In this bulletin:

• President Hamid Karzai Left for Switzerland
• US backs Ashdown as Afghan 'super envoy'
• Afghan reporter sentenced to death for 'blasphemy': court
• Afghan journalist sentenced to death because of brother's writings: journalist group
• US attacks UK plan to arm Afghan militias
• Panel recommends long-term extension of Afghan mission - on two conditions
• Liberals keep options open on Afghan mission in wake of Manley report
• Duceppe says Harper must be clear with Canadians about Afghan mission
• Slain soldiers' families support call to stay
• PM asked for advice, but can he afford to follow it?
• Civilian effort in Afghanistan criticized
• Quiet diplomacy could bolster Canadian military in Afghanistan
• Manley says Afghanistan report isn't all bad news
• Demand the help of NATO partners
• A blueprint for Afghanistan
• Searching for CIDA
• 'It's an indescribably poor country'
• The absence of Plan B
• Musharraf plays down Taliban attacks

President Hamid Karzai Left for Switzerland

Date of Release: 22 January 2008 - Presidential Palace, Kabul– His Excellency Hamid Karzai, President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, left for Davos, Switzerland, this morning to attend the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2008.

President Hamid Karzai will address the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2008 on a wide range of issues related to Afghanistan and the world at large.

The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2008 programme will focus largely on the following five conceptual pillars: Business Competing While Collaborating Economics and Finance Addressing Economic Insecurity Geopolitics Aligning Interests across Divides Science and Technology Exploring Nature's New Frontiers Values and Society Understanding Future Shifts, and will highlight the power of collaborative innovation as the principal theme for the Annual Meeting 2008.

During this visit, President Hamid Karzai will meet with His Excellency Pascal Couchepin, President of the Swiss Confederation and Federal Councillor of Home Affairs, His Excellency Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Her Excellency Condoleezza Rice, United States Secretary of State, Viktor A. Yushchenko, President of Ukraine, His Excellency Sali Berisha, Prime Minister of Albania, His Excellency Jan Peter Balkenende, Prime Minister of Netherlands, His Excellency Shaukat Aziz, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, and Her Excellency Ann M. Veneman, Executive Director of UNICEF to discuss issues of mutual interest.

President Hamid Karzai is accompanied on this trip by Dr Rangeen Dadfar Spanta, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr Zalmay Rasoul, National Security Advisor, Dr Anwarulhaq Ahadi, Minister of Finance, and Humayun Hamidzada, Spokesperson to the President.

Office of the Spokesman to the President

Released by the Office of the Spokesman to the President

US backs Ashdown as Afghan 'super envoy'

K abul (AFP) - The United States backs the appointment of British politician Paddy Ashdown as UN envoy to Afghanistan and a leader of international efforts here, a senior US diplomat said.

However the decision to appoint Ashdown remains up to the United Nations and it was for Afghan President Hamid Karzai to accept him, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher said.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had been expected to announce Ashdown's appointment but there have been reports that Karzai opposes the decision and is concerned about the amount of authority the new envoy would have.

The role of the UN Special Representative to Afghanistan is expected to expand into what has been dubbed "super envoy," after calls for stronger coordination among the many countries and international agencies working here.

"We want someone who can really lead the international community," Boucher told reporters.

The person should be a "senior figure that we all look to for guidance and ideas and we all listen to when he says we can do things differently or better to support the Afghan government."

"I think we have all felt that this could be better coordinated, this could be better aligned," he said.

Asked if Ashdown would be acceptable, he said: "We do think he is a good candidate for this position."

Afghan officials have refused to comment until any appointment is announced.

The new envoy is widely expected to be asked to coordinate the roles of the United Nations and NATO, which has thousands of troops here, and possibly the European Union.

There has been criticism that a lack of coordination among the many players in Afghanistan is hampering efforts to bring reconstruction and security to the country so that it can withstand pressure from Islamic extremists.

The extremist Taliban, which was in government between 1996 and 2001, is leading an insurgency that was at its deadliest last year.

Afghan reporter sentenced to death for 'blasphemy': court

MAZAR-I-SHARIF, Afghanistan (AFP) — Media rights groups called on Afghanistan's president to intervene Wednesday after a court sentenced to death a young journalist who distributed articles said to insult Islam.

The primary court in the northern province of Balkh delivered the sentence on Perwiz Kambakhsh, 23, Tuesday after he was arrested nearly three months ago for distributing at his university material downloaded from the Internet.

"Based on the crimes Perwiz Kambakhsh committed, the primary court yesterday sentenced him to the most serious punishment which is the death penalty," Balkh province deputy attorney general Hafizullah Khaliqyar told AFP.

Kambakhsh, a reporter for a city newspaper called Jahan-e Naw ("The New World") and a journalism student at Balkh University, indicated he did not accept the verdict and would appeal, his family said.

Afghan and international media groups called on President Hamid Karzai to step in. "This is unfair, this is illegal," said Rahimullah Samander, president of the Afghan Independent Journalists' Association (AIJA).

The reporter had had no legal representation and the media were unaware of the trial, he told AFP. The matter should also have been referred to a national media violations commission for adjudication, he said.

AIJA had appealed to Karzai, parliament and the national attorney general to intervene and was also rallying support from international rights groups, he said.

"This is too big for a small mistake -- he just printed a copy and looked at this and read it. How can we believe in this 'democracy' if we can't even read, we can't even study?"

Afghanistan's media has blossomed since the 2001 ouster of the extremist Taliban regime which stifled the media and handed out harsh punishments, including death, for violations of a strict code of Islamic behaviour.

The post-Taliban constitution is based on Islamic Sharia law but also promotes democracy and rights, including the freedom of expression.

Another journalist, Ghows Zalmai, was also arrested three months ago on charges of distributing a translation of the Koran that clerics did not accept. Religious scholars have also called for his death.

Global media watchdog Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists demanded Kambakhsh's sentence -- which still has to be approved by higher courts -- be overturned.

"We are deeply shocked by this trial, carried out in haste and without any concern for the law or for free expression, which is protected by the constitution," Reporters Without Borders said in a statement.

"Kambakhsh did not do anything to justify his being detained or being given this sentence. We appeal to President Hamid Karzai to intervene before it is too late."

The court's decision "impedes the achievement of genuine democracy and due process in Afghanistan," International Federation of Journalists Asia-Pacific director Jacqueline Park said.

The AIJA said the articles Kambakhsh downloaded came from sites including an Iranian blog, www.roxaneh.blogfa.com which includes articles questioning the origin of the Koran and its statements about women, among other issues.

Authorities in the town had warned journalists against reporting on the matter, the media rights group said. Khaliqyar, the deputy provincial attorney general, threatened at a media briefing Monday to arrest journalists who "support" Kambakhsh.

The head of the court that passed down the sentence, Shamsurahman Momand, meanwhile defended the decision Wednesday saying the reporter had been found to be "insulting Islam and Prophet Mohammad."

Twenty university students had handed in written statements that confirmed he had distributed material "insulting Islam and Koranic verses," he said.

Afghan journalist sentenced to death because of brother's writings: journalist group

AP - 01/23/2008 - KABUL- An Afghan journalist sentenced to death for distributing an article that allegedly violated Islam is actually being punished for reporting by his brother about abuses by northern warlords, a media group said Thursday.

Sayed Parwez Kaambakhsh, 23, was sentenced to death Tuesday by a three-judge panel in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif for distributing a report he printed off the Internet to fellow journalism students at Balkh University. The judges said the article humiliated Islam, and members of a clerics council had pushed for Kaambakhsh to be punished.

The case now goes to the first of two appeals courts. Jean MacKenzie, country director for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, which helps train Afghan journalists, said Kaambakhsh is being punished for stories written for IWPR by his brother, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi.

«We feel very strongly that this is a complete fabrication on the part of the authorities up in Mazar, designed to put pressure on Parwez' brother Yaqub, who has done some of the hardest-hitting pieces outlining abuses by some very powerful commanders in Balkh and the other northern provinces,» MacKenzie said.
The media industry has exploded in recent years in Afghanistan, which now has dozens of newspapers and TV news channels. But journalists are routinely pressured by government officials or powerful factional leaders trying to prevent reporting on sensitive issues.

MacKenzie said authorities in Balkh province searched Ibrahimi's computer hard drive and took the names and phone numbers of sources he spoke with for stories. «So we feel that what is happening with Parwez is not a very veiled threat against Yaqub Ibrahimi,» MacKenzie said.

Ibrahimi wrote stories for IWPR late last year quoting villagers accusing Afghan lawmaker Piram Qul of being behind murders and kidnappings. Qul _ a former commander in the militant and political group Jamiat-e-Islami and a current parliament member from Takhar province _ denied the allegations.

Qayoum Baabak, editor of the Jahan-e-Naw newspaper in Mazar, where Kaambakhsh works, said the local prosecutor, Hafiz Khaliqyar, warned journalists at a recent news conference that they would be punished if they supported Kaambakhsh.

Reporters Without Borders called on President Hamid Karzai to intervene. The International Federation of Journalists denounced the holding of the trial in a closed session and Kaambakhsh's lack of a lawyer.

The contents of the article circulated by Kaambakhsh were not immediately available.

Muslim clerics in Balkh and Kunduz province arranged a demonstration in Mazar-i-Sharif last week against Kaambakhsh, calling on the government not to release him.

US attacks UK plan to arm Afghan militias

The Independent, 01/23/2008 By Jerome Starkey

Kabul - The US general in charge of training the Afghan police has criticised British-backed plans to arm local militias in an attempt to defeat the Taliban. The remarks by Maj-Gen Robert Cone, the second most senior US soldier in Afghanistan, are likely to deepen the row between London and Washington over how to counter the insurgency.

General Cone, who is in charge of rebuilding the Afghan police force, is the second US commander to condemn the initiative. He said: "Anything that detracts from a professional, well-trained, well-led police force is not the answer."

Last month, Gordon Brown said Britain would increase its support for "community defence initiatives, where local volunteers are recruited to defend homes and families modelled on traditional Afghan arbakai". The arbakai system involves arming untrained Afghani men, who agree to come running at the beating of a drum if their village elders feel threatened.

British diplomats and military strategists in the restive southern province of Helmand hope the idea might bolster Afghanistan's fledgling police force, which is unable to defend itself against attacks by Taliban insurgents. At least 10 officers died yesterday in a Taliban attack on a checkpoint in Kandahar. But US officials fear that arbakai fighters would fall under the command of warlords disloyal to the Afghan government. Their reluctance to endorse the plan follows a disastrous international initiative to build an "auxiliary" police force, which was scrapped last year.

Auxiliary officers were given assault rifles and uniforms after just a few days of rudimentary training, on the understanding that they would be required only to police the area they came from. "The auxiliary police was an attempt to take short-cuts," said General Cone, warning that there were similarities between the doomed auxiliaries and Mr Brown's arbakai plan. "It is very important to understand why the Afghan National Auxiliary Police Force did not work, as we look at any informal programme that doesn't promote professional policing," he added.

Analysts also fear the introduction of arbakai would undo years of effort by the United Nations to disarm illegal militias.

General Cone's remarks follow earlier criticism of the idea by the commander of the 37-nation Nato coalition in Afghanistan. General Dan McNeill said the plan would work only in small parts of the countryside which did not include Helmand, where most of Britain's 7,700 troops are stationed. He said: "My information, from studying Afghan history, is that arbakai works only in Paktia, Khost and the southern portion of Paktika, and it's not likely to work beyond those geographic locations."

General Cone is leading a root-and-branch reform of the Afghan police force, which has been ill-equipped, badly paid, poorly trained and dogged by corruption since 2001. The US government has pledged $7.4bn (£3.7bn) to improve Afghan security forces between now and October. But General Cone admitted there was no "model of what policing should be" in the country. "When Afghan people understand what well-trained, well-paid police do, they will demand it," he added. "But right now they are just not familiar."

He said he backed greater community involvement in the police if it meant "neighbourhood-watch type programmes" rather than arming and paying local people.

Britain has faced increasing criticism from allies in recent months for championing alternative tactics to defeat the Taliban. The Prime Minister promised more "tribal engagement" during a recent visit to Kabul. But last month the Afghan government expelled two UN and EU diplomats for meeting commanders sympathetic to insurgents.

Panel recommends long-term extension of Afghan mission - on two conditions

OTTAWA - The call for a long-term extension of Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan appeared to win no plaudits from federal opposition parties - all of whom favour an end to Canada's current military role next year.

The minority Conservative government has been isolated against all three opposition parties, who say Canada should scale back its fighting efforts when its current commitment expires in 13 months.

None showed any signs of relenting Tuesday after a federal panel proposed an open-ended commitment.

The Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois leaders reiterated their earlier preference for a February 2009 overhaul of the mission that would reduce Canada's combat role in Kandahar province.

This after a panel headed by John Manley - a former Liberal cabinet minister - said Canadian soldiers should remain indefinitely, on two conditions.

The blue-ribbon panel said Canadians should keep fighting in Kandahar as long as they get more foreign troops to help them and better equipment to protect them.

The panel declared Canada's fighting mission to be noble and justifiable, but also said it's doomed to fail unless other NATO countries shoulder a heavier burden.

Manley delivered his 90-page report Tuesday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who said he would need a few days to digest it.

The NDP and Bloc suggested the prime minister got the political fig leaf he wanted when he appointed a group of pro-military panelists - including Manley - three months ago.

Given Manley's prominent status within the Liberal party, leader Stephane Dion was careful to avoid criticizing the report. He promised to examine it but quickly added that his party has "good reasons" for wanting a pullout next February.

The panel chair himself admitted that the mission has not gone well. Even as he endorsed an extension, Manley noted insurgent attacks are on the rise and security is fragile in Afghanistan.

"The mission is in jeopardy," Manley told a news conference. "We are going to need to see more troops in Kandahar province or this mission will not succeed."

The blue-ribbon panel concluded Afghanistan has made economic and social progress in spite of its deteriorating security situation. It urged the Canadian government to play a more robust non-military role in Afghanistan.

The panel noted that only 47 Canadian government civilians are working in Afghanistan - compared with 2,500 soldiers.

Ottawa needs to show greater diplomatic leadership, the report says, and also needs to stop sugarcoating the realities of the Afghan mission and start communicating them more honestly to Canadians.

The panel questioned why Canadian diplomats appear to be muzzled and why aid workers who volunteer to go to Kandahar are then prevented from leaving the base to work on reconstruction projects.

But Manley said the Afghan mission is a worthy cause. He said it can contribute to international security, improve the quality of life in one of the world's most long-suffering countries, and restore Canada's leadership role in global affairs.

That's why the combat mission must be extended beyond its current deadline of February 2009, he said, on two conditions:

-The UN's International Security Assistance Force sends 1,000 more soldiers to Kandahar province, enabling Canadian forces to accelerate training of the Afghan National Army.

-The government secures medium-lift helicopters and high-performance, unmanned aircraft to help soldiers avoid the deadly scourge of roadside bombs.

Manley suggested Ottawa take these two demands to NATO and draw a clear line in the sand.

"(Give) NATO till February 2009 to provide the additional troops we require - or we pull out," Manley said.

"That's the point at which we'd say to NATO: 'We cannot continue this mission of security in Kandahar; we are gone."'

The panel urged political parties to wait to see what happens at a NATO summit in Romania in April before making any decisions in Parliament about how to proceed.

The report was the result of three months' work in which the panel toured four Afghan provinces and spoke with hundreds of experts.

"Over the coming days, our government will thoroughly review the recommendations with cabinet and our caucus before coming forward with our response," Harper said.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said he had not yet read the report and declined to offer detailed comment.

However, he repeated the party's long-held position that Canada's combat mission must end as scheduled in February 2009, although Canada could continue to play a role in construction, training and humanitarian aid.

"We have strong reasons for that," he said at a Liberal caucus meeting in Kitchener, Ont.

"We think it's by far the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan. We have carried this mission during three years and it's time for Canada to do something else in Afghanistan."

Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said Manley had given Harper more than he had asked for and said the prime minister is trying to buy time until he can win a majority government.

"Canadian and Quebec troops have done their part," he said. The NDP was most dismissive of the report and reiterated its call for a 2009 pullout.

"At a time when Canada should be drastically changing course to help the Afghan people build a lasting peace in the region, this report is recommending more of the same," said NDP Leader Jack Layton.

"The combat role is the wrong role for Canada and it's not making life more secure for Afghans."

The blue-ribbon report is sure to reignite debate over one of the thorniest issues facing Parliament and the Conservatives. Polls suggest most Canadians would like to see Canadian troops come home as scheduled next year.

Harper has promised a vote on the mission's future, and Canada's NATO allies need to be informed by May or June at the latest. Manley emphasized that Canada's mission in Afghanistan simply cannot be wound down in a year.

He said it makes no sense to set an end date on the mission at this point when so much work remains to be done.

The report said it's unrealistic to expect that Afghanistan - a country racked by ancient tribal hostilities and decades of warfare - could soon boast European-or North American-style stability.

But it said Afghanistan should not be abandoned until the Afghan National Army is able to defend the country on its own. The force is recruiting steadily and is expected to almost double to 80,000 soldiers by May 2010.

"We found no operational logic around ending the mission in February 2009 or any real ability to complete the job by that date," Manley said.

Days after naming the panel, the Conservative throne speech made it clear the government wanted to maintain the military mission in Afghanistan until at least 2011.

All evidence since then suggests planning has continued behind the scenes based on that scenario. Regiments to cover the next three years have already been identified by staff officers at National Defence.

A source said the call went out within the army in November for reservists to volunteer for rotations in the fall of 2010. Foreign Affairs, meanwhile, is staffing positions at the provincial reconstruction base in Kandahar City well into 2009.

And earlier this month, National Defence posted a call for tenders on major construction projects worth between $500,000 and $10 million in Kandahar - suggesting military planners don't anticipate a major shift of Canadian operations in just 12 months time.

Liberals keep options open on Afghan mission in wake of Manley report

KITCHENER, Ont. - Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is sticking - for now - to his position that Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan should end as scheduled in February 2009.

But foreign affairs critic Bob Rae isn't ruling out the possibility that the party might be able to live with the Manley panel's call for an indefinite extension provided soldiers get more equipment and NATO allies step up with more troops.

"I think we're in for a period of intense discussion and consideration," Rae told The Canadian Press on Tuesday.

Dion, who was attending a party caucus retreat when the panel's report was released, said he won't comment until he's read the report. Instead, he reiterated his long-held position that the combat mission must end next year, with Canadian troops then refocusing their effort on reconstruction, training of Afghan security forces and humanitarian aid.

"We think it's by far the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan. We have carried this mission during three years and it's time for Canada to do something else in Afghanistan, to help the people of Afghanistan," Dion said.

Rae was not quite so categorical. He said there's no need for Liberals to immediately take a hard position on the Manley report until it's clear how the Conservative government and Canada's NATO allies intend to respond to the recommendations.

"Until we know what the reaction is of NATO and all the other partners, quite frankly, it's hard to say if the recommendations are realistic."

For the recommendations to be meaningful, Rae said Prime Minister Stephen Harper must first accept the report and then persuade NATO, at a meeting in Romania in early April, to provide more troops and equipment.

Rae hedged when asked if the Liberals might be able to support an extension of the combat mission should the Manley panel's conditions be met.

"I don't think we can answer an iffy question," he said. "Let's see what the government puts forward and whether it's compatible with our position."

Liberals' response will also depend, he said, on how the Harper government proceeds - whether it allows a thoughtful debate and free vote or tries to politicize the issue with a surprise vote after minimal debate, as it did the last time the mission was extended.

Dion did not respond specifically when asked if Liberals are prepared to defeat the government over Afghanistan, should Harper make extension of the mission a matter of confidence.

He noted that the Manley report recommends that there not be a confidence vote in Parliament until after "some steps have been made in order to improve the design of the mission and so I will look at it."

Rae said Dion was referring to the report's recommendation that Parliament not be asked to vote on the matter until after the NATO summit in early April.

Although Manley rejected the February 2009 deadline, Rae said the report does echo many of the concerns that Liberals have been expressing in recent months, including corruption in the Afghan government, the porous border with Pakistan and the exclusive focus on the combat component of Canada's mission.

Duceppe says Harper must be clear with Canadians about Afghan mission

MONTREAL - Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe says Prime Minister Stephen Harper must be frank with Canadians about the future of the country's military mission in Afghanistan.

Duceppe told a news conference in Montreal today that a federal panel examining the mission has given Harper more than he hoped.

The panel led by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley says Canadian troops should stay in Afghanistan indefinitely but need help from NATO allies and more equipment.

Duceppe says Harper is trying to buy time with the controversial mission until he can win a majority government in a federal election.

But the sovereigntist leader says Harper must be clear about the future role to be played by Canadian troops and how long they will be in the wartorn country.

Duceppe says he favours ending the combat role by February 2009.

Slain soldiers' families support call to stay

CAROLINE ALPHONSO -From Wednesday's Globe and Mail January 23, 2008

TORONTO — Master Corporal Darrell Priede, a military photographer who died in the crash of a Chinook helicopter in May, wanted to be in Afghanistan to capture images of the good that Canadians were doing there. It is for that reason that his mother believes Canadian troops should stay put, even if it means extending the mission beyond 2009.

"I think they need to stay there until they feel they've done to the max what they could do," Roxanne Priede said from her home in the southeastern British Columbia community of Grand Forks. "I think there's a lot of good things happening there, but maybe they need more troops, more support."

Ms. Priede's sentiment was echoed yesterday by the families of several Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan, who welcomed John Manley's recommendation that Canada indefinitely extend its military mission in the war-ravaged country provided that soldiers get additional equipment and NATO commits more troops.

In his 90-page report, Mr. Manley suggested that if NATO does not meet the two demands, Canada should pull out.

Soon after Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Mr. Manley to head a blue-ribbon panel to look at Canada's role in Afghanistan, Ms. Priede sent an e-mail to commend him on his action. Her 30-year-old son died along with six other NATO soldiers on May 30.

"They fought for a cause. They believed in what they did. And I think it would have been somewhat a slap in the face [to call off the mission]," Ms. Priede said. "We can't turn our back on this mission. I don't think we can."

The father of Canada's first female soldier killed in combat said it makes sense to extend the mission as long as NATO bolsters the number of troops working outside the wire in Kandahar province.

Tim Goddard's daughter, Captain Nichola Goddard, was killed in 2006 by a rocket-propelled grenade while she was riding partly exposed in a light armoured vehicle during heavy fighting with Taliban guerrillas. Dr. Goddard said his daughter and other soldiers who have died in Afghanistan believed they were doing meaningful work.

"If that's true and that's the understanding that our soldiers and our development people are out there trying to make a difference, it doesn't stop on a certain day," he said from Calgary. "You have to get the job done."

Lincoln Dinning, whose son Corporal Matthew Dinning died in Afghanistan in 2006 after a G-Wagon carrying him and other soldiers was struck by a roadside explosive, agreed wholeheartedly. "It's work that they started and you'd like to continue it," he said from his home in Wingham, Ont.

PM asked for advice, but can he afford to follow it?

BRIAN LAGHI - From Wednesday's Globe and Mail January 23, 2008

OTTAWA — Stephen Harper has invested heavily in John Manley. Now he'll have to live with what the former Liberal foreign minister has to say.

If the Prime Minister was expecting a carte blanche to remain in Afghanistan under the current configuration, Mr. Manley delivered a surprise yesterday with a report that applies more than a little bit of pressure on Mr. Harper. And because Mr. Manley was the Prime Minister's handpicked choice to lead the panel, Mr. Harper will have little alternative but to listen.

"A careful reading of the report puts the onus on the PM," said Fen Hampson, head of the Norman Patterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University. "The PM now has to catch the ball and run it across the goal line."

Mr. Manley's report raises the stakes for Mr. Harper by saying it must be the PM who leads diplomatic efforts to get NATO to contribute 1,000 troops to Canada's effort in Kandahar.

If that fails, then Mr. Harper should remove Canada from the field. Moreover, Mr. Harper needs to show the way with a more consistent policy approach and the government must purchase more helicopters and drones for the mission.

"To put things bluntly, governments from the start of Canada's Afghan involvement have failed to communicate with Canadians with balance and candour about the reasons for Canadian involvement or about the risks, difficulties and expected results of that involvement," writes the panel.

It's a straight-talking assessment from a group that was expected by some to deliver a whitewash intended to embarrass Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, because of the political affiliation of its author.

If the Prime Minister accepts Mr. Manley's recommendations, the PM will be obliged to begin convincing NATO members at a key meeting in Bucharest in April of the merits in bellying up to the bar. Whether Mr. Harper is willing to remove Canada from Afghanistan - and risk international criticism if he can't get his way - is a game of chicken that has yet to play out.

"We hope this is not a poison pill because we believe the mission is an important one," said Mr. Manley yesterday.

But if there's a risk in the report, there's also an opportunity. Mr. Manley has probably done the Prime Minister a favour by supplying him with some weapons to make his case with NATO. Heads of state across the alliance who aren't heavily invested in Afghanistan will be reading Mr. Manley's report carefully because of what it might mean for their own troops and NATO generally.

"You could argue that the report really arms the Prime Minister," said Janice Gross Stein of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto. "It should be very, very clear to everybody that if there's not that commitment that Canada will not stay."

If Mr. Harper were to vigorously pursue Mr. Manley's recommendations, it could leave NATO members with a difficult choice.

A pullout by Canada would clearly be noticed by countries such as the Netherlands, which is in similar difficulties in the province of Uruzgan, and it might pull out as well. And if a threatened Canadian departure starts the dominoes falling, NATO members just might conclude that it's better to find 1,000 troops to help Canada than to allow for serious questions to be raised about what NATO is good for.

The key is just how hard Mr. Harper is willing to push.

Civilian effort in Afghanistan criticized

Commitment to reconstruction needs beefing up with development officials on ground, report says

January 23, 2008 - Allan Woods, Toronto Star Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–More civilians – not just soldiers – are part of the prescription for a successful Canadian mission in Kandahar, according to the Manley report on the future of the Afghan mission.

Although the report calls for 1,000 additional NATO soldiers to help out Canadian troops, it also urges that the government try to ramp up the number and responsibilities of civilian officials in the region.

To date, their efforts have been insufficient and ineffective, and some of the problem rests with the Canadian International Development Agency, the government aid organization, the report says.

"Canada's civilian programs have not achieved the scale or depth of engagement necessary to make a significant impact," the report says. "It is essential to adjust funding and staffing imbalances between the heavy Canadian military commitment in Afghanistan and the comparatively lighter civilian commitment to reconstruction, development and governance."

The foreign affairs department, CIDA, the RCMP and corrections officials are represented by a scant 47 civilians spread among the Canadian embassy in Kabul; at Kandahar Airfield, where the soldiers are based; and at a smaller outpost in Kandahar city known as the Provincial Reconstruction Team.

This is in contrast to the 2,500 Canadian soldiers deployed in Afghanistan.

CIDA spends about $100 million each year in the country, but controls only 15 per cent of that amount to be spent on projects that are clearly Canadian. The rest is funnelled to organizations such as the World Bank, or to programs run by the Afghan government.

The report recommends that aid spending should go more toward "direct, bilateral" assistance that addresses the immediate needs of local people, particularly in Kandahar province.

The panel suggests "signature" projects that can be traced directly back to Canadian efforts would go a long way toward winning the support of the Afghan people.

Also, CIDA should rethink its overly restrictive policies, fashioned in Ottawa with no regard for the situation on the ground, that essentially tie its officials to safe areas and alienate them from the people they are trying to help, the report says.

"CIDA should delegate decisions about security of movement to civilian and military officials on the ground who are best placed to make such assessments," it says. "It makes little sense to post brave and talented professional staff to Kandahar only to restrict them from making regular contact with the people they are expected to help."

Canadian aid groups criticized the report for calling for an increase in military numbers, saying it will make it even more difficult and dangerous for civilians to operate in Kandahar.

Already, there is too much reliance on the military to carry out aid and development projects, said Gerry Barr, head of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, a coalition of aid groups.

"Canadian (non-governmental organizations) on the ground in Afghanistan have emphasized again and again that this practice turns both aid workers and Afghans into war targets and often has no long-term security or development benefit," Barr said.

Quiet diplomacy could bolster Canadian military in Afghanistan

Canwest News Service , Tuesday, January 22, 2008

The Manley Panel has recommended that those Canadians fighting in Kandahar must be augmented by another NATO battle group of 1,000 combat troops by next year and, if not, that Canada should go home.

A demand for more NATO forces in Kandahar by 2009 is likely to be met, but not from Europe, where Canada has been highly critical of allies such as Germany, Italy and Spain operating in western and northern Afghanistan.

Sources at NATO headquarters in Belgium and in the United States have indicated in recent days that two marine battalions being sent to southern Afghanistan for seven months this spring with specific orders to assist the Canadians are likely to be followed by even more marine battalions in 2009 and 2010. This was possible because the Pentagon has begun to slowly wind down combat operations in Iraq and because the marine leadership has been pressing hard for a bigger role in Afghanistan.

"It is starting to come together," a senior officer at NATO headquarters in Belgium said Tuesday of the assistance that the marines were expected to provide to the Canadians in Kandahar. The officer, who did not wish to be identified because he was not authorized to speak about such a highly sensitive issue, said U.S. help for the Canadians had been in the works for several months.

Britain is also likely to send more combat troops to the south now that it is reducing its presence in Iraq. But it is almost certain that those extra troops will augment the 4,700 British soldiers already fighting the Taliban in Helmand province.

Canada's strategy to get more help for its forces in Kandahar has backfired badly. The more loudly that Canada has complained about the Afghan military arrangements of countries such as Germany, the less likely it has become that these countries would come to Canada's aid.

It has long been an open secret within NATO that Ottawa's howling about the European approach has scared off possible assistance from countries such as Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. These central European nations have preferred the quieter diplomacy of the Dutch and are likely to soon announce that they will join their battle group in the south.

By beginning to negotiate behind closed doors, Canada might yet convince the Norwegians, the Greeks and especially the French to join them in Kandahar.

The Manley panel said that Canada's failings have been mostly on the non-military side. A contributing factor has been that Canada has had difficulty finding diplomats and CIDA representatives willing to do tours in Afghanistan.

The staffing problem has eased somewhat as more diplomats and CIDA officials have come forward. However, as the report noted, Ottawa has placed severe restrictions on their movements and has refused to let them speak publicly about anything connected to their work in Afghanistan. The panel suggested that decisions about whether they should be allowed outside Canada's well-guarded embassy compound in Kabul would be better made by those on the ground and their security advisers.

There has also been tension between the military and Foreign Affairs over the military's strategic advisory team in Kabul. This small group, now led by Col. Serge Labbe, has done an admirable job of advising the Afghan government about how to run government departments. One of the reasons for the advisory team's success and its outsized influence has been that, unlike the Canadian Embassy in Kabul, it has had people out every single day working alongside Afghan public servants. The soldier/administrators assigned to this team, which has had the personal backing of Canada's top general, Rick Hillier, have been the hand-picked cream of the Canadian military. This has not always been the case with those that Foreign Affairs has selected for Afghan duty.

The Manley panel did not say much about why it concluded that Canada should leave Afghanistan in 2009 if it has not been equipped with high quality unmanned airborne vehicles (UAVs). Canadian troops in Kandahar already have access to state-of-the-art imagery provided by unmanned, armed U.S. air force Predators and Reapers, but specific requests for help sometimes take time or are refused because these assets are in high demand by others fighting in southern Afghanistan.

As Canada has small UAVs in Afghanistan, the recommendation means that the panel believed that a significant upgrade in Canadian capability was required. What was unsaid was that the best of these devices have a large price tag attached - but much less than manned spying platforms.

The other firm panel recommendation on the military side concerned the urgent need for transport helicopters. However, acquiring them by 2009, as the panel demanded and which Canadian commanders in Afghanistan have long wanted, is impossible. This would have been possible if Canada had ordered these helicopters early last year, but because of the perceived political need to make sure that Canadian firms, and in particular those in Quebec, get a share of this action, Canada has dithered so long about acquiring the only viable option - Boeing's CH-47 Chinook - that several other countries were now ahead of it in the queue.

Manley says Afghanistan report isn't all bad news

Updated Wed. Jan. 23 2008 9:34 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

John Manley says his new report on Canada's role in Afghanistan points to the progress being made in that country as well as the challenges that still lie ahead.

The panel that Manley headed recommends Canada extend its military mission to Afghanistan indefinitely, with a new emphasis on diplomacy, training and reconstruction -- provided NATO antes up more troops from other countries to relieve combat pressure from Canadian soldiers.

Speaking Wednesday on CTV's Canada AM, the former Liberal cabinet minister said there are many reasons to hope that there will be a successful conclusion to the mission.

"When I was there essentially six years ago today there was no Afghan army, nothing," Manley said.

"There were some warlords with groups of militia, but over the past six years the building of the Afghan army has possibly been the greatest success we've seen along with successful democratic elections."

The 90-page report released Tuesday doesn't put any time limit on ending the Canadian mission.

"The Canadian combat mission should conclude when the Afghan National Army is ready to provide security in Kandahar province," it said.

However, that extension should come with some commitments from Canada's NATO partners, the panel says, including:

• The deployment of a new 1,000-soldier battle group in Kandahar province, allowing Canada to focus on training the Afghan National Army.
• Obtaining new medium-lift helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles by February 2009.

Manley said Afghanistan is a complex mission with many challenges, and it's too simple to say Canada should fully abandon combat duties by a hard-and-fast date.

"We agree we need to do less combat and more training, but there is an important thing to remember, that in the context of Afghanistan much of the training is a combat role. You're going out with the compliments of the Afghan army and doing combat with them."

He said Canada shouldn't simply set an exit date, but should set "task-oriented" goals, meaning should begin withdrawing from combat duties that when the Afghan National Army demonstrates an ability to take over.

He said the panel has offered "the best possible advice" and come up with a set of recommendations he believes the Liberal party should be able to support.

Scott Taylor, editor of Esprit de Corps magazine said there's little in the report that he hasn't heard before and he was disappointed with the recommendations.

"The things we heard about changing the focus to training, that we need to get away from the combat mission -- we've been hearing that for months as well, and the question is why haven't we been doing this up until now? We've been there for six years, NATO has been there for six years."

He said the report spent too much time criticizing NATO for its role and include more specifics about how Canada's focus could change, especially in regards to bringing the Afghan army to the point where it could actually take on the lion's share of the combat work.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed the panel in October to consider at least four possible options for Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. A parliamentary vote on the mission's future is expected some time this spring.

Harper called the report "substantial,'' adding, "the government has every intention of looking at it carefully in detail."

A full-day cabinet meeting has been scheduled for Thursday to discuss the report.

After the release of the report, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said his party still had "strong reasons" to call for withdrawing troops next year and switching Canada's focus to a non-combat role.

"We have carried this mission during three years and it's time for Canada to do something else in Afghanistan," Dion told reporters in Kitchener, Ont.

Demand the help of NATO partners

Editorial From Wednesday's Globe and Mail, January 23, 2008 at 6:27 AM EST

The blue-ribbon panel headed by former Liberal minister John Manley has made an eloquent and impassioned case for extending Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan. Seeing "no operational logic" for pulling out of a combat role in Kandahar in February, 2009, as Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and others have called for, Mr. Manley and his co-panelists correctly assess in a report released yesterday that the job of Canada and other members of the International Security Assistance Force will be done only when Afghanistan's army is ready to provide security. "The hard truth is that an ISAF retreat from Afghanistan, before that country's own forces can defend its security, would most likely condemn the Afghan people to a new and bloody cycle of civil war and misrule - and raise new threats to global peace and security."

This undoubtedly is the conclusion Stephen Harper expected Mr. Manley to reach when he appointed him to chair the panel, and it is the right one. To forsake Kandahar is to forsake Afghanistan, and to forsake Afghanistan is to invite calamity. But far from merely helping make the Prime Minister's case for an extension of the mission, the report also places a burden on Mr. Harper to do a better job of selling the mission both at home and abroad.

Domestically, the panel cites a failure by the federal government - not just under the Conservatives, but under the Liberals before them - to "communicate with balance and candour about the reasons for Canadian involvement, or about the risks, difficulties and expected results of that involvement." To build domestic support, it contends, "this information deficit needs to be redressed immediately."

But if there is one recommendation around which the rest of the report revolves, it is the need for Canada to convince its partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to do more. It argues that the mission should be extended only if about 1,000 additional battle troops are committed to Kandahar by our allies. That will require "coherent and sustained diplomacy by Canada, led by the Prime Minister and specifically including interventions on the subject in his bilateral conversations with foreign leaders."

What Mr. Manley proposes is essentially a game of diplomatic chicken, but it is one Mr. Harper cannot avoid. Considering that Canada currently has roughly 2,500 combat troops in Kandahar, it is a pitiful abdication of responsibility for larger countries such as France and Germany to refuse to assign another 1,000 when that relatively small contingent could vastly improve security and the likelihood of the mission's success. Even the United States, which recently announced a seven-month deployment of 3,200 additional troops to Afghanistan, must be pressed to make a longer and more specific commitment.

Having provided leadership in a region that few others have dared enter, Canada has earned a stronger diplomatic voice. Now, as the panel recommends, it is time for Mr. Harper to make that voice heard.

A blueprint for Afghanistan

National Post editorialPublished: Wednesday, January 23, 2008

The war in Afghanistan represents the military equivalent of what economists call the Tragedy of the Commons. The benefits of a free and peaceable Afghanistan extend to all the world's civilized nations -- and in particular, to those Western nations that would be targeted if al-Qaeda were ever permitted to openly reconstitute itself in that country. But the costs associated with the peacemaking campaign in Afghanistan are not commonly shared: They are borne primarily by that small handful of nations -- Canada, the United States and Britain-- that have taken it upon themselves to engage with the Taliban in the regions where they are strongest: the southern and eastern parts of the country.

As the blue-ribbon panel headed by John Manley properly concluded in the report it issued yesterday, this situation cannot persist. Not only are Canadians getting tired of watching their soldiers die while other NATO nations shelter their own troops in safer parts of Afghanistan, but the total number of troops engaging the Taliban -- including in the Kandahar region, where Canada operates -- is too tiny to hold back the insurgents.

A quick, back-of-the-envelope calculation helps illustrate the larger inequity at play. At 33 million people, Canada's population represents less than 4% of NATO's 880 million total. Yet our forces constitute about 8% of the total combat troops actively engaged with the Taliban. Like the United States (34% of NATO population, 73% of engaged troops) and Britain (7% of NATO population, 19% of engaged troops), we are doing more than our fair share.

An even greater discrepancy applies in regard to fatalities. Canada has suffered 77 in Afghanistan, 10% of NATO's total. This is an extraordinarily tiny number of dead by historical wartime standards. Still, compare the 77 figure to, say, Germany, which has a population two-and-a-half times ours, but has suffered only 25 dead. This is mostly because Germany's substantial force of 3,500 soldiers is operating mainly in the largely peaceful, northern part of Afghanistan.

Simply put, NATO needs to send more soldiers. Afghanistan is a large country that has been at war with itself, in one form or another, since the 1970s. It is home to a multitude of warlords hardened by decades of continuous combat, funded by billions in heroin profits and supported, in many cases, by

Arab, Pakistani and central Asian jihadis. The idea that this snake-pit of a nation could be pacified by 41,000 NATO personnel -- a smaller number than NATO sent to tiny Bosnia in the 1990s -- is preposterous. Unless NATO deploys more soldiers, the security situation in the country will remain as precarious as Mr. Manley's panel reports it to be. If anything, in fact, the panel's request that NATO countries send 1,000 more soldiers to the Kandahar region low-balls the five-figure troop surge that will be needed to pacify the nation overall until an Afghan army can stand up to the insurgents on its own.

Where we differ with Mr. Manley's panel is in its recommendation that Canada threaten to "pull out" of Kandahar unless NATO antes up by February, 2009. Even if our allies disappoint us, we must not give up on our mission--not to mention the Afghan people -- to spite the spineless. From the First World War onward, Canada has led by example on the world stage by making sacrifices in the defining struggles of our age -- against the Kaiser's Prussian militarism, against Hitler, against communism and now against the scourge of Islamofascism. We should not deviate from our perfectly legitimate Afghan combat mission just because European backbones tend to bend a little more than do ours.

Nor should we defer to those Canadians who want to cut and run from combat in Afghanistan, such as Stephane Dion. The Liberal leader has made a great show of courting the pacifist vote at home and abroad in recent days. According to Mr. Dion, "After three years of a combat mission, it's normal that Canada would say, 'We want to do something else.' " Such thinking is rightly characterized in the Manley report as "irresponsible," and represents a disturbingly vapid approach to a conflict whose result could well determine not only the future of Central Asia, but also that of NATO itself. Canada did not give up on the First World War in 1917, nor on the Second World War in 1942. Indeed, Mr. Dion's willingness to abandon Kandahar for no other apparent reason than that Canadians are impatient and distressed about the war is a strong argument for shunning his party the next time we go to the polls.

Putting aside our concerns about any proposed ultimatum to NATO, we believe Mr. Manley's report represents a valuable blueprint. In particular, we agree with the panel that Canada should take a more active role in reconstruction and diplomacy, as long as our troops can first accomplish their primary mission -- providing security. We also agree that there is a critical need for more helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance, resupply and troop transport. Almost all of Canada's casualties in Afghanistan have come from roadside bombs. If we didn't have to run troops and materiel out to forward operating bases in land convoys, our soldiers would no longer be sitting ducks for Taliban ambush crews.

With their report, Mr. Manley and his team have rendered a valuable service to Canada. We urge Prime Minister Stephen Harper to use it as launching pad for a reinvigorated mission in Afghanistan.

Searching for CIDA

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail - January 23, 2008

The question mark still hangs over the Canadian International Development Agency. Talk to CIDA, and you will hear all manner of good things about the work it is contributing to in Afghanistan -- more wells, better roads, greater literacy, reduced child mortality. But those who seek a clearer idea of what it can actually put its name to from the $1.2-billion Canada has pledged in Afghan aid between 2002 and 2011 are left exasperated.

Last summer, the international Senlis Council asked whether millions of dollars in aid was spent as CIDA intended. Yesterday, Senate defence committee chair Colin Kenny told CBC Radio that trying to get straight answers from CIDA is like grasping at air, and that when committee members went to Kandahar to see projects for which Canada could claim credit, and to ask village elders whether such projects were of value to them, the word from Ottawa was invariably that it was too dangerous to go into the field.

Yesterday's report from the panel led by former foreign minister John Manley makes the same point. CIDA staffers themselves have trouble visiting sites in Kandahar because CIDA's headquarters in Canada won't let them for security reasons. The panel urges CIDA to let the officials in Kandahar assess the risks. "It makes little sense to post brave and talented professional staff to Kandahar only to restrict them from making regular contact with the people they are expected to help."

As for the achievements of which CIDA boasts, it has to trust others for most of those. It spends less than 15 per cent of its money directly, for "locally managed quick-action projects" that immediately improve everyday life for Afghans or for projects readily identifiable as supported by Canada. The rest goes to multilateral agencies such as the Red Cross or to programs run by the Afghan government. The reality is that CIDA must take much of what those groups do on faith -- the wisdom and efficiency of the spending, or the amount that actually reaches intended recipients. If CIDA cannot get more heavily involved, or better investigate the projects it is funding, it might as well just pop a cheque into the mail. The Manley panel urges CIDA to direct more of its energy to projects of direct benefit to the Afghan people, such as a hospital or major irrigation project "identified with Canada and led by Canadians."

Beyond that, as the panel says, the government should "conduct a full-scale review of the performance of the Canadian civilian aid program." Some things are too important to be taken on faith.

'It's an indescribably poor country'

BRIAN LAGHI - From Wednesday's Globe and Mail January 22, 2008

OTTAWA — If John Manley needed a reminder about the daunting task facing Canada in Afghanistan, it came with the dull thud of artillery rockets that sent him and his panel heading for cover at the Kandahar airfield.

The two blasts, while not terribly close by, were still near enough that Canadian military personnel had to hustle the panel members into a protective shelter. From there, the members waited it out, emerging about 30 minutes later to continue their tour.

“We don't think it was directed at us and these things happen on a common basis,” Mr. Manley said in an interview of his experience in the war-torn country. “But it was, you know, close enough that you heard the impact of this rocket. We spent a little bit of time in the bomb shelter.”

What Mr. Manley experienced on the ground in Afghanistan greatly informed the report that his panel released Tuesday, which calls for Canada to stay in the country provided the military gets help in the form of new equipment and NATO soldiers. Despite the violence, bombs and many other difficulties that the Afghan people are facing, a tour of the strife-torn country persuaded Mr. Manley that it is worthwhile to continue the rebuilding process.

“Afghanistan is a complicated story. There are clear signs of progress. Of better things happening in people's lives,” Mr. Manley said. “But it's an indescribably poor country.”

Mr. Manley's report draws on a number of sources for its conclusions, including non-governmental organizations, academics and officials in Ottawa, New York, Brussels and Washington. In Afghanistan, panel members also met with government officials, police chiefs, religious leaders and many members of rank-and-file society.

What Mr. Manley found was a paradox – a country, he says, that is still overwhelmingly needy. But also a nation where things are slowly getting better. Child mortality rates, he says, are down, health care is more accessible and more electricity is being provided to residents.

“It's very hard to get a fix on this, because when you look at it from one point of view, you say, things are actually getting better,” he said. “On the other hand, things are desperately bad.”

Since he visited Kabul for the first time in 2002, Mr. Manley reported that the city has grown from about 400,000-500,000 to five million today, many of them returnees. From an interview with a local vendor, Mr. Manley learned that many Afghans make their own bricks so they can build shelter in the overstressed city.

“A typical house will have two rooms, no indoor sanitation and the city of Kabul largely does not have any kind of municipal sewage system. So you've got in the developed parts, channels in the streets so the sewage runs untreated into the river.”

An educator told the panel that although education is improving, his school is so full that children must attend in four shifts, receiving instruction for two hours per day.

As for the Taliban, Mr. Manley is convinced that after speaking with a number of Afghans, the vast majority desperately don't want its members to return to power. But if corruption becomes endemic, they will look to someone to help them out and it could be the Taliban.

Another problem for the country is a lack of qualified people to run it, he said.

“A large majority of the educated people had fled, some to Pakistan, some to Iran but many to Europe and America, especially the people that you might be looking to today to provide governance and other help.”

But Canada and other nations cannot feel weighed down by the problems.

“We're going to have to accept that Afghanistan is never going to be Switzerland,” he said.

The absence of Plan B

Adam Radwanski, 01.22.08 Globe and Mail

The last time Stephane Dion visited our editorial board, a few months ago, the topic of Afghanistan got us talking in circles.

We had to communicate to our NATO allies, the Liberal leader said, that it was up to them to assume combat responsibilities in Kandahar from February 2009 forward. But what if our allies continued to pass the buck, as they had to date? Then we would tell them we were pulling out. So we would leave Afghanis in the most vulnerable region of their country to fend for themselves? Hopefully that wouldn't happen, because other NATO countries would take over. But what if they didn't? Well, they pretty much had to.

In other words, there was no Plan B. And for the considerable work put into the Manley panel's report on what to do with this mission - and some very lucid recommendations therein, particularly on CIDA, military equipment and domestic communication - the same problem persists.

Unlike Dion, John Manley et al want Canada in Kandahar past 2009; they want us there indefinitely, in fact. But just like Dion's withdrawal, their extension is contingent on our allies stepping up. "The hard truth is that an ISAF retreat from Afghanistan, before that country's own forces can defend its security, would most likely condemn the Afghan people to a new and bloody cycle of civil war and misrule - and raise new threats to global peace and security," they write. But Canada's commitment should be "expressly contingent on the deployment of additional troops by one or more ISAF countries to Kandahar province." And if that doesn't happen, "the Government should give appropriate notice to the Afghan and allied governments of its intention to transfer responsibility for security in Kandahar."

Who exactly that responsibility would be transferred to, other than an ill-suited Afghan army, is unclear. And therein lies the problem. Whether we're talking about pulling out or seeing the mission through, all the solutions put forward thus far are based on the good-faith assumption that, having shirked their responsibilities to date, our partners will suddenly bow to a bit of pressure from Stephen Harper and send in the troops.

The best hope is that, having rediscovered Afghanistan after losing interest for a few years, the U.S. will take on that burden virtually alone. But failing that, there's very little evidence to suggest leaders of other NATO countries will suddenly decide to take a political risk they've shied away from to date.

Maybe there is no conceivable Plan B, other than letting Kandahar blow up. But there's no point pretending, against the evidence to date, that it might not come to that.    

Musharraf plays down Taliban attacks

PARIS, France (AP) -- President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan played down the impact of recent attacks in a region that borders Afghanistan, saying Tuesday they were "pinpricks" that his government must manage.

Musharraf, in Paris as part of an eight-day trip through Europe aimed to rebuild Western support for his embattled government, rejected claims that the violence was a sign of a resurgent Taliban in the South Waziristan region.

His comments came as Islamic militants attacked a fort in the troubled region Tuesday, sparking fighting with government forces that left five troops and 37 fighters dead, the army said.

"There is no Taliban offensive being launched," he said at a conference at the French Institute of International Relations think tank, referring to the extremist Islamic militia that once ran Afghanistan.

"These are pinpricks that they keep doing -- and we have to manage all of that."

Tuesday's attack, the second this month, occurred in the lawless tribal region where al Qaeda and Taliban-linked militants operate.

The militants targeted the Lahda Fort, which houses paramilitary troops, and a nearby observation post in a pre-dawn raid in South Waziristan, the military said in a statement.

Musharraf, a top U.S. ally in its war on terrorism, was in Paris to meet with French president Nicolas Sarkozy on the second leg of his tour.

He has come under increasing pressure following the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto last month and for his brief declaration of emergency rule last year.

A day earlier he met with the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, in Brussels. He told reporters he wants more EU involvement in Pakistan.

The Pakistani leader now heads from France to Switzerland for the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, which starts Wednesday and wraps up Friday. He plans to end his European trip in the United Kingdom.

Pakistanis head to the polls on February 18 to choose a new parliament in a vote that is widely expected to deliver a blow to Musharraf's ruling Pakistan Muslim League party.

A month before its mandate expired, the previous parliament in October approved Musharraf's third five-year presidential term, despite legal challenges from his political opponents. Pakistan is currently being led by a caretaker government.

Musharraf has been accused by Western critics and his political opponents of rolling back democracy in Pakistan in an effort to maintain power.

He placed the country under a six-week state of emergency late last year, during which he ousted most of the Supreme Court justices who had been expected to nullify his election victory on constitutional grounds.

On Monday, Musharraf fielded tough questions from European parliamentarians during a question-and-answer session with the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee.

He assured the European lawmakers that next month's elections will take place on time, and will be "free, fair, transparent, and I've added a new word: peaceful."

Several of his assertions drew raised eyebrows from lawmakers, including Musharraf's statement that the Pakistani media is the "most independent media maybe of the world."

In rejecting conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of former prime minister Bhutto on December 27, Musharraf stated that Pakistan has "never, repeat, never had incidents of assassinations of opponents."

A recent poll conducted by Gallup Pakistan showed almost half of Pakistanis believe Musharraf's government had something to do with Bhutto's killing.

[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.]