US vs Talibans

[Merlin]

Holbrooke said "This war [in Afghanistan] is going to end when the Taliban lay down their arms and reintegrate into society." and talks with Mullah Omar is a non-starter unless they "repudiates al-Qaeda publicly."

But I think for Mullah Omar, laying down the arms of the Talibans is a non-starter,

Afghan war will end if militants lay down arms: US

11 July [Hindu] Washington (PTI): Ruling out talks with Taliban till they renounce violence and repudiate al-Qaeda publicly, a top Obama Administration official today said that the war against terrorism in Afghanistan would end only after the militant group lays down its arms.

"... This war is going to end when the Taliban lay down their arms and reintegrate into society. And that's always been an option," Special US Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke said.

"The United States and (Afghan) President (Hamid) Karzai have long said that Taliban reconciliation is part of our programme, people who work with the Taliban, who support them, who want to lay down their arms and participate, the door is always open," he told CNN in an interview.

Holbrooke refrained from answering directly when he was shown a video clip of a CNN interview with the spokesperson of Pakistan Army saying that the Army and the ISI both have maintained contacts with the Taliban leader Mullah Omar and they can bring him on the table of talks for the US. ....

"No, I don't know what he's talking about. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are linked like this. And, unless the Taliban repudiates al-Qaeda publicly, this is a nonstarter...," Holbrooke said.

[diablo49]

glad to see there is sense. Don't know what I would have done if they actually considered those talks.

[Merlin]

McChrystal warn of rising casulties again. This is very bad news for Gates and the US public.

The issue is how best to face this reality.

Taliban Now Winning

10 Aug [WSJ] U.S. Commander in Afghanistan Warns of Rising Casualties

The Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan, the top American commander there said, forcing the U.S. to change its strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile southern city of Kandahar, the insurgency's spiritual home.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned that means U.S. casualties, already running at record levels, will remain high for months to come.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the commander offered a preview of the strategic assessment he is to deliver to Washington later this month, saying the troop shifts are designed to better protect Afghan civilians from rising levels of Taliban violence and intimidation. The coming redeployments are the clearest manifestation to date of Gen. McChrystal's strategy for Afghanistan, which puts a premium on safeguarding the Afghan population rather than hunting down militants.

Gen. McChrystal said the Taliban are moving beyond their traditional strongholds in southern Afghanistan to threaten formerly stable areas in the north and west.

The militants are mounting sophisticated attacks that combine roadside bombs with ambushes by small teams of heavily armed militants, causing significant numbers of U.S. fatalities, he said. July was the bloodiest month of the war for American and British forces, and 12 more American troops have already been killed in August. ....

In an effort to regain the upper hand, Gen. McChrystal said he will redeploy some troops currently in sparsely populated areas to areas with larger concentrations of Afghan civilians, while some of the 4,000 American troops still to arrive will be deployed to Kandahar.

The Obama administration is in the midst of an Afghan buildup that will push U.S. troop levels here to a record 68,000 by year end. There are roughly an additional 30,000 troops from North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries and other allies.

Several officials who have taken part in Gen. McChrystal's 60-day review of the war effort said they expect him to ultimately request as many as 10,000 more troops -- a request many observers say will be a tough sell at the White House, where several senior administration officials have said publicly that they want to hold off on sending more troops until the impact of the initial influx of 21,000 reinforcements can be gauged.

The U.S. war effort in Afghanistan is costing American taxpayers about $4 billion a month. ...

[Merlin]

Be willing to listen and learn from past mistakes.

US looks to Vietnam for Afghan tips

3 days ago [AP] BRUSSELS — Top U.S. officials have reached out to a leading Vietnam war scholar to discuss the similarities of that conflict 40 years ago with American involvement in Afghanistan, where the U.S. is seeking ways to isolate an elusive guerrilla force and win over a skeptical local population.

The overture to Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Stanley Karnow, who opposes the Afghan war, comes as the U.S. is evaluating its strategy there.

President Barack Obama has doubled the size of the U.S. force to curb a burgeoning Taliban insurgency and bolster the Afghan government. He has tasked Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander, to conduct a strategic review of the fight against Taliban guerrillas and draft a detailed proposal for victory.

McChrystal and Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy to the country, telephoned Karnow on July 27 in an apparent effort to apply the lessons of Vietnam to the Afghan war, which started in 2001 when U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban regime in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Among the concerns voiced by historians is the credibility of President Hamid Karzai's government, which is widely perceived as being plagued by graft and corruption. They draw a parallel between Afghanistan's presidential election on Aug. 20 and the failed effort in Vietnam to legitimize a military regime lacking broad popular support through an imposed presidential election in 1967. ....

An administration official said academics and outside experts have been consulted frequently during the Obama presidency, especially around high-profile events or decisions. ....

Holbrooke briefly commented on contrasts between the two conflicts, noting that the military regime in Saigon was corrupt and unpopular, while the international community seeks to build a democracy in Afghanistan.

The Vietnam war also was a much bigger conflict. Nearly 550,000 U.S. troops were deployed at the height of the war, whereas 102,000 international troops are currently in Afghanistan — of which 63,000 are American. .....

James McAllister, a professor of political science at Williams College in Massachusetts who has written extensively about Vietnam, said the administration could learn a lot from Vietnam. ....

"American policy makers clearly see parallels between the two wars," he said. "They know that the mistakes we made in Vietnam must be avoided in Afghanistan."

McAllister cited analogies between the two wars:

_ In both wars, security forces had an overwhelming advantage in firepower over lightly armed but highly mobile guerrillas.

_ Insurgents in both cases were able to use safe havens in neighboring countries to regroup and re-equip.

_He pointed to McChrystal's order to limit airstrikes and prevent civilian casualties, linking it to the overuse of air power in Vietnam which resulted in massive civilian deaths.

McAllister drew a parallel to another failed political strategy from Vietnam — the presidential election.

"That ('67 ballot) helped ensure that U.S. efforts would continue to be compromised by its support for a corrupt, unpopular regime in Saigon," McAllister said.

Rufus Phillips, Holbrooke's boss in Vietnam and author of the book "Why Vietnam Matters," echoed that warning.

"The rigged election in South Vietnam proved (to be) the most destructive and destabilizing factor of all," said Phillips, now in Kabul helping to monitor the upcoming election.

David Kilcullen, a counterinsurgency specialist who will soon assume a role as a senior adviser to McChrystal, compared Karzai to South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem.

"He has a reasonably clean personal reputation but he's seen as ineffective; his family are corrupt; he's alienated a very substantial portion of the population," Kilcullen said Thursday at the U.S. Institute of Peace. ...

[citanon]

It's prudent for NATO to evaluate whether drug money truly contributes to Taliban efforts, but to be obsessed with the "legality" of killing or capturing drug dealers in the middle of a full blown insurgency?

August 10, 2009
U.S. to Hunt Down Afghan Drug Lords Tied to Taliban
By JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON — Fifty Afghans believed to be drug traffickers with ties to the Taliban have been placed on a Pentagon target list to be captured or killed, reflecting a major shift in American counternarcotics strategy in Afghanistan, according to a Congressional study to be released this week.

United States military commanders have told Congress that they are convinced that the policy is legal under the military’s rules of engagement and international law. They also said the move is an essential part of their new plan to disrupt the flow of drug money that is helping finance the Taliban insurgency.

In interviews with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is releasing the report, two American generals serving in Afghanistan said that major traffickers with proven links to the insurgency have been put on the “joint integrated prioritized target list.” That means they have been given the same target status as insurgent leaders, and can be captured or killed at any time.

The generals told Senate staff members that two credible sources and substantial additional evidence were required before a trafficker was placed on the list, and only those providing support to the insurgency would be made targets.

Currently, they said, there are about 50 major traffickers who contribute money to the Taliban on the list.

“We have a list of 367 ‘kill or capture’ targets, including 50 nexus targets who link drugs and the insurgency,” one of the generals told the committee staff. The generals were not identified in the Senate report, which was obtained by The New York Times.

The shift in policy comes as the Obama administration, deep into the war in Afghanistan, makes significant changes to its strategy for dealing with that country’s lucrative drug trade, which provides 90 percent of the world’s heroin and has led to substantial government corruption.

The Senate report’s disclosure of a hit list for drug traffickers may lead to criticism in the United States over the expansion of the military’s mission, and NATO allies have already raised questions about the strategy of killing individuals who are not traditional military targets.

For years the American-led mission in Afghanistan had focused on destroying poppy crops. Pentagon officials have said their new emphasis is on weaning local farmers off the drug trade — including the possibility of paying them to grow nothing — and going after the drug runners and drug lords. But the Senate report is the first account of a policy to actually place drug chieftains aligned with the Taliban on a “kill or capture” list.

Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, would not comment on the Senate report, but said that “there is a positive, well-known connection between the drug trade and financing for the insurgency and terrorism.” Without directly addressing the existence of the target list, he said that it was “important to clarify that we are targeting terrorists with links to the drug trade, rather than targeting drug traffickers with links to terrorism.”

Several individuals suspected of ties to drug trafficking have already been apprehended and others have been killed by the United States military since the new policy went into effect earlier this year, a senior military official with direct knowledge of the matter said in an interview. Most of the targets are in southern and eastern Afghanistan, where both the drug trade and the insurgency are the most intense.

One American military officer serving in Afghanistan described the purpose of the target list for the Senate committee. “Our long-term approach is to identify the regional drug figures,” the unidentified officer is quoted as saying in the Senate report. The goal, he said, is to “persuade them to choose legitimacy, or remove them from the battlefield.”

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing delicate policy matters.

When Donald H. Rumsfeld was defense secretary, the Pentagon fiercely resisted efforts to draw the United States military into supporting counternarcotics efforts. Top military commanders feared that trying to prevent drug trafficking would only antagonize corrupt regional warlords whose support they needed, and might turn more of the populace against American troops.

It was only in the last year or two of the Bush administration that the United States began to recognize that the Taliban insurgency was being revived with the help of drug money.

The policy of going after drug lords is likely to raise legal concerns from some NATO countries that have troops in Afghanistan. Several NATO countries initially questioned whether the new policy would comply with international law.

“This was a hard sell in NATO,” said retired Gen. John Craddock, who was supreme allied commander of NATO forces until he retired in July.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the secretary general of NATO until last month, told the Senate committee staff that to deal with the concerns of other nations with troops in Afghanistan, safeguards had been put in place to make sure the alliance remained within legal bounds while pursuing drug traffickers. Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, is also informed before a mission takes place, according to a senior military official.

General Craddock said that some NATO countries were also concerned that the new policy would draw the drug lords closer to the Taliban, because they would turn to them for more protection. “But the opposite is the case, since it weakens the Taliban, so they can’t provide that protection,” General Craddock said. “If we continue to push on this, we will see progress,” he added. “It’s causing them problems.”

In a surprise, the Senate report reveals that the United States intelligence community believes that the Taliban has been getting less money from the drug trade than previous public studies have suggested. The Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency both estimate that the Taliban obtains about $70 million a year from drugs.

The Senate report found that American officials did not believe that Afghan drug money was fueling Al Qaeda, which instead relies on contributions from wealthy individuals and charities in Persian Gulf countries, as well as aid organizations working inside Afghanistan.

But even with the new, more cautious estimates, the Taliban has plenty of drug money to finance its relatively inexpensive insurgency. Taliban foot soldiers are paid just $10 a day — more if they plant an improvised explosive device.

Not all those suspected of drug trafficking will end up on the Pentagon’s list. Intelligence gathered by the United States and Afghanistan will more often be used for prosecutions, although American officials are frustrated that they still have not been able to negotiate an extradition treaty with the Afghan government.

A major unresolved problem in the counternarcotics strategy is the fact that the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan remains wide open, and the Pakistanis are doing little to close down drug smuggling routes.

A senior American law enforcement official in the region is quoted in the report as saying that cooperation with Pakistan on counternarcotics is so poor that traffickers cross the border with impunity.

“We give them leads on targets,” the official said in describing the Pakistani government’s counternarcotics tactics, adding, “We get smiles, a decent cup of tea, occasional reheated sandwiches and assertions of progress, and we all leave with smiles on our faces.”

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

[Merlin]

The US do not enter Pakistan to fight against the Talibans. They do it with drones.

Officials: Another US missile strike in Pakistan

1 hr ago [AP] ISLAMABAD — The U.S. resumed missile strikes in Pakistan's northwest Tuesday — nearly a week after one reportedly killed the country's Taliban chief — hitting a hide-out believed to be frequented by his supporters and killing at least eight suspected militants, intelligence officials said.

Two officials put the death toll at 14.

The latest missile attack came as the Taliban continued to deny their leader, Baitullah Mehsud, was killed in last week's strike, and amid conflicting reports of a power struggle among those trying to decide who should succeed him. Intelligence officials say meetings are being held in the South Waziristan tribal region to try to name an heir. .....

Tuesday's missile strike hit a compound in the Kani Guram area of South Waziristan, a known Mehsud stronghold. Two intelligence officials in the Pakistani capital said Mehsud commanders had regularly visited the site.

They said they did not know if the militants gathered at the site Tuesday were involved in trying to decide who would succeed Mehsud.

Two other intelligence officials based in the northwest said the strike killed 14 militants. It destroyed the facility, they said. .......

[Knaur Amarsh]

Marines storm Taliban town in Afghanistan

At least 7 insurgents killed in battle to gain control of strategic area

Marines storm Taliban town in Afghanistan - Afghanistan- msnbc.com

Afghan soldiers search for the source of gunfire on Wednesday while traveling in a convoy to Dahaneh to participate in an operation with U.S. Marines

updated 9:21 a.m. ET Aug. 12, 2009
DAHANEH, Afghanistan - Helicopter-borne U.S. Marines backed by Harrier jets stormed a Taliban-held town in southern Afghanistan before dawn Wednesday, the launch of a new operation to uproot Taliban fighters from a longtime base and provide security for next week's presidential election.

The troops exchanged heavy fire with insurgents, killing at least seven. Associated Press journalists traveling with the first wave said militants fired small arms, mortars and rocket propelled grenades after helicopters dropped the troops over Taliban lines. Fighting lasted more than eight hours, as Harrier jets streaked overhead and dropped flares in a show of force.

The Taliban put up such fierce resistance that Marines said they suspected the militants knew the assault was coming.

Other Marines met heavy resistance as they fought to seize control of the mountains surrounding Dahaneh in the southern province of Helmand. Another convoy of Marines rolled into the town despite roadside bomb attacks and gunfire.

It was the first time NATO troops had entered Dahaneh, which has been under Taliban control for years.

U.S., NATO and Afghan troops are working to protect voting sites around the country so Afghans can take part in the country's second-ever direct presidential election on Aug. 20. Taliban militants have vowed to disrupt the elections, and attacks are on the rise.

Marines said they killed between seven and 10 militants in Wednesday's push and seized about 66 pounds of opium, which the militants use to finance their insurgency. Troops hope to restore control of the town so that residents can vote in the election.

The new offensive, named "Eastern Resolve 2," is designed to break the monthslong stalemate in this southern valley where the Taliban are solidly entrenched. By occupying Dahaneh, the Marines hope to isolate insurgents in woods and mountains, away from civilian centers.

"I think this has the potential to be a watershed," said Capt. Zachary Martin, commander of Golf Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines, who led the assault.

Hopes for a ripple effect

The goal is to cut off the Taliban from a major rear base, and reclaim the area's market district. It is hoped this would have a ripple effect through nearby villages, making civilians more willing to cooperate with NATO forces. The Taliban levy taxes and maintain checkpoints in Dahaneh, which serves as a main trading route through northern Helmand, which produces 60 percent of the world's opium.

"In the long term, it could have tremendous effects for the entire province," said Martin, whose company is based in Naw Zad, five miles to the north.

A combined force of some 500 U.S. and Afghan troops took part in the attack, which included helicopters, snipers, and female Marines brought in to interact with Afghan women during the compound-by-compound search conducted by Afghan forces who accompanied the Americans.

The Marines arrived in helicopters under cover of darkness, but at morning light, militants unleashed their weapons.

Marines cried out "Incoming!" as the whistles of Taliban rockets approached. A heavy rocket targeted a Marine outpost, but flew over the small base, while a mortar round landed just 20 yards from a Humvee on the town's outskirts.

"Just a few meters further and I'd be dead," said Corp. Joshua Jackson, 23, from Copley, Ohio, after one round landed nearby.

Progress into the town was slowed by a heavy machine gun the Taliban had in one of the streets. Militants also brought in a truck to fire heavy missiles. Marines said the Taliban's reputation for firing poorly aimed shots and fleeing had not proved true here.

"This is a Taliban home down here, so for once they're not running," said Lance Corp. Garett Davidson, 24, of West Desmorins, Iowa.

Fighting was made harder for the Marines by the fact insurgents were shooting from house rooftops and courtyards, potentially putting civilians in danger. But civilians — perhaps 100 — were seen fleeing on foot in the early morning, leaving the Marines confident that those left in the town were militants.

Martin said the Marines would strictly limit the type of weapons they used and would stick to a "proportional response" when under fire to limit civilian casualties.

After militants fired volleys of rockets from a mud-wall compound, the Marines called in a missile strike, and Capt. Zachary Martin said seven to 10 militants inside were killed. No civilians were inside, he said.

"We were tracking these individuals, they were there ... and then boom, and they weren't there," Martin said.

Martin confirmed suspicions among the Marines that the fierce resistance indicated that the Taliban had been tipped off about the operation beforehand. "I'm pretty sure they knew of it in advance," he said.


A team carries the remains of Marine Lance Cpl. Javier Olvera of Palmdale, Calif., at Dover Air Force Base in Dover, Del., on Monday. Casualties have mounted as U.S. and NATO troops ramp up military operations following President Barack Obama's decision to deploy 21,000 more American forces to Afghanistan this year to cope with the rising Taliban insurgency.

Three years of constant fighting

Once the second largest-town in Helmand, Naw Zad has been almost emptied of its 30,000 inhabitants after three years of near-constant fighting. Taliban lines begin barely a mile from the Marines' forward operating base, set amid minefields with hundreds of homemade explosives. By occupying Dahaneh, the Marines say they can outflank the insurgents in Naw Zad valley and isolate them in woods and mountains.

By late morning a contingent of Afghan Army soldiers had driven into the section of the town now controlled by the Marines, and some Marines were preparing to head out for the first NATO patrol ever in Dahaneh. It planned to reach out to civilians possibly huddled in their homes as sporadic but fierce outbursts of intense gunfire continued through the morning.

The target at the start of the operation was two suspected Taliban compounds, which were raided commando-style by a group of Marines dropped behind enemy lines. A second group drove in from the Marines' main base in Naw Zad. Their goal was to secure what Marines have been calling "The Devil's Pass," a narrow passage between two steep hills that controls the entrance to the Naw Zad district.

The offensive follows "Eastern Resolve 1," which was the Marines' initial push out of Naw Zad in early spring. This first move was of limited effect, because U.S. troops were too thinly spread at the time to control areas they managed to claim from insurgents.

Casualties have mounted as U.S. and NATO troops ramp up military operations following President Barack Obama's decision to deploy 21,000 more American forces to Afghanistan this year to cope with the rising Taliban insurgency.

Last month, U.S. and NATO deaths from roadside and suicide bomb blasts in Afghanistan soared six-fold compared with the same month last year, as militants detonated the highest number of bombs of the eight-year war, according to figures released Tuesday.

[nirmal]

Can any officer from Indian army comment on the war?
As regards counter insurgency ops against armed, highly mobile militants / terrorists in all kinds of terrain aided from adjacent countries, able to melt into local population - etc for nearly 5 decades - you guys should be having lots of experience. Nearly all the time, you guys have managed to hold the line till political solutions were eventually worked out. And you still are there.
What do you think about american / nato tactics esp use of airpower. Why is it that even helicopter gunships were never used by Indian army in counterinsurgency ops? Is there any paralells between indian situations and afghanistan. what in Indian army assessment is likely outcome. Are NATO casualities too high or expected levels. What would you do differently here.
Can any Indian army officer reply, please

[Merlin]

After his visit to Afghanistan and Pakistan, this below is the strategy Holbrooke is laying out for Afghanistan. This matter more than counter-insurgency there.

Afghan Strategy More Than Counterinsurgency, Holbrooke Says

13 Aug [RFERL] WASHINGTON -- Richard Holbrooke, the special U.S. envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, says an important part of Washington's strategy to defeated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is recognizing that Afghanistan doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Holbrooke made his comments at a forum in Washington on August 12 sponsored by the Center for American Progress, where he noted that Afghanistan shares a long border with Iran, which gives Iran significant influence in the western of the country.

In particular, Holbrooke pointed to Herat, a city in northwestern Afghanistan at one end of a major road that leads into Iran. ....

Holbrooke noted that Iran played a constructive role in helping Karzai establish a stable government when he was first elected president. And Iran also has been helpful with Pakistan, pledging $330 million to Islamabad at an international conference in Tokyo in April.

Beyond cultural, commercial, and political links, Holbrooke said, Iran has another important reason to play a constructive role in Afghanistan, and that is the growing of opium poppies by Afghan farmers, whose proceeds help finance the insurgency. ....

Holbrooke said some of the heroin that originates in Afghanistan goes to a growing number of customers in Iran.

'Legitimizing' The Government
Holbrooke said the Afghan drug problem also affects Russia. He pointed to the declaration signed last month in Moscow by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, when the Russian leader expressed concern about drug imports from Afghanistan and the effect it's been having on his country.

During the forum, Holbrooke also focused on Afghanistan's August 20 presidential elections and the U.S.-led effort to provide security for the vote. He said his team's political goals related to the election include contending with political corruption, establishing amnesty for former antigovernment guerrillas, and improving regional and local governance.

Holbrooke said none of these issues can be addressed properly until the citizens of Afghanistan, under the protection of NATO forces, choose a new government with a proper mandate. ...

Holbrooke said other elements of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan are helping the country establish sustainable agriculture, setting up legal institutions, and focusing drug interdiction not on poppy farmers, but on higher-level distributors. ...

[Merlin]

Obama is looking beyond the Afghan elections.

Analysis: Afghan vote shows Taliban still potent

3 hrs ago [AP] WASHINGTON — The violence-scarred elections in Afghanistan provided a stage for the Taliban to show war-weary Americans and Afghans that it has rebounded and can strike — even after eight years of war.

For President Barack Obama's policies, the timing couldn't be worse.

With memories of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks dimming, Americans are tiring of the conflict. New polling shows a majority — 51 percent — of those surveyed now believe the war is not worth the fight, an increase of 6 percentage points in a month.

Obama's answer to the mounting skepticism is to say that, in a way, the war has just begun. The final push to wipe out America's Taliban and al-Qaida enemies is not eight years old but really got started when he took office and ordered 17,000 more troops into Afghanistan.

In short order, he also installed a new commander and persuaded Pakistan to join the U.S. in what on Thursday he called a pincer movement to squeeze the enemy astride the common border.

Obama's ability to recast the public debate at home — to get people to look past the cost and the deadly violence there — may matter more in the long run than who won or lost the Afghan presidency.

Obama has not wavered from his campaign pledge to take the fight to the Taliban and their al-Qaida allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He argues that the true danger to Americans lies in the towering peaks and vast deserts of those countries. The Bush administration, he asserts, wasted precious time, treasure and blood in Iraq.

Before then, he argues, problems in both countries were allowed to fester. As a result, the Taliban retook huge swaths of Afghanistan, and al-Qaida was comfortably ensconced on the Pakistan side of the mountainous border.

"We've got to make sure that we are really focused on finishing the job in Afghanistan. But it's going to take some time," the president said on a talk-radio program Thursday. He gave a nod to the election, saying it "appears to be successful" despite the "Taliban's efforts to disrupt it." Initial reports show 26 Afghans were killed in Taliban attacks on Election Day.

The White House has been particularly reticent to talk about the Afghan vote, where the turnout appears to have been significantly lower than in the first-ever direct election of a president there in 2004. The administration is deeply aware of the country's long history of bloody uprisings against past leaders who were seen as place men for foreign powers. ....

Regardless of the Afghan vote or the diminishing support for the war back home, a White House strategy review is due out in mid-September, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is widely expected to press for a significant further increase in forces for his new counterinsurgency campaign.

Just three years ago the U.S. had about 20,000 forces in the country. Today, it has triple that, on its way to 68,000 by year's end when all of the 17,000 newly deployed are in place.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll this week showed, however, that only 24 percent of Americans support that move, with 45 percent saying the force should be decreased.

The domestic political course for Obama's overall Afghan strategy and for a further troop increase, thus, is growing ever more difficult to navigate. ...

[Merlin]

It is now time for McChrystal to present his assessment of the Afghan strategy.

Commander delivers Afghan review, no word on troops

31 Aug KABUL (Reuters) - The commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan is delivering his long-awaited review of strategy on Monday, a spokeswoman said, but there was no hint in public as to whether he would ask for more troops.

Lieutenant Commander Christine Sidenstricker, media officer for U.S. and NATO-led forces, said the document was being sent to U.S. Central Command (CentCom), which is responsible for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. She gave no details of its contents.

The review is expected to spell out a completely revised strategy for conducting the war, which Barack Obama considers the main foreign policy priority of his young presidency.

The review is not expected to make firm recommendations about future troop strength but will form the basis for any such changes to be made in coming weeks -- a politically fraught decision that could mark a turning point in the Obama presidency.

McChrystal now commands more than 100,000 Western troops in Afghanistan, including 63,000 Americans, more than half of whom arrived this year as part of an escalation strategy begun under outgoing President George W. Bush and ramped up under Obama.

Since taking command, McChrystal has adjusted the focus of Western forces from hunting down insurgents to trying to protect the Afghan population, borrowing in part from U.S. tactics in Iraq developed under CentCom commander General David Petraeus.

His review is expected to suggest concentrating forces in more heavily populated areas, and also stepping up efforts to train Afghan soldiers and police. ....

[Merlin]

I'll put this news report of successful US drone attacks on militants in Pakistan here.

Pakistan: Al-Qaida commander killed in US strike

1 day ago [AP] ISLAMABAD — U.S. missiles are believed to have killed an al-Qaida operations chief and a top Uzbek militant in northwest Pakistan, officials said Thursday, the latest apparent victories for the covert and controversial American program.

If their deaths are confirmed, Ilyas Kashmiri and Nazimuddin, alias Yahyo, would be two of several militant leaders killed in Pakistan by missiles fired by unmanned U.S. drones. Just last month, a similar strike killed Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud.

Pakistan's government publicly condemns the strikes, saying they fan anti-Americanism among its citizens and violate its sovereignty. But many observers believe Islamabad secretly endorses the program.

Operations chief Kashmiri, a Pakistani national, was believed killed in a Sept. 7 attack on a compound in North Waziristan, said a Pakistani intelligence officer and a senior government official.

A strike in the same region on Sept. 14 that destroyed a vehicle is believed to have killed Nazimuddin, the officials said.

North Waziristan is part of Pakistan's tribal belt, a lawless region where al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri are rumored to be hiding.

The Pakistani officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media about the topic. They said the information was based on intercepted communications between militants and from informants in their ranks.

Speaking last week, a U.S. counterterrorism official said Kashmiri was in charge of al-Qaida's military operations in Pakistan and had also been active in recruiting and training operatives to conduct attacks outside of Pakistan.

He also said Kashmiri had been a member of the militant group Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami, which he joined in the early 1990s after fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. The U.S. official also requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.

The Pakistani officials said Kashmiri was also accused of playing a role in failed assassination attempts against former President Pervez Musharraf.

Little is know about Nazimuddin, but a man bearing the same name and alias appears on a U.S. Treasury list of individuals — most of whom are alleged Islamist terrorists — whose assets are blocked.

The United States has fired more than 50 missiles from unmanned drones into the tribal regions since last year in a campaign targeting al-Qaida and Taliban commanders.

Among the several top al-Qaida militants killed in the strikes are Abu Khabab al-Masri, an explosives expert responsible for its chemical and biological weapons efforts, and Usama al-Kini, believed to have planned the attack on Islamabad's Marriott Hotel. Last month, one of the strikes killed Mehsud. ....

[xinhui]

Pakistan's security gains contrast Afghan turmoil
AP

Pakistan's security gains contrast Afghan turmoil - Yahoo! News
Sgt. Michael Fink, from Geneva, Ohio, member of the U.S. Army's 3rd Battalion, AP – Sgt. Michael Fink, from Geneva, Ohio, member of the U.S. Army's 3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry Regiment …

* Deadly bomb blast in Pakistan Play Video Pakistan Video:Deadly bomb blast in Pakistan Reuters
* Pakistan police crack down on over-decorated trucks Play Video Pakistan Video:Pakistan police crack down on over-decorated trucks AFP
* Fighting Terror Play Video Pakistan Video:Fighting Terror FOX News

By ROBERT KENNEDY, Associated Press Writer Robert Kennedy, Associated Press Writer – Sun Sep 20, 11:38 am ET

ISLAMABAD – A successful army offensive, a shift in public opinion against the militants and the killing of top Taliban leaders have given grounds for cautious optimism in Pakistan as progress across the border in Afghanistan appears stalled amid spiraling violence and postelection turmoil.

The Obama administration has made it clear it sees victory in the fight against Islamist extremism as dependent on successes in both South Asian nations. Forging a common strategy for "AfPak," as the region is now dubbed in Washington, is a key priority.

Five months ago, nuclear-armed Pakistan was seen by some as on the verge of collapse, with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying the country was "abdicating" to the Taliban as the movement spread from its stronghold close to the Afghan border to the northwest Swat Valley and beyond.

To the relief of the West, the army moved forcefully against the Swat militants in April in a campaign that thrived with public support. Last month, the head of the Pakistani Taliban was killed in a U.S. missile strike, and questions remain whether its new leader will be able to maintain the group's ability to launch large-scale terrorist attacks.

Still, no one is saying overall victory is in sight. In particular, the tribal region of Waziristan remains an al-Qaida and Taliban haven despite past army efforts to clear it. On Friday, a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-laden vehicle into a hotel in the northwestern town of Kohat, killing more than 30 and wounding dozens of others.

"Clearly there are victories but there are still a lot of Taliban and there are still a lot of battles to come," said Kamran Bokhari, Middle East and South Asia director for U.S.-based global intelligence company Stratfor. "But for now the government still has the upper hand."

The signs of progress come as Pakistani leader Asif Ali Zardari prepares for talks on Thursday with President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in New York on how international donors can best support the country's democratically elected government.

Ishtiaq Ahmad, professor of international relations at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, said the public opinion shift against the Taliban combined with the political consensus on tackling the threat were "major factors for visible improvement in security" in the country.

Deadly attacks on major urban centers like the massive truck bombing on the Marriott hotel in Islamabad a year ago and the commando-style assault against the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore in March have decreased since the Swat Valley offensive, though near-daily violence has continued elsewhere.

Bokhari says the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan has been left in disarray after the clearing of insurgents from the valley and surrounding areas in July, as well as the Aug. 5 killing of its leader, Baitullah Mehsud, in a CIA missile strike.

Further successes include the reported deaths of the al-Qaida operations chief in Pakistan and a top Uzbek militant in U.S. drone strikes in the northwest earlier this month, and the killing of 10 Taliban fighters attempting to infiltrate Swat's main city Mingora on Thursday.

Improved intelligence-sharing and coordination among Pakistan, the U.S. and Afghanistan have aided the effort, Bokhari said.

While the Pakistani military has at least temporarily gained the upper hand, the security situation in neighboring Afghanistan has deteriorated with increased roadside bombings, suicide attacks and ambushes. Heightened counterinsurgency efforts by the U.S., NATO and the Afghan government have so far failed to make much headway there, analysts said.

Bokhari said while "the Pakistanis have gotten their act together," efforts in Afghanistan by the U.S., NATO and the Afghan government appear "to be in disarray."

Political turmoil in Afghanistan after the Aug. 20 presidential election amid allegations of vote-fraud is also clouding perceptions of the future there. While the government in Pakistan is unpopular, the political scene has been relatively stable since Zardari became president a year ago, allowing it to concentrate on counterinsurgency operations.

Imtiaz Gul, chairman of the independent Center for Research and Security Studies in Islamabad, wrote in Foreign Policy magazine last week "it's time for cautious optimism" for Pakistan, noting the interception of dozens of suicide bombers in the northwest and a drop in attacks elsewhere.

Bokhari said the uncertainty in strategy and cold feet among allies in Afghanistan has emboldened the Taliban there, and it remains unclear if the raging insurgency can be put down even with the deployment of more U.S. forces, which is now being considered in Washington.

"Even if you have all the troops you need, is it still a battle that can be won? Ultimately history has shown that Afghanistan — because of its geography and demography — is not something you can impose a military solution on," Bokhari said.

___

Associated Press writer Asif Shahzad contributed to this report.

[Merlin]

Mullah Omar may have moved to Quetta city in Pakistan, and may move again to Karachi where air strikes are not possible. Are the US going to send commandos into Pakistan to capture or kill him before he is moved again?

Parts of ISI supporting Taliban, protecting Mullah Omar: Report

27 Sept [TimesIndia] LONDON: Parts of ISI are supporting Taliban and protecting their chief Mullah Omar and other militant leaders in Pakistan's Quetta city, where US officials have discussed sending commandos to capture or kill the terrorists, a media report said on Sunday. ...

The US is threatening to launch air strikes against Mullah Omar and the Taliban leadership in Quetta as frustration mounts about the ease with which they find sanctuary across the border from Afghanistan, 'The Sunday Times' reported.

The threat comes amid growing divisions in Washington about whether to deal with the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan by sending more troops or by reducing them and targeting the terrorists.

According to the report, US vice-president Joe Biden has suggested reducing the number of troops in Afghanistan and focusing on the Taliban and al-Qaida in Pakistan.

Quoting western intelligence officers, the report said Taliban leaders are being moved to the volatile city of Karachi, where it would be impossible to strike. It said US officials have even discussed sending commandos to Quetta to capture or kill the Taliban leaders before they are moved.

It said while the government of President Asif Ali Zardari is committed to wiping out terrorism, Pakistan's powerful military does not entirely share the view. ....

[Merlin]

The US drones are going to follow them, to go into Quetta, before they move to Karachi.

‘US wants to expand drone attacks into Quetta’

28 Sept [Dawn] KARACHI: Senior Pakistani officials in New York have revealed that the United States has sought to extend drone attacks into Quetta and other areas of Balochistan.

'It wasn’t so much a threat as an understanding that if you don’t do anything, we’ll take matters into our own hands,' a report in British newspaper Sunday Times quoted an official as saying.

It said the US was threatening to launch air strikes on Taliban leadership allegedly present in Quetta.

'Western intelligence officers say Pakistan has been moving Taliban leaders to the volatile city of Karachi, where it would be impossible to strike.

It said suspicions remained among US officials that parts of Inter-Services Intelligence agency were supporting the Taliban and protecting Mullah Omar and other leaders in Quetta.

The threat came amid growing divisions in Washington about whether to deal with the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan by sending more troops or by reducing them and targeting the terrorists. ... .