In this bulletin:

• Cash Assistance by President to a Destitute Family
• Germany Rejects U.S. Request for More Afghan Troops
• US concerned international community may abandon Afghanistan
• Afghan senate's blasphemy retreat
• Qaeda operative in Afghanistan killed: Islamist website
• Afghan Taliban distance themselves from Baitullah
• Search for new UNAMA chief begins afresh
• Harper warns Britain on Afghanistan
• Canadians holding prisoners at Kandahar base: Afghan official
• Former Afghan minister worried mission not succeeding in public support
• What a piece of work is Dion
• Layton says military mission cannot defeat the Taliban
• Afghan women face hurdles despite gains
• The NATO Emerging in Afghanistan
• Is the U.S. Failing in Afghanistan?
• Opinion: Afghan Peace Only Possible With More Foreign Aid
• The Emerging Militancy in Pakistan’s Mohmand Agency
• analysis: Rethinking Afghanistan

Cash Assistance by President to a Destitute Family

Presidential Statement - President Hamid Karzai paid cash in assistance to a poor family who was forced to sell their infant out of extreme poverty and hunger.

Reports indicated that a family in the province of Kunduz sold out their little baby for tips due to extreme poverty and hunger. The President invited the parents of the kid into Palace soon after he heard the shocking news and instructed the relevant authorities to fix the family a monthly salary.

Germany Rejects U.S. Request for More Afghan Troops

Feb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- The German government rejected a U.S. request to provide more troops to combat Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan, saying that ministers were ``surprised'' by the demand.

``The letter came as a surprise to us,'' Ulrich Wilhelm, Chancellor Angela Merkel's chief spokesman, told a regular news conference in Berlin today. ``The government has made clear that the existing mandate provides the basis for our engagement.'' The government ``has no plans'' to change the mandate as approved by the lower house of parliament, or Bundestag.

Germany has explained to its partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that its mandate limits military involvement to northern Afghanistan, Wilhelm said, adding that the terms of German involvement in the country is ``not negotiable.''

Wilhelm's comments follow a report in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper today that U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote to his German counterpart, Franz Josef Jung, last week asking for additional combat troops and helicopter support in southern Afghanistan.

``I keep to the view that we should continue and fulfill our mandate in Afghanistan,'' Jung said today in a televised statement. ``I believe our focus should continue to be in the north.''

NATO allies such as the U.S., U.K., the Netherlands and Canada, whose troops are stationed in the more violent south, have stepped up calls to other alliance members to send in more combat troops. Last month eight countries with troops in the south met in Edinburgh to discuss getting more contributions from other nations.

``I'm not here to name countries who aren't pulling their weight -- I think people know who they are and they know who they are and I'd rather leave it to others to identify them,'' Australian Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon told reporters after the meeting, adding Australian forces wouldn't leave before 2010.

Germany's presence in Afghanistan hinges on parliamentary mandates on the troop presence in the north under the command of NATO's International Security Assistance Force, the deployment of six Tornado surveillance jets and a special-forces unit to assist the U.S.-led counter-insurgency operation.

Any alteration of Germany's presence would require a new or an adjusted mandate by lawmakers in the lower house at a time when most Germans reject sending more soldiers to the country.

Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the U.S. request for troops was made in some form to all countries involved in the conflict and was not specific to Germany.

Steinmeier said that he briefed U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week on Germany's actions to enhance its forces in northern Afghanistan.

``We have accentuated and expanded our civil and military engagement once again,'' Steinmeier told reporters after meeting with Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt in Berlin. ``I believe that will be recognized in the U.S. and so I have no concerns about the way the current discussion is being carried out.''

Jung will explain Germany's position to NATO defense ministers meeting in Vilnius Feb. 7-8, Wilhelm said.

``The chancellor, in all her meetings in parliament and with partners, has made clear that for us the existing mandate is the basis for action,'' Wilhelm said. ``We're carrying out an important job there that is demanding a lot of us.''

US concerned international community may abandon Afghanistan

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States expressed concern Thursday that the international community could abandon Afghanistan, cautioning that success in the insurgency-wracked nation was "not assured."

"The greatest threat to Afghanistan's future is abandonment by the international community," Richard Boucher, the State Department's pointman for Afghanistan, told a Senate hearing on the turmoil in Afghanistan.

He said the mission in Afghanistan needed more troops and equipment, such as helicopters, pointing out that "too few of our allies have combat troops fighting the insurgents especially in the south."

Southern Afghanistan has seen the worst violence since the Taliban were ousted in the US-led invasion in 2001, after the September 11 terror attacks masterminded by Al-Qaeda, whose leaders, including Osama bin laden, were given sanctuary by the Taliban.

Several top experts, including retired US Marine Corps general James Jones, warned in separate reports Wednesday that Afghanistan could become a failed state. British aid agency Oxfam warned of the risk of a humanitarian catastrophe there unless Western countries made a "major change of direction" in strategy.

The reports came amid new concerns over the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's commitment to providing more troops to fight a resurgent Taliban militia, whose control of the sparsely populated parts of Afghanistan was increasing.

"Success is possible but not assured," said Boucher, who came under intense questioning from Senators at the hearing. "Therefore, the international community needs to continue and expand its efforts."

"We expect more from our NATO allies; we have promised the Afghan people to assist in stabilizing their country, and we must give NATO personnel the tools they need to make good on that promise," he said.

There are about 40,000 NATO and 20,000 US-led coalition force soldiers in Afghanistan at present.

Washington will deploy an additional 3,200 marines this spring -- 2,200 will be deployed to the NATO's southern regional command while the remaining 1,000 marines will train with Afghan forces.

"This is welcome news -- but does anyone truly believe it be enough to turn the tide," asked Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, who heads the Senate foreign relations panel, which held the hearing Thursday.

"If we should be surging forces anywhere, it's in Afghanistan, not Iraq," he said referring to a stepped-up US military strength in Iraq last year which appeared to be bringing the war in Iraq under control.

At the hearing, women from Code Pink, a national anti-war grassroots organization, wore tee shirts with the words "Where's Osama" and held placards "Security thru peace."

"We went to Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden but what has happened now," 66-year-old Joan Stallard told AFP.

Republican Senator Richard Lugar expressed dismay at the "troubling shortfall" of political commitment among NATO members that was hampering the ongoing operations in Afghanistan.

"The time when NATO could limit its missions to the defense of continental Europe is far in the past. With the end of the Cold War, the gravest threats to Europe and North America originate from other regions in the world," he said.

Boucher said that while Afghanistan had made progress on a broad range of fronts, including economic growth, institutional building and on the battlefield, "our job is not finished and important challenges remain."

He also expressed Washington's concern over the increase in detention of journalists in Afghanistan, and interference by the Karzai administration in media coverage of the past year.

"Also troubling," he said, were the deaths of two female journalists last summer and the recent death sentence of a young Afghan journalist, he said.

Afghan senate's blasphemy retreat

By Charles Haviland - BBC News, Kabul

The upper house of parliament in Afghanistan has withdrawn its support for a death sentence issued against a journalist convicted of blasphemy.

Pervez Kambakhsh, 23, was found guilty last week of downloading and distributing an article insulting Islam. He denies the charge.

Legal experts said that the senate's support for the sentence on Wednesday was unconstitutional. The UN said that Mr Kambaksh was not legally represented during his case. Critics say that the senate's intervention interfered with the judicial process.

The senate has now backtracked, one day later. Its secretary, Aminuddin Muzafari, told journalists its statement had been a "technical mistake".

He asked the media to make it clear that the senate did respect the legal rights of Mr Kambakhsh, including the right to a defence lawyer.

But it also said it approved the judiciary's prosecution of cases involving what it called the distribution of anti-Islamic articles. As the statement of support was withdrawn, about 200 Afghans demonstrated in Kabul against the sentencing of Mr Kambakhsh.

A court in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif convicted him of downloading and distributing a blog article which questioned the Koran's attitude to women.

Mr Kambaksh is appealing to higher courts against the death sentence. His family say his trial was unfair because, among other things, he was not given a defence counsel. But the governor in Mazar-e-Sharif says the case is being handled with due process.

The earlier senate statement supporting the death sentence was signed by its leader, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, an ally of President Hamid Karzai. The president would have to approve the death sentence for it to be carried out.

Qaeda operative in Afghanistan killed: Islamist website

NICOSIA (AFP) — A leading Al-Qaeda operative in Afghanistan, Abu Laith al-Libi, has been killed, an Islamist website monitored by the US-based service SITE said on Thursday.

Al-Ekhlaas, an Al-Qaeda-affiliated forum, announced the death of Libi, who has appeared in the past in Al-Qaeda videos, it said, referring to media reports that he had been killed in a US air strike.

"As the banner was posted on Ekhlaas by a webmaster of the forum, it seems as if the announcement of his death has been confirmed to the forum administrators."

In Afghanistan, NATO-led forces said they had no information on whether Libi was killed. But security officials in Pakistan said earlier Thursday that a clutch of Al-Qaeda militants, including seven Arabs and six Central Asians, were killed this week when a suspected US missile hit their hideout in Pakistan.

The missile hit a house in the troubled tribal district of North Waziristan late Monday.

Residents had reported that a pilotless drone aircraft of the type operated by US-led coalition forces based in Afghanistan was seen flying over the area shortly before the strike, near the town of Mir Ali.

Afghan Taliban distance themselves from Baitullah

By Pajhwok Reporter - Jan 29, 2008 - 14:54

KABUL (PAN): The Taliban in Afghanistan say they dont support any militant activity in Pakistan and have distanced themselves from Pakistani militants led by Baitullah Mehsud.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid saidWe do not support any militant activity and operation in Pakistan, reported a foreign media outlet. The spokesman denied media reports that the Taliban had expelled Baitullah Mehsud, the head of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan.

Baitullah is a Pakistani and we as the Afghan Taliban have nothing to do with his appointment or his expulsion. We did not appoint him and we have not expelled him, he said.

Baitullah, who has been accused of plotting the assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto, told Al Jazeera in an interview that he had taken bayah (oath of allegiance) to Mullah Muhammad Omar and obeyed his orders.

But the Taliban spokesman said the oath of allegiance did not mean that Pakistani militants were under direct operational control of Mullah Omar.

Search for new UNAMA chief begins afresh

By Lalit K Jha - Jan 29, 2008 - United Nations (PAN): The Office of the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, Monday began afresh search for a new UN Envoy to Afghanistan .

This follows the rejection by Afghanistan Government, the candidacy of British politician Paddy Ashdown, and the latter writing to Ban that he was withdrawing from the race .

Diplomatic sources in the UN told Pajhwok Afghan News that this has brought them again to the drawing board and a fresh consultation process has started to shortlist and indentify new head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA); that has been lying vacant since the beginning of this year .

While the Afghanistan Government has recommended the name of British NATO general John McColl, the UN Secretariat has not yet short listed any names this time. McColl is the deputy chief of NATO high command and was the first commander of the international peace troops in Afghanistan after the US-led invasion of 2001 .

In fact, developments in the last few days, has brought back the UN to where it was at end of last year .

I regret that and I have to still go through this selection process to find a distinguished and capable person who will be able to exercise leadership and do a coordinating role for peace and security in Afghanistan, Ban told reporters Monday in Slovakia, where is travelling .

It was also for the first time that the UN at any level acknowledged that Ashdown was the strongest contender for the post .

Of course, Paddy Ashdown was one of the very strong candidates whom I have met and interviewed and I regarded him as a very capable person. He telephoned me and he sent me a letter formally that under such circumstances, misperceptions and misunderstandings over his candidature would not make it possible [for him] to work or being considered as a candidate, Ban said .

UN officials regretted that too was written in the western media about Ashdown as the new UNAMA chief and how powerful he would be. This created a genuine apprehension among the members of the Karzai Administration, who saw into it as someone who would be running parallel to the elected government. It was only but natural for the Karzai Government to assert its authority one of the rare times though and openly reject the candidacy of Ashdown .

Officials in the UN clarified that there would be no change in the role and mandate of the new UN Envoy to Afghanistan; thus meeting an important demand of the Karzai Government .

Id like to make it quite clear, that there was no such concept or idea having somebody as a so-called super-envoy in Afghanistan, said the Secretary General in response to a question in Slovakia, trying to clarify all the doubts in this regard .

I was in the process of selecting a special representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The idea of a so-called super envoy seems to have come from misunderstandings, Ban conceded .

As you may remember, in September last year during the General Assembly session, I had convened a high-level Ministerial meeting on the situation in Afghanistan. At that time, many Member States have expressed their strong desire that the UN should take a leading role in coordinating all the policies and strategies among international actors operating in Afghanistan, and, on that basis, I have been going through the selection process, Ban said .

The idea was first mooted by Canada and then supported by several other countries including Britain, but the Afghanistan Government has been opposed to it from day one . ajr

Harper warns Britain on Afghanistan

Second day in a row ally pressed to supply troops

Mike Blanchfield,  Canwest News Service   Published: Friday, February 01, 2008

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper escalated diplomatic pressure on Canada's NATO allies yesterday, warning Britain's Gordon Brown that Canada will end its combat mission in Afghanistan next year unless the military alliance supplies 1,000 more troops for southern Afghanistan.

For the second consecutive day, Mr. Harper pressed a major Canadian ally to step up cooperation, calling the British Prime Minister the day after he delivered the same message to U.S. President George W. Bush in a 20-minute telephone call.

Mr. Harper briefed both leaders on last week's report of the independent Manley panel and its core ultimatum: Canada will end its combat operations in Kandahar by February, 2009, unless its allies provide another 1,000 troops and much-needed military hardware.

"Without that, Canada's mission will end in a year's time," said a statement from Mr. Harper's chief spokeswoman Sandra Buckler. NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is next on Mr. Harper's call list, before he moves on to tougher challenges such as the leaders of Germany and France.

NATO is supportive of the Manley report and has pledged to help Canada find the support it needs to keep its 2,500 combat troops in Kandahar.

Britain will also get a firsthand briefing today when its Foreign Office Minister, Kim Howells, visits Ottawa for meetings with Defence Minister Peter MacKay and senior Foreign Affairs officials.

As Mr. Harper continued to push for more battlefield support, the Conservatives came under fire in the House of Commons over the Canwest News revelation that the Canadian Forces may be turning a blind eye to the capture of insurgents by the Afghan National Army.

"The government's attempt to circumvent the military's decision to stop detainee transfers is absolutely troubling," Liberal security critic Ujjal Dosanjh charged.

The political bickering also spilled over into two separate parliamentary committees as the three opposition parties voted down a Conservative proposal for further debate of the Afghan mission. The Conservatives want to hear testimony from a variety of witnesses, including John Manley, the chairman of the independent panel on the Afghan mission, and several senior Cabinet ministers at a joint session of the Commons foreign affairs and defence committee.

The failed attempt left the Conservatives accusing the Liberals of trying to avoid a debate on Afghanistan. "Clearly, the Liberal party does not want open, honest, or constructive debate on the future of the mission," said Conservative House leader Peter Van Loan.

Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre accused the Conservatives of playing politics, saying the time for calling more witnesses at parliamentary committees has long past.

Mr. Coderre said Mr. Harper's latest efforts to get more NATO partners to share the burden of combat in southern Afghanistan should have come long before the Manley report was made public.

Canadians holding prisoners at Kandahar base: Afghan official

Canwest News Service - Published: Thursday, January 31, 2008

Afghan prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers are being held at Canada's air base in Kandahar, an Afghan human rights official told CBC Radio Thursday.

In an interview with As it Happens, Sareed Hamady from the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission said Canadian officials have told his office they are holding 18 to 20 prisoners at the base, all captured since Canada stopped handing over detainees to the Afghans in November.

The Conservative government has been under constant pressure to reveal the whereabouts of their Afghan detainees since news of the change in Canadian policy was revealed in court documents last week.

Many have speculated that the prisoners are being held at the Canadian Forces base in Kandahar, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his officials have refused to confirm or deny, saying they do not comment on operational details of an ongoing mission.

In the interview Thursday, Hamady said his commission found out about the change in Canadian policy through media reports. Since then, though, Canadian officials had:_"sent to our office in Kandahar official letters about information about the people they arrested (with) their names and other information," he said.

When asked if he knew where the prisoners were being held, Hamady said Canadian officials had told his commission they were keeping them at their base in Kandahar. No one from National Defence and the Canadian Forces was available for comment late Thursday.

Former Afghan minister worried mission not succeeding in public support

CALGARY - A former senior member of the Afghan government says Canada's military mission to Afghanistan will continue to falter if the troops don't find a way to win over the Afghan people.

The death toll has continued to rise in Afghanistan both for the military and for civilians who are often innocent bystanders in attacks on NATO troops by suicide bombers or roadside bombs.

Sima Samar, who served as served as deputy president and then as minister for women's affairs in the transitional government, says there were high expectations when the international community entered her country after the fall of the Taliban. But she says so far the life of an average Afghan has not improved.

A major criticism of the mission has been lack of progress in reconstruction, especially in Kandahar province, where Canadian soldiers are playing a dual role of building schools, clinics and digging wells while at the same time attempting to keep the Taliban at bay.

Samar, who is in Calgary on a speaking tour, says there has also been a failure in controlling the opium trade that provides money for the Taliban.

What a piece of work is Dion

John Ivison,  National Post  Published: Friday, February 01, 2008

OTTAWA -Canadian political leaders concerned that they may tend toward the tentative end of the decision-making spectrum should go online and take a quick test: Are you a Hamlet?

You simply choose your answer to the question: You think your father was murdered, and that your uncle, who married your mother six weeks after the funeral, is the murderer. Do you:

a) run your uncle through with a sabre at the first opportunity.

b) seek legal advice on the correct procedure.

c) do nothing except glower and talk a lot.

If you answer (c), and have waited more than a week after the publication of a weighty report on your country's future role in a major war to say anything meaningful, it can safely be said that the native hue of your resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought.

The day after Stephane Dion (for it is he) gave indications that he was moving

toward a compromise with Prime Minister Stephen Harper on the recommendations of the Manley report -- an accord that would guarantee passage of a motion on Canada's continued involvement in Afghanistan -- the Liberal leader conceded he is meeting with NDP leader Jack Layton on Monday to discuss future policy.

"I hope I will convince him to change his mind. Canada cannot pull out of Afghanistan all of a sudden, overnight," he said.

Mr. Layton could hardly contain himself after Question Period. "I would urge Stephane Dion not to take the direction that Mr. Harper wants to go. I would like Mr. Dion to join the New Democrats in pressing for a new direction," he beamed.

That new direction involves being the first country in the NATO mission to withdraw its troops. The NDP would then call on the United Nations to lead the process to a comprehensive peace plan -- an argument with all the intelligence of pond life, since the International Security Assistance Force commanded by NATO is in Afghanistan on the instructions of the UN.

Still, Mr. Dion must see some merit to this position because when he was approached by Mr. Layton on the floor of the House of Commons on Wednesday evening, he didn't shut down the conversation.

"I knew we were trying to reach a compromise. Now I'm worried about with whom," said one senior Liberal.

Behind the scenes, other Liberal MPs were adamant that there will be no deal with Mr. Layton. "Stephane doesn't refuse to meet with other leaders but there is no way he wants to pull out now. It would be totally irresponsible," said one MP.

The Liberals yesterday refused to debate the Manley report at the defence committee, one suspects, because the caucus has no idea whether its leader is in agreement with it or not.

Mr. Layton knows a deal is unlikely -- that was not the point for the NDP. Rather it conjures visions of a tug of war between Messrs. Layton and Harper, with the hapless Mr. Dion in the middle, being flung to and fro like a rag doll.

Mr. Layton can't lose. If Mr. Harper wins and Mr. Dion is pulled to the government side, it leaves the left open to the NDP. If he ends up with the NDP, Mr. Layton will likely have the strength to block a vote on the mission's extension.

Equally, it is hard to see how Mr. Dion can win. He has been outflanked on both sides and now risks being carried along by events.

The Manley report said the status quo in Afghanistan was not working and criticized the Prime Minister's failure to lead the mission adequately. In addition, the Liberals were given the casting vote in any parliamentary vote.

Yet, despite being dealt such a strong hand, Mr. Dion has, in the words of the Prince of Denmark, proven "easier to be played on than a pipe."

There remains the prospect that he could determine those events -- that the flirtation with the NDP is merely a feint to the left, and that he will make great gains that will satisfy his caucus in his discussions with the Prime Minister. But there has been nothing in his recent past to suggest that Mr. Dion possesses that level of strategic acumen.

Layton says military mission cannot defeat the Taliban

OTTAWA - NDP Leader Jack Layton says the Taliban cannot be defeated by international troops and there's no point continuing to fight an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.

Although his party has long called for a withdrawal of Canadian troops, Layton's emphatic statement about the futility of the mission comes amid a new push to present his party as the sole anti-war option.

He wants to meet with Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and intends to take that bleak message to him.

"It's an endless mission. There's no end in sight. We say it's a dead end," Layton told a news scrum Thursday. "No one has laid out, anywhere, that it's possible to ultimately win a war in this region.

"No one. And historical experience shows that it's been impossible - whether it be Alexander the Great, the British in the 19th century, or the Russians in the 20th century. "We're saying let's recognize these historical realities."

The NDP distributed a list of quotes from military officers, analysts, and a former diplomat to support their case about the slim chance of defeating Afghan insurgents through battle.

But the historical reality Layton points to is somewhat more complicated. The British did in fact defeat an Afghan insurgency in the Second Afghan War in 1880 - which ended with a battle in Kandahar, where Canadian troops are currently located.

And Alexander's march through Asia in fact stalled in India. This was after his troops marched through Afghanistan and founded the cities of Herat and Kandahar - the latter being named after him.

Layton has extended an invitation to speak with the Liberal leader about halting the Afghan conflict. The result of their discussion could carry major implications for the mission and for Canadian politics.

If Dion agrees with Layton, the three opposition parties would outvote the government in any parliamentary move to extend the Afghan mission beyond February 2009.

Such a move could split the Liberal caucus and pit its hawks and doves against each other - which would provide an added bonus to Layton and a silver lining to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

If as expected Dion seeks a less stringent position than Layton, the NDP would surely cast itself as the lone proponent of peace. Layton was already preparing that line of political attack Thursday.

"I'm very concerned that Mr. Dion may be considering supporting the direction of Mr. Harper," Layton said. Dion also appeared ready with a message for the NDP leader.

He said that the Canadian Forces must respect their commitment to continue fighting until February 2009, and suggested they could remain beyond then in some limited capacity.

"I hope I will convince (Layton) to change his mind. Canada cannot pull out of Afghanistan all of a sudden, overnight," Dion said. "We have an international commitment until February 2009 for the combat mission."

Beyond then, he says Canadian troops can maintain a military presence to defend construction projects and provide training to Afghan soldiers.

Afghan women face hurdles despite gains

Calgary Herald Thursday, January 31, 2008

Afghanistan is slowly rebuilding and extending greater freedoms to women, says Sally Armstrong, a Canadian journalist and author who has written about women in the conservative country since the early days of the Taliban regime.

She says homes are being rebuilt and street lights are once again lighting up areas that had been reduced to rubble through relentless bombing. "There's a level of normalcy," said Armstrong, who returned last week from Afghanistan.

Armstrong will speak tonight alongside Sima Samar, head of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, at the University of Calgary.

Samar was at the upscale Serena Hotel in Kabul earlier this month when the Taliban attacked, killing seven and sending shockwaves of fear through the foreign community.

Tonight's event will raise funds for the Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan, an organization founded in Calgary that raises money for educational programs for women and girls.

Women still face many hurdles in Afghanistan -- almost 80 per cent cannot read, and more than half marry before their 16th birthday. "If that country gets the support it needs, their women's movement will grow and they will make changes," Armstrong said in an interview Wednesday.

Armstrong said Canadians should be aware of the "misinformation" spread about Canada's role in Afghanistan.

"Protesters are saying we invaded Afghanistan, we're occupying Afghanistan, the Afghans don't want us there. This is straight-out misinformation," Armstrong said.

The fundraising event goes from 7 to 9:30 p.m. at the Rozsa Centre at the U of C. The $50 tickets ($35 for seniors and students) are selling fast, organizers say. For more information, call 244-5625 or go to www.w4wafghan.ca.

The NATO Emerging in Afghanistan

By Victoria Nuland – Washington Post Friday, February 1, 2008

It's sometimes easy to take our allies for granted or to wonder if they are up to the challenge in a place such as Afghanistan. Today, 25 NATO allies and 14 other nations contribute to the mission there alongside American and Afghan troops. Three years ago, only a handful of us were fighting the Taliban. The 28,000 non-U.S. forces and 13 non-U.S. Provincial Reconstruction Teams in place across Afghanistan have allowed American and Afghan forces to focus on the fierce battlegrounds in the east. The war is tough, but without allied help it would be much tougher.

NATO's decision just over a year ago to take on security responsibility throughout Afghanistan has brought 10,000 additional Canadian and British and other European troops to the south, partnered with roughly 1,000 Australians. This allowed U.S. forces participating in the NATO mission and Operation Enduring Freedom to focus primarily on countering the insurgency in the east along the Pakistan border and to increase training of the Afghans. To strengthen this effort, President Bush decided last year to send 3,500 additional U.S. troops and $10.2 billion in development and security support to Afghanistan. Many allies joined this effort.

Just over a year later, districts and villages throughout eastern and southern Afghanistan -- in Ghazni, Khost, Paktika, Nuristan and Konar; in the Sangin valley in Helmand; and in the area south of Kandahar -- are more secure and more accessible than they have been in years -- in some cases, decades. The ranks of trained Afghan soldiers have swelled from 35,000 to 50,000, with the Afghans themselves leading the fighting in some important combat operations. This spring, the United States will send an additional 3,200 Marines to capitalize on the gains and maintain momentum -- 2,000 for combat missions in the south and 1,000 more trainers for Operation Enduring Freedom, focused primarily on Afghanistan's police forces. We will again challenge our allies to match us soldier for soldier, euro for dollar, at the NATO summit in April in Bucharest, Romania.

Despite some dire headlines, there were major successes in the past year for the Afghans and their 40 international security partners, including all members of NATO. The Taliban's vaunted spring offensive never materialized, and roads, schools, markets and businesses have been built all over the country. But the intense challenges of this mission have also become clear -- for Afghans, Americans and other allies. The insurgents are resorting to the deadly terrorist tactics of improvised explosive devices, suicide bombing, kidnapping and targeted assassination; they kill teachers in front of their students, parliamentarians in their districts and foreigners in the center of Kabul. In areas where security is weak, the Taliban and their drug-lord enablers have pushed more prime land into poppy production. Crime and corruption are on the rise, and the Afghan people grow more impatient every day to see action and justice from their elected leaders. Meanwhile, the international community has struggled to coordinate its efforts.

With the democratic world now supporting them, Afghans see the prospect of living in freedom and security, liberated from the fear and grinding poverty of the past decades. But to reach their goals, they will have to keep fighting -- with arms against the Taliban and with political courage against injustice, poppy cultivation, corruption and economic challenges. They need to know we will stay with them.

NATO, too, is facing the greatest challenge in its 59-year history. The alliance that never fired a shot in the Cold War is learning on the job. Just as the Iraq war forced adaptation in American military and development tactics and strategy, the Afghanistan mission is forcing changes in NATO. With each passing month, Canadians, Germans, Poles, Spaniards, Latvians and our other allies learn more about what it takes to wage a 21st-century counterinsurgency -- a combined civil-military effort that puts warriors side by side with development workers, diplomats and police trainers. Whether flying helicopters across the desert, embedding trainers with the Afghans, conducting tribal shuras with village elders or running joint civilian-military Provincial Reconstruction Teams, most of our allies are reinventing the way they do business. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates made clear last month, this requires new training, new equipment, a new doctrine and new flexibility in combining civil and military efforts in a truly comprehensive approach to security.

The next three to five years will be crucial for the people of Afghanistan, for the NATO alliance and for the community of democracies. The Afghanistan mission is an investment in our collective security; it is also the catalyst for the 21st-century transformation of our democratic alliance. If we can get it right in the Hindu Kush, we will also be stronger the next time we are called to defend our security and values so far from home.

The writer is U.S. ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Is the U.S. Failing in Afghanistan?

By Mark Thompson/Washington- Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008

It was malice in wonderland at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday as Bush Administration envoys insisted things are getting better in Afghanistan, while angry lawmakers from both parties cited facts and figures showing just the opposite. Even the senior Republican on the panel, Senator Richard Lugar, found the Administration's claims wanting. "I'm not sure that we have a plan for Afghanistan," he said.

Long seen as the "forgotten war" eclipsed by Iraq in U.S. priorities, Afghanistan is in the Washington spotlight this week with the release of three independent reports concluding that without a change in U.S. policy there, the erstwhile sanctuary of Osama bin Laden would remain a failed state. After spending $25 billion over six years to try to defeat the Taliban, the radical Islamist militia that had been dispersed into the mountains by the initial U.S. invasion is now a growing presence in large parts of the country. The Taliban is now setting off more bombs — including one in Kabul's fanciest hotel on January 14 that killed eight people — and fueling its insurgency with profits from the opium trade. (Last year, the country produced 93% of the world's supply.) The declining security situation saw foreign investment in Afghanistan fall by 50% last year.

The Taliban is also killing more Americans: From 2002 to 2004, an average of one U.S. soldier was killed per week in Afghanistan; by 2007, that figure had more than doubled. Indeed, nearly 500 U.S. troops have perished in America's "forgotten war." Despite the presence of 50,000 foreign troops, including 28,000 Americans, arrayed against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Pentagon has just ordered another 3,200 Marines into the fight. And the reluctance of other NATO members to send additional troops is threatening the future of the alliance. "Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan," said a study by the Atlantic Council released Wednesday. "Unless this reality is understood, and action is taken promptly, the future of Afghanistan is bleak, with regional and global impact."

Despite such grim news, the message to the Foreign Relations Committee from the Administration was that things are actually getting better. "Progress is being made," said Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Richard Boucher at the hearing. "If you add together the achievements in roads, achievements in education, achievements in health care, we see a profoundly changed situation in Afghanistan." The U.S. and its allies are driving the Taliban from some of its strongholds, he added, and the bad guys are striking back the only way they can — by blowing themselves up. Across the Potomac, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that "the rise in violence and attacks such as we saw in Kabul are the manifestation of a group that has lost in regular military terms in 2007, and is turning to terrorism as a substitute for that." And although Gates said he couldn't confirm it, a militant web site reported Thursday that Abu Laith al-Libi, a top al-Qaida commander in Afghanistan, has been killed in Pakistan.

But at the hearing, Lugar remained unimpressed. He likened the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan to a political campaign in Indiana. A candidate can tell his supporters, "I've been to Clinton County, I've touched base, and we're doing well over here in Kokomo,'" Lugar said. "But if the final result is that you get 25% of the vote and lose three to one, this is bad news."

Retired Marine General James Jones, who once led the Afghan campaign as NATO commander and who contributed to two of the critical reports issued this week, also offered the panel a grim assessment. There is a "loss of momentum" in Afghanistan that could lead to "backsliding" if not soon regained, he said. Jones warned that the failure to curb opium production and stand up a government with functioning police and courts remain major problems. "The safe havens for the insurgents are more numerous now than they were one or two or three years ago," Jones added. "If we are correct and there's a spiraling situation in an unfavorable direction, the ultimate solution is not a military problem, but it could become one."

Democrats repeatedly cited the Iraq war as draining the resources needed to prevail in Afghanistan. Senator Joseph Biden, the panel's chairman, noted that the U.S. has spent the same amount on aid and development in Afghanistan over the past five years as the military burns through in Iraq every three weeks. "If we should be surging forces anywhere," the Delaware Democrat said, "it's in Afghanistan, not Iraq." But Boucher argued that the U.S. and its allies must be prepared to fight in multiple theaters simultaneously to prevent the emergence of terrorist safe havens that could hatch another 9/11. "You can't neglect any portion of the planet," he said.

There is, of course, a sense of deja vu here: Last year, Congress, much of the military and assorted think tankers were leery of President Bush's plans to surge 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. But he did it anyway, and it has succeeded in quelling violence across that country, at least for the time being. For now, the Bush Administration seems to be willing to bet it can repeat that performance in Afghanistan.

Opinion: Afghan Peace Only Possible With More Foreign Aid

The international community has poured plenty into Afghanistan with little result, but the country needs even more to attain peace, writes DW's Peter Philipp. Only then can it avoid becoming a "failed state."

What should be done about Afghanistan? None of the participants at the Afghanistan conference in Bonn in fall 2001 could have imagined that, six years later, this question would become more acute than ever before and that the situation would be getting worse every day -- even though the Taliban regime has been overthrown, al Qaeda has been dislodged, elections have taken place and the first democratic structures have been put in place.

The Taliban has tried for a long time to return and the Americans, Brits and other NATO troops are engaged more and more frequently in hostilities with them.

And now this: American think-tanks are saying that Afghanistan is becoming a "forgotten war" and that it will soon have to be labeled as a "failed state."

Over the course of its eventful history, Afghanistan has hardly been anything else -- in part because the central authority of its kings and presidents rarely reached beyond Kabul and was always reliant on alliances with regional rulers. It was possible to displace the Taliban but not to overturn these long-standing structures.

Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai has had to make arrangements with war lords in order to underline his claim to power. He has to put up with their corruption and drug trade and cannot let his dependence on foreign states show too much. After all, the foreigners want to pare down the power of the regional rulers. Those from abroad are increasingly seen as occupiers and enemies, while the Taliban is viewed through rose-colored glasses.

This perception doesn't exactly encourage the international community to send more troops to Afghanistan, which is what the US and NATO are asking for. A growing number of countries are pulling out and Germany would be a rare exception if indeed it does decide to send a small contingent of combat troops to the generally peaceful northern region.

   But Germany won't be able to change the course of things. Essentially, everyone -- foreigners as well as Karzai -- agree that Afghanistan needs more than it's gotten so far. More troops, more education, more jobs, more freedom, more democracy.

Many were prepared to offer this kind of help before, but their readiness flagged in the face of constant setbacks. The country has shown itself to be a bottomless barrel when it comes to foreign assistance.

Is that a reason to give up on Afghanistan? Of course not. The majority of Afghans hope for peace, which is only possible with help from abroad -- not just with fighter jets, but with help across the board and with strong partners in Kabul. Otherwise the bleak prediction of a failed state will come true after all.

Peter Philipp is Deutsche Welle's chief correspondent and an expert on the Middle East. (kjb)

The Emerging Militancy in Pakistan’s Mohmand Agency

By Imtiaz Ali Terrorism Monitor (Jamestown Foundation)

January 24, 2008 - The challenge of militancy in Pakistan's tribal region is no longer confined to the North and South Waziristan regions along the Afghan border. After establishing their strongholds in Waziristan, militants have recently made deeper inroads in the erstwhile peaceful Mohmand tribal agency in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) region. Pro-Taliban militants, also known as the Pakistani Taliban, seem to have made a spectacular surge in Mohmand Agency, where they have tried to force people to pledge to obey Islamic law. Under the Taliban, barbers are threatened not to shave beards, music is banned and women are barred from receiving an education. Worse, like their mentors in Afghanistan in the late 1990s, these fundamentalist militants have also taken the law into their own hands by providing speedy and severe justice in the name of cleansing society from social evils (Dawn [Karachi], October 12, 2007). More importantly, militants have recently geared up a guerrilla-style war against Pakistani security forces by adopting hit-and-run tactics. Ambushes, remote-controlled bomb explosions and long-range rocket attacks on military checkpoints and government installations have become a routine matter (newsline.com [Pakistan], August 2007). Recent developments clearly indicate that Mohmand Agency is fast becoming another front in the country's war against terrorism. If not effectively and immediately tamed, there is a growing fear that Mohmand Agency could pose even more serious and dangerous challenges to the embattled Pakistani forces than Waziristan.

On January 14 a convoy of the paramilitary Frontier Corps (FC)—on its way to regional military headquarters at Ghalanai—came under attack from local militants near Qandharo. Seven soldiers were killed by gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades, as well as at least six Taliban insurgents, including local commander Faqir Hussain (Dawn, January 14; The Nation [Pakistan], January 15). The ambush came days after the launch of a major FC offensive on January 10. An estimated 100,000 people were driven from their homes in Mohmand Agency by government artillery fire (Daily Times [Lahore], January 10).

Mohmand Agency derives its name from the Mohmand tribe that inhabits this rugged mountainous region with barren slopes along the Afghan border. It is one of the seven tribal agencies that form FATA; the other six are Khyber, Bajaur, Orakzai, Kurram, South Waziristan and North Waziristan. Mohmand Agency was part of Khyber Agency until 1951 when it was given separate status in FATA; it shares borders with Afghanistan to the west, Khyber Agency to the south, Bajaur Agency to the north, and the Malakand, Charsadda and Peshawar districts of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) to the east. For administrative purposes the agency is divided into Upper and Lower Mohmand. The latter area is rather fertile, whereas the Upper Mohmand region is comparatively less productive. The entire region has few resources and little infrastructure.

Mohmand Agency has long been known as the calmest and most moderate region in FATA. Over the past few years it has successfully managed to avoid political violence and “Talibanization.” Locals admit that the area has been notorious as a den for criminal outsiders and car thieves because of the absence of police and other law enforcement agencies, but the sudden appearance of gun-brandishing militants on the streets was a rare phenomenon. Unlike other conservative areas of the tribal belt and FATA, women in Mohmand tribes would even work in the fields with the men. All in all, Mohmand remained a peaceful part of the troubled tribal areas until last year (newsline.com, August 2007).

Despite the relative peace that had prevailed until recently, a blend of religious conservatism, a history of struggle against British imperialism and a deep-rooted anti-Americanism makes the area ripe for jihadi recruitment. Banned militant organizations have been actively working in Mohmand and the nearby Charsadda district town of Shabqadar. Two young suicide bombers, Bahar Ali and Aminullah, both hailing from Shabqadar, attacked U.S. and Canadian NATO forces in Afghanistan in 2006 (Inter Press Service, September 15, 2006). The phenomenon has gained currency lately; a young man estimated to be 12-13 years old killed only himself in a futile attack on a FC post at Kapakh Kandao in Mohmand Agency on January 15 (Pakistan Times, January 15; Daily Times, January 16). Two days later a teenage suicide bomber killed twelve in a blast at a Shiite mosque in Peshawar (Daily Times, January 19).

The current wave of militancy in Mohmand Agency is closely linked to the bigger problem of the entire tribal belt, where a tide of Islamic militancy is spreading across and beyond its boundaries, despite the presence of more than 70,000 Pakistani troops and unlikely official claims of progress of flushing out militants from the region. Like other parts of the tribal belt, Mohmand Agency was an inaccessible area for Pakistani troops until June 2003, when Islamabad deployed its soldiers there for the first time to halt the incursion of al-Qaeda fighters from across the border (Dawn, July 1, 2004).

Many analysts believe that Waziristan has been the heart of Islamist militancy since 9/11. However, in order to enlarge their operation zones and escape the military operations of the Pakistan Army in turbulent South Waziristan, local militants and foreign fighters allied with al-Qaeda first took refuge in the rugged Shawal mountains of neighboring North Waziristan. This soon also became another battleground. As a result the main towns of North Waziristan—Miran Shah and Mir Ali—and the surrounding areas witnessed large clashes between Pakistani security forces and militants. Despite this, the militants finally succeeded in establishing a mini-Taliban state in North Waziristan.

The self-styled Taliban operation against bandits in Miran Shah in late 2006 encouraged them to expand their activities in the lawless tribal belt. Mohmand Agency was the next base for local Taliban: a porous frontier with Afghanistan apparently being the main attraction for the militants. The growing influence of the local Taliban was first felt early last year when a group of local militant groups calling themselves Taliban started policing and forcing people in Mohmand to adopt a strict version of sharia. Government silence has exacerbated the situation in the Mohmand region. Local journalists say that the government had ample warning against the looming danger of militancy in the wake of Taliban activities in Waziristan and neighboring Bajaur Agency. All of these fell on deaf ears and the local tribesmen were left with no option but to enter into a so-called peace deal with militants (ANI, May 20, 2007).

Though tribal elders justified the peace deals as an attempt to prevent the Taliban's interference in their local customs and traditions, the fact remains that such "deals" proved poisonous and provided further chances for militancy to fester in Mohmand Agency. The tribal elders suffered the brunt of the growing influence of Taliban militants, who threatened the elders with death if they continued to cooperate with Islamabad. Militants targeted a jirga of local elders with a bombing in June last year. A note was found at the site of the explosion, warning the tribesmen against supporting the government or holding jirgas against militants. The note, addressed to the tribal elders, read: "You people are infidels and hypocrites. If you don't stop negotiations with the government and meetings against the Taliban, then explosion(s) will occur in your homes” (Dawn, June 14, 2007).

In late July 2007, at the end of the bloody Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) military operation in the capital of Islamabad, more than 200 militants in Mohmand Agency seized the occasion by storming the shrine of famous anti-British freedom fighter Haji Sahib Turangzai and taking over the adjacent mosque in the Ghazi Abad village, some 25 miles north of Ghalanai, Mohmand Agency headquarters. The militants re-named the mosque Lal Masjid in a show of solidarity, noting that Ghazi Abad was the place Haji Sahib had started his anti-colonial jihad. The group, identified as local Taliban, was led by one Umar Khalid, a previously unknown figure who suddenly grabbed the attention of local as well as international media when he declared: "We want to take forward the missions of Haji Turangzai and the Red Mosque's slain khateeb (preacher), Ghazi Abdul Rashid" (Daily Times, July 29, 2007; BBC Urdu Online, July 31, 2007).

So far, Umar Khalid continues to be the dominant Taliban leader in Mohmand Agency. There are no other prominent names in the rank and file of the militants operating in the area. Umar Khalid, in his early thirties, is a local tribesman of Qandharo town; he also belongs to the Qandharo sub-tribe of the Safi, a Mohmand Agency tribe closely related to the Mohmand tribe. Khalid received his early education in his ancestral village and then could not continue further studies. In his early youth he became connected with the banned militant organization Harakat-ul-Mujahideen, where he underwent military training and also participated in the Kashmir insurgency. Khalid is said to have stronger connections with Kashmiri jihadi groups than with the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan. However, as a veteran of the Kashmir jihad, he went to Afghanistan after 9/11 to fight alongside the Taliban and hundreds of other fellow tribesmen against the U.S. invasion. Locals say that he was waiting for the right time to strike back and the Red Mosque operation gave him the chance to rise to prominence.

Like most of the militant commanders operating in the tribal region of Pakistan, Khalid is media-friendly, with a spokesman, Abu Nauman Asakar, to release his statements and contact the media regarding developments taking place in Mohmand Agency. Surprisingly, he is always happy to be photographed or filmed—something most of the militant commanders operating in the tribal region avoid in the fashion of reclusive Taliban supreme leader, Mullah Muhammad Umar. Khalid has made his objective very clear: implementation of sharia in Pakistan, no matter the cost (BBC Urdu Online, July 1, 2007).

Khalid is representing his agency in the newly formed Tehrek-e-Taliban-Pakistan (Taliban Movement of Pakistan), headed by Baitullah Mehsud, the most dangerous militant commander in South Waziristan. He claims to have more than 3,000 fighters with him. Local journalists say that most of his fighters are either young men from the area or outsiders from other parts of the country, mostly belonging to banned militant organizations operating in Kashmir.

On the surface, the rising militancy in Mohmand Agency may not yet be as big a crisis as in Waziristan, but Mohmand Agency is also not as remote as Waziristan; Peshawar is only 30 minutes from the border and reports are beginning to emerge of insurgent activity extending toward the NWFP capital. In an alarming development earlier this month, five missiles struck the army barracks at Warsak, a suburb of Peshawar. Officials determined that the rockets were fired from the Michni area of Mohmand Agency (Pakistan Times, January 8; Dawn, January 9). There are few signs that decision-makers in Islamabad understand how dire the situation has become. The steady march of pro-Taliban militants in Mohmand Agency could easily spill over into the heart of the NWFP. For this reason there are growing concerns that Taliban activities in Mohmand Agency might only be the early symptoms of yet another serious threat to the internal security of Pakistan.

Imtiaz Ali is a Pakistan-based journalist working as a special correspondent for the Washington Post.

analysis: Rethinking Afghanistan — Tanvir Ahmad Khan

The Afghan Taliban, the “local” Taliban and their foreign allies will probably intensify their effort to destabilise Pakistan as part of their long-term strategy. NATO can live with a protracted low intensity war as long as casualties are low but the implications for Pakistan may be dire.

President Hamid Karzai has recently shown a new tactical subtlety in his interviews with western journalists. He believes that he has persuaded the international community that the epicentre of Islamist extremism is in Pakistan. He reinforces this thesis by making a selective and instrumental use of the history of the last three decades. At the same time he says politically correct things about the shared destiny of the two neighbouring nations. Now he has told Global Viewpoint’s Nathan Gardel that they should follow the model of cooperation adopted by “former enemies, France and Germany”.

This was a curious model to invoke as Pakistan and Afghanistan have never known anything like the epic struggle between the two major European powers spread over centuries. Historically, there was the ebb and flow of imperial borders prior to the advent of the nation state in the region; parts of present day Afghanistan were a Mogul province and Afghan migrants to India often acted as the sword arm of the empire. As the empire withered away, Ahmad Shah Abdali bought precious time for his co-religionists by routing the rising Marhatta power. Later, as the Afghans fought the British, the Muslims of the sub-continent were always on their side. Frankly, President Karzai needs to go back to his history books.

Admittedly, the post-colonial times have left an uneasier legacy. Most Pakistanis speak sadly about Afghanistan’s irredentist claim to some territories on this side of the Durand Line. There is a sense of regret about this period when Kabul teamed up with the Indian intelligence services to foment insurgency in Pakistan’s borderland and Pakistan, unfortunately, tried to break this nexus by exploiting Afghanistan’s limitations as a landlocked state.

This short-sighted tussle was an important factor in Kabul turning to the Soviet Union, a policy choice that led to a long chain of unintended consequences: Soviet influence in the Afghan armed forces, the rise of Parcham, Khalq and assorted pro-Moscow or pro-Beijing groups, the Saur revolution, the Soviet military intervention and the Great Jihad that ended it. Ironically, this chain of consequences welded the peoples of the two countries a trifle too closely and raised unrealistic expectations.

This brings us to the “strategic depth” which Mr Karzai frequently cites to put Pakistan on the defensive. It was a shallow military doctrine in the best of times. But no less relevant was the drift of idealistic thought that created it. History is replete with examples of misplaced idealism degenerating into irrational impulses. The Afghan jihad rolled back Soviet power but also left behind heady thoughts of transforming the world of Islam. Then there was the Pakistani delusion that Islamabad knew what was good for Afghanistan. The Jihadis were equally convinced that they alone knew what was good for Pakistan.

This fallacy was not restricted to the Islamist zealots. The secular foreign policy establishment of Pakistan claims with only perfunctory evidence that it had decided to disengage from the followers of Mullah Omar well before the Americans invaded Afghanistan. When Washington asked it to play a supportive role it saw a fresh opportunity to reconstruct Afghanistan albeit this time in an inverse image.

The new forward policy developed under the same old American umbrella provoked two powerful counter-movements. The dominant Northern Alliance began a campaign of vilifying Pakistan to pre-empt putative ambitions of Islamabad’s new power elite. At the same time, the dispossessed Taliban and their allies concluded that their chances of overturning the Karzai regime installed by the West with the help of 90,000 Pakistani troops deployed along the international border would improve if they would take the war into Pakistani territory.

They were able to do so beyond the worst apprehensions of the people of Pakistan and Pakistani troops are still trying to put down a ruthless insurgency. Musharraf conceded the other day that more than a thousand Pakistani soldiers have already lost their lives while no more than 412 Americans have died in Afghanistan since 2001.

In his valedictory State of the Union address on January 28, US President Bush relied more on carefully selected images than on arguments. Among them was the beguiling snapshot of Afghan boys and girls going to school. Karzai too finds occasional solace in a similar fantasy. It is occasional as he cannot justify frequent civilian losses at the hands of NATO and US troops.

Having failed to make the 41-strong coalition to commit more troops, President Bush will send another 3200 American soldiers to Afghanistan in April. Pakistan should expect this mini surge to aggravate and not ameliorate its problems. The Afghan Taliban, the “local” Taliban and their foreign allies will probably intensify their effort to destabilise Pakistan as part of their long-term strategy. NATO can live with a protracted low intensity war as long as casualties are low but the implications for Pakistan may be dire.

Pakistan has to neutralise the escalating threat from the insurgents in an expanding and fluid battle space. But once it is contained, it must face up to two dimensions of the raging conflict. It must recognise that its capacity to shape the Afghan polity is limited. Karzai’s vision of his country’s future rests largely on an indefinite western military presence and an equally large army of western contractors — a veritable NATO protectorate. It would have to be an Afghan decision that Pakistan can live with by putting its own house in order.

Having blunted the aggression by militant forces at a high cost Pakistan must use that advantageous moment to develop a more comprehensive approach to the insurgency. The emergence of a political government as a result of a free, fair and transparent election may help devise effective and credible political, economic and administrative measures to stabilise the situation. This would be the best tribute to the valour and sacrifices of the armed forces that face a most unenviable task. It can be paid only by recovering independent decision-making and not by compromising it further.
The writer is a former foreign secretary

[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.]