Pakistan: Neither unwilling nor unable in Tirah Valley

By Zoon Ahmad Khan
SPEARHEAD RESEARCH

Tirah is a belt of valleys providing a convenient passage into Afghanistan, with a population of 1.5 million. Fertile for what Afghanis do best: opium, poppy fields have flourished in the region and the government has been for years trying to curb the epidemic. But the Tirah Valley people are slippery under the quivering thumb of the establishment since colonial times. It was in 2003 that the Pakistan Army entered the valley, that too after 9/11 and escalating Talibanization of the northern region when it was believed that Osama bin Laden could be hiding in one of these self governing regions.

For a month now, since March 2013, Tirah Valley has been making headlines. As over 300 militants have been eliminated and more than 30 army personnel have achieved martyrdom in less than thirty days. Due to fierce resistance, the military operation has gained momentum. Like the Swat operation, where Taliban had allied themselves with the local government promising better law enforcement and good riddance from the sloppy civil courts, in Tirah the emergence of TTP has also been gradual. Owing to poor infrastructure and isolation of the region (a tribal area that avoids foreign interference), news of the hundreds killed while resisting TTPs advancement in to the region, never reached mainstream media sources.

Three militant outfits are operating in the region presently: Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Islam (LI), and Ansar ul Islam (AI) . The AI and LI have been battling with each other in the region for more than seven years over sectarian differences. When the LI joined hands with the TTP, AI reached out to the Pakistan army to protect its position against its adversary. It is noteworthy that the AI, a militant organization, has previously been banned for protecting the area from foreign influence (i.e. the government). How this support for the AI is any different from that of the Taliban back in the 1980s is not clear. For Pakistan, at the moment, fighting the Taliban is more crucial. What demons this war gives birth to can be dealt with later perhaps.

The TTP has not taken over the valley overnight, nor without assistance. Since last June, one step at a time the Tirah tribes have been coming under their fold. Even today, as the army marches against the Taliban with bursting force, launching aerial assaults to drive the Taliban out, few know the gravity of the situation. Few realize the dire consequences of this belt coming under full control of anti-state outfits. Thousands of the valley’s inhabitants have migrated out of their homes towards Peshawar. What will become of them and their families knowing the situation of IDPs amidst a fragile economy is another burden we are temporarily ignoring for a false peace of mind.

With three vital entry points: into Peshawar, Orakzai and the Khyber Pass (the main passageway for NATO supplies) the valley is an important stronghold for the TTP. With no road access, the army was initially only relying on aerial assaults. So far with scanty news, all we get a few days later is a death count of militants versus soldiers. Nothing about civilian casualties. Turns out we have an alternative for the drone strikes that have caused much discord between us and the United States. But the problems with an operation where only Pakistani blood is being spilt are manifold.

These quandaries can take the shape of a thought process. Firstly, Tirah was not above the regular drone drill. Rather the area has been a frequent target. Yet the LI joined hands with the Taliban, killed hundreds of civilians while fighting the local AI, took over the entire region over the course of a year. All of this while drone strikes were happening with unhampered discretion. Should this not make us question the effectiveness of drone strikes? The AI , temporary partner of the Government of Pakistan in this operation, is not our friend either. It is these temporary alliances with local militant outfits, and keeping our enemies ‘closer’ that has strengthened them to begin with. Before the Taliban took over completely, Ansar-ul-Islam were adamant that they could handle the situation. But with stiff resistance from TTP backed LI. Eventually the Pakistan army was forced to step in and save the region. The main question that arises from such situations is: why should we trust the security of such volatile and strategically important regions with militias who are not completely supportive of the government?

Initially when the wave of conflict erupted last month, media and ISPR reported that two militant groups were at war with each other and the death toll from both sides was being reported as “militant death toll”. TTP extended full support to LI, and AI was almost driven out of the region and increased TTP influence in the region was becoming evident. It was at this point when civilian casualties escalated and mass migration from the Tirah Valley started that the army stepped in. With General Elections only days away, it would have been catastrophic if hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of the valley had become IDPs. Additionally with Peshawar well within the range of rocket launchers the threat of TTP advancement in to the developed regions of the country had become too real. The AI-Army alliance is strategic and passing. Whether the army death toll includes the AI, or they aren’t dying at all is not certain. It is possible that the militant death include the AI, TTP, and LI, which would quite literally be true.

The new tagline for justifying drone strikes is ‘Unwilling and Unable’. The US claims that Pakistan is both, unwilling and unable to get rid of terrorists, and hence drones, are a final resort to secure their own national interest is justified. How they come up with new justifications for overstepping the boundaries and disrespecting sovereignty is fascinating. But after delegating the responsibility of keeping the terrorists out to anti-state elements, who haven’t pledged any loyalties to the region, what can we say about Pakistan’s sovereignty? Some argue that more than delegating authority the military and political establishments’ apparent absence was more about respecting the existing status quo that has been for centuries.

The expanding terrorism in the Northern areas can be solved not by drone attacks or killing the terrorists alone, rather by better law enforcement and presence of state sponsored security. The operation that Pakistan army troops are sacrificing their lives for concerns the US’ national security as well. After the drone method has proven ineffective and immoral both countries should look into alternatives. The US needs to decide: in or out? If out then they should completely rely on what the Pakistan army executes. But if they believe we are unwilling and unable then they must join in any battle against the Taliban, even if some blood will be spilt. But this would mean allowing US troops into our territory, and that is another breach of our sovereignty. And hence the dearth of solutions. As the army continues to sacrifice lives, while we acknowledge the courage it takes to execute such an operation, we must realize these lives and those of the civilians can be saved if preventive measures are taken. The upcoming government must get all local and foreign stakeholders on board and strategize better governance in the northern areas of Pakistan. The gun is only a temporary solution.

Spearhead Analysis: The Taliban in Paris

Spearhead Analysis – 12.12.12
Spearhead Research

The official word from the Taliban is that they will be in Paris for discussions with the US and its western allies and with the former Northern Alliance representing the Karzai government in Afghanistan. This is an amazing development on several counts. It indicates that the Taliban are a cohesive organized group with clear cut policies and that they think that the time has come for them to be part of the reconciliation process. It is nothing short of a miracle that they have decided to become a part of the intra-Afghan dialogue supposedly led by the Afghan government but actually a joint US-Pakistan venture.

Not surprising then that President Karzai feels left out and has tried to gain a toehold by blaming the US for the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan for a recent assassination attempt on the Afghan intelligence chief. Mr Karzai knows full well that the attack could have been planned anywhere in Pakistan or Afghanistan but that does not make it something sponsored by the state of Pakistan. The US, in a recently released Pentagon report, has clearly stated that the problem in Afghanistan is the lack of state capacity in Afghanistan, the high level of corruption there and the sanctuaries in Pakistan’s western border areas (created as a result of the fighting in Afghanistan).

It is also not surprising that with the start of the end game in Afghanistan the US and Pakistan are at pains to point out that their rocky relationship is back on track – at least for the 2014 transition in Afghanistan for which the progress in 2013 is critically important. A 25 member US delegation participated in the US-Pakistan Defense Consultative Group meeting in Pakistan and both sides expressed satisfaction at the positive outcome. There have been other discussions between the two countries on energy and economic issues. The Pakistani Foreign Minister declared the US-Pakistan relationship ‘back on track’ with all issues resolved and accompanied by the Army Chief she was in Brussels for discussions and briefings that seem to have gone well.

Given the track record of the US-Pakistan relationship Pakistanis may be forgiven for asking if all this is for real and sustainable after 2014 or is it to get Pakistan on board till the transition in Afghanistan is completed without a serious mishap?. After all when the US left after the USSR exited from Afghanistan, not only was Pakistan left to face the blow-back but it was also slapped with sanctions unable to effectively support the indigenous uprising in Kashmir against Indian atrocities. Pakistan has responded positively to US overtures and the Taliban it holds are being released – free to travel and participate in the negotiations that might lead to political stability in Afghanistan. There is a realization all around that the reconciliation and dialogue track could eventually lead to the all important phase of direct US-Taliban negotiations with Pakistan’s support.

The danger of failure on the reconciliation front is that there may be reversion to a civil-war environment given the fact that warlords are alive and well. Ismail Khan’s recent gathering in Herat indicated that this could happen. There is also the realization that with continued US presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014 the Taliban could not depend on external support in an all-out bid for power – as they had attempted earlier. The fact that Pakistan wants peace and stability in Afghanistan to deal with the insurgents in its western border areas and that it wants Afghanistan to deny support and sanctuaries to such groups creates convergence in objectives. Trouble may come from a split in the Afghan government ranks – if Karzai decides to play hard ball especially because of the remarkable cohesion being displayed by the Taliban. Much will also depend on how many US troops stay on in Afghanistan with guesses that put the figure anything between 10000 to 25000), what kind of a status of forces agreement is drawn up for these troops and significantly on the capacity of the Afghan security forces.

(Spearhead Analyses are the result of a collaborative effort and not attributable to a single individual)

Spearhead Analysis: The Taliban in Paris

Spearhead Analysis – 12.12.12
Spearhead Research

The official word from the Taliban is that they will be in Paris for discussions with the US and its western allies and with the former Northern Alliance representing the Karzai government in Afghanistan. This is an amazing development on several counts. It indicates that the Taliban are a cohesive organized group with clear cut policies and that they think that the time has come for them to be part of the reconciliation process. It is nothing short of a miracle that they have decided to become a part of the intra-Afghan dialogue supposedly led by the Afghan government but actually a joint US-Pakistan venture.

Not surprising then that President Karzai feels left out and has tried to gain a toehold by blaming the US for the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan for a recent assassination attempt on the Afghan intelligence chief. Mr Karzai knows full well that the attack could have been planned anywhere in Pakistan or Afghanistan but that does not make it something sponsored by the state of Pakistan. The US, in a recently released Pentagon report, has clearly stated that the problem in Afghanistan is the lack of state capacity in Afghanistan, the high level of corruption there and the sanctuaries in Pakistan’s western border areas (created as a result of the fighting in Afghanistan).

It is also not surprising that with the start of the end game in Afghanistan the US and Pakistan are at pains to point out that their rocky relationship is back on track – at least for the 2014 transition in Afghanistan for which the progress in 2013 is critically important. A 25 member US delegation participated in the US-Pakistan Defense Consultative Group meeting in Pakistan and both sides expressed satisfaction at the positive outcome. There have been other discussions between the two countries on energy and economic issues. The Pakistani Foreign Minister declared the US-Pakistan relationship ‘back on track’ with all issues resolved and accompanied by the Army Chief she was in Brussels for discussions and briefings that seem to have gone well.

Given the track record of the US-Pakistan relationship Pakistanis may be forgiven for asking if all this is for real and sustainable after 2014 or is it to get Pakistan on board till the transition in Afghanistan is completed without a serious mishap?. After all when the US left after the USSR exited from Afghanistan, not only was Pakistan left to face the blow-back but it was also slapped with sanctions unable to effectively support the indigenous uprising in Kashmir against Indian atrocities. Pakistan has responded positively to US overtures and the Taliban it holds are being released – free to travel and participate in the negotiations that might lead to political stability in Afghanistan. There is a realization all around that the reconciliation and dialogue track could eventually lead to the all important phase of direct US-Taliban negotiations with Pakistan’s support.

The danger of failure on the reconciliation front is that there may be reversion to a civil-war environment given the fact that warlords are alive and well. Ismail Khan’s recent gathering in Herat indicated that this could happen. There is also the realization that with continued US presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014 the Taliban could not depend on external support in an all-out bid for power – as they had attempted earlier. The fact that Pakistan wants peace and stability in Afghanistan to deal with the insurgents in its western border areas and that it wants Afghanistan to deny support and sanctuaries to such groups creates convergence in objectives. Trouble may come from a split in the Afghan government ranks – if Karzai decides to play hard ball especially because of the remarkable cohesion being displayed by the Taliban. Much will also depend on how many US troops stay on in Afghanistan with guesses that put the figure anything between 10000 to 25000), what kind of a status of forces agreement is drawn up for these troops and significantly on the capacity of the Afghan security forces.

(Spearhead Analyses are the result of a collaborative effort and not attributable to a single individual)

US Army apologises over new Afghanistan abuse images

The US Army has apologised for any distress caused after new images of US troops posing with the bodies of Afghan civilians were published in a magazine.

In a statement, the US Army said the photos in Rolling Stone magazine were disturbing and contrary to its values.

Similar photos appeared in German paper Der Spiegel last week. The killings apparently took place early last year.

The US Army is in the midst of courts martial of those allegedly involved, one of whom was jailed last week.

According to executive editor Eric Bates, Rolling Stone magazine obtained about 150 photos in all, and posted 17 of them on its website.

Also posted are two videos allegedly showing US attacks on Afghans.

Bates would not say how the magazine obtained the photographs.

Responding to their publication, the US Army said it would “relentlessly” pursue the truth, no matter how difficult or lengthy the investigation.

“The photos published by Rolling Stone are disturbing and in striking contrast to the standards and values of the US Army,” it said in a statement.

“Like those published by Der Spiegel, the Army apologises for the distress these latest photos cause.

“Accountability remains the Army’s paramount concern in these alleged crimes, and we continue to investigate leads.”

‘Rogue army unit’

The photographs are alleged to have been taken by a “rogue” US Army unit in Afghanistan in 2010.

They feature US soldiers grinning over the corpses of Afghan civilians they had allegedly killed.

Specialist Jeremy Morlock was sentenced last week to 24 years in prison for his part in the killing of unarmed Afghan men.

Under a plea deal he is expected to testify against four comrades also to be tried over the killings last year in Kandahar province.

“The plan was to kill people,” Morlock told a military judge during his trial.

THE US EDGES CLOSER TO INVADING PAKISTAN

By: Eric Margolis

This writer has been warning for years that US and NATO efforts to defeat resistance to Western occupation by Afghanistan’s fierce Pashtun tribes would eventually lead to spreading the conflict into neighboring Pakistan, a nation of 175 million.

We’ve seen it all before in Vietnam. It was then called, “mission creep.”

The focus of the Afghan War is clearly shifting south into Pakistan, drawing that nation and the United States forces ever closer to a direct confrontation. This grim development was as predictable as it was inevitable.

This week’s fevered warnings from Washington of supposedly imminent terrorist attacks in Europe may be aimed at justifying intensifying US military operations against Pakistan. If attacks do come in Europe, they will most likely be linked to anti-French militant groups in North Africa and the Sahara – nothing at all to do with Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Last week, Pakistan temporarily closed the main US/NATO supply route from Karachi to the Afghan border at Torkham after the killing of three Pakistani soldiers by US helicopter gunships. Three US/NATO fuel supply convoys were burned by anti-American militants.

Eighty percent of the supplies of the US-led forces in Afghanistan come up this long, difficult route. Along the way, the US pays large bribes to Pakistani officials, local warlords, and to Taliban. The cost of a gallon of gas delivered to US units in Afghanistan has risen to $800.

US helicopter gunships have staged at least four attacks on Pakistan this past week alone, in addition to the mounting number of strikes by CIA drones that are inflicting heavy casualties on civilians and tribal militants alike. US Special Forces and CIA-run Afghan mercenaries are also increasingly active along Pakistan’s northwest frontier.

Pakistan’s feeble, discredited government has long closed its eyes to CIA’s drone attacks. Washington does not even seek permission for the raids or give advance warning to Islamabad. Pakistan’s media claims over 90% of the casualties in US air raids are civilians.

The failing government in Islamabad is caught between two fires. Pakistanis are furious and humiliated by the American attacks. Each new assault further undermines the inept, US-installed Zardari government. Even Interior Minister Rehman Malik, the government’s strongman, protested last week’s US attacks.

But Pakistan is on the edge of economic collapse after its devastating floods. Islamabad is now totally reliant on $2 billion annual US aid, plus tens of millions more “black” payments from CIA. Washington has given Islamabad $10 billion since 2001, most of which goes to renting 140,000 Pakistani troops to support the US-led Afghan war. CIA also has 3,000 mercenaries operating inside Pakistan.

As Osama bin Laden just pointed out in a new audio tape, the Muslim nations have been derelict in coming to Pakistan’s aid. He blamed the massive flooding in Pakistan on global warming.

An influential former Pakistani chief of staff, Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg, just demanded Pakistan’s air force shoot down US drones and helicopters violating his nation’s sovereignty. His sentiments are widely shared in Pakistan’s increasingly angry military.

Pakistan’s senior generals are being blasted as “American stooges” by some of the media and are losing respect among Pakistanis. A video this week of the execution of six civilians by army troops has further damaged the army’s good name.

However, Washington’s view is very different. Pakistan is increasingly branded insubordinate, ungrateful for billions in aid, and a potential enemy of US regional interests. Many Americans consider Pakistan more of a foe than ally. The limited US financial response to Pakistan’s flood was a sign of that nation’s poor repute in North America.

Fears are growing in Washington and in Europe that the nine-year Afghan War may be lost. American popular opinion has turned against the war. The Pentagon fears a failure in Afghanistan will humiliate the US military and undermine America’s international power. In short, just what happened to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

America’s foreign policy establishment is venting its anger and frustration over the failing Afghan War by lashing out at Pakistan and, as well, the US-installed Karzai regime in Kabul.

Pakistan’s President, Asif Ali Zardari, is seen in Washington as hopeless and incompetent. Full US attention is now on Pakistan’s military, the de facto government, and its respected but embattled commander, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, whose tenure was just extended under US pressure. Kayani is still regarded as an “asset” by Washington. But like Zardari, he is caught between American demands and outraged Pakistanis – plus concerns about the threat from India and Delhi’s machinations in Afghanistan. The recent upsurge of violence in Indian-ruled Kashmir has intensified these dangerous tensions between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan.

The neoconservatives in Washington and their media allies again claim Pakistan is a grave threat to US interests and to Israel. Pakistan must be declawed and dismembered, insist the neocons. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is reportedly being targeted for seizure or elimination by US Special Forces.

There is also talk in Washington of dividing Afghanistan into Pashtun, Tajik and Uzbek mini-states, as the US has done in Iraq, Could Pakistan be next for this divide and conquer treatment? Little states are easier to rule or intimidate than big ones. Many Pakistanis believe the United States is bent on dismembering their nation. Some polls show Pakistanis now regard the United States as a greater enemy than India.

Now that America is in full mid-term election frenzy, expect more calls for tougher US military action in “AfPak.” Already unpopular politicians are terrified of being branded “soft on terrorism” and failing to maximally support US military campaigns. Flag waving replaces sober thought.

If polls are right and Republicans achieve a major win, it’s likely there will be more and deeper US air and land attacks into Pakistan. The Pentagon is convinced it can still defeat resistance by Taliban and its allies “if only we can go after their sanctuaries in Pakistan,” as one general told me.

Where have we heard this before? Why in Cambodia and Laos, that’s where, during the Vietnam War. Frustrated US commanders expanded the war into Cambodia and Laos to go after Communist base camps. The war spread; these two small nations were largely destroyed, but the war was ultimately lost.

Victory in war is achieved by concentration of forces, not spreading them ever thinner and wider.

But our imperial generals seem determined to blunder into a nation of 175 million hostile people without any clear strategy. Unable to subdue the Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan, they are now attacking the Pashtun tribes of Pakistan. America does not need more enemies.

(Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist. His articles appear in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, Times of London, the Gulf Times, the Khaleej Times and other news sites in Asia.He is a regular contributor to The Huffington Post, Lew Rockwell and Big Eye. He appears as an expert on foreign affairs on CNN, BBC, France 2, France 24, Fox News, CTV and CBC).

Resumption linked to action against troops

Karmran Yousaf

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan military has asked for ‘disciplinary action’ against the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) troops who unlawfully intruded into its territory. It has linked the resumption of Nato supplies with ‘concrete action’ by allied forces to ensure that such incursions do not happen again, The Express Tribune has learnt.

Pakistan’s demand appears to be a last-minute hiccup to an agreement.

The demand appears to be a last-minute hiccup to delay an agreement between the two sides on the findings of the joint investigation into last week’s incident. Nato airstrikes on a security check post in Kurram Agency killed three Pakistani soldiers last Thursday.

Supplies to Nato troops remained suspended on Tuesday for a sixth consecutive day.

Strong condemnation and protest from Pakistan forced the US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan to agree on a joint investigation.

Pakistan and Nato were ready to make public the findings of a joint probe on Tuesday but differences between the two sides on certain issues prevented the agreement, a senior Pakistan military official told The Express Tribune.

“We have made our point very clear that disciplinary action must be initiated against Nato troops, who violated the rules of engagement,” said an official who requested not to be named.

He disclosed that a two-member Pakistan military team, which went to Afghanistan for the joint investigation, was given an assurance that Nato will not only offer a public apology but also take action against its troops if they are found guilty of violating the rules of engagement.

Nato secretary general and the top US commander in Afghanistan have already offered their regrets and condolences to the families of soldiers who were killed in the strikes.

However, Pakistan made it clear to Nato that it wanted action against the troops who ‘unlawfully’ intruded into its territory. “Our findings have proved that Nato’s airstrikes were in sheer violation of the Standard Operating Procedure,” said another military official.

Pentagon officials are hopeful that Nato supplies from Pakistan would resume soon and the US is in contact with Pakistan over the issue.

They also said that the joint investigation report is expected to be made public on Wednesday.

Meanwhile supply to Nato via Torkham border, remained suspended on the sixth consecutive day as containers supplying oil to Nato were not given permission to go to Afghanistan on Tuesday.

According to media reports, more than 200 containers’ supply to Nato via Pak-Afghan border remained frozen on the sixth day. The supply was suspended to protest an alliance helicopter attack that killed three border guards.

A high level Army team has been sent to Afghanistan to probe the violation of the air territory and to discuss the matter with Nato officials there. On the other hand, attacks on Nato oil tankers are on the rise as the days go by. The country termed the attacks a public reaction.

Meanwhile, an unannounced ban has been imposed on the movement of oil tankers and containers supplying oil to Afghanistan. According to BBC, the country has not yet announced the ban but high officials have said that the ban is in place due to security threats.

Officials of the All Pakistan Oil Tankers Owners Association (APOTOA) said that over 6,000 containers are parked in different areas of the country. Spokesman APOTOA Israrullah Shanwari said that the government had not provided protection to the parked oil tankers knowing that they have become an easy target for miscreants.

Meanwhile, a government official said that a small bomb damaged a truck that was parked near the border, carrying oil to Nato troops in Afghanistan. Tuesday’s bombing was the fourth attack on stalled Nato supply convoys since the country closed the main border crossing last week.

Wajid Khan, a local administrator in Khyber, said the bomb was planted underneath the tanker while it was parked alongside more than 100 other trucks waiting to cross into Afghanistan. Khan said that the oil started leaking out of the damaged tanker following the attack and authorities were moving the other trucks in case a fire started.

The Way Toward a Global ‘Reset’

By MIKHAIL GORBACHEV

In both Russia and the United States, the “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations, to which the leaders of both countries first declared their commitment more than 18 months ago, is now being assessed. Some, often for reasons of domestic politics, are trying to belittle any achievements. Others are wondering whether a new stage in the relationship has truly begun, or whether this is just another pendulum swing in a positive direction, to be followed inevitably by a swing backward.

In assessing where we are today, it is useful to look back at the history of our relations. Even more importantly, we must consider those relations in a broader context, as part of the changes in our globalized world.

In the early 1990s, Russian expectations for cooperation with the United States were so great, the mood was euphoric. Some of that euphoria was based on illusions and on an idealized view of America – a sense that was particularly widespread among the intelligentsia. Yet, those expectations also reflected a sound belief that our two nations could indeed achieve a great deal together, both in their own interests and for global benefit.

Euphoria soon gave way to disillusionment. Later in that decade, when the Russian economy was undermined by inept reforms and while millions of Russians were plunged into poverty, many Americans applauded Russia’s leaders. Many Russians could not help wondering if a weak, cornered Russia was what the United States wanted.

Also in the 1990s, NATO was expanded while the United States proclaimed its victory in the Cold War and its intention to maintain military superiority.

What, then, was the value of the pledge President Ronald Reagan made at the Geneva summit meeting in 1985, when he joined me in solemnly stating that our two nations would not seek military superiority? And how could a relationship of trust be built on the foundation set in the 1990s?

The period when the United States could regard itself as the sole remaining superpower and even a “hyperpower,” capable of creating a new kind of empire, turned out to be relatively short. The global financial crisis – which, this time, started in America itself rather than on the world’s periphery – spurred the process of global realignment in favor of new centers of power and influence. America has had to adjust to this shift, and it has not been easy.

The proposal to “reset” relations with Russia reflected the acknowledgement that previous policy had failed. It also recognized the great potential of a partnership between the two nations. Nevertheless, objections arose from the very start. Naysayers stressed that our nations were too different to be able to build a sustainable, “organic” relationship for the long term. Moreover, in both Russia and the United States it became clear that some people still believe that our countries are potential adversaries.

Neither Russia nor the United States can afford another confrontation. Though quite different, both nations are going through a transition. They are trying to build new, often unpredictable relationships with emerging powers. The European Union, too, faces this challenge – a challenge made even more difficult by problems arising from a hasty E.U. enlargement and monetary integration.

The intercontinental area from Vancouver to Vladivostok confronts many similar problems, and many shared interests are emerging. Powerful forces of mutual attraction must emerge as well. The U.S.-Russia “reset” and the declared E.U.-Russia “partnership for modernization” should mark the beginning of the road toward a new intercontinental community. Only by working together can the United States, Europe and Russia secure a position of leadership and influence in a rapidly changing global world.

Am I calling for an association of “the North” as a counterweight to “the South,” the Islamic world or perhaps China? Far from it.

Such a plan would be a recipe for a real rather than a hypothetical conflict of civilizations – something that in today’s world is totally unacceptable. In relations with other countries, we must always seek cooperation, joint problem-solving and ways to overcome difficulties – both those that have already arisen and those that are bound to arise.

The Islamic world is grappling with the challenge of adapting to the modern era while trying to protect its cultural identity and unique civilization. As part of this painful process, extremist tendencies within political Islam are opposed by moderate tendencies and regimes that are not averse to modernization and are ready for dialogue. A community of shared civilization, with common cultural roots and diverse experience interacting with the Islamic world, must be a party to such a dialogue.

Such a community could play an equally important role in a dialogue with China.

China’s political importance will undoubtedly increase with its population and economic power. This will be a serious test, for the international community as well as China, especially since the historic evolution of any nation is not always linear. There are forks in the road, when difficult decisions must be made. China, sooner or later, will face a political choice – the problem of democracy. Engagement and cooperation with a great nation that has become not just the “factory to the world” but also a giant economic and political “laboratory” will be another key task for the intercontinental community I am advocating.

How this community will emerge and what its final shape will be is still unclear. What is clear is that we must start by building a durable security architecture, first and foremost in Europe, with the United States and Russia as partners. Recent U.S. policy statements suggest that at last even American leaders recognize that security cannot be achieved unilaterally; it requires partnership.

The proposal by Russia’s president, Dmitri Medvedev, to conclude a pan-European security treaty applies to the same area, extending from North America to Europe and all of Russia.

I am convinced that in the future an intercontinental association of nations with a common destiny will emerge.

Big goals may seem overly ambitious or abstract, particularly at a time when Russia and the United States cannot agree on the issue of imported poultry despite their public commitment to a new relationship, and the European Union still denies Russian citizens visa-free travel.

Yet I am convinced that my proposal is not a pipe dream. The scale of global change is so vast, and the potential contribution of nations across the intercontinental space of Russia, Europe and North America is so enormous, that their close association should be seen as imperative. We must move from “reset” and partnership toward a reconfiguration of global political relations.

Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader of the Soviet Union from 1985 until its dissolution in 1991. He is a founding member of Green Cross International and is on its board.

7 US troops, politician killed in Afghan unrest

KABUL (AFP) - Seven US soldiers and an election candidate have been killed in a wave of weekend attacks in Afghanistan, officials said Sunday, as President Hamid Karzai called for a rethink of Washington’s war strategy.

Two soldiers were killed Sunday in separate attacks, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said.

Five troops were killed in other militant violence in the south and east of the country, the areas hardest hit by the Taliban-led insurgency now reaching the end of its ninth and most deadly year.

A US military spokesman said all seven soldiers were US nationals.

Karzai told the visiting Norbert Lammert, president of the German parliament, that the counter-insurgency strategy must be rethought, according to a statement from Karzai’s office.

“Speaking about Afghanistan and regional security (Karzai) said that the strategy of the war on terrorism must be reassessed,” the statement said.

“The experience over the past years showed that fighting (Taliban) in Afghan villages has been ineffective and is not achieving anything but killing civilians.”

International troops have suffered escalating casualties as they step up the fight against a Taliban insurgency which has become increasingly deadly since the militants were ousted from power in a US-led invasion in late 2001.

The number of foreign soldiers killed in the war so far this year has now reached 472, compared with 521 who died during all of 2009, according to an AFP tally based on a count by the independent www.icasualties.org website.

Civilian casualties have also risen, but insurgents were responsible for over three quarters of the 1,271 deaths and 1,997 people wounded in the first six months of this year, according to a UN report this month.

About 141,000 US and NATO troops are deployed in Afghanistan to fight the insurgency and protect Karzai’s US-backed government.

The country is due to hold its second post-Taliban parliamentary elections on September 18 amid fears that insurgent attacks might disrupt the vote.

Candidate Abdul Manan, running for a seat in the western province of Herat, was shot dead Saturday in an attack blamed on the militants.

The Taliban are accused of being responsible for the deaths of two other candidates since the launch of the election campaign in early July.

Police Sunday also found the bodies of five members of the campaign team of female candidate Fawzya Galani, days after 10 of them were abducted.

The Taliban had claimed responsibility for the kidnapping in Herat province on Wednesday.

“We have found five of the abducted members of Ms. Galani’s campaign team. They were dumped on the side of a mountain,” said Nisar Ahmad Popal, the chief of Adrskan district, where the bodies were found.

“We don’t know where the other five are,” he said.

Police in the northern province of Faryab meanwhile said four women working for a local group treating drug addicts were snatched by gunmen on Saturday. Provincial police chief Khalilullah Andarabi blamed the abduction on “armed opposition groups”, a term used for the Taliban and other militants.

ISAF said eight civilians were also killed in a wave of attacks on Saturday including a suicide bombing.

NATO troops backed by Afghan security forces killed up to 15 insurgents in a battle in the eastern province of Paktia late on Saturday, ISAF said.

Separately, police on Sunday shot dead two suicide bombers as they headed towards the office of the governor of Farah province in the southwest.

The violence follows an attempt by a Taliban suicide bomber squad on Saturday to storm two US-run military bases in the eastern province of Khost. The US-led military said 30 rebels, 13 of them wearing suicide vests, staged the failed attacks on the bases, in which all were killed during gunbattles.

Violence has picked up in recent months as the Taliban insurgency has gathered pace in the face of a troop “surge” by international forces.

US lawmakers want American troops out of Pakistan

WASHINGTON – Two US lawmakers — a Republican and a Democrat — proposed a bill this week demanding the withdrawal of all US troops in Pakistan, where they are conducting covert operations against militants.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich

“We have known that US forces have been operating in secret inside the territories of Pakistan without congressional approval,” Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich said Friday, pointing to reports the United States was stepping up its presence there.

He said the House of Representatives was expected to take up the resolution next week. The measure was introduced late Thursday.

Kucinich said the covert operations were a “violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution introduced after the Vietnam War that only allows the president to send US armed forces into military operations abroad if Congress approves the decision or if the United States is under a serious threat or attack.”

“It is our constitutional responsibility as members of Congress to act,” Kucinich added.

Washington is working to deepen engagement with the nuclear power across the border from war-wracked Afghanistan and overcome rife anti-Americanism after years of perceived neglect of bilateral relations.

Joining Kucinich on the bill was Ron Paul, a Texas Republican who espoused libertarian views during his failed 2008 bid for the presidency.

Paul said the US military has “significantly increased” its operations in Pakistan, without providing figures.

He also noted the increased use of unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan since President Barack Obama came to office a year and a half ago.

“This increasing US military activity in Pakistan has little to do with protecting the United States and in fact is creating more enemies than it is defeating,” Paul said.

“The administration, like its predecessor, is misusing language in the original post-9/11 resolution to prosecute a wider regional war and Congress is sitting quietly on the sidelines. This must stop.”

The Pentagon says only a small number of US soldiers operate in Pakistan, mostly Special Forces tasked with training Pakistani troops along the Afghan border. Those US forces are not officially engaged in combat operations.

Kucinich previously tabled a resolution demanding that all US troops withdraw from Afghanistan, but it was rejected in March.

Washington has branded the rugged tribal area along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border a global headquarters for Al-Qaeda and other militants, who use it as a base to launch attacks on US-led forces in Afghanistan.

But the presence of US troops is a sensitive issue in Pakistan due to prevailing anti-American sentiment in the country, as well as conspiracy theories about US military operations and a perception that they threaten Pakistani sovereignty

Afghan Aid on Hold as Corruption Is Probed

By PETER SPIEGEL in Washington and MATTHEW ROSENBERG in Kabul

The chairwoman of the House subcommittee responsible for foreign aid said she was stripping from pending legislation $3.9 billion in funding for Afghanistan following revelations that billions of dollars, including large amounts of U.S. aid funds, were flowing out of the country through Kabul’s main airport.

American soldiers near Kandahar carry a wounded comrade to a helicopter for evacuation on Monday. Combat operations have begun to escalate.

Rep. Nita Lowey (D., N.Y.) called the revelations “outrageous,” and Capitol Hill aides said she had the backing of Rep. David Obey (D., Wis.), the chairman of the full House Appropriations Committee.

“I do not intend to appropriate one more dime for assistance to Afghanistan until I have confidence that U.S. taxpayer money is not being abused to line the pockets of corrupt Afghan government officials, drug lords, and terrorists,” Ms. Lowey said.

At least $3.18 billion in cash has been flown out of Afghanistan since 2007 after being legally declared to customs officers, according to documents reported Monday in The Wall Street Journal.

U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Monday that the Afghan government has gradually improved its ability to monitor the flow of money in and out of the country, and that officials planned to explain to Ms. Lowey’s committee the improvements made by both Kabul and the U.S. to better account for aid money.

U.S. officials say they believe at least some of the cash is siphoned from Western aid projects and U.S., European and North Atlantic Treaty Organization contracts to provide security, supplies and reconstruction work for coalition forces in Afghanistan. NATO spent $14 billion in Afghanistan last year.

Profits reaped from the opium trade are also a part of the money flow, as is cash earned by the Taliban from drugs and extortion, officials say. Almost all the money is sent to Dubai, where wealthy Afghans have long parked their lawfully and unlawfully earned money.

Mr. Crowley said while some of the money leaving through the Kabul airport was likely from Afghanistan’s illicit drug trade, the State Department believed most was the product of Afghanistan’s growing economy and the need to move funds to a country with a better-functioning banking system, such as Dubai.

“I don’t think we have any evidence at this point that the money flowing out of Afghanistan is U.S. money,” Mr. Crowley said. “We think for the most part it’s the result of legitimate commerce.”

He added: “No one’s saying there’s not work to do, no one’s saying there isn’t some flow of illicit money leaving Afghanistan, but we think Afghanistan has made significant progress over the last several months.”

In Kabul, the Afghan government said its top anticorruption watchdog will launch an investigation into the allegations. The Journal’s article was discussed at an Afghan cabinet meeting Monday, and Afghanistan’s High Office of Oversight and Anti-Corruption plans to open an inquiry into who is carrying the money, where it comes from and why it is being shipped out of the country, said Waheed Omar, a spokesman for President Hamid Karzai.

A U.S. official familiar with the money flows said it was good the Afghan government was finally discussing the matter publicly, but that there was little reason to believe the investigation would yield major revelations, because those believed to be sending out money include relatives of Mr. Karzai, senior officials in his administration and large Afghan companies with ties to the presidential palace.

Ms. Lowey’s move, however, has the potential to be more problematic for the Obama administration, which is already facing significant questions about its Afghan strategy-particularly on issues of Afghan government corruption-from Democrats on Capitol Hill.

The House subcommittee is scheduled to debate the funding bill, which includes appropriations for the entire State Department and U.S. diplomatic operations, on Wednesday. Matt Dennis, a spokesman for Ms. Lowey, said the bill introduced for debate will now contain only humanitarian aid, which totals less than $100 million.

Ms. Lowey also said she would hold oversight hearings into the revelations after next week’s July 4 recess.

Of the approximately $4 billion the administration requested in Afghan aid, the vast majority, or about $3.3 billion, was in economic aid. The rest of the money that will be stripped from the bill was largely funding for drug interdiction and military exchange programs, Mr. Dennis said.

The Senate subcommittee responsible for foreign aid has yet to schedule a date for its deliberations, and the money could be put back in when the Senate and House bills are reconciled.

But the removal marks the latest in a series of moves on Capitol Hill, including increasingly vocal criticism of the war effort, that have begun to signal weakening political support for the conflict.

Afghan and U.S. officials say the sums legally leaving through Kabul’s airport could amount to about $3.65 billion a year, more than a quarter of Afghanistan’s $13.5 billion gross domestic product.

The money is being shipped through private money-transfer networks known as “hawalas,” which have been used for centuries across the Muslim world as a fast, cheap and legitimate way to transfer funds.

The murkiness of the money’s origins prompted U.S. officials to begin investigating the cash flow. A special U.S.-trained Afghan anticorruption unit under the Interior Ministry has also been investigating.

Separately, the Afghan parliament Monday confirmed Gen. Bismullah Khan, the former army chief of staff, as the country’s new interior minister overseeing law enforcement and police. The previous minister, Hanif Atmar, was fired this month by President Karzai amid disagreements over the country’s security policies.Four other ministers were approved, but two of Mr. Karzai’s nominees were rejected. They include the transport minister-designate, Daud Ali Najafi, who oversaw Afghanistan’s election commission during last year’s flawed presidential election.

Altogether, seven ministerial posts remain vacant. They have been open since parliament rejected most of President Karzai’s Cabinet picks in the wake of last year’s election.

Also still open is the top job at the country’s intelligence agency. Its previous occupant, Amrullah Saleh, was fired at the same time as Mr. Atmar.

-Maria Abi-Habib in Kabul
contributed to this article.

Write to Peter Spiegel at peter.spiegel@wsj.com and Matthew Rosenberg atmatthew.rosenberg@wsj.com

US enlists ex-warlord’s men for Afghan police force

By Claire Truscott (AFP)

RAWHANAY, Afghanistan – Drawing on a cigarette held between his tattooed fingers, Mohammed Daoud is thanked by an American junior officer for dispatching 5,000 Afghan militiamen to join the police force.

Sherzai, a burly Pashtun and ex-mujahideen, was governor of Kandahar from 2001 to 2003

“This would make me very happy to stand side by side with my friends,” US Lieutenant Jared Hollows tells the 35-year-old commander and loyalist of former warlord Gul Agha Sherzai in a village in Kandahar.

US troops fighting to control the southern province have cut a deal to bring Sherzai’s militia into the police, providing salaries and uniforms in return for help quelling Taliban unrest.

NATO commanders hope such deals can help reverse the tide of the nine-year Afghan war in the crucial months ahead under a strict timetable, as US President Barack Obama is keen to start getting troops out next year.

“We’re building an Afghan solution that puts the legitimate power where it belongs — in the government and in the security apparatus,” said US Lieutenant Colonel John Paginini, commander of the 1st squadron, 71st cavalry regiment.

“There is no distinction between them and any other policemen from any other tribe or any other family.”

But alliances with men like Sherzai — former warlords suspected of pursuing personal profit — are not universally welcomed.

At least 30 US and NATO soldiers died in Afghanistan last week. Record casualty numbers and tough fighting across the south have raised questions about the course of the war, with commanders under intense pressure to show progress.

“The time wasn’t right before, but it is now,” Daoud assured the Americans in Dand district just south of Kandahar city, the crude tattoos on his fingers apparently self-inked while behind bars during the 1980s Soviet-backed regime.

“They want to serve the district, the province, their country,” he added, without elaborating further on the decision to push his men into the police.

The case highlights the complexities behind many of the relationships that US field commanders try to forge with strongmen who can have competing interests in Afghanistan’s fractured, tribal society.

US General Stanley McChrystal, commander of the 142,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, has already warned that the Kandahar campaign will be slower than expected because Afghan forces are in short supply and the local population wary.

Named as a future president by his die-hard supporters, Sherzai, a burly Pashtun and ex-mujahideen, was governor of Kandahar from 2001 to 2003 before being relocated to run Nangarhar province on the Pakistani border.

Sherzai counts himself as a Karzai ally, but is reputed to be an arch rival of the president’s brother and Kandahar provincial council chief, Ahmed Wali Karzai, who is saddled with Western accusations of corruption and drug smuggling.

The governor of Dand, 32-year-old Hamadullah Nazick, who is close to both Sherzai and Wali Karzai, said any public harmony between the pair is fragile, with NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) acting as a sticking plaster.

“I don’t think Sherzai and Ahmed Wali Karzai will continue to get along after ISAF forces leave,” he tells AFP.

In Daoud’s home village of Rawhanay, new policemen proudly told AFP that Sherzai was their boss. The former warlord ran for the presidency against Karzai in 2009, withdrawing only days before the fraud-tainted election.

After bidding farewell to the Americans from his white-painted mud hut, Daoud pointed to the walls plastered with pictures of Sherzai.

“Everyone around here would like Gul Agha Sherzai to be the next president,” he told AFP.

But Carl Forsberg, an Afghanistan expert at the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW), said Sherzai’s militia is likely to continue to answer to him while wearing Afghan police uniform.

“We should be very cautious about any offer Sherzai makes to integrate his militias into the ANP (Afghan national police) because he will plan to ensure they stay under his influence,” he said.

“Sherzai has given clear signals that he would like to reassert himself in Kandahar politics (and) has always understood the importance of having ISAF support.”

US to commit Suicide in FATA of Pakistan (1)

By Dr Shahid Qureshi
Thursday 03 June 2010

Those who are advising US to invade FATA in Pakistan must be hanged for putting lives of US soldiers at risk or in some mental institution for ‘suicidal ideation’ be they are backed Indians or Israelis. It is not online computer bingo, which one can enjoy with coffee? As far as reported computer simulation exercise by the US to invade FATA is concerned it always look cosy on the simulation like photos of Mount Everest will not give frostbites. US might have dollar-infected elements with Green Cards in the Pakistani establishment who will evaporate like ‘hot air’, and then what?

On 24th July 2008, at (IISS) International Institute of Strategic Studies in London I asked, Pakistani Foreign Minister HE Shah Mahmood Qureshi, “Foreign Minister your democratic government’s sole motto seems to be, ‘Visit USA before US visits you’ because you just came from the USA and Prime Minister Gilani is going to USA too. On the other hand, ‘If US want to (visit) invade Pakistan’s tribal areas (FATA) then “SO BE IT”.

Obama’s Drone Blitz

They Seek Them Here, They Bomb Them There ….

By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

They seek him here, they seek him there,
Those drones they seek him everywhere.
Bin Laden struck? – Or maybe missed?
That damned, elusive terrorist.

With apologies to Baroness Orczy’s The Scarlet Pimpernel, 1903

Let us imagine that Spain invaded Mexico in similar fashion to the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 because Madrid suffered a terrorist atrocity that was planned by a Saudi Arabian fanatic living in Chihuahua.

Spanish troops poured into the country, and Spanish generals and mercenaries were to all intents running the place although generously subsidizing a corrupt national government whose president was in power through gross electoral fraud.

A militant resistance movement developed and a lucrative drug industry prospered mightily. There was much illegal movement of criminals and insurgents across the US-Mexico border.

US courts Karzai, vows not to abandon Afghans

Hillary Clinton says Washington’s civilian commitment will continue in the future

WASHINGTON: The US courted Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday, pledging not to abandon Afghanistan as the two sides opened high-level talks aimed at showing a united front in the nine-year war.

Death Squads in Afghanistan

A US-Sponsored Terror Network

By FRANCIS SHOR

It should no longer be a matter of dispute that US Special Forces in Afghanistan are responsible for an increasing number of murders, whether part of targeted extra-judicial killings or the result of bad intelligence. From the attack on a bridal shower in Gardez on February 12, 2010 that killed numerous civilians, including two pregnant women, to the growing list of executions of insurgents in the Kandahar area, Special Forces have become the US military version of death squads.

As noted in an April 25 article in The New York Times, the offensive against supposed Taliban forces in Kandahar has already commenced, with the “opening salvos of the offensive…being carried out in the shadows by Special Operations forces.” It’s as if Dick Cheney, who asserted that the US would have to operate in the shadows in prosecuting its global war on terror, is still the guiding political force behind such military operations, notwithstanding the fact that the Obama Administration has dispensed with references to the war on terror. Nonetheless, it is terror, promoted by Washington policymakers and perpetrated by Pentagon planners, that is spreading throughout Afghanistan.