Afghan Journal

‘Obama’s Wars’ and clandestine operations

Bob Woodward’s new book “Obama’s Wars” is making waves for laying bare the policy divisions and the personality clashes within the administration over the U.S. President’s Afghan policy. The author, according to the excerpts published by the New York Times and the Washington Post ahead of the book’s release next week, exposes the colliding egos of senior political and military figures in even more stark detail than Rolling Stone‘s profile of General Stanley McChrystal that cost the U.S. commander his job.

But what may turn out to be even more explosive in the theatre where America’s longest war is being waged is the revelation that the CIA is running a 3,000-strong Afghan army to carry out clandestine operations in not just Afghanistan, but more importantly over the border in Pakistan. The idea that an Afghan army is fighting al Qaeda and Taliban militants inside Pakistan is not something that Islamabad can tolerate easily. Or at least the public disclosure of it.

Firing missiles from unmanned U.S. drone aircraft patrolling over Pakistan’s northwest region at a rate that has far outstripped the Bush administration’s record is bad enough ; to now have a brigade-size paramilitary unit operating inside the country marks a significant expansion of the covert war that the Obama administration has waged there.

The Washington Post says Woodward characterizes this previously undisclosed Counter Terrorism Pursuit Teams as “elite, well-trained units that conduct highly sensitive covert operations into Pakistan as part of a stepped-up campaign against al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban havens there.” The New York Times advancer of the book says the “covert army” captures and kills Taliban fighters and seeks support in tribal areas.

The CIA directs and funds the force.

U.S. officials didn’t just confirm the existence of the counter terrorism force, they bragged about it. “You’re talking about one of the finest Afghan fighting forces, which has made major contributions to security and stability,” CNN quoted an unnamed U.S official as saying in a report following the publication of the book excerpts.

from Pakistan: Now or Never?:

Rumours of “regime change” choke Pakistani airwaves

Few in Pakistan believe that the army is going to make a grab for power at this time, but it hasn't stopped speculation over the fate of the civilian government, widely seen to have to failed to mount an effective response to the nation's worst floods since its creation. 

The powerful military which is fighting a full-blown insurgency by Islamist militants linked to al Qaeda has raised its standing in the eyes of Pakistanis by spearheading relief efforts. It is unlikely to exploit the vulnerability of the weak civilian government led by President Asif Ali Zardari to itself get bogged down in Pakistan’s enormous problems by staging a coup. 

But rumours abound that the military, which ruled the country for better part of its 63 years as a nation, and has always exerted vital influence over state affairs such as security and foreign policy, is weighing its options to “save the nation”  through an indirect intervention, the weekly Friday Times wrote in its latest edition.

Some conspiracy theories suggest the present government could be toppled by causing dissentions in the ruling Pakistan People's Party and a new government made up of turncoats and smaller parties could be installed. Others say a new government comprising “technocrats” could be appointed by getting the present regime disqualified from the increasingly assertive Supreme Court on charges of ineptness and massive corruption.

Rumours of change in the government were set into motion last month after a coalition partner of Zardari and self-exiled head of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, Altaf Hussain, called on “patriotic generals” to take revolutionary steps against corrupt politicians.

Nawaz Sharif, former prime minister and main opposition leader, strongly opposed Hussain’s suggestion but recently said a “change” could be brought out through constitutional means if the present government did not rectify its wrongdoings.

from Russell Boyce:

Asia – A Week in Pictures, September 19, 2010

This week has seen a dramatic increase in violence and tension throughout much of the Asia region, and  the pictures on the wire reflect this mood. It seems that actions by not only nations, armed groups but individuals have all had a dramatic impact on the mood of the region. The weight of the news feels almost claustrophobic as I try to keep on top of what is happening.

U.S. Army soldiers from Delta Company, a part of Task Force 1-66 carry a wounded 7-year-old Afghan boy, a victim of a road side explosion, at their base near the village of Gul Kalacheh, Arghandab River valley, Kandahar province, September 18, 2010.  REUTERS/Oleg Popov

On the surface of it the parliament elections can only be good news for the people of Afghanistan, but 16 hours spent live blogging pictures with our team of 18 journalists, watching the minute by minute developments made me wonder about  the timing of this election as different groups tried to impose their influence on the outcome through violence and fraud.  Attacks by the Taliban killed 14 who were directly involved in the polling process. A radio commentator I was listening to assured his listeners that this death toll was part of normal daily life in Afghanistan and should not be seen to reflect election violence, I was not cheered by this. Oleg's picture above seems to bear this out; does it really matter what the motivation was behind the blast as the boy writhes in agony, his blood stained hands trembling and clawing at his bandaged head. If the election had not gone ahead would he still have been injured?  Even Masood's picture below of the election worker and the donkey struggling through the mountains seem to reflect the uphill battle the whole country has to face. Ink being washed off fingers so voters could vote and vote again; fraudulent voting cards printed and who knows what amount of ballot box stuffing will take place  before the final count is revealed late October; all of which seem to undermine the democratic process. Who wants to be ruled by leaders who have gained power through corruption - notably the only political point the Taliban make.

An Afghan man and a donkey transport ballot boxes to villages unreachable by vehicles in Panjshir province, north of Kabul September 17, 2010. Afghanistan will hold parliamentary elections on September 18. REUTERS/Ahmad Masood

Are some Afghan “ex-warlords” hypocrites or democrats?

Many in the West think they can bash or label the Taliban movement as “extremists”, “fundamentalist”, “Islamists” and “terrorists”.

They may disagree if an Afghan argues that whatever you say, at least the Taliban were not hypocrites, changing their public ideologies like some of the former warlords who sided with Washington in overthrowing the Taliban government nine years ago.

These ex-commanders and leaders fought wars against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, later some among themselves for power and eventually against the Taliban with tens of millions of dollars provided by the United States and others.

After the fall of the Taliban, Western diplomats would say “Better to have these warlords inside the tent than outside.”

These figures seem to have stayed in the tent for long and now dominate Afghanistan’s government, politics and economy. With the Taliban making a comeback in recent years, the West may not want to alienate these leaders and push them out of the tent. 

 Some have shifted their appearances or allegiances to appease whomever is exerting the most influence in Afghanistan at any moment.

And many ordinary Afghans would argue that they are not, in fact, former warlords.

Afghanistan’s parliament election – Live

How many al Qaeda can you live with ?

A furious debate has raged for several months now whether it makes sense for the United States to throw tens of thousands of  soldiers at a handful of al Qaeda that remain in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theatre, nine years after launching the global war on terrorism.

CIA director Leon Panetta  told ABC News in June thatal-Qaeda’s presencein Afghanistan was now “relatively small … I think at most, we’re looking at maybe 50 to 100.” And in nextdoor Pakistan, arguably the more  dangerous long-term threat, there were about 300  al Qaeda leaders and fighters, officials separately estimated.

Given that U.S. President Barack Obama has repeatedly said the central mission of the United States in Afghanistan was to “disrupt, defeat and dismantle ” al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan,  is this now a turning point in the war against the group ? Surely it doesn’t make too must sense to deploy 150,000 troops in Afghanistan, now that the al Qaeda has been whittled down to less than a 100 there, argue several experts.

Fareed Zakaria wrote in the Washington Post this week that with ”al Qaeda central” down to 400 fighters worldwide, the group has been unable to execute the kind of high profile attacks that were at the core of its strategy, targeting symbols of U.S.military and politicalpower.  Instead, smaller local groups, self-identified as affiliates of al-Qaeda have launched attacks against much easier sites — the nightclub in Bali; cafes in Casablanca and Istanbul; hotels in Amman, Jordan; train stations in Madrid and London. The biggest casualties in these attacks have been ordinary people, not U.S. diplomats or soldiers, and which has further turned away the local population from Islamist radicals.  Instead of inspiring unstoppable waves of jihadis as some had feared, militant Islam’s appeal has plunged across the Muslim world including in Pakistan where political parties associated with Islamic jihad have performed poorly, he says.

So the legitimate question now is: Have we gone too far? Is the vast expansion in governmental powers and bureaucracies — layered on top of the already enormous military-industrial complex of the Cold War — warranted? Does an organization that has as few as 400 members and waning global appeal require the permanent institutional response we have created?

 

But Bruce Hoffman,  professor at Georgetown University and the director of the Center for Peace and Security Studies,  says its far too early to declare victory against al Qaeda. Terrorism, he says in a piece for The National Interest , is not  a numbers game. It took only 19 men to change the course of history on September 11, 2001. It took only four bombers to shatter Britain’s security on July 7, 2005 in London. Further back, it was a lone gunman who assassinated the heir to the Hapsburg throne in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914 and thus set in motion the chain of events that led to World War

Indeed small groups of individuals can often have a disproportionate impact on the countries that are their targets. The  Red Army Faction (RAF or “Baader-Meinhof Gang”) active in West Germany from 1970 to 1998 never numbered more than two dozen or so hard-core terrorists. Yet, they were successful in imposing a reign of terror on that country despite the exertions of its sophisticated police and intelligence and security services for more than a quarter century.

Size, and lipstick, matter in Afghan election

By Sayed Salahuddin   

It seems size does matter when it comes to Afghanistan’s parliamentary election.

And if that is true, then Malalai Ishaqzai stands a very good chance of winning a seat in Saturday’s election.

One imposing billboard of Ishaqzai sits on a rooftop in the centre of Kabul, almost as high as a three-storey building.

A current lawmaker and one of almost 2,500 candidates running for 249 seats in the wolesi jirga, or lower house of parliament, Ishaqzai is proud of her massive billboards.

“The reason is because I have done big works, like building factories for widows, orphans and the disabled,” she told Reuters.

from Russell Boyce:

Asia – A Week in Pictures September 12, 2010

As the anniversary of the 9/11 attack coincided with Eid celebrations, Florida based Pastor Terry Jones announced that he would burn the Koran as a protest  to plans to site a Muslim cultural centre near Ground Zero , stoking tensions in Asia.  Add into the mix millions in Pakistan suffering from lack of water, food and shelter after floods, a parliament election in   Afghanistan and a U. S. -led  military campaign against the Taliban around Kandahar -  photographers in the region had lots of raw material to work with.

Raheb's picture of relief and joy caught in the harsh light of a direct flash seems to explode in a release of tension as news spreads that Pastor Jones had cancelled his plans to burn the Koran. It has to be said that ironically earlier in the day in Pakistan US flags were burned in protest against the planned protest.

 Afghan protestors shout anti U.S slogans as they celebrate after learning that U.S. pastor Terry Jones dropped his plans to burn copies of the Koran, in Herat, western Afghanistan September 12, 2010. REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi

Also in Afghanistan Raheb's haunting image of the defaced election poster of an Afghan woman parliamentary candidate and the ghostly image of a US soldier shrouded in a haze of dust by Erik, who is on an embed with US forces, both caught my eye.

A damaged campaign poster for an Afghan woman parliament candidate is seen on a wall in Herat, western Afghanistan September 8, 2010. Taliban threats, shuttered polling centres and warnings of widespread fraud are clouding hopes for Afghanistan's Sept. 18 parliamentary election, a key test of an already fragile democracy, observers have warned. REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi

While Pakistan deals with floods, U.S. turns up the heat in northwest

While Pakistan’s devastating floods may have set back the army’s campaign against militants, the US drone war in the northwest is unabated. Indeed America may have just stepped up the deadly attacks, if the first 12 days of this month are any indication. At least nine attacks have already been carried out in what may well turn out to the most active month since the U.S. military began drone strikes against members of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan in 2004. On Sunday there was a fresh air strike in North Waziristan in which five suspected militants were killed, intelligence officials said.

The most active month recorded so far was January 2010, with the US launching 11 strikes in Pakistan in the aftermath of the suicide attack on a US combat outpost in Khost, Afghanistan, that killed seven CIA officials and a Jordanian intelligence officer, according to the Long War Journal which tracks the drone campaign.

 Is there a pattern to this ? Is America stepping into the breach caused by the floods which have forced Pakistan’s attention away from the battle against extremists ? And there seems to be a particular target. Five of the last eight strikes have taken place in the Datta Khel area of North Waziristan including Sunday’s attack. The area is a hub of the Taliban, Haqqani Network, and al Qaeda activity. Hafiz Gul Bahadar, the Taliban commander for North Waziristan, administers the region which is also home to some central Asian jihadi groups. The most successful strike was in May when a missile struck Mustafa Abu Yazid, who was al Qaeda’s top leader in Afghanistan and its chief financial officer.

 To be sure the drone war had escalated even before the floods struck. Already this year the U.S. has carried out 63 attacks inside Pakistan, more than last year’s total of 53. Most of these attacks have taken place in North Waziristan where the U.S. has been urging Pakistan to launch a ground offensive against the militants. That hasn’t happened yet in part because the Pakistan miltary said it wanted to consolidate the gains made in South Waziristan following the offensive there. It also said it didn’t have the resources immediately to launch a large-scale assault. Now with the army involved in the desperate struggle to bring the country back on its feet following the floods, that offensive seems even more distant. Even in military terms, if a ground offensive has to be launched, some of the infrastructure such as roads and bridges washed away in the floods needs to be rebuilt first.

 The U.S. air war, though, suffers from no such limitations.

Ahmad Shah Masood’s brother wants probe into “Lion” killing

By Sayed Salahuddin

With attention focusing on Saturday’s anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, a brother of Afghanistan’s revered anti-Taliban resistance fighter Ahmad Shah Masood has called for an investigation into his assassination.The slaying of “the Lion of the Panjshir” on Sept. 9, 2001, was the signal for the hijacked airliner attacks on the United States two days later that stunned the world, brought about the fall of the Taliban and drew the United States into an Afghan quagmire it is still struggling to get out of nine years later.

There is scepticism among his fans that al Qaeda was the only culprit, with some even saying Washington also had a hand in it to facilitate Afghanistan’s occupation. “Some people are saying al Qaeda, Taliban, Pakistan, this country, that country (played a role in slaying Masood),” said his brother, Ahmad Wali Masood.

 ”There are other countries which are being named, but at the end of the day we know of course that an international plot was there,” Wali Masood told Reuters in an interview on the sidelines of a memorial ceremony held in Kabul on Wednesday.

 Wali Masood, a long-serving former Afghan ambassador to Britain, said Scotland Yard had concluded after a year of investigation that 21 groups and various countries were involved in Masood’s assassination.

 He said President Hamid Karzai who has been Afghanistan’s leader since the Taliban’s ouster, needed to reopen the file on his brother’s killing by a bomb planted in a television camera to determine who those groups and countries were.

“There is a need for properly conducting (an investigation) to really go to the bottom of it … there are millions of people in this country who are asking us ‘why there is no information?’,” he said.