In this bulletin:

• Taliban agree to release all South Korean hostages
• Nearly 30 killed in Afghan battles
• Sarkozy boosting French force in Afghanistan
• President Karzai receives UN Chief of Drugs and Crimes Office
• UN REPORT SHOWS AFGHAN OPIUM PRODUCTION AT RECORD LEVEL
• Failings in war on Afghan drugs
• The losing battle against a homegrown enemy
• Inside an Afghan opium market
• Afghan FM received Assistant US Secretary
• Work on huge irrigation project launched in Herat
• Afghan mission a failure: poll
• Despite public anger, the army still see Afghanistan as a cause worth dying for
• U.S. eyes trade with Pakistan and Afghanistan
• Coalition forces in Afghanistan retract from their stance: ISPR
• Militants free Pakistani soldiers
• Don't fail Afghanistan
• Faster, deadlier pilotless plane bound for Afghanistan
• US football gift 'insults Islam' in Afghanistan
• Afghan women stores make a mark

Taliban agree to release all South Korean hostages

Ghazni (AFP) - The Taliban said Tuesday that 19 South Korean hostages held by the hardline militia for nearly six weeks would be freed "soon" after a successful round of negotiations.

A deal to broker the release of the Christian aid workers was reached in talks between Taliban leaders and South Korean diplomats in the town of Ghazni south of Kabul, said Taliban representatives.

"Both sides agreed that South Korean military forces and their missionary groups would leave Afghanistan and the Taliban would free the hostages very soon," said a Taliban representative, who asked to remain anonymous.

In Seoul, the South Korean government confirmed the Taliban had promised to release the captives. "The South Korean government welcomes the agreement on the hostage release," presidential spokesman Cheon Ho-Seon said.

An Afghan source involved in the talks told AFP the deal hinged on all South Korean Christian aid groups leaving the country and the withdrawal of South Korea's small 200-strong military force from Afghanistan. He said the hostages could be released in three to four days.

The last round of talks ended in deadlock just under two weeks ago, with the Taliban sticking to a demand that some of its men be freed from jail in exchange for the Korean aid workers.

The Taliban kidnapped 23 South Korean nationals as they were travelling from Kabul by bus to the southern province of Kandahar on July 19. The Islamic militant group has killed two of the male hostages and then freed two women on August 23.

It has threatened to kill its remaining 19 captives if the demands were not met and has said the aid workers, most of whom are women, were sick.

The militia had also demanded South Korea withdraw its troops from the country. Seoul had said it would pull out the troops, mostly engineers and medics, as scheduled by the end of the year.

Earlier Tuesday Taliban commander Abdullah Jan, who is said to be holding the hostages, said the first talks for nearly two weeks on the hostage crisis had opened with the participation of Indonesian diplomats.

Jan told AFP that the Indonesians were involved at the request of the Taliban, which wanted an Islamic party present. The Taliban, linked to Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda movement, are also holding a German engineer who was kidnapped a day before the South Koreans.

The group has said it wanted 10 jailed Taliban to be freed in exchange for the engineer, who is also said to be sick, and his four Afghan colleagues.

The kidnappings are among a series of incidents blamed on the Taliban, who are waging a bloody insurgency against the Kabul government and its coalition allies that has spiralled in intensity over the past year.

A female German aid worker was kidnapped in broad daylight in the capital earlier this month, but she was later freed in a police raid and authorities said her abduction was a criminal act motivated by money.

Nearly 30 killed in Afghan battles

Kabul (AFP) - Fierce fighting and roadside bomb blasts in Afghanistan killed six Afghan soldiers and more than 20 Taliban rebels, officials said Tuesday, as the Islamist insurgency raged unabated.

The six troops from the US-sponsored Afghan National Army were killed in two separate bomb explosions near the country's eastern border with Pakistan, the defence ministry said in a statement.

Elsewhere, NATO troops and Afghan soldiers killed 15 militants near the major Taliban stronghold of Musa Qala in the opium-producing southern province of Helmand on Monday, the alliance said.

The insurgents ambushed them with machine guns and rocket propelled-grenades and a dozen were killed in the immediate exchange of fire, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said in a statement.

The soldiers then swept through nearby residential compounds, it said. "During the search, a trench-bunker system was found and three of the insurgents were killed there by direct fire," it said.

In another incident on Monday, Afghan forces backed by US-led coalition soldiers foiled an attempted Taliban ambush in the neighbouring province of Kandahar, killing seven insurgents, the coalition said.

Some remaining militants fled and several weapons were confiscated. No international or Afghan soldiers were killed or wounded in the two battles, the coalition and ISAF said.

But foreign forces have suffered some of their heaviest casualties for months in recent days, taking their death toll past 150 for the year as the Taliban insurgency intensifies.

Three coalition soldiers and two Afghan troops were killed in a Taliban ambush on Monday in eastern Afghanistan, while a NATO trooper died in a nearby area on the same day. Two other NATO soldiers died in attacks on Sunday.

The 12,000-strong US-led coalition has been in Afghanistan since late 2001, when it helped to topple the Taliban government. It is now tasked mainly with hunting down the extremist fighters and their allies in Al-Qaeda.

ISAF, which is drawn up from 37 nations, mainly European, has about 37,000 soldiers in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban insurgency and extend the US-backed government's authority.

Sarkozy boosting French force in Afghanistan

The Associated Press - Monday, August 27, 2007

PARIS: France is sending more troops to Afghanistan to train the Afghan army, President Nicolas Sarkozy said in a foreign policy speech Monday. His announcement follows months of speculation about France's commitment to the international force.

France, which has 1,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, will send 150 additional troops in three groups by the end of the year, the Defense Ministry news service said. The troops will take part in a program for mentoring and training under NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, called ISAF.

"I decided to reinforce the presence of our trainers in the Afghan army, because it is (the Afghan army) that must first of all wage and win the fight against the Taliban," Sarkozy said in opening an annual conference of French ambassadors, his first as president.

Speculation surfaced this spring that France might withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, after it pulled out 200 special forces in December. Also, while campaigning for president, Sarkozy had said that France had no reason to remain in Afghanistan on a long-term basis.

The withdrawal question grew more urgent when Taliban militants kidnapped five aid workers in April to press demands that France pull out its troops. The captives were later freed.

Once in office, Sarkozy's new government said in June that France would focus on training Afghan troops. Sarkozy also said Monday that France would boost its efforts toward aiding reconstruction in Afghanistan. He urged Pakistan's leaders to lead a "more determined policy" against the Taliban and offered French help.

President Karzai receives UN Chief of Drugs and Crimes Office

On August 27, President Karzai met in the Presidential Palace with Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes, UNODC.

Mr. Costa briefed and delivered the President a report drawn from a UN survey conducted on the opium situation in Afghanistan. “The survey has unfortunately shown an upsurge this year in poppy production for a number of reasons.” He said.

Mr. Costa continued, however “efforts made by the government of Afghanistan in fighting poppy cultivation is of great appreciation.” He haled the considerable progress of an increase in the number of poppy-free provinces from 6 last year to 13 this year.

He further congratulated Afghanistan on the recent approval by the Parliament of Afghanistan becoming an official member of the UN Convention against Corruption. Under this international convention, Afghanistan shall be responsible to practice certain measures in fighting corruption. The UNODC will help Afghanistan with its responsibilities for an effective counter corruption measures.

The President once again reiterated Afghanistan’s full commitment in the fight against drugs and stated, “We will remain determined with help by the international community to root out this malign scourge.”

UN REPORT SHOWS AFGHAN OPIUM PRODUCTION AT RECORD LEVEL

8/27/07 A EurasiaNet Partner Post from RFE/RL

United Nations report due out today is expected to say that Afghanistan's latest opium poppy crop is its largest ever, and that the country is now producing almost 95 percent of the world's opiate supply.

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) says the area under opium-poppy cultivation in Afghanistan increased "dramatically" in 2006.

The annual report says NATO-led efforts to control the opium crop have failed, and it blames corruption and the lack of security in southern Afghanistan for the problem.

The annual survey estimates the increase as between 30 percent and 50 percent, confirming Afghanistan as the major world source of opiates.

UNODC director Antonio Maria Costa says the southern Afghan province of Helmand is becoming the world's largest drug supplier, with production bigger than that of entire countries, including Colombia.

Costa calls Helmand the most dangerous source of the most dangerous drug -- heroin -- and says that blocking that source "will go a long way toward bringing stability to the region."

Afghanistan stands as a black spot in an otherwise encouraging report. Costa speaks of "remarkable successes" elsewhere in controlling opium poppy crops, particularly in Southeast Asia. And he says the trade in key narcotics has been stabilized in terms of production, trafficking, and consumption.

However, there have been successes even in Afghanistan. About 10 Afghan provinces, mostly in the country's north, are now declared to be opium-free, up from six provinces a year ago.

The hub of Afghan production is in the south, where security is much worse. NATO-led and Afghan government forces are battling the Taliban insurgency across the south, and the lawless atmosphere suits both drug dealers and the Taliban.

The authority of the Afghan government hardly extends to the south, and what control Kabul has is undermined by corruption among officials and police, many of whom are complicit in the opium trade.

Donor countries have spent millions of dollars in an attempt to dissuade farmers from growing poppies. Britain has been in charge of the NATO countries' drug-reduction program, but it has clearly failed.

The United States had sought sterner methods, namely spraying crops to destroy them entirely. But that idea was quietly shelved because of objections from the government of President Hamid Karzai, which feared that farmers would then side with the Taliban.

"The Washington Post" reports that Karzai and international aid donors are now thinking in terms of a multifaceted approach, involving public awareness, alternative crops, and targeting traffickers, among other measures.

But it quotes the head of UNODC in Afghanistan, Christina Oguz, as saying that unless the effort is pushed forward with determination, "we will not see enough change for a very long time."

Failings in war on Afghan drugs

By Alastair Leithead, BBC News, Kabul

The United Nations says opium production in Afghanistan has "soared to frightening record levels" with an increase on last year of more than a third.

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime report says the amount of opium produced has doubled in the last two years, and that Helmand province is now the biggest single drug producing area in the world - surpassing whole countries.

Despite billions of dollars of aid and tens of thousands of international troops, the 193,000 hectares of opium poppies grown in Afghanistan this year are now responsible for almost all the world's opiates, according to the UN report.

"The results are very bad, terrifyingly bad," said Antonio Maria Costa, the head of UN Office on Drugs and Crime. Cultivation was at a historic level, he said, pointing out that the total yield was up 34% because the weather had made the poppies more productive.

But despite the overall increase, twice as many provinces are now drug-free in northern and central Afghanistan, and the report says growing opium poppies is now closely linked to the insurgency and the instability in the south.

The UN report links the Taleban to the increase in opiate production. The figures come as a major setback for British efforts to reduce the amount of opium poppies grown in Afghanistan - the raw materials for most of the UK and Europe's heroin. They are the lead nation fighting the war against drug growers and traffickers.

The British ambassador, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, said: "It paints a very serious picture and we are deeply concerned. "The drugs problem is a symptom of a deeper disease and as we tackle instability, tackle disorder and the insurgency, we are facing some very big challenges on all those fronts, but as we tackle them we will see poppy production go down.

"The overall conclusion is that there are no magic solutions, no silver bullets, and that this requires patience. As experience in Pakistan or Thailand shows, it takes 15 or 20 years to squeeze a cancer like this out of a society as debilitated as Afghanistan's is after 30 years of war," he said.

The report recommends more determined efforts to bring security, urging the government to get tough on corruption which it says is driving the drugs trade. It lists poor governance, a weak judiciary and failing eradication programmes as contributing factors.

For another year the eradication efforts were hampered not just by corruption in the national government, but also by corruption at local levels.

Arguments have been put forward for a change of strategy - one campaign group is trying to pilot programmes to legalise drug production, and the American Ambassador, Bill Wood, believes aerial spraying could make a huge impact.

"Yes, it's still my view," he said. "We all agree illicit narcotics are a cancer and as consulting physicians, some emphasise radiation therapy, some surgery. I'm a surgery man myself, but we all agree we have to cut the cancer out and we are committed to a much more robust effort this year.

"Alternative livelihood for the farmers is one element, the second element is interdiction and the third is eradication. All three of those elements are necessary for a counter-drugs policy."

And emphasis is being placed on the Afghan government to put its house in order and crack down on the drugs lords. The UN says it has given a list of names, and the British government has funded a high-security prison for the "Mr Bigs", but still there is little progress.

The acting Minister for Counter Narcotics, General Khodaidad, says these targets will be pursued, but there is little evidence on the ground that this is happening, with some in the government alleged to have links with the traffickers, while the judiciary is still struggling to keep up. "Unfortunately we have failed," Gen Khodaidad said.

"In security we have failed, in the drug issue we have failed. We have not done a good job in Helmand. This year we must change our strategy on how to work to handle security and tackle the poppy in Helmand province."

The losing battle against a homegrown enemy

Today, more Afghan land than ever before is used to grow opium-yielding poppies, and there's no consensus on how to stop it

CAROLINE ALPHONSO - From Tuesday's Globe and Mail August 28, 2007

TORONTO — Afghanistan's opium poppy cultivation has reached "frightening record levels" this year, according to a United Nations report - and much of the heroin is increasingly making its way into Canada.

An RCMP report shows that most of the heroin seized here in 2005 originated in southwest Asia, specifically Afghanistan and Pakistan. And the director of the RCMP's drug branch in Ottawa told The Canadian Press this month that 60 per cent of the heroin on Canadian streets comes from Afghanistan.

Until a few years ago, most heroin came from southeast Asia, an area that includes Myanmar, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam.

"Southwest Asian heroin dominates the Canadian market, while Southeast Asian heroin has nearly disappeared," RCMP spokeswoman Sylvie Tremblay said in an e-mail yesterday.

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime released a report yesterday showing that opium production in Afghanistan has doubled in two years and that the crop is now grown on 193,000 hectares of land, a 17- per-cent increase from last year. Opium is the raw material used to make heroin.

Helmand province, where the Taliban is most active, is now the biggest drug-producing area in the world, surpassing entire countries such as Colombia and Morocco. And in southern Afghanistan, where instability is greatest and Canadian troops are stationed, opium cultivation shows no signs of abating.

Walter Kemp, a spokesman for the UNODC, described the situation as "depressing." The UN called for a more determined effort by the Afghan government and the international community to combat insurgency and drugs.

"Since there's a clear relationship between insurgency and growing poppy, then NATO should have a vested interest in supporting counter- narcotics," Mr. Kemp said in an interview from Vienna.

"We're not suggesting that NATO troops should be cutting down opium fields. But destroying heroin labs, for example, closing opium markets, seizing opium convoys, helping to round up the drug traffickers, these are the kinds of things that NATO has a vested interest in supporting."

Canada has pledged about $55-million for counternarcotics programs, including $18.5-million to promote alternative livelihoods for farmers in Kandahar. But Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Ambra Dickie acknowledges that it's difficult to fix a drug problem that has developed over decades.

"The cultivation of poppies in Afghanistan is the result of years of conflict and instability which has been systemically exploited by drug traffickers, leaving farmers with few other choices," she said.

Captain Adam Thomson, a spokesman for the Department of National Defence, said soldiers are not directly involved in opium-eradication programs. Rather, Canadian troops indirectly support anti-drug programs by trying to establish security in the region and helping train Afghan police.

"We do a lot of things to work towards counternarcotics strategy. But we're not directly involved," Capt. Thomson said. "It's not part of the current mandate in the Canadian forces to conduct drug-eradication operations."

Mr. Kemp suggests that it's time for NATO troops to play a more active role. "Development and security go hand in hand. We say that eradicating poverty and eradicating poppy have to go hand in hand," he said.

Despite the overall increase in opium production, yesterday's report had some good news. Twice as many provinces in northern and central Afghanistan are opium-free, despite widespread poverty.

But some of the most fertile regions in the south have become the opium-producing heartland, the UN said. The Taliban controls large swaths of territory and encourages farmers to grow opium. Opium poppy cultivation in Kandahar, for example, has increased 32 per cent.

According to the 2007 World Drug Report, roughly 92 per cent of the world's heroin comes from Afghanistan.

Mr. Kemp said most of it makes its way to Europe. Still, he said that demand is not high for the increased opium production. "The question is, if there's more supply than demand, where's the rest of it going? And we don't know," he said.

"It could be that some people are stockpiling it as a hedge against prices falling in the future, or people are stockpiling it for some kind of criminal activity or even terrorist activity, or there could be new markets that we don't know about."

Paul Nadeau, the director of the RCMP's drug branch, has told The Canadian Press that Afghan heroin usually gets to Canada through Pakistan and then India, or western Africa, then through the United States. Police trace the smuggling routes to reveal the drug's country of origin.

Mr. Nadeau was on vacation and not available for comment yesterday. How to deal with the increased opium cultivation in Afghanistan has been the subject of much debate. Some argue that destroying crops is the only answer.

The Senlis Council, an international policy think tank, says that farmers are cultivating opium poppies because they have no profitable alternatives. The council suggests legalizing poppy production in Afghanistan to supply the developing world with medicine. Opium is the raw material for morphine and other drugs.

"The alarming UN figures of 2007 should be reason enough to try a different approach, tailored to the realities of Afghanistan in terms of security and development," Emmanuel Reinert, the group's executive director, said in a press release yesterday.

Critics question whether demand for legal products is high enough, and insist that it wouldn't keep opium from insurgents.

Roland Paris, associate professor of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa and a former foreign policy adviser in the Department of Foreign Affairs, argues that destroying opium crops will not work. Poor farmers who depend on it would start to resent the Afghan government and foreign forces.

Instead, he suggests exploring other options, including subsidizing alternative crops in the name of achieving certain public-policy goals.

"It is better to have no policy than to have one that's self-defeating," Prof. Paris said.

While northern and central provinces in Afghanistan saw opium cultivation drop, the illicit crop exploded in other regions of the country this year, according to a UN report.

Opium poppy cultivation increased 32 per cent in Kandahar. It has climbed 48 per cent in Helmand province. And in the eastern Nangarhar province, it has soared 285 per cent.

Why this increase? Almost 30 per cent of farmers surveyed in the report said the main reason for opium poppy cultivation is poverty. Other reasons included the high sale price of opium and its high demand.

The majority of farmers surveyed said they would be ready to stop opium poppy cultivation should they have access to alternative livelihoods. Many said they would prefer employment off their farms or to farm other crops but have the same income.

The survey estimated that 509,000 families were involved in opium poppy production this year, a 14 per cent increase from the previous year.

On the other side of the coin, farmers who have never cultivated opium poppies listed religion as the main reason they stay away from it, followed by it being illegal.

Those who stopped cultivating the crop this year also listed religion as the reason. About 16 per cent said fears of crop eradication also led them to stop cultivating opium this year.

In its report, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime called for greater deterrents to keep farmers from planting opium. It suggests higher rewards for non-opium farmers who demonstrate alternatives.

"Assistance is plentiful but not being disbursed fast enough," executive director Antonio Maria Costa said in a release. "I see a risk of some provinces sliding back to poppy cultivation."

THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM - Afghan farmers are sowing and reaping more poppies than ever before. Helmand province, by itself, is the biggest drug-producing area of the world, even outstripping the yield of entire countries.

ALTERNATIVES TO OPIUM POPPY*

*as chosen by 724 poppy growing farmers.

SOURCE: UNITED NATIONS OFFICE OF DRUGS AND CRIME, GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN - MINISTRY OF COUNTER NARCOTICS

Inside an Afghan opium market

By Bilal Sarwary, BBC News, Shaddle Bazaar, eastern Afghanistan

Monday, 27 August 2007  - Travelling on Afghanistan's main Jalalabad to Torkham road, you eventually arrive at Shaddle Bazaar, a market of around 30 shops in the eastern province of Nangarhar, on the border with Pakistan.

At first glance, it looks like any other normal market offering everyday goods. But in reality, this is one of Afghanistan's biggest opium markets.

Farmers from Nangarhar and other adjacent provinces bring opium to Shaddle to sell. Much of it comes from Nangarhar and Helmand - two of Afghanistan's biggest opium-producing provinces.

Thousands of kilos of opium are bought and sold every day. Sitting inside the shop tension between the drug dealers is visible - for a few minutes there is hot dispute and shouting over prices and the quality of the opium before the transaction is completed.

There are big scales in the shop, and the assistant weighs the opium on it - Gul Mohammad is busy counting out Pakistani rupees to pay for the opium he has bought from one of his customers.

In his mud hut shop he buys hundreds of kilos of opium every day and the smell of it is everywhere. Outside his shop vehicles come and go - green tea is served constantly for the visitors.

But you do not have to study what is going on too closely to notice the unusual - a man carries a big bag full of hundreds of thousands of Afghanis. The dealers all carry pistols which they say is for their own protection.

Customers enter the shop bringing opium packed secretly, which they refer to by its nickname as maal. They are constantly on the look-out for government informers.

I am repeatedly asked not to take pictures of anyone's face, nor should I name anyone. The names of those involved in the drugs trade in this piece have been made up to protect their identity.

"We could get killed or arrested," says one of the few people in the shop willing to talk to me.

Some villagers, like 18-year-old Abdullah Jan, have to walk for hours before reaching Shaddle. The tiredness on his face explains it all - if he is stopped by government agents or bandits he would lose money that feeds his family for the entire year.

"I left at four in the morning and got here after four hours. I have brought 10kg of opium from my fields to sell."

After a hard bargain with Gul Mohammad Khan, the opium dealer, he is getting the equivalent of $1,400 - more than he can get for any other crop. He is one of hundreds of people who travel to Shaddle bazaar to sell and buy opium.

From here the opium is taken to the nearby mountains and villages in the border areas to heroin labs set up by local drug dealers, where it is processed into heroin.

Eventually, it will hit the streets of Europe. The market first began to sell opium openly under the Taleban regime after they permitted the cultivation of poppies. After the fall of the Taleban in 2001, the market has been raided several times but it has re-opened again and again.

In recent months, Afghanistan's elite anti-drug force has raided the bazaar with the help of foreign forces in the country - they made arrests and seized opium and heroin in large quantities. But they did not succeed in closing down the bazaar indefinitely.

Last year, Afghanistan's poppy production reached record levels. The US state department's annual report on narcotics said the flourishing drugs trade was undermining the fight against the Taleban

It warned of a possible increase in heroin overdoses in Europe and the Middle East as a result. Poppy production rose 25% in 2006, a figure US Assistant Secretary of State Ann Patterson described as alarming. Four years after the US and its British allies began combating poppy production, Afghanistan still accounts for 90% of the world's opium trade.

The US has recently given the Afghan government more than $10bn in assistance, but most of the money will be spent on security rather than encouraging alternative sources of income.

For 45-year-old Gul Mohammad Khan being a opium trader is his way of surviving. "If we had roads, clinics, factories and if there were job opportunities I would not do what I am doing now," he said.

For the past 10 years Mr Mohammad has seen many regimes and local officials come and go. His shop has been raided many times but he has never been arrested.

Inside, I am shown various qualities of opium and other raw material that are used to make heroin. Current prices are anywhere from 10,000 Afghanis ($201) for a kilo of dry opium - that is the best quality - to around 5,500 Afghanis ($110) for wet opium.

According to officials, the mafia is powerful and strong. "They are so strong that we sometimes find ourselves outnumbered fighting them," says Gen Daud Daud, the deputy minister of interior in charge of counter narcotics.

"In these mountains of Achin district and other border villages they have everything from heavy machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and of course better vehicles and more money than we do."

Haji Deen Gul - who is selling 20kg of opium - is critical of the Afghan government and the international community for targeting the farmers. Instead he wants the traffickers to be targeted.

"They should target the ones who are selling the heroin to Western countries. I sell my opium to feed my family and from my heroin they can even make medicine. When I have water and roads provided to me, I will stop growing poppies."

Before I leave Gul Mohammad Khan's shop, he tells me selling opium is not ideally the trade he wants to be in. "I don't want my children to be in this trade and I hope that some day the world will help us. Only then can we stop the opium trade."

Names of those mentioned in the article have been changed to protect their identities.

Afghan FM received Assistant US Secretary

Posted On MFA site: Aug 28, 2007

Visiting US Assistant Secretary for the South Asia, Mr. Richard Boucher met with Afghan Foreign Minister Dr. Spanta. The two discussed latest developments in Afghan-US relations. By reiterating Afghanistan’s gratitude for the continued US assistance to Afghanistan, Dr. Spanta emphasized Afghanistan’s desire to strengthen the two countries’ relations, in particular in areas of combating terrorism, counter-narcotics, education, investment, and regional cooperation. On his part Assistant Secretary assured Afghan FM of the US’s resolve to remain fully committed and engaged with Afghanistan.    

Work on huge irrigation project launched in Herat

HERAT CITY, Aug 26 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Construction work on an irrigation canal in Pashtun Zarghun district of the western Herat province was launched on Sunday.

Minister for Water and Energy Muhammad Ismail Khan inaugurated work on the project called Kambroq, involving the construction of small dams, streams, supportive walls and bridges.

Ismail Khan said the 66 kilometres long canal would be completed at the cost of over 51 million afghanis granted by the World Bank. He added the canal existed before the 1979 coup.

Extensively damaged during war years, the canal can currently irrigate only 5000 hectares of land. With the execution of the project in a year, the minister said, over 11000 hectare of land would be irrigated by the canal.

Fazl Ahmad Zakiri, head of the Water and Energy Department in Herat, told Pajhwok Afghan News over the last four years 40 water irrigation projects had been completed in the western zone (Farah, Herat, Ghor and Badghis provinces). Another 35 projects are on the boil.

Afghan mission a failure: poll

KATHLEEN HARRIS , NATIONAL BUREAU Sun media

OTTAWA -- Canadians and Europeans think the Afghanistan mission is a failure, a new poll reveals, as a United Nations report shows opium crops reaching a record high in the key battleground for the "war on terror."

An Angus-Reid online survey of 5,075 people in five countries found 49% of Canadians see the military operation as futile, compared with 63% in Britain and France, 66% in Italy and 69% in Germany.

Only 22% of Canadians deem the NATO mission as a success, while another 29% aren't sure.

Mario Canseco, director of global studies for Angus Reid Strategies, said the numbers reflect a lack of understanding about the mission that has led to a sharp focus on deaths of soldiers.

"It shows the federal government has not done a good job in making Canadians aware of the role of the armed forces in Afghanistan," he said. "Stephen Harper has had a very difficult time communicating with the public, and this is an issue where not speaking with the media is hurting public views."

The poll comes on the heels of a report from the United Nations that shows opium cultivation expanded by 17% in 2007 in Afghanistan. Growth is primarily in the southern area, where Taliban insurgents control large swaths of land and use profits from the illicit opium trade for weapons and militia payments.

Canseco said opium growth, corruption and a weak Afghan government are shaping views of Canada's impact on the country.

"There really hasn't been much to celebrate lately, so it is natural for people to start second-guessing what is happening," he said.

Liberal MP and defence critic Denis Coderre said the UN opium report underscores the need to rebalance the mission to put more focus on development and diplomacy.

To choke the supply flow to the Taliban, UN allies must develop an opium strategy that wins farmers' hearts by awarding fair compensation for crops, he said. "You can't just eradicate it and say that's it, that's all,"he said.

But Coderre rejected the view held by nearly half of Canadians that the Afghan mission is a bust. "The Conservative approach regarding Afghanistan is a failure, but the mission itself is not a failure. It is noble," he said.

Meanwhile, a military expert said a lot of opposition is due to the public not understanding the mission.

"With this type of mission, you're not going to see the kind of immediate success you saw with the U.S. invasion of Iraq," said Dr. Rob Huebert, associate director of Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

Huebert said one reason for Canadians' disillusionment with the mission in Afghanistan is the recent steady stream of Canadian casualties.

"You're seeing casualties continue and no diminishment of effort from al-Qaida and the Taliban," he said. Another impediment to Canada's success in Afghanistan is the Taliban's ability to change its strategy.

"We're facing an enemy that's adjusting to what we're doing," he said, adding that the Taliban is now trying to win a political victory by outlasting NATO forces.

Huebert feels that Harper's indication that the military will have a reduced role in Afghanistan after 2009 is a move that will allow the Taliban to succeed.

"It's too soon to know for certain but this could be Canada's first military defeat," he said.

Despite public anger, the army still see Afghanistan as a cause worth dying for

Unlike Iraq, the battle against the Taliban carries a flicker of a hope of success, even if it is a misguided one

Max Hastings, Tuesday August 28, 2007 The Guardian

British public opinion has become more hostile to the United States, or at least towards those conducting its foreign wars, than towards the Taliban. If one walked into a party escorting a bearded figure in baggy white trousers and introduced him as an Afghan fighter, chances are that he would be welcomed and offered elderflower cordial.

If an American general turned up, however, within minutes somebody would be asking why his pilots keep killing British soldiers and generally making a mess of the world. I exaggerate only slightly. Sentiment towards the war in Afghanistan, and the conflict in Iraq, is poisoned by a belief that our boys are dying for no good purpose save to service a faltering Atlantic alliance.

When, as happened last week, three British soldiers are killed by an American bomb instead of a Taliban bullet, anger increases. Few are willing to write off such an incident as a mere accident of war. They perceive it as an example of the crass incompetence of our allies, which appears to reach all the way down from the White House to the battlefield.

The family of one of the dead soldiers is calling for an inquiry and demanding that the Americans release cockpit voice recordings of the incident. Critics claim that such things would not happen if our soldiers on the ground had the right communications technology and were not chronically starved of resources.

About half of all this emotional anger seems justified. The British are indeed trying to conduct a major campaign in Helmand province with inadequate means, as some of us have said from the outset. With only a handful of RAF aircraft available, our troops are heavily dependent on the Americans. The US air force almost every day drops bombs in support of British units engaged in firefights, usually with remarkable accuracy.

But when different nations, even close allies, fight alongside each other, there are always communications glitches. Things are more likely to go amiss than in an all-British operation. Every war generates friendly fire incidents because - though civilians find this hard to recognise - war remains an inexact science. They hurt more when George Bush's pilots are deemed the guilty parties.

Yet, at a time when many people on this side of the Atlantic would be happy to see us pack our bags and come home from both Iraq and Afghanistan, it is remarkable how gung ho the British army in Helmand remains. Commanders were always sceptical about the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Before the event, I heard generals express vivid fears that the Americans had no idea what to do when they got to Baghdad.

In Afghanistan, by contrast, the British perceive themselves executing a mission that was mandated by the UN, and which could yet succeed. Amazingly, or not, soldiers like that wild country, which offers adventures such as many joined the army to experience. They accept the risk of losing their lives - at the hands of the enemy, anyway - with professional sang-froid.

When they meet the Taliban in battle, they usually win. They believe that most Afghans would prefer to be ruled by the government of President Karzai than by the Taliban. They recognise that stabilising the country could take a decade or more. They are cheerfully reconciled to fighting there for that long, provided they can get out of Basra and ease the strain on the army's chronically overstretched combat units.

Yet there are grounds for fearing that the soldiers take too sunny a view, through the prism of their own experience and local successes. Nato's forces in Afghanistan, and the British contingent in particular, have always been much too small to fulfil their mission in that huge country.

Tony Blair, John Reid and others misled us again and again about the plausibility of the Afghan deployment that began last year. No serious professional believed the job could be done with the means available. The armed forces' "can do" spirit was abused by the government in order to embark on ambitious operations in Afghanistan with shoestring resources.

It was disingenuous of Blair to tell the Commons last winter the army would be given "whatever it needed to do the job". As he well knew, such means did not exist. At the time I called this "gesture strategy", and so it was.

Britain was showing willing towards Washington and Nato, rather than committing forces big enough to have any chance of controlling Helmand province. Other European nations, such as the Germans, French and Italians, behaved worse, by sending soldiers into Afghanistan while refusing to let them fight. Only the British, Canadians, Dutch and 23,000 Americans are conducting serious military operations there.

In tactical terms there is no doubt about their success. Scepticism focuses, first, on what is happening in the huge areas of the country where Nato troops are not; and second, upon whether winning little local victories is worth much, when the Afghan national government and its institutions are ill-fitted to exploit them. The failure of the civil programme, such as it is, seems to justify even more concern than the security situation.

When the British, or Canadians, or Americans, achieve temporary dominance of a given area, the Taliban seep away elsewhere. No coherent policy has been adopted to deal with the huge issue of opium production. The ambitions of most Afghans focus upon living their lives in their own valleys under their own local leaders. Kabul and its government's lofty aspirations appear to them indescribably remote, if not actively unwelcome.

Yet it also seems true that the consequences of western failure in Afghanistan would be grave. If the country again becomes dominated by the Taliban and al-Qaida, not only will its people return to medieval subjection but also Pakistan's predicament will become even more precarious.

For these reasons, Nato is likely to persevere in Afghanistan for a long time yet, even if defeat in Iraq becomes explicit. Gordon Brown and his foreign secretary David Miliband seem firmly committed to the Afghan deployment. Like the army, they perceive Afghanistan as an honourable mission, which Iraq never was, a theatre where a flicker of hope of success persists.

There will be more friendly fire incidents, and more soldiers will die in action against the Taliban before winter brings an end to the campaigning season. Though the British public dislikes what is happening, as long as the army seems happy to fight on, Afghanistan is unlikely to provoke a political crisis here.

I wish I felt more confident that shifting another 2,000 British troops from Basra to Helmand will prove decisive in establishing some semblance of peace there. Most likely, however, a year from now we shall be pretty much where we are today, neither winning nor losing.

That is pretty much how things were in Afghanistan throughout the century in which the British last fought in the region. This time around, however, it must be doubtful whether the patience of the western democracies will last so long. It is not enough that the cause is just if an outcome remains so elusive.

U.S. eyes trade with Pakistan and Afghanistan

Washington (Reuters) - The Bush administration will push Congress in coming months to approve legislation aimed at reducing the threat of violence from "very troubled regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan" by creating new job opportunities, a top U.S. trade official said on Monday.

"We are hopeful that legislation will be both introduced and passed relatively quickly," Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Karan Bhatia said in an interview.

Pakistan's currently embattled President Pervez Musharraf pressed U.S. President George W. Bush for legislation creating the "reconstruction opportunity zones" in Afghanistan and Pakistan when the two leaders met in March 2006.

Musharraf, who took power in a 1999 coup, is under domestic pressure to step down as Pakistan's army chief as he seeks another term as the country's president.

Although Pakistan has been an ally in the U.S. "war on terror" since the September 11 attacks on the United States, it is still home to a large number of Islamic militants in the border region it shares with Afghanistan.

U.S. intelligence officials told a House of Representatives committee in July that Al Qaeda had become progressively active in Western Pakistan, where they apparently enjoy safe haven and increased financial support.

The proposed reconstruction opportunity zones are intended to create job opportunities by allowing goods produced in designated parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan to enter the United States duty-free.

"There are very troubled regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, (such as) the Northwest Frontier. The key to resolving political challenges would be to spur economic development," Bhatia said.

"The hope with these reconstruction zones is by affording goods produced in those zones duty-free and quota-free to the United States, you would be able to spur investment and economic development in those regions," he said.

Potential imports from reconstruction opportunity zones in the two countries could include agricultural goods, clothing, textiles and handicrafts, Bhatia said.

Coalition forces in Afghanistan retract from their stance: ISPR

ISLAMABAD, Aug 28 (APP): After a strong reaction by Pakistan verbally and in writing, the coalition forces in Afghanistan on Tuesday retracted their earlier statement that Pakistan permitted coalition troops to carry out strike in Pakistani territory, which led to killing of 19 local militants. The coalition had made a press statement on Sunday. A spokesman of ISPR had denied the NATO spokesperson’s claim on Monday that 19 local Taliban were killed in a coalition attack inside Pakistan, for which prior permission was obtained.

The spokesman had reiterated that there was no understanding between Pakistan and coalition dorces for carrying out operations within Pakistani territory. 

The statement issued by Spokeman’s office of Combined Joint Task Force in Afghanistan on Tuesday retracting from the earlier stance said: “It was released earlier that the Pakistan Military granted permission to Afghanistan and coalition forces to engage insurgent mortar positions along Afghanistan/Pakistan border Saturday, three of which reported to be located in Pakistan. Upon further investigation by coalition officials it was discovered that permission was not given by Pakistan and there were no insurgent positions.” 

Brigadier General Joseph Votel, Deputy Commanding General for Operations, Combined Joint Task Force-82 said, “Coalition forces and those with which we work, are committed to respecting the sovereign borders of Pakistan. We regret the miscommunication in this event”. 

He said, “We hope to continue our cooperative efforts with Pakistan which has been an important ally in fighting the enemies of peace and stability. We appreciate the significant contributions Pakistan is making to the War on Terror by conducting operations against Al-Qaeda and Taliban extremist fighters.”

Militants free Pakistani soldiers – BBC

Eighteen soldiers and an official held hostage by pro-Taleban militants in Pakistan's South Waziristan region have been released, officials say.

Sixteen soldiers were abducted earlier this month. One was later killed. Three other soldiers and the official were kidnapped in the area last week.

There has been rising violence in the region after peace deals between the government and tribesmen collapsed. At least 60 soldiers and 250 militants have died there in recent months.

Members of a local tribal council reached a deal with the militants leading to the release of the soldiers early on Tuesday. "We can confirm the hostages have been released and handed over to the tribal members," army spokesman Maj Gen Waheed Arshad told the BBC.

Gen Arshad said the release was unconditional, and denied any militants had been freed to secure the soldiers' release. But sources told the BBC some captured militants would be "quietly released" in return. On Monday, the militants released a video showing one of the hostages being beheaded.

Pakistan has seen increased attacks against its security forces in recent weeks. The attacks followed a bloody battle with radical Islamists last month at the Red Mosque in Islamabad in which more than 100 people died.

The 16 abducted soldiers went missing after leaving in a convoy for the Sararogha area of South Waziristan, a stronghold of the recently killed militant leader Abdullah Mahsud. Mahsud died last month in a raid near the city of Zhob in neighbouring Balochistan province.

Last week, the beheaded body of one of the hostages - Laiq Hussain - was found in a field near a military base in the town of Jandola. Three other soldiers and a government official were taken hostage by the militants near the village of Laddha in the region last week.

Don't fail Afghanistan

Los Angeles Times editorial, 08/27/2007

Iraq may be hopeless, but Afghanistan is worth defending. Here's why and how

The United States is now at risk of "losing" Afghanistan, the predictable result of committing insufficient troops and money to that catastrophically failed state after the rout of the Taliban in 2001. U.S. forces are suffering sharply higher casualties as Taliban fighters surge back in, and drug lords are coming to dominate the political and economic landscape. The collapse of the noble nation-building experiment in Afghanistan would destroy U.S. credibility in the eyes of the world, shake global security and condemn millions of people to another generation of warfare and terrorism. And it would be all the more devastating if accompanied by U.S. defeat in Iraq. Yet the effort to build a stable nation atop the wreckage of Afghanistan can still, with great effort, be salvaged.

This page has argued that Iraq's civil war is beyond the United States' ability to suppress by military means and that the presence of U.S. troops can only delay the bloody but inevitable political reckoning. Although it is unlikely that a workable political accord will be reached before the power struggle is settled on the battlefield, only the Iraqis themselves can prevent this calamity.

All is not lost in Afghanistan, however. Unlike the Iraqis, Afghans are not engaged in nationwide sectarian warfare. They have a weak but legitimate government, a corrupt but functioning parliament and an elected president who commands broad international support. Critics have dismissed President Hamid Karzai as no more than "the mayor of Kabul," but the importance of his leadership was demonstrated anew this month when he managed to convene tribal leaders -- 350 from Afghanistan and 300 from Pakistan -- in a historic "peace jirga."

Unlike in Iraq, the insurgency in Afghanistan doesn't spring from deep-seated animosity toward a fatally sectarian government. Rather, as former U.S. special envoy James Dobbins points out, the insurgents are primarily ethnic Pashtun living on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and their campaign is organized, armed, funded and directed from Pakistan. The Taliban have been Pakistan's hedge against a united Afghanistan allied with India. This thorny problem won't be easily solved, but it can be managed. Weak governments around the world have successfully dealt with insurgencies -- when they have been able to pressure the rebels' foreign sanctuaries and when they have earned popular support by political inclusion and economic progress.

Why should the United States keep forces in Afghanistan while withdrawing them from Iraq? Some argue, cogently, that if the greatest threat to U.S. national security comes from terrorist havens in failed states, then we have more to fear from a failed Iraq, with its huge population, strategic location and oil wealth, than from a failed Afghanistan, an impoverished backwater. If Al Qaeda were to dominate Iraq, it would pose a terrible security threat to the West -- but that outcome appears unlikely. Sunni tribal leaders are cooperating with U.S. forces to fight the foreign Al Qaeda; Shiites have been the primary victims of its barbaric attacks. The United States does have an interest in a stable Iraq, but its troops cannot impose peace without a committed Iraqi partner.

The Afghan government is such a partner. The U.N.-authorized, NATO-led peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan is accepted as legitimate and has made progress when and where it was properly managed and funded. And so, for reasons of history, timing and practicality, the United States should redouble its efforts to save Afghanistan from a resurgent Taliban.

First, history: The threat from Afghanistan isn't theoretical. It was the source of the attack on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, and the U.S. invaded only after the Taliban refused to hand over the avowed mastermind, Osama bin Laden. Six years later, Bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban leader, are still at large, probably in Pakistan. Bin Laden still brags of his exploits on videotape. Their triumphant impunity continues to inspire suicide bombings, beheadings of headmasters who dare teach girls, slayings of prominent women, kidnappings of foreign aid workers and terrorizing of Afghan villages. NATO troops must fight until Afghanistan has a strong enough military to prevent their return.

Second, timing: The United States would be seen as dangerously weak if it is mired in Afghanistan at the same time it is retreating from a stalemate in Iraq. Moreover, making good on unkept promises to improve the lives of the Afghan people is both a moral and a geopolitical imperative at a time when the West should be offering a meaningful alternative to fanatical Islamism. The setbacks in Afghanistan are fairly blamed on the Bush administration's decision to attempt nation-building on the cheap. It then slashed aid in 2006 and diverted military and intelligence resources to the worsening situation in Iraq. This year, the U.S. gave just $1.8 billion in direct "operations aid" to the Afghan government; the other 82% of U.S. aid was military. Afghanistan needs massive civilian economic aid now, and $10 billion a year -- what we spend in a month in Iraq -- would be a start. The Europeans have been right to criticize the United States for shortchanging nation-building, but they in turn must be persuaded to order their troops into combat. And the so-called donor nations, including the wealthy Arab states, must be shamed into paying what they've promised -- now, when Kabul needs it most.

Third, practicality: The "global war on terror" cannot be fought by primarily military means as long as terrorists have an unending supply of suicidal recruits. Al Qaeda's ideology was born in Egypt and Saudi Arabia but has appeal around the world, including in Pakistan, because of hostility to Western political, economic and cultural incursions into Muslim lands. Success in Afghanistan would show that the West can be a respectful and helpful friend to an Islamic country in which it has no oil or other economic interests.

To succeed, however, the tactics of the U.S. military in Afghanistan must change, in keeping with the Army's own counterinsurgency thinking. The military must end its over-reliance on air power, which has caused so many civilian casualties, and shift to a strategy of holding terrain long enough to allow aid projects to bear fruit. The United States can and should help Afghanistan forge a durable peace by isolating terrorists from their host populations; by offering prosperity, respect and self-determination to estranged peoples such as the Pashtun; by curbingcorruption; and by training Afghan forces to do the job themselves.

Nation-building will never be easy or cheap, and the American people may wish to make future commitments more sparingly. But the Afghan people want the international help they've been promised. We owe it to them -- and to ourselves -- to try harder.

Faster, deadlier pilotless plane bound for Afghanistan

By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY

CREECH AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. — The Air Force this fall will deploy a new generation of pilotless airplane with the bombing power of an F-16 to help stop the stubborn Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

The Reaper is an upgraded version of the Predator, which has become one of the military's most sought-after planes since it first appeared in Afghanistan in 2001. The Reaper can fly three times as fast as a Predator and carry eight times more weaponry, such as Hellfire missiles, the Air Force said.

The Reaper's greater range and speed make it better suited than the Predator to Afghanistan with its vast, rugged terrain. The Reaper will also be deployed to Iraq. Its speed and arms will let it track and kill moving targets able to elude a Predator, said Brig. Gen. James Poss, director of intelligence for Air Combat Command at Langley Air Force Base, Va.

Air Force officials cite the June 2006 killing of al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was tracked by a Predator but ultimately killed by bombs dropped by an F-16. The Reaper "is ideal for that type of target," said Lt. Col. Gregory Christ, director of staff at Creech.

Despite the Predator's success, field commanders wanted a faster, more lethal alternative, said Col. Charles Bartlett, leader of the Air Force's unmanned aircraft task force.

Such demand has prompted the Air Force to rush to train operators and crews. In 2003, the Air Force trained fewer than 40 Predator operators. In 2008, that will soar to 160. It has trained 10 Reaper operators this year, and expects to train 19 more in 2008.

The Reaper squadron will start small and has only four aircraft, said Maj. David Small, an Air Force spokesman. It will ultimately have 20 planes, he said.

Most Reapers, like Predators, are flown from bases in the United States, such as Creech, which is about an hour north of the Las Vegas strip.

The Reaper carries about the same payload as the F-16 but can stay aloft as much as eight times longer than the F-16, which must refuel about every two hours.

"You've got a lot of ammo circling overhead on call for short-notice strikes," said John Pike, director of the military think tank, Globalsecurity. "It seems like a good idea."

Demand for Predator flights has exploded. This year, Predator flight hours are expected to exceed 70,000 hours, more than triple the total in 2003. Combat pilots say they miss the feel of flying but say remote-control aircraft are here to stay.

"This is the future," said Chad Miner, chief of weapons and tactics at Creech, a Predator trainer and an F-16 pilot. "I would love to … jump in an F-16 and go. But I'm a more valuable asset to the military doing this. It's not the sexiest answer, but it's true."

US football gift 'insults Islam' in Afghanistan

American troops in Afghanistan have been accused of insulting Islam after footballs bearing the name of Allah were dropped from helicopters as gifts.

The balls display flags from around the world, including that of Saudi Arabia, and carry the Koranic declaration of faith known as the shahada.

About 100 people demonstrated in the south eastern province of Khost after clerics criticised the US for insensitivity.

Mirwais Yasini, an MP, said: "To have a verse of the Koran on something you kick with your foot would be an insult in any Muslim country."

A US military spokesman said that the footballs were intended to be gifts for Afghan children adding: "Unfortunately, there was something on those footballs we didn't immediately understand to be offensive and we regret that."

Afghan women stores make a mark

By Charles Haviland - BBC News, Mazar-e Sharif Monday, 27 August 2007

The women's affairs department in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-e Sharif has launched a scheme to help women set up their own retail businesses.

Five shops, owned and run by women, have already opened in the city and the women say the stores are doing well.

The provincial governor is now planning a shopping centre with about 200 shops, exclusively owned by women. The initiative is also helping customers as many families do not allow their women to enter shops run by men.

Since the Taleban were ousted from Afghanistan, many women have found that gaining or regaining their rights is a long and difficult process. Yet in some places, they are managing to chip away at patriarchal institutions.

North Afghanistan's biggest city, Mazar-e-Sharif, is trying to put behind it the bloody years from 1997 to 2001, when it was fought over by militias, including the Taleban, and thousands of people were killed in the streets.

Today, this low-rise city, baked by the sun of the central Asian grasslands, is thriving again. The broad boulevards have been resurfaced with Japanese funding.

Each city roundabout is being designed by a different local business, some with outlandish sculptures as their centre-pieces, and Mazar is the hub of a part of Afghanistan vastly more peaceful and secure than the south or the east.

It remains socially conservative, with most women going about in white or blue burkhas, the all-encompassing veil. But the provincial women's affairs department has now started a scheme for women to own their own shops, something almost unheard of in Afghanistan.

The five that have so far opened in Mazar-e Sharif are mostly devoted to women's clothing or foodstuffs. The shop owners are getting good returns, giving them more financial security.

And they appear to be popular with the customers - in conservative Afghanistan, many families do not want their womenfolk entering shops run by men. And now, the number of such shops is set to soar.

The provincial governor has laid the foundation stone for a complex called Bagh-e-Zanana, or Women's Garden, which will contain about 200 shops owned by women.

Men as well as women will be able to shop there, but officials say their behaviour will be closely monitored. Some conservative local clerics are unhappy with the moves.

One has said that the new female entrepreneurs are misleading other women, encouraging them to claim freedoms that are inappropriate. But other religious scholars are satisfied with the initiative, arguing that the new commercial activities are a step towards advancing women's role in society.

The new shopping complex is expected to open within weeks.

[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.]