The collapse of Afghanistan is closer than the world believes. Kandahar is in Taliban hands – all but a square mile at the centre of the city – and the first Taliban checkpoints are scarcely 15 miles from Kabul. Hamid Karzai's deeply corrupted government is almost as powerless as the Iraqi cabinet in Baghdad's "Green Zone"; lorry drivers in the country now carry business permits issued by the Taliban which operate their own courts in remote areas of the country.
The Red Cross has already warned that humanitarian operations are being drastically curtailed in ever larger areas of Afghanistan; more than 4,000 people, at least a third of them civilians, have been killed in the past 11 months, along with scores of Nato troops and about 30 aid workers. Both the Taliban and Mr Karzai's government are executing their prisoners in ever greater numbers. The Afghan authorities hanged five men this month for murder, kidnap or rape – one prisoner, a distant relative of Mr Karzai, predictably had his sentence commuted – and more than 100 others are now on Kabul's death row.
This is not the democratic, peaceful, resurgent, "gender-sensitive" Afghanistan that the world promised to create after the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Outside the capital and the far north of the country, almost every woman wears the all-enshrouding burkha, while fighters are now joining the Taliban's ranks from Kashmir, Uzbekistan, Chechnya and even Turkey. More than 300 Turkish fighters are now believed to be in Afghanistan, many of them holding European passports.
"Nobody I know wants to see the Taliban back in power," a Kabul business executive says – anonymity is now as much demanded as it was before 2001 – "but people hate the government and the parliament which doesn't care about their security. The government is useless. With so many internally displaced refugees pouring into Kabul from the countryside, there's mass unemployment – but of course, there are no statistics.
"The 'open market' led many of us into financial disaster. Afghanistan is just a battlefield of ideology, opium and political corruption. Now you've got all these commercial outfits receiving contracts from people like USAID. First they skim off 30 to 50 per cent for their own profits – then they contract out and sub-contract to other companies and there's only 10 per cent of the original amount left for the Afghans themselves."
Afghans working for charitable organisations and for the UN are telling their employers that they are coming under increasing pressure to give information to the Taliban and provide them with safe houses. In the countryside, farmers live in fear of both sides in the war. A very senior NGO official in Kabul – again, anonymity was requested – says both the Taliban and the police regularly threaten villagers. "A Taliban group will arrive at a village headman's door at night – maybe 15 or 16 of them – and say they need food and shelter. And the headman tells the villagers to give them food and let them stay at the mosque. Then the police or army arrive in the day and accuse the villagers of colluding with the Taliban, detain innocent men and threaten to withhold humanitarian aid. Then there's the danger the village will be air-raided by the Americans."
In the city of Ghazni, the Taliban ordered all mobile phones to be switched off from 5pm until 6am for fear that spies would use them to give away guerrilla locations. The mobile phone war may be one conflict the government is winning. With American help the Interior Ministry police can now track and triangulate calls. Once more, the Americans are talking about forming "tribal militias" to combat the Taliban, much as they did in Iraq and as the Pakistani authorities have tried to do on the North West Frontier. But the tribal lashkars of the Eighties were corrupted by the Russians and when the system was first tried out two years ago – it was called the Auxiliary Police Force – it was a fiasco. The newly-formed constabulary stopped showing up for work, stole weapons and turned themselves into private militias.
"Now every time a new Western ambassador arrives in Kabul, they dredge it all up again," another NGO official says in near despair. "'Oh,' they proclaim, 'let's have local militias – what a bright idea.' But that will not solve the problem. The country is subject to brigandage as well as the cruelty of the Taliban and the air raids which Afghans find so outrageous. The international community has got to stop spinning and do some fundamental thinking which should have been done four or five years ago."
What this means to those Westerners who have spent years in Kabul is simple. Is it really the overriding ambition of Afghans to have "democracy"? Is a strong federal state possible in Afghanistan? Is the international community ready to take on the warlords and drug barons who are within Mr Karzai's own government? And – most important of all – is development really about "securing the country"? The tired old American adage that "where the Tarmac ends, the Taliban begins" is untrue. The Taliban are mounting checkpoints on those very same newly-built roads.
The Afghan Minister of Defence has 65,000 troops under his dubious command but says he needs 500,000 to control Afghanistan. The Soviets failed to contain the country even when they had 100,000 troops here with 150,000 Afghan soldiers in support. And as Barack Obama prepares to send another 7,000 US soldiers into the pit of Afghanistan, the Spanish and Italians are talking of leaving while the Norwegians may pull their 500 troops out of the area north of Heart. Repeatedly, Western leaders talk of the "key" – of training more and more Afghans to fight in the army. But that was the same "key" which the Russians tried – and it did not fit the lock.
"We" are not winning in Afghanistan. Talk of crushing the Taliban seems as bleakly unrealistic as it has ever been. Indeed, when the President of Afghanistan tries to talk to Mullah Omar – one of America's principal targets in this wretched war – you know the writing is on the wall. And even Mullah Omar didn't want to talk to Mr Karzai.
Partition is the one option that no one will discuss – giving the southern part of Afghanistan to the Taliban and keeping the rest – but that will only open another crisis with Pakistan because the Pashtuns, who form most of the Taliban, would want all of what they regard as "Pashtunistan"; and that would have to include much of Pakistan's own tribal territories. It will also be a return to the "Great Game" and the redrawing of borders in south-west Asia, something which – history shows – has always been accompanied by great bloodshed.
WASHINGTON -- Pakistan has replaced Iraq as al Qaeda's main focus, and the terror group has stepped up its efforts to destabilize the nuclear-armed South Asian nation, according to a senior U.S. military commander.
"Iraq is now a rear-guard action on the part of al Qaeda," said Gen. James Conway, the head of the Marine Corps and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an interview. "They've changed their strategic focus not to Afghanistan but to Pakistan, because Pakistan is the closest place where you have the nexus of terrorism and nuclear weapons."
Gen. Conway also offered a stark assessment of the Afghan situation, saying the Taliban has built a rudimentary command-and-control network that enables the group's leadership to direct attacks across the country.
"They move troops around. They resupply. They provide money," he said. "It's effective and it's real. It's not just happenstance that these guys know where to go and what to do."
Senior U.S. military and civilian officials have grown increasingly pessimistic about Afghanistan and Pakistan. Last month, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told lawmakers he was planning to develop a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan that would for the first time focus on both countries, which he said were "inextricably linked in a common insurgency that crosses the border between them."
Seven years into the war in Afghanistan, the resurgent Taliban carries out daily attacks on U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces. More U.S. troops are killed in Afghanistan each month than in Iraq, and Afghan civilian casualties have been soaring. U.S. intelligence officials say that foreign militants who once flocked to Iraq now travel to Afghanistan instead, bringing more sophisticated bombs and weapons with them.
The top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, has asked for at least 20,000 additional forces, and the incoming Obama administration has signaled that it will send the reinforcements sometime next year. The influx will push U.S. troop levels there to more than 52,000, a record.
Still, many senior U.S. officials fear that the additional American forces won't be enough to stabilize Afghanistan unless Pakistan takes stronger measures against the militants who operate in havens in its anarchic tribal areas. U.S. commanders say militants operate training camps in the tribal areas and also cross freely from Pakistan into Afghanistan to carry out attacks there.
Gen. Conway said Pakistan's best troops were deployed along its border with India and weren't being used in the fight against the country's militants. Pakistan's leadership doesn't yet seem to accept that terrorism poses an existential risk to the country's future, he added. "Pakistan has to understand there's a dire threat there that they have to act against," he said.
Pakistan's failure to take concerted action against the Islamist fighters has led the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. military's secretive Special Operations Command to launch a wave of missile strikes against insurgent targets inside Pakistan.
The attacks by unmanned aerial drones have killed at least eight senior al Qaeda figures along with dozens of Pakistani civilians. Islamabad has given tacit approval to the strikes, a source of public anger across Pakistan.
Gen. Conway said the attacks had killed al Qaeda figures involved in planning attacks on targets in Europe and the U.S. "It is important that we keep them on the run," he said. Still, he described the strikes as a "high-wire act" that risked damaging relations.
The Pakistani government has bristled at such criticism and insisted that it is firmly committed to defeating the country's militants. Officials at Pakistan's embassy in Washington weren't available to comment.
Gen. Conway said the U.S. military needed to reorient itself in response to the changing conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq's security situation has improved so much that for the first time it "smells like victory" there, he said. The gains should clear the way for the withdrawal next year of many of the 20,000 Marines currently deployed to the country, he added.
The departures, in turn, would free up additional Marines for Afghanistan, where the fighting is likely to accelerate in 2009. The war on terror began in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Gen. Conway suggested that it would need to conclude there rather than in Iraq.
"I don't think there is anybody in Iraq these days planning a strike on the U.S.," he said. "But I fear there are people in Afghanistan or Pakistan who could be doing that very thing."
Separately, Pakistani officials said they need billions of dollars more to stabilize the economy, battered by high oil prices and an increasingly bloody fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda, even after agreeing with the International Monetary Fund on a $7.6 billion loan.
A senior finance ministry official said: "We plan to go back to our friends, America, to London, to Berlin and the rest of Europe, to China, to ask for help." But hopes for cash infusions from allies facing their own economic problems "may not be realistic."
The announcement of the loan capped a humbling two months for President Asif Ali Zardari, who leads Pakistan's first democratically elected government in almost a decade. On taking office in September, he had insisted Pakistan wouldn't need IMF aid.
#2
If al-Qaeda loses Pakistan, there is no place left to run. They are fighting for their survival as an organization. Without Pakistan, they are just armed gangs on the run from the local police, wherever they are.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Wednesday he would protect the fugitive leader of the insurgent Taliban, Mullah Mohammad Omar, in return for peace whether his international partners liked it or not.
Karzai reiterated though that the extremist Islamic leader, who is wanted by the United States, would have to accept the Afghan constitution, a pro-democracy document drawn up after the ouster of the Taliban regime in 2001.
If Mullah Omar announced he accepted the constitution and "asks us to give him protection and support, I, as the president of Afghanistan, based on Afghan customs, will give him protection," Karzai told reporters.
Even if the "international community is happy with it or not, I would provide them protection," he said at a press conference with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.
Scheffer, head of an alliance that leads a military force of nearly 51,000 troops helping Afghanistan fight a Taliban-led insurgency, said peace talks and political reconciliation with the insurgents was an Afghan issue.
"I would, of course, applaud reconciliation," he said, adding that military warfare would not end the insurgency in Afghanistan.
Nearly 1,000 international troops in a campaign to fight the insurgency have lost their lives in Afghanistan since 2001, as have thousands of Afghan civilians and troops.
Mullah Omar is wanted by the United States and has a 10-million-dollar reward out for his capture.
Seven years after the ouster of the extremist Taliban regime in a US-led invasion, Afghanistan's security is deteriorating with increasing insurgent attacks and crime leading many Afghans to despair about the future.
The increased violence has given new impetus to calls for peace talks with militants who lay down their weapons and reject Al-Qaeda, which is said to support the Taliban and their leaders.
But the White House said last week there were no positive signals Mullah Omar is ready to renounce violence.
(AKI) - By Syed Saleem Shahzad - While the western media raised hopes of a reconciliation between the Taliban and the Afghan government when Saudi Arabia sponsored talks during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, the man named as one of the main negotiators, Mullah Mohammad Hasan Rahmani, denied any involvement. "No, no! Certainly not!"
The Saudi government owned Al-Sharq al-Awsat even quoted the Afghan Minister of Information, Sheikh Mohammed Tashkiri, who said a second round of negotiations took place in Dubai between a delegation from Kabul and one from the Taliban movement. According to Tashkiri, "on both occasions representatives of Mullah Omar participated in the meetings, the most authoritative among them was Mullah Mohammad Hasan Rahmani".
Continued on Page 49
This article starring:
MULLAH MOHAMAD HASAN RAHMANI
Taliban
Sheikh Mohammed Tashkiri
Posted by: Fred ||
11/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
Looks like we need to send in a couple more troops and ask the question again.
(AKI) - By Syed Saleem Shahzad - Foreign troops are sustaining heavy losses and have no prospect of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan, according to a senior Taliban leader. Mullah Mohammad Hasan Rahmani, former governor of Kandahar province and a close adviser to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, told Adnkronos International (AKI) that the Taliban was having "great success" in its attacks on foreign forces.
"All places in Afghanistan are under siege by the Taliban, they are sustaining huge losses. During the night the Taliban are able to carry out action anywhere in Afghanistan in any street," he told AKI. "Their main targets are government installations, the police and the army."
The Taliban is having "great success" with these few targets, he said.
Fifty-year-old Mullah Hasan Rahmani was appointed governor of Kandahar under the former Taliban regime and remains a close adviser to Mullah Omar. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1978-79, he was part of Hezb-i-Islami, a fundamentalist faction of the mujahadeen which opposed the Soviet occupation. He remains a top Taliban leader.
He lost his left leg during the long-running war against the former Soviet Union and has an artificial limb.
In an interview with AKI in an undisclosed location, Hasan Rahmani said foreign forces, including the Canadian troops stationed in Kandahar, would not succeed in defeating the Taliban. "Nobody is successful against the Taliban" he told AKI. "As far as Canadian forces are concerned, they are fighting against the Taliban only under American pressure.
" I wonder why any country should send their sons to any other country and get them killed for a cause which is not his. This kind of war which is fought for somebody else cannot be successful, neither it can be in the future."
Rahmani said the Taliban would not seek any reconciliation with the Canadian troops stationed in Kandahar. Asked whether the Taliban would negotiate, he said: "Not at all. Not for a single inch."
"Leave Kandahar alone," he added.
He said the Afghan people appreciated that the Taliban had brought peace to Afghanistan while the Americans had invaded the country and brought destruction. "Once again the Taliban are fighting to restore peace and prosperity like they provided the Afghan nation during their rule. Afghanistan understands and appreciates this fact and that's why they are supportive of the Taliban."
He said the Afghan nation understands that the foreign troops of America and NATO are responsible for the bombardment and destruction of Afghanistan and the Taliban is simply resisting them.
This article starring:
Mullah Mohammad Hasan Rahmani
Mullah Omar
Posted by: Fred ||
11/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
he's correct. Foreign troops alone won't defeat them. Their automatic weapons and steely resolve on the trigger, UAV's armed with missiles, spies amongst the inner circle, surveillance tricks, tips from pissed-off locals and general assholerey on the part of the Taliban will defeat them. You goat-f*cking ignorant bastards will die.ut, it will be at the hands of those foreign troops. Get over it. Your surviving families will
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/26/2008 0:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm at a loss for words. This man's fantasies are beyond any possible discussion. He could have a brillant future in San Francisco politics.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
11/26/2008 8:33 Comments ||
Top||
#6
And actually, one way to defeat them is to absolutely humiliate them. When they run from a battle, there should be very loud audio broadcast in the local dialect that both the villagers and the Taliban can hear. We should be taunting them for running away like little girls ... in front of the locals. We should address them in the feminine gender. These are simple people without much education. Their personal honor means a lot to them. Humiliating them in front of the locals makes it harder for them to show their faces and when they do, they would be more likely to mistreat the locals in order to show their dominance. But after it happens enough times, the locals will begin to want to have little to do with them.
Things like leaflets don't work in an area where the vast majority of people can't read. But radio carrying jokes like "What is the fastest thing in the world? A Taliban who has just seen a Marine." might. It has to be verbal and they have to hear it AND the townsfolk have to hear it. We need to make a laughingstock of them.
President Hamid Karzai demanded at a meeting with a UN Security Council team Tuesday that the international community set a "timeline" for ending military intervention in Afghanistan, his office said. Karzai told a delegation from the Security Council that his country needed to know how long the US-led "war on terror" was going to be fought in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
how about "today", dickhead?
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/26/2008 0:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
He wants to know when to buy his plane tickets and transfer the opium money to Swiss accounts.
I've always thought that aiming relatively low in Afghanistan was prudent. Iraq's quite a different place, its importance and location are different. In Afghanistan, I've defined "victory" as just barely keeping the lid on, at minimal cost. Admittedly there are two flaws with this approach: surrendering the initiative to some extent, and no-end-in-sight.
But I think it's possible both problems can be finessed. Patience, quiet aggression (esp. against hardboyz seeking sanctuary next door), and careful expectations management. I think the fever will pass (organized global terror jihadism), if we soldier on long enough, and make sure defeat is the only result anyone ever sees at the end of the jihadi road.
#7
I'm sick of this fucking Taliban appeaser. Has he ever said that the Taliban are enemies of the Afghan state who must be defeated? That's not a 'War on Terror', you prick, it's a war to stop these fanatics hanging you from a tree.
#8
The Taliban are in some ways analagous to the ex-Baath Sunni in Iraq; they have a history of being the 'legitimate' government, they have a substantial, dedicated, and to a degree desperate following, they know how to be ruthless. Like the Baath though, they are not monolithic - I suspect there is hope that there is a less-dedicated/radical subset that can be pulled off. No matter how much we don't like the idea, it is probably not possible to create stable A'stan without involving (or killing) them. (The story with the Shia relative to Mookie and his gang is not all that different either.)
#11
Karzai is a drug dealer. Nothing more and nothing less. A-stan is not sustainable. This is a regional problem that combines A-Stan, FATA, Pakistan, Kashmir and India. In the long run, I think only India is going to be able to deal with it.
Geography plays a big role in why this area is going to remain a goat-bugger's paradise for years to come. The terrain is simply not conducive to the formation of a national identity since it breaks the area into isolated regions/tribal areas.
We are wasting $$ and lives in this dump. I agree with Verlaine that our objectives there need to be very low as that will enable us to perform the appropriate diplo-kabuki to say we are leaving under our own terms.
Those terms need to be made very clear to all players. Should some islamo-nut from there decide he wants to kill Americans, and makes good on that desire, then our airforce will return and flatten several locations. Screw nation building in a trbal backwater.
#12
The Battle of Kabul and the retreat to Gandamak
War: First Afghan War
Date: January 1842.
Place: Central Afghanistan.
Combatants: British and Indians of the Bengal Army and the army of Shah Shuja against Afghans and Ghilzai tribesmen..
Generals: General Elphinstone against the Ameers of Kabul, particularly Akbar Khan, and the Ghilzai tribal chiefs.
Size of the armies: 4,500 British and Indian troops against an indeterminate number of Ghilzai tribesmen, possibly as many as 30,000.
Uniforms, arms and equipment:
The British infantry, wearing cut away red jackets, white trousers and shako hats, were armed with the old Brown Bess musket and bayonet. The Indian infantry were similarly armed and uniformed.
The Ghilzai tribesmen carried swords and jezail, long barrelled muskets.
Winner: The British and Indian force was wiped out other than a small number of prisoners and one survivor.
As the United States and NATO attempt to stamp out an increasingly potent insurgency on the doorstep of the Afghan capital, the senior U.S. Army commander in eastern Afghanistan said he plans to send hundreds of troops to two volatile provinces immediately south of Kabul that have traditionally lacked Western forces.
Army Maj. Gen. Jeffrey J. Schloesser, commander of the 101st Airborne Division, said in an interview this week that a portion of the estimated 3,500 additional U.S. troops expected to arrive in Afghanistan in January will be deployed to Logar and Wardak provinces. Neither has been a major center of U.S. or NATO military activity, even though both provinces are directly adjacent to Kabul and are home to critical transit routes. Schloesser, who spoke at his headquarters at Bagram air base, said he anticipates a rise in clashes with rebel Afghan fighters in Logar and Wardak.
"I would expect from this winter on an increase in violence south of Kabul caused by us, caused by us and the Afghans working together," Schloesser said. "Then, over a period of several months, as we are more successful in separating the enemy from the people and consolidating gains, the violence will come down."
NATO and U.S. military leaders have consistently said that Western forces in Afghanistan are stretched too thin and that more troops are needed to eliminate insurgent havens. Fighters in Wardak and Logar who are allied with veteran Afghan rebel commanders Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani have in recent years exploited the absence of any significant Western troop presence in the mountainous region, transforming it into a militant stronghold.
The two provinces have experienced a rash of attacks this year on NATO troops and military supply convoys, as well as a rise in high-profile kidnappings. In June, Taliban insurgents used rocket-propelled grenades and mines to lay an ambush in Wardak that killed three U.S. soldiers and their Afghan interpreter. That month, seven Afghan truck drivers were beheaded after insurgents attacked a convoy of about 50 NATO fuel tankers and supply trucks in Wardak.
In September, the governor of Logar was killed along with his driver and two bodyguards when his vehicle drove over a remote-controlled mine. A month later, insurgents in Wardak shot down a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter. The crew escaped, and the helicopter was recovered after an airstrike killed 12 insurgents.
There have also been a growing number of attacks on foreign civilians in Wardak and Logar. In August, three foreign female aid workers were killed in Logar when Taliban fighters sprayed their vehicles with gunfire on a roadway. Last month, U.S. Special Forces mounted an operation that freed an American engineer who had been held captive in Wardak for two months. And this month, a Canadian journalist was released from Taliban captivity in a cave in Wardak. The stretch of highway through Wardak near the western edge of Logar provides a crucial link between U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan and NATO-led troops in the southern province of Kandahar. Taliban and other rebel fighters have targeted the area heavily, blowing up several bridges this year and mining the road with explosives.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
Somali pirates on Tuesday were engaged in talks over ransoms for several vessels, including a Saudi oil tanker, an Ukrainian freighter carrying arms and their latest catch, a Yemeni cargo ship. As the world mulled a response to the problem that has sowed panic in the shipping industry and threatens an ailing global economy, increasingly brazen pirates continued to dodge navy ships to prey on foreign vessels.
Officials from Yemen, which shares the Gulf of Aden's shores with Somalia, said Tuesday that a Yemeni cargo ship carrying building materials was seized last week. "The pirates are demanding a ransom of $2 million," said one official.
Somali pirates have carried out around 100 attacks in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean since the start of this year. They still hold 17 ships and more than 250 crew.
The pirates - a rag-tag army of an estimated 1,500 clan militiamen and former coast guards divided into four or five groups - have been in the world's spotlight since hijacking a 330-meter Saudi supertanker carrying 2 million barrels of crude oil on November 15. Mohammad Said, the leader of the group holding the Sirius Star who announced to AFP last week that he was demanding $25 million to free the ship, said on Tuesday that talks were ongoing.
"The negotiations with the owners of the tanker continue. I hope they understand the situation," the pirate said. "We're treating the people on the ship very courteously and this will not change unless the other side behaves aggressively," he added.
The ship is currently a few kilometers at sea, off the shores of the pirate lair of Harardhere, north of Mogadishu.
Islamist fighters controlling much of southern and central Somalia have vowed to clamp down on piracy as they did while in government in 2006, but the pirates have beefed up their military set-up around Harardhere and warned that any attack would have "disastrous" consequences.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Pirates
#1
"Somali pirates warn against aggression." That's a hoot.
After a six-year heated debate, the UK government has finally made it mandatory for foreign nationals to obtain identity cards.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The program, started on Monday, will initially cover roughly 50,000 foreign students and spouses of permanent residents who will receive their identity cards if they qualify for visa extensions.
The card, more accurate and harder to forge than a passport, will include the holder's personal details, fingerprints, and a facial image and will thus allow them to easily and securely prove their identities, the press release said.
Good idea, but the beginning of the secibd sentence is interesting.
This is an English translation, rough in spots, from a blog entry originally written in French. The reference to the "TV series" appears to be to "Band of Brothers" You won't find anything like this in the MSM.
RTWT.
from 5 AM onwards the camp chores are performed in beautiful order and always with excellent spirit. A passing American helicopter stops near a stranded vehicle just to check that everything is alright; an American combat team will rush to support ours before even knowing how dangerous the mission is - from what we have been given to witness, the American soldier is a beautiful and worthy heir to those who liberated France and Europe.
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has agreed to serve in President-elect Barack Obama's Cabinet, advisors said Tuesday, setting up the unusual situation in which a wartime Pentagon chief remains to work under a president who has condemned the previous administration's policies.
An official close to the Obama transition team said it was likely Gates would be named Defense secretary when the president-elect begins to unveil his national security team in announcements expected next week.
A former government official who has advised the Obama transition said that it was "99% certain" that Gates would remain as Defense secretary for about a year in the Obama adminitration. "Nothing is definitive," the fomer official said. "But Gates did agree to stay on."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Probably the security briefings scared the sh*t out of the Big O. And that was just the executive summary, heh.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/26/2008 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
For most of the past two weeks, prosecutors at the trial of five suspected South Jersey terrorists watched defense attorneys hammer away at their star witness, an FBI informant who infiltrated the group. So when the two assistant U.S. Attorneys resumed their case yesterday, they tried to refocus jurors on some of their more compelling evidence.
They showed photos of the defendants, some clad in camouflage garb, hoisting rifles and shooting at balloons that allegedly represented human heads. They presented agents who recalled shadowing the lead defendant, Mohamad Shnewer, one summer night as he drove himself three hours from Cherry Hill to Fort Monmouth, ostensibly to study it for an attack. And they played videos retrieved from Shnewer's computer that depicted U.S. troops and convoys under attack in Iraq and Afghanistan. At one point, Deputy U.S. Attorney William Fitzpatrick froze the footage on the courtroom screen to let jurors absorb the image of a face and name: Danny Dietz.
Dietz was a Navy SEAL from Colorado who died during an ambush in the Afghanistan mountains in June 2005. With Islamic music in the background, the video first showed militants combing through charred or bloodied corpses of American servicemen, stealing their weapons, watches and personal items. Then one proudly displayed the take: a GPS device, a grenade-type weapon and Dietz's Navy identification. The videos represent a pillar of the prosecution case, sometimes stomach-turning images they say proved the men's deep hatred for the United States and helped prepare them to attack.
Under questioning from the prosecutor, Thomas Falletta, a New Jersey State Police detective assigned to the case, testified that "at least 80 percent" of the 125 files retrieved from Shnewer's laptop contained videos depicting attacks on U.S. troops. The rest, he said, showed attacks against Russians or Israelis. Each time a video has been shown, the defense has quickly sought to neutralize its impact, pressing witnesses to point out that the videos aren't illegal and that there's nothing to tie the defendants to the violent acts on screen.
Shnewer's attorney, Rocco Cipparone, noted during his cross-examination of Falletta yesterday that all but four or five of the videos on Shnewer's computer were downloaded in the summer of 2006. That was long after prosecutors contend Shnewer and the others hatched plans to attack Fort Dix or another local military site but around the same time that the FBI informant, Mahmoud Omar, kept pressing Shnewer to finalize his plans.
Shnewer, 23, is a native of Jordan who drove a cab in Philadelphia and worked at his family's Pennsauken market. The other defendants include brothers Shain Duka, 27, Eljvir Duka, 25, and Dritan Duka, 30, Albanian roofers from Cherry Hill; and Serdar Tatar, 25, a Turk who worked at a Philadelphia convenience store.
A Justice Department lawyer urged an appeals court yesterday to overturn a judge's decision to release a group of Chinese Muslims at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay into the United States.
Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre contended that U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina had overstepped his authority in ordering the release of the 17 men, all Uighurs, a group that seeks a separate homeland in western China. Garre argued that only the president and Congress have such power.
The government "has the authority to hold these men pending resettlement efforts," he told the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, calling Urbina's ruling "an unprecedented order."
The government is appealing Urbina's October decision to release the Uighurs, who have been held at the Cuba facility for nearly seven years. The United States no longer considers the men enemy combatants and would like to release them. But it will not send them back to China, where the government considers them terrorists and where they might be tortured or killed, and it has been unable to find another country willing to take them.
Albania accepted five Uighurs in 2006, but other countries have refused for fear of offending China. When the government provided no evidence to justify the Uighurs' continued detention, Urbina ordered their transfer on Oct. 7 to the Washington area, where they would have been resettled temporarily with Uighur families.
The appeals court stayed Urbina's ruling by a 2-to-1 vote, and it appeared from the questioning of lawyers yesterday that the judges might be inclined to overturn Urbina's decision. Judges A. Raymond Randolph and Karen LeCraft Henderson, appointees of Republican presidents, seemed sympathetic to the government's arguments. Judge Judith W. Rogers, a Clinton appointee, dissented from issuing the stay and appeared more skeptical.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
Force the terrorists to live with the judges who ordered them freed.
(AKI) - One of Pakistan's senior military leaders, Chief of the Air Staff, Tanvir Mahmood, said on Tuesday that the Pakistan Air Force was fully capable of stopping drone flights and missile strikes. He said that it was now up to the government to decide whether it wanted to benefit from the country's capabilities or fight a war with aggressors.
According to Pakistan's Geo News, the Air Chief Marshall made the remarks to reporters during a visit to a defence equipment exhibition in Karachi.
The number of attacks has increased sharply in recent months and there was widespread outrage over a US military raid that resulted in the alleged deaths of 20 Pakistani villagers in the village of Musa Nika, near the Afghan border in September.
Tanvir Mahmood said most of the fighter aircraft of Pakistan's Air Force would be replaced by JF-17 thunder fighters that would fill the gap. The fighter jets of Pakistan Air Force are fully capable to carry all types of warheads, he said.
Meanwhile the Pakistani daily, Dawn, said the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has assured Pakistan that NATO forces respected its sovereignty and had no mandate to enter the country.
Nisar A. Memon, head of a senate defence committee delegation, told the media the news on Monday on his return from a visit to the United Kingdom and Belgium. He said the delegation told NATO officials that drone attacks inside Pakistan were a serious cause of concern because they infringed on the sovereignty of the country and caused collateral damage and suffering to innocent people.
The delegation also expressed concern about the tremendous increase in poppy cultivation in Afghanistan without any checks by NATO forces and intensifying terrorist operations in the region.
A suspected missile strike from a US drone killed at least four people in a house in Pakistan's volatile North Waziristan region on Saturday. The attack was considered the fourth on Pakistani soil in November.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
"The events of September 11, 2001, and Pakistan's agreement to support the United States led to a waiver of the sanctions, and military assistance resumed to provide spare parts and equipment to enhance Pakistan's capacity to police its western border with Afghanistan and address its legitimate security concerns. In 2003, President Bush announced that the United States would provide Pakistan with $3 billion in economic and military aid over 5 years. This assistance package commenced during FY 2005."
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
11/26/2008 8:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Of course they can stop the drones - they're slow, non-stealth, come from limited bases, and are not quick & agile. The Pak AF has radar, interceptors and weapons - should be pretty easy to whack a fair number of the predators.
#4
Of course they can stop the drones - they're slow, non-stealth, come from limited bases, and are not quick & agile.
As opposed to their protective big brothers, the F-22's, which are very fast, very stealthly, can appear anywhere and are very agile. And are flown by pilots eager to prove you can't do without manned fighters.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/26/2008 12:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
'Pakistan seeking friends' help to counter drones'
Maybe NorK or Iran could help. Or the Taliban or Al-Quaeda.
#6
Yeah, Steve, their big brothers could protect them, but it would mean killing Pakistani pilots over Pakistani territory - not practical if one is trying to maintain the logistically-challenged forces in Afghanistan and avoid real war with Pakistan.
At some point I expect they will blast a Predator and we'll accept it, as part of the price of continuing the current smoke screen of 'don't ask, don't tell' Pakistani-style.
#10
Then suddenly, on a nape-of-the-earth, comes the stealth Chickenhawk of the Rantburg Air Force, scaring the hated terrorists back into their caves with a subsonic boom!
Here is a just-wired pic of the crew and their aircraft, having just returned from the mission in the Dreaded Afghanistan Winter™.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/26/2008 20:47 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Musta been a successful mission. Your bomb racks are empty.
Posted by: ed ||
11/26/2008 20:49 Comments ||
Top||
#12
good looking kid on the left, but who's the geezer on the right? He looks like an engineer!
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/26/2008 20:50 Comments ||
Top||
#13
We took out the back seat and stuffed the ordinance in the back. My son opened the passenger window and dropped the surplus mortar shells, carefully avoiding the landing gear.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/26/2008 20:53 Comments ||
Top||
Iraq's parliament on Wednesday delayed a vote on a landmark pact setting a deadline for U.S. troops to leave, after agreeing to Sunni Arab demands to make it dependent on a referendum but rejecting other conditions.
The deal paves the way for U.S. troops to withdraw by the end of 2011, bringing closer to an end the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that ousted former dictator Saddam Hussein only to usher in years of sectarian bloodshed.
Once-dominant minority Sunnis are concerned their departure may dilute their influence in the Shi'ite-led country. They have proposed several political reforms they want adopted before they approve the pact.
The vote has been postponed to Thursday.
The Iraqi National Dialogue, one of two Sunni political blocs whose blessing for the pact is seen as key to achieving a broad consensus, said it had demanded reforms that would defang efforts to find and try members of Saddam's former Baath party.
"We refused the Iraqi National Dialogue's two requests," said Jaber Khalifa, a senior member of the ruling Shi'ite coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance.
Iraq's Shi'ite-led government and its Kurdish partners, who together hold most of Iraq's 275 parliamentary seats, had already agreed in principle to Sunni demands for a referendum on the security deal in mid-2009.
The pact has been approved by the cabinet and signed with Washington.
Maliki was probably popular enough after presiding over a sharp drop in violence to ensure approval of the U.S. troop deal in a referendum, said political analyst Kadhim al-Miqdad.
BAGHDAD- Iraqi MPs are expected Wednesday to endorse a wide-ranging accord that will allow US troops to remain another three years, despite reservations by Sunnis and fierce opposition by Shiite hardliners.
The 275-member assembly is due to vote by a show of hands on the wide-ranging accord, which would require US troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities by the end of June and from the rest of the country by the end of 2011. The measure enjoys the support of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), the Kurdish alliance, and a number of independent MPs -- enough for it to pass with slightly more than the requisite simple majority of 138 votes.
But deputy parliamentary speaker Khaled al-Attiya said the government and the UIA were making a last-minute push to assemble a broader coalition. "We do not want to pass this agreement with a difference of two or three or four votes," Attiya told AFP on the eve of the vote. "For this reason there are continuing efforts to achieve a vast majority."
The agreement -- the product of nearly a year of hard-nosed negotiations -- was approved by Iraq's cabinet over a week ago with support from the major blocs representing the country's Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish communities. Iraq won a number of concessions in the deal, including a hard timeline for withdrawal, the right to search US military cargo and the right to try US soldiers for crimes committed while they are off their bases and off-duty.
The agreement also requires that US troops obtain Iraqi permission for all military operations, and that they hand over the files of all detainees in US custody to the Iraqi authorities, who will decide their fate. The pact also forbids US troops from using Iraq as a launch-pad or transit point for attacking another country, which may reassure Syria and Iran.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The head of a Fatah-aligned clan who fled the Gaza Strip into Israel four months ago following a bloody gunbattle with Hamas has returned home. Ahmad Hilles was greeted by family Tuesday and taken away in a small sedan.
Hilles fled Gaza in early August after his clan was routed by Hamas security forces. He escaped into Israel along with 180 others, mostly members of his heavily armed extended family. The clash left 11 dead and marked the end of one of the last pockets of potential opposition to Hamas rule in the territory. Most of the others have already returned to Gaza with Hamas' permission.
Hamas Interior Ministry spokesman Ihab Ghussen said the group welcomes Hilles' return and hopes he will help bring about reconciliation.
This article starring:
Ahmad Hilles
Posted by: Fred ||
11/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Fatah
A senior Iranian military official has said Iran's military might deters the US from taking any military action against the Islamic Republic.
"The US has mobilized all its power against Iran and it has set up military bases in all Iran's neighboring countries, but Iran's military might has deterred the US from launching an attack on the country," said Rear Admiral Morteza Saffari, the commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Navy.
"Any attack against Iran will trigger a crushing response to the enemies," IRNA quoted Saffari as saying on Tuesday. "They know that any aggression against Iran will prompt a decisive response, and this is why they will not make any insane move against Iran," he added.
Iran does not want war but is fully prepared to defend itself against any enemy threat, he explained.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#2
We're probably more deterred by their mutual defense treaty with Russia. That is why Iran is so adamant in trying to provoke an attack. The defense agreement would not hold if Iran were the attacker.
#3
I wish that you would prove to us that you believe your own words. Come on, show us your stuff. Perhaps, Israel will help us out for a share of the booty. They could use some new territories to occupy.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
11/26/2008 8:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
First, there was "Baghdad Bob" who brought you such stirring words as "We have destroyed 2 tanks, fighter planes, 2 helicopters and their shovels - We have driven them back."
Now there's "Tehran Saffron"!.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
11/26/2008 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Let's be honest
We are deterred by two things
1) Negative PR
2) Cost of occupation.
Israel's prime minister says Washington has not rejected a request by Tel Aviv to take any action it deems "necessary" against Iran. Ehud Olmert, the outgoing premier, said Tuesday that he had extensively discussed Iran and its nuclear program with "Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the (US) president".
"There is a basic, deep understanding about the Iranian threat and the need to act in order to remove the threat," Olmert told reporters.
Israel insists that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to Tel Aviv, claiming that Tehran has "plans to build a nuclear weapon." Under the allegation, Israeli echelons and army brass have long argued that militarily taking out Iran's nuclear infrastructure is a legitimate option.
An earlier report by Time suggested that Washington had expressed its opposition to an Israeli military strike on Iran before President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January. "We have been warned off," the American magazine quoted an Israeli Defense Ministry official as saying.
However, the outgoing Israeli premier dismissed the Time report. "I don't remember that anyone in the administration, including in the last couple of days, advised me or any other of my official representatives not to take any action that we will deem necessary for the fundamental security of the state of Israel, and that includes Iran," said Olmert, who is forced to leave office following a corruption scandal.
On Sunday, in a leaked annual National Security Council assessment, Israeli army chiefs advocated a timely military strike on Iran before a "limited" window of opportunity is missed. The intelligence assessment declared that Tel Aviv must draw up "contingency plans to attack Iran" even if it means courting a confrontation with Washington.
Earlier in July, Texas congressman Ron Paul warned that any Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would take place with the explicit backing of the US government. The outspoken congressman told Press TV that, "No matter what they do, it is our money, it is our weapons, and they are not going to do it without us approving it."
Olmert's remarks, meanwhile, suggested that should Israel involve in a military conflict with Iran, there would not be a quarrel between Tel Aviv officials and the Obama administration.
President-elect Obama has vowed to 'engage in aggressive personal diplomacy' with Iranian leaders to resolve the controversy surrounding the country's nuclear program.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Israel's prime minister says Washington has not rejected a request by Tel Aviv to take any action it deems "necessary" against Iran.
#2
Perhaps it's so right on so many levels because it's so inscrutable.
Posted by: Titus Gruting5237 ||
11/26/2008 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This will er, er, ah er, ah take delicate preparation during the transfer of power in Washington. One can't have Israel bombing Iran while negotiations without preconditions are going on by the U.S.
British Islamist Kamal Al-Hilbawi and Liberal Nabil Yassin Debate: Are Israeli Children Legitimate Military Targets?
Following are excerpts from a TV debate featuring Dr. Kamal Al-Hilbawi, introduced on the program as director of the LondonCenterfor the Study of Terrorism, and political analyst Dr. Nabil Yassin. Dr. Hilbawi is also former spokesman of the international Muslim Brotherhood in the West. [1] The debate aired on BBC Arabic TV on October 17, 2008:
Al-Hilbawi: "I Believe That Every Israeli Civilian is a Future Soldier... Even If He Is a Child"
Dr. Kamal Al-Hilbawi: "I condemn the targeting of any civilian, but incidentally, I believe that every Israeli civilian is a future soldier."
Interviewer: "He is what?"
Dr. Kamal Al-Hilbawi: "A future soldier."
Interviewer: "Even if he is two years old?"
Dr. Kamal Al-Hilbawi: "Even if he is a child. A child born in Israel is raised on the belief that [the Arabs] are like contemptible sheep, and that this is a land without a people, and they are a people without a land. They have very strange concepts. In elementary school, they pose the following math problem: 'In your village, there are 100 Arabs. If you killed 40, how many Arabs would be left for you to kill?' This is taught in the Israeli curriculum. What would you say about that? Should a child studying this be considered a civilian? He is a future soldier." I think there may be JUST a bit of projection, here...
[...]
Dr. Nabil Yassin: "What Kamal said is very dangerous. He is familiar with the case of the Kharijites. He takes us back to the Azariqa, the Kharijites who were most lethal to Muslims. They used to cut open the bellies of pregnant women, because they believed that the child would become an enemy of the Kharijites."[...]
Yassin: "I Do Not Condemn the Child, Who Still Doesn't Know How He Will Kill the Arabs in 20 Years' Time, When He Becomes A Soldier"
"If we, as Arabs and Muslims, condemned every operation targeting civilians anywhere, we would be able to demand that all parties - not only the U.S. - commit themselves to the same position. I condemn the Israeli governments for teaching children such things, but I do not condemn the child, who still doesn't know how he will kill the Arabs in 20 years' time, when he becomes a soldier. We should differentiate... These things lead us back to the root of the problem: Who is a civilian, and who is a soldier, who is being targeted, and who is targeting me? We must not include civilians in the list of military targets." [...]
Dr. Kamal Al-Hilbawi: "We must first ask ourselves, with regard to the Polish or Russian Israeli, who came with his children to occupy a land and a home that are not his, expelling the Palestinians to America, Britain, France, and Lebanon - what is his status according to international law?"
Interviewer: "We don't want to limit the show to the Palestinian cause and the Arab-Israeli struggle, we are talking about terrorism in general."
Al-Hilbawi: "In My View, Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi is One of the People Responsible for the Development of Religious Violence"
Dr. Kamal Al-Hilbawi: "Allow me. I absolutely do not condone the killing of civilians. But those responsible for the killing of these civilians are sometimes their own relatives and their own country. [...]
"In my view, Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi is one of the people responsible for the development of religious violence, I'm sad to say."
Interviewer: "Dr. Nabil, we don't want to..."
Dr. Nabil Yassin: "Let's be clear on that... Religious scholars issued fatwas..."
Interviewer: "We are not here to pass judgment on Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi or anyone else."
Yassin: "Jurisprudents... Fuel the Phenomenon of Religious Violence"
Dr. Nabil Yassin: "We need to be realistic. For 1,400 years, we've been speaking in the name of Islam, while concealing the facts of reality. There is a movement among the clerics - and I don't believe in clerics, because there is not supposed to be any clergy in Islam... There is a group of clerics, or religious jurisprudents, who fuel the phenomenon of religious violence, provide religious justifications [for terrorism], and allow people to go to Paradise and marry the black-eyed virgins, by killing themselves and others, some of whom are Muslims."
[1] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), February 17, 2006.
#1
So, who wins? Reason doesn't seem to come into play here. Are all Islamists children potential future soldiers? Then if you are an Israeli, is any Islamic child a legitimate target? Flip the debate over, as I have done, and see what, if any changes there would be to the dialogue. That would be more interesting than this rheortic without end.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
11/26/2008 14:35 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The collapse of Afghanistan is closer than the world believes. Kandahar is in Taliban hands – all but a square mile at the centre of the city – and the first Taliban checkpoints are scarcely 15 miles from Kabul. Hamid Karzai's deeply corrupted government is almost as powerless as the Iraqi cabinet in Baghdad's "Green Zone"; lorry drivers in the country now carry business permits issued by the Taliban which operate their own courts in remote areas of the country.
WASHINGTON -- Pakistan has replaced Iraq as al Qaeda's main focus, and the terror group has stepped up its efforts to destabilize the nuclear-armed South Asian nation, according to a senior U.S. military commander.
The attacks by unmanned aerial drones have killed at least eight senior al Qaeda figures along with dozens of Pakistani civilians. Islamabad has given tacit approval to the strikes, a source of public anger across Pakistan.
(AKI) - By Syed Saleem Shahzad - While the western media raised hopes of a reconciliation between the Taliban and the Afghan government when Saudi Arabia sponsored talks during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, the man named as one of the main negotiators, 
(AKI) - By Syed Saleem Shahzad - Foreign troops are sustaining heavy losses and have no prospect of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan, according to a senior Taliban leader. 
(AKI) - One of Pakistan's senior military leaders, Chief of the Air Staff, Tanvir Mahmood, said on Tuesday that the Pakistan Air Force was fully capable of stopping drone flights and missile strikes. He said that it was now up to the government to decide whether it wanted to benefit from the country's capabilities or fight a war with aggressors.
The head of a Fatah-aligned clan who fled the Gaza Strip into Israel four months ago following a bloody gunbattle with Hamas has returned home. 
British Islamist Kamal Al-Hilbawi and Liberal Nabil Yassin Debate: Are Israeli Children Legitimate Military Targets?
