We are a nation that, thanks to our diversity within, has a myriad of interests beyond our borders. Just as the Americans cannot afford to remain bogged down in Iraq indefinitely, Canada needs to have an unemotional debate about defining success in Afghanistan and how and when we should be drawing down our troop and aid commitments.

As a proponent of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, I am increasingly worried that we seem unable to learn from America's mistake in Iraq.

From centralizing the decision-making about the war in National Defence headquarters in Ottawa to aping George W. Bush's "we don't cut and run" rhetoric to fostering unrealistic expectations about why we are in Afghanistan (e.g. the building of girls' schools), the Canadian mission to Kandahar region is sleepwalking toward the kind of harsh reality check Iraq visited on the U.S. administration and mostly tuned-out public.

It is for these reasons that Canada needs its own Afghanistan Study Group.

Let's bring together a non-partisan group of the best minds in the country — people such as Allan Gotlieb, John Manley and Louise Fréchette — to figure out a realistic long-term strategy for our mission in Afghanistan. By virtue of being above politics, this group could consult widely inside and outside the country and create a policy that puts Canada and our troops ahead of a chain of events that led the Americans to their Iraq debacle.

Rudyard Griffiths is executive director of the Dominion Institute. rudyard@dominion.ca.

Winning in Afghanistan

By Cynthia Tucker - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ajc.com 12/10/06

Not only is there no path to victory in Iraq, as the Iraq Study Group has made clear, but there is also very little chance of preventing disaster. As the U.S. military withdraws —- and it must —- the civil war between Sunni and Shiite will become more savage still, neighboring states will find themselves flooded with refugees and Iraq will probably become the failed state that our policy was intended to prevent.

That's a brutal, ugly truth, but it is a truth widely acknowledged by many experts. No amount of hand-wringing or finger-pointing will change it.

But the United States need not leave two failed states. We can still save Afghanistan. It was always the right battlefield —- Iraq was always the wrong one —- and Afghanistan is where we should concentrate our diplomacy and manpower now. If we don't, that nation will continue to deteriorate until it is once again a cauldron of violence and corruption, a haven for jihadists and narco-terrorists.

The ISG report made that point explicitly: "The longer that U.S. political and military resources are tied down in Iraq, the more the chances for American failure in Afghanistan increase."

Routing the Taliban was the righteous war that grew out of Sept. 11. The jihadist-warrior cult had offered safe harbor to Osama bin Laden, who planned the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. The Bush administration had no choice but to mount an invasion of Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, neither the neoconservatives nor the traditional conservatives had much real interest in the remote, obscure country. They didn't think the use of U.S. military might on a primitive nation would inspire awe among other Islamists; they had no patience for nation-building; they weren't passionate about planting democracy there.

So before bin Laden was captured, before the Taliban was decimated, before the remote mountainous regions of Afghanistan were secure, civilian leadership at the Pentagon ordered the military to turn its attention and personnel to Iraq. Special forces operatives who might have located bin Laden were pulled out; troops and materiel were redirected. When Afghan President Hamid Karzai was elected, the White House declared victory and pulled back. There are now about 21,000 U.S. troops and nearly as many troops from other NATO countries in Afghanistan.

However, they have met stiff resistance from a resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida, which still have the run of the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Though the Bush administration has declared Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf an ally in the war on terror, he has proved unable or unwilling to clamp down on insurgents.

Gen. Michael Hayden, CIA director, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month that the Taliban and al-Qaida were waging a "bloody insurgency" in the east and south of the country. He noted that al-Qaida forces are using techniques in Afghanistan perfected in Iraq, including roadside explosives and suicide bombers. Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the committee that violent attacks this year had nearly doubled over 2005.

Indeed, there are places in Afghanistan where Karzai fears to tread, so he usually confines himself to Kabul, the capital. With no real law in effect, Afghanistan farmers reaped a record opium harvest this year, producing about 92 percent of the world's supply. Drug activity feeds not just jihadist movements but also violent narcotics traffickers.

Despite its problems, Afghanistan still can benefit from U.S. military and diplomatic might. As the Pentagon pulls troops out of Iraq, it can beef up the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. (If we contribute more heavily, we might be able to persuade our NATO allies to do the same.) The insurgency can be quelled, if not eradicated.

And as stability returns, nongovernmental aid organizations and charitable institutions will pour in, offering health care and educational and economic assistance. It may take decades to stamp out poppy cultivation, but it's worth a more serious effort than we've given it so far.

President Bush still could see a stable, pro-Western nation rise from the anger and anguish of Sept. 11. It just won't be Iraq.

Afghanistan war nears 'tipping point'

Government support is flagging, NATO is split on strategy, and Taliban fighters are revitalized. By Laura King and David Holley The Los Angeles Times December 9, 2006

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN — The conflict in Afghanistan has entered a dangerous phase, and the next three to six months could prove crucial in determining whether the United States and its NATO partners can suppress a revitalized enemy — or will be dragged into another drawn-out and costly fight with an Islamic insurgency, according to senior military and security officials and diplomats.

"I think we are approaching a tipping point, perhaps early in the new year," said a Western diplomat in the region, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the situation publicly.

Popular support for the central government is faltering, and Western military allies are deeply divided over how best to combat the insurgency.

On the other side of the fight, the Taliban has regained the strength to dominate large swaths of Afghanistan; government control is tenuous at best in at least 20% of the country, according to several Western diplomats and Afghan officials.

Militants have built a network of bases in the tribal hinterlands that straddle the frontier with Pakistan. Over the last year, a growing number of mobile encampments on the Afghan side of the border have given the insurgents greater self-sufficiency, military officials say, although the guerrillas still draw heavily on logistical support and weaponry funneled from the Pakistani side.

"They can come and go pretty much undetected," acknowledged U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Michael T. Harrison Sr., who is overseeing the training and equipping of the struggling Afghan national army.

Observers point to an inexorable upward trend in violence that includes suicide attacks, roadside bombs and border clashes. "We have a bona fide war going on," Harrison said.

A widely cited recent report by the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board, a panel of Afghan and foreign officials, said such attacks had increased fourfold from last year, killing at least 3,700 people so far in 2006.

A military spokesman in Kabul, the capital, for NATO's International Security Assistance Force, U.S. Army Maj. Luke Knittig, said he did not believe the report accurately reflected long-term trends. But a number of outside experts tracking the trajectory of the conflict supported the panel's assessment of a growing threat.

At stake for the U.S. and its allies with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not an outright battlefield defeat by the Taliban and other insurgent groups.

"We should be careful that we don't overstate this militarily unconventional challenge," U.S. Marine Gen. James L. Jones, NATO's supreme allied commander, told reporters last week in Riga, Latvia, where the alliance's leaders were meeting. "We will not be defeated militarily by the Taliban." NATO has 32,000 troops in the country, backed by formidable airpower.

But the patchwork of militant groups battling the Western allies has its own arsenal of strengths.

Insurgent attacks, whose low-tech tactics echo those used against U.S. forces in Iraq, are often ineffectual. But inevitably, some hit home. On Wednesday, for example, two American civilian contractors were killed in a suicide bombing in Kandahar, the sixth such attack in 10 days. Nearly 180 NATO and allied troops have been killed in fighting this year in Afghanistan.

The number of casualties has been enough to ignite public debate over the Afghan mission in several NATO countries, including Canada, which has more than 2,000 troops deployed, mostly in the violent south, the traditional seat of Taliban power.

Within Afghanistan, civilians increasingly bear the brunt not only of insurgent attacks, but NATO's offensive against the militants. In October, a NATO airstrike in the south killed more than 30 civilians, most thought to be nomadic herders. Civilian deaths account for about one-quarter of the fatalities this year and heighten Afghans' resentment of the foreign military forces while feeding a gnawing sense of insecurity.

In terms of casualties, the conflict is a lopsided one. The number of insurgent fatalities over the last year could be as high as 7,000, according to some independent estimates. But the Taliban and its allies draw on what appears to be an almost inexhaustible supply of potential foot soldiers.

"Recruitment is not a problem for them — not a problem at all," said Ayesha Siddiqa, an independent security analyst in Pakistan.

The allies are well aware that simply killing large numbers of insurgents will not constitute a victory. Western officials say they need to prevent the militants from seizing and holding more territory, establish reasonably secure conditions in the capital and the hinterlands, choke off infiltration across the porous Pakistani border and mend fences with restive tribal leaders.

All those tasks are proving difficult. The insurgents include remnants of the Taliban, the austere Islamist movement that ruled Afghanistan for five years and gave shelter to Osama bin Laden and other members of his Al Qaeda terrorist network. The volatile brew also includes competing warlords, part-time fighters, recruits from the growing ranks of the poor and unemployed, and disaffected youth, often graduates of Talibaninspired religious seminaries.

Viktor Korgun, an analyst with the Russian Academy of Sciences who has had long experience in Afghan affairs, describes the insurgents as "a fresh new generation copying the skills and ways of the armed resistance groups in Iraq."

"Their support network has improved, and in some areas they've been able to operate and control roads and villages and the like," said Seth Jones, a counterinsurgency expert at the Rand Corp. who was recently in Afghanistan for field research. "The Taliban have created a shadow government in a number of provinces — people going to Taliban governors rather than centrally appointed governors on rule-of-law issues."

The Taliban holds sway in much of the border province of Zabol, several Afghan and Western officials say. And in other provinces, including Kandahar and Helmand, the insurgents operate freely outside major cities and towns.

A number of interlocking factors have contributed to the insurgent comeback:

The U.S.-backed government of President Hamid Karzai has been slow in asserting itself throughout the country. Afghanistan's drug trade has also revived at an explosive rate. Opium cultivation rose this year by nearly 60%, according to the United Nations drug agency and the World Bank, and officials say drug money has become a driving force behind the insurgency.

In much of the country, the lack of security has severely stunted development projects, which in turn has fostered widespread disillusionment. Particularly in dirt-poor rural areas, many Afghans believe their daily lot has improved little since Taliban times, and tend to cast the blame on the same Americans they once hailed as liberators.

"People previously were repelled by the fanaticism of the Taliban, but anger at Americans is growing," said Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general who is now an independent analyst. "And ultimately, they would prefer that their lives be secure. It's a survival instinct."

A European security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that for insurgents, fomenting even low-level instability carries big payoffs.

"People have lived through 20-odd years of war at varying levels of intensity. Frankly, they're not going to get fazed by a few IEDs," or improvised explosive devices, he said. "But they are concerned that the base level of their lives is not improved, and that's the challenge that the insurgency provides — delaying the ability of the government to be able to deliver, by keeping certain areas unstable."

Senior NATO generals have publicly aired disagreements over battle tactics, troop strength and rules that largely exempt some member countries' troops from the most dangerous duty. But the alliance's political leadership appears in agreement that the Afghanistan fight is one the West cannot afford to lose. British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared in advance of the Riga meeting that "NATO's credibility is at stake," and President Bush called Afghanistan "NATO's most important military operation."

In recent weeks, senior U.S. officials have spoken more frankly about the alliance's attempts to come to terms with an unexpectedly resilient foe.

"There's certainly concern about the fact that they've been able to come out this year with more intensity, more organization than we might have expected," U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher recently told reporters in New Delhi.

"You do have to understand, there are people that are bound and determined to kill us," he said. "For those people, we're going to have to shoot back." ---

King reported from Kabul and Holley from Riga. Times staff writers Henry Chu in New Delhi and Sergei L. Loiko in Moscow contributed to this report.

[Disclaimer: The content of this news bulletin does not necessarily reflect the view or policy of the Afghan Government, unless specifically stated as such. The collection of articles and commentaries from Afghan and international news sources is provided for informational purposes, and accuracy of the news is the responsibility of the original source.]