|
|
July 10
* Situation in Afghanistan serious, minister says
* Seven British troops killed in past week
* There is no defined end in sight, patience needed
By Luke Baker
LONDON, July 8 (Reuters) - Britain's defence secretary, making his first speech since being promoted to head the ministry last month, said on Wednesday the war in Afghanistan was a serious struggle that needed patience.
"Let us be under no illusion," Bob Ainsworth, the third person to head the Ministry of Defence in the past nine months, told the Royal Institute for International Affairs.
"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, and it is not yet decided. The way forward is hard and dangerous. More lives will be lost and our resolve is going to be tested."
Seven British soldiers have died in the past week in southern Afghanistan, where British forces have launched a large-scale operation against the Taliban alongside U.S. troops.
In total, 176 British troops have died there since 2001, just three fewer than the number who died fighting in Iraq.
Most of those killed in the past month were hit by roadside bombs, with the Taliban using sophisticated technology and ever-larger amounts of explosives to detonate substantial IEDs under armoured British and American vehicles.
The techniques being deployed mirror those previously used by insurgents in Iraq, experts say, and present a serious challenge to the ability of U.S., British and other NATO troops to seize and hold terrain, and then move freely around it.
Britain, which first deployed to southern Afghanistan in 2006 and now has 9,000 troops there, has battled to bring stability to the region, only ever managing to secure small patches of territory around larger towns in Helmand province.
The United States has now sent around 10,000 Marines to the region to bolster the force as part of President Barack Obama's new "surge" strategy for Afghanistan ahead of presidential elections to be held in August.
HIGHLY ADAPTABLE ENEMY
Ainsworth, who visited Afghanistan last week, praised the resilience of the troops fighting in Helmand, but spoke about the challenges of the operation, and the difficulty of tackling the Taliban's use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).
"We are engaged in a war against a dangerous and highly adaptable foe whose tactics and capabilities evolve as quickly as ours," he said.
"We strive to provide our troops with the support they need but the nature of the fight means we will take more casualties before we succeed."
A criticism levelled at the government by ex-servicemen and defence experts is that it has failed to get sufficient numbers of heavy lift helicopters and better armoured vehicles into the war zone, leaving troops on the ground stretched and vulnerable.
Ainsworth said Britain's "borrowing" of U.S. helicopters to launch its latest offensive merely showed the cooperation between the allies, and said more armoured vehicles -- with better defences against IEDs -- would be delivered next year.
"This is a complex situation with problems that are inter-linked and sometimes deeply entrenched," he said, referring to Pakistan and the movement of Taliban across the border, as well as governance problems in Afghanistan.
Afghans, he said, would eventually take over the running of their own country and defend themselves, with 170,000 Afghan soldiers and police now in uniform. But it would take time.
"This is not going to happen tomorrow, nor in a few short weeks or months," he said. "If we are to succeed, we will need both the courage and the patience to see it through. There is no defined end date -- only an end state."
(Reporting by Luke Baker; Editing by Myra MacDonald)
ANNE GEARAN
WASHINGTON - A military strike to thwart Iran's nuclear weapons capability remains on the table but could have grave and unpredictable consequences, the top U.S. military officer said Tuesday.
"I worry a great deal about the response of a country that gets struck," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "It is a really important place to not go, if we can not go there in any way, shape or form."
Iran is perhaps one to three years away from getting the bomb, leaving a small and shrinking opening for diplomacy to avert what he said could be a dangerous nuclear arms race in the Middle East, Mullen said.
"I think the time window is closing."
Mullen said President Barack Obama's diplomatic outreach to Iran holds promise, despite political upheaval and deadly protests following Iran's disputed presidential election.
Obama told The Associated Press last week that persuading Iran to forgo nuclear weapons has been made more difficult by the Iranian government's handling of claims that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole re-election.
Mullen pointedly said "the strike option" _ is one possible outcome. He suggested that a strike, meaning missile or other attacks to blow up Iran's known nuclear facilities, is a last resort. It would be "very destabilizing," Mullen said.
Mullen was referring to Iran's response should it be attacked by either the United States or Israel, although he was careful to say that Israel can speak and choose for itself. His remarks made clear that the Obama administration wants to avoid a strike by either country.
Mullen, speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said it is critical to find a solution "before Iran gets a nuclear capability, or that anyone ... would take action to strike."
On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden had suggested that the new U.S. administration would not stand in the way of an Israeli strike. That is not the message U.S. officials have been trying to deliver in public and private, but spokesmen insisted Biden was not speaking out of turn.
The United States would join European nations, Russia and China in negotiations over Iran's disputed nuclear program, if Iran agreed to terms for beginning the talks. Obama has also said he would hold direct talks with Iran's leadership if it would help. leaders of Group of Eight countries have yet to forge a common position on Iran's violent crackdown on post-electoral protests, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Tuesday on the eve of the summit.
Berlusconi, who chairs the gathering of world leaders opening Wednesday, noted that some countries, such as France, were calling for tougher action against Tehran, while others, such as Russia, favored a softer stance to keep dialogue open.
Iran claims its fast-track nuclear development project is intended only for the peaceful production of electricity. Mullen, like other U.S. officials, said he is sure Iran intends to develop weapons and is working hard and fast to do so.
Trividesh Singh
As a peace-loving individual and follower of Baba Nanak's philosophy, all I can say is that supporting a cause related to Baba Nanak will only pave the way for peace in the sub-continent. Stopping a religious pilgrimage will not enhance national security on either side
The Mumbai attacks on November 26, 2008 proved a great setback to the Indo-Pak relationship, which seemed better than ever before. In the present scenario, a detente between the two nuclear powers does not seem on the anvil just yet.
It is interesting to note that the 'Kartarpur religious corridor', an issue related to the Sikh faith, is acting as a sort of bridge between both the nuclear states.
For those not familiar with the term, Kartarpur (now in Pakistan) is the place where the founder of the Sikh faith, Guru Nanak, spent the last 18 years of his life and had both Hindu and Muslim followers. Kartarpur, which falls in district Narowal, is home to the Sikh shrine Darbar Sahib, and this shrine is barely 3 kilometres from the Indian border. Before 1965, it is said that there was a bridge on the Ravi that Sikh pilgrims could cross over and visit Darbar Sahib. During the aggression of 1965, however, this bridge was destroyed; even otherwise the relationship between the two countries became more tense and visa regimes became stricter with the passage of time.
For a long time - nearly a decade - Sikhs, predominantly settled in Indian Punjab, have been demanding visa-free access to Darbar Sahib. Two individuals who have rallied hard for this cause are Kuldeep Singh Wadala, a well respected leader of Indian Punjab, and BS Goraya, who runs the website www.kartarpur.com and publishes the Punjab Monitor magazine which apprises people about progress made with regard to the Kartarpur Corridor.
Interestingly, the Pakistani side has been quite upbeat about this demand and the Minister for Religious Affairs and Minorities in the previous Musharraf government, Ijaz-ul Haq, announced that the Pakistani government would have no objection to Sikh pilgrims crossing over to the Pakistani side to pay obeisance without a visa, provided they return the same day. Even the present government has been quite encouraging in its response and has in fact started constructing a road that would make the pilgrimage smoother. This is a significant development, given that it has taken place in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks and when tension between both governments have been on the rise.
The Indian government has been promising that it will look into the issue but there has not been much progress. The earlier Indian External Affairs Minister and present Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee visited the Indian side of the border - Dera Baba Nanak - in June 2008, which is also home to a Sikh shrine and assured the Sikh community that the government is looking into various ways of going ahead with the visa-free pilgrimage from Dera Baba Nanak to Kartarpur. In the meanwhile, the Mumbai attacks happened and things slowed down even further.
In the last few days however, there has been movement on the Indian side and Sports Minister Dr MS Gill has been lobbying with the government in New Delhi to go ahead with the religious corridor.
Interestingly, a former US diplomat, Ambassador John McDonald, who runs an NGO called the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy, has also been lobbying for the cause ever since he visited the site last year in June, and has made the recommendation that this site be declared a peace zone. McDonald was shocked to see the barbed wire that separated Dera Baba Nanak from Kartarpur.
Both politicians and NGOs are in no mood to relent this time and are mounting pressure on their respective governments. It is important to note that Kuldeep Singh Wadala performed the 100th Ardaas (Sikh supplication) for this cause on Monday, June 22, 2009. Despite political tensions, Wadala shall also be visiting Kartarpur on September 22, 2009 (the day Guru Nanak passed away).
Already, politicians and peace activists from Pakistan have offered full cooperation to him. On November 7, 2009, Sikhs and Non-Sikhs from different parts of the world shall congregate for the 'Bridge of Harmony Event'. This event has been initiated by Sikhs based in the US, under the aegis of an organisation called 'Teri Sikhi'.
As a peace-loving individual and follower of Baba Nanak's philosophy, all I can say is that supporting a cause related to Baba Nanak will only pave the way for peace in the sub-continent. Stopping a religious pilgrimage will not enhance national security on either side; there are numerous other means of doing so. Sikhs, Non-Sikhs, Indians, Pakistanis and all peace loving individuals and lovers of humanity have an obligation to support and push for this noble cause.
The writer is an activist for the Kartarpur Corridor
Brian Cloughley
It is likely the tribes and sub-tribes of the Waziris and Mehsuds will continue their shaky alliance until it suits them to again indulge in inter-tribal mayhem, and in the meantime they will try to kill as many Pakistani soldiers as possible
A brilliant and distinguished former US ambassador, Charles W Freeman, gave a talk last month in Washington to a group of retired diplomats. His exposition was lucid, forceful and very much to the point. It was given in the context of intelligence which "provides the sensory apparatus of the state", but which in some circumstances "can fortify national denial and complacency, perpetuate blind spots [and] attribute our own hopes, fears and motivations to foreigners who do not share them."
Mr Freeman hit the spot with his observation about one of America's gravest imperfections: complacency and arrogant self-confidence. He identified what is probably the single most-disliked national characteristic when he spoke of foreigners objecting to the presumptuous conviction that if they are to be trusted or held in any regard it is essential that their attitudes be indistinguishable from those of Americans.
It is unfortunate that a major factor governing attitudes in the United States is profound lack of knowledge. As Mr Freeman observes, "Surveys show the average American to be supremely ignorant of the world beyond our shores. The 2,500 foreign correspondents fielded by the US press sixty years ago have dwindled to less than 200. Our media...show little if any commitment to journalistic fairness, balance, or depth...The TV news, which bears the same resemblance to news in print media as the funny papers do to serious reportage, long since became the primary source of information for the American public."
One does not, of course, expect US decision-makers to be "average Americans" who are "supremely ignorant" of world affairs because of reliance on rubbish purveyed by Fox News, but it seems that their rejection of common sense in international deliberations stems not from lack of knowledge, but selective acceptance of the information with which they are provided.
In the Obama administration, it may well be that this does not apply, and that decision-makers are not blinkered bigots who, in the Cheney-Rumsfeld tradition, first decide on a course of action and then manipulate intelligence to fit the aim. In the case of the disastrous war on Iraq, this was certainly the case - and not only in Washington, alas, because the egregious Tony Blair, the recent and unlamented prime minister of Britain, did exactly that when presented with evidence that in Washington "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
And one deeply worrying consequence of fixing intelligence to fit policy, as pointed out by Mr Freeman, is the US' "conflation of Al Qaeda with the Taliban". This was a dreadful blunder, and silly newspaper headlines and Fox News bites about "the Taliban/Al Qaeda" give the impression, whether on purpose or otherwise, that they are in some way a partnership, or even hierarchically linked.
While some Taliban leaders have indeed voiced support for Osama bin Laden, as might be expected on the basis that anyone who damages America is a friend of the moronic mullahs, this is far from indicating any nexus between them. But, as pointed out by Mr Freeman, the effects of US policy have been to spread anti-American terrorism further afield, and especially to Pakistan.
It may appear that Washington and Islamabad are singing from the same song sheet as regards terrorism, but the efforts of Pakistan to manoeuvre tribes into alliances aimed at neutralising such vermin as Baitullah Mehsud have often foundered on the rocks of US tactics.
One of Mehsud's many enemies was Maulvi Nazir of the Ahmedzai Wazirs who had killed a lot of Uzbek nasties in South Waziristan and was thus deemed to be helping Pakistan's security as well as ridding the world of 'guest militants' who crossed the border to attack international troops in Afghanistan. (His motives were not entirely devoid of self-interest, for various shady reasons, but that's neither here nor there in terms of realpolitik.)
He had an agreement, a non-aggression pact, to put it in plain terms, with the Pakistan Army, which was satisfied that it had at least one ally in the region, who would be badly needed when it eventually became practicable to launch a major military operation in South Waziristan (as distinct from the professionally commendable but necessarily limited action in 2007).
But the Americans wanted to keep on using their video game, the drone-fired missiles, to blitz FATA and kill everyone who they considered to be a "bad guy". This included targeting Maulvi Nazir, who decided that he could do without the attentions of drones and blamed Islamabad for letting the CIA have their little parties.
Nazir is no pussycat. He is almost as horrible as Mehsud, which is a pretty nasty thing to say about anyone, but his agreement not to actually join Mehsud was important. But when the missile attacks continued to be directed at him, Nazir decided he had had enough, and switched sides and joined a union with Mehsud, ostensibly against "the Americans".
He denies the alliance is against Pakistan, and claims that the three groups involved (including North Waziristan's Gul Bahadur, a worrying development) will not fight against the Pakistan Army; but who knows what will happen when the chips come down?
It is likely the tribes and sub-tribes of the Waziris and Mehsuds will continue their shaky alliance until it suits them to again indulge in inter-tribal mayhem, and in the meantime they will try to kill as many Pakistani soldiers as possible.
Mr Freeman's notes that "under military pressure from [America], the Pashtun tribes who straddle the border have for all practical purposes withdrawn the limited allegiance they had earlier granted to Kabul or Islamabad." And then he asks: "why do we not see it as in our interest to learn from foreign best practices in areas like this?"
Good question. And one that should be posed again when the Pakistan Army begins its ground operation in South Waziristan.
The writer can be found on the web at www.beecluff.com
Police say boy was already dead when they found him
SRINAGAR: Indian police fired in the air and lobbed teargas at mobs on Wednesday to disperse demonstrators protesting a student's death in Indian-held Kashmir's (IHK) main city, Reuters reported.
There were no immediate reports of any casualties among the protesters, AP reported. Angry residents burned tyres, threw stones, set a police vehicle on fire and forced businesses in Kashmir's summer capital, Srinagar, to close. The protesters accused police of killing 20-year-old Asrar Ahmed after his arrest.
Already dead: Police denied the charge and said the boy was already dead when they found him near a graveyard in Srinagar on Wednesday. They said the boy had gone missing last week. Ahmed's family identified him by the clothes on his body, his father Mushtaq Ahmed told AP. He gave no other details.
Senior Superintendent of Police Afadul Mujatada said Ahmed's body had multiple injuries on the head. He said police were investigating the calls registered on his mobile phone. Residents alleged that he had been taken into custody by security forces illegally. Mujatada denied the boy had been in police custody, adding that the body had been handed over to the family for the funeral. AP reported that thousands of people participated in the protests, which largely took place in the downtown areas of Maisuma and Lal Chowk. About 3,000 students also demonstrated inside a local university, clashing with police who fired teargas. Several smaller protests took place in other parts of the city. agencies
|
|
|
|
Tools 
