In this bulletin:

• Nato to extend Afghan operations
• Angry Musharraf rejects claims over spy service
• Explosion kills one Canadian soldier on patrol in southern Afghanistan
• Document: Pakistan Agency Backs al-Qaida
• Pakistan to boost security cooperation: Afghan
• Madaris could not be closed on Karzai's demand: Musharraf
• Musharraf calls Karzai an Ostrich
• When Hamid Met Pervez
• German lawmakers extend Afghanistan mission
• Afghanistan fights for its future
• For or against the war
• No escaping Afghanistan
• How Musharraf conquered Washington
• Interview: Minister Mohammad Jalil Shams
• Afghan "vice" squad tears down posters of bodybuilders
• Death threats force women to stay at homes

Nato to extend Afghan operations – BBC

Nato has announced that it will extend its mission in Afghanistan to cover the whole of the insurgency-hit country. The move will take the alliance into the eastern parts of Afghanistan and bring up to 12,000 American troops under Nato command.

A Nato official said the decision would be implemented in the next few weeks. The announcement came as the US military said that militant attacks near the Pakistani border had tripled in some areas.

The rise in activity comes despite a peace agreement meant to end violence by pro-Taleban militants in Pakistan's North Waziristan border area. Correspondents say the deal has increased friction with Afghanistan.

The decision to extend the alliance's security mission in Afghanistan was approved by Nato defence ministers meeting in Slovenia, spokesman James Appathurai said.

US forces already in the region will come under the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) command, taking the total number of troops to around 32,000.

He said the decision was a vote of confidence for the Nato mission. "What it shows is that this operation is moving forward," he said. "I think it demonstrates considerable success."

Asked if the troops could be redeployed in the restive south, Mr Appathurai said he knew of no limits from Washington on troop movements.

The defence ministers also agreed on a plan to donate surplus military equipment to Afghanistan's armed forces, Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said.

"There were in rough numbers thousands of weapons offered up, and I believe probably millions of rounds of ammunition," the Associated Press news agency quoted US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as saying.

But Nato is still seeking commitments, particularly from European countries, to send an extra 2,500 soldiers. "If you are a member of an alliance based on solidarity, you have to deliver," the Nato leader said. "We need to do more."

Violence in Afghanistan has increased in recent months as international troops have clashed with a resurgent Taleban.

The Afghan and Pakistani presidents accuse each other of failing to act against the militants, with Afghan leader Hamid Karzai particularly criticising Gen Pervez Musharraf's deal with pro-Taleban militants. He says attacks have gone up and the US findings appeared to confirm this.

"There has been an increase in the activity certainly along the border region especially in the south-east areas across from Waziristan... in [Afghanistan's] Paktika and Khost provinces," Lt Col John Paradis of the US military told a news conference.

There were "in some cases two-fold, in some cases three-fold increases in the number of attacks," he said.

Mr Karzai has also suggested that Pakistan has turned a blind eye to Taleban supporters using parts of the country to train and launch attacks on Afghanistan.

US President George W Bush hosted talks between Mr Karzai and Gen Musharraf in Washington on Tuesday in what correspondents said was an attempt to end spats between the two leaders.

But at a public appearance after the talks the two leaders did not speak to each other or shake hands. Gen Musharraf has now had talks in the UK for talks with Prime Minister Tony Blair on security co-operation and Afghanistan.

The meeting came after Gen Musharraf angrily rejected the findings of a researcher at the UK Ministry of Defence which claimed that Pakistan's intelligence service, ISI, had indirectly helped the Taleban and al-Qaeda.

According to a Downing Street spokesman, President Musharraf was assured that the document did not reflect UK government policy and he agreed there was no need to discuss it further.

Angry Musharraf rejects claims over spy service

The Independent, UK - By James Tapsfield and Tony Jones 9.28.06

The Pakistan premier's visit to Britain follows a stay in America where he sparked controversy with a series of interviews to publicise his memoirs.

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf will hold talks with Tony Blair today after angrily dismissing claims in an MoD report that his intelligence service supports al-Qa'ida and the Taliban.

The leaked report by the Defence Academy - an MoD thinktank - says the ISI indirectly backs terrorism by backing religious groups in Pakistan. But the President insisted that the allegations were being made by people who did not understand "ground realities".

He told the BBC's Newsnight programme, which obtained the document: "These aspersions against ISI are by vested interests and by those who don't understand ground realities. "I don't accept them at all and I reject them fully."

The paper states that Iraq has served as a "recruiting sergeant for extremists from across the Muslim world".

It is believed to have been written by a UK intelligence official with a military background, who interviewed figures in the Pakistan army and academics to prepare a briefing about the Islamic country and the global war on terror.

The paper adds: "The wars in Afghanistan and particularly Iraq have not gone well and are progressing slowly towards an as yet unspecified and uncertain result.

"Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qa'ida has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act."

The document goes on to state: "British armed forces are effectively held hostage in Iraq following the failure of the deal being attempted by the Chief of Staff to extricate UK armed forces from Iraq on the basis of doing Afghanistan, and are now fighting and are arguably losing, or potentially losing, on two fronts."

ISI is supporting terrorism by secretly backing the coalition of religious parties in Pakistan known as the MNA, according to the report.

It says: "The Army's dual role in combating terrorism and at the same time promoting the MNA, and so indirectly supporting the Taliban through the ISI, is coming under closer and closer international scrutiny."

The British policy of supporting President Musharraf because he provides greater stability is flawed because Pakistan is "on the edge of chaos", the document insists.

It adds: "Indirectly Pakistan, through the ISI, has been supporting terrorism and extremism whether in London on 7/7 or in Afghanistan or Iraq."

The report proposes using military links between the British and Pakistan armies at a senior level to persuade President Musharraf to step down, accept free elections and persuade the army to dismantle the ISI. The allegations are likely to add extra tension to the meeting between President Musharraf and the Prime Minister, which is due to take place at Chequers.

The Pakistan premier's visit to Britain follows a stay in America where he sparked controversy with a series of interviews to publicise his memoirs. He claimed that the US threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age" if it did not co-operate against the Taliban in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

He has also criticised British intelligence for delays in informing the Pakistan authorities that two of the bombers who carried out the July 7 attacks in London had visited his country just months earlier.

The President insisted last night he would not give in to pressure to disband the ISI. "I reject it from anybody - MoD or anyone who tells me to dismantle ISI," he told Newsnight.

"ISI is a disciplined force, for 27 years they have been doing what the government has been telling them, they won the Cold War for the world." He added "Breaking the back of al-Qa'ida would not have been possible if ISI was not doing an excellent job."

The President also criticised the UK for not doing enough to stop its own homegrown extremists. The President said: "There's no doubt that the London (bombers) ... have some way or other come to Pakistan.

"But let us not absolve the United Kingdom from their responsibilities. Youngsters who are 25, 30 years old and who happen to come to Pakistan for a month or two months and you put the entire blame on these two months of visit to Pakistan and don't talk about the 27 years or whatever they are suffering in your country."

It is thought the leaked document was due to form the basis of further meetings to discuss policy towards Pakistan. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "The academic research notes quoted in no way represent the views of either the MoD or the Government.

"To represent it as such is deeply irresponsible and the author is furious that his notes have been wilfully misrepresented in this manner. "Indeed, he suspects that they have been released to the BBC precisely in the hope that they would cause damage to our relations with Pakistan.

"Pakistan is a key ally in our efforts to combat international terrorism and her security forces have made considerable sacrifices in tackling al-Qa'ida and the Taliban. We are working closely with Pakistan to tackle the root causes of terrorism and extremism."

Explosion kills one Canadian soldier on patrol in southern Afghanistan

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - A Canadian soldier is dead after stepping on a booby trap and triggering an explosion while on foot patrol. The soldier of the First Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, died around 1 p.m. in Panjwaii, the scene of recent fighting and bombings west of Kandahar city.

The soldier's identity was withheld at the request of his family. The soldier's hometown and age were also not released.

His remains were taken by helicopter to Kandahar Airfield. One soldier was slightly hurt and no civilians were wounded in the bombing.

The explosion comes near the end of Canada's deadliest month in Afghanistan. Ten Canadian soldiers have died in September.

In all, 37 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have died on the mission to Afghanistan since 2002.

Afghan, Canadian and other NATO soldiers backed by heavy bombardment took the Panjwaii district from hundreds of insurgents earlier this month.

Four soldiers died while on foot patrol in the same area Sept. 18.

Document: Pakistan Agency Backs al-Qaida - The Associated Press - 09/28/2006

LONDON — A leaked document accuses Pakistan's intelligence agency of indirectly supporting terrorist groups including al-Qaida and calls on Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to disband the agency.

Musharraf, who is scheduled to meet British Prime Minister Tony Blair later Thursday, told the British Broadcasting Corp. that he rejected the assessment and would raise the matter with his counterpart.

"ISI is a disciplined force, breaking the back of al-Qaida," Musharraf told the broadcaster, claiming his intelligence service had secured the arrests of 680 suspected terrorists.

The BBC on Wednesday declined to identify the author of the document but said the person was linked to MI6, the British secret intelligence service. The broadcaster's "Newsnight" television program said it had been passed a copy of the document, which it said was collated as part of a private British review of efforts across the world to combat terrorism.

The BBC quoted the document as saying that Pakistan was coming under "closer and closer" international scrutiny because of the intelligence agency's support for the country's hard-line opposition Islamic coalition Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal, also called MMA.

Britain's Ministry of Defense said the document was part of academic research and did not represent the views of either the ministry or Blair's government.

"To represent it as such is deeply irresponsible and the author is furious that his notes have been willfully misrepresented in this manner," said a defense ministry spokeswoman, on customary condition of anonymity.

"Indeed, he suspects that they have been released to the BBC precisely in the hope that they would cause damage to our relations with Pakistan."

Musharraf traveled to London after talks Wednesday in Washington with President Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Musharraf said he and Karzai decided to increase cooperation in fighting terrorism, including developing better intelligence coordination and interaction.

"The meeting that I held with President Bush and Hamid Karzai last night was very good," Musharraf said in comments aired live on Pakistani TV. "It was decided that we should have a common strategy. We have to fight terrorism. We have to defeat it, defeat it jointly."

It was a stark departure from the recent criticisms he and Karzai have lobbed at one another in recent days. Karzai has accused Pakistan of not doing enough to curb Islamic schools that produce militants, while Musharraf said the Afghan leader was ignoring large sectors of his war-ravaged country's population.

Right up to Wednesday night's White House dinner, they also have pointed fingers at one another over Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders. Each says bin Laden isn't hiding in his country and suggests the other might do more to help find him.

Tensions were still apparent in Washington. Following the dinner, Karzai and Musharraf attended a news conference where they both shook Bush's hand but didn't shake each other's.

The BBC also reported Wednesday that British military commanders were overruled by politicians in a request to withdraw troops from Iraq to strengthen force numbers in Afghanistan.

It said the document suggested military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were heading toward an "as yet unspecified and uncertain result."

It painted a bleak picture of military and counterterrorism work, similar to a U.S. intelligence assessment _ parts of which were declassified Tuesday _ that warned of a growing terrorist threat and concluded Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for jihadists.

British troops are being "held hostage in Iraq following the failure of the deal being attempted by the COS (Chief of Staff) to extricate UK Armed Forces from Iraq on the basis of doing Afghanistan," the BBC quoted the document as saying.

It said senior commanders had hoped to focus resources on the NATO-led mission to secure governance in southern Afghanistan, where British, Canadian and U.S. troops have met fierce resistance, the BBC said.

The BBC said the document reinforced claims that military intervention in Iraq had served to encourage extremism, a notion repeatedly rejected by Blair.

"Iraq has served to radicalize an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaida has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act," the BBC quoted the document as saying.

Associated Press Writer Sadaqat Jan in Islamabad, Pakistan, and Anne Gearan in Washington contributed to this report.

Pakistan to boost security cooperation: Afghan

Reuters Thursday, September 28 2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Afghanistan and Pakistan agreed to tighten security cooperation and to hold meetings of tribal leaders to encourage them to go after militants, Afghanistan's ambassador to Washington said on Thursday.

Ambassador Said Jawad, providing details of Wednesday's dinner of the U.S., Afghan and Pakistani presidents at the White House, said Pakistan had agreed to take action against militants based on Afghan intelligence. President George W. Bush hosted the dinner for Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to try to ease tensions between the two, who have accused one another of not doing enough to combat terrorism. "Pakistan agreed that if it is provided with specific demands, names or lists of targets that it will comply," Jawad said in a brief interview.

Akram Shaheedi, a spokesman for the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, said Pakistan has long cooperated with Afghanistan on security matters and will continue to do so, although he said he did not know of any specific agreement at the dinner. "This collaboration is already going on between Afghanistan, America and Pakistan. Whenever any credible information is given to Pakistan, Pakistani security forces do take action immediately," Shaheedi said.

Musharraf and Karzai have accused each other of not doing enough to combat extremists amid a Taliban resurgence that has spawned the worst violence in Afghanistan since U.S.-led forces toppled the Islamist hard-liners five years ago. Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding in the remote Afghan-Pakistan border area, but Musharraf and Karzai have each said he was in the other's country.

Jawad described the dinner as "cordial and constructive" and said the two sides had agreed to hold separate "jirgas," or councils of tribal leaders, on each side of the border "to empower tribal structures to fight extremists and terrorists." Shaheedi confirmed Pakistan has agreed to this step. Both men said there was no timetable for when the councils might be held. Karzai was initially elected president of an interim Afghan government by a Loya Jirga, or grand assembly, in June 2002.

Madaris could not be closed on Karzai's demand: Musharraf

PNS 09/28/2006- It is totally rubbish. We will not close Madaris on his demands.

NEW YORK - President General Pervez Musharraf has said that in his meeting with president George W Bush and Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai, he will present the 'realities' about Taliban.

"As far as Afghan president's demand of closing Madiris within Pakistan is concerned, it is totally rubbish. We will not close Madaris on his (Karzai) demands. The religious seminaries are not involved in terrorist activities," he observed this while addressing a press conference at Roosevelt hotel here Wednesday.

The afghan president's accusations against Madaris are baseless. He should speak openly. How could we shut down 10,000 Madaris. The Madaris are absolutely not involved in terrorism.

The president said we have expelled foreign students. The syllabus is being changed. Registrations are going on. The Wafaq-ul-Madaris examination system is highly effective. We cannot shut Madaris on Karzai's request. Those (Madaris) involved in terrorism have already been closed.

The president said his previous meeting with President Bush was very positive and our understanding will reach further heights in wake of new revelations. People should understand the realities about Taliban. I have changed US concept about Taliban and I hope Afghan President Hamid Karzai will also reckon the ground realities.

They know that I have submitted a report in UN and Taliban are present in Afghanistan and they are being funded by drug lords. Taliban are earning US$ 300 per month. Whereas there has been a surge of 59 % in poppy cultivation.

As far as Hizb-e-Islami is concerned Gulbadin Hikmatyar is leading the organization, in Kunar and Nangarhar whereas Jalaluddin is leading insurgency in Uruzgan, Kandahar and Hilmand.

In total there are five bases operating in Afghanistan and I will ask Afghan president to accept the reality. Whether he does it or not, its up to him.

Commenting on peace deal between military and North Waziristan based Taliban elements, the president said I did it for myself and it proves successful then it could be practiced on other side of the border in Afghanistan.

I will present the realities in my meeting with President Bush and Karzai. I will not get angry over the allegations leveled against us because I know allegations will weaken our alliance and it could lead to the defeat of the alliance, which we cannot afford.

Allegations are leveled against ISI and Western media is making unnecessary propaganda that we are not doing enough in war against terrorism. They are demanding that ISI should be dismantled and BBC is leading this propaganda game but they should not forget that ISI won the war against Russia and later broke the backbone of Al-qaeda and Taliban networks in Pakistan. As a matter of fact the Afghan president and his government is not reckoning the ground realities.

He said CIA did not give millions of dollars as bounty for arresting and handing over Taliban to Pakistan government, the agency which hunted Taliban leaders they collected the award. Khalid Mohamamd Sheikh, the president said used 13 houses and we raided all of them. The entire organization worked in the process and the money we received is being utilized in revamping Pakistani economy.

Commenting on Civil nuclear deal with United States, the president made it clear whether US provides Pakistan with Civil Nuclear technology or not Pakistan will get it from anywhere else. I asked US president to change his mind about Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan but he has not accepted my demand.

Referring to his Book "In the line of Fire", the president said there is no constitutional embargo on me that I cannot write a book. All the issues which I touched in my book, I have time and again commented on these. The opposition criticism is totally unnecessary I have not leaked any national secret and nor any of the secret will be leaked out, he reaffirmed.

I am in a position, from which some people are very jealous that is why they are against me I used my position to improve Pakistan's image in the comity of nations. I am satisfied with what I have done whatever Allah Almighty has given me I a satisfied with it.

This book will remind them that what the realities are. The world will understand (the role of) Pakistan. He said that Nawaz Sharif moved abroad after signing an agreement. Shah Abdullah is involved in it. This is a sensitive issue. He is like my elder brother. He said that the issue will not be brought to the media. The most important part of the book is my governance that I have done. My personal life is important and besides this there are different aspects. He said that the one who pushed me into power himself went out of the country.

He maintained the issue of Taliban has turned highly dangerous. There is nothing happening from Pakistan inside Afghanistan.

He maintained that I had a nice meeting with Hamid Karzai in Kabul now I don't know what has happened to him that he is continuously leveling allegations against Pakistan.

On a query about his book, the president said the book I have written is not only for myself but also for Pakistan. Whatever is inscribe in my fate it will happen and no body can change the fate.

The president went on to say that Pakistan, India and Iran will go ahead with IPI gas pipeline project. US has not discussed the matter with us and if they will do it then we will ask them to provide us energy because we need it the most. Gas pipeline is imperative for all three nations and we will take this pipeline up to China. I have discussed the matter with Chinese President Wen Jiabao.

As far as our government is concerned it is stable. The parliament is working smoothly. Why should I give a formula for opposition because everything is going smoothly. The government could not be destabilized, the assemblies with complete their term.

The only hot issue at present in the assemblies is Hudood Ordinance and will Inshallah get this bill passed by the parliament and nothing will happen. The fair, free and transparent election will be held in 2007 and new assemblies will come into existence as a result of these elections, he added.

Musharraf calls Karzai an Ostrich - Rediff 09/28/2006 Aziz Haniffa in Washington

Only hours after Karzai had described Musharraf as 'his brother President Musharraf,'  Musharraf said, "He is not oblivious, he knows everything, but he is purposely denying -- turning a blind eye like an ostrich."

On the eve of the tripartite meeting between himself, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and President Bush at a White House Ifthar dinner hosted by Bush, President Pervez Musharraf slammed Karzai, describing him as "an ostrich," who doesn't want to tell the world about the real facts in Afghanistan "for his own personal reasons."

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, only hours after Karzai had described Musharraf as 'his brother President Musharraf,' in a joint press conference with Bush at the White House, Musharraf said, "He is not oblivious, he knows everything, but he is purposely denying -- turning a blind eye like an ostrich. He doesn't want to tell the world what is the fact for his own personal reasons. That is what I think."

Musharraf was responding to a question by Blitzer who said that in a March interview, Musharraf had said Karzai "...is totally oblivious to what is happening in his own country. "Blitzer asked him if he believed Karzai was still oblivious or whether he (Musharraf) owed him an apology.

Musharraf went on to say, "In the governance in Afghanistan there is a certain community, which is feeling alienated and it has 50-60 per cent representation in Afghanistan. That is his problem."

"He (Karzai) has to balance out and he has not been able to do that and therefore he is trying to hide that everything is happening from Pakistan," he added.

Musharraf warned, "This is a Pukhtun uprising by the people. If he doesn't understand this, he will keep going on and we are going to lose in Afghanistan."

Going by the tensions and the rhetoric that keeps exacerbating, President Bush will certainly have his work cut out in refereeing this contest on Wednesday over dinner and one wonders whether instead of breaking the Ramadan fast with the traditional dates, which precedes the Ifthar dinner, Musharraf and Karzai may end up flinging them at one another!

When Hamid Met Pervez - New York Times - Editorial 9.29.06

It will take more than a shared dinner at the White House to get Presidents Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan to think and say nice things about each other. Their quarrel is no mere war of words in competing press interviews. It is about the real war being waged on Afghan soil by a revitalized Taliban, which recruits fighters in Pakistan and sends them almost unimpeded across a shared border.

General Musharraf says he is doing his best to stop this infiltration. But his best has been strikingly ineffective, considering the powers he wields as a military dictator, accountable only to his fellow Pakistani generals.

His latest move on the Taliban front was discouraging, to say the very least. This month he agreed to a cease-fire deal with tribal allies of the Taliban in North Waziristan, the border region of Pakistan where Al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are thought to be holed up.

The agreement grants such foreign fighters the right to remain so long as local Taliban forces do not attack Pakistani soldiers and promise they will not cross into Afghanistan. As part of this understanding, Pakistani military checkpoints in the area are being dismantled.

President Karzai is understandably unhappy about this. President Bush should be too. Those Taliban fighters crossing into Afghanistan are not just killing Afghans. They are also killing American and NATO troops in growing numbers. This isn’t the first time General Musharraf has put domestic concerns ahead of the larger fight against international terrorism. He is still a useful American ally in that fight, but a dangerously selective one.

It would be overly simplistic to blame General Musharraf alone for Afghanistan’s increasingly perilous situation. In its hurry to move on to Iraq, the Bush administration never committed enough troops to establish the security needed for redevelopment and democracy to take root. And it has been too stingy with the kind of long-term development aid required to consolidate popular support.

Mr. Karzai, for his part, has been far too indulgent of corruption and drug trafficking. And, in the hope of extending his authority beyond Kabul, he has made damaging deals with brutal warlords.

Now that the dinner is over, Mr. Bush needs to focus on the real problems of Afghan security and reconstruction. And he needs to remind General Musharraf that the very minimum America expects of its allies is that they not concede any form of sanctuary to such sworn enemies of the United States as the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

German lawmakers extend Afghanistan mission

BERLIN, Sept 28 (Reuters) - German lawmakers on Thursday agreed to keep German troops in Afghanistan for another year as part of a NATO peace-keeping mission despite concerns the Bundeswehr could be stretched by its overseas commitments.

One week after the German navy embarked on a mission to patrol the coast off Lebanon, lawmakers voted 492 to 71, with nine abstentions, to extend the Afghanistan mission for another 12 months.

Germany leads the NATO mission in the relatively calm north of the country, where it has 2,900 troops on the ground. That is almost the full quota of 3,000 soldiers set by parliament.

It has ruled out sending troops to the mainly lawless south to support British, Dutch and Canadian forces, who are facing attacks from Taliban guerrillas. France has also refused to send troops to the south, saying it has its hands full in Kabul.

It was less than eight years ago that Germany took part in its first foreign combat operations since World War Two. Now it has almost 4,000 troops in the Balkans, nearly 3,000 in Afghanistan and more than 1,000 in Africa, mainly in Congo.

Lawmakers approved the deployment of 2,400 troops to Lebanon last Wednesday, a mission which breaks a postwar taboo by taking German forces into the heart of the Middle East.

The German defence ministry has called for more money to support its operations, but the finance ministry has rejected the demands. Some Germans fear that calls to join future international peace-keeping missions would strain resources.

NATO nations have around 18,500 troops in Afghanistan with other non-NATO countries contributing a further 1,500 to its International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Afghanistan fights for its future

UPI 09/28/2006 By Jason Motlagh - Process will take at least a decade

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Confronted with record drug crops and a resurgent Taliban, the Afghan government must provide viable alternatives and win back the confidence of the rural poor while developing industries to jumpstart the economy. This is a process that the country's new economy minister says will take at least a decade.

As Taliban insurgents wage their fiercest campaign since being ousted by U.S.-led coalition forces five years ago for sheltering al-Qaida operatives, Afghan drug production grew by almost 60 percent compared to last year, according to U.N. figures, and now accounts for more than 50 percent of gross domestic product.

"That Afghanistan is producing the largest amount of opium in the world is a fact nobody can deny. It is also true that there is no real alternative livelihood for the people who are cultivating poppy at the moment in Afghanistan," Minister of Economy Mohammad Jalil Shams told United Press International during an interview in his Kabul office.

Observers say booming drug cultivation continues to fuel an increasingly vicious Taliban, which has made arrangements with trafficking cartels and farmers beyond the reach of government authority without basic services or an alternative livelihood.

But Shams said that to resolve the drug problem linked to insecurity, an economic backbone shattered by 25 years of war must be rebuilt. Establishing electricity across the world's second poorest country is his top priority, after which he wants to fix the severe trade imbalance that persists.

"Afghanistan is an agricultural country, but we have a very imbalanced trade balance, with imports of $2.3 billion and exports of only $300-500 million," Shams said, adding that imports are mainly consumption goods that his country's agriculture sector must try to replace.

Once energy and electricity are in place to sustain industries and attract foreign investment, he said, it is a matter of identifying areas where Afghanistan has a competitive advantage and capitalizing on untapped native resources such as copper and iron.

However, he recognizes, the biggest challenge will be the economic integration of farmers in the countryside who depend on poppy cultivation -- the base ingredient of opium and heroin that floods the West -- to survive in the absence of other crops.

Shams concedes the Afghan government has to date failed to deliver on promises of security and reconstruction, but is hopeful fresh anti-drug initiatives will take root. Examples include saffron in Herat province, the heartland of poppy cultivation, and roses in Jalalabad, to name but a few possibilities.

But he said that "small steps" were being taken now and dramatic changes can not be expected in the near future, citing progress made neighboring countries, some of which may have come at Afghanistan's expense.

"It takes time, as we can see in other countries such as Pakistan, which has been successful maybe because a part of their (drug) industry has been transferred to Afghanistan," Shams said. "They now have alternatives for farmers. It took them at least eight to 10 years. It took Thailand about 20 years to get rid of drug cultivation."  

Three interrelated factors stand in the way, according to the minister. First, stability and government authority must canvass a rugged country -- slightly larger than Spain and Portugal combined -- in which the army, police, and judiciary are weak and corrupt. Next, an alternative livelihood to opium needs to be cultivated. And finally, a sweeping public awareness campaign ballasted by respected religious clerics is needed to drive home the message among disillusioned Afghans that drug use and profiteering is against Islam.

"These three aspects are interrelated," Shams said. "Even if we do well with the first two dimensions and the third is not in order, we cannot succeed."

Asked if his country was doomed to become a narco-state, Shams countered it's "only a matter of time before the situation improves."

But a recent report by Senlis Council, an international policy think tank that has covered Afghanistan extensively, said the Taliban has regained control of the southern half of the country largely due to misguided international counter-narcotics and military policies that are losing hearts and minds.  

Nation-building efforts led by the United States have failed due to "ineffective and inflammatory military and counter-narcotics policies," the report says, charging there has been a "dramatic under-funding" of aid and development programs.

About $82.5 billion has been spent on military operations since 2002, versus a mere $7.3 billion on development, according to Senlis figures. This amounts to a 900 percent disparity.

"The subsequent rising levels of extreme poverty have created increasing support for the Taliban, who have responded to the needs of the local population" in the face of a humanitarian crisis, the report said, indicting poppy eradication programs as an attack on the livelihood of poverty-stricken farmers in critical southern provinces.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai met with U.S. President George W. Bush in Washington Wednesday to appeal for greater military and development aid. Shams said U.S. largesse has so far been vital towards stabilization efforts, which will ultimately fall short unless public support is won.

"We shall try to win the confidence of the people but without that, even if we are the strongest possible militarily, it is not possible to establish security," the minister said.  

For or against the war
 
By David Rodenhiser – the Daily News – Halifax 9.28.06

For or against, Nova Scotians have strong opinions on whether Canada should be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. There isn’t much middle ground.

Omar Samad, Afghanistan’s ambassador to Canada, was in Halifax yesterday trying to bolster support for a war that polls suggest is increasingly unpopular here. Samad said his country will again become a breeding ground for terrorists, if NATO forces abandon Afghanistan before it’s ready to stand on its own. (See full story on page 9.)

Last Thursday, I wrote in favour of Canada’s continued military participation in Afghanistan, and asked readers to e-mail their views. The replies fell hard on both sides of the issue.

Those who agreed with me were generally short and to the point. “Great piece today,” was the entire message from one regular reader. “Right on! Remember Munich 1938,” agreed Art Schwartz of Dartmouth.

I received a lengthy, eloquent e-mail from Christina Lamey of Hubbards, but only have room to run excerpts. “I’m baffled by the lack of support for our mission in Afghanistan,” she wrote. “If this is not a worthy fight, then what is?”

Lamey posed pointed questions about the anti-war stance of Alexa McDonough, the Halifax MP and NDP foreign affairs critic. “What does Alexa think will happen if we pull out? How would her delicate sensibilities handle the reprisal killing spree that the Taliban would launch when left unopposed?”

A member of the Canadian Armed Forces agreed with me that military action against al-Qaida and the Taliban was the only legitimate response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The e-mailer, who requested anonymity, also appreciated me pointing out that the relatives of deceased soldiers haven’t demanded withdrawal.

“You nailed it, especially with ‘legitimate response to 9/11’ and no retreat calls from the families of the fallen. Send over the tanks, they are safer for the troops and precision accurate with minimal collateral damage compared to air strikes.”

The replies against the war in Afghanistan all revolved around Canada suck-holing to the United States, and attacked my intelligence, or lack thereof.
“Some of our troops may well be fighting for freedom and democracy, but if you believe that’s the reason the government sent them to Afghanistan, then I have this really great bridge you might be interested in,” began the most polite reply.

Richard Legault accused me of believing “the Bush fairy tale” and being the sort of person who inspires terrorism. “Cowards and bullies attack, whereas mature people discuss and try to resolve the issue by trying to understand what happened,” he wrote. “But your kind think it’s manly to send in an army. You think you have to kill all sort of people and call them Taliban to wipe the guilt off your conscience when you realize they are actually Afghans.

An anonymous reader called me an “idiot,” an “ass” and “pusillanimous” (it means “lacking courage” — I looked it up) all in the space of 119 words. (Sticks ’n’ stones, baby.)

“One day after Parliament is in mass apology mode for abuses on the scale of Abu Ghraib in terms of moral outrage, you trot out the cant about making Afghanistan free for young girls and warlords. What an ass! How would you like the Muslims shoving their ideology down your burbling throat via the gun-barrel?”

For the record, I argued in favour of making Afghanistan free for young girls, but not warlords. Canada shouldn’t leave until the Afghan government can deal with the warlords on its own. I wouldn’t like Muslims “shoving their ideology” down my “burbling throat via the gun-barrel,” but I really don’t believe that’s how most followers of Muhammad spread Islam.

David Rodenhiser is a pacifist who supports the war in Afghanistan. He lives, non-pusillanimously, in Dartmouth.

No escaping Afghanistan

Susan Riley - The Ottawa Citizen Monday, September 25, 2006

Years ago, when I was a young journalist, a newsroom staple -- particularly
in the news-parched days of August -- was the earnest editorial titled
Wither Afghanistan?

It was an industry joke, the thumb-sucker to end all thumb-suckers, a
satirical jab at the pretensions of our profession worthy of Evelyn Waugh.
What, after all, could be more remote from the daily lives of readers, or
less relevant, than the future of that exotic and distant land?

But, as President Hamid Karzai said last week on his successful visit to
Canada, the world is smaller now. Afghanistan is not only immediately
relevant, it is impossible to ignore. The problem now is too much
information, too many conflicting narratives: what, and whom, do we believe?

Karzai, for example, echoed Stephen Harper's argument Canadians are risking
their lives in his country not only to protect Afghanistan's fledgling
democracy, but to keep our own borders more secure from terrorism. It is
still not convincing. While Afghanistan provided safe haven for al-Qaeda
before Sept. 11, since then terrorism has become a more diffuse threat, not
tethered to any specific place.

Our struggle is with an ideology, a potent and dangerous concoction of rage,
bitter personal experiences, messianic impulses and, perhaps, elements of
mass psychosis. Terrorism has become what some U.S. intelligence sources now
describe as a "leaderless resistance" and it is far from certain that using
a conventional army is the best way to fight it. As Karzai himself said the
other day to the Council of Foreign Relations in New York "bombing villages
is not going to end terrorism."

But that isn't the end of the story. While the argument over Canada's
military involvement continues -- should our troops be withdrawn, or
redeployed, or replaced by engineers and aid workers, and when? --there is
still our moral obligation to an impoverished country that is trying to
rebuild. Karzai, more eloquent and credible than any domestic advocate for
the war so far, made a strong appeal to Canada's better instincts last week
and that appeal will probably be reflected soon in polls.

It wasn't his words, so much as his manner that impressed: he was
appropriately grateful for what Canada has given so far without demanding
more, hopeful without sounding false, and not given to jingoistic moralizing
about the battle between good and evil. He was humble, humorous and
politically very astute.

Importantly, he declared that the battle against terrorism in his country
will never be won unless we deal with its wellspring -- namely religious
schools in Pakistan that teach their young charges hatred of the West. He
also challenged Pakistan's hypocrisy in officially denouncing terrorism yet
harbouring Taliban and other anti-democratic elements close to Afghanistan's
border.

This sounded like a blunt appeal from a brave man in an impossible job. But
will his powerful friends listen? This week Karzai meets in Washington with
George W. Bush and Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Bush is full of praise
for both men, thanking Musharraf for "helping to defend the civilized
world." By most accounts, the flattery isn't working. If the West isn't
willing to use its enormous economic power to force Musharraf to take
action, what is this war about?

Karzai also told Canada's Parliament that the illegal opium trade, which
accounts for 30 per cent of his country's GNP, is as large a problem as
terrorism. This is an astounding declaration given the overwhelming emphasis
from our government on the ideological aspect of the struggle.

It, too, raises questions. The Taliban eliminated the illegal poppy trade
within a few years -- along, of course, with television, fair trials,
education for women and basic human rights. Still, can elements of that
campaign be resurrected? Some argue that Afghanistan's abundant opium crop
should be directed towards the legal market instead -- but whose trade would
suffer as a result? How would powerful western pharmaceutical companies
react to competition?

Ironies and contradictions abound -- including the avid interest in women's
equality on the part of some Western leaders. Ensuring girls can go to
school (there are conflicting accounts of whether numbers are improving or
declining) is an inspiring goal, of course -- but what about Saudi Arabia,
where women are not allowed to drive, or venture from their houses
unescorted?

And wither Afghanistan? We still haven't got a clue.

How Musharraf conquered Washington

Rediff 09/28/2006 By M K Bhadrakumar - Neither Bush nor Musharraf revealed what lay ahead for Afghanistan

In purely diplomatic terms, the fulsome praise showered on Pervez Musharraf by President George W Bush at their press availability at the White House last Friday was extraordinary by the call of protocol.

In Bush's worldview, Pervez Musharraf is 'a moderate leader leading an important country like Pakistan'; he is 'a strong, forceful leader', whose courage and leadership qualities are the stuff of admiration and encourage Washington to build up 'common strategies' with Islamabad for protecting the American people; he leads a government of 'great organisation and compassion'; and he is a 'person with whom I've now had close working relationships for five-and-a-half years', a person when he looks in Bush's eye and says something, Bush is inclined to unreservedly 'believe'.

Bush said repeatedly he and Musharraf were 'on the hunt together' -- two statesmen riding white horses into dark, dangerous, tangled mountains tracking down elusive Al Qaeda warriors.

Curiously, neither Bush nor Musharraf revealed what lay ahead for Afghanistan, though that was the centerpiece of their talks in Washington.

The 'hunt' in the Hindu Kush and in the lawless borderlands of Pakistan's tribal agency was against Al Qaeda -- not the Taliban. Nor did the press availability give any clue as to where the Taliban fitted into this strange, inscrutable Afghan paradigm.

Bush spoke at some length on the Kashmir problem, though. He said he was 'impressed' by Musharraf's 'will to get something done in Kashmir'. He complimented that Musharraf kept his assurance of 'reaching out' to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Kashmir.

Therefore, Bush said, he would pose a few insistent questions to Musharraf regarding Kashmir: 'What can we do to help; what would you like the United States to do to facilitate an agreement? Would you like us to get out of the way? Would you like us not to show up? Would you like us to be actively involved? How can we help you, if you so desire, achieve peace?'

This week will undoubtedly stand out as a momentous punctuation mark in Afghanistan's tumultuous history. Bush, having met Musharraf on Friday, is slated to meet Hamid Karzai on Tuesday. And Bush will indulge in a rare gesture of hosting a joint dinner on Wednesday with Musharraf and Karzai, where he hoped to have 'good', 'interesting' and 'important' discussions.

The heightened diplomatic activity essentially devolves upon the approaching Afghan endgame. The high praise showered upon Musharraf by Bush calls attention to the extreme vulnerability of Washington's Afghanistan policy in the weeks ahead.

Equally, a daunting task lies ahead for Bush in persuading Karzai to go along with what he settles with Musharraf. Not surprisingly, Karzai is already showing signs of nervousness.

For Musharraf, there are three core elements to the endgame in Afghanistan. First, any future government in Kabul must be a friendly government. Translated into plain terms, this requires that Islamabad cannot accept enhanced Indian influence in Kabul.

Second, the Taliban must be accommodated, if peace is to be durable. Third, Washington must remain steadfast that the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir does not fall by any definition within the ambit of the US-led 'war on terror'.

Even as the Afghan crisis deepens and the prospects of a historic defeat of the Western powers by the Afghan resistance -- comparable in historical magnitude to the defeat of imperial armies of Great Britain and the Soviet Union -- loom into view, Musharraf is conscious of the trump cards he is holding.

His string of apparently contradictory statements during the fortnight leading to his meeting with Bush last Friday must remain a masterly effort to optimally set the tempo of his discussions in Washington to Pakistan's advantage.

On September 6, Musharraf flew into Kabul and took by its horns the Afghan allegation regarding the Taliban's cross-border terrorism. In public remarks at the Afghan foreign ministry in Karzai's presence, he acknowledged 'yes', the Taliban does cross over from Pakistan to carry out terrorist activities on Afghan soil. But what can he do about it? His recipe: 'we (Musharraf and Karzai) have to be together. We do not have other options -- just one option, to stick together'.

On September 12, Musharraf addressed members of the European parliament in Brussels where he played on the growing sense of alarm in the Western opinion about the Afghan crisis to drive home the point that to equate the Taliban with terrorism amounted to grotesque simplification of a complex political challenge.

He reminded his Western audience that the Taliban had its 'roots in the people' --implicitly warning that the crisis warranted a political dialogue with the Taliban.

Musharraf thereupon took the argument across the Atlantic to remind his American audience virtually on the eve of his meeting with Bush that back in October 2001 Washington coerced him to cooperate with the overthrow of the Taliban regime.

Musharraf's stark 'stone age' imagery served the purpose of jogging Bush's memory about those dramatic action-packed days five years ago -- and the assurances that the Bush administration held out to him.

After all, Musharraf's two principal interlocutors at that time are no longer serving the Bush administration -- Colin Powell and Richard Armitage. And Pakistan has a long memory about the inconstancy of American friendship.

Specifically, Musharraf would have Bush acquaint himself with the substance of Colin Powell's mission to Islamabad on October 16, 2001 -- admittedly, one of the defining moments in the subcontinent's recent diplomatic history. Powell's talks with Musharraf almost entirely focused on two political issues, first, the future of the post-Taliban power structure in Kabul, and, second, how Washington could alleviate Pakistan's threat perceptions from India so that Musharraf focused on the impending 'war on terror' in Afghanistan.

The assurances held out by Powell included the following elements:

a. The US would accommodate Pakistan's concerns in Afghanistan, which implied disfavoring ascendancy of the pro-India Northern Alliance in the post-Taliban phase; giving due representation to the Pashtun majority in any multi-ethnic government in Kabul; and, providing room for 'moderate' Taliban in any future power structure;

b. The US role in the resolution of the Kashmir problem, which would involve a recognition that resolution of the problem was central to good ties between Pakistan and India; persuading India to address the problem with sincerity and with a sense of purpose; and, an unambivalent recognition by Washington that the deep-seated dispute was not an issue of 'terrorism'.

On Afghanistan, as Powell publicly admitted later, the term 'Taliban' did not just mean the government in Afghanistan.

'It also defines,' Powell said, 'a group of individuals, a group of people. If you got rid of the regime, there would still be people who might find the teachings, feelings, and beliefs of that movement still very important. And to the extent that they are willing to participate in the development of a new Afghan assembly with everybody being represented, we would have to listen to them.'

Thus, contrary to mainstream Indian discourses oozing satisfaction that a besieged Musharraf was destined to face very painful arm-twisting by Bush this week over the need to do more in the 'war on terror', the emergent equations are complex.

Musharraf has a strong case that the Americans only partially fulfilled their October 2001 assurances to him. To be sure, the Northern Alliance outsmarted Washington and grabbed the levers of power in Kabul in 2001. It took the US almost four years to incrementally muzzle the Northern Alliance and exorcise its influence in the post-Taliban power structure.

Second, whereas the focus inevitably fell on creating a Pashtun power base for Karzai, scant attention was given to giving political legitimacy to Pashtun majority aspirations.

Third, there has been no serious, sustained attempt to accommodate the erstwhile Taliban. Fourth, the Indian presence in Afghanistan remained worrisome for Islamabad.

Musharraf would have the satisfaction though that Washington has ignored Indian attempts to establish linkage between terrorism in India and the Al Qaeda problem. Indeed, Musharraf would appreciate Washington's role in finally gaining New Delhi's acceptance of the creation of a joint monitoring mechanism on terrorism.

M K Bhadrakumar is a former Indian diplomat.

Interview: Minister Mohammad Jalil Shams

By JASON MOTLAGH UPI Correspondent - KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 27 (UPI) -- As Taliban insurgents wage their fiercest offensive since the ultra-fundamentalist movement was toppled by U.S.-led forces five years ago, Afghanistan has produced a record opium crop.

According to U.N. figures, opium cultivation jumped by almost 60 percent compared with last year, and some estimates hold the drug accounts for more than 50 percent of GNP in the world's second-poorest country. Observers say booming drug cultivation continues to fuel an increasingly vicious Taliban, known to have made arrangements with trafficking cartels and intimidated farmers beyond the reach of government authority who remain stuck without a viable agricultural alternative to survive.

Today the Afghan government relies on international assistance to uphold security and rebuild infrastructure shattered by decades of civil conflict. But officials here say internal efforts are underway to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a bona fide narco-state and win back public confidence. Having just completed his first month in office, Minister of Economy Mohammad Jalil Shams spoke with United Press International correspondent Jason Motlagh about the complexity of the drug problem, future alternatives for growth, and the need for patience as his country tries to reverse its course.

UPI: With so much work to be done, what are your top priorities to revive the Afghan economy?

SHAMS: The top priority at the moment is electricity, to improve the energy sector, because this is the bottleneck of all development projects. The second project, once the energy sector, in four to five years will be agriculture -- mainly to replace the imports we have now. Afghanistan is an agricultural country, but we have a very imbalanced trade balance, with imports of $2.3 billion and exports of only $300-500 million. The imports are mainly consumption goods and we will try with the agriculture sector to replace these. Future exports will be our raw materials, which will be the third part of the project.

Q. Attracting foreign investment is essential for broad-based development. What domestic industries and resources will you promote to the world?

A. Electricity and energy are not available to the industries that depend on it. The points where we clearly have a comparative advantage are not yet identified. You can not enforce and market an industry without possibilities for selling the project. Once the energy and agriculture sectors are developed and raw materials are available we will know what kind of industries can be created in this country. We do have excellent copper resources, excellent iron resources ... whether there is enough to have stable industries in this country remains a question.

Q. Confronted with record drug production, what alternatives are there for farmers struggling to make a living without government support, and how long will they take to implement?

A. That Afghanistan is producing the largest amount of opium in the world is a fact nobody can deny. It is also true that there is no real alternative livelihood for the people who are cultivating poppy at the moment in Afghanistan. The government is trying anti-drug measures to create an alternative livelihood. Examples include saffron in Herat province and roses in Jalalabad, and there are other alternatives working in other sectors for people in order to turnaround from drug cultivation. But these are small steps that we are taking now and it takes time, as we can see in other countries such as Pakistan, which has been successful maybe because a part of their (drug) industry has been transferred to Afghanistan. They now have alternatives for farmers. It took them at least eight to 10 years. It took Thailand about 20 years to get rid of drug cultivation.

Q. Observers say that international security reinforcements must go hand-in-hand with fast-track reconstruction if the drug problem is ever to be resolved. What is your assessment?

A. According to my understanding, the problem has three dimensions: first thing is stabilization of development and the spread of government power over all of the country, which is at the moment very weak. We have a weak army and police, judiciary system, severe corruption. When a criminal is caught either the prosecution or the judge will let him go. Under these circumstances it's not possible to really do something. The second dimension is providing a growing alternative for farmers attractive enough not to grow opium. The third is the creating of a good public awareness campaign. It is vital that mullahs and other religious authorities tell people it is not right according (to Islam) to use drugs. These three aspects are interrelated. We are at the beginning and trying to do our best. But even if we do well with the first two dimensions and the third is not in order, we cannot succeed.

Q. Is Afghanistan destined to become narco-state or is it just a matter of time before the situation improves?

A. I'm sure it's a matter of time because we had these possibilities in the past, when we were not an opium country. For example, in Herat, as long as (current Energy Minister) Ismail Khan was governor there were no poppies growing there. But as the power of the government has been reduced, it has also become an opium producing province. Even in Helmand years ago, there was a time when a time when one of the mujahedin commanders there was convinced not to cultivate opium and he did not. He then, through religious leaders, waged a campaign to convince people not to grow it. In one year growth plummeted. But then the next year, he was not paid the amounts he was supposed to be paid and he said 'OK, go ahead and cultivate.'

Q. With the twin flare-ups of the Taliban and drug production, how helpful has the United States really been in providing security assistance thus far?

A. The U.S. has done very well in their efforts to help us. I can only say that we shall try to win the confidence of the people, but without that, even if we are the strongest possible militarily, it is not possible to establish security.

Afghan "vice" squad tears down posters of bodybuilders - by Qasim Arif Wed Sep 27

KHOST, Afghanistan (AFP) - A government unit tore down posters of bodybuilders in a southeastern Afghan city and has arrested people for selling alcohol and porn, residents and officials said.

The team began operating in the city of Khost on Tuesday and was similar to the Taliban's "vice and virtue department" that enforced the hardliners' deeply conservative moral code, the residents said.

The central government said the unit was illegal.

Khost province religious ministry director Mawlavi Aizharudin, who heads the unit, told AFP it was called the "morals and rules commission" and was made up of police and government officials, including from his ministry.

"We have arrested one Sikh for selling alcohol to Muslims and five other people for possessing and selling porn movies, photos and having other improper ethics," Aizharudin said.

On Wednesday the commission took to the streets of Khost, capital of the province, and tore down and trampled posters that advertised bodybuilding clubs and showed muscular men posing in briefs.

The owner of one gym was furious. "We had put up lots of posters in the city and without a prior notice they destroyed them. This is not just," said Bakhti Gul Mushtaq, the owner of Global Gym.

"Two mullah-looking people in turbans and beards started to tear down the posters and look into peoples' shops for videos today," a Khost city shopkeeper named Azizullah told AFP. "It reminds me of the Taliban vice and virtue."

Aizharudin said the commission aimed to rid the city of "porn and immoral videos, pictures and actions" and had permission from the government to do so.

But the central government, which is establishing a "vice and virtue" unit that it says will be nothing like the Taliban's, said it was not aware of the Khost team.

"This may be a decision of the provincial authorities. It has nothing to do with our ministry," deputy religious minister Sulaiman Hamid told AFP. "A lot of unlawful things are happening in the south."

"The directorate of vice and virtue has not been established so far. We have no personnel and no office. Since we have no office in capital we cannot have provincial branches," he said.

The "Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" unit that operated under the 1996-2001 Taliban regime was notorious for whipping women who left their homes without a male relative, and for jailing men who trimmed their beards or failed to pray in a mosque five times a day.

Hamid said the new unit would not undertake street patrols as the Taliban did and would merely preach about good behaviour and speak against sin, including government corruption.

The Taliban captured Kabul and took control of the government exactly 10 years ago.

They were toppled by a US-led coalition in 2001 and are now waging an insurgency that makes heavy use of propaganda claiming the government is a stooge of the West that has no respect for Islamic Sharia law.

The administration has said it is re-establishing the vice and virtue unit in part to respond to such charges.

Death threats force women to stay at homes - Nadim Kohistani

MAHMUD RAQI, Sep 26 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Scores of female workers stayed at homes after receiving death threats through night letters in the central province of Kapisa. The province is located north of the central capital Kabul.

The letters, carrying name of Hizb-i-Islami chief and former prime minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, warned women working with local and foreign NGOs or the government, to cease attending their offices and stay at homes.

Abdul Latif, acting director of the rural rehabilitation and development department, told Pajhwok Afghan News about 100 women working with a number of NGOs did not attend their offices over the past few days.

He said the leaflets were distributed in Hisa-1 and Hisa-2 districts of the province after the killing of female worker of the government-backed National Solidarity Programme (NSP) Qamar Gula.

Farida, a UN Habitat worker, said: "We are not attending offices for the past three days because the night letters threatened us to be killed if reported for duty."

An official with the UN agency in Kapisa Saifur Rahman Haris said the threat was not hurled at women working with UN, but female employees of all NGOs and governmental offices.

Other NGOs operating in Kapisa included BRAC (Bangladesh), Solidarity Afghanistan (Belgium), Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance (CHA), Hamkari etc.

Colonel Abdul Jalil Shamal, security chief of the province, showed ignorance about the threats and night letters when approached for comments. However, he said the miscreants would be dealt with an iron hand.

[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.]