In this bulletin:

• Rice: Tough Effort a Must in Afghanistan
• Rice Stresses Progress, Taliban in Afghanistan
• Taleban to reap £50 million from opium
• Afghanistan: Attacks against aid workers and humanitarian convoys must stop - UNAMA
• Canada to give Afghans $10m food aid
• World effort in Afghanistan under strain
• Germany to send rapid reaction force to northern Afghanistan
• France says considering Afghanistan reinforcements
• Few can meet Canada's Afghan troop demand: MacKay
• Canadian general optimistic, pleased with Afghan campaign
• Dion vows 'civilized' Afghan debate
• Afghanistan leaves Dion cornered
• Afghan showdown
• PM stakes power on Afghanistan
• Politics, security equal mix of frustrations in developing Afghanistan
• Kandahar police shoot it out with new foe – themselves
• Afghanistan strains NATO ties
• Western media in Karzai-bashing campaign
• Ex-jihadi commander captured in Swat
• U.S. says Omar Khadr killed two Afghan soldiers

Rice: Tough Effort a Must in Afghanistan

By ANNE GEARAN – KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has seen progress in Afghanistan during the past few years, despite a determined Taliban insurgency that has disrupted security and prompted concerns that the NATO-led military campaign is failing.

"Can we all expect the security situation will still be difficult - yes, because Afghanistan has determined enemies who laid waste to this country over a period of a decade," said Rice, adding that it would be unfair to say the NATO and Afghan government efforts aren't working. "The strategy is one that I believe is having a good effect."

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, standing beside Rice at a news conference, also defended his leadership, saying the economy and education systems have improved under his watch and there are more democratic freedoms under a new constitution.

"Afghanistan, if given more attention we would be grateful, but it is not right that Afghanistan was forgotten," said Karzai, who was responding to a recent independent report that said the country is in danger of becoming a failed state.

Rice, in a show of unity, made the unannounced trip to Kabul and Kandahar - a former Taliban stronghold - with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband so they could get a firsthand look at the front lines of the NATO-led fight as they lead an effort to boost the number of NATO combat forces in the country.

All 26 NATO nations have soldiers in Afghanistan and all agree the mission is their top priority. But the refusal of European allies to send more combat troops is forcing an already stretched U.S. military — focused on the Iraq war — to fill the gap, and it is straining the Western alliance.

The U.S. contributes one-third of NATO's 42,000-member International Security Assistance Force mission, making it the largest participant, ahead of Britain with about 7,700 soldiers in Afghanistan. The U.S. has another 12,000 to 13,000 troops there involved in counterterrorism operations.

The high-level U.S.-British visit comes in the bloodiest year in Afghanistan since the U.S.-led toppling of the Taliban in 2001. More than 6,500 people — mostly insurgents — died in violence in 2007, according to an Associated Press count of figures provided by local and international officials.

Rice chalked up the deteriorating security in the country to "committed enemies" of Afghanistan and the United States and she told reporters that President Bush, after the 9/11 attacks by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorists, had warned people that "this would be a long war."

The Taliban and al-Qaida-linked militants have turned to suicide bombings and other tactics that make it more challenging to fight, she said.

"It's not work that's going to be completed overnight," Rice said of the efforts to rebuild the country and fight insurgents at the same time.

Rice Stresses Progress, Taliban in Afghanistan

NPR 02.07.08 - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, visiting Afghanistan with her British counterpart, said Thursday that she sees progress in the troubled nation despite the Taliban militia's threat to security.

Rice, who was accompanied by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, said the Afghan government must do its part to fight a resurgent Taliban as the United States and Britain lead an effort to boost the number of NATO combat forces.

"The Afghan government has responsibilities, too," Rice told reporters ahead of a meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. "This is a two-way street, and I think everybody has to step back and concern ourselves with the Taliban."

Rice and Miliband made clear to reporters that they expected more cooperation from the government of Karzai, who has publicly derided British efforts in war-torn southern Afghanistan in recent months.

The two diplomats got a firsthand look at the front lines of the NATO-led fight against insurgents in Kandahar, visiting an alliance airfield in the former Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan.

Rice said her brief unannounced visit was not an attempt to show up European nations that have refused to send combat forces to Kandahar and other southern regions.

Kandahar was the Taliban's main redoubt even after the regime was toppled by a U.S.-led assault in 2001. U.S. led forces pushed the Taliban forces out of the city in 2006 and 2007, but the area is still considered dangerous.

Taleban to reap £50 million from opium

The Times 2.7.08 – The Taliban could earn £50 million from another bumper crop of opium in Afghanistan this year despite the presence of British troops in its main production zone, a United Nations survey said yesterday.

Afghanistan, which produces 90 per cent of the world's illegal opium, is also expected to increase its output of marijuana, according to the survey by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

The survey showed that opium output was expected to drop in northern and central Afghanistan, but it would continue to rise at an “alarming rate” in the insurgency-hit south and southwest, and could exceed last year's crop, which accounted for 78 per cent of Afghanistan's total cultivation.

Afghanistan cultivated a record 193,000 hectares (477,000 acres) of opium in 2007, a 14 per cent increase over the previous year. Total production, boosted by unusually high rainfall, rose by an even faster 34 per cent.

“Opium cultivation in Afghanistan may have peaked, but the 2008 amount will still be shockingly high,” Antonio Maria Costa, the head of UNODC, said. “Europe and other major heroin markets should brace themselves for the health and security consequences.”

Rangeen Dadfar Spanta, Afghanistan's Foreign Minister, said that his country was determined to reduce poppy production by 25 per cent this year. “Afghanistan believes we have only one choice,” he said. “Poppy can destroy us or we destroy the poppy.”

Afghanistan: Attacks against aid workers and humanitarian convoys must stop - UNAMA

Source: United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan

Herat, Afghanistan, 05 February 2008 – As efforts continue to deliver humanitarian assistance to thousands of victims trapped by heavy snowfall in western Afghanistan United Nations agencies joined forces today to appeal for an end to attacks against aid workers and humanitarian convoys delivering food, medicine and warm clothing to Afghanistan's most vulnerable communities.

The World Food Programme (WFP) said that four hundred and ten tones of food valued at around 350,000 USD had been looted by criminal gangs in western Afghanistan in nine attacks on food convoys over the past year alone. There had also been three rocket attacks against UN humanitarian facilities in Herat and public threats to attack staff working for the United Nations.

Flanked by representatives from the WFP and the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) Hassan Elhag, head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) office in Herat said "Heavy snowfall in recent weeks and a dramatic rise in food prices have put thousands of Afghan families at risk. They urgently need food, shelter and clothing if we are to prevent them from perishing. While huge efforts are undertaken by the Government, UN agencies and NGO's our efforts are being hampered by attacks against aid convoys and our staff. These attacks must stop – they are preventing us from reaching those families who need our help the most."

Despite difficulties the WFP said it had already delivered over five hundred tons of food to those families most in need while UNICEF and IOM are continuing to deliver thousands of items of warm clothing, shelter and heating to help families with the sub zero temperatures currently being experienced. Mr. Elhag continued to say "In the coming months we need to reach around four million vulnerable Afghan people across the country with over 14,000 tons of essential food. Without safe passage for our staff and convoys these people will suffer. Those responsible for these attacks most know that they are attacking the welfare of Afghanistan's most vulnerable communities.

"We need all parties to recognise that the humanitarian needs of the Afghan people must come first, above fighting and above politics."

Canada to give Afghans $10m food aid

By Pajhwok Correspondent - Jul 2, 2008 - 11:04

NEW YORK (PAN): Canada Wednesday announced an additional aid of $10 million to help the Afghans facing a severe shortage of food during harsh winter conditions in the impoverished country.

Canadian Minister for International Co-operation Beverley J. Oda in Ottawa, making the announcement, said the aid would be routed through the World Food Programme (WFP).

Canada's support will go a long way towards helping address this immediate need and to alleviating some of the hardships being caused by the harsh winter conditions this season, Oda hoped.

Welcoming the announcement, Afghan Ambassador to Canada Omar Samad told Pajhwok Afghan News it was good news and the aid would help those in dire need. With Afghanistan facing acute shortage of essential commodities and prices soaring, the UN and the Afghan government issued a joint global appeal for help last month.

"Canada consistently responds to the needs of Afghan people, and its enormous support to WFP means we can feed hundreds of thousands of people, especially women and children," said Rick Corsino, WFP's Country Director for Afghanistan.

"With global food prices, particularly wheat, rising to all-time highs in the last 12 months, this contribution is greatly needed," he added.

World effort in Afghanistan under strain

By Lyse Doucet - BBC News, Kabul

In 2001 when world leaders promised Afghans they would "be with you for the long run", no-one realised then just how long this run would be - or where it would take them.

More than six years on, this demanding marathon is testing the resources, although not yet the will, of the runners. "A few bridges have been blown," said one foreign diplomat. "It will take some time to build them again."

All the relationships are under strain. Tensions mounted between President Hamid Karzai and some Western governments over his last-minute reversal on the choice of a new "super envoy" to co-ordinate the aid and military effort with his Afghan government.

Britain's well-regarded Lord Paddy Ashdown was suddenly seen as someone coming to "sort out" the Afghan government.

Those Nato countries whose armies are taking growing casualties on the front line are very publicly accusing other member countries, deployed in quieter provinces, of not fully sharing the burden.

And Afghans who welcomed their country's return to the international fold after the fall of the Taleban, are asking where the billions of dollars have gone and why the rebels' reach is growing.

The Taleban now control swathes of land across south-west Afghanistan and mounted about 140 suicide attacks last year, including some in the capital Kabul.

"Afghans want a good relationship with the international community," insists Afghan Member of Parliament Shukria Barakzai.

"But the assistance isn't going to the right address because we aren't the decision makers. We're a very young government but we're a sovereign government."

"The bargain must be struck anew," underlines Chris Alexander, the Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary General.

"The problem is not our commitment. But the Afghans now have a larger 'footprint' and so do we, so there's a need to restructure this relationship."

The size of the 'footprint' has been shorthand for an approach meant to put Afghans in the driving seat, not outsiders.

Afghan leaders, including President Karzai, now bristle when Western envoys suggest changes to discredited provincial governors and police chiefs

But there is also criticism the president has not always made effective choices and there is frustration his government has at times been unable, and sometimes unwilling, to keep its promises.

"We know we have to make changes in our own house," the president told me in a recent interview.

But he is also under growing pressure from his Afghan allies and adversaries as he heads towards a presidential election set for next year. "The international community also has to get its house in order," says Joanna Nathan, a Kabul-based analyst for the International Crisis Group, a think tank.

"We need to speak with one voice, not multiple voices that sometimes contradict each other."

Mechanisms are in place to achieve better co-ordination, including the "Afghanistan Compact" signed two years ago in London between the government and major donors, kept on track by a Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board which has been meeting this week in Tokyo.

But as one foreign consultant put it, there has been a "tsunami of well paid retired professionals", and little coherence, and sometimes contradictions, in the programmes of aid agencies.

One hundred different organisations are each spending more than $100m in Afghanistan every year.

A wave of recent independent reports has highlighted the urgency of getting a grip on the situation. The US Afghanistan Study Group, headed by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and General James Jones, pointed to the serious threat of resurgent violence and the real prospect of a "failed or failing state".

And Afghans, who pride themselves on their resilience, are starting to express doubt. "There is a sense of fear," said Ahmed, a young Afghan professional who returned to his country after the fall of the Taleban.

"Afghans with money are starting to look for ways out. Those who can't feel trapped or they're just fatalistic."

Others have not lost hope. "I am staying," declared Asif Rahimi, who ended his exile in Canada in 2005 and is now the deputy minister of rural development, regarded as one of the most effective ministries. "There is work to be done."

There is much talk of an early "euphoria" that's now swung to "doom and gloom".

Afghan expectations, born of the pain of a quarter century of war and the promises of the world, may have been unreasonably high at the start. Their country remains one of the world's poorest and its biggest producer of opium poppies.

Three-quarters of the population are illiterate, and even the capital has only a few hours of electricity a day. But a vast amount has changed in the six years since the end of the Taleban.

Six million children are in school; there is an elected president and Parliament; and thousands of kilometres of roads have been built across the country.

"I can tell you Afghans will eventually build their country, once they unite, and there's a focus on the right priorities," said Nasrullah, a very earnest 20-year-old who expressed hope he would one day work in the finance ministry.

The priority is to improve the quality of the aid effort and the effectiveness of the battle against the Taleban and other groups - both criminal and political - opposed to the new order.

That demands a more coherent approach by foreign and Afghan forces that also more effectively draws in neighbouring Pakistan to tackle what is now, more than ever before, a cross-border problem. That means that, in this long run, everyone has to pull in the same direction.

Germany to send rapid reaction force to northern Afghanistan

(CP) BERLIN - Germany will send about 200 troops to serve in a so-called quick reaction force in the relatively calm northern Afghanistan, fulfilling a request from NATO.

Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung told reporters Wednesday that the troops would be based along with Germany's other roughly 3,000 ISAF troops in the north.

Jung said the quick reaction force would be available for support missions "elsewhere in Afghanistan", adding that such missions would require his explicit approval.

The German force will replace a Norwegian force that is expected to leave the war-torn country in the summer.

U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates had sent a letter to Germany and other NATO allies, urging more support for beleaguered U.S. and Canadian troops fighting in the volatile south.

German officials, facing public skepticism over the prospect of being drawn deeper into fighting in Afghanistan, are keen to maintain its focus on the north.

France says considering Afghanistan reinforcements

Thu Feb 7, 2008 9:26am EST

PARIS (Reuters) - France said on Thursday it was considering sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Asked whether France intended to increase the size of its contribution, Sarkozy's spokesman David Martinon said: "These are issues that are being examined. To my knowledge no decision has been reached yet."

Washington is heading a campaign for what it calls a fairer sharing of the burden in the fight against Taliban insurgents. Britain, Canada, Poland and others have added their voices before NATO talks in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in December Paris could boost its presence in Afghanistan, where it has around 1,900 troops, most of them stationed in the relatively secure area of the capital, Kabul.

Newspaper Le Monde reported in its Saturday edition that France could call up a battalion of paratroopers, roughly 700 men, that it has in NATO's strategic reserve force.

Germany said on Wednesday it would send around 200 troops to northern Afghanistan as part of a NATO quick reaction force but would not move forces to the more violent south.

Few can meet Canada's Afghan troop demand: MacKay

CAMPBELL CLARK Globe and Mail Update February 7, 2008 at 8:10 AM EST

VILNIUS — Canada is hoping to find a single country willing to send 1,000 troops to Kandahar, but Defence Minister Peter MacKay conceded today it might come down to cobbling together smaller contingents from several countries.

On the first day of a meeting of NATO defence ministers, Mr. MacKay noted there are a few countries that might be able to meet Canada's demand for 1,000 reinforcements – including the U.S. and Britain, which already have troops in southern Afghanistan, or possibly France – but noted that last year the Dutch had to rely on smaller deployments from several allies.

“The Dutch were able to – I don't mean to sound derogatory – cobble together a combination of countries to fit the bill,” Mr. MacKay told reporters. “Our preference would be a single commitment.”

Mr. MacKay said he is in Vilnius to make it clear “in no uncertain terms” that Canada must have reinforcements of troops and equipments to continue the mission – saying that it is “not a negotiable item.” And he added that he wants a commitment before a summit of NATO national leaders in Bucharest which starts April 2.

He also signalled that Canada wants reinforcements who will share heavy counter-insurgency operations in Kandahar province, where fighting with the Taliban has been most fierce.

“Let's be frank, that's what Canada is looking for here, is a partner in the south, to do the necessary work in Kandahar province, to secure that ground, to see that we're able to do more development work, more humanitarian work, build the infrastructure, and secure what is in my view the funnel, or the pipeline into Afghanistan, from Taliban insurgents coming in from Pakistan,” Mr. MacKay said.

The reference to the Dutch experience is a reminder, however, that countries seeking help have often needed to take it where they can. The Netherlands last fall approved of their own mission in Oruzgan, just north of Kandahar, after a tense parliamentary debate, and patching together a group of reinforcement commitments. Belgium last week announced another 140 troops would be sent there for four months.

Combining several contingents makes co-ordinating military operations more difficult, however, and a single partner would likely make it easier to make the case at home in Canada that it has found reinforcements who will share the burden of combat.

In Paris, a spokesman for French President Nicolas Sarkozy, David Martinon,said France is considering sending more troops to Afghanistan, but no decision has been made.

Canadian officials have identified France as a key hope — and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives know that politically, reinforcements from a country like France is likely to be better for their desire of having an extension approved at home than an increased contribution from the U.S. That's because it would then be seen more as an expanded multi-lateral effort, rather than Canada backing U.S. policy.

Mr. MacKay spent the morning in bilateral sessions with other countries with troops in Afghanistan's dangerous south, including Britain, Holland, and Australia, sharing information about which countries might be coaxed into doing more there.

Dutch defence minister Eimert van Middelkoop told reporters that he had warned Mr. MacKay that there is no point in approaching some NATO allies for help in the south, although he did not say which ones.

Public admonishments from allies active in southern Afghanistan that NATO's future is on the line have raised consternation from some other allies and the alliance's secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

On Wednesday, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates'swarned that NATO is at risk of becoming a two-tiered alliance of those will fight and those who will not.

“I would go so far as to say that we want to avoid having a two-tier NATO,” Mr. MacKay said today. “In fact what we want to see is more of a one-for-all approach, and that includes burden-sharing in the south.”

Canadian general optimistic, pleased with Afghan campaign
Canwest News Service Wednesday, February 06, 2008

ABOARD HMCS CHARLOTTETOWN in the Strait of Hormuz - The general responsible for all Canadian Forces overseas says the war in Afghanistan is winnable and he is "very comfortable" with the manner in which those under his command have handled the highly sensitive issue of Afghan detainees.

"It is a really tough issue to communicate, finding the right level of public interest while taking into account the very real security concerns at the operational level," Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier, commander of Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, said during an interview. "The last thing we want to do is put our soldiers at risk or affect the success of the mission. Finally, as this is before the courts, we have to be careful what we say.

"But I am very comfortable about the decisions that have been made from the soldiers' level to that of the command in Afghanistan. They have shown every time that they have made the right decisions."

Gauthier, an army combat engineer and former head of military intelligence, took over CEFCOM in February 2006. He made the remarks during a visit to HMCS Charlottetown, which is currently on an extended deployment to the Middle East as part of a U.S. carrier strike group. From the Halifax-based frigate, he was to travel to Afghanistan for the 20th time in 24 months.

There has been a spate of recent analyses which concluded NATO's war in Afghanistan was in peril. A report to Parliament by a panel led by John Manley expressed similar concerns.

"Notwithstanding what has been said, we are not in danger of losing in Afghanistan, not by any stretch of the imagination," Gauthier said. "What we have seen over the last six months is a Cadillac firing on all six cylinders. We have not lost a battle in six months and the Afghans who we are with have not lost a battle in six months, too.

"At the micro level, we are winning but we can't be everywhere at once. The geographic dimension is a challenge."

For this reason, the three-leaf general said he welcomed the Manley panel's recommendation that NATO provide 1,000 combat troops to assist the Canadians in Kandahar and that Ottawa should withdraw its forces if such help was not forthcoming by early 2009.

"It would be enormously helpful to have more troops because it is an enormous province consisting of 17 districts," he said. "We have been focused on where people live. But there are many other districts that need attention and there has been only so much that we could do.

"More troops means getting to the finish line quicker. That finish line is a long way off, but we are marching effectively."

Asked about reports in the U.S. that the Marine Corps, which is sending 3,200 troops to southern Afghanistan for seven months beginning in April, would go on joint operations with the Canadians in Kandahar, Gauthier said: "It is good to see that there is a perception among our friends to the south that they want to help us in southern Afghanistan." But he said a decision about exactly how to utilize the marines, who like the Canadians, will be part of NATO's International Security Assistance Force, had not yet been officially made.

As for highly critical remarks from U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates last month that NATO allies were not able to fight a counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan, Gauthier, who is personally responsible for managing Canada's current and future war plans, said "it was unfortunate that it has been characterized in that way because I know how happy the Americans have been with the approach that we have taken in Kandahar. I do not believe it was his intention to criticize Canada."

"We all know how tough the Afghan mission is but the fundamental pillars of our mission are pretty well tailored to counter-insurgency. One part is focused on combat operations, another is focused on reconstruction, while the third is focused on building Afghan national security forces."

Tracing Canada's path in southern Afghanistan since undertaking combat operations nearly two years ago, the CEFCOM commander said there was "a sharp kinetic focus on security" during the summer and fall of 2006 and a better balance between security and reconstruction during 2007, when a balance was being found between exclusively Canadian security operations and those that involved Afghanistan's improving military capability.

"Geographically, we made significant gains in the past six months. We have expanded the security bubble and have done it with the help of Afghan infantry battalions," Gauthier said.

"We are now evolving towards 100 per cent training and partnering with Afghans in operational areas. Afghans are assuming a greater share of security operations every day, which is essential in a counter-insurgency. At the same time, reconstruction is being superimposed, which will make a difference in the lives of Afghans. We hope to see a lot more of that in 2008."

Dion vows 'civilized' Afghan debate

BRODIE FENLON AND BRIAN LAGHI Globe and Mail Update and Canadian Press

February 6, 2008 - Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion struck a conciliatory note Wednesday on Afghanistan just as Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to put his minority government on the line over the future of the Canadian mission there.

The Conservatives will introduce a motion Thursday on extending the Afghan combat mission, but it won't be voted on until the end of March.

Mr. Dion, who met privately with Mr. Harper on the issue Tuesday night, said he will try to reach an agreement with the Tories over what role Canadian troops will play in Afghanistan post-2009.

Mr. Dion said the Conservative motion, as it was explained to him by Mr. Harper, will make the mission extension contingent on 1,000 more troops and more military equipment from Canada's NATO allies, as recommended in the report from the panel led by former foreign affairs minister John Manley.

Mr. Dion said there is no clear timeline in the Conservative proposal, which would make it a “never-ending mission.”

“We don't want the extension of the combat mission after February 2009. We don't think it's good for the mission,” Mr. Dion told reporters Wednesday after he met with his caucus.

“This being said, we want to play a role after and if there is a possibility for the prime minister to see a compatibility between the role we want to play and something that he might agree with, well then, we'll propose amendments.”

Mr. Dion said the prime minister promised him the debate would not be rushed. “We'll do it in a civilized way this time. We'll have the time to look at that. [Mr. Harper] doesn't want a vote on Afghanistan before the vote on the budget ... We'll do our best to convince the other colleagues in the House to come to our position.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Harper said the government has not yet declared the motion a confidence matter but hinted that will change.

Carolyn Stewart Olsen emphasized that the prime minister has called the Afghan issue a matter of grave importance. “We expect debate to begin next week,” she said. “We have time and are willing to be patient while the Liberals sort out their position.”

If the government were to lose, it could plunge the country into an election. Mr. Harper issued the warning during a 25-minute meeting between the two men Tuesday to discuss the future of the Afghan mission and a possible compromise over Canada's presence in the strife-torn province of Kandahar.

The Liberals are divided on the issue, but Mr. Dion has said that he will whip the vote, meaning the party must vote as one. The NDP and the Bloc Québécois are already against the mission, demanding that it end by 2009. The Liberals, however, have said there may be room for some compromise.

But, Mr. Dion has also told Mr. Harper that he won't budge from his condition that any Canadian role in Afghanistan after 2009 not include a combat function.

Mr. Harper might compromise with Mr. Dion in an effort to win over Liberal support. For example, the prime minister might put an end-date on the mission of 2011, which could garner Liberal backing.

Although a confidence vote is dangerous for the Liberals, it also has pitfalls for the Tories, hence the need for the prime minister to at least appear as though he is attempting to compromise.

Mr. Dion laid out his position as he and Mr. Harper discussed ways for Canada to move forward in warring country and attempted to find common ground on the Manley report.

“Mr. Dion made clear the Liberal Party's long-standing position on the mission in Afghanistan, including our firm and unwavering belief that the combat mission in Kandahar must end by February, 2009,” said a statement released by Mr. Dion after the meeting ended late yesterday afternoon.

Tories were also tight-lipped about the meeting, saying only that Mr. Harper repeated his support for the Manley report.

“The Prime Minister reiterated the government's position – that we are adopting the bi-partisan recommendations of the Manley panel – and that if we are unable to secure extra combat troops and equipment, Canada will not be extending the mission in Afghanistan,” said a statement from the Prime Minister's Office. A source said Tuesday night that the two sides seemed fairly entrenched in their positions.

Meanwhile, Mr. Harper Tuesday continued his diplomatic efforts to get the necessary soldiers and materiel with a phone call to French President Nickolas Sarkozy. The Prime Minister's spokeswoman, Sandra Buckler, said Mr. Harper and Mr. Sarkozy reviewed the recommendations of the Manley panel, “including the recommendation that Canada remain in Afghanistan, in Kandahar, but only if we can secure additional troops from NATO allies and additional equipment for the Canadian Forces.”

She added that Mr. Harper and Mr. Sarkozy noted that their defence ministers will meet this week in Lithuania at the NATO Defence Ministers' meeting.

The British newspaper The Guardian reported Tuesday that France may increase its military presence in Afghanistan. It is “looking at ways [to] share a greater burden,” an official said yesterday. The newspaper also said a fresh British force is to be sent to the country as the United States intensifies pressure on European allies to prevent civil war.

Also on Tuesday, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier told the House of Commons that Canada won't build a detention facility in Kandahar or participate in the management of Afghan prisons to prevent future abuses of detainees.

“We will not be building a prison in Afghanistan; we will not manage a prison in Afghanistan,” he said.

Attorneys for Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association made the suggestion for Canada to help manage the jails in a Federal Court document as part of an effort to block transfers of prisoners to Afghan control.

Reached Tuesday in Brussels, NATO spokesman James Appathurai said the decision to get involved in the management of Afghan detention facilities rests with individual countries, pointing to the U.S. detention facility in Bagram.

“NATO, as an organization, doesn't manage detention facilities,” Mr. Appathurai said.

Colleen Swords, an assistant deputy minister of Foreign Affairs, told Amnesty lawyer Paul Champ in court last year that “some discussions” have been held about building a NATO wing on an existing Afghan jail.

It's unclear what Canada has done with its captives since an army commander ordered a temporary end to transfers on Nov. 6, although it's been speculated that the detainees are being held at the Kandahar airport.

Afghanistan leaves Dion cornered

February 07, 2008 James Travers, Toronto Star
OTTAWA- Stéphane Dion is adding another D to Afghanistan's 3Ds of defence, diplomacy and development: Dither.

By failing to settle early and firmly on a sound, coherent, politically saleable position, the Liberal leader delivered to the Prime Minister a win-win proposition. Needlessly backed into a corner, Dion must now either fight an election before Liberals are ready, and on Conservative terms – terms that beyond Afghanistan include crime and, crucially, the coming budget – or bow to extending the mission.

A cynical observer – or crowing Conservative – might conclude there are now two new Dion Ds, dumb being the second and most damaging. A leader still struggling to understand Afghanistan failed to grasp the lifeline tossed to the party by another Liberal.

John Manley's report and qualified recommendation to stay the course beyond next February offered two shining opportunities. One was to modify the party's naïve proposal to end the combat mission while somehow continuing to rebuild a badly failing state. The other was to pressure Harper to meet Manley's caveats of more NATO troops and helicopters while attaching Liberal conditions to set an exit deadline and improve military, corruption and opium strategies that aren't working.

Instead of seizing the initiative and demonstrating capacity for creative policy, Dion left the political vacuum Harper is now filling with an Afghanistan vote that could kill this Parliament if it doesn't die first on the budget.

Of course all elections come with risks and one turning on Afghanistan has ample for the ruling party. Even a single bad day in Kandahar could throw the Conservative campaign off course. No prime minister wants to tour the country deflecting questions about casualties.

But consider this: Harper is keen to fight the election on leadership and will frame Afghanistan as the kind of tough decision strong prime ministers make. More intriguing, many Liberals worry they chose a weak one in Dion and have mixed feelings about an election likely to return another minority and perhaps formally restart the leadership contest that never stopped.

Given Conservatives are rolling in dollars and Liberals are not, the rationale is more persuasive for pulling the plug on a Parliament that may not live much longer anyway. But mostly missing from that dynamic is the national interest.

Apart from providing a catalyst for Liberals to unite around one of the issues that divides them, Manley's greatest contribution was to provide the Afghanistan analysis needed for the first thoughtful debate on Canada's future role. That could still unfold in Parliament or, despite Kim Campbell's infamous warning about mixing head-hurting policy with political campaigns, in an election. But it's far more likely the three national parties, like voters, will polarize around sadly wanting positions.

The Conservative open-ended commitment essentially focuses foreign policy on a single country that won't be saved soon or without high cost. Liberal reconstruction rhetoric is empty without the security only Canada is now willing to provide in southern Afghanistan. And the unilateral withdrawal the NDP wants would blow a hole in the multilateral protection Canada gets from the United Nations and NATO.

This brinksmanship is just hours old with plenty of time and space still for manoeuvre. But Dion's moves must now be deft if he's to avoid adding yet another D: Defeat.

Afghan showdown

National Post  Published: Thursday, February 07, 2008

Whatever one thinks of Canada's role in Afghanistan, it must be conceded that Stephen Harper's decision to introduce a Parliamentary confidence motion to extend our Afghan combat mission beyond its current 2009 deadline is a strategic masterstroke. The Prime Minister has once again put the opposition Liberals in a no-win position. The Grits may defeat the motion and force an election they do not want (and cannot afford), abstain and look as pathetic as they did when they sat out last fall's vote on the Throne Speech, or vote in favour of the mission and lose it as a wedge issue when an election finally does come.

By all accounts, the Liberal caucus is divided over Afghanistan. Deputy party leader Michael Ignatieff, who is also de facto leader of what passes for the party's hawkish wing, declared last week that the world needs an interventionist Canada that won't stand around waiting for the U.S., and that Canada "can't be a country that gives people little lectures. We have to take a stand" with a strong military and diplomatic corps.

Meanwhile, many Toronto and Quebec Liberal MPs are closer to the NDP position of an immediate withdrawal. Somewhere in the middle, the bulk of the caucus seem to agree with Stephane Dion's demand of leaving our troops in Afghanistan beyond next February, but reassigning them away from combat.

Money will be a factor in the Liberals' decision-making. Donations to the party were off nearly 60% in 2007, from nearly $11-million in 2006 to less than $5-million. The party has yet to file its financial statement for last year. But if its expenses in 2007 rival those from a year earlier, the $6-million drop in donations would put the Liberals $2-million in the red, on top of a $2.3-million debt they carried at the end of 2006. They face the prospect of having to campaign against the cash-rich Tories on borrowed money.

It's true that running on the Afghan mission is a risky move for the Tories. Canadians are nearly evenly split on whether we should be fighting there. But since the Tories are the only wholly pro-mission party, the stance separates them from the other parties, amongst whom the anti-war vote will be split four ways (including the Greens).

We would have preferred if Mr. Harper had waited until after this week's meeting of NATO defence ministers before introducing his motion, as he promised to do last week. There is a chance the NATO gathering will not produce the 1,000 extra troops from other countries that the Prime Minister, having taken John Manley's advice, has made a pre-condition to our continued combat role. If it does not, then the Tories (not to mention our troops) may find themselves in a bit of a bind themselves.

Still, we like the two most likely outcomes of Mr. Harper's gambit: an election that the Tories would enter in a position of strength, or a Parliamentary extension of our mission backed by the chief opposition party.

PM stakes power on Afghanistan

Election based on mission not good for Canadians, Don Martin, National Post Published: Thursday, February 07, 2008

OTTAWA -He's got a sudden outbreak of the two-year itch. On the second anniversary of his swearing-in as Prime Minister, an impatient Stephen Harper is plotting his government's defeat for a referendum on the Kandahar military mission. That's provided the federal budget doesn't trigger the vote later this month.

Or the Justice Minister's threat to declare Senate foot-dragging on the omnibus crime bill is deemed to be grounds for a general election call in March.

Suddenly, it would seem, Mr. Harper has decided to force himself to be toppled ahead of a turtling economy and before the Liberals can get their leadership act together.

He can't trigger the vote by himself. The nagging result of his legislated October, 2009, fixed election date means Mr. Harper must simultaneously infuriate all three opposition parties into voting the Conservatives out of their minority misery.

Of the three issues -- and there's no doubt other tripwires are in place if the rollover Liberals refuse to vote non-confidence in the Conservatives -- the Afghanistan question would seem most likely to force an election.

While there are obvious compromises if the parliamentary spirit is willing, the two leading party positions are hardening into a cement that will make even minor movement difficult once the debate kicks off next week.

The Conservative motion will demand another 1,000 soldiers from NATO forces as the price for Canada's continued troop commitment. If the soldier booster arrives, the mission would be extended indefinitely and the combat focus gradually softened by reconstruction and Afghan military training efforts.

The Liberals will seek to amend that motion, opting for Canadian troops to down their guns early next year in favour of irrigation ditch-digging shovels and military-training manuals even if foreign forces are deployed to the region.

Gosh. Imagine the optics of Canada ordering a military ceasefire just as international security forces ride to our rescue. That would merely replace Canada's understaffed and arguably ineffective force with insufficient military muscle from another country.

Complicating the Liberals' pacifist position is that Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier, who correctly insists Kandahar is a war zone where combat cannot be avoided, would declare it a mission impossible. Soldiers in the field, watching with alarm as their high-risk sacrifice is reduced to a ballot-box question, would suffer a morale meltdown.

And it's not clear if the Liberal vision would leave Canada's refurbished military machine parked in Kandahar or sent home to Canada. Either way, good Samaritans would be exposed to reduced security protection while our soldiers rest on their shovels.

The Liberals have decent criticisms in their arsenal. Deputy leader Michael Ignatieff raised a good point wondering why Mr. Harper waited until last month to start arm-twisting NATO allies into coughing up more troop support. Somebody should have called the French, German and Italian leadership a year ago.

But the Prime Minister has clearly decided to roll the dice on Afghanistan if he can't force the trio of opposition parties to take down his government in what private polling must show to be winning conditions for the Conservatives. He is taking on considerable risk to base a campaign on Afghanistan.

A mid-campaign Canadian soldier massacre in Kandahar could lurch public opinion against the mission. And if the Harper government's paranoia over operational secrecy in Kandahar is correct, specifically their belief that the Taliban religiously monitor Canadian media for military insight, an insurgency escalation in the region will undoubtedly erupt once the Taliban realize their Maple Leaf enemy's fate is up for a vote.

But the Liberal position appears the less tenable of the two. The bottom line is that Afghanistan good-deed-doing without proper security is suicidal. And tight security without conflict is impossible with the Taliban orbiting around Kandahar, waiting to pounce the minute they spot a military vacuum.

Afghanistan should not be the defining issue for an election. It can serve as a policy wedge amid a package of issues up for voter consideration, but there are better justifications for a $300-million election question.

Let's hope Mr. Harper's two-year itch can be satisfied by scratching the vote and electing to seek a compromise.

Politics, security equal mix of frustrations in developing Afghanistan

PANJWAII DISTRICT, Afghanistan - Some battle-hardened Canadian troops in Afghanistan are regularly locked in bitter firefights in which lives are lost.

For other Canadians, the battle is for blankets, tents, walkways to the river and the basic elements of survival. This is, after all, a land of stark contrasts.

Capt. Michel Larocque's civil military co-operation team was about to survey development sites in the Panjwaii district of Kandahar when his soldiers reported a deadly risk.

They had found a bomb buried in the road. Later, they saw Taliban watching their unit and nearby Afghan contractors. The trip was called off and the contractors sent home.

"Today was an information operation victory for the Taliban, yes" Larocque conceded. "But, it's not going to stop us from going back." It's not just the roadside bombs peppering the country that pose a challenge to reconstruction - politics play a role as well.

The military co-operation teams in Kandahar fund quick-impact projects like canals and bridges. Their purpose is strategic. It gives the military the area access it needs and it helps to win the support of Afghan civilians.

Non-governmental organizations complain that tying development to the military compromises the long-term viability of projects and taints civilian aid work in the region.

The military counters that their operations allow civilian organizations to operate in previously insecure zones. Sometimes, the two sides collide.

The same day the bomb thwarted his surveying trip, Larocque tried to find a way to provide tents for refugees at Mar Ghar, a Panjwaii village.

Afghanistan is suffering through the coldest winter in years, and the roughly 600 people at the camp have little shelter. The Canadian army isn't assigned to humanitarian aid, but Larocque said "when it's a question of a loss of life, that's different."

Three children died last week at the Mar Ghar camp, said Gul Bobo, 40, as she and other women crowded inside a tent to bake the bread that sustains them.

"I have a daughter who is ready to be a bride but she cannot come out because she is sick," wailed Noorzi, who said she is 75.

Larocque got $1,700 from military co-operation funds to buy two blankets for each of the 55 families at the camp, but he wants to get them tents. They live now in makeshift shelters of tarp and ratty cloth, their camels and sheep sharing the same frozen patches of ground.

Last week, Larocque visited the site with Ron Schatz, the development director in Kandahar for the Canadian International Development Agency.

CIDA spends about $100 million a year to fund development in Afghanistan. It's channelled mostly through agencies like the United Nations and the World Food Program.

Schatz promised to contact the World Food Program to see if they could do something. For Larocque, if wasn't fast enough.

He said he could afford to buy 10 tents so the elderly and ill could have shelter immediately, while the politics of the international aid world played itself out.

Sitting on a blanket at the camp on Wednesday, he negotiated with the elders, one of whom asked: "How can we decide who should get the tents?" As elder Haji Gol put it: "If one family gets, so the other family will want. We need tents for all, not only for some."

The refugees in Panjwaii are among approximately 90,000 in Kandahar province where the Canadian army is active. CIDA says the problem of helping them is "challenging."

Larocque is also trying to get work done on two culverts, an embankment down to the river, an erosion wall and a bridge in Dabak village along the Arghandab river.

The projects were all requested by local villagers. Larocque remains philosophical amid the local tensions. "In the end," he says, "it's just going to be up to the Afghans to decide whether they want development or not."

Kandahar police shoot it out with new foe – themselves

For the third time in recent months a gunfight erupts within the ranks of area security forces, leaving three officers dead

GRAEME SMITH - From Wednesday's Globe and Mail February 6, 2008

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — The biggest firefight in Kandahar city over the past few weeks was not a battle against insurgents but a squabble among Afghan police, the provincial police chief has confirmed.

Local radio initially reported that gunfire heard in Kandahar's northern slums on Sunday afternoon was a skirmish between police and Taliban, but witnesses later said the fighting erupted after local police caught a group of fellow officers trying to buy opium.

Three police were killed and five wounded and a civilian was injured in the crossfire, Police Chief Sayed Agha Saqib said.

It's at least the third time in the past eight months that deadly gunfights have erupted within the ranks of Kandahar's security forces, even after Canada has focused attention on training the police and Canadian politicians describe Afghan forces as taking greater responsibility for local security.

"There was an argument," the police chief said. "These things happen among the police sometimes."

The dispute started about 1 p.m. Sunday when a marked police vehicle, a green Ranger pickup truck, approached a police checkpoint near the Siman Pul bridge in the Loy Wiyala neighbourhood, Chief Saqib said.

The local police asked the visiting officers to show their identification cards, the police chief said; such checks have grown more common after recent attacks in which Taliban masqueraded as police or soldiers.

"One of the officers seemed intoxicated," Chief Saqib said. "He refused to show his card."

The local checkpoint commander called for backup, more police arrived from a downtown station, and a battle ensued, Chief Saqib said. Three of the vehicle's occupants were killed and the other three remain under police guard at Mirwais Hospital, he said.

Other reports gave different casualty figures, with as many as four killed and nine wounded.

Aminullah, a 23-year-old officer who saw the battle, said the police in the green vehicle were visitors from nearby Zhari district, and they aroused suspicion by walking into roadside shops known to sell drugs.

When the local checkpoint commander demanded to know their identity, Aminullah said, the visiting officers refused to answer his questions. "We called to Saqib," the officer said, referring to the police chief.

"Saqib said, 'Arrest them and bring them to the police station.' Saqib sent us many police to arrest them. When the other police came, the Zhari police didn't want to give up their weapons. So the fighting started."

Drug addiction is a serious problem among Afghan police. During a visit to a police outpost, an obviously intoxicated officer attempted to give a reporter for The Globe and Mail a fist-sized ball of dark paste - hashish, apparently - in exchange for a magazine.

The officers who caused the latest problems were stationed in a cluster of villages known as Kolk, in the dangerous zone southwest of Kandahar city where Canadians continue their push to keep insurgents away from urban areas.

The most bloody battles between Afghan forces last year happened on the other side of the Arghandab River, in the areas of Talokan and Mushan.

For several days in June, officers from the 05 Police Standby Battalion said they were besieged in a concrete outpost and watched three of their friends die slowly of gunshot wounds, unable to take them to hospital as they remained trapped by hostile fire from other Afghan forces.

At least a dozen police died in those clashes, which resulted in the removal of the 05 Battalion from the district. Soon afterward, the Canadians hastily set up the Police Operational Mentoring Liaison Team, reassigning soldiers originally trained to teach Afghan troops into the POMLT in an attempt to professionalize the police.

Other violence continued in the same districts yesterday as a roadside bomb exploded about 40 kilometres west of the city, near a police substation.

Two Canadian soldiers were lightly injured with cuts and bruises, and have returned to work. The military did not disclose the type of vehicle they were using, but said it protected them from more serious injury.

"The vehicle did its job," said Captain Josée Bilodeau, a spokeswoman. Another bomb in Kandahar yesterday hit a police vehicle, killing two officers and injuring three others, the police chief said.

Afghanistan strains NATO ties

Secretary of State Rice arrives in London Wednesday to address tensions among key allies.

By Laura J. Winter | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

from the February 6, 2008 edition

London - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrives in the British capital Wednesday to try to bolster a battered NATO ally and address the alliance's efforts in a progressively more dangerous Afghanistan mission.

Three major studies published last week concluded that economic and military initiatives to date lack the coherent strategy needed to block the return of the Taliban and Al Qaeda – or stop the burgeoning opium economy. The US and Britain, the lead military players in Afghanistan, have taken repeated beatings from lawmakers and allies about NATO's handling of the mission in the six years since the Taliban fell.

Many analysts say this year will test whether NATO and its Afghan partners can secure the country and build a functioning state. But the ties that bind NATO are fraying badly – and publicly – over just how much each member state wants to commit to turning Afghanistan around.

"It's starting to get to a turning point about what is this alliance about," says Michael Williams, director of the transatlan- tic program at the Royal United Services Institute in London. "The problems NATO is having in Afghanistan are just a symptom of what is wrong with the alliance. There are a lot disagreements about what NATO is and what it should be used for."

Mr. Williams adds that the issue is not a European versus an American problem. "Now you have this two-tier alliance. It is a coalition of the willing and the sort-of-willing," he says. "So the Germans aren't and the Canadians, the Brits and the Dutch are."

An exchange of pointed jabs is happening days before NATO defense ministers are scheduled to gather on Thursday in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius, where US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is expected to put the squeeze on Germany and France to commit more troops to Afghanistan's "hot zones" in the south.

Secretary Rice is expected to confer with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband in London on coordinating diplomatic efforts to convince NATO members to expand their military commitments in Afghanistan to include combat.

A NATO spokeswoman in Kabul notes that while the insurgency is not spreading, 70 percent of the violence occurs in 10 percent of the country: the south, where the Canadians, the British, and the Dutch are involved in difficult counterinsurgency operations.

The Canadians, who have about 2,500 troops operating out of Kandahar Air Base, have said that unless more equipment and 1,000 more troops are sent by the allies to support their efforts in the troubled province, they will leave when the term of their mandate ends in February 2009.

The British, who have committed some 7,800 troops over the past 22 months to battle the Taliban in Helmand Province, are angry as well, still stinging from Afghan President Hamid Karzai's very public recent rebukes.

Last month, Mr. Karzai said the British bungled efforts in Helmand Province and then blocked the appointment of top British diplomat Paddy Ashdown as the UN's special envoy to Afghanistan.

"Ashdown's a celebrity. He's the Michael Jackson of postconflict reconstruction," says Williams. "He was going to raise the profile of Afghanistan. Karzai was afraid he would be too powerful. So the Afghans shot themselves in the foot. Paddy Ashdown was the best chance to get someone with the right personality to get all the players into the same ring."

The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) consists of some 42,000 troops from 39 countries stationed across Afghanistan The US has about 17,000 troops under NATO command and some 12,000 more involved in counterterrorism operations.

While the Bush administration is sending an additional 3,200 Marines soon, Mr. Gates will be seeking 7,500 more troops from two major allies who have been reluctant to face off with the Taliban.

A German newspaper published a leaked letter from Gates to Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung, in which Gates demanded that Germany commit an additional 1,000 soldiers and send them to the restive south. But when ISAF agreements were made in 2002, the parliament voted to send forces its troops only if they were deployed in the relatively peaceful north.

It's unlikely the defense minister will urge a revisiting of the issue. "They won't budge because of the language that has been used for the past few days," says Jan Techau, of the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin. "The German reply to the Gates letter is a position they cannot abandon without losing face."

Mr. Techau says the public has had difficulty linking German security to Afghanistan because it has not suffered anything like the attacks in the London Underground. He says military action in Afghanistan is very unpopular.

"We are afraid of the voters. Our leaders do not tell them the truth – that what needs to be done in Afghanistan means a fight," he says. "Germany will pay a political price internationally. There are a lot of bad feelings from the Canadians, because we are not going to enter into hot combat, which everyone else has done. You cannot expect ... to have a say in the alliance when you ... always say 'no' to your allies."

The French are expected to entertain Gates's request for more help, but with conditions, according to Frederic Bozo, a professor of European studies at the Sorbonne in Paris.

"When [Nicolas] Sarkozy was elected, he said he was going to reconcile with America in general. And he said he would put France back into the NATO fold, into the apparatus. So the expectation now is that he will deliver more," says Mr. Bozo. But, he adds, "The old divides are appearing. It's about all the big issues. What is NATO's role? Are we fighting a war against terrorists?

"NATO won't fail in Afghanistan, but no one is going to win," he continues. "Afghanistan is a vast country, and the amount of troops [there] in proportion [to what is needed] is ridiculous. The notion that we are going to turn Afghanistan into a functioning democracy is incredible."

Bozo says that what France is willing to contribute differs fundamentally from what the US wants. He says the Sarkozy administration will push for NATO to focus on political solutions and development, while the Americans will want to focus on a military resolution.

In London, Williams countered, "It's useless building schools and roads if there are going to be IEDs [improvised explosive devices] and the burning of schools. The alliance needs to have reform and a strategic discussion about what NATO means. If there is not an agreement, maybe it's time to do something else."

Western media in Karzai-bashing campaign

Pajhwok 02/05/2008 By Lalit K Jha

NEW YORK - Afghan President Hamid Karzai, regarded as a hero by the West for leading the war on terrorism in the conflict-devastated country, suddenly seems to have turned a villain.

News reports, columns and editorials appearing in the western media in the past one week assailed Karzai after he rejected a proposal to appoint high-profile British politician Paddy Ashdown as UN's super envoy to Afghanistan.

A reflection of the new thinking of western leaders, the media has been critical of the Afghan leader but stops short of declaring him a failure. This is a quite turnaround for the West's poster boy now portrayed as a burden.

Some writers are even musing about a post-Karzai Afghanistan, suggesting a replacement for him, while others caution the West should wait for a year until the presidential election to have a leader of their choice. The impression being cultivated is that as if they will decide who the next Afghan president would be.

The Western world - which finds it difficult digesting the rejection of its proposal by Karzai - is apparently moving on a road map that would strengthen the Taliban and al-Qaeda base by driving the people towards them by default.

"Karzai's rejection of Paddy Ashdown, who gained a reputation as a forceful and imaginative administrator for the United Nations in Bosnia, is at one level a story of diplomatic intrigue and betrayal, writes Jim Hoagland, The Washington Post Op-Ed columnist.

This episode points up Karzai's increasingly erratic style of governing as suicide bombings and Taliban attacks on civilians increase, he says. "His turnaround creates dangerous new delays in counterinsurgency efforts, which urgently need to be strengthened and clarified, according to an authoritative Atlantic Council report issued last week by Gen. James L. Jones, the retired NATO commander, Hoagland argues.

In an article appearing in The Sunday Times, published from London, Simon Jenkins compares today's Kabul with Saigon at the end of the Vietnam War.

"It swarms with refugees and corruption while an upper crust of well-heeled contractors, consultants and NGO groupies careers from party to party in bullet-proof Land Cruisers. Spin doctors fighting a daily battle with the truth have resorted to enemy kill-rates to imply victory, General Westmorelands ploy in Vietnam, Jenkins adds.

Foreign 'governance' pundits in Kabul may dream of Afghanistan as a latter-day Sweden, but they are never going to bring Pashtuns, Balochs, Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks into a stable federation, he continues.

An article appearing in The Guardian says: It is hard to be hopeful about Afghanistan." Sliding away from progress, the country has begun a fretful, violent descent towards calamity that all the efforts of NATO, aid agencies and Afghans seem unable to stop, according to the prestigious newspaper.

To be pessimistic about Afghanistan's future is not to say that the world should walk away: it is to recognise that reality is very grim," maintains the commentator. The three pieces, indicative of increasing opposition to President Karzai, also point to the abrupt swing in pinion of the Western leadership.

Ex-jihadi commander captured in Swat

By Janullah Hashimzada - Jul 2, 2008 - 17:26

PESHAWAR (PAN): Pakistani security personnel have captured a former Afghan jihadi commander with links to al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgents, an intelligence official revealed on Thursday.

The detained commander, named Mia Muhammad Agha, belongs to the Kabul province, according to an NAWFP-based intelligence official who wished not to be named.

Agha was arrested during an overnight operation in Chakdara town of the restive Swat Valley, the source confided to Pajhwok Afghan News. Suspected of having links with militant networks, Agha has been shifted to an undisclosed location for interrogations.

Haji Mursalin, a neighbourer of the terror suspect in Shah Kas area of Khyber Agency, confirmed Aghas arrest. However, he was unaware of the charges against the erstwhile commander.

He insisted the one-time jihadi leader, running the honey business to support his family, was currently associated with no militant outfit.

U.S. says Omar Khadr killed two Afghan soldiers

By The Canadian Press Thu. Feb 7 - 7:23 AM

TORONTO — The U.S. military says imprisoned Canadian terror suspect Omar Khadr was responsible for the deaths of two more soldiers in Afghanistan.

The Globe and Mail reports the allegations against Khadr are contained in wording added to the original charge sheet against him last year.

Khadr was originally charged with killing a U.S. army sergeant in a 2002 firefight. The new wording says he was involved in the killing of two Afghan army soldiers.

Col. Lawrence Morris, chief prosecutor at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp where Khadr is being held, said the U.S. government doesn't have to show the accused actually killed the two men.

Morris told the Globe that Khadr is charged as a principal, meaning he did not have to commit the act directly, so long as he was in concert with and shared the criminal intent of those who did the shooting.

``We see this all the time in instances such as bank robberies, where the driver of the getaway car is still responsible for the theft, as well as any harm to persons that might ensue while he is outside with the motor running,'' Morris said.

Morris said Khadr was not directly charged with killing the two Afghans because their bodies were removed by other Afghans before they could be properly identified.

[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.]