In this bulletin:

• Several dead in Afghan bomb blast
• Forces in Afghanistan Kill, Wound 50 Taliban Insurgents
• UN: 34 Aid Workers Killed in Afghanistan
• Karzai: Stop The Air Strikes
• Japan ends Afghan refueling mission: defense official
• European Ambivalence Threatens NATO Afghanistan Mission
• UN warns on Afghan aid transport
• 2 New Zealand soldiers injured in rifle accident in Afghanistan
• Australian soldiers backed out of Dutch-led Afghan operation
• US intensifies fight for Taliban stronghold in poppy region
• Bhutto wants ISI restructured to curb extremism
• India eyes Turkmen gas link, Qatari deals
• Bucharest NATO summit to focus on Afghanistan and western Balkans
• MacKay calls for more NATO troops in the south
• NGOs meet with John Manley panel on Afghanistan
• Afghanistan panel will open website for public submissions
• Will Canada stand with its allies?
• Press Gallery undeterred by PM's snub

Several dead in Afghan bomb blast – BBC

Police in Afghanistan say a suicide bomber has killed at least three people in the capital of Helmand province, where British troops are based.The attack, reportedly carried out by a teenage boy, targeted a police building in Lashkar Gar, police say.

Reports say between three and five people were killed and up to 10 people, including policemen, were injured. More than 3,000 people have been killed this year as Afghan and foreign forces battle Taleban fighters in Afghanistan.

The deputy chief of traffic police said that from the remains of the suicide bomber he appeared to have been a boy of between 15 and 16 years.

The BBC's Alastair Leithead in Kabul says there has been an increase in suicide bomb attacks and explosives left by the side of the road in Helmand province, targeting both the Afghan national security forces and international troops.

In September and October this year there were 10 suicide attacks across five different towns in Helmand. British forces have their headquarters in Lashkar Gar.

A spokesman there said there had been evidence in the past of teenagers carrying out suicide attacks as, he said, they were easier to manipulate and corrupt than older people. Helmand, a Taleban stronghold, has seen some of the worst of the violence recently.

This week US forces claimed to have killed about 80 insurgents close to the Taleban-held town of Musa Qala but this cannot be independently verified. Neither can reports by local people that up to 15 civilians were killed in the incident.

Nato forces have said up to 50 insurgents were killed or injured in a six-hour battle in neighbouring Uruzgan province. This cannot be independently verified.

Forces in Afghanistan Kill, Wound 50 Taliban Insurgents

By VOA News - 29 October 2007 - Afghan officials say Afghan and NATO forces killed or wounded more than 50 Taliban insurgents in a large operation in southern Afghanistan Sunday.

The Afghan Defense Ministry said in a statement Monday, that the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force backed up the Afghan National Army during the battle in Baluch village in Uruzgan province.

The ministry said 13 other militants were captured. In southern Afghanistan, officials say a suicide bomber killed three people Monday, when he detonated himself near a police convoy.

Police say the attack took place in Lashkar Gah, capital of troubled Helmand Province. A police official said at least five people were wounded in the attack. Helmand province, the biggest opium producing region of Afghanistan, has endured a wave of Taliban-led violence this year.

UN: 34 Aid Workers Killed in Afghanistan

By FISNIK ABRASHI – KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The United Nations on Monday said 34 aid workers have been killed in Afghanistan this year and called on Taliban fighters and criminal gangs to stop attacking humanitarian convoys so food can reach millions of needy Afghans before winter.

Tom Koenigs, the head of the U.N. Assistance Mission to Afghanistan, also said that insurgents and criminal gangs have abducted 76 aid workers and attacked or looted 55 aid convoys this year. "The attacks on humanitarian aid must stop," Koenigs told reporters in Kabul.

"Those responsible for these attacks and for the insecurity are pushing the most vulnerable people outside of our reach," he said. "Those responsible for these attacks need to know that they are attacking the welfare of Afghanistan's most vulnerable communities."

The U.N. didn't immediately have a breakdown of how many of the 34 aid workers were U.N. employees and how many worked for other organizations. It also didn't provide a breakdown of nationalities, though most of the 34 were believed to be Afghan.

This year has been Afghanistan's deadliest since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. More than 5,300 people have died so far due to insurgency related violence, according to an Associated Press count based on figures from Afghan and Western officials.

The number of attacks on aid convoys have also spiked, increasing six-fold this year over 2006, said Rick Corsino, the country director for the U.N.'s World Food Program. There have been 30 attacks on WFP food convoys so far this year, mainly in the country's south, compared with five attack in the whole of 2006.

"In a majority of these incidents, food was looted ... and so far we have lost something like 100,000 tons of food," Corsino said.

The violence that has swept the country's south has prevented WFP from moving any aid convoys on the main highway that connects the country's south and west, he said.

"We have not moved any food between (southern city of) Kandahar and Herat (in the west) for the past six weeks," Corsino said.

Authorities have six weeks to reach about 400,000 Afghan living at high elevations before winter sets in or risk them migrating from their homes, Corsino said.

The continued conflict has "tremendously" worsened humanitarian situation in the country and 78 districts in the country are rated as "extremely risky" for U.N. workers to operate, Koenigs said.

"Reaching the people is not a political issue, it is a humanitarian priority," Koenigs said.

Nearly 5 million Afghans are dependent on food assistance, Corsino said. The WFP have already distributed 220,000 tons of food worth $150 million this year, he said.

Karzai: Stop The Air Strikes

Oct. 28, 2007 - (CBS)   After six years, the liberation of Afghanistan has become a triumph without victory. The fighting is the greatest it has been since the beginning of the war and more civilians are dying. In fact, 60 Minutes was surprised to hear this: while the enemy has killed hundreds of civilians this year, a similar number of civilians have been killed by American forces. With relatively few troops there, the U.S. and NATO rely on air power. The number of civilians killed in air strikes has doubled.

60 Minutes wondered whether civilian deaths are undermining the effort to win the Afghan people. So correspondent Scott Pelley looked into one air strike from last spring. At the time, the Army said in a press release that there were unconfirmed reports that nine people died in an engagement with the enemy. But when we asked, the Army wouldn't tell us anything else, so we went to see for ourselves.

Our journey took us through Afghanistan, up the Shomali Plain north of the capital, Kabul. The Taliban are active in the area, so 60 Minutes hired Panjshiri mercenaries to cover our trip. The scene of the air strike is a village in the hills above Kapisa Province.

The 60 Minutes team found the dead buried in a cornfield. It appears there were no enemy combatants. It was four generations of one family, all killed in the air strike: an 85-year-old man, four women, and four children, ranging in age from five years to seven months. One boy survived. The night of the bombing, seven-year-old Mujib happened to be staying with his uncle, Gulam Nabi.

"Some of the bodies were missing a hand or a leg or half a head. We recognized one of them only by the clothes she was wearing," Nabi remembers.

Nabi recognized Mujib's mother among the dead,

"I saw my mom, my sisters, and my brother and my grandfather were dead. And our house was destroyed," the little boy remembers.

Mujib's father was not there. He's accused of being a local Taliban leader and the U.S. has been searching for him with no luck. The air strike came March 4th. An Army press release says it started after enemy forces fired a rocket at a U.S. base above the village. The rocket fell "causing no coalition casualties," in fact, "missing the fire base" altogether. Then U.S. pilots saw two men with AK-47 rifles leaving the scene of the rocket attack and entering a compound in the village.

The fort, which is on a hill, began raining down mortar fire on part of the village -- mortar fire that came down for about an hour. It was nighttime, and even though there were no U.S. forces in contact with the enemy on the ground, a decision was made after the mortars to call in an air strike. U.S. Air Force aircraft dropped two bombs on the neighborhood, each one weighing 2,000 pounds.

The bombs hit their intended targets. But when the smoke cleared there were no men with rifles -- just Mujib's family.

"During the Russian invasion we haven’t heard of 10 members of one family being killed by Russians in one incident. But the Americans did that," a villager remarked.

These Afghans, like many others, are deciding whether to support the U.S.-backed government. We expected anger, but we didn’t expect this.

"You can't be saying that the Soviets were kinder to your people than the Americans have been," Pelley remarks.

"We used to hate the Russians much more than Americans," the villager replied. "But now when we see all this happening, I am telling you Russians behave much better than the Americans."

Really, there's no comparison. The Soviets killed something like a million Afghans over ten years. But it's the kind of thing that Afghans are saying, because so far this year, 17 air strikes have killed more than 270 civilians according to the humanitarian organization Human Rights Watch.

It leaves Afghan President Hamid Karzai explaining to his people why they’re being killed by his allies.

"Why are so many Afghan civilians being killed by U.S. forces?" Pelley asks President Karzai.

"The United States and the Coalition Forces are not doing that deliberately. The United States is here to help the Afghan people. The Afghan people understand that mistakes are made. But five years on, six years on, definitely, very clearly, they cannot comprehend as to why there is still a need for air power," Karzai explains.

Asked if he is asking the American government to roll back the air strikes, Karzai says, "Absolutely. Oh, yes, in clear words."

Karzai told 60 Minutes he delivered those words, privately, to President George W. Bush. But he decided to take the message public in this interview. "And I want to repeat that, alternatives to the use of air force. And I will speak for it again through your media," he says.

"You're demanding that?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Karzai says.

60 Minutes wanted to understand how these air strikes are planned. It turns out the mission that made Mujib’s neighborhood look like an ancient ruin was run through a futuristic-looking, classified control center. We were surprised to get into the facility because it has never been seen on television before. We promised the Air Force we wouldn’t reveal classified information, or the Persian Gulf country where the center is located.

Air Force Col. Gary Crowder is deputy director of the Combined Air Operations Center, which runs the air war over both Afghanistan and Iraq.

"You know, I'm curious. How often is an air strike prepared that's called off at the last minute?" Pelley asks.

"Thousands and thousands of times a month,” says Crowder. “We look very, very often, we tracked some of the insurgent leaders we will track for days and days on end. And we are prepared to strike them at any moment. But we can never get all of the criteria necessary to meet our rules of engagement.”

We learned there are two kinds of targets: deliberate targets which are analyzed for days and watched for patterns of civilians coming and going, and immediate targets, such as when troops are in combat and need air support. In both cases, civilian casualties are estimated in advance and it's up to the commander on the ground to decide whether the strike is worth the cost.

"We rely on those commanders to make the assessment at the time of what the requirement is. He assesses proportionality. He assesses the validity of the military target," Crowder explains.

Asked what he means by " proportionality," Crowder tells Pelley, "If we know that there is a sniper on a roof and the roof is in the middle of a mosque which is a protected site or in the middle of a very populated area, then dropping a 2,000 pound weapon on that would not be proportional to going after the sniper."

"Two men with AK-47s run into a house. Do you bomb the house?" Pelley asks.

"In some circumstances, we will bomb the house,” says Crowder. “It is entirely dependent upon the circumstances on the ground, and the ground commander's assessment of that particular situation.”

"There's this macabre kind of calculus that the military goes through on every air strike, where they try to figure out how many dead civilians is dead bad guy worth," says Marc Garlasco, who knows the calculus of civilian casualties as well as anyone.

At the Pentagon, Garlasco was chief of high value targeting at the start of the Iraq war. He told 60 Minutes his team was authorized to kill a set number of civilians around high-value targets -- targets like Saddam Hussein and his leadership.

"Our number was 30. So, for example, Saddam Hussein. If you're gonna kill up to 29 people in a strike against Saddam Hussein, that's not a problem," Garlasco explains. "But once you hit that number 30, we actually had to go to either President Bush, or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld."

Garlasco says, before the invasion of Iraq, he recommended 50 air strikes aimed at high-value targets -- Iraqi officials.

But he says none of the targets on the list were actually killed. Instead, he says, "a couple of hundred civilians at least" were killed.

"The bombs that are dropped are really only as accurate as the intelligence behind them?" Pelley asks Crowder.

"That's true. But we have come a very long way in getting that intelligence to be more accurate," Crowder says. "We will collect human intelligence, signals intelligence, overhead full-motion video, all of that tied together, very often in real time. That gives us a better understanding and a significantly higher confidence that the targets we're engaging are in fact valid military targets."

Of course the Taliban are killing civilians too, targeting them deliberately. By contrast, 60 Minutes watched American airmen calculate how to minimize civilian casualties with the choice of timing, weapon, and direction of attack.

"I don't think people really appreciate the gymnastics that the U.S. military goes through in order to make sure that they're not killing civilians," Garlasco points out.

"If so much care is being taken why are so many civilians getting killed?" Pelley asks.

"Because the Taliban are violating international law,” says Garlasco, “and because the U.S. just doesn't have enough troops on the ground. You have the Taliban shielding in people's homes. And you have this small number of troops on the ground. And sometimes the only thing they can do is drop bombs.”

But why were bombs dropped on Mujib's house? As we said, the Army wouldn’t speak to us about it. An Air Force source says that Mujib’s house was a Taliban hideout. But through an interpreter, the villagers disputed that, and they said the U.S. should have known better.

"The Americans came here the day before they bombed, they searched the whole house and saw women and children in the house," says Mujib's uncle, Gulam Nabi.

"This is such an important point. Let me be sure I've got this. Who came the day before?" Pelley asks,

"The Americans came the day before," a translator explains.

We took their accusation to the military. And an Air Force source confirmed that U.S. troops searched the house the day before. We don’t know what those troops may have seen or reported. Marc Garlasco left the Pentagon in 2003 to become senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. He has examined this case and he told 60 Minutes that even if Mujib’s father was a local Taliban leader, the air strike backfired.

"You have to ask yourself, is a mid-level thug worth nine dead civilians? But it goes beyond that. You're not talking about just losing nine dead civilians. You're also talking about violent protests throughout the country, requesting a democratically elected government be taken down, you then take people who maybe were in a pro-government area, and all of a sudden you're turning them against you, and turning them towards the Taliban," Garlasco says.

"To return just for a moment to the bombing at Kapisa,” Pelley addresses President Karzai. “A rocket was fired at a U.S. base there. It missed. No one was hurt. And yet, the response was to drop 4,000 pounds of explosives on that neighborhood.”

"That is wrong," the president says.

"They hit what they were aiming at," Pelley points out.

"That is a mistake," Karzai says. “I know that. It may be at times careless. A careless mistake, but not deliberate.”

"There is one young boy who is the sole survivor from that house,” Pelley tells Karzai. “A seven-year-old boy named Mujib. We asked him what he thought of the Americans and as you might expect, he said, 'I hate them.’”

"Naturally," Karzai agrees.

"That doesn't bode well for the future," Pelley says.

"Yeah, it doesn't,” Karzai responds. “That's why I'm so strongly asking for rethink of the use of air force. And this little boy I will call to my office. I will share his pain with him, as do the rest of the Afghan people. And try to get him a future.”

Japan ends Afghan refueling mission: defense official
The Associated Press - Monday, October 29, 2007

TOKYO: Japan has refueled its last warship in support of coalition forces in Afghanistan before the mission expires later this week, a defense official said, in effect ending Tokyo's support of U.S.-led operations there.

Japanese tankers refueled a coalition warship in the Indian Ocean on Monday and has no further plans to refuel ships before a contentious law authorizing the mission expires Thursday, according to a Defense Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing protocol.

The official refused to give further details. Kyodo News agency said the last ship refueled by the Japanese was a Pakistani navy destroyer.

On the last refueling mission, about 70 crew members from the supply ship Tokiwa appeared on deck, cheering and performing the Japanese national anthem, Kyodo said.

Japan, America's top ally in Asia, has refueled coalition warships in support of U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan since 2001, and U.S. officials have clamored for an extension of the mission. Tokyo also sent humanitarian ground troops to Iraq in 2004-2006.

But Japan's pro-U.S. ruling coalition has struggled to renew the deployment in the face of a resurgent opposition, which demands that Japan withdraw, and has slowed parliamentary debate on the matter.

An influence-peddling scandal involving a former vice defense minister, who acknowledged in parliament Monday that he was treated to golf and other outings by a defense equipment company, has also complicated government efforts.

The ensuing delay has made an approval unlikely before the mission expires on Nov. 1 — making a gap in Japan's activities all but inevitable.

The Defense Ministry refused to confirm local media reports that Japan's defense chief, Shigeru Ishiba, will soon order the withdrawal of Japan's contingent, saying the ministry still hoped the government would secure a last-minute passage of the law.

"I know it's basically impossible, but that is our position," the official said. Media reports say Tokyo's fleet could return to Japan in mid-November.

The ruling Liberal Democratic Party, which controls parliament's powerful lower house, could muscle through an extension if given time — allowing Japanese ships to eventually return to the Indian Ocean, possibly next year.

In arguing for a renewal, Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda has argued that pulling out would leave Japan — which depends on the Middle East for almost all of its oil imports — sidelined in the fight against global terrorism.

The government has also introduced a new law to parliament earlier this month that would more strictly limit Japan's mission. The new bill would allow Japanese ships to refuel and supply water to ships on anti-terrorism patrols, but not to vessels involved in military or rescue operations.

But the country's main opposition, the Democratic Party of Japan, says Japan should not be helping U.S. operations in Afghanistan because they were not properly approved by the United Nations.

The Democrats say the mission violates Japan's war-renouncing constitution and have alleged the oil supplied by Japanese ships was diverted to the war in Iraq.

During its six-year mission, Japan provided about 480,000 kiloliters of fuel in the Indian Ocean to coalition warships, including those from the U.S., Britain and Pakistan, according to the Defense Ministry.

European Ambivalence Threatens NATO Afghanistan Mission

Frida Ghitis 29 Oct 2007- World Politics Review Exclusive

AMSTERDAM -- Is it possible that NATO, probably the mightiest, certainly the wealthiest, military alliance the world has even seen, could leave Afghanistan defeated by the Taliban, a band of religious fanatics with an ideology harking back to the 7th century? During two days of talks just completed in the Dutch resort of Noordwijk along the North Sea coast, defense ministers from NATO countries discussed the future of the mission in Afghanistan in tones that betrayed a sense of urgency bordering on despair.

In the Netherlands, whose troops are fighting in the most dangerous region of Afghanistan, the mission is gradually losing public support. Every time a Dutch soldier dies in Afghanistan the push here to end this country's participation grows stronger. The war is seen as a distant battle with hazy goals, far removed from the daily lives of Europeans. The sentiment is shared in varying degrees by the people of the 38 countries with troops in ISAF, the International Security and Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who happens to be Dutch, has been pleading with the public to understand the importance of the mission. The consequences of defeat in Afghanistan will reach people on the continent, he recently argued, addressing Europeans. "The security of Afghanistan is directly linked to your and my security."

In addition to helping the people of Afghanistan, defeating the Taliban is seen as a crucial element in the war against Islamic extremism. The Taliban are closely linked to radical Islamists in Pakistan, an unstable country that possesses nuclear weapons. Defeat in Afghanistan would embolden and strengthen extremists in Pakistan and beyond, fueling terrorism around the world.

Some six years have passed since NATO forces led by the United States overthrew the al-Qaida-harboring Taliban regime in Afghanistan following the Sept. 11 attacks. Still, the Taliban have refused to go away. Diverted to Iraq, U.S. forces shifted much of their focus, relying on NATO to finish the job Washington had failed to wrap up. Now, the Taliban look even stronger, and the countries carrying the heaviest part of the load are asking for help from their allies. In response, they are getting words of encouragement and, at best, a portion of what they say they need.

Hosting the Noordwijk meeting, Dutch Defense Minister Eimert van Middelkoop made a case to his European colleagues that sounded very much like the "Freedom isn't free" bumper stickers seen on some cars on American roads. The way van Middelkoop put it, "There is no free ride to peace and security." The Netherlands urged NATO members to contribute troops to the Dutch-led mission in southern Afghanistan's Uruzgan province. Chastising member nations whose troops are working in safe zones, van Middelkoop said "Fair risk and burden sharing has to be a leading principle for NATO." Without more help in Uruzgan, the Netherlands has warned that its commitment to Afghanistan could come to an end in August 2008.

The government here sounds determined to stay, but public opposition could force their hand, particularly if the Dutch feel they have been left carrying an unfair share of the burden in terms of treasury and life. The United States, with the largest contingent in Afghanistan -- 15,000 troops -- also pressured NATO members to up their participation. "What we need now," said U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, "are actions, deeds and a sense of urgency and commitment."

Faced with the threat of a Dutch and later a Canadian withdrawal, the French passionately urged the countries on the front lines of the battle -- Canada, the U.K., the U.S. and the Netherlands -- not to pull back from their objectives. French Defense Minister Hervé Morin said they must maintain their troop levels, but then he said France would not send more combat forces to help. Instead, he offered some 50 French training personnel to help prepare Afghan forces. French troops, numbering about 1000, are based in the comparatively peaceful capital of Kabul.

Denmark also offered to help, but its new contribution also seemed unlikely to turn the tide. Grasping at the secretary general's compelling argument for publicizing the case for fighting in Afghanistan, the Danes offered 1 million euros to buy video equipment to produce YouTube videos and other materials describing the Taliban's excesses. De Hoop Scheffer wants the public in NATO countries to understand that the Taliban are committing "the most horrendous human rights violations." Abundant videos of Taliban tactics in the war and atrocities against civilians are already in NATO hands. One interesting length of footage described by the secretary general shows a Taliban fighter drawing out from his backpack a Burqa, the head-to-toe robe worn by some Afghan women. The fighter puts on the Burqa in order to move unsuspected as a woman. Then he pulls out an AK-47 and begins firing on NATO troops.

By the time the meeting in the Netherlands ended Thursday, NATO countries had made small but measurable additions to their troop commitments. Several countries, including Spain, Italy and Turkey, remain adamant that they will not add more troops to their existing commitments, particularly not for fighting in the tense south and east. But other nations offered small numbers of troops. In total, some nine countries -- including the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary, along with non-NATO members Croatia and Georgia -- pledged to send an extra 1000 combat troops.

The modest increase is welcome, but it may not be enough to defeat either one of the two enemies faced by NATO's Afghanistan mission: the Taliban, and public opinion at home.

Frida Ghitis is an independent commentator on world affairs and a World Politics Review contributing editor.

UN warns on Afghan aid transport

By Alastair Leithead - BBC News, Kabul

The United Nations has said it cannot travel safely on Afghanistan's main ring road to deliver food to areas desperately in need. The UN said 34 aid workers have been killed and 76 abducted this year and 100 convoys and facilities looted.

The UN is calling on Nato and Afghan forces to do more to improve security. Four million Afghans are still in need of its aid, the UN says, and 400,000 need that help in the six weeks before winter cuts off remote areas.

Six years after the fall of the Taleban, the United Nations special representative to Afghanistan, Tom Koenigs, painted a grim picture of deteriorating security.

He said there were sections of the main ring road around the country, particularly in the south, where UN vehicles could not travel because of the risks.

The World Food Programme has said 30 of its vehicles have been attacked and looted at a cost of $750,000 in stolen aid, compared to just five attacks in the whole of 2006.

The head of the World Food Programme here, Rick Corsino, added that the cost of transport has increased by between one quarter and a half because of the risk of attack.

He said there had been no UN movement between Kandahar and Herat for the last six weeks because the road was not safe. That cuts off a vast swathe of the country which has access to some remote and needy areas.

The United Nations called on Nato's International Security Assistance Force and the Afghan government to do more to stop insurgents and criminal gangs from targeting their convoys. The UN also said the attacks on aid convoys were a breach of international humanitarian law.

2 New Zealand soldiers injured in rifle accident in Afghanistan

The Associated Press - Monday, October 29, 2007

WELLINGTON, New Zealand: A New Zealand soldier climbing into an army Humvee in Afghanistan accidentally fired his high-powered rifle in the vehicle, injuring himself and a fellow soldier, a defense official said Monday.

The two soldiers, who were not badly injured, were transferred to a military hospital in Germany for treatment, said Maj. Gen. Rhys Jones, commander of New Zealand joint forces.

The soldier carrying the rifle was shot in the leg, while the second soldier was shot in the arm and side, he said.

Four soldiers were about to return to their Bamiyan base in central Afghanistan in the Humvee on Sunday after escorting foreign nationals to a Kabul airfield when the shot was fired, he said.

The weapon, an Austrian-made Steyr rifle, was supposed to be outside the vehicle but was pointing "down inside," he said.

Jones said the incident was being investigated and it was still uncertain whether the discharge was the result of human error or equipment malfunction.

In an earlier incident involving New Zealand Defense Force soldiers, Lt. Col. David Pirie was fined for unauthorized discharge of a weapon in Afghanistan in 2004.

In 2002 three New Zealand special force commandos were seriously wounded in an explosion in Afghanistan when a vehicle on routine patrol hit a land mine.

The three men were the first casualties in a group of about 40 New Zealand commandos committed to the war in Afghanistan in 2001.

Australian soldiers backed out of Dutch-led Afghan operation

SYDNEY: Australian soldiers did not fight in a heavily-criticised Dutch-led assault on Taliban fighters in Afghanistan because of concerns about differing rules of engagement, the military said Sunday.

Some 52 civilians were reported to have died in the battle in the Chora Valley in southern Uruzgan province in June, prompting Afghan President Hamid Karzai to slam the “indiscriminate and imprecise operations” of the foreign forces. A spokesman for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) said that Australian officers were involved in the planning of the operation and in manning vehicle checkpoints but did not take part in the June 16-17 combat.

“As the situation in the Chora Valley deteriorated... ADF personnel in Afghanistan became aware that Dutch procedures for this operation differed from Australian targeting procedures and expressed their concerns, including at senior levels,” Brigadier Andrew Nikolic said. Nikolic said Australian troops shared the same concerns as NATO soldiers about civilian lives being placed at risk by Taliban fighters who were choosing to attack from inside heavily populated areas.

“Australian forces operate under rules of engagement that aim to avoid and minimise civilian casualties,” he said. While unable to discuss the rules of engagement for Australian forces, Nikolic said they were consistent with the objectives of NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Afp

US intensifies fight for Taliban stronghold in poppy region

By Jason Straziuso, Associated Press  |  October 29, 2007

KABUL, Afghanistan - Days after Taliban fighters overran Musa Qala, a US commander pledged that Western troops would take it back. Nine months later, the town is still Taliban territory, a symbol of the West's struggles to control the poppy-growing south.

But a string of recent battles around Musa Qala, won overwhelmingly by American special forces, signals a renewed US focus on the symbolic Taliban stronghold.

An Afghan Army commander said yesterday that US and Afghan forces have taken over the area around the town and that Afghan commanders are holding talks with Musa Qala's tribal leaders to persuade them to expel the Arab, Chechen, and Uzbek foreign fighters who roam its streets alongside the Taliban militants.

US special forces soldiers accompanied by Afghan troops killed about 80 fighters during a six-hour battle outside Musa Qala on Saturday, the latest in a series of increasingly deadly engagements in Helmand Province - the world's largest poppy-growing region and the front line of Afghanistan's bloodiest fighting this year.

There have been at least five major battles in the area since Sept. 1, including Saturday's fighting, and special forces troops have killed more than 250 militants, according to coalition statements.

"Musa Qala is part of the overall concept here, denying the Taliban the ability to control northern Helmand," said Major Chris Belcher, a spokesman for the US-led coalition.

"Our goal is to stop them from accomplishing that . . . We're in Musa Qala and we're going to stay there."

The majority of Western forces in Helmand are British, though US special forces troops are also active in the province.

Taliban militants overran Musa Qala on Feb. 1, four months after British troops left the town following a contentious peace agreement that handed over security responsibilities to Afghan elders.

Days after the Taliban takeover a US military spokesman, Colonel Tom Collins, said NATO and Afghan forces would take back the town "at a time and place that is most advantageous."

Lieutenant Colonel Richard Eaton, a spokesman for British troops in Helmand, said that "nothing in Afghanistan is ever straightforward."

"You can't do everything simultaneously. That is not how a counterinsurgency works," Eaton said. "As [the commander of NATO's forces in Afghanistan] has said, we will deal with Musa Qala at a time of our choosing."

Eaton also did not rule out the possibility of future peace talks in the town, saying that the solutions to insurgencies are political.

Brigadier General Ghulam Muhiddin Ghori, a top Afghan Army commander in Helmand, said the foreign fighters are running training camps near Musa Qala to teach militants how to carry out suicide and roadside bomb attacks.

But he said no big military operations are being launched to overtake the town itself because of a fear of civilian casualties.

"Afghan and coalition forces have surrounded the Musa Qala district center. "We have started negotiations with tribal leaders there to take over Musa Qala from the Taliban," Ghori said.

"The tribal leaders are also worried about these Taliban because the foreign fighters - Arabs, Chechens, Baluchs, and Uzbeks - they are in Musa Qala."

The latest Musa Qala battle began Saturday when Taliban insurgents attacked a combined US coalition and Afghan patrol with rockets and gunfire, prompting the combined force to call in attack aircraft, resulting in "almost seven dozen Taliban fighters killed," the US-led coalition said.

The coalition said four bombs were dropped on a trench line filled with fighters, resulting in most of the deaths. It said there were no immediate reports of civilian casualties.

The top US commander in Afghanistan, Major General David Rodriguez, declined to talk about Musa Qala at a news conference in Kabul yesterday.

Speaking on a separate topic, he said it could take between 18 months and two years for Afghan units to be able to conduct major operations on their own.

Rodriguez said Afghan forces excel at small-unit tactics and coordinating with the Afghan people but still need to improve their command structure, the use of airpower, their logistics support, and medical capabilities. 

Bhutto wants ISI restructured to curb extremism

PESHAWAR, Oct 27 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has underlined the need for restructuring of Pakistan's premier intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to curb extremism and militancy.

The reconciliation process was being damaged by some elements within the powerful outfit, Benazir Bhutto told newsmen at her Bilawal House residence in the port city of Karachi on Friday. She urged the government to effectively discharge its responsibility of preventing such intelligence operatives from illegal acts.

In the same breath, however, the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) chairperson explained the ISI had many good, dutiful and responsible officers and she did not criticise it as an institution. She alleged some elements in the agency were hatching conspiracies against civilian rulers to strengthen the hands of extremists.

Separately, Bhutto told a private TV channel the democratic process in Pakistan could be hindered if extremism was not contained. She insisted dictatorship was the main factor behind the sharp rise in militancy, which could be discouraged by political unity.

Every second day a blast claims the lives of innocent people. So we have to fight against these elements to save the country from falling into the hands of extremists, argued the ex-prime minister, who said she did not want to risk the lives of people traveling with her.

If she skipped campaigning, Bhutto pointed out, militants and their supporters would succeed in impeding Pakistan's return democratic rule. She maintained security in northern Pakistan had collapsed because terrorists, once restricted to the semiautonomous tribal zone, had been able to expand their activities to settled areas.

India eyes Turkmen gas link, Qatari deals

Mon Oct 29, 2007 - By Simon Webb

DOHA (Reuters) - India is keen to receive gas from Turkmenistan via a planned pipeline and is also considering investments in gas and oil producer Qatar, India's oil minister said on Monday.

Murli Deora said he is interested in joining Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan in building the link.

"India is very interested in becoming formal partner. I am not sure if now is the right time because of the elections (in Pakistan)."

The idea of building a multi-billion dollar pipeline through Afghanistan has been floating for more than a decade, but conflict has hampered efforts to get it off the ground.

The project aims to export gas to Pakistan and India, both also talking to Iran on the possibility of a similar deal. Deora said this project will not affect a possible Iran link.

"Joining this project will have no effect on India's plan to participate in Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project," he said.

India and Iran are also expected to start building a 300,000 barrels per day refinery in southern Iran early next year.

Doera, who was speaking at an energy conference in the Qatari capital, also said Indian firms were interested in taking equity stakes in Qatar's energy projects.

"We are looking at building plants in Qatar, and in other heavy industries," he said. Indian firms have signed contracts with Qatar to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Qatar's Rasgas and to construct a pipeline worth $99 million.

Bucharest NATO summit to focus on Afghanistan and western Balkans
By DPA, Oct 29, 2007

Bucharest - The situation in Afghanistan and the possible joining of NATO of the western Balkan nations will be the main focus of the NATO summit in the Romanian capital Bucharest in April 2008, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said Monday.

His announcement came after talks with Romanian President Traian Basescu. Scheffer said there was at the moment 'no guarantee' that NATO would invite the states of former Yugoslavia to join the alliance, adding the countries would have to make an effort to meet NATO's strict criteria.

Albania, Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have already signed so-called action plans with NATO and are therefore considered closest to membership.

Ukraine and Georgia are also interested in NATO membership. NATO had intensified its dialogue with Ukraine, but in the end 'the Ukrainian people' had to decide on joining NATO, Scheffer added.

Many European governments have expressed concern over a US-backed membership of Georgia, as long as the 'stalled conflicts' with Russia over South Ossetia and Abchasia were not resolved, NATO diplomats said.

The NATO head was also planning to meet Romanian Prime Minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu during his one-day visit to Bucharest.

MacKay calls for more NATO troops in the south

Updated Sun. Oct. 28 2007

CTV.ca News Staff

Canada is doing more than its fair share in Afghanistan and other NATO countries must contribute more, Defence Minister Peter MacKay says after returning from a NATO meeting in Europe last week.

"There has to be burden sharing," he told CTV's Question Period on Sunday. He met with other NATO defence ministers in the Netherlands this past week.

More troops and equipment must be directed to the south, MacKay said.

Canada is operating in Kandahar province, where the Taliban and other insurgents have been active. Seventy-one Canadian soldiers and a diplomat have died since 2002.

The British have been involved in constant conflict in Helmand province to the west of Kandahar, while the Dutch are working in Uruzgan to the north.

Countries such as France, Italy and Germany are operating in relatively low-conflict zones in northern Afghanistan.

"The south is the gateway and the key to success in Afghanistan," MacKay said. "Other countries recognize that, and we're working very hard to secure more support for what the Canadian troops and the Dutch and others are doing in southern Afghanistan near Kandahar province."

Dutch Defence Minister Eimert van Middelkoop had some tough talk for his fellow NATO ministers.

"There is no such thing as a free ride to peace and security. Fair risk and burden-sharing remain the leading principles of this alliance," he said during the meetings.

In response, some countries promised more troops and military trainers to help out. The Netherlands is expected to announce next month whether it will extend its mission in Afghanistan.

MacKay said his office will continue to work on the burden-sharing issue.

"They (Canada) are starting to play hardball now diplomatically, so I'll give it a little bit of time, but it's not very encouraging," retired general Lew MacKenzie told Question Period.

A retired Dutch general told The Canadian Press in an interview that Canada shouldn't expect NATO to offer more help in Kandahar until the Canadian decision on extending the mission is imminent.

"As with the Dutch, they will do just enough to keep them in place," said Maj.-Gen Frank van Kappen, who advised former UN secretary general Kofi Anan on military matters.

Canada's current mission is set to end in February 2009. In the recent throne speech, the minority Conservative government indicated it would like to see the mission continue into 2011.

"There's not a person on the face of the Earth who knows when this mission will end," MacKenzie said, adding success will occur when the Afghan government can provide security for the country.

"If NATO doesn't step up to the plate and play to win, this mission is going to go on forever."

Steven Staples of the Rideau Institute added, "There will be no NATO cavalry coming over the hill, and so the only option remains getting the Afghan army up to speed -- and even that remains questionable."

MacKenzie said he's been on trips to Afghanistan and credited the country's army with making "tremendous progress. But there's no way I can tell you when it's going to be ready to secure the entire country," he said.

That rests on the ability of NATO, which isn't doing enough to defeat the insurgency, he said.

A NATO decision to rent civilian helicopters to fly missions in Afghanistan rather than have member countries deploy their own military helicopters in high-risk areas "is humiliating for NATO," MacKenzie said.

With files from The Canadian Press

NGOs meet with John Manley panel on Afghanistan

Updated Sat. Oct. 27 2007 - CTV.ca News Staff

There should be a clear separation in Afghanistan between development work and the military, according to the head of an aid group who met with a government-appointed panel on Canada's mission in the country.

The panel is headed by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley and is examining Canada's commitment to Afghanistan. Specifically, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has asked the group to look at four options for the mission's future:

• Continue training Afghan troops and police, so they can continue to stabilize the country after Canadian soldiers leave;
• Shift Canada's focus on reconstruction efforts in Kandahar, while another NATO country take over combat duties;
• Leave Kandahar and focus on a different region of Afghanistan; and,
• Withdraw troops by February 2009.

Gerry Barr, president of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, said there are two additional options the panel needs to consider: ensuring a division between the military and aid groups, and building consensus among Afghanistan's political entities.

"One of the things going on in Afghanistan that's very troubling to NGOs (non-governmental organizations) is the confusion between the military role and the role of humanitarian actors and aid workers," he told CTV Newsnet.

"There needs to be some space between them. They need to be independent. If not, we can end up with civilians being targeted."

He said the military is crucial for creating the security needed for development projects. But when such projects become associated with the military, they are often targeted by the Taliban.

According to Barr, about 35 per cent of the schools in southern Afghanistan are closed because they have been threatened by insurgents.

"We're building schools that can't be attended," he said.

Barr also urged the panel to look at how Canada can foster peace in Afghanistan, by establishing a dialogue between the different groups.

"The first thing it needs to do is look at how Canada might contribute to generating broad political consensus in Afghanistan -- the search for a durable peace, which is of course the first condition for sustainable commitment," he said.

There will be no public hearings for the panel, which is expected to release a report on its findings by January.

Critics say Harper created the panel to gain political support for extending the mission, and that it's less independent than U.S. President George Bush's advisory panel on Iraq.

"The American panel had much more freedom than the Canadian one does," Amir Attaran, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, told CTV News.

"This Canadian panel is a puppet of the government, even with Mr. Manley present."

Critics also note that whenever the opposition parties want action on the mission, Harper can ask them to wait for the panel's report -- and note that it's headed by a Liberal.

While Maj.-Gen. (Ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie said the panel was an example of "brilliant domestic politics," he said it was also useful for a fresh perspective on the war.

"The prime minister doesn't have to take the recommendations and implement them, but they will in fact come up with a long study -- a fairly extensive study -- and hopefully with some advice," he said.

Along with Manley, other panel members include:

• Derek Burney, Canada's former ambassador to Washington and former chief of staff to Mulroney
• Broadcaster Pamela Wallin, who was Canadian consul general in New York
• Former Mulroney-era Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Jake Epp
• Paul Tellier, former Clerk of the Privy Council during the Mulroney era and former president and CEO of Canadian National Railway and Bombardier

With reports from CTV's Graham Richardson and The Canadian Press

Afghanistan panel will open website for public submissions

THE CANADIAN PRESS - October 27, 2007

OTTAWA — John Manley's Afghanistan panel is setting up a website to take written submissions from the public, the head of a Canadian development group said Saturday.

The panel has said it had no plans for public hearings, but Gerry Barr, president of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, said the website will allow for public input.

Mr. Barr and representatives of about a dozen other Canadian aid groups met Mr. Manley and his panel on Saturday. They were told an Internet site will be running soon and will accept comments and recommendations.

"Plainly, if they put their address on the website and ask for submissions, they're going to get them from the general public," Mr. Barr said.

Mr. Barr said the aid groups had a lively two hours behind closed doors with Mr. Manley and his four fellow committee members.

Mr. Manley, a former Liberal cabinet minister and one-time leadership contender, was appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper earlier this month to look at the future of Canada's commitment in Afghanistan.

At the time, Mr. Harper said he wanted the panel to consider four options:

— Keep training Afghan troops and police to be self-sustaining when Canadian troops withdraw.

— Focus on reconstruction in Kandahar with another NATO country taking over security.

— Shift Canadian security and reconstruction to another region of Afghanistan.

— Withdraw the main body of Canada's troops in February 2009.

Mr. Barr said he urged Mr. Manley and the panel to look beyond those choices.

"The options . . . that were given to them at the front end all had to do with . . . the Canadian military in Afghanistan," Mr. Barr said. "We were there to say to them that you need to put in your option category actively the search for a political consensus in Afghanistan, a national peace process and how Canada could support that kind of process."

Mr. Barr also said it's important to break perceived linkages between the military and development, which can become intertwined in people's minds.

"If there is a sort of military signature on aid . . . then the projects themselves can become targets in an insurgency war. As projects become targets, citizens and civilians are targeted themselves . . . and we do the opposite of what we intend with aid.

"We have to stop any confusion between the aid and the military effort." He agreed, though, that security can't be ignored:

"Plainly, security and development do relate to one another. It's important to have security in order to have development, but that does not mean they are Siamese twins."

Mr. Manley and his fellow panel members — former broadcaster Pamela Wallin, Derek Burney, former ambassador to Washington and one-time chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, Paul Tellier, former clerk of the privy council and Jake Epp, a former Mulroney cabinet minister — are expected to report by January.

Mr. Harper appointed the panel amid a political debate over what Canada should do when the mandate of its current Afghan commitment runs out in February 2009. The Conservatives are leaning to a continuation, other parties are demanding that the troops come home.

Will Canada stand with its allies ?

October 29, 2007 - Rosie DiManno, Toronto Star

Nations, like people, are known by the company they keep. There are formal alliances for the purpose and informal affiliations.

Sometimes, though, a common principle – moral prerogative, security, commitment to a foreign undertaking – is the tie that binds, most especially between individual countries with a shared history and similar values. These are the key relationships within a coalition. NATO is a western bloc, with newer additions. Afghanistan was to be NATO's 21st century reinvention and relevancy in a post-Cold War world.

It's not working out that way, with European capitals unbudging in their refusal to commit sufficient combat troops and treasure to the mission. They'll deploy soldiers but remain insistent on keeping them out of harm's way.

But what they do – or rather don't do – can't be the deciding factor for what Canada itself decides in the coming months. The chimera of military involvement in Afghanistan for a majority of European nations must not be used as an excuse for pulling our frontline troops out of Kandahar.

It has become obvious that only a handful of nations are in for the long haul, which will be very long indeed. Will Canada stand with its traditional allies and do the same? The answer to that question is about us, not anyone else.

The Americans will stay because Afghanistan, despite the U.S.-led coalition that deposed the Taliban in 2001, is primarily their war. No Democratic presidential candidate has said a word about retreating from Afghanistan; quite the opposite, even as they rail over Iraq. The British, as Prime Minister Gordon Brown vowed last week, will not abandon Helmand province, however protracted the mission – and they twice suffered defeat on Afghan soil in the 19th century. The Dutch have given notice they will hang in beyond August of 2008, the deadline originally set, doing far more conventional fighting in Uruzgan than had been anticipated.

Canada is ... thinking about it, Prime Minister Stephen Harper indicating in the throne speech he would prefer troops to remain beyond 2009, at least till 2011, possibly in an exclusive training capacity.

This, I think, is a fig leaf – political cover to render the mission more palpable to both opposition parties and the public. Afghanistan doesn't need our 2,500 troops to train their security forces. They need them to fight, as warranted, and to provide protection for reconstruction projects and aid agencies.

There were embarrassing contradictions last week between the PM and Gen. Rick Hillier even about the training timeline, the latter suggesting it would take a decade before the Afghan army is ready to take over after Harper predicted the army could defend "its own sovereignty'' by 2011.

While Hillier has since clarified his comments – he'd meant Afghan troops assuming responsibility for the whole country, not just Kandahar – he was actually right the first time. Afghan's army, unlike the Afghan police, is immensely respected by the civilian population. They are professional soldiers, relatively free of corruption, and brave. But only two brigades have graduated and are now in the field, with another coming down the pipe. That's nowhere near enough to hold the insurgency at bay and they won't be close to having reasonable troop strength in three years time.

Further, those troops are abysmally lacking in proper military vehicles and equipment. On joint missions, the ANA goes out front – in pickup trucks, with exposed machine guns propped in back.

So, forget pleading with NATO members for more boots on the ground. Won't happen. Hit them hard for money, for helicopters, for kitting out Afghan security forces.

They won't risk blood. But there's no risk in cold, hard cash. They've got it.

Rosie DiManno usually appears Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.

Press Gallery undeterred by PM's snub

Five Tory MPs attend annual dinner
The Ottawa Citizen , Sunday, October 28, 2007

With Prime Minister Stephen Harper snubbing the annual Press Gallery dinner last night, two Conservative ministers received a standing ovation just for showing up.

The annual event, held at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, was hosted by Radio Canada reporter Daniel Lessard, who joked that other Tory ministers had dietary reasons for not coming. "They weren't serving chicken," he said.

The brave attendees were Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon and Minister of Labour Jean-Pierre Blackburn, who were joined by three other Tory MPs, Michael Chong, John Williams and Lee Richardson.

Of the three party leaders who attended -- NDP leader Jack Layton, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, and Green party chief Elizabeth May -- only Mr. Layton and Mr. Dion dared give speeches.

This comes as no surprise. With the demise of the off-the-record nature of the affair, many politicians now see their involvement as a potential liability. The Press Gallery admitted attendance this year was down, but said it had sold 450 tickets, more than enough to break even.

"When the prime minister cancelled, I think everyone in his caucus saw that as a signal not to attend, which was unfortunate because the press gallery dinner is a long-standing event," said Citizen reporter Glen McGregor, who attended last night.

"It's a good opportunity for people to be self-deprecating, and that only endears them with everybody." CTV's Mike Duffy agrees. He has attended the event yearly since 1971, and said the event has changed.

"It used to be that it was off the record and that politicians would come and say outrageous things aimed at reporters and they would kind of let their hair down," he said.

The dinner was once an almost weekend-long drunk in which the men in power and the men who wrote about them (female journalists weren't invited) donned tuxedos to engage in locker-room banter -- all under a veil of absolute secrecy.

After dinner, the press gallery would mount an outrageous variety show. In 1962, with the U.S. civil rights movement well under way, the whole cast got itself up in black face to put on a minstrel show. In 1925, the unscheduled entertainment was Mackenzie King dancing on the table.

Over the years, the boozy old-boys club of off-the-record sniggering and intemperate carousing was worn away by the incursions of sobriety, journalistic ethics, political correctness and public exposure.

By the early '90s, the dinner was seen as an anachronism. Media outlets protested the off-the-record nature (even if their reporters did not). For two years running, prime minister Brian Mulroney declined to attend, raising questions of the affair's survival.

Ironically, when the the dinner abandoned its secrecy in 1994, it enjoyed a revival. It became a place where politicians might score some points with an audience broader than a bunch of jaded journalists.

"I think the dinner has changed," Mr. Duffy said last night, "but it hasn't declined. I think that was the original fear. It's a gala with people very elegantly dressed. And it's moved out of the locker room and moved into the boardroom, or cabinet room." Among the elegant in attendance last night was Belinda Stronach. Recovering from breast cancer surgery, Ms. Stronach looked stunning in a black gown with a plunging neckline. Other attendees included U.S. ambassador David Wilkins, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, Chief of Defence Gen. Rick Hillier, and Afghanistan's ambassador, Omar Samad.

"It's really sad the prime minister isn't here tonight," said Mr. Duffy. "The fact is the prime minister is a very funny guy." And he is probably right. The last time Mr Harper did attend, he had the last laugh, describing the dinner as an affair where "people who aren't funny tell jokes to people with no sense of humour."

[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.]