WASHINGTON, July 22 (Reuters) – Britain’s former Justice Secretary Jack Straw has been invited to testify next week at a U.S. congressional hearing on the release of the Libyan man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie airline bombing, a Senate source said on Thursday.

Two Scottish officials have declined to appear before the the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is examining the circumstances surrounding Scotland’s decision last year to release Libyan intelligence officer Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, convicted of bombing a U.S. airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The committee has not heard whether Straw, who has also served as British foreign secretary, will testify after being invited to appear at a July 29 public hearing, according to the Senate source, who asked not to be identified.

Megrahi was freed by Scottish authorities last year. His release triggered an international outcry that has complicated U.S.-British relations already frayed by the BP Plc (BP.L: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) (BP.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Senate committee is looking into whether British energy giant BP influenced the bomber’s release. The committee has invited testimony from two BP witnesses, Chief Executive Tony Hayward and advisor Mark Allen. BP has not said whether they will attend.

Straw said last year that trade with Libya played a “very big part” in Britain’s decision to include the Lockerbie bomber in a prisoner transfer deal between the two countries, and noted that a BP oil contract with Libya followed that agreement.

PROSTATE CANCER

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. Senate panel is inviting BP Plc chief executive Tony Hayward to testify next week at a hearing on the release of the Lockerbie bomber, a Senate source told Reuters on Wednesday.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee also is requesting testimony from Mark Allen, who has served as an advisor to BP, said the source, who asked not to be named.

Senators want to learn whether the British oil giant influenced Scottish authorities’ decision last year to release the Libyan man convicted of the 1988 bombing.

The invitations were going out on Wednesday evening, the source told Reuters.

BP confirmed recently it had encouraged the British government to complete a prisoner-transfer deal with Libya in 2007 because it was concerned a slow resolution would impact an offshore drilling deal with Libya.

But it denied it had lobbied for Scottish authorities to release Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, who had been convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The bombing killed 270 people, including 189 Americans.

Questions about the Lockerbie bomber’s release have complicated relations between close allies Britain and the United States.

By Susan Cornwell

(Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama’s request for more money to pay for the war in Afghanistan is working its way through Congress slowly as lawmakers concentrate on other priorities and deal with scarce budget resources.

Obama has asked for $33 billion more to help fund 30,000 extra U.S. soldiers being sent to Afghanistan this year. He wants $4.5 billion more for beefed-up foreign aid and civilian operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year; about $2 billion of that amount is dedicated to Afghanistan.

The House of Representatives approved the funding last month and added billions of dollars in non-military spending, meaning the measure must return to the Senate for final approval.

Lawmakers are expected to pass the funds, but are also demanding assurances that the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai tackles corruption to ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are not wasted.

Following are the costs to U.S. taxpayers so far, as well as some of the future funding needed.

COSTS SO FAR

July 16 (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama’s request for more money to pay for the war in Afghanistan is working its way through Congress slowly as lawmakers concentrate on other priorities and deal with scarce budget resources.

Obama has asked for $33 billion more to help fund 30,000 extra U.S. soldiers being sent to Afghanistan this year. He wants $4.5 billion more for beefed-up foreign aid and civilian operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year; about $2 billion of that amount is dedicated to Afghanistan.

The House of Representatives approved the funding last month and added billions of dollars in non-military spending, meaning the measure must return to the Senate for final approval.

Lawmakers are expected to pass the funds, but are also demanding assurances that the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai tackles corruption to ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are not wasted.

Following are the costs to U.S. taxpayers so far, as well as some of the future funding needed.

COSTS SO FAR

Congress has approved $345 billion so far for the war in Afghanistan, which the United States invaded to fight al Qaeda and topple the Taliban after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which produced the figure, said about $22 billion has gone for Afghan-war-related activities in other countries.

By Susan Cornwell

(Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s request for more money to pay for the war in Afghanistan is working its way through Congress slowly as lawmakers concentrate on other priorities and deal with scarce budget resources.

Obama has asked for $33 billion more to help fund 30,000 extra U.S. soldiers being sent to Afghanistan this year. He wants $4.5 billion more for beefed-up foreign aid and civilian operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year; about $2 billion of that amount is dedicated to Afghanistan.

The House of Representatives approved the funding last month and added billions of dollars in non-military spending, meaning the measure must return to the Senate for final approval.

Lawmakers are expected to pass the funds, but are also demanding assurances that the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai tackles corruption to ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are not wasted.

Following are the costs to U.S. taxpayers so far, as well as some of the future funding needed.

COSTS SO FAR

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The House of Representatives approved funds on Thursday to pay for President Barack Obama’s Afghanistan troop increase but also voted to signal growing unhappiness with the war among his fellow Democrats.

The House’s Democratic leaders, who had procrastinated for weeks over the bill, did not act in time to get the $33 billion to the troops by July 4 as the Pentagon had requested.

An amendment demanding an exit timetable from Afghanistan failed, but got 162 votes, the biggest anti-war vote in the House on Afghanistan to date. All but nine of the supporters were Democrats, and included House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

House leaders added billions of dollars in non-military spending before passing the war funds, so the measure must now return to the Senate. It passed the troop funds and its own set of disaster relief add-ons in May.

Both chambers must agree to the same legislation before it can go to Obama for his signature into law. But the Senate is not in session again until July 12, and it is unclear how it will view the additions the House has made.

Pentagon chief Robert Gates said recently the money for 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan should be approved by July 4 to avoid the Pentagon having to juggle accounts and possibly lay off civilians while continuing war operations.

Still it seemed a wonder the new money for the unpopular war got through the House at all, after long arguments among Democratic lawmakers over whether and how to do it. They set up a complicated series of votes in which the non-military spending passed 239-182, while the part containing the war funding passed 215-210.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The House of Representatives approved funds on Thursday to pay for President Barack Obama’s Afghanistan troop increase but also voted to signal growing unhappiness with the war among his fellow Democrats.

The House’s Democratic leaders, who had procrastinated for weeks over the bill, did not act in time to get the $33 billion to the troops by July 4 as the Pentagon had requested.

An amendment demanding an exit timetable from Afghanistan failed, but got 162 votes, the biggest anti-war vote in the House on Afghanistan to date. All but nine of the supporters were Democrats, and included House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

House leaders added billions of dollars in non-military spending before passing the war funds, so the measure must now return to the Senate. It passed the troop funds and its own set of disaster relief add-ons in May.

Both chambers must agree to the same legislation before it can go to Obama for his signature into law. But the Senate is not in session again until July 12, and it is unclear how it will view the additions the House has made.

Pentagon chief Robert Gates said recently the money for 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan should be approved by July 4 to avoid the Pentagon having to juggle accounts and possibly lay off civilians while continuing war operations.

Still it seemed a wonder the new money for the unpopular war got through the House at all, after long arguments among Democratic lawmakers over whether and how to do it. They set up a complicated series of votes in which the non-military spending passed 239-182, while the part containing the war funding passed 215-210.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate unanimously voted on Wednesday to confirm David Petraeus as commander of the troubled Afghan war, pinning U.S. hopes on the four-star general who helped turn around the conflict in Iraq.

Petraeus, seen by some analysts as President Barack Obama’s last, best hope to salvage the Afghan mission, won full support from both Obama’s Democrats and opposition Republicans after the previous commander was sacked one week ago. He was confirmed in a 99-0 vote on the Senate floor.

The support for Petraeus came despite growing anxiety in both parties about an unpopular war, in which casualties are rising ahead of November U.S. congressional elections.

“Regardless of who is in command, the president’s current strategy in Afghanistan is counterproductive,” Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat, said after voting in a favor of Petraeus, whom he stressed was “clearly qualified” for the job.

Lawmakers are also frustrated and angry over reports of corruption in Afghanistan’s government. Hours after Petraeus was confirmed, lawmakers in a House of Representatives subcommittee voted to block $3.9 billion in aid to Kabul because of news stories about corruption and donor aid leaving the country.

Petraeus, credited with pulling Iraq back from the brink of all-out sectarian warfare as commander there until 2008, played down hopes of a quick turnaround in Afghanistan after nine years of war during his confirmation hearing on Tuesday.

He also said he would reassess restrictive rules of engagement that critics say put U.S. units at unnecessary risk in an attempt to protect Afghan civilians.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – There is no way to tell how ready Afghan forces are to take over security from U.S.-led troops because the system used until recently to assess the Afghans is unreliable, U.S. auditors said on Monday.

Transferring responsibility for security to Afghan forces is one of the linchpins of President Obama’s strategy for the war against Taliban insurgents.

Obama is sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year, but wants to start withdrawing them in mid-2011.

The report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction found big failings in the methods U.S. and coalition forces have used since 2005 to assess the readiness of Afghan army and police who will be left behind.

“We don’t really know at this point in time what the capability of the Afghanistan security forces really is,” Arnold Fields, the chief inspector, told reporters.

The rankings used to grade Afghan forces varied greatly from one region to another, the report said. Personnel numbers for the Afghan army were overstated and didn’t take absenteeism into account. Afghan forces often backslid even if they did get high marks from their mentors.

“The ANP (Afghan police) will simply stop doing what we asked them to do as soon as we leave the area,” one team mentoring Afghan police complained to auditors.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – There is no way to tell how ready Afghan forces are to take over security from U.S.-led troops because the system used until recently to assess the Afghans is unreliable, U.S. auditors said Monday.

Transferring responsibility for security to Afghan forces is one of the linchpins of President Obama’s strategy for the war against Taliban insurgents.

Obama is sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year, but wants to start withdrawing them in mid-2011.

The report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction found big failings in the methods U.S. and coalition forces have used since 2005 to assess the readiness of Afghan army and police who will be left behind.

“We don’t really know at this point in time what the capability of the Afghanistan security forces really is,” Arnold Fields, the chief inspector, told reporters.

The rankings used to grade Afghan forces varied greatly from one region to another, the report said. Personnel numbers for the Afghan army were overstated and didn’t take absenteeism into account. Afghan forces often backslid even if they did get high marks from their mentors.

“The ANP (Afghan police) will simply stop doing what we asked them to do as soon as we leave the area,” one team mentoring Afghan police complained to auditors.