"World's least known bird" found breeding in Afghanistan - NEW YORK (Reuters Life!) - Researchers have found in Afghanistan the first known breeding area of the large-billed reed warbler, which was dubbed in 2007 as "the world's least known bird species." - Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:44pm EST

Obama vows Afghan exit; battered Karzai to take oath
By Peter Graff – Wed Nov 18, 7:34 am ET
KABUL (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama aims to bring the Afghan war to an end before he leaves office, he said on Wednesday, the eve of a swearing-in ceremony Western officials hope can help salvage Hamid Karzai's tattered reputation.

Hillary Clinton arrived in Kabul to attend the re-elected Afghan president's inauguration, her first visit as U.S. secretary of state and the most senior visit by a member of Obama's administration, which has kept Karzai at arm's length.

Karzai takes his oath on Thursday, three months after a vote marred by widespread fraud. The election, intended to bolster the government's legitimacy, had the opposite effect, driving a wedge between Karzai and Western countries whose troops defend him.

Clinton, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner will be among 300 foreign dignitaries to attend the ceremony at Kabul's presidential palace.

In an interview with CNN, Obama said he would soon announce the results of a long-awaited review, which would include an exit strategy to avoid "a multi-year occupation that won't serve the interests of the United States".

"The American people will have a lot of clarity about what we're doing, how we're going to succeed, how much this thing is going to cost, what kind of burden does this place on our young men and women in uniform and, most importantly, what's the end game on this thing," he said.

"My preference would be not to hand off anything to the next president. One of the things I'd like is the next president to be able to come in and say I've got a clean slate."
In eight years of war the Taliban insurgency is now at its deadliest, the Western force protecting Karzai is at its largest, and the Afghan leader's own reputation is at its lowest, wrecked by election fraud, corruption and weak government.

Security for the inauguration in Kabul will be extreme, with roads closed in the capital. The government declared Thursday a holiday and told citizens to stay off the streets. Reporters will be barred from attending the swearing-in ceremony itself.

The centerpiece will be Karzai's inauguration speech, with Western officials hoping to hear a specific program to combat graft, improve performance and limit the influence of warlords.

"We would like some sort of roadmap. We want some clear direction given here," a European diplomat said.

FAKE VOTES
A U.N.-backed probe concluded nearly a third of votes for Karzai in the August 20 poll were fake, meaning he failed to win the 50 percent needed to avoid a second round. He was declared the winner anyway when his opponent quit before the run-off.

"No one can change the fact that Karzai won the election through fake votes and support from notorious warlords in return for ministerial and high-ranking posts," said white-bearded Abdul Shukoor as he entered a Kabul mosque for noon prayers.

"When the government is based on cheating and compromise, I can guarantee you there won't be any improvement for many years."

Obama has yet to visit Afghanistan as president, and halted predecessor George W. Bush's practice of regular phone calls with Karzai. In the CNN interview, Obama gave a lukewarm endorsement of Karzai, saying his focus was on the government as a whole.

"I think that President Karzai has served his country in important ways. If you think about when he first came in, there may not have been another figure who could have held that country together," Obama said in the CNN interview.

"He has some strengths, but he's got some weaknesses. And I'm less concerned about any individual than I am with a government as a whole that is having difficulty providing basic services to its people in a way that confers legitimacy on them."

In Western countries, public support for the war has tumbled as the insurgency spreads and death tolls soar.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released on Tuesday found that 52 percent of Americans now believe the war is not worth fighting, although 55 percent believe Obama will choose a strategy that will work.

Obama has already presided over a massive escalation of the war. There are now nearly 110,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, including 68,000 Americans, more than half arriving this year.

Obama's commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has requested tens of thousands of additional troops, warning that without them, the war will probably be lost.

Karzai's government announced anti-graft measures this week, including a new major crimes police task force, prosecutors' unit and tribunal -- steps welcomed in the West, although it remains to be seen if they will be more effective than previous efforts.

Karzai was installed by the United States and its Afghan allies after they helped drive the Taliban from power in the wake of the September 11 attacks in 2001. He won a full term in the country's first democratic presidential election in 2004.

(Additional reporting by Jonathon Burch and Hamid Shalizi in KABUL, Sue Pleming and JoAnne Allen in WASHINGTON and Caren Bohan in BEIJING; Editing by Paul Tait)

Karzai Inauguration Brings Anticipation Of Change
November 18, 2009 By Abubakar Siddique Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Like millions of Afghans, Izharul Haq dreams of seeing peace and security restored to his homeland.

And like millions of Afghans, Haq will be paying close attention this week for signs of how President Hamid Karzai intends to make those dreams a reality.

The young student from Afghanistan's northern Jawzjan Province has clear ideas of what he and his fellow citizens want to hear when Karzai steps to the podium for his inauguration ceremony on November 19.

"We demand that President Karzai fulfill his promises and restore peace in Afghanistan,” Haq said. “We demand that he bring security and peace in the north, south, east and west of Afghanistan. And this is our major demand during his second term."

The ceremonies will attract much attention from outside Afghanistan as well, with scores of foreign dignitaries expected to be on hand to display their commitment and goodwill to the next Karzai administration.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari will be there, as will Indian Prime Minster Manmohan Singh, the foreign ministers of Britain and Italy, and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

New Anticorruption Drive

Anticipation is building over what sources from within Karzai's administration promise will be a "historic" speech.

The sources, who spoke to RFE/RL on condition of anonymity, suggest that the announcement of anticorruption measures will be the most prominent feature of Karzai's inauguration speech.

As he enters his second term, Karzai faces enormous pressure from both his Western backers and Afghan constituents to swiftly move against rampant corruption among Afghan bureaucrats and politicians.

In an interview on November 15, U.S. Secretary of State Clinton warned that her country would halt all civilian aid to Afghanistan unless the new Afghan government puts in place effective measures against corruption.

Speaking for the European Union, Swedish Foreign Minster Carl Bildt warned that "we will be watching."

Karzai's speech will also touch on Afghanistan's domestic and foreign policy, the role of international troops there, and comprehensive government reforms, according to the sources from within the president's camp.

Karzai’s critics, such as lawmaker Kabir Ranjbar, have suggested that given his extensive pre-election deals with regional strongmen and warlords, the president is not truly committed to the reforms many want to see.

Nevertheless, Ranjabar says, Karzai might be able to use the mounting international pressure to convince his Afghan allies to accept change.

"Karzai should clarify the situation to them and tell them that over the past seven or eight years [his backers] have received enough. He can tell them that they have built palaces in Dubai and that international banks are overflowing with their accounts,” Ranjabar said. “He can tell them that we now need to build a patriotic technocratic government composed of people who are loyal to our national interests, and that we should let them rebuild this country."

Building The Cabinet

Experts suggest that soothing words and mere assurances in the course of Karzai's inauguration speech will not be enough to satisfy international demands for transparency, and that Western leaders want to see concrete evidence of more open policies as Karzai builds his future cabinet.

Kabul-based analyst Asadullah Walwalji is closely following the formation of the new cabinet. He tells RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan that Karzai has tasked three key lieutenants to come up with a list of potential candidates for his incoming administration.

He suggests that even the warlords and regional strongmen allied with Karzai are expected to nominate supporters who will be acceptable to Western donors and Afghan public alike, because they no longer want to be associated with past war crimes and corruption.

"For some time, big people very close to Karzai have been looking for candidates who would meet the demands of the West and work in the prevailing conditions of the country,” Walwalji said. “I don't know if they have found such people. But if they have found such personalities, it would benefit them and all of us."

While Karzai is expected to announce his cabinet two weeks after his inauguration, the Afghan government on November 16 announced the formation of a high-level anticorruption unit to investigate graft among senior officials.

"President Hamid Karzai, after being re-elected for another five years, has dedicated his five years to fighting corruption," Interior Minister Hanif Atmar told a news conference.

RFE/RL Radio Free Afghanistan deputy director Hashem Mohmand and correspondents Zarif Nazar and Mustafa Sarwar contributed to this report.

Clinton in Afghanistan for Karzai Inauguration
By VOA News 18 November 2009
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has arrived in Afghanistan ahead of President Hamid Karzai's inauguration.

In her first trip to Afghanistan as secretary of state, Clinton is expected to join foreign dignitaries and Afghan leaders for Thursday's inauguration ceremony in Kabul.

Afghan authorities have already deployed additional security throughout the capital. The inauguration itself will be a private event held on the heavily-guarded grounds of the presidential palace. There is no large public ceremony expected.

Western powers are closely watching President Karzai for signs he is serious about fighting rampant corruption within his government.

U.S. President Barack Obama said on the eve of Mr. Karzai's inauguration that he is less concerned with the trustworthiness of one individual than he is with the trustworthiness of the government as a whole.

Mr. Obama, who is expected to announce his decision on US troop levels in the coming weeks, says his administration is presenting "very clear benchmarks" for the Afghan government to secure the war-torn country.

Mr. Obama did not elaborate on those measures during an interview with CNN (broadcast Wednesday), saying only that the U.S. has a vital interest in making sure that Afghanistan is what he called "sufficiently stable."

Meanwhile in Berlin Wednesday, Germany's cabinet decided to extend by one year the mandate for its Afghan military mission. The deployment, which is unpopular in Germany, is expected to be approved by parliament before the mandate expires in December. There are about 4,000 German troops serving in Afghanistan, the third largest contingent of foreign troops behind the United States and Britain.

On Tuesday, NATO's secretary-general said he is confident allies will send "substantially more troops" to Afghanistan, giving new momentum to the mission.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen told a NATO parliamentary assembly in Scotland he expects more forces for the war-torn country, but only as part of a wider strategy to eventually hand over security to Afghans.

Afghan violence at highest level since invasion
Aid agency seeks to measure price paid for instability
National Post Peter Goodspeed Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Violence in Afghanistan has reached its highest level since the U.S.-led invasion eight years ago.

On the eve of Hamid Karzai's second inauguration as president tomorrow, statistics compiled by NATO forces indicate insurgent attacks have soared by nearly 60%. But it is civilians, not soldiers, who are bearing the brunt of the soaring violence.

A typical attack occurred on Monday when Taliban insurgents in eastern Afghanistan fired rockets into a crowded marketplace in Tagab, Kapisa province, killing 14 civilians and wounding 30 others.

The attack came as General Marcel Druart, the commander of French troops in the area, was meeting tribal elders nearby. The general and his forces were not in danger and no NATO troops were injured.

The Taliban simply resorted to ruthless intimidation to discourage residents from collaborating with NATO.

A new report released today by the British aid agency Oxfam and 14 other non-governmental organizations operating in Afghanistan seeks to measure the price Afghans are paying for years of instability and violence.

"In 2008, an average of three Afghans were summarily executed by anti-government elements every four days for any perceived association with the Afghan government or international forces," the report says.

"The past three decades of war and disorder have had a devastating impact on the Afghan people. Millions have been killed, millions more have been forced to flee their homes and the country's infrastructure and forests have all but been destroyed.

"The social fabric of the country is fractured and state institutions are fragile and weak."

One in 10 Afghans surveyed by Oxfam has been imprisoned at least once. One in five has been tortured, in jail or by various armed groups, and a third of the tortured were women.

According to the report, 43% of respondents said their property had been destroyed; 76% had been forced to leave their homes; and 17% are thinking of fleeing Afghanistan.

"A whole generation has grown up never having experienced peace and many Afghans are struggling to cope with the psychological, economic, social and physical ramifications of the conflicts, past and present," the report says.

Nearly half of the population lives below the poverty line.

More than 250,000 remain displaced inside the country, while another three million refugees are still in Pakistan and Iran.

Oxfam spoke to more than 700 Afghans in 14 provinces.

When asked what the most harmful period of conflict in Afghanistan was 38% named the Communist period and the Soviet Union's occupation, 22% named the civil war that followed the Soviets' withdrawal and 33% named the Taliban.

Only 3% thought the current conflict was the most harmful.

NATO delays talks on new forces for Afghanistan
AP via Yahoo! News - Nov 18 6:02 AM
BRUSSELS – NATO says it's waiting for President Barack Obama's decision on additional troops for Afghanistan before it holds a conference on pledging reinforcements.

The alliance holds regular meetings to raise troops and other resources for all its operations. The next one is scheduled for Monday.

But NATO spokesman James Appathurai says that meeting will now be split into two parts. On Monday, allied nations will commit units for NATO's force in Kosovo, the alliance's anti-piracy patrols off Somalia, and other missions.

Appathurai says the talks dealing with additional forces for Afghanistan has been moved to December, "in order to take account ongoing developments." No date has been set.

Germany to extend Afghanistan mission
by Richard Carter – Wed Nov 18, 11:31 am ET
BERLIN (AFP) – Germany agreed Wednesday to extend by one year its mission in Afghanistan, Chancellor Angela Merkel said, as her foreign minister warned German troops will not be there forever.

"In a regular cabinet meeting, we decided to get the process of extending the mandate underway," Merkel told reporters.

The lengthening of the mandate -- as well as the number of troops Berlin can send to the war-torn nation, currently capped at 4,500 -- is subject to parliamentary approval before it expires in December.

Foreign Minister and Vice-Chancellor Guido Westerwelle said: "With this, we want to send a clear signal. The new federal government is sticking by Germany's international responsibilities."

"Our partners should know that our country remains a reliable partner for peace and security in the world," he added.

Taking aim at the government in Kabul, he said: "It is about more than security, it is also about reconstruction and it is about good leadership, including the fight against corruption."

"We do not want this to be a mission that lasts forever and a day," Westerwelle insisted.

Merkel's new coalition had already pledged to extend the mandate in their government programme drawn up after elections on September 27.

Germany currently has around 4,300 troops in Afghanistan, based in the relatively peaceful north of the country, which has become more violent in recent months.

According to the current mandate, the upper limit is 4,500 troops, and this will not be altered in the new version sent to parliament, said a government statement following a two-day meeting of Merkel's cabinet outside Berlin.

"The upper limit for personnel is still 4,500 soldiers. They will be deployed in future in the north of the country and in Kabul," the statement said.

The German contingent is the third-biggest in a 100,000-strong international force including around 65,000 under NATO command but Berlin has come under pressure from its allies to send more troops for a counter-insurgency push.

The mission has also become increasingly unpopular at home with the latest opinion polls showing a majority of Germans opposed to the presence of troops in the war-torn nation.

On Friday, Berlin announced it would send an extra 120 troops to the northern province of Kunduz in mid-January, but this still falls within the 4,500-limit.

Merkel has refused to consider sending more before an international conference in early 2010 to hammer out a strategy on handing over security responsibilities to the Afghans so that foreign troops can go home.

The cabinet also decided to scrap a mission to send AWACS surveillance planes to Afghanistan after Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan refused to allow NATO to fly them through their airspace.

The German army's participation in a mission to fight piracy off the coast of Lebanon was also extended by six months. An anti-piracy mission off the Horn of Africa was also prolonged.

German Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg is due to discuss the Afghan mission with his French counterpart Herve Morin in Paris before flying to Washington for talks with US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates.

Counting the Costs of Afghanistan's Wars
By Alyssa Fetini Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009 time.com
The Cost of War; Afghan Experiences of Conflict, 1978-2009

The Gist:
Three straight decades of war have taken a devastating toll on Afghanistan, sinking the country deeper into political instability and chaos and earning it an unfortunate reputation as one of the most dangerous places in the world. Though several books and articles have been dedicating to analyzing the embattled country's troubled history, little has been written on the effect that these conflicts have had on the lives of ordinary Afghans.

After conducting more than 700 interviews with randomly selected Afghans across 14 provinces, Oxfam International, in collaboration with seven other non-governmental organizations, has published a report explaining the consequences of Afghanistan's many conflicts, from the Soviet Invasion to the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, through the testimony of civilians who have borne the brunt of the struggle.

Highlight reel:

1. One Afghan man's account of the effect that three decades of war have had on the country:"What do you think the effect that two million Afghans martyred, 70% of Afghanistan destroyed, and our economy eliminated has had on us? Half our people are mad. A man who is thirty or forty years old looks like he is seventy years old. We always live in fear. We are not secure anywhere in Afghanistan, whether in Kabul or Jalalabad."

2. On the displacement of civilians: Three in four (76%) [Afghans] interviewed were forced to leave their homes at some point during the past three decades of conflict... many individuals were displaced multiple times, fleeing to a more secure place only to have the fighting reach them again months later or once they had returned home, forcing them to migrate once again.

3. On who is to blame for the current conflict: Seven in ten (70%) saw unemployment and poverty as a major cause of the conflict, while almost half (48%) pointed to the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Afghan government. Other factors that individuals identified as major drivers of the conflict were : the Taliban (36%); interference by other countries (25%); al Qaeda (18%); the presence of international forces (18%); lack of support from the international community (17%); warlords (15%); and criminal groups (14%).

4. An Afghan woman's account of the consequences of the current conflict: "The current conflict has caused lots of tension and concern among people. People are very concerned about their future. In the beginning, people had hope but the ineffectiveness of the current government and bombardment of civilians by international forces made people hate the government and created more opportunities for the anti-government forces."

The Lowdown:
With the 30th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan approaching, this report offers a critical evaluation of the human cost of war through the voices those who have paid it. Millions of Afghans have been killed since the late 1970's, and millions more have been displaced. Along with offering personal accounts of the rampant unemployment, imprisonment, sexual violence and mental trauma that have become widespread side effects of the conflicts for those who remain, the report also explores ways to alleviate conflict recommended by civilians themselves, including urging the government to establish the rule of law at all levels and asking the international community to assist with humanitarian reconstruction and end "adverse foreign interference" in Afghanistan's affairs.

The report's authors are careful to stress that their findings and the testimony the recorded are not meant to be seen as representative of Afghanistan's entire population. They argue that the report can help illustrate the challenges Afghanistan faces in its struggle for peace and security.


Soviet lessons from Afghanistan
Andrew North BBC News Wednesday, 18 November 2009
All the most senior ministers were at the Afghan strategy meeting.

They knew things were not going well, but from their leader there was a whiff of panic.

"We just need to be sure that the final result does not look like a humiliating defeat: to have lost so many men and now abandoned it all... in short, we have to get out of there."

Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev - the speaker of those words - was understandably alarmed.

It was June 1986, almost a year since he had taken the decision to start withdrawing Soviet troops from Afghanistan and hand over more responsibility to the government there.

But Soviet losses, already above 10,000, kept mounting.

With conflicting signals this week about the direction of Western policy in Afghanistan, there is a hint of the same kind of panic and indecision.

Soviet exit strategy

US President Barack Obama is still deciding whether to send in thousands of US reinforcements.

Yet the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown - facing ever-greater opposition to the Afghan war - has been highlighting possibilities for UK troops to pull back in some areas next year.

It is less than two weeks since he was saying: "We cannot, must not and will not walk away."

But as Mr Gorbachev found, getting out is at least as difficult as staying in.

It took almost four years to pull out entirely - because of a combination of dithering over strategy and last-ditch efforts by Moscow to prop up its client government in Kabul in the hope of maintaining some pride and influence.

The former Soviet leader's difficulties are detailed in previously secret transcripts of Politburo meetings and diary entries recently released by the Washington-based National Security Archive.

They make sobering reading for British and American leaders, as they decide whether to double-up or cut their losses in Afghanistan.

There are certainly differences - not least America's determination to make the Soviet withdrawal as costly as possible in blood and treasure.

Lost battle

But there are echoes too of the difficulties the US and its allies face now.

By the late 1980s, Moscow's exit strategy was basically the same as Nato's today - to build up an allied government in Kabul with sufficient trained army and police forces to defend itself, thereby allowing foreign troops to leave.

But even with the backing of a 100,000-strong Soviet army and billions of rubles in aid, the Afghan government struggled to establish its legitimacy and authority much beyond the capital - much like President Hamid Karzai's Western-backed administration today.

This bleak assessment of the situation in late 1986 by the Soviet armed forces commander, Marshal Sergei Akhromeev, sounds eerily familiar.

"Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old," Mr Akhromeev told Mr Gorbachev at a November 1986 Politburo session.

"There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels.

"The whole problem is that military results are not followed up by political actions. At the centre there is authority; in the provinces there is not.

"We control Kabul and the provincial centres, but on occupied territory we cannot establish authority. We have lost the battle for the Afghan people".

Familiar problems

By that point, Soviet trainers had created an Afghan army 160,000-strong - double the size of the force Nato has trained so far - together with thousands of much-feared secret policemen.

Yet once Soviet forces had left, they could do little more than defend Kabul and a few other cities.

Only massive military aid, coupled with incompetence and in-fighting among the US-backed mujahideen opposition, allowed the Afghan government Moscow left behind to cling on in Kabul for a few more years before finally collapsing.

There were familiar problems too with the financial assistance Moscow gave.

It hoped the funds would bolster the capacity of the Afghan government and pay for projects that would benefit people, winning hearts and minds.

However corruption rendered much of its useless.

As the Politburo discussed a new aid request from Kabul in January 1987, Marshal Sergei Sokolov said: "In 1981, we gave them 100m roubles of free assistance. And all of that went to the elite. And there was nothing in the hamlets - no kerosene, no matches."

Public divided on troop increase in Afghanistan: poll
Tue Nov 17, 11:02 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A majority of Americans expressed confidence U.S. President Barack Obama's new Afghanistan strategy will succeed, but they are divided over how many more U.S. troops to send there, according to a Washington Post-ABC News opinion poll released Tuesday.

Obama is weighing several options for boosting U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan and is expected to announce a new war strategy in coming weeks.

The Washington Post-ABC News poll found a majority of Americans, 55 percent, are confident Obama will choose an Afghan strategy that will work.

But Americans are evenly divided about the size of a troop increase Obama should approve as part of his new approach to the war, the Post said.

General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has recommended an increase of 40,000 troops as the minimum for counterinsurgency to prevail.

There are already 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and another 40,000 from allied nations.

U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, who commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, has expressed deep concerns about committing more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until Afghan president Hamid Karzai's government moves aggressively to attack corruption and mismanagement.

Forty-six percent of those polled support a large influx of troops to fight insurgents and train the Afghan military, while 45 percent back a smaller number of new U.S. forces more narrowly focused on training, according to the poll.

Among other poll findings, 45 percent approve of how Obama is handling the situation in Afghanistan, compared with 48 percent who disapprove -- up one percentage point from a month ago. Obama's overall approval rating remains virtually unchanged at 56 percent, according to the poll.

Once an area of rare cross-party accord, nearly three-quarters of Republicans now disapprove of how Obama is dealing with Afghanistan, with a majority disapproving "strongly," the Post reported.

Approval among independents slipped to 39 percent, a new low, the poll found.

Asked whether the war has been worth fighting given the costs to the United States versus the benefits, 52 percent of respondents said it was not worth fighting. Forty-four percent said it was worth it.

The telephone poll of 1,001 adults, conducted Thursday through Sunday, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

(Reporting by JoAnne Allen; editing by Todd Eastham)

Afghan Corruption Concerns US Policy Planners
By Gary Thomas VOA News Washington, D.C 17 November 2009
Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has been roundly criticized in the international community for presiding over a corrupt government. A new report reinforces the perception of widespread corruption in Afghanistan, naming it the second most corrupt country of all those surveyed. That worries American policy makers as they deliberate on the future U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.

In Transparency International's just-released 2009 survey of world corruption, Afghanistan was only one step above the bottom rung, ranking 179th out of 180 countries surveyed. According to the group's report, only another war-ravaged state, Somalia, is perceived as being more corrupt.

President Barack Obama is considering whether to send more troops to Afghanistan to battle the Taliban. Dispatching more troops would further commit the U.S. to a strategy of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. The central premise of counterinsurgency is to win hearts and minds and weaken popular support for the insurgents.

Georgetown University Security Studies Professor Christine Fair points out corruption concerns policy makers because it undercuts Afghans' support for their government and support among Western nations for the enterprise in Afghanistan.

"I am not someone who goes around thinking this has to be a clean government. That being said, I do think that this counter-insurgency effort is not going to be successful until there is some handle on this corruption, at least to the point that the government can be seen as being effective," said Fair. "And it would not necessarily be as problematic as in some scenarios if it were not for the fact that the Taliban themselves actually market themselves as being the anti-corruption entity."

She adds that until recently, U.S. support for President Hamid Karzai was unquestioning, which may have fostered a climate of corruption.

"The problem is, it is not only the government," continued Fair. "It is just that we have facilitated it and enabled it and we have largely been insouciant about it for the past eight years. I mean, how can we say that we want Karzai to do something about his brother's alleged narcotics activities, while apparently the CIA has been paying the same brother?"

Former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald Neumann tells VOA he believes President Karzai to be a decent man, but points out that he does not have a great deal of actual power outside of Kabul and has to be very careful about alienating some people. Ambassador Neumann says the Western nations have painted the Afghan leader into a corner with relentless criticism of his administration's conduct.

"I think, in very general terms, in the last year or two, that the strident public criticism and denunciation from the outside has also been a factor and has in my view has been something of a mistake," said Neumann. "The strident criticism, I think, is not effective, usually does not work. You know, when you shout at your wife in an argument it usually does not get her to agree with you. It is still worse among nations.

Ambassador Neumann, who has just published a memoir of his tenure in Afghanistan, says there are different kinds of corruption and that at least some lower level corruption is to be expected.

"It depends on what you are talking about. If you are talking about some money that bleeds around the edges to get a road paved, but you get the road paved, you get it paved on time, you get it paved to the quality it is supposed to be, frankly it is a nuisance," he added. "If you find that the road is not paved, or that the road is paved but breaks down because the corruption is so bad you do not get standards and quality, then you have got a major problem. This may be a little less purist than the normal view, but I think that it is more realistic."

Some analysts have argued that in some states, government is just so dysfunctional that corruption is actually the only thing that makes governmental machinery work. But Transparency International Director of Policy and Research Robin Hodess, says the idea that corruption works is an illusion.

"Even petty bribery, small bribery, is not a long-term sustainable approach to kind of grease the wheels," said Hodess. "It was always thought that you needed a little bit of something to get the system going. But in fact academic studies have shown that this is wrong-footed and that in the long run by not having a level playing field, by not building systems, by not creating competitive markets you are actually undermining development and you are undermining economic growth and you are taking away the trust of potential investors."

In an attempt to blunt the criticism, President Karzai just announced the creation of a new anti-corruption unit. Robin Hodess says creating a new anti-corruption body is common practice when confronted with corruption, but that the track record of such bodies is mixed.

"They can work, they can be effective. They need to be adequately resourced. They need to be independent," added Hodess. "They need to have full vested powers that are given them, whether it is of investigation or prosecution. Above all they need the political will behind them. And then they can be effective."

Only hours after Mr. Karzai's victory in the tainted election, President Obama welcomed the Afghan leader's pledge to eradicate corruption, but frankly warned the proof of those efforts will be not in words, but in deeds.

Afghan, Pakistani Taliban diverge on goals
THE WASHINGTON TIMES By Raza Khan 18 Nov 2009
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Both go by the name "Taliban," but militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan are increasingly diverging in their ultimate goal. The Pakistanis have joined al Qaeda's campaign to attack Western targets and spread radical Islam while the Afghans want to rid their country of foreign troops but harbor no global ambitions, according to a number of prominent analysts.

The split potentially complicates U.S. strategy in the region while opening a route toward negotiations in Afghanistan.

U.S. forces are battling a nationalistic Taliban in Afghanistan, but the internationally more ambitious Taliban, as well as al Qaeda, are located across the border in Pakistan, where the U.S. operates only with drones.

In a recent interview with a Pashto-language TV channel, Afghan Taliban commander Abdul Manan (also known as the Mullah Toor) condemned the Pakistani Taliban for targeting innocent civilians as "un-Islamic and wrong."

He also denied that al Qaeda influences the Afghan Taliban, a stark change from the 1990s when the Afghan group hosted Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda training camps and became the base for the Sept. 11 attacks.

White House National Security Adviser James L. Jones said last month that fewer than 100 al Qaeda members are left in Afghanistan and that most of al Qaeda is now based in Pakistan.

A U.S. drawdown from Afghanistan might make it easier for al Qaeda to re-establish itself in Afghanistan, but some analysts question whether al Qaeda would be welcome.

Ashraf Ali, a specialist on the Afghan Taliban movement, told The Washington Times that some former Taliban leaders, such as Afghanistan's former foreign minister, have been allowed to live freely in the Afghan capital, Kabul, to represent the Taliban in negotiations with other Afghan factions and potentially the U.S.

Mr. Ali noted that Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the former foreign minister, also has stated that the Afghan Taliban does not share al Qaedas global agenda of terrorism and that his Taliban was not a threat to the world peace.

"Afghan Taliban know well that it would be very difficult for the Americans to negotiate with them unless they clearly distance themselves from al Qaeda and its new allies, the Pakistani Taliban," Mr. Ali said.

12 October 2009

Clinton Says Us Committed to Success in Afghanistan
By Jennifer Glasse VOA News
U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton says Washington is committed to the goals set out for Afghanistan, but says much more is expected of the Afghan government. Clinton spoke while visiting Britain.

The commander of the British Army's 19th Light Brigade, Brigadier Tim Radford, just returned from Afghanistan. He says it was a long tour. He lost 66 men, many from roadside bombs.

"It has been a tour where we have seen things changed," he said. "We have faced an enemy who do not want to fight us force-on-force, rather they wanted to lay improvised explosive devices to halt us in our path and this summer total of 1,800 Improvised explosive devices laid in our path, so we have had to adapt quickly."

The U.S. administration is also trying to adapt to the changing situation in Afghanistan. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, on a European tour told British radio America's goal is clear.

"We are not changing our strategy, our strategy remains to achieve the goal of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaida and its extremist allies, and denying them safe haven and the capacity to strike us here in London, or New York or anywhere else," said Clinton.

She says President Barack Obama is consulting with military commanders and other advisors to work out the best way forward in Afghanistan.

"The in-depth discussions we are having, where we are testing our assumptions, where we are looking at how better to integrate our civilian and military components and our very clear understanding that Pakistan and the region must be addressed as well, is leading to some welcome clarity and the kind of commitment that is needed," she added.

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has reportedly asked for up to 40,000 more troops. President Barack Obama has not indicated whether he will grant the request.

Clinton says whatever decision the president makes, the United States remains steadfast in Afghanistan.

"One should never doubt our commitment or our leadership, we intend to pursue the goal. We will not rest until we do defeat al-Qaida. But we want to be smart about how we are proceeding," she said. "The lives that our young men and women both American and British have put at risk and lost are very much on our minds, and we intend to get this as right as its humanly possible."

Part of rethinking the situation includes redefining the enemy.

"We are doing much more careful analysis of who actually is allied to al-Qaida. Not everyone who calls himself a Taliban is necessarily a threat to the U.K. or the United States," said Clinton. "There well may be a number of people who are considered Taliban because they get paid to fight, because they see no alternative."

General McChrystal has said winning the population's trust is central to success in Afghanistan.

The Secretary of State emphasized that many factors are being considered. One of them is the political situation. Afghanistan held elections in August but the results are contested amidst allegations of fraud. Clinton said if incumbent Hamid Karzai emerges as the winner, he will have to change.

"If this election results in his being re-elected, there must be a new relationship between him and the people of Afghanistan and between his government and governments like yours and mine, which are supporting the efforts in Afghanistan to stabilize and secure the country," she said.

The British Prime minister is expected to make an announcement about Afghanistan on Wednesday, but all eyes are on the United States and what President Obama will decide is the best way to achieve America's goals in Afghanistan.

U.N. Official Says He Did Not Ignore Afghan Fraud
By Joshua Partlow Washington Post Foreign Service Monday, October 12, 2009
KABUL, Oct. 11 -- The embattled head of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan on Sunday denied allegations by his former American deputy that he chose to ignore evidence of fraud in August's disputed elections and acted in a biased manner that favored President Hamid Karzai.

U.N. special envoy Kai Eide described the Aug. 20 election in Afghanistan as "marred by so many problems, not least, as you know, widespread fraud." But he said neither he nor the mission acted inappropriately during the process.

"What I have done is to implement my mandate with the full support of the international community," he said.

The seven weeks since the election, without a declared winner and with little trust in the process, have thrust Afghanistan into a dangerous political limbo. Eide and the United Nations have been swept up in this controversy because Peter W. Galbraith, his former deputy, accused him of playing down fraud in order to favor Karzai's chances at reelection.

At a news conference in which he was flanked by Western ambassadors, Eide responded to the allegations. He said that they were "personal attacks against me and my integrity" and that "it has not been dignified, it has not been fair, it has not been true."

The public dispute between Eide and Galbraith has roiled the U.N. mission in Afghanistan, leading to Galbraith's firing on Sept. 30 and the resignation of at least three other U.N. employees. It prompted Karzai's challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, to question the credibility of the United Nations, and some Afghan parliament members called for Eide's removal.

"For weeks, Eide had been denying or playing down the fraud in Afghanistan's recent presidential election, telling me he was concerned that even discussing the fraud might inflame tensions in the country," Galbraith wrote Oct. 4 in an article in The Washington Post's Outlook section.

Throughout the election and its aftermath, the United States has sought to appear impartial and to focus publicly on supporting a fair process. But the scope of fraud allegations and concerns over the United Nations' neutrality have made many Afghans doubt the legitimacy of the results.

In what was intended to be a show of international support, Eide appeared at the news conference alongside ambassadors from the United States, Britain and France, although the envoys did not speak or take questions.

The Electoral Complaints Commission is expected to finish this week a review of suspect ballots and fraud claims. Those results will determine whether Karzai, who received 54.6 percent of the vote, wins, or whether enough fraudulent votes are thrown out to force a second-round runoff.

Eide said the dispute has exacerbated an already contentious election by "heightening the temperature" of the discussion about its fairness.

Before his dismissal, Galbraith was the highest-ranking American in the U.N. mission in Afghanistan. He has said he wanted to close polling sites in areas where violence prevented security forces or election officials from attending. He said that such "ghost polling centers," which could not open anyway, produced hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes for Karzai.

Eide said that Galbraith wanted to close 1,200 of the roughly 7,000 polling sites that were initially planned, but that Eide thought too many Afghans would be prevented from voting. With military operations attempting to provide security, Eide thought 6,500 could open, although on election day around 6,200 opened.

"I could not take a decision one month before the election that would already disenfranchise a large number of Afghans," he said. "If we have done that, it would in itself have created an important element of potential instability in the country."

Galbraith also said Eide did not turn over to the Electoral Complaints Commission U.N. data on voter turnout that showed widespread discrepancies between turnout estimates and the number of votes counted, particularly in volatile southern and eastern provinces. Eide said the information -- some of it gathered by phone calls from second- or third-hand sources -- was unreliable.

"I did not prevent any information to go forward that could in any sense contribute to concealing any fraud," he said.

Despite the problems with the election, Eide insisted that a fair decision would emerge. The result, he said, "should be acceptable to the Afghan people."

Key Democrat wants boost in forces in Afghanistan
by Richard Lardner, Associated Press Writer – Sun Oct 11, 2:28 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The U.S. mission in Afghanistan is in "serious jeopardy" and needs more troops to turn the tide against an increasingly potent Taliban insurgency, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday, putting her at odds with an influential Democratic colleague on military matters

Sen. Dianne Feinstein's views are more closely aligned with those of key Republicans than members of her own party. Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of Senate Armed Services Committee, urged a more methodical approach that begins with crafting a new, comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan.

"I'm saying at this time, don't send more combat troops," said Levin, D-Mich., who wants the emphasis to be on strengthening Afghanistan's own security forces so they can bear a greater share of the security burden.

But Feinstein, D-Calif., whose post gives her access to sensitive information about the war's progress, said delaying the reinforcements also puts the forces already in Afghanistan at greater risk. She pointed to an Oct. 3 battle in northeastern Afghanistan in which eight U.S. soldiers were killed during an enemy attack on their remote outpost.

"We didn't have the ability to defend them, and now the base is closing, and effectively we're retreating away from it," she said.

The diverging opinions came as President Barack Obama and his war council wrestle with how many more troops might be needed in the 8-year-old Afghanistan conflict. Key to the deliberations are whether to focus the fighting more narrowly on al-Qaida or more broadly on Taliban insurgents.

Obama's military commanders are pressing him to escalate the war despite slipping U.S. support for the fight. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is believed to have presented Obama with a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 troops to — the general's strong preference — as many as 40,000. There are already about 68,000 American forces in Afghanistan.

Levin said a better blueprint for the way ahead in Afghanistan is even more important than additional personnel. He also said key points in McChrystal's 66-page assessment of the situation in Afghanistan have been lost in the noisy debate over the right number of additional troops and how quickly they need to be sent.

"He also says deliberate," Levin said of McChrystal's review. "Take the right amount of time to think this thing through. And he also says that what is even more important than numbers is the resolve."