Showing posts with label Taliban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taliban. Show all posts

Thursday, May 21, 2009

“America cannot win this war, and the Taliban cannot win this war,”

TO BE NOTED: From the NY Times:

David Guttenfelder/Associated Press
United States Army soldiers firing mortar shells last week at Taliban positions from a base in Afghanistan’s Kunar Province

Reuters TV

Talks have been held with representatives of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a warlord.

"U.S. Pullout a Condition in Afghan Peace Talks

KABUL, Afghanistan — Leaders of the Taliban and other armed groups battling the Afghan government are talking to intermediaries about a potential peace agreement, with initial demands focused on a timetable for a withdrawal of American troops, according to Afghan leaders here and in Pakistan.

The talks, if not the withdrawal proposals, are being supported by the Afghan government. The Obama administration, which has publicly declared its desire to coax “moderate” Taliban fighters away from armed struggle, says it is not involved in the discussions and will not be until the Taliban agree to lay down their arms. But nor is it trying to stop the talks, and Afghan officials believe they have tacit support from the Americans.

The discussions have so far produced no agreements, since the insurgents appear to be insisting that any deal include an American promise to pull out — at the very time that the Obama administration is sending more combat troops to help reverse the deteriorating situation on the battlefield. Indeed, with 20,000 additional troops on the way, American commanders seem determined to inflict greater pain on the Taliban first, to push them into negotiations and extract better terms. And most of the initial demands are nonstarters for the Americans in any case.

Even so, the talks are significant because they suggest how a political settlement may be able to end the eight-year-old war, and how such negotiations may proceed. They also raise the prospect of potentially difficult decisions by President Hamid Karzai and President Obama, who may have to consider making deals with groups like the Taliban that are anathema to many Americans, and other leaders with brutal and bloody pasts. Some of the leaders in the current talks have been involved with Al Qaeda.

While the talks have been under way for months, they have accelerated since Mr. Obama took office and have produced more specific demands, the Afghan intermediaries said.

The Taliban leaders, through their spokesman, and those of other armed groups publicly deny that they are involved in any negotiations. But several Afghans here and in Pakistan say they have been talking directly to the Taliban leadership group headed by Mullah Muhammad Omar, the movement’s secretive founder. The council is based in the Pakistani city of Quetta.

Discussions have also been held with representatives of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a longtime warlord with a record of extreme brutality, and with Sirajuddin Haqqani, whose guerrilla army is based in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Mr. Haqqani’s group is also known for its ruthlessness and for sending suicide bombers into Afghanistan.

“America cannot win this war, and the Taliban cannot win this war,” Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, a former Taliban ambassador and one of the intermediaries, said in an interview. “I have delivered this message to the Taliban.”

The talks under way now appear to be directed not at individual bands of antigovernment insurgents — the strategy suggested by President Obama — but at the leaders of the large movements.

American officials insist they are not participating in any talks. “The U.S. would support such efforts only if Taliban are willing to abandon violence and lay down their arms, and accept Afghanistan’s democratically elected government,” said Ian Kelly, a State Department spokesman. Still, two of the principal intermediaries, Mr. Zaeef and Daoud Abedi, said they had held extensive discussions with American officials.

A State Department memo described a single meeting with Mr. Abedi, but said it ended abruptly because American officials were not permitted to meet with representatives of Mr. Hekmatyar. There is no independent confirmation of Mr. Zaeef ’s claim to have met with Americans.

Afghan officials said they welcomed the talks. “The government has kept all channels of communication open," said Homayun Hamidzada, a spokesman for Mr. Karzai. “This includes the Taliban and Hekmatyar.”

Mr. Abedi, an Afghan-American businessman from California and a member of Mr. Hekmatyar’s political party, the Islamic Party, said he conducted negotiations in March. Guerrillas loyal to Mr. Hekmatyar are battling the Americans in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. His political party still has a wide following in the country.

In an interview, Mr. Abedi said he undertook the negotiations — with Mr. Hekmatyar and with the Taliban leaders — at the behest of the State Department, a claim that American officials deny. Mr. Abedi said he met several times with American officials in Washington before and after his trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan. He declined to say which American diplomats he met, saying, “I am a Pashtun, and I swore on my honor that I would not reveal the names of the people I met with, so I cannot.”

Mr. Abedi said he hammered out a common set of demands between the Taliban and Mr. Hekmatyar’s group. The groups agreed to stop fighting if those conditions were met, Mr. Abedi said. The Taliban’s demands seem incompatible with much of Mr. Obama’s strategy, which is to substantially weaken the Taliban through a combination of military force and economic development.

Nor did the deal Mr. Abedi described mention either Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahri, the two senior Qaeda leaders believed to be hiding in Pakistan under the protection of the Taliban or some other armed group.

The first demand was an immediate pullback of American and other foreign forces to their bases, followed by a cease-fire and a total withdrawal from the country over the next 18 months. Then the current government would be replaced by a transitional government made up of a range of Afghan leaders, including those of the Taliban and other insurgents. Americans and other foreign soldiers would be replaced with a peacekeeping force drawn from predominantly Muslim nations, with a guarantee from the insurgent groups that they would not attack such a force. Nationwide elections would follow after the Western forces left.

As for Mr. Hekmatyar, Mr. Abedi said that he maintained a “direct link” with him, and that he was authorized to negotiate on his behalf. He did not meet with Afghan government officials.

After the agreement between the Taliban and the Islamic Party was reached, Mr. Abedi said, the Taliban leaders added more conditions: an end to the drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and the release of some Taliban prisoners.

Mr. Abedi said that when he returned to the United States with his proposal, he was greeted with enthusiasm by officials at the State Department. But he said they never called him back.

Mr. Hekmatyar earned a reputation as an especially brutal commander in the civil war that engulfed the country in the 1990s, in particular for the relentless bombardment of Kabul between 1994 and 1996 that killed an estimated 40,000 civilians during an attempt to capture the capital.

In 2002, after Mr. Hekmatyar resisted the American invasion, the Americans tried to kill him with a missile fired from a remotely piloted airplane. They missed.

The other main negotiation is led by Mr. Zaeef and Arsallah Rahmani, a former Taliban minister and now a member of the Afghan Parliament.

“We are not talking to low-ranking people — we are talking to the leaders,” Mr. Rahmani said in an interview. Mr. Zaeef was the Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan; he served nearly four years in American military prisons, including the one at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Their plan would be for the guerrillas and the government to reconcile slowly, starting with the least contentious issues. One of the main low-level demands of the opposition leaders is that their names be removed from a so-called blacklist, contained in a resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council, which obliges governments to detain them. More difficult issues would follow.

“Blood begets blood, but talking begets peace,” Mr. Rahmani said.

Mr. Zaeef said the public declarations of Mullah Omar, who usually vows to fight on, are not necessarily to be taken seriously.

“A policy can have many faces,” he said.

Taimoor Shah contributed reporting."

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

“We will stop these people at any cost. There is no other option.”

TO BE NOTED: From the FT:

"
Pakistan takes key town from Taliban

By Farhan Bokhari in Islamabad

Published: April 29 2009 08:15 | Last updated: April 29 2009 09:46

Pakistani troops on Wednesday took back control of Dagar, the main town in a key north-western valley at the centre of a fight against Taliban militants as the country’s interior minister vowed to press ahead with the counter-offensive against the Islamists.

Military troops landed by helicopter early in the morning to retake control of Buner valley, a day after helicopter gunships supporters by fighter planes began pounding positions held by Taliban militants. The militants originally moved into Buner last week, then withdraw partially before reinforcing their position again.

“The pattern of the Taliban first stepping in, then leaving, then stepping in again, suggests that they are not looking for conciliation. A hard battle had to be fought in the end,” said a Pakistani defence official.

Rehman Malik, interior minister, said: “We will stop these people at any cost. There is no other option.”

Speaking to the Financial Times, Mr Malik said the threat posed by the militants was part of a “very planned move to destabilise Pakistan.”

In spite of Mr Malik’s strong words, western diplomats said Pakistan still needed to reorient itself toward fighting Islamic militants instead of focusing on India as the primary foe.

The military’s victory in Burner, following earlier advances in the nearby district of Dir, should provide some reassurance to the US and other western government worried over worsening security conditions in the nuclear armed country.

Concern over security conditions have been revived after Islamabad earlier this month approved the institution of Islamic law in the Swat valley adjacent to Buner in response to pressure from Taliban militants after a year of fighting.

A senior government official said on Wednesday that the peace agreement with the Taliban in Swat was “in danger of collapsing.”

Officials from humanitarian agencies including the UN warned that the fighting in the north of the country was likely to displace thousands of people who would be forced to seek refuge elsewhere.

Pakistan map showing Dagar

Sunday, April 26, 2009

We will not allow the Taliban to impose their rule in Dir or in any other part of the country

TO BE NOTED: From Reuters:

"
Pakistan urges Taliban to lay down arms
[-] Text [+]
Photo
«»1 of 6Full Size

By Zeeshan Haider

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan called on Taliban fighters to lay down their arms after security forces launched an offensive Sunday to stop their advance in a troubled northwestern region.

"These extremists have no other option but to lay down arms because the government is serious in flushing them out," interior ministry chief Rehman Malik told Reuters.

The military operation in the North West Frontier Province came amid growing worries in the United States about the stability of its nuclear-armed ally after militants began extending their influence.

A military spokesman said scores of militants, including a commander, and a soldier had been killed in the operation in Lower Dir district.

Malik said security forces had almost taken control of the entire Lower Dir. "We will not allow the Taliban to impose their rule in Dir or in any other part of the country," said Malik, who is in the cabinet and advises the premier on internal affairs.

The operation began after militants opened fire on a convoy of paramilitary Frontier Corps in the region, wounding four soldiers.

"Helicopter gunships are pounding militants' positions in the hills. There has been intense fighting. A curfew has been imposed. We are now confined to our houses," Ali Shah who runs a grocery shop in Timergara, the main town of Lower Dir, told Reuters by telephone.

Lower Dir is part of Malakand division where President Asif Ali Zardari reluctantly sanctioned the imposition of Islamic sharia law aimed at ending militant violence.

Emboldened after winning that concession, Taliban fighters moved into the Buner district of Malakand -- just 100 km (60 miles) northwest of the Pakistani capital -- from the neighboring Swat valley.

CONCERN IN WASHINGTON

The Taliban's advance toward Islamabad has heightened concern in Washington that its ally is in danger of sliding into chaos. U.S. officials want Pakistan to take a stand rather than cede more territory to militants through policies of appeasement like the introduction of Islamic law.

Western governments that need Pakistan's support to defeat al Qaeda and succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan, dread the idea of any threat to the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

"We can't even contemplate that," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with Fox News in Baghdad.

"We cannot ... let this go on any further. Which is why we're pushing so hard for the Pakistanis to come together around a strategy to take their country back."

Pakistan's allies want to see a coherent, decisive action by Islamabad against militants, and analysts say Zardari may want to show some steel before talks in Washington with President Barack Obama and his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai on May 6-7.

A militant spokesman in Dir said the government offensive was a violation of the peace pact and they would take revenge for it.

"We know the people who launched this offensive and they are on the top of our hit-list. We will not spare them," militant spokesman Dadullah Mansur said.

Saturday, 12 children were killed by a bomb hidden in a football in Lower Dir and Malik Sunday blamed the Taliban.

"The Taliban have exposed their real face by killing innocent children," Malik earlier said in a statement.

As the clash erupted between the security forces and the militants in Dir, thousands of people rallied in Buner to call on the government and the Taliban to avoid conflict. Residents fear they will have to flee their homes.

(Additional reporting by Javed Khan)"

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Suicide bombings and other attacks have killed more than 4,000 people in Pakistan in the past two years.

TO BE NOTED: From Bloomberg:

"Pakistani Militants Razed 100 Girls’ Schools on Border, UN Says

By Michael Heath

April 2 (Bloomberg) -- Militants in Pakistan blew up more than 100 girls’ schools in the tribal region bordering Afghanistan last year as part of a campaign to deny women a role in the country’s future, the United Nations said.

Months of attacks in Pakistan on educational institutions, teachers and students have created a “shocking situation” where parents are refusing to send their daughters to school, said Koichiro Matsuura, director-general of the UN’s Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization.

The border region has become a base for Taliban and al- Qaeda militants since U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan in late 2001. Suicide bombings and other attacks have killed more than 4,000 people in Pakistan in the past two years.

The lawlessness spread to the Swat Valley northwest of the capital, Islamabad, during the past year, where the government signed a peace deal with Taliban militants in February allowing for Islamic law in the former tourist area.

What was once the “Switzerland of Pakistan” has become its Beirut, Pakistan’s envoy to Washington Husain Haqqani said earlier this year, referring to years of strife in Lebanon’s capital.

Taliban militants have attacked 169 girls’ schools in the Swat district since July, state media reported in January. Last week, a suicide attacker bombed a girls’ school in southwestern Baluchistan province.

While the peace accord in Swat “theoretically” allows girls to return to school, Matsuura said “fear still reigns” among parents and many teachers have fled the region in recent weeks.

He said Pakistan’s government must ensure that its commitment to “Education for All” includes guaranteed access to schools for girls, according to a statement on the UN’s Web site yesterday.

“A strong signal must be sent so that everyone can once more benefit from education, which is a determining factor for their future and for the future of the country,” he added."

Monday, January 26, 2009

"the money should be conditioned on the Pakistani government taking active steps to curb the Talibanization of the country"

From the Washington Post:

"A War on Pakistan's Schoolgirls

By Yasmeen Hassan
Monday, January 26, 2009; A11

I have such fond childhood memories of summer holidays in the Swat Valley in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province, a place well known among Pakistanis for its breathtaking views, cool summer climate and lush fruit orchards. But today the Swat Valley is experiencing heartbreaking pressures, as the Taliban strike with disconcerting regularity and, among other atrocities, impose a ban on the education of girls.

Even before this ban was put in place on Jan. 15, more than 100 schools for girls in Swat, as well as more than 150 such schools in the greater Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), had been shut down, many after being bombed or torched, leaving approximately 100,000 girls out of school. Radio announcements warned girls that they could be attacked with acid if they dared to attend school, and teachers have been threatened and killed. Last Monday, five more Swat Valley schools were bombed.

The attacks and threats have not been confined to schoolgirls. Women and girls have been ordered to wear full veils. Directives have been issued requiring that women be accompanied by male family members in public places and forbidding women from carrying compulsory government identification cards displaying their photographs. About a dozen women have been shot for "immoral activities," including Bakht Zeba, a 45-year-old social worker committed to advancing girls' education. The area seems to be in competition with Afghanistan over which will establish the worst record on women's rights.

The Pakistani and Afghan governments have responded similarly to the Taliban's penchant for terrorizing the population. A few months ago, Afghanistan sought to enter into negotiations with the Taliban, a precondition of which would be the imposition of sharia (Islamic law). While those talks have not yet gone forward, Pakistan seems to be on the brink of accepting enforcement of sharia in the FATA territories. Reports indicate that more than 70 Taliban courts already operate in the Swat Valley, a first step toward implementation of the Taliban's interpretation of sharia. That the government is open to negotiating on this issue shows that it has no regard for what such a move would mean for Pakistani women.

The lives of Afghan women and girls remain precarious. Schoolgirls continue to be attacked. Women in public office are threatened or killed. Malalai Joya, a female political leader who has been wrongly suspended from parliament, has been forced into hiding because of threats against her. Only a few months ago, Malalai Kakar, Afghanistan's most senior female police officer, was shot dead. Pakistan must not become another Afghanistan.

The unfolding disaster in Pakistan demands an immediate response both from the Pakistani government and the international community( YES ). Pakistan must accept its responsibility to take urgent action to protect the rights of women and to curb the Talibanization of the country. Any intervention must be based on upholding Pakistan's commitments under its own constitution and under international human rights instruments that it has ratified( YES ). The various branches of government -- the legislature, executive and judiciary -- must work in concert to address this situation in a comprehensive manner.

Last week, the Pakistani government announced that it will reopen the schools in the northern areas in March, after their winter recess, but in view of the loss of huge areas to the effective control of the Taliban, it is clear that will be difficult. On Jan. 20 -- Inauguration Day in the United States -- Parliament voted unanimously to condemn and reject the Jan. 15 Taliban school closings. Now the government should immediately announce its commitment to implementing a plan to ensure that all girls have access to education, as well as to safeguard them not only in school but also outside of school.( YES )

President Obama has put Pakistan at the forefront of the war on terrorism. The 2008 Biden-Lugar bill in the Senate calling for a tripling of nonmilitary aid to Pakistan, to $1.5 billion annually for five years, is expected to be revived this year as the Kerry-Lugar bill and has the support of the Obama administration. To avoid the mistakes of the Bush administration, not only should there be greater accountability for how these funds are used, but the money should be conditioned on the Pakistani government taking active steps to curb the Talibanization of the country and, in particular, to uphold and protect the rights of girls and women. The consequences of inaction or inadequate action could be devastating.( I AGREE )

Yasmeen Hassan is a Pakistani lawyer and the deputy director of programs at Equality Now, an international women's rights organization based in New York."

Monday, January 12, 2009

"An Uzbek, a Hazara or Tajik winning would destabilize the country,"

Checking in on Afghanistan's election, we find ethnic tensions. Is this the basis of all human conflict? From Reuters:

"By Golnar Motevalli - Analysis

KABUL (Reuters) - The legitimacy of Afghan elections this year could be jeopardized if dominant ethnic Pashtuns fail to vote due to poor security and disenchantment with President Hamid Karzai, raising the prospect of even worse violence.

Fighting is already at its heaviest since U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban in 2001( THAT'S RIGHT ), but almost all battles are in the south and east; areas populated by Pashtuns, many of them angry at their perceived exclusion from power and alleged abuses by foreign troops.

If Pashtuns feel more disenfranchised( HOW OFTEN DO WE HEAR THIS REFRAIN IN WARS? ) after the polls due in September, the impoverished and traumatized country could be polarized further still and violence could reach new peaks.

"Pashtuns are less likely to participate in elections because of bad security and yet they represent the largest part of the Afghan population," said Wahid Mojdah, a political analyst and expert on the Taliban.

"For 150 years the Pashtuns have been in government in Afghanistan, in every phase that Pashtuns have been out of power there has been war in Afghanistan," he said.

Recognizing that Pashtun participation is key to ensuring success in the presidential election, the United States is to deploy most of its planned 20,000 to 30,000 extra troops to secure the south.

"With the introduction of two additional brigades, the regional commander in the south should have sufficient manpower to ensure successful elections," said one U.S. defense official at the Pentagon, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Karzai, a Pashtun from the southern province of Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban, has lost a good deal of public support due to his failure to improve security and clean up endemic official corruption since he was elected in 2004.

"There's a clear sense that people haven't been given what they were promised( WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED? ). It was implied there would be stability and democracy and I don't think that has happened at all," said an international analyst in Afghanistan, who declined to be named.

Many Pashtuns also feel Karzai has given too much power to northerners who helped U.S. troops oust the Taliban.

NORTH AND SOUTH

In a country where even voting for the Afghan equivalent of Pop Idol was clearly split along ethnic lines( UNREAL ), the next presidential election is likely to be similar to the last when results closely mirrored the country's ethnic divisions.

The first hurdle is the registration of voters which begins in the southern Pashtun heartlands in eight days time.

A senior electoral official said if security did not improve in the south, voter registration would be low.

In Ghazni province, southwest of Kabul, the Taliban have made great inroads in the last two years, but it is still more secure than the volatile southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand.

Even so, election officials were not able to reach large parts of heavily populated, but remote Pashtun districts of Ghazni because of the strength of the Taliban there, Habib Rahman, head of the provincial council, told Reuters.

By contrast, voter registration in the mainly ethnic Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek provinces of the north has already been completed without major incident.

"It's completely different from the south, we could provide security for the voters even with just one or two policemen, but you cannot do the same in the south," said Mohammad Omar Sulaimani, governor of Kunduz province in the north.

A possible rival Pashtun candidate to Karzai could also split the vote in the south and east and, were it not for the deep divisions among the minority groups, could lead to an upset.

"An Uzbek, a Hazara or Tajik winning would destabilize the country( YIKES )," Mojdah said. "It's unlikely this would happen, but if it does it will lead to many problems in Afghanistan ... the Taliban do not want a U.S.-style democracy here."

Low voter registration in the south might not necessarily mean a low turnout in the election as those who still have voting cards from the 2004 poll can use them instead and officials admit it is impossible to know how many have kept their old cards.

Tight security then only needs to be imposed on election day itself, diplomats say.

If close to 100,000 foreign troops and some 140,000 Afghan security forces cannot secure the country for "just one goddamn day," a senior Western diplomat said, then "what the hell are we doing here( GOOD QUESTION. THE ANSWER IS TO DO THE JOB WELL OR GET OUT. )?"

(Additional reporting by Hamid Shalizi and Jon Hemming in Kabul and David Morgan in Washington; Editing by Dean Yates)"

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Some Proposals Make Too Much Sense

Also from Nick Gillespie on Reason, a great idea from Hitchens:

"Over at Slate, Christopher Hitchens proposes a novel solution to the "problem" of Afghan farmers continued interest in growing opium poppies, their biggest cash crop: The U.S. should buy the crop rather than letting the Taliban do so.

We don't have to smoke the stuff once we have purchased it: It can be burned or thrown away or perhaps more profitably used to manufacture the painkillers of which the United States currently suffers a shortage. (As it is, we allow Turkey to cultivate opium poppy fields for precisely this purpose.) ...

Read the rest. Too reasonable to go anywhere, of course.