After new Afghan president sworn in drones kill 4 Afghan civilians

Ashraf Ghani the newly inaugurated Afghan president has signed a bilateral security agreement(BSA) with the US to allow US troops to stay in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2014 when the present agreement will expire.

While both a meeting of elders, a loya jirga, and also the Afghan parliament had approved the BSA, then president Hamid Karzai refused to sign the document. He cited as a reason that the deal did not do enough to limit US airstrikes in civilian areas. The document had barely been signed when US drones attacked and destroyed a car full of civilians in Khost Province killing four. The Khost police believe that the attack on the car was a case of mistaken identity. Militants reportedly killed a district development council head and then fled in a vehicle similar to the one attacked. The family of the victims insisted that those killed were neither militants nor armed. US authorities have not issued a statement yet on the drone attack.
 The BSA will see 9,800 US troops left behind at the end of 2014. The total number of troops in a new NATO-led mission will be approximately 12,000 in 2015. The agreement also allows for a separate US-led force that will carry out anti-terrorist operations.. There is a separate NATO agreement that will allow about 3,000 troops to remain in Afghanistan led by Germany with Italy and Turkey also contributing some troops.
US president Barack Obama said that the day was historic in US-Afghan relations. He said: "We look forward to working with this new government to cement an enduring partnership that strengthens Afghan sovereignty, stability, unity, and prosperity." Back in 2013, the US threatened to withdraw all its troops if Karzai did not sign the agreement before the end of that year. Now it is finally signed at the end of the third quarter of 2014.
 Present plans call for the 9,800 US troops to be reduced to only 4,900 at the end of 2014, and at the end of 2015 with complete withdrawal at the end of 2016 with perhaps one thousand troops remaining in a security office. The BSA is a followup to the Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement between the US and Afghanistan went into effect on July 4 2012. The agreement set out relationships between the two countries through 2024 but left the issue of the number of US troops that would stay in Afghanistan after 2014 to be negotiated through a BSA. However, the agreement did commit the US to considerable aid and funding for the Afghan military. Among the provisions are: Commitment by the U.S. to seek funding from the U.S. Congress on an annual basis for social and economic assistance for Afghanistan as well as to support the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF)
 The new president, Ashraf Ghani, had the support of former president Hamid Karzai. However, his new power-sharing government faces numerous problems as indicated in this article. Ghani will no doubt be looked on favorably in he west as he received his higher education in the US and worked at the World Bank and UN. However, he faces not only the Taliban insurgency but a weak economy. Since he shares power with his defeated opponent Abdullah Abdullah he will need his cooperation to govern effectively. Abdullah believes that Ghani won the presidency through fraud in the runoff election.

Afghan presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah again derails Kerry deal

One of two Afghan presidential candidates, Abdullah Abdullah, threatened to again derail the process brokered by US Secretary of State John Kerry to solve the continuing crisis in choosing a president.

An audit of all 8 million votes cast in the runoff election is being conducted under the supervision of the United Nations and monitored by both Abdullah and his rival Ashraf Ghani. Abdullah withdrew from the process after complaining that his concerns were not being met. In the first stage of the elections Abdullah had been far ahead but in the runoff results showed his rival to be the winner. Abdullah claimed there was massive fraud during the runoff that resulted in the win by Ghani.
When Abdullah withdrew his team from the audi, Ghani was asked to do likewise. Ghani complied and the audit continued. Observers expect the audit to be completed this week and that Ghani will be declared the winner.
 Just recently in a news conference both candidates claimed that they were committed to forming a national unity government. Now, the situation has grown murky once again. Some of Abdullah's supporters have advocated that he form a parallel government. Abdullah himself said nothing of this in a speech to supporters or in a brief news conference. He did not request that his supporters mount protests in the streets either.
 There is some indication that some of Abdullah's supporters are less willing to compromise than Abdullah. He may simply be trying to bargain for a more powerful role for himself in any government of national unity should he lose. His own rhetoric may be designed for his supporters: “I will not accept fraud and any result from fraudulent vote. Not even for a single day will we accept a government based on fraudulent votes.” Even though talks on forming a national unity government were deadlocked, Abdullah did not rule out their resumption.
 Obama phoned both candidates last Saturday, September 6, urging both to negotiate an end to their differences. He emphasized that a resolution of the presidency issue would help generate international support for Afghanistan as well as improving stability according to a news release from the White House.
 A recent NATO summit in Wales discussed Afghanistan but with no new Afghan president in attendance as had been planned. Even after Abdullah said that he would not accept the results of the audit, the Ghani team still suggested that differences should be settled through dialogues. Abdullah called on his own supporters to avoid violence.
 September 9th is a national holiday held in memory of Ahmed Massoud, a Northern Alliance leader killed by Al Qaeda on that date in 2001. Past years have experienced violent clashes with rival political and ethnic groups during celebrations. Most Northern Alliance supporters also favor Abdullah although one of Massoud's brothers supports Ghani. Ghani has the support of many of the Pashtun majority in the south and eastern Afghanistan and also the backing of president Karzai.
Abdullah cautioned his supporters: “Don’t mix up the political crisis with the events of tomorrow and the commemoration of Martyrs’ Day. Our campaign does not support or condone violence.” Nevertheless in a nationally televised TV speech Abdullah said that the auditing process simply ignored widespread fraud: "We were the winners of the election. We are the winners of the election based on the real vote of the people." At the present juncture there seems no agreement to accept the results of the audit let alone agreement on a subsequent national unity government.
However, a few more phone calls threatening a cessation of aid from the US and western allies could once again change the discord into harmony at least on the surface. Unless a president is soon chosen to sign a bilateral agreement on security, NATO claims that it will be unable to keep any troops in the country. Both candidates say they would sign the agreement already passed by parliament and a meeting of elders. Karzai refused to sign it. As shown by the appended video, Karzai wants the Kerry agreement to be completed soon. This is another sign that Ghani is set to win.

Hamid Karzai has to stay on for now as Afghan presidential impasse continues

As Hamid Karzai was scheduled to step down today, September 2, as president of Afghanistan there is still no president to take his place. NATO is slated to discuss Afghanistan at a summit in Wales in two days time with no new Afghan president to attend.

US Secretary of State John Kerry had brokered a deal in which all 8 million votes cast in the June runoff elections would be audited and a national unity government formed with the runner-up in the vote to name a "chief executive". Abddullah Abdullah who won in the first round of voting by a large margin, ran second in the runoff vote against Ashraf Ghani. Abdullah claimed that there was massive fraud and vote-rigging in the runoff. John Kerry consequently was able to broker the deal described above. Mohammad Mohaqeq, a vice-presidential running mate of Abdullah said that the two sides were unable to agree on the powers of the chief executive and accused Ghani's side of taking a hard line on the issue. Mohaqeq, a leader of the Hazara minority, said: “The talks collapsed two days ago. The political process is now at a stalemate; we don't see any way out.” In an ominous threat, the Abdullah group said it would pull out of the political process entirely if its demands were not met by Tuesday, September 2. Ally of Abdullah, Balkh provincial governor Atta Noor, told his supporters to be ready for street protests.

 Abdullah's group had earlier withdrawn from a UN audit of the run-off election votes His team expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which allegedly fraudulent votes were being treated. The UN asked Ghani's team to also withdraw from monitoring the audit. The audit then continued with neither group present. President Karzai had planned for the inauguration of the new president September 2 when he intended to step down. Now he will be forced to continue as president until a decision is made as to who won the runoff election. The audit is still not expected to be completed until Sept. 10 but even then since there is no agreement on a unity government the situation remains unclear. 

 Karzai is not going to quit power without the completion of the process, a spokesman said:“The President is not considering the step down before the official transfer of power to the new Afghan President. It is unconstitutional to step down before officially transferring the power to his successor." 

 NATO and the US plan to keep some troops mainly in an advisory and training role in Afghanistan after the end of 2014. However, to do so, they want the new president to sign a bilateral security agreement that will set out the role and status of the forces. An agreement was approved by a meeting of Afghan elders and the Afghan parliament some time ago but Karzai has refused to sign it, and issued further demands that the US rejected. Karzai will not attend the NATO summit but has nominated his defense minister to attend instead. Both presidential candidates have agreed to sign. However, if there is no president soon NATO officials claim that they will have no alternative but to pull out all their troops at the end of 2014 without leaving any behind.

Afghan presidency not likely settled before next deadline Sept. 2

Although August 25 was set as the date for inauguration of the new Afghan president the issue of who will be president is still not settled even after several months of recounts and audits of the votes subsequent to the summer vote.

Abdullah Abdullah who won the first round claims that there was fraud including ballot stuffing on behalf of his opponent Ashraf Ghani in the runoff. Preliminary results in the runoff show Ghani in the lead. The audit is still not even close to finished. Karzai says that he will relinquish the presidency by September 2, the new scheduled inauguration date. However, at the present pace it seems highly unlikely that the results will be finalized by that time.

 Teams representing the two candidates are continually fighting over which ballots should or should not be counted. The US, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, brokered a deal between the two candidates who agreed to cooperate on an audit of the entire 8 million votes that were cast in order to ensure that any fraudulent votes were rejected. The two also agreed that whoever won would form a government of national unity. Hamid Karzai the outgoing president has run the country since 2001. 

 The election, lasting 10 weeks, took place back on June 14 under UN supervision. However, as with past Afghan elections there have been accusations of fraud from many sides. The Independent Electoral Commission(IEC) is just now due to begin rejecting votes judged fraudulent. Spokesperson for the IEC,Noor Mohammad Noor, said: "The Independent Election Commission is trying very hard to finish the process as soon as possible". The new inauguration date of Sept. 2 is just two days prior to a NATO summit that will determine how much aid NATO countries will provide for Afghanistan after most NATO troops will pull out of the country at the end of this year. Having a new president and a peaceful power transition would be a sign that NATO was leaving with at least some degree of success after 13 years in Afghanistan. This in turn would perhaps lead to a generous aid package. Many doubt that the process can be completed by Sept. 2.  

Abdullah spokesperson Mujib Rahimi said: "Honestly, I cannot come out with something definite on that, but I hope. It's Afghanistan. Things are unpredictable." An unidentified official from the Ghani campaign was even more pessimistic.He said that there had been little progress on deciding what the power-sharing government of national unity would be like and said:"Nothing yet has added to the political framework and the commission couldn't reach an agreement in most of the areas". One unidentified Western official also expressed doubts about having finalized results before Sept. 2, saying:"I don't see how there will be any space for compromise, because the pie is too small and there are too many people who want a piece." 

Karzai is accused by Abdullah of helping Ghani in the runoff to a fraudulent win but both Ghani and Karzai deny this. Karzai has been urging both candidates to cooperate in the auditing process. His office issued a statement: "Prolonging of the presidential process has affected people's daily life, particularly in security, economy and governance.This must end as soon as possible."  

The impasse has hurt the Afghan economy and also given encouragement to the Taliban insurgents. Western supporters fear that one or the other of the candidates might pull out of the process or reject the result of the edit. There could be protests and civil unrest as a result. The audit process seems far from complete. As of last Monday August 25, just, 3,644 of the 23,000 ballot boxes were put through the invalidation process. 74 boxes were rejected, and 697 selected for a further recount.  

UN mission chief Jan Kubis noted:"It is still premature to draw conclusions about the final audit result based on these initial findings All parties should continue to respect the process so as to not create unrealistic expectations." The Afghan government expelled a NY Times reporter for writing an article claiming that government officials were considering seizing power to end the long standoff between the two candidates. The conflict between the two candidates mirrors the latent conflicts between Pashtuns in the south and east of Afghanistan who support Ghani and Tajiks and other northern groups who support Abdullah. Abdullah is again threatening to pull out of the audit process.

NATO air attacks kills women and girls gathering firewood

According to Afghan officials a NATO air strike has killed eight Afghan women and girls gathering firewood. At first International Security Assistance Force officials claimed that 45 insurgents were targeted but later admitted possible civilian casualties

As is often the case, NATO at first claimed that the targets were insurgents and that initial reports showed that only insurgents were killed in the strike. However this report was contradicted by information coming from Afghan officials who said that victims included eight women and girls who were out gathering firewood before dawn.

Once the Afghan officials contradicted the NATO report Jamie Graybeal a NATO spokesperson said that NATO took any charges of civilian deaths seriously. No doubt the charges were taken even more seriously after villagers from the Alingar district in Lagham province brought bodies of those killed to the governor's office in the provincial capital.

Sarhadi Zewak, a spokesperson for the provincial government, said:

“They were shouting ‘Death to America!’ They were condemning the attack."

A provincial health director said that there were also seven females injured who were brought to area hospitals for treatment. Some of the injured were as young as ten years old.

BBC now reports that NATO has acknowledged the civilian deaths.

Nato has conceded that between five and eight civilians died as it targeted insurgents, and offered condolences.

Afghan president Karzai has constantly complained about air strikes and the civilian casualties they have caused. However, he has so far been unable to stop them and no doubt they will continue even after security is turned over to Afghanistan in 2014. U.S. officials say that these missile attacks are very precise and that civilian casualties are rare. However, what are called signature attacks are now used. In these attacks people are targeted simply on the basis of suspicious behavior. Apparently people moving in the countryside before dawn arouse enough suspicion to be classified as suspected terrorists. There were probably never any insurgents targeted. The women collecting firewood were just classified as suspected insurgents.

Elsewhere in Afghanistan four more soldiers were killed in an apparent insider attack. The four killed were American troops. The killings happened at an observation post operated jointly with 6 coalition troops together with 6 Afghan National Police.. One of the Afghan members was found dead at the scene while the other five had disappeared. Over 50 NATO troops have now been killed so far this year in "insider" attacks.

U.S. transfers Bagram to Afghan administration

The U.S. military has transferred control of Bagram prison to Afghan authorities. The prison will now be called Parwan detention facility.

Bagram prison houses more than 3,.000 Taliban and terrorism suspects. The transfer is part of a continuing process of transferring jurisdiction to local control before the withdrawal of most NATO forces in 2014. There was a small ceremony during the transfer apparently poorly attended by U.S. and NATO officers.

The Bagram prison has often been cited as a type of black site where prisoners have been abused. Some of the issues are discussed in a Digital Journal article earlier this year. Even now the U.S. is retaining control over some of the prisoners and reserves the right to retain and hold prisoners who are apprehended as part of their operations. Clearly, the U.S. is only allowing as much Afghan sovereignty as it is willing to cede.

For Karzai the handover is a matter of Afghan sovereignty but he has won only a partial victory on that score The U.S. is still believed to be holding hundreds more prisoners including around 50 nationals from third countries or foreign fighters as they are called. The U.S. is concerned that "high value" detainees might be released if handed over to Afghan authorities. There is still an obvious lack of trust between the U.S. and Afghan authorities. Karzai is not satisfied although he hailed the handover. The two sides are still in dispute over the status of 34 inmates in particular.

However, with Bagram already being suspected as an abuse site the retention of control of some prisoners by the U.S. worries some human rights groups. They fear that the site where prisoners are under U.S. control will become a twin to Guantanamo where suspects will be detained indefinitely without trial. There should also be concern about treatment under Afghan control as well since there have been reports of abuse by Afghans.

Colonel Robert Taradish the only U.S. official at the ceremony said:

"We transferred more than 3,000 Afghan detainees into your custody... and ensured that those who would threaten the partnership of Afghanistan and coalition forces will not return to the battlefield."

The acting Afghan Defence Minister also spoke:

"Our Afghan security forces are well trained and we are happy that today they are exercising their capability in taking the responsibility of prisoners independently and guarding the prisoners..We are taking the responsibility from foreign forces."

Bagram was once located within the Bagram military base but was moved a few miles away in 2010 and now is known as Parwan Detention Centre . The centre is about 25 miles north of Kabul the capital.

Karzai wants NATO bases transferred to Afghans not demolished

  . Karzai said the facilities scheduled for demolition could be used for schools, government offices, and health clinics. As NATO troops withdraw from Afghanistan, they are demolishing some bases that they believe the Afghans do not have the capacity to operate or are no longer operationally significant for NATO. Dozens of facilities from small checkpoint buildings to larger bases could be demolished before the end of 2014 when security is to be handed over to the Afghans.

 Karzai has often criticized the NATO countries that in effect put him in power. Karzai has asked his defense minister Abdul Wardak to “take all necessary measures to stop the demolition of bases by NATO and make their handover possible,”.. Afghan officials complain that they have been left out of the process. Karzai  claims  that some of the most modern and best-defended facilities in Afghanistan are being demolished for no discernible reason. Perhaps this is the NATO version of capitalism's creative destruction. New facilities will be built by the Afghans using foreign aid funds and foreign contractors.. One Afghan parliamentarian said: ""They have spent lots of money for constructing the bases, and now they are spending more money for their destruction....We can use these bases for clinics, schools and for other administrative purposes.”

For their part,  NATO officials say that the Afghans can claim bases before demolition.  Lt. Colonel Sarah Goodson said that NATO and the U.S contact “directly and regularly with the Afghan Ministry of Finance-led Base Closure Commission, who ultimately determines the disposition of bases.. On those occasions where the Afghan government does not desire a base which ISAF [the International Security Assistance Force] is leaving, the base is demilitarized and the ground is returned to its original state and appearance.”

Serco based in the UK had already been awarded a 57 million U.S. contract for the planning and documentation of the dismantling and demolition of bases in Afghanistan. Serco  also operates prisons among other jobs also had the contract for dismantling Iraqi bases. Wikipedia notes:

  The Guardian has called Serco "probably the biggest company you've never heard of"

The U.K. has been a reliable U.S. ally in both Iraq and Afghanistan. One wonders how much control the Afghans really have over the base closure commission. . U.S. officials claim that the Afghan army does not have the logistical capacity to use the hundreds of bases spread throughout Afghanistan. Many are in isolated mountain ranges. This may be true but it does nothing to argue against the view that the bases could serve in non-military uses. In isolated areas where there are few buildings and facilities does it make sense to destroy relatively new and modern buildings? Perhaps the real reason for demolition is the fear that these areas will be taken over by the Taliban and the facilities used by them.

It is the U.S. and NATO rather than Afghans that are doing most of the planning. The plan is to concentrate the Afghan forces in a few larger bases. Even some large bases are being down-sized. No doubt the U.S. will continue to depend upon drones and raids along with Afghan support to try to control more remote areas. Possible civilian uses for military installations does not seem to have been part of the planning.

Karzai family feuds as it tries to retain power in Afghanistan

There is a long article here in the NY Times. Hamid Karzai steps down from the presidency in 2014. A brother Qayum is considering a run for the office. Other brothers are busy battling over control of the largest private residential project in Afghanistan.

The project call Aino Mena. Relatives accuse each other of theft and extortion even of an assassination plot. Qayum Karzai said:“It’s family,” “They get upset, and over time they get over it. I hope they get over it.”

Ahmed Wali Karzai the big boss in the Kandahar area was assassinated last year was thought to have hidden his fortune somewhere. All the relatives are fighting to find out where it is. Ahmed was thought to have profited from drug deals and corrupt practices.

The Karzai's along with other members of the Afghan elite have profited greatly from the NATO mostly U.S. military presence and have enriched themselves at U.S. (and others) taxpayers expense. Much money has been exported from Afghanistan to the UAE particularly Dubai where some have estates.

Seth Jones an analyst at the RAND corporation said:“If you are one of the Afghan oligarchs, where you put your money and where you live is an open question now,” “That means you are thinking about moving your money and finding a backup option about where to live.”

Hamid Karzai's family includes many who are U.S. citizens who returned to Afghanistan after the Taliban government was toppled by as U.S. led coalition. Many of them have prospered under the U.S. occupation according to many Afghan businessmen. Observers say that Qayum's bid for president would probably fail as there is widespread disenchantment with Hamid Karzai's government that has been rife with corruption. For much more detail see the full article.

U.S. Defense Secretary promises U.S. enduring presence in Afghanistan after 2014.

Many U.S. officials and the Obama presidential campaign stress the pullout from Afghanistan and turning over security to the Afghans in 2014. However, Panetta in a recent interview on ABC pointed out the rest of the story.

Karzai and Obama signed an agreement that will see the U.S. stay in Afghanistan until 2024. Panetta said:“Well, the most important point is that we’re not going anyplace. We’re gonna, we have an enduring presence that will be in Afghanistan,”

There are two narratives. The Obama campaign narrative stresses the pullout and is addressed to those who oppose the Afghan war and want Americans home.On the other hand there is the hawk narrative peddled by Panetta that stresses the enduring presence with troops staying until 2024.

The hawk narrative can be flown when Romney attacks Obama for setting a withdrawal date. The actual number of troops to remain and issues such as immunity for U.S. troops from Afghan law apparently are not settled. Off course the partnership agreement that was signed was never passed by the Afghan parliament nor debated by the U.S. congress. For more see this article.

Karzai claims civilian deaths in NATO air strikes could undermine Strategic Partnership agreement

Just recently Obama paid a secret visit to Afghanistan to sign a Strategic Partnership Deal governing the U.S. continuing presence and support for Afghanistan from 2014 to 2024. Now Karzai claims that the deal is being undermined by recent NATO air strikes that have killed civilians.

This is probably simply political rhetoric that Karzai finds necessary in order to keep some semblance of legitimacy in the eyes of the public. There is an analogous situation in Pakistan where the parliament passes motions demanding drone strikes stop but they continue. However, Karzai is unpredictable and it is possible if pushed far enough he may feel forced to act.

Karzai said:“If the lives of Afghan people are not safe, the signing of the strategic partnership has no meaning,” Karzai again demanded that NATO stop air strikes in populated areas and bombing homes that might have civilians inside. NATO has refused to change course.

Afghanistan is an occupied country and the government and military are dependent upon foreign payments to function. Even after 2014 the Afghan government will require much over a billion a year to finance the military.

The Strategic Partnership deal does on paper give some control over night raids but only certain types of raids. This is no doubt meant to make it look as if Karzai has won concessions whereas in reality independent raids by the U.S. will continue as before the agreement . The NATO policy at present is unchanged with the inevitable collateral damage that follows. No doubt these raids help the Taliban recruit fighters. For more see this article.

Afghanistan after 2014: We know who calls the tune but who pays the piper?

The U.S. for the most part is calling the tune in Afghanistan after 2014 although Karzai will have a say. But who pays for it all?

Half at least will be paid by the U.S. taxpayer. NATO members are doing their best to keep their share as small as possible. However any payments at all are politically risky in countries where the war is very unpopular. However in the U.S. there seems to be bipartisan support for continued involvement in Afghanistan after 2014 even though it is costly and the majority of Americans oppose the war.. Some special forces and trainers will also remain and no doubt so will continued night raids although most of them will be Afghan led.

Support for Afghanistan and a continued presence is planned for at least another ten years. This has been evident for some time but in the U.S. the issue seems to be virtually ignored.The hype is all about withdrawal!

. Estimated costs to support Afghan security forces is about 4.1 billion U.S. per year. The U.S. is prepared to assume half of the costs. The Afghan government can afford only about half a billion. This leaves 1.8 billion for other NATO partners.

Most countries have made vague commitments with only tiny Luxembourg committing to its fair share. However Britain offered a firm 110 million an amount that one might expect from Scrooge! Many think that successful financing commitments may be a precondition of a final signing off on any agreement on the future by Karzai. For more see this article.

Afghan night raid deal may be largely symbolic

According to the title of an article by Chris Carroll in Stars and Stripes it largely is. Of course the Pentagon will not issue an official statement to this effect!

The agreement will have the effect of easing relations between the Afghan government and the U.S. and NATO forces at a time when tensions were building over a number of issues. Certainly night raids was one of those issues

The new agreement gives the Afghan government and judiciary considerable say in their operation at least on paper. Karzai would even have veto power over them and an Afghan judge would need to provide a warrant.

As usual the devil is in the details. The agreement covers only "special operations". These are joint Afghan-U.S. operations approved by Afghan security and also judicial officials. This leaves room for other operations that are outside this definition.

A specialist at the Heritage Foundation noted:“It defines it fairly narrowly, and leaves open the possibility of a counter terrorism raid conducted by a CIA paramilitary group or other unit,” Defense Dept. officials refused to answer questions about unilateral raids!

Rick Nelson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said:“If there’s a threat to the homeland, the United States always reserves the ability to act unilaterally,” said Rick “Ozzie“The rhetoric may not line up with that, however, because we have the need for an agreement with the Afghan government beyond 2014."" Karzai long demanded that Afghans have control over the raids and this agreement seems to give them that.

One other note. Although warrants are needed for the raids. The warrants can be obtained after rather than before the raids if necessary. For more see the full article or another article here.

In 2011 there were about 2000 night raids. Expect the U.S to stay for years in Afghanistan after 2014 but with smaller numbers and extensive use of special forces and night raids along with Afghans.

Lawyer for Robert Bales claims U.S. forces are obstructing his investigations into Kandahar massacre

John Henry Browne the lawyer representing Robert Bales claims that U.S. forces in Afghanistan are blocking his teams fact-finding mission. He also claims that prosecutors are not cooperating with him either. Bales is the U.S. soldier accused of single-handedly murdering 17 Afghan civilians in two villages near the base where he was stationed.

Browne's team was unable to interview witnesses to the massacre. U.S. forces obstructed the team from visiting a hospital that contained injured civilians.

U.S. investigators are not sharing their own information obtained from interviews. The injured were released with no contact information available to the team. This sounds very much to be a case of obstruction of justice.

The team has only been able to interview some U.S.soldiers about the attack. Browne speculates that the lack of cooperation may reflect the weakness of the prosecution case against Bales.

Browne noted that there is an “almost complete information blackout from the government, which is having a devastating effect on our ability to investigate the charges preferred against our client.” Perhaps the government and military also wants to hide facts about the attack. Many believe that there was more than one soldier involved.

An Afghan probe claims that up to 20 U.S. soldiers were involved. At first Karzai supported the report and then completely flip-flopped and accepted the official U.S. story of one lone attacker. For more see this article.. A reporter who interviewed survivors also found witnesses who stated that more than one soldier was involved. See the attached video.

Reporter interviews survivors of Kandahar massacre and others

The official. story is that Sergeant Robert Bales acting alone carried out the massacre of 17 civilians on March 11 in two villages near Camp Balambai. However journalist Yalda Hakim visits the area and interviews a number of people including survivors and evidence contradicting the official story emerges.

I have included the remarkable video of about 15 minutes. The cameraman Ryan Sheridan does a remarkable job IMHO.

Several children interviewed speak of a number of soldiers. Two of the children tell similar stories about one soldier entering the house and killing while others were outside with lights.

Other parts of the video also are revealing. An Afghan soldier interviewed says he told authorities that a U.S. soldier had just entered the base. This would fit with the official story of a two stage rampage. However, obviously nothing was done to stop the soldier from leaving once again!

Karzai has changed his story so that it goes along completely with the Pentagon narrative. However his chief investigator in this interview gives a different viewpoint. This is excellent reporting. It should be widely distributed. For more see this site.

Afghan women jailed for "moral crimes"

Even though the Taliban have long been out of power in Afghanistan some of the strict moral prohibitions characteristic of their rule remain under the Karzai regime. Afghan women have been jailed for crimes such as running away --often from domestic abuse, and having sex outside of marriage.

Human Rights Watch claims that the Karzai government has not met its obligations under human rights laws. The executive director of the group said:“It is shocking that 10 years after the overthrow of the Taliban, women and girls are still imprisoned for running away from domestic violence or forced marriage,” Actually it is not all that surprising since the culture is not that easy to change and Karzai wants to keep the support of very conservative groups including the so-called reformed Taliban.

The human rights report claims that there are 400 women in prison and younger girls in juvenile facilities for offenses that include running away. The report noted:“Some women and girls have been convicted of zina, sex outside of marriage, after being raped or forced into prostitution,..Judges often convict solely on the basis of ‘confessions’ given in the absence of lawyers and ‘signed’ without having been read to women who cannot read or write. After conviction, women routinely face long prison sentences, in some cases more than 10 years.” Obviously these are odious miscarriages of justice carried out solely upon women. Even worse, many of 58 inmates who were interviewed feared they would be murdered by their family members if released in so-called honor killings.

The report cited a woman sentenced to three years in prison after fleeing a father-in-law who raped her : “I am happy in here. Here I am not afraid because I know no-one is coming in the night to kill me.”

Karzai to his credit has often issued pardons to women convicted of moral crimes. However, it is rather incongruous to give a pardon for something that should not have been a crime in the first place. For more see this article.

Top U.S. commander wants 68,000 U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan in 2013

When asked by Sen. John McCain about future withdrawals Gen. John Allen replied:“My opinion is that we will need significant combat power through the end of 2013. . . . Sixty-eight thousand is a good going-in number.., “but I owe the president some analysis on that.”

However Allen stressed that no decision had been made and that he would make recommendations to the White House only after the departure this September of the 23,000 surge troops sent in 2010.

Allen said he was confident that his opinions would be considered by the White House. Obama seemed to be signaling subtly that he may be changing his own views on withdrawal. He said he did not want a "steep cliff" at the end of 2014 when all NATO combat troops are scheduled to be withdrawn as set out in an agreement with the Afghan government.

Behind the scenes and without much commentary from the press negotiations are going on between the U.S. and Afghanistan on a long term U.S. presence in the country after 2014.. One of the sticking points is night raids that Karzai has long opposed. That this issue even comes up shows that the U.S. would still be in Afghanistan in a combat role.

Even though polls show the U.S. public is weary of the Afghan war and a majority want a withdrawal, the reality is that the U.S. intends to stay actively involved indefinitely .

The coalition hopes to have 352,000 Afghan army and police in place by the end of this year. Although some reports put the cost at 4 to 5 billion a year a defense spokesperson said it would be more than that. The total annual revenue of the Afghan government is about 2 billion. Wonder who will cover the extra costs? For more see this article.

.

Afghan authorities now support official U.S. story about Kandahar massacre

Just a few days ago Afghan investigators maintained that there were a number of U.S. soldiers involved in the Kandahar massacre. Here is a statement by a local Kandahar MP:“All the villagers that we talked to said there were 15 to 20 men who had conducted a night raid operation in several areas in the village,” He also noted that the villages attacked were each about 4 kilometers north and south of the base.

Now Afghan officials say that there has been no confirmation that multiple U.S. soldiers took part in the killing. A top official said: that ""nobody personally said that they had seen a group of troops in this incident. The evidence collected from the villagers was not enough to confirm that there was more than one shooter.” This contradicts the Afghan investigators own accounts and other reports of eyewitness accounts.

At least now there is agreement between the Afghans and U.S on the matter. However, the Afghan public in general may not be convinced of the lone shooter story no matter what officials may say.

No one has really explained the discrepancies in the different stories. There is other evidence also that supports the view that there could have been more than one soldier. First there is the distance that the two villages attacked are apart. Second there is the fact that a few days earlier U.S. soldiers had threatened the inhabitants of one of the villages,' For more see this article.

There are sharp differences within the Karzai administration as to how critical or how supportive the government should be of NATO and the U.S. Those urging more support and less criticism may have the upper hand at least on this issue. See this article.

Afghan investigators claim more than a dozen U.S. soldiers involved in Kandahar killings

As with NATO airstrikes and night raids in Afghanistan the story told by Afghan authorities and many locals is completely contradictory to the official story usually. According to the U.S. and NATO official story the Kandahar shootings were the work of one lone U.S. soldier.

However, Kandahar MP Naheem Hameedzain reports that that an Afghan investigation has concluded the shootings were carried out by a team of U.S. soldiers. He said:“All the villagers that we talked to said there were 15 to 20 men who had conducted a night raid operation in several areas in the village,” He noted as well that the villages attacked were quite a distance apart. The accused Robert Bales would have had to walk several kilometers between attacks.

Most western mainstream media repeat the official mantra as if it were the obviously correct version. At least in the first reports most papers did note that there were a number of eyewitnesses who reported that there were a number of soldiers. In later reports these seem to be forgotten.

The Afghan parliament has reacted to the U.S. refusal to try Bales in Afghanistan by unaminously voting that Afghanistan withdraw from the existing military agreement (SOFA) with the U.S. However Karzai has not signed the resolution so far. He did complain that the U.S. did not cooperate with the Afghan probe into the killings. Indeed Bales was whisked off to the U.S. no doubt before the Afghans had any chance to interview him. For more see this article.

Afghanistan: Karzai wants night raids and house searches to stop

 After a report looking into civilian casualties caused by NATO air strikes and night raids Karzai has again asked for both to stop. He has been complaining about these raids and demanding they cease for ages now but without significant results. After all, Afghanistan is occupied and not a sovereign country.
    However, Karzai does have some leverage. He has said he will not sign an agreement allowing NATO forces to stay in Afghanistan after 2014 unless the raids stop. In 2014 troops are supposed to turn over security to Afghans but now it seems that NATO troops may stay for up to a decade later. No one asks the Afghans or Americans if this is what they want. This is all to be negotiated between NATO officials and their rather testy puppet Karzai.
     NATO has insisted that the raids will continue but that they will involve Afghan forces more. Most of these raids are by special forces usually U.S. special forces. NATO insists that there are few casualties and that usually there is not even a shot fired. However, the report of the Karzai government cited numerous examples of civilian casualties including the pregnant wife of a local anti-drugs chief. Even when no shots are fired locals are not happy about home invasions in the middle of the night!
    Of course the vast majority of civilian deaths are the result of insurgent activity. However, Karzai has little control over those killings. It seems he has little control over those caused by the forces that are supposed to be providing security for Afghans either. For more see this article.

Afghan parliaments rejects many of Karzai's cabinet picks.

Some of the ministers approved are also ministers promoted by the west as educated technocrats. However with the number rejected perhaps there are some western favorites that were rejected as well. This action just makes Karzai look weak and with the government already facing legitimacy problems will just make things worse before the upcoming meeting on Afghanistan in London where no doubt the international powers that control much of what happens in Afghanistan will be laying what the future ought to look like in Afghanistan.
This is from the Guardian UK.

Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, was dealt a painful political blow yesterday when the country's parliament rejected 70% of his nominees for a new cabinet, including a regionally powerful warlord and the only female minister.

The secret ballot of MPs, which came at a crucial point in Karzai's quest for legitimacy in the eyes of Afghans and the rest of the world, resulted in the rejection of 17 out of 24 of his nominees.

The most high-profile scalp was that of the water and power minister, Ismail Khan, a warlord in the western province of Herat during the 1990s civil war who is accused of corruption and human rights abuses. Critics say he is an example of how the president remains beholden to regional powerbrokers.

"I think, unfortunately, that the criteria were either ethnicity or bribery or money," MP Fawzia Kufi said of many of the names put forward by Karzai in the middle of December.

The rejection of the women's affairs minister, Husn Bano Ghazanfar, was another awkward blow to Karzai, who has pledged to place more women in senior government posts.

The nominations were meant to keep 12 ministers in their posts for a second term and appeared, in part, to be aimed at satisfying US and western wishes that trusted hands be retained.

Karzai is believed to have hoped to put a new cabinet in place by the time an international conference on Afghanistan takes place in London on 28 January. Of the seven nominees approved during yesterday's voting by more than 200 MPs, all but one are currently cabinet ministers.

..