In this bulletin:

• Pneumonia spreads as winter deaths top 800
• Iran deports Afghans despite call for winter halt
• Several Taliban, two civilians killed in Afghanistan: officials
• The Taliban: Kidnappng, Inc.
• Afghan militants release 21 Afghans and Pakistanis’
• Report calls for more Afghan control of budget
• Taliban denies kidnapping Pakistani envoy
• No problem between Britain, Afghanistan
• MPs say Karzai could alienate Britons
• Germany may increase Afghanistan troops: paper
• France Mulls Greater Role in Afghanistan
• Australia to access NATO's Afghan plans
• Liberals back away from compromise on troops
• Tories offer new Afghan role plan
• Closing the gap on Afghan role
• Canada's Afghan mission: confusion confounded
• Canadian soldier says gear sub-standard
• 'Al Qaeda is not interested in Afghanistan'

Pneumonia spreads as winter deaths top 800

KABUL, 14 February 2008 (IRIN) - Over 170,000 patients with pneumonia and other acute respiratory infections have been diagnosed and treated at health centres across Afghanistan in the past month, the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) has reported.

At least 100 pneumonia patients, most of them children, died in the same period, Abdullah Fahim, a spokesman for MoPH, told IRIN on 14 February.

Among the victims were seven children in Badakhshan Province, northeastern Afghanistan, where a medical team from the UK charity Merlin treated 270 pneumonia patients on 30 January.

On arrival in snow-covered Shar-e-Buzorg District of Badakhshan the team was "soon overwhelmed by people seeking help while some were lying in the snow", according to Sophia Craig, head of Merlin in Afghanistan.

Officials are also concerned about the spread of winter diseases in Ghor, Daykundi, and Nooristan provinces where many food-insecure communities live in rugged and inaccessible areas.

"Many people are susceptible to pneumonia and acute respiratory infections due to food-insecurity, prevalent lack of awareness about diseases, and hygienic problems," Craig said.

Parts of Afghanistan are facing their harshest winter in 25 years, and over 800 people have lost their lives, according to Afghanistan's National Disasters Management Authority (ANDMA).

About 91 people have also had their limbs amputated because of frostbite, health officials in Herat Province, western Afghanistan, reported.

Over 730 houses have been destroyed and 316,055 livestock have died in the wintry conditions.

Afghanistan is still under the national public health emergency declared on 8 January, and about 30,000 health workers and 19,000 volunteers have been asked not to go on leave and/or travel abroad until the emergency is over, the MoPH's Fahim said.

Officials say tens of thousands of vulnerable people across the country have been provided with medical care and treatment, and many lives have been saved.

"We have adequate medication and staff, but our major challenge is accessibility," said Fahim, adding that the MoPH had asked the NATO-led Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Badakhshan for air support to deploy medical teams to some inaccessible areas.

Heavy snow has blocked roads in several of Afghanistan's 34 provinces, making humanitarian access virtually impossible, but Sophia Craig of Merlin praised the MoPH's response as "very good".

Iran deports Afghans despite call for winter halt

AFP, 02/14/2008 -KABUL - Kabul is seeking an urgent meeting with Teheran about the deportation of Afghans, the government said on Wednesday, with 7,000 forced out in the past month despite a pledge to halt expulsions over winter.

Iran has agreed to the meeting but a date has yet to be set, foreign ministry spokesman Sultan Ahmad Baheen told AFP.

The United Nations and Afghan officials say about 7,000 Afghans have been deported to Afghanistan since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced a temporary halt in mid-January for ”humanitarian reasons.”

Most of the returnees are Afghans who were in Iran illegally to work.
Teheran had also told the government it would suspend the returns until the end of winter, Baheen said.

“We do not have the capacity to receive a mass return of Afghans,” he said. “We need to find a solution for those who have no documents.” “We are also insisting that all returns should be voluntary and with dignity.”

Some of those who had returned had been held in a camp at Safed Sang, between the Iranian town of Mashad and the border with Afghanistan, where the conditions were described as “very bad,” he said.

Iran estimates there are about 1.5 million Afghans illegally living within its borders with another 900,000 there as registered refugees.

Several Taliban, two civilians killed in Afghanistan: officials

February 14, 2008 - KABUL (AFP) - US-led coalition swoops on Taliban leaders left several insurgents dead while two civilians transporting construction materials were blown up by a rebel bomb, officials said Thursday.

Coalition troops moved into action on Wednesday against rebel leaders in the provinces of Uruzgan and Zabul, both in the south where Taliban violence is at its most severe and fed by a rampant opium trade.

A "number" of rebels were killed in the operation in Uruzgan, a coalition statement said.

It did not make clear if the targeted militant was among the dead. Three suspects were detained, it said a statement.

Six other people, one of them identified as a Taliban leader with ties to networks that bring foreign fighters into Afghanistan, were detained in the Zabul operation, it said.

Zabul shares a border with Pakistan, where Taliban and other Islamic extremists are said to have bases and training camps.

The ultra-Islamic Taliban movement, which governed Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001, confirmed it was behind the bomb that struck a truck delivering sand to a construction site in Helmand province, also in the south.

Spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi claimed the bomb killed 10 people working for the Afghan and international military.

But Helmand police chief, Mohammad Hussain Andiwal, said only two civilians were killed. The Taliban often exaggerate casualties caused by their attacks.

In Farah in the southwest, meanwhile, the provincial governor confirmed that seven men -- three Pakistanis and their four Afghan guards -- were freed on Wednesday after being captured at the weekend with 14 others on a hunting trip.

The 14 were freed Monday after being held for three days. "Yesterday the seven remaining hostages were freed with the help of tribal elders and influentials.

"The seven include three Pakistani nationals residing in Arabic countries and their four Afghan guards," governor Ghulam Mohaidin Baluch said.

The foreigners had been working with a reconstruction project. The group was kidnapped by "a former local commander who is standing against the government and has links with (the) Taliban now," Baluch said.

Southern Afghanistan is plagued by violence linked to Taliban insurgents who are tied up with opium and heroin smugglers and corrupt officials.

The Taliban: Kidnappng, Inc.

MSNBC / February 13, 2008 - By NBC News' Iqbal Sapand in Kabul, Afghanistan and Carol Grisanti in Islamabad, Pakistan

Malalai Ishaqzai was anxious to tell her story. "The Taliban kidnapped my 21-year-old son Mustafa," she said. "They demanded a ransom of $200,000 or else they said they would kill him," she told NBC News. "Then they ordered me to give up my job."

Ishaqzai, 36, is the mother of seven and, as a member of the Afghan parliament, one of the few female politicians in this male-dominated society. She is a prominent figure and well-known in the Afghan capital.

News of the kidnapping recently surfaced and had become a hot conversation topic in Kabul.

NBC News went to visit Ishaqzai at her home in an upscale Kabul neighborhood. The family lives well, at least by Afghan standards. An antique red Bokhara carpet covered the entire length of the living room in their fourth-floor apartment. It was bitter cold outside, but it had finally stopped snowing, and it was warm inside thanks to a gas heater. A houseboy brought tea and Ishaqzai began to tell her story.

"One evening, my son, Mustafa, and his friend, Nek, decided to drive from our home in Kandahar back to Kabul – about a seven-hour drive," Ishaqzai said in a quiet voice as she recalled the story.

"Near the Liwanai Bazaar in Ghazni province, about half way to Kabul – at exactly the same place where the 23 South Korean missionaries were abducted last year – six men brandishing Kalashnikovs stopped their car, checked the license plates and asked which one was Mustafa. Then they wanted to know where I was," she said.

Mustafa had come into the room by now to join us and interrupted his mother. He was clean-shaven and dressed in Western clothes; he seemed to be still in shock.

"Some men, with their faces covered, were standing on the road and aimed a gun at my car," he said. "I had to stop."

"They checked my license plate numbers against a piece of paper which one of them was carrying. I heard one of them say, ‘The numbers match,’" Mustafa said. "They were looking specifically for me."

"‘I am Mustafa,’ I said. And then I asked them, ‘Who are you?’"

At this point Mustafa looked over at his mother, who began to cry.

"They slapped me twice on my face and said, ‘We are Taliban. Where is Malalai?’" he said, referring to his mother.

Kidnapping for ransom has become a big propaganda business for the Taliban and a seemingly sure road to easy money. The money raised from ransoms paid goes toward purchasing weapons and funding the insurgency.

Shortly after 23 South Koreans were kidnapped by Taliban militants as they traveled by bus from Kabul to Kandahar on July 19, the South Korean government entered into direct talks with the Taliban.

More than six weeks after the kidnapping, a deal was reached in which the South Korean government reaffirmed a promise to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by the end of the 2007. Seoul also said it would prevent South Korean Christian missionaries from working in the staunchly Islamic country, something it had already promised to do.

Some reports said that a ransom of $10 million was paid for the release of the group, but the South Korean government denies the charge and said no money changed hands to secure the hostages release.

The deal reached between the Taliban and the South Koreans was a big win for the Taliban. It gave the militant group the recognition and power it craves and increased their political legitimacy by showing they could negotiate successfully with a foreign government.

South Korea is not the only country accused of paying for the release of hostages. Germany, France and Italy have all reportedly paid huge sums to the Taliban to secure the release of prisoners.

Ishaqzai was well aware that the Taliban show no restraint, and typically behead their captives when their demands are not met. "I kept calling his phone," she said. "Finally someone picked up and told me my son had an accident and couldn't speak."

By now, Ishaqzai knew that something terrible had happened. She left Kabul and went back home to Kandahar, her ancestral home, in the southeast of the country. The city is also the home and the spiritual base of the Taliban. She begged local officials in Kandahar to intervene. But no one was able, or willing, to help her.

"Five days went by and finally I got a call from my son's phone," she said. "‘I am Mullah Abdullah Jan Mansoor,’" Ishaqzai said the caller introduced himself. "‘I am the man who has kidnapped your son. If you want him and his friend back alive, you have to do as I tell you.’"

Ishaqzai knew she was speaking to the same person who had kidnapped the South Korean missionaries.

The Taliban demanded that all their people be freed from the government jails or else her son and his friend would die. Ishaqzai took the demands to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, but he refused to intervene. Karzai has come under intense criticism in the West for negotiating with the Taliban and bowing to their demands.

She then went to her tribal elders in Kandahar who contacted the Taliban and worked out a deal for the release of the boys.

"My tribal elders convinced them I could not pay such a huge amount and that it was very important for our tribe that I represent them in parliament," Ishaqzai said. "In the end, my brother paid $100,000, but only my son was released."

Mustafa's friend Nek was beheaded before his eyes. "They made me watch them do it," Mustafa said, "I saw his blood and then I fainted. I miss my friend; it is all my fault that he is dead."

Afghan militants release 21 Afghans and Pakistanis’

KABUL: Militants have released 21 Afghans and Pakistanis, who were abducted in Afghanistan’s western Farah province three days back, a local official said on Wednesday.

“The 21 people abducted by anti-government militants have been released after the efforts made by the Farah’s administration,” Noorullah Khan, an aide to provincial governor Mohaidin Baloch, said. Nineteen of them were released on Tuesday and the remaining two on Wednesday, he added. He said the abducted people were local labourers, adding that some of them were searching for jobs there, while others were hunting precious birds.

He denied press reports that some Arab nationals were among the hostages. Earlier, government officials accused Taliban militants for the kidnappings, but there has been no formal responsibility claim from the Taliban fighting the Afghan government and foreign troops. online

Report calls for more Afghan control of budget

Thu Feb 14, KABUL (AFP) - More than 70 percent of public expenditure in Afghanistan comes from donors and most is spent without government oversight, according to a report that calls for more accountability.

The bypassing of government undermines its authority and development, said the report by nongovernmental group ActionAid Afghanistan released Wednesday.

"Over 72 percent of the total government expenditure in Afghanistan comes from external assistance," it said.

"However three-fourths of the total external assistance is spent directly by donors, and most of it without any reporting to the Afghan government."

The report, "Gaps in Aid Accountability", calls for urgent efforts to improve the government's own revenue, including through better tax collection.

It notes that donors committed about 19.9 billion dollars between 2002 and 2006 but only 14.7 billion was disbursed.

And the government's flagship community development project, National Solidarity Programme which is said to reach 22,000 villages, faced a shortfall of 87 percent for this year, it said.

The Afghan government and some of its partners have been urging donors to direct more of their aid through the government's budget but there are concerns about corruption and mismanagement of funds.

Taliban denies kidnapping Pakistani envoy

Feb 13, 2008 - ISLAMABAD, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Pakistan's Taliban militants said on Wednesday they would not attack next week's general election and denied involvement in the disappearance of the country's ambassador to neighbouring Afghanistan.

Fears of violence ahead of the Feb. 18 poll have risen since the assassination of opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, on Dec. 27. More than 400 people have been killed in clashes between troops and militants and bomb attacks since the start of 2008.

"Our central leadership have decided that as we have nothing to do with the elections, therefore there would be no attacks from our people," Pakistan Taliban spokesman Maulvi Omar told Reuters.

"Neither do we support the process of the election nor do we have any opposition to it and if any attack takes place before or on election day, our mujahid won't be involved in it," he said by telephone from an undisclosed location.

Omar is a spokesman for Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban and prime suspect for Bhutto's assassination, though Mehsud has denied any involvement.

The spokesman announced a unilateral Taliban ceasefire a week ago. Pakistan's military denied a truce had been agreed but there has been a lull in fighting since then.

The Pakistani Taliban also denied having anything to do with the disappearance of Tariq Azizuddin, Pakistan's ambassador in Kabul who went missing two days ago on his way to the Afghan capital from the northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar.

"We have no links with it. We don't know anything about that," Omar said.

Pakistani security forces are searching the area and officials are reluctant to say if Azizuddin has been kidnapped, though Afghan President Hamid Karzai said the envoy had been taken hostage.

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry said it had no further information on the case and again denied media reports that the Taliban had demanded the release of captured Afghan Taliban commander Mullah Mansour Dadullah in exchange for the envoy.

The envoy was travelling through the Khyber tribal region and had been due to change cars at the frontier crossing but he never reached the border. His driver and bodyguard are also missing.

The historic Khyber Pass is the gateway on the main road to landlocked Afghanistan from northwestern Pakistan.

Khyber is notorious for smugglers and bandits, but unlike other parts of the tribal belt on the Afghan border has been relatively free of violence linked to al Qaeda and the Taliban, though militant activity has picked up in adjoining regions. (Reporting by Kamran Haider; Writing by Jon Hemming; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani)

No problem between Britain, Afghanistan

AFP, 02/14/2008 - KABUL - Afghanistan’s relationship with Britain is on track following a bumpy patch, President Hamid Karzai’s office said Thursday after British MPs voiced concern over recent diplomatic rows.

Kabul is confident in the relationship and working closely with the offices of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who visited last week, a presidential spokesman said.

‘We had a bumpy road recently but we have moved on and are now working closely,’ spokesman Homayun Hamidzada told AFP.

He was reacting after the influential International Development Committee of the British parliament’s lower house voiced disappointment at reported remarks by Karzai that UK troops had worsened the security situation.

Karzai also rejected British politician and former Bosnia envoy Paddy Ashdown for the job of United Nations representative in Afghanistan.

‘We are concerned about the recent deterioration in political relations between the government of Afghanistan and the UK,’ said committee chairman Malcolm Bruce.

But Hamidzada said Kabul was not concerned.

‘At times we have differences of opinion with our partners, and that is normal, but at the end of the day we are working towards the same goal, bringing security, prosperity and development to Afghanistan,’ he said.

‘We appreciate the assistance we get and we look forward to working together with Britain and our other international partners to fight terrorism and bring peace and stability to Afghanistan.’

Britain has around 7,800 troops in Afghanistan, mostly in the restive southern province of Helmand, where they are engaged in intense fighting with Taleban insurgents.

MPs say Karzai could alienate Britons

By Avril Orms, February 14, 2008 - LONDON (Reuters) - President Hamid Karzai is in danger of alienating British public commitment to Afghanistan if he continues to make outspoken comments, a group of politicians said on Thursday.

Political relations between the two countries have "slightly soured" they said, after a series of diplomatic spats including criticism of British forces working to defeat the Taliban and helping in the country's reconstruction.

"There is a risk that the tone and timing of recent comments by the government of Afghanistan which are critical of the UK could undermine British public support for the UK's long-term commitment to Afghanistan," the International Development Committee said in a report.

Relations should be a "spirited partnership rather than sparky", Committee Chairman Malcolm Bruce later said on BBC radio.

Karzai has questioned some of the policies adopted by British troops in Helmand province and last month rejected Paddy Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader and EU envoy to Bosnia, for the post of senior U.N. envoy.

Relations were also strained when Afghanistan declared two men, including a Briton working for the EU, "persona non grata" after they were accused of meeting Taliban members. More than 70 British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan.

"I think the combination of criticism of our forces from some while back in spite of recent successes, the rejection of Paddy Ashdown as an international coordinator and the expulsion of two diplomats who were actually working with Afghan authorities has created a slight sourness which really is not in the best interest," Bruce added.

Too many such comments could start to break the solidarity of the British people to commit forces and resources.

"It is more of a sort of surprise that President Karzai is not fully understanding that," he told BBC radio. Co-operation is essential if the Taliban are to be defeated, he said.

"Of course he has the right to criticise, but at the end of the day he also has to recognise that if he wants the long-term commitment of the international community, criticism has to be measured."

Germany may increase Afghanistan troops: paper

BERLIN (Reuters) - Chancellor Angela Merkel's ruling coalition plans to discuss raising the upper limit on the number of troops Germany can send to Afghanistan under its parliamentary mandate, a paper reported on Thursday.

The Frankfurter Rundschau cited unnamed coalition sources as saying an increase of at least 500 troops was expected and that Germany's parliamentary mandate would definitely be changed.

The existing mandate, which expires in mid-October allows Germany to send up to 3,500 soldiers to Afghanistan. The paper said a meeting to discuss the increase would include senior figures in Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Social Democrats (SPD), with whom she shares power. The paper gave no further details.

Germany is under mounting pressure from its NATO allies to boost the number of soldiers it has in Afghanistan and to send them to the more dangerous southern part of the country.

The government denied a magazine report at the weekend which said it was planning to expand the number of soldiers it could send to Afghanistan by 1,000 to 4,500 and broaden their base of operations from the north to the west. The mission is unpopular among most Germans.

France Mulls Greater Role in Afghanistan

By JAMEY KEATEN – PARIS (AP) — In American military parlance, it's gut-check time for NATO in Afghanistan, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy appears ready to answer allies' calls for more forces to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida.

As early as Thursday, Sarkozy's top brass is to present him with a variety of options, from sending special forces to more trainers for Afghan troops, a French military official told The Associated Press. He spoke on condition of anonymity, because the decisions will ultimately rest with Sarkozy.

Sarkozy isn't expected to announce a final decision until the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, in early April, which is shaping up as a litmus test of his commitment to the Atlantic alliance which has often had a rocky relationship with France.

For Sarkozy, it's a chance to put muscle where his mouth is. The pro-American French leader has been promising to turn the page from the era of predecessor Jacques Chirac, who in 2006 ordered 200 French special forces out of Afghanistan and was a major critic of the U.S.-led Iraq war.

The NATO mission, known as the International Security Assistance Force, is strained over Canada's demand for 1,000 troops from another ally to support its 2,500 in the increasingly violence-wracked region of Kandahar, in Afghanistan's south. Ottawa has said it will pull them out when its mandate ends next year if no one answers its call.

France has said it could not meet the Canadian requirement alone. But Sarkozy's hand-raising to boost the French role could give political cover to other, more-reluctant allies to chip in, too.

France has 1,500 troops in and around the Afghan capital, Kabul, providing security and training Afghan troops as part of the NATO mission. Another 400 are in the separate, U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom, a muscular effort to battle the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Last year the Taliban launched more than 140 suicide missions — the highest number since they were ousted from power by the U.S.-led invasion of 2001. Insurgency-related violence in 2007 killed a record 6,500 people, mostly militants, according to an Associated Press tally based on figures from Afghan and Western officials.

As a former interior minister, Sarkozy is intensely aware of the terror threat. A Sarkozy advisor speaking on condition of anonymity said the president believes France and its allies will "pay a very heavy price" in the West and Muslim worlds if Afghanistan falls back to the Taliban.

"This is 'our war,'" said Francois Heisbourg, head of the state-funded Foundation for Strategic Research think-tank. "It's not like Iraq. This isn't something that the Americans ... dragged their more-or-less willing partners into — some of them kicking and screaming."

"This is one in which we collectively decided that we have a stake."

French daily Le Figaro reported this week that military planners are looking at four options: Sending more trainers for Afghan soldiers in and around Kabul; backing up the Canadians in the south; providing reinforcements for the southwestern Helmand province and along the border with Iran where criminal groups thrive; and deploying more troops in the volatile tribal areas of eastern Afghanistan, where Taliban and al-Qaida militants hide along the Pakistan border.

French officials say many options are on the table, and it's far too early to specify what the president will decide.

"For the moment, no decision has been made," French Defense Minister Herve Morin told The AP. Asked whether the options in the Le Figaro article were correct, he replied: "No ... not really. We're going to have to look at it closely."

France, like many other NATO countries, says its options are limited in Afghanistan because its forces are already stretched thin around the world. Cmdr. Christophe Prazuck, a military spokesman, says France's total "projection capacity" is 20,000 troops.

If the often-delayed European Union force for Chad and the Central African Republic is fully deployed as expected in coming weeks, France will have some 13,000 deployed in five missions: Ivory Coast; Kosovo and Bosnia; Chad and the C.A.R.; Lebanon; and Afghanistan.

A Sarkozy move to send more forces to Afghanistan could also give him a chance to wrest American concessions to let Europe have a freer hand in strengthening its own defense.

The French argue that Western Europe's postwar dependency on the U.S. military partly explains the difficulties NATO faces in mustering extra forces from Europe for campaigns such as Afghanistan.

Associated Press Writer John Leicester contributed to this report.

Australia to access NATO's Afghan plans

SMH 02.14.08- Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says he's confident Australia will now gain access to key NATO planning documents about Afghanistan.

He said the documents were never sought by the previous government when it sent Australian troops to fight in Afghanistan.

Mr Fitzgibbon said he had raised numerous concerns about the conduct of the NATO-led operations in Afghanistan in meetings last week with NATO defence ministers in Vilnius, Lithuania.

They included a lack of common objectives among the NATO partners, no coherent strategy, confused chains of command and blurred lines of responsibility and a failing counter-narcotics strategy.

There was also poor progress in getting the Afghan government security forces up to an acceptable level of capability and a crisis of burden sharing with some NATO countries failing to live up to promises of troop commitments.

"But what surprised me most was the extent to which Australia had been denied access to important war information and excluded from the strategic planning processes," he said in answer to a question from Labor MP Mark Dreyfus.

"Our people have been going to war, some to make the ultimate sacrifice. But it seems their political masters have been happy to sit on the sidelines."

Mr Fitzgibbon said the NATO secretary-general had made a personal commitment to rectify this situation - a view reinforced by comments from NATO spokesman James Appathurai on Thursday.

But former foreign minister Alexander Downer rejected suggestions that Australia had never sought this information. "That is not true," he interjected repeatedly in parliament's question time.

Mr Fitzgibbon said Mr Appathurai said non-NATO member countries such as Sweden and Finland with troops in Afghanistan had raised similar concerns in the past. But he said there was no mention of Australia having sought similar information.

"The new government is determined that if we are to send our troops to war, we must be privy to the war plan and we must always be part of the planning strategy," he said.

"No government surely can make informed decisions about whether to send their people to war or keep them at war without access to the vital information required to both assess the risk involved and the likelihood of success."

Australia currently has some 1,000 troops serving in Afghanistan, most in dangerous south-central Oruzgan province. They include special forces and soldiers engaged in reconstruction projects.

Mr Appathurai said steps were already being taken to address Mr Fitzgibbon's concerns about NATO activities in Afghanistan.

"Have no doubt that your defence minister was received very, very clearly around the table," he told ABC radio. "We are working at it already and we will step up our effort after he made his concerns very clear."

Mr Appathurai said non-NATO member states, such as Finland and Sweden, had raised similar requests in the past.

"There are differences between members and non-members but we want to minimise those as much as we can and particularly on the ground where it matters the most," he said.

Liberals back away from compromise on troops

Party sends mixed signals a day after a deal with the Conservatives on the future role of the Kandahar battle group seemed in hand

CAMPBELL CLARK, From Thursday's Globe and Mail February 14, 2008

OTTAWA — The Liberals' position on Afghanistan became mired in confusion yesterday when the party's defence critic, Denis Coderre, suggested they want to withdraw the Canadian Forces' main battle group in Kandahar, but other MPs in his party disagreed.

One day after Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion opened the door to compromise with the government by proposing an extension of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, but under a new mandate, Liberals insisted there was still a huge gap to be bridged and Prime Minister Stephen Harper appeared less committed to ending the mission in 2011.

Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez complained that Mr. Harper misrepresented the Liberal proposal to change the mission by ending the "combat" role as support for extending the existing one.

On Tuesday, Mr. Dion proposed that the mission be extended to 2011 under a new mandate to move away from combat toward training the Afghan National Army and providing security for reconstruction efforts. But he said military commanders would decide what fighting was necessary.

Like the government, he called for NATO to send additional troops - he was not clear on how many. But Mr. Dion said that under his proposal those new troops would take over the current tasks of Canadians, so they could focus on training and security.

Yesterday, Mr. Coderre said the difference is that the Conservatives want reinforcements to conduct "business as usual," while the Liberals want replacements so Canadians can do a different type of mission.

When asked whether the Canadian battle group would stay in Kandahar under the Liberal proposal, he said: "No. Not in my book."

"If you really want to have a rotation, it's not to take all the troops and put them in one place, it's to make sure that we will have some that we will be able to recuperate."

He suggested the Liberal position would require at least 800 more NATO troops to take on the tasks of the battle group, separate from the 1,000 reinforcements that John Manley's panel on Afghanistan recommended.

The Canadian Forces' battle group in Kandahar, about 1,200 troops, is the main operations unit for Canada's effort in securing the province.

Removing them, or the 800 infantry soldiers to whom Mr. Coderre referred, would mean slashing the Canadian mission, and the Conservatives would be unlikely to accept that condition.

There about 2,500 Canadian Forces troops in Afghanistan, but many are in command, support and training units, and about 300 provide security for the provincial reconstruction team, or PRT, in Kandahar.

Mr. Coderre was vague when asked whether he meant that the battle group's numbers would be redeployed within Afghanistan or sent home, but said he expects it would be a combination of both.

"The battle group, should we put them to PRTs and to training? I think that we need to recuperate, too, so we'll have to refocus about what does it mean in the status of our troops regarding the mission."

Other Liberals disagreed. Liberal MP Keith Martin, who was deeply involved in caucus discussions on the Liberal position, said the party is not suggesting the battle group be withdrawn.

"That's not what Mr. Dion is saying at all," he said. "The battle group is involved, and is doing an excellent job of training the Afghan police and army and providing security for development projects, and assistance to our allies."

Mr. Coderre also appeared to differ from Mr. Dion by arguing that it would be inappropriate to head into an election before Parliament has decided on the future of the Afghan mission.

Mr. Dion said Tuesday it would be "irresponsible" for the government to hold a vote on Afghanistan before the Feb. 26 budget, and many Liberals believe their leader wants to trigger an election on the budget vote.

And Mr. Dion applied the brakes to talk that a deal is close. He said that while Mr. Harper suggested he was moving toward the Liberals, his answers in the Commons did not provide reassurance.

When asked whether he would commit to ending the Canadian mission in 2011, Mr. Harper said he will examine the Liberal proposal, but that both parties want to end the mission "around 2011."

"I think we are also clear in our motion, as is the Liberal Party, that the mission should continue beyond 2009, and that we are both seeking an end to the mission around 2011," the Prime Minister said.

Tories offer new Afghan role plan

February 14, 2008 – Toronto Star, Allan Woods Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–The Conservative government is willing to sit down with the Liberals to co-write a motion to extend the Afghan mission, a senior government official says.

The Tories are drafting a new proposal to extend the engagement until 2011 that will be presented "in the next few days" for a debate in the House of Commons and a vote, likely next month.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper accepted the broad strokes of a Liberal proposal to begin pulling Canadian troops out of Kandahar on Feb. 1, 2011, and put the focus of the mission after next February on training Afghan soldiers, securing development projects and delivering aid and assistance out of a military outpost on the outskirts of Kandahar city.

Under the Liberal plan, the last Canadian troops would leave Kandahar by July 2011.

The Liberal plan came in the form of proposed amendments to a Tory motion to extend Parliament's mandate for the Kandahar mission from next February to the end of 2011.

The extension would be dependent on getting about 1,000 more troops from NATO to help out as well as more equipment.

The government official was commenting after the Liberals came under criticism for giving too much ground to the government in an attempt to reach a compromise on the mission extension.

"Our position is very clear and we're very united around this position. I'm just saying that maybe we weren't clear enough in communicating it, so we should be clear," said Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier), who presented the concern at a caucus meeting.

The Liberals had been demanding that Canada's combat role end in February 2009 as a condition of their support for the extension, but the party's amendment makes no mention of the non-combat restrictions.

Instead, it stipulates that Canadian soldiers concentrate on training, reconstruction and security, and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said it is up to military commanders to decide how far they can go in carrying out those functions.

A brief collegial tone in the Commons disappeared yesterday as the Liberals lashed out at the government, demanding to know if they would consent to ending the mission outright in 2011 and force NATO to find another country to lead the fight against the Taliban.

"The ball is in the court of the government," said Dion. "The Prime Minister said that he is coming to our position so we tested that ... and we received no answer."

While Harper is willing to give the Liberals input into a new compromise position, Dion has said he would avoid negotiating with Harper behind closed doors.

The Tories already carry out too many aspects of the Afghan mission in secret, he has said. "Furthermore, the government has our proposed amendment. That is our position," said Leslie Swartman, a spokesperson for the Liberal leader.

"At some point this government will have to come up with an original thought on Afghanistan instead of relying on advice from an independent panel and opposition parties. They should simply accept our amendments and call it a night."

Closing the gap on Afghan role

February 13, 2008 - Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion haven't yet fully bridged their differences on Canada's future role in Afghanistan. But they have narrowed the gap to the point where there should be no need to fight an election on the issue.

Both parties now agree that Canadian troops should remain in Kandahar until 2011. While they say that our troops may still fight the Taliban, they agree, rightly, that the focus ought to shift to training the Afghan army and police, on providing security, and on development. Finally, they agree that Canada must have reinforcements in Kandahar, and new equipment, as John Manley's panel urged.

In short, they agree on everything that matters. All that remains is to cobble together a compromise resolution saying so.

Dion has dropped his flat insistence that Canada end its "combat role" in Kandahar, though the Liberals clearly anticipate that the Americans or other allies will spearhead future offensive combat operations against insurgents. While Dion will be pilloried in some quarters for this change in position, he deserves credit for marshalling his fractured caucus around a compromise, which, in turn, allowed Harper to adopt a conciliatory tone yesterday.

Harper credited Dion for moving "in the right direction," and he vowed to "try and broaden this consensus" in the coming days.

One outstanding issue remains: the timing of the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Kandahar. The Liberals want to notify NATO "immediately" that our Kandahar tour will end on Feb. 1, 2011. The Conservative motion promises only to review the issue at that point, although party officials now say their "objective" is to end it by 2011.

Harper would not offend Canadian public opinion or our allies by setting a firm exit date, as Dion has suggested. This mission was never meant to be a permanent deployment of Canadian troops. By 2011, we will have served in Kandahar for five years. The Dutch government, a key ally, has already set a firm pullout deadline (Dec. 1, 2010). By adopting the same approach Harper would give NATO three full years of lead time to rotate in replacements. We would also be nudging the Afghan government to build up its own forces.

A strong consensus in Parliament along these lines would help shore up public confidence in this mission, challenge our allies to share the burden more fairly and keep the faith with Afghans who are struggling to prevent their country from falling back into anarchy.

Canada's Afghan mission: confusion confounded

Lalit K Jha - Feb 11, 2008 - 12:48

NEW YORK (PAN): The Foreign Ministry in Kabul, welcoming the Harper government's plan to extend its military mission in Afghanistan, has added to chaos in Canada's domestic politics.

A day after the Harper government presented a motion in parliament regarding its conditional extension of the combat mission in Afghanistan; the Afghan of Foreign Ministry issued a statement hailing the move.

In fact, a final decision will be taken only by the Canadian parliament which is all set to discuss the crucial motion this week. The motion may turn into a vote of confidence for the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

If the ruling party is unable to reach some kind of agreement with opposition lawmakers, odds are that the motion will be defeated, thus plunging the country into a mid-term election.

The ruling Conservative party has 124 seats, while the main opposition Liberal party has 103 members. Block Quebecois and the NDP have 51 and 29 seats respectively. The later two are unlikely to vote in support of the motion. While NDP wants immediate withdrawal of the troops, Block Quebecois has demanded a pullout in 2009.

This leaves Harper the only option to reach an understanding with the Liberal, the party which had initially approved the Canadian mission. The Liberal this time has announced it will bring its own motion and several amendments to the Harper motions on the issue.

Political observers feel there will be tough negotiations between the two parties, which might or might not result in compromise or reach a middle path on the issue that has dominated the Canadian political scene for several months now.

Harpers motion says that if the two conditions laid out by the Manley Panel report -- about an extra thousand troops and air support and certain logistics from NATO -- are met, the government proposes Canadian forces' stay in Kandahar until 2011.

These proposals are all part of a motion, which does not mean that there is a final decision yet on this matter, but it opens a debate in Parliament on the Afghan mission for days and weeks to come, Afghan Ambassador to Canada Omar Samad told Pajhwok Afghan News.

There should be no misunderstanding that Canada has not reached its final decision about its mission after 2009, said Samad, who has been trying to clarify Kabuls position to the Canadian media.

News reports said if the Harper government had informed Kabul that its mission would be extended, which political observers said would complicate things for the ruling party already having a tough time trying to extend the mission. mud

Canadian soldier says gear sub-standard

Published: Feb. 14, 2008 at 9:47 AM

MONTREAL, Feb. 14 (UPI) -- A Canadian soldier who has served two tours of combat in Afghanistan claims the gear troops are given is sub-standard, a Quebec broadcaster reported.

Cpl. Daniel Beaulieu, an 11-year veteran of the forces, returned home two weeks ago, and told Quebec's French TVA network the vests, boots and holsters given troops aren't suited to the type of warfare going on in Afghanistan, a Toronto Star correspondent reported from Montreal.

"The guys over there are the ones with their boots in the sand, they're the ones who know whether a vest or a holster or whatever is well-adapted or not ... and if you ask me, no one's bothered to listen to them," said Beaulieu.

He said the vests don't have enough pockets for extra ammunition clips, holsters don't securely contain side arms, and boots are unsuitable for lengthy hiking, which is common in the fighting.

In response, Col. Jean-Marc Lanthier, the forces' chief supply officer, called an Ottawa news conference to address the allegations.

"Is (the equipment) accepted by the vast majority? Yes," Lanthier said. "Can we provide equipment that will please everybody all the time? No."

'Al Qaeda is not interested in Afghanistan'

February 13, 2008 | 15:04 IST - Afghan politician Ali A Jalali is a visiting fellow for Institute of National Strategic Studies in Washington, DC. He was better known as an interior minister in President's Hamid Karzai government struggling with internal security and menace of drug traffickers.

He proved to be a tough administrator. His resignation from the Karzai government in 2005 made the headlines because it irreparably weakened the government. He served as interior minister from 2003 to 2005 when he supervised the creation, training and deployment of a 50,000-strong Afghan national police and a 12,000-strong border police He was entrusted with counter-narcotic, counter-terrorism and criminal investigation operations.

Born in 1940 in a Pashtun family, Jalali wears many hats. He is one of the most quoted academicians and teaches in prestigious institutions in the West. He was director of Afghanistan National Radio Network Initiative and chief of the Pashto service at the Voice of America. He has?published his thoughts in three languages; English, Pashto, Dari/Farsi. He was also a top military planner with the Afghan resistance following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He attended staff colleges in Afghanistan, the United States, Britain, and Russia, and has lectured widely.

Since 1987, he has become a US citizen and is an important man in the West's plans for Afghanistan. Jalali has written several books, including a three-volume military history of Afghanistan. His book, The Other Side of the Mountain (2002), co-authored with Lester Grau, is an analytical review of the Mujahedin war against the Soviet army in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. Although, Jalali is strongly in favour of US role in Afghanistan, he?has been critical of some of the US' moves in his country. In 2002, he criticised the way the US used local chieftains in the war on terrorism that "enhanced the power of the warlords and encouraged them to defy the central authorities."

He was in New Delhi recently to attend a seminar on Asian Security. He spoke to rediff.com's Managing Editor Sheela Bhatt.

What are the factors behind the re-emergence of Taliban?

There are many factors. You should look at the nature of intervention in Afghanistan. They didn't come to rebuild or help the country. They came to Afghanistan only in order to punish and destroy the terrorists' network that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks in the US. They wanted to remove the Taliban network. After that reconstruction and restoration of stability was very slow and not enough. Therefore it created a vacuum, which was gradually filled up by Taliban and criminal networks in the country. The Taliban was removed from power but was not defeated. Unfortunately, their potential to come back from their safe heavens across the borders was not addressed. So when the Taliban saw that stabilisation is not going well they came back.

During the past six years national institutions of Afghanistan, particularly security institutions, developed slowly. And the international community didn't deploy sufficient forces in Afghanistan. That gave an opportunity for the Taliban to come back.

How come they are getting support from the same people who were victims of the Taliban before 9/11?

Yes but they still don't like the Taliban. They don't see the Taliban as the alternative to the current political transition. However, when people see that government is not present or when they see that the government cannot protect them they sit on the fence. All the surveys indicate that only a few people actively support Taliban. Most surveys claim that only 10 percent of the people are fighting for Taliban and 20 percent are fighting for the government, while 70 percent are sitting on the fence. While they don't want the Taliban to come back they don't want to risk their life on behalf of the government that can neither protect them nor provide services to them.

How do you see India's role in Afghanistan?

India was very helpful in reconstruction of Afghanistan. It is helping build highways, hydro projects, schools and clinics. India has spent around $800 million. On the strategic front the issue is?the differences between India and Pakistan. It also affects Afghanistan. The misconception and suspicion between two countries hurts Afghanistan. Sometimes one hopes that two countries will not make Afghanistan the battlefield of their disputes.

After serving in the government as the interior minister you resigned. Now you have turned a critic of the government. Why the change of mind?

I am not critical of the government. I am critical of the process. I think Afghanistan is the least funded post-conflict project since World War II. If you look at the troops in Afghanistan, there are 1.5 soldiers per 1,000 population. There were 20.5 soldiers per 1,000 in Kosovo, 19 in Bosnia, it was 10 soldiers in Sierra Leone. Afghanistan is facing many challenges because it is facing war for the past 30-35 years. The infrastructure is destroyed.

The limited interest of international community and lack of investment and reconstruction didn't help the government develop institutions. That is why the government is weak. It doesn't mean that government is purposely weak. On other hand the Taliban is across the border in safe heavens in Pakistan. Gradually, Pakistan's tribal areas have become a hot-bed of extremism and terrorism. Al Qaeda is entrenched in the tribal areas. That is the worry of the establishment. It is the source of troublemakers.

What is the difference between the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

Only 20 percent of insurgents who form the core of Taliban are fighting the ideological war. The rest are aggrieved tribes who have been mistreated by some government officials or drug trafficker or some foreign intelligence operators or by the transnational Al Qaeda terrorists. It also consists of unemployed youth and criminal groups. All these are alliance of convenience. They are fighting for different reasons.

Al Qaeda is a transnational organisation. They are not even interested in Afghanistan or Pakistan. They are waging a global war. Taliban is in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Al Qaeda is also based in the tribal areas of Pakistan. There are elements in the Taliban that are not ideologically motivated. They are not that dangerous. There are ways to bring them back. They can be motivated to return. Those who will not settle for less than overthrowing of the regime, I don't think there will be any way for them to reconcile.

You live in the US. You have heard and understood the views of the East and West. Where is West making an error in understanding what we call Jihadi terrorism?

Jiahdi terrorism is not a deliberate ideological design. It grew out of the environment.

In 1980s when Afghanistan was fighting the Soviet Union there was rush to support anybody who could give the Soviets a bloody nose. This created an environment where the extremist elements came in. Later on these elements turn their guns against the West. They thought the West is creating problems for them in Islamic countries. The global war on terrorism is working in some way but it will be a long way. It's not going to be quick and cheap. It will take decades.

Will the rejection of senior British diplomat Paddy Ashdown's proposed nomination as United Nations special envoy to Afghanistan by President Karzai affect the efforts of international community in the region?

I don't think so. There is a demand for finding an envoy who can co-ordinate efforts of different countries who have come to Afghanistan with a different level of commitments and resources. Well there was a reason for the rejection. Afghanistan is a sovereign country. We have the choice to make a decision. However that doesn't mean that demand for the special envoy is gone. Afghanistan does believe that there is a need to co-ordinate efforts. Why did the government take the decision? May be media played it in a way that it sounded like interference in the affairs of Afghanistan.

President Karzai himself made it a big issue by talking to the BBC about it.

Yes, there were reasons behind it. The media actually played it up and showed his (Ashdown's) position as that of a super envoy who will have a mandate to interfere in Afghanistan's affairs. Second, Afghans were comparing his role in Bosnia. That role was different. Bosnia was a state within a state. Afghanistan is one state. Afghanistan has an elected government and an elected Parliament. There was also misunderstanding on the role of a super envoy or whatever you call it about the possibility of undermining the sovereignty of the Afghan president.

In retrospect don't you think it was a mistake to neutralise and disarm the Northern Alliance as it happened in case of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party?

Yes, a vacuum was created but not because the Northern Alliance was disarmed. The NA didn't have an army and was composed of malicious people. In 2002 -03 they were fighting with each other. I had to go to the northern areas to bring peace because they were fighting with artillery and tanks. The victims were civilians. They were destabilising the country. They were disarmed in order to create a new institution -- the army and national police. The slow process created a vacuum.

But they were fighting the Taliban.

Not now. When the Taliban was removed they were fighting each other. The pace of rebuilding national institutions was slow. In the post-conflict situation, you have to break and make. If you don't break war machines of the past you cannot make new institutions. Reintegration of the Northern Alliance didn't work. After they were demobilised some of them joined the drug traffickers, criminal gangs and some even joined the Taliban.

How will Iran issue affect the Afghanistan process?

Well, Iran is a neighbour. Whatever happens there it will affect us. Iran has been helpful in the stabilisation and reconstruction of Afghanistan. At the same time they have another track in Afghanistan. They are trying to maintain the offensive in Afghanistan. If trouble brought to them they will be able to bring trouble to the US in Afghanistan.

The volatile situation in Pakistan also holds no good news for you.

Pakistan faces many challenges. Holding of peaceful elections is one of them. Also the perception that elections were free and fair. If that perception emerges, there is a hope. If the perception is built that it was not fair, then the new government will not be considered legitimate. That will create problems. In the tribal areas, if elections are not free and fair it will have a negative impact. The extremism of tribal areas directly affects us. This is a regional issue and should be sorted out with help of regional co-operation.

Do you agree with the perception that NATO's operation in Afghanistan is failing?

Some things are positive but some problems persist. The positive thing is that Afghans support the presence of NATO. We are worried that NATO will leave before the Afghans are able to fend for themselves. The problem is that within NATO different countries have different mandates, different instructions for their operations. Some countries are willing to fight militarily and some are not. Some countries think that their mandate is for peace-keeping and stabilisation, some think that stabilisation and peace will not come without defeating insurgencies and establishing security in those areas. It is not that NATO cannot work. The insurgencies cannot be defeated militarily but it should not lose militarily either.

So do you think NATO is a success in Afghanistan?

There are many NATO countries fighting gallantly in Afghanistan. Generally speaking, without NATO Afghanistan will slide back into chaos. Because Afghanistan has first hand experience that when it is weak it has many neighbours who take advantage of it.

Do you think the change of government in the US will affect you?

There is bipartisan support for the US involvement in Afghanistan. Both leading parties have the same policy. Even the US public supports it. They had given less support for the involvement in Iraq but they support the continued commitment of the US in Afghanistan.

What are your hopes for your country?

I think Afghanistan can still rise. The longer it takes the longer we suffer. Yes, government doesn't have influence outside the major urban areas in the south. However, one cannot say government does not have influence. The Afghan government appoints governors and police chiefs in all provinces and nobody defies it. Army and police function in all parts of the country. Yes in some parts the influence is weak because government is not in position to provide services.

What are the gains for women and children after 2003?

Well there is a lot of progress in Afghanistan. Six years ago television was banned. Today we have 12 private channels 24/7. Then women could not go to work. Today 27 percent of the workforce consists of women. In 2002, only 900 boys were studying in madrassas today five million children, including 1.5 million girls, are studying in school. Women are influencing all aspects of life including social and political. Afghanistan has the most enlightened constitution among Islamic countries. In 2002, only 6 percent of the population has access to basic health facilities now, 65 percent have access. However, these achievements are not matched by other issues like security and stability.

Do you think if the proposal which recommends that Taliban becomes part of the Afghan process, stability may come?

Forget about the Taliban, whoever is fighting the government if they come and renounce violence and accept the constitution I think there is a place for all of them.

Are they looking for political Islam?

Political Islam or no political Islam as long as they are non-violent there is a place for them. Once they adopt violence to overthrow the government Taliban or no Taliban they are not acceptable to Afghanistan.

What should be the top agenda of the Afghan process now?

I think two things to begin with. Re-establishment of the domestic political consensus that we had in 2002. That internal consensus is declining. For the international community I would say that we need a unified strategy for different troops.

What about the Taliban?

If you have good governance and security those who actually see the presence of government will join the government. Those who will not settle for less than overthrowing of the government I think they need to be defeated militarily.

[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.]