In this bulletin:

• Afghan Winter Death Toll Reaches 926
• Key role in Afghan strategy
• More French troops for Afghanistan only under overall development plan - Morin
• Belgian defence minister rejects quick-exit strategy for Afghanistan
• NATO Struggles Over Who Will Send Additional Troops to Fight in Afghanistan
• Afghan army operations not much affect by differences in NATO - official
• Afghan opposition grouping calls for NATO presence to be put on legal footing
• Canadian PM urges Australia to reinforce Afghan deployment
• Canada's military optimistic about Afghan progress
• Lack of troops slowing Afghan progress, says General
• Top general wary of Liberal position
• Envoy stresses sustained commitment to Afghanistan
• Let's define values and goals for the mission that all Canadians can respect
• Denis Coderre's version
• Where do we show resolve, if not Kandahar?
• In Afghan policy, the NDP should heed Norway's Labour Party
• Not in my worst nightmares ...
• Foreign donors pledge 192m dollars for Afghanistan's education sector
• Insurgents set fire to school in Afghan south
• Health ministry employee missing in Afghan south
• Third Regional Economic Conference on Afghanistan to be held in Pakistan
• JOEL BRINKLEY: Opium profits prop up Taliban in Afghanistan
• Analysis: Afghanistan: troubled and troubling —Najmuddin A Shaikh
• Pakistan A 'Hotbed' For Terror

Afghan Winter Death Toll Reaches 926

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Bitter cold, snowstorms and avalanches have killed 926 people in Afghanistan — half of them in the hard hit west — as the country suffers one of the most brutal winters in decades.

More than 316,000 cattle have died and 833 houses have been destroyed, said Ahmad Shikeb Amraz, spokesman for the Afghanistan National Disaster Management Commission.

Amraz said that of the 926 deaths nationwide, 462 have been in Herat province.

Dozens of people in Herat have had their hands or feet amputated because of frostbite.

Meteorological records indicate this is the worst winter in a decade, but that is only as far back as national statistics go. Afghan officials believe it is the coldest in 30 years. The lowest recorded temperature this season was minus 22.

The cold spell has eased in recent days, but officials worry that people living in difficult to reach, remote areas will suffer from a lack of aid and that more deaths will be reported as roads reopen.

Afghanistan is one of the world's poorest countries and is largely mountainous, with winter temperatures often plunging well below freezing.

Key role in Afghan strategy

news.com.au February 14, 2008

NATO says it will step up efforts to ensure Australia plays a key role in future decisions about the military alliance's role in Afghanistan.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon told a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Lithuania last weekend that Australia wanted "a seat at the table" discussing Afghanistan strategy decisions.

NATO spokesman James Appathurai said steps already were being taken to address Mr Fitzgibbon's concerns.

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

Australia has about 1000 troops in Afghanistan and is keen for NATO to shoulder a bigger share of the burden in the country. NATO valued Australia's contribution "very, very highly", Mr Appathurai said.

"I would be very, very surprised if we didn't make substantial improvements. The Secretary-General (Jaap de Hoop Scheffer) himself is personally committed to this," he said.

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

Mr Fitzgibbon had told NATO a seat at the decision-making table was expected if Australia was to continue its contribution in Afghanistan.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd backed the stand, saying Australia needed to have confidence that the right strategy was being adopted.

"We currently have 1000 or so troops deployed in a very difficult and dangerous operating environment and we want to be confident, absolutely confident, that this is part and parcel of a coherent global strategy for winning the war in Afghanistan," Mr Rudd said.

"What he is asking for, and I support him fully in this, is if we are going to have forces on the ground in Afghanistan, we want to be part of the decision-making process."

Mr Fitzgibbon said that with Australia making such a significant contribution relative to our size, "we are entitled to have our say and I expect that we will get that opportunity in the future".

"In the future, NATO nor any other body will ever sit down to make decisions about the future directions of Afghanistan, the future directions that affect our men and women so greatly . . . that will never occur in the future without Australia being present," he said.

Labor is critical of the Howard government for sending troops to Afghanistan without getting any kind of commitment to be involved in strategy. NATO is currently struggling to find at least 7000 more troops to support its 43,000-strong international security force in the country.

More French troops for Afghanistan only under overall development plan - Morin

Text of report by French news agency AFP - Paris, 14 February 2008: Defence Minister Herve Morin said today, Thursday, that French military reinforcement in Afghanistan was "dependant" on the implementation of a "comprehensive development strategy" which would make it possible "to look ahead to the departure" of the forces of the country's allies.

"Resolution of the Afghan problem cannot simply be a solution linked to a military operation. There must also be a vast development plan, improved governance. A comprehensive political strategy needs to be implemented," said Mr Morin, who was the guest of France 24 TV's "Politics" programme on Thursday [14 February].

Asked about the numbers of French reinforcements in Afghanistan, he stressed that so far "no decision has been taken".

"It is not just a military question - the whole of NATO needs to think about what kind of look global policy should be conducted, before saying `we are going to send in additional resources'," he said.

"Any kin! d of complementary or additional military effort on France's part must be dependant on everyone making an effort and on the implementation of a comprehensive strategy for the development and installation of a system that enables us to have a prospect of leaving one day," Mr Morin emphasized.

For a month now the United States has been calling on its NATO allies to send reinforcements to southern Afghanistan, the historic stronghold of the Taliban.

France, most of whose 1,600 soldiers are deployed in Kabul, has hinted that President Nicolas Sarkozy could announce a French gesture at the NATO summit in Bucharest in early April.

Belgian defence minister rejects quick-exit strategy for Afghanistan

Text of report "No question of quick exit from Afghanistan" by Belgian leading privately-owned newspaper De Standaard website, on 14 February

Brussels: "Why do you need an army if you are not allowed to take risks," Foreign Minister De Gucht wonders.

"Every overseas operation entails" risks. Minister Karel De Gucht (Open Flemish Liberals and Democrats) did not mince his words in the defence committee over the military mission with F16's in southern Afghanistan. "Otherwise, why do you need an army if you are not allowed to take risks? Then we can simply abolish the army. Then the budget problem will have been resolved immediately and the government will no longer have to hold a meeting on it this weekend," a piqued De Gucht said.

Both De Gucht and Defence Minister Pieter De Crem (Christian Democratic and Flemish) made it clear that there will be no question of a quick exit from Afghanistan. "You are there for a long term."

De Gucht emphasized that, even if a Belgian serviceman were killed in Afghanistan, that does not mean it was a wrong decision to send troops. He reproached the SP.A [S! ocialist Party, Another Way] and Green! for a "perfidious attitude", and referred to the remarks of Dirk Van der Maelen (SP.A) about body bags containing Belgian servicemen.

Wouter De Vriendt (Green!) repeated that the military approach was not working and that a change of strategy was needed. "You cannot send nongovernmental organizations over there if there is no military protection," was the reply.

NATO Struggles Over Who Will Send Additional Troops to Fight in Afghanistan

14. February 2008, By Thomas Omestad, USNEWS.com

The struggle to defeat the rising Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan is straining the NATO alliance as the Bush administration ramps up its effort to persuade Europeans to jump into the fight more deeply than ever before.

The question of getting more battle-ready troops and helicopters into the principal conflict zones in southern Afghanistan is, by many accounts, a critical factor in Afghanistan's future: It will help determine whether the insurgents can be beaten back sufficiently to give a fragile Afghan government and security apparatus time to build themselves into an effective long-term counterforce to the Muslim extremists.

The issue arrived front and center this week when U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates appealed directly to Europeans at a security conference in Munich: "I am concerned that many people on this continent may not comprehend the magnitude of the direct threat to European security" emanating from the al Qaeda-linked rebels in Afghanistan, he said. Gates called European public support for the United Nations-mandated mission weak, adding, "Many Europeans question the relevance of our actions and doubt whether the mission is worth the lives of their sons and daughters."

The stakes relate not only to Afghanistan and to the terror threat to Europe, Gates maintained, but to the trans-Atlantic alliance itself. He warned of NATO becoming a "two tiered alliance," where some countries' forces cleave to less dangerous regions--doing training and peacekeeping--"thus forcing other allies to bear a disproportionate share of the fighting and dying."

Some European officials, most publicly in Germany, have objected to what they see as Gates's hints that their forces are dodging most of the risks and putting unacceptable political pressure on governments like Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands that are more directly engaged in combat operations. Germany's troops operate in the less violent north, a reflection of restrictions placed on them by a parliament with many casualty-averse skeptics on the U.S.-led mission.

Bush administration officials have suggested that, in addition to Germany, such major European countries as France, Italy, and Spain ought to provide more troops or at least ease restrictions on their deployments.

Germany's foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said that he had been "irritated" by Gates's attitude in a recent letter requesting that Berlin and other allied governments do more. Still, Germany, with the third-largest number of foreign troops in Afghanistan, recently announced that it would add 200 "quick-reaction" troops there this year.

NATO leads what's called the International Security Assistance Force, with 43,000 troops in Afghanistan. Some 14,000 of those are American, and another 13,000 U.S. troops are under a separate U.S. command. The administration is also sending another 3,200 marines--most to the conflict zones in the south--on a temporary deployment.

The growing tension within NATO follows an old tradition of intra-alliance spats, which have included rough debates over deploying intermediate-range nuclear missiles during the Cold War, expanding the alliance eastward and southward, and--always--burden-sharing among countries that assess threats differently.

But it comes at a particularly vulnerable moment. A report by the Washington-based Atlantic Council last month warned that NATO forces in Afghanistan are not winning but rather reaching a "strategic stalemate" with Taliban insurgents. That report, as well as others, also say the central government in Kabul has fallen short in reforms and reconstruction.

Some European officials also believe that the Bush administration is wanting for an effective response to the growing Taliban presence in next-door Pakistan, raising the prospect of a deepening insurgency in Afghanistan or even drawing the Europeans into a wider war.

The debate over insufficient troops in Afghanistan was sparked, in part, by political pressures in Canada, whose troops have been involved in some of the heaviest fighting and suffered 66 deaths. Canada's conservative government says it will remove its 2,500 troops next year if other NATO contingents don't send at least 1,000 troops as reinforcements to Kandahar province in the south. The Canadian pullout could, some worry, touch off a chain reaction of withdrawals.

None of the European participants want that, but in many countries they are facing publics that, to some degree, lump together the U.N.-authorized mission in Afghanistan--a legacy of the September 11 attacks and the U.S.-led toppling of the Taliban regime--and the deeply unpopular U.S. invasion of Iraq, with its tortured aftermath. Many Europeans contend that an Iraq-obsessed Bush administration allowed Afghanistan to devolve back into insurgency out of inattention and insufficient resources.

Whether that criticism is correct or not, Gates and others now hope to convince Europe that the Afghan effort falls into an entirely different category than the war in Iraq.

Afghan army operations not much affect by differences in NATO - official

Text of report by Afghan independent Tolo TV, on 14 February

Differences among NATO member states over sending more troops to the south of Afghanistan and ensuring security do not have a great effect affect on the Defence Ministry's operation, says the spokesperson of the ministry, Mohammad Zaher Azimi. He adds that National Defence Ministry is better than in past years and is moving towards self-dependence. According to Mr Azimi, leading various military operations across the countries illustrates the power of the national army.

[Mr Azimi speaking in Dari] You cannot say it's absolutely without any affect. NATO countries have their own considerations. Overstating the situation of Afghanistan and magnifies small concerns are only for NATO countries to be convinced to send more troops and more aids to Afghanistan. On the other hand, we say that more attention should be drawn to the national army of Afghanistan so that Afghan army replace foreign troops, which is politically, economically, socially and culturally for the! benefit of the international community and Afghans. Considerations outside the country have its foreign targets and the fact inside the country is something different.

Afghan opposition grouping calls for NATO presence to be put on legal footing

Text of report by privately-owned Afghan Aina TV on 14 February

[Presenter] The United National Council [of Afghanistan], at a gathering in front of parliament, called for the presence of foreign forces in Afghanistan, in particular NATO troops, to be put on a legal footing.

According to the executive board of the council, the USA dispatched NATO forces without the consent of the people of Afghanistan and the international agreements at Bonn Conference.

[Correspondent] The United National Council, which is comprised of 60 political movements and civil societies and was launched a year ago as an opposition to President Karzai's government and announced its objection to the current political structures that are supported by Western countries and the UN Security Council.

According to the executive board of the United National Council, the US-led 37,000 NATO forces, which are busy stepping up face to face fight with the Afghan government's opponents and international terrorism, are present in Afghanistan without ! taking into consideration international principles and the wills of the Afghan people.

Addressing at a gathering, marking the 26th anniversary of the withdrawal of the Red Army of the former Soviet Union from Afghanistan, in front of parliament, Ahmad Zia Rafat, the rotating head of the council, once again called on the international community and the Afghan government to put the presence of NATO forces in Afghanistan on a legal footing.

Zia Rafat said that if the people are not informed of agreements on the presence of these forces, it would give rise to public pessimism on the presence of NATO forces.

[Zia Rafat] It is the responsibility of the Afghan government, in particular parliament, to put the presence of foreign forces in Afghanistan on a legal footing. Therefore, we officially handed over a plan to parliament last year. By gathering in front of the respected parliament, we also once again wanted to draw their attention to put this issue on their ! agenda.

Canadian PM urges Australia to reinforce Afghan deployment

OTTAWA, Feb. 14 (Xinhua) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper urged Australia to reinforce its troops in Afghanistan in a telephone talk with his counterpart Kevin Rudd, a spokeswoman said here Thursday.

Harper called Rudd late Wednesday in the latest of a string of calls to allied leaders aimed at finding reinforcements for Afghanistan, Sandra Buckler said.

Harper briefed Rudd about the report of an independent panel, which recommended extending Canada's combat mission beyond 2009 if NATO can find about 1,000 reinforcements and if pilotless surveillance drones and other new equipment are acquired for the Canadian soldiers.

Rudd confirmed that his government is determined to stay the course in Afghanistan, pledging collaboration with Canada and other allies in an effort to promote security in Afghanistan, according to Buckler. Australia has about 500 troops in Afghanistan.

Canada's 2,500 troops are taking part in military operations against Taliban in Kandahar province. Harper's Conservative government favors extending the mission by more than two years after it expires early next year, with which all three opposition parties disagree. The Liberal Party recently said it would support an extension to the middle of 2011, but it would only allow the troops to engage in military operations when it is necessary to protect reconstruction works.

The government has tabled a confidence motion on extending the mission, which will go to vote in the parliament in March. If the motion fails to pass, the government will be toppled and a snap election will follow.

Harper has also called the leaders of France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States in recent weeks, according to Canadian media reports.

Canada's military optimistic about Afghan progress

Thu Feb 14, 2008 - By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA (Reuters) - A top Canadian general offered a cautiously optimistic view of the international effort in Afghanistan on Thursday, saying if things went well 2008 could be "a year of progress."

Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier, overall commander of Canadian troops stationed abroad, stressed there were still major hurdles ahead in Afghanistan, such as tackling corruption and the narcotics trade.

But he said the 2,500 Canadian soldiers in the southern city of Kandahar had "made tremendous progress" over the last six months in tackling Taliban militants and training Afghan security forces.

"We're moving in the direction of the finish line. With more troops we could get closer to that finish line more quickly and we are going to get more troops over the course of the next year," he said.

"So there's the potential for 2008 to be a year of progress for the international community in Afghanistan," he told a news conference.

Some influential observers take a gloomier view, saying the NATO-led effort to stabilize Afghanistan could fail unless major changes are made and more troops are sent in.

The United States says it will send in an extra 3,200 marines later this year for a seven-month assignment designed to help counter a possible resurgence in Taliban attacks once winter ends.

Canada is threatening to pull its forces out on schedule in February 2009 unless NATO commits an extra 1,000 troops to the region. Ottawa wants to extend the mission until the end of 2011 and is trying to work out a compromise with opposition legislators. 

Critics say the Canadian force focuses too much on combat and not enough on development and reconstruction.

"In a specific Canadian context ... we've made tremendous progress over the course of past six months," said Gauthier, adding that the insurgents had been "severely disrupted." Major problems remain, he acknowledged.

"We are still in a struggle to win the confidence, trust and ultimately the support of the local population. Corruption, narcotics and ineffective governance to some degree remain serious impediments, as is the state of social and physical infrastructure," he said.

Lack of troops slowing Afghan progress, says General

Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service, National post February 14, 2008

OTTAWA -- Canada's efforts to bring stability and peace to Kandahar would be much farther ahead if it had more troops to help it, the general in charge of the military's overseas operations has told Canwest News.

Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier, chief of the Canadian Forces expeditionary command, said Thursday the "pace of progress" has been limited by too few troops on the ground in Kandahar -- the most violent province in Afghanistan -- where Canada has 2,500 soldiers and the Taliban insurgency has been most intense.

Lt.-Gen. Gauthier's comments echo those of other NATO commanders, as the alliance faces broader shortfalls of up to 7,500 troops throughout Afghanistan. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has threatened to withdraw Canada's troops next year unless NATO can find an additional 1,000 soldiers to share the burden in Kandahar.

"We've been relatively limited in what we've been able to do with the number of troops that we've had available," Lt.-Gen. Gauthier said in an interview Thursday.

"I've said all along that we will do what we can with what we have. That simply means that you get to the finish line or you get to the end state more slowly than you would if you had more troops."

Lt.-Gen. Gauthier did not point fingers at any other NATO or allied countries, and went out of his way to laud the collaborative efforts of some of Canada's unsung military partners on the ground, including Nepal, which has sent Gurkha fighters, as well as such countries as Belgium and Poland that have recently contributed troops and military hardware.

The arrival of 3,400 U.S. Marines in southern Afghanistan later this spring will also "have a substantial effect" on the international community's capacity to "progress more quickly," he added.

But Lt.-Gen. Gauthier said extra troops on the ground are crucial to help coalition forces "clear and hold" tough areas. Canada had to fight last year to retake Taliban strongholds in the Panjwaii and Zhari districts that they had previously won.

Lt.-Gen. Gauthier said Afghan police outposts, with Canadian assistance, are helping hold that re-won ground.

"The ‘hold' element of this is particularly challenging," Lt.-Gen. Gauthier explained. "To hold ground, to make it secure enough, to give the locals and to give international organizations a sense of confidence that it's safe for them to work to make the lives of Afghans better."

Lt.-Gen. Gauthier said the core recommendation of the Manley panel -- one country, preferably, with 1,000 troops to partner with Canada in the south -- is "being worked hard at all levels."

In the last six months, Lt.-Gen. Gauthier said that Canadian troops and the Afghan troops they have been training are making progress. He said 75% of the province's population base is secure, while Taliban operations have been disrupted.

Counterinsurgency operations and nation-building "are troop intensive," Lt.-Gen. Gauthier said.

More troops give commanders broader options, such as chasing insurgents into more remote areas, as well as making it easier to pursue diplomacy and development efforts on ground that has already been won, he said.

"It really depends on the chain of command in theatre to make those kinds of judgments. Is it more important to have an ability to operate in many different places to disrupt the insurgents? Or is it more important to concentrate forces; be able to hold terrain, to be able to do the three lines of operation in a particular area? More forces give you more options is what it comes down to."

At an earlier briefing with reporters, Lt.-Gen. Gauthier attempted to steer clear of the political debate on Canada's future military involvement, particularly the suggestions by the Liberal opposition that Canada can keep its troops in Afghanistan but refrain from combat.

Lt.-Gen. Gauthier echoed what his boss, Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, and numerous other NATO allies have said on the matter.

"I think the Manley panel recognized the fact that you can't separate security requirements . . . from reconstruction and rebuilding efforts," said Lt.-Gen. Gauthier.

Top general wary of Liberal position

Combat, reconstruction 'can't be separated'

CAMPBELL CLARK Globe and Mail Update February 15, 2008

OTTAWA — A senior Canadian general says fighting in Kandahar cannot be separated from providing security for reconstruction efforts and training the Afghan army - in effect dismissing the Liberal position on the mission as unrealistic.

Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier, who heads the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, refused to comment specifically about Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's call for the mission to move away from combat next year, toward security and training. But he said there is no line to be drawn between those tasks in Kandahar.

Gen. Gauthier said the forces provide security for reconstruction efforts by taking part in military operations that make a region more secure, and there's no other way.

Mr. Dion has said that he wants the "combat" role to end, so that Canadian Forces in Kandahar no longer seek out engagements with the enemy, staying out of offensive operations.

Instead, if Canada is to extend the mission from 2009 to 2011, he wants it to focus on training and "providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar."

Gen. Gauthier said the military's role as it is right now is to create secure conditions in regions around Kandahar city so reconstruction efforts can occur. He noted that the panel on the future of Canada's role headed by former Liberal minister John Manley also concluded that reconstruction work cannot be separated from military efforts to make areas secure.

"It's less a question of offensive actions than it is of taking the necessary measures to secure a zone of action," Gen. Gauthier said. "And I think the Manley panel recognized the fact that we cannot separate the needs of security and the security efforts from those related to reconstruction and governance."

He also said: "I think that security, reconstruction, the development of the capacity of the Afghan security forces, the development of governance, all these efforts go together. It's as simple as that. They can't be separated."

The general, in charge of Canada's military missions abroad, made the comments at a briefing for reporters just after the Conservative government announced that debate on extending the Kandahar mission will start Feb. 25 and 26 - before the Feb. 26 budget that could spark a spring election.

Mr. Dion remained coy yesterday about whether his party will seek to defeat the government on the budget, although many Liberals say their leader is gung-ho to head to the hustings but faces some resistance from within his party.

It's not yet clear when a vote on the Afghan mission will be held in the Commons, although Prime Minister Stephen Harper's aides have said they intend to hold it in March.

Mr. Harper moved quickly on Tuesday to cast Mr. Dion's proposal for extending the mission with a changed mandate as the grounds for a compromise. But the Liberal Leader yesterday said he still has no assurance the government will move to close gaps between their positions, especially as Mr. Harper has so far been unwilling to commit clearly to end the mission in 2011.

"It's one of the problems," he said. "The other problem is the nature of the mission after February, 2009, not 2011, 2009. And the third one is all the weaknesses, the shortcomings that we have seen in the governance of the mission regarding accountability, transparency - honesty, quite frankly."

Mr. Harper has indicated his government will issue its own version of a compromise motion on extending the mission, but has not yet revealed it, even though it has scheduled two days of Commons debate.

Meanwhile, Gen. Gauthier insisted the Canadian Forces are "winning" - within a limited area of focus that is only a small portion of Kandahar province. That zone, mostly around Kandahar city and westward, is where about 75 per cent of the province's people live, he noted.

"Of course, the pace of progress is limited by the forces available, and the Canadian effort has been sharply focused on areas where, in consultation with Afghan authorities, the need is judged to be greatest and we can make the most difference," he said.

He said the "zone of influence" of the Canadian Forces has grown considerably, that training of the Afghan army has accelerated, and efforts to "mentor" Afghan police have reduced the problems of the spring and summer of 2007, when areas turned over to the police were retaken by Taliban insurgents.

Mr. Harper's government has insisted, at the recommendation of the Manley panel, that NATO must send 1,000 troops as reinforcements if the Canadian mission is to be extended past next year. Gen. Gauthier said that would help either expand the area that Canadian Forces control, or make the area they are now in safer.

"If we have 1,000 more troops on the ground, then we can either expand geographically the focus for our operations, and sustain that effort on a broader basis, or deepen the effort in a particular area by applying more troops to a particular area."

"So, of course, it would be helpful."

Envoy stresses sustained commitment to Afghanistan

Lalit K Jha - Feb 12, 2008 - 18:59 - NEW YORK (PAN): Afghan Ambassador to Canada Omar Samad has stressed the need for a more coherent and comprehensive approach on the part of the international community to the establishment of durable peace in his country .

Addressing a conference on Coordinating chaos: Taking a Multi-Dimensional Approach to Stabilisation Ops, Samad acknowledged Afghanistan had much work to do in particular to strengthen the system to fight corruption, deliver services, build partnerships and promote stability.

On the other side, the United Nations, NATO and all donors need to ensure that through their efforts they can foster a more coherent and comprehensive approach. We also need to do a better job to communicate information about the mission and its objectives to our public, he observed.

Speaking at the moot organised by the Peace and Conflict Society at the Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Toronto, Samad warned an unstable and failed Afghanistan was not good for the international community plus stability and peace in the region.

If the international community does not stay the course for the sake of peace-building, not only could a failed Afghanistan easily threaten global security, but it could also create a narco-state embroiled in civil war, at the mercy of terror groups, once again running the risk of failing in the most dangerous neighborhood in the world.

It could also tarnish the image of the UN, NATO and multilateralism as we know it, the diplomat argued. With Canada discussing the issue of continuation of its military mission to Afghanistan, Samad argued the case for a long-term commitment from the international community.

Not only is the military presence essential to combat an aggressive foe and protect civilians, but also to ensure that the gains made thus far are consolidated while we continue to work on the remaining priorities, he maintained.

Real problems such as corruption and narcotics might be considered social or economic. But the problem of terrorism in our region is geopolitical, and as seen before, can have global ramifications, the ambassador concluded.

Let's define values and goals for the mission that all Canadians can respect

STéPHANE DION From Friday's Globe and Mail February 15, 2008

Dear Prime Minister,

Canada carries a heavy burden in Afghanistan. Our brave men and women in the Canadian Forces and our civilian officials face very real risks every day, as they serve their country and the people of Afghanistan by working to bring hope and stability to this troubled region.

We are in agreement that we cannot abandon the people of Afghanistan, as there remains much to do to ensure that the stability and governance institutions are in place to allow Afghans themselves to resolve their differences. But Liberals recognize that Canada's mission has to change. We cannot simply continue to extend the same mission indefinitely. That is why we have provided the government with an alternative plan for the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

The Liberal plan is consistent with our long-standing position that Canada's mission in Kandahar must change in February, 2009. It brings clarity to our goals in Afghanistan by placing a greater emphasis on stronger and more disciplined diplomatic efforts, and striking a better balance with respect to the reconstruction and development efforts that will be essential to creating a stable Afghanistan.

In drafting this new wording, we were guided by three simple principles that we thought were lacking from the government's motion:

1. The mission must change - NATO must ensure the rotation of new troops into Kandahar so that Canadian troops can shift, in February, 2009, to training of the Afghan National Army and police, and to protection of reconstruction efforts;

2. The mission must end - we must have a clear end date of February, 2011, not a further review date that will lead us down the path of a never-ending mission, and

3. The mission must be about more than the military - there is no exclusively military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan, so our efforts must be balanced between defence, diplomacy and development.

Liberals also believe that clarity, honesty and transparency are essential to the success of the mission. To this end, we believe, and our amended motion stipulates, that the government should provide the public with franker and much more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan.

For example, Canadians' faith in the Afghan mission has been undermined by the troubling reports of abuse in Afghan prisons and the government's secrecy surrounding these allegations. Canadians must have faith that core values, including respect for human rights and the belief in the dignity of all people, are at the heart of this mission.

In the coming weeks, we will continue our debate on Afghanistan. It is my continued belief that the future of Canada's mission should be openly discussed in Parliament with all of Canada watching. On Tuesday, we put forward this clear and substantive position, which we believe represents the common ground that best reflects the values of the majority of Canadians. The government immediately expressed openness to our position.

It's my hope you will consider accepting the terms of the Liberal motion, which is presented with the objective of defining values and goals for the mission that all Canadians can respect, and not with partisan political calculations in mind.

Stéphane Dion is Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

Denis Coderre's version

Globe and Mail Update - February 15, 2008

For those keeping track, the federal Liberals' newfound clarity on the future of the Afghanistan mission lasted about 24 hours.

After months of internal rancour, it appeared Tuesday that Stéphane Dion's party had finally achieved something of a consensus. The party's amendment to a Conservative motion suggested it had accepted the balance of the Manley report's recommendations for the mission's extension; while the Liberals have carefully avoided the word "combat," comments yesterday by Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier, commander of the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, underlined that their proposed commitment to "providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar" amounts to the same thing.

The only major difference of opinion with the government seemed to be a Liberal insistence that the mission end in 2011. But by the next day, this united front had already crumbled. While Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez suggested that the party had not been clear enough in communicating its position and that it remained at odds with the Tories, his caucus mate Denis Coderre went further, freelancing policy positions that were nowhere to be found in the Liberal amendment. Most significant among an array of baffling musings was Mr. Coderre's response when asked whether the Canadian battle group would remain in Kandahar under the Liberal plan. "No. Not in my book."

Mr. Coderre's book might not have been quite as relevant if he were a junior MP like Mr. Rodriguez. Perhaps it is too much to expect complete unity on such a divisive issue. But Mr. Coderre is the Liberals' defence critic. Yet on the most important matter pertaining to the military, he appears to be contradicting his leader and making it up as he goes along. Now, as was the case before Tuesday, it is difficult to know where the Liberals stand on Afghanistan - and equally difficult for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who seems eager for compromise, to negotiate with them in good faith.

Robust debate within a caucus is healthy. But by now the Liberals should be capable of reaching a well-defined position on the most important decision facing the country, and of articulating clearly to Canadians what it is. If Mr. Coderre is on a different page from his leader and his party, he should be replaced. If the dissent runs deeper, Mr. Dion must resolve it. Until then, it will be hard for many Canadians to take his leadership on this issue seriously.

Where do we show resolve, if not Kandahar?

Canadian blood and treasure earns us the right to help shape better solutions

DEREK BURNEY From Wednesday's Globe and Mail February 13, 2008

In examining what we are doing in Afghanistan and why, it is important to underscore that Canada is a G8 member and, as such, is expected to engage internationally, serving global organizations to which we belong in a manner befitting our responsibility, our capability and our interests - provided, of course, that we want to be a player, not a bystander, on major issues. As John Manley, chairman of the Afghanistan panel has stated, our role is a noble undertaking consistent with Canadian interests, values and traditions. He has also said, "For the first time in many years, we have brought a level of commitment to an international problem that gives us real weight and credibility."

Afghanistan represents the most robust expression of Canadian foreign policy since the Korean War. Our effort - military and civilian - is substantial and yet, as our panel report has indicated, it is hobbled by a collective effort - military and civilian - that is highly fragmented, under-resourced and ineffectively co-ordinated. These shortcomings contribute to understandable unease among Canadians about the utility of what we are doing and about the prospects for success. We have urged a series of moves that would respond to current deficiencies and better ensure that Canada's diplomatic voice is more disciplined and commensurate with our contributions - in terms of blood and treasure.

We have tried to give our Prime Minister some leverage to secure what is needed most: more troops for more security and for more training, as well as more balanced burden-sharing by our erstwhile allies. And he has begun to use it. Our willingness to extend the mission is contingent on new commitments from others. This is, after all, a test of resolve for NATO and the international community.

We could use more sensitive and more constructive leadership, too, from a reinvigorated and more confident America, an America with the will to tackle threats to global security with judicious elements of panache, diplomacy and respect, enabling others to share the responsibility.

To the critics who say fundamentally that we should not be in Afghanistan, I ask the following question: If we are not willing to commit our military resources when asked to do so by the United Nations, for a mission co-ordinated by NATO, in a country whose democratically elected government wants us and whose citizens desperately need us, then precisely where and when would Canada be prepared to do so?

Some have suggested that we would be better in Darfur, forgetting presumably that Sudan is not favourably disposed to such involvement by Canada. In any event, do we go to Darfur only to get out when the going gets tough? To what Canadian tradition or value would that speak?

History has too many examples of what can happen when the international community chooses not to engage in the face of aggression. It is not just the lesson of Munich, it is a more recent lesson from Rwanda. Roméo Dallaire's harrowing experience, recounted in his book Shake Hands with the Devil, illustrates what happens without collective international resolve.

Above all, peacekeepers need a peace to keep. We need to recognize, too, that security is the essential condition for reconstruction and good governance. They are intrinsically linked. Security enables development and good governance enhances security.

We should not exaggerate either our influence or our capability, but there are some things we can do well and what we are doing in Afghanistan, I can assure you from personal experience, is making a difference. Will it succeed? Well, there are no guarantees and our panel had no illusions about the complexity of the challenge.

Progress is decidedly mixed, but there are genuine signs of improvement in terms of education, health and basic governance. For a country brutalized by 30 years of internal strife and that ranks as the fourth-poorest in the world with a per capita GDP half that of Haiti, expectations need to be conditioned by a healthy dose of realism.

Given the obvious limitations of the current effort in Afghanistan, a premature withdrawal or an abrupt shift to a non-combat role has no operational logic. It would simply shift the burden to others and, frankly, undercut any realistic prospect of success.

Perfection is not the goal. Making things better is. We chose a tough responsibility in Afghanistan in one of the most difficult and dangerous regions of that country. There are problems that need to be addressed and our panel offered a candid assessment of what we think is needed. Canada has certainly earned the right to help shape better solutions, notably a more robust diplomatic role to complement our military effort, one that will help bring more coherence to the international effort, not just in Afghanistan, but in what is today the most dangerous region of the world.

We should never allow the fundamental freedoms we enjoy in Canada to become a source of weakness or reluctance when we are called on to support the establishment of those very same freedoms for those who do not yet have them.

We need to concentrate more on hand-holding than hand-wringing. The ultimate objective is to equip the Afghans to handle their own affairs and to prevent their country from again becoming a sanctuary for global terrorism.

We had hoped, too, that our report would lift the parliamentary debate out of the partisan ditch. Today, that is, at best, a "work in progress." But, I have to believe that a degree of reason and informed debate will ultimately prevail.

The sacrifices to date, and those directly engaged in Afghanistan on our behalf, merit at least that.

Derek H. Burney, a mMember of the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan and a former ambassador to the United States, is a senior strategic adviser to Ogilvy Renault LLP. This article was adapted from Mr. Burney's Robert H. Catherwood Scholarship address in Toronto last night

In Afghan policy, the NDP should heed Norway's Labour Party

JEFFREY SIMPSON - From Tuesday's Globe and Mail February 12, 2008

A thousand or so additional troops in Kandahar would certainly help Canada and NATO. But no one should believe that these troops, from wherever they come, will make Kandahar province safe, or the alliance's Afghanistan mission successful.

The only thing less certain than making Kandahar safe with 1,000 extra soldiers would be to pull Canada's soldiers from the province. That would make things really unsafe, for the Afghans, the aid workers and anybody else who cared to venture there.

Unless, of course, you believe with Canada's New Democratic Party that the Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies, having swept into the province, would be nice, reasonable people and negotiate a power-sharing agreement with the government in Kabul. This would happen (if you follow the NDP) under the auspices of the United Nations, which, inconveniently for the party, has already authorized the NATO mission.

No other Western left-of-centre party of note believes this theory. Not the Labour, Socialist or Social Democratic parties of Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Germany, France, Denmark, Norway, Poland or other NATO countries. No, this is a theory shared in splendid isolation by the NDP within the ranks of serious Western socialist or social democratic countries. But then, the NDP used to be for withdrawing Canada from NATO, so no one should be surprised by the party's attitude.

By contrast, Jonas Gahr Store, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway's centre-left government, told his parliament last week that the Taliban regime "shocked us all."

"We were shocked by its daily, brutal violations of basic human rights. People were stoned to death in public, there were assaults on women, girls and women were excluded from ed-ucation, depictions of human beings and television were banned, historical and religious monuments - our common cultural heritage - were destroyed."

In a long, nuanced speech explaining why Norway would make an additional military contribution, Mr. Store did not hide the difficulties. "The insurgent groups have become stronger. They are challenging the authority of the Afghan government and the international community in substantial parts of the country. The judicial system is weak."

He used an apt metaphor for NATO's efforts: "We often ask ourselves whether the glass is half full or half empty. Where Afghanistan is concerned, I think it is right to say that the glass is constantly being filled - but is constantly leaking. The challenge is to plug the leaks. And for the most part, we know where they are."

But do we? And even if "we" do, is NATO capable of plugging them? An extra 1,000 troops in Kandahar can be described as a necessary but not sufficient response.

As the Manley panel explained, and as two recent U.S. reports have noted, NATO's efforts suffer from a debilitating lack of co-ordination. Countries are doing their own thing. Their militaries have different conditions under which fighting is allowed; their aid programs differ. Different governments send different messages to the Afghans.

The Kabul government, and its tendrils in the provinces, is corrupt in part if not in whole, eroding confidence in its ability to play fair with citizens. The police are notoriously corrupt. Germany was supposed to be the leader country in training the police; the Americans have now taken over.

The total number of troops required to deal effectively with a counterinsurgency is too few, not too many. NATO commanders say they need another 7,500 soon. They won't get them, even with 3,200 more from the United States, others from Denmark, Norway and other small countries, and additional ones to help the Canadians in Kandahar. (From France, maybe?) NATO has no effective policy for combatting opium, except apparently for doing more of the same, which means failure. The border with Pakistan is porous. Al-Qaeda leaders live in Quetta, Pakistan. The Pakistani government has no intention of disrupting them.

Afghanistan remains grindingly poor. All this is well known. These are among the leaks in the glass to which Mr. Store referred. A thousand added soldiers in Kandahar would help partially plug one leak, but lots of others would remain.

The biggest leak of all, of course, would be NATO's withdrawal before the Afghan army even had a chance to become competent.

Not in my worst nightmares ...

LEWIS MACKENZIE - From Wednesday's Globe and Mail February 13, 2008

Imagine, in a close election, the Liberal Party led by Stéphane Dion regains power with a slim plurality. Within 24 hours, Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier is issued new Rules of Engagement (ROE) for the Canadian Forces serving in Afghanistan. These are immediately passed to the Canadian commander in Kandahar and on to the battle group commander. The Lieutenant-Colonel tells his soldiers the ROE are effective immediately, and adds his comments:

Rule 1. You will no longer attempt to eliminate the insurgency threat to the vast majority of the local population in Kandahar province.

"That will be left to soldiers from other countries yet to be identified. You will redirect your efforts to being nice. Your commander will explain how this will be achieved."

Rule 2. You will provide security for the local population and construction projects but you will not engage in combat to do so.

"If you served in Bosnia, you will know how to do this. If not, others will show you how to place yourself in a dangerously exposed position between the attacker and the people you are protecting. That way, the attackers will have to go through you and you will be allowed to fire at them in self-defence. Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but remember, the people who gave us this order must know something we don't.

Rule 3. There will be no more "search and destroy" missions by Canadians.

"You will note the order says no more search and destroy missions. That being the case, I interpret the order to permit us to conduct "search" missions on even days of the month and "destroy" missions on odd days.

To make this easy to remember in the heat of battle - sorry, I meant while observing the enemy ... darn, I meant ournemesis, the Taliban - you will receive colour-coded ammunition. "Search days" will have blue bullets, with 50 per cent of them being blanks spread randomly in your magazines. Our superiors feel this gives the Taliban a more level field on which to fight.

On "destroy days," there will be red bullets and even though you can only fire them for two hours in any 24-hour period, we will at least have some opportunities to disrupt the Taliban's strategic objective, which is to retake Kandahar city.

Rule 4. Don't count on assistance from tanks and artillery or allied air-to-ground fire if you get into difficulty.

"Those weapon systems are much too warlike and really turn off the NDP who are supporting the new government.

It's going to be hard working around this caveat, but I promise to give it some thought and get back to you.

Rule 5. You are precluded from engaging in aggressive combat operations.

"We are serving as one of 11 national military contingents under NATO. The commander's mission is to defeat the insurgency and expand the secure areas in southern Afghanistan. When he tasks us to assist in such operations, I will be the one to give him the bad news that we don't do things like that any more."

Rule 6. As usual, politics, religion and sex will not be discussed during quiet periods. This rule also applies to these Rules of Engagement.

"No comment and stop snickering!"

When soldiers put their lives on the line, they expect the political direction they receive to make sense and be achievable.

During the times I reported to the United Nations as a field commander, I was appalled at the incomprehensibility of some of the orders issued from that organization. Never in my wildest nightmares did I believe a political party in my own country could conceive of options equally bizarre.

Training the Afghan army and protecting development and reconstruction operations without the security provided by pro-active military operations by Canadian soldiers significantly increases the risk to life and limb.

Retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo

Foreign donors pledge 192m dollars for Afghanistan's education sector

Text of report in English by Afghan state-owned news agency Bakhtar website

Kabul, February: Education Minister Muhammad Hanif Atmar said on Wednesday 11 donor countries and global agencies had pledged 192m dollars to Afghanistan for the development of its education sector.

Addressing a news conference here, Atmar said the pledges were made by representatives of the donor countries and agencies at a two-day workshop held in the capital. The event was attended by representatives from 20 countries and 30 international agencies.

Canada, the US, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Japan, the Netherlands, the World Bank, United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO have promised the assistance.

Canada, the United States and the World Bank are the main contributors, according to Atmar, who hoped the funds would help ease 20 percent of problems including a lack of schools, textbooks and capacity-building of teachers and other staff.

Australia, Iran, Saud! i Arabia, India, Turkey, France, Italy, Pakistan and the Agha Khan Development Network will also announce their assistance in a month's time. Atmar estimated Afghanistan's education sector needed 1bn dollars over the next four years.

Insurgents set fire to school in Afghan south

Text of report by private Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press news agency

Kabul, 14 February: Insurgents have set fire to a school. A press release issued by the press office of Interior Ministry in Kabul today said that armed insurgents set fire to a school in Dand District of Kandahar last night. The press release says the school was set alight at a time when the Afghan education minister announced yesterday that more than 20 countries and the UN had promised him 190m dollars for promoting education. No one has yet claimed responsibility for setting fire to the school.

Health ministry employee missing in Afghan south

Text of report by Afghan independent Tolo TV, on 14 February

The Health Ministry reports on the disappearance of an employee of the ministry in Zabol Province. Dr Abdollah Fahim, the spokesman of the ministry, says the employee who was working for the Ibn Sina (Avicenna) health organization went missing while he was returning home two days ago. According to the ministry more than 50 employers have been either killed or kidnapped over the past three years in various parts of Afghanistan.

Third Regional Economic Conference on Afghanistan to be held in Pakistan

Pakistan Tribune- February 14, 2008 - Pakistan is hosting the third Economic Conference (RECCA) on Afghanistan scheduled to be held on March 26-27, 2008, says a press release issued here.

A back-to-back business conference will also be organized jointly by Board of Investment of Pakistan (BOIP)/ Federation of Pakistan Chamber of Commerce of Industry (FPCCI) in association with Afghanistan Investment Support Agency (AISA).

All members of the Afghan Compact are included in RECCA and the conference will be co-hosted by Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Islamabad conference is likely to be attended by more than 300 participants from 20 regional countries, G-8 countries and International/Regional Organizations like, World Bank, UN, ADB, ECO, SCO and CAREC etc.

The country-delegations participating in the conference will be led by their Foreign Ministers and Trade Ministers. It is worth-mentioning here that first meeting of RECCA was held in Kabul in 2005 and second in New Delhi in 2006.

JOEL BRINKLEY: Opium profits prop up Taliban in Afghanistan

By JOEL BRINKLEY tri-cityherald.com, Feb. 14, 2008

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned European leaders early this week that unless they stepped up their support for Afghanistan, they would likely face more terrorist attacks at home.

His remarks, in Munich, were the most strident in a weeklong succession of warnings from Washington that Afghanistan would fall deeper into chaos unless Europe assigns more troops to the NATO force there.

While the warnings and retorts flew across the Atlantic, the United Nations put out a major report that got little notice but could have a more direct effect on the security problem than troop deployments or counter-terrorism strategies. The U.N. drug-control office found that Afghanistan's opium-poppy crop, in the words of the agency's executive director, was once again "shockingly high." Neither Gates nor other officials involved in last week's public debate over Afghanistan's future ever mentioned the opium-poppy problem - except once, in answer to a question. They seem preoccupied with putting more boots on the ground.

What none seem to realize or want to admit, however, is that the opium problem has helped create and sustain the Taliban insurgency. Without it, the Taliban would have trouble maintaining its offense. And yet, while the United States and Europe continue to agonize about the deteriorating situation, little is being done about the poppies.

That U.N. report plainly states what most people in public life have quietly assumed: that the Taliban extort money from the poppy farmers. U.N. workers interviewed dozens of these farmers and then ran the numbers. Last week, the executive director of the U.N. agency that published the opium report, Antonio Maria Costa, made public the conclusion.

"Opium is a massive source of revenue for the Taliban," Costa said. "They tax farmers, it's called the usher, set roughly at 10 percent, and generate close to $100 million a year." One hundred million dollars a year! How much explosives and weaponry can Taliban leaders buy with that? How many families of suicide bombers can they pay off? For all that money, how eager might they be to keep the insurgency going, to maintain control of the southern and southwestern provinces where the bulk of the poppies are grown? That money is, of course, wholly unaccountable. Taliban leaders can do with it whatever they want. With all that wealth, they're not likely to buy BMWs and palatial homes complete with saunas and home theaters. But perhaps they are stashing cash in foreign banks for the future. It's a rare person, no matter how righteous, who does not appreciate wealth. And the opium trade is a steady, reliable gravy train - for their terrorist insurgency and, potentially, for themselves.

The $100 million estimate may be conservative. The Taliban also maintain heroin refining labs throughout Afghanistan. Refined heroin is worth much more than raw opium. What's more, in just the last year, Afghanistan has become the world's largest grower of marijuana.

So, wouldn't ending the opium and marijuana trade starve the insurgency, cripple the Taliban? That sounds easy, but controlling narcotics production has proved exceedingly difficult around the world. Except in one place - Afghanistan.

Paradoxically enough, when the Taliban were in power, they managed in just one year to virtually eliminate the nation's opium-poppy trade simply by exhorting the people, warning them that growing poppy was contrary to the teachings of Islam - and plowing under the crops of anyone who disobeyed.

That was in the spring of 2001, and hundreds of poppy farmers wound up in refugee camps or neighboring states that were more forgiving of their trade. But then, of course, came Sept. 11 and the American invasion. With the Taliban gone, the opium crops returned. Since then the crops have grown exponentially. Afghanistan now produces 90 percent of the world's opium.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered the only comment about this in recent days, in answer to a question.

"The Afghans have to step up," she said. "They have to step up against corruption. They have step up against the cartels." But the United States shares some responsibility. The Pentagon is spending $2.5 billion this year to train and equip the Afghan police. But, despite strong objections from the State Department, these police are being sent to fight the Taliban - not the drug traffickers.

Ultimately, though, responsibility rests with Hamid Kharzai, the Afghan president. Americans quietly express frustration with his reluctance to take on the opium farmers. Still, he does seem to understand the stakes. I asked him once, on a visit to Kabul, about fighting the opium trade.

"If we fail," he averred, "we will fail as a state and eventually will fall back into the hands of terrorism." Karzai may not be a particularly effective president. But no one can argue with his prescience.

ABOUT THE WRITER

Joel Brinkley is a former Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent for The New York Times and now a professor of journalism at Stanford University. Readers may send him e-mail at: brinkley@foreign-matters.com

Analysis: Afghanistan: troubled and troubling —Najmuddin A Shaikh

Over the last 28 years, we tried with the limited means at our disposal, to dictate the course of events in Afghanistan. What this did to our internal polity has led to a role reversal

In the last few weeks Afghanistan has been much in the news in the West. Preoccupied with our own problems we have not paid sufficient attention.

First there were reports from three prestigious institutes, the US-based Atlantic Council and the Afghan Study Group and the British Institute of Strategic Studies (ISS) all maintaining that American and NATO forces were failing in Afghanistan and calling for new thinking and a new comprehensive strategy.

Second there were Congressional hearings on the proposed defence budget and the testimony of many of the experts reinforced the doubts and misgivings entertained by legislators about the efficacy of American policy in Afghanistan.

Third there were reports of a sharply worded letter from Defence Secretary Gates to his NATO counterparts asking for more troops and equipment and for the removal of caveats on the employment of NATO contingents in the counter-insurgency operations in the South and East of Afghanistan. These demands were repeated at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Vilnius last week but have elicited few positive responses.

Fourth President Karzai vetoed the appointment of Paddy Ashdown of Bosnia fame as the UN coordinator in Afghanistan apparently fearing that he would assume a vice-regal role and undercut Karzai. This followed upon Karzai’s decision to expel two UN employees who were accused of contacts with Taliban fighters and of setting up a camp to train such fighters apparently without the knowledge of the Afghan Government.

Fifth there was the surprise unannounced visit of Secretary Rice and UK Foreign Secretary Milliband to Kandahar and Kabul evidently to boost troop morale and to reassure Karzai.

Last but no less important was the publication of the United Nations office of Drugs and Crime Survey on what opium production in Afghanistan is likely to be in 2008 after the record-breaking 2007 production of 8200 tons. This showed that the total crop would perhaps be no larger than in 2007 but more of it would be grown in the South.

The picture that emerges from a reading of these reports, the testimony and the associated comments by on-the-spot observers in Afghanistan is perhaps bleaker and more pessimistic than at any time since the American forces ousted the Taliban and installed Karzai in Kabul. Consider the following:

General McNeill, the commander of NATO forces, maintains that the insurgency has not worsened but has stayed about the same. But he also says that if the official American military counterinsurgency doctrine were applied to Afghanistan, then well over 400,000 allied and Afghan security troops would be required. Currently the NATO command has about 40,000 troops, about 15000 of them Americans while another 12,000 US troops under independent US command operate in East Afghanistan. The partly trained Afghan National Army numbers less than 45000.

* Major contingents such as those from Germany, France, Italy and Turkey are not deployed in combat zones and despite American and British urging there appears to be little chance that the political climate in these countries will allow these troops to be employed against the Taliban in the South and the East of the country. The fighting NATO force is therefore not more than 25,000.

* The Canadian prime minister has told his NATO allies that he will withdraw his 2500-strong contingent which has suffered some 78 casualties unless it is reinforced by other NATO contingents in the combat zone in Kandahar. The independent panel set up to review Canada’s participation had recommended that Canada should withdraw its contingent unless NATO provided 1,000 extra soldiers and Ottawa obtained helicopters and aerial reconnaissance vehicles. All the Canadians have got so far is an offer from Poland to put 2 helicopters at their disposal and some indications that the French may in response to American and Canadian pleas send some forces to back the Canadians. It is not certain that President Sarkozy will be able to persuade the French people that this is a price worth paying to improve relations with the USA and other NATO countries.

* The defence minister of the new government in Australia in an interview before the meeting of NATO defence ministers in Vilnius, Lithuania made it clear that “We won’t continue to put the lives of our people at risk and expend significant cost to the taxpayer if NATO and its partners aren’t willing to firstly acknowledge that progress isn’t good and then demonstrate a willingness to do more and embrace new strategies.”

* The Americans have decided to send 3200 Marines to Afghanistan partly to reinforce the NATO forces and partly to reinforce the training mission for the Afghan National Army. This extra contingent will however be there for only 7 months and appears designed primarily to cope with the expected Taliban spring offensive. Thereafter the full shortage of 7000 plus troops that local commanders believe are needed in the South will be experienced leaving the combat in as much of a stalemate then as it is now even if the Canadians do not withdraw.

* In 2007, when the coalition forces dropped about a million lbs of bombs on theoretically military targets the number of civilians inadvertently killed by coalition forces was twice as high as in 2006 with total civilian deaths exceeding by one count more than 1300. If “boots on the ground” do not increase bombing will be relied on, causing further civilian casualties and alienating the population.

* The ISS study (Military Balance 2007) noted the “gradual proliferation of insurgency and terrorism into Afghanistan’s northern provinces” and warned that “not only that the insurgency was spreading geographically but also that tactical lessons and techniques had migrated from the insurgency in Iraq.” One of the lessons from Iraq has been the use of suicide bombers. Suicide bombings in Afghanistan rose to 140 in 2007, compared with five between 2001 and 2005. The spread of the insurgency is also leading to the growth of the warlord militias.

* The Atlantic Council report as also the report by the Afghan Study Group both of which were co-chaired by Gen. Jones, the recently retired supreme Commander of NATO forces makes some damning points: “Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan”.... “The United States and the international community have tried to win the struggle in Afghanistan with too few military forces and insufficient economic aid”... “Afghanistan remains a failing state. It could become a failed state”. Maintaining that the Taliban insurgents are expanding their control of sparsely populated areas and the central government is failing to carry out vital reforms and reconstruction, the report recommends that to regain lost momentum a comprehensive plan integrating security and reconstruction should be drawn up, an international coordinator should be appointed and negotiations be undertaken with regional countries to secure their cooperation for the stabilisation of Afghanistan.

On the ground however no such plan seems to be in sight. Any integrated security plan would involve seeking reconciliation with those elements of the Taliban as were not part of the hard core. The dust up that Karzai has had with the British originated largely in the fact that the UN officials he expelled were, with British blessing and assistance, in touch with the Taliban and were trying to woo them away with cash payments and promises of induction in the local militia but were doing so without Karzai’s sanction. Karzai’s own efforts at reconciliation seem to have stalled.

The police force that Karzai appointed governors and district chiefs theoretically control are notoriously ill-trained and underpaid. They have become part of the security problem rather than being security providers. The grandiose plans for their training by EU teams are far behind schedule as are the plans for equipping them better and for paying them better. Most of them all over the country tend to owe loyalty, such as it is, to the local warlords rather than to the centre or to the appointed officials.

The Afghan National Army is doing better but even for this arm of government not enough trainers are available and the new revised strength of 80,000 will not be reached for some time to come. It will be many years before they can take on security duties in the face of a determined enemy entirely on their own.

The bad security situation is not helped by the poor state of the Afghan economy and the burgeoning narcotics trade. In short Afghanistan is in a horrible state which even with full efforts by all concerned, including Pakistan cannot acquire even a semblance of normalcy in the near future.

What does this mean for Pakistan? Over the last 28 years, we tried with the limited means at our disposal, to dictate the course of events in Afghanistan. What this did to our internal polity has led to a role reversal. Afghan events will now dictate developments in Pakistan. “As goes Afghanistan so goes Pakistan”. That is what is now at stake.

The writer is a former foreign secretary of Pakistan

Pakistan A 'Hotbed' For Terror

Lawless tribal belt is al-Qaeda training ground

Peter Goodspeed,  National Post  Published: Friday, February 15, 2008

For centuries the wild Pakistani tribal area -- stretching 1,000 kilometres along the Afghan border -- has been lawless, violent and remote. Now, it is rapidly becoming a central front in the U.S.-led war on terror.

The harsh mountainous territory, which Pakistan doesn't control and is off limits to U.S. troops, has become a breeding ground for jihad and the chief training centre for al-Qaeda.

Just days before Pakistanis vote in a crucial election, their country is being threatened by a new generation of radicalized Islamist insurgents who have allied themselves with international terrorists.

Fighters in the tribal areas have been blamed for carrying out more than 60 suicide attacks in Pakistan in the last year, including the Dec. 27 assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. But fears are growing another high-profile attack could ignite the sort of chaos Islamic radicals thrive on.

But as al-Qaeda and the Taliban dispatch suicide bombers from the tribal belt to attack Pakistani security personnel and politicians, there are increasing indications Pakistan has become a safe haven for al-Qaeda and the ideological heartland for Islamist terrorists worldwide.

According to top U.S. security officials, South Waziristan, on the border with Afghanistan, is the new headquarters for al-Qaeda's global operations and forms the centre of a web of terror plots and assassination attempts that reaches into Europe and the United States.

In testimony before Congress last week, retired admiral Michael McConnell, the U.S. director of national intelligence, stressed al-Qaeda has "regenerated its core operational capabilities needed to conduct attacks."

"Al-Qaeda has been able to retain a safe haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) that provides the organization many of the advantages it once derived from its base across the border in Afghanistan, albeit on a smaller and less secure scale," he said.

"The FATA serves as a staging area for al-Qaeda's attacks in support of the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as a location for training new terrorist operatives, for attacks in Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa, Europe and the United States.

"The next attack on the United States will most likely be launched by al-Qaeda operating in the 'under-governed regions' of Pakistan," he added

Judging from online videos and local reports from Pakistan, a study published yesterday in the CTC Sentinel, a publication of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, estimates "al-Qaeda is running as many as 29 training camps in the [FATA] region that are less elaborate than those found in Afghanistan in the 1990s."

But those camps funnel new recruits or "Lions of Islam" into the fight against NATO forces, including Canadians, in Afghanistan, and train potential terrorists from overseas to launch attacks.

Unlike the large military-style camps al-Qaeda used in Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks, the new training in Pakistan's tribal areas is being done in small groups and is specially tailored to prepare Western recruits for attacks.

On Monday, the German news magazine Der Spiegel reported that officials in Germany's federal police believe four men in their 20s are being trained in Pakistan to conduct terror attacks in Germany.

Also on Monday, David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, while encouraging NATO to redouble its efforts in Afghanistan, noted that 70% of all terrorist incidents in Britain had their origins in Pakistan.

In the last six months, Danish, German and Spanish officials have all broken up alleged terror plots that are linked to Waziristan. Last month in Barcelona, police claimed to have broken up a plot to attack Spain's transit system and in four neighbouring countries.

"In my opinion, the jihadi threat from Pakistan is the biggest emerging threat we are facing in Europe," said Judge Baltasar Garzon, Spain's top anti-terrorism magistrate.

"Pakistan is an ideological and training hotbed for jihadists, and they are being exported here."

[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.]