In this bulletin:

• Canadian soldier killed in Afghan mine blast
• Militant arrested over Kabul hotel bombing
• UN accuses Taliban's attack on Serena hotel in Afghanistan
• Norwegian journalist killed in Afghanistan
• Roadside blast kills former provincial governor in S Afghanistan
• Pinay killed in attack on Afghanistan hotel
• Diplomatic niceties aside, Karzai utterly rejects Liberal Afghan policy
• Envoy warns Dion on combat role
• Canadian advisers are still needed, Afghan envoy says
• Canada in Afghanistan under UN-backed mission
• Afghan paper slams Browne comments
• Musharraf’s Last Stand
• Afghanistan bans The Kite Runner
• Afghanistan closes border with Pakistan

Canadian soldier killed in Afghan mine blast

January 15, 2008

OTTAWA (Reuters) - A Canadian soldier was killed in Afghanistan on Tuesday when the armored reconnaissance vehicle he was traveling in ran over a mine, the army said.

The soldier -- 26-year-old Trooper Richard Renaud -- was the 77th member of Canada's armed forces to die since Ottawa sent troops to Afghanistan in 2002.

Another soldier was injured in the incident, which occurred early in the morning at a point 10 km (6 miles) north of the city of Kandahar.

Canada has 2,500 troops based in Kandahar in southern Afghanistan, on a combat mission that is due to end in February 2009. The minority Conservative government, which wants the soldiers to stay longer, has asked an independent panel to into at how the mission could be extended.

(Reporting by David Ljunggren; editing by Rob Wilson)

Militant arrested over Kabul hotel bombing

Kabul, 15 Jan. (AKI) - A Taliban militant linked to the bombing of the luxury Serena hotel in Kabul was arrested on Tuesday.

At least eight people, including several foreigners, died in the suicide bombing on Monday. Two of the victims were reportedly suicide bombers.

One of the attackers is understood to have detonated an explosive device inside his jacket at the entrance of the hotel and another blew himself up in the hotel lobby.

Guests, including the Norwegian foreign minister, Jonas Gahr Stoere and Australian embassy staff, were immediately evacuated. They were said to be unhurt.

The Serena is the main Kabul hotel is popular with foreign diplomats and international officials.

Monday's attack was the latest in a string of Taliban attacks in the capital in recent weeks.

Afghan intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh told journalists on Tuesday that a total of three Taliban, all wearing suicide jackets, stormed the heavily protected hotel.

Saleh said the third attacker was arrested after the attack began.

Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg said the bombing would not alter the country's commitment to Afghanistan, where the country has 500 soldiers involved in the NATO-led force.

UN accuses Taliban's attack on Serena hotel in Afghanistan

2008-01-15 15:31:10 Editor: Sun Yunlong

KABUL, Jan. 15 (Xinhua) -- Bo Asplund, the special representative of the UN secretary-general for Afghanistan, on Tuesday accused in a statement that Taliban's attack on Serena Hotel Monday night as an attack on peace and progress in the post-war Afghanistan.

"Taliban's attack is an assault on those values of sharing belief that peace and progress must prevail over war in Afghanistan and a senseless crime under both national and international laws", said Asplund.

He also expressed deep condolences to all those who have been affected and called on all in the community, Afghan and foreign, to join in redoubling their commitment to the cause of peace for Afghanistan.

According to the statement from Afghan Interior Ministry, militants in an explosion and firing attack at Serena Hotel in Afghan capital Kabul killed six people and injured six others on Monday evening.

Taliban has claimed the responsibility after the incident. War-torn Afghanistan has seen a resurgence of Taliban-related militancy since some three years ago and rising violence claimed over 6,000 lives in the country last year, hitting a record high since the Taliban regime fall in late 2001.

The Taliban insurgents continued to engage Afghan security forces and foreign troops with guerrilla-style attacks, besides launching roadside bombing and suicide attacks, across the country.

Both Afghans and NATO commanders have expected more Taliban attacks this year in Afghanistan.

Norwegian journalist killed in Afghanistan

2008-01-15 06:25:14 Editor: Yan Liang

STOCKHOLM, Jan. 14 (Xinhua) -- Norwegian journalist Carsten Thomassen was killed in a terrorist attack on Monday in Afghan capital Cabul, according to a statement posted on the Norwegian Foreign Ministry website.

Thomassen was one of journalists who were accompanying Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere on his visit to Afghanistan, the Norwegian Foreign Ministry said.

"I was deeply saddened to learn that Carsten's life could not be saved following the terrorist attack on Hotel Serena," the Norwegian foreign minister said in the statement.

"Carsten was dedicated to his work as a journalist. All of us who were together with Carsten in Kabul are filled with grief and despair," the foreign minister added.

An employee of Norwegian Foreign Ministry was also wounded and was sent to a hospital for treatment together with Carsten Thomassen, according to reports reaching here from Oslo.

A Norwegian delegation headed by Norwegian Foreign Minister arrived in Kabul earlier on Monday. They were hit by the explosion and firing attack at a luxury hotel in Kabul.

Roadside blast kills former provincial governor in S Afghanistan

2008-01-15 16:05:46 Editor: Sun Yunlong

KABUL, Jan. 15 (Xinhua) -- A roadside bomb blast triggered by remote-control has killed two tribal elders, including a former provincial governor, in Tirin Kot district of southern Afghanistan's Uruzgan province, the police said Tuesday.

"The two were heading towards their houses from a mosque at around 7:00 p.m. (1430 GMT) Monday when the bomb exploded," Uruzgan's police chief Juma Gul Himat told Xinhua.

Fazl Rabi once served as Uruzgan governor during the Mohammad Najibullah regime in the 1990s and deputy governor of Uruzgan in 2003-2004, Himat said.

No one or group took the responsibility yet.

Militancy-related violence left over 6,000 people dead in war-torn Afghanistan in 2007, the bloodiest year since the Taliban regime were toppled six years ago.

Both Afghans and NATO commanders have expected more militants attacks this year in Afghanistan.

Pinay killed in attack on Afghanistan hotel

By Pia Lee-Brago Wednesday, January 16, 2008

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) yesterday confirmed that a Filipina was among three foreign nationals killed after an attack on Afghanistan’s only five-star hotel last Monday.

The fatality, Zenia Aguilia, worked as a spa supervisor at Kabul’s Serena Hotel.

DFA spokesman Claro Cristobal said the information was relayed to them by the Philippine Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Cristobal said that the embassy will send a consular team to Afghanistan to assist in the repatriation of the victim’s remains.

The attack, claimed by the extremist Taliban movement, killed at least seven people and wounded six others, said Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashary. He did not give a breakdown of the victims’ nationalities.

Two other people were killed in the health club – one Afghan staffer and another foreign guest, the spokesman said.

In Washington, two State Department officials confirmed that one American citizen had been killed in the Kabul attack.

“It underscores the reason we have to stay on the offense against the extremists in places like Kabul and also in other places around the world. We’re in for a long, hard fight. These are deliberate, patient people who will murder innocents including our own people,” said White House press secretary Dana Perino.

A 39-year-old Norwegian photographer was also killed in the attack, the Norwegian government has announced.

Carsten Thomassen, 38, of the Oslo newspaper Dagbladet, died from wounds he sustained in the offensive, according to the paper’s Web site.

“We feel great sorrow and powerlessness,” managing editor Anne Aasheim said.

A Norwegian Foreign Ministry employee was also among the wounded but was out of danger at a Kabul hospital, officials said.

Afghanistan’s intelligence chief Amrullah Salah said four men have been arrested in connection with the attack at Serena hotel.

Among those arrested after the assault was a man who was supposed to carry out a suicide attack at the hotel but “for some reason did not.”

The others, Salah added, included a man said to have transported the attackers to the hotel and two men who were suspected of accommodating the team of attackers in the city.

“We’ve captured the planners of this terrorist attack,” he said.

It was late Monday when gunmen threw grenades and fired AK-47s, and one even blew himself up despite heavy security at the Serena Hotel.

It was the deadliest direct attack on a hotel in Kabul since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.

More than 30 US soldiers in a half-dozen Humvees rushed to the hotel as part of a quick reaction force, and security personnel from the nearby US Embassy ran through the building looking for American citizens.

One of the militants was shot dead while a Taliban spokesman said another man died in the suicide explosion.

Zabiullah Mujahid, the Taliban spokesman, said four militants with suicide vests attacked the hotel – one bomber who detonated his explosives and three militants who threw grenades and fired guns.

“There was blood on the floor all the way to the kitchen. There was a lot of blood in the lobby,” said Suzanne Griffin, who was in the hotel gym at the time of the attack.

“There were two or three bombs and there was complete chaos,” said Stian L. Solum, a photographer from the Norwegian photo agency Scanpix.

The assailants appeared to have concentrated their assault on the Serena’s gym and spa, where foreigners relax and work out at night.

The multipronged assault began around 6 p.m., when the Norwegian Embassy was hosting a meeting at the Serena for visiting Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described Stoere as the target of the attack but did not say why.

Stoere, who was in the hotel basement with a Norwegian delegation at the time, said he was about to start a meeting when the explosions hit, and everyone was ordered to get on the floor for about 10 minutes.

“I don’t think anyone could experience this without feeling you are in a serious situation,” Stoere said.

Stoere said Afghan President Hamid Karzai called to express his concern and offered assistance, including accommodation in the presidential residence if needed.

There are more than 50,000 troops from at least 39 countries, including about 25,000 US forces, in Afghanistan.

The management of Serena, meanwhile, assured in a statement that they “will strive to further reinforce the security in and around the hotel to prevent further attacks and ensure the safety of its guests and staff.” - With AP

Diplomatic niceties aside, Karzai utterly rejects Liberal Afghan policy

Mike Blanchfield ,  Ottawa Citizen, Published: Monday, January 14, 2008

Behind their courteous pleasantries, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his senior cabinet reject the Liberal position that Canada should end its combat mission in southern Afghanistan by February 2009.

Following Saturday's visit to Kabul by Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and deputy Michael Ignatieff, the Grit notion that Canada's military mission can somehow be changed to focus less on combat and more on diplomacy and development simply didn't fly with the Afghan government.

Karzai spoke of the need to continue fighting terrorism "head on," while his foreign minister and parliamentary house leader emphasized the need for the Canadian Forces to stick to their primary purpose in Kandahar - fighting the Taliban insurgency.

Behind their courteous pleasantries, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his senior cabinet reject the Liberal position that Canada should end its combat mission in southern Afghanistan by February 2009.

Following Saturday's visit to Kabul by Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and deputy Michael Ignatieff, the Grit notion that Canada's military mission can somehow be changed to focus less on combat and more on diplomacy and development simply didn't fly with the Afghan government.

Karzai spoke of the need to continue fighting terrorism "head on," while his foreign minister and parliamentary house leader emphasized the need for the Canadian Forces to stick to their primary purpose in Kandahar - fighting the Taliban insurgency.

Dion and Ignatieff travelled to Afghanistan days after releasing the party's submission to the panel headed by John Manley on Canada's future military involvement there. It reiterated that Canada should serve notice to its allies that it will withdraw its 2,500 troops from Kandahar by February 2009 and cease all combat operations then.

But a statement from Karzai's office in Kabul said that while the president welcomed the visit and praised Canada's contributions, he "also emphasized the need to maintain the momentum that has been created in the south, in particular in Kandahar, to solidify the gains and provide consistency and continuity for the population as well as the government."

Karzai added: "The events of Sept. 11 serves us well in reminding ourselves that not fighting terrorism head-on can have disastrous consequences for Afghanistan, the region and the world at large."

Foreign Minister R. Dadfar Spanta said that international nations "need to protect and defend" gains made on the ground since the defeat of the country's former Taliban rulers six years ago. "He also highlighted the need for Canada's presence in Afghanistan to defend peace, fight terrorism, and help with stability in the country and the region."

Yunous Qanooni, the speaker of the lower house of the Afghan parliament and a former presidential candidate, said after the Liberal meeting, "we will need to continue the mission by international forces, especially the mission carried out by the Canadian troops."

Dion and Ignatieff were not swayed from their party's position on withdrawal by February 2009.

"It was as if they had carefully arranged to not allow any evidence on the ground to affect anything they had already said. It was, I guess, so they could say, we have been there," said Jack Granatstein, the Canadian military historian and an analyst for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

Granatstein said Karzai had to couch his opposition to the Liberal policy in diplomatic niceties because he is keenly aware the current Conservative government faces stiff resistance from all three opposition parties. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged to allow the House of Commons to vote on the future of the deployment, which could come as early as next month.

"They're not going to come out and hit the Liberals over they head. They can't afford to do that because they might be the government in a few months," said Granatstein.

In September, Karzai told Canadian journalists that unless Canada and its allies remained fully committed to his country, it would fall into anarchy.

Omar Samad, the Afghanistan ambassador to Canada, said Karzai and his officials were keen to welcome the Liberal leadership on what was billed to them as a fact-finding mission.

"Our leaders knew what the position was when Mr. Dion and Mr. Ignatieff met them," Samad said in an interview Monday.

"When President Karzai talks about continuity and maintaining the momentum and consistency, those are strong words. Those are words that mean something," the ambassador explained. "The one thing that we do not want to see happen is for a relapse to take place and for pre-9-11 conditions to emerge in parts of Afghanistan and for power vacuums and for security vacuums to emerge."

In an interview Monday, senior NATO spokesman James Appathurai said that while reconstruction and development remain the long-term goals for Afghanistan, the security situation remains too volatile for a major shift in strategy. He said NATO's position remains unchanged: troop levels must be increased, and more military equipment, such as helicopters, are needed to confront that Taliban insurgency in the south. 

As for the Liberal visit, Appathurai said: "It's always useful for politicians from across the spectrum to go and see for themselves what is happening. There's no amount of briefing notes - and I read many of them - to substitute for an eyes-on look."

Envoy warns Dion on combat role

Afghan ambassador says call for less violent mission could undo gains made by Canadians in the south

January 15, 2008 - Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star

OTTAWA–Calls by the federal Liberals for a new, non-combat role for Canadian troops in Afghanistan could undo the gains made so far and mean the sacrifices made by slain soldiers have been in vain, says Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada.

Omar Samad says that message was delivered to Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion when he met Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul on Saturday.

Dion wants Canadian troops to take on a less dangerous role once their current assignment in Kandahar runs out in a year. But Karzai delivered a pointed reminder to Dion that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, had their roots in Afghanistan and warned that the country's stability is not yet assured.

"The Afghans do not want a relapse, especially to pre-9/11 conditions," Samad said yesterday in an interview.

"This type of threat, in the form of terrorism and extremism, needs to be dealt with directly and head-on. That point had been made by the president."

After his meeting on Saturday, Dion said Karzai would "welcome" whatever role Canada plays in rebuilding his troubled country even if it's not a combat mission.

But yesterday, Samad suggested that while Afghanistan would "respect" Canada's decision on the future of the mission, it might not welcome a decision to withdraw Canadian soldiers before Afghan security forces are ready to take over.

"Decisions have to be made in a co-ordinated fashion," Samad said. "Also we have to be mindful of timeliness, for example the readiness and capacity of the Afghan security forces to not only control the situation but protect civilians and be able to perform their duty."

In September, Karzai warned Afghanistan will return to "anarchy" if Canada pulled its troops from the country in 2009, when the current military commitment runs out.

An independent panel established by Prime Minister Stephen Harper is due to issue its own recommendations about the future of the mission in the coming weeks.

Samad has met with the panel, led by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley, to give his own country's views. While NDP Leader Jack Layton accused the panel of having a "pro-America" bias, Samad says he was encouraged by their open attitude.

"They are all seasoned and experienced Canadians who, to me, seem to take this responsibility very seriously," Samad said.

Canadian advisers are still needed, Afghan envoy says

GLORIA GALLOWAY

January 15, 2008

OTTAWA -- The Afghan ambassador to Canada says a small group of Canadian military personnel working alongside members of his government to rebuild state institutions in Afghanistan would be missed if their team were disbanded.

"For the past three years or so, the Afghan government has benefited from the diverse set of skills and experiences that SAT [strategic advisory team] members have provided and we are thankful for their contributions," Ambassador Omar Samad said yesterday.

"We are in such a situation in Afghanistan where any help goes a long way as long as it's well co-ordinated with all of the different parties involved - whether Afghan or other Canadian parties - and its aims and objectives are well defined."

The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that the work of the SAT, a group of about 20 military planners embedded in the Afghan government, will end this year, largely because of "bureaucratic jealousy" on the part of Foreign Affairs staff.

Sources say the move is coming at the instigation of Arif Lalani, Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan.

They also say there is a push to get a decision from the Conservative government before the release of a report by a commission headed by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley that is looking into Canada's role in the war-torn country. That report is expected to reflect favourably upon the SAT.

General Rick Hillier put the team in place in 2005 after Afghan President Hamid Karzai mentioned that he had appreciated the work of a small group of senior Canadian military officers who performed similar tasks.

Doug Goold, president of the Canadian International Council, a Toronto-based think tank on international affairs, said he has been told by people working closely with the SAT that the team is performing an important role in reconstruction.

"There has been a lot of criticism [that] we're putting most of our money and most of our eggs in the military basket, and to the extent that we can move forward on either development or diplomacy, that's a good thing. The SAT is part of that initiative," Mr. Goold said.

Experts suggest that only a handful of Afghan cabinet ministers are truly effective and corruption is still a problem, he said. "I would think that, to the extent that you can provide outside help from a country like Canada, that's a good thing."

But Paul Heinbecker, a former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations and now the director of the Centre for Global Relations, Governance and Policy at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., disagrees.

Mr. Heinbecker said he was annoyed by the suggestion that any move to disband the SAT would be the result of departmental jealousies.

The senior Canadian representative in any foreign country is the ambassador, he said, and it could be quite confusing to have officials working directly with the foreign government that might undermine that structure.

Canada in Afghanistan under UN-backed mission

Tue Jan 15, 2008

To the editor:

Re: Canadian troops shouldn't be in Afghanistan, Gary Arsenault letter, Jan. 9.

I am shocked at the blatant inaccuracies in Gary Arsenault's letter. His assertion that the NATO/International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in Afghanistan is not sanctioned by the United Nations is completely incorrect.

ISAF was created in accordance with the Bonn Conference in December 2001 following the ousting of the Taliban regime. Afghan opposition leaders attending the conference began the process of reconstructing their country by setting up a new government structure, namely the Afghan Transitional Authority. The concept of an UN-mandated international force to assist the newly established Afghan Transitional Authority was also launched at this time to create a secure environment in and around Kabul and support the reconstruction of Afghanistan. These agreements paved the way for the creation of a three-way partnership between the Afghan Transitional Authority, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and ISAF.

ISAF itself is a UN-mandated force. It is a NATO-led coalition of about 39 willing nations from all over the world which is deployed under the authority of the UN Security Council.

Mr. Arsenault is entitled by the freedoms all Canadians enjoy to have and express his own opinions on the mission. That he calls up the spectre of Adolph Hitler is not surprising. This sort of shameless and baseless false propaganda attack was the stock in trade of Hitler's defeated Nazi regime.

Rick Brown

Oshawa


Afghan paper slams Browne comments

Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:41am GMT

KABUL (Reuters) - The warning by Defence Secretary Des Browne that British troops could be engaged in Afghanistan for decades is an irresponsible one and against the country's national sovereignty, an Afghan paper said on Tuesday.

Britain, which has about 7,800 troops operating in Afghanistan in a 40,000-strong NATO stabilisation force, is expected to increase that number as it withdraws from Iraq.

Asked when British soldiers would be withdrawn from Afghanistan, Browne told Sunday's The People newspaper: "We cannot risk it again becoming an ungoverned training haven for terrorists who threaten the UK."

He said: "It is a commitment which could last decades, although it will reduce over time."

"But there is only so much our forces can achieve. The job can only be completed by the international community working with the Afghan government and its army," he added.

The private Arman-e Millie daily lashed out at Browne's comments.

"This irresponsible comment of Britain's defence minister from the view points of political experts, is regarded as explicit sign of deviation of international treaties and against the national sovereignty of Afghanistan," the daily wrote.

"For (deciding) on the continuation of foreign troops presence in Afghanistan is the right of the government, the parliament and our people. No authority of any country has the right to extend the duration of its troops' presence without the consent and request of the Afghan people," it added.

Foreign troops, now under NATO and the U.S. military's command, have been stationed in Afghanistan since the U.S.-led invasion that toppled the Taliban government in 2001.

The al-Qaeda-backed Taliban are largely active in southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan and have made a comeback in the past two years, the bloodiest period since the militants' ouster.

Foreign commanders have not specifically said when the troops will pull out, saying it depends largely on the security situation of Afghanistan and after the Western-backed national security forces can stand on their own feet.

While considering the presence of foreign troops as vital for fighting the insurgency, the Afghan government has been demanding more resources and funds for its national forces as a remedy rather than dispatch of additional troops from its Western backers.

(Reporting by Sayed Salahuddin; editing by Jon Hemming and David Fogarty)

Musharraf’s Last Stand

By clinging to power, the president is making Pakistan fight the wrong battle—against him, rather than the extremists destabilizing the nuclear-armed nation.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91662
By Fareed Zakaria
NEWSWEEK

This was supposed to be a foreign-policy election. Iraq, Iran, North Korea were going to be prominent on the campaign agenda in 2008. In fact, over the past few months, the wider world has been receding. Violence in Iraq is down. The threat from Iran seems less urgent. We're negotiating with North Korea. But one country has been all over the news and is being debated on the campaign trail—Pakistan. Pakistan worries everyone. Commentators talk of rising instability and national peril. Proliferation experts like Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, warn that the country's nuclear weapons could fall into the wrong hands. Presidential contenders threaten to get tough with Islamabad. And to add urgency to these discussions come periodic terror attacks, including one last Thursday, outside the Lahore High Court, that killed 19 policemen and bystanders.

I watched this debate from Pakistan, leaving Lahore one day before the bombing. Pakistanis—somewhat dazed in the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto's assassination—are not quite sure how to take in all the attention. Most are intrigued by their newfound prominence, defensive about the gloomy picture painted of their country and hopeful that their problems will lead to international help. But all are genuinely worried. Things have rarely looked as bad.

In the past year Pakistan has suffered its worst violence since the riots that followed its founding in 1947. And in the past six months it has careered from one political and constitutional crisis to another, none of which has been resolved, or is likely to be resolved by parliamentary elections scheduled for Feb. 18. "We have all these problems coming together at the same time," says Jehangir Karamat, the former chief of staff of the armed forces. "The suicide bombings in our cities and towns, the insurgency in the western regions, the lawyers' protests, the challenge to the regime's legitimacy." In fact, Pakistan is facing two crises—one political and the other security-related. It might have been more convenient to tackle them sequentially, but that is no longer an option. The country will face them simultaneously over the next few months, and how well it does will determine whether this nuclear-armed nation veers badly off course.

Pakistan is a messy place, with only unpalatable choices, which is why many believe that in this land of the blind, Pervez Musharraf is king. George W. Bush, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy—all have bet on Musharraf. He's not perfect, in their view, but he is a bold leader who fights terrorism and has the competence to move this complex country in a modern direction. Until recently it was a good bet. When Musharraf took control of the government in 1999, Pakistan was spiraling downward, its economy a shambles, its military intertwined with jihadists in Afghanistan and Kashmir, and its politics deeply corrupt. Musharraf was forced to make a choice after 9/11 and acted decisively. Once the principal sponsor of the Taliban government, Pakistan quickly helped the United States topple it. Over the next two years, Musharraf weakened support for something much closer to his military's heart— the jihad in Kashmir, which kept a third of the Indian Army tied down in that state. To understand the magnitude of these shifts, bear in mind that the Pakistani military has had only two policy successes over the past three decades—installing a friendly regime in Afghanistan and bleeding India at low cost over Kashmir.

In a wide-ranging conversation at his Camp Office in Rawalpindi on Jan. 7, Musharraf came across, as always, as smart and thoroughly modern. In the past he has spoken admiringly of Turkey's founder, Kemal Ataturk, and denounced Islamic extremism. He's instituted economic reforms, and embraced science and secular education. By all accounts, he has not been tarred by the personal corruption that had become routine for Pakistani leaders, though of course he is part of a broader structure of military power and privilege that is massive, arbitrary and accountable only to itself.

One year ago, if Pervez Musharraf had ceded power (there were many different ways to do so) and allowed for a transition to democratic rule, he would, over time, have been remembered as Pakistan's most significant leader since Benazir's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, perhaps even since its founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. There are many caveats and qualifications to this characterization—I can hear the shrieks from Pakistan's urban liberals—but on balance, I believe that it holds. While intellectuals and activists in Lahore and Islamabad had many complaints, in September 2006—after Musharraf had been in office seven years—average income had risen 55 percent, TV and print media were flourishing, and his approval rating hovered above 60 percent.

But over the past year, Musharraf has embarked on a series of moves that have destroyed his claims to being a modernizer, his reputation as a statesman and his popularity with his own people. Many outside Pakistan do not quite realize the sea change that has taken place. Musharraf is now deeply unpopular; significant majorities distrust anything he says. He is routinely accused of masterminding Bhutto's death, rigging the elections in advance and being in cahoots with terrorists. His approval rating was 30 percent in November 2007, in the latest of five national surveys conducted by the International Republican Institute over the previous 18 months. It has almost certainly gone down significantly since then, in the wake of Bhutto's assassination. When asked what they thought of his (engineered) re-election as president in October 2007, a stunning 61 percent said that they "strongly disagreed," and an additional 11 percent said they "disagreed." And polls in Pakistan are likely to overstate the level of support for a military ruler.

Why has this happened? Musharraf realized last year that Pakistan's laws and courts were obstacles to his central aspiration—to remain in power—and he responded by cutting them down. When it became clear that the Supreme Court stood in his way, he fired its chief justice. When the charges he brought against the chief justice were unanimously dismissed by a 13-judge panel (including five hand-picked ones), he declared an emergency and fired the chief justice and 60 other judges of various superior courts, placing most of them under house arrest. When lawyers protested, he arrested their leaders, including the highly respected head of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Aitzaz Ahsan. Musharraf shut down TV stations, then reopened some after they were forced to sign a "code of conduct."

Musharraf has explained his actions—all wildly unpopular—as necessary to fight terror, and banked on foreign reporters' not checking the details of a complex saga. For example, Musharraf claims the judges had gone soft on terror, releasing jihadists arrested during the siege of Islamabad's Red Mosque last year. It's true that three judges had acquitted the Islamists, but Musharraf has retained all three. "The principle by which he fired judges is clear," says Asma Jahangir, the courageous chair of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and a respected lawyer. "Those who were relatively independent were sacked. Only the scum remain."

Musharraf's struggle to stay in power has also reinforced his alliance with thoroughly illiberal forces. Having packed the courts, amended the Constitution, muzzled the media and battled with the major political parties, Musharraf has alienated all the modern, secular and liberal forces in Pakistan, with the exception of some businessmen and his own community of "mohajirs" (refugees from India) in Sindh. He now relies for his support on the military, an assortment of feudal politicians and some friendly fundamentalists. In Rawalpindi he spoke of other politicians, including the late Benazir, with undisguised hostility. Although he is an intelligent, well-meaning man whose vision for Pakistan remains moderate and secular, he has become a deeply polarizing force in Pakistan. Musharraf's selling point has always been that even though he was not elected, he has been a liberalizing dictator. Over the past year, he has lost claim to the adjective.

Does that mean Musharraf's days are numbered? Not exactly. Mushahid Hussain, secretary-general of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, the party aligned with the president (often described as the "king's party"), says, "He's a cat with nine lives, and he still has two left." It may not be his feline qualities that keep him in office, though, but the support of the armed forces. Whatever happens at the polls, Pakistan's military, allied with elements of the country's traditional, quasi-feudal establishment, will still wield immense power. Its control of the Pakistani state is deep and has actually increased over the past decade, as Musharraf has placed retired generals in key positions of authority.

But Musharraf could also face a powerful political opposition in the National Assembly. Unless the elections are rigged, every independent expert predicts that the king's party will do badly. Opposition leaders like Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari (Benazir's widower and the new co-head of her Pakistan Peoples Party) are united in their basic agenda. "Our No. 1 demand is the restoration of the judiciary," Sharif told me. "Nothing is more important than that." Zardari said, "The whole structure of power must change in this country. The military must get out of politics."

At a political and constitutional level, the crisis in Pakistan is actually good news. Civil society has mobilized. The print media have been utterly fearless in its criticism of the president. Musharraf's actions have given the parties an agenda to get passionate about, and so far they have not succumbed to the infighting that often destroyed them in the past. It would be a mistake to romanticize Pakistan's democrats. Many are feudal, corrupt and pliant. But increasingly there are some young and talented ones emerging as well. The polls may be rigged, though there are fewer opportunities than before for massive illegalities. The king's party may be able to buy allegiances after the elections. But it is also possible that Pakistan's political class might surprise us with its maturity.

There is a solution to Pakistan's political crisis, one that will allow Musharraf to leave on a high note. First, he must hold free and fair elections. Musharraf's current plan is to wield power as part of a troika—the Army chief, the prime minister and himself as president. This will work only if he is the weakest leg of that stool. He has already appointed a decent man as head of the Army, and he can allow a stable parliamentary coalition to elect a prime minister who can run the country. Musharraf should recognize that he has become far too controversial to be able to lead his nation and should instead recede from power. The example to follow is Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, now universally feted for bringing democracy to that country. Musharraf is said to be convinced that he is indispensable to Pakistan's future. He should remember the words of another general turned politician, Charles de Gaulle, who, when told he was indispensable to France, is said to have replied, "The graveyards are filled with indispensable people."

That still leaves Pakistan's other, more dangerous, crisis—the new jihad. Once nestled within the tribal areas of Pakistan and in neighboring Afghanistan, groups of militants have now begun to move freely into the settled towns and cities of the east. In the past year there have been 46 suicide bombings, killing more than 1,000 people. Attacks have taken place almost everywhere in the country. Most major political figures have been targeted, as have the police. In the past six months Army cantonments have been repeatedly attacked, and last fall two buses filled with officers from the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency were blown up. And, of course, in December, the country's most popular leader was killed.

The most troubling aspect of this wave of terror is that no one in Pakistan seems to understand why it's happening. Everyone I spoke to, from President Musharraf on down, was taken aback by the violence. When I asked the president about it, he began a long, rambling answer that decried blowback from the Afghan jihad in the late 1980s. But those fighters are now 50 years old. The ones blowing up Pakistanis are a new generation of young jihadists, motivated, networked and competent. If Musharraf has few answers, the political parties have largely ignored the problem, as have most journalists and commentators (with some important exceptions).

Theories abound. The Pakistani military was never fully committed to battling jihadists. Having spent decades training fighters for Kashmir and Afghanistan, the Army withdrew support but would not kill or arrest its former charges. While true at first, things appear to have changed in the past year. The armed forces are taking the battle to the militants, which explains why the jihadists are now targeting the Army in return. There remain some defense experts, like Talat Masood, a retired general, who argue that even now, the Army is softer on Afghan and Kashmiri jihadists, believing that keeping those places somewhat unstable is in Pakistan's long-term interests. (The Army assumes that the United States will eventually tire of the war and leave, and India will benefit from a stronger Afghanistan.) "The idea that a stable Afghanistan and India mean peace and development—that's something that the Pakistani Army doesn't really believe in its heart," says Masood.

Washington itself bears a significant part of the blame. The Taliban were never really defeated after the fall of Kabul. They simply went into hiding and regrouped, and yet the American Army declared victory and left. "You outsourced the most important battlefield of the War on Terror to NATO troops that did not have the mission, training or will to actually fight it," says PML leader Hussain. (The Pentagon is now considering sending an additional 3,000 Marines to southern Afghanistan.) The rise of the Taliban in Pakistan's tribal areas was also ignored. The first military operation there took place in 2004, two and a half years after the jihadists had retreated there, largely because the Pakistani Army didn't want to get bogged down in an area marked by disputed borders and fiercely independent people.

It's easier to diagnose what went wrong than say what should be done to put it right. Some have argued for stronger military measures, but the Pakistani military (with U.S. assistance) has been fighting these forces with mixed success. Others argue for greater political efforts at reconciliation and rehabilitation, a view Musharraf himself shares. But these measures so far have not worked. Musharraf's deal with the tribal leaders in 2005 and 2006 have failed—by his own admission. Some critics argue that these were hasty arrangements, designed out of desperation. What is needed, they say, is a much broader effort to revive the politics of the tribal regions and Baluchistan (the other danger zone) and to integrate them more fully into Pakistan.

Counterinsurgency and nation-building, which is what we're talking about, is a long, hard slog. The Pakistani state has limited capacity, especially in regions that have been "no go" zones for hundreds of years. Even its much-vaunted Army isn't really up to the job, having been designed to fight the Indian Army, not small gangs of Pashtun warriors. But if there is a missing component to the battle against the new jihadists it is that throughout Pakistan, this is seen as America's war, or Musharraf's war, but not as Pakistan's war. No one has been able to enlist the Pakistani people in the effort to marginalize the militants and at the same time provide political and economic development, as well as an ideological alternative to tales of jihad and martyrdom. Right now Pakistan's politics are focused on an entirely different battle—over the president and his illegal power grabs. Very few are willing to join a struggle that he will spearhead. Unless he can find a way to take himself out of the spotlight, Musharraf and his fate will eclipse the serious security issues facing Pakistan.

The American debate has been, as is often the case, largely removed from reality. The two scenarios that obsess Western politicians—loose nukes and empowered mullahs—are overhyped. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is, by all accounts, firmly embedded in the command-and-control structure of its military, with multiple supervisors and ultimate oversight by the prime minister and president. The second, related worry—that Islamic militants will take over the country—is even less plausible. For better or worse, Pakistan is run by a military that is disciplined and (mostly) secular, especially in its current leadership. The country's politics are dominated by parties that are mainstream and moderate in their interpretation of Islam. Fundamentalists have never done well in Pakistan's elections, gaining just over 11 percent of the vote in the 2002 elections, held in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Public-opinion polls all concur that these parties will be routed in February's elections.

The U.S. candidates' policy proposals have been depressing in their lack of seriousness. Does anyone believe that Pakistan would allow Washington and London to secure its nuclear arsenal? Or that it would meekly let the U.S. Army invade its territory to fight terrorists? The real question we face in Pakistan is what to do about the upcoming elections to ensure that they are free and fair. We need to walk Musharraf back from a power struggle in which he is pitted against an independent judiciary and democratically elected politicians. And above all we must find a way to work with the Pakistani people and not a handful of generals. Otherwise the intense anti-Americanism in Pakistan—fast rising because of our support for Musharraf—will produce a new wave of jihadists, born in the mountains of the frontier, tested in battle against the Pakistani Army and thirsting to fight the ultimate enemy, thousands of miles away.      

Afghanistan bans The Kite Runner

Published: Tuesday 15 January 2008 13:10 UTC

Kabul - Afghanistan has banned the film The Kite Runner. The government in Kabul is worried that public performances might lead to rioting and violence.

The most controversial scene shows the rape of the young Afghan main character, an act considered highly offensive in Islamic circles. The dramatisation of conflicts between two Afghan communities, the Pashtun and Hazara, were also felt to be threatening.

The film, based on the best-selling novel of the same name by the American-Afghan author Khaled Hosseini, is about friendship and treachery in Afghanistan, from before the Russian invasion in the 1970s up to the emergence of the Taliban.

In recent months there has been much controversy over the film, which premiered in December. The young actors and their families, who were worried about the consequences of the rape scene, were moved as a precaution to the United Arab Emirates.

Afghanistan closes border with Pakistan

Islamabad, Tuesday January 15, 2008, IRNA

Pakistan-Afghanistan-Border

Afghanistan on Tuesday closed its border with Pakistan and banned the entry of goods trucks, local media reported.

The step is considered a reaction to Pakistan's decision to stop export of wheat flour as the country is facing acute shortage of flour, local TV channels reported.

President Pervez Musharraf Monday blamed hoarders and smugglers for the problem and said that wheat flour is being smuggled to Afghanistan, Central Asia and even Russia.

Last week, the authorities deployed paramilitary troops at flour mills across the country to ensure wheat supplies to the people.

The Afghan authorities did not allow loaded trucks with other goods to cross into Afghanistan through Chaman border point, officials said.

Afghanistan mainly depends on wheat from Pakistan and the wheat is supplied through government-to-government and also through WFP.

Opposition parties in Pakistan are staging rallies against shortages and blaming the government of allowing flour exports despite the country's own requirements.

The government has also established a special federal committee to review the wheat flour situation and to ensure that store owners did not sell more than allowed by the government.

[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.]