In this bulletin:

• Fighting in Afghanistan kills about 75
• Bangladeshi aid worker shot dead in Afghanistan
• Taliban backtracks
• US concerned about Iranian weapons going to Taliban
• Cracks appear in allied coalition in Afghanistan
• Pakistan army kills dozens of militants during US visit
• Last three Afghan mine clearers freed
• Afghan transferred to Guantanamo over alleged Al-Qaeda links
• NATO force chief suggests new ways to fight Afghan opium production
• U.S. troops push Afghan elders to resist rebels
• EU's Afghan Training Mission Hampered by Fresh Troubles
• Harper must come clean on mission
• Taliban talk offer bodes well
• Secret U.S.-Taliban discussions seem to be afoot
• Bush administration asked to focus on Afghanistan
• Democrats say Bush policies responsible for rise of Taliban
• We're losing in Afghanistan too

Fighting in Afghanistan kills about 75

By AMIR SHAH, Associated Press Thursday, September 13, 2007

KABUL, Afghanistan - Fighting in Afghanistan killed some 75 people as the Muslim holy month of Ramadan began, including 45 suspected Taliban militants who died in airstrikes and Afghan army gunfire, officials said Thursday.

In the southern province of Uruzgan, insurgents attacked a joint Afghan army and U.S.-led coalition patrol Wednesday with rocket-propelled grenades and gunfire, the coalition said in a statement.

Afghan soldiers "cleared" Taliban fighters from firing positions within the village of Aduzay, while attack aircraft destroyed some fighting positions, it said. The coalition said more than 45 Taliban were killed.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force said Wednesday that insurgents increased attacks during Ramadan last year and that the same may happen this year.

"On the eve of the holy month of Ramadan, the enemies of Afghanistan have shown they will shun peaceful coexistence in favor of attacking government forces," said Army Maj. Chris Belcher, a coalition spokesman. "Fortunately for the citizens of Afghanistan, the (Afghan National Army) is improving their tactics."

The coalition said no Afghan or coalition soldiers or civilians were wounded or killed in Uruzgan. It was not possible to confirm the death toll independently because of the remote location of the fighting.

Fighting has increased dramatically in the last several weeks in Afghanistan, with more than 300 suspected Taliban fighters killed since late August, according to the U.S.-led coalition.

More than 4,300 people — mostly militants — have died in insurgency related violence this year, according to an Associated Press count based on figures from Western and Afghan officials.

In fighting elsewhere in the country, an Afghan-NATO patrol discovered and defused three roadside bombs Wednesday in the Zhari district of Kandahar province and shortly after was ambushed by Taliban fighters. A helicopter gunship joined the ensuing battle, which left 12 militants dead, said Syed Agha Saqib, the provincial police chief said Thursday.

In Zabul province, 11 Taliban fighters were killed during a battle with NATO and Afghan soldiers on Wednesday, said Gulab Shah Alikhail, the governor's spokesman said Thursday.

Three police were killed in Herat province during a five-hour fight on Wednesday, and one Afghan soldier was killed in Farah province Thursday, officials said. Two civilians were killed by a bomb hidden in a cart that exploded near a police station in Takhar province, in the north.

Police in Helmand province shot and killed a would-be suicide bomber before he could detonate his explosives on Thursday, said Gen. Mohammad Hussein Andiwal, the provincial police chief.

Bangladeshi aid worker shot dead in Afghanistan

13 Sep 2007, 1706 hrs IST, AFP - MAZAR-I-SHARIF: A Bangladeshi aid worker was shot dead by unknown gunmen while travelling through remote northeastern Afghanistan on a motorbike, police and his organisation said on Thursday.

The man was working on a microfinance project in the rugged, underdeveloped province of Badakshan and had gone to a remote village with a colleague to collect a loan when he was attacked, the provincial police commander said.

Two gunmen opened fire on them as they approached the village on Wednesday, commander Aqa Noor Kendoz said. The Bangladeshi was killed and his Afghan colleague was wounded.

The attackers were arrested and claimed to be robbers, Kendoz said. He cast doubt on the claim however, saying the pair had made no attempt to steal anything.

The police chief suggested the attackers may be linked to the insurgent Taliban movement, which targets any one helping to support the new Western-backed Afghan government.

The Taliban did no claim responsibility. The victim as employed by the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) as an area project manager, an official with the organisation told AFP, refusing to give his name.

He was the first foreign national with BRAC to be killed in Afghanistan although some of the group's Afghan employees had been targeted,he said, confirming the police version of the incident.

BRAC has been in Afghanistan since 2002 and works on development projects, including building schools, roads and clinics. Its microfinance programme in Afghanistan work largely with poor and disadvantaged women. via The Times of India

Taliban backtracks

The Associated Press, 09/13/2007 -KABUL – A Taliban spokesperson said yesterday the U.S. and other military forces must leave Afghanistan before the militant group would consider holding peace talks with the Afghan government, back-tracking from a Monday statement.

Qari Yousef Ahmadi originally said negotiations would be considered if the Afghan government made a formal offer. Yesterday, however, he said the foreign soldiers must leave the country first.

US concerned about Iranian weapons going to Taliban

AFP, 09/13/2007 - KABUL - Deputy US Secretary of State John Negroponte reiterated Tuesday concern about weapons from Iran supplying the Taliban and said Washington was also discouraging China from selling arms to that country.

Negroponte told reporters in Kabul that he had discussed with Beijing "their weapons sales to the country of Iran and our concern about those weapons sales."

"And we have tried to discourage the Chinese from signing any new weapons contracts with Iran," the official said.

Media reports early this month said Britain had privately complained to Beijing that Chinese-made weapons were being used by the Taliban in Afghanistan, where there are nearly 50,000 international soldiers.

Negroponte said Washington was also worried about the Taliban acquiring weapons, made in Iran, capable of piercing armoured vehicles.

"We are concerned by reports which we consider to be reliable of explosively formed projectiles and other types of military equipment coming from Iran and into the hands of the Taliban," he said.

US and British officials have alleged for months that weapons from Iran are going to the Taliban rebels fighting the Afghan government and its international allies.

But Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whose government relies on the United States for funds and military strength, has insisted there is no evidence to prove this.

He said during a visit to the United States last month that Iran was "a helper" against extremists.

Afghanistan's independent Pajhwak Afghan News agency cited an unidentified government official saying this month that four depots of arms manufactured by Iran, China and Russia had been discovered in the western province of Herat.

The report said it was not clear if the weapons were new or had been stored in Afghanistan's nearly three decades of conflict.

Cracks appear in allied coalition in Afghanistan

International Herald Tribune, 09/13/2007 By Judy Dempsey

BERLIN - The coalition established to stabilize Afghanistan after the ouster of the Taliban by U.S. forces in 2001 is weakening as countries fighting in the volatile south criticize the lack of military support from other NATO allies, defense officials said Thursday.

Britain, Canada and the Netherlands face crucial decisions on whether to renew their commitments in the increasingly violent region where the Dutch contingent now commands alliance forces fighting a growing resurgence by Taliban and Al Qaeda forces.

The intensifying debate in Europe comes as disarray in Japan's Liberal Democratic Party following the resignation of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is likely to interrupt and perhaps end the Japanese naval force's six-year participation in Afghanistan. Tokyo must obtain parliamentary approval to extend the mission beyond Nov. 1. (Page 8)

"The Dutch government is facing a very difficult decision whether to recommend extending the mandate for the troops or end it as planned," said Sico van der Meer, a security expert at the Netherlands Institute for International Relations. "There are now too few countries willing to help in the south. Germany says it is willing, but not in that dangerous area." The Dutch are committed to keeping 2,000 troops in Afghanistan until 2008.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the NATO secretary general, asked Germany on Thursday to redeploy some of its 3,200 troops from northern Afghanistan to the south. But Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition of conservatives and Social Democrats rejected the request, saying German troops were already carrying out important work.

The German troops are based in the relatively peaceful province of Kunduz and are under tight restrictions on their mission. Defense Minister Franz-Josef Jung suggested last week that German soldiers help train the Afghan Army in the south, provoking a bitter debate, with some coalition factions opposing deployment in the south and some opposition parties calling for withdrawal of all German troops.

The Dutch government postponed a parliamentary debate this autumn on its contribution because the deployment has become so politically sensitive. "This is becoming a very complicated issue," van der Meer said. "The Dutch soldiers were sent initially to Afghanistan to support a policy of reconstruction and stabilization. But they have ended up in a high-combat mission, which in fact was not NATO's original mandate. NATO is supposed to be a stabilization force."

The Dutch government and NATO are also concerned that even if the Dutch decided to stay in the south, but with reduced numbers, the alliance would be hard-pressed to find another country willing to take over the command. General Ray Henault, the Canadian chairman of NATO's military committee, is looking for another NATO country to replace the Dutch as the lead unit.

During a visit to Australia this week, Henault asked Defense Minister Brendan Nelson if his government, a staunch supporter of the U.S.-led war on terror, would take on the task. Nelson declined.

"At the moment, it's been clearly expressed to me that Australia would prefer to have a lead nation to work with, especially a NATO nation so it can continue operating in Afghanistan," Henault said. Australia has 1,000 troops in Afghanistan, more than any other non-NATO nation.

Canada's conservative-led minority government must decide in the coming weeks whether to retain the Afghan mission as part of the government's program. Its 2,500 troops are supposed to stay there until 2009.

Paul Dubois, the Canadian ambassador to Germany, said recently that the force of 30,000 NATO troops - the bulk of which are not in action in the south - and 10,000 U.S. soldiers was too little. "Naturally, we would welcome it if Germany and other countries sent more soldiers."

Britain, while reducing its contingent in Iraq, has almost doubled its force in Afghanistan from 3,300 to 5,800. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has publicly supported a much stronger British presence in the country - but on condition of greater support from NATO. Such assistance is unlikely, according to security analysts.

"There was always a shortage of NATO troops and military equipment," said Clara O'Donnell, a defense expert at the Center for European Reform in London. "Now, with the debate over the future of the Dutch and Canadian participation and with all the restrictions imposed on troops from other countries, the likelihood is that there will be less troops."

The South Korean government announced last month that it would be withdrawing its 200 troops serving with the U.S. forces in Afghanistan after 23 South Korean volunteers had been taken hostage by the Taliban. And in Italy, Prime Minister Romano Prodi's government barely survived a confidence vote when the opposition insisted that it withdraw all its troops from Afghanistan. But Prodi survived the vote and the troops are still there.

The other big European countries, including Italy and Spain, are unwilling to send their troops south, saying that their deployment mandates did not allow it. De Hoop Scheffer said he did not think that "things are going to change anytime soon."

"But if Afghanistan is NATO's most important mission, countries should deliver what they promise," he said.

Pakistan army kills dozens of militants during US visit

Miranshah (AFP) - Pakistani troops backed by gunships killed more than 70 militants in two days of heavy fighting during a visit by US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, officials said.

At least two soldiers also died in the latest clashes early Thursday, which erupted when Pakistani forces repelled a mass insurgent attack on a checkpost in the North Waziristan tribal area bordering Afghanistan, the army said.

The battles highlighted the continuing problems in the region where US officials say the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban have regrouped since 9/11, despite President Pervez Musharraf's efforts to tackle militancy.

Musharraf told Negroponte during a two-hour meeting in Islamabad that "Pakistan's commitment should never be in doubt as it was in Pakistan's own national interest," a foreign ministry statement said.

He also urged against pending US legislation that would tie aid payments to Pakistan's performance in fighting Al-Qaeda, and "underscored the need for better understanding of Pakistan counter-terrorism efforts in the US."

Pakistan has been rocked by violence since troops stormed the radical Red Mosque in Islamabad in July, with suicide attacks killing nearly 250 people since then and scores of militants dying in clashes with the military.

Negroponte on Wednesday reiterated Washington's full backing for military ruler Musharraf and played down indications that the United States could launch unilateral strikes against militants on Pakistani soil.

In Pakistan's latest confrontation with the insurgents, troops fought back militants who attacked an army checkpost in North Waziristan's Nawaz Kot district overnight, top military spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad said.

"The security forces retaliated using gunship helicopters. Local sources are reporting at least 30 militants are killed but the toll could go higher," Arshad told AFP, adding that two soldiers also died and eight were wounded.

"The fighting is ongoing. Ground troops have advanced towards the militants' positions."

The army said Pakistani helicopter gunships and artillery also pounded militant hideouts in part of the tribal zone of South Waziristan on Tuesday and Wednesday, killing up to 40 militants.

Dozens of Islamist fighters also attacked a checkpost on Wednesday and kidnapped 12 troops in the country's northwest.

A militant spokesman warned on the same day that they would start killing more than 200 soldiers who surrendered without firing a shot in South Waziristan nearly two weeks ago. There was no new information on the fate of the soldiers Thursday.

Militants abducted another 15 soldiers in August in South Waziristan. One of the troops was beheaded by a group of teenage militants in a killing recorded on video, and the rest were freed later.

Hundreds of Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants sought sanctuary in Pakistan's tribal belt after fleeing Afghanistan in the wake of the US invasion that followed the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

Musharraf meanwhile faces a political crisis ahead of his widely opposed attempt to be re-elected for another five-year term as president in uniform in coming weeks.

He sent former premier Nawaz Sharif back into exile on Monday just hours after he arrived in Pakistan, a move Negroponte said was an "internal matter" for Islamabad.

In a sign of his growing unpopularity, a poll released Wednesday showed that Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is more popular among Pakistanis than Musharraf himself.

Last three Afghan mine clearers freed

KHOST, Afghanistan (AFP) — The remaining three members of a 13-person demining team captured in eastern Afghanistan a week ago have been freed, officials said without making clear who had seized them.

The men -- two deminers and a driver -- were freed in Paktia province late Wednesday after mediation by tribal elders and religious scholars, provincial police chief Esmatullah Alizai told AFP.

The head of the Afghan Technical Consultants (ATC) group, which employed the captured men, confirmed the new releases. Ten were freed Monday. The team was seized at gunpoint Thursday last week.

"All the 13 were freed with the help of tribal elders and local influential people," said ATC head Kafayatullah Eblagh. He and the police chief said no ransom was paid.

Eblagh could not identify the kidnappers but said they demanded the release of prisoners from Afghan jails. The Taliban have made similar demands for the release of their hostages.

"We told them we are a non-governmental organisation and we cannot do this," he said. The police chief also did not blame any group for the abductions.

Similar kidnappings have been carried out by Taliban militants and criminal groups linked to them. The hardline Islamist movement has however not claimed responsibility for this case.

The Taliban said following the kidnapping of 23 South Korean nationals last month that abductions were an effective tactic to pressure Kabul.

Two of the South Koreans were killed, when the government refused to release jailed Taliban, and 21 were freed after direct talks between Taliban and Seoul.

Early last month, three deminers were found dead days after they were abducted by Taliban fighters in the southern province of Kandahar.

Afghan transferred to Guantanamo over alleged Al-Qaeda links

WASHINGTON (AFP) — An Afghan national accused of enabling the movement of Al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq has been transferred to the US detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

The Pentagon said he was captured recently "as a result of ongoing Department of Defense operations against violent extremists in Afghanistan," identifying the detainee as "Inayatullah." Some Afghans have only one name.

"Due to the continuing threat this terror suspect represents and his high placement in Al Qaeda, he has been transferred to Guantanamo," it said in a statement.

The Pentagon said he had admitted to being the "Al-Qaeda emir of Zahedan, Iran and planned and directed Al-Qaeda terrorist operations.

"Inayatullah collaborated with numerous Al-Qaeda senior leaders, to include Abu Ubaydah al-Masri and Azzam, executing their instructions and personally supporting global terrorist efforts," it said.

Masri is reported to be Al-Qaeda's commander in Afghanistan's Kunar province and, according to some analysts, the leader of last summer's plot to blow up 10 US airliners over the Atlantic.

"Azzam the American" is the nom de guerre of a key Al-Qaeda propagandist from California, Adam Gadahn, but it was unclear whether the Pentagon statement was referring to him or to another Al-Qaeda figure.

"Inayatullah attests to facilitating the movement of foreign fighters, significantly contributing to transnational terrorism across multiple borders," the Pentagon said.

It said he met with local operatives, developed travel routes and coordinated documentation, accommodation and vehicles to smuggle operative throughout Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Iraq.

With the latest transfer, the Pentagon has now sent 19 prisoners to Guantanamo since September when President George W. Bush announced the emptying of secret CIA detention centers overseas.

Commander Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said the International Committee of the Red Cross will be given access to the new inmate.

"Decisions on whether and where to prosecute him will be made at a later day, after there has been an opportunity to look into these matters in greater detail," he said.

"He is currently being detained as an unlawful enemy combatant in our struggle against extremists at war with our country," he said.

NATO force chief suggests new ways to fight Afghan opium production

BRUSSELS (AFP) — The head of NATO's military force in Afghanistan said Wednesday he had proposed new ways to crack down on opium production, which is a major source of income for Taliban-led insurgents.

US General Dan McNeill, on a visit to NATO headquarters in Brussels, said he had made suggestions about what else the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) could do to NATO's top military and civilian commanders.

"I am satisfied that talking to members of the alliance they will come to some decision that will say: 'mandate stands as it is' or they will want some adjustments," he told reporters, without going into detail about his proposals.

"You can make the debate that there could be other things the ISAF force could be doing that would have more effect, and indeed the members of the alliance ... (are) likely to do it," he said.

But he insisted that ISAF, whose aim is to provide security so that Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government can spread its influence throughout the insurgency hit country, should not start destroying poppy fields.

"I'm not desirous of the force becoming an eradication force. We're not manned. We're not trained. We're not equipped," he said.

NATO officials acknowledge privately that the sight of soldiers ripping up opium crops would probably undermine their efforts to win the confidence of ordinary Afghans and turn them away from their former Taliban rulers.

"The fundamental principle is that the Afghans must take the lead for very obvious political reasons," added NATO spokesman James Appathurai.

Afghanistan produces about 93 percent of the world's production illegal opium, the raw ingredient for heroin.

The crop jumped by a third this year, helped by good rainy weather, despite international efforts costing millions of dollars. Most of the production is in southern areas where the Taliban-led insurgency is at its fiercest.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime appealed for ISAF to get involved when it released a survey last month showing that opium production had risen to a record high.

The Afghan government has made a similar call, saying it had asked the international forces based here to clear insurgents from opium-growing areas so its own forces can move in to destroy the illegal crop.

U.S. troops push Afghan elders to resist rebels

After Operation Khyber, focus shifts to local governance.

By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Forward Operating Base Wilderness, Afghanistan

In a rock-strewn valley so remote that US and Afghan forces here call their base "Wilderness," tribal elders met under a dusty tent with Afghan politicians and American officers in a bid to turn recent military gains against insurgents into progress in local governance.

Ringed with layers of military security, the jirga, or tribal meeting, Monday marked the close of Operation Khyber, a joint US-Afghan operation of nearly three weeks that is applying a refined counterinsurgency strategy to three tough districts in southeast Afghanistan's Paktia Province.

But while US and Afghan commanders say they have forced out insurgents – "creating effects," in their jargon, that they hope will last at least 60 days – getting government to the people is far from assured.

"Today it is your task to sustain the good situation in your area," Arsala Jamal, the provincial governor of Khost, cajoled scores of turbaned elders. Praising the "achievements" of the operation, he said it was now the duty of the tribes to turn against an "enemy [that] burns your school and your clinic." He told the crowd that the result would be "rewards" of reconstruction from the government and the US, a "golden opportunity" that may never come again.

"We want to live free; we don't want to live in slavery," said Mr. Jamal, who survived a fourth assassination attempt that killed three bodyguards the day Operation Khyber started, on Aug. 22. "And that can only happen when you say 'no' to the enemy and fight the enemy."

US military cash earmarked for development in these poverty-stricken districts adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars and a US-funded project to pave the important Khost-Gardez Pass road adds at least $60 million. They are meant to be the fruits of better security.

"This is the big plan of the government," Maj. Gen. Abdul Khaliq, the top Afghan regional commander, told the elders. "We should provide a situation where the people and the government should connect together."

"I believe the government did not have an opportunity to see each village individually," said General Khaliq. "Right now we have the opportunity to meet with all the elders, all the district commissioners, and all the members of parliament … because we have good security right now."

"Do not let terrorism come and reside in your place," the general warned. "Do not allow your children to grow up as terrorists. We will help. We will build roads. All this is for your benefit."

But nearly six years after the fall of the Taliban, these elders from the sizable Zadran tribe, living in an area of significant insurgent and criminal influence not far from the border with Pakistan, have heard such promises before.

Convincing them to side with the government – despite its often negligible presence in their lives – may be harder to achieve than militarily clearing the insurgents. But it is meant to be the long-term result of the US counter-insurgency strategy.

"The challenge with all these operations is the nonkinetic phase," says Thomas Gregg of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), who has worked three years in the southeast. He says it remains unclear if the government – the police and district officials – can fill the "power vacuum" created after militants are forced out by Operation Khyber.

"So the question mark remains over whether or not the government is in a position to properly harness the potential to expand its influence," says Mr. Gregg.

The problem presents a Catch-22 for US and Afghan forces, here and elsewhere, as they shift focus to the needs of the population.

Was Operation Khyber premature, because local government is not well rooted in these remote communities? Or was the clearing operation necessary now, to give the government the best chance of sinking such roots before winter sets in at these high altitudes?

"This is not a battle of bullets; this is a battle of ideas," says US Army Col. Martin Schweitzer, commander of the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, in southeast Afghanistan.

"The Taliban message is clearly one of threat and intimidation" that targets women, local officials, schools, and clinics, says Colonel Schweitzer. The government's message, he says, can "beat it" by offering education and jobs, and by encouraging Afghans to "look to your government for the solution, versus the Taliban."

But to do so, effective government must extend into rarely reached villages and offer an alternative. Until now, the writ of the weak Afghan government – widely seen as corrupt and focused on Kabul – has made only limited progress.

Still, Schweitzer says that of the 83 districts that he tracks, 58 are now in "direct support" of the government, up from 30 districts a year ago. The year before that, he says, only eight or nine were so closely aligned.

Schweitzer also says that even though US casualties are up 10 percent in Afghanistan this year, in eastern areas they are "significantly reduced" by two-thirds in his area, compared to last year. He confirms about a two-thirds drop in kinetic operations, also, with softer, nonviolent tactics that include using an anthropologist to learn more about Afghans.

But delivering on government promises, or even maintaining security, is hard in these remote mountains near the Pakistani border.

"In almost all districts … there is a desire to receive the practical benefits of reconstruction," says Gregg of the UN. "They want a functioning government. They want functioning, impartial courts. They want [the Afghan National Police] to play their policing role."

But that does not mean all districts support the government or that all others are in "active opposition" to it, says Gregg, who questions how US officers calculate the level of support.

"Are the people just being sufficiently coerced [by militants], where they can't be part of the political process, because of the degree of intimidation they are under and the absence of police?" he asks.

At the jirga under the tent of broad white and blue stripes, some men – including a handful of parliament deputies brought in from Kabul – expressed gratitude for Operation Khyber, which yielded more than 30 arrests, including that of a 6-foot 4-inch Russian with a red beard and wearing a black burqa, whose truck was full of explosives.

But others were unconvinced. Nadir Khan Katawazai, a member of parliament from nearby Paktika Province, was grateful that no civilians were killed in Operation Khyber, but said there were few achievements because militants had left and would return "refreshed" after hiding in the mountains.

And, he says, extending government rule is going to be tough. "When I was first elected by the people of Paktika, I made a lot of promises, because the government made me promises," Mr. Katawazai, told the elders, his head wrapped in a vast, gold-silk turban. "But all these promises [weren't kept], and today … the people think that I am a liar."

And so far, militants have an advantage: "Today the enemy are fully active [and] can easily go to each village, can go to mosques and preach to people," says Katawazai. "By contrast, the government is weak … [and] never gets the word out to the people."

EU's Afghan Training Mission Hampered by Fresh Troubles

DW - NATO chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is in Berlin Thursday to ask for German help for the EU's Afghan police training mission, which is marred by problems. Its German head is returning home just months after his appointment.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is set to ask Germany on Thursday, Sept. 13, for police trainers to be deployed in southern Afghanistan where alliance forces are dealing with an upsurge in violence and suicide bomb attacks by the Taliban, al Qaeda and local warlords.

The request comes at a time when the EU's special police training mission is also hampered by complaints of inadequate EU planning and insufficient NATO security support.

German head of EU mission to quit This week, the German interior ministry confirmed that Brigadier General Friedrich Eichele is returning to Germany just months after he was appointed to head the EU training mission in Afghanistan.

Eichele, a former commander of the German Federal Police's elite GSG 9 counter-terrorism unit, is said to be returning to oversee reforms of the domestic police force.

But, according to German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, tensions with the EU's special envoy to Afghanistan, Francesc Vendrell, are the actual reasons behind Eichele's early exit. Vendrell reportedly wanted political control of the mission, something that Eichele opposed.

The German embassy in Kabul described Eichele as simply "overburdened," the magazine said.

Eichele's early departure reflects the difficulties in trying to establish the mission of 190 European trainers in Afghanistan at a time when an increase in violence and suicide attacks by the Taliban and al Qaeda has raised pressure on ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) countries to scale down their Afghan troop presence.

Last month, three German police officers responsible for protecting the German ambassador to Afghanistan died and a fourth was injured when their vehicles were blown up on a road to the east of Kabul. Germany has some 3,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan, mostly in the relatively stable north of the country.

Until a few months ago, Germany was considered to be leading the way in training Afghan police and border guards. It was in charge of the police training from 2002 until this year. That was one of the reasons why, when the EU took over the mission in June, the top post remained in German hands.

Like Germany, several EU members, some of whom are also part of NATO, have police and military working in Afghanistan under separate civil and military mandates.

But in recent months, the training mission has faltered, with critics saying it's been underfunded, understaffed and poorly prepared. The European Commission has still not approved the budget for armored cars, computers and office equipment for the mission headquarters in Kabul, according to news reports.

In addition, the mission has gotten off to a slow start, with reports saying not enough European police trainers or Afghan participants have turned up. Some 90 trainers were expected to come from 21 nations, but EU member states have so far provided only half the personnel. Germany has promised up to 60 officials but still hasn't delivered on its promise.

Der Spiegel reported last month that officials have not resolved how to keep newly trained Afghan police officers and soldiers from joining the Taliban, local militia leaders or drug barons, all of whom offer better pay than the government in Kabul.

The mission has also been hampered by NATO-member Turkey's blocking of an agreement to regulate cooperation between the alliance and the EU in Afghanistan. Turkey has tried to curb military cooperation between the two because the European Union has refused to guarantee Cypriot officers would not participate.

But NATO spokesman James Appathurai denied suggestions that NATO support for the EU police trainers was inadequate.

"NATO has been providing support to the European police in Afghanistan, and we cannot imagine that NATO will provide any less support to the EU police than it does to other organizations such as the United Nations," he said.

On Wednesday, NATO's top civilian official in Afghanistan, Daan Everts, said the EU is still not fully contributing to international efforts to bring peace and the rule of law to Afghanistan, with incompetence and corruption rife among local Afghan forces. 

"That has to be addressed in a more concerted and forceful manner," Everts said during a news conference. Other observers questioned whether the EU was properly prepared to coordinate operations so far away from its national borders.

"It seems that the EU was not really properly prepared for such a complex mission," Ronja Kempin, an Afghanistan expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin told the International Herald Tribune this week.

"The EU seemed to have rushed into setting up this mission," Kempin said, adding that massive corruption in the Afghan interior ministry compounded the troubles.

Harper must come clean on mission

September 13, 2007 - James Travers Toronto Star, Ottawa

Usually clever Stephen Harper is occasionally too clever by half. At those moments the Prime Minister's best policy thinking trips over his worst political instincts and national interest, along with public confidence in his leadership, suffers.

That happened last year when Harper decided against building a parliamentary consensus on extending the Afghanistan mission in favour of driving a wedge between Liberals. Now the spectre of a repeat is rising in the foreplay leading up to next month's throne speech and, perhaps, a late fall election.

For the moment, the Prime Minister is keeping options open with fluid musing about what, if any, role Canada will play in Afghanistan when the current Kandahar mission ends. Ranging freely across the spectrum from staying to finish the job to an orderly retreat, the Conservative position is as confused and confusing as the Liberal response.

But sooner rather than later Ottawa must reveal its post-February 2009 intentions to its allies. And that means Harper faces two decisions: One reframing Canada's commitment to Afghanistan, NATO and the United Nations, another on the wisdom of forcing an election over something as contentious, and uncontrollable, as war.

History makes the second more tempting to forecast than the first. The last time Harper chose between policy consensus and political conflict he threatened an early election if the opposition didn't support keeping troops longer in Afghanistan's violent south.

That confrontation wasn't necessary or prudent. Then interim Liberal leader Bill Graham, a former foreign and defence minister who firmly believed in the mission, was an available partner for a bipartisan agreement. But Harper opted for short-term political advantage that in the longer term perched the Afghanistan albatross squarely on his shoulders.

Once a responsibility inherited from Liberals, the war became Harper's own. Now, with a fall campaign possible, he must neutralize casualties as a ballot-box issue or find a way to torque the mission to Conservative advantage.

Either way, a prime time for Harper to show his hand is Oct. 16, when the government will start a new parliamentary session with fresh and refreshed priorities. Each one will be parsed; none will be as painstakingly decoded as the Tory Afghanistan message.

What needs to be found in and between the lines are some answers and some resolve. Instead of rhetoric and jingoism, parties and the people deserve a full explanation of why Afghanistan is important to Canada, along with honest assessments of how the mission is progressing, what can reasonably be achieved and at what cost.

Harper is as capable of making a credible case for prolonging the effort – presumably in a less combative mode in a less dangerous zone – as he has been eager to accuse his rivals of being willing to cut and run. He can and should argue that Canada doesn't abandon international obligations no matter how onerous, that rebuilding failed states is tough, time-consuming work and that packing up now diminishes the sacrifice of those wounded and killed.

But Harper also needs to be more candid about Canadian and allied failings, as well as less willing to hide multi-layered local and regional complexities in the simplistic notions of a struggle between good and evil.

All are prerequisites to better understanding the war. All are necessary if Harper is to choose wisely between inclusive policy and divisive politics.

Taliban talk offer bodes well
By Haroun Mir – Asia Times

KABUL - The positive reply by Taliban spokesman Qari Yusouf Ahmadi to the Kabul government's appeal for dialogue gives peace talks in Afghanistan a new momentum.

The government of President Hamid Karzai welcomed the Taliban's statement, and immediately the United Nations special representative in Afghanistan, Tom Koenings, offered the UN's endorsement for the negotiation process.

Karzai appears sincere about bringing the Taliban's moderateleaders into the political process, which would help the government regain control over some of the Pashtun-dominated provinces in southern Afghanistan.

The idea of negotiating with insurgent groups such as the Taliban and the Hezb-i-Islami of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has been an important government policy. A number of prominent Hezb-i-Islami members gained senior government positions after rejecting Hekmatyar's rhetoric against the government and the presence of coalition forces in the country.

In addition, coalition forces in Afghanistan have tried on their own to reach out to the insurgent groups. For instance, the British military in Afghanistan has been directly involved in talks with the Taliban and reached a secret truce with them in Musa Qala district of Helmand last October.

The making and unraveling of alliances in Afghan politics is a common practice. Yesterday's enemies could become today's allies, and vice-versa. The political faultlines among major political groups in Afghanistan are not over ideology anymore. The majority of them favor an Islamic state, and the secular political groups are still too insignificant to oppose them. The absence of national political parties and political ideologies forces the majority of Afghans to regroup along ethnic affinities.

The bonds between President Karzai and his former allies is over. First Vice President Hamad Zia Massoud and Karzai's former defense minister Marshal Mohammad Qassim Fahim are publicly criticizing him. Massoud is also the leader of the United Front (an alliance of former Northern Alliance and a few former communist leaders), which is the main opposition group.

For the time being, there are two legitimate major political entities in the country: the United Front and Karzai's supporters. The third significant political group is the Taliban, which remain unlawful because of their militarily opposition to the government and the presence of coalition forces in Afghanistan. If they decide to engage peacefully in the political process, they will change this political balance.

The next Afghan presidential election will take place in 2009. The United Front is struggling to choose a candidate, but its members will ultimately overcome their differences. Karzai, without admitting it, will undoubtedly run again. He knows that the United Front in the northern provinces will seriously challenge his leadership, and he has no choice but to concentrate all of his efforts in the Pashtun-dominated southern provinces.

He will be the right candidate for the majority of Pashtuns if he remains unchallenged by other strong contenders. There are serious rumors about potential candidacies of the former ministers of finance and interior affairs, Ashraf Ghani and Ali Ahmad Jalili, respectively, but since they reside outside the country, they are of lesser threat for Karzai.

In fact, Afghanistan in 2009 might face two plausible scenarios. Either the moderate Taliban leaders join the political process and become a natural ally for Karzai or the security situation will worsen and elections will not be able to take place, at least in the south, which would make elections elsewhere in the country illegitimate.

Perhaps the Taliban and their foreign backers understand how fragile the current political situation is. They know this is the best time to enter the political process, extract maximum incentives from coalition countries in Afghanistan, and become a major power broker before and after the 2009 elections.

Afghanistan can ill-afford political infighting at a time when the country needs leaders capable of building consensus and compromise. But consensus and compromise are not familiar notions for Afghan politicians, most of whom are unwilling to leave their rigid spheres of self-interest.

Some politicians who claim to follow the goals of the late Ahmad Shah Masoud, leader of the Northern Alliance, have already started to criticize the idea of negotiations with the Taliban.

Yet Masoud never closed the door to negotiations with his enemies. During the Taliban rule in the late 1990s, he met with Taliban representative in their stronghold in the town of Maidanshar west of Kabul, spoke twice by satellite phone with Taliban leader Mullah Omar, and invited him to accept the will of the people through a democratic process.

Negotiating with the Taliban should not be considered an act of weakness, but rather as giving strength to the Afghan government. If Karzai concentrates his efforts on bringing moderate Taliban leaders to the negotiation table, this will become his legacy as the first elected president of Afghanistan.

Haroun Mir served more than five years as an aide to the late Ahmad Shah Masoud, Afghanistan's former defense minister. He works as a consultant and policy analyst in Kabul.

Secret U.S.-Taliban discussions seem to be afoot

Toronto Star, 09/13/2007 Thomas Walkom - To the Canadian government, negotiations with the Taliban are anathema. "We do not negotiate with terrorists," Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier pronounced after successful talks between the Taliban and South Korea over the fate of 19 captured Christian aid workers.

Polls show that Ottawa's no-talks position is at odds with more than 60 per cent of Canadians. Recent events suggest it may also be out of sync with events on the ground.

Much of what is going on involves the usual diplomatic dance: Afghan President Hamid Karzai says he is willing to talk; the Taliban reply that they are too, but only after foreign troops leave Afghanistan. And there matters appear to stall.

But behind the dance are indications that something is beginning to happen. The Nation, one of Pakistan's major English-language newspapers, reports that since late August secret talks have been underway in that country between U.S. officials and the Taliban.

According to these unconfirmed reports, the talks – timed in part to coincide with the visit to Pakistan of U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte – are aimed initially at resuscitating local truces in Afghanistan's hotly-contested southern provinces.

If The Nation is even remotely correct, these developments mark a sea change in America's us-versus-them approach. Since he invaded Afghanistan to depose the Islamists, President George W. Bush has steadfastly refused to talk to them. In late 2001, when Karzai okayed a negotiated deal with Taliban leader Mullah Omar, he was overruled by then U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

But with Rumsfeld gone and Bush going, things are changing in Washington. As The Associated Press reported recently, experienced conservative career diplomats are replacing exuberant neo-conservative hawks on key foreign policy files such as Afghanistan.

Certainly, those interested in a more hard-nosed, less ideological approach to Afghanistan have openings. As in Iraq, the Afghan insurgents are not a unified group. The Taliban, who are essentially deeply conservative Pashtun irredentists, do not share the global aims of their Al Qaeda allies. Nor is there love lost between the Taliban and fellow rebels belonging to Hizb-i-Islami of former Afghan prime minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar; during the civil war of `90s, the two groups were bitter foes.

As well, the Taliban themselves are split among factions. In Iraq, America's only success has come in Anbar province where it has been able to make common cause with the Baathists of Saddam Hussein – the very people Bush deposed – against Al Qaeda. To practitioners of the black arts of realpolitik, the same opportunities are available in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Karzai is increasingly desperate. It is clear that NATO countries like France are unwilling to bear more of the fighting load. It is also clear that those doing the fighting, like Canada, are growing weary.

A political settlement with the Taliban now offers Karzai more leeway than it would after NATO's inevitable disengagement. Afghan leaders who wait too long to deal often end up with their heads chopped off.

The only question now is whether the Taliban would agree to anything other than outright victory. If they follow past Afghan practice, they will.

For Canada, these developments are crucial. The debate here is whether we should keep fighting the Taliban. But events are passing us by. By the time we decide, we

Bush administration asked to focus on Afghanistan

NEW YORK, Sept 12 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi has said focus should be given on Afghanistan as the real war on terror is in that country and not in Iraq.

Talking to media after meeting the US President, George W. Bush, at the White House, Pelosi said the Democrats were focusing on the real war on terror, which is in Afghanistan.

Insisting on withdrawal of troops from Iraq, she said: "We have said the troops can stay, a small number could stay, whatever number necessary to fight al-Qaeda. But we must get our combat troops out of that civil war in Iraq."

Pelosi was accompanied by the Senate Majority leader Henry Reid in her meeting with Bush.

Similar views were expressed by another Democrat Senator Evan Bayh. He said the central front of the war against terror was Afghanistan and not Iraq. 

"The central front, in fact, as our intelligence agencies indicate, is not Iraq. It is Afghanistan and the tribal areas in Pakistan where al-Qaeda is reconstituting itself and in all likelihood, Osama bin Ladin is hiding today," Bayh said in an interview.

Lalit K. Jha

Democrats say Bush policies responsible for rise of Taliban

Lalit K. Jha  - NEW YORK, Sept 11 (Pajhwok Afghan News): A senior Democratic leader has said that the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan is because the US diverted its resources to Iraq.

This is the second time in less than a week that a Democratic presidential hopeful has made a similar observation and indicated that if elected in the 2008 presidential election, Democrats would focus more on Afghanistan than Iraq in the war against terror.

Participating in Democratic presidential debate over the weekend, Senator Christopher Dodd said he supported the idea of withdrawal of troops from Iraq. "Later we're going to take advantage of the resources . to have a serious force to find Osama bin Laden," Dodd said in the presence of other star Democratic presidential aspirants including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

"This mission has been a disaster. Now we have less participation in Afghanistan. As a result, we have Afghanistan where Taliban and bin Laden are rising again," Dodd said.

Amidst several round of applause from the audience, Dodd said: "We have to change this and rebuild a coalition to have international cooperation against terrorism."

Last week, another Democratic presidential candidate John Edward in a speech in New York had criticized Bush for diverting resources to Iraq and reducing its attention from Afghanistan as a result of which the Taliban and the al-Qaeda forces gained strength in Afghanistan in recent past.

We're losing in Afghanistan too

Contra Donald Rumsfeld's rosy assessment, the country looks a lot like it did on Sept. 10, 2001. By John Kiriakou and Richard Klein September 13, 2007

Former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld says in the current edition of GQ magazine that the war in Afghanistan has been "a big success," with people living in freedom and life "improved on the streets."

To anyone working in the country, there is only one possible, informed response: What Afghanistan is the man talking about?

In reality, Afghanistan -- former Taliban stronghold, Al Qaeda haven and warlord-cum-heroin-smuggler finishing school -- feels more and more like Sept. 10, 2001, than a victory in the U.S. war on terrorism.

The country is, plain and simple, a mess. Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies have quietly regained territory, rendering wide swaths of the country off-limits to U.S. and Afghan forces, international aid workers and even journalists. Violent attacks against Western interests are routine. Even Kabul, which the White House has held up as a postcard for what is possible in Afghanistan, has become so dangerous that foreign embassies are in states of lockdown, diplomats do not leave their offices, and venturing beyond security perimeters requires daylight-only travel, armored vehicles, Kevlar and armed escorts.

Fear reigns among average Afghans in Kabul. Street crime, virtually unheard of in Afghan culture, has increased dramatically over the last three years as angry, unemployed and often radicalized young men settle scores with members of other tribes and clans, steal and rob to feed their families and vent their frustration with a government that appears powerless to help them. Taking a chance by eating in one of Kabul's handful of restaurants or going shopping in one of the few markets left is a new version of Russian roulette.

For U.S. officials and diplomats, Kabul is simply a prison. Embassies are completely closed to vehicular and even foot traffic. Indeed, at the American Embassy, the consular section issues visas only to Afghan government officials. If an average Afghan wants a visa to the U.S., he or she must travel to Islamabad, Pakistan, to apply. To allow Afghans to stand in line for visas at the embassy in Kabul would invite terrorist attacks or attract suicide bombers.

Consider that an American Embassy staffer going to the U.S. Agency for International Development office across the street is required to use an underground tunnel that links the two compounds. Even though the street is closed to all traffic other than official U.S. or U.N. vehicles and is patrolled and guarded by armored personnel carriers, tanks and Kalashnikov-carrying security personnel with a safety perimeter of several blocks, the risk from snipers, mortars or grenades is ever present.

Working in Supermax Afghanistan makes the USAID's performance all the more heroic. Since 2003, the agency has overseen the investment of more than $4 billion in Afghanistan, has built more than 500 schools and an equal number of clinics and has paved more than 1,000 miles of roads, all while suffering about 130 casualties at the hands of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

By some measures, Afghanistan should be a feel-good story by now -- the Taliban is, officially at least, out of power, Al Qaeda has been chased to the wilds of the Afghan-Pakistani border and U.S. forces are on hand to consolidate and solidify a peaceful new order.

But the truth is very different. By any measure, this remains a "hot" war with a well-armed, motivated and organized enemy. Village by village, tribe by tribe and province by province, Al Qaeda is coming back, enforcing a form of Islamic life and faith rooted in the 12th century, intimidating reformers, exacting revenge and funding itself with dollars from massive poppy cultivation and heroin smuggling. As Al Qaeda reestablishes itself, Osama bin Laden remains free to send video messages and serve as an ideological beacon to jihadis worldwide. The country's president, Hamid Karzai, meanwhile, is in effect little more than the mayor of Kabul.

The war in Afghanistan is a political and military one-step-forward-two-steps-back exercise. The work there isn't just unfinished, it is more dangerous and less certain than policymakers in Washington and talking heads in New York studios can imagine. Those suggesting otherwise are either naive or flacking a political agenda.

John Kiriakou, now in the private sector, served as a CIA counter-terrorism official from 1998 to 2004 and recently returned from Afghanistan. Richard Klein, a former State Department official, is managing director for the Middle East and Arabian Gulf at Kissinger McLarty Associates in Washington.

[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.]