In this bulletin:

• U.S. troops in new Afghan offensive
• Afghanistan efforts to ramp up with 200 more troops, tanks
• On the front line in Afghanistan
• Netherlands will not send extra troops to Afghanistan
• Press Release, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
• Tensions Overshadow Gains in Afghanistan
• Better paid, better armed, better connected - Taliban rise again
• Afghanistan starving for relief - Rice admits U.S. made mistakes
  Critics single out anti-drug strategy
• Afghanistan: Contradictions Hint At Division Within Neo-Taliban
• Canada to continue help for Afghanistan: Ambassador
• ONLINE EXCLUSIVE: Another NDP MP breaks ranks with leader over Afghanistan
• Kerry faults Bush's Afghanistan strategy
• Land allocation scheme yields first results in Afghanistan
• Herat gets four cold storages

U.S. troops in new Afghan offensive

Kabul (Reuters 9/16/06) - About 7,000 U.S. and Afghan government forces launched an offensive against the Taliban in central and eastern Afghan provinces on Saturday, as a blast near Kabul killed three Afghan aid workers.

Operation Mountain Fury is the third offensive launched in recent weeks against a resurgent Taliban who have unleashed the worst phase of Afghan violence since they were ousted in 2001.

"Mountain Fury is just one part of a series of coordinated operations placing continuous pressure on Taliban extremists across multiple regions of the country," the U.S. military said in a statement.

About 10,000 NATO and Afghan troops have in recent weeks mounted a big offensive in the southern province of Kandahar, killing hundreds of militants in the Taliban heartland.

Troops from a separate U.S.-led force have been battling insurgents in the eastern province of Kunar, on the Pakistani border, in a third offensive.

Operation Mountain Fury was aimed at defeating the Taliban in the provinces of Paktika, Khost, and Paktiya, all in the east on the Pakistani border, as well as in neighboring Ghazni and Logar provinces, the U.S. military said. The offensive involved 3,000 U.S.-led troops and 4,000 Afghans.

Later on Saturday, the U.S. military said a U.S. coalition soldier training Afghan troops was killed in an attack on a base near the Pakistani border. Another coalition soldier and an unspecified number of Afghan soldiers were wounded.

The level of violence this year has surprised the government and its Western allies and raised concern about the prospects for a country that had been seen as a success in the war on terrorism.

While international and Afghan troops have been launching offensives in the south and east, militant attacks have also increased in parts of the country previously considered safe, including Kabul and the west.

Earlier on Saturday, a blast hit a car on a road just to the south of Kabul, killing three Afghan aid workers and wounding one, police said. Kabul police official Alishah Paktiawal said he did not know which aid group they were from.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility. Paktiawal blamed "enemies of Afghanistan," a term the government uses to refer to the Taliban and allied militants. Just over a week ago, a suicide car-bomber attacked a U.S. military patrol in central Kabul, killing 16 people including two U.S. soldiers.

Separately, the governor of the remote southwestern province of Nimroz appealed for help to clear Taliban fighters who have seized an area on the main road in the province, where attacks have been rare.

"We want the government to do something as soon as possible, this is a strategic place. This road links Herat and Kandahar," the governor, Ghulam Dastagir, told Reuters, referring to the main towns in the west and south.

The Taliban also threatened to kill a Turk kidnapped in an ambush last month unless a Turkish construction company withdraws from the country in 24 hours, an Afghan news agency reported.

Afghanistan efforts to ramp up with 200 more troops, tanks - CanWest News Service

Saturday, September 16, 2006 OTTAWA -- The Canadian Forces are sending 450 more troops and a squadron of tanks to counter the growing Taliban insurgency in southern Afghanistan, but top generals took pains Friday to portray the reinforcements as a step towards reconstruction efforts, not combat.

At least 125 to 150 soldiers from the Royal 22nd Regiment, the famed Van Doos of Val Cartier, Que. will be dispatched to provide extra security for the Provincial Reconstruction Team to move beyond its compound in Kandahar City and do more work throughout southern Afghanistan, said Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff.

A Leopard tank squadron from Edmonton is also being deployed, something Hillier said would provide extra security to the Canadian-led NATO offensive that has been fighting a renewed Taliban insurgency in the south for the last several months.

In an interview to be broadcast this morning with CBC Radio's Kathleen Petty, Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged in some of his strongest language to date Canada is now at war. "The fact of the matter is we are engaged in a war in Afghanistan. We have been for some years, but we are today at the front lines of that war, and that's a very real thing that we have to manage," Harper told CBC Radio's The House. Afghan President Hamid Karzai visits Ottawa next week in an effort to bolster support for the mission.

Hillier and his other top generals, including Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, the army chief, also made clear the heaviest weapon in the army's arsenal was designed to have a psychological impact on Taliban forces, which have opted for more traditional war-fighting techniques in the last month.

Instead of hit-and-run guerrilla tactics, the Taliban has been directly confronting the growing number of Canadian, Dutch and British troops flowing into Afghanistan with weapons being smuggled across the lawless Pakistani-Afghan border.

"With that gun -- to go back to the old Bell telephone commercial -- you can reach out and touch somebody, from a long ways away," said Hillier, who three years ago dismissed the Leopard tank a relic of the Cold War era in favour of more mobile, modern big gun systems.

Hillier and other generals said Friday the tanks were now necessary because the Taliban were directly engaging NATO forces. Canada hasn't sent tanks into combat since the Korean War of 1950-53.

"Tanks produce a certain amount of shock action. They can be extraordinarily intimidating," said Leslie, noting they have a range of two to three kilometers. nitially four tanks would be deployed but the number could swell to 15, said Leslie.

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said he supported any move by the military to protect troops from harm, but questioned the steady escalation of hardware to Afghanistan, which has gone from jeeps, to armoured vehicles and now tanks. "Tanks are famous for blasting and smashing things, not reconstruction," said Dosanjh.

Engineers and new anti-mortar capabilities were also being sent to Afghanistan, the latter to counter the more sophisticated weaponry the Taliban was throwing at NATO troops. In all, the 450 reinforcements will boost Canada's troop total in Afghanistan from about 2,300 to 2,500.

That is because 250 headquarters personnel will be coming back to Canada at the end of next month when The Netherlands takes over command of the NATO mission in southern Afghanistan from Canada.

Lt. Ray Corby, a battle group duty officer at the Zhari district base, said Friday troops will be happy to hear the news. "It will give us a larger presence on the ground," he said. "Despite it being a large piece of equipment, it can expand our strategy and capabilities."

The tanks are capable of better withstanding attacks by suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices known as IEDs. "The tanks could be used to support convoys," Corby said.

The announcement came as NATO diplomats struggled Friday to find upwards of 2,500 new troops for Afghanistan. Poland offered 1,000, but NATO generals stressed more needed to be done to bolster the 20,000 troops it already has there.

Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier, the commander of Canada's overseas operations, said more troops were needed if the long-term goal of reconstruction in Afghanistan was to be met any time soon. "With the level of forces that we have in place now, we will achieve progress at a certain pace. If it was more robust, we would be able to achieve progress at a more rapid pace. That's what it comes down to,"Gauthier said.

In the last month, Gauthier said the Canadian troops have faced " E a much more direct approach" from the Taliban. "They see their heartland -- from their perspective -- threatened, and that requires clearly a different kind of response," Gauthier explained. "From our perspective, clearly it would be helpful to have more troops over there E. We must be fully determined."

Hillier and Leslie -- both of whom have commanded NATO forces in Afghanistan in recent years -- pointed to the lawless region around Afghanistan-Pakistan border as the source of the Taliban's new cache of weapons. "Pakistan has got an enormous challenge in that federally administered tribal area," said Hillier.

Hillier said Pakistan has promised NATO it would do more to crack down on the flow of weapons and extremist activities in its tribal areas, but he admitted it is next to impossible to secure that border area.

"There's no silver bullet on this one," Hillier said. "Pakistan is stepping up to do a whole bunch of things and no doubt they will have to step up to do more." Leslie and Gauthier also said the Taliban is a more complex enemy than Canadians realize.

Leslie said he has dined with Taliban members, including one who was a member of President Hamid Karzai's cabinet in order to emphasize the movement is comprised of "absolute fanatics" as well as moderates. "We perhaps simplistically use Taliban as a label," said Gauthier.

Canadian troops are facing a combination of criminals, "local hires" recruited to fight, producers and traffickers in the opium trade. "We certainly are not naive enough to think it is just about the Taliban," said Gauthier. "But the Taliban represents an important element of this. Their motives are clearer to us than others. It's about hatred. It's about terrorizing the local population."

On the front line in Afghanistan - By Damian Grammaticas
BBC News, Afghanistan

Nato forces in Afghanistan say they are on the verge of a major success in their battles against Taleban fighters but some of the troops have their doubts about the mission.

At first it looked like a bird - maybe a bat - far away, skimming low over the trees, twisting left and right. Then it leapt, soared upwards, clear to see now, a British Harrier jet.

The aircraft climbed high above the grey-blue mountains and vanished, no trace of it in the perfect, cloudless sky. From my vantage point, on top of a small two-storey building, I was watching a battle unfolding.

Two Apache helicopters operated by the Dutch military appeared from the east, circling like hunters looking for prey. Then they flew fast over the trees, every few seconds there was a rasping snarl as they unleashed their rockets.

Canadian Nato troops had spotted some Taleban men trying to outflank them. There were thumping explosions as Nato guns pounded shells into the area, sending up plumes of smoke and dust. Even closer to the battle than me, ran the main highway leading west from Kandahar city.

Bizarrely, while the fighting raged, the traffic never stopped. Lorries laden with goods trundled past, taxis packed with people, a couple of tractors, even a man on a bicycle pedalling leisurely down the road.

Afghans have seen so much conflict it is almost as if it is part of the landscape. The battle pitted Nato forces, with all their firepower and technological might, against the Taleban militia, men armed with little more than they can carry - AK47 machine-guns and rocket-propelled grenades.

It was far from clear who was winning. The Canadians were advancing, but painfully slowly, just 200 metres in a week. Crouching behind a low mud wall, Major Geoff Abthorpe pointed towards the smoking shell of a house just ahead.

"That's our next objective" he said. "But we need more armoured vehicles, more men, more firepower. They are coming. Finally somebody back home is taking this thing seriously." The section of troops listening punched the air with relief. "Yeah," they shouted.

The major has an easy, fatherly familiarity with his soldiers. Every move he makes in battle is minutely planned. The Canadians lost five men in the first week of the operation and Major Abthorpe is anxious not to lose any more.

He pores over satellite photos before ordering his men to advance even a short distance. But he was frustrated. "The problem is," he said candidly, "the enemy has the single-handed advantage in this terrain."

The plains west of Kandahar stretch for miles, a vast treeless expanse of yellow-brown desert. It is so dry the earth is little more than powder.

In late afternoon the boiling air whips itself into tornadoes. You can see them coming from miles away, vast columns of dust whirling across the baking sands. On the edge of the desert is a smudge of green where a river feeds a patchwork of orchards, vineyards and fields.

This is where the battle was being fought. Several hundred Taleban had dug in to mud-walled compounds and bunkers. They used the fields and ditches for cover, sneaking up on the Canadians, firing at them and then vanishing.

It is a classic case of a heavy modern army struggling to subdue guerrilla fighters who know their terrain intimately. And for decades the area has been a defensive stronghold.

When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, they fought two major battles on this very spot. The precedent is an ominous one. Both times the Russians were defeated. In the shade under some trees close to the front was an Afghan man working with the Canadians.

"The Taleban, they are feeling strong right now," he muttered. "They know they are hurting the Canadians." He offered me some sweet, red watermelon plundered from the fields around us.

The losses are gnawing away at Canadian confidence. What struck me was just how many doubts the Canadian soldiers seemed plagued by.

What are they in Afghanistan for? I was asked a number of times. Is it worth the lives of friends and colleagues? Crouching in a gulley, Corporal Brad Kilcup confided, "All the guys out here, the only thing they think about is getting home safe."

A small man, his face caked with dirt, he fidgeted nervously with his gun. Sitting beside him was Private Ryan Hunt, a sandy-haired, boyish-looking 21-year-old. "All we want to do is help these dudes reconstruct their country," he added hopefully.

Afghanistan is a country of aching beauty. The landscapes, the wild, jagged mountains, the empty expanses are breathtaking. There is a purity, a clarity about the light that seems to make everything luminous.

But it is a brutal place too. The sun is so savage it saps your energy in minutes. Will this latest intrusion by outsiders trying to change Afghanistan founder like so many before it? I do not know. But this is a land where many hopes have died, choking in the dust.

Netherlands will not send extra troops to Afghanistan - September 15, 2006

THE HAGUE (AFP) - Dutch Defence Minister Henk Kamp said that the Netherlands was not planning to send extra troops to the NATO-led force in Afghanistan.

The minister said he understood NATO's call for immediate reinforcements "but those won't be coming from the Netherlands", he told the ANP news agency on Friday.

The Netherlands are already taking part in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) with some 1,900 soldiers around 1,600 of whom are stationed in the southern province of Uruzgan.

In February the Dutch parliament agreed to sending troops to Uruzgan only after a long and heated debate. At the moment the country is in a sort of political limbo with a centre-right minority government that is minding the store until elections on November 22.

Polls show the opposition PvdA labour party, which only very reluctantly agreed to sending troops to Afghanistan could win the elections. It is very unlikely to agree to sending more troops especially for combat missions.

NATO officials held three meetings in recent days aimed at scraping together reinforcements after an urgent call by the commander of the alliance's mission in Afghanistan, General James Jones, for 2,000 extra troops.

Jones's call was prompted by the tougher-than-expected resistance shown by Taliban insurgents, especially in the restive southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar.

Dutch army commander general Dick Berlijn said Friday that "in the short term we have more military confrontations then expected" but added that there were also "signs that things are going in the right direction".

"Our mission was to bring security, stability and help reconstruction but it has always been clear to us that we would counter with force if we have to," the general said.

Press Release, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

 The comments of Pope Benedict XVI on 12 September regarding Islam are regrettable and affront to our Holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and Islam. The comments showed an inadequate understanding of Islam and warrants for an apology to Muslims, the followers of a religion of peace and reconciliation.

In these circumstances, where there is a demanding need for measures towards reconciliation of different beliefs, such expressions increase tension among the followers of different religions. Thus, this lies with the world leaders to put efforts in bringing different civilizations and followers of religions closer to each other.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

Kabul, 16 September, 2006

Tensions Overshadow Gains in Afghanistan

Civil Conflict Could Reignite as Stability Remains Elusive - By Pamela Constable - Washington Post Foreign Service September 16, 2006

KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 15 -- Despite scattered gains by international troops fighting Taliban insurgents in the country's south, Afghan and foreign analysts here have voiced concern that a recent peace initiative is backfiring and that lapsed Afghan militias could be drawn into the conflict unless it is quickly quelled and replaced by aid and protection.

NATO and U.S. military officials here said this week that an intensive two-week operation against Taliban fighters in Kandahar province had been a tactical success, killing more than 500 insurgents and forcing others to retreat. Afghan and foreign forces also retook a district in neighboring Helmand province that had been seized twice by the Taliban.

But these pockets of progress on the battlefield are part of a larger, murkier political map. As other Afghan militias begin defensively rearming, ethnic tensions have risen, raising the specter of the kind of civil conflict that devastated the country in the early 1990s.

A call for additional troops by NATO's senior commander has so far drawn only one positive response, Poland's offer of 1,000 personnel. Military officials here say pro-government forces need to win key areas soon and to begin delivering aid and security if they are to halt the slide in public support.

"We can't just keep fighting endless battles without having something to offer the next day," a senior Western military official said. "We have killed a lot of Taliban, but they are not running out of foot soldiers, and for every one we kill, we create new families that hate us."

On Sept. 5, Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, announced a peace pact with domestic Taliban forces operating in the tribal areas of Pakistan along the Afghan border. The next day, he traveled here to promote the agreement and to try to ease tensions with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, saying the two leaders should work together to fight the Taliban and terrorism.

Under the peace deal, Taliban groups in Pakistan pledged not to cross the border to attack in Afghanistan. But since Sept. 5, assaults on Afghan and foreign forces near the Pakistani frontier have continued.

Musharraf, meanwhile, infuriated Afghan officials by making comments in Europe this week that equated members of the Taliban with Pashtuns, the largest Afghan ethnic group, and suggested they were more dangerous than al-Qaeda.

"Associating the Pashtuns with the Taliban is an affront to a community who is eager to establish security and sustainable stability all over Afghanistan," the Afghan Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement. The ministry expressed "profound regret over Pres. Musharraf's attempt to attribute a murderous group and the enemy of peace to one of the ethnic groups living on the both sides of the Durand line."

The Durand Line, arbitrarily drawn by the British in 1893 to separate Afghanistan from what is now Pakistan, is a perennial irritant for both countries. It divides Pashtun tribal lands and is not accepted by many Afghans.

Many Afghans say they suspect that Musharraf's deal with Taliban forces in his own country is an attempt to wash his hands of a domestic problem and push it across the border into Afghanistan. At the same time, they say, he has gratuitously insulted a neighbor that had hosted him just days before.

Musharraf has stood by his pact and denied intending to give offense. He and Karzai are scheduled to meet separately with President Bush in Washington this month. The Bush administration strongly backs both rulers and is eager to patch up their tense relations. Since the overthrow of Afghanistan's Taliban rulers in late 2001, the United States has made a major investment in troops and money in an effort to bring stable and democratic rule to the region as an antidote to Islamic extremism.

Inside Afghanistan, persistent and widening attacks by anti-government insurgents have provided ethnic militia leaders in both the north and south with an excuse to regroup and potentially rearm their forces, many of which were disbanded after 2001 under an ambitious, U.N.-sponsored program.

In the Pashtun south, where Afghan army and police forces are underpaid, poorly equipped and scattered thinly across the conflict zone, the government has authorized local police forces to form auxiliary contingents, most likely drawing on idle former militiamen. In some cases, tribal leaders have threatened to form their own defense forces.

In the north and west, dominated by the Tajik and Uzbek ethnic groups, former Islamic militia figures who fought Soviet troops in the 1980s are said to virtually control daily life in many areas. Despite a new program to disarm and pacify the region, Afghan and foreign observers said some commanders appear to be gaining further strength as the Taliban threat draws closer and villagers seek powerful patrons to protect them.

"In the north, they ask how they can be expected to disarm if the south is arming itself," said one Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. Ethnic divisions are so deep in Afghanistan, the diplomat added, that if the Karzai government were to fall, civil conflict might resume almost immediately.

"Five years ago, the Taliban were very weak and the warlords had all fled the country," said Sayed Daud, director of the Afghan Media Resource Center, a nonprofit research agency. "Now the Taliban are back and the warlords are back. They have made a lot of money, they have weapons, and the government can't touch them."

The insurgency continues to spread beyond the south. In the past week, fresh attacks have taken place as far apart as Ghazni province in the east, where Taliban and NATO forces have been battling over several villages, and Farah province in the far west, where 150 Taliban fighters stormed the provincial capital and others shot and killed an Afghan U.N. employee.

But the most urgent need, military officials and diplomats said, is to contain the southern conflict, defeat the insurgents in key districts of Kandahar and Helmand, and begin providing support to civilians there.

British and Canadian troops have fought intensely and suffered numerous casualties since NATO took over command of the southern front from the U.S.-led coalition on July 31. But military and diplomatic observers cited concern that forces from other NATO countries, operating under narrower mandates laid down by edgy governments, will not shoulder enough of the burden.

"A great deal is at stake here for NATO. It's their first operation outside Europe and an important test case," said one foreign observer. "If the fighting worsens, some members may ask whether it is worth the risk, and some may ask why they should put their soldiers in harm's way while others are sitting in easy places."

Even more is at stake for Afghans, who felt abandoned by their Western supporters after Soviet troops withdrew in 1989 and now fear the same could happen again. NATO and U.S. military officials reiterated this week that their commitment is long-term, but they also said time is running short.

"It took us four years to learn how to operate here. NATO doesn't have four years," a U.S. military official said. "It's not enough to kill Taliban. We're trying to help build a government that is weak and still fighting off the competition. That's the really hard part."

Better paid, better armed, better connected - Taliban rise again

Kandahar under threat, war raging in two provinces and an isolated president. So what went wrong? - Declan Walsh in Ghazni Saturday September 16, 2006 The Guardian


Taliban fighters in Ghazni province in southern Afghanistan. Photo: Veronique De Viguerie
 

Reedi Gul is probably dead now. Two weeks ago masked gunmen abducted the 24-year-old on a lonely mountain road in central Afghanistan. The next day his father, Saleh Gul, received a phone call, and realised he was the real target.

"I am an Afghan Muslim Talib," the voice announced. "If you want to see your son alive, listen carefully." Three weeks earlier Saleh Gul had been appointed governor of an insurgent-infested district in Ghazni province. The Taliban demanded he quit his job, pay a ransom, attack US forces and assassinate local officials.

Mr Gul paid $2,000 and resigned his position, but refused to kill. "I am not a terrorist," he barked down the phone. So the Taliban added an impossible demand: the freedom of an imprisoned commander.

Last Sunday their deadline passed. "Still no news," the anguished father said four days later. "I think they have killed him by now." Mr Gul's face was lined with worry but his voice rang with anger. "I had warned the government this might happen. I told them Taliban was taking over. Why can't they stop them?"

That question is resounding across Afghanistan following a summer of chaos. In the south war has gripped Kandahar and Helmand provinces, where British and Canadian troops are stationed. In the past fortnight Nato has launched a blistering offensive, killing more than 500 Taliban, to stave off an attack on Kandahar city - a previously unthinkable notion.

Elsewhere, suicide bombers are striking with Baghdad-like brazenness. In the boldest attack yet, last week two American soldiers and 14 Afghans were shredded by a huge blast outside the US embassy in Kabul, one of the country's most tightly guarded areas.

Opium cultivation has soared. This year Afghanistan will produce more heroin than western addicts can consume. The main hub of cultivation is British-controlled Helmand. Since August 1 Britain and Canada have each lost 11 soldiers in combat, a high toll for what was originally presented as a peacekeeping mission.

It was not meant to be like this. When American troops started to flounder in Iraq after 2003 President George Bush lauded Afghanistan as a major victory. When presidential and parliamentary elections passed peacefully, his generals wrote the insurgency off. "The Taliban is a force in decline," declared Major General Eric Olson 18 months ago.

Today, to many observers those words look foolish. While northern and western Afghanistan remain stable, President Hamid Karzai is isolated and unpopular. Comparisons of the southern war with Vietnam are no longer considered outlandish. And dismayed western diplomats - the architects of reconstruction - are watching their plans go up in smoke. "Nobody saw this coming. It's pretty dire," admitted one official in Kabul.

No single factor explains the slide. But some answers can be found in Ghazni, a central province considered secure until earlier this year. Now it is on the frontline of the Taliban advance, just a two-hour drive from Kabul.

In the past two months the Taliban has swept across the southern half of the province with kidnappings, assassinations and gun battles. American officials believe Andar district, a few miles from their base in Ghazni town, is the Taliban hub for four surrounding provinces. This week they launched a drive in Andar, searching houses and raking buildings with helicopter gunship fire into a Taliban compound. At least 35 people died including a mother and two children.

"We've warned people they may see soldiers shooting in their villages. I tell them this is the price of peace and freedom," said US commander Lieutenant Colonel Steven Gilbert.

Travel along the Kabul-Kandahar highway that slices through Ghazni - once a symbol of western reconstruction - has become a high-stakes game of power. The Taliban sporadically mount checkpoints, frisking Afghans for ID cards, phone numbers or any other sign of a link to the government or foreign organisations. Those caught are beaten, kidnapped or killed. Foreigners travel south by plane, passing high over the road they once boasted about.

In the surrounding villages people are frightened and angry. In Qala Bagh district bands of 20 to 30 fighters descend at night. They demand food, shelter or a son to join the fighting, said Maulvi Aladat, the new district chief. A judge, a school principal and the local director of education have been assassinated in the past two months. The two girls' schools are closed.

The government offers scant protection. Ghazni's untrained police are outnumbered and outgunned. Huddled inside poorly protected compounds with few radios or vehicles, they are little match for large Taliban squads armed with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The US-trained Afghan army is curiously absent. Ghazni has just 280 soldiers, according to the governor, Sher Alam Ibrahimi. Although on paper the army has 35,000 soldiers, desertion rates are believed to be high.

After his cousin was abducted by the Taliban, Yar Muhammad appealed to the provincial and national authorities for help. None came. Days later the body of his cousin - an education department official who offended by teaching girls - was discovered on a stretch of desert. "The government did absolutely nothing. They didn't even help to find the body," he said bitterly.

Local government is plagued by corruption and weak leadership. Ibrahimi, a former warlord, seems an unlikely candidate for governor with his grindingly slow speech and murky background that includes allegations of war crimes. Many believe Mr Karzai appointed him for his links to a more powerful warlord now in parliament.

Disillusionment with the president, who once promised so much, is high. "We are like a herd with no shepherd," said one elder. In desperation, his government has doubled the number of police through the use of arbikays - untrained tribal fighters paid directly by the governor. They are a mixed blessing. On Wednesday Dawlat Khan, one of the arbikay commanders, stormed into the police chief's office in Ghazni, bursting with anger. "The Taliban attacked my house. My wife and children were inside. What sort of government do we have that cannot protect us!" he yelled.

Mr Khan typifies the compromises Mr Karzai has had to make to maintain law and order. A life-long warrior with a fierce and unsmiling face, he has a reputation for ruthlessness and brutality. Lt Col Gilbert said Mr Khan was "covered in blood" the first time they met. But he is a fierce foe of the Taliban, standing to fight when trained policemen scurry away. "In an environment where peace is the norm, he wouldn't have a place," Lt Col Gilbert said. "But after 30 years of war, famine and fighting, you don't have the luxury of saying I don't want these hard core guys."

Poverty also fuels the fighting. Several elders said the Taliban was offering upwards of 20,000 rupees (£180) a month to local unemployed men. Western officials are beginning to scrutinise the source of the funds.

Mr Khan told the Guardian the militants have bigger guns and more fighters. They have powerful friends. Several times he had collared Taliban fighters only to discover days later they had been released following a call from a powerful politician or influential tribal leader. They also have surprising amounts of money.

Last year, he said, he captured two insurgents, "one of them alive". Mr Khan asked him why he was fighting. The man replied: "You are being paid 5,000 Afghanis (£54). I am making 20,000 Pakistani rupees. So now you tell me why you are fighting."

This year the Taliban formed an alliance with drug kingpins, offering to protect poppy farmers and smugglers in exchange for a cut of the $3bn trade. But diplomats believe most funding comes from fundamentalist sympathisers in Pakistan and the Middle East. Some believe governments may be also involved.

"I would be shocked if the Saudi intelligence service and the Kuwaitis were not trying to find ways to get money to the Taliban," said Michael Scheuer, a former CIA agent with 20 years' experience in the region.

Many Afghans are bewildered by the west's failure to bring the fight to the heart of the problem - neighbouring Pakistan. Maulvi Aladat pointed to the glowing horizon. "It is as clear as the sun is setting," he said. "Everyone knows where they are trained and funded, where the suicide bombers come from. Everyone knows."

Military officers and diplomats also say Pakistan's tribal belt is the engine room of the insurgency. From its remote mountain sanctuaries along the border the Taliban has re-emerged from the shadows as a potent force. Two shuras, or tribal councils, coordinate the attacks - one in the western city of Quetta, the other in South Waziristan, a lawless tribal area that is also a crucible of al-Qaida terrorism.

In an interview published yesterday, a senior Dutch officer estimated that 40% of Taliban fighters come "straight from Pakistan". The steady flow meant that Nato operations, despite their successes, were "like trying to mop with the tap still open", said Colonel Arie Vermeij.

Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University, said that after being driven into Pakistan's tribal areas in late 2001 the Taliban "reconstituted their command structure, recruitment networks, and support bases ... while Afghans waited in vain for the major reconstruction effort they expected to build their state and improve their lives".

Joanna Nathan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, said closing down the Pakistani staging areas was vital. "This conflict will never be more than contained without stamping on the staging posts and sanctuaries in Pakistan."

Western officials are also divided about the sincerity of Pakistan's military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, in combating the Taliban. In Kabul last week he offered his help in defeating the Taliban, later describing them as a "bigger threat than al-Qaida". But that was undermined by a deal with tribal militants in Waziristan. In return for Pakistan soldiers withdrawing to base, the pro-Taliban militants undertook to stop harbouring foreign fighters and to halt cross-border infiltration. Within hours of the deal being inked, some tribal leaders claimed there had never been any foreigners in their area.

Last Sunday - two days after Mr Musharraf left Kabul - a man wearing an explosive vest hurled himself at a vehicle containing Abdul Hakim Taniwal, the governor of Pakita province. The killer is believed to have come from Waziristan.

Friends said Mr Taniwal, a university professor who returned from Australia to serve his country on pay of $200 a month, was the sort of man Afghanistan needs. He had argued for reconciliation with the Taliban and a resolution of tensions with Pakistan. He was a good man among rogues. "Many governors are former commanders involved in drug trafficking, land grabbing and corruption. Why did they kill this one? Because he was completely clean and a wise man of peace," said Mr Rubin. "It is a big blow against peace."

Shutting down the Pakistani sanctuaries would not necessarily end the insurgency. This year the Taliban's strength has been nourished by a new source: heroin. After spurning the opium trade as un-Islamic and immoral, this year the Taliban leadership reversed its position and allied with drug smugglers. The 59% surge in opium production to an unprecedented 6,100 tonnes will swell the Taliban war chest. "This is going to put a lot more money into the pockets of the insurgency," said one drug official.

More ominously, the drugs boom feeds cynicism about the Karzai government. "You can't tell poor farmers not to grow drugs and then you have civil servants driving a luxury car and living in a huge house," said Ms Nathan.

Dismay about the drugs epidemic has given way to arguments about how to tackle it. US and European military commanders, particularly the British, insist their troops should not get directly involved in fighting the trade. This week the head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, called on them to wade in. "Counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics efforts must reinforce each other so as to stop the vicious circle of drugs funding terrorists and terrorists protecting drug traffickers," he said, calling on Nato to destroy heroin labs, disband drug bazaars, attack convoys and arrest smugglers.

The speed and scale of this summer's violence has disoriented both Afghans and foreigners. In the south outlandish theories that the US is covertly supporting the Taliban, or that British troops have come to avenge colonial-era defeats, are common.

The underlying factors - cross-border sanctuaries, corrupt governance and drugs - have been in place for years. But what changed is the aggressive Nato deployment. After a difficult start, Nato has scored some successes. With more than 500 Taliban killed in Panjwayi, the Taliban stronghold west of Kandahar, soon the area will be cleared of insurgents, said the British commander, Lieutenant General David Richards. With luck, Nato hopes it will soon revert to its original goal, facilitating aid projects and strengthening the Karzai government.

But others question whether an insurgency can be defeated by death tolls alone. The only durable solution is to talk to the Taliban, said Wadir Safi of the University of Kabul. "Without negotiation this could go on for decades. The government must accept the Taliban as partners in these areas. You can't simply kill them all."

Afghans have a long history of ejecting foreign armies. The good news for Nato is that most still believe the military visitors are a force for good. "People are tired of fighting. Nobody wants to go back to that," said one official in Ghazni, who requested anonymity. "But if the people are disappointed much more, they could unite against the foreign forces. History could repeat itself."

Afghanistan starving for relief - Rice admits U.S. made mistakes
Critics single out anti-drug strategy - Sep. 16, 2006. LYNDA HURST

It may be cold comfort to its allies, and certainly the Afghans, but the United States owned up this week to setting the stage for the disaster Afghanistan has once again become.

On her visit to Nova Scotia, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conceded that the United States made a major mistake in 1989. When the Soviet Union withdrew after 10 years of war and 15,000 troop deaths, the U.S. also pulled out.

Bad call, Rice admitted. "We left the Afghan people without any means of support, political support, economic support, security support. Afghanistan turned into a failed state ... and we all came to pay for that."

Analysts argue over what the term "failed state" means, but Afghanistan in the late 1990s met most people's definition.

A bloody civil war raged until the hardline Islamist Taliban took chaotic control in 1996 — the same year Osama bin Laden decided to relocate his terrorist operation north from Sudan.

Rice, however, made no mention of what critics say was Washington's second big mistake: interpreting the quick, two-month toppling of the Taliban regime in late 2001 as indication of a problem permanently solved and assuming that democratization and reconstruction would smoothly proceed.

It didn't happen as planned. Today, Afghanistan is once again a battlefield, a failed state moving ever closer to the brink of collapse.

The Taliban have returned, this time with their own coalition of fellow travellers: seasoned Al Qaeda terrorists, warlord militias of frustrated Afghans and drug-trafficking fighters determined to protect their opium supply.

Reconstruction has come to a virtual standstill in the south and east as this "neo-Taliban" frontline steadily advances.

Washington is now fighting a two-front war when it wants to focus on Iraq, say analysts. But its plan to hand the Afghan counter-insurgency over more fully to NATO troops has been met with resistance by many in Canada and the rest of the organization.

Rice asked Ottawa not to abandon the mission, however changed and violent it has become. If Afghanistan isn't stabilized so that reconstruction can proceed, she said, "it's going to come back to haunt us. It will come back to haunt our successors and their successors."

The Senlis Council might consider her remarks too little, too late. Last week, in an in-depth report, the eminent European think-tank excoriated the U.S. and the allies that followed its lead after 9/11.

"Right from 2001, the U.S.-led international community's priorities were not in line with the Afghan population," said Senlis head Emmanuel Reinert. "It is a classic military error: they did not properly identify the enemy."

The enemy was, and is, poverty. "Afghans are starving," he said, and the numbers tell why. Since 2002, the international community has spent $82.5 billion (U.S.) on military operations in Afghanistan, compared with $7.3 billion on development and aid operations.

The result, the report says, is that makeshift, unregistered refugee camps of starving Afghan civilians displaced by "counter-narcotics eradication" and bombing campaigns can now be found on the doorsteps of multi-million-dollar military camps, including Canada's in Kandahar.

"Prioritizing the `war on terror' over the `war on poverty,' " said Reinert, "has recreated the exact situation it was intended to remove in southern Afghanistan. (It) has recreated the safe haven for terrorism that the 2001 invasion aimed to destroy."

Senlis, long an advocate of licensing Afghanistan's opium crops for medical use, says the U.S.'s unyielding insistence that poppy fields be eradicated has forced thousands of farmers and their families into poverty — and, increasingly, into supporting the insurgency.

The report quotes a worker in Kandahar: "In the villages, they had their crops destroyed, there is no water, no jobs, nothing to do — isn't it fair that they go and join the Taliban? Wouldn't you do the same thing?"

Senlis says a complete overhaul of the failed opium strategy is urgently needed. The group and other critics can say that, says Tom Carothers, vice-president of international politics and governance at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, but Washington, at least the current administration, won't budge a centimetre on the policy.

"The White House is extremely dogmatic when it involves domestic issues such as drugs, so even if Afghanistan is turning into a mess again, our principles are intact," Carothers says.

In May, poppy farmers from across the country presented a resolution to the parliament in Kabul, calling for a stringently controlled licensing system to cultivate opium for medical purposes. It is the only way, they said, to end the diversion of opium into the world's illicit heroin trade, 90 per cent of which

Afghanistan continues to supply.

The farmers argued that "trust in the new government and the foreigners" has been lost over the past few years because promises to find them alternative cash crops or other livelihoods have not been kept.

"We would not abuse (a legal) system. We would not sell opium for heroin any more," said a farmer from Helmand province.

But it is Washington's decision, not Kabul's. "Not in my wildest dreams do I see the White House giving ground on the anti-drugs policy," says Seth Jones, a security analyst at the Rand Corp., specializing in Afghanistan. There is growing evidence that drug traffickers are now in league with the Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents, being funded from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, says Jones.

That fact, however, is more likely to strengthen Washington's resolve rather than open it up to the idea of licensing for medical use: "They won't even face that issue until the fighting goes down."

And that's not going to be any time soon, he says.

Jones is newly returned from Afghanistan, where he joined Canadian patrols in Kandahar and British troops in Helmand. He was in Kabul on Sept. 8 when two U.S. soldiers and 14 civilians were killed in a suicide attack, a jihadist tactic introduced to the Taliban by Al Qaeda.

"That made 173 suicide attacks this year, more than all previous ones combined," says Jones. "It felt like Iraq."

Security has dramatically deteriorated throughout the country, he says, the level of violence increasing six-fold this year, both in the number of insurgent attacks and their lethality.

Afghan Finance Minister Anwar ul-Haq Ahady was quoted last month as saying: "We build a school, and the Taliban come and they burn it. We build a clinic, and they come and burn it. We build a bridge, and they knock it down. Security is the Number 1 issue."

To Jones, Afghanistan isn't on the brink of becoming a failed state again. It has been one since 1979 when the Soviets attacked, and has remained one ever since, despite the veneer of democracy — free elections and the formation of a government under President Hamid Karzai.

The phrase "failed state" has become part of geopolitical vernacular, with many definitions. But Foreign Policy magazine, which publishes an annual index, defines it as a state in which the government does not have effective control of its territory, is not perceived as legitimate by a significant portion of its population, does not provide domestic security or basic public services to its citizens, and lacks a monopoly on the use of force.

Add to the list "no control over its border crossings," especially the porous border with Pakistan, which supplies both terrorists and funding, says Jones, and it's a description of Afghanistan five years after its "liberation."

There is failure too in Karzai's attempt to forestall future trouble and extend state authority beyond Kabul by moving some of the top warlords to the capital and giving them government jobs. Neither goal was achieved and the government is now widely perceived as corrupt and ineffective.

"The government clearly has problems with corruption," says Jones, especially in two critically important institutions: the national police force and the justice system.

"You need the police to be upright and legitimate," he says. "But they're taking bribes, they're involved in drug-trafficking. When I went out on patrols, people wouldn't talk to us if there were police within hearing distance. They said they know the police talk to the insurgent militias."

The justice sector is deeply corrupt and "doesn't know how to deal with the drug traffickers," he says. Indeed, a United Nations report rated it in the bottom 2 per cent of global justice systems.

The situation is a debacle, but at least the current round of fighting has succeeded "in pushing it back on the U.S. radar screen," he says.

U.S. President George W. Bush will meet jointly next Friday with Karzai and Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. It's a step forward, but a resolution of Afghanistan's predicament could be years away.

Afghanistan: Contradictions Hint At Division Within Neo-Taliban

By Amin Tarzi Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

WASHINGTON, September 15, 2006 (RFE/RL) -- Media efforts have intensified by the various elements that oppose the post-Taliban government in Afghanistan. The stepped-up public campaign of the so-called neo-Taliban has accompanied increased insurgency and terrorism efforts by those same guerrillas. But while they have managed to convey their messages with greater frequency, their pronouncements have sometimes been marked by glaring contradictions. While inconsistencies are not new to the neo-Taliban, their recent frequency suggests strains could reemerge between Afghan opponents of the central government and their foreign allies.

At least a dozen people have purported to speak for the "Taliban" since 2003, when a man named Mohammad Mokhtar Mojahed claimed that a 10-member, Taliban "leadership council" had been created. They have sometimes issued contradictory statements -- even leaving aside spokesmen from self-described splinter groups that loosely identify themselves with the ousted Taliban regime.

In late 2004, Mufti Latifullah Hakimi emerged as the primary voice of the Taliban. Unlike previous spokesmen, who contacted media outlets by fax, Hakimi began giving telephone interviews. Since Hakimi's arrest by Pakistani authorities in October 2005, two men have come forward, declaring themselves spokesmen for the Taliban: Dr. Mohammad Hanif and Qari Mohammad Yusof. They have sometimes been joined by other self-described spokesmen.

There has also been a marked difference in the use of the Internet by the movement. A website recently emerged that purports to represent the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan," the name of the country during the rule of the Taliban. It is updated daily -- sometimes more than once a day. While the website continues to follow a neo-Taliban trend of exaggerating the number of losses to Afghan or foreign troops and minimizing its own casualties, it also contains updated information on operations -- including suicide missions -- carried out by the insurgents. The website has included statements made by Mohammad Hanif and Mohammad Yusof, as well as statements allegedly made by the Taliban leadership.

Statements issued by Mohammad Hanif and Mohammad Yusof have differed from the website most markedly in references to insurgents. The two spokesmen usually refer to their organization as the "Taliban," while the website increasingly refers to the organization as the "Islamic Emirate" and the fighters as mujahedin (also mojahedin). Mujahedin is a term that, in the course of Islamic history, has been used by many groups to identify their struggles to defend Islam. But it gained global currency in Afghanistan during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation.

The original Taliban, who emerged from the ranks of the mujahedin in the mid-1990s, differentiated themselves as talibs -- meaning "seekers" or "students" -- of Islamic sciences. The choice highlighted their struggle against former mujahedin commanders and leaders who had been in control of Afghanistan since 1992.

The most recent contradiction between statements of the spokesmen of the Taliban and the website of the "Islamic Emirate" followed the suicide attack that killed Paktiya Governor Hakim Taniwal on September 10. Soon after that attack, Mohammad Hanif told a Peshawar-based news agency Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) that the killing was carried out by a Paktiya resident. He added that he had "no further details" beyond the attacker's name. Similarly, on the day of the Taniwal assassination, the "Islamic Emirate" website posted a report that identified the attacker as a heroic "seeker of knowledge" (mujahed talib al-'ilm) of the Islamic Emirate -- using the term "talib" in its traditional linguistic, not political, meaning.

On September 11, another suicide bomber targeted a number of Afghan security officials attending Taniwal's funeral in neighboring Khost Province, killing six people. The website indicated that a "heroic mujahed of the Islamic Emirate" carried out a "martyrdom-seeking" attack against high-level officers at the funeral.

But speaker Mohammad Hanif, speaking to AIP, expressed "strong condemnation," and said his movement had not committed the attack on the funeral.

The stark contrast could be related to conflicting ideologies within the ranks of the neo-Taliban. But it might also indicate a lack of any centralized command and control of the activities or policies of the far-flung movement.

A majority of neo-Taliban militants and sympathizers might well have viewed the assassination of Governor Taniwal as legitimate. He was a close confidant of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, after all. But an attack on the attendees of any funeral service is generally disdain as running counter to Pashtun tribal norms.

A rift arose under the Taliban regime in Afghanistan between many traditional Taliban and elements who identified themselves with Arab Islamists -- namely Al-Qaeda. Allies of the Arab elements eventually gained the upper hand.

But the same ideological split could be resurfacing, if indications are correct of increasing contacts between some neo-Taliban and self-proclaimed "jihadists" operating in Iraq.

The "Islamic Emirate" website refers to the insurgents as "mujahedin" -- the same term being applied to insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. That -- and the existence of an Arabic version of the same website -- could indicate a link between the people behind the website and more radical global Islamists who are not sensitive to Pashtun traditions.

Canada to continue help for Afghanistan: Ambassador

KABUL, Sep 14 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Canadian ambassador David Sprole Wednesday said the casualties inflicted on their troops would not harm the determination of Canadian government and its people.

In an inclusive interview with Pajhwok Afghan News the ambassador said his government would stand with Afghans until the establishment of a stable Afghanistan.

Sprole said: "We are committed to our pledges to Afghanistan, because success and peace of this country are also in the best interest of Canadians."

About 30 Canadian troops have been killed and several other have been injured in Afghanistan since 2002 during different clashes and fights with Taliban insurgents.

About casualties of the Canadian troops here, the ambassador said:" Canadian people are proud of playing significant role in fight against terrorism and reconstruction of Afghanistan."

There are 2,300 Canadian troops in Afghanistan and thus it is counted as the third supporter of the political process in the country. Canada is hoped to increase its forces in the country after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) asked for the increase of troops in Afghanistan.

Regarding the increase in their country forces, the ambassador, said: "I can't say anything about the exact number because no precise decision has yet been made."

He said their forces in the Northern provinces took the local officer in confidence prior conducting any operation. Canadian parliament had recently approved stay of their forces in Afghanistan until 2009, Sprole added.

Efforts of the international community for a stable and improved Afghanistan would have a good result, he hoped. Pointing to his country financial aid for this war-battered country, he said Canada pledged providing $0.1 billion for Afghanistan from 2001 to 2011.

He said half of the money had been spent on presidential election, DDR, DIAG, De-mining, reconstruction of roads, bridges, small loans and training programs for MPs and women in Afghanistan.

Canada is one of the countries that accepted 80,000 Afghan refugees. He hoped to see Afghanistan as one of the stable countries of the world. The ambassador said Canada and international community were trying to get Afghanistan stand on its own feet.

ONLINE EXCLUSIVE: Another NDP MP breaks ranks with leader over Afghanistan

NDP MP Pat Martin disagrees with Jack Layton over pulling out Canadian troops immediately

Another NDP MP is breaking ranks with party leader Jack Layton over Afghanistan and says Canadian troops should not be pulled out of the war-torn country immediately.

NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, Man.) told The Hill Times in an exclusive interview at his party's policy convention in Québec City on the weekend that he does not support his party leader on the controversial issue.

The issue is expected to come up again at the NDP retreat in Thunder Bay, Ont., this week.

"I'm more of a Manitoba New Democrat point of view, which [is that] we don't support the idea of the immediate withdrawal of troops. The Taliban train Al-Qaeda to bomb North America and this has been the reason for the international community to try and stop the Taliban. Therefore, it's a good reason for Canada to be part of that initiative," said Mr. Martin, referring to Manitoba Premier Gary Doer's comments also on the weekend to CTV NewsNet that, "The Taliban that we're fighting basically protected the terrorists that were involved five years ago in the 9-11 attack-which included the killing of innocent victims from Manitoba-and so I don't like any anti-military talk."

At the weekend's NDP policy convention, nearly 90 per cent of the 1,500 delegates endorsed Mr. Layton's (Toronto-Danforth, Ont.) call to withdraw troops out of Afghanistan by February 2007. The policy was the highlight of the convention.

But there was a minority of delegates who publicly disagreed with the party leadership on this issue.

NDP MP Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore, N.S.), whose riding comprises 20 per cent of constituents who are current and former Canadian Forces personnel, disagreed with his party's position on pulling troops out of Afghanistan and argued that an overwhelming majority of the Canadians do not have adequate information to make an informed decision on this issue.

Mr. Stoffer said before calling for an immediate withdrawal, that information on key questions such as "why are we in Afghanistan, what's the big picture, why are we in there, what do we hope to achieve, what's the end game" should be provided to Canadians.

"It's their [Canadians] sons and daughters who are dying and it's their financial dollars that are paying for this so they have a right to tell government what they think," Mr. Stoffer told The Hill Times. Four Canadian soldiers from a military base in Mr. Stoffer's riding have been killed in Afghanistan.

Once the House resumes next week, Mr. Stoffer said he's going to write letters to the chairs of the Commons Foreign Affairs and Defence committees to urge them to travel across the country and to hear Canadians' views directly on Canada's role in Afghanistan.

Moreover, he said, before calling the troops home, Canadians should know what the plan in place is after Canadian troops return home.

"If indeed that's what we want to happen, then my question to everybody who will listen is, 'What happens on March 1?' "

Malalai Joya, a member of the Afghan National Assembly who delivered a keynote address at the NDP convention, meanwhile, said Canadian Forces are indirectly helping the Afghan warlords and drug lords by fighting the Taliban. She said that if Canadians really want to help the Afghani people, they should work independently of the U.S.

"Conditions of its women will never change positively as long as the warlords are not disarmed and both the pro-U.S. and anti-U.S. terrorists are removed from the political scene of Afghanistan," said Ms. Joya, 27, the youngest elected Afghan Parliamentarian in her speech in Quebec City.

"If Canada and other governments really want to help Afghan people and bring positive changes, they must act independently rather than becoming a tool to implement the wrong policies of the U.S. government."

But both Mr. Martin and Mr. Stoffer said that it would be a mistake to interpret this speech as a call to withdraw the Canadian troops from Afghanistan.

"I don't agree with the MP Afghanistan's views, frankly. It should be noted that at no time in her speech, or, in subsequent interviews did she say Canada should withdraw from Afghanistan. She did say Canada should be careful not to support the warlords that she is incredibly critical of and justifiably so," said Mr. Martin.

Mr. Stoffer said alternative points of view to Ms. Joya's should heard.

"That's what she said but we didn't hear anybody from the other side. I would love to hear from Gen. Hillier on this or someone from NATO or somebody else who would say, 'She's right but here's what we're doing.' I would love to hear somebody from CIDA or Foreign Affairs to hear their point of view but we didn't get that," said Mr. Stoffer.

Meanwhile, two prominent NDPers announced publicly last weekend that they're quitting the party.

Carl Hétu, co-president of the NDP's Quebec campaign in the last federal election, and economist Paul Summerville, who ran unsuccessfully as an NDP candidate in the last election in the Ontario riding of St. Paul's, both said they're leaving the party. Mr. Summerville, who has since joined the Liberal Party and hopes to to attend the December Liberal leadership convention as a Bob Rae delegate, said he disagrees with the party's economic policies.

Pierre Laliberté, the NDP's candidate in the Quebec riding of Hull-Aylmer, criticized the party leadership for failing to empower the party grassroots and for spending little time in Quebec in the last election.

Meanwhile, Pierre Ducasse, a former NDP leadership candidate, played down the significance of the departure of the three prominent NDPers from the party.

"That's not what I see here. I see a lot of new members, Quebec delegation is almost 200 and 90 per cent of them has never been to an NDP convention. There's a lot of youth. Today, we have a big youth delegation that are interested in social, democratic progressive politics. So I see a lot of enthusiasm."

Mr. Ducasse, who ran unsuccessfully as a candidate in Quebec in the last federal election, said he sees brighter prospects for his party in the coming weeks and months in the province of Quebec.

Mr. Ducasse predicted that Bloc cooperation with the Tories in Parliament will backfire and that Quebecers in the next election will turn to the NDP.

"They [the Bloc] did not get any concessions from the government as we did when we negotiated with the Liberals in the 2005 budget. A lot of people [wonder] what is the Bloc for. Often the Bloc tries to call [itself], 'we're the Progressives. With their support of the Tories, people are [wondering] perhaps the Bloc is not the Social Democrat Party.

The only NDP MP ever elected in Quebec was Phil Edmonston who won the riding of Chambly, Que., in an byelection in 1990.

Kerry faults Bush's Afghanistan strategy

By ANDREW MIGA - Associated Press Thu Sep 14

WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential nominee, accused the Bush administration of pursuing a "cut and run" strategy in Afghanistan that has emboldened terrorists and made the U.S. less safe.

"The administration's Afghanistan policy defines cut and run," Kerry said in remarks at Howard University on Thursday. "Cut and run while the Taliban-led insurgency is running amok across entire regions of the country. Cut and run while Osama bin Laden and his henchmen hide and plot in a lawless no-man's land."

Kerry's "cut and run" accusation echoes criticism Republicans have leveled at Democrats who have challenged Bush's handling of the Iraq war.

A potential 2008 presidential candidate, Kerry lashed out at the administration on the same day the White House announced meetings later this month with the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"John Kerry lacks the credibility on the war on terror to be taken seriously," said Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz. "The junior senator from Massachusetts would be well served by not using his own agenda's mantra to falsely attack this administration's foreign policy."

Afghanistan has been plagued by an upsurge in violence by the Taliban, which is trying to topple the U.S.-backed government in Kabul. Military commanders have called for an extra 2,500 troops to help the NATO force in Afghanistan.

Kerry wants at least 5,000 additional troops sent there, contending that the Bush administration has focused on Iraq while failing to respond forcefully to threats in Afghanistan and Iran.

"The central front in the war on terror is still in Afghanistan, but this administration treats it like a sideshow," said Kerry, adding there are seven times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.

"When did denying al-Qaida a terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan stop being an urgent American priority?" Kerry said. "How is it possible that we keep sending thousands of additional U.S. troops into the middle of a civil war in Iraq but we can't find any more troops to send to Afghanistan?"

The Republican National Committee dismissed Kerry's criticism.

"John Kerry lacks the credibility on the war on terror to be taken seriously," said spokesman Danny Diaz of the four-term senator, a longtime member of the Foreign Relations Committee. "The junior senator from Massachusetts would be well-served by not using his own agenda's mantra to falsely attack this administration's foreign policy."

Land allocation scheme yields first results in Afghanistan

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) - By Vivian Tan In Pul-i-Khumri, Afghanistan 

PUL-I-KHUMRI, Afghanistan, September 14 (UNHCR) – A government land-allocation scheme in Afghanistan has distributed property to thousands of landless Afghans who have repatriated to northern and eastern Afghanistan.

The programme is a welcome development in a country plagued by multiple land claims. According to a 2005 census of Afghans in Pakistan, 57 percent of those who did not want to return cited lack of shelter as the main reason, while only 18 percent cited livelihood and security as obstacles to repatriation.

"It is not easy – especially in a post-conflict country – to distribute land for landless people, in particular to returnees who have long been away from their country," said Ustad Akbar, Afghanistan's Minister for Refugees and Repatriation (MoRR). "The selection of land has been a challenge and I am glad to say that now we have launched townships in 29 provinces."

The land allocation scheme, which was formalised by presidential decree last December, states that to qualify a returnee or internally displaced person (IDP) must possess a national identify card from their province of origin as well as documents to confirm their return to Afghanistan or internal displacement.

The applicant cannot own land or a house in their name or that of a spouse or child, while priority is given to families headed by women and to returnees who are disabled or widowed.

Selection is done by inter-ministry commissions in Kabul and the provinces, which also set the price of the land. So far, more than 300,000 plots of government land have been identified in 29 provinces. Some 18,000 plots have been distributed. But progress in some areas has been impeded by land claims by private landowners or a lack of coordination among government ministries.

One of the areas that have made significant progress is Ettehad township in northern Baghlan province. Already, 3,000 plots of land, each measuring 600 square metres, have been allocated and 2,700 families are building their houses.

With funding from the United States, a French aid agency is helping to build 1,000 houses while UNHCR has provided 50 shelter packages for the most vulnerable families. More than 40 wells are planned. Some 500 families have moved in, and another 1,000 plots will be distributed soon.

"We didn't wait for the government money to come before starting work," said Imamuddin Khan, head of Baghlan's department of refugees and repatriation (DoRR). "We used what we had in our own budget and the returnees themselves did the work." He explained that every block of 1,000 plots will have two schools, two clinics, four mosques, as well as markets and government offices.

Naeem returned to Baghlan from Iran last year and was given land in Ettehad after a selection process based on a quota of 80 percent for returnees, 15 percent for IDPs and five percent for the handicapped. He spent five months building his house with his wife and four children.

"We worked together on this house," said his wife. "Of course I'm happy now. In the past, we were living in rented houses, and in foreign countries. The landlords used to beat up my children. Now at least we have our own home."

Naeem added, "I'm now doing construction work for the neighbours. I'm confident I can continue this work because there is a demand."

While proud of the progress so far, DoRR's Khan said, "There should be a real difference between a shelter project and a housing project. At the moment, there is still no safe drinking water, no schools, no clinics, and few jobs . . . we also need income-generating activities like metal works, carpentry, construction."

Over in eastern Afghanistan's Nangarhar province, Sheikh Mesri township has similar needs. Some 3,000 plots of land have been allocated and over 600 families have moved in. The International Medical Corps has a mobile clinic there while UNHCR is providing tents for a school and 50 shelter units for vulnerable families. The refugee agency is also funding six wells for general use.

A private company has just finished building a water reservoir and pipe system that will facilitate water distribution and conservation. But township dwellers feel it is not enough. "There is nothing here," said Aslamuddin, a Nangarhar native who returned in August. "There are no proper roads to the city. Sometimes small taxis pass but the prices have doubled because of rising oil prices."

Jacques Mouchet, UNHCR's representative in Afghanistan, put the challenges in context: "Issues like land, water and livelihood are problems not just for returnees, but for the large majority of Afghans. Only long-term national development can solve these problems."

Sheikh Mesri and Ettehad are among five townships in Nangarhar, Baghlan, Ghazni, Logar and Herat provinces that have been singled out for completion under the pilot land allocation scheme. A joint working group, including government agencies and UNHCR, has appealed for US$25 million to develop these five returnee townships.

The success of the scheme will set a good example for other provinces and encourage donors to consider bilateral funding for the nationwide scheme.

"The land allocation scheme certainly helps and encourages those Afghans who have shelter problems to return to their country. I believe the repatriation of Afghans has direct links to developments in Afghanistan. The more developmental projects we launch, such as the housing project, the more we facilitate the repatriation of Afghans," MoRR's Ustad Akbar said.

Some 3.7 million Afghans have repatriated with UNHCR help since 2002, mostly from Pakistan and Iran. Another 1 million have returned by their own means.

Herat gets four cold storages

HERAT CITY, Sep 13 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Four agriculture cold storages worth $120, 000 were handed over to local authorities in Ingil district of the western Herat province, officials said on Wednesday.

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and local agriculture cooperative council provided budget for the construction of the storages.

Bashir Ahmad Bahadri, head of the provincial agriculture cooperatives council, told Pajhwok Afghan News each cold storage could house 30 tons vegetables and their construction were completed in a year. Paying little amount and after getting approval from the council members the farmers could keep their vegetables in the storages.

[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.]