In this bulletin:

• 36 Taleban Militants Killed in Clashes Throughout Afghanistan
• Afghan police 'under-equipped'
• Dutch NATO soldier wounded in Afghanistan dies
• Report reassesses threat by al-Qaida
• Afghan governor on resurgent Taliban
• Afghan warlord urges Islamist revolt
• Canada commits $8 million to new Afghan projects
• Remarks By by Consul Gen. to Toronto Mr. W. Monawar on behalf of Amb. Omar Samad Delivered in Quebec, July 12
• Afghan justice on the defensive
• Change tune on war, PM told
• Support for Afghan intervention waning: poll
• New Afghan rhetoric a ploy to sway Liberals, defence watchers say
• An Afghan lesson in the Iraq mess
• UK soldier pleads not guilty to spying
• IDLO to train ministry officials
• Afghan-US statement on commercial cooperation signed
• Awaiting Takeoff in Afghanistan

36 Taleban Militants Killed in Clashes Throughout Afghanistan

By VOA News - 12 July 2007

U.S.-led coalition and Afghan troops have killed 36 Taleban militants in separate battles throughout the country. Afghan army general Mohaiddin Ghori says 20 rebels were killed in southern Helmand province following fighting and air strikes by multinational forces.

In a separate battle, coalition forces killed five Taleban fighters after an attack on police in Helmand's Sangin district. A coalition statement says one police officer was killed and another was wounded when police hit a landmine during the fight.

Meanwhile, a local police chief says a rocket landed at a shop, killing a young boy and injuring a man.  It is unclear whether the rocket was part of the firefight.

In Uruzgan province, the U.S.-led coalition says 11 Taleban were killed after militants ambushed Afghan and U.S. troops. There were no reports of any coalition deaths in the clash.

Also, Afghan officials say six police officers are dead after a roadside bomb struck their convoy in eastern Khost province.

And, a British NATO soldier was confirmed killed in a military operation in southern Afghanistan.  The death brings the number of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan to 64 since the start of military actions in 2001.

Afghan police 'under-equipped'

By Pam O'Toole - BBC News

A senior American army officer in Afghanistan says that only about 40% of the police force is properly equipped. But he said resources are now in place to solve the problem.

Speaking at the end of his tour of duty, Maj-Gen Robert Durbin said much progress had been made in building the fledgling army and police force.

There are currently around 35,000 operational troops in the Afghan army, with plans for those numbers to double by the end of 2008.

The 70,000 strong police force is due to increase to 82,000 in the same period of time. The Afghan army and police have borne the brunt of attacks by Taleban-led insurgents over recent years.

But while the army is relatively well equipped and trained, Maj-Gen Durbin - the outgoing head of the section of the coalition which is training the army and police - said only around 40% of police force is properly equipped.

He attributed this to the fact that until 18 months ago, the international community had provided almost $2bn for reforming Afghanistan's army, but less than a tenth of that had been invested in the police force.

Maj-Gen Durbin said resources were now beginning to come in to properly equip the police.

Last year a US government report concluded the Afghan police were largely incapable of carrying out their law enforcement responsibilities because of corruption, illiteracy, low pay, bad equipment, the insurgency and insufficient training.

Many Afghans said they have lost confidence in the force, alleging that many policemen top-up their pay - which at $70 a month is about a third less than that of an army recruit - with bribes from petty criminals or from drug smugglers.

Afghans have accused the police of rampant corruption and being involved in extortion, kidnapping and robbery.

There are now moves to increase police salaries - and the US has said that reforming the force is now one of its top priorities.

Dutch NATO soldier wounded in Afghanistan dies

Kabul (AFP) - A Dutch soldier wounded in a suicide attack on a NATO convoy in Afghanistan died of his wounds a day later at a military hospital in the Netherlands, NATO said on Friday.

The 24 year-old was wounded with seven other NATO troopers in the attack in southern Uruzgan province on Wednesday, which also took the lives of 17 civilians, a dozen of them schoolboys.

"A soldier who was serving with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) died at Central Military Hospital in Utrecht, the Netherlands," said a military press statement.

He was transported to his home country with three colleagues who also suffered injuries in the same attack. The death brings the number of Dutch soldiers killed in Afghanistan to nine since the beginning of the ISAF mission, said the Dutch defence ministry. The three are in stable condition, added the ministry.

A total of 111 foreign soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan this year. In 2006 191 foreign troopers were killed in the Taliban-led insurgency against the Afghan government and its western backers.

There have been more than 70 suicide attacks in Afghanistan this year, compared with about 140 in all of 2006. Most are aimed at the security forces but civilians are usually the primary victims.

The violence has intensified this summer with major battles across the country. About 3,000 people have been killed in 2007, most of them rebels, according to statistics compiled by AFP.

Report reassesses threat by al-Qaida

Authoritative review sees stepped-up efforts, capability - Associated Press

July 13, 2007 - WASHINGTON -- Al-Qaida is stepping up its efforts to sneak terror operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment.

The draft National Intelligence Estimate is expected to paint an ever-more-worrisome portrait of al-Qaida's ability to use its base along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border to launch and inspire attacks against the United States over the next several years.

Yet, the government's top analysts concluded that U.S. soil has become a harder target for the extremist network, thanks to worldwide counterterror efforts since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Among the key findings of the classified document, which is still in draft form and remains to be approved by all 16 U.S. spy agencies:

• The U.S. will face "a persistent and evolving terrorist threat" within its borders over the next three years. The main danger comes from Islamic groups, especially al-Qaida, and is "driven by the undiminished intent to attack the homeland and a continued effort by terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities."

• Al-Qaida is probably still pursuing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and would use them if its operatives developed sufficient capability.

• The terror group has been able to restore three of the four key tools it would need to launch an attack on U.S. soil: a haven in Pakistan's tribal areas, operational lieutenants and senior leaders. It could not immediately be learned what the missing fourth element is.

• The group will bolster its efforts to position operatives inside U.S. borders. U.S. officials have expressed in public concerns about the ease with which people can enter the United States through Europe because of a program that admits most Europeans without visas.

The document also discusses increasing concern about individuals inside the United States who are adopting an extremist form of Islam.

On a positive note, analysts concluded that increased international efforts over the past five years "have constrained the ability of al-Qaida to attack the U.S. homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11."

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative written judgments that reflect the consensus long-term thinking of senior intelligence analysts.

Government officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the report has not been finalized, described it as an expansive look at potential threats within the United States and said it required the cooperation of a number of national security agencies, including the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security Department and National Counterterrorism Center.

National security officials met at the White House yesterday about the intelligence estimate and related counterterrorism issues. The tentative plan is to release a declassified version of the report and brief Congress on Tuesday, one official said.

Ross Feinstein, spokesman for National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, declined to discuss the document's specific contents. But he said it would be consistent with statements made by senior government officials at congressional hearings and elsewhere.

The estimate echoes the findings of another analysis prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center this year and disclosed publicly Wednesday. That report - titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West" - found that the group is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," a counterterrorism official familiar with the reports findings said.

Yesterday, news of the counterterrorism center's threat assessment renewed the political debate about the nature of the al-Qaida threat and whether U.S. actions - in Iraq in particular - have made the U.S. safer.

At a news conference, President Bush acknowledged al-Qaida's continuing threat to the and used the new report as evidence his administration's policies are on the right course.

"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on Sept. 11," he said. "That's why what happens in Iraq matters to security here at home."

Yet Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, said Iraq has distracted the United States. He said the U.S. should have finished off al-Qaida in 2002 and 2003 along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Instead, "President Bush chose to invade Iraq, thereby diverting our military and intelligence resources away from the real war on terrorism," Rockefeller said. "Threats to the United States homeland are not emanating from Iraq. They are coming from al-Qaida leadership."

Afghan governor on resurgent Taliban

Personally targeted for assassination by the Taliban, the governor of an Afghan province explains why the militants are regaining power and why Osama bin Laden still hasn’t been captured. NEWSWEK WEB EXCLUSIVE - By Dan Ephron, July 12, 2007

July 12, 2007 - One of the areas in Afghanistan that's seeing a resurgence of the Taliban recently is Kapisa, a small province about 20 miles northeast of Kabul. In the past few months alone, Taliban fighters have regrouped in Kapisa's district of Tagab and staged several attacks. They're also targeting the governor of Kapisa, Abdul Sattar Murad, who is among Afghanistan's most capable politicians. NEWSWEEK's Dan Ephron sat in recently on meetings Murad held with U.S. military officers coordinating reconstruction projects in his province. American-educated and a veteran of the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Murad worked under President Hamid Karzai, who later signed his appointment as governor. After his meetings, Murad sat down with Ephron for this interview. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Why is the government losing ground to the Taliban?
Adbul Sattar Murad: This phenomenon is happening all over the country and there are many factors, external and internal … Some strong figures in Pakistan are behind these increased activities of terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, ISI [Pakistan’s intelligence service] in the past was involved and still some of the officers of ISI are involved now in promoting Talibanism in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan. In terms of internal factors, the government cannot deliver, and this is a problem. As a governor, I'm not supposed to say this, but I see that we cannot deliver what we're expected to. In remote parts of the country there is practically a vacuum of authority, a vacuum of power. Somebody will have to fill that vacuum. Either the criminals fill that vacuum or the Taliban and Al Qaeda do.

Why would elements of ISI be interested in destabilizing Afghanistan?
Unfortunately, ISI from the very beginning had the idea of having an orthodox state in Afghanistan, backwards, and then using it in the wars against India and Kashmir, recruiting and creating an army of these zealots and sending them to Kashmir. They were pursuing this policy during the era of the Taliban, but that tendency within the ISI still remains. They don't want to see a strong, stable and developed Afghanistan.

But the United States works with President Pervez Musharraf and views him as a key ally.
Those elements are not under his control … Musharraf is himself a target for them right now.

And you said the Afghan government cannot deliver. Why is that?
What's missing is leadership. Afghanistan at this critical moment of its history, we don't have a leadership that can unite the national leaders, which can see the needs of the people and respond to them. All the political parties are now drifting away from the national leadership. All over the country, the people are distancing themselves from the government … Many of the elders, those who have influence, feel they have been left out and are not in the same convoy with the government.

You mentioned being targeted yourself by the Taliban.
The Taliban is targeting me right now and planning to assassinate me by a suicide bomber or a car bomb. We're trying to resist and trying to keep a low profile.

How do you do that?
I changed my routines, my times of going and coming. I change my vehicles frequently. I don't reveal the times of my meetings to others. I have increased security wherever I go. For example, I'm sitting here right now and many people cannot enter the building freely.

Why, after six years, has the United States been unable to locate Osama bin Laden and his deputies?
The U.S. is not receiving full cooperation from Pakistan. Pakistan is cooperating, but the ISI faction, which knows where Al Qaeda is, is not really forthcoming to U.S. intelligence. Inside Afghanistan, there is also a lack of cooperation. The recent resentment created among former leaders who were involved in the war against the Taliban has created a gap between the government and these people, and this is naturally hurting the efforts to find Al Qaeda. Americans, again, are not receiving good information from those leaders, who can play a key role in capturing Mullah Omar and Osama, if he is in Afghanistan. Unless there is a change in this situation, you will see this gap increase day by day.

You're saying there might be various figures in Afghanistan who know where Al Qaeda figures are hiding but aren't cooperating?
Yes. Let me give you an example. People in the present government, particularly some of the ministers or their colleagues, they paint all the people who fought against the Taliban and the Soviets as warlords. They don't differentiate between a good and a bad warlord. They paint everyone in black. Now, [the warlords] feel threatened, so they keep their distance and they don't cooperate. And if they don't cooperate, no one in Al Qaeda is going to be found.

How satisfied are you with the level of U.S. support for the reconstruction of Afghanistan?
I really from my heart appreciate the role the U.S. government is playing in that regard. In my province, particularly, the PRT [the Coalition's Provincial Reconstruction Team] is playing a crucial role. From the time I became governor two and a half years ago, the PRT has been a great supporter of my development plans.

How long do you envision U.S. and NATO forces remaining in your country?
It depends how we conduct ourselves. If we plan well and conduct ourselves well, Afghanistan will develop quickly and have its institutions in place to take care of its own affairs. In that scenario, the U.S. would decrease its presence. But in any event, I think the U.S. will remain in Afghanistan for quite some time, and Afghans are very thankful for it.

What do you tell an Afghan citizen in your province who thinks America is just another occupying power, like the Soviets and the British?
Thank God, that image is not widespread in Afghanistan. Afghans see Americans as a helping force, not an occupying force in the country. A few people have that view but they are a small minority.

Can you envision a situation where the Taliban returns to power?
Really not. The people of Afghanistan hate the Taliban.

Civilian casualties are on the rise here as result of U.S. and NATO operations. How does that impact Afghan public opinion?
The impact is negative. People resent it, and it should be avoided. The problem is that there is no close cooperation between NATO and Afghan security agencies. They don't share intelligence, they don't conduct joint operations, they do things on their own. Two years ago a team of special forces came to the place where you and I are sitting and searched a house for three or four hours and didn't find anything. They confined the family to one or two rooms because they had some information about a cache. The people of Afghanistan are very traditional. And they came to me and said, “What's going on? Are you the governor or are Americans the governors?” I didn't know about the operation and neither did our chief of police. This was very bad for me. They didn't think of sharing this information with our intelligence officers. We have many intelligence officers, they work hard and know many things. The people wanted to protest in the thousands, but I persuaded them not to do that … But I believe for the future of this nation, it's very important to promote Afghan police and the Afghan army, to send them to the front while [U.S. and NATO forces] stay in the back and support.

I suppose American commanders would say in response that they would risk compromising missions by telling Afghan police about them ahead of time. Isn't that a concern?
That is a concern but it can be worked out. It's very simple. They could simply share the information with the top brass. These are technical issues.

There's a lot of talk in the U.S. Congress now of forcing the Bush administration to withdraw from Iraq. If that were to happen, how would it impact Afghanistan?
This would send the wrong signal to Al Qaeda all over the world. For Iraq, I'm afraid it would be a disaster. For Afghanistan, if that kind of atmosphere prevails, it would be very dangerous.

Do you believe American suggestions that Iran is helping arm the Taliban?
We hear that, but I don't believe it myself. Iran doesn't have very good intentions for Afghanistan, but sending arms? I think Iran would not dare to do that. They would fear a U.S. response. They want to see instability in Afghanistan and American troops getting killed. But sending arms? I don't believe it.

Afghan warlord urges Islamist revolt

Kabul - An Afghan warlord fighting US and Nato forces on Thursday condemned the Pakistani army raid on the Red Mosque and called on Muslims there to revolt against the US-backed government, a spokesperson said.

Veteran Islamic fighter Gulbuddin Hekmatyar charged that Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf "attacked the mosque to please (US President George) Bush," according to Hekmatyar's spokesperson Haroon Zarghon.

"We strongly condemn the brutal killing of innocent students by the Pakistani army in the Red Mosque," said the spokesperson for Hekmatyar, the one-time leader of the anti-Soviet Hezb-e-Islami and a former prime minister. "Musharraf martyred the students to please Bush."

Zarghon said Muslims were now left with no choice but to fight the "infidel powers" and their puppet governments, like Musharraf's.

Canada commits $8 million to new Afghan projects

Updated Thu. Jul. 12 2007 10:15 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff

Canada will provide $8 million towards three new projects that are aimed at helping promote the rule of law and enhancing the justice system in Afghanistan.

The three projects are being implemented by the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association, Rights and Democracy and CANADAEM.

"Today, Canada's New Government is partnering with trusted organizations to help Afghanistan make crucial legal reforms and build a sustainable foundation for the promotion of justice and the rule of law," International Cooperation Minister Josee Verner announced Thursday in a news conference.

"Canada's funding will help extend the scope of legal-judicial reform in Afghanistan to reach the most disadvantaged, including women and some of the most vulnerable elements of society."

The announcement came amid the results of a new poll that suggested Canadians are becoming more alarmed about the growing number of Canadian casualties in Afghanistan.

The Canadian Press-Decima Research poll found that 67 per cent of those asked felt the number of Canadians killed or wounded is unacceptably high -- even when considering whatever progress has been made rebuilding Afghanistan.

By contrast, only 25 per cent of those surveyed felt the casualties were acceptable.

The federal government's news release said the announcement builds on Canada's commitment at the Conference on the Rule of Law in Afghanistan earlier this month in Rome, when Canada announced more than $30 million in rule of law spending in Afghanistan.

The money announced Thursday will be allocated as follows:

• In total, $2.9 million will go to the ICDAA, which works with the International Legal Foundation-Afghanistan to provide legal services to Afghanistan's poorest. The new funds will help create an Afghan-run legal-aid service.

• Rights and Democracy will receive $5 million for a project to promote legal and policy reforms to improve the status of women through building local capacity to conduct research, advocate for family law reform and help raise public awareness.

• CANADEM will receive $680,000 for the deployment of an advisor to provides strategic advice to the Afghan Ministry of Interior regarding the enhancement of the role and representation of female police officers in both the MOI and the Afghan National Police.

Remarks By by Consul Gen. to Toronto Mr. W. Monawar on behalf of Amb. Omar Samad Delivered in Quebec, July 12

Honorable Minister Verner,

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am very happy to be in historic Quebec city today to welcome three new Canadian initiatives to help Afghanistan in the fields of rule of law and governance. Unfortunately, Ambassador Samad was unable to attend because of prior commitments in Ottawa, but he asked me to convey this message on behalf of the Afghan people and our government:

As you know, the rebuilding effort in Afghanistan is not only limited to the security mission or to building schools and roads, but touches upon all facets of nation and state building. This means rule of law, governance, human rights, democratization, infrastructure, de-mining, counter-narcotics and institution building among many others.

These efforts are not only being implemented by the government, but also by the private sector including NGOs and civil society who play an important role in creating public-private partnership opportunities.

No activity would be possible under current conditions without the serious engagement of the donor community. Canada has and continues to be a major contributor to Afghanistan in many of those fields. We thank you and value our strong bond of friendship.

Not only are we grateful for the critical role played by the brave men and women of the Canadian forces to stabilize parts of Afghanistan, and pay tribute to their sacrifices, but also for all others who help in the civilian sectors.

Today, we thank you for announcing three new initiatives spearheaded by Canadian NGOs that will be welcomed by our people. Each initiative will go a long way to build up institutions and capacities to defend the rights and improve the lives of Afghans, in particular those of the women of my country.

We thank Canada and your government for this announcement today and wish the NGOs success and stand ready to facilitate their work.

Afghan justice on the defensive

By MINDELLE JACOBS – The Sun group

Working as a criminal lawyer in Vancouver's squalid Downtown Eastside can be depressing, but at least you don't get thrown out of the courtroom just for daring to show up.

So it was quite shock for lawyer Roxane Vachon, who went to Afghanistan to help local lawyers defend poor citizens, to discover that defence lawyers were practically considered vermin.

When she first went to the troubled country in 2005, she and the Afghan lawyers she was mentoring were routinely tossed out of courtrooms and barred from prisons.

Defence lawyers were viewed at best as "a cute little novelty" or, at worst, with downright hostility, recalls Vachon, 40, who spent two three-month stints in Afghanistan.

Ordering Vachon and a local lawyer, out of the courtroom one day, one judge declared: "We don't need westerners here and we don't need lawyers."

Vachon left the courtroom, but only long enough to change tactics. During a break in the proceedings, she knocked on the door of the judge's office, invited herself for tea and explained she was training Afghan lawyers to help Afghans using local laws.

After hearing her out, the judge said he'd welcome her into his court anytime. "You've got to win them over one person at a time," says Vachon.

It seems to be working. The Taliban may still be trying to terrorize Afghanistan back into a barbarous theocracy but, thanks to Vachon and other international lawyers, the rule of law is slowly taking shape.

Yesterday, Ottawa announced almost $3 million in new funding for the initiative, which has been extended until 2010. The project, started in 2003, is run by the Montreal-based International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association (ICDAA).

The ultimate goal is to create an Afghan-run legal aid service that operates independently. The expectation is that by 2009, Afghanistan's legal aid system will be virtually autonomous, says Neil Burron, the ICDAA's Afghanistan project manager.

The organization runs legal aid offices in five Afghan cities and a sixth branch is scheduled to open by the end of the year. As of last month, international and local lawyers had helped more than 3,000 indigent Afghans.

Two more Canadian lawyers will go to Afghanistan over the next year to train their Afghan counterparts. After that, says Burron, the Afghans will be expected to run the offices with continued financial support from the Canadian government.

"We've created an industry of criminal defence lawyers in a country that didn't know the first thing about representing an accused," says Vachon

Sometimes, though, the defence lawyers don't find out about cases until it's too late. She recalls a woman who was charged with murdering her missing husband, although it was suspected he simply moved to Iran and remarried.

The woman's teen daughter was also charged with murder. All Vachon and her colleagues could do was get the daughter a shorter sentence in a juvenile jail. The mother, however, got life in prison.

"It's just heartbreaking," says Vachon. "Can you imagine spending the rest of your life in a dirt hole?"

Over the years, she has learned to be hyper-aware to stay safe. In 2005, a suicide bomber blew up her guest house, killing three people. She escaped unharmed.

Bombs exploded regularly in Kabul while she was there, but Vachon remained remarkably unrattled. Some of her fondest memories are of having tea on rooftop terraces. "It's not all sand and guns and death."

Change tune on war, PM told

ALAN FREEMAN - From Friday's Globe and Mail July 13, 2007

OTTAWA — The Harper government has been told to stop referring to “fighting terrorism” and the Sept. 11 attacks, and to banish the phrase “cut and run” from its vocabulary if it is to persuade a skeptical public that the military mission in Afghanistan is worth pursuing.

A public-opinion report says only 40 per cent of respondents across Canada, and almost none in Quebec, support the deployment. To change the perceptions, it recommends putting the emphasis on “rebuilding,” “enhancing the lives of women and children,” and “peacekeeping.”

The report to Foreign Affairs was prepared last month by The Strategic Counsel . It paints a bleak picture of weak public support for the military mission, for which the firm blames “unbalanced, mostly negative” media coverage of the war and misperceptions about the mission's purpose.

Only 40 per cent of Canadians support the mission, according to Strategic Counsel data. And the firm says the public views information from Ottawa “through a thick lens of cynicism.”

“They feel that much of what government says is propaganda, intended simply to appeal to the voting public and to spin stories in a positive manner,” the report points out.

The report is based on 14 focus-group discussions of two hours each, conducted in seven locations across Canada last November.

Canadians of different age groups from rural, urban and suburban regions of the country participated. Strongest support appeared among participants who were 36 and older. In Quebec – focus groups were conducted in Laval and Drummondville – “support was virtually non-existent.”

The report warns that the Afghan mission could be “a lightning rod” for the government. And because of “continuously negative” media reports on casualties and lack of results, the legitimacy of Canada's involvement could be questioned. “Suspicion and cynicism are taking hold in the absence of hard facts and positive stories about progress,” the report states.

“There is a growing belief that the government is trying to avoid talking about the issue to play down the grim reality that the mission is failing.”

The firm said the “communications landscape” is dominated by mounting casualties, and a feeling that “things are getting worse.” Many Canadians believe that the soldiers are part of a U.S.-led mission, and some even think Canada invaded Afghanistan.

Many respondents believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are a U.S.-led response to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

The report urges the government to promote the fact that Canada has highly professional troops who are “helping the people of Afghanistan” and “getting results even if it's difficult.”

The consultants say the public is divided into soft supporters, wafflers and strong opponents.

The soft supporters often see the mission as one of peacekeeping, and worry that there is no overall plan or clear markers for success.

Most of those consulted were viewed as wafflers, who are “unclear on exactly why Canadians are in Afghanistan, what they are doing and what we can expect to be accomplished.” While they support restoring human rights to Afghans, they are not sure how being in the country can benefit Canadians.

The report said the government needs to give the wafflers more “concrete examples of progress, focusing on the benefits for Afghan women and children.”

The strong opponents were in Quebec and among those between 18 and 35 years old. They believed that conflict is best resolved through peaceful means and that it is an American fight.

These Canadians believe that Afghanistan is “a hopeless cause,” whose economy is dominated by opium and will be reduced to chaos after the Canadians and other NATO forces withdraw. Strategic Counsel said little can be done to change these views, but efforts should be made to “blunt the edges of their opposition.”

The report states that the biggest communications challenge is to change the perception that the mission is a departure from Canada's tradition of peacekeeping. In fact, the authors claim the Afghan mission simply adapts peacekeeping to “the changing nature of global conflict.”

The firm recommends disseminating figures on the number of schools built, jobs created and poppy fields eradicated.

It also says the government should find spokespersons, including prominent Afghan women, the Afghan ambassador to Canada and “key Canadian journalists” committed to in-depth stories, naming The Globe and Mail's Stephanie Nolen and Radio-Canada's Céline Galipeau as examples.

The report did not say how these journalists could be persuaded to take on this role.

Support for Afghan intervention waning: poll

MURRAY BREWSTER - Canadian Press July 12, 2007

OTTAWA — A growing number of Canadians, especially in Quebec, say the rising death toll among troops in Afghanistan is too high a price to pay for helping the troubled country, suggests a new poll.

A Canadian Press-Decima Research survey shows 67 per cent of those asked believe the number of casualties has been unacceptable, a five-percentage-point rise from a poll taken a little over a month ago.

Only 25 per cent of respondents said the number of killed and wounded was acceptable, in a survey taken following the most recent deaths of six soldiers in a roadside bomb attack.

Bruce Anderson, CEO of Decima Research, said Canadians are clearly becoming more doubtful about whether progress is being made, in light of the deaths of 66 soldiers and one diplomat in Afghanistan.

“In the absence of more evidence of progress, and in the wake of still more deaths of Canadian soldiers, it's clear that discomfort with the mission is growing, and people are questioning whether the lives being lost so honourably are being lost in vain,” said Mr. Anderson.

Of particular concern to the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the result showing skepticism runs highest in Quebec, where 76 per cent said the sacrifice is unacceptable. This comes as the Royal 22nd Regiment — the famed Vandoos — prepare to take over the battle group in Kandahar next month.

“Given the importance of Quebec to the Conservatives in terms of trying to fashion a strong win in the next election campaign, the fact these numbers are deteriorating” should be cause for concern, said Mr. Anderson.

Even among the most ardent supporters of the war — people who identify themselves as Conservatives — doubt has crept in. The number of Tories who say the price tag has been too high increased by eight percentage points since the beginning of June, to 48 per cent.

Bloodied by the last 16 months of fighting in the deserts of southern Afghanistan, and with a year and a half left in the country's combat commitment, a respected historian said Canadians are at a crossroads.

“Canadians have to decide whether they want to win,” said Desmond Morton, a professor at Montreal's McGill University.

Mr. Anderson agreed that the latest deaths could mark a tipping point for Canadian involvement in war-torn region.

“Are we past the point where the confidence level can be restored?” he said.

“If we talk about restoring confidence to the point where Canadians would support an extension of the mission, we may well be past that point. However, circumstances can always change. The problem for Canadians is that they don't believe we can win this conflict.”

Mr. Harper has repeatedly hinted he may be prepared to end Canada's combat role when the current mission expires in February 2009, but said the question of an extension would be debated by Parliament, likely next year.

Prof. Morton says Canada has never lost a war and if Mr. Anderson's assessment of the public mind is correct, the country is setting itself up “for its first international humiliation of an unquestioned kind.”

Over the last few months, Prof. Morton said, he's often wondered whether the public is talking itself into defeat and if Canadians have the stomach to fight the way our parents and grandparents did during two world wars and the Korean conflict.

“It is sad when (casualties) happen,” the soldier-turned-historian said in a telephone interview.

“It was sad when it happened in 1944, in 1918 or 1917. In fact, in 1918 we suffered our heaviest casualties of the First World War, by far. Did anybody in Canada notice? No, because we were winning. If you pitch this war as a hopeless war we cannot win and every death is a needless sacrifice.”

The Conservative government and the military have often accused the media of placing more emphasis on casualties than accomplishments in Afghanistan, thereby eroding public confidence at home.

But a regional director the Senlis Council, an international research and development group that maintains a presence in the war-ravaged nation, said it's overly simplistic and easy to blame the media.

Canadians have every reason to be asking questions because the Harper government failed at the outset to properly explain the dangerous mission and more importantly to set measurable objectives, said Edward McCormick.

“There are good moral and ethical reasons for the Canadian Armed Forces to be in Afghanistan,” said the former Vancouver resident who now lives in Kandahar.

“There are good reasons for NATO to be there, but if they can't get that accountability and it isn't made plain and clear to all Canadians, then I think we're going to see in the near future more and more Canadians becoming very vocal about the unacceptable nature of this mission.”

The telephone poll of just over 1,000 people was conducted between July 5 and July 9 — after the most recent Canadian deaths in Afghanistan. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Prior to the last Parliamentary debate in April 2006, the Taliban publicly outlined their straightforward strategy for fighting their guerrilla war against Canadians.

“We think that when we kill enough Canadians they will quit war and return home,” said purported Taliban spokesman Qari Yuosaf Ahmed in an interview with The Canadian Press, conducted through a translator, over a satellite telephone.

Prof. Morton said the new poll is a reflection of the insurgent strategy, but doesn't mean they have won.

“They're very media savvy,” he said. The Taliban believe “democracies are frail, feeble organizations that crumble at the first hard knock.

“That's what Hitler believed, that's what Stalin believed. They all had a similar judgment about democracy. They were wrong. It's not surprising the Taliban would take up that judgment. They really do think of us as contemptible.”

New Afghan rhetoric a ploy to sway Liberals, defence watchers say

BILL CURRY - Globe and Mail Update July 13, 2007

OTTAWA — New plans for Canadian troops in Afghanistan are clearly aimed at pressing divided Liberals to support a mission beyond 2009, defence experts say.

Government and military officials are publicizing a change in focus to the mission that would see Afghan civilians move quickly through military training and onto the front lines. Direct combat by Canadian troops would be reduced as they switch to a supporting role for the emerging Afghan army.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently used the phrase “new mission” to describe any Canadian activity in Afghanistan beyond Parliament's commitment to February, 2009. His language expanded on previous comments, in which he said any military activity beyond 2009 would occur only with parliamentary consensus.

“I think he is genuinely reaching out to the Liberal Party,” said David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary. Dr. Bercuson predicted the Tory argument to the Liberals will be that a leading NATO country like Canada cannot pull out entirely from Afghanistan.

“I also think there are pressures within the military to take the emphasis off what is going on right now because the effort is humongous,” he said. “I don't think the military is unhappy with a change in focus in the mission.”

The executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations offered a similar take on the government's recent comments.

“They won't convince NDP,” Alain Pellerin said. “It's mainly for the Liberals. They're sort of split 50-50 to a large extent and I think there is a desire for a party that aspires to be the government again that they can't very well afford to say ‘We're leaving in 2009 and whether there's a NATO country that replaces or not, we're leaving.' It wouldn't be honest.”

If the Prime Minister was in fact reaching out, the Liberals were not in any mood Thursday to entertain the offer.

Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said he wants Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor fired and a 2009 exit plan in “black and white on paper” before discussing what might happen after 2009.

“We're saying we're getting out of the combat mission. Find another country,” Mr. Coderre said.

The Liberal MP said he can't trust the Prime Minister's latest comments about an end to the current mission because Mr. Harper previously said he opposed arbitrary deadlines.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said recent comments on the mission by Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier are confusing. The NDP will continue to insist on an immediate troop withdrawal, Mr. Layton said.

“To have the general musing about new approaches makes you wonder what we have a Minister of Defence for. What does he stand for?” he asked.

“I worry about the confusion that we're hearing here. It's looking a little too much like policy on the fly … and that should concern all Canadians.”

Gen. Hillier gave an interview to a Quebec City newspaper this week as soldiers from CFB Valcartier prepare for their first six-month tour to Kandahar beginning on Sunday.

Training Afghan soldiers to take on front-line combat assignments will be the main focus for Quebec troops, the general told Le Soleil.

However, direct combat will remain a part of the Canadian mission until more Afghan troops can be trained.

“Our priority is to move from a situation in which we lead the combats with the support of the Afghans to one where the Afghans lead the offensives with our support,” he said, estimating 3,000 Afghan soldiers will be in place by August.

An Afghan lesson in the Iraq mess

Toronto Star editorial - July 13, 2007

With every passing day, U.S. President George Bush faces new pressure from Congress to begin pulling troops from Iraq. The gathering storm in Washington, where even Republican support for the war is faltering, should spur Iraq's new government to get its house in order while it still enjoys American protection.

But Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has failed miserably to meet critical "benchmarks" Congress set out as a condition of U.S. support, the White House was forced to admit yesterday.

While Bush gamely insists "the battle in Iraq can and must be won," four years after an American invasion that has cost $450 billion and 3,000 U.S. lives Iraq still does not have a broad-based government that can credibly represent not only Shiites but also Kurds and Sunnis. Sectarian violence rages on. The Iraqi army is slowly rebuilding. And parliament hasn't yet passed needed laws permitting semi-autonomous regions to be set up, and guaranteeing each community a fair share of the country's rich oil and gas revenues.

While Bush's ill-considered rush to war was the cause of these woes, Congress's patience is running out and calls are multiplying for a pullout of U.S. troops. Al-Maliki and his cabinet should see the writing on the wall and stabilize the country while they still have foreign backup.

So, for that matter, should Afghan President Hamid Karzai's equally challenged regime. U.S. impatience with Iraq should prod Afghans.

Moreover, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government, too, must weigh all this during Parliament's summer recess. When Parliament resumes, so will debate over the success of Canada's $1.2 billion aid program, and over how our 2,500 troops should be redeployed when their combat mission in Kandahar ends in February 2009.

As the Star's Bruce Campion-Smith reported yesterday, Ottawa plans even before then to have our troops do less fighting and more training of Afghan counterparts.

This shift reflects a growing sense that Canada's losses, 66 troops and a diplomat, are unacceptably high, despite some progress rebuilding the shattered country. A Canadian Press/Decima Research poll released yesterday found 67 per cent feel the toll is too high, a 5-point jump in the past month.

So the pressure on Afghans to pull more weight can only grow. While the United Nations reports that Afghanistan is meeting its own benchmarks to bolster security, speed development and fight corruption and the drug trade, gaping holes are only too evident.

A fierce Taliban insurgency has posed "unexpected challenges," Karzai's office admits. That leaves American, Canadian and other allies paying a steep price to thwart a Taliban takeover in some regions, and to buy the government time to get its act together. The Afghan army and police need to play a much more active role, and quickly.

Moreover, even as Kabul promises to disband "all illegal armed groups" by March, 5,500 remain active. That is near-anarchy. And while development is "moving forward," more "tangible outputs and visible action" is needed, the UN says. Many Afghans see little progress. As for tackling corrupt officials and drug traffickers, there is currently "no information" on how many have links to the drug trade.

Like their Iraqi counterparts, Afghan leaders run a serious risk of seeing international support erode, unless they provide more effective, cleaner government, build up their military and police, disarm rogue elements and provide jobs and services to improve lives.

It is a tall order, to be sure. But Afghans need only look to Congress's debate on quitting Iraq to see the consequences of failure.

UK soldier pleads not guilty to spying

By Peter Graff - LONDON (Reuters) - A British soldier who worked as an interpreter for NATO's commander in Afghanistan pleaded not guilty on Friday to passing secrets to Iran in Britain's first spy trial since the Cold War.

Corporal Daniel James, 44, worked as an interpreter for British general David Richards, who commanded the 30,000-strong NATO force in Afghanistan until earlier this year. James has an Iranian mother and took British citizenship in the 1980s.

He is accused of passing secrets to an "enemy" -- Iran -- and is the first person charged with spying under the Official Secrets Act since 1984, when an MI5 officer was jailed for giving secrets to the Soviets.

Appearing on a videolink from jail, James told the Old Bailey he was not guilty of three separate charges -- that he engaged in wrongful conduct, passed secrets and possessed material to pass on.

"Your honour, I am a serving soldier. I wish to be court martialled by the army. I do not recognise this court," he said after entering his final not guilty plea. "I am an innocent man."

His indictment says he "for purposes prejudicial to the safety or the interest of the state, communicated to another person information calculated to be, or that might be, or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy."

The United States and Britain have accused Iran of meddling in the war in Afghanistan, where the two countries are the biggest members of a NATO force fighting Taliban guerrillas in the south.

The mainly Shi'ite government of Iran is not seen as sympathetic to the Sunni Taliban movement, but the Western allies say Iran would like to see its foes bogged down by fighting there.

IDLO to train ministry officials

KABUL, July 11 (Pajhwok Afghan News): The Rome-based International Development Law Organisation (IDLO) will train officials of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries in legal matters pertaining to the ministry.

The agreement reached between the two sides was inked by Deputy Minister for Commerce and Industries Ziauddin Zia and head of the IDLO Geralyn Busnardo during a ceremony here on Wednesday.

Speaking on the occasion, Zia said officials of the ministry would be trained by foreign experts in three phases - short term, medium term and long term.

He said IDLO was the premier organisation which would train the officials in legal matters relating to the ministry.

Addressing the ceremony, the IDLO head said that his organisation was aimed to reduce poverty by ensuring implementation of the rule of law in Afghanistan.

Officials of the Justice Ministry had also been imparted training by the same organisation, he informed. The government of Italy had granted six million euro for the project, he added.

Established in 1983, IDLO is an inter-governmental development body with its headquarters in Rome and regional offices in Cairo and Sydney, and programme office in Kabul.

Afghan-US statement on commercial cooperation signed

NEW YORK, July 11 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Afghanistan and the United States Tuesday signed a Joint Statement on Commercial Cooperation to strengthen the private sector and develop the war-hit countrys trade capacity,

The statement was signed by US Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez and the visiting Afghan Commerce and Industry Minister Dr. Mir Muhammad Amin Farhang in Washington, DC.

The statement was signed after wide-ranging deliberations between the two leaders, with Gutierrez and Farhang announcing the creation of a working group comprising designated trade officials from both the nations.

Members of the working group, whose mandate is to implement programmes to help Afghanistan further develop sectors where it has a comparative advantage like rugs, dried fruits, nuts and mining, would be announced soon.

The group will create a forum for the exchange of information on commercial matters, including investment opportunities, regulations, trade and intellectual property rights protection.

Soon after signing the joint statement, Gutierrez praised the steps taken by the Karzai government to improve the economy of Afghanistan in the post-Taliban era.

The government of Afghanistan is working to provide new political freedoms to encourage and stimulate the entrepreneurial spirit in the people of Afghanistan, he said.

The Joint Statement of Commercial Cooperation outlines a common agenda focusing on capacity-building, matchmaking and business promotion. The private sector, one of the main areas the joint statement is focussed on, is seen as the engine of Afghanistans growth.

The US Department of Commerce such efforts would help Afghanistan advance towards the broader objectives of the US-Afghanistan Trade & Investment Framework Agreement including WTO accession, comprehensive legal reform, improved property rights protection and of the overall investment climate.

Awaiting Takeoff in Afghanistan

By Robert Baer/Kabul - Time

You can't help but be impressed by Kabul's airport, which is in the middle of being refurbished. A fresh coat of salmon-colored paint, acoustic ceilings, and fast laptops at immigration processing. In the departure lounge, there's even a reassuring bright yellow sign: "Renovation of Kabul International Airport. We apologize for any inconvenience caused during the renovation process." The sign is in English, not Dari. But never mind: you can still smoke anywhere in the terminal. You can't expect everything to change overnight.

Outside the airport, though, the illusion evaporates. For a start, the distance between the terminal and the parking lot is at least a hundred yards. No surprise there. On the average these days there is a suicide car-bombing a day in and around Kabul. The Taliban started firing rockets at Kabul. They go unreported in the news because they aren't doing damage. It takes the murder of NATO troops to generate a wire report, like last week's murder of six Canadian soldiers in Kandahar.

Driving around Kabul I came across a British patrol that had just been attacked by a suicide bomber in a Toyota Corolla, wounding two. They were lucky, and it never made the news. I wondered how bad the rest of Afghanistan is, and, as I usually do when I get to a new city, I casually asked around where I could go and couldn't go. Forget Kandahar, I was told. Even heavy armor is vulnerable to the new improvised explosive devices showing up in Afghanistan. Which means that you can't drive to Herat. Nor can you set foot in another dozen Afghan provinces.

How fast is Afghanistan unraveling? Westerners live in heavily protected enclaves, waiting for Armageddon to break out. They look a lot like Crusader castles. Western officials and military venture out only in armored Toyota Land Cruisers, easily recognizable by their electronic counter-measure domes and whip antennas. With no license plates, they barrel down the streets at high speeds, staying ahead of any potential suicide car bombers. They don't stop at police checkpoints — extraterritorial status has its privileges.

Not surprisingly the Afghans resent their second class citizenship but so far tolerate it — it's better than the savagery of the Taliban. On the other hand they wonder how long it's going to last. The insurgency — that's the word a briefer at NATO headquarters used instead of the Taliban or al-Qaeda — understands it needs to win over the hearts and minds of the average Afghan. Unlike suicide bombers in Iraq, the insurgents don't intentionally target civilians, although many have died in attacks. And this summer they have started to adjust their tactics, purposely operating from villages in order to provoke NATO air strikes and kill civilians. As one Afghan told me, "When you kill one Afghan, you kill his own tribe."

Only a fool would dare predict Afghanistan's future. But if the insurgents' get their way, Kabul's renovated airport could get some real use in an exodus of Westerners.

Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.

[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.]