Current News

We Still Need to Kill Bin Laden

2009-09-11T05:29:00.000-07:00

9/11's Unfinished Business
USA Today
September 11, 2009

In the eight years since 19 al-Qaeda terrorists struck at America's heart, the nation has taken significant strides both here and abroad to make its citizens safer.

Security around everything from ports to pipelines to jetliners has been hardened. Intelligence agencies are vigilant in a way that was tragically lacking before Sept. 11, 2001.

The government has disrupted the terrorists' financial networks and imprisoned Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the reputed tactical mastermind behind the attacks. The military has eliminated al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, and Predator drones have taken out dozens of terrorists along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Yet amid all the success in weakening the al-Qaeda network, vulnerabilities remain, and one gaping piece of unfinished business stands out. Osama bin Laden and his partner, Ayman al-Zawahri, remain at large.

After 9/11, getting bin Laden seemed the only way to redress at least some of America's anger and hurt. But as the pain of that awful day has receded, so too has the urgency of bringing him to justice. (In a Fox News Poll in July, only 50% said the U.S. should attempt to assassinate bin Laden, down from 66% soon after 9/11.)

The excuses and rationalizations are plentiful: He's only one man, and one man is hard to find. He's weakened and in seclusion. If eliminated, he'd just be replaced. Al-Qaeda has splintered into a fractured network of franchises. Even in the Muslim world, its popularity is sinking: In Pakistan, a recent Pew Global Attitudes poll found that support of the terrorist group had plummeted to 9%.

Yet no matter what the state of al-Qaeda, the importance of getting the organization's leaders should not be downplayed. Bin Laden is the person most responsible for the collapsing New York skyline, the battered Pentagon and a smoldering hole in the Pennsylvania countryside. For would-be terrorists, he is inspirational proof that you can get away with mass murder.
The trail has gone cold since the U.S. botched an effort to get bin Laden in late 2001 in Afghanistan's Tora Bora region. The Times of London reported this week that a small band of CIA operatives and special operations officers remains on the hunt in Pakistan, where bin Laden is thought to be hiding.

Unrelenting pursuit is essential. For Islamic extremists, bin Laden's death or capture would deprive them of their charismatic leader. For the nearly 3,000 people who died on 9/11, it would bring justice. And for all other Americans, it would reinforce the message that anyone who attacks the USA will be hunted to the ends of the earth.

Why We're Not Winning in Afghanistan

2009-09-05T04:34:00.001-07:00

Afghanistan: The 'Good War' Gets Complicated
By David Wood
Afghanistan Journal (PoliticsDaily.com)
September 4, 2009

COMBAT OUTPOST ZORMAT, Afghanistan -- When a warning crackled over the radio of a suspected ambush ahead, Lt. Col. Rob Campbell swore softly and ordered his three armored trucks to a halt. What happened next illustrates why the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan is failing, why commanders here are asking for more manpower- and why they are pleading for more time.

Leaping out with his M-4 carbine, Campbell, a tall cavalry officer with sandy hair and freckles, strode through the empty, sun-baked fields flanking the road while his men fanned out, checking the ground for IEDs, sweeping the fields for snipers. The Afghan police assigned to patrol this stretch of road? Nowhere in sight.

"I can't be doing this all day," Campbell grumbled as he paused to examine a distant building through his rifle scope. Campbell is a senior officer. He commands a U.S. Army cavalry squadron of roughly 1,000 soldiers. Handling a suspected ambush is a job for a junior soldier with two or three years experience.

Carefully, they approached a tumbledown building beneath a dusty grove of wilted trees. Three disheveled young Afghans emerged, blinking in the sunlight: Afghan National Police. There was little sign of the U.S. training and equipment they'd received.

The ambush report was a false alarm, but for Campbell, it was a teachable moment.

"Who's in charge here? Where are your boots and helmets and uniforms?"Campbell demanded. "You have to look professional, then people will respect you and the Taliban will not attack!"

The young police managed to look both sheepish and skeptical. Through a translator, they complained that an overnight rain had left a foot of water in their sleeping quarters. When the Taliban mortars them at night, they have no mortar to shoot back.

"You have to go out and patrol," Campbell lectured them as they stood sullenly. "The Taliban will run away. That's how you stop them from attacking. You don't need a mortar." He climbed back in his multi-ton, air-conditioned armored truck. The police did not wave goodbye.

The plain fact in Afghanistan today is there are too few U.S. troops, and too few reliable Afghan security forces, to protect the population from the Taliban and other insurgents. But, in this complex war, simply pouring more American combat power into Afghanistan isn't enough, commanders here say.

"We need the support of the population; the insurgents only need to control the population -and they do that by making them scared to act." Col. Michael Howard told me. Hunting down and killing enemy insurgents is necessary, he and others argue, but it's not enough. Winning means enabling Afghans to resist the Taliban on their own- militarily, politically, socially and economically.

Howard is an intense, sinewy war-fighter who commands the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division, which is spread across three provinces (Paktika, Paktiya and Khowst) of eastern Afghanistan. This is his fourth deployment in Afghanistan, and he's seen enough to know that firepower alone is insufficient to win. This time, he wields an impressive array of combat troops, plus military and civilian experts working on economic and agricultural development, mentoring local government officials, and training and advising Afghan army and police. In his secret daily battle-update briefing, officials from the State Department, Agriculture Department, USAID and other civilian agencies sit at his side. "And they're in charge of things and make decisions and produce results" Howard stressed.

But for U.S. soldiers and Marines trained to seize and hold a hilltop or other objective, this is a complicated, ambiguous and seemingly endless campaign. Their biggest fear is than an impatient American public or Congress will reach the same conclusion, and not understanding the complexity and long-term nature of this war, will pull the plug on what looks like a losing quagmire.

"We are winning here, but the requirement to win faster is real because at some point, people will lose faith," said Howard, referring both to Afghans and the American public. "The war is really over-simplified to the American public, and that's a function of how it's reported," Howard scolded me.

But another officer, an artillery officer, struggling here with small-town tribal and political dynamics, confessed: "Even my family doesn't understand what we're trying to do here."

Small wonder, for the requirements of this war turn conventional military thinking on its head. The very presence of American troops in body armor, helmets and ballistic sunglasses can be intimidating, Afghans say. And American combat power and tactics, no matter how judiciously applied, often alienate local people. An insurgent killed by U.S. forces is likely to have a local family committed to revenge, no matter how they view the war. Kill an insurgent, create four new ones, as the saying here goes.

"I could do nothing but kill the enemy all day long, while public support goes down to nothing," said Campbell. His men are excruciatingly careful about wielding their power. In seven months, they haven't kicked down a door- formerly a common practice by troops conducting house searches.

But Campbell also told me of an operation one night when overhead surveillance showed what looked like a team of insurgents planting IEDs beside a road. He and his staff watched until they were certain, and then called in a strike -on local farmers engaged in midnight planting.

"It was horrible, something I'll have to live with," Campbell said with anguish on his angular face. He took a goat and compensation payment to the family of the dead farmer, and apologized. "They forgave us, so we didn't create any new insurgents," he assured me.

Still, deadly errors like that have set back the war effort during the seven years that American forces have been operating here in east-central Afghanistan, a region of broad plains and towering mountains. In March 2002, two battalions of infantry, from the 10th Mountain and 101st Airborne Divisions, mounted an assault into the mountains above what is now Combat Outpost Zormat. The plan was to surround and kill fleeing remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Instead, the insurgents escaped into the jagged peaks and narrow defiles of the Shah-i-Khot Valley.

Having covered that operation first-hand, I was curious to see how seven years of U.S. military operations here, and costly training and equipping of the Afghan army and police -- $5.6 billion in Afghanistan this year alone -- had improved security.

Sadly, things have gotten worse.

In Gardez, the nearest city, a young Afghan told me the insurgents still hold the Shah-i-Khot, and U.S. commanders said they avoid that area, content for the moment to leave insurgents to themselves up in that relatively unpopulated area."We're focused on the population centers, which is not ideal," said Capt. Brian Johnson, the 27-year-old who commands the modest Zormat combat outpost. Insurgents travel through the area in groups of 10 or 20, he said, but a neighboring combat outpost that could intercept them is not manned "because of a lack of [U.S.] troops."
In the more populated valleys below, Johnson's men run joint patrols and targeted attacks with the Afghan army unit based next door. "There's more good news than bad news here,'' he insisted. A year ago, a trip up the road to another combat outpost required the brigade commander's permission and attack helicopters hovering overhead. "This morning, we went back and forth twice with no permission or escort needed," he said.

Still, U.S. and Afghan forces have been unable to effectively protect the civilian population across the region. Insurgents have set a record number of IEDs, about 45 percent more than a year ago. About half of those are detected or avoided before they detonate -- but Afghan civilian casualties have still risen sharply. Here in Paktiya Province, the number of civilians killed, mostly by insurgent IEDs, is up 29 percent from last year, while across the broader region of eastern Afghanistan the number of civilians killed and wounded rose about 45 percent.

Col. Howard, the brigade commander, told me the rising violence is a deep concern that has led him to raise the issue of getting additional U.S. troops, although he wouldn't say how many he needs.

"The violence has to come down to a level where it doesn't affect the daily lives of the people, to a point where people aren't afraid to take an active part in their government -- and right now we're not at that level,'' he said. In particular, he is struggling with IEDs and official corruption, the two scourges that Afghans complain about the most. Corruption, Howard said, "is a cancer without a cure in Afghanistan. If we don't come up with a cure, it will cause us to fail."

The IED problem is manageable, with more resources, he suggested. Jalaluddin Haqqani and his sons, who run a violently dangerous Taliban network in this region, have poured tens of thousands of dollars into attacking the civilian population. "Those IEDs cost a ton of money, those suicide vests, the suicide truck bombs, cost thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars' worth of explosives."

"If your enemy ups his resourcing by 10 percent and you don't -- and you're not already winning by 10 percent in the first place, you're gonna have a setback," Howard said, explaining his current situation. The result is an increasingly intimidated population unwilling to vote, for example, or even risk routine travel.

Doctors at the Afghan civilian hospital in Khowst used to regularly make the short drive to visit the U.S. military hospital at Forward Operating Base Salerno, Howard's sprawling headquarters. No longer.

"It's very dangerous to be known to be working with the Americans," said Lt. Col. Patricia Ten Haaf, the hospital commander. "Two years ago there was a lot of back-and-forth, but now I wouldn't send my only eye surgeon there, and their doctors won't come here for internships. And I regret that."

A middle-aged Afghan doctor also lamented the deterioration of security. "In 2002 to 2006, the security situation was better. It was easy for an American doctor to come to Khowst hospital. Walking around the city was no problem. Now..." he crinkled his eyes in an apologetic smile. "Not possible." He asked not to be identified by name.

U.S. agricultural experts hired four Afghans from Khowst to be agricultural advisers. Their families received threatening "night letters" from the Taliban, and two of the four advisers quit. With the safety of the Afghan people eroding, Howard acknowledged that "we have to have an increase in resources -- certainly an increase in ground troops."

U.S., Allied and Afghan forces are winning every fight with insurgents. "But are we winning fast enough, are we bringing the violence down fast enough? I don't think we are," he acknowledged.

That concern is widespread among American military officers here. "You can't be here and not want to help the Afghan people, and I do think Afghanistan could again become a breeding ground for international terrorism,'' said Col. Cindra Chastain, deputy commander of the Indiana National Guard's agricultural development team in Khowst Province.

"Is the public willing to have us stay long enough to do what we need to do? I don't think so,'' she told me. "But if not, everything we're doing here will be wasted."

Afghan Election Antics or Comedy Central??

2009-08-31T05:57:00.000-07:00

U.S. Walks Fine Line In Afghan Vote

By Anand Gopal and Matthew Rosenberg
Wall Street Journal
August 31, 2009

The U.S. and its allies are walking a thin line by trying to monitor the count in Afghanistan's presidential vote without influencing the outcome, as results from the election trickle into public view.

Rampant allegations of electoral fraud, combative statements from candidates, and po! pular speculation about the U.S.'s role as kingmaker have made the balancing act more difficult.

According to the latest results, released Saturday, President Hamid Karzai's lead has widened, with votes from a third of the polling stations counted. At stake in the vote is not just the credibility of the new Afghan government, but also that of the U.S. and its allies, who have backed the democratic experiment with troops on the ground, say Western diplomats.

"If Afghans don't believe in these elections, then the international community will have failed here," said a European diplomat in Kabul.

Meetings between Western officials and Afghan presidential candidates have fed talk of efforts to shape a runoff between the two lead candidates, President Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah. In this context, an Aug. 21 meeting between Mr. Karzai and U.S. regional envoy Richard Holbrooke has also assumed importance, if only to highlight the prominent American role in the el! ection.

The U.S. Embassy in Kabul has said its only preference i s for a fair election. "We do not support or oppose any particular candidate, and whether there is a runoff is an issue for the Afghan electoral bodies to determine," the embassy said.

Saturday's results show Mr. Karzai has 46.2%, up three percentage points from earlier in the week and well ahead of the 31.4% obtained by Dr. Abdullah, a former foreign minister and the lead challenger -- but still short of the absolute majority needed to avoid a runoff.

The two million votes already counted represent one-third of Afghanistan's polling stations. The electoral commission said it will provide the next update Monday.

Fraud allegations have marred the election. Afghan and international observers say supporters of both candidates stuffed ballot boxes and intimidated voters. Critics of Mr. Karzai say his camp engaged in more widespread fraud, if only because there were fewer monitors in parts of the country where his support is strongest, and the Taliban insurgency! is at its most potent. The Karzai campaign denies engaging in any fraud.

The independent Electoral Complaints Commission had received more than 2,000 allegations of misconduct through Saturday. Nearly 700 were considered serious enough to affect the outcome, the commission said.

Dr. Abdullah has repeatedly said he will dispute the results only through legal means. At the same time, he has said Mr. Karzai can win only through "big fraud," and has presented photos and videos of alleged ballot-stuffing in favor of Mr. Karzai.

Over the weekend, Dr. Abdullah offered a bleak outlook for the country if people don't accept the election results. "If the democratic process does not survive, then Afghanistan doesn't survive," he told hundreds of supporters at a rally north of Kabul Friday.

Such talk, along with private suggestions from some in Dr. Abdullah's camp that a Karzai win could be met with violent protests, has prompted U.S. and European officials to ! press the doctor to rein in his people. Dr. Abdullah's comments are "s omething that certainly worries all of us. It's not at all helpful at this moment," said a U.S. diplomat in Kabul.

As the vote count becomes more contentious, the U.S. and its allies are finding it harder to play a hands-off role. Over the weekend, U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown called Dr. Abdullah to discuss the elections, according to Abdullah campaign spokesman Fazel Sangcharaki.

"The British were very concerned about the possibility of violence," said Mr. Sangcharaki. "But they were careful not to suggest anything to us except for asking us to respect the legal process."

The U.K. Embassy in Kabul didn't respond to requests to comment.

A meeting the day after the Aug. 20 vote between Mr. Karzai and Mr. Holbrooke, who was accompanied by U.S. Ambassador Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry and another senior American official, illustrated the delicacy of the U.S. role. U.S. and Afghan officials with knowledge of the meeting described it as tense but not especi! ally heated. The Americans raised concerns about electoral fraud. They avoided pointing fingers at the president, but urged Mr. Karzai's government to address endemic corruption, if he were indeed re-elected, according to people with knowledge of the meeting. Mr. Karzai and Mr. Holbrooke met again Sunday to discuss many of the same issues, these officials said.

But the exchange quickly became part of Afghanistan's political folklore, spun by some into a shouting match in which Mr. Karzai stormed out of the room -- a scenario both U.S. and Afghan officials deny. Supporters of Mr. Karzai painted it as a U.S. attempt to force the rightful winner into a runoff. Opponents sought to portray it as another sign that the president, who came to power with the backing of the Bush administration, has lost Washington's backing and could no longer effectively govern.

Indians Orbit Moon 3,400x as US struggles to get Shuttles off the ground

2009-08-30T05:53:00.000-07:00

India loses radio contact with moon orbiter
NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- Indian space scientists were scrambling Sunday to regain contact with their unmanned moon mission a day after they abruptly lost contact with the orbiter.

System failures on the Chandrayaan-I apparently led to loss of contact, said S. Satish, a spokesman for the Indian Space Research Organization.

The craft was equipped with what officials said were highly-sophisticated gadgets.
"We are trying to revive the contact, but chances are slim," Satish said.

The space organization had originally announced that Chandrayaan-I would stay in orbit for two years. "That probably was a mistake because such craft do not have this much life," Satish said.

However, Chandrayaan-I had met most of its scientific objectives by providing "large volume of data," the space organization said. In 312 days, it completed more than 3,400 orbits around the moon, according to the space organization.

Chandrayaan-I aimed to take high-resolution, three-dimensional images of the lunar surface, especially the permanently-shadowed polar regions.

The craft carried payloads from the United States, the European Union and Bulgaria. One of its objectives was to search for evidence of water or ice and attempt to identify the chemical composition of certain lunar rocks.

Earlier this year, the Indian government increased the federal budget for space research to about $1 billion from $700 million.

Finally - Marines Do Right by Chessani

2009-08-29T06:15:00.000-07:00

Marine Escapes Charges In 24 Killings In Iraq

Los Angeles Times
August 29, 2009

CAMP PENDLETON--The Marine Corps has decided not to seek to reinstate criminal charges against a former battalion commander for a 2005 incident in which his troops killed 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq.

Instead, the Marine Corps will convene a Board of Inquiry to hear testimony and recommend whether Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani should be demoted to major for purposes of retirement.

Even if such a recommendation is made and then accepted by the Secretary of the Navy, Chessani's retirement pay would still be based on being a lieutenant colonel.

The Marine Corps had sought to try Chessani for dereliction of duty for not ordering a war-crimes investigation when his Marines killed the 24, including three women and seven children. Chessani, who was not present during the killings, reported to his superiors that the deaths, while tragic, were the result of fighting between Marines and insurgents.

A court-martial judge threw out the charges after ruling that it was improper for a Marine lawyer who investigated the Haditha shootings to sit in on meetings with the general who decided to bring the charges.

--Tony Perry

CMC: In Iraq, but ready for Afghanistan!

2009-08-22T06:10:00.000-07:00

Top Marine Checks Troops In Two Wars
By Lara Jakes, Associated Press

CAMP RAMADI, Iraq -- The top U.S. Marine is checking on troops in one war zone as he gets ready to send more to the next.

Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, visited Iraq this week on his way to Afghanistan, where the United States is considering adding more troops. Many of the fresh-faced Marines who met Conway are serving their first combat mission - and already are looking forward to the next battle.

They are part of a force that, between the years in Iraq and Afghanistan, could be fighting wars for a generation.

At a hot and dusty base outside Ramadi, the capital of Iraq's Anbar province, Conway made clear he does not yet know whether Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, will add to the 68,000 American troops already scheduled to be there by the end of the year. But Conway told the Marines he wants them to be ready.

"I'll be surprised if we don't get asked for more," Conway said. He predicted "more combat support in there."

McChrystal is preparing a review of his war - and his needs for fighting it. He is expected to deliver that review to the Pentagon by early September. Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week said the review will not address troop levels, but military officials privately believe McChrystal ultimately will ask for as many as 20,000 additional soldiers.

U.S. troops first invaded Afghanistan in 2001 after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and Iraq two years later. Although the United States is committed to pulling its combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2011, military officials and experts believe the battle in Afghanistan easily could last for up to a decade longer.

That has required the Pentagon to rethink how to prepare its forces. The Army is recruiting 22,000 new soldiers and extending time at home for troops returning from battle. The Marines are making physical fitness more rigorous for those headed into combat.

Marines being Marines - a force that prides itself on running from one fight to the next - appear eager to head from Iraq to Afghanistan. An estimated 13,200 Marines remain in Iraq, and the vast majority of them will be gone by Thanksgiving. About 11,400 Marines are currently in Afghanistan.

"We're an expeditionary force; we're very offensive-minded, and it would be a better use of our time to be in Afghanistan," said Capt. John Roma, commander of a Marine company that deployed to Iraq just two weeks ago. It's his second tour of duty in Iraq; he has also fought in Afghanistan.

"But we still have a job to do here, and we're doing it to the best of our ability."

All troops will receive at least as much time at home between deployments as they spent in combat, meaning those currently in Iraq will not go to Afghanistan immediately.

Whether the U.S. should send more troops to Afghanistan is part of a simmering debate in Washington over how much money, and ultimately, time should be spent on the war. A recent policy paper by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, warned against shortchanging the war in Afghanistan.

"Adequate resources win in Iraq, inadequate resources lose in Afghanistan: Late in one case, still waiting in the other," the CSIS paper concluded.

Under a security agreement with the Iraqi government, U.S. troops no longer operate in Iraqi cities without permission or escort by local Iraqi forces. In Anbar, that means Marines have scaled back their missions to the point of being bored, even though violence between Iraqis continues.

A pair of deadly bombs this week in Baghdad killed nearly 100 people and wounded hundreds more. In July 2007, 203 coalition forces were killed by improvised explosive devices, military figures show. By comparison, IED blasts killed nine troops last month.

But security remains fragile, and some local Iraqi officials are evasive about whether they want Americans to help protect them from insurgents and other threats even as the troops prepare to move on.

Saeed Hamadan, mayor-elect of Hit, in Anbar, said Baghdad gets the most attention but his city faces the same threats as the rest of Iraq. "We see explosions every day," Hamadan said in his office last week.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Conway said that in Afghanistan up to 700 troops should be added or, at the least, retasked to focus on IED attacks. He estimates such attacks have caused 80 percent of Marine deaths since May, when the U.S. launched a major offensive against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan.

He would not discuss how many troops ultimately could be added to the fight, except to say that he does not want it to go beyond 18,000 more Marines, or he won't be able to protect the length of Marines' time at home between war zones.

"The most important thing that's happening is right here in Iraq," Conway said during a question-and-answer session with troops at Camp Taqqadum air base, 35 miles west of Baghdad. "The most difficult thing that's happening for our Corps today is in Afghanistan. And I think we're going to be there for a while, and if you all want to go to Afghanistan - that's been my experience from talking to most Marines - then you may well get that chance."

Massive Voter Fraud by Karzai

2009-08-21T04:14:00.000-07:00

No Sign Of Voters On Election Day In Afghanistan Despite Official Claims
By Tom Coghlan, in Pul-e-Charki, Kabul
London Times
August 21, 2009

At 8am, an hour after the Afghanistan's presidential polls opened, the polling station at the Haji Janat Gul High School, a dusty collection half-finished buildings designated for use by Kuchi nomads, was entirely empty of voters.

But the apparent lack of voter activity was deceptive, insisted election officials; the ballot boxes were already full almost to the brim. "The people have already come. They came here with lorries at 7 am, now they have gone to the fields with their sheep" said Lawan Geen proudly.

The grey bearded election worker from the Independent Election Commission seemed rather less than happy at the unannounced arrival of two Times journalists at his polling centre just outside Kabul.

The absence of voters witnessed by The Times yesterday in this centre on the edge of the capital was replicated across the country, with fearful Afghans staying away from the polls after repeated threats from the Taleban.

But the polling station in Pul-e-Charki painted a suspiciously different picture. In total 5,530 votes had already been cast for the Presidential Elections, according to the records being kept by the election staff beside each ballot box. In each box there were an oddly uniform 500 to 510 votes. More impressive still, some 3,025 of the ballots were womens votes.

Assuming that the last voter disappeared at least two minutes before the Times arrived at 7.55am, the staff working on the 12 separate ballot boxes at the site must have been processing at least 100 voters per minute since polling began.

There were no sign of any election monitors at the site and nor were there any female staff to oversee the women?s ballot boxes, as the electoral commission required.

For an hour The Times waited at the polling site. The polling staff fidgeted. But no one came to vote.

"This area is controlled by Haji Mullah Lewani Khan. He is the chief of the Tarokhail tribe and an MP" said Lawan Geen, the election official. "He said that there is a threat from the Taleban to cut the fingers off the people. So people came early in the morning" he added, hopping from one foot to the other, looking uncomfortable.

The tribal chief, he confided, was a supporter of President Karzai. “All the people here are Tarokhail, they are all voting for Karzai.” His co-workers were unhelpful. “You are not allowed to see these things, this is a woman?s area” said one male worker as The Times asked to see the lists of voter card numbers for ballots already cast.

Suddenly a lorry chugged into view. “Look there are voters!” shouted Lawan Geen, scampering towards the approaching vehicle. About thirty men were helped off the lorry, several were elderly and one was almost entirely blind. They trooped into the polling station and prepared to vote.

A burly middle-aged man called Lal Mohammad stepped forward and held out two voting cards. At the sight the election officials went into collective convulsion and shooed one back into his pocket.

After he had voted he explained that he had voted for President Karzai. Asked about the second voting card in his pocket he showed the contents of his several other pockets before finally pulling out the card. "It is my wife's," he said. "I will bring her later."

Other voters also said they were voting for Mr Karzai. "If Doctor Abdullah wins it will be a shame on all Pashtun people because he is a Tajik" said Haji Abdullah, a pistol-toting young man who looked about 16 but whose voter registration card put him at 21. He insisted that he was old enough to vote, pointing out that he had voted in 2004. “Maybe Afghanistan will be destroyed if he wins,” he added. “Certainly there will be fighting.”

As the thirty voters each made their way to the ballot box it became evident that the staff were able to process a maximum four voters every three minutes, or at best 80 voters per ballot box per hour, or 960 for the entire polling centre per hour. How was it possible then to process 5,530 in an hour, The Times wondered. Did the election officials suspect any sort of fraud?

Lawan Geen pursed his lips. "Maybe there has been a little bit by some people. Maybe 5 per cent," he ventured.

Outside the polling station five policemen stood guard. They had been at the station since the night before and explained what they had seen. “At about 4am the IEC staff came to the polling station,” said one policeman named Iqbal. “Since then we haven?t seen a lot of people. Maybe four lorries of people and three or four Corolla cars. I have not seen any women here.” The other policemen corroborated the tale.

A mile away The Times found the tribal chief Haji Mullah Lewani Khan MP in his grand, high-walled compound. Thirty metres from his front door was another polling station in the Haji Janat Gul Madrassa. Both were buildings originally built by Mr Lewani in memory of his father.

Outside the madrassa polling centre stood half a dozen armed men, supporters of Mr Lewani. One of them wore a badge with Mr Karzai?s face on it.

Mr Lewani, a diminutive 35-year-old with a regal air, welcomed The Times with a large group of retainers at his shoulder, several of whom wore the blue armbands, meant to mark them out as Independent Election Commission workers. All such workers are supposed to be vetted for their impartiality.

"They are helping the IEC just for today," said Haji Mullah casually. "They are not getting any wages." His two phones rang continuously. "We need more ballot papers," he shouted into one. "Call the election commission and tell them we need more." Asked if he had voted, the MP replied: “Of course, for Karzai.” Oddly none of his fingers displayed any of the indelible ink used to identify those who had voted. “I washed my hands,” he said.

What did he think of suggestions that vote rigging might be taking place locally, wondered The Times. “These claims of corruption are just shit, maybe they are publicity against us by Dr Abdullah supporters,” he said without blinking.

An hour after voting closed last night sources from the Independent Election Commission admitted that an investigation had begun into allegations that up to 70,000 illegal votes had been cast in polling centres around the Haji Janat Gul polling centre, east of Kabul.

Gen Jones: Our Goals in Aghanistan

2009-08-20T06:09:00.000-07:00

We Have Clarity In Our Goals
Administration takes fight to the extremists, denies them havens.By Gen James Jones, USMC, Ret.
White House National Security Adviser
USA Today
August 20, 2009

Today's election serves as another reminder that the future of Afghanistan lies in the hands of Afghans, and that significant challenges remain. President Obama's recently announced strategy is focused on protecting America's and our allies' security interests, while advancing a successful transition to Afghans' responsibility for their country.

First, there should be no doubt about the clear U.S. goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. With the collaboration of both countries, al-Qaeda and the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 are feeling relentless pressure. But should the Taliban be successful in its goal to take over Afghanistan again, there is no question that we and our allies would again be unacceptably threatened. That is why the president is focused on taking a comprehensive fight to the terrorists, and denying them the safe havens they seek. Al-Qaeda and its allies will not be successful if recent trends in executing our strategy continue.

To achieve our goals, the president has put in place a comprehensive strategy supported by the international community. We have increased troop strength in Afghanistan, while increasing support to the Pakistani government in going after al-Qaeda and the Taliban along the border. In just a few months, we have put the Taliban on the defensive in places where it used to act with impunity, and many of its top commanders are now forced to wonder whether each day will be their last. Our increased military capacity has joined with NATO allies in accelerating the training of the Afghan army and police, so that they can take over responsibility for security at an accelerated pace.

We and our allies have also stepped up civilian support. By advancing the economy, encouraging individual opportunity and strengthening governance from the smallest village to Kabul, we isolate extremists, put a dent in a drug trade that funds insurgents and help establish security. To succeed, these pillars — security, the economy and governance — must advance in unison. We are joined in this effort by 47 countries and institutions such as NATO, the United Nations, the European Union and the World Bank. This will sustain a shared, international commitment to Afghanistan's future.

I served in command of NATO's efforts in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2006, and have studied this war as a private citizen. This is the first time in seven years that we have had clarity in our goals, and a strategy and resources necessary to get the job done. We won't solve every problem; we are pursuing the possible, not the perfect. But this is not simply an "American war" — it is an international effort to rid the region of the ravages of extremism to protect ourselves and our allies, while giving the Afghan people the opportunity to control their future.

The president has been clear that this won't be easy, but it is necessary. It will take great sacrifice — especially by our men and women in uniform, our dedicated civilians who work alongside them at great risk, and their families who suffer long separations. But we are pointed in the right direction, we are protecting our people, and we are doing what is necessary to achieve our goals and bring our troops home as soon as possible.

The Few, The Proud...The Parents

2009-08-18T06:07:00.000-07:00

The Few, The Proud...The Parents
At first, we resisted our son's decision to join the Marines. We're learning to see things differently.

By Pat Saperstein

After we celebrated the Fourth of July with a family barbecue, my 18-year-old son, Sam, shipped out for Marine Corps boot camp in San Diego. The idea of having a son in the military still seems strange, but I'm starting to get used to it.

When Sam first announced his decision, it seemed mystifying that my not-terribly-athletic, bookish son would decide that what he wanted most of all was to be a Marine.

My friends were shocked and offered plenty of advice -- he should see a psychologist; he should consider the Navy; did I realize how underhanded the recruiters could be?

But Sam never had an easy time at school, and he wasn't interested in college, at least straight out of high school. He wanted to be a Marine, period. Since he was a toddler, he's been fiercely stubborn, a child who did exactly what he wanted without much interest in the approval of teachers or parents.

For years, he read up on World War II and the Vietnam War and devoured war novels and fighter plane encyclopedias, though he had little use for history classes at school. It didn't occur to me what his hobby might lead to. We didn't know a single person who served in any branch of the military, other than the grandfathers who fought in World War II.

In some circles, Sam's decision might have seemed practical, even heroic. But in our liberal, antiwar sphere, his desire to enlist was met with shock -- even hostility. I wasn't really surprised at our friends' reactions -- after all, Sam's dad and I were initially opposed. We talked to him over and over about the risks he would face, the unyielding obedience he would need to summon. We spent the last year trying to inject some reality into his somewhat idealized vision of the military, but true to form, his mind would not be changed.

As the parent of a high-schooler, I had to answer the same question at every social event or Trader Joe's encounter: "What is your son doing about college?" That was a hard question, because though I didn't agree with him, it was still his choice, one he felt strongly about.

Often the reaction was pity or even anger. A friend with anarchist leanings pleaded with me to get him counseling. One mother stated firmly that she felt her job as a parent was to raise her daughter so that there would be no chance she would ever join the military. A few people warned that even though he had selected a noncombat job category, the Marines might still require him to face combat. Was that supposed to make me feel better? Because it didn't.

Once I got over my initial reticence and started talking to other parents about his choice, I found out that Sam wasn't the only kid we knew who was interested in the military. One boy had nearly joined up but was derailed when he got a mononucleosis-like illness. A colleague's nephew -- a British citizen -- was accepted into the Marines. Another friend's son decided to become an Army medic even though he was nearly finished with college.

My son passed his high school equivalency exam last summer and signed his enlistment papers in the fall, with the understanding that he would be inducted after completing a year of community college. The decision seemed to agree with him. After years of never really getting with the program, years of endless struggles over toothbrushing and homework, he changed in the months after enlisting.

The bedroom that had been the typical teen vortex of dirty plates glued to gaming magazines was suddenly organized and vacuumed. For the first time ever, homework was getting done and chores accomplished, at least some of the time. Despite weekly karate classes, he had started the year with the typical gamer's pudge. Now he woke early on Saturdays for physical training with the recruiter. He watched his diet, joined the Y and got the highest score in his bodybuilding class.

It seemed like he was ready for basic training, but we were still worried about what would come after.

Sam selected aircraft information systems as his job (which, thankfully, involves an entire year of training in mellow Athens, Ga.), and he says if the Marines need him to go into combat, he'll do what is asked of him. Of course I'm worried about Afghanistan, tanks, injuries, psychological scars ... but worrying hardly seems productive.

So he'll be an unconventional Marine -- full of historical facts but short on street smarts, a noncombatant in a branch known for its combat prowess, a kid from a liberal family who's going to really miss Zankou chicken and the taco trucks when he gets to the Marine mess hall.

It wasn't until I started chatting online with a childhood friend just a week before Sam's ship date that I started to make peace with my son's decision to face war. My friend's 20-year-old son recently decided to emigrate to Israel, where he will be required to serve in the Israeli army. "College is a joke if you're not into it," my friend wrote. "Just an expensive waystation for bored kids."

"It's the first lesson in learning to release them," he typed. "To let them do what they feel passionate about."

And then: "Entering the military and serving your country is a lost art among us privileged Angelenos."

I closed the little message box on the computer feeling a little less guilty that I should have done more to stop Sam, and maybe even a little proud of my son for being willing to try something that is completely foreign to us privileged Angelenos.

===============
Pat Saperstein is a senior editor at Variety and editor of the blog EatingLA.com.

Exclusive: Interview w/Taliban Leader

2009-08-17T07:14:00.000-07:00

Inside the Taliban:
"The More Troops They Send, The More Targets We Have"
In the first of a series of exclusive reports in the run-up to next week's Afghan elections, award-winning correspondent Ghaith Abdul-Ahad meets a group of Taliban in their mountain stronghold

The Guardian (UK)
August 15, 2009

The provinces of Khost, Paktia and Paktika in south-eastern Afghanistan are dominated by one name: Jalaluddin Haqqani. A famous commander, tribal chief and cleric, Haqqani came to prominence during the war against the Soviets. In more than 20 years of fighting, he built an extensive network of influence that covered eastern Afghanistan and the tribal area of Waziristan in Pakistan, and reached as far abroad as the Gulf states, which he visited often.

Once a minister in the Taliban government, he is now aligned with their leader, Mullah Omar, but has retained independence and control over his men. His operations have struck deep into the territory controlled by Hamid Karzai's government, reaching targets in Kabul. The movement's signature attack is well co-ordinated and includes several suicide bombers, who storm into buildings before detonating their bombs.

We waited for Haqqani's Taliban in a roadside cafe not far from the Pakistani border, where old Russian trucks decorated with hundreds of little bells, painted waterfalls and eagles and religious slogans swayed under the weight of rice, sugar and flour they brought from Pakistan, and the illegally logged trees they carried in the other direction.

It was noon and we had a few hours to kill. Like everywhere in Afghanistan, there was road etiquette to respect. From nine in the morning until four in the afternoon, the government controls the country's main arteries. The rest of the time they belong to the Taliban.

The air in the cafe was filled with the potent smell of meat stew and damp feet. Bedding and cushions were piled at one end of the room, while at the other end men hastily finished their prayers, then sat cross-legged on the mottled carpets where two young boys set plates of rice and stew in front of them.

"Here, we are all of the same tribe," said a young Pashtun poet and journalist. He had a flimsy beard and eyes the colour of honey. "Ninety-five per cent of the people here support the Taliban. They give the Taliban shelter. The businessmen and traders give them money, and the five per cent who work for the government look the other way and wave you through if you are with Taliban. The tribes here are very strong. It would bring great shame on you to arrest your cousin.

"The situation is very simple here," he continued. "We are Muslims and tribal people, the Taliban are Muslim and from the same tribes, the foreign troops are non-Muslims and there was no referendum from the people to ask them to come here. God told us to fight the occupation so the people are against the occupation. The people are ideologically similar to the Taliban, so the Taliban don't hide, they live with the people."

A driver with a big bushy beard lay on his back, hugged an ageing tape player and listened with closed eyes to a melancholic Pashtun woman singing about love, longing and betrayal. His right foot drew circles in the air.

An hour later another song, loud and screechy, filled the room. A young boy chanted, drowning the driver's love songs. In front of the restaurant, in the middle of the road, an old pickup truck was parked and an old Talib with a big black turban and a chest-long beard stood next to it.

"March to your trenches, oh Taliban," the boy sang. "March to your trenches." The chant emanated from a loudspeaker on top of the car.

Several men walked over to the Talib and dropped money in his hands, donations to the Taliban. In the back of his truck three teenage Taliban sat on sacks of rice and flour donated by other villagers. The poet smiled. His point made, he went back inside to finish his tea.

The valley

Our ride arrived around five in the evening. We drove out of the village, down a steep slope, around the side of a hill and entered a valley where any pretence of government control vanished.

The only road here is a shallow river that twists between boulders and trees and is littered with rocks. We drove along it for two hours, against a muddy current that crashed down from the mountains above. Sheets of rain fell from the dark sky.

Past a bend in the river where the valley was so narrow that the trees formed a canopy over it, small terraced gardens protruded from the cliffs on each side, almost touching each other. "This is where we meet after our operations," said one of the Taliban in the car.

Villagers hopped on and off the back of the truck as we drove along, grabbing lifts, and the hum of the Taliban chants from a tape player broke through the sound of the rain and the waterfalls.

Leaving the riverbed, we drove uphill through a thick forest, past two scouts, who lay as motionless as the rocks around them, and stopped in a clearing in the wood guarded by two gunmen.

In the fading light I could make out here and there guns, hats, combat trousers, boots, a beard, another gun and a white flag. As we climbed the slope into the camp, the scattered objects became men, and by the time the stout commander with his cap pushed to the back of his head shook my hand, I could see a whole unit of more than 100 spread out on the wooded hilltop.

Instead of the trademark Taliban uniforms of turbans, eyeliner and flip-flops, these men wore Russian and Nato poncho raincoats over their shalwars, and boots and trainers. Most striking was the way they held their guns. Instead of carrying them in the standard militia style, on their shoulders or holding them like walking sticks, they wore them strapped around their chests, one hand by the trigger and the other holding the muzzle down. They stood just like the Americans.

The stout commander, Mawlawi Jalali, sat surrounded by his men. One carried the white flag of the Taliban and another a video camera, which he kept pointed at me at all times.

"We are Afghans fighting the jihad and defending our country under the leadership of Jalaluddin Haqqani," the commander said. He spoke in a schoolmasterly tone. As well as being a commander, Mawlawi Jalali is a teacher in Haqqani's madrasa.

"The Americans toppled the emirate [of the Taliban] and we are fighting to bring it back. When the Taliban were here the jihad was only in Afghanistan. Now, thanks to the Americans, the jihad has spread to many other countries."

How did he plan to pursue his holy war? "We use different tactics: mining the streets, fighting and direct attacks. Here in this camp we make all the preparations and have all the men we need for these different tactics."

What about the new American surge, I asked. Did it concern him?

"We attack the towns, like in Wazi Zadran, where there is a strong American and Afghan garrison, and mine the streets every day. We average two or three attacks a day against the Americans and their allies. The more troops they send, the more targets we have, so it's good."

Allahu akbar, the men around him murmured in response.

He went on to explain the difference between his men and the average Taliban.

"We follow Haqqani. He was a smart mujahid against the Soviets and during all his wars he taught us how to focus on training and teaching. I was taught by him and most of our men were trained by him and his commanders. We have order, because we had good teaching and good training."

By this time, night had begun to fall, dogs barked and the men melted into the darkness. Only a flicker of light from a mobile phone separated the ghosts around me from the mountain behind them.

"We have mujahideen from the time of the emirate, but we have new fighters too," Mawlawi Jalali told me. "The young are keen to join, but we tell them stay put, finish your madrasa now and then come. We can't provide for all of them now and we can't get them supplies. The government and the Americans control the streets and the cities because of the planes, but the mountains are for us."

The number of men stationed on this single mountain cliff might explain how the Haqqani Taliban have managed recently to launch bold and relatively large attacks.

The hum of a generator rose and fell in the background, sometimes drowning our conversation. I looked for signs of electricity, but apart from a few flickering oil lamps in a faraway village, there was nothing but darkness for kilometres on each side of the valley. I realised suddenly what a "generator hum" meant on a mountain in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"Drone … plane … sky …" I mumbled my words, closed my eyes and waited for the whoosh of a missile.

The commander and his men laughed. "These are media lies, that Americans can see us," he said. "Look now, we are a big group of Taliban. There are 200 men here and they can't see us. We believe in God, so don't be scared."

Another fighter spoke up: "If you stand still in the dark and not move they can't see you. It's written in the Qu'ran."

On the way to the camp I had been told of other drone-dodging techniques. If you are on a motorcycle and the drone fires a missile, jump off and the missile will follow the motorcycle. If you are with a large group, stop, like musical statues, and the drone will confuse you with the trees.

A young fighter called for prayer and the commander and half his men lined up to pray, their guns on the ground in front of them. When they had finished, the other half began to pray.

"We are Afghans, we have lived all our lives in the trenches and caves," said the commander as he shook my hand. "We tell the Americans to stop this war, we are not tired." His fatigued voice, however, told a different story.

The village

The men separated into three groups. Two headed to different villages, while the third climbed up the cliff to take up fighting positions. We followed one group down to a small village.

After half an hour we were among houses, and the men dispersed. We waited outside a green door while a Talib went in to talk to the owners. In a valley where everyone comes from the same tribe and everyone is someone's cousin, finding a shelter for the night is simply a matter of knocking on a door.

The family gave us their largest room and six of us took their places, on cushions and mattresses that were still warm. A kerosene lamp was lit and we shared a dinner of eggs, tomato, yoghurt and dry, dark bread.

"You are not the first Iraqi here," said one of the fighters. He was tall and thin and poor-looking, with a big beard and clothes that were a faded grey. "There is an Iraqi commander who is fighting in the mountains. He has been here for many years and he is very good." He scooped up bits of eggs and tomatoes with a piece of bread.

Like everyone else, the tall fighter was a graduate of madrasas. Unlike other Taliban, Haqqani's men do not divide their time between farming or working and fighting. "When we don't fight, we take religious classes with the emir [commander]," explained the tall fighter. He was a specialist in ambushes, he said, and explained his tactics. Because of the threat from planes, the fighters didn't move around in big groups any more: they travelled to the attack areas in twos and threes.

He positioned a glass and a piece of bread and a cucumber in a triangle. The glass represented the target.

"We hit them [the glass] with a mine and we position ourselves here [bread and cucumber] and shoot. Then when the attack is over we move towards the woods before the helicopters arrive."

After dinner the men wrapped themselves in their blankets and scarves and slept. We left the house soon after morning prayers as a thick mist that had settled in the bottom of the valley was chased away by the early morning sun, which filtered down the mountains through the cypresses.

Men squatted in the fields, relieving themselves. We walked in the muddy lanes. Women with heads wrapped loosely in colourful scarves walked in small groups carrying buckets of water. A young girl with wild hair and wide eyes followed us at a distance.

At the entrance to the village, local men sat on the edge of the river wrapped in their scarves and blankets and looked intently at everything that moved: the three trucks piled high with logged trees, the other villagers, and the Taliban and their guests.

We met Mawlawi Jalali again in a different field. A few of his men walked between the high grass and trees, patrolling the valley.

"The villagers are good," he said. "They feed us and give us shelter, even if we are 100 men, but sometimes their hearts are weak – they think that the foreigners bring development projects to help them, which is not true. This is why we have to forcefully stop these projects, to protect the villagers."

What about schools, and education for the villagers? "We have no problem with education, it's the curriculums that we have problems with. Under our [Taliban] government, when we taught the children the letter J it stood for jihad. Now it's jar [meaning neighbour]. So we closed the schools, but we have madrasas for the children."

As we drove out of the valley the Taliban pickup truck again gave lifts to villagers. Old women, young men and couples held on to the sides of the car as it climbed over the rocks and drove through the water.

On a mountain road outside the valley, a group of contractors and their heavily-armed security escorts were clearing the road of debris. It was the wreckage of one of their cars, an SUV that had been blown in half earlier in the week. Bits of blackened flesh lay on the road and a piece of blue cloth hung from a bush.

We drove on, down from the high mountains of eastern Afghanistan towards Kabul.

Not Enough Canadians, faulty US strategy

2009-08-16T08:44:00.000-07:00

In Taliban Heartland, Coalition's Made Little Headway After 8 Years

By Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers
August 16, 2009

ZHARI DISTRICT, Afghanistan — Two miles from the gates of an isolated Canadian military base in southern Afghanistan lies Sangsar, the village where the Taliban's harsh interpretation of Islam was born.

A few miles farther east is Siah Choy, where students learn to build roadside bombs for passing U.S. and Afghan troops. About six miles further east, in Nakhonay, the Taliban store thousands of weapons to distribute in the region.

This fertile part of southern Afghanistan is the front line of the war between the American-led coalition and the Taliban. Yet neither the U.S. nor its coalition partners have any troops stationed in these villages.

The Taliban's grip here is so strong that Afghan government leaders can't live in their own villages, so the farmers turn to the militants to settle local disputes. When Afghans go to the polls next Thursday to pick a president, no one here will vote because the Taliban have ordered them to stay home.

The coalition's precarious position in Kandahar province after nearly eight years of a war that's claimed more than 775 American lives is a warning that the new U.S. campaign to subdue the Taliban in the Islamists' heartland will be, at best, an uphill struggle.

Later this month, soldiers from the 5th Brigade of the Army's 2nd Infantry Division out of Fort Lewis, Wash., will take control of this base, part of an American troop increase that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has said is key to wresting control from the Taliban.

But the tactics the U.S. honed in Iraq will be of little or no use here, where roadways are either dusty, unpaved tracks or simply dry creek beds and where the terrian is lush, Vietnam-like, capable of growing grapes, opium poppies and marijuana, yet fiercely hot — temperatures easily reach 130 degrees in the summer and soldiers walk a few hundred yards and collapse before a shot is fired.

And the Canadians who have been here for the past three years are openly skeptical that their U.S. brethren, with huge eight-wheeled Stryker armored fighting vehicles in the lush waist-high grape vines, will have any better luck subduing the Taliban than they did.

The Americans "need to understand this is the toughest environment" they'll face, said Capt. Chris Blouin of Canada's Royal 22nd Regiment. "It's not complicated. Expect everything."

For three years, a Canadian force of a few hundred has faced as many as 15,000 Taliban here. In those three years, however, the Canadians acknowledge that they've had little more than a "finger in the dike strategy" aimed at preventing Taliban forces from capturing Kandahar, Afghanistan's second-largest city, 20 miles to the east. With few resources, stalemate was the Canadians' strategy.

America's allies have no territorial gains to show for the effort. The schools they built were destroyed after the Taliban took them over and used them to stage ambushes. The small outposts they established, including the one in Sangsar, were abandoned in 2007 under constant Taliban attack.

"All we were really able to do, and have been able to do, is keep the insurgency sufficiently at bay that it doesn't become a real challenge to the state," said Canadian Brig. Gen. Jonathan Vance, who commands 2,800 troops in Kandahar province, about 300 of them based in Sangsar. "And it's not a real challenge to the state."

The Canadians' efforts to guide and train their Afghan counterparts who share this base have been equally frustrating.

At a meeting of local elders last month on the Afghan side of the base, Canadian and Afghan soldiers and police officers sat around a table laden with Oreos and pretzels mixed with dried apricots and figs.

The local police chief, Bizmullah Jan, asked for more help from the Canadians. The Canadians' lack of troops, however, makes it hard for them to support the Afghans the way the Afghans would like.

"Your troops need to understand that they are better fighters than the Taliban, and the Taliban are not good fighters...the Taliban have an ammo issue as well," said Blouin, 31, of Quebec, who's assigned to the Bravo Company in the 2nd Battalion of Canada's Royal 22nd Regiment. "Don't shoot everywhere. This is your country, and you need to be out the wire (in front) first."

The local Afghan army chief, Lt. Col Miranwar, who like many Afghans uses only one name, chimed in: "You have the technology, the best technology, but every time the Taliban fight, you cannot find them...you say you are here to help and support us, so we need support and help from you."

Blouin didn't budge. "It is chaotic on the ground, and there are too many people, so I cannot see who is the enemy. . . . It is a mistake to count too much on the technology because the Taliban doesn't have technology."

"Yes, but the Taliban have the authority over the whole area," Miranwar replied.

The Canadians are bitter about their role. They've lost 125 soldiers — the highest proportionally of any coalition partner — and have killed thousands of Taliban fighters and hundreds more civilians in short bursts of operations, usually lasting a few days.

Now they feel the clock ticking: They have two years to make a lasting difference before political pressure probably will force them to go home. Canada's politicians have said that their combat forces will leave Afghanistan by the end of 2011.

"We are proud to have been here. This is the heart of the insurgency," said Capt. Christian Maranda, 30, of Quebec and of Bravo Company. "But of course it's frustrating, because we lose ground every time we lose an area."

The local population has lost hope that the coalition can wrest control from the Taliban fighters who hide in their fields and take over their homes. Afghans resent the Canadians for making their lives more difficult. They've seen civilians killed. Their districts aren't safe. Canadian soldiers often have driven off the roads and destroyed farmers' 100-year-old grapevines in an effort to dodge the explosives that are waiting for them.

"Every yard is a trench for the enemy. . . . The people don't think about government and elections. The people now are just trying to save themselves," said district leader Naiz Mohammed Abdul Sarahadi, who splits his time between the base and Kandahar city because his district is too dangerous for him.

"Whenever there are more coalition forces, there are more deaths. These operations should have a result. We have an operation, and the Taliban move back in."

Taliban wearing flip-flops and carrying AK-47 rifles and rocket launchers have the small Canadian forward operating base near Zhari surrounded, but how many of them there are is anyone's guess. Blouin has heard 15,000. Harassment fire is common, usually beginning in midmorning, from men a few hundred yards from the base.

Every time the Taliban appear, Canadian medics who've grown accustomed to the routine put on their bright blue plastic gloves and booties, stand in front of stretchers laid out in a barren outdoor medical center and await the inevitable casualties.

The Taliban have no chance of overrunning the base, but they're sending a message to the villagers: They, not the foreign forces, are in charge of this area. They'll launch another two attacks outside the base before the week is over.

The longest land battle of this Afghan war took place just south of here in September 2006. The Canadians call it the Battle of Medusa, and they say that hundreds of Taliban were killed, along with 12 Canadian soldiers. Some think that battle, the most conventional fight between the Canadian Forces and the Taliban, stopped the Taliban from moving toward the city of Kandahar.

It was the apex of the Canadian effort here. The Canadians tried to keep the momentum going, but they lost it quickly because they didn't have enough troops.

Throughout their time here, the Canadians have pleaded for more troops and resources. They asked for more helicopters but never got them. They pleaded with the Americans to send a new Marine brigade here, only to see it go to neighboring Helmand and Farah provinces.'

Their only reinforcements came last year, when a Canadian commission found that Canada couldn't continue its mission without another 1,000 soldiers. The Americans sent 750 troops plus logistical support to the neighboring Maiwand district and the Canadians agreed to stay for another three years.

They built schools in the community, but NATO destroyed them after the Taliban took them over and used them to stage ambushes. They then set up small outposts, including the one in Sangsar. The Canadians found that they spent most of their effort protecting the outposts, so by early 2007 they moved back to their main base near Zhari.

No coalition soldier has been stationed in the birthplace of the Taliban since then.

Instead, the Canadians have launched one small operation after another, sweeping through the district village by village, operation by operation, back and forth. They've hit each of the district's villages at least twice, once before and once after the warm-weather fighting season. The aim is to capture enough weapons to force the Taliban to search for more instead of driving toward Kandahar.

"We have to hit certain places several times just to keep them off balance," said Cpl. Gary-James Johnston, 27, of Montreal.

Canadian soldiers serve six-month tours in Afghanistan, half as long as the Americans' tours. Since the 22nd Regiment arrived in late March, it's launched 15 operations. In July, the Canadians conducted three operations, each lasting two to three days.

They struck Taliban staging areas toward Kandahar city, accompanied by Afghan forces. During one operation, word leaked out and the Taliban fled. During the others, the militants simply dropped their weapons and went back to farming. In the last operation in July, the Canadians found one of the largest weapons caches of the war, enough rifles, grenades, rocket-propelled grenades and ammunition to fill a small building.

Still, they've made only a small dent in the insurgency.

"Yeah, they will be back," Canadian Lt. Col. Michael Patrick said after the latest operation. "We know that."

Together, the Canadian troops and the newly arriving 5th Brigade of the U.S. Army's 2nd Infantry Division will tackle the area's population centers. The Americans will come to Zhari, and the Canadians will move south to neighboring Panjaway district to reinforce their presence there.

"If we adequately secure 80 percent of the population, and the Taliban become irrelevant to 80 percent of the population, then we are well on our way to winning," said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. John Nicholson, the international force's deputy regional south commander and the highest-ranking American military officer in southern Afghanistan.

But McChrystal's advisers quietly concede that the new U.S. strategy may not work, either, and that if more troops are needed, they'll have to be American troops who are leaving Iraq.

"Even today, we don't have enough," a senior military adviser to McChrystal said, speaking only on the condition of anonymity in order to talk more candidly about the situation in Kandahar. "This is all the reality of an under-resourced war, and that's the impact of Iraq."

"We kept a lid on this as best we could, and successfully. The insurgency didn't win," said Brig. Gen. Jonathan Vance, the Canadian commander in Kandahar province.

"Woulda, shoulda, coulda, there would have been more troops here, and there would have been right from the beginning," Vance continued. "But there weren't. So we did exactly what we had to do. Now we have an opportunity...we have two years" before the Canadians are expected to leave Afghanistan. "In two years, you can do a lot."

Fingers, the Taliban, and Sex

2009-08-15T05:53:00.000-07:00

Taliban Threat To Chop Off Fingers Of Afghan Voters

By Ben Farmer
London Daily Telegraph
August 15, 2009

TALIBAN commanders have threatened to chop off the fingers of anyone caught voting in next week?s presidential elections. Insurgents in southern Afghanistan said fingers found bearing the indelible ink used to mark voters would be removed.

“We will know those who cast a vote from the ink, and his finger will be cut off,” a commander warned villagers in the south of the country.

The Taliban ruling council, led by Mullah Omar, has called on Afghans to boycott the election, described them as an American sham and told its fighters to block roads to polling stations.

President Hamid Karzai?s heartland is in the rural Pashtun south, where kinsmen could deliver crucial votes for his re-election campaign. But the risk of violent retribution from the Taliban and the prospect of re-electing a president who has attracted intense criticism for his policies in the final weeks of campaigning could dissuade many from turning out.

Mr Karzai faces a second round run-off because he is now unlikely to win by the 50 per cent of votes required.

As the presidential campaign entered its final week yesterday, human rights advocates accused Mr Karzai of betraying Afghanistan's women for votes after it was disclosed that he had ratified a controversial law said to condone marital rape.

The president's recent decision to free five convicted drug traffickers, including the nephew of his campaign manager, was also questioned by a minister in charge of hunting down Afghan opium lords.

Mr Karzai addressed thousands of supporters in the north-east city of Herat as it emerged that controversial legislation governing family life for the country?s Shia minority had been rushed through to become law.

The president was forced to reform the original draft in the face of international outcry earlier this year when it was found to rule that a woman had to satisfy her husband's sexual desires at least every fourth night.

But the amended version, which has quietly come into force after being published in the country?s official gazette, still maintains that a husband can stop feeding his wife if she does not submit to him.

Brad Adams, Asia director of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, said: “Karzai has made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in return for the support of fundamentalists.”

The law also grants custody of children only to fathers and grandfathers.

McChrystal: Cut Staff & Replace with Infantry

2009-08-14T06:21:00.000-07:00

General Considers More Afghanistan Fighters:
may swap support forces for combat troops
By Rowan Scarborough
Washington Times
August 14, 2009

The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan is examining whether some support personnel could be replaced by combat forces as a way to increase America's war fighting capacity without requesting a major addition of new troops.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal is facing conflicting pressures as he prepares a major strategy review to be delivered to the White House in the coming weeks. A group of outside advisers has recommended that he request as many as 21,000 more troops, but Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Thursday that the general would not seek additional troops at this time.

There are currently 62,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with 6,000 more expected to arrive by the end of the year. Mr. Gates said at a Pentagon briefing: "We need some time to see what the impact of all that is" before additional troop increases are considered.

He said that Gen. McChrystal is free to ask for whatever resources he feels he needs, but Mr. Gates doesn't expect a request on troop strength in the coming report.

A military source involved in Afghanistan planning told The Washington Times that Gen. McChrystal is exploring as much as a 12% cut in certain manpower slots, a move that would all ow him to request more combatants without substantially increasing the overall troop commitment. The source spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell confirmed Thursday that Gen. McChrystal was examining support staff levels.

"Among the things Secretary Gates asked General McChrystal to look at [in his strategy review] was the staff he was inheriting to make sure all his personnel were being used to maximum effect. If we had the means of getting people from behind desks and out into the field, we should take a close look at that," Mr. Morrell told The Times.

Lt. Col. Edward Sholtis, Gen. McChrystal's spokesman, said in an e-mail to The Times that there had been "a direction to identify where such cuts could be made, rather than a decision or direction to actually reduce the force."

"Resource requirements across the theater currently are being analyzed here, but there have been no final decisions or recommendations on numbers of personnel or other resourcing issues."

However, there is a widespread feeling among military specialists that more combat troops are needed to successfully carry through the broader counterinsurgency mission unveiled in March.
Last week, in an interview with editors and reporters of The Times, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he favored the initial Afghanistan surge that began in February.

"We needed to get troops in order to have an impact, particularly this year, because the Taliban's getting tougher, better organized, more sophisticated, better tactics, better intelligence, all those kinds of things. If we delayed that, we would miss a significant period of time to engage them."

A former defense official close to the strategic assessment team of outside specialists told The Times that those advisers are recommending four to six new combat brigades, or up to ! 21,000 troops.

The advisers included such think-tank heavyweight s as Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations, who helped President George W. Bush devise the "surge" strategy for Iraq; and Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Also in the group are Fred Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, who also helped develop the Iraq surge strategy, and Andrew Exum, a former U.S. Army Ranger who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq and is a scholar at the Center for a New American Security.

Mr. Morrell said Thursday that there is a big difference between the advice of outside specialists and the recommendations of the commanding general in Afghanistan.

"While their participation I am sure is greatly appreciated by Gen. McChrystal and his team, there is a clear distinction between dispensing advice and the commanding general taking that advice. And given that Gen. McChrystal is still very much in the throes of this assessment, no one, especially these outside advisers, is! in a position to know what he is thinking or is about to decide.

It is simply premature to draw conclusions about what he will present to the defense secretary."

Reached by e-mail Thursday, Mr. Exum wrote, "Any and all recommendations on resources were pending a thorough troop-to-task analysis, which was to take place after we departed Kabul.

"But the assessment was commissioned by the NATO secretary-general and the U.S. secretary of Defense. And if they do not want the commander's recommendation on resources to be included in the report, that is certainly their prerogative."

Mr. Biddle declined to comment to The Times. But in an in-house interview at the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Biddle let it be known that he favors more troops, just as he did for Iraq.

"I certainly continue to think that either course of action - staying or withdrawing - has important problems," he said. "On balance, staying is the better course, but only if we're p! repared to resource it correctly. The weakest argument is staying and under-resourcing it. That creates the opportunity to lose slowly, which is the worst of the three possible approaches."

He added: "One of the central issues for near-term strategy in Afghanistan is, even if the administration substantially increases the number of troops they want in this theater, it's going to be awhile before they can build up to those counts. So for a while to come, we're going to be stuck with too few troops to provide security everywhere."

After returning from Afghanistan, Mr. Cordesman said at a July 29 press conference that the path to victory would require more U.S. brigades, a doubling in the strength of the Afghan army, and reforms to the government.

"We, the United States, are going to have to provide the resources if we want to win," Mr. Cordesman said. "Most of the incremental resources will have to come from us. This means very substantial budget increases, it means more brigade combat troops and it means financing both the civ! ilian effort needed in the field and a near doubling of Afghan national security forces."

The source involved in Afghan planning said he understood that Gen. McChrystal was leaning toward asking his commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and Mr. Gates for more combat troops. This source said Gen. McChrystal's staff is now conducting a "troop-to-task" analysis to see if the reinforcements are necessary.

After the outside specialists briefed Gen. McChrystal, he made an unannounced trip Aug. 2 to Brussels to confer with Mr. Gates.

A new troop request, on top of the 21,000 additional troops already approved by Mr. Obama, could touch off a battle between the Army and the White House. Army headquarters at the Pentagon is working to increase rest time for soldiers beyond one year before they redeploy to Iraq or Afghanistan. Having to come up with thousands of more troops would disrupt those plans.

Prior to his remarks Thursday, Mr. Gates appeared to be preparin! g for a new Afghan escalation. He announced in late July that he think s the ongoing Iraq troop withdrawal can be accelerated. He also announced a temporary increase of 22,000 men and women in the active Army.

"I expect the Army to be able to find the new people," said Baker Spring, a defense analyst at the Heritage Foundation. "In my mind, the more serious problem is how the Department of Defense is going to pay for the increase in overall personnel levels and a still-high operational tempo with a topline budget for defense in 2011 that is roughly $70 billion less than in 2010."

The administration's five-year budget plan shows overall defense spending dropping from $692.7 billion in 2010 to $620.5 billion in 2011. It is banking on reduced war costs in Iraq to achieve the reduction.

The White House is cool toward any further Afghan escalation.

Mr. Cordesman rebuked the administration for making dismissive remarks about a troop increase before it sees Gen. McChrystal's report. National Security Adviser James L. Jones said! on Sunday's talk shows that it is too soon to consider such increases.

"Quite frankly, it would probably be just as well if people in the National Security Council and the White House made their judgments after they get the assessment they need rather than try to resource constrain an assessment in a way that can lose the war," he said.

Eli Lake contributed to this report.

Brits in Afghanistan

2009-08-13T05:46:00.000-07:00

British Troops Have Poor Hygiene And Too Many Injuries, US Commander Says

By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
London Times
August 13, 2009

A US commander has criticised British troops in Helmand province, attacking everything from their gathering of intelligence to their personal hygiene.

The unnamed Marine commander claimed that British Forces spent insufficient time living among the Afghan people, were not posted for long enough, had too many bases and suffered too many non-battle injuries.

The confidential briefing, given in the spring, according to the New Statesman, also suggested that the British military “are cautious about the enemy and overestimate their strength”. The commander was quoted as saying: “Your standards of personal hygiene and field discipline aren?t good enough.”

Many soldiers in Helmand serve in primitive forward bases where facilities can be crude. Showers often consist of a plastic bag of water with a tap, hung from a frame. Soldiers returning from patrols in scorching heat have to wait their turn to get a shower.

The Ministry of Defence said that troops were aware that good personal “field hygiene” was important. It was “nonsense” that British hygiene was worse than American standards.

An army spokesman said: “We do not recognise this criticism of our highly professional troops. In the harsh battlefield conditions of Afghanistan every soldier knows that good field hygiene keeps them fighting fit.

“Recent US and UK operations in Helmand show that we work well together and US commanders rate the British Army very highly.”

The MoD also dismissed claims that British soldiers were suffering excessive non-battle injuries. “We have the same number of injuries whether the troops are serving in Afghanistan or back at home,” one official said.

Replying to the criticism that the tour lengths were too short, General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the Army, said: “I?m completely convinced that at the level of intensity of fighting in Afghanistan at the moment, six months is as long as I want to commit our people to. It is very intense, it is very difficult.”

Benchmarks for Afghanistan??

2009-08-11T06:36:00.000-07:00

Benchmarks Eyed For Afghanistan

U.S. seeks to test effectiveness of surge as skepticism grows
By Anne Gearan, Associated Press

The Obama administration is preparing a set of about 50 benchmarks for Afghanistan, senior officials said Monday, redefining how to measure success in a war now widely assessed as a stalemate.

The be! nchmarks will test how well the U.S. military and civilian "surges" ordered by President Obama are working. They cover Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The new measures, ordered by Congress, are due Sept. 24 amid creeping skepticism among many Democrats about the war's prognosis and costs.

"The deterioration of the security situation in Afghanistan is conspicuous," the Senate Foreign Relations Committee wrote in a report to be released this week. The report notes a record number of U.S. soldiers and Marines died in Afghanistan last month.

"The coming months will test the administration's deepening involvement, its new strategy on counternarcotics specifically and its counterinsurgency effort in general," the senators wrote. "Some observers fear that the moment for reversing the tide in Afghanistan has passed and even a narrow victory will remain out of reach, despite the larger American footprint."

The Afghanistan benchmarks will be more detailed than the I! raq war scorecard used by the George W. Bush administration, a senior administration official said Monday. The White House is circulating a classified version among key lawmakers, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the unreleased document.

The old Iraq yardsticks had an all-or-nothing quality - either the Iraqi government passed a law governing oil resources or it didn't. Many of those tests remain unmet, even as the war there has subsided and U.S. forces prepare to leave.

In writing the Afghan version, Obama advisers say they want to look more broadly, measuring not only what gets done but how well and on what schedule. The benchmarks will include short- and long-term goals. Some will probably be flagged by color - red for things going poorly, green for those going well, the official said.

The reports will be submitted quarterly, with three or four due ahead of the unofficial deadline for measurable progress - 12 to 18 months - outlined by Mr. Obama and his top defense advisers this summer! .

Separately, the newly installed top U.S. general in Afghanistan is preparing an interim assessment that is expected to be a sober accounting of the difficulties of fighting an entrenched and technically capable insurgency eight years into the war.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal is expected to identify shortfalls that should be filled by more forces - perhaps a mix of Afghan, NATO and U.S. Any recommendations for more U.S. forces would come through Gen. McChrystal's boss, Gen. David H. Petraeus.

Estimates of the additions Gen. McChrystal might recommend range from a few thousand to more than 20,000. Gen. McChrystal's predecessor had already asked for an additional 10,000 for next year, but Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other top officials made it known they are skeptical.

"We believe that with the strategy and the assets and the infusion of resources, that we're going to be able to achieve our goals," White House spokesman Bill Burton said Monday.

There are 62,000 U.S. troops and 39,000 allied forces in Afghani stan, on top of about 175,000 Afghan soldiers and police. Some NATO countries plan to withdraw their troops in the next few years, even as the United States expands its presence.

Sen Graham: Don't 'Rumsfeld Afghanistan'

2009-08-09T08:31:00.000-07:00

Graham: Don't 'Rumsfeld Afghanistan'

Senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.)is transforming a former Defense Secretary's name into a derogatory verb and warning that the U.S. needs to deploy the resources needed to keep Afghanistan stable.

"Let's not Rumsfeld Afghanistan. Let’s don’t do this thing on the cheap. Lets have enough combat power and engagement across the board to make sure we’re successful," Graham told CBS's "Face the Nation."

The senator explained that he was alluding to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's support for invading Iraq with a minimal number of U.S. troops.

Graham said he was nearly certain that the Pentagon will ask for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan.

"I will be shocked if more troops are not requested by our commanders," Graham said on CBS. "We must secure more troops….I will shocked if more troops are not needed."

CNN: 3 Brits killed in Helmand

2009-08-07T06:04:00.000-07:00

Three British soldiers killed in Afghanistan
CNN: 08:48 AM ET

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) — Three members of the British military have been killed in Afghanistan, the British military said Friday.

Three soldiers with Britain’s Parachute Regiment were killed when an explosion hit the vehicle they were traveling in north of Lashkar Gah, in southern Afghanistan, the British Ministry of Defence said in a statement.

A fourth member of their patrol remains in critical condition, the statement said.

Their patrol also was struck by gunfire from militants, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force said.

The force had announced the deaths earlier but did not disclose the nationalities of the service members who were killed.

In other fighting, four Afghan police officers were killed when their patrol was bombed Thursday in Kandahar province, local officials said.

Two other police officers were killed in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province, when the Taliban attacked motorcycles.

Afghanistan: How To Define Victory?

2009-08-07T05:36:00.000-07:00

White House Struggles To Gauge Afghan Success

By David E. Sanger, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker
New York Times
August 7, 2009

WASHINGTON — As the American military comes to full strength in the Afghan buildup, the Obama administration is struggling to come up with a long-promised plan to measure whether the war is being won.

Those “metrics” of success, demanded by Congress and eagerly awaited by the military, are seen as crucial if the president is to convince Capitol Hill and the country that his revamped strategy is working. Without concrete signs of progress, Mr. Obama may lack the political stock — especially among Democrats and his liberal base — to make the case for continuing the military effort or enlarging the American presence.

That problem will become particularly acute if American commanders in Afghanistan seek even more troops for a mission that many of Mr. Obama’s most ardent supporters say remains ill defined and open-ended.

Senior administration officials said that the president’s national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, approved a classified policy document on July 17 setting out nine broad objectives for metrics to guide the administration’s policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Another month or two is still needed to flesh out the details, according to officials engaged in the work.

General Jones and other top National Security Council aides, including Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, gave an update to top Congressional leaders over recent days.

But as the Bush administration learned the hard way in Iraq, poorly devised measurements can become misleading indicators — and can create a false sense of progress.

That is especially difficult in a war like the one in Afghanistan, in which eliminating corruption, promoting a working democracy and providing effective aid are as critical as scoring military success against insurgents and terrorists.

For instance, some of the measures now being devised by the Obama administration track the size, strength and self-reliance of the Afghan National Army, which the United States has been struggling to train for seven years. They include the number of operations in which Afghan soldiers are in the lead, or the number of Afghan soldiers who have received basic instruction.

White House officials say they are taking the time to get the measurements right.

In some cases, old measurements are being thrown out. Commanders in Afghanistan say they no longer pay much attention to how many enemy fighters are killed in action. Instead, they are trying to count instances in which local citizens cooperate with Afghan and allied forces.

And in drafting a metric important to senior members of Congress, the administration is considering conducting an opinion poll to determine Afghan public perception of official corruption at national, provincial and district levels. This would give insight into how Afghan citizens view police performance at the neighborhood level all the way up to the quality of national political appointments.

But as the architects of similar metrics in Iraq learned, even the best-constructed measures can miss the larger truth.

In 2005 and 2006, for example, the White House was often citing the “rat rate” in Iraq, a measure of good tips from Iraqis about the location of insurgents or the planting of roadside bombs.

“We thought this was a good measure of how well the public was turning against” Al Qaeda and other insurgents, said Peter D. Feaver, a professor at Duke University who served in the National Security Council at the time. “What we discovered was that the rat rate numbers steadily improved over the course of 2006 — and the violence was rising.”

That experience helps to explain why the Obama administration has taken so much time. But some frustrated lawmakers said the delay might prove costly.

“We have been in Afghanistan now for more than seven and a half years,” said Representative Ike Skelton, a Democrat of Missouri and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “These metrics are required to help make the case for the American people that actual progress is being made, or if we need to change the course to another direction. I think that time is not on our side.”

When President Obama unveiled his new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan in March, he emphasized the importance of these measures.

“We will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable,” Mr. Obama said. “We’ll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan security forces and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistan’s economy and its illicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.”

All that now seems unlikely to be completed before his field commanders finish their proposals for carrying out their marching orders. Their recommendations were originally due at the Pentagon within the next two weeks, but Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued expanded instructions for the assessment to the commanders last weekend and gave them until September to complete their report.

Skeptical lawmakers have implored Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to produce what Mr. Obama promised, and they have made specific recommendations of their own.

“The metrics are critically important to keep everyone’s feet to the fire on this and for the public to know how we’re doing and have some ways to measure it and not have just rhetoric,” said Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“We all share the president’s goal of succeeding in Afghanistan,” said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “The challenge here is how we are going to define success in the medium term, given the difficult security environment we face.”

Senior White House officials say their objectives are grouped in three main categories: counterterrorism, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The counterinsurgency objectives are highly classified and cover a “full range” of efforts to help Pakistan combat the militant threat in its tribal areas.

Others address Pakistan’s ability to maintain and strengthen democratically elected civilian government; the country’s ability to confront and defeat an internal insurgent threat; and international support for Pakistan, including international donors, the United Nations and the World Bank.

In Afghanistan, they would assess suppression of the insurgency; building and strengthening Afghan security forces; shoring up support for the government and reviving the economy; and garnering support from NATO, the European Union, the United Nations and international donors.

Pentagon: Afghan Review Delayed

2009-08-06T07:22:00.000-07:00

Pentagon Says Review Of Afghan War To Be Delayed

By Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press
August 5, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates, asking that "a few other ideas" be taken into account, has extended the deadline for an assessment of how to turn around the war in Afghanistan, an official said Wednesday.

The report had been expected next week and now may come in late August or early September, Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

Officials said last week that a draft of ! the assessment called for changes in the way troops operate and that after the report was finished commanders were likely to ask for more U.S. forces.

Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, flew Saturday to a U.S. air base in Chievres, Belgium, and met Sunday with the commander of NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and several advisers.

"He was very impressed with the briefing he got and the assessment thus far," Morrell said of Gates. "But he wants (McChrystal) to take into consideration a few other ideas he had to address some additional issues in this review of the situation on the ground."

Gates told McChrystal to take beyond the 60 days first planned for the review, Morrell said.

Morrell told a Pentagon news conference that he didn't know what the additional ideas were.

The draft called for speeding up the training of Afghan soldiers and police and nearly doubling their numbers to ! roughly 400,000, officials said. Though more foreign trainers would be needed for that, it was unclear whether they would come from the U.S. or allied militaries.

The main recommendations in the draft for change were said to stem from the military's new counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, which is now designed to focus less on going after Taliban strongholds and more on protecting the local population - something that affects where troops live and how and where they will fight.

More Troops to Afghanistan?

2009-08-04T06:07:00.000-07:00

Optimistic Words On Afghanistan

The State Dept was upbeat. More cautious were defense officials. Top brass met Sunday.

By Anne Gearan, Associated Press
August 4, 2009

WASHINGTON -- A day after President Obama's senior defense advisers huddled in Europe to discuss the future of the war in Afghanistan, the State Department yesterday talked optimistically about the conflict that top generals have called a stalemate.

"We believe that this is a struggle that we are now, you know...we have turned a tide," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. "We're seeing success in Afghanistan, difficult as it is."

Hours later, five rockets slammed into the Afghan capital, Kabul, one of them near the U.S. Embassy, injuring at least one child, police said. "There's no indication these rockets targeted the U.S. Embassy," an embassy spokeswoman said. She requested anonymity because she was not authorized to release the information.

Crowley's remark came in response to a question about al-Qaeda, the terror network whose shelter in Afghanistan prompted the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. Crowley said later he was "not trying to minimize the complexity" of eventual success in Afghanistan.

Defense and military officials have been circumspect about the situation in Afghanistan in recent months, with some of them characterizing the conflict as stalemated.

Even after adding 21,000 troops to expand its war against Taliban insurgents, top defense and military officials are hashing over whether to ask the White House for even more forces in Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, flew Saturday to a U.S. air base in Chievres, Belgium, and met Sunday with several advisers including Gen. David Petraeus, who has overall responsibility for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Gates and Mullen were given an interim report on security in Afghanistan. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is putting together an assessment of the war that may include a request for additional U.S. forces and resources.

The trip was organized in secret, and Gates traveled without his usual throng of staff and reporters.

McChrystal's study is expected to recommend a significant expansion of the Afghan armed forces and a reorganization of U.S. and NATO operations. Any request to expand U.S. forces would be on top of the 21,000 increase Obama approved earlier this year.

That brings the total to 68,000 scheduled to be in the country by the end of 2009 - about double the figure at the same time last year.

With 74 foreign troops killed - including 43 Americans - July was the deadliest month for international forces since the start of the war in 2001.

The civilian death toll also climbed yesterday as a Taliban bomb tore through a crowded street in western Afghanistan's main city, Herat, killing 11 people, hurting dozens, and critically wounding the district police chief it targeted, officials said.

UK: In Afghanistan to topple Al-Qaeda

2009-08-04T06:03:00.000-07:00

We're In Afghanistan To Topple Al-Qaeda, Says Armed Forces Minister

By Michael Evans, Richard Beeston and Catherine Philp
London Times
August 4, 2009

British troops are fighting in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from using it as a base to plot terror strikes against Britain, a defence minister said yesterday.

Responding to criticism that the Government had failed to explain its strategy in the Afghan campaign, Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, said British troops were battling against an insurgency that, if it were to succeed, “would provide free rein to the terrorist capacity that inspired, planned and provided support for attacks like those of 9/11, of 7/7, and many more besides”.

Mr Rammell insisted that although al-Qaeda?s main base was now in Pakistan, the presence of British and American troops and forces from 40 other countries in Afghanistan was essential to prevent terrorists surging back into the country. He said that the terrorist threat to Britain would be “significantly greater” if the Taleban were allowed to regain control of Afghanistan, bringing al-Qaeda with it.

“We don?t want to be in Afghanistan for ever, that?s why our strategy is to provide greater security by building up the Afghan National Army, which is currently 90,000 and is rising to 140,000,” he said. Mr Rammell was the latest government minister to try to explain to the public why Britain has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan.

His views were echoed by Nato?s new chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish Prime Minister, who called on European countries to match the US commitment and prevent Afghanistan from becoming “a Grand Central Station of international terrorism”.

Mr Rasmussen said that Nato?s survival could depend on more European troops to dispel the perception that Afghanistan was a US operation. “If the Americans are to continue to regard Nato as relevant, so Europe has to do its part,” he said. General Stanley McChrystal, Nato?s top commander in Afghanistan, is preparing to demand thousands more US troops to train and support a vast parallel surge of Afghan troops, placing him on a collision course with President Obama.

General McChrystal, who will submit a review to the White House and Nato headquarters next week, was appointed by Mr Obama in the belief that he would not demand more troops. His demands, though, are backed by Anthony Cordesman, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, who said that without a doubling of Afghan troops, from 150,000 to 300,000, the conflict could be lost.

Middle Eastern counter-terrorist sources said that while Nato was focusing its military effort on Afghanistan, al-Qaeda had been allowed to rebuild itself after the deal signed by Pakistan in 2006 with elders in the tribal regions, which lifted the threat of attack against al-Qaeda. One source told The Times that “2007 was the best year for al-Qaeda since 2001, because many hundreds of foreign volunteers came to fight for them”.

Only the campaign by the Americans, using unmanned Predator spy drones armed with Hellfire missiles and precision-guided bombs, had succeeded in making inroads into the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. In 2008 and so far this year, 20 commanders had been killed, the sources said.

Mr Rammell said that the Government?s strategy embraced Afghanistan and Pakistan. “For Britain to be secure, Afghanistan needs to be secure, Pakistan needs to be secure,” he said, speaking at the Royal United Services Institute in London. “Of the people arrested in connection with terrorist offences in Europe over the past few years, a significant proportion have been trying to engage in insurgencies in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Some people, he said, believed that the West “brought this on ourselves, that if we hadn?t gone into Afghanistan and Iraq, all would have been well”. He said that George W. Bush, the former US President, could not be blamed for al-Qaeda?s atrocities. “This strand of thinking ignores the reality that the planning of 9/11 took place while Bill Clinton was in the White House and the prospects for peace in the Middle East were closer than they had been for a generation,” he said.

It is understood that a Conservative administration would consider appointing a Minister for Afghanistan who would attend Cabinet meetings when Afghanistan is being discussed and complement the Defence and Foreign Secretaries.

William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said: “The Prime Minister must make clear which minister has primary responsibility for our policy in Afghanistan and the Government should make quarterly reports to Parliament, covering Britain?s objectives, the progress made in achieving them and the resources required.”

The Afghan Elections - Amb Karl Eikenberry

2009-08-03T05:42:00.000-07:00

In Afghanistan, A Time To Debate And Decide
By Karl W. Eikenberry
Washington Post
August 3, 2009

In the run-up to Afghanistan's presidential and provincial council elections on Aug. 20, Afghan and international political elites and journalists will pass judgment on the past five years. But only the Afghan people can decide who will best lead their country for the next five.

Afghanistan's elections present an opportunity for the country's citizens to create a future of prosperity and peace for their children. Five years ago, with guid! ance from the international community, Afghanistan held its first elections and began the process of building a new state -- a complex and difficult effort following 25 years of invasion, civil war, oppression and foreign-inspired terrorism. This time, Afghan authorities bear the full responsibility for fulfilling their people's right to choose their leaders, with the international community assisting, not leading. But none of this will matter unless the voters have a real choice and know what each candidate stands for. There must be a serious debate among the candidates and by the Afghan people.

The issues at stake are numerous and weighty. How will the next president finish building a strong army and police force respected by the people and fully capable of providing security? Can the nation's wealth be used for investment and development in an accountable manner? How will young people be educated and trained to develop the human capital that Afghanistan needs to mo! ve forward? What policies will be adopted to encourage the return to A fghan society of those who renounce ties with international terrorism and the use of force while accepting the constitution of the nation? What are the candidates' ideas for governing Afghanistan; how, for example, should the provincial councils evolve to give a real voice to Afghans across the land? And how can the international community better partner with Afghanistan to achieve peace, justice and economic progress?

In March, President Obama announced a new U.S. strategy that includes a major commitment of American men and women -- civilian and military -- to Afghanistan, as well as important new financial contributions to help accelerate development. We will continue to work with the next Afghan administration to field capable and sufficient Afghan National Army and police units; to support effective government personnel systems; to help combat corruption; to provide financial assistance to key Afghan institutions; to promote agricultural development; to address de! tention issues; to support Afghan-led reconciliation efforts; and to fix contracting practices. All of these efforts must be underpinned by accountability on both sides. The international community looks forward to strengthening its partnership with whichever candidate emerges from the elections, based upon a renewed spirit of cooperation.

So it is not just the Afghan people who need to understand the candidates' platforms and plans. We members of the international community need to know these things, too. The United States is one nation among a great partnership of more than 40 NATO and non-NATO countries that have joined with the people and government of Afghanistan. We have lost our sons and daughters, just as Afghans have, and we have invested significant development assistance during difficult economic times. Our commitment is extraordinary and long term. We are prepared to forge ahead based on common interests and mutual obligations. We stand with absolute impar! tiality regarding who should be president of Afghanistan. But all of u s will benefit from clarity as to what policy goals we should expect from the next administration.

This is an exciting time to be in Afghanistan. Walking through the bazaars of Helmand, Wardak, Kunduz, Herat, Uruzgan, Khost and numerous other provinces where the Afghan people are defending against destabilizing forces, I have seen their hope and thirst for progress. Candidates -- some prominent, some relatively new to the national stage -- are for the most part embracing their responsibility to discuss the issues. Ongoing televised debates remind me that, though we may be separated by barriers of language and culture, the democratic process in Afghanistan is like our own: an intense competition of political ideas to the benefit of the common citizen.

On Aug. 20, Afghan men and women will travel great distances -- in some cases, unfortunately, under threat of attack -- to make their voices heard. In the final weeks of this election season, the Afghan people deserv! e to know the platforms and implementation plans of each candidate. And so do we. The stakes are high and the opportunity great for all of us. The Afghan people and international community must be positioned to move quickly in partnership immediately after the inauguration of Afghanistan's next president. We have no time to lose as we work together to deliver peace, justice, economic opportunity and regional understanding.

It is time for a serious debate.

The writer is the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. He has served five years in the country in civilian and military capacities, including as commander of international forces from 2005 to 2007.

USS Jason Dunham!

2009-08-02T05:25:00.000-07:00

New warship named for lifesaving Marine
Corporal who covered live grenade with body honored at christening

The Associated Press
updated 8:48 p.m. ET, Sat., Aug 1, 2009

BATH, Maine - In a solemn ceremony punctuated by talk of courage, service and sacrifice, the mother of a Marine corporal on Saturday christened a warship honoring her son, who died after covering an exploding grenade to protect his comrades in Iraq.

After composing herself and taking a deep breath, Deb Dunham smashed a bottle of champagne over the bow of the 510-foot warship Jason Dunham, then held the bottle aloft to the cheers of hundreds.

She was joined by the Marines who served with her son, by her husband, Dan Dunham, and their daughter Katelyn Dunham.

Retired Gen. Michael Hagee, a former Marine commandant who was with the Dunhams when their son died at Bethesda Naval Hospital days after the explosion, said Jason gave the "gift of valor." Hagee said the warship will serve as a reminder that freedom "is paid for by the men and women who wear the cloth of this nation."

"They are willing to give up everything that is important: love, marriage, children, family, friends," Hagee said of the 22-year-old Marine. "I can tell you I've always stood in awe of that."

At the Bath Iron Works shipyard, a special place was reserved for those who served with Dunham in Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines. Dunham's company commander, Maj. Trent Gibson, Sgt. Bill Hampton and Cpl. Kelly Miller, who were present the day Dunham died, were among them. Hampton and Miller were next to Dunham when the grenade detonated. Their lives were saved by Dunham's actions. They suffered burns and shrapnel wounds but recovered.

Hagee said Dunham, from Scio, N.Y., seemed destined to be a Marine: He reminded the audience that Dunham's birthday was the same as that of the U.S. Marine Corps.

Dunham served as squad commander on his first tour in Iraq, and he chose to extend his enlistment so he could serve the entire tour with his Marines. He vowed to bring his squad home alive, and was true to his word. They all came back.

Dunham won the Medal of Honor for his actions April 14, 2004, as his squad sought to engage insurgents after a convoy was ambushed.

While the squad searched vehicles, the driver of a Toyota Land Cruiser jumped out and attacked Dunham. They fell to the ground, where the fight continued.

Dunham shouted: "No, no, no! Watch his hand!" as the attacker pulled out a grenade. Dunham covered the explosive with his body and his helmet as it went off. He died eight days later.

Before the ceremony, Dunham's mother said it was fitting that the ship that would bear her son's name is a guided-missile destroyer. "It's an honor Jason would really get a kick out of," she said.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

Breaking News: Capt Speicer Remains Found

2009-08-02T05:22:00.000-07:00

Remains of U.S. pilot missing since '91 found
Speicher’s disappearance had bedeviled investigators for 18 years

The Associated Press
At 7:34 a.m. ET, Sun., Aug 2, 2009

WASHINGTON - The remains of the first American lost in the Persian Gulf War have been found in Iraq, the military said Sunday, after struggling for nearly two decades with the question of whether he was dead or alive.

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology has positively identified the remains of Captain Michael "Scott" Speicher, whose disappearance has bedeviled investigators since his jet was shot down over the Iraq desert on the first night of the 1991 war.

The top Navy officer said the discovery illustrates the military's commitment to bring its troops home.

"Our Navy will never give up looking for a shipmate, regardless of how long or how difficult that search may be," said Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations. "We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Captain Speicher and his family for the sacrifice they have made for our nation and the example of strength they have set for all of us."

The Pentagon initially declared Speicher killed, but uncertainty — and the lack of remains — led officials over the years to change his official status a number of times to "missing in action" and later "missing-captured."

New leads opened up
After years, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq finally gave investigators the chance to search inside Iraq. And it led to a number of leads, including what some believed were the initials "MSS" scratched into the wall of an Iraqi prison.

The search also led investigators to excavate a potential grave site in Baghdad in 2005, track down Iraqis said to have information about Speicher and make numerous other inquiries in what officials say has been an exhaustive search.

Officials said Sunday that they got new information from an Iraqi citizen in early July, leading Marines stationed in Anbar province to a location in the desert which was believed to be the crash site of Speicher's jet.

The Iraqi said he knew of two other Iraqis who recalled an American jet crashing and the remains of the pilot being buried in the desert.

"One of these Iraqi citizens stated that they were present when Captain Speicher was found dead at the crash site by Bedouins and his remains buried," the Pentagon said in a statement.

He was positively identified through a jawbone found at the site and dental records, said Read Adm. Frank Thorp.

USS JASON DUNHAM, USMC

2009-07-31T06:33:00.000-07:00

Warship honors Marine who died protecting comrades

By DAVID SHARP
Associated Press

BATH, Maine - Marines flushing out Iraqi insurgents after an ambush came upon a column of vehicles. A van with a father and son. A pickup truck. A tractor. A BMW with a couple of sheiks. And a Toyota Land Cruiser with four young men, all of them insurgents.

As Marines began searching the vehicles, the driver of the Land Cruiser jumped out and attacked Cpl. Jason Dunham. The two men tumbled onto the dirt road. Two Marines ran up to assist but Dunham cried out, "No, no, no, watch his hand!"

A grenade exploded, rocking the narrow street.

Dunham, 22, of Scio, N.Y., mortally wounded as he saved his comrades that day, will be honored Saturday at the christening of the Navy's newest destroyer, the USS Jason Dunham. The young corporal who threw his Kevlar helmet and his body onto the grenade became the first Marine since the Vietnam War to receive the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military honor.

His mother, Deb Dunham, said she can't think of a greater tribute.

"It keeps his name alive and his memory alive. And that, as a parent, is what's important, so that people don't forget what our men and women are doing with the fight for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a cost to pay," Deb Dunham said.

Deb Dunham, who'll christen the ship with champagne at Bath Iron Works, will be joined by her husband Dan and their other three children.

Dunham's company commander, Maj. Trent Gibson, and other Marines who served with him in Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, will attend. First Sgt. John Ferguson, who heard Dunham's last words before the grenade blast, saw the insurgent and the three Marines sprawled on the ground when the dust settled that April 14, 2004.

"I thought for sure all four were dead," he said. Amazingly, though, Lance Cpl. William Hampton and Pfc. Kelly Miller, both suffering burns and shrapnel wounds, rose to their feet. Dunham never regained consciousness and died eight days later.

While Dunham's name will always be synonymous with his actions on April 14, 2004, his parents remember a young man who wasn't perfect, growing up in the small town in western New York. He excelled at sports but wasn't the best student. He often forgot to take the trash out, they said.

But he always had a tendency to look out for others.

"Jason had the biggest heart on this planet. He was always looking out for everybody else and their welfare. When they were sad, he would make them laugh. He was that way all through his childhood growing up, and in the Marine Corps also," Dan Dunham said.

He was an unlikely choice for squad leader because he hadn't seen combat. But Ferguson, who selected him, liked what he saw: "He didn't brag or boast about his abilities. He never yelled. In fact, the whole time I knew him he only yelled once or twice. He led by example."

Dunham took his role as squad leader seriously. He extended his enlistment so he could serve a full combat tour with his fellow Marines, and he vowed to make sure his squad made it home alive.

The rest of them did.

The Iraqi insurgencywas gaining momentum when Dunham's unit arrived in Iraq's dangerous Anbar Province and set up shop in 2004 near the Syrian border.

Kilo Company lost its first Marine on April 9 in an ambush, so the troops were already on edge five days later when they heard explosions while on patrol in Karabilah. The battalion commander's convoy had been ambushed, so Dunham's unit set off to engage the enemy.

His squad came across a line of vehicles fleeing and decided to search them.

The old Land Cruiser was of particular interest because it had four young men in it. Miller got there first, and three Iraqis hopped out and fled, Gibson said. Then the driver jumped out and attempted to choke Dunham. Dunham drove his knee into the man, and they fought on the ground. Miller struck the man with a telescoping baton and tried to put him in a choke hold, to no avail. Hampton, too, charged to the scene. No one but Dunham saw the grenade before the blast. Afterward, the suicide bomber got to his feet and was shot dead.

Later, Gibson, the company commander, returned to the bloody scene and found pieces of Dunham's helmet. He also found the pin from a grenade on the ground, next to the attacker's body. Another hand grenade and weapons including rocket-propelled grenade launchers were discovered in the Land Cruiser.

Dunham's response was not by the book. Marines are taught to hit the deck, facing away, to minimize shrapnel wounds from a grenade, Gibson said.

But Dunham had his own ideas. He'd told fellow Marines he thought the best approach would be to cover the grenade with the helmet and bullet-proof body armor, they said. In fact, he even demonstrated the technique. Little did he know that he'd employ the technique two weeks later.

"Dunham had thought about it quite a bit. He decided that you could cover it with your helmet to help diffuse the blast," Gibson said.

Dunham, whose Medal of Honor was announced in 2006, is one of four soldiers to receive the medal for actions in Iraq.

Gibson said Dunham's example serves as an inspiration to Marines. "More than just being written up for a medal, it's really what kind of example he set in sacrificing himself, in committing himself so completely to the protection of his Marines," Gibson said.

The USS Jason Dunham will go to sea with several mementoes donated by his family, including his dress blue uniform and a baseball bat. The warship carries the motto: "Semper Fidelis, Semper Fortis," which is Latin for "Always Faithful, Always Strong."

Marines in 'Stan - The Fight Today

2009-07-27T06:01:00.000-07:00

Marines In Afghanistan Using Ancient Fortress As Base

CNN Sunday Morning, 7:00 AM

T.J. HOLMES: Now, U.S. Marines have been battling the Taliban for control of southern Afghanistan's rural area. One group of Marines is holding an ancient castle attacked over the years, with everything from arrows to air strikes.

BROOKE BALDWIN: We sent our own Ivan Watson there. He has this exclusive look at how a fledgling struggling local government is coming together behind the ancient mud walls.

I! VAN WATSON: There is a timeless quality to Afghanistan. Sometimes, you really feel like you're going back in time when you visit here and now more than ever. Because we're walking on the ramparts of a centuries-old Afghan fortress. A mud and brick fortress complete with what look like arrow loops of some sort.

And the remarkable thing about this structure is that the U.S. Marines, a modern fighting force, are using this as a military base. They are protecting themselves behind these walls from insurgents who have been operating out in the fields and the canals and gullies out there.

The insurgents have fired rocket-propelled grenades at this location. They fired small arms as well. And they've lobbed deadly mortars into this castle.

We had a loud night in the castle last night because the marines were hunting for a suspected insurgent mortar team out in the fields beyond the walls. And to help the patrols out there, they were firing illumination rounds fro! m mortar tubes, that was deafening.

Anyway, the work that's bein g done here is so important because there's an experiment underway. Within the walls of the castle are the beginnings of a fledgling district government, with representatives from the ministry of health and education, as well as Afghan National Police officers and Afghan National Army soldiers, and they are part of the ticket for an exit of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. It's got to grow up here, this local government, in an area that was, until just a few weeks ago, controlled by the Taliban.

And that makes the work that these men are doing right here in this guard tower so important. They are protecting this experiment in establishing an Afghan government from the insurgents in the fields just out there.

PFC. RICHARD REED, U.S. MARINE CORPS: The day before yesterday, we had a couple of mortar rounds hit right outside the post and also inside the castle.

WATSON: And have you had to retaliate? Have you actually seen any of the fighters?

REED: Yes. We h! ad a man suspected of being the fort observer for them right outside here, probably about 1,200 meters.

CPL. ADAM TRANTHAM, U.S. MARINE CORPS: My job here is to help the Delta Company with their indirect fire. So, I have a part in help to deter these mortars that they have been firing at us, sir. We came up here and spotted their forward observer. We returned fire. And, hopefully, we deterred them.

WATSON: Make no mistake. This is incredibly, difficult, dangerous work.

And the Marines who have been here with the Delta Company of the 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion have not had an easy time over the past two weeks. Three of their comrades have been killed in two separate incidents during what has been the bloodiest month yet of this eight-year war in Afghanistan. The U.S. has had record losses this month as have NATO forces. This is the season for fighting, summer in Afghanistan, and the summer is far from over.

Ivan Watson, CNN, Khan Neshi n in southern Afghanistan.

Where are the Afghans ??

2009-07-25T06:37:00.000-07:00

Dearth Of Capable Afghan Forces Complicates U.S. Mission In South

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post
July 25, 2009

GARMSIR, Afghanistan -- "Six, you've got six," Marine 1st Lt. Justin Grieco told his military police training team, counting the handful of Afghan police officers present for a patrol in this volatile region of southern Afghanistan.

The men filed out! of the dusty compound gate into the baking afternoon sun. On the patrol, U.S. military police officers outnumbered the Afghans two to one -- a reflection of the severe shortfall in Afghan security forces working with Marines in Helmand province.

President Obama's strategy for Afghanistan is heavily dependent upon raising more capable local security forces, but the myriad challenges faced by mentors such as Grieco underscore just how limiting a factor that is -- especially in the Taliban heartland of southern Afghanistan.

The extent of the push by 4,500 Marines into Taliban strongholds of southern Helmand will be determined, to a degree, by whether there are enough qualified Afghan forces to partner with and eventually leave behind to protect Afghan civilians. Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson, commander of the Marine forces here, said urgent efforts are underway to dispatch additional Afghan forces to Helmand.

But here in Helmand's Garmsir district -- as i! n much of the south -- Afghan forces remain few in number, as well as short of training, equipment and basic supplies such as fuel and ammunition. Some Afghans quit because they are reluctant to work in the violent south; others are expelled because of drug use. The Afghan troops here, heavily dependent on Western forces, are hesitating to take on greater responsibilities -- and, in some cases, are simply refusing to do so.

The Afghan National Police officers mentored by Grieco's team, for example, are resisting a U.S. military effort to have them expand to checkpoints in villages outside the town center of Garmsir as the Marines push farther south, taking with them the Afghan Border Police officers, who currently man some of those stations.

"Without the Marines, we cannot secure the stations," said Mohammed Agha, deputy commander of the roughly 80 Garmsir police officers. "We can't go to other villages because of the mines, and some people have weapons hidden in their houses. We can't go out of Garmsir, or we will be killed."

The border police, too, have resisted taking up new positions. Col. Gula Agha Amiri, executive officer of the 7th Afghan Border Police, complained of his unit's lack of body armor and chronic shortages of ammunition and fuel. "If we have contact with the enemy, we can't fight for more than two hours," he said.

Both police forces have lost dozens of men to insurgent attacks in recent years, the Afghan officers said.

U.S. Army Capt. Michael Repasky, chief of the team that mentors the border police here, remains frustrated at the lack of logistical support. "I've been here five months and haven't been able to figure out why they aren't getting fuel," he said, explaining that the police receive fuel perhaps every two weeks and then run out.

That, in turn, makes the border police officers reluctant to move beyond their headquarters in the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah, he said. "If they move farther from Lash, it will be harder for them to get what they nee! d. They want a roof over their heads, hot meals, time to rest," Repask y said. "I can encourage them to start a new checkpoint. But the commander can say no, and there's nothing I can do about it."

The overall shortage of security forces in southern Afghanistan exacerbates such tensions. There are about 13,600 Afghan soldiers and 11,000 police officers in the south, and each force is short of 4,000 men for positions that have been authorized but not filled. U.S. military officers say Afghan forces should be doubled to provide adequate security in the south.

"The U.S. force is growing down here, but the Afghan force is not growing nearly as fast," said Col. Bill Hix, who until recently led the Afghan Regional Security Integration Command in Kandahar, another large southern province, overseeing the development of police and soldiers in southern Afghanistan. "We have people who are bleeding and dying, and we need to look hard at how we generate [Afghan] forces."

The shortages of capable Afghan forces means they usually assist wit! h searches and security on operations planned and led by Marines, the mentors said. "Right now, they're just happy with us telling them 'Go there, do this,' " said Stephen Woods, a civilian police adviser with the Marine mentoring team.

There are exceptions. Two police officers buying lunch in Garmsir this week observed a drug sale, shadowed the dealer, detained him and seized 30 bundles of heroin, Grieco said.

Gaining approval for increasing the size of the Afghan forces -- which requires international endorsement -- has been a maddening process, said Hix, comparing it to "negotiating a peace treaty."

Even after such approval, many hurdles remain, particularly in the south, he said.

"It's a challenge to get people down here," said Hix, adding that units that deploy to southern Afghanistan often suffer higher rates of unauthorized absences. "The guys think there is a monster down here." Drug use in the forces is another problem, according to U.S. and! Afghan officers. "We lose 5 to 10 percent of every class in the polic e force to opiate use," Hix said.

Training the police and army poses other challenges, he said. Police officers and soldiers -- the vast majority of them illiterate villagers -- require extensive training, but during a war only so many can be pulled away from their jobs at any one time.

Building training and other facilities for the forces and providing them with equipment remain slow because of red tape and contracting rules, he said. It takes 120 to 180 days to start work on a training facility and often more than a year to 18 months to field new equipment, such as the 1,000 Humvees on order for the Afghan army in the south. "We can't swing the money cannon quickly enough to adapt," Hix said.

Still, Hix said, the Afghan forces have made significant progress in the south. In the past year, the training capacity for regional police has doubled and the rate of those absent without leave has halved.

Despite the problems, Hix said that replacing foreign ! forces with homegrown ones is the only viable long-term solution, in part because the latter cost far less. "We should not be substituting U.S. troops for Afghans, which is what we are effectively doing now...in trying to secure and stabilize Afghanistan," he wrote in an e-mail.

U.S. and Afghan officers urged greater emphasis on professionalizing the Afghan police, which are at least as critical as the army in a counterinsurgency campaign but have received far fewer resources. Residents also have complained about corruption among police officers, the mentors say.

The police's law-enforcement role in Garmsir is limited because many of the officers are illiterate, Grieco said. "Paperwork, evidence, processing...they don't know how to do it," he said. "You can't get a policeman to take a statement if he can't read and write."

Increasing numbers of residents are coming to the police station to report problems, said Staff Sgt. David Dillon, one of Grieco's! team members. Still, as a patrol moved through the local bazaar, the police barely interacted with civilians, troubling their mentors.

Shopkeepers and residents eyed the patrol silently and did not respond to greetings in Pashto. An Afghan boy swore in English at one of the Marines, who responded: "Go home."

"They're still a little hostile towards us," Woods said. "They will throw rocks. They will give you that look. They don't trust us."

Maleki visits Tomb of Unknowns @ Arlington

2009-07-24T04:53:00.000-07:00

Al-Maliki Honors U.S. Sacrifice In Iraq

PM's gesture a departure from tough talk at home

By Ken Dilanian and Aamer Madhani, USA Today
USA Today
July 24, 2009

ARLINGTON, Va. — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose disparaging comments about U.S. troops have drawn criticism from American officials recently, visited Arlington Cemetery on Thursday and laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns.Flanked by honor guards from each branch of the armed forces, al-Maliki stood respectfully at attention during a brief ceremony.

After a 19-gun salute, the U.S. Army Band played the national anthems for Iraq and the United States. A single bugler then played Taps.

Al-Maliki left without making public comment, as is common practice at such ceremonies.

The display of gratitude toward the more than 4,300 U.S. troops who have died in the Iraq war was a departure from al-Maliki's recent tone — and a potentially risky political move for him back in Iraq.

Prior to last month's deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq's cities, al-Maliki trumpeted the occasion as a "victory" for Iraq over the American "occupiers." He also compared the withdrawal to Iraq's 1920 revolt against British colonial rule. In a speech on June 30, which he dubbed "National Sovereignty Day," he failed to mention the U.S. military's role in helping bring down violence in Iraq.

Ambassador Christopher Hill, the U.S. envoy to Iraq, told USA TODAY last week that al-Maliki's comments have been "at times tough to take."

Al-Maliki, who met President Obama in Washington earlier this week and spoke with Pentagon officials Thursday, has been trying to distance himself from the U.S. presence in Iraq and burnish his image as a nationalist ahead of national elections in January.

Both U.S. officials and Iraqi political allies of al-Maliki in Baghdad said the prime minister's decision to visit Arlington was a genuine gesture.

Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said the visit was not the result of prompting by Americans. "Maliki requested the visit to Arlington Cemetery in order to pay tribute to the servicemembers who died in Iraq," Odierno said in a statement.

Ali al-Allaq, a member of Iraq's parliament and political ally of al-Maliki's, said that some of his comments have been blown out of proportion. He's said that al-Maliki has commended American troops over the years for their sacrifice and noted that the prime minister thanked the U.S. during his Wednesday news conference with President Obama.

"All Iraqi people appreciate all that the U.S. has done," Allaq told USA TODAY. "We thank the Americans for all they've done, and now it is time for them to play a different role."

Al-Maliki also understands that he still needs U.S. support, said Ghassan Atiyyah, the executive director for the Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy, a London-based non-profit group. There are still about 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and their role is critical to training Iraqi troops and maintaining security as al-Maliki deals with unresolved political issues, hesaid.

"Maliki knows playing the anti-American card has proven in recent Iraqi history to be an effective strategy," Atiyyah said. "(But) without the Americans' involvement, he knows there could be chaos."

He cited several remaining threats to Iraq's security including potential meddling from neighboring Iran and tensions between Kurds and Arabs over disputed territory in northern Iraq.

At a separate event earlier Thursday, al-Maliki said there could be some flexibility to a security agreement signed in December that mandates the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. "If Iraqi forces need more training and support, we will re-examine the agreement at that time, based on our own national needs," he said.

The 2011 deadline was insisted upon by al-Maliki's government in negotiations with President Bush's administration last fall. Obama has said — and repeated again in al-Maliki's presence Wednesday — that the withdrawal date will not be modified.
Madhani reported from Baghdad.

Press Release from Camp Leatherneck

2009-07-20T05:58:00.001-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 19, 2009
PRESS RELEASE 09-07
CAMP LEATHERNECK, Helmand Province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan –

Afghan National Army soldiers and U.S. Marines from Regimental Combat Team 3, Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan, conducted a raid on a known insurgent stronghold July 18 in the town of Lakari, Garmsir District.

The raid force uncovered several weapons caches – including supplies used in making improvised explosive devices – and a stockpile of Afghan National Army uniforms, used by insurgents in ambush attacks. The force also included members of the Afghan National Interdiction Unit supported by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and discovered a significant quantity of illegal drugs, which help fund the insurgents.

There were no reports of ANA or civilian casualties, or damage to civilian property.

Tom Friedman & Afghanistan

2009-07-19T08:30:00.000-07:00

Teacher, Can We Leave Now? No.
By Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times
July 19, 2009

Pushghar, Afghanistan--I confess, I find it hard to come to Afghanistan and not ask: Why are we here? Who cares about the Taliban? Al Qaeda is gone. And if its leaders come back, well, that’s why God created cruise missiles.

But every time I start writing that column, something stills my hand. This week it was something very powerful. I watched Greg Mortenson, the famed author of “Three Cups of Tea,” open one of his schools for girls in this remote Afghan village in the Hindu Kush mountains. I must say, after witnessing the delight in the faces of those little Afghan girls crowded three to a desk waiting to learn, I found it very hard to write, “Let’s just get out of here.”

Indeed, Mortenson’s efforts remind us what the essence of the “war on terrorism” is about. It’s about the war of ideas within Islam — a war between religious zealots who glorify martyrdom and want to keep Islam untouched by modernity and isolated from other faiths, with its women disempowered, and those who want to embrace modernity, open Islam to new ideas and empower Muslim women as much as men. America’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were, in part, an effort to create the space for the Muslim progressives to fight and win so that the real engine of change, something that takes nine months and 21 years to produce — a new generation — can be educated and raised differently.

Which is why it was no accident that Adm. Mike Mullen, the U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — spent half a day in order to reach Mortenson’s newest school and cut the ribbon. Getting there was fun. Our Chinook helicopter threaded its way between mountain peaks, from Kabul up through the Panjshir Valley, before landing in a cloud of dust at the village of Pushghar. Imagine if someone put a new, one-story school on the moon, and you’ll appreciate the rocky desolateness of this landscape.

But there, out front, was Mortenson, dressed in traditional Afghan garb. He was surrounded by bearded village elders and scores of young Afghan boys and girls, who were agog at the helicopter, and not quite believing that America’s “warrior chief” — as Admiral Mullen’s title was loosely translated into Urdu — was coming to open the new school.

While the admiral passed out notebooks, Mortenson told me why he has devoted his life to building 131 secular schools for girls in Pakistan and another 48 in Afghanistan: “The money is money well spent. These are secular schools that will bring a new generation of kids that will have a broader view of the world. We focus on areas where there is no education. Religious extremism flourishes in areas of isolation and conflict.

“When a girl gets educated here and then becomes a mother, she will be much less likely to let her son become a militant or insurgent,” he added. “And she will have fewer children. When a girl learns how to read and write, one of the first things she does is teach her own mother. The girls will bring home meat and veggies, wrapped in newspapers, and the mother will ask the girl to read the newspaper to her and the mothers will learn about politics and about women who are exploited.”

It is no accident, Mortenson noted, that since 2007, the Taliban and its allies have bombed, burned or shut down more than 640 schools in Afghanistan and 350 schools in Pakistan, of which about 80 percent are schools for girls. This valley, controlled by Tajik fighters, is secure, but down south in Helmand Province, where the worst fighting is today, the deputy minister of education said that Taliban extremists have shut 75 of the 228 schools in the last year. This is the real war of ideas. The Taliban want public mosques, not public schools. The Muslim militants recruit among the illiterate and impoverished in society, so the more of them the better, said Mortenson.

This new school teaches grades one through six. I asked some girls through an interpreter what they wanted to be when they grow up: “Teacher,” shouted one. “Doctor,” shouted another. Living here, those are the only two educated role models these girls encounter. Where were they going to school before Mortenson’s Central Asia Institute and the U.S. State Department joined with the village elders to get this secular public school built? “The mosque,” the girls said.

Mortenson said he was originally critical of the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he’s changed his views: “The U.S. military has gone through a huge learning curve. They really get it. It’s all about building relationships from the ground up, listening more and serving the people of Afghanistan.”

So there you have it. In grand strategic terms, I still don’t know if this Afghan war makes sense anymore. I was dubious before I arrived, and I still am. But when you see two little Afghan girls crouched on the front steps of their new school, clutching tightly with both arms the notebooks handed to them by a U.S. admiral — as if they were their first dolls — it’s hard to say: “Let’s just walk away.” Not yet.

More Troops Into The Fight

2009-07-17T08:19:00.000-07:00

More Troops Than Expected May Be Sent To Afghanistan
By Associated Press

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that more U.S. troops than originally planned could go to Afghanistan by the end of! the year.

Gates told troops at Fort Drum in New York that there will be "maybe some increase -- but not a lot" in troop levels beyond the 68,000 servicemembers the Obama administration approved. That includes 21,000 that Obama ordered added this spring.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took over as commander for all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan last month, is to advise Washington in the next few weeks on his views of how to win the eight-year war.

McChrystal is nearing the end of a 60-day review of troop requirements in Afghanistan and will soon provide that report to Gates.

Also Thursday, Taliban commanders threatened to kill a captured American soldier unless the U.S. military stops operations in two districts of southeastern Afghanistan.

The Taliban claimed last week to be holding the American soldier, whom the U.S. military earlier described as possibly being in enemy hands.

Abdullah Jalali, a spokesman for Taliban commander Mawla! vi Sangin, said in a telephone interview Thursday that the soldier was healthy. U.S. spokeswoman Capt. Elizabeth Mathias declined to comment on the Taliban's demands.

Jalali said Taliban leader Mohammed Omar will decide the soldier's fate. The U.S. military has said the soldier was noticed missing during a routine check of the unit June 30 and was probably captured. The Taliban claimed on its website July 6 that it was holding the soldier. The military has not identified the soldier but says his family has been notified that he is missing.

Gen Cartwright on Success in Afghanistan

2009-07-09T19:50:00.000-07:00

Afghans’ Attitude Will Be Measure of Success, Vice Chairman Gen Cartwright Says

By John J. Kruzel
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 9, 2009 – A key measurement of success in Afghanistan will be the attitude of Afghans affected by U.S.-led operations, the military’s second-ranking military officer said today.

Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the counterinsurgency mission in Afghanistan elevates the civilian population as a main determinant of success or failure, much as it did in Iraq.

“I believe personally that one of our key metrics for success will be over the next few months to see whether or not there is a shift in the attitude of the local residents,” Cartwright said. The committee is considering the general’s reappointment.

Cartwright fleshed out the “clear, hold, build” strategy under way in Afghanistan. The latter elements of the strategy emphasize the role civilians play in establishing stability.

Articulating how local attitudes could be gauged, Cartwright said a favorable view of U.S. and multinational forces could come in the form Afghans providing intelligence or other resources.

“If they start supporting us with intelligence, with the giving of their own sons and daughters in the fight, and that they see there is more value in being able to produce crops rather than warriors, and that they can be sustained in that type of a lifestyle, then we will have an opportunity to turn the corner,” he said.

The general advised that the Marines engaged in a joint operation with Afghan forces in the Helmand River valley pay attention to the sentiment in villages and towns they operate in. Now in its eighth day, some 4,000 Marines and 650 Afghan security forces are engaged in Operation Khanjar, which translates to “Strike of the Sword“ the biggest military offensive since President Barack Obama announced a new Afghanistan strategy in March.

“I think those are key metrics that we have to watch as the Marines move into Helmand, and followed by the [Army’s] Strykers as they move in on their flank,” Cartwright said.

At a briefing with Pentagon reporters yesterday, the commander overseeing the operation described how the interaction between U.S. Marines and local Afghans are playing out.

Anticipating that local residents would be curious about the Marines’ intentions, Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Lawrence Nicholson, commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, established a requirement: Company commanders must hold a “shura,” or meeting, with local elders within one day of arriving.

“The focus of this operation from the very beginning has been on the people, not the enemy,” Nicholson said. “And I know that may sound very strange, and I got some raised eyebrows, even with talking to Marines. On the way, we'll take care of the Taliban. But get to the people.”

The “clear” phase of the three-stage approach refers to the type of mission the Marines undertook when Operation Khanjar launched, with the brigade fanning out across the southern Afghanistan region during the early morning hours of July 2. The strategy was two-fold: overwhelm opposing forces while saving civilian lives.

Current operations in Helmand are fundamentally different from previous missions, in that Marines are remaining behind to protect those villages as the remainder of forces moves through, Cartwright said. He added that forces have been successful in avoiding civilian casualties in the ongoing “clear” phase.

“Our approach here is to win their hearts and minds,” Cartwright said. “And we can't do that by having unnecessary civilian casualties.”

From Anbar to the NFL

2009-05-04T12:31:00.001-07:00

Bu Mike Klis
Denver Post
May 4

There are many Broncos players who, after their freshman season of college ball, began to realize the NFL was not just possible, but probable.

Others may have been focusing on earning a promotion from backup to starter. Some may have been dealing with other issues, such as grades and girls.

Rulon Davis went off to fight in the Iraq war.

Fight for his country, a far cry from the sports world, where Davis is currently competing, as an undrafted 25-year-old free-agent defensive end, for a spot on the Broncos' roster.

* Adapt and overcome. *

It's an inspirational edict U.S. Marines frequently say to each other. Yes, Davis witnessed death. Soldiers he considered friends were killed.

"Unfortunately, yes," he said. "They're the real heroes. Not me. People think, 'Wow, you did all this.' But I don't think it's that big of a deal because I didn't have to sacrifice my life, like some of these other guys. Really, the honor is on them."

Heroes come in many forms. Broncos defensive backs Champ Bailey and Brian Dawkins are often considered heroes.

Davis has been considered a football hero, too, having started the past two years at the University of California. That was part of his new life, after his four-year commitment to the Marines and six-month tour in Iraq in 2004.

"That's serious. Marines are tough people, man," said Broncos rookie tight end Richard Quinn Jr. "My dad was one."

And Davis' football stardom at Cal would come after his motorcycle flipped on a Los Angeles freeway interchange and left him crawling, too late, in an attempted escape from under a rolling semi.

* Pain is weakness leaving the body. *
Davis, 6-feet-5 and 281 pounds, didn't play much high school football in Covina, Calif. So upon graduation he joined the Marine Corps reserves. He first got the idea after spending his eighth- and ninth-grade years at the Marine Military Academy in Harlingen, Texas.

"I fell in love with the Corps," he said. "The structure, the discipline, the leadership traits. The routine of things. Organization. It was my thing. I liked it a lot. I wanted to live my life as a Marine."

He went through the Marines' rigorous training program, then served one weekend a month in the Marine reserves when he decided to also play football at Mount San Antonio Junior College in Walnut, Calif.

He had 16 1/2 sacks as a freshman. Davis still loved the Marines, but now he also loved playing football. And Pac-10 schools scouted him, and offered a scholarship. The Marines would make one more call, however, to go to Iraq.

"I wanted to get back as soon as I possibly could to start playing football again," Davis said. "But I had to do my job. I signed the contract, and I like to honor my commitment."

Davis does not give specifics of his tour of duty. When asked, he politely asked to change the subject. Civilians who have never served can only understand they will never understand.

"It's tough," he said. "I think about it all the time."

Brought up right
America can only imagine how most 20-something men start their day, but Davis begins by making his bed. His father, Lorenzo, served a four-year commitment in the Marines from 1971-75. If Semper Fidelis didn't run through Rulon's blood the day he was born in San Diego, the Latin expression meaning "Always Faithful" was ingrained while he attended the Marine Military Academy in Texas.

Lorenzo didn't push the military school upon his son but said his son knew right from wrong before he went off to military school.

"It wasn't my decision; it was his decision," Lorenzo said. "We talked about it for about three months. It was hard letting him go; he was only 13 years old. But I felt if a young man wants to get out in the world, this was a great way to do it. And this would teach him some character traits he might not learn if he stayed at home."

Davis said long after football, he will keep his hair short, his face shaven. He will take a jog each day.

* Once a Marine, always a Marine. *
In another sense, the Marines are always with Davis, in the way he acts, the way he carries himself.

"The way he speaks, he's very correct, proper," Broncos coach Josh McDaniels said. "He treats everybody with a great deal of respect. He listens, asks good questions. Sits up in his chair, always attentive, those types of things. You can tell he was brought up the right way."

Davis returned from the war safely, only to endure a near-death experience a few months later while riding his motor-cycle. He was exiting off one busy L.A. highway onto another when the car behind him tapped his bike. The collision sped him uncontrollably forward into the rear bumper of a midsized truck in front. The bike flipped, and Davis flew.

Airborne, Davis landed beneath an adjacent semi. Fortunately, Davis was wearing his helmet, which was dented in the front. But there was still the matter of this semi. "I knew I was about to die if I didn't move," Davis said. He tried to crawl out of the way, but the semi continued to roll, right over his calves.

Davis suffered some internal tissue damage and spent a month in and out of a hospital because of swelling. And while his return to his sophomore football season at Mount San Antonio was out, he did not have any broken bones.

Major-college football is a competitive business. Before Davis had completely healed, he had pledged his allegiance to the Cal Bears, who didn't forget about his 16 1/2 sacks before he left for Iraq, and before the motorcycle mishap.

3-4 looks familiar
Davis voluntarily enlisted in the Marines, but come last week, he thought he would be drafted — into the NFL. It didn't happen. San Francisco, Jacksonville and the New York Giants all communicated their interest in the days leading up to the draft. But after the draft ended, Davis chose the Broncos instead because they are converting to a 3-4 defense.

"I don't even care about that anymore," Davis said of not getting drafted. "I'm happy I'm with this team. I'm trying to make this team right now and that's where my focus is."

Turns out, Cal is one of the few major-college programs to play a 3-4. And Davis became the only pure "5-technique" defensive end the Broncos took last week, either in the draft or as a free agent.

Maybe he isn't such an underdog to make the Broncos after all. Not with his experience as a 3-4 end. Not with all he's been through. The challenge of going from undrafted free agent to a 53-man roster? Puh-leze.

"Nothing's came easy in my life as you can see," Davis said. "I've had to work for everything. Hard work is not something that's unfamiliar to me."

Pakistani Problems Threatening Afghanistan

2009-04-25T05:20:00.000-07:00

Extremists In Pakistan Putting US Afghan Strategy In Jeopardy
By Robert Burns, Associated Press
Arizona Daily Star (Tucson)

WASHINGTON — A central pillar of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan — enlisting Pakistan to eliminate extremist havens on its side of the border — is being tested so severely it calls into question the viability of the entire plan.

When President Obama announced on March 27 his approach to turning around the war in Afghanistan, he said stronger action by neighboring Pakistan against Taliban sanctuaries on its soil was "indispensable." He called the insurgent-infested border area "the most dangerous place in the world."

Since then, extremists have not only held their own on the border but have made inroads toward Pakistan's capital.

The extremists, including Pakistani elements of the Taliban, are not a homogenous force; some elements are focused more on infiltrating Afghanistan to contest control of that country, while others are oriented toward destabilizing Pakistan. But in either case the trends are growing more worrisome for an Obama administration that has decided the Afghan problem cannot be fixed without progress in Pakistan.

Reports of a pullback Friday from the militants' latest advances toward Islamabad were greeted with measured relief in Washington, but there remains a worry that the Pakistani government is failing to deal forcefully with Islamist fighters slowly advancing toward the heart of the nuclear-armed country.

Teresita Schaffer, director of the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said developments in Pakistan have caused "deep anxiety" among administration officials — "and a worry about the viability, frankly, of any Afghan strategy, not just this one."

There seem to be few other options for the U.S. in Pakistan. It has used periodic missile attacks from Predator drone aircraft to strike extremist leadership targets, but more direct military action would seem unlikely. Obama has pledged to provide more financial and other non-military support, while warning Islamabad that U.S. patience is limited.

Obama made the calculation that Pakistan's sovereignty must be respected and therefore U.S. ground forces would not be used inside Pakistan against the extremists, including elements of the al-Qaida network whose leaders are believed to be operating on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan.

He said Pakistan, with U.S. help, must show its commitment to making progress against the extremists.

Since Obama laid out that strategy, Pakistan arguably has regressed, endangering one pillar of the U.S. plan. The other pillars are a U.S. military and civilian buildup in Afghanistan and a redoubling of U.S. and allied efforts to train an Afghan security force capable of handling the insurgency on its own.

David W. Barno, a former top commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, says extremists threaten to upend the very existence of Pakistan.

"Events in Pakistan are spiraling out of control," Barno told Congress on Thursday, "and our options in reversing the downward acceleration are limited at best."

U.S. officials have sought, with limited success, to nudge the Pakistani government toward confronting the extremists. The frustration was evident in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's assertion to Congress on Wednesday that the Pakistanis are "basically abdicating" to the extremists.

At least as cutting were comments Friday in Afghanistan by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "I'm increasingly both concerned and frustrated at the progression of the danger," he said in an NBC News interview one day after meeting with Pakistani officials.

Some thoughts from former CMC Gen Krulak:

2009-04-21T06:21:00.001-07:00

General Chuck Krulak addresses several current issues --

..."A dear friend of mine sent me a series of e-mails [posts on USNA-At-Large] asking where Senator McCain and General Krulak are...with regard to a couple of issues currently in the media. Obviously I cannot speak for Senator McCain but I thought it might be worthwhile to shed some light on what has led my thinking on the issues raised...:"

1. Gays in the Military:
As the Commanding General of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC), I, along with the Counsel to the Commandant (Mr. Peter Murphy) and the then-Commandant, Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr. helped "fight" the Gays in the Military movement and helped craft the current policy(now referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell.) The actual language presente by the Marine Corps during this debate was initially drafted by personnelat MCCDC. (Obviously, Gen. Mundy put the argument in his own words...and did a superb job.) Hopefully this lays out where I stand on this issue. My position has not changed since my time at MCCDC.

2. Extraordinary Interrogation Techniques and Rendition.
After reading comments made by members of this forum, I am sure that what I will write will have little or no impact but I do want people to understand my thought
process. I have spent over 3 years looking and studying this issue.

I have been joined in this effort by over 30 Flag and General Officers and a
like number of Commanders and Lieutenant Colonels and Captains and Colonels...not to mention a significant number of former FBI and CIA agents who helped form my opinion. I have also been able to gain significant information from both classified and unclassified sources. I mention this, NOT to "beat my own drum" but, rather, to indicate that my view is not a cursory one. To the contrary, it is a view developed over time and with academic and "first hand" rigor.

a. Torture brings little to no "actionable intelligence" to the table. Simply put, the individual will say almost anything to stop the torture. If the answer being sought is about WMD, then the individual being tortured will give that up in a heart beat...accuracy is not an issue. Gen. Colin Powell can give you chapter and verse on that. He went in front of the UN and gave a talk on WMD in Iraq based on information
(Intelligence??) gained from an individual who was water-boarded. The "intelligence" turned out to be inaccurate and Gen. Powell was made to look foolish. The professionals from the CIA and FBI that I have talked to have emphasized that they have yet to see "actionable intelligence" come from toruture.

b. There is a negative impact, obviously, on the person being tortured but there is also a negative impact on the person doing the torturing. This has been repeatedly documented by the medical community. All but the sadistic find the act of participating in torture an extremely stressful and disturbing act.

c. Whether we like it or not, we are signators to the Geneva Conventions. "Picking and choosing" what conventions to follow is not something we, as a Nation, should be doing.

d. We should never do anything that deprives our fighting men and women the moral authority to undertake what we all know as the "just war." This concept is critical to our concept of war fighting. Moral authority forms the basis of how we train our warriors (Code of Conduct) and how we expect them to act on the battlefield. Condoning torture erodes moral authority.

e. Along the same theme as noted in paragraph d., the mothers and fathers of America did not send their sons and daughters into government service to learn how to torture. This may seem to be an obvious statement but our actions run counter to this fact when we do, in fact, engage in torture.

f. The so-called "ticking time bomb scenario" is a red herring and needs to be fully understood. First off, there is not a single interrogator that we have spoken with that would give any veracity to statements made by a prisoner under interrogation (torture) in this scenario. Secondly, we need to remember that an IED is a "ticking time bomb" to a young Marine PFC who thinks he has found a insurgent who may know where the IED has been planted. If we condone torture at the highest levels of our government, then what is to stop the Marine PFC from torturing "his" prisoner? It is a very slippery slope.

g. Since our enemy is already torturing their prisoners...beheading, etc. the argument that our torturing will somehow endanger our troops is a specious one and one that I do not buy into at all. What I do buy into is the fact that America does not do torture! It is not who we are...it is not how we act...it is not what the world expects of us. If we have any sense ofresponsibility, we need to understand that there are many people from many Nations...all looking at whether we truly stand for the values we espouse. Torture runs counter to our value system.

h. Finally, for those who do not think water-boarding is torture, try it. I have and I confess I was scared to death. I would have said anything to have it stop. It is drowning at its worst. As for rendition, it is simply playing Pontius Pilate...letting another country do the torturing for us.

I realize I have probably not changed anyone's mind with my comments but I felt it might be helpful to understand why I feel the way I do.

Semper Fidelis, CCK

What it's like in Afghanistan

2009-03-17T05:46:00.000-07:00

Western Troops' Finest Foe In Southern Afghanistan

Los Angeles Times
March 17, 20

It gets in their engines, their sleeping bags, even between their teeth. There is no escaping this gritty menace.

By Laura King

COMBAT POST BARROW, AFGHANISTAN -- Thousands of U.S. and other Western troops in the south of Afghanistan do battle daily with a foe far more ubiquitous than Taliban insurgents: dust.

Chalky and powdery, it fouls engines and electronic gear. It seeps through the seams of clothing and sleeping bags. It cakes dry lips, stains sweaty faces and coats the interiors of tents and armored vehicles.

Food and water take on a gritty tang. With the consistency of talc, the dust of southern Afghanistan is billowy when dry, slimy when wet, with a concrete-hard crust when it re-dries. Locals use it to build the durable mud-brick compounds that dot the desert, home to Afghan civilians and combatants alike.

Inert, the dust presents an infinite-seeming horizon, particularly eerie when viewed through night-vision goggles. Whipped by wind into funnel clouds that can reach hundreds of feet in the air, it is the bane of military aviators.

Choking clouds of it are kicked up whenever convoys roll past or helicopters land. At one remote U..S. Marine base, a visitor was cheerfully informed, "You'll be coughing up mud balls for a week!"

Dust played a well-documented role in ancient warfare, serving as a kind of antique early-warning system. Some generals used guile to make their approaching armies appear larger than they were, creating huge dust clouds with mules dragging bundles of branches.

In a modern-day setting, the vast, bare expanse of Afghan desert provides little cover for insurgents; even a small band of fighters can be readily sighted. But Western convoys, too, are visible for miles, with their signature halo of dust.

In rustic military outposts where indoor and outdoor living blur together, any piece of gear left unattended acquires a film of fine grit within moments. Undisturbed for a day or two, mundane objects like plastic-wrapped crates of drinking water come to resemble relics of a lost civilization.

Despite the primitive living conditions, military outposts are hives of high-tech equipment: surveillance cameras that sweep the surrounding desert, monitors relaying footage from unmanned aerial drones. All need constant cleaning or they will become dust-clogged -- "canned air saves us," said Marine Pfc. Conor Wood of Ronkonkoma, N.Y.

When a desert dust storm sweeps through, it can take with it almost anything that isn't tied down, and sometimes things that are. This month, Marines at a forward operating base in Farah province built an open-sided mess hall, but had only a few days to admire their handiwork before a sandstorm blew the roof off.

With dust as a daily companion, personal hygiene is a losing battle. Grit insinuates its way into crevices between teeth -- and among the bristles of toothbrushes used to scrub them. And woe betide any wearer of contact lenses.

There's no plumbing in the remotest outposts, only solar showers that deliver a chilly deluge few wish to brave. Many Marines go months without a shower, growing more dust-crusted by the day. They launder their own fatigues, one said, "when the pants are standing up, waiting for you to climb into them."

Springtime is the season of sandstorms, and in the open desert, they approach as a ghostly vision, turning the air yellowish, then greenish, then black.

"At 1500 hours [3 p.m.], it was like the middle of the night," said Navy medical corpsman Joshua Steinhilber of Webster, N.Y., describing a dirt-blasted tempest that recently swept through. "We figured it had to be either the Apocalypse or a dust storm bearing down," he said. "So a dust storm -- that was fine."

King was recently on assignment in Afghanistan..

Pakistan: Closer to the Abyss

2009-03-13T05:39:00.000-07:00

Closer To The Cliff
New York Times
March 13, 2009
Editorial, P. 26

Pakistan's rival political leaders seem determined to push their already unstable country over a cliff. Their increasingly out-of-control power struggle spilled out of the halls of government and the courtroom this week and onto the streets. The more time and energy they waste on selfish squabbling, the less they have to combat extremists who pose a mortal threat to their country.

We are especially alarmed to see President Asif Ali Zardari repeating the excesses of his predecessor, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Six months after taking office, Mr. Zardari?s government has banned Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister, and his brother from holding office. It issued a two-week halt on rallies and threatened to charge Mr. Sharif with sedition.

On Wednesday, authorities arrested hundreds of political activists. A day later, police in riot gear forcibly dispersed some of the thousands of Pakistanis marching from Karachi to Islamabad in support of an independent judiciary.

That?s the kind of repressive behavior that Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, criticized Mr. Musharraf for before she was assassinated. Mr. Zardari is dishonoring his late wife?s memory by following that same path.

Mr. Sharif is all too eager to manipulate this destructive drama for personal gain. He has taken up the cause of anti-government lawyers who have long campaigned for the reinstatement of the country?s former top judge who was dismissed by Mr. Musharraf. But we fear his real goal is to topple Mr. Zardari, whose popularity has plummeted as Mr. Sharif?s has risen.

There will be no stability in Afghanistan until Pakistan defeats Taliban and Al Qaeda forces along the border.. And there can be no security in the region, if a nuclear-armed Pakistan is unraveling.

President Obama and his aides are still developing a policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are pleased to see that they moved quickly on Thursday to try to defuse the crisis. The American ambassador in Islamabad spoke with Mr. Sharif, and an envoy, Richard Holbrooke, had a video conference call with Mr. Zardari.

They need to press Mr. Zardari now to compromise on the dispute over Pakistan?s courts and to allow Mr. Sharif to run for office. And they need to press Mr. Sharif to work for peaceful political solutions. If there is any hope for democracy in Pakistan, a robust opposition must be allowed to flourish and participate fully in the country?s political life.

Mr. Obama must also ensure that any new aid to Pakistan strengthens democratic institutions, not just whoever is president.

Already, some Washington analysts are suggesting there might be worse things than a return to military rule in Pakistan. We?ve seen this movie before, and it is not a strategy for long-term stability.

Marine General says getting out of Iraq "Very Doable"

2009-02-25T05:08:00.000-08:00

Marine Commander Says Iraq Pullout In 16 Months 'Doable'

National Journal's CongressDailyPM
February 24, 2009
by Otto Kreisher

Marine Maj. Gen. John Kelly, who just completed a yearlong assignment as the top commander in western Iraq, said today he believes the Iraqi people "have made a commitment to government over violence" and that President Obama's proposal to withdraw most combat forces in 16 months "is very doable" in most of the country. Kelly, who was commander of Multi-National Forces West and deputy commander of the I Marine Expeditionary Force, said the war in Iraq would go on, but as "a war to establish a lasting democracy."

Kelly, who has done three tours in Iraq since 2003, conceded Iraq may never have an American-style democracy. But the general, speaking at a defense writers' breakfast, said he believes that even the Sunni leaders in Anbar province, once considered the heart of the anti-American insurgency, were committed to settling differences politically rather than resorting to violence. He said that the Iraqi army and police had assumed virtually total responsibility for security in the previously volatile region, describing the level of violence there as "meaningless."

Although withdrawing U.S. forces too rapidly poses some danger, Kelly said, leaving too slowly would prevent Iraqi security forces from taking control. He noted that he deliberately removed his forces from major cities to force Iraqi security forces to step up -- and it worked. The general also said he stopped spending U.S. money on infrastructure to force the Iraqi government to take on that responsibility.

Kelly cautioned that it would not be possible simply to transfer tactics and concepts from Iraq to Afghanistan. Nonetheless, he argued that the key to improving security in both countries was to increase contact with the people, rather than simply focusing on killing insurgents.

Army muscles cash contributions, cuts scholarships

2009-02-22T14:14:00.000-08:00

Probe finds Army charity hoards millions
Military's biggest charity is stockpiling cash, rather than using it for aid
The Associated Press
updated 3:32 p.m. ET, Sun., Feb. 22, 2009

FORT BLISS, Texas - As soldiers stream home from Iraq and Afghanistan, the biggest charity inside the U.S. military has been stockpiling tens of millions of dollars meant to help put returning fighters back on their feet, an Associated Press investigation shows.

Between 2003 and 2007 — as many military families dealt with long war deployments and increased numbers of home foreclosures — Army Emergency Relief grew into a $345 million behemoth. During those years, the charity packed away $117 million into its own reserves while spending just $64 million on direct aid, according to an AP analysis of its tax records.

Tax-exempt and legally separate from the military, AER projects a facade of independence but really operates under close Army control. The massive nonprofit — funded predominantly by troops — allows superiors to squeeze soldiers for contributions; forces struggling soldiers to repay loans — sometimes delaying transfers and promotions; and too often violates its own rules by rewarding donors, such as giving free passes from physical training, the AP found.

Founded in 1942, AER eases cash emergencies of active-duty soldiers and retirees and provides college scholarships for their families. Its emergency aid covers mortgage payments and food, car repairs, medical bills, travel to family funerals, and the like.

Army charity lent out emergency aid

Instead of giving money away, though, the Army charity lent out 91 percent of its emergency aid during the period 2003-2007. For accounting purposes, the loans, dispensed interest-free, are counted as expenses only when they are not paid back.

During that same five-year period, the smaller Navy and Air Force charities both put far more of their own resources into aid than reserves. The Air Force charity kept $24 million in reserves while dispensing $56 million in total aid, which includes grants, scholarships and loans not repaid. The Navy charity put $32 million into reserves and gave out $49 million in total aid.

AER executives defend their operation, insisting they need to keep sizable reserves to be ready for future catastrophes.

"Look at the stock market," said retired Col. Dennis Spiegel, AER's deputy director for administration. Without the large reserve, he added, "We'd be in very serious trouble."

But smaller civilian charities for service members and veterans say they are swamped by the desperate needs of recent years, with requests far outstripping ability to respond.

While independent on paper, Army Emergency Relief is housed, staffed and controlled by the U.S. Army.

That's not illegal per se. Eric Smith, a spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service, said the agency can't offer an opinion on a particular charity's activities. But Marcus Owens, former head of IRS charity oversight, said charities like AER can legally partner closely with a government agency.

However, he said, problems sometimes arise when their missions diverge. "There's a bit of a tension when a government organization is operating closely with a charity," he said.

Some reserves are prudent

Most charity watchdogs view 1-to-3 years of reserves as prudent, with more than that considered hoarding. Yet the American Institute of Philanthropy says AER holds enough reserves to last about 12 years at its current level of aid.
Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, said that AER collects money "very efficiently. What the shame is, is they're not doing more with it."

National administrators say they've tried to loosen the purse strings. The most recent yearly figures do show a tilt by AER toward increased giving.

Still, Borochoff's organization, which grades charities, gives the Army charity an "F" because of the hoarding.

The AP findings include:

Superior officers come calling when AER loans aren't repaid on time. Soldiers can be fined or demoted for missing loan payments. They must clear their loans before transferring or leaving the service.
Promotions can be delayed or canceled if loans are not repaid.
Despite strict rules against coercion, the Army uses pushy tactics to extract supposedly voluntary contributions, with superiors using language like: "How much can we count on from you?"

The Army sometimes offers rewards for contributions, though incentives are banned by program rules. It sometimes excuses contributors from physical training — another clear violation.

AER screens every request for aid, peering into the personal finances of its troops, essentially making the Army a soldier's boss and loan officer. "If I ask a private for something ... chances are everyone's going to do it. Why? Because I'm a lieutenant," says Iraq war veteran Tom Tarantino, otherwise an AER backer. "It can almost be construed as mandatory."

Neither the Army nor Sgt. Major of the Army Kenneth Preston, an AER board member, responded to repeated requests for comment on the military's relationship with AER.

AER pays just 21 staffers, all working at its headquarters at Army Human Resources Command in Alexandria, Va. AER's other 300 or so employees at 90 Army sites worldwide are civilians paid by the Army. Also, the Army gives AER office space for free.

AER's treasurer, Ret. Col. Andrew Cohen, acknowledged in an interview that "the Army runs the program in the field." Army officers dominate its corporate board too.

Officers must recommend soldiers for aid
Charities linked to other services operate along more traditional nonprofit lines. The Air Force Aid Society sprinkles its board with members from outside the military to foster broad views. The Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society pays 225 employees and, instead of relying on Navy personnel for other chores, deploys a corps of about 3,400volunteers, including some from outside the military.

Army regulations say AER "is, in effect, the U.S. Army's own emergency financial assistance organization." Under Army regulations, officers must recommend whether their soldiers deserve aid. Company commanders and first sergeants can approve up to $1,000 in loans on their own say-so. Officers also are charged with making sure their troops repay AER loans.

"If you have an outstanding bill, you're warned about paying that off just to finish your tour of duty ... because it will be brought to your leadership and it will be dealt with," says Jon Nakaishi, of Tracy, Calif., an Army National Guard veteran of the Iraq war who took out a $900 AER loan to help feed his wife and children between paychecks.

In his case, he was sent home with an injury and never fully repaid his loan.

The Army also exercises its leverage in raising contributions from soldiers. It reaches out only to troops and veterans in annual campaigns organized by Army personnel.

For those on active duty, AER organizes appeals along the chain of command. Low-ranking personnel are typically solicited by a superior who knows them personally.

Spiegel, the AER administrator, said he's unaware of specific violations but added: "I spent 29 years in the Army; I know how first sergeants operate. Some of them do strong-arm."

Many violations uncovered
Army regulations ban base passes, training holidays, relief from guard duty, award plaques and "all other incentives or rewards" for contributions to AER. But the AP uncovered evidence of many violations.

Before leaving active duty in 2006, Philip Aubart, who then went to Reserve Officer Training Corps at Dartmouth College, admits he gave to AER partly to be excused from push-ups, sit-ups and running the next day. For those who didn't contribute the minimum monthly allotment, the calisthenics became, in effect, a punishment.

"That enticed lots and lots of guys to give," he noted. He says he gave in two annual campaigns and was allowed to skip physical training the following days.

Others spoke of prizes like pizza parties and honorary flags given to top cooperating units.

Make no mistake: AER, a normally uncontroversial fixture of Army life, has helped millions of soldiers and families. Last year alone, AER handed out about $5.5 million in emergency grants, $65 million in loans, and $12 million in scholarships. Despite the extra demands for soldiers busy fighting two wars, AER's management says it hasn't felt a need to boost giving in recent years.

But the AP encountered considerable criticism about AER's hoarding of its treasure chest.

Jack Tilley, a retired sergeant major of the Army on AER's board from 2000 to 2004, said he was surprised by AP's findings, especially during wartime.

"I think they could give more. In fact, that's why that's there," said Tilley, who co-founded another charity that helps families of Mideast war veterans, the American Freedom Foundation.

Accumulates stocks and bonds with its wealth
What does AER do with its retained wealth? Mostly, it accumulates stocks and bonds.

AER ended 2007 with a $296 million portfolio; last year's tanking market cut that to $214 million, by the estimate of its treasurer.

Sylvia Kidd, an AER board member in the 1990s, says she feels that the charity does much good work but guards its relief funds too jealously. "You hear things, and you think, "`They got all this money, and they should certainly be able to take care of this,'" she said. She now works for a smaller independent charity, the Association of the United States Army, providing emergency aid to some military families that AER won't help.

Though AER keeps a $25 million line of bank credit to respond to a world economic crisis, its board has decided to lop off a third of its scholarship money this year. "We're not happy about it," Spiegel says.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Q & A w/Amb Wolliam Wood, Afghanistan

2009-02-15T06:36:00.000-08:00

Q & A with William Wood, U.S. Ambassador To Afghanistan

Chicago Tribune
February 15, 2009
By Kim Barker

KABUL — William Wood has been the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan since April 2007. It has been a period of such deterioration in security that President Barack Obama has called for a new U.S. strategy and a doubling of American forces deployed here. Obama's special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Saturday to discuss the plan. On the eve of Holbrooke's trip, Tribune correspondent Kim Barker sat down with Wood to talk about the Taliban insurgency, civilian casualties blamed on the U.S. and Karzai's troubled rule. Following are edited excerpts:

Q: How long does the international community need to be here?

A: I can't give you a timeline, but it's clearly not forever. It wasn't really until 2006 and 2007 that international forces were here in real strength. So, although it seems as though forces have been here longer, the fight for security in Afghanistan is only about 2 years old. And frankly, some of the disagreements we're having about how to do that have to do with the fact that it's only 2 years old. I think it will be worked out. I think the increased deployments and the growth of the Afghan security forces will turn the tide. I am optimistic, but I can't give you a date.

Q: Why do you think Afghans feel so much less secure now than they did a year ago?

A: This society that has been so devastated by 30 years of turmoil, it's exhausted. Its traditional leadership structures are exhausted. And its institutional structures still have not taken deep root. And the people in the communities are tired. Into this fragile situation, I think that both the Taliban and criminal elements and warlords who accumulated power during the bad years continue to operate and perhaps even are increasing their operations. And neither the government nor its international supporters have yet found a way to respond to those threats at the local and community level. I think we will.

Q: What do you think about the level of participation of NATO here?

A: Just on simple numbers, what NATO said was necessary has never been provided. So I think that there's plenty of room for additional contribution. The United States is providing additional forces, and I am very sure that other members of the coalition will also be providing additional forces in the course of 2009.

Q: What do you think of President Hamid Karzai's public criticism of civilian casualties, especially toward the U.S.?

A: Well, of course we agree with it—that civilian casualties are horrible. We are confident that he understands that we're upset by them too. We're here to protect Afghan citizens. At the same time ... Taliban infiltration into communities puts them in communities. It is the Taliban that is intimidating, abusing, terrorizing and attacking the people of Afghanistan as part of its conscious, chosen strategy. It is true for instance that some night raids have resulted in civilian casualties. It is also true that those night raids have reduced the number of homemade bombs killing Afghan civilians.

Q: What do you think about how Karzai's doing and his relationship with the U.S.?

A: It's a complicated, intense relationship. We've seen some actions against corrupt officials lately, we're seeing real improvements in the police, the army is doing well, the economy is growing, gross domestic product per capita has more than doubled since 2001. There are more schools, there are more clinics, there are all of these things, and relations with Pakistan are improving. That does not mean that anyone is satisfied. We all want it to be going better.

Q: What do you think of President Karzai as a leader, all the challenges he's faced and the pressure he's been under?

A: He faces an array of problems when he gets up every morning that are extraordinary. Afghanistan is poor by the standards of the poorest nation. The Taliban and the mujahedeen did no training, so the last trained officials in Afghanistan were trained by the Soviets a long time ago in a system that really didn't work very well and was characterized by its centralization in a country that desperately needs decentralization.

I think he works very hard. I think that like all of us, he has made some very good decisions, and I think, like all of us, not all of his decisions have been very good.

MajGen John Kelly's TOA Farewell@ Al Asad

2009-02-09T06:53:00.001-08:00

MAJOR GENERAL JOHN F KELLY, USMC
COMMANDING GENERAL
I MARINE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (FORWARD)
AL ASAD, IRAQ
9 FEBRUARY 2009

TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY CEREMONY

It might surprise some here today of what a Marine is proudest of in the nearly three years he’s spent on the ground in Iraq since March 2003. It is not the triumphs of the invasion and the rush to Baghdad, Tikrit and Bayji that I lived, while the rest of the world held their breath and watched as we defined military power and prowess. It isn't the fights we had over the summer of 2003 against an emerging insurgency in the Northern Babil Province, or the two battles of Fallujah in April and November of 2004. Or clearing Ramadi, or holding Karma, or cleaning out Al Qaim over the years. It’s also not about the number of terrorist we've killed, and the network they served all but destroyed, today making Anbar, Iraq, the Middle East, Europe and the world a safer place protected for now at least against a sick form of extremism no decent man or woman could ever embrace. That the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that have fought here in Anbar and Western Ninawa Province, and the men and women who commanded them these last five years, are at least has good as the best in the world at this business.

What I am very proud of is the number of human beings we did not have to kill because we never stopped extending the hand of friendship even in the darkest of days gone by, and the damage we didn't do because we resorted to force last, and always restrained its use when we did go to the guns. The other things I am proud of are the cows we purchased for widows to make a living, chicken farms we established or expanded, agricultural experts we hired and brought in to help farmers save their fields and increase production, and advise the shepherds on how to cull and strengthen their flocks. Of the thousands of tons of seed and fertilizer we bought and distributed to reestablish a farm industry destroyed by over a decade of UN sanctions, and exacerbated by the current drought. Of the hundreds of miles of irrigation canals we repaired or opened up, and the schools and clinics built and stocked with supplies. The impact we had on the province’s health. By fixing or building sewerage plants and systems, and water treatment facilities, we began to reduce infant mortality by reducing the unseen killers of the new born—killers that thrive in filthy water. And then there was the cholera epidemic this past summer—that didn't happen; the dreaded tuberculosis outbreak in Hadithah—that we miraculously contained and treated without the loss of a single life.

I am also very proud of the Iraqis we Americans, along with our brothers in the Iraqi police and army, safeguarded as the insurgency was systematically defeated. It wasn't all done with guns and violence, but as much with the kinds of nation building and “hearts and minds” programs we established for the people of Anbar, and now those of Western Ninawa, who are today working with us, and not fighting against us. And when the few remaining Al Qaeda do crawl out from under whatever rock they call home, those who once aided them now reject their presence and the venom they spew, and tell us where to find them. Of the month-long voter registration drive in August without a single accusation of fraud, without a single violent incident, and with 100% of the eligible registered. Of the election just held with nearly 100% of those registered walking miles even when you knew full well hundreds and even thousands of you might die. You ignored the threats of death. With the full knowledge that the terrorists were frantically building vehicle bombs, and outfitting as many suicide bombers as they could talk into their murderous assignment, you gathered at polling places in your millions and exercised the right of free men and woman and the forces of evil here never had a chance of stopping you. By dipping your fingers in a bottle of ink you sounded the death knell of terrorists and extremists who only destroy, never build. Who kill, and never nurture. Who want to tear down societies now, but have no plan for the future. Who simply can not stand the thought of men and women living their lives the way they want to live them safely in their own homes with their children, and enjoying the God-given rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

It's harder—infinitely harder—fighting this kind of war as patience, and innovation and economic development are the most effective ammo, with trust, influence and personal relations the most effective and really only usable arrows in the quiver. In this dangerous world we live in the sad fact is that the kind of war we are fighting today in Iraq was made possible only after all those who have to be killed because they are murderous irreconcilables, are dead. And diplomacy and good will only work once these kinds of men are hunted down and killed or put in cages, and those more reasonable men and women are finally convinced they can’t win with the gun, are tired of dying, and realize their only hope is through dialogue.

These are the things I am proud or as I end my third, and I am sure my final, tour here in Iraq; however, what I am proudest of is why we came here and regardless of what the talkers back home thought this was all about, those of us on the ground that were putting our lives on the line had the noblest of all intentions in 2003, and they guide us today as well in our every action. Reasons only the American military would march forward to do with happy hearts, and without regard for our own lives or well being. Not for land, or oil, or prestige, or for anything else other than our country’s security, and another people’s freedom. I know it sounds naive or corny, but our Iraqi brothers and sisters who have come to know us the best, believe it the most.

As we surged into Iraq six years ago the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines of the Coalition came not to conquer a nation, but to free a people. We sincerely believed we came to help free Iraq from a terrible tyrant who not only ordered the deaths of thousands of his own countrymen he was morally and ethically bound to protect as the leader of a nation in the modern era, but also crushed the spirits of the living holding you all in a grip of fear that turned brother against brother, sons and daughters against their parents, and Muslim against Muslim. A man that fostered murderous religious, ethnic, and social suspicions and hates as the means to keep you divided.

This is what those of us in uniform who have served here are proudest of, and not any number of cynics or the entire chattering class can ever take that away from us. We who serve the colors risked everything in this endeavor, while they throw their darts. We fought here in the unimaginable heat of Iraq’s summer, and they criticized. We walked the most dangerous streets in the world hunting the most murderous men on earth, and they slept safe at home in their beds. We send the people we hold as dear and precious to us—as close as our own sons and daughters—home to be buried, and the best they can do is case doubt on our mission, our motives, and our humanity. They should come to Anbar and see what we have done together as partners in the same fight, and, as a sheikh recently said to me: “as brothers now and forever because we have endured the same agony for four years and emerged victorious. You never wavered and we have won.”

Our success here over the last year, indeed since we came, has been a result of trusting those who could be trusted, and standing firm against those who would do us—and you—harm. In the last year we did many things with the Iraqis to build that trust. We took calculated risks to advance the return to normalcy, risks we could take with confidence because we knew the Anbar ground better than any non-Anbari on the planet. By living with them we understood the minds of the local citizens and how they were exhausted by the murder and the violence that took so many of them everyday, and for so many years. We grew more and more convinced that it was over everyday and every time we had a conversation that reflected hope, rather than hopelessness, in the voices of parents. Parents like any on earth who now talked of a future for their children that included education and not ignorance, health and not disease, moderation and not extremism, life and not death or maiming in a meaningless spiral of violence. At the end of the day we in the military always knew we could “win the ten second firefight” because we are better at fighting—and dying—for what we believe in than any terrorist regardless of what sick ideology he might worship could ever hope to be. The trick was to know how to recognize an opportunity for engagement at the human level, then exploit it for the good without value judgment or cultural arrogance.

These are the things I am proud and proudest of, but what makes me eternally grateful is the relatively small number of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines I have lost or had maimed in comparison to what it was like the last two times I was here. Eternally grateful, but their loss and suffering still breaks my heart and I think about them everyday. I will think about them for the rest of my life because I failed to bring them home. I will never forget them, or their families. I am painfully aware that for their families, and their buddies who knew them best in their squads, sections, and platoons, that their single casualty is for them an overwhelming statistic. Their grief, is my grief, forever…but I still thank God there were so few this time.

These men and women served because they are the best of their generation. They understood above all else the notion of service to one’s country, and of selfless devotion to duty. They died for their buddies, for their Army and their Marine Corps, and for millions of their countrymen who will never know their names but sleep safe in their homes every night because of men and women like them. They are part of our legend now, and we will never forget them:

We mourn the loss today of Lance Corporal Drew W. Weaver 0311 USMC. He was killed in action 21 February 2008 fighting alongside his buddies, and for the country he loved.

We mourn the loss today of Major William G. Hall 7202 USMC. He was killed in action 30 March 2008 fighting alongside his Marines, and for the country he loved.

We mourn the loss of today of Lance Corporal Dean D. Opicka 0351 USMC and Corporal Richard J. Nelson 0341 USMC. They were killed in action together 14 April 2008 fighting alongside their buddies, and for the country they loved.

We mourn the loss today of First Lieutenant Matthew R. Vandegrift 0802 USMC. He was killed in action 21 April 2008 fighting alongside his American & Iraqi buddies, and for the country he loved.

We mourn the loss today of Lance Corporal Jordan Haerter 0311 USC, and Corporal Jonathan T. Yale 0352 USMC. They were killed in action together 22 April 2008 fighting alongside their buddies, and for the country they loved. (Both these men to be awarded the Navy Cross (posthumously) on 20 February 2009.

We mourn the loss today of Lance Corporal Casey L. Casanova 0621, Lance Corporal James F. Kimple 0411, Corporal Miguel A. Guzman 3521, and Sergeant Glen E. Martinez 1345, All U.S. Marines. They were killed in action together 2 May 2008 fighting alongside their buddies, and for the country they loved.

We mourn the loss today of Private First Class Aaron J. Ward 3110, a soldier of the United States Army. He was killed in action 6 May 2008 fighting alongside his buddies, and for the country he loved.

We mourn the loss today of Specialist Christopher McCarthy 91k, a soldier of the United States Army. He died here in Iraq serving the country he loved.
We mourn the loss today of Lance Corporal Kelly E. Watters 0311 USMC. He was seriously injured on 23 May 2008 fighting alongside his buddies, and for the country he loved. He lost the struggle for his life yesterday at the Naval Hospital, Bethesda, Maryland. He was surrounded by his family when he went.

We mourn the loss today of Lieutenant Colonel Max A. Galeai 0302 USMC, Captain Philip J. Dykeman 0302 USMC, and Corporal Marcus W. Preudhomme 0151 USMC. These Marines were killed in action together 26 June 2008 fighting alongside their buddies, and for the country they loved.

We mourn the loss today of Staff Sergeant Danny D. Dupre 0369 USMC. He was killed in action 114 July 2008 alongside his buddies, and for the country he loved.

We mourn the loss today of Corporals Stewart Trejo 2131 USMC and Corporal Adam McKiski 2131 USMC. These Marines died together 7 July 2008 fighting alongside their buddies, and for the country they loved.

We mourn the loss today of Sergeant Michael H. Ferschke 0321 USMC. He was killed in action 10 August 2008 fighting alongside his buddies, and for the country he loved. (His wife Hotaru gave birth to a son in Okinawa, Japan, on 14 January 2009. His boy’s name is Michael H. Ferschke III.)

We mourn the loss today of Private First Class Daniel A. McGuire 0311 USMC. He was killed in action 14 August 2008 fighting alongside his buddies, and his country he loved.

We mourn the loss today of Lance Corporal Stacy A Dryden 3052 USMC. She died here in Iraq 19 October 2008 serving the country she loved.

We mourn the loss of Corporal Aaron M. Allen 0311 USMC. He was killed in action 14 November 2008 fighting alongside his buddies, and for the country he loved.

We mourn the loss today of Gunnery Sergeant Marcello R Valasco 3537 USMC. He died 19 November 2008 here in Iraq serving the country he loved.

We mourn the loss today of Master Sergeant Anthony Davis, a Solider of the United State Army, and Captain Warren A. Frank 0302 USMC. These Americans were killed in action together 25 November 2008 fighting alongside each other, and for the country they loved.

We mourn the loss today of Lance Corporal Thomas Reilly 0311 USMC. He was killed in action 20 December 2008 fighting alongside his buddies, and for the country he loved.

To the people of Anbar and Western Ninawa—our friends and allies—I wish you well and pray that you will see this experiment in democracy through that has been bought with so much suffering and pain. Treasure this new and wonderful way to live your lives, cherish it, nurture it, make it grow, never stop trying to make it better as it is gift from God to you, and your children. Semper Fidelis.
_________________

Zinni Iraq Offer Job Retracted

2009-02-04T04:36:00.000-08:00

Zinni Says Iraq Ambassador Job Offer Was Retracted

By Barbara Slavin
The Washington Times
February 4, 2009

The Obama administration asked retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni to be U.S. ambassador to Iraq but abruptly withdrew the appointment without explanation, Gen. Zinni said Tuesday.

Gen. Zinni, a former commander of Central Command, told The Washington Times that he had been offered the job by the White House national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, two weeks ago and that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed the offer on Jan. 26.

"I started making arrangements," Gen. Zinni said, but he said he became concerned because he heard nothing further from the State Department or White House. He said he called Gen. Jones on Monday night and was told that outgoing Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Christopher Hill was getting the job.

Gen. Zinni said no explanation was given. "That kind of bothered me," he said. "I was told that I had it."

Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, said, "We have spoken to a number of extraordinarily talented individuals about serving in this important role, and have made no announcement about who will be the U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

"Obviously, the president has enormous respect for Gen. Zinni and believes he would be on anybody's short list for a number of critical national security roles."

The State Department had no immediate comment.

Gen. Zinni indicated that he was not interested in other offers from the administration. "I'm not going to give up my day job," writing books and teaching at Cornell University, he said.

Mr. Hill has extensive experience in Northeast Asia and the Balkans but not in the Middle East.

Gen. Zinni, on the other hand, was the deputy commanding general of Provide Comfort, a U.S. operation that provided relief to Iraqi Kurds in 1991.

He was deputy commander in chief of Central Command from 1996 to 1997 and commander from 1997 until 2000. In 1998, he supervised Operation Desert Fox, a series of U.S. air strikes against Iraq, targeting what the U.S. believed were weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

"I know Chris," Gen. Zinni said. "He's a fine guy."

Gates: Closing GTMO No Security Threat

2009-01-28T04:59:00.000-08:00

Gates: Closing Guantanamo Won't Release Terrorists

By Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates is downplaying suggestions that the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison would risk the release of terrorists. Gates says the vast majority of detainees can easily be tried by the U.S. or sent to other countries for conviction.

Gates testified Tuesday before the House Armed Services Committee. His remarks on the prison are a blow to Republicans who say Obama's decision to close Guantanamo will undermine the war on terror. Gates, a Republican himself, is widely respected in Congress.

Gates also said he wholeheartedly endorses a deadline set by President Barack Obama to close Guantanamo Bay! prison within a year. If the U.S. government does not set a firm deadline, he says it would never get done.

Obama's Robust Pakistan Strategy

2009-01-24T06:19:00.000-08:00

2 U.S. Airstrikes Offer A Concrete Sign Of Obama's Pakistan Policy

Washington Post
January 24, 2009
By R. Jeffrey Smith, Candace Rondeaux and Joby Warrick, Washington Post Staff Writers

Two remote U.S. missile strikes that killed at least 20 people at suspected terrorist hideouts in northwestern Pakistan yesterday offered the first tangible sign of President Obama's commitment to sustained military pressure on the terrorist groups there, even though Pakistanis broadly oppose such unilateral U.S. actions.

The shaky Pakistani government of Asif Ali Zardari has expressed hopes for warm relations with Obama, but members of Obama's new national security team have already telegraphed their intention to make firmer demands of Islamabad than the Bush administration, and to back up those demands with a threatened curtailment of the plentiful military aid that has been at the heart of U.S.-Pakistani ties for the past three decades.

The separate strikes on two compounds, coming three hours apart and involving five missiles fired from Afghanistan-based Predator drone aircraft, were the first high-profile hostile military actions taken under Obama's four-day-old presidency. A Pakistani security official said in Islamabad that the strikes appeared to have killed at least 10 insurgents, including five foreign nationals and possibly even "a high-value target" such as a senior al-Qaeda or Taliban official.

It remained unclear yesterday whether Obama personally authorized the strike or was involved in its final planning, but military officials have previously said the White House is routinely briefed about such attacks in advance.

At his daily White House briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs declined to answer questions about the strikes, saying, "I'm not going to get into these matters." Obama convened his first National Security Council meeting on Pakistan and Afghanistan yesterday afternoon, after the strike.

The Pakistani government, which has loudly protested some earlier strikes, was quiet yesterday. In September, U.S. and Pakistani officials reached a tacit agreement to allow such attacks to continue without Pakistani involvement, according to senior officials in both countries.

But some Pakistanis have said they expect a possibly bumpy diplomatic stretch ahead.

"Pakistan hopes that Obama will be more patient while dealing with Pakistan," Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, said in an interview Wednesday with Pakistan's Geo television network. "We will review all options if Obama does not adopt a positive policy towards us." He urged Obama to "hear us out."

At least 132 people have been killed in 38 suspected U.S. missile strikes inside Pakistan since August, all conducted by the CIA, in a ramped-up effort by the outgoing Bush administration.

Obama's August 2007 statement -- that he favored taking direct action in Pakistan against potential threats to U.S. security if Pakistani security forces do not act -- made him less popular in Pakistan than in any other Muslim nation polled before the election.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton indicated during her Senate confirmation hearing that the new administration will not relent in holding Pakistan to account for any shortfalls in the continuing battle against extremists.

Linking Pakistan with neighboring Afghanistan "on the front line of our global counterterrorism efforts," Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "we will use all the elements of our powers -- diplomacy, development and defense -- to work with those . . . who want to root out al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other violent extremists." She also said those in Pakistan who do not join the effort will pay a price, adding a distinctly new element to the long-standing U.S. effort to lure Pakistan closer to the West.

In blunt terms in her written answers to the committee's questions, Clinton pledged that Washington will "condition" future U.S. military aid on Pakistan's efforts to close down terrorist training camps and evict foreign fighters. She also demanded that Pakistan "prevent" the continued use of its historically lawless northern territories as a sanctuary by either the Taliban or al-Qaeda. And she promised that Washington would provide all the support Pakistan needs if it specifically goes after targets such as Osama bin Laden, who is believed to be using Pakistani mountains as a hideout.

At the same time, Clinton pledged to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan, long dwarfed by the more than $6 billion funneled to Pakistani military forces under President George W. Bush through the Pentagon's counterterrorism office in Islamabad.

"The conditioning of military aid is substantially different," as is the planned boost of economic aid, said Daniel Markey, a Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow who handled South Asian matters on the State Department's policy planning staff from 2003 to 2007.

Bush's focus on military aid to a Pakistani government that was led by an army general until August 2007 eventually drew complaints in both countries that much of the funding was spent without accountability or, instead of being used to root out terrorists, was diverted to forces intended for a potential conflict with India.

A study in 2007 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies reported that economic, humanitarian and development assistance under Bush amounted to no more than a quarter of all aid, less than in most countries.

The criticism helped provoke a group of senators who now have powerful new roles -- Joseph R. Biden Jr., Clinton and Obama -- to co-sponsor legislation last July requiring that more aid be targeted at political pluralism, the rule of law, human and civil rights, and schools, public health and agriculture.

It also would have allowed U.S. weapons sales and other military aid only if the secretary of state certified that Pakistani military forces were making "concerted efforts" to undermine al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In her confirmation statement, Clinton reiterated her support for such a legislative restructuring of the aid program, while reaffirming that she opposed any "blank check."

Some Pakistanis have been encouraged by indications that Obama intends to increase aid to the impoverished country, said Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani who directs the South Asia Center of the Washington-based Atlantic Council of the United States. Nawaz said Pakistanis may be willing to a overlook an occasional missile lobbed at foreign terrorists if Obama makes a sincere attempt to improve conditions in Pakistan.

"He can't just focus on military achievements; he has to win over the people," Nawaz said. "Relying on military strikes will not do the trick."

Bush Commutes - but refuses to pardon - Ramos and Compean

2009-01-19T12:05:00.000-08:00

President Bush commutes sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Joe Compean

Ex-Border Patrol agents will be released March 20

Pair convicted of shooting undocumented immigrant who was running drugs
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On his final full day in office, President Bush issued commutations for two former border patrol agents convicted in 2006 of shooting an undocumented immigrant who was smuggling drugs at the time.

The prison sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Joe Compean will now end March 20.

Ramos had received an 11-year prison sentence; Compean had received a 12-year sentence.

"The president has reviewed the circumstances of this case as a whole and the conditions of confinement and believes the sentences they received are too harsh and that they, and their families, have suffered enough for their crimes," a senior administration official said.

"Commuting their sentences does not diminish the seriousness of their crimes. Ramos and Compean are convicted felons who violated their oaths to uphold the law and have been severely punished," the official stated.

"This commutation gives them an opportunity to return to their families and communities, but both men will have to carry the burden of being convicted felons and the shame of violating their oaths for the rest of their lives."

Finally - To Reinstate the Draft !

2009-01-15T15:28:00.001-08:00

Rangel To Reintroduce Military Draft Measure
By Susan Crabtree
The Hill
January 15, 2009

((Note: Rep Rangel, an Army artilleryman, was awarded both a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart for his service in Korea))

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) likely will introduce his controversial legislation to reinstate the draft again this year, but he will wait until after the economic stimulus package is passed.

Asked if he plans to introduce the legislation again in 2009, Rangel last week said, “Probably … yes. I don’t want to do anything this early to distract from the issue of the economic stimulus.”

Rangel’s military draft bill did create a distraction for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) soon after Democrats won control of Congress after the 2006 election.

In the wake of that historic victory, Pelosi said publicly that she did not support the draft and that the Democratic leadership would not back Rangel’s legislation. She also said Rangel’s legislation was not about reinstating the draft but was instead “a way to make a point” about social inequality.

Reintroducing the military draft bill, which would attract media attention, will be trickier for Rangel in 2009 than it was a couple years ago because the Ways and Means Committee chairman is now under investigation by the House ethics committee.

Democratic leaders have given Rangel a leading role in helping craft the new economic stimulus bill despite an array of ethics allegations that have surfaced over the last several months. The charges have ranged from failing to report rental income on a villa in the Dominican Republic to an alleged quid pro quo involving a legislative favor for a donor to an education center bearing Rangel’s name.

Always eager to be at the heart of the action, Rangel clearly is relishing discussing the high-profile stimulus package. During the first days of the 111th Congress — and for the first time in months — reporters have been swarming around Rangel to discuss policy matters rather than ethics.

Republicans are likely to seize on the reintroduction of Rangel’s unpopular military draft bill. When they controlled the House in 2004, Republicans scheduled a vote on the Rangel measure, which was defeated 402-2. Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and Pete Stark (D-Calif.) supported it, while Rangel voted against his own bill, claiming the GOP was playing political games.

But Rangel told The Hill that he recently heard talk about rewarding mandatory service with two years of college credit.

“That doesn’t make sense,” he said. “People shouldn’t have to join the military to get an education.”

A decorated Korean War veteran and a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, Rangel argues that the burden of fighting wars falls disproportionately on low-income people and that cost should be borne more broadly.

If a draft had been in place in 2002 when members were making the decision on whether to support the war in Iraq, Rangel has said, Congress never would have approved the war resolution, because the pressure from constituents would have been too great.

With the Iraq war off the front page and the economic crisis taking center stage, nerves are not as raw on the topic of strain on the military as they were a few years ago, so Rangel’s legislation may not make as many waves this time around.

But some Democrats — even one who supported Rangel’s efforts in the past — are a little perplexed about his plans to reintroduce the legislation, especially now that President-elect Obama is poised to take over the White House.

“That was really a political statement at the beginning of the war that we continued,” said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), one of only two co-sponsors of Rangel’s draft bill. “I’m not sure we’re going to do that this time.”

A Job Program That Works - And Cheaply !!!

2009-01-12T05:30:00.000-08:00

Corps Deploys Cows for Iraq's Economy
Los Angles Times
January 12, 2009

AL-ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq -- As U.S. forces work to revive Iraq's tattered farming economy, they seem to have found an effective new weapon.

Cows.

At the suggestion of an Iraqi women's group, the Marine Corps recently bought 50 cows for 50 Iraqi widows in the farm belt around Fallujah, once the insurgent capital of war-torn al-Anbar province.

The cow purchase is seen as a small step toward re-establishing Iraq's once-thriving dairy industry, as well as a way to help women and children hurt by the frequent failure of the Iraqi government to provide the pensions that Iraqi law promises to widows.

The early sign is that the program is working. Widows, many with no other income, have a marketable item to sell, as well as milk for their children. Although Iraqis, particularly women, are often reluctant to participate in an American effort, the cows were immediately popular.

"It was an easy sell," said Maj. Meredith Brown, assigned to the Marines' outreach program for Iraqi women.

The idea, proposed by members of the Women's Cultural Center in Fallujah, at first met with resistance from U.S. military officers and civilian officials involved in aid programs for al-Anbar. Nothing in their training provided guidance in haggling for livestock.

Those objections evaporated when Maj. Gen. John Kelly, the top Marine in Iraq, signaled his support, Brown said. The Iraqis now refer to their animals as Kelly's Cows.

Although Kelly's support might have been based on gut instinct, the need to beef up Iraq's dairy industry was argued in a Nov. 25 report by Land O'Lakes Inc.

The Minnesota cheese-and-butter company was hired by the Marine Corps to examine the Iraqi dairy industry. Its 38-page report, based on field research in the fall by two Land O'Lakes dairy specialists, concluded that there was enormous growth potential for the industry in a milk-drinking, cheese-eating nation that can locally produce enough milk to satisfy only 5 percent of the demand.

The study also pointed out that, even in Iraqi farm families with able-bodied adult males, much of the work is left to women: "Women milk the cows, bring feed and fodder to the animals and are supported by their children."

Americans know Land O'Lakes best from its products in the dairy case, but the company has been involved in 150 development projects in 70 countries in recent decades. Among them was a dairy project in Afghanistan after the Taliban was toppled in the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.

Its report cited a litany of woes besetting the Iraqi dairy industry: facilities damaged by war, looting or neglect; a lack of good feed; a dearth of veterinarians and the initiative-numbing effect of three decades of centralized planning under Saddam Hussein .

The cows-for-widows program is the latest of several initiatives by the United States to help Iraq's dairy and beef industries . Brown put the program cost so far at $58,000.

To qualify for a free cow, each widow had to sign an agreement not to slaughter or sell the animal and instead to use the milk as a marketable item or for the family .

© Copyright 2009 Los Angeles Times. All rights reserved

Petraeus: Afghan-Pak problems are the same

2009-01-08T17:52:00.000-08:00

Petraeus: Afghan, Pakistan problems are really one

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON – U.S. policy to win in Afghanistan must recognize the poor nation's limitations and its neighborhood, especially its intertwined relationship with U.S. terrorism-fighting ally Pakistan, the top U.S. military commander in the region said Thursday.

Army Gen. David Petraeus, who became a household name overseeing the war in Iraq, now oversees the older, smaller and less promising fight in Afghanistan as well. He predicted a long war in Afghanistan, without quantifying it.

Petraeus told a Washington audience that a winning strategy in Afghanistan will look different from the one in Iraq. He offered few specifics as the incoming Obama administration assess its options in the 7-year-old Afghanistan war that has gone much worse than anticipated, just as U.S. fortunes have improved in Iraq. He also suggested the United States and its partners may one day have common purpose with Iran, another Afghanistan neighbor, in stabilizing and remaking that country.

"There has been nothing easy about Afghanistan, indeed nearly every aspect has been hard and that will continue to be the case in 2009 and the years beyond," Petraeus said in an address to the United States Institute of Peace.

The address was part of a conference highlighting world trouble spots at the moment of political transition in the United States. The institute released a sober outline of problems in Afghanistan as part of the session.

The report said the U.S. and its partners have shortchanged Afghanistan by focusing on short-term goals pursued without a cohesive strategy or clear understanding of how the decentralized country works. It suggested President-elect Barack Obama should refocus the U.S. war and rebuilding effort in Afghanistan and think of the project as the work of at least a decade.

Petraeus' own review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is expected to be presented to Obama the week after he takes office Jan. 20. The plan would shift the focus from the waning fight in Iraq to the escalating Afghan battle.

President George W. Bush's in-house Iraq and Afghanistan adviser has already done a separate assessment; it has not been made public.

The U.S. is rushing 20,000 American troops into Afghanistan to combat a Taliban insurgency that has sent violence to record levels. U.S. officials have warned the violence will probably intensify in the coming year. More U.S. troops, 151, died in Afghanistan in 2008 than in any other year since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban.

A suicide bomber struck U.S. troops patrolling on foot in southern Afghanistan on Thursday, killing at least two soldiers and three civilians and wounding at least nine others, officials said.

Petraeus linked Afghanistan's fortunes directly to Pakistan's, where a U.S.-backed civilian government is struggling and the country's ability to control militants along its border with Afghanistan is in doubt.

"Afghanistan and Pakistan have, in many ways, merged into a single problem set, and the way forward in Afghanistan is incomplete without a strategy that includes and assists Pakistan," and also takes into account Pakistan's troubled relationship with rival India, Petraeus said.

On Iran, Petraeus said he would leave the details to diplomats. But he suggested that the longtime U.S. adversary could be part of a regional effort to right Afghanistan. Afghanistan's strategic location and recent history both as a cradle of terrorism and source of most of the world's heroin make it of interest to nations from the West to the Middle East and beyond.

"Iran is concerned about the narcotics trade — it doesn't want to see ... extremists running Afghanistan again any more than other folks do," Petraeus said.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Marine Success continues in Farah Province

2009-01-05T20:54:00.000-08:00

Governor of Farah meets with Marine Corps leaders

FARAH PROVINCE, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – Key leaders of the Farah province of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan met with senior leaders of Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force – Afghanistan Jan. 3, 2009, to discuss the alliance’s progress and security advancements in the southwestern province.

Col. Duffy W. White, commander of SPMAGTF-A, attended the bi-weekly meeting to introduce himself and make known his support to Farah Provincial Governor Rohullah Amin during their first meeting together.

Other key military and security force leaders also engaged Amin on such topics as ongoing operations, budgetary expenses and policy in the region.

The key leaders discussed several of the positive effects seen in Farah Province, including revised legislation, progress in the logistical support of Afghan forces, increased security patrols, improved commerce and the building of schools and improvements in infrastructure, all of which support ongoing counterinsurgency operations.

“Where the Marines work [with] district leaders, there is really good coordination,” said Amin of his experience of working with U.S. Marines.

Marines and sailors with 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment (Reinforced), and Combat Logistics Battalion 3, the ground and logistics combat elements of SPMAGTF-A, are working diligently to clear highway roads of improvised explosive devices and other threats to improve security and infrastructure in the region.

“It’s getting better every day,” said Amin. “We should continue this. There may be some problems, but we should keep going on. We will continue working well with others.”

NATO Ignores Afghan Drug Trade

2008-12-24T05:33:00.000-08:00

December 24, 2008
United Press International

BRUSSELS -- NATO's top military commander says he's surprised that some member nations aren't following through on promises to battle the Afghanistan drug trade.

U.S. Gen. John Craddock, NATO's supreme allied commander, was disappointed to learn during a recent trip to Afghanistan that despite a recent agreement by NATO country defense ministers to include attacks on narcotics traffickers as part of the mission, some countries weren't carrying out the anti-drug campaign, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

U.S. officials say it is critical to cut off the drug money that funds the Afghan insurgency. But disagreements have surfaced over how aggressively NATO forces should go after drug traffickers and what role NATO soldiers should play in a mission that had been defined as "security assistance," the newspaper said.

Craddock told the Times profit from the narcotics trade "buys the bomb makers and the bombs, the bullets and the trigger-pullers that are killing our soldiers and marines and airmen, and we have to stop them."

Some NATO members including Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain, have indicated they regard counternarcotics operations as law enforcement, rather than a military matter, the newspaper said.

© Copyright 2008 United Press International. All rights reserved.

Chinese Crew defend against Pirates with beer bottles

2008-12-19T10:14:00.000-08:00

www.timesonline.co.uk

Dec 19,2008
Anne Barrowclough

The crew of a Chinese ship attacked by pirates off the coast of Somalia have described how they used beer bottles and water cannon to fend off their attackers before they were rescued.

The ship, Zhenua 4, was one of four vessels seized by pirates on Wednesday, shortly after the UN Security Council authorised countries to pursue the renegades by land as well as by air.

Nine pirates armed with rocket launchers and machine guns boarded the ship, according to Xinhua, China's state news agency.

The vessel's 30 crew members fought for four hours with home-made incendiary bombs and beer bottles, said an official with China Maritime Search and Rescue Centre.

The pirates abandoned their attempt to take the ship when a multilateral force, including a warship and two helicopters, arrived after the crew locked themselves in their cabins and radioed for help.

"Seven of the nine pirates landed on our ship, all with weapons," Peng Weiyuan, the captain of Zhenhua 4, said in a telephone interview with China Central Television.

"Our crew, who had been well trained and prepared, used water cannon, self-made incendiary bombs, beer bottles and anything else that could be used to battle with them. Thirty minutes later, the pirates gestured to us for a ceasefire.

"Then the helicopter from the joint fleet came to help us."

Pirates have carried out more than 100 attacks on the shipping lanes of the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean this year, earning themselves as much as $120 million a year and losing the shipping industry millions.

At least 16 ships are being held for ransom close to the pirate lairs of Eyl and Haradheere. Among them are the Sirius Star, a Saudi supertanker loaded with $100 million (£67 million) of crude oil, and the Faina, a Ukrainian cargo ship carrying 30 Soviet-era tanks bound for southern Sudan.

The revelations of the Chinese crew come as China said that it would send a warship to the Gulf of Aden to join international efforts to curb the pirates.

The country's announcement that it would join the fight against piracy was greeted enthusiastically by the head of Pacific Command.

Admiral Timothy Keating said that it would lead to a revival in military relations between China and the US. "I hope the Chinese do [send ships to the Gulf of Aden] and we'll work closely with them," he said. "I think this could be a springboard for a resumption of dialogue between PLA forces and US Pacific Command forces."

China suspended military contacts with the United States in October in protest over US arms sales to Taiwan valued at $6.5 billion.

The Air Force - A Failed Experiment

2008-12-18T19:07:00.001-08:00

Air Force nuclear unit fails inspection

By Barbara Starr
CNN Pentagon Correspondent

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the fifth time this year, a U.S. Air Force nuclear weapons unit failed an inspection, this time because of failure to document its handling of nuclear missiles and other critical issues, Air Force officials said.

A "nuclear surety inspection" and "unit compliance inspection" was conducted this month on the 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming by an Air Force inspector general.

There was no risk to the unit's Minuteman III nuclear missiles, Air Force officials said.

The unit has 90 days to correct the problems and pass another inspection.

In the wake of recent problems, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and top Air Force officials have indicated a zero tolerance for failing inspections, but no punishments are expected in this case, officials said.

The inspection report found the maintenance unit failed to document tests conducted on missiles correctly, including tests on safety devices. The inspector general told the unit the failures indicated either a "lack of competence" or "disregard for procedures," according to a source who has seen the report.

Additionally, failures included having some personnel on duty without proper medical clearance and failure to inspect radiation detectors.

Other units that failed inspections this year included two bomb wings and two missile units.

Blackwater Banned in Iraq?

2008-12-18T11:19:00.001-08:00

Blackwater May Lose Iraq Work License

December 18, 2008
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The State Department faces serious challenges protecting U.S. diplomats in Iraq and may no longer be able to rely on Blackwater Worldwide to do the job, according to an internal report.

A report from the department's inspector general says the agency must deal with the prospect that Blackwater - its main private security contractor in Iraq - could lose its license to work in Iraq. Officials say that means preparing alternative arrangements.

"The department faces the real possibility that one of its primary worldwide personal protective services contractors in Iraq - Blackwater (Worldwide) - will not receive a license to continue operating in Iraq," the recently completely report says.

A copy of the 42-page report, labeled "sensitive but unclassified," was obtained by The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Officials said the report is a prelude to a decision on whether to renew Blackwater's Iraq contract, which expires next year. A recommendation on that is expected after an investigation is completed into last September's incident in Baghdad's Nisoor Square in which Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqis, they said, requesting anonymity because the report is not public.

Five Blackwater guards have been indicted by a U.S. federal grand jury on manslaughter and other charges stemming from that incident. The company was not charged.

The State Department had no immediate comment on the report itself, but deputy spokesman Robert Wood said that after the Nisoor Square probe is finished, officials would look at "whether the continued use of Blackwater in Iraq is consistent with the U.S. government's goals and objectives."

A decision on how U.S. diplomats in Iraq are to be protected will be left to the Obama administration, which will be in place when Blackwater's contract comes up for renewal in spring.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a longtime critic of Blackwater and the use of private security companies, welcomed the report and said, "The era of Blackwater must finally end."

"It will benefit the incoming administration to have reassurance from the State Department that Blackwater's contract should be seriously questioned, but it's disheartening that it took 15 months from a tragedy in Baghdad for the Bush administration to reach an overdue conclusion," Kerry said.

Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., a member of the Foreign Relations committee, said that without preparing for the possibility of Blackwater losing its license, "our overreliance on this one company for protective services in Iraq will place our diplomats in a difficult position."

It is not clear how the State Department would replace Blackwater. The department relies heavily on contractors to protect its diplomats in Iraq, as it does not have the manpower or equipment to do so. No other private security contractor has the North Carolina-based firm's range of resources, particularly its fleet of helicopters and planes.

The report suggests that one way to fill the void would be for the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service to beef up its presence in Iraq.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ordered a review of the department's use of private security firms after the Nisoor Square incident. The inspector general's report is an analysis of how recommendations in that review have been implemented.

Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell declined to comment, saying the company has not yet seen the report. The company has said in the past, though, that it plans to largely get out of the security contracting business to concentrate on training and other projects.

Blackwater has won more than $1 billion in government contracts under the Bush administration, a large portion of which has been for work in Iraq, where its duties include guarding diplomats based at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Separately, the State Department on Wednesday issued new regulations to boost its monitoring of how Blackwater exports sensitive equipment, such as guns and ammunition. The new rules force Blackwater and its affiliates to file extra paperwork and progress reports.

The department said the oversight, which took effect earlier this month, is necessary to ensure that Blackwater "is both capable and willing" to comply with U.S. export laws. Blackwater has acknowledged that it made numerous mistakes with exports over the years and has established a panel of experts to ensure it follows the law.

Federal prosecutors have probed how Blackwater handled its arms shipments to Iraq. The company has denied accusations it is smuggling guns and argues that most of its violations have been failures of paperwork and timeliness.

© Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Sink or Swim for Marines New Amphib Program

2008-12-15T13:16:00.000-08:00

Corps' $27b EFV at Crossroads
December 15, 2008
Associated Press

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. - The Pentagon spent more than $1 billion and 12 years developing a high-speed vehicle made to carry Marines from sea to shore only to have it fail miserably in 2006. It was overweight, sprung leaks and constantly broke down.

The Marine Corps and contractor General Dynamics Corp. now face another critical test. A failure this week for the vehicles designed to replace a Vietnam-era fleet could doom the $27 billion program.

Any "show stopper" problems discovered during the review will be weighed to determine if the service's so-called Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program moves forward to the next phase, Marine Corps spokesman Dave Branham said last week.

Lawmakers estimate the do-over will cost U.S. taxpayers an additional $1 billion, and the program already is deemed irrelevant by critics given the latest threats in countries like Afghanistan that have no access to water, and require more agile vehicles to navigate rocky terrain.

"Are we going to fight World War II again? Show me on the map where they are going to make an amphibious landing," said Col. G.I. Wilson, a retired Marine and contributing author to the new book, "America's Defense Meltdown," from the Center for Defense Information.

The Marines have not performed large amphibious maneuvers since the Korean War. But the service remains undeterred, contending that with most foreign nations owning shoulder-fired, rocket-propelled grenades and anti-ship missiles, it's critical to have a vehicle that can deploy Marines farther offshore, keeping them undetected and out of harm's way.

The EFV can be deployed 25 nautical miles offshore, allowing Marines to land anywhere along an 800-mile coastline and then start traveling at up to 45 mph.

"You try to never fight the last war when developing weapon systems ... (and you) can't afford to be surprised by the next," said Col. Keith Moore, EFV program manager.

That makes this week's test all the more important for the troubled program.

"They (are going to) have to show us all ... Here's exactly what it does. Here's exactly how much it weighs. (And) that they can meet the advertised cost of the vehicle," Moore said in a recent interview at his office in Woodbridge, Va.

Industry observers say even if the vehicle misses the mark, it's unlikely the Bush administration will terminate the program. Rather, such a decision, like many other multibillion-dollar defense programs left uncompleted this year, would be punted to President-elect Barack Obama.

Analysts believe another failure, coupled with cost overruns and the vehicle's damaged history, would leave the program even more vulnerable to the ax under Obama, who has promised to cut the fat from defense spending.

Still, Marines are anxious to show what the vehicle can do.

"This vehicle is a leap into what we need to stay on top," said Sgt. Christian Button, 23, of Camp Pendleton, Calif., who has been working on the vehicle for the past six months.

Coming around the bend at the military's testing site in Aberdeen, it's clear why the Marines are so enamored with the $14 million vehicles.

Clouds of dust circle around the vehicle's faux "hula skirt" - used to prevent the enemy from detecting its size - as Sgt. Robert Baxter of Camp Pendleton, Calif., 24, turns on the ignition with a push of a button.

With its custom designed 12-cylinder, 2,800 horsepower diesel engine made by Germany's MTU, it begins to roar like a jumbo-jet at takeoff. One cylinder is enough to power the Camaro's Super Sport 454 engine.

The EFV is more than 10 feet high, but inside it feels like a cramped U-Haul with a low ceiling, and seats for 17 infantry Marines.

Deployed from the sea at nearly 30 miles per hour, it can transform into an armored infantry vehicle as it moves ashore. Unlike its older version, it can travel as fast as its military cousin, the Abrams tank.

But even with all its added features and capabilities, the program has been repeatedly criticized for its failures and cost.

"While the project has been a fiasco for the taxpayer, there has been at least one beneficiary: General Dynamics," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight Committee said in April. "The company got paid even though the vehicle flunked its tests."

General Dynamics referred all questions to the Marine Corps.

The Marines have defended the program's past failures by explaining that the technological feat of getting a 76,000-pound vehicle moving at such a high-speed above the water was unprecedented.

"It was a little bit of a misnomer when it was reported that the vehicle couldn't move in water, couldn't move on land, couldn't shoot, couldn't do any of that," said Branham. "The vehicle works. It just didn't work well enough, long enough."

The vehicle can now go 51 hours before breaking down, up 7.5 hours from its prior threshold, which had been one source of criticism.

Even so, Moore concedes it's been "pretty disappointing" not to have successfully executed the program yet, and said a review last year led the service to slash the number of vehicles it planned to buy nearly in half to 573 because it needed a more diverse fleet to manage new threats.

Moore has taken several steps to help get the program back on track, including authorizing incentive fees under the $776.8 million contract that are paid only if General Dynamics meets goals like controlling costs or performance.

"It doesn't bother me to pay them for work that we can measure," he said, declining to specify how much the Falls Church, Va.-based company has received under the plan.

"The goal is to get the vehicle out there to the Marines," said Moore. "This is a vital capability for U.S."

© Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved

ISAF - ANA Kill 40+ in Helmand

2008-12-15T13:14:00.000-08:00

Report: Dozens killed in Afghan operation
Government official: Violence flares in dangerous Helmand province
The Associated Press
updated 7:31 a.m. ET, Mon., Dec. 15, 2008

KABUL, Afghanistan - A joint Afghan-NATO operation in a volatile region in the country's dangerous south has killed 40 militants, including the Taliban's leader in that region, a government official said Monday.

The operation in the Nad Ali and Murja districts of Helmand province began on Thursday and continued through Monday, said Dawood Ahmadi, spokesman for Helmand's governor.

Ahmadi said that 40 militants have died in the operation, though he said that government officials had recovered only seven bodies, which were given to tribal elders for burial. Ahmadi said the government knows another 33 fighters were killed through intelligence sources.

The figures couldn't be independently verified. Lt. Cmdr. James Gater, a spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force, confirmed that a joint operation in Helmand is under way. He said he had no casualty figures he could release.

Leading Taliban figure reportedly among dead
Among the dead was a Mullah Salim, a Taliban leader who was the head of the militant's council in the two districts, Ahmadi said. The councils, also called shuras, are sometimes referred to as a shadow government structure that operates separately from the Afghan government.

Afghan officials admit they have little control in many areas of northern Helmand, a poppy-growing region that is heavily infiltrated by Taliban fighters.

Violence has spiked across Afghanistan the last two years. More than 6,000 people have died in insurgency-related violence in 2008, according to an Associated Press count of figures based on Afghan and Western officials.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.