In this bulletin:

• Nepal hostage dies in Afghanistan
• 100 Al-Qaeda, Taliban behind Afghan prison standoff: police
• Afghans say solid evidence Taliban in Pakistan
• Islamabad confirms receiving list of 40 wanted Afghans
• Pakistan investigates Afghan list of terrorists
• Musharraf defends Pakistan's battle with Al-Qaeda
• The battle to rebuild Afghanistan
• Afghan border security meet opens in Qatar
• AFGHANISTAN: Investment climate improving – World Bank
• AFGHANISTAN: WFP urgently needs US $11 million
• Bush to visit Afghanistan despite Taliban attacks
• Afghanistan Not Part of Bush's Itinerary
• O'Connor attacked for not taking part in Afghanistan debate
• Should Canadian troops be in Afghanistan?
• We have an important role
• Taliban, al-Qaeda threat growing
• This Week in Afghanistan: Let the Opium War Begin
• Ex-Taliban spokesman now a Yale student

Nepal hostage dies in Afghanistan – BBC

One of two Nepalese men kidnapped in the Afghan capital, Kabul, two weeks ago has been freed, while the other has been found dead, officials say. The two men, who were working as security guards for a British aid agency in Kabul, were kidnapped by a criminal gang, authorities said.

Deputy Interior Minister Abdul Malek Sidiqi said the gang abandoned the men as the police were closing in on them. Officials said the hostage found dead had taken ill and died in captivity.

Speaking to the Associated Press news agency, the Nepalese ambassador in Pakistan, Pushkar Man Rajbhandari, identified the released man as Thanam Sing Lamichane Rana and the dead man as Chet Narayan Pun.

Last year, an Italian aid worker based in Kabul was held for 24 days by a criminal gang, before being released unharmed. Earlier, three UN election observers had also been kidnapped and later released.

The two Nepalese men were kidnapped at gunpoint on 11 February as they walked through a Kabul suburb. The kidnappers had "directly contacted the aid group" to demand ransom money in return for freeing the Nepalese guards but their demands were not met, Mr Sidiqi said. He said the government "never deals with criminals".

Police had received a tip-off late on Monday that the two hostages may be moved from the capital and surrounded a western suburb, but the gang escaped, he added.

"The kidnappers, taking advantage of the cover of the night, threw out the hostages. Unfortunately one of them who was suffering from a stomach problem was dead," he said. The men had not been tortured by their captors, Mr Sidiqi said.

The released man and the body of the other hostage will be handed to the Nepalese embassy in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad. Nepal does not have an embassy in Afghanistan.

100 Al-Qaeda, Taliban behind Afghan prison standoff: police

Kabul (AFP) - Afghan police said 100 Al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners had incited a riot at Afghanistan's main jail that led to a standoff between police and 1,500 inmates, at least four of whom died.

Food and water were restored late Monday to the block of the Pul-e-Charkhi prison on the outskirts of the Kabul after negotiations between prison representatives and authorities eased the revolt that erupted late Saturday.

"Police have identified those behind the riots. They are around 100 Al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners associated with some criminal prisoners," rapid reaction force police commander general Mahboob Amiri told AFP on Tuesday.

Most Al-Qaeda suspects caught in Afghanistan after the US-led invasion to topple the Taliban regime in late 2001 have been transferred to Guantanamo Bay or the US jail at Bagram Air Base.

But a number of lower-ranking, foreign Al-Qaeda militants and some Afghans said to have close ties to the network are still housed in Pul-e-Charkhi, along with rank-and-file Taliban fighters, officials say.

The riot erupted late Saturday with inmates attacking wardens with makeshift weapons, breaking windows and doors, and setting alight bedding and furniture.

Walls separating units for criminals, political prisoners and women were smashed through. The political wing contained about 300 Taliban and Al-Qaeda inmates, authorities said.

Police and soldiers surrounded the block for two days and warned they would storm the building if talks failed. Government negotiators took away a list of prisoners' demands Monday and were expected to respond Tuesday.

The prisoners agreed after the talks Monday to allow the dead and wounded to be removed from the block. The bodies of four inmates were removed late Monday, Amiri said. Twenty people wounded were also taken to hospitals for treatment.

"It is quiet and totally under control now," Amiri said. "We plan today to distribute the prisoners into separate blocks since their present block has been damaged by the riots. The windows and doors are broken."

Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants have been waging an insurgency against the government since the Taliban was ousted for failing to hand over Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Afghans say solid evidence Taliban in Pakistan - 27 Feb 2006 Sayed Salahuddin

KABUL, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Afghanistan has solid evidence about militant training camps in Pakistan and the presence there of fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, a senior Afghan security official said on Monday.

President Hamid Karzai visited neighbouring Pakistan this month and urged it to take action against the Taliban, al Qaeda and other militants who he said launched attacks from sanctuaries there.

During the visit, his delegation handed over confessions of 13 Pakistani terrorists arrested in Afghanistan and details of Taliban leaders in Pakistan, including phone numbers, locations and descriptions, the Afghan security official said.

Yet Pakistani authorities had suggested through the media that Afghan intelligence was not valid and outdated, he said on condition of anonymity.

"It is currently crystal clear ... that terrorists are using Pakistan soil for planning attacks, for masterminding attacks on our soil and that situation is hurting the feelings of Afghanistan's population vis-a-vis Pakistan," he told Reuters.

"It is not helping the long-term relations between the two countries if our people continue to be hurt by terrorists who have safe haven in the Pakistani soil.

"We cannot build trust by accusing and counter-accusing each other in the media. We are looking forward to tangible results based on what we have given to the Pakistani authorities."

Pakistan was the main supporter of the Taliban government in Afghanistan but became a U.S. ally in its war against terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

U.S.-led forces overthrew the Taliban weeks later because Omar refused to hand over al Qaeda chief, Osama bin Laden, architect of the attacks.

More than four years on, bin Laden and Omar remain at large and a Taliban insurgency in which more than 1,500 people have died since the start of last year rages on.

Pakistan says it has deployed tens of thousands of troops along its border with Afghanistan and does all it can to stop militant infiltration. The Afghan security official repeated a charge by Afghan officials that Mullah Omar was operating from Pakistan.

He said bin Laden, the world's most wanted man who was a $25-million U.S. reward on his head, was not in Afghanistan but stopped short of saying he was in Pakistan.

Asked if bin Laden was in Pakistan, as many Afghans believe, he said: "The major difficulty is the areas where the terrorist camps are located and those areas are on the other side of the tribal border."

He was referring to the semi-autonomous tribal area of Waziristan in Pakistan where Afghan officials say al Qaeda and Taliban organise most of their attacks against Afghan and foreign troops based in Afghanistan.

Islamabad confirms receiving list of 40 wanted Afghans

ISLAMABAD, Feb 27 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Islamabad Monday confirmed receiving a list of wanted Afghans, including several Taliban leaders, from President Hamid Karzai during his recent three-day visit to Pakistan.

At official negotiations, Karzai provided his Pakistani interlocutors the list of 40 Afghans wanted by Kabul, a spokeswoman for Pakistan's Foreign Office told a weekly media briefing here.

In response to a query, Tasnim Aslam said the Afghan leader had demanded the arrest of the wanted men, allegedly hiding in Pakistan, and their handover to the neighbouring country.

She acknowledged Karzai had also given President Pervez Musharraf information regarding the hideout of Taliban's fugitive supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar. "But Pakistan's intelligence outfits found the information inaccurate," she hastened to explain.

Pakistan had no idea where Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden and Aiman al-Zawahiri were hiding, said the spokesperson, who added Pakistan was ready to conduct operations to capture the alleged terrorist masterminds.

Tasnim Aslam remarked Pakistan and Afghanistan needed intelligence-sharing and cooperation at different levels to defeat terrorists - the common enemies of the two countries.

At it last meeting in Kabul, the trilateral commission discussed Islamabad's concern at US military attacks on targets inside Pakistan. The participants conferred on progress in their joint war on terrorism, she concluded.

Reported by Pakhtun Sahar & translated by Mudassir

Pakistan investigates Afghan list of terrorists
Islamabad | February 27, 2006 9:35:58 PM IST

Pakistan today said Afghan President Hamid Karzai handed over a list of around 40 persons wanted by his government during his recent visit to Pakistan.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tasneem Aslam told a press briefing in Islamabad that investigations by the Pakistani intelligence agencies were already underway. Pakistani agencies were in touch with their Afghan counterpart and the agencies of other countries, she added.

Mr Karzai had claimed on returning from a recent visit to Pakistan that he handed over a list of 150 suspected terrorists wanted by his government to Pakistani authorities.

Aslam also confirmed that President Karzai provided some information about the whereabouts of Taliban leader Mullah Omar. ''Some of the information was checked and it is not correct,'' she added.

The spokesperson, when asked, said name of Osama bin Laden was not on the list handed over to the Pakistani authorities.

Musharraf defends Pakistan's battle with Al-Qaeda

Washington (AFP) - Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf defended his military strategy against Al-Qaeda, saying his troops were aggressively hunting down the group and not focusing solely on capturing Osama bin Laden.

Musharraf, in an interview with the US television network ABC, also dismissed information on Taliban leaders given to Pakistan by Afghanistan's president as "ridiculous".

Asked if he was going after bin Laden aggressively enough, Musharraf said: "We are not using the army only to track down Osama. I mean, this kind of a misperception should be removed. We are using the army against Al-Qaeda and Taliban.

"Now in the process, if you get word on him, very good. But we are not certainly focusing entirely only on tracking Osama bin Laden and (his number-two Ayman al-) Zawahri," he told ABC News in Pakistan on Monday.

The interview came ahead of US President George W. Bush's Tuesday departure to South Asia, where he will visit India and Pakistan, where the US leader is expected to prod Musharraf to move more rapidly against Al-Qaeda leaders believed to be hiding in the country.

Musharraf said 80,000 troops were fighting Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters of the former Afghan regime in Pakistan's mountainous border with Afghanistan. But he said it was unknown whether bin Laden was in Pakistan.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai handed over a list with information about key Taliban figures during his visit to Pakistan this month.

"Just five days back when president Karzai gives me a list of numbers, ridiculous kind of numbers that they are here and they are talking and we find that two-third is a waste of time," Musharraf said.

"Two-thirds of them are dead numbers and I'm quoting this with full authority," he said. "Now the other one-third is, we are trying to track down these numbers."

In his visit to Pakistan, Bush is expected to nudge Musharraf, a key ally in the US leader's anti-terror campaign, to commit more resources to capturing bin Laden and Zawahiri. Zawahiri reportedly escaped missile strikes by US drones in a tribal village in Pakistan in January.

The battle to rebuild Afghanistan - By Toby Poston - BBC News

As more than 5,000 British troops are being deployed in Afghanistan, it is becoming clear that the dire security situation is just one of many obstacles that hold back reconstruction efforts. True, security is a major worry for aid agencies, who saw 30 of their workers die last year.

But in some cases, the agencies' wasteful bureaucracies are also holding back efforts to rebuild this war ravaged country, according to Ashraf Ghani, who has written a report on international development and post-war reconstruction, sponsored by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

As chancellor of Kabul University and Afghan finance minister between 2002-2004, Mr Ghani's word carries some weight. When he says millions of dollars worth of aid money is being wasted, both donor nations and aid agencies take note.

Complete waste of money - Mr Ghani believes the Afghan government could build a school for about $40,000 (£23,000), a fraction of the $250,000 cost racked up when one international aid agency took on the task of delivering 500 schools.

The difference would arise because the Afghan government would use locally hired contractors, while the aid agency spent 80% of its funds on hiring external technical assistants, he explains.

Another case of money being wasted was the reconstruction of the road between Kandahar and the capital Kabul, which the government estimated would cost $35m. It was eventually built by USAID and ended up costing more than $190m, Mr Ghani says.

Moreover, these are not isolated cases, Mr Ghani insists, as he estimates that more than 90% of the more than $1bn that was spent on about 400 UN projects in Afghanistan in 2002 was a waste of money.

More harm than good - But the billions of dollars of aid pumped into Afghanistan over the past four years have not merely been wasted; the cash injections might even be doing more harm than good, Mr Ghani suggests. In particular, it has been damaging to the government and its ability to build law and order and deliver public services, he says.

With more than 2,400 national and international aid agencies and other non-governmental organisations (NGOs) registered in the country, the government is finding it hard to hold on to its staff, Mr Ghani says.

The country's 280,000 civil servants earn an average wage of $50 per month, while approximately 50,000 Afghans work for aid organisations where support staff earn up to $1000 a month.

"Within six months of starting my job as finance minister, my best people had been stolen by international aid organisations who could offer them forty to a hundred times the salary we could," he says.

Lucrative work - ODI workers on the ground say Mr Ghani has a point. They say Afghanistan is brimming with expensive foreign contractors and consultants who are often duplicating or replacing work that could be carried out by the government.

"There is a tendency for UN agencies and non-government organisations to rush in with thousands of small projects, each requiring international staff and drivers," says Clare Lockhart, a research fellow at the ODI and a former advisor to the Afghan finance ministry.

These experts cost far more in overheads like living expenses and repatriation costs than in actual fees for their services, but with further lucrative work in the pipeline, it is not in their interests to pass on their skills to their Afghan counterparts, Ms Lockhart explains.

Nevertheless, she also points out that some projects, for example like the National Solidarity Programme, are worth copying.

The programme has seen hundreds of millions of dollars delivered straight to local communities, thus enabling 13,000 villages to plan and manage their own reconstruction and development projects, she says.

Critical voices, such as Mr Ghani's, have helped ensure that in future Afghanistan's own government and people will gain greater control over how aid money is spent.

Early this month, the launch of the Afghan Compact initiative saw more than $10.5bn in aid pledged to Afghanistan over the next five years, as part of an agreement where both the Afghan government and its outside backers must benchmarks progress in areas such as security, economic development and better government.

In the UK, the Department for International Development is paying 70% of this year's £100m aid budget direct to the Afghan government, making it the largest donor to it's core budget.

The funds are not earmarked, and there are firm commitments to deliver the funds for at least three years hence. This gives the Afghan government the chance to plan ahead.

Peace building Commission - The Development department has also set up a Post-Conflict Reconstruction Unit, similar to the US State Department's Co-ordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilisation, while the United Nations has launched its Peacebuilding Commission in an attempt to revitalise its approach to state-building and reconstruction.

It is hoped that new organisations like these can help pull together some of the expertise and skills developed through years of peacebuilding and reconstruction in regions like the Balkans, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq.

These new approaches need to work, not just for the sake of the Afghan people. The advent of global terrorism means people in the West cannot be secure when poverty and chaos elsewhere means large regions remain unstable.

Afghan border security meet opens in Qatar
Web posted at: 2/28/2006 2:13:13 Source ::: AFP

DOHA: A two-day conference on border security in Afghanistan opened here yesterday focused on efforts to increase cooperation with the country’s seven neighbours, organisers said.

Germany, which has been involved in training Afghan police since 2002, is co-sponsoring the 26-country gathering along with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.

“The main purpose of the conference is to establish border management between Afghanistan and its neighbour states to create secure borders and border controls,” said Ingrid von Stumme, spokesperson for the German delegation headed by Interior Minister Wolfgang Schauble. She said the conference will also try to drum up more financing from participating countries to support Afghanistan’s police force.

Among those at the conference are the interior ministers of Qatar, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates as well as senior narcotics control officers from Britain, Norway, Russia and the United States.

AFGHANISTAN: Investment climate improving – World Bank

KABUL, 27 February (IRIN) - A World Bank report released on Saturday said that the investment climate in Afghanistan was improving, but identified key constraints to capital inflows. The report called on the government to do more to promote private-sector development.

Based on a survey of 338 companies in five Afghan cities, the report said the most serious constraints for private-sector developments were reliable mains electricity, access to land and finance and the scourge of corruption.

According to the study, the key challenge is to broaden participation in the market by removing barriers to new investors and creating conditions that will encourage those already active in the economy to invest more.

The report emphasises the need to improve government's capacity to formulate and implement private-sector development policies and programmes. "Enterprises need a variety of business services to help them enter, operate, grow and manage risks," said Samuel Munzele Maimbo, World Bank Senior Financial Sector Specialist and co-author of the report.

"These services are best provided by the private sector but the government needs to put in place a policy and regulatory framework to facilitate private entry."

The report notes that the Afghan government has taken a number of steps to improve the business environment and attract investment. It has established the Afghanistan Investment Support Agency (AISA) designed specifically to promote and facilitate investment. There has also been significant progress in developing the financial sector, as well as reform in labour regulation and the nation's tax regime.

"The government has made important strides toward creating an enabling investment climate," said Jean Mazurelle, World Bank Country Manager for Afghanistan. "But much more remains to be done. Private-sector activity is still carried out in an environment dominated by informal practices. These arrangements may be useful for many investors in the short run but will have negative effects for longer-term investment growth."

Some 80-90 percent of economic activity in Afghanistan is informal and potential investors who do not have established contacts with influential figures find these informal arrangements daunting and are often discouraged from investing, the report argues.

Afghanistan has witnessed a sharp increase in private-sector investment since the demise of the Taliban in late 2001 , but it is well below its potential, the report says. For example, AISA has registered nearly US $1.3 billion in new investment (excluding telecom firms) over the past two years, but only a fraction of these commitments have actually been disbursed.

While investment accounts for nearly 22 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the bulk of it is public money financed through international aid.

Nearly 50 percent of the new investment approved by AISA has been in construction and construction materials. "This reflects the massive inflows of external aid and the need to rebuild infrastructure," said Syed Mahmood, World

Bank Private Sector Development Specialist.

"In the risky environment of Afghanistan, foreign investors prefer government and donor-funded reconstruction projects or services through which they can quickly recover their investment, to the longer-term process of building markets for manufactured goods."

The World Bank has contributed over $900 million to post-war Afghanistan since 2002, the major component being soft loans.

AFGHANISTAN: WFP urgently needs US $11 million

KABUL, 27 Feb 2006 (IRIN) - The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) warned on Monday that its Afghanistan operation was facing critical shortages in supplying food to 3.5 million vulnerable people, and called on donors to provide urgent funds to prevent food shortages in the post-conflict country.

“A break in food supplies looms in March if donations are not forthcoming. WFP immediately requires US $11 million to fund its current operations until June 2006,” the UN agency said in a statement.

“We don’t have enough food for vulnerable communities as they come out of winter and head into the lean season prior to the summer harvest,” said WFP Afghanistan Country Director, Charles Vincent. “The international community must renew its efforts to help vulnerable Afghans.”

“With cash, we will be able to buy commodities in the region to distribute to the most vulnerable hungry, poor Afghans. Without cash, the lean season will be also very bleak for many,” Vincent explained.

WFP operations are already being cut back due to the lack of cash. Food-for-work projects, which involve communities building local infrastructure such as roads and bridges in exchange for food rations, are being delayed. Food that has been pre-positioned in provinces in case of emergency is now being dispatched to tuberculosis patients, the agency noted.

“Poor and hungry schoolchildren who receive take-home rations of food as an incentive to attend school will receive at most half their usual ration and in some cases none at all,” The UN agency explained in its statement.

A recently completed national food security and vulnerability assessment by the government revealed a worrying picture: poor dietary diversity, poverty, debt and widespread food insecurity. Most farmers in Afghanistan do not harvest enough food to meet their needs for an entire year and many sell their assets to access capital or borrow against next year’s crop, putting them in a vicious debt cycle.

In many instances, poor food consumption with little variety in diet is likely to promote malnutrition and degenerative diseases among the most vulnerable, especially young children, WFP has warned.

Over 50 percent of children are malnourished in Afghanistan. One in three people living in rural areas are unable to meet basic nutritional requirements each day, according to the UN agency.

The war-ravaged country is one of the poorest countries in the world, with more than half the population of around 24.5 million living below the poverty line. A 2003 nationwide vulnerability assessment found that some 3.5 million Afghans are extremely poor and chronically food insecure. An additional 3 million are seasonally food insecure, according to WFP.

“Afghanistan needs more than a quick fix – it needs sustained and targeted support to help it out of its crushing poverty,” said Vincent.

Bush to visit Afghanistan despite Taliban attacks

Randeep Ramesh in New Delhi and Ewen MacAskill Tuesday February 28, 2006 The Guardian · President to extend vital visit to India and Pakistan · US marines to lead huge sub-continent security

The US president, George Bush, is planning a visit to Afghanistan this weekend, his first to the country since the US-led invasion in 2001. Security round the president will be tighter than usual because the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida fighters are still able to mount attacks.

The White House is refusing to confirm that Mr Bush will go to Afghanistan after a visit to India and Pakistan that begins tomorrow. Mr Bush has declared Afghanistan to be a triumph over terrorism but there has been a resurgence of the Taliban over the last 18 months, especially in the south. US forces are pulling out of parts of the south and handing over to British troops this spring.

Marvin Weinbaum, a former state department analyst for Pakistan and Afghanistan, speaking at a briefing organized by the Brookings Institution, a foreign affairs think tank, said Mr Bush had no alternative but to go to Afghanistan. "He's in the neighborhood. Laura Bush went. Can he not go if Laura Bush took the chance and was more exposed actually - not much more, but more exposed than the president will certainly be?"

Thousands of snipers, commandos and US marines are expected to be discreetly deployed for the American leader's maiden first visit to the subcontinent. Mr Bush's visit comes six years after his predecessor Bill Clinton's successful five-day stay. But while the former president charmed New Delhi, he left without a major announcement. In contrast Mr Bush will go to New Delhi offering a number of deals covering space technology, agriculture and biotechnology.

The centerpiece of the visit is a nuclear partnership that will allow Delhi to import nuclear technology and fuel. The deal, which reverses 30 years of US diplomacy, is backed by Britain, Russia and France despite appearing to reward a nation that has snubbed the international community.

Under international and US law, nuclear technology can be given only to countries that have renounced nuclear weapons - which India never has. Delhi exploded a nuclear bomb in 1998. But Mr Bush has made the argument on the basis of India's soaring energy needs - which he says would be best met by nuclear power.

India was asked to separate its civilian and military nuclear programmes, with the former subject to a rigorous inspection regime. This has angered nationalist opinion, which says such a move infringes the nation's sovereignty.

Yesterday the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, told the Indian parliament that the deal will not to compromise national security and "roughly 65%" of India's nuclear installations would come under scrutiny.

Afghanistan Not Part of Bush's Itinerary

By Associated Press February 27, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Will President Bush go to war-rattled Afghanistan when he visits India and Pakistan this week? The White House isn't saying, but there's a lot of speculation here and in South Asia that he will. Both Vice President Dick Cheney and Laura Bush have visited Afghanistan.

"Even if we were going to other countries, we would announce that at an appropriate time -- not before," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Monday.

Bush leaves Tuesday, first for India and then to Pakistan, which shares a border with Afghanistan.

Security tensions already are high for Bush's trip to South Asia, and a stop in Afghanistan would heighten those concerns even further because of the risk posed by al-Qaida and Taliban militants. More than 200 U.S. personnel have died in the Afghan conflict since the United States invaded the country in late 2001.

The size of the U.S. force in Afghanistan is in flux. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld announced in December that the number would shrink from about 19,000 at the time to about 16,000 by the summer.

Marvin Weinbaum, a former State Department analyst for Pakistan and Afghanistan, said Bush likely would confine any visit to heavily guarded Bagram Air Base north of Kabul.

"He has to go," Weinbaum said at Brookings Institution briefing on the president's trip. "He's in the neighborhood. Laura Bush went. Can he not go if Laura Bush took the chance and was more exposed actually -- not much more, but more exposed than the president will certainly be?"

O'Connor attacked for not taking part in Afghanistan debate - MICHAEL DEN TANDT - Globe and Mail Update

Ottawa — Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor came under sharp criticism from the three opposition parties Monday for his government's decision to deny the House of Commons a vote on the Afghan deployment.

In an on-line exchange on Globeandmail.com Monday afternoon, Liberal Ujjal Dosanjh, Bloc MP Claude Bachand and the NDP's Dawn Black all expressed varying degrees of support for the previous Liberal government's move to send 2,200 Canadian soldiers to help restore order in volatile Kandahar Province, in southern Afghanistan.

But all three defence critics slammed the government for restricting Parliamentary discussion of the issue to an update by the defence minister when the House reconvenes in April.

aPs="boxR"; var boxRAC = fnTdo('a'+'ai',300,250,ai,'j',nc); "The Bloc Québécois has always argued that Parliament has to be involved," he wrote. "A decision from Parliament is much more decisive than a cabinet decision. The fact that decisions in Parliament are public gives a better understanding of all the issues of the mission to the whole population of Canada."

Ms. Black said the decision to avoid a vote, or even a take-note debate, is clearly at odds with Prime Minister's promise during the election campaign to put all serious issues before Parliament. "I'm shocked that the Minister [Mr. O'Connor] has contradicted that commitment," she said.

Former Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh, meantime, hardened the Liberal position on the issue, saying the Conservatives must follow through on their commitment to put military deployments to a vote.

The Liberals themselves did not put the Afghan deployment to a vote, but did hold a take-note debate in the House of Commons, Mr. Dosanjh said.

The new Tory government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has long supported the deployment and has committed to staying the course, even though a recent poll show most Canadians have strong reservations about the mission.

Sunday, Mr. O'Connor said he was surprised by the Strategic Counsel poll, published in The Globe and Mail Friday, and acknowledged "I've got a lot of work to do."

Mr. O'Connor declined to participate in the on-line debate Monday. A member of his staff said the government did not feel it was an appropriate forum for the government to state its views on the matter. Mr. O'Connor did submit an opinion piece stating the government's rationale for the mission.

But it was clear from the online debate that, should the Harper government change its position on the vote, the Afghan mission would be in no danger of being derailed. Both the Liberals and Bloc strongly support the mission.

The NDP, though the most critical of the three parties, still broadly supports the objective of stabilizing the Afghan government, and strongly supports the troops overseas. Men and women in uniform, Ms. Black said, "deserve to know that the mission is understood and supported by the Canadian people. Only a full debate in Parliament can achieve that goal."

Also yesterday, sources said plans for an imminent trip by the Prime Minister to Afghanistan have been put on the back burner due to security concerns, though a visit to Canadian troops is still believed likely at some future date.

Sandra Buckler, Mr. Harper's communications director, said she would not comment one way or another on Mr. Harper's travel plans.

Should Canadian troops be in Afghanistan?

They are not debating that question in Parliament. So we're debating it in The Globe and on-line. Globe and Mail Update

On Tuesday, Canadian troops will take over command of NATO combat operations in the Kandahar region of southern Afghanistan.

This is a mission unlike others in recent decades. Instead of peacekeeping, Canadian soldiers will be leading the fight against remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as trying to preserve security in the volatile region where there has been a recent upsurge in attacks, including suicide bombings, designed to disrupt the fragile national government.

But Parliament has never debated this deployment — let alone given its approval. So The Globe and Mail has decided to hold this long-overdue debate in the pages of the newspaper and on-line for readers of globeandmail.com.

Today, on the Comment Page of The Globe, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh, NDP defence critic Dawn Black, and Bloc Québécois defence critic Claude Bachand debated the following resolution:

"WHEREAS the Government of Afghanistan has requested international assistance to protect its new administration and to ensure the country's peaceful transition to democracy,

BE IT RESOLVED that Canada should deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan in a NATO combat mission in furtherance of this objective."

You can read their responses here: Should Canada lead the fight in Afghanistan?

Mr. Dosanjh, Ms. Black and Mr. Bachand were on-line at various times Monday to discuss this question with readers of globeandmail.com. The Globe invited Mr. O'Connor and External Affairs Minister Peter MacKay to join the discussion, or to nominate a representative to speak for the Conservative government. However, they declined to take questions from globeandmail.com readers. Mr. O'Connor said Sunday the government intends to provide an update to Parliament when it meets in April but will not allow a vote on the issue…

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Welcome, and thank you for joining us today to take questions from the readers of globeandmail.com. As you may have seen in today's Globe and Mail, Defence Minister O'Connor — who has declined to participate in this discussion — said yesterday that the new Conservative government will not allow Parliament to vote on the question of whether Canadian forces should be in Afghanistan although he offered this explanation of government policy separately today in the Globe. What is your reaction to the Defence Minister's statements?

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal: During the election campaign, the Conservative Party promised to hold votes in Parliament on military missions. The Conservative government should follow through on that commitment. The previous Liberal government, it should be highlighted, held a take-note debate in Parliament on Canada`s involvement in Afghanistan. The Liberal Opposition would not object to a vote in Parliament.

Claude Bachand, Bloc: I don't agree with Mr. O'Connor. Even though the decision to send troops or not is a cabinet decision, the Bloc Québécois has always argued that Parliament has to be involved. A decision from Parliament is much more decisive than a cabinet decision. The fact that decisions in Parliament are public gives a better understanding of all the issues of the mission to the whole population of Canada. In conclusion, we have help the Afghan people and Canada is one of the 36 nations that are providing help. Everything is under a UN mandate and NATO will take command in the near future, assuring us the guidance of the international community.

Dawn Black, NDP: During the election campaign, Stephen Harper promised that serious issues like this would be put before Parliament.

I'm shocked that the Minister has contradicted that commitment.

Although it's not surprising that the Conservatives would back down on this accountability issue after seeing the new government appoint an unelected campaign organizer to Cabinet and persuading David Emerson to cross the floor after being elected as a Liberal. The men and women in the Canadian military deserve better.

Roger Price, Andorra: In my opinion, all government spending should be prioritized — why not? Tax revenues are limited and governments are only recently adopting a balanced budget policy. So please explain how funding for troops to Afghanistan can get prioritized above all the under-funded items like health care, education etc. Let's recognize our revenue limitations —we do have a $500-billion federal deficit to pay off — so why not prioritize our expenditures within this criteria and solve Canadian problems first?

Dawn Black, NDP: We do need to recognize our priorities at the federal level, and the pent-up demands in health and education are urgent.

Military operations are extremely expensive. The announcement by the Liberal government that they would acquire 16 new tactical airlift aircraft as a cost of $4-5 billion is one example. The cost of acquiring strategic airlift would be much higher.

After all the cutting that the Liberals did to social spending through the 90s there are many deficits to fill. But the corporate tax cuts favoured by both the Liberals and Conservatives will only make the federal pie smaller and our choices more limited.

Claude Bachand, Bloc: Terrorism and security should be very important issues. Helping the Afghan people to rout out Taliban and al-Qaeda to help bring them stability and democracy is vital.

Canada, like every nation, has international responsibilities. We cannot sit on our hands while dictatorship creates horrors. We cannot let terrorists organize themselves and create chaos like they did on September 11, 2001.

Canada has to join a coalition under a UN mandate to not only help out these people but to make sure we address the matter to keep it as far as possible from our borders.

To what extend should we get involved? You are right, it is a question of priorities. Security is one of the most important values for a society.

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal: Before the government undertakes any military mission, the Canadian Forces makes it clear to the Government what such a mission will cost. This means that we know the financial commitment to any military mission from the outset, and that such a mission is funded out of the existing fiscal framework. Military missions are not mutually exclusive to other spending projects.

Kim Vincent, Montreal: I am vehemently opposed to Canada's new combative role in Afghanistan. This is a radical departure from our peacekeeping role, which is the cornerstone of our foreign/military policy. This departure is sure to compromise our international reputation and necessary role as peacekeeper and diplomatic intermediary. We have more than our fair share of warrior nations in the fray today and as violence in the world escalates, it is of the utmost importance that Canada take the lead in diplomatic exchange. Do you agree?

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal: Traditional peacekeeping in the post-Cold War world has changed to include humanitarian, security, and reconstruction dimensions. Reconstruction is not possible without security. The area must be secure in order for reconstruction activities to take place, and to take hold.

Claude Bachand, Bloc: World stability has evolved drastically in the last 10 years. Peace missions are evolving in stabilization missions. I agree that the diplomatic approach is essential but what happens after? Diplomacy is not a strong belief for terrorists.

We have to go a step further. Canada is joining 36 other nations in trying to reconstruct Afghanistan. There are 13 PRTs (Provincial Reconstruction Teams) in Afghanistan. Canada is commanding the one in Kandahar. It is a colossal international task. Either we do it or we stay home and let terrorists regain control and plan attacks on our civilization. We cannot escape from our responsibilities. Furthermore, Canada has a 3D approach — Diplomacy, Development and Defence. The contingent in Kandahar includes these three components. But before you can do anything, you need stability and that is what Princess Patricia Canadian light infantry is doing right now.

Dawn Black, NDP: I'm also concerned about the effect this mission may have on our international reputation. Canadians worked hard to achieve an anti-landmine treaty and have signed conventions against torture.

When it comes to the use of landmines by U.S. forces around Canadian encampments, or handing prisoners over to authorities that may use torture, Canada's reputation has already been compromised.

In order for Canada to preserve its reputation as an advocate for peace, security and human rights, the government needs to be straight about the mission. As I said earlier, the men and women in our military deserve no less. In fact they deserve to know that the mission is understood and supported by the Canadian people. Only a full debate in Parliament can achieve that goal.

Fred Simlett, Halifax : We need to help beat the enemy in their own back yard before they come to our back yard. I only hope we have the intestinal fortitude to stay with the job and not wimp out before the job is done. Will we do that?

Claude Bachand, Bloc: Yes, Mr. Simlett, you are right. We have to take seriously the threats of terrorism. We are not facing the same traditional enemy anymore — no uniforms, no evidence of violence but still good planning and a high level of danger. Our civilization has to face them. It's a terrible plight. We could lose or win, but in the end, I am sure that the good will prevail. We just need persistence, courage and the will to protect our values.

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal: Canada's military has been present in Afghanistan, in various configurations, since late 2001. Afghanistan has been our largest and most significant mission for four years, and we have demonstrated our staying power with regard to this operation. As mentioned earlier, we have a time-limited task, and we will fulfill that obligation. The Canadian government will have to evaluate future involvement in Afghanistan, under the auspices of NATO, and how it will impact our international priorities.

Dawn Black, NDP: The people of Afghanistan are working under very difficult circumstances to rebuild their country so that they may live and work in peace.

The Canadian military are helping to work on reconstruction and civil order in Afghanistan while preserving our reputation as a country that promotes Canadian values of peace and security internationally.

Success in Afghanistan will be measured by the level of peace and stability that results from Canadian and international assistance.

Kevin MacIntyre, Yellowknife : What landmarks do we use to decide that we have succeeded and it is time to leave? Or that we have failed and it is time to leave? Some governments have made it a habit to redefine their goals during the process to avoid admitting error. Afghanistan is a complicated country with complicated problems and our military cannot resolve all of them and may not be able to resolve any of them. To avoid becoming entangled and part of the problem, our goals and exit strategy have to be clear. What are they?

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal: The present commitment to the mission in Kandahar is time-limited, for a year, and it is part of Canada's contribution to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. The previous Liberal government assumed that Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Team would remain in place beyond one year to continue its important reconstruction work. The mission in Afghanistan is a multilateral one, and the final responsibility for its future lies with NATO and its member states.

Dawn Black, NDP: You raise very important issues, Kevin. The real test of political leadership is about deciding what our goals should be in the world and what we want to achieve as a nation.

Minister O'Connor talks about procurement and machinery, but he's silent on the big question: Why are we there?

During the Liberals' tenure, the reason for the mission seemed to be everything and nothing. First we were there because the Afghans asked us, then we were there to fight the Taliban and terrorism and finally, in the Liberal platform, to "build greater influence for Canada in the world."

I look forward to Minister O'Connor standing in the House of Commons in April and giving us a concise and honest answer to exactly what our mission is, our goals and an exit strategy.

Claude Bachand, Bloc: The Canadian approach, the 3-D one, is a good approach. The 3Ds stand for Diplomacy, Development and Defence. The contingent in Kandahar will include these 3 components although defence will have strong application because of the great instability in that part of the country. You are right. There is no exit strategy for now. That is why it is so important that Parliament tackles this issue and not only the cabinet. That way Parliament, with public discussions, can monitor what is happening and adopt the proper exit behaviour. One thing is sure, the Afghan people need the international help and Canadians are part of the 36 nations that are helping them out.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Mr. Dosanjh, M. Bachand and Ms. Black, we want to thank you all for taking so much time today to answer questions from our readers. Any last comments?

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal: The Canadian Forces have been operating in Afghanistan for four years. Canadians are proud of the work of our military in Afghanistan, and do support this critical and often dangerous mission. We can be secure in the knowledge that contributing to the security and the re-building of this troubled country is in our national interest, in the interest of international peace and progress, and reflective of our values as a people.

Claude Bachand, Bloc : I would like to thank The Globe and Mail for this initiative. I have been working on the defence portfolio for five years now. During those years, I have met hundreds of people in uniform who are ready to risk their lives to protect our values and way of living. We need to explain to taxpayers the importance of the armed forces. Let's hope that this initiative of The Globe and Mail will be a prelude to a debate that is of the highest importance for our future. Thanks to all those who took the time to send questions.

Dawn Black, NDP: The Spring session of the House of Commons will be interesting for a number of reasons. Will the Conservatives, as they promised, put the question of our deployment to Afghanistan before the House for debate? Will the new government make clear statements about our military role? Will the renegotiated NORAD treaty come before the House as promised, or will it simply be rubber-stamped by Cabinet? On all these issues you can expect the NDP to be at the forefront of debate.

We have an important role - The current objective is to bring the same stability to Kandahar that Kabul now enjoys – Toronto Star 2.27.06

I beg to differ with Dr. Mohamed Elmasry. Canada and its allies do have a role to play in Afghanistan, and it is not to protect Canada from an Afghan threat.

Notwithstanding the anti-insurgent operations of the JTF2, almost all of our troops are there to support the provincial reconstruction teams, the civilian workers from External Affairs, CIDA and NGOs who are assisting the Afghan government, its army and its police forces to rebuild the country.

Yes, the money spent on our military and our civilian government representatives could be dedicated to building schools instead, but what good would they be if the political and religious extremists controlled them and once again restricted access?

As a result of the allied support for the local and national governments, Kabul is now a relatively safe place for its own inhabitants. Citizens and visitors alike can walk the streets. Women who wish to do so have doffed the burka and taken jobs, girls are back in school, and the markets are full of fruit, vegetables and meat. People are laughing and smiling. Kabul is an Afghan and international success story.

The current objective of Canada and our allies is to bring this sort of reconstruction and stability to the Kandahar region over the next several years, to develop alternative cash crops, and to open up the opportunities for better education.

There is a plan for this, but because of the geographic and political situation it will be a long haul. There are drug lords and religious and political extremists, both in the region and in neighbouring countries who do not support these aims. Much of the population does. Ask the citizens of Kabul.

Canada does have a place in Afghanistan, and most of the population welcomes us. Bob Willson, Toronto

Taliban, al-Qaeda threat growing - Harry Sterling - For The Calgary Herald 24 February 2006

Good fences make for good neighbours. It's a sentiment Canadian peacekeepers in Afghanistan might agree with as they confront the growing threat posed by Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents infiltrating southern Afghanistan from Pakistan.

The danger posed by such infiltration has become a serious bilateral irritant for the government of President Hamid Karzai in Kabul. The situation deteriorated even further in recent months as the resurgent Taliban unleashed a series of suicide attacks and bombings against Afghan national army forces and troops from the United States and NATO, including the newly arrived Canadian contingent stationed in Kandahar, heartland of the Taliban.

That escalation was most dramatically demonstrated last month when Canadian diplomat Glyn Berry was killed by a landmine and three Canadian soldiers were seriously wounded, one ultimately having both legs amputated.

Frustration with the seeming ease with which Taliban forces are crossing the porous Afghan-Pakistan border reached the point where anti-Pakistan demonstrations erupted in southern Afghanistan.

Once-circumspect Afghan officials, including a border state governor, publicly blamed Pakistan for not doing enough to prevent Taliban and al-Qaeda groups from openly operating in northern Pakistan, particularly in North and South Waziristan, sectors of its Pashtun population known to be sympathetic to the predominantly Pashtun Taliban who ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 until overthrown by the United States and its ally, the Tajik-dominated Northern Alliance.

Karzai is increasingly concerned over the inability (or unwillingness) of President Pervez Musharraf to stop the cross-border movement of Taliban and other militants into his country, many of them Pakistanis.

During a recent visit to Pakistan, Karzai went so far as to present Musharraf with the names of 150 Taliban suspects purportedly living in Pakistan. In some cases, the list contained suspects' addresses. Afghan authorities have asked their Pakistan counterparts to arrest the alleged Taliban members and to move more forcefully against Taliban militants operating with apparent impunity in Pakistan's northern border region.

President George W. Bush is expected to raise similar concerns when he visits Islamabad next month. Although the Afghan authorities' growing frustration with the infiltration is understandable, it's apparent Musharraf's ability to do what the Afghans want comes with serious risks for his own continued hold on power.

Musharraf is under no illusions concerning what he is able to do to control events in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province. It was only after Sept. 11, 2001 that Pakistani authorities attempted to send sizable military contingents into the region.

For the first half-century following Pakistan's independence in 1947, the region was almost a no-go area for Pakistani governments. Local tribal groups, mostly Pashtun, essentially controlled the area in an almost semi-autonomous manner, regarding Pakistan's Punjabi majority as unwelcome interlopers in their territory.

It was only after pressure from Washington that Islamabad sent in larger numbers of military personnel. However, even the presence of 70,000 troops (and more than 300 deaths) hasn't been sufficient to cope with the Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants active in the province.

To compound matters, the highly conservative local population strongly opposes Musharraf co-operating with Washington. Their anti-American sentiment only increased following recent rocket attacks on Pakistan villages by U.S. drone aircraft, seeking to kill Taliban militants, resulting in numerous civilians killed.

Musharraf recently proposed a fence be built along the Afghan-Pakistan border to reduce infiltration. However, Karzai rejected such a possibility, saying the real way to stop infiltration is to go after those involved in financing, recruiting and training Taliban extremists, implying this was taking place essentially inside Pakistan.

Although Karzai and Bush can be expected to try to keep the pressure on Musharraf to move more forcefully against Taliban and al-Qaeda elements operating from sanctuaries in northern Pakistan, to do so could undermine his own grip on power. How well he manages to walk this precarious tightrope will have direct consequences for Canadian and other NATO troops in coming months.

Harry Sterling , a former diplomat, is an Ottawa-based commentator.

This Week in Afghanistan: Let the Opium War Begin

National Ledger By Jim Kouri Feb 27, 2006

Military forces, especially British soldiers assigned to one of the most dangerous regions of Afghanistan, may face their first confrontation with farmers whose poppy fields are due to be eradicated this week.

Afghanistan is the world's leading producer of opium. The 2005 production was estimated at 4,600 metric tons -- a figure that is expected to increase this year. Terrorists and warlords in Afghanistan, as well as insurgents in Central Asia, the Russian Federation, and along the trafficking routes on the former Soviet Union's Southern rim all the way to the Balkans, share part of the estimated $60 billion world heroin market.

Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai is determined to carry out large-scale eradication of opium crops in Helmand province, where the first members of a British task force of over 5,000 are being deployed. British commanding officers have stressed that their troops will not take part in the highly volatile program. But both Afghan and British officials acknowledged that they are likely to suffer a backlash in this largely rural community if farmers lose their livelihood with no adequate compensation.

The troop preparation are already underway for any attacks by a resurgent Taliban and their Al-Qaeda allies. Islamist fighters have carried out waves of suicide and roadside bombings, murdered aid workers, burnt schools and beheaded teachers for offering to teach girls.

The soldiers may also have to disarm the so-called Afghan Security Force -- in effect former mujahedin hired by US forces to guard their bases during the height of the invasion. They are accused by local people of lawlessness and involvement in extortion. Many of them are former members of the Northern Alliance, a hodgepodge of warlords' militias, bandits and criminals who escaped from the Taliban.

President Karzai is under intense pressure from the US and Britain governments to curtail Afghanistan's production of heroin. the province of Helmand accounts for about 25 percent of the opium crop. It's hoped a successful show of force and poppy eradication will be used as a public show of the government's determination curb the drug trade.

Last June, President Bush designated Afghan Baz Mohammad as a foreign narcotics kingpin under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. The extradition represents the first extradition in history from Afghanistan to the United States, according to officials with the US Drug Enforcement Administration.

US government officials recently acknowledged the extradition from Afghanistan to New York of Baz Mohammad, a Taliban-linked narco-terrorist charged with conspiring to import more than $25 million worth of heroin from Afghanistan into the United States and other countries.

According to the indictment, Baz Mohammad, since 1990, led an international heroin-trafficking organization (the “Baz Mohammad Organization”) responsible for manufacturing and distributing more than $25 million worth of heroin in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Baz Mohammad Organization then allegedly arranged for the heroin to be imported into the United States and other countries and sold for tens of millions of dollars.

The indictment charges that Mohammad controlled opium fields in the Nangarhar Province of Afghanistan, where poppies were grown and harvested to produce opium. After the opium was harvested, he used laboratories in Afghanistan and Pakistan to process it into heroin.

Mohammad and his organization then arranged to transport the heroin from Afghanistan into the United States, including to New York City, hidden inside suitcases, clothing, and containers. Once the heroin arrived in the United States, other members of the Baz Mohammad Organization received the heroin and distributed the drugs.

These coconspirators then arranged for millions of dollars in heroin proceeds to be laundered back to Mohammad and other members of the Baz Mohammad Organization in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Baz Mohammad Organization was closely aligned with the Taliban and other Islamic-extremist groups in Afghanistan. During the course of the conspiracy, the Baz Mohammad Organization provided financial support to the Taliban. More specifically, between 1994 and 2000, the Baz Mohammad Organization collected heroin proceeds in the United States for the Taliban in Afghanistan. In exchange for its financial support, the Taliban provided the Baz Mohammad Organization protection for its opium crops, heroin laboratories, drug-transportation routes, and members and associates.

Mohammad stated that selling heroin in the United States was a “Jihad” because they were taking the Americans’ money at the same time the heroin they were paying for was killing them.

More recently, in June 2004, Mohammad and other members of his organization possessed approximately 120 kilograms of chemical powder, a drug ledger, and written records reflecting sales of missile explosive devices, rocket shells, rocket accessories, AK-47s, pistols, bullets, and other weaponry at a petrol station in the Nangarhar Province of Afghanistan.

While Mohammad was a big catch, many believe he is merely one of hundreds of Afghans involved in the opium trade. However, the US and British governments believe that now is the time to destroy drug cultivation and production in Afghanistan while our forces are still there to help combat the remnants of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The disturbing part of this particular opium war is that the enemy views it as part and parcel of the overall international Islamic Jihad.

Ex-Taliban spokesman now a Yale student

WASHINGTON – The Dawn, Feb 27: A former spokesman for the Taliban, Rahmatullah Hashemi, has enrolled as a student at America’s prestigious Yale University where he has taken a class on terrorism, The New York Times Magazine reported on Sunday.

The ex-Taliban spin doctor and “roving ambassador”, who has spent time in the presence of Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, is now a Yale freshman improving his English through a special non-degree programme.

Hashemi, who once publicly defended the Taliban, told the magazine, however, that he started having serious doubts about its harsh moral codes as early as 1998 when women were being lashed with leather strips and executions were occurring in Kabul’s football stadium.

He said he fled Afghanistan for Pakistan in the wake of the Sept 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington fearing a US bombing campaign.

Hashemi said a former Taliban minister persuaded him to return to Kabul in early 2004 to clear his name with the Americans, despite his fears he would be whisked to the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Following several interviews with two Americans, one of whom only identified herself to him as “Michelle”, Hashemi said he was told: “You can go.”

An American friend suggested he apply to study at the renowned Yale University, so he obtained a student visa from the US embassy in Islamabad and caught a flight to the United States.

Months later, the dark-haired, bearded Hashemi is trying to adapt to his new academic surroundings, attending Harvard-Yale football games and keeping in touch with his wife and son back in Pakistan, the report added.

“In some ways I’m the luckiest person in the world,” he was quoted as saying in the New York Times magazine. “I could have ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Instead I ended up at Yale.”

[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.]