Company IDs 7 killed in Afghanistan plane crash

DETROIT (AP) — Jamie Brokaw was an experienced navigator who was no stranger to dangerous flying situations and had the skills to stay cool in the face of danger, according to close friend Chris Connerton.

"He was a very good person and very smart person," Connerton told The Associated Press by telephone from Rochester, Minn.

Brokaw, 33, of Monroe, Mich., was among seven Americans killed Monday when their National Air Cargo plane crashed near an Air Force base in Afghanistan. Six of the victims were from Michigan and a seventh was from Kentucky, said Shirley Kaufman, National Air Cargo vice president.

Connerton said Brokaw was a key reason he was able to make it through flight school in Jacksonville, Fla., where they met.

Connerton also described a harrowing flight two years ago from Toledo, Ohio, to an international flight expo in Lakeland, Fla. Connerton said ice had built up on the plane to the point that he could no longer get it to climb.

"If it wasn't for Jamie's navigation and know-how ... we wouldn't have made it," Connerton said.

Killed along with Brokaw in the Afghanistan crash were Gary Stockdale, 51; pilots Brad Hasler, 34, of Trenton, Mich., and Jeremy Lipka, 37, of Brooklyn, Mich.; first officer Rinku Summan, 32, of Canton, Mich.; loadmaster Michael Sheets, 36, of Ypsilanti, Mich.; and maintenance crewman Timothy Garrett, 51, of Louisville, Ky.

Building model planes and working on real ones comprised Stockdale's passion, filling the family's basement with models in his youth, jumping into aviation as a career at age 16 — and later working at two Detroit-area airports.

Stockdale also knew the dangers of flying, his older brother said Tuesday.

"He always said it was dangerous," said Glenn Stockdale, 55. "He would always say, 'You either will die in a car crash or a ball of flame in a plane.'"

Lipka had flow in Iraq as well as Afghanistan and had close calls before, said his stepfather, Dave Buttman.

"There was risk there all the time. He knew the risks. He volunteered to take the trips," Buttman told the Star Tribune of Minneapolis. "Basically, you're taking your chances flying in there and he was just happy to be one of the pilots to do it."

The Dubai-bound Boeing 747-400 — operated by National Air Cargo — crashed just after takeoff Monday from Bagram Air Base around 11:20 a.m. local time, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a statement Tuesday.

The accident site is within the perimeter of Bagram Air Base.

The Taliban quickly claimed responsibility for downing the plane, but NATO said the claims were false and there was no sign of insurgent activity in the area at the time of the crash.

The NTSB said it will lead a team of three investigators to assist the Afghanistan Ministry of Transportation and Commercial Aviation in investigating the crash. But a ministry spokesman, Nangoialy Qalatwal, said Tuesday the ministry is not involved with the investigation because it occurred at a military and not a civilian airport.

Kaufman said the plane — owned by National Airlines, an Orlando, Fla.-based subsidiary of National Air Cargo — was carrying vehicles and other cargo.

Elena Garrett, of Jeffersonville, Ind., just across the Ohio River from Louisville, said ex-husband Timothy Garrett would have turned 52 on Saturday. They have two daughters together, ages 11 and 12.

"We're all devastated," Elena Garrett said about his death. "We were still best friends. He's the best father I've ever seen (and) ready to help anybody. He would give the shirt off his back for anybody."

Bill Hasler said his family learned Monday morning that his brother, Brad, was one of the crash victims.

"Brad was a wonderful father to two young children, a beloved husband to a wife who is expecting another child, a loving son, and the most loyal and supportive brother I could have ever asked for," Bill Hasler said in a statement. "His influence in the lives of all of us who loved him is immeasurable, and our grief is indescribable."

National Airlines was based until recently at Michigan's Willow Run Airport, west of Detroit. It carries cargo both commercially and for the military, Kaufman said. She said the company employs about 225 people.

Summan had worked 2? years for National Air Cargo, said his wife, Rajnit Summan.

Rajnit Summan said she last spoke to her husband Sunday.

"I told him to be safe," she said.

___

Joan Lowy reported from Washington. Associated Press writers David N. Goodman in Detroit, Elizabeth Campbell in Louisville, Ky., and Patrick Quinn in Kabul, Afghanistan, contributed to this report.

Via Yahoo News!

BBC reporter killed in Afghanistan

Afghan journalists place wreaths for Ahmad Omid Khpalwak during a memorial gathering in Kabul on August 4, 2011. Ahmad Omid Khpalwak was killed in July after an insurgent attack in Tarin KowtHe worked for the BBC and Pajhwok News AgencyA soldier thought the man was wearing a suicide vest

(CNN) -- A reporter was killed by a U.S. service member last July in southern Afghanistan in a case of mistaken identity, according to the results of an investigation by NATO's International Security Assistance Force.

Ahmad Omid Khpalwak -- a free-lancer for the BBC and Pajhwok News Agency in Afghanistan -- was killed during an insurgent attack in the Uruzgan province city of Tarin Kowt on July 28. He was 25 and joined the BBC in May 2008 as a stringer, the network said.

"Mr. Khpalwak was shot by an ISAF member who believed he was an insurgent that posed a threat and was about to detonate a suicide vest improvised explosive device," the NATO-led force said in a statement Thursday. ISAF identified the soldiers at the scene as Americans.

"The investigating officer found that the ISAF member involved in this incident complied with the laws of armed conflict and rules of engagement and acted reasonably under the circumstances."

Peter Horrocks, director BBC Global News, said the death is "a tragedy for his family and friends as well as his colleagues at the BBC."

It "further highlights the great dangers facing journalists who put their lives on the line to provide vital news from around the world," he said. "It is essential that journalists are given the best possible protection whilst reporting in dangerous situations so that the world can hear their stories."

Insurgents staged what ISAF said was a "complex attack" on a number of targets, including the provincial governor's compound and the Radio Television Afghanistan compound. The Committee to Protect Journalists said at least 22 people were killed and 37 people were injured.

Gen. John R. Allen, commander of ISAF, appointed an independent investigating officer to examine the circumstances of the death.

The report said two insurgents gained entry to the RTA compound when they used a car bomb to destroy a gate and a section of the wall.

From inside the building they traded fire with uniformed Afghan forces and shot at U.S. soldiers arriving at the scene. The firing from the insurgents eventually stopped amid escalating force by the Americans.

Afghan leadership told the forces that two suicide bombers were in the RTA building and that they "were not aware of any civilians present," ISAF said.

"Upon U.S. soldiers entering the RTA building, the two suicide bombers detonated their explosives, collapsing the front walls of the building and trapping members of the clearing team under heavy brick debris," ISAF said.

As some soldiers aided the injured, some continued clearing building remains and others "remained in overwatch to provide security."

During the clearing operation, a soldier "identified movement of a young adult male in the building through a large hole in a broken wall."

"The room the man was in was immediately adjacent to the room where one of the suicide bombers had detonated his suicide vest IED, and across the hall from the other suicide vest detonation, just minutes before," ISAF said.

The soldier heard a shot he thought was from the man's "exact location." ISAF said "it is probable that the shot he heard was actually fire by a soldier inside the building during the building clearing."

The soldier "assessed the individual he observed to be enemy and fired a single round which did not strike him. In the stress and urgency of the moment, it is highly probable that soldiers in the courtyard outside the building incorrectly perceived that shot as having been fired by the man in the building."

ISAF said several soldiers thought the man was shooting, and called out warnings.

"A soldier was directed to move up to the broken wall where the man was seen. As the soldier approached he observed a young adult male with a beard with something clinched in one of his fists and reaching for something on his person with his other hand."

The soldier assessed the actions as those of a suicide bomber who was working to detonate an IED that "posed a lethal threat."

The soldier shot and killed the man. They later discovered that the man was Khpalwak. No weapon was found on him.

"It appears that all the rounds perceived as coming from his location were instead fired by U.S. soldiers," ISAF said.

The BBC said the "confusion surrounding the circumstances" intensified "the tragedy felt by the journalist's family and colleagues."

"The BBC recognizes that ISAF has provided clarification that he was killed by a U.S. soldier, ending a period of uncertainty," the network said in a statement. "We will be studying the details of the findings and await receipt of the full report."

CNN's Joe Sterling contributed to this report

CNN

Cameron 'to pull 500 UK troops from Afghanistan' (AFP)

LONDON (AFP) – British Prime Minister David Cameron is to announce the withdrawal of at least 500 troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2012 following a similar drawdown by the United States, reports said Sunday.

The move would take the number of British troops in Afghanistan below the key figure of 9,000 and mark a major step towards Cameron's stated aim of having all British combat forces out of the country by 2015.

Cameron would announce on Wednesday plans to withdraw up to 800 troops by the end of next year, the Sunday Times reported. The Sunday Telegraph put the figure at 500 and said they would leave in mid-2012.

Britain's Ministry of Defence said that some troops would be brought home early but refused to confirm details.

"UK force levels in Afghanistan are kept under constant review," a Ministry of Defence spokesman said.

"The Prime Minister has been clear that there will be no UK troops in combat roles in Afghanistan by 2015 and it is right that we bring troops home sooner where progress allows and taking account of military advice."

The withdrawal is in addition to the pull-out of 400 British support staff by February 2012 announced by Cameron in May, 200 of which have already left Afghanistan.

The Sunday Telegraph quoted a senior defence source as warning that reducing the British force too quickly would "send the wrong message" to Afghanistan's Taliban militants.

Britain currently has 9,500 troops based in Afghanistan's troubled southern province of Helmand, making it the second largest contributor of foreign forces in Afghanistan after the United States.

US President Barack Obama last month ordered all 33,000 US surge troops home from Afghanistan by mid-2012. France quickly followed suit, saying several hundred French troops would leave by the end of this year.

Western nations have set a deadline of the end of 2014 to hand over control of security to Afghan forces despite fears that they are not ready to protect the country from the Taliban.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague confirmed last month that Britain, like the Kabul government and the United States, was in negotiations with the insurgents in a bid to end 10 years of war in Afghanistan.

Cameron held talks with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari on Friday which partly focused on the situation in neighbouring Afghanistan.

A spokesman for his Downing Street office said that the two leaders "both support the Afghan-led process towards reconciliation and peace", adding that Cameron had urged Pakistan to play a "constructive role".

Pakistan has long been accused of covertly backing the Taliban or at the very least of failing to crack down on militant sanctuaries in its tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

Yahoo! News

French journalists return home after Afghanistan hostage ordeal [VIDEO] (The Christian Science Monitor)

Paris Herve Ghesquiere and Stephane Taponier – Joy came to France this morning as the last two journalists held hostage under war conditions arrived home after 547 days in Taliban captivity. They said the ordeal raised their awareness of other hostages held “everywhere in the world.”

Herve Ghesquiere and Stephane Taponier of France 3 television started reporting in Afghanistan while embedded with a French military unit and were abducted in 2009 in the Kapisa Valley after visiting a town without the protection of troops, in order to get an authentic take on the area.

Today the two landed at a military air base outside Paris amid throngs of French journalists and hugged each other and family, answering questions in an ebullient moment. "We're doing really, really, really well," said Mr. Taponier, a cameraman who has worked in Gaza and Lebanon. “We stayed optimistic.”

When French Prime Minister Francois Fillon announced yesterday the release of the two at the National Assembly, that body erupted in a standing ovation. France has a famed tradition of patriotic emotion on the return home of captives. The release of a French-Colombian celebrity politician, Ingrid Betancourt, after six years held in the jungle brought a day of celebration two years ago.

The two France 3 journalists today described their ordeal as grueling due to poor conditions, lack of food, and uncertainty, but said they were not treated badly by their Taliban captors. Their translator, an Afghan national named Reza Din, was also released.

Winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan

“We were never threatened, never beaten, never tied up,” Taponier said. “But we were locked up 23 hours and 45 minutes [a day], with very little to eat, and always the same thing, ‘Afghan mountain special.’ It might sound stupid, food, but it's vital."

Mr. Ghesquiere, who worked in the Rwanda, Kosovo, and Balkan wars, said the experience has him thinking more of other unfortunates who are locked away or kidnapped. "There are many hostages in the world, I am really thinking about them,” he told colleagues today. “To be a hostage is complicated and difficult… I feel a deep emotion for them."

The two were released following a December intervention with Afghan President Hamid Karzai by French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, as well as the announcement of a withdrawal of French troops this month after US President Obama’s decision to draw down US troop levels. The Paris-based Reporters San Frontiers says the two are the final professional journalists held hostage that they are aware of.

Unusually, for four months after their kidnapping the French government did not release the men’s names. The reason was to reduce pressure in negotiations, a tactic similar to that used by the New York Times in securing its reporter David Rhodes. It was the first time France had held back names of captives.

Perils of war reporting Journalists here later criticized French officials for insinuating, once their names were known, that the men were irresponsible and perhaps culpable, since they left their embed. The issue of operating independently in Taliban areas has been a sensitive and highly subjective one among foreign reporters in Afghanistan: The calculation pits the reporter’s experience and skill with a desire to achieve a thrilling or significant story and includes the risk of doing harm to local translators, civilians or troops that may be called to rescue.

In this case, the men had war reporting backgrounds. They worked for a highly regarded series on France 3 television called “Pieces a conviction,” an in-depth report akin to “Frontline” on US public television or “Assignment” on the BBC. Their Afghan report focused on a road reconstruction project in the French military zone to the east of Kabul and was planned for three months.

After it was posited today that French military officials warned the journalists not to go to the town they were captured in, Ghesquiere offered in a slight eruption that: "No one had warned us against going there… We didn't start out climbing the North Face of Everest wearing flip-flops, far from it… We didn't go there blindly… Let me make myself clear: No one told us anything."

GhesquierA? said he looked forward to returning to a normal life and that he did not want to a€?play the role of an ex-hostage.a€

--

Related video:

newslook

Yahoo! News

After Iraq and Afghanistan, Is Negotiation Inevitable in Libya? (Time.com)

As NATO's war in Libya entered its 100th day on Monday, an end to the conflict may be in sight - but not necessarily a decisive one. Military and diplomatic signs point increasingly towards some measure of compromise by both sides in shaping an outcome that neither the regime nor the rebels would have countenanced when their struggle began. Rebel forces who have been consolidating their hold on villages in mountains to the West of Tripoli launched a furious assault Sunday on the approaches to the capital, but were repelled by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The regime appears unable for the foreseeable future to restore control over those - slowly growing - parts of the country where rebel forces have broken Gaddafi's iron grip, yet the rebels and their NATO backers so far appear unable to deal the regime's forces a knockout blow. And while the rebel forces may be growing in confidence, the commitment of the Western allies that have enabled rebel advances is clearly finite.

The intensification of fighting so close to the capital suggests that both sides may be aware that the clock is ticking down towards what may be an inevitable negotiated solution, and are doing their best to shape it to their advantage. Recent comments by British military commanders and Defense Secretary Robert Gates underscore the sense that the European NATO members responsible for the air war will be hard-pressed to continue the campaign much beyond the current summer, and diplomatic support for the military intervention is ebbing fast: Italy last week called for a suspension of hostilities, although that suggestion was quickly squelched by NATO partners; the African Union, China, Russia and the Arab League have begun to retract their endorsement of a military campaign they authorized to protect Libyan civilians, but which has morphed unmistakably into a regime-change operation. And President Obama is under fire from both sides of the aisle over U.S. involvement in the campaign. (See exclusive photos of Libya's rebels.)

Such are the limits on rebel military strength that NATO's decision-making may be decisive - it seems unlikely right now that the rebels could press the fight without outside intervention. And the Western powers that have intervened in Libya may have plenty of reasons to press for a compromise.

The Europeans are increasingly focused on the diplomatic arena, where an African Union delegation headed by South Africa's President Jacob Zuma is pressing the regime to negotiate a solution that involves sidelining Gaddafi himself, even if the rump of his regime is included in a new political process. The South Africans reported progress at the weekend, at least in as much as they claimed Gaddafi had agreed to stay out of peace talks involving his regime. The AU appears to be pushing for a cease-fire that would establish a transitional government - presumably composed of elements of the current regime (although not Gaddafi himself) and of the rebel leadership in Benghazi - and a mechanism for a democratic transformation.

Last week, Gaddafi was rumored to be considering leaving Tripoli in what some said was some sort of agreement in which he would accept some form of internal exile while a new political process was worked out. But both the regime and the rebel leadership dismissed such talk. (See "Death, Prison or Exile: Gaddafi Is Out of Options.")

Even if there are weeks of intense fighting ahead, NATO's calendar and the shifting diplomatic terrain, as well as the regime's resilience after more than three months of pummeling by the Western alliance, suggest that the endgame is afoot.

And while NATO clearly needs a rapid solution, it's not only the haste prompted by the limits of Western military commitment to Libya that points towards a compromise outcome. The Western experience of regime-change in both Iraq and Afghanistan suggests that any solution that entirely excludes the old regime is a recipe for protracted instability, and possibly even failure.

The exclusion of the Ba'athists and the Sunni base of the old regime from the post-Saddam political order - and the summary dissolution of the old Iraqi army - made inevitable an insurgency that has tied down U.S. forces in Iraq for eight years. Those decisions left tens of thousands of men who had been vested in the old order, still well armed and organized, with plenty of incentive to destabilize the new one, in which they had no stake. (See pictures from the Battle for Libya.)

In Afghanistan, the Taliban were scattered by the U.S. invasion, but not destroyed. As reviled as they were by many in the society, they retained a base in the Pashtun south. And they were excluded from the creation of a new political order, heavily tilted in favor of the ethnic Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras of the Northern Alliance. The new arrangement, which installed India's Afghan allies at the expense of Pakistan's erstwhile proxy, also gave Islamabad an incentive to ensure its failure. And almost ten years later, some 100,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan facing an insurgency that has grown stronger over the past four years.

The lesson for Libya is obvious: Even if Gaddafi were killed in a Western air strike, or if he fled to the desert or abroad, the many thousands of Libyans who have fought for his regime would have to be incorporated in shaping a new political order in Libya. Indeed, bringing the war to an end by a negotiated settlement, as NATO clearly intends, all but guarantees that the outcome will not be a simple transfer of power from Gaddafi to the rebel leadership in Benghazi. The question of how much power the regime, even without the Colonel, maintains in the transition is one that will be settled not only in talks, but more importantly on the battlefield. Which is why the fighting is likely to be intense in the days and weeks ahead, in what may well be the Libya war's final crescendo.

See TIME's exclusive photos on the ground in Tripoli.

Watch "Libyan Rebels Have Passion, Lack Order."

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

Yahoo! News

At least 20 killed in suicide bombing in east Afghanistan (Reuters)

PULE ALAM, Afghanistan (Reuters) – A suicide car bomber killed at least 20 people, and possibly as many as 35, in an attack at a hospital in a remote district of eastern Afghanistan on Saturday that damaged its maternity ward, officials said.

Estimates of the casualties, which included patients and medical staff, varied widely in chaotic scenes outside the hospital in the remote Azra district of eastern Logar province, which is just south of Kabul.

Dozens more were wounded in one of the worst attacks this year.

Deen Mohammad Darwish, a spokesman for the Logar provincial government, said as many as 35 people were killed, although Afghanistan's Interior Ministry put the death toll at 20.

"The exact target is still not clear," Interior minister deputy spokesman Najib Nikzad said.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid denied responsibility and said the Islamist insurgents never attack hospitals.

President Hamid Karzai condemned the attack in which he said "tens of civilians" were killed. The United Nations said the maternity ward was hit in the bombing.

"This is a despicable attack against civilians who were seeking medical care, as well as visiting family members and health workers," Staffan de Mistura, the U.N. chief in Afghanistan, said in a statement.

Tensions have flared over civilian casualties, with insurgents and the Afghan government alike criticizing NATO-led forces for killing innocent Afghans while hunting for militants.

United Nations figures however show that insurgents are responsible for three-quarters of civilian deaths.

Military and civilian casualties hit record levels in 2010, the most violent year of the war since U.S.-backed Afghan forces toppled the Taliban in late 2001.

This year is following a similar trend, with violence growing across Afghanistan since the Taliban announced a spring offensive at the beginning of May.

U.S. commanders had already said they expected a rise in attacks as insurgents hit back after U.S. and NATO forces made gains during operations in the Taliban heartland in the south over the past 18 months.

The United Nations said two weeks ago that May had been the deadliest month for civilians since it began compiling statistics four years ago.

It said it had documented 368 "conflict-related" civilian deaths, 82 percent of them caused by insurgents.

The latest violence comes as seven areas across the country prepare to take over security responsibilities from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) fighting an increasingly unpopular war that has dragged on for 10 years.

That will coincide with the start in July of a gradual drawdown of U.S. troops. U.S. and NATO troops plan to hand over security responsibility for all of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, although critics warn the handover date is premature.

While most of the ISAF gains have been in Taliban strongholds in the south, the insurgency in eastern provinces like Logar and Kunar near the border with Pakistan is much more fragmented.

Taliban fighters often slip across the border from safe havens in Pakistan's largely lawless northwest but other groups like the al Qaeda-linked Haqqani network also operate extensively in the area.

(Additional reporting by Hamid Shalizi; Writing by Alistair Scrutton; Editing by Sugita Katyal)

Yahoo! News

At least 15 killed in suicide bombing in east Afghanistan (Reuters)

PULE ALAM, Afghanistan (Reuters) – A suicide car bomber killed at least 15 people, and possibly as many as 35, in an attack near a hospital in a remote district of eastern Afghanistan Saturday, government and security officials said.

Estimates of the casualties, which included women and children, varied widely in chaotic scenes outside the hospital in the remote Azra district of eastern Logar province. Dozens more were wounded.

Deen Mohammad Darwish, a spokesman for the Logar provincial government, said as many as 35 people were killed, although Afghanistan's Interior Ministry put the death toll at 15.

"The exact target is still not clear and the death toll is expected to rise," Interior minister deputy spokesman Najib Nikzad said.

President Hamid Karzai condemned the attack in which he said "tens of civilians" were killed.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid denied responsibility and said the Islamist insurgents never attack hospitals.

Tensions have flared over civilian casualties, with insurgents and the Afghan government alike criticizing NATO-led forces for killing innocent Afghans while hunting for militants.

United Nations figures however show that insurgents are responsible for three-quarters of civilian deaths.

Military and civilian casualties hit record levels in 2010, the most violent year of the war since U.S.-backed Afghan forces toppled the Taliban in late 2001.

This year is following a similar trend, with violence growing across Afghanistan since the Taliban announced a spring offensive at the beginning of May.

U.S. commanders had already said they expected a rise in attacks as insurgents hit back after U.S. and NATO forces made gains during operations in the Taliban heartland in the south over the past 18 months.

The United Nations said two weeks ago that May had been the deadliest month for civilians since it began compiling statistics four years ago.

It said it had documented 368 "conflict-related" civilian deaths, 82 percent of them caused by insurgents.

The latest violence comes as seven areas across the country prepare to take over security responsibilities from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) fighting an increasingly unpopular war that has dragged on for 10 years.

That will coincide with the start in July of a gradual drawdown of U.S. troops. U.S. and NATO troops plan to hand over security responsibility for all of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, although critics warn the handover date is premature.

While most of the ISAF gains have been in Taliban strongholds in the south, the insurgency in eastern provinces like Logar and Kunar near the border with Pakistan is much more fragmented.

Taliban fighters often slip across the border from safe havens in Pakistan's largely lawless northwest but other groups like the al Qaeda-linked Haqqani network also operate extensively in the area.

(Additional reporting by Hamid Shalizi; Writing by Alistair Scrutton; Editing by Sugita Katyal)

Yahoo! News

Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan to 'combat terrorism' (AFP)

TEHRAN (AFP) – The presidents of Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan agreed on Saturday to join forces in combating militancy as they attended a counterterrorism summit in Tehran under the cloud of an Afghan hospital bombing that killed 60 people.

The joint statement by the three neighbours also came hot on the heels of an announcement by US President Barack Obama that Washington will withdraw 33,000 of its 99,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of next summer.

"All sides stressed their commitment to efforts aimed at eliminating extremism, militancy, terrorism, as well as rejecting foreign interference, which is in blatant opposition to the spirit of Islam, the peaceful cultural traditions of the region and its peoples' interests," the statement said.

"All sides agreed to continue meeting at foreign, interior, security and economy ministers' level to prepare a roadmap for the next summit due to be held in Islamabad before the end of 2011," added the statement carried by Iran's official IRNA news agency.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his Iranian and Pakistani counterparts Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Asif Ali Zardari held three-way talks on Friday ahead of a six-nation counterterrorism conference on Saturday.

The three leaders discussed "ways of battling terrorism, extremism and drug trafficking," IRNA said.

In his speech at the opening session of the two-day summit, Karzai said that despite his government's efforts, militancy was on the rise both in his country and in the region.

"Unfortunately, despite all the achievements in the fields of education, infrastructure and reconstruction, not only has Afghanistan not yet achieved peace and security, but terrorism is expanding and threatening more than ever Afghanistan and the region," the Afghan leader said.

The Pakistani president said: "Terrorists violate both human and divine values by inflicting death and destruction on fellow human beings. They have no religion."

He said attacks had resulted in the deaths of 35,000 people in Pakistan, 5,000 of them law enforcement personnel, and material damage totalling $67 billion.

In his speech to the opening session, Ahmadinejad again accused Iran's archfoe, the United States, of using the September 11, 2001 attacks as a "pretext" for sending troops to the region.

"In light of the way it was approached and exploited, September 11 is very much like the Holocaust," the Iranian leader charged.

"The American government used the attacks as a pretext to occupy two countries, and kill, injure and displace people in the region," he added.

"If the black box of the Holocaust and September 11 is opened, many of the realities will come to light. But unfortunately despite worldwide demand, the American government has not allowed it."

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly courted controversy by questioning the accepted version of both the September 11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people in the United States, and the Holocaust.

He has dubbed 9/11 a "big lie" and a "suspect affair" similar to the Nazi Holocaust, which he dismissed as a "myth" shortly after coming to power in 2005, triggering an international outcry.

In his message to the counterterrorism conference, which was also attended by the leaders of Iraq, Sudan and Tajikistan, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also spoke out against what he charged was Western abuse of the terrorist threat.

"The diabolical calculation of the dominating powers is to exploit terrorism as a tool to gain their illegitimate aims and they have used it in their plans," he said in the message which was read out to the conference.

"In their view, terrorism is whatever threatens their interests. They consider those who are fighting for their legitimate right against occupiers as terrorists but do not consider their mercenaries and malicious groups who harm innocent people as terrorists."

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said the next conference of the six nations would be held in Baghdad next year, and a permanent secretariat would be opened in Tehran.

Yahoo! News

Afghanistan war: The limits of targeting Taliban leaders (The Christian Science Monitor)

By Ben Arnoldy, Tom A. Peter Ben Arnoldy, Tom A. Peter – Thu Jun 23, 4:51 pm ET

New Delhi; and Kabul, Afghanistan – In his Afghanistan drawdown speech last night, President Obama said the US would start withdrawing troops from a position of strength, with Al Qaeda under “enormous strain.”

He attributed those gains to the targeting, capturing, and killing of terrorist leaders. Intelligence from Osama bin Laden’s compound, the president said, revealed that the former Al Qaeda chief “expressed concern that Al Qaeda had been unable to effectively replace senior terrorists that had been killed.”

That achievement came about mainly from the use of special forces, intelligence gathering, and drones – not a heavy troop presence. This logic aids Obama’s case for withdrawing a significant number of troops as Americans tire of the war.

RELATED As troop drawdown nears, is NATO surge working in Afghanistan?

The problem for the US presence in Afghanistan, however, is that a similar campaign to kill Taliban leaders has not proven as successful. As troops begin to depart, US hopes for leaving behind a stable country grow more reliant on either the Afghan security forces dramatically raising their game or negotiations with the Taliban bearing fruit.

The Taliban have recently started negotiations with the US, but by all accounts the discussions remain preliminary. Shaun Gregory, a regional expert at the University of Bradford in England, expressed doubts that the Taliban are feeling much pressure given the meager number of low-level Taliban who have decided to disarm, despite major government efforts to get more of them to do so.

“With the new announcement by Obama that the troops are coming home in significant numbers by next summer, this is just not a moment [for the Taliban] to start compromising,” says Mr. Gregory.

US commander Gen. David Petraeus has said the Taliban’s mid-level commanders have taken “enormous losses” over the previous year. Those special forces killings and the deployment of surge troops into new areas have strengthened security in some areas.

Overall security hasn't improvedIn large parts of Helmand and Kandahar, residents now say that they have increased freedom of movement and face less intimidation from insurgents.

But the overall security picture in Afghanistan has not improved, with attacks increasing in number and geographic scope. Attacks by the armed opposition surged 51 percent in the first quarter of 2011 over that period last year, according to the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office in Kabul.

“We anticipate that 2011 will be the most violent year since we have been keeping records,” reads ANSO’s most recent report.

In theory, the targeting of militant leaders downgrades the overall skill and experience of a group and forces its members to communicate less freely. In practice, both the Taliban and Al Qaeda have replaced their lost leaders, prompting some analysts to question the strategya€™s effectiveness.

Stephen Biddle, a security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, says that's a given.

“It’s a little bit like saying: ‘Have injuries to the Washington Redskins really weakened the team’s performance?’ ” says Mr. Biddle. “The replacement is never as good as the person being replaced.”

Different groups, different strategiesBut others with knowledge of the Taliban and Al Qaeda and their different goals say the targeted killings have impacted the two groups differently.

Al Qaeda has taken more time than the Taliban replacing its leaders, says Sami Yousafzai, a senior Pakistani journalist. Thata€™s because there are only a few hundred Al Qaeda operatives in the region, and they tend to be more educated and skilled.

The Taliban, however, have been able to replace their leaders almost instantly.

“Becoming a subcommander doesn’t require a long history of being a Taliban,” says Mr. Yousafzai. As for higher-ranked commanders and shadow governors, few have actually been killed, he notes. The top-level leadership, meanwhile, remains in havens inside Pakistan where the security establishment is disinclined to help the US catch them.

Al Qaeda’s brand of terrorist plots against the West requires higher levels of education and ingenuity. The Taliban’s guerrilla war against foreigners, meanwhile, requires the sorts of fighting skills not uncommon in the rugged tribal areas of Afghanistan.

“We don’t face any gaps after someone dies. It doesn’t take a long time for us to replace someone,” says Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi. “In the Taliban, we don’t care if someone is knowledgeable and educated. We just look at who is a good fighter.”

Mr. Ahmadi claims the number of Taliban gets bigger every day thanks to civilian casualties by coalition forces.

Al Qaeda, meanwhile, faces strong headwinds against recruitment. The appeal of the group in the Arab world has suffered dramatic declines with the Arab Spring.

“We can fairly say that Al Qaeda has been isolated in the political mind-set of the Middle East and that the ideology of Al Qaeda appears to be irrelevant and problematic. The attention now is given to reform and democracy,” says Mohammad Al-Momani, a political science professor at Yarmouk University in Irbid, Jordan. “The measures that have been taken to crack down on Al Qaeda seem to be working and Al Qaeda is having a harder time recruiting.”

RELATED As troop drawdown nears, is NATO surge working in Afghanistan?

Yahoo! News

Obama moves toward exit from Afghanistan (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama was set to unveil on Wednesday his plan to start bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan in a significant first step toward ending a decade-long war that is increasingly unpopular in the United States.

Obama will announce in a televised address at 8 p.m. EDT (midnight GMT) a plan to pull out 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by year's end, followed by about 23,000 more by the end of next summer, congressional aides told Reuters.

News that Obama will pull the entire 'surge' force he sent to Afghanistan in 2010 caps weeks of speculation about the future of U.S. involvement there and could increase friction between Obama and military advisors who have warned about the perils of a hasty drawdown.

Nearly 10 years after the September 11 attacks that triggered the war, U.S. and NATO forces have been unable to deal a decisive blow to the insurgent Taliban. The Afghan government remains weak and notoriously corrupt and billions of dollars in foreign aid efforts have yielded meager results.

Obama's announcement comes the week after General David Petraeus, the outgoing commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, presented several options for drawing down some of the 100,000 U.S. soldiers there starting in July.

The president's decision appears to reflect the competing pressures he faces as he seeks to rein in government spending and halt American casualties without endangering the gains his commanders say they have made across southern Afghanistan.

The decision to withdraw the 33,000 troops by the end of the summer of 2012 is unlikely to sit well with the Pentagon's top brass. They worry that insurgents could regain lost territory and that fighting along Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan will intensify.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said removing too many troops before the United States can prove it has turned a corner would be "premature.

Yet Obama also faces mounting demands from some quarters of the U.S. Congress, impatient with a war that now costs more than $110 billion a year, for a larger initial drawdown.

Even after the withdrawal of the 33,00 U.S. troops, about 70,000 will remain in Afghanistan by the autumn of 2012, more than were there when Obama took office.

SHIFT SINCE BIN LADEN'S DEATH

The debate in Washington has shifted palpably since U.S. special forces killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan last month.

The al Qaeda leader's death has given critics from both parties ammunition to argue that the Obama administration must narrow U.S. goals in Afghanistan, which remains desperately poor and notoriously corrupt.

While the United States has embraced efforts to find a political settlement with the Taliban, officials acknowledge a peace deal may be far in the future even if one could be had.

Obama is mindful of the American public's lack of support for the war as he looks to his 2012 re-election campaign.

A Pew Research poll released on Tuesday found a record 56 percent of Americans favor bringing U.S. forces in Afghanistan home as quickly as possible.

Still, the situation on the ground in Afghanistan remains volatile and Obama will face heat from Republicans if he is seen as rushing toward the exit.

The Taliban has been pushed out of some areas of their southern heartland, but the insurgency has intensified along Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan.

July marks the official start of NATO's handover to local security forces in keeping with a plan to put Afghan soldiers in charge across the country by the end of 2014.

Serious doubts remain about whether Afghan forces, plagued by desertion and illiteracy, will be up to the task.

NATO PARTNERS ALSO ANXIOUS TO LEAVE

The White House decision may embolden European nations to withdraw their own troops more quickly from Afghanistan despite the Pentagon warnings.

Analysts said non-U.S. allies would want to follow the American lead quickly given the squeeze on their defense budgets, the demands of the war in Libya and the domestic unpopularity of the Afghan mission.

"I don't see how this ends in anything other than a run to the exit. I cannot think of one European country that wants to be in Afghanistan more than the Americans," said Tomas Valasek of the Center for European Reform in London.

The drawdown from Afghanistan underscores the Obama administration's shift toward a more explicit focus on Pakistan, the nuclear-armed nation where a weak government and powerful military are viewed with suspicion in Washington.

U.S. officials see an even bigger threat emanating from Pakistan, which was home to bin Laden and still a major base for militants targeting Americans.

Still, analysts have cautioned that if the United States walks away from Afghanistan, it does so at its own peril because of the risk the country could topple back into the grip of extremism or renewed civil war. Both of these scenarios could again open the door to al Qaeda.

"What will be important is what happens in two or three years from now," Valesek said. "If Obama gets re-elected, and it all goes wrong, and Kabul has turned into another Mogadishu -- then he would clearly have some explaining to do."

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Laura Macinnis, Phil Stewart and Alister Bull in Washington and David Brunnstrom in Brussels. Editing by Christopher Wilson)

Yahoo! News

Obama's Afghanistan Drawdown: Why Troop Levels Won't Affect the War's Outcome (Time.com)

President Barack Obama will on Wednesday announce the size of the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan he will order in July in keeping with the symbolic drawdown he promised to begin this summer. His top military men appear to want to keep most combat troops in the field for at least another two years; other advisers want the withdrawal that begins this summer to involve substantial numbers of troops and on an accelerated schedule. But the number of U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan appears increasingly unlikely to decisively determine the outcome of the war.

Soon after he arrived in office, President Obama buckled to pressure from the Pentagon and doubled down on the U.S. commitment of blood and treasure in Afghanistan, sending an extra 30,000 soldiers as part of the Afghan "surge". Whatever tactical gains have been made in that time - and are likely to be made in the next two years even if current force levels were maintained - Obama will be well aware that a decade of warfare in Afghanistan has failed to qualitatively transform the strategic equation. The key argument from the generals and Administration figures like Defense Secretary Robert Gates in support of keeping the full complement of fighting men in Afghanistan is that the gains made in recent years are "fragile". Of course they are: Experience has shown that there's no reason to expect any area "cleared" by NATO forces will remain that way once they reduce their force levels there. It was ever thus, and there's little reason to expect any different in a conflict that pits a foreign armies against an indigenous insurgency backed by a significant section of the population and with sanctuary in a neighboring country. But who'd want to be the President who has to call time on a failed expeditionary war? (Watch "A New Season of Fighting in Afghanistan.")

Obama's track record suggests the withdrawal he announces for this year will involve a desultory figure of less than 5,000 of the 100,000 troops the U.S. currently has deployed in Afghanistan. But expect, also, to see the President define downward the benchmark of success, focusing it narrowly on protecting the American mainland from another transnational terror attack by al-Qaeda, and using the killing of Osama bin Laden to underscore the fact that the job is almost done. The terror network, much reduced by a decade of pummeling, today operates more from Pakistan than Afghanistan.

The Afghanistan mission's more ambitious nation-building goals originally proclaimed by the Bush Administration, however, are plainly beyond reach for the foreseeable future. The U.S. finds itself propping up a corrupt and ambivalent Karzai government knowing it has limited ability to win hearts and minds in the war zone, but also that it has no better alternative. The argument that the U.S. needs to be in Afghanistan to stop Pakistan falling to the Taliban has always been specious, for the simple reason that those currently in power in Pakistan see the Afghan Taliban as an ally that, unlike the U.S., shares Islamabad's strategic interests in Afghanistan. And Pakistan's generals act accordingly. Pakistan has been the headquarters of the Afghan Taliban's leadership shura ever since U.S. forces and their Afghan allies swept the movement from power in late 2001. The generals who make Pakistan's decisions didn't stop seeing Afghanistan as a key front in their existential strategic rivalry with India just because it became the initial geo-strategic focus of the U.S. "war on terror".

Afghanistan on June 7 superseded Vietnam as the longest war in U.S. history, having dragged on twice as long as American involvement in World War II. The more relevant comparison, however irksome it may be to American exceptionalists, may be to Soviet Union's nine-year debacle in Afghanistan - a milestone the U.S. passed last November.

Sure, there are plenty of differences between the two cases - Moscow hadn't suffered terror attacks originating in Afghanistan; it faced insurgent opposition in all of Afghanistan's major ethnic groups whereas the Western presence is opposed from within the Pashtun majority, but has found willing allies the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara communities whose leaders were traditionally grouped in the Northern Alliance that had fought Taliban rule. And, of course, U.S. counterinsurgency warfare is far smarter and more effective than the Red Army's. (See pictures of medevac in Afghanistan.)

Still, like the Soviets, the U.S.-led operation controls only part of the country; the writ of the feckless government it has propped up doesn't extend much beyond the capital; Pakistan continues to function as a rear base for the insurgents; and the long-term trend lines offer no reason to expect that the insurgents will be eliminated.

The U.S. is not going to be routed in Afghanistan, like some 19th Century British expeditionary force. But nor is it able to vanquish a foe that, in traditional guerrilla style, simply melts away to form up elsewhere whenever the foreign army concentrates its forces. The Taliban doesn't need to storm Kabul to win. As Henry Kissinger famously noted, in an insurgency of this type, the guerrilla army wins by not losing; the conventional army loses by not winning.

And the U.S.-led NATO operation is clearly not winning, even if it's managing to tread water in areas where it has concentrated its forces. Polls show that a majority of Americans no longer believe the war is worth fighting. And that's an opinion long shared by the majority of Afghans in the Pashtun war zone.

The comforting prospect offered to Americans looking for an end to a war that is costing upward of $100 billion a year and a slow but steady drip of U.S. casualties is that the U.S. is training and equipping Afghan security forces projected to number 300,000 by October. But few Western military observers have much confidence that this force will be either able or willing to continue NATO's fight once Western troops leave, ostensibly in 2014 - although the rump Northern Alliance elements will certainly fight tooth and nail to protect their turf from any Taliban return. Right now, Kabul doesn't exactly control much of the territory of which it is the sovereign capital, and that's unlikely to change no matter who's in power there. (See what it will take to finish the job in Afghanistan.)

Washington appears to have recognized that the only way to relieve itself of an open-ended burden in Afghanistan is to negotiate a peace agreement with the Taliban enemy it had originally hoped to destroy. Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged last weekend that preliminary negotiations are already under way, although with little expectation of near-term progress.

The purpose of the NATO war effort, over the past two years, has been to set the negotiating table more favorably to the Western side, hoping to forcefully "demonstrate" to the Taliban that it can't prevail on the battlefield and therefore that it needs to be more amenable to U.S. terms for peace. And, of course, the Taliban's purpose has been the exact opposite - to demonstrate the futility of the NATO effort, so as to give it a better chance of imposing its own terms at the peace table.

Despite the "surge", the Taliban doesn't appear to be feeling squeezed to accept U.S. peace terms. On the contrary, right now it seems to playing hard to get, believing that time and circumstance work in its favor.

So outcome of the Afghanistan war is unlikely to be determined by the troop numbers to which President Obama commits on Wednesday. Instead, it will be shaped by what the U.S., the Northern Alliance, and Afghanistan's key neighbors, most importantly Pakistan, are willing to accept by way of a political compromise.

Watch "Joe Klein: Crisis in the Afghan War Policy."

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

Yahoo! News

Obama to deliver speech on Afghanistan troop pullout

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama will deliver a highly anticipated speech Wednesday evening about troop withdrawals from Afghanistan.

The address is scheduled for 8 p.m. ET.

On Tuesday, an administration official told CNN that Obama will announce this week that 30,000 U.S. "surge" forces will be fully withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of 2012.

Members of Congress are being informed that 10,000 troops will be withdrawn by the end of this year, followed by another 20,000 next year, a congressional source said.

The time frame would give U.S. commanders another two "fighting" seasons with the bulk of U.S. forces still available for combat operations.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates has pushed for additional time to roll back Taliban gains in the country before starting any significant withdrawal -- a position at odds with a majority of Americans, according to recent public opinion surveys.

Gates -- along with Afghan war commander Gen. David Petraeus -- had pushed for an initial drawdown of between 3,000 and 5,000 troops this year, the congressional source said. The secretary also urged the president to withdraw support troops only -- not combat troops.

Obama, however, ultimately decided to adopt a more aggressive withdrawal plan.

Gates acknowledged Tuesday that the president must take into account public opinion and congressional support for further military engagement.

"Sustainability here at home" is an important consideration, Gates said, noting that people are "tired of a decade of war."

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, repeated his call Tuesday for a withdrawal of 15,000 troops this year.

"The level of U.S. troop reductions in Afghanistan needs to be significant to achieve its purpose --- letting the Afghan government know we are determined to shift primary responsibility for their security to the Afghan security forces," Levin said in a written statement.

An estimated 100,000 U.S. troops are serving in Afghanistan, some 30,000 of which are part of the so-called surge ordered in 2009 in a bid to control the rising violence.

Obama has been mulling how many troops should be withdrawn this summer and by the end of the year.

The president is expected, in his remarks Wednesday, to stress the importance of preserving flexibility in force levels on the ground so commanders can adjust as conditions warrant, the official said.

The drawdown will be accomplished by troops returning home and not being replaced as well as canceling some proposed deployments.

So far, Obama has only said publicly that troops will begin coming home in July, and he recently indicated the number would be "significant."

The president has repeatedly said he is confident the United States can meet the self-imposed deadline to begin bringing troops back from Afghanistan without compromising Afghan security, though military commanders and government officials have raised concern about the readiness of Afghan security forces.

"We have made great strides toward achieving the objectives laid out in the mission that the president articulated in December of 2009," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday.

Obama "will make his decision based on the need to succeed further in achieving those objectives and to transfer authority gradually, security authority, over to the Afghan national security forces, with an eye to the fact that, as agreed to by NATO in Lisbon, we will eventually transfer full security lead over to the ANSF (Afghan National Security Forces) in 2014," Carney said.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans polled this month said they support the United States pulling some or all of its forces from Afghanistan.

That figure jumped 10 percentage points since May, likely as a result of the death of Osama bin Laden, pollsters said.

The deployment of U.S. forces also hasn't been popular with many Afghan leaders, who openly criticize the presence of the Americans in their country.

It's a message that's not lost on U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry.

"When we hear ourselves being called occupiers and worse, our pride is offended and we begin to lose our inspiration to carry on," Eikenberry said during a Sunday speech at Herat University in western Afghanistan.

"At the point your leaders believe that we are doing more harm than good, when we reach a point that we feel our soldiers and civilians are being asked to sacrifice without a just cause ... the American people will ask for our forces to come home."

Republicans -- who have been the strongest supporters of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan -- appear to be shifting their opinion on the conflict. Forty-seven percent of Republicans said in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll in May that they favored a partial or full withdrawal of American troops. Sixty percent of Republicans favored a withdrawal when asked this month.

The most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted June 3 through 7, with 1,015 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

CNN's Aliza Kassim, Barbara Starr, Ted Barrett and Alan Silverleib contributed to this report.

CNN

Karzai blasts US, NATO for 'using' Afghanistan, announces Taliban talks (The Christian Science Monitor)

By Tom A. Peter Tom A. Peter – Sun Jun 19, 12:22 pm ET

Kabul, Afghanistan – In what’s become a familiar pattern, Afghan President Hamid Karzai delivered a speech on Saturday afternoon blasting the US and NATO for “using our country.”

a€?The nations of the world which are here in our country are here for their own national interests,a€

Since March, he has called on the US and NATO to stop operations here (only to later clarify that he meant operations that result in civilian casualties) and given them a stern ultimatum to stop killing civilians. Shortly after each controversial speech, he usually reaffirms ties with NATO and the US.

Take the Monitor's weekly news quiz! June 13-17

Karzai’s tendency to oscillate between positions at either end of the spectrum has confounded and irked friend and foe alike, leading to speculation among American diplomats that he may be struggling with a mental illness. But some Afghans say that the main problem could be that Afghans leaders – traditionally used to tailoring their messages to navigate shifting allegiances – are just not used to coping with modern, international media that stand ready to expose any contradictory remark.

“Currently some politicians are the same as Karzai, but the media is not focusing so much on small politicians. Karzai is the president and has the most media coverage,” says Babrak Shinwari, a former member of parliament from Nangarhar province. “I would suggest that he use only written speeches and does not deviate from them. When he goes off script, he says anything and that’s why it brings the mistrust of the regional countries and the international community on Karzai.”

Fluid allegiances, competing messagesThroughout history, Afghans have been notorious for working with competing sides and changing allegiances when it becomes clear their rivals are becoming more powerful. For Afghan politicians, this has meant a history of working closely with rivals and communicating sometimes seemingly competing messages to different audiences.

This strategy, however, encounters serious problems when politicians make remarks intended to appeal to a specific audience in the presence of media who broadcast the remarks countrywide and sometimes internationally. Additionally, as the media has grown substantially since the fall of the Taliban, Afghans have become more savvy about leaking select information to journalists.

In this climate, Karzai’s remarks about NATO are likely intended to win support among Afghans, but when disseminated to an international audience they create major problems.

'People are confused' Still, many Afghans say this is no excuse for Karzai’s seemingly erratic remarks.

“Media should be considered a given in today’s world and today’s society," says Daoud Sultanzoy, a former member of parliament from the eastern province of Ghazni. "Leaders have to adjust to that, to the freedom of the media, to the freedom of expression.”

Even among Afghans familiar with leaders who flip flop as political tides turn, Karzai’s behavior is seen as confusing and difficult to read. In a nation where 72 percent of the population is illiterate, many Afghans still follow radio and television news closely and hear the president’s contradictory remarks.

Sign up for our daily World Editor's Picks newsletter. Our best stories, in your inbox.

“People are confused," says Izzatullah Wasifi, Afghanistan’s former anti-corruption chief. "They can’t understand what are his motivations, what are his motives, what is his strategy, and where does he want to take this nation?”

Karzai's increasingly blunt criticism of NATO and US efforts led American Ambassador Karl Eikenberry to issue a rare response Sunday at appearance before students at Herat University.

“When Americans, who are serving in your country at great cost — in terms of life and treasure — hear themselves compared with occupiers, told that they are only here to advance their own interest, and likened to the brutal enemies of the Afghan people," said Mr. Eikenberry, without mentioning Karzai by name, "they are filled with confusion and grow weary of our effort here.”

Take the Monitor's weekly news quiz! June 13-17

Yahoo! News

Afghanistan says will deal with IMF crisis after summer holiday (Reuters)

KABUL (Reuters) – Afghanistan said on Sunday it won't be able to address a key International Monetary Fund concern over a looming cash crisis, sparked by a corruption scandal at a failed bank, for more than a month because lawmakers are on holidays.

Reuters reported on Friday that the IMF had rejected Afghanistan's plans to deal with the failed Kabulbank and other broader financial concerns, a step that automatically blocked the payment of $70 million in aid from foreign donors.

Diplomats involved in negotiations between aid-reliant Afghanistan, international donors and the IMF said Kabul had failed to address the fund's concerns and now fear a "cash crunch" as soon as next month.

Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal said Afghanistan relied on aid for about 40 percent of its operating budget and for all of its multi-billion dollar reconstruction and development projects. He said the government would "exert every energy to reach a satisfactory agreement with donor countries."

"Suspending aid delivery will naturally cause difficulties for a country like Afghanistan," Zakhilwal said in a statement, the government's first official response since the latest tranche of aid was withheld.

"So far, our difficulties are not at a level to cause us serious and immediate concern. I ask my compatriots not to be influenced by negative propaganda by some foreign media in this very critical stage in our history," he said.

The wages of hundreds of thousands of civil servants are at risk, adding more tension and political uncertainty just as foreign forces begin handing over security control to Afghans in a gradual process that will end with all foreign combat troops leaving by the end of 2014.

No payments have been made by donors into the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust fund (ARTF), the main vehicle for international aid to Afghanistan, for the past three months.

Payments to the ARTF have been suspended because of the continued lack of an IMF support program, which is a seal of approval most donors need before pledging aid.

The IMF has been reviewing its support program for Afghanistan since September.

The IMF and Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government are at loggerheads over Kabul's handling of the crisis over the failed Kabulbank and Afghanistan's fractured financial system.

Karzai's cabinet met 11 days ago and the Finance Ministry sent a letter containing proposals to address two outstanding issues -- parliamentary approval of a supplementary budget and the auditing of a second Afghan bank -- to the IMF.

Diplomats told Reuters the IMF rejected Kabul's proposals as inadequate to guard against future abuses.

On Sunday, Afghanistan's Ministry of Finance said Kabul "agrees in principle with both demands," however parliamentary approval was needed for a supplementary budget.

"The Ministry of Finance will present a supplemental budget request to parliament immediately after the parliamentary summer vacations," the statement said.

Afghan lawmakers began their 45-day summer recess on June 5. Lawmaker Mirwais Yasini said there were no plans to reconvene parliament to deal with the Kabulbank crisis.

$900 MILLION AT RISK

Corruption, bad loans and mismanagement cost the politically well-connected Kabulbank, Afghanistan's biggest private lender, hundreds of millions of dollars in what Western officials in Afghanistan openly call a classic Ponzi scheme.

Kabulbank has about $926 million in outstanding loans, of which around $900 million is considered to be at risk. Afghan officials say about $347 million will be recovered, but donors want more aggressive action on asset recovery.

The bank doled out nearly half a billion dollars in unsecured, undocumented loans to a roster of Kabul's elite, including ministers, relatives of Karzai and a vice-president, and a powerful former warlord, anti-corruption officials say.

Zakhilwal said the IMF had asked the Afghan parliament to make a commitment to approve a supplementary budget so that money spent by Afghanistan's central bank bailing out Kabulbank could be repaid.

There has been no mention yet of how much that might be or where it might come from, but international donors fear Afghanistan, one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in the world, might dip into its limited cash reserves.

The withholding of aid began with a warning shot when the British government refused to pay 85 million pounds ($137.5 million) in promised aid in March. The ARTF was also expected to funnel about $200 million to support the Afghan government's recurrent costs.

That represents about 25 percent of Afghanistan's non-security wages bill, most of it in teachers' salaries.

(Additional reporting by Hamid Shalizi; Editing by Nick Macfie)

Yahoo! News

Pakistan says it drives militants into Afghanistan (Reuters)

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) – Pakistan has driven a group of militants from a stronghold in its tribal areas into eastern Afghanistan, the army said on Sunday, in the latest flare-up along the Pakistan-Afghan border.

With each country blaming the other for failing to crack down hard enough on militants, the fighting threatens to raise tensions as the United States prepares to announce a gradual withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan next month.

A Pakistan army statement said it had launched an air and ground assault against a militant stronghold in Mohmand tribal agency and killed 25, while the rest fled across the border.

The area lies opposite the Korengal Valley, from where the United States pulled back its troops in 2010 after deciding to concentrate its forces in population centers in southern Afghanistan, the heartland of the Taliban.

Pakistan complained the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Kunar province opened up safe havens for militants and left it vulnerable to counter-attack after it drove them out of its own tribal areas.

"It was a thickly forested and mountainous area," a paramilitary officer told Reuters. "Whenever we launched operations, militants fled to Afghanistan and then returned and based in the area."

The Pakistani complaints mirror those made by U.S. officials who say fighting in Afghanistan is undercut by militant sanctuaries in Pakistan. It is impossible to obtain independent verification of military activity in the remote border areas.

The latest operation, launched on Saturday, was carried out in the same area where Pakistan on Friday complained that NATO aircraft had attacked one of its military posts after intruding 2.5 km (1.5 miles) inside Pakistani territory.

Pakistan expressed serious concern to the United States over the intrusion. Local officials said a few bombs were dropped but no casualties were reported.

Relations between Pakistan and the United States have been strained since the unilateral raid by U.S. forces who killed Osama bin Laden in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad on May 2.

U.S. forces have also stepped up attacks on militant targets by drone aircraft in the tribal areas and Washington is pushing for the Pakistan army to further expand its operations there.

Pakistani officials say, however, that its military is already overstretched. It also wants a commitment from the United States that its troops will secure its side of the border. Otherwise, it says, its own troops and people become vulnerable to attack by militants based on the Afghan side.

"Almost all of the militant leaders wanted in Pakistan are hiding across the border and they keep sending fighters here to attack our forces and villagers," a senior military official told Reuters.

Last week Pakistani officials said six civilians were killed in a cross-border raid on three villages in Bajaur agency to the north of Mohmand, the second such incursion this month.

On Friday, the foreign ministry summoned the Afghan ambassador to Islamabad and lodged a protest over what it said was a cross-border attack by 100 to 150 militants.

(Additional reporting by Kamran Haider, writing by Myra MacDonald, editing by Angus MacSwan)

Yahoo! News

Senate report: Rethink U.S. aid to Afghanistan

Washington (CNN) -- The United States' nation-building projects in Afghanistan can claim only limited success and the troubled nation risks sinking into deeper crisis after a U.S. troop withdrawal, according to a congressional report issued Wednesday.

The two-year investigation found that, despite the roughly $18.8 billion spent in aid to Afghanistan over the past decade, more than to any other country, the United States should "have no illusions" about the value of its programs aimed at stabilization.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee report details the use of aid dollars in areas of Afghanistan cleared of the Taliban and urges the administration to reconsider how the money is being spent.

The Senate panel's report said the Obama administration is pursuing an aid strategy in line with counterinsurgency theories that "deserve careful, ongoing scrutiny to see if they yield intended results."

"Foreign aid, when misspent, can fuel corruption, distort labor and goods markets, undermine the host government's ability to exert control over resources, and contribute to insecurity," it said.

The sobering document comes as debate rages over the extent of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and President Barack Obama considers the size of an initial U.S. troop drawdown and how best to hand over responsibilities now under military control.

Obama discussed transition with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in an hourlong video teleconference Wednesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said. Obama has not made any decisions yet regarding a drawdown, Carney said.

"We welcome the report, even though we do not endorse all of the conclusions of it," he said. "It's important to note that Afghanistan has made significant progress, and the presumption that our assistance has contributed little and that Afghanistan has made no progress is just simply wrong and we disagree with that."

He cited the training of Afghan forces as an example.

Also Wednesday, the Senate committee grilled Ryan Crocker, tapped by Obama to be the next U.S. ambassador in Kabul, at confirmation hearings. Crocker, the former ambassador to Iraq, acknowledged that problems like corruption stand as impediments to success in Afghanistan.

"We wrestled with the same thing in Iraq and you don't get positive change overnight," he told the senators.

"I am under no illusions of the difficulty of the challenge," Crocker said. "If Iraq was hard -- and it was hard -- Afghanistan in many respects is harder."

About 97% of Afghanistan's gross domestic product is related to international military and donor community spending, the report said, citing the World Bank.

"Afghanistan could suffer a severe economic depression when foreign troops leave in 2014 unless the proper planning begins now," the report said.

"The administration is understandably anxious for immediate results to demonstrate to Afghans and Americans alike that we are making progress," it said. "However, insecurity, abject poverty, weak indigenous capacity, and widespread corruption create challenges for spending money. High staff turnover, pressure from the military, imbalances between military and civilian resources, unpredictable funding levels from Congress, and changing political timelines have further complicated efforts."

Among the problems cited by the senators was the use of U.S. contractors.

It said the United States relies heavily on such contractors but noted a lack of robust oversight. Much of U.S. aid goes not to the Afghan government but into the hands of international companies.

"This practice can weaken the ability of the Afghan state to execute its budget, lead to redundant and unsustainable donor projects, and fuel corruption," the report said.

But Carney defended the use of contractors. "Civilian assistance is important but it represents a small proportion of the overall cost of our mission in Afghanistan," he said. "But it is an essential component of our critical national security strategy in Afghanistan."

CNN

U.S. aid to Afghanistan needs sharper focus: study (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The benefits of U.S. foreign aid for Afghanistan could melt away with a planned U.S. troop withdrawal, according to a congressional study that recommends the Obama administration focus on long-term, sustainable development.

The two-year study by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democratic majority, which is to be released on Wednesday, urged the administration to make more effective use of the roughly $320 million a month in foreign aid it spends in Afghanistan, with a focus on sustainability.

The administration's fiscal year 2012 request for Afghanistan includes roughly $3.2 billion in foreign aid.

The report comes as President Barack Obama prepares to announce a decision on when to start bringing a sizable number of the 100,000 U.S. troops home from Afghanistan, a step toward decisively ending the long, costly war.

On Tuesday, Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a member of Obama's Democratic Party, said the president should withdraw a minimum of 15,000 troops by the end of this year.

The congressional report said roughly 80 percent of U.S. Agency for International Development funds allocated in Afghanistan's south and east -- the traditional heartland of the Taliban and other insurgents -- were being used for short-term stabilization programs instead of long-term development projects.

"The evidence that stabilization programs promote stability in Afghanistan is limited. Some research suggest the opposite," the report said.

The document also warned that misspent foreign aid could fuel corruption, distort labor and goods markets and contribute to insecurity in Afghanistan. It noted an estimated 97 percent of Afghanistan's gross domestic product was derived from international aid.

"Afghanistan could suffer a sever economic depression when foreign troops leave in 2014 unless the proper planning begins now," the report said.

The report also raised concern about the U.S. government's heavy reliance on contractors in Afghanistan and a lack of oversight. It said an over-reliance on international technical advisors to build the capacity of Afghan institutions may undermine the efforts.

"Our aid projects need to focus more on sustainability so that Afghans can absorb our programs when donor funds recede."

(Reporting by JoAnne Allen; Editing by Paul Simao)

Yahoo! News

Afghanistan Pullout: Could 30,000 Troops Head Home? (Time.com)

So the size of the U.S. troop pullout President Obama is slated to announce later this month now varies by an order of magnitude: those who want to preserve the gains earned over the past year are suggesting about 3,000 -- of the 100,000 U.S. troops now there -- would be about the right number to order home starting in July. But -- given American war weariness, the $100 billion annual cost of the war, and the recent killing of Osama bin Laden -- others in the Administration are advocating that up to 30,000 should head back to the U.S. That would return the number there to about 70,000, the total U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan before Obama ordered 30,000 reinforcements early last year.

While this decision is the President's alone to make, he is getting plenty of advice on what to do. Unfortunately, it conflicts. And, unspoken by Administration officials but always present -- kind of like gravity -- is the possibility it could affect his re-election chances next year. (See pictures of President Obama in Afghanistan.)

On one side, outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates -- now in Afghanistan -- publicly tilted to the 3,000 number on Saturday. "It seems to me that between the successes that we've already enjoyed and the increased capacity of the Afghan forces, we are a in a position - based on conditions on the ground...to consider some modest draw-downs beginning in July," he said in a press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. This counter-insurgency strategy -- which emphasizes winning over the people rather than killing the bad guys -- has had a pretty good year in Afghanistan. But it is boot-heavy.

Leon Panetta, Gates' successor -- who will be running the Pentagon in less than a month -- is now in charge of the CIA, and favors a stepped-up counter-terror campaign that would permit a bigger reduction. The increased use of special-operations forces and drone strikes that he and other counter-terror advocates support would allow more infantrymen and Marines to head for the exits. Vice President Joe Biden also supports this approach. (See the top 10 defining moments of the post-9/11 era.)

Of course, Panetta's successor come fall is going to be Army General Dave Petraeus, perhaps the Pentagon's leading counter-insurgency champion (he wrote the book, literally). So it's going to be interesting to watch how Petraeus, who will retire from the Army before taking the CIA post, threads the COIN-counter-terror needle.

But all this is mere tea leaf reading. Long-time Pentagon watchers found the most interesting thing over the weekend not the back-and-forth debate over U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, but the missile strikes next door in Pakistan. Despite Islamabad's repeated protests, those strikes continue. On Monday, three drone attacks in South Waziristan killed at least 18 people. In the not-too-distant future, they suggest, the Afghan war could look increasingly like that.

See TIME's complete coverage of Osama bin Laden

See the world's most influential people in the 2011 TIME 100

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

Yahoo! News

Can Afghanistan hang on to its newly minted college grads? (The Christian Science Monitor)

By Tom A. Peter Tom A. Peter – Thu May 26, 4:25 pm ET

Kabul, Afghanistan – On a well-manicured lawn lined with rose bushes in full bloom – 211, boasts one brochure – members of American University of Afghanistan’s first graduating class mingle and take pictures with former presidential contender Abdullah Abdullah. Though there are just 32 graduates in the first class, most of the university’s 789 students have turned out for the ceremony.

Packed into the auditorium, they are told that Harvard, Stanford, and George Washington University, among other US institutions, have sent letters of congratulations. Michelle Obama also has sent a letter, only to be outdone by Laura Bush who produced a video message that played on two projectors just ahead of top US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry’s keynote speech.

The flurry of high-level attention to this small graduation Thursday highlights just how big a deal it is in a country battling the effects of decades of brain drain.

IN PICTURES: The little-seen side of Kabul

“It’s hard for the students to understand it’s not normal to get this level of attention,” whispers one university official as the former first lady’s message plays.

But such focus on the university and its graduates shouldn’t be a surprise. After three decades of war, the country's most talented professionals have fled, leaving behind a nation where 72 percent of the people are now illiterate and the number of universities may not even reach 50.

So, as the first graduating class of the American University of Afghanistan (AUAF) collected their diplomas and shook hands with Ambassador Eikenberry, the most remarkable thing about the moment may have been that the majority of the graduates said they were committed to staying in Afghanistan.

“For a master's degree, yes, it’s tempting to go overseas. But for living, it’s not. Once you’ve got an education, it seems like this is where people need you most,” says Sulieman Hedayat, one of 32 students who graduated on Thursday.

AUAF opened its doors in 2006, and everyone from prominent Afghan businessmen to institutions like USAID have invested tens of millions of dollars in the hopes of minting a university that produces students who can help rebuild Afghanistan.

For the countryIn his keynote address, Eikenberry praised the students’ accomplishments but also reminded that they should now reach out and provide guidance such as that they received at AUAF. “I thank you in advance for all you’re going to do for your country,” he told the students.

Investing in the development of people who then flee the country has long been a problem for Afghanistan. Just last week, three Afghan students bolted for Canada at the conclusion of their study abroad in Midwest. Most famously, the Afghan national soccer team had to temporarily disband in 2004 when nine of the players disappeared during training camp in Italy and later turned up as asylum seekers.

For graduates and young people, Afghanistan often holds little promise. Aside from on going security problems, unemployment remains near 35 percent and the average annual income is $800, about a third of what those in neighboring Tajikistan make and less than 10 percent of what the average Iranian makes. With about 80 percent of the country working in agriculture, options remain limited for those with an education.

Until the end of the Russian invasion in the 1980s, the Afghan government helped recent graduates find jobs within the government. When that system dissolved, nepotism became the determining factor for employment, says Habibullah Rafi, a political analyst and member of the Afghan Academy of Sciences.

“There is nothing happening to help graduates after they finish college,” he says. “There is nothing for poor graduates.”

IN PICTURES: The little-seen side of Kabul

pagebreak

In this environment, it is not uncommon to find people with university degrees working low-level jobs throughout Afghanistan. The problem is particularly pronounced among medical students. With only a limited number of residencies available in Kabul, a number of students are asked to complete their hospital tours in the provinces. Due to safety concerns many refuse, leaving them unable to complete their degree.

“Overall this is a problem for university graduates – they can’t get their desired job,” says Shafiq Wardak, a communications professor at Kabul University.

The job huntAmong AUAF's first graduating class, most graduates either had jobs or a master's program lined up after completing their undergraduate degree. Some hold government jobs, some nonprofit, and a few have started their own businesses. Many of the students actually held jobs throughout the course of their studies. And university officials proudly say that several government ministries actively recruit among the student body.

While at least one AUAF student worked as a janitor before starting his studies, others came from prominent families in Afghanistan. At $5,500 per year, the tuition remains an astronomical sum for the average Afghan family, though AUAF provides varying amounts of financial aid to 70 percent of its students.

A number of students say AUAF was worth the investment compared with government or other private universities because it offers a relevant curriculum.

“At AUAF, you can apply what they teach you to your job,” says Lida Nadery, one of AUAF’s first graduates.

Unlike other institutions, it does not face government regulations that often create challenges for universities here. Aside from complaints about outdated teaching methods, public universities must contend with the added challenge that Afghan law forbids public institutions from charging tuition.

“The problem with Afghanistan’s higher education is that the government has a lot of control and there is resistance to reform,” says Sharif Fayez, former minister of higher education and founder of AUAF.

IN PICTURES: The little-seen side of Kabul

Yahoo! News

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Families of Western troops grieve in Afghanistan (Reuters)

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) – Grieving Canadians and Britons said goodbye on Tuesday to fallen relatives on Kandahar Air Field, a rare reminder in the heart of the war in Afghanistan of the human cost to Western armed forces that has made the decade-long conflict so unpopular back home.

Canada organizes family visits after a member of their armed forces is killed in Afghanistan so that relatives can "feel the heat, smell the air, get covered in the dust" that their loved ones knew in their last days, said Rear Admiral Andy Smith.

"It is still very recent, so a visit like this really helps us go through the grieving process," said Guy Scherrer, father of Corporal Yannick Scherrer, who was killed by a homemade bomb in late March, after a memorial service on the base.

"I had many questions inside ... what was this for? And now I have the answer. I see now exactly what his job was, he was here for the protection of men, women and children," he said.

Canada is the only nation fighting in the NATO-led coalition to organize such trips, which are expensive and complicated -- flying civilians into a war zone can be a security worry -- but are powerful experiences for the bereaved.

A British family were invited on what is likely to be the last such trip, with Canadian combat troops due to return home by the end of July, because Captain Ben Babington-Browne died on a Canadian helicopter that crashed.

The effort is a reminder of public unease in Canada about the war, which helped push the government to end its combat mission after nearly 10 years.

After spells in other areas, they spent five years as the lead nation in one of the toughest battlegrounds of the war, Kandahar province, the Taliban's spiritual homeland, where they lost the majority of 155 soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

About 950 Canadian soldiers will still be based in Kabul helping train the Afghan police and army, however. Polls show that most Canadians oppose the mission in Afghanistan.

HOSPITALS, RESTAURANTS AND HELICOPTERS

There are more than 30,000 people living on Kandahar Air Field, and although a war rages outside the heavily fortified walls, inside there are few tangible reminders of the dangers.

"Ramp ceremonies" honor the dead of all nations before they are flown out, but grieving families are normally thousands of miles away.

During the trip, the families eat at the mess halls used by their loved ones, visit the boardwalk area where soldiers relax at TGI Friday's restaurant or play volleyball in their downtime.

They see military aircraft, the base medical center, and the tactical operations center where the war is coordinated.

They have a chance to meet the commander of Canadian troops in Afghanistan and ordinary soldiers, some of whom fought with the person they have lost.

There is also a ceremony at a marble war memorial that will be taken back to Canada for permanent installation when the combat troops leave.

"My primary reason was to walk in Kristal's footsteps, to hear the helicopters and the jets ... I can now picture an environment for some of the moments we shared over the telephone, some of her pictures," said Matthew Giesebrecht, husband of Master Corporal Kristal Giesebrecht.

"I've learnt what a big part of her life the military was. I am so proud of who she was, and I am discovering all of that over again."

(Editing by Paul Tait and Alex Richardson)

Yahoo! News

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.