In this bulletin:

• 25 police, soldiers killed in Afghanistan: officials
• Roadside blast kills Canadian outside Kandahar
• Suspected anthrax kills 8 Afghans who ate camel
• Spanish king visits troops in Afghanistan: official
• UN Afghan envoy warns on Pakistan
• UN calls for release of employee held in Afghan row
• Taliban seen losing support of Afghans
• Canada to focus on mentoring Afghan forces in 2008
• Al-Qaeda and Taliban have apparently shifted focus
• Building proper peace in Afghanistan - and fast
• Afghan Guantanamo prisoner dies of cancer: US military
• Afghanistan needs Muslim aid effort
• Challenges ahead in Afghanistan
• Connecting the dots in Afghanistan
• Afghanistan's wars woven into carpets

25 police, soldiers killed in Afghanistan: officials

KABUL (AFP) — Twenty-five policemen and soldiers have been killed across insurgency-hit Afghanistan in fresh -- mainly Taliban-linked -- violence, authorities said.

Sixteen policemen were killed when their post in the southern province of Kandahar -- a hotbed of Taliban activities -- was attacked by Islamic rebels on Saturday, the interior ministry said.

Two other police officers were killed Monday in a roadside bomb blast in Musa Qala -- a town in southern Helmand province -- which was captured from the Taliban by Afghan and NATO forces this month, a district chief said.

Taliban militants claimed credit for the latest blast.

Similar bomb attacks killed five Afghan soldiers -- one of them in eastern Paktia on Monday and four others in southern Uruzgan a day earlier, the defence ministry said in a statement.

Two other soldiers died in a road accident Sunday in the southern province of Zabul, which is also hit by the Taliban insurgency.

"The policemen were martyred after retreating from their post in a Taliban attack in... Kandahar," interior ministry spokesman Zemarai Bashary told reporters, referring to the deaths of the 16 policemen.

This year has been Afghanistan's bloodiest. More than 6,000 people have been killed, many of them Taliban insurgents but also about 1,000 Afghan security forces, as well as many civilians, and more than 200 Western soldiers.

Bashary said more than 850 policemen have been killed in Taliban-led violence since March.

Roadside blast kills Canadian outside Kandahar

COLIN FREEZE - From Monday's Globe and Mail December 30, 2007

ZHARI DISTRICT, Afghanistan — One Canadian soldier was killed yesterday and four others were injured as their convoy was heading back from the front lines for a long-awaited New Year's break.

Gunner Jonathan Dion was the first Canadian soldier to die in Afghanistan since Nov. 17 and the 74th to die since the mission began.

The highway bomb attack occurred about 20 kilometres west of Kandahar as the light armoured vehicle was bringing the soldiers back to the secure base. At the same time, an infantry group marched through Taliban territory and found no battles.

The roadside bomb attack speaks to the kind of invisible enemy the Canadian Forces face as they push deeper into insurgent territory in the south. Insurgents often prefer to fight by stealth rather than along front lines.

Gunner Dion, of the 5th light artillery regiment based in Valcartier, Que., was killed shortly after 9 a.m. as his tracked armoured vehicle left a forward operating base in the Zhari district.

The destination was not to any battleground, but rather the Kandahar Air Field, where soldiers suffering the rigours of life on forward operating bases can get a few days rest and relaxation.

The troops in the vehicle, known as a TLAV, had not had any breaks this holiday season and were part of a rotation that is set to return home to Canada by March.

All of the four injured, who have not been identified by the military, are said to be in stable condition.

"This is a very difficult time for the family and friends of Gunner Dion, and our thoughts are with them," Brigadier-General Guy Laroche said in a statement.

Canada's top commander in Afghanistan added that his soldiers have generally had great successes in identifying and disabling roadside bombs. He described the TLAV, a modified version of an older armoured vehicle, as almost as good as the newer LAV IIIs.

Canadian soldiers had nearly gotten through the month of December without suffering a fatality. Improvised bombs have killed the majority of the Canadian soldiers who have died in Afghanistan since the mission began.

News of the latest death sparked only the briefest pause among the Canadian soldiers taking part in Operation Winter Storm yesterday as they searched nearby villages for Taliban fighters without finding any. The troops in the field expressed frustration they were after an enemy that appeared to be running away from them.

The teams did seize weaponry from the villages without suffering any casualties.

Suspected anthrax kills 8 Afghans who ate camel

Updated Sat. Dec. 29 2007 11:36 AM ET

The Associated Press

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Eight Afghans who ate an infected camel as part of a religious celebration died of what health experts suspect is a rare case of naturally occurring anthrax, officials said Saturday.

The deaths, in the southwestern province of Nimroz, included two women and an infant, said Dr. Abdullah Fahim, an adviser to Afghanistan's health minister. Ten others fell sick.

Officials cannot say positively that the deaths were anthrax related until laboratory results -- expected in the next two days -- are completed, said Fahim.

The outbreak began when two men in a remote area of southwest Afghanistan along the border with Iran tried to sell a sick camel, said Ghulam Dastagir Azad, the governor of Nimroz province.

Nobody bought the camel and the men instead killed it and distributed the meat to needy families, as is the custom during the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha.

The two men "were the first victims. They cooked the meat and 12 hours later they were dead,'' said Azad. "Then some of the families who cooked (the meat) in their homes became victims.''

Anthrax, an acute infectious disease caused by a spore-forming bacterium, occurs in wild and domestic animals like cattle, sheep, goats and camels, according to the U.S.-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It can also occur in humans when they are exposed to infected animals, or when anthrax spores are used as a weapon. Fahim said there is no evidence to suggest terrorism played any part in the outbreak.

Spanish king visits troops in Afghanistan: official

KABUL (AFP) — Spanish King Juan Carlos made a lightning visit to Afghanistan to visit troops serving with NATO-led forces in the west of the war-ravaged country, an Afghan official said.

The Spanish king travelled to the western city of Herat to meet with some of the nearly 800 soldiers serving in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), tasked with helping Afghanistan battle a Taliban-led insurgency.

"He's here for a short visit and will leave today," a high-ranking government official told AFP on condition of anonymity, as he was not authorised to speak to the media about the visit for security reasons.

The official could not give further details about the visit.

Leaders from Australia, France and Italy have recently visited troops serving in Afghanistan, at the end of the bloodiest year since the toppling of the Taliban regime in a US-led invasion in late 2001.

UN Afghan envoy warns on Pakistan

By Jon Boone in Kabul

Published: December 30 2007 16:10 | Last updated: December 30 2007

Turmoil in Pakistan is jeopardising the future of its war-torn neighbour, the outgoing United Nations special representative to Afghanistan warned on Sunday.

Speaking three days after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Pakistani opposition politician, and amid uncertainty about who will lead her party, Tom Koenigs said regional co-operation was one of four big challenges Afghanistan faced.

“With the destabilisation of Pakistan the peace in Afghanistan is also challenged,” the head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (Unama) said on the last day of his two-year stint in Afghanistan.

The former German diplomat also said Afghanistan would have to bolster its security, in part by creating a professional police force, tackling the booming drugs trade and extending the reach of government power into the countryside.

Mr Koenigs has been criticised by some members of the international community in Kabul for being ineffective, and in the last week of his tenure the UN’s mission was hit by the expulsion of one of its top political officers.

Mervyn Patterson, an Afghanistan expert working for Unama, was expelled from the country on Thursday for holding meetings before Christmas with anti-government figures in the troubled Helmand province.

The government said that Mr Patterson and Michael Semple, a top official working for the European Union in Afghanistan, had “threatened national security” by their actions.

On Sunday Mr Koenigs said Unama was not involved in any “intelligence operations”.

He also said that the “underlying assumptions from some elements within the Afghan government” about the men’s activities, which have included allegations that they made cash payments to Taliban fighters, were “misunderstandings”.

A successor to Mr Koenigs has not yet been announced, but Lord (Paddy) Ashdown has been tipped to take over the role with enhanced powers. Lord Ashdown, the former high representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, has been offered a job that would include acting as both the senior UN figure and as the top civilian representative of Nato, which is in charge of most military operations in Afghanistan.

It is hoped that a high profile statesman such as Lord Ashdown with increased powers would be better able to co-ordinate an international effort which despairing diplomats have described as “dysfunctional”.

Mr Koenigs said the country had a “very good co-ordinator, and that is the United Nations”. He also warned that co-ordination would only work if the different actors “allow themselves to be co-ordinated”.

Mr Koenigs said he was leaving the country with both hope and concern. “Afghanistan is moving from being a country decimated by decades of conflict to a progressive Islamic democracy, striving to improve the lives of its people,” he said.

“However, I share the same concern as the Afghan people for the security situation, particularly in the south of the country.”

UN calls for release of employee held in Afghan row

KABUL (AFP) — The top UN representative in Afghanistan called on authorities Sunday to free a local employee detained in a diplomatic row that also saw two foreign officials expelled.

The government last Thursday expelled two Western officials -- the second most senior European Union official in Afghanistan and a top UN political advisor here -- accusing them of threatening national security.

Kabul said an unknown number of the pair's Afghan colleagues had been arrested and were being questioned by authorities.

The UN representative to Afghanistan, Tom Koenigs, said the incident was a "misunderstanding" and called on the US-backed government here to free a local UN consultant arrested for links to the diplomats.

"We're certainly concerned that one consultant working for us is still in jail and we'll do everything to get him out," Koenigs said on the last day of his mission in Afghanistan, without giving details of the detained man.

The Afghan government has said the two expelled officials made contact with the Taliban during visits to the southern province of Helmand, a stronghold of the Islamic rebels.

One official said the two -- Irish national Michael Semple with the EU and Briton Mervyn Patterson -- had gaven money to the rebels.

Koenigs dismissed the charges against the United Nations Mission for Afghanistan (UNAMA) employee as "misunderstandings."

"We at UNAMA are not making intelligence operations. We've no money to pay to anybody because we don't make projects," he said, adding the UN was in talks with President Hamid Karzai's government to resolve the row.

Koenigs said he hoped that time and coordination between government bodies would clear the pair of the allegations.

Taliban seen losing support of Afghans

Allison Lampert, CanWest News Service

Published: Monday, December 31, 2007

Taliban insurgents are depending more on foreign fighters because of increased difficulties recruiting locals, Canadian Brig.-Gen. Marquis Hainse said Sunday.

Coalition forces have observed a greater number of Arabs and other foreign nationals among the insurgents killed recently during battles in Afghanistan's southern provinces said Hainse, the International Security Assistance Force's deputy commander at its regional command south.

While the Taliban has used foreign fighters for years, that reliance is increasing because of a local backlash by Afghans against the militant group, he said.

"There is more evidence of foreign fighters," Hainse told CanWest News Service in an interview. "These are signs for us that they (the Taliban) have a recruiting problem."

The Taliban movement is also said to have been plagued by an increasing number of defectors, even as its upper echelons were shaken by internal squabbles this week.

"Just the fact that the Taliban, or the insurgents, are showing a lot more interest in reconciliating with the government in the last couple of months, to me, is a good sign," Hainse said.

In a flurry of accusations, Taliban regional officer Mullah Mansoor Dadullah was said to have been ousted by supreme leader Mullah Omar for not abiding by the movement's rules. But Dadullah's spokesman, Muhibullah Mahajir, said the order didn't come from Omar, but was invented by rivals within the group, news reports said.

Last May, Mansoor Dadullah's brother -- high-ranking commander Mullah Dadullah -- was killed by NATO forces in Helmand province. Mahajir said the attack was carried out with support from some Taliban commanders, who are now trying to oust Mansoor Dadullah.

Although Mansoor Dadullah has never expressed an interest in abandoning the Taliban movement, the dispute exposes division among its leaders, which could potentially be exploited by coalition forces.

Officially, NATO says its forces won't negotiate directly with Taliban, referring them instead to Afghan government officials.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said he would accept reconciling with insurgents who agree to put down their weapons and embrace the country's constitution.

Last week, Karzai's government expelled a senior United Nations official and the acting head of the European Union's mission in Afghanistan for allegedly holding talks with the Taliban and giving the militants money. And in Britain, media reports have suggested the British secret service MI6 initiated talks with certain Taliban commanders last summer.

Hainse emphasized that coalition forces won't negotiate directly with insurgents, but will direct them to talk with Afghan leaders.

"We never get engaged in discussion with Taliban; we will never do this," Hainse said. "We do facilitate, if we hear . . . that certain individuals would like to reconcile."

Canada to focus on mentoring Afghan forces in 2008

Updated Sun. Dec. 30 2007 1:00 PM ET

Philip Stavrou, CTV.ca News

As Canada prepares for its sixth year in Afghanistan, there is growing consensus that the mission needs to focus on empowering the Afghan army and government with the tools to achieve independence.

An example of this is a small but growing number of Canadian troops heading to Kandahar next year that will find themselves in a mentoring role instead of on the front lines of combat.

Roughly 200 soldiers, under the umbrella of NATO's Operational Mentor and Liaison Team (OMLT), will arrive this February with the goal of helping to develop the Afghan National Army (ANA).

Col. Francois Riffou, the incoming commander of the Canadian forces mentoring program, has been preparing the new batch of soldiers since April 2007.

In an interview with CTV.ca, Riffou said many of the returning soldiers will have an adjustment to make since they are used to working in a combat role.

"Those soldiers now are going to be working with us and -- although we are there to mentor a fighting force and in some cases expected to fight side-by-side with that fighting force -- we really want to allow them to take the lead and my soldiers would stand back a little and coach them."

In mid-2006, about 65 Canadian troops first began mentoring a single Afghan National Army battalion, which consists of approximately 350 people on the ground.

Now, Canada has approximately 180 soldiers mentoring three units.

Last September, the Canadian task force also launched an initiative to bolster the local Afghan police.  The project is being done in consultation with the Afghan civilian authorities and the American-led Combined Security Transition Command -- a training outfit.

"We have about 60 soldiers right now deployed with police sub-stations," said Riffou.

"We're hoping that as we coach them in being a little more robust from a security perspective that they will eventually be able to do that one on their own -- and we won't need to be necessarily co-located with them 24-7 to provide that security mentorship."

Looking forward, Riffou said the eventual goal is to have the ANSF(Afghan National Security Forces) conduct their own security tasks without any assistance from external or international agencies.

But he cautioned that mentoring is an ongoing process which could take years.

"When I talk to my soldiers we talk about passing from mentoring, through to advising, through to liaison and eventually we'll be completely pulled away," he said.

"We're in the midst of the mentoring effort right now and as units become more proficient our efforts can be reduced and focused at other organizations."

Regarding the overall mission, Canada's Ambassador to Afghanistan, Arif Lalani, told CTV News that in 2008 the 'Afghanisation' of the country will be very important.

'Afghanisation' refers to "having Afghans more and more in the lead on their own governance, on their own development, with their own army and with their own police forces," said Lalani.

Another focus will be "on building up the institutions of the Afghan government so that they are more directly providing services throughout the country."

Lalani recognized that there are still many challenges facing the country, including the recapturing of some areas by the Taliban. But he said great gains have also been made in the past year.

"I think we've had a very successful military year alongside the Afghan army and there are a number of local leaders and commanders who are wondering about their future and are thinking about laying down their weapons and working on a new Afghanistan," he said.

Lalani said Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai is open to holding discussions with those members of the Taliban.

"Those Taliban and terrorist leaders... who are willing to lay down their arms, to renounce violence, to accept the Afghan constitution are welcome to return and help rebuild the new Afghanistan," he said.

But some critics say Canada needs to do more to encourage the Afghan government to negotiate with its enemies.

"I see very little diplomacy going on," Louis Delvoie, Canada's former high commissioner to Pakistan in the early 1990s, told The Canadian Press in a recent interview.

"Much of the diplomacy seems to be focused on developing relations with other NATO countries as opposed to bringing the Afghan government along in certain directions, which might make it more congenial to its own population and might make it more congenial to neighbouring Pakistan, among others."

For Col. Dennis Thompson, who will take over command of Joint Task Force Afghanistan in early 2008, success will be measured by the advancement of the Afghans.

Thompson told CP that later next year if his counterpart, an Afghan brigadier-general, is "confident that he can perform his function" by providing a better level of security then it will be mission accomplished.

"We have learned we really have to take a comprehensive approach. This is not just a gunfight," said Thompson.

In Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has commissioned a panel to advise the government on what Canada should do in Afghanistan once its commitment to the NATO mission ends in 2009.

Harper told CTV News in a year-end interview that he hopes to keep troops in the country until 2011, but will await the recommendations of the panel in January.

Harper said that once the panel releases its findings, he'll put a resolution before Parliament on whether to extend Canada's military commitment past early 2009.

"Realistically, by the end of spring that decision would have to be made," he said.

There are nearly 2,500 Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan. There are also about 26,000 U.S. troops and 7,800 British troops.

Al-Qaeda and Taliban have apparently shifted focus

The Assault of Suicide-Bombers in Pakistan and Afghanistan

ByINSS: Yoram Schweitzer   Monday, December 31, 2007

During the past year, al-Qaeda and the Taliban have apparently decided to shift the focus of their suicide actions to the Pakistan-Afghanistan theater.

That does not mean that al-Qaeda and its affiliates have abandoned the use of suicide terror in other places, and they continue to carry out suicide attacks elsewhere, especially in Iraq and recently even in Algeria.

Still, the resort to this mode of action in Pakistan and Afghanistan is clearly on the rise.  The murder of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto by a suicide assassin represents the peak – probably only temporarily – of the assault going on in Pakistan for over a year.  The previous attempt to kill Bhutto, about two months ago, was also carried out by two suicide bombers who blew themselves up near the convoy taking her from the airport following her return to Pakistan after eight years in exile.  They failed in their primary mission but did kill about 150 other people.  Another suicide bomber also blew himself up inside a mosque during Eid al-Adha and killed about fifty people.  These attacks are a clear manifestation of the severe deterioration in security that Pakistan is experiencing.  They also reflect the total rejection of any self-restraint by al-Qaeda and its affiliates, who have no reservations about mass murder even of other Muslims in places of worship during holidays, when any acts of war or bloodshed are strictly forbidden.

Pakistan, which played a central role in building up the Taliban and indirectly helped al-Qaeda, was itself spared any suicide attacks until 2002, apart from one such bombing in 1995 at the Egyptian consulate in Karachi.  And between 2002 and 2006, there were several such attacks each year, some directed against foreigners but most stemming from confessional conflict and directed against the Shi’ite minority.  However, in 2007, and especially in the second half of the year, there was a sharp rise in the number of suicide attacks.  These were mostly directed against the security forces and other government targets.  Thus far, there have been about 50 attacks, resulting in hundreds of casualties.  One explanation for this huge escalation is apparently the decision by al-Qaeda and the Taliban to force Pervez Musharraf out of power by attacking him directly or at least destabilizing his regime, because they see him as a collaborator with their enemies in the west, especially the United States.  The direct confrontation with Musharraf came to a head in July 2007, following the Pakistani army’s assault of the Red Mosque in Islamabad, where Islamic extremists were holed up.  That attack led to the deaths of dozens of radicals, including Abdul Rashid Ghazi, who ran the mosque along with his brother Abdul Aziz.  In a videotape released after the incident, Usama bin Laden labeled Musharraf an apostate collaborator with the enemies of Islam and called for his liquidation.  And in one of his latest videotapes, bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, demanded the liquidation of Bhutto.  His demand was met, even if it turns out that al-Qaeda was not directly involved, and it can be assumed that bin Laden’s appeal will also prompt continuing attempts to answer it.

Along with the assault in Pakistan, there has also been an upsurge in the use of suicide-bombers by the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and local jihadi groups in Afghanistan.  During the ten years of struggle against the Soviet occupation (1979-1989) and even until 2001, Afghanistan did not experience a single suicide bombing.  Only in September 2001, two days before the 9/11 attacks, did al-Qaeda send two assassins to liquidate Massoud Shah, the head of the Northern Alliance and Taliban’s most dangerous enemy.  From then until 2004, there were sporadic suicide attacks averaging about five each year.  But since then, the phenomenon has expanded and reached a peak in 2006-2007, when there were about 120 attacks each year, causing hundred of casualties.  More than anything else, the current coordinated suicide assault in Pakistan and Afghanistan signifies the revival of al-Qaeda and the Taliban after they were forced to give up their bases of power and flee to the Afghan-Pakistan border area as a result of the war on terror launched by the international coalition of forces in late October 2001.

It is noteworthy that in most other Middle East countries – apart from Iraq – security forces have learned to deploy more effectively against suicide bombings carried out by al-Qaeda and its affiliates.  Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco and Algeria – notwithstanding the two recent bombings in Algiers – have foiled most bombing attempts and the networks that prepared have been neutralized.

It may well be that the security forces of Pakistan and Afghanistan were surprised by the extent and intensity of the suicide attacks and that they are still at the stage of developing appropriate responses to the challenges they face.  Given the cumulative experience of other states facing similar threats, it is possible that they, too, will find a way to reduce significantly the dimensions of the problem by cooperating with others and learning from their experience.

The relative success of other security forces in limiting the activities of suicide-bombers does not allow them to rest of their laurels.  Even if al-Qaeda and its partners have turned their attention and resources to the Pakistan-Afghanistan theater, other states in the Middle East, the Gulf and Europe will very probably again become targets in the future. That intention is expressed in Zawahiri’s videotapes, and recently even by bin Laden himself.  Indeed, al-Qaeda’s current distress in Iraq may well prompt its leaders to capitalize on the investment they have made in their campaign there and redirect their forces, including new recruits from among the “graduates” of Iraq, to the next missions of the global jihad around the world.  As a result, al-Qaeda and its affiliates may soon shift their operational center of gravity to other old-new arenas.  As in the past, their activity will almost certainly focus on suicide-bombings, not just as an effective modus operandi and trademark but primarily as proof of their dedication to the “path of God.”

Building proper peace in Afghanistan - and fast

By Liam Fox - Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 30/12/2007 – The Telegraph

The brutal murder of Benazir Bhutto has been a harsh reminder of the global terrorist threat we face. Pakistan and next door Afghanistan are the front line in the battle against the Islamic extremism which threatens to engulf the region and beyond.

It is too easy, when we are wearied by the problems facing our forces both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, to forget the crucial importance to our national security of a successful outcome there. The task facing the Afghan government and the international community remains daunting.

For a start, the writ of the government does not extend to many parts of the country, especially the south. Authority lies in the hands of tribal leaders or warlords, and the border which looks so tidy on the map is almost meaningless in practice.

It is porous to insurgents entering the country to do battle or drug smugglers leaving with their narcotic hauls.

The military face a fluid enemy in an area so poor that it is often more attractive for a subsistence farmer to take up arms for the Taliban for a few dollars a day than to try to scrape a living from the land.

Benazir Bhutto's murder reinforces some fundamental principles - above all the fact that in the struggle against extremism, there are elements which cannot be appeased and must be defeated.

They hate all who do not share their twisted outlook and they make no differentiation between nationalities. They will kill Muslims in Saudi Arabia as readily as Westerners in New York. We cannot choose not to take them on because they have chosen to take us on - the forces of democracy and progress, whether in London, Rawalpindi or Kabul.

It is against this backdrop that any argument about dealing with "the Taliban" must be considered. We need to be precise about the terms. Who, exactly, do we mean by the Taliban? Who would they be negotiating with, and what would any discussions be about?

The Taliban does not describe a tidy regiment with whom to do orderly business. Membership ebbs and flows, dependent on the seasons, the economy, and who is perceived to be winning in the country overall. After decades of violence, it is attractive to back whoever you believe will be the eventual winner.

Anyone who has visited British troops in Afghanistan recently will know they understand, better than anyone, that soldiers can win the battles but that ultimately economics and politics will have to secure the peace. That is why a concerted approach to reconstruction and to the political situation is essential.

Both the reconstruction efforts and a sensible solution to the narcotics trade urgently require grip and coordination at the top. We simply cannot afford a UN agenda, an Afghan agenda, a Nato agenda and an EU agenda which are all, however marginally, different from one another. It guarantees crossed wires and mixed messages, as last week's diplomatic spat showed.

That is why David Cameron, since his first trip to Afghanistan, has consistently called for a single senior figure who could ensure coordination between the government of Afghanistan, the appropriate security agencies and the key international players.

We also need to be clear about our terminology. Holding talks with tribal leaders, many of whom are likely to have been Taliban leaders in the past, is essential - they constitute the de facto government in the region.

It is also essential that our security forces gather important information to help with tactical and strategic decision-making. If there are contacts or talks they must reinforce and not undermine the writ of the Afghan government - they must be properly coordinated with it and they must occur at a local level.

But there are crucial differences between such contacts and negotiations. Engagement is always to be encouraged but not if it is bought at the surrender of basic moral principles.

A negotiation implies compromise. And there are principles on which we plainly cannot compromise with those who strap suicide bombs on young men and women.

Have we forgotten how basic human rights were abused by the savage Taliban regime? Has it escaped our notice that our presence in Afghanistan at all is due to the Petri dish of international terrorism that the Taliban had created?

People who have nothing have nothing to lose and are more likely to take chances. Those who have prosperity and security will not lightly gamble with it. We must deny the Taliban the breeding ground for its support by giving ordinary Afghans a real stake in their country.

We are currently doing this too slowly, as though we have learned nothing from the lessons of Iraq. Yet only with the success of this project can we hope to stem the flow of those outsiders who come to Afghanistan to propagate their political and religious extremism, destabilising the country, the region and beyond.

These are complex issues and do not lend themselves easily to the soundbite culture of contemporary politics.

The Prime Minister is right to say we will not negotiate with the Taliban, but his own recent spin that he was going to change strategy created potentially dangerous confusion.

We need to speak with one voice, with a single message and to mutually agreed partners. The potential prize is too important and the sacrifices already made too great for us to allow poor coordination to get in the way. We need leadership and we need it quickly.

• Liam Fox is shadow defence secretary.

Afghan Guantanamo prisoner dies of cancer: US military

MIAMI (AFP) — An Afghan suspect branded "an experienced jihadist" died of bowel cancer at the US prison camp for "war on terror" detainees in Guantanamo Bay, the military said Sunday.

Abdul Razzak, aged about 68, was pronounced dead on Sunday morning after receiving chemotherapy for cancer since October, a US military public affairs office in Miami said in a statement, giving the cause as colorectal cancer.

"Abdul Razzak was assessed to be an experienced jihadist with command responsibilities and was assessed to have had multiple links to anti-coalition forces," said the statement from the Miami base that oversees the camp in Cuba.

"He was detained in Guantanamo as an enemy combatant, consistent with the international law of armed conflict." Razzak was born in 1939, in Kandahar, Afghanistan, according to the Defense Department.

His was the first confirmed case of death from natural causes at the prison. The deaths of three captives in 2006 and another this year are being investigated after initial findings of suicide.

Guantanamo is home to about 275 detainees seized in various countries during the US "war on terror" that was launched after the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.

It was not clear whether Razzak's remains would be sent back to Afghanistan, but the military said the Afghan government had been notified.

"A cultural advisor and Imam are ensuring that the remains are handled in a culturally and religiously appropriate manner," the military statement said.

Afghanistan needs Muslim aid effort

Aunohita Mojumdar (Al Jazeera) - In the second of a two-part exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, Daan Everts, the special civilian representative of Jaap de Hoop Schaeffer, Nato secretary-general, criticises Arab and Islamic countries for not doing enough in rehabilitating Afghanistan.

Everts, who officially demits his office on December 31, also says the Taliban could have a played a political role in Afghanistan.

Al Jazeera: You have mentioned the American point of view several times. Do you feel reconstruction in Afghanistan has been circumscribed by American political interests?

Everts: No. I am much more positive than others about US involvement in Afghanistan. Certainly, they have gone further on the road to integrating civilian and military efforts. They are of course dominant and you can't blame them because they provide the bulk of forces and the bulk of the financial aid.

So there may be criticism sometimes about ways and behaviour but I would be the last to throw a stone seeing that the efforts of others are so marginal in comparison.

Do you feel Europeans are too politically coy about expressing their views because they are so dominated by the US?

I don't know what explains the relatively junior role of the EU. There is this issue of internal decision-making; it is not easy to get 27 nations on one line. America, of course, was psychologically much more motivated to move and act in Afghanistan. Anything that can be linked to 9/11 can be counted on to generate huge political interest.

The EU does express its views but it doesn't have the clout. It is fractured not just because of the EU decision-making process but also by this regionalised provincial pre-occupation of member states – that has not helped a strong European presentation on issues.

More worrisome, I think, is the absence of others – non-European, non-American actors. I find that somewhat dismaying. Afghanistan is a geopolitically important country that can only become more important, being right at the cross-roads – the axis of central Asia, south Asia, west and the east. It has a strategic location and vast resources of minerals and energy - it is all here.

But I see no strong effort in the non-Western world to join the overall stabilisation effort. The whole task of trying to bring the country back on its feet and restoring security – by tackling the forces of the extremism and intolerance – why is this burden not more widely shared. Where is the Muslim world?

Sure, they provide some assistance. But why is there not more international interest? Why is it not a big priority with the UN?

The whole of Afghanistan does not seem to figure in the top of the priorities list in New York. I have been disappointed by the lack of focus from non-Western players. Maybe they consider this too much of America's business. But this is not good because Afghanistan's future is an issue of worldwide concern. I would like more of the UN to be here - like the UN police- and other countries to become stakeholders here and not sit on the fence watching.

So having more of a Muslim participation in the overall stabilisation - not just handing out some cash - but a larger presence in the international support effort would be beneficial. This also calls for de-emphasising the Western role here and to heighten the UN world-wide character and the Afghan ownership.

It is not easy to ask people not to be proud of what they do or claim success and it is probably needed for the home constituency. To be self-effacing is rare especially for prominent states but that is what is called for.

This is a real test case of cooperation between the non-Muslim and Muslim world, both of them in defence of modern Islam and against a very regressive variant that is a threat to mainstream Islam.

That's why we expect a lot more support from the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Countries) or the Arab League. They should see the great joint interest here to bring stability to Afghanistan; and to throw the Taliban back to where they belong, in the middle ages.

They should take a greater interest and a larger share. That would be perfectly all right. Take co-ownership. 

This is ironic that we are here in defence of mainstream Islam. This is the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. And in the hours of need why are non-Muslim states taking the main share of the burden?

There are some efforts, of course, financially, but political support has been very lukewarm, maybe because it is perceived as US dominated intervention. But this is not right. This is UN-mandated.

Of course there is this fundamental mistake of mixing it up with Iraq – the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) mission is a very different venture – Muslim nations should make that distinction.

Do you think the Taliban should have been involved in the reconciliation conferences in Bonn in 2001?

This is a hard question. There are two views on it. The easy position is they should have been there – and you would not have driven them underground and into insurgency. Whether at the time of Bonn - an extremely emotional time after 9/11 - you could have had them in the Bonn conference and whether the Afghan side would have accepted them, I don't know.

On the other hand when I see how former enemies and opponents sit together in this Afghan parliament and in this government – you have communists and war lords – they are able to live together [and] work together. It wouldn't be beyond comprehension if you could have had the Taliban there – maybe not in Bonn but subsequently.

What we hear from the Taliban – directly and indirectly - is 'give us an opportunity to open an office, have a political wing, a future role in elections'. One should not be afraid of it because what we see is that support for Taliban has always been very low even in the south – so we could bring them in the tent. Some say Bonn could have done it. But at that time for the hardliners that may have been a bridge too far.

But the Taliban were less about power sharing and more about deal making. Does the international community prefer to back individuals rather than a more equitable power sharing formula?

Yes, politics and governance are extremely personalised. This has been encouraged by the electoral system of a single non-transferable vote (SNTV) – it reinforced individualised dynamics. I don't think that has been helpful – it would have been better to have allowed more organised structures, more political actors like parties.

That has been done elsewhere with good results. [In Afghanistan], the result has been an extremely chaotic parliament. There are 248 talking heads with very little discipline and little organised deliberations that are meant to produce legislation which the country so badly needs.

We deliberately did this. To reinforce presidential position and power you weaken the parliament – understandable from the US perspective who felt that the country, given its history and shattered state of economy, needed a strong hand. 

This approach is very personalised and very centred on one person to be in command. I think it is asking too much of someone to do everything - to take on the whole of the international representation and being a sort of father of the nation and making all sorts of difficult decisions - that is very hard.

Like being everything to everyone …

Yes, but then you cannot be effective in governance. That is a structural choice which can be reconsidered. It needs another loya jirga [grand tribal council] to make constitutional adjustments.

Challenges ahead in Afghanistan

December 31, 2007, Sen. Lee Hamilton, Indy.com

In Afghanistan, 2007 draws to a close on the heels of two military victories. Afghan forces --with U.S. support -- expelled the Taliban from three districts near the Pakistan border in November. On Dec. 10, British and American troops regained control of a Taliban-held town in the opium-laden Helmand province.

These victories are not, however, causes for celebration.

Clearing villages in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, is something our military has never failed to do. The challenge is holding and building; winning popular support and depriving the Taliban of fertile ground upon which it can exercise its rapacious rule.

The present situation in Afghanistan is, to put it mildly, grim. The prospect of failure is rising, and policymakers consequently are engaged in top-to-bottom reviews of the mission.

Between November 2006 and May 2007 support for Taliban rule among Afghans doubled from 8 to 16 percent. Opium production has reached unprecedented levels. Violence is at a six-year high, rising 400 percent since 2002. American and NATO country casualties have risen.

Not only is violence on the rise, but the Taliban's tactics are changing in increasingly lethal ways. The number of suicide bombings in 2007 -- more than 140 -- has surpassed the total of the past five years combined, each one undercutting public confidence in a seemingly helpless government. And there is no shortage of volunteers for suicide missions, with a steady pool of candidates coming from across the Pakistani border.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, despite declaring a state of emergency on Nov. 3 with the stated goal of combating Islamist terrorism, has taken no serious action to eliminate al-Qaida and the Taliban's sanctuary in the border regions, an admittedly difficult task.

The tragic assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto last week could destabilize Pakistan itself, further undermining Musharraf's leadership and the state's ability to confront terrorism. It could also negatively affect the already tense and complex Afghan-Pakistani relationship.

As long as the border region remains a safe haven for terrorists, American and other NATO soldiers, as well as innocent Afghans, will remain vulnerable. This sanctuary's continued preservation could ultimately destabilize Afghanistan.

But Pakistan is not our only ally causing headaches. Some NATO partners operate in Afghanistan with "national caveats," severely restricting their combat roles, undermining NATO's unity and efficacy. Equally disconcerting, our allies' resolve is wavering.

NATO must respond to the upsurge in violence. More troops and funding are needed. Too much has already been invested in Afghanistan, the stakes are too high, and there is still a chance for success.

NATO's internecine fractures are symptomatic of a lack of coordination at the highest levels. NATO allies differ over eradicating Afghanistan's constantly expanding poppy fields. Britain gives its aid to the Afghan government, but the U.S. prefers to entrust its aid to American private contractors.

The appointment of a "super envoy" to oversee civil-military cooperation, rather than competing EU, NATO, and U.N. officials, and streamline relief efforts is long overdue. The super envoy could also bolster President Hamid Karzai's government, which is rife with corruption that saps the people's faith in their elected leaders. Economic development, social services and transparency at the local and federal levels are the keys to crippling the Taliban's support-base. We should prepare for a long-term commitment.

On the positive side, Afghanistan's domestic conditions are conducive to intensified operations. Seventy-one percent of Afghans want U.S. forces to stay, and 63 percent view Karzai favorably. As British and American troop levels in Iraq decrease and redeployment becomes a realistic option, there is an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to the task of bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan.

The American commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul has said that NATO's fate is tied to Afghanistan's. He is right. If NATO cannot summon the will to eradicate the Taliban and give Afghans an opportunity to achieve peace and stability, the alliance's value to the United States, Canada and Europe -- not to mention the rest of the world -- will be in doubt, and it will prove once again the old adage that Afghanistan is easy to invade, but difficult to pacify.

Connecting the dots in Afghanistan

National Post  Published: Saturday, December 29, 2007

I play a part in trying to stop a small but rapidly growing AIDS epidemic in Afghanistan, in conjunction with their Ministry of Public Health. Unchecked, AIDS could undo all the good that Canada has done there. The NATO conquest of the Taliban in Musa Qala, in Helmand Province, uncovered $500-million in drugs and 20 heroin labs. Afghans used to believe that drug addiction was the problem of other people. And since opium was smoked or drunk as a tea, diseases were not transmitted. But now Afghans shoot heroin, and this behaviour rapidly spreads AIDS. Demand for heroin in Europe and North America allows the Taliban and Afghan warlords to buy arms. Taliban members are also trained in Saudi-funded madrassas, where they link up with al-Qaeda. We buy Saudi oil. Meanwhile, Iran both arms the Taliban -- as recently acknowledged by Defence Minister Peter MacKay --and transports their drugs, as does Pakistan. Every population en route partakes in the habit, and AIDS spreads in new populations. Our government needs to connect the dots between terrorism, heroin, AIDS, oil, global warming and ourselves, to show Canadians why we have to stay in Afghanistan, and what else we have to do.

Dr. Richard Gordon, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

Afghanistan's wars woven into carpets

Kabul (AFP by Beatrice Khadige, Mon Dec 31 ) - The Soviet invasion of the late 1970s that drove Afghans into a long and bloody resistance has been recorded in this nation's favourite and most famous art form -- carpets.

Thousands of rugs have been produced, many depicting the hundreds of Red Army tanks that rumbled across the border or the flood of guns and choppers.

Today the best and oldest of examples of these unique "rugs of war" have found a place in the world's museums or private collections.

And there has been a series of exhibitions since the first in Turin in the 1980s by Italian Luca Brancati, who had by then collected 200.

Earlier this year the San Jose Museum of Quilts and Textiles in California presented an impressive collection; in Florida, more than 80 were on display until mid-December at the University of Miami.

The carpets represent "the greatest war art tradition of the 20th century," said Nigel Lendon, a specialist on the rugs who is a deputy director at The Australian National University School of Art.

"It is far more comprehensive than any of the other ways in which artists have reacted to war," he told AFP during a recent visit to Afghanistan for research.

Thousands of people have created the rugs in "20 or 30 different styles, 20 or 30 different parts of the country" and with a range of different reactions to the invasion, he said.

"We think of it as a genuine expression of people's reactions to their experiences of war."

Machineguns or helicopters, soldiers carrying guns or buildings destroyed -- the symbols of war are sometimes mixed with traditional patterns to create carpets in all sizes, colours and designs.

They were the only way for Afghans to express to the outside world the experience of those years of war, Lendon said, but they are are far from "war-mongering" or propagandistic.

"We should call them peace rugs, not war rugs, because they are about people's experience of the horror of war," he said.

Afghanistan is one of the world's biggest producers of carpets. It is an industry that employs more than a million people, about three percent of the active population, according to the US government's development agency USAID.

Carpets are so much part of Afghan culture that a US oil company negotiator was quoted as saying to Taliban representatives in government in the late 1990s: "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."

The first generation of war rugs show the 1979 Soviet invasion, including the April bombing of the western city of Herat that year that cost 25,000 lives, Lendon said.

Some of those carpets were produced in the areas around the city by nomadic Balouch tribes who were often on the move and used simple materials and techniques, he said.

The second generation of carpets was made in towns and cities and show a "complex interaction" with the world and a sense that they are "reaching beyond the boundaries of Afghanistan and speaking to people outside."

The Soviet defeat in 1989 plunged Afghanistan into years of internal conflict that brought the ultra-conservative Taliban to power in 1996.

The 2001 invasion of Western forces that drove them out reignited interest in the carpets -- which began to show large maps of the country or the Twin Towers in flames after the September 11, 2001 attacks that led the world back to Afghanistan.

The commander-in-chief of the US forces in the Gulf at the time, General Tommy Franks, ordered 100 identical carpets representing the "war against terrorism," Lendon said.

Today similar carpets can be found throughout the country. "They are made by hand but mass-produced and probably in terrible conditions because it is very difficult work," he said.

Lendon's research with colleague Tim Bonyhady, which is going towards a book, first took him to Iran where around a million Afghans fled after the Soviet invasion.

He found most of the exiles making carpets, but few produced war rugs. It was the same across the border in Herat, where the only carpets on sale were modern reproductions of ancient designs. "I think my impression was that the tradition is over," he said.

Lendon will see if this confirmed on a planned trip to the border town of Peshawar in Pakistan, which has also been home to hundreds of thousands of refugees who once turned their hand to Afghanistan's distinctive rugs of war.

[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.]