So far this year US and allies cause more Afghan civilian deaths than the Taliban

The most recent UN report on civilian deaths in Afghanistan during the US occupation indicates that so far this year the US and its allied forces have killed more civilians in the country than the Taliban has.

Less civilian deaths overall

The increase in the number of civilians killed by the US and allies is due to an increasing number of US and Afghan airstrikes. However, the total number is down because of a change in tactics by the Taliban. There has been a massive decrease in the number of suicide attacks by the Taliban which often killed civilians. However, the number of deaths from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) has increased.

Taliban gaining territory with less reliance on suicide terror attacks

The Taliban now are winning battles for territory on the ground. This means they need to rely less on terror-inducing suicide attacks. On the other side, the US and Afghan forces are becoming more desperate especially as their ground operations are not going well. As a result they are increasing the number of airstrikes to try and stem their losses. This results in more civilian casualties.

The numbers

The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) released its first quarterly report to find that Afghan and US forces killed more civilians than the Taliban, the first time this has happened since the group began tracking civilian casualties a decade ago.

The US and Afghan forces were responsible for 53 percent of civilian deaths.

In the first quarter, between January 1 and March 31 this year UNAMA recorded 305 civilian deaths and 303 injuries that were attributed to pro-government forces. This is a 39 percent jump from the same period last year.

The report states: “Continuing trends observed in 2018, UNAMA documented increased harm to civilians from aerial and search operations, with the highest number of civilian casualties recorded from each of these tactic types in the first quarter of any year since UNAMA began systematic documentation the report states."

Effect of airstrikes

Pro-government forces carried out 43 air operations during the first quarter killing 145 and injuring 83 civilians the report claims. Half of the casualties in the attacks were women and children including a March 23 airstrike on Kunduz that killed 13 civilians, 10 of them children and 2 women.

Suicide attack deaths down but IED casualties up

While suicide bombings were down, the casualties from improvised explosive devices were up. The attacks spiked 21 percent with 53 deaths and 269 injuries.

The UNAMA report notes: “The overall reduction of civilian casualties was driven by a decrease in civilian casualties by suicide [IED] attacks. UNAMA notes the particularly harsh winter conditions during the first three months of the year, which may have contributed to this trend. It is unclear whether the decrease in civilian casualties was influenced by any measures taken by parties to the conflict to better protect civilians, or by the ongoing talks between parties to the conflict.”

The US has expressed regret for the increase in Afghan civilian deaths as reported in a recent Digital Journal article.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Military report on Kunduz hospital attack leaves out key evidence it was no mistake

A U.S. military fact-finding investigation into an October 3 attack by an AC-130 gunship that killed 30 people found the pilot aimed at the hospital by mistake, intending to hit a compound nearby from which Taliban were firing.

+ Add Image

The hospital was run by Doctors Without Borders. It has demanded an independent investigation which both the U.S. and Afghan authorities have yet to approve.

General John Campbell, the top military and U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said: "The proximate cause of this tragedy was the direct result of avoidable human error, compounded by process and equipment failures." These failures are almost beyond belief and give rise to one ofmany different accounts of what happenedThe US has been accused of changing its version of events four times in the days after the incident, which is now the subject of three inquiries – by the US, Nato and Afghanistan.Several military personnel closely associated with the attack have been suspended from duties until the full adjudication process is complete, General Campbell said.

The crew of the AC-130 gave the coordinates of their target to command headquarters, who knew those coordinates were of a hospital and yet somehow managed not to conclude that the strike was on a hospital:The aircrew provided the coordinates of the trauma center -- a known protected site -- as their intended target one minute prior to firing, the report said. The operational headquarters at Bagram Airfield were aware of the coordinates for the trauma center Campbell said, but "did not realize the grid coordinates for the target matched a location on the no-strike list or that the aircrew was preparing to fire on a hospital."Such incompetence seems highly improbable to me. More likely technical people are having to take the rap for a story concocted to show that the U.S. would never intentionally attack a medical facility. But Afghan special forces, trained by the U.S., had already attacked the Kunduz hospital:In July... Reuters reported that Afghan special forces “raided” this exact MSF hospital in Kunduz, claiming an al Qaeda member was a patient. This raid infuriated MSF staff: The French aid group said its hospital was temporarily closed to new patients after armed soldiers had entered and behaved violently towards staff."

Afghan officials have long been resentful of the fact that the Kunduz hospital treats Taliban and government forces wounded equally. At first, the Afghans insisted the hospital was being used as a command center by the Taliban. Early reports also claimed U.S. and Afghan forces had been under attack from the hospital. A version quickly jettisoned. The early reports in mainstream media claiming the hospital was being used as a Talban base are now all deleted from memory:Fox News yesterday, citing anonymous “defense officials,” said that while they “‘regret the loss’ of innocent life, they say the incident could have been avoided if the Taliban had not used the hospital as a base, and the civilians there as human shields.” In its first article on the attack, the Washington Post also previewed this defense, quoting a “spokesman for the Afghan army’s 209th Corps in northern Afghanistan” as saying that “Taliban fighters are now hiding in ‘people’s houses, mosques and hospitals using civilians as human shields.'” AP yesterday actually claimed that it looked at a video and saw weaponry in the hospital’s windows, only to delete that claim

Even some Afghan officials continued with the narrative that the attack was justified. Abdul Paiman a member of parliament from Kunduz said; “I know that there were civilian casualties in the hospital, but a lot of senior Taliban were also killed,.”

There are other reports indicating that US special operations analysts had been gathering intelligence on the hospital days before it was attacked since they also though that it was being used by a Pakistani operative to coordinate Taliban activity:The special operations analysts had assembled a dossier that included maps with the hospital circled, along with indications that intelligence agencies were tracking the location of the Pakistani operative and activity reports based on overhead surveillance, according to a former intelligence official who is familiar with some of the documents describing the site. The intelligence suggested the hospital was being used as a Taliban command and control center and may have housed heavy weapons.This has all been deleted from the memory banks of the mainstream press, it appears.

According to the official narrative, the crew of the gunship found the coordinates provided them by the Afghan authorities turned out to be an empty field. They decided they would attack the hospital nearby since it roughly met the description of the target. The hospital had two large flags on top identifying it as a hospital. Not surprisingly Doctors Without Borders was not enthusiastic about the report: “It appears that 30 people were killed and hundreds of thousands of people are denied life-saving care in Kunduz simply because the MSF hospital was the closest large building to an open field and ‘roughly matched’ a description of an intended target.”

General Campbell did not take questions nor would any official comment on whether they thought an independent investigation should be conducted. It took 17 minutes for the U.S. military to respond to the 18 frantic calls from the hospital to stop the attack. This gave the gunship enough time to finish its attack.

US bombing of Kunduz hospital in Afghanistan may have been a war crime

The Nobel Peace Prize-winning group Doctors Without Borders (MSF) sent letters to 76 countries that have signed Article 90 of an additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions.

 

+ Add Image

The Conventions set out rules for conducting armed conflict including rules meant to protect non-combatants. MSF believes the attack on its hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan may have been a war crime. The attack killed at least 22 people. Among those killed were 12 MSF staff and 10 patients. Thirty-three people are still unaccounted for.

The U.S. military, the Afghans, and NATO are already planning investigations into the incident that the US now calls a mistake. Obama called MSF president Joanne Liu and apologized for the attack. Liu however sees an independent investigation as necessary especially since there have been inconsistencies between US and Afghan accounts in recent days. Liu said: ”We cannot rely on only internal military investigations by the U.S., NATO and Afghan forces." The MSF sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon about their demand. Stephane Dujarric a spokesperson for the UN said that ban is "always in favor of accountability, and he looks forward to a transparent and impartial investigation of what happened in the hospital in Kunduz". Note that the reply says nothing about who should be investigating.

The MSF demanded that the 15 member International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission based in Bern Switzerland carry out the investigation. The Commission is made up of diplomats, legal experts, doctors, and some former military officers from nine EU countries. It was created after the Gulf War in 1991 but has never been deployed on a fact-finding mission. Liu complained that the attack in Kunduz was not just an attack on their hospital and a possible war crime but an attack on the Geneva Conventions that cannot be tolerated. The attack has completely shattered the humanitarian aid response team in Kunduz, with MSF and other aid groups suspending operations in the area. The hospital was the primary medical facility in the entire region.

Only a single country need call for the Commission to be mobilized. However, both the U.S. and Afghanistan would need to agree to the investigation. Neither Afghanistan nor the U.S. have signed on to this article of the Conventions. MSF has not yet heard from any country.

The MSF demand did receive support from the top commander of NATO:Philip Breedlove, NATO Supreme Commander and four-star US Air Force General, told Deutsche Welle that he supports the investigation called for by Doctors Without Borders, through the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC).

The directory of international law and policy at the International Committee of the Red Cross also supported the MSF, claiming that the IHFFC investigation would complement those of the Afghans, NATO and the US. No doubt some military authorities are probably as astonished at what happened as others and would like to know how it could happen. So far US authorities have said they do not believe an international investigation is needed. But even one of their top generals thinks otherwise.

The circumstances of the attack make the official US view that it was a mistake difficult to believe. The location of the hospital had been made clear to both Afghans and Americans. Hospital officials also noted:

The U.S. military aircraft that attacked an Afghan hospital over the weekend made at least five passes over it dropping explosives, even though two flags draped across the roof of the building marked it as a medical facility, hospital officials said on Thursday.The staff noted the hospital was the only structure hit in the attack. They denied that the Taliban were using the hospital as a base at the time or that there were any armed Taliban fighters in the hospital. The building that was attacked contained emergency rooms, an intensive-care unit, blood lab, and X-ray room plus an outpatient waiting room. No other buildings on the hospital grounds were attacked. The attack began just after 2:00 in the morning and lasted almost an hour even though MSF frantically contacted authorities to inform them the hospital was under attack.

It seems clear that the intention was to attack the building that was hit, even though it was known that it was a hospital. Perhaps, the attack was based upon some intelligence about hi-value targets being in the hospital, or that it was being used as a base by the Taliban. Even if this had been true it would not justify the attack. The U.S. story changed. At first those killed were collateral damage in an attack called in to protect troops being fired upon from the hospital or nearby as discussed on the appended video. As often happens, the story had to be altered as new evidence of what happened emerged.

US drone kills at least 34 attending funeral of a member of the Taliban

On Friday June 5, US drones attacked a funeral for a Taliban fighter in Khost province. Since the funeral was for an alleged Taliban fighter, the Afghan government assumed that the mourners were all members of the Taliban as well.

+ Add Image

A Taliban spokesperson, Zablullah Mujahid, confirmed the attack, but insisted that a number of those killed were innocent members of the same nomadic tribe to which the victim belonged. Mujahid claimed that 20 civilians were killed in the strike. Afghan members of parliament from the region also insisted that a number of civilians were killed in the strikes. Haidar Naeemzoi, a representative of nomads in the lower house of the national assembly insisted that all the victims were civilians:“A U.S. drone attacked people who were returning from the cemetery. The plane targeted two vehicles killing at least 15 people on the spot."

As often is the case, there is a conflicting story but this one is being pushed only by the Khost provincial police who claimed that the US strike was against Taliban forces who were retreating near the Pakistan border. Another report, indicates that many of the mourners came across the border from Pakistan to the attend the ceremony. An anonymous border police officer said:“The incident has taken place few kilometers from the border line with Pakistan. The majority of the insurgents killed in the airstrike had crossed the border to attend the funeral ceremony. All the bodies were collected by security forces and all of them were Taliban militants. There are no civilian casualties.”

There were other drone attacks which took place late on Thursday in Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan. In two bombings at least 17 suspected Taliban members were killed. A regional police spokesperson said that the attacks were on three vehicles containing the insurgents. He also said that among the dead was an important Taliban commander. While the US has made many attacks in the province of late and claim to have killed 50 Taliban, the Islamic State is also busy beheading Taliban members as the group struggles to take over Taliban territory.

Islamic State recruiting in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Kabul - General John Campbell, the commander of international forces in Afghanistan reports that the Islamic State is recruiting fighters in Afghanistan and next door in Pakistan as well.

+ Add Image	1 of 2

Campbell claims that recruiters have funds for recruiting. While he does not believe the Islamic State is fully operational in either country, in Afghanistan some Taliban have split off and pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.

Campbell see this as an attempt for some Taliban to "rebrand" and as a way of bringing attention and resources to themselves. In other areas, this same type of change has led to a significant rise in Islamic State presence. In Libya, some members of Ansar al Sharia, an Al Qaeda-linked group, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Subsequently their strength grew and they now control two coastal cities.

In Afghanistan's Helmand province, Mullah Abdul Rauf has pledged allegiance to the Ilamic State. He is a former senior Taliban commander and former Guantanamo inmate. An elder from the area told the BBC there had been a fight between the new group and the Taliban after they had replaced the Taliban white flags with the black flag of the Islamic State. The elder said about 20 people from both sides had been killed or injured in the clash. The governor of Nimruz province, Amir Mohammed, said the IS tried to recruit people in the south-western province of Farah but were driven out by local people with the help of the police. However, he said the group still had the same program, though they were changing their name.

The Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, has not been seen in public since 2001.There now appears to be a challenge to his leadership from the Islamic State not just in Afghanistan but in Pakistan too. In Pakistan an online video appeared in which several commanders claimed they had pledged allegiance to Abu Al-Baghdadi, the IS leader.

One Afghan news agency reported IS militants already were in control of most of the province of Nangahar in the north-east of Afghanistan, but General Campbell dismissed the report saying:"We are not seeing it operationalized to the point of like what you are seeing in Syria. But I think, given time, that is where they want to go, so I think we have to squash that out now while we can."

He did not deny the reports of Taliban and Islamic State fighters had fought with each other.

A suicide attack in the Afghan eastern city of Jalalabad killed 33 people and injured over a hundred last March. The Taliban condemned the attack but a former spokesperson for the Pakistan Taliban claimed the attack as the work of the Islamic State in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In a visit to Washington last month Afghan president Ghani claimed that the Islamic State posed a "terrible threat" to Afghanistan

Press provides selective coverage of Malala Yousafzai

Malala Yousafzai has recently received her Nobel Peace prize, an award she deserves much more than people such as Barack Obama or Henry Kissinger who have at times promoted war but who were also awarded the prize.

Malala has spent her life promoting education for children, certainly a noble cause and worth supporting. The western media applauds and publicizes statements such as the one she made to the UN: "..let us pick up our books and our pens, they are the most powerful weapons. One child, one teacher, one book and one pen, can change the world. Education is the only solution.” Emphasis upon education alone however, as Ben Norton points out, fails to call attention to the fact that most citizens in underdeveloped countries suffer also from grinding poverty. Malala herself in her statements has not ignored this factor. In the same speech in which she emphasized the role of education, she also emphasized what she called " a glorious struggle against illiteracy poverty, and terrorism." The western media can well applaud her fight for education and against terrorism but there has been little emphasis on her fight against a poverty which helps produce some of the reactionary ideologies against which she is struggling.
  One quarter of the global population live on less than $1.25 per day. UNICEF estimates that 24,000 children under the age of five die every day due to poverty. There are other aspects of Malala's message which are little emphasized in most press accounts among them being her opposition to Obama's drone program. While praising Malala's non-violent approach to change, at the same time many of her supporters may also defend strongly the use of violence in the war on terror including Obama's extensive drone program.

 When Malala met with Obama and his family on October 11 2013 the White House statement stressed Malala's work to promote education of girls: "The United States joins with the Pakistani people and so many around the world to celebrate Malala's courage and her determination to promote the right of all girls to attend school and realize their dreams." In a statement published by the Associated Press on the meeting, Malala said: "I thanked President Obama for the United States' work in supporting education in Pakistan and Afghanistan and for Syrian refugees, I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact." There was silence from the White House on the drone remarks.

Not long afterwards, Nabila Rehman, an eight-year-old Pakistani girl was out picking okra in a field when her grandmother was "eviscerated right before her eyes by a US drone strike." She testified before Congress as did her 13-year-old brother who was injured in the blast. While there was some limited coverage in the press of the testimony, there was no praise of that testimony coming from the White House. Only five out of 430 Congressional members bothered to turn up for the hearing. While the Rehmans were testifying, Obama could not attend because he was busy meeting with the CEO of Lockheed Martin that among other activities manufactures weapons for the US military.

An aspect of Malala's views that is even less covered is her opposition to capitalism. In July of 2012 she had taken part in the national Marxist Summer School in Swat. In March of 2013 she sent a message to the congress of the International Marxist Tendency(IMT) indicating her support for socialism: “First of all I’d like to thank The Struggle and the IMT for giving me a chance to speak last year at their Summer Marxist School in Swat and also for introducing me to Marxism and Socialism. I just want to say that in terms of education, as well as other problems in Pakistan, it is high time that we did something to tackle them ourselves. It’s important to take the initiative. We cannot wait around for any one else to come and do it. Why are we waiting for someone else to come and fix things? Why aren’t we doing it ourselves? I would like to send my heartfelt greetings to the congress. I am convinced Socialism is the only answer and I urge all comrades to take this struggle to a victorious conclusion. Only this will free us from the chains of bigotry and exploitation.” Only selected aspects of Malala's world view our allowed to filter through to be emphasized by the media.

Obama seeks to expand US role in Afghanistan in 2015 to include combat

While US combat troops are scheduled to withdraw from Afghanistan at the end of this year, under an agreement signed by the new Afghan president Ashraf Ghani almost 10,000 troops will remain through 2015 at least.

Back in May of this year, Obama claimed that US troops remaining in Afghanistan after the end of this year would not play any combat role. The troops would train Afghan forces, and hunt down any remnants of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Now Obama plans to extend the role of the remaining troops to include combat actions against the Taliban and any other militant group that threatens either the US troops or the Afghan government, according to "several administration, military and congressional officials with knowledge of the decision" who spoke to the New York Times. President Ghani not only supported but apparently even requested the expanded US role even though such a role was not set out in the original bilateral agreement on security he recently signed. Again the New York Times quotes anonymous officials: According to a senior Afghan official and a former Afghan official who maintains close ties to his former colleagues, in recent weeks both Mr. Ghani and his new national security adviser, Hanif Atmar, have requested that the United States continue to fight Taliban forces in 2015 — as opposed to being strictly limited to operations against Al Qaeda. Mr. Ghani also recently lifted the limits on American airstrikes and joint raids that Mr. Karzai had put in place, the Afghan officials said. The new authorization by Obama will also allow US jets, bombers, and drones to assist Afghan forces in their own combat missions.
 US bombings in Afghanstan have killed many civilians and provoked strong public reaction. President Ghani could face a serious backlash on this matter. He shares power with the runner-up in the contested presidential campaign Abdullah Abdullah. Abdullah could use such reactions for his own political purposes. The Pentagon apparently pressed Obama to make the changes so as to ensure that the Taliban would not be able to return to power. The Pentagon apparently is worried that the Taliban could rapidly advance against Afghan forces just as the Islamic State did against Iraqi troops in Iraq.
 Some of Obamas civilian aides spoke against the change in policy arguing that American lives should be not put at stake through combat operations against the Taliban. Just recently two US soldiers were killed in Kabul, the capital, as their vehicle suffered from a bomb blast. The new policy is made much easier by the relationship that is developing between the US military and President Ghani. General John Campbell the allied commander in Afghanistan claimed that President Ghani was very easy to work with compared to former president Karzai: “The difference is night and day. President Ghani has reached out and embraced the international community. We have a strategic opportunity we haven’t had previously with President Karzai.” If there is strong public reaction to the US role Ghani could change his tune.
A senior US military officer said that the Air Force would likely use F-16 fighters, B-1B bombers, and both Reaper and Predator drones in operations against the Taliban in 2015. The Afghans expected that foreign combat operations would be ending in 2015. This is what Obama promised too, but as with other promises he made, this one will not be kept. Should there be many US casualties there could be a negative political reaction in the US matched by a similar reaction to Afghan civilians killed as collateral damage in the air attacks.
 The Afghan parliament recently passed the new bilateral security agreement which could keep some US troops in Afghanistan for another decade or even beyond, although present plans call for most to be about by the end of 2016. The vote was overwhelming 152 in favor and 5 against. There was no discussion of the changes that Obama plans, namely that the troops would play a combat rather than just an advisory role and also that there would be allied air attacks including, as support for Afghan operations. President Ghani, however, is said to approve these extensions.
 Meanwhile, Obama's Defense Minister Chuck Hagel has resigned. There will be much speculation as to the reasons for the resignation. Some already claim he was in effect fired, others that Hagel was dissatisfied with Obama's policy. Whatever the causes, Obama is clearly switching to a more aggressive military policy and will probably look for a defense minister who will fit into the new model in which, rather than military operations being cut back in some areas, they will be vastly expanded as in Iraq, Syria, and now it seems Afghanistan,.

Aghanistan to remain dependent upon US and allies' funding for years

While the Afghan security forces may or may not be able to fend off attacks by the Taliban when the 2015 fighting begins next spring, one thing is certain, the Afghan government cannot fund those forces without aid from the US and others.

The U.S. along with other international donors provide 65 percent of the $7.6 billion Afghan yearly budget. The special inspector general for Afghan reconstruction, John Sopko, notes that Afghanistan raises only about $2 billion of the annual $5 to $6 billion required each year just to maintain its police force and armed forces. The new government of Afghanistan led by president Ashraf Ghani has been more cooperative with the US so far than former President Hamid Karzai was during the end of his term. Unlike Karzai, Ghani signed a security agreement within days of becoming president that will allow about 10,000 US troops to remain after the present agreement expires at the end of this year.
 The upkeep of the Afghan government has been a huge expense for the US taxpayer. Since 2001 when the Taliban fell and the US-led occupation began, the US government has spent $104 billion for rebuilding and support for the Afghan government. Even though most US troops will be withdrawn at the end of this year, the US is expected to keep providing from $5 to $8 billion a year for another decade.
A report by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee compiled by the Democratic majority staff says that funding must be linked to progress on reform of Afghanistan's human rights record. The new unity government of president Ashraf Ghani and runner-up Abdullah Abdullah will share powers of appointment. Washington has some concern that this could result in a bloated bureaucracy of political appointees. The Senate report warns that the US Congress plans to monitor whom they appoint to government positions. No doubt this will result in the government being packed with many pro-western officials. The report warns that allocation of assistance will be tied to "specific reforms: ""A higher proportion of U.S. assistance should be conditioned based on specific reforms by the Afghan government. The U.S. should make clear to the new government that the appointment process factors into how the U.S. allocates assistance."
 The report also notes that the US should not disengage from Afghanistan as it did in the 1990's with the result that the Taliban came to power in much of the country. The US Congress is likely to approve the aid even in the light of limited reforms to the Afghan human rights record as they have done in the past.
 The security situation in Afghanistan seems to be getting worse at the end of the fighting season and as most western forces withdraw. Even in the northern province of Badakhshan a Taliban operation abducted 17 police officers. In another attack on a prosecutor's office in Kunduz province killed seven prosecutors, two police, and a civilian. Just last Sunday the last US Marines as well as combat troops from the UK ended their Afghan combat operations and responsibility for security was given to Afghan forces. Winter weather will soon create a relative lull in Taliban attacks but it remains to be seen how Afghan forces will fare next spring when a new season of battle will begin.

Taliban seize key area between Kabul and Kandahar on major highway

Hundreds of Taliban attacked the Ajrestan District of Ghazni province a key link between the capital Kabul and southern areas. The Taliban have also been making advances in the south recently.

Some 700 Taliban are said to be involved in the battle which has lasted about a week already. Although fighting is still continuing, there have been over 100 killed and the Afghan forces have been pushed back giving the Taliban effective control over the area. The highway through the area links Kabul to the main southern city of Kandahar.
 Provincial officials say they have lost all contact with police in the area. NATO has attempted to allow the Afghan military to counter Taliban attacks of late with the result that the Taliban are making gains in the south and central areas of Afghanistan. Earlier, Taliban had attacked a government compound in the area containing intelligence and police offices killing at least 8 security personnel and losing 19 of their own fighters. Deputy police chief of the Ajrestan area Asadullah Safi said on Friday: "If there is no urgent help from the central government, the district will collapse". The authorities have lost contact with Safi. With no air cover to pin down the Taliban attackers the Taliban have launched many attacks against military posts. Provincial officials were able to contact an army unit late Friday. The unit reported that fighting was still raging and that Afghan army commandos from outside Ghazni province had arrived as reinforcement.
Ajrestan is a small town but surrounded by about 100 villages. Control of the mountainous Ajrestan district that is about 125 miles southwest of Kabul will provide the Taliban a base to launch attacks on two bordering provinces and along the crucial highway as well. Provincial governor Ahmadi said that he had asked repeatedly for helicopters to evacuate wounded security forces but to no avail.
 Haji Mohammad Mohaqiq, leader of the ethnic Hazara minority said: "Peace with the Taliban requires a strong government. At the moment, the Taliban think they can fight in every province and they believe they can overthrow the government, Without international support it will be hard to provide security ... The example of Ajrestan district shows that without international commitment of troops, it will be difficult to handle the Taliban."
 These attacks come just days before the new Afghan president Ashraf Ghani is to be inaugurated in a unity deal with his opponent Abdullah Abdullah. All foreign troops are set to withdraw by the end of 2014 but the new president has promised that he will sign on to a bilateral security agreement that will allow some troops to remain after that time. The control of the battle against the Taliban already seems to be mainly by the Afghan government. Afghan officials claim that the continuing loses by their forces show that a peace settlement must be negotiated with the Taliban since without a powerful NATO occupation force they will be unable to defeat the Taliban in battle.

Taliban are infiltrating Afghan Local Police

The Taliban are infiltrating local militias funded and trained by the US to attack the Taliban and control security in local areas.
   A recent attack that killed 17 local police was carried out by Taliban infiltrators. Earlier reports, such as this one in Digital Journal, did not go into details about the attack. The New York TImes now reports that several members of the Afghan Local Police drugged 17 of their fellow police officers and then executed them. They then stole all their weapons and fled after setting a police vehicle afire. Afghan officials subsequently said that the attackers were Taliban infiltrators. The Taliban said that the attack was in revenge for atrocities and crimes carried out by these forces against local people. There have been numerous complaints about such forces from local people. A Taliban spokesperson said: “Locals in the area were tired of the atrocities and crimes of these [irregular militias] and their lives and property were not safe."
   Recently Karzai ordered all US special forces out of Wardak provinces because of actions of the ALP who are trained by US special forces. Charges included, torture, illegal detentions, and even killing as reported earlier in Digital Journal. The Afghan Local Police (ALP) are fundamentally armed militias that are funded by the US and supported and trained by US special forces.
  A New York Times article notes: " “Many residents complain that the groups often operate outside the law, extort unofficial taxes from local residents and are prone to act on the basis of ethnic loyalties.”" A Human Rights Watch report in September of 2012 documented cases of killings, rapes, arbitrary detentions, abductions, and illegal raids perpetrated by the ALP. The ALP program was a favorite initiative of General Petraeus who was commander of the ISAF forces in Afghanistan during the second half of 2010 and first half of 2011, before he became head of the CIA.. Petraeus considered the ALP program a key part of his counterinsurgency strategy. Yet the program in many places has been a shambles.

   The appended video illustrates some of the issues even before Petraeus left office. Yet the program continues, and in Wardak mentioned in one video, US special forces have been ordered out of the province. As well as engaging in abuse of locals, several units of the ALP have simply gone over to the Taliban weapons and all. Another group simply gave their weapons to the Taliban. Now it seems they have infiltrated a unit and killed all their fellow recruits.

Afghan soldiers kills two U.S. troops

In another "green on blue" attack an Afghan National Army soldier shot dead two U.S. troops in Laghman province. U.S. troops returned fire killing the Afghan.

Afghan officials said that the incident was an accident. They claim the soldier had tripped over his weapon which discharged killing the two U.S. soldiers. However, U.S. officials claimed that it was not an accident but the result of a dispute.

This is the 33rd "green on blue" attack in 2012. Altogether 42 NATO troops have been killed in the incidents. The Pentagon is trying to put a new spin on the attacks by rebranding them as "insider attacks" suggesting they might be Taliban infiltrators or Taliban using Afghan uniforms.

While no doubt those sorts of cases do exist in this instance there is no evidence that the Afghan was an infiltrator.The shooting was apparently the result of some dispute the nature of which has yet to be clarified. Insider attacks have nearly doubled in 2012 from 2011. Already this year 37 Americans have been killed compared with 28 during the same period last year. In a news conference Defense Secretary Panetta said:

"Make no mistake about it, I've been very concerned about these incidents ... because of the lives lost and because of the potential damage to our partnership efforts,"

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, defended the use of the term "insider attack" calling the "green-on-blue" designation a misnomer. Panetta claimed that the attacks show that the Taliban are becoming desperate. He said:

"The reality is, the Taliban has not been able to regain any territory lost, and so they're resorting to these kinds of attacks to create havoc,"

Panetta is obviously putting a quite positive spin on these attacks. This is a common tactic. Whenever there is some dramatic Taliban attack it is often interpreted as a sign of desperation. For the safety of NATO troops Panetta had better hope that the Taliban do not become even more desperate! Panetta also reminded Americans that the U.S. was still at war in Afghanistan:

"There are a lot of other things going on in this country (the United States) that can draw our attention, from the Olympics to political campaigns to droughts to some of the tragedies we've seen in communities around the country... But I thought it was important to remind the American people ... that young men and women are dying in order to try to protect this country."

Certainly the Afghan war does not surface as much of an issue in the U.S. election campaign. Panetta does not mention that there is an agreement with Afghanistan that will continue the U.S. presence in Afghanistan from 2014 to 2024 in spite of the turnover of security to the Afghans in 2014.

NATO tankers attacked and burned by Taliban in Afghanistan

     Since the NATO transit routes through Pakistan have reopened supplies are coming into Afghanistan through the east of the country. The Taliban operate in many parts of  Afghanistan near the eastern border. Now that NATO tankers traverse the area they will be prime targets for the insurgents.
   Press TV reports that 12 NATO tankers that were carrying fuel for U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan have been attacked. The report claims that one driver was killed and four security guards injured. The tankers were set on fire. Afghan officials have blamed the Taliban for the attacks and in turn the Taliban have claimed responsibility.
    A Taliban spokesperson claimed that 25 tankers were attacked, and several drivers and security guards were killed. NATO has yet to report on the incident. No doubt attacks will continue perhaps within Pakistan as well. For more see this article.

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.

Afghanistan: Two U.S. military officers killed at Interior Ministry

Details about the event are still forthcoming and unclear at present. The two killed were said to be a major and a colonel in the U.S. military.

 The two were killed by gunshot wounds to the head in a room reserved for ISAF advisers. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the incident and also said that the perpetrator and an accomplice were still on the loose and resisting. However neither NATO nor Afghan officials confirmed the Taliban account.

The Taliban also said that the killing was in response to burning of  copies of the Koran at Bagram Air Force. There have been demonstrations against the burning for days. A number of Afghans have been killed. Four were killed recently when they tried to storm a U.S. compound in the north.

   The center where the killings took place has been closed by ISAF. According to an Al Jazeera reporter Afghan have no part in investigating the deaths. A U.S. Dept. of Defense spokesperson said that they did not know who killed the two ISAF members or why. No doubt the truth or parts of it will come out in time. For more see this article.


UPDATE: ISAF is withdrawing hundreds of advisers from the Kabul area. For more see this article.

Iran, Pakistan, Afghan meeting ends in acrimony

Leaders of the three neighbouring countries discussed a number of peace efforts. Afghanistan failed to get Pakistani support for an Afghan initiative to promote peace with the Taliban.

  Pakistan's foreign minister Hina Khar felt that Afghanistan had ridiculous expectations as to Pakistan's influence over the Taliban. For example, he said it was preposterous that Afghan authorities should think that Pakistan could force Mullah Omar head of the Afghan Taliban to the negotiating table.

  The harsh comments were rather unexpected as usually these disagreements are kept in the background. The U.S. is promoting the peace process. However the Taliban has always demanded the withdrawal of U.S. troops as a condition of a settlement. But some troops are expected to stay in Afghanistan are 2014.

  A Taliban spokesperson said:"The Taliban did not talk with the Kabul government anywhere," An Afghan analyst based in Kabul noted that both Iran and Pakistan must agree to any peace deal for lasting peace in the area. For more see this article.

Afghan rich exporting their riches to calmer climes

 Tales of cash being exported from Afghanistan to calmer climes such as Gulf Emirates have been ongoing but the pace of the transfer is apparently speeding up. A common theory is that the rich are worried about losing power when their western defenders leave or that civil conflict will make their future uncertain.
   Many analysts doubt that the Taliban actually have the power to take over government again. What is more likely is that they will be an influential group within the government. They along with others may insist on clearing out some of the corrupt politicians within the Karzai regime. No doubt many of the rich fear that might include them!
    Afghan officials are supposedly trying to find a way to prevent this export of hard currency that includes U.S. dollars, Euros, and scrip from Gulf emirates. Much of the money going back out of the country may have come from the U.S. A U.S. government audit discovered that they were unable to track much of the billions spent on both security and development projects over the years.
    A favorite place for rich Afghans to stash their wealth is in Dubai. An estimated 8 billion U.S. has come from Afghanistan.
   The West has provided security and opportunities for profit for a long time now. As the West reduces its aid and military presence those who have profited from the west's favorite pastime of fighting terrorism by taking on radicals who were their former allies can relax in the luxury of the man made Palm Jumeirah Island in Dubai. For more see this article.
 

Afghan govt. asks UN to ease sanctions on reformed Taliban

What seems new about this policy is simply that the Afghan government is trying to get the UN to remove sanctions from reformed Taliban. Perhaps too the earlier policy probably required reformed Taliban to cut all ties to the Taliban. This position seems a bit more liberal. It is interesting that protests against dealing with the terrorists is coming from Russia rather than the US although both the US and Russia seem to agree that there could be negotiations with Taliban who renounce Al Qaeda and the use of force and swear allegiance to the Karzai government. The Taliban has made withdrawal of foreign troops a condition of negotiations however so probably not that many Taliban will respond to the offer and those who do may be moles who if the UN does ease sanctions could be used to facilitate Taliban financial deals. This is from antiwar.com.


Afghanistan asks UN to ease some Taliban sanctions on members who renounce violence

JOHN HEILPRIN
AP News



Afghanistan asked the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday to lift sanctions on elements of the Taliban that renounce violence and agree to support the government, signaling a new strategy against the militants.

Meanwhile, the United States said it is tripling its civilian experts in the nation to almost 1,000 — in a complementary effort to the additional 30,000 U.S. troops President Barack Obama has ordered to the Afghanistan.

At a Security Council debate, Afghan Ambassador Zahir Tanin proposed allowing his government to recommend names of Taliban members "willing to renounce violence and join the peace process," so that they would no longer be subject to asset freezes, travel bans and arms embargoes if the council's sanctions panel approves.

Tanin said Afghans are ready to take over their own security and defense, but military efforts cannot bring peace and stability without "reconciliation" among all citizens and "integration" of former combatants.

"Afghanistan's government has opened its door to all Afghans willing to participate in the stabilization and the construction of their country, in line with the Afghan constitution, and with respect for human rights," he said. "But while reconciliation is an Afghan-led effort, it cannot be achieved by the Afghan government alone."

Council members said they support the aims of the Afghan government, but expressed concerns about the plan.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said his nation favors Afghan reconciliation but "the possibility of agreements with Taliban leaders and other terrorists and extremist organizations should not be seriously considered."

"Dialogue is possible only with those who have laid down their weapons, recognized the government and constitution of Afghanistan, and broken their ties with al-Qaida and other terrorist structures," he said.

U.S. Deputy Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo said "one key element" of the United States' political strategy is "to support Afghan-led efforts to reintegrate Taliban members who renounce al-Qaida, lay down their arms, and engage in the constitutional political process."

She said the number of U.S. civilian experts in Afghanistan will grow to 920 by the end of January and "just under 1,000 civilians shortly thereafter," more than triple the 320 Americans on the ground at the end of January 2009.

Norway's Kai Eide, in his final remarks to the council as outgoing head of the U.N. mission in Afghanistan, warned the overall situation could become "unmanageable" without a better strategy for returning power to Afghans from international military and aid donors.

Source: AP News

Explosion kills Afghan Police Chief and 3 officers.

Many of the local police are so unpopular that locals support the Taliban. The Taliban just withdraw from an area as long as foreign troops have control or engage in sporadic attacks. It is hardly surprising there is an increasing opposition to the occupation given air and other attacks who have killed a considerable number of non-combatants.

This is from the NYTimes.



July 14, 2009
Explosion Kills Afghan Police Chief and 3 Officers
By CARLOTTA GALL and RUHULLAH KHAPALWAK
KABUL, Afghanistan — The police chief of a district south of Kabul that the Americans had sought to make a Taliban-free model of safety and security was killed Monday along with three of his officers in a roadside blast.
The deaths cast a blow to the American effort and suggested that Taliban operatives had re-infiltrated the district, Jalrez, in Wardak Province.
........
He(Karzai) also addressed the growing concern among Afghans about the foreign troop presence, with the largest increase of American troops since 2001 and a sudden surge in violence. A report published Monday by an independent group of diplomats, the Afghanistan Analysts Network, warned that the Taliban’s appeal is increasing in Afghanistan alongside a “deepening sense of occupation and undercurrents of anti-Westernism.”

45 killed in fresh Afghan violence.

Notice that these attacks are in Western Afghanistan not the south or east where most of the violence usually occurs. Official pronouncements about numbers of Taliban killed are always suspect. Note that the kills are after U.S. air bombardment. This practice is bound to produce collateral damage that is a great recruitment boon for the Taliban. The Taliban seem to be learning to spin the news from the occupiers According to the Taliban those killed were all innocent civilians! This is from AFP.



45 killed in fresh Afghan violence
Mon Jun 30, 9:02 AM ET
US-led air strikes and Afghan ground troops killed 33 Taliban rebels in western Afghanistan, while four civilians were killed in bomb blasts elsewhere, officials said Monday.
The coalition said "numerous" militants were killed on Sunday during an operation in Nimroz province targeting a Taliban leader involved in bomb attacks but did not give further details.
Insurgents attacked a police post in Khash Rod district of Nimroz late Sunday, leaving five Taliban dead in the clash that broke out immediately afterwards, provincial police chief Mohammad Ayob Badakhshi told AFP.
After the incident the militants massed with other insurgents in the same district, where they were bombed by US-led coalition aircraft, provincial governor Ghulam Dastageer Azad told AFP.
"In the aerial bombing by the US troops 28 Taliban were killed and many others were wounded. The dead include three Taliban commanders," Azad said.
The Afghan interior ministry however put the death toll at 15.
The governor said locals had told him that eight civilians were also killed near the bombing area but he could not confirm the information.
A coalition statement said it killed "numerous" armed militants using small-arms fire and air strikes in an operation on Sunday targeting a Taliban leader known to facilitate bomb attacks, but did not give figures.
A Taliban spokesman, Yousuf Ahmadi, said that none of its fighters were killed in the bombing and that all those who died were civilians. Many of his previous claims have proved to be exaggerated.
"They killed 22 people and they were all civilians who had gathered in open due to hot weather for a ceremony. None of them were Taliban," Ahmadi said in a telephone call.
Meanwhile a mother and three of her sons died when a bomb the men were allegedly constructing exploded in their home in Wardak province, just south of the capital Kabul, district chief Enaytullah Mangal told AFP.
A teenage girl, apparently the sister of the suspected insurgents, was wounded.
"Our investigation showed that they were constructing a bomb to be later used in terrorist attacks. The bomb exploded and killed three brothers and their mother," Mangal said.
The district chief said that one of the brothers, an engineer, was recently freed from a jail where he was held for several months over suspected links with Taliban militants.
Hundreds of Afghan security forces backed by NATO-led troops launched an operation in several districts in Wardak at the weekend to root out Taliban insurgents who have increased attacks in recent weeks.
Three US-led soldiers were killed in a bomb explosion there on Friday.
Separately four civilians were killed and two police were wounded in three roadside bomb blasts Monday in Zurmat district of eastern Paktia province, spokesman for provincial governor Rohullah Samoon said.
In a similar incident an army vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb on Sunday in the same district killing two Afghan soldiers, the defense ministry said.
Another two militants were killed Sunday in a firefight in the Marja district of troubled Helmand province, the ministry said.
The Taliban was ousted from power in late 2001 by a US-led invasion and has since launched a bloody insurgency which has claimed thousands of lives.
Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.

Report: NATO is not winning in Afghanistan.

NATO should never have gone into Afghanistan in the first place nor should there have ever been the misnamed Operation Enduring Freedom. Karzai's government is dependent upon the occupiers but he is nevertheless not a reliable puppet. In fact, he is trying to make deals himself with the Taliban even offering posts in his government. After all, someone who can live with former warlords and "reformed" Taliban in his present government will not care about the sensibilities of his Western handlers if it can save his own skin. The sooner that the US and allies come to their senses and the U.S. gives up its imperial designs wrapped up in flowery moral rhetoric the better. What they have produced is a government that produces most of the world's opium, condemns a journalist to death for distributing material on women's rights. It also condemned a Muslim convert to Christianity to death and kicked a female legislator out of the legislature because she criticised her fellow legislators. Even if NATO wins what you will have is a government that will be far from having any of the religious and human rights associated with western democracies. But face it that is not the point, the point is that the government goes along with US policy and interests for the most part. This is from the Washington Post.

NATO's Not Winning in Afghanistan, Report Says
By Ann Scott TysonWashington Post Staff Writer Thursday, January 31, 2008; Page A18
NATO forces in Afghanistan are in a "strategic stalemate," as Taliban insurgents expand their control of sparsely populated areas and as the central government fails to carry out vital reforms and reconstruction, according to an independent assessment released yesterday by NATO's former commander.
"Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan," said the report by the Atlantic Council of the United States, chaired by retired Gen. James L. Jones, who until the summer of 2006 served as the supreme allied commander of NATO.
"Afghanistan remains a failing state. It could become a failed state," warned the report, which called for "urgent action" to overhaul NATO strategy in coming weeks before an anticipated new offensive by Taliban insurgents in the spring.
The Atlantic Council report was one of two strongly worded assessments of the war in Afghanistan -- both led by Jones -- released at a Capitol Hill news conference yesterday. The second was by the Afghanistan Study Group, co-chaired by Jones and Thomas R. Pickering, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia and other nations.
Jones said several steps are needed to "regain the momentum that appears to have been lost" in Afghanistan: a comprehensive campaign plan that integrates security and reconstruction work; the appointment of a United Nations High Commissioner to coordinate international efforts; and a new regional approach to stabilizing Afghanistan that would include conferences with neighboring countries such as Pakistan and Iran.
Progress in Afghanistan "is under serious threat from resurgent violence, weakening international resolve, mounting regional challenges and a growing lack of confidence on the part of the Afghan people about the future direction of their country," said the report by the Afghanistan Study Group, created by the Center for the Study of the Presidency, which was also involved with the Iraq Study Group.
"The United States and the international community have tried to win the struggle in Afghanistan with too few military forces and insufficient economic aid," the report said. It highlighted the lack of a clear strategy needed to "fill the power vacuum outside Kabul and to counter the combined challenges of reconstituted Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a runaway opium economy, and the stark poverty faced by most Afghans."
The study group said the United States should "decouple" Iraq and Afghanistan to establish a clear distinction between the funding and programs underway in the countries, which, it said, face different problems. It also called on Washington to appoint a special envoy for Afghanistan.
Violence has risen 27 percent in Afghanistan in the past year, with a 39 percent increase in attacks in the nation's eastern portion -- where most U.S. troops operate -- and a 60 percent surge in the province of Helmand, where the Taliban resurgence has been strongest.
Suicide bombings rose to 140 in 2007, compared with five between 2001 and 2005, according to official figures. U.S. and other foreign troop losses -- as well as Afghan civilian casualties -- reached the highest level since the U.S.-led invasion overthrew the Taliban government in 2001.
Amid the rising violence, the Pentagon announced this month that it would deploy 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan to help counter the expected Taliban offensive.