View PDF - AFGHANISTAN NEWS BULLETIN

Document Sample
View PDF - AFGHANISTAN NEWS BULLETIN Powered By Docstoc
					Security: unclassified – level 3




                     AFGHANISTAN NEWS BULLETIN



                Afghanistan News 10/22/2010 – Bulletin # 2652
               Compiled by the Embassy of Afghanistan in Canada
                          www.afghanemb-canada.net
                    email:contact@afghanemb-canada.net



In This Bulletin:

         In The Shadow of the Taliban, Afghanistan's Mining Sector Is Open for
         Business
         US to up Pakistani military aid by $2B
         Afghan insurgents say "no hope" for peace talks
         Afghan peace council wants Saudi Arabia's help
         Afghan rebels on back foot like "never before": NATO
         Rogue security companies threaten US gains in Afghanistan war
         WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents
         Afghanistan Today




[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.]
In The Shadow of the Taliban, Afghanistan's Mining Sector Is Open for
Business

Forbes, Megha Bahree, Oct. 21 2010-Afghanistan is well known for its mineral
wealth. Copper, iron ore, coal and natural gas are all there in abundance. But only
for the intrepid investor who is willing to risk the Taliban and the shaky government
and make the heavy investments required. State owned Metallurgical Corporation of
China is currently developing the Aynak copper project, one of the biggest untapped
copper deposits in the world. At the time that MCC won the contract, there were
mutterings of corruption behind that decision. Now Afghanistan's minister of mines,
Wahidullah Shahrani, is inviting companies to bid on the Hajigak iron deposit which
is spread across Bamiyan, Parwan and Wardak provinces. With the reserves
estimated to be worth $350 billion, it would be a rich catch. Minister Shahrani, on a
recent trip to New York, gives an update. Edited excerpts:

Forbes: The Aynak project had allegations of corruption. How is Hajigak going to be
different?

Shahrani: There was a lengthy bidding process for Aynak for which the government
received support from the World Bank. We recognize there have been reported
allegations. But the process was very transparent and MCC was the clear winner.
Companies' bids are public for everyone to see. The process for awarding the Hajigak
deposit will be transparent and open.

Forbes: How safe is it to invest in Afghanistan?

Shahrani: Regarding the security of contract, the minerals law in Afghanistan
provides a clear legal basis for a mineral right. It allows the repatriation of capital
and there are no foreign exchange restrictions. Afghanistan also has a new law on
private investment which encourages and protects private investment.

Forbes: And what about the physical security?

Shahrani: The international coalition has been instrumental in building Afghanistan's
security institutions as well as fighting the extreme elements of the Taliban.
Additionally, efforts to reach a political solution are likely and will help us achieve
long term security. But not all of Afghanistan is unsafe. The area around the Hajigak
deposit is very safe. The government is also setting up a Mines Protection Unit which
would provide security to companies coming in for exploration and mining.

Forbes: What is going on with negotiations with the Taliban?

Shahrani: The Karzai government called for a grand assembly in June and discussed
with all the elements. They will be integrated back into society. A 70-member high
level commission has been appointed. The Taliban continues because of fear of their
livelihood. We can train them and give them jobs. There will be a small hard core
extremist group and it might be difficult to reintegrate them.

Forbes: Has there been any progress on developing infrastructure so that these
deposits can be moved?

Shahrani: MCC will build a huge rail corridor and once that is up we can transport the
iron ore. These will be national and regional resource corridors and will integrate all
the major infrastructure projects with the ADB, EU, World Bank, the Japanese and
will link them with the major mineral deposits. And then we will tender each project
one by one. This will give confidence to investors as well.

Forbes: Which projects are you planning to tender first?

Shahrani: We will tender a gold deposit early next year and that's because of the
high price for gold right now.The oil market is doing well so we will tender in
November a small oil field called Kashkasi and another in the Mazar-e-Sharif oil block
in early 2011. We will tender next year the exploration for the Balkhab copper mine
to determine its reserves. This is not too far from Mazar-e-Sharif and can be
accessed by rail.

Forbes: What is the status of the rail corridor?

Shahrani: We are working with bilateral and multi-lateral partners to develop the rail
network. One rail corridor will run from Afghanistan to Pakistan and via Mazar-i-
Sharif to Turkmenistan; another route will link Kandahar to Chaman in Pakistan,
along the border with Afghanistan.

Forbes: Is there any part of this that's up and running?

Shahrani: Right now we have up the railway line from Uzbekistan to Mazar-i-Sharif,
which is a big commercial center. This 75 km long railway line cost $175 million and
was funded by the ADB. Next phase will be from Afghanistan to the Turkmenistan
border. This is 257kms and will take three years and we expect the tenders out by
early next year. Apart from this, MCC is also constructing a 921km long railway line
that will link Kabul with Turkmenistan, Pakistan, central highland to Mazar-i-sharif.

US to up Pakistani military aid by $2B

The Associated Press, 10/22/2010-The Obama administration is laying out a new
multiyear, multibillion-dollar military aid package for Pakistan as it presses the
Islamabad government to step up the fight against extremists there and in
neighboring Afghanistan, U.S. officials say.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah
Mahmood Qureshi were to unveil the plan Friday at the end of the latest round of
high-level U.S.-Pakistani strategic talks here, the officials said.

The money will be provided over the next five years under the State Department's
Foreign Military Financing program that funds other countries' purchases of U.S.-
made arms, ammunition and accessories, the officials said. Precise details of what
Pakistan will receive under the program were still being determined, they said.

The officials would speak only on condition of anonymity ahead of the
announcement, which the administration hoped would reassure Pakistan of the long-
term U.S. commitment to Pakistan's military needs and help it bolster its efforts to
go after Taliban and al-Qaida affiliates on its territory.

The new aid package will not benefit Pakistani military units suspected of human
rights abuses. The Obama administration already has cut off aid to some Pakistani
units over concerns they may have been involved in abuses that include extrajudicial
killings and torture, a senior U.S. official said late Thursday.
The official said aid to a handful of Pakistani units believed to have committed,
encouraged or tolerated abuses were suspended under 1997 legislation championed
by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. The so-called Leahy Amendment bars U.S. military
assistance from going to foreign armed forces suspected of committing atrocities.

"In accordance with the Leahy Amendment, we have withheld assistance from a
small number of units linked to gross human rights violations," the official said. "At
the same time, we have encouraged Pakistan to improve its human rights training,
and it is taking steps in that direction."

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak
publicly on the matter.

It was not immediately clear when the decision to withhold the assistance was first
taken or exactly how many Pakistani military units were affected.

Halting assistance to certain units will not affect broader U.S. support for Pakistan's
military, which is considered key to counterterrorism efforts in the region.

The new military aid replaces a similar but less valuable package that began in 2005
and expired on Oct. 1 that the Pakistanis have been keen to renew. It also
complements $7.5 billion in civilian assistance the administration has already
committed to Pakistan over five years, some of which has been diverted to help the
country deal with devastating floods.

Although the exact terms of the deal are still being negotiated, the goal is to ramp
up U.S. military aid to Pakistan incrementally over the five-year period, from $300
million next year, to $350 million in 2012 until the $2 billion is met, officials said.
The previous agreement was for about $500 million less, they said.

State Department officials have declined to discuss the specifics of the new program
although they have acknowledged it is being negotiated. On Tuesday, Frank
Ruggiero, the U.S. deputy special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told
reporters there was a fresh "need for a multiyear planning process for Pakistani
security assistance."

This week's talks in Washington — the third round of the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic
Dialogue — come as the countries try to ease tensions over American military
incursions across the border from Afghanistan and allegations that Islamabad is not
doing enough to target Taliban militants.

The U.S. has signaled that its patience is running out with Islamabad's reluctance to
fight insurgents, a stance that has not changed despite billions of dollars in American
aid.

During the last round in Islamabad in July, Clinton announced more than $500
million in aid for a variety of projects, including renovating hospitals, improving
water distribution and upgrading hydroelectric dams. The U.S. had to re-examine its
plans after the meeting, however, after Pakistan was hit by the worst floods in the
country's history.

Afghan insurgents say "no hope" for peace talks
Reuters, 10/22/2010- Mid-level Taliban insurgency commanders do not believe their
leaders have begun tentative peace talks with the Afghan government, with many
vowing on Friday not to give up the fight after nearly 10 years of war.

NATO and Afghan officials have confirmed preliminary contacts between President
Hamid Karzai's government and the Taliban, although doubt surrounds when those
contacts were made, who they were made with and what, if any, progress was
made.

Karzai is pushing a negotiated settlement to the conflict and has launched a High
Peace Council which has said it is prepared to offer concessions to bring insurgents
to the table, although Kabul and Washington are adamant they must renounce
violence.

However, insurgency commanders from across Afghanistan indicated they were not
involved in the initial contacts.

"No one has come so far and sat with the government and there is no hope that the
Taliban will come and negotiate with the government," said Abdullah Nasrat, the
Taliban commander for Girishk district in southern Helmand province, one of the
Taliban's traditional strongholds.

Girishk is in the strategically important Helmand River valley, along which mainly
U.S. and British forces launched a series of offensives last year.

"We basically hear the reports of talks through the press and do not believe in
them," Nasrat told Reuters by telephone. "As long as foreign forces are in
Afghanistan, there will be no talks. Our morale is high."

Violence across Afghanistan is at its worst since the Taliban were ousted by U.S.-
backed Afghan forces in late 2001. Record civilian and military casualties -- and the
possibility of peace talks -- will weigh heavily on U.S. President Barack Obama when
he conducts a strategy review of the Afghan war in December.

It will also be a central part of discussions at a NATO summit in Lisbon next month.

The New York Times newspaper on Wednesday quoted an unidentified Afghan source
as saying Taliban leaders from the "Quetta shura" -- the leadership of the Afghan
Taliban who are based in Pakistan -- and one member of the al Qaeda-linked
Haqqani network had taken part in "extensive" talks.

Salahuddin Ayoubi, a senior commander for the Haqqani network's Sirajuddin
Haqqani, accused U.S. General David Petraeus, the commander of the almost
150,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, of trying to drive a wedge through the
insurgency.

"These (reports) are part of a drama of General Petraeus, who from one side has
stepped up the military operations and from other side wants to confuse the minds of
the mujahideen by talking about talks," Ayoubi told Reuters.

"There has been no let up in our activities and we have not been told by our leaders
to reduce or halt our operations for any reason," he said. Ayoubi also said reports
earlier this year that Sirajuddin Haqqani's brother had taken part in talks were
untrue.

The Haqqani network has been very active in the east and southeast over the past
year and have been blamed for brazen suicide attacks on government targets and
foreign troops.

"NO AUTHORITY"
Similar sentiments were expressed across the country.

"Karzai has no authority for making peace and cannot do anything without the order
of the foreigners. I do not believe in the reports of the talks," said Feda Mohammad,
a Taliban commander in northwest Badghis province.

Commanders for Hezb-i-Islami, run by veteran fighter Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and the
Haqqani network in southeastern Khost and Paktia provinces near the Pakistan
border also said they would continue fighting.

In Kunduz province, which the Taliban have been using as a staging point for
increasing attacks in the north and northeast, deputy governor Hamidullah Danesh
said he doubted the reports of talks would have much impact on the Taliban
insurgency.

However some criminal gangs, including about 60 members of one group, had
surrendered in recent weeks, encouraged by government reconciliation efforts and in
fear of increased military operations by NATO-led forces.

The High Peace Council said on Thursday it would be willing to make concessions to
bring insurgents to the negotiating table, including jobs, homes and cash.

It also called for Saudi Arabia's help in future talks, although there has been no
response yet from Riyadh.

Saudi Arabia sponsored secret, but inconclusive, talks last year and has acted as an
interlocutor in the past.

Kabul and Washington have long urged that insurgents must first renounce violence
and links to al Qaeda and accept the Afghan constitution as a precondition for talks.
The Taliban reiterates its main plank, that all foreign troops must leave Afghanistan
before talks could be possible.

Afghan peace council wants Saudi Arabia's help

The Associated Press, 10/21/2010-The Afghan government's newly formed peace
council wants Saudi Arabia to play a key role in efforts to reconcile with the Taliban
and find a political resolution to the war.

Qiyamuddin Kashaaf, spokesman for the 70-member High Peace Council, said
Thursday that Saudi Arabia would be a good place to hold any formal peace talks
that develop from exploratory discussions the Afghan government is having with
some high-ranking members of the Taliban. He says that if peace negotiations in
Afghanistan are not successful, Saudi King Abdullah should intervene and take a
leadership role in fostering talks.
Saudi Arabia once had close ties to the Taliban government that emerged victorious
from Afghanistan's civil war in the early 1990s.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's
earlier story is below.

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — A military offensive in southern Afghanistan is chasing
the Taliban out of their stronghold in Kandahar province, the Afghan president's half
brother said.

"Most of them I believe left before the military operation started," Ahmed Wali Karzai
told The Associated Press late Wednesday. "They are running ... I don't know
(where)."

NATO and Afghan forces began an operation to wrest control of Kandahar province in
July, an attempt to regain the initiative in the nine-year war by taking the battle to
the heartland of the insurgency along the Pakistani border.

"Things are changing very well. There's a lot of progress in security ... Some
(Taliban) were arrested. Some were killed," said Karzai. "There's no single Taliban
base in Kandahar province right now."

That claim could not be immediately verified.

Karzai heads a provincial council in Kandahar and says government officials are
moving in to set up institutions in areas cleared of Taliban by security forces.
Improving residents' quality of life is crucial to winning long-term popular support
and maintaining control of territory.

In Kandahar city, one resident said people were less afraid now to turn in
information about insurgents.

"The Taliban are weak now and people are not so afraid of them, so now people can
help the government," said Salam Bacha Barakzai, a 41-year-old teacher. "You can
see that Taliban are being arrested everywhere. That's because the people are
helping."

The operation began by setting up checkpoints in the city of Kandahar. Then extra
NATO and Afghan forces, including specialized paramilitary police, flooded into the
city and eventually began moving into neighboring Arghandab district to the north.
The fertile valley is a breadbasket for the area. Afghan and NATO forces are now
moving into the volatile districts of Zhari and Panjwai, trying to consolidate their
gains.

It's been unclear over the past few months how effective the southern offensive has
been. Residents have reported pockets of stability, but insurgents continue to target
government officials and in Arghandab the government had difficulty setting up a
civilian administration despite NATO backing.

A similar operation to the Kandahar offensive began in February in the southern,
poppy-producing hub of Marjah but it has so far failed to pacify the area, in part
because the military push was not backed by an effective civilian expansion.
The Afghan government is widely considered to be weak and corrupt and many
people in the provinces only experience it through the country's predatory police
force, notorious for drug use and bribe-taking.

As the southern offensive progressed, insurgents have increased attacks against
coalition forces in the north, which was previously considered relatively stable and
free from Taliban influence. Some fear they will simply bide their time and return to
the south if NATO forces begin withdrawing.

The ability of NATO and Afghan forces to take and hold the southern provinces —
and the Afghan government's ability to win them over — is a key test of U.S.
President Barack Obama's decision last year to send 30,000 extra troops to
Afghanistan.

The "surge" is supposed to seize the initiative from a steadily growing insurgent
alliance, forcing factions of the Taliban to consider peace talks and a political
settlement.

In an unrelated incident, NATO said a force member was killed following an insurgent
attack in eastern Afghanistan Thursday, bringing to 48 the number of NATO troops
killed so far this month. No further details were provided about the incident.

Also in eastern Afghanistan, NATO said 17 senior insurgent fighters were captured or
killed between Oct. 12 and Oct. 18.

In western Paktika province, NATO confirmed Thursday that a man killed in an
overnight operation Tuesday was a leader of the Haqqani network, a Pakistan-based
Taliban faction closely tied to al-Qaida. The deputy governor of the province, Juma
Mohammedi, said the man led a force of around 20 men.


Afghan rebels on back foot like "never before": NATO

BERLIN (Reuters) - Rebel forces in Afghanistan have been forced onto the back foot
and are now under more pressure than they have ever been, NATO Secretary-
General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Friday.
After meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, Rasmussen said
NATO was looking forward to handing principle responsibility for security in
Afghanistan to local forces from next year, and that the timing for this looked good.
"The insurgency is under pressure, under pressure like never before in Afghanistan.
Our aim for this year was to regain the momentum," Rasmussen told a news
conference. "Now we have it."
Rasmussen and Merkel said a meeting on November 19-20 in Lisbon -- where NATO
will unveil a new strategic plan for the military alliance -- had been at the forefront of
their talks.
A revamped NATO would remain the "bedrock of transatlantic security," the
secretary general said, adding "I believe that that will include missile defense for
Europe."
He said he hoped NATO heads of government would in Lisbon agree to build a
system to protect Europe against missile attack, adding that he hoped this would "go
together with a clear offer to Russia to cooperate and to benefit."
Rasmussen, a former Danish prime minister, said he wanted NATO to step up
cooperation with Russia on missile defense and Afghanistan. Russia is due to attend
the Lisbon summit.
"These relations (with Russia) have already improved substantially from where they
were a year ago," he said. "I think we can lay the foundation for a long-term
strategic partnership between NATO and Russia."
Rasmussen reiterated his desire to see NATO become a forum for consultation on
international security matters.
"Who would suffer if our partners in Europe, central Asia, north Africa and the Middle
East were to deepen their cooperation with NATO?," he said at a separate event in
Berlin.
"Who stands to lose if countries such as China, India and Pakistan were to engage in
a closer dialogue with NATO?"

Rogue security companies threaten US gains in Afghanistan war

The Christian Science Monitor, 10/21/2010-Since its Revolutionary days, the
American military has been no stranger to the use of paid help – from carpenters to
ditch diggers – to wage war. By 1965 in Vietnam, the practice of relying on private
defense companies became widespread enough within the Pentagon that Business
Week dubbed it a "war by contract."

In Afghanistan, the use of private contractors has reached record levels. A 2010
Congressional Research Service report found that they now make up 60 percent of
the Defense Department's workforce. With fewer US soldiers than contractors
throughout the war-torn country, the Pentagon is more dependent on private
defense contractors than ever in its history.

Contractors bring in fuel and food for American soldiers in Afghanistan along what
many consider to be one of the most complex and treacherous supply chains in the
history of modern warfare. They keep installations running, guard key NATO bases,
and train Afghan police.

Yet there is a growing chorus of warnings from both within the US military and on
Capitol Hill that the Pentagon's dependence on contractors is undermining its own
war efforts. A Senate Armed Services Committee investigation this month further
concluded that the widespread use of contractors puts at risk the US exit strategy of
training Afghan security forces – Afghan soldiers and police routinely leave the
service to take more lucrative jobs with private defense companies.

The Senate investigation also turned up mounting evidence to suggest that largely
unmonitored Pentagon contracts with private security companies – half of which are
Afghan-owned – may also be lining the pockets of Taliban insurgents who agree not
to attack convoys in exchange for cash.

"If you want to know the driving force of corruption in Afghanistan, it's not Afghan
culture," warns Anthony Cordesman, a security specialist at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies in Washington. "It's American contracting."

The Pentagon is beginning to grapple with the complexity of fixing what many now
recognize as a deeply broken system. Though reforms are difficult to implement and
come with their own risks, a failure to act now, say some US officials, may risk the
entire US mission in Afghanistan.

Some contracting problems have long been apparent to US officials. One of them is
that some Defense Department contract money goes to warlords who run classic
pay-for-protection rackets with their own private militias. What is also clear is that
the attrition rate for legitimate Afghan security forces remains as high as 130
percent in some units.

"We get them trained up and certified, and the contractors hire them for more
money," says T.X. Hammes, a retired Marine Corps colonel who served in Iraq and is
now a fellow with the Center for Strategic Research at the National Defense
University.

The delay in addressing a lack of oversight surrounding contractors who may also
have ties to the Taliban has had consequences, Mr. Cordesman argues. The recent
Senate Armed Services Committee report, for example, reflects concerns "that are
seven or eight years old." Efforts to address them have been "extraordinarily slow"
to take hold, he adds. "Time and again you have created risk to American soldiers.
You have almost certainly caused Americans to be killed or wounded – and you have
essentially strengthened the enemy."

Without greater controls on contracting dollars, "you have created a threat that is
almost as great as the insurgency," he says. "And that is a government that has so
many forces corrupting it that it can't win the support of the people."

The Pentagon is increasingly aware of this point and has begun to take a particularly
hard look at its reliance on private security firms, which account for roughly 16
percent of all contractors, totaling more than 26,000 personnel operating in
Afghanistan.

"We have absolutely no quality control of the people we're putting in these jobs,"
says Mr. Hammes, who recently completed a study on the strategic impact of
contractors in war zones. "And we're authorizing them to use deadly force in the
name of the United States."

Citing precisely this point, Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced in August that
he wants many private security companies – including Blackwater – out of the
country by year's end. But the enforcement of this decree remains unclear.

US officials, who continue to negotiate the matter behind the scenes, publicly say
that while they agree with the spirit of the decree, the time line is unrealistic. Critics
charge that it is an effort by Mr. Karzai tap into the profits of these lucrative
companies by consolidating government control over them – a charge Karzai denies.

For his part, Gen. David Petraeus, commander of US and NATO forces in
Afghanistan, has recently issued a set of guidelines in an effort to improve the
contracting process, recommending that the US military use its intelligence resources
to investigate Afghan companies vying for Defense Department contracts.

US military officials have also increased pay for Afghan security force trainees in an
effort to compete with private security companies. Now they are wrestling with how
to more effectively distribute troops to improve security along the highways. "You
wouldn't spend the money to hire security along some of these roads if you didn't
have to," says one senior US military official in Kabul who is not authorized to speak
to the press. "That's one of the things we're looking at."

The Pentagon has also begun relaxing "double dipping" prohibitions – in which
Pentagon officials earning pensions after 20 years of service must give the pensions
up in order to return to work – in hopes of deploying more contracting specialists to
Afghanistan.

"At a time when there's a real deficit of these guys in the theater, it could induce
them to come to work," says Richard Fontaine, senior fellow at the Center for a New
American Security. "It's eminently sensible."

More difficult will be making tough choices about which paid contractors pose long-
term threats to the US mission. "I mean, paying the Taliban is a really bad idea, but
if you stop paying them tomorrow, you put convoys at greater risk," says Mr.
Fontaine.

One widespread suggestion is to have senior US military officials making the
decisions about which private security companies should be hired to do the jobs,
rather than junior troops in charge of contracting. "It's one thing to say we shouldn't
pay these guys protection money," Fontaine adds, "but the implications are
something only someone at a high level can determine."

"Let's not be childish about this – it's impossible to eliminate corruption," adds
Cordesman. "But it is possible to put more pressure on warlords to be more effective
and less corrupt." This might involve "shifting money to rivals to put pressure on
them," he says. "Money is a tremendous tool as well as a corrupting force if you use
it properly."

Ultimately cutting off warlords may actually be feasible, given time. For now, that
might mean having more patience with less-connected contractors. "You may not get
the same speed of reaction you do if you contract with the enemy," says Cordesman,
"but the lasting impact is to build up exactly the capabilities we want at the local
level."

WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Associated Press, 22 October 2010-The WikiLeaks website is poised to release what
the Pentagon fears is the largest cache of secret U.S. documents in history —
hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports that could amount to a classified
history of the war in Iraq.

U.S. officials condemned the move and said Friday they were racing to contain the
damage from the imminent release, while NATO's top official told reporters he feared
that lives could be put at risk by the mammoth disclosure.

NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said any release would create "a very
unfortunate situation."

"I can't comment on the details of the exact impact on security, but in general I can
tell you that such leaks ... may have a very negative security impact for people
involved," he told reporters Friday in Berlin following a meeting with German
Chancellor Angela Merkel.

In a posting to Twitter, the secret-spilling website said there would be a "major
WikiLeaks announcement in Europe" at 0900 GMT (5 a.m. EDT) Saturday. The group
has revealed almost nothing publicly about the nature of the announcement.

A U.S. Defense Department spokesman, Marine Corps Col. Dave Lapan, echoed
Rasmussen's stance, urging WikiLeaks to return the stolen material — some 400,000
secret files on Iraq that Pentagon officials believe someone slipped to the
organization.

"We deplore WikiLeaks for inducing individuals to break the law, leak classified
documents and then cavalierly share that secret information with the world,
including our enemies," Lapan said. "By disclosing such sensitive information,
WikiLeaks continues to put at risk the lives of our troops, their coalition partners and
those Iraqis and Afghans working with us."

In Baghdad, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh and Col. Barry Johnson, a
U.S. military spokesman, both declined to comment about the documents Friday
night, saying they have not seen them yet.

Meanwhile, a team of more than a hundred analysts from across the U.S. military,
led by the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been combing through the Iraq
documents they think will be released in anticipation of the leak.

Called the Information Review Task Force, its analysts have pored over the
documents and used word searches to try to pull out names and other issues that
would be particularly sensitive, officials have said.

The task force has informed U.S. Central Command of some of the names of Iraqis
and allies and other information they believe might be released that could present a
danger, officials have said. They noted that — unlike the WikiLeaks previous
disclosure of some 77,000 documents from Afghanistan — in this case they had
advance notice that names may be exposed.

Once officials see what is publicly released, the command "can quickly push the
information down" to forces in Iraq, Lapan said Friday in Washington. "Centcom can
jump into action and take whatever mitigating steps" might be needed, he said.

Throughout the conflict, the U.S. and its allies have relied heavily on Iraqis as
translators and support workers, who were frequently targeted by insurgents. The
Iraqis often hid their identities to avoid revealing their links to the Western forces
and many emigrated to other nations to flee the threat of violence.

While the latest WikiLeaks revelations may not change public perceptions of the Iraq
war — it has been extremely unpopular in Europe and divides opinion in the United
States — they could provide new insight about a conflict that seemed headed for
success after the invasion in 2003 before descending into a yearslong, blood-soaked
struggle.
The documents could shed light on the root causes of the insurgency, for instance, or
the growth of sectarian violence that blighted Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. It may
also give a behind-the-scenes glimpse at some of the major episodes of the war —
like the manhunt for insurgent chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, or the killing of U.S.
security contractors on March 31, 2004, by a mob in Fallujah, an incident that led to
the U.S. assault on the Iraqi city.

The release of the documents would come at a pivotal time for the U.S. in Iraq as
the military prepares to withdraw all 50,000 remaining troops from the country by
the end of next year, raising questions about the future of relations between the two
countries. The U.S. military had as many as 170,000 troops in Iraq in 2007.

Violence has declined sharply over the past two years, but near-daily bombings and
shootings continue, casting doubt on the ability of Iraqi forces to protect the people.

The situation has been exacerbated by growing frustration among the public over the
failure of Iraqi politicians to unite and form a new government more than seven
months after inconclusive parliamentary elections.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is struggling to remain in power since his Shiite alliance
narrowly lost the March 7 vote to a Sunni-backed bloc led by rival Ayad Allawi.

Wikileaks' previous release in July of secret war documents from Iraq and
Afghanistan outraged the Pentagon, which accused the group of being irresponsible.
Fogh Rasmussen said Friday that leaks of this nature "may put soldiers as well as
civilians at risk."

It appears that those fears — which the military has invoked in its appeal to
WikiLeaks and the media not to publish the documents — have yet to materialize. A
Pentagon letter obtained by The Associated Press reported that no U.S. intelligence
sources or practices were compromised by the Afghan war logs' disclosure.

Still, the military feels any classified documents release can harm national security
and raise fears for people who might consider cooperating with the U.S. in the
future, Lapan said.

Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq in 2007-08, said the disclosures would be
more worrisome if the U.S. were still fully engaged in combat in Iraq — but he still
sees it as a major problem.

"I'd really be worried if — as looks to be the case — you have Iraqi political figures
named in a context or a connection that can make them politically and physically
vulnerable to their adversaries," he told a conference Friday at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"That has an utterly chilling effect on the willingness of political figures to talk to us
— not just in Iraq but anywhere in the world," he said.

Afghanistan Today
The New York Times - Editorials & Opinion, October 21, 2010-Voters don't seem to
be paying much attention to the war in Afghanistan and President Obama certainly
isn't making it an issue. His administration is doubling down on the fight against the
Taliban and showing mixed results. That may not sound like much, but even mixed
results are an improvement over the utterly bleak situation of several months ago.

President George W. Bush shortchanged the Afghan fight for seven years. We
continue to wonder whether, at this late date, the United States can achieve even
minimal success against the Taliban and their allies. The cost of the war is still rising.
Nearly 600 coalition forces, including 400 Americans, have been killed there this
year. Mr. Obama and his top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus,
appear, finally, to be putting in place the pieces of a more coherent plan.

With 30,000 more American troops in Afghanistan, attacks against insurgents on
both sides of the border have intensified. The Times reported on Thursday that
American and Afghan troops have forced many Taliban fighters to flee Kandahar, the
country's second-largest city and the Taliban's spiritual base.

Marja, where the first test of the new counterinsurgency strategy faltered badly last
February, is somewhat better governed and more secure. To improve security in
areas across the country without sufficient NATO and Afghan forces, General
Petraeus has spearheaded an effort to create local police units to protect their
villages against the Taliban.

According to reports in The Times, President Hamid Karzai's government, with
Washington's support, is also holding exploratory peace talks with high-level Taliban
commanders. NATO has flown some of the commanders from their sanctuaries in
Pakistan or cleared roads so they could make their way safely to Kabul.

While the Americans are doing better tactically on the battlefield, the country is still
up for grabs.

The Taliban, which the United States thought it had defeated in 2001, has a history
of falling back and living to fight another day. "They don't believe they are losing
yet," one military official told us.

And two of the most fundamental problems have yet to be addressed: the Afghan
government's lack of credibility with many of its own people; and Pakistan's
persistent double game, taking American aid while sheltering and abetting the
Taliban.

Mr. Karzai's government is rife with corruption, and he has either dragged his feet or
blocked efforts to clean up things. His supporters committed vast fraud in last year's
presidential election. We don't have a clear picture of who was behind the fraud in
the recent parliamentary elections, but 1.3 million votes were invalidated. The new
election commission, led by two Karzai appointees, seems to have done a more
honest job than its predecessor in counting ballots.

The Obama administration has yet to find a way to pressure or cajole Mr. Karzai into
saving his own government. The same is true when it comes to Pakistan.

The administration has sensibly dropped its reluctance about negotiations with the
Taliban. But officials admit they don't know if the Taliban leaders involved are serious
or have the power to make a deal. Kabul and Washington certainly should not lunge
for a deal at any cost. Both must continue to insist that any Taliban leaders looking
for a role in a postconflict government must agree to lay down their arms, accept the
Afghan Constitution, including its protection of women's rights, and renounce Al
Qaeda.

Mr. Obama is to review his Afghanistan policy in December. He is unlikely to have a
clear sense of whether it is really succeeding until next spring when fighting resumes
after the winter hiatus. That is not long before he has promised to begin withdrawing
American troops. Mixed results then certainly won't be enough.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:4
posted:2/25/2011
language:English
pages:15