Aus Anlass der heutigen Bundestagsdebatte zur ISAF-Mandatsverlängerung hat die Friedensbewegung Unterschriften gegen die Mandatsverlängerung übergeben. Dazu erklärt Christine Buchholz, Mitglied im geschäftsführenden Parteivorstand:

Während der Bundestag über die Mandatsverlängerung diskutiert, haben Aktive der Friedensbewegung heute Unterschriften gegen die Mandatsverlängerung übergeben. Diese Unterschriften stehen für Millionen Menschen in diesem Land, die mehrheitlich gegen die Verlängerung des Bundeswehreinsatzes in Afghanistan sind.

Wir brauchen einen konsequenten Bruch mit der Afghanistan-Politik der Bundesregierung. Mit der Aufstockung des ISAF-Mandates um 1000 zusätzliche Soldaten und der Festschreibung des Einsatzes von Fernmeldern auch außerhalb des Nordens Afghanistans verschärft die Regierung ihren bisherigen Kriegskurs.

DIE LINKE fordert den Abzug der Bundeswehr und stattdessen eine Verstärkung der humanitären Hilfe.

Der Verband der Entwicklungshilfeorganisationen VENRO begründet die Notwendigkeit einer klaren Trennung zwischen militärischen Aktionen und ziviler Hilfe damit, dass die Vermischung von zivilen und militärischen Tätigkeiten die Arbeit der Hilfsorganisationen zunehmend gefährde.

Das Konzept der so genannten zivilmilitärischen Zusammenarbeit der Bundesregierung dient also nicht der Sicherung von zivilem Wideraufbau, sondern hängt dem Militäreinsatz ein ziviles Mäntelchen um. Den Schaden haben die Menschen in Afghanistan und die Helferinnen und Helfer.

Dass die Bundesregierung weg von OEF hin zu ISAF geht ist nur folgerichtig. Beide Missionen sind eng miteinander verwoben.  ISAF übernimmt längst die meisten Aufgaben, die ursprünglich von OEF übernommen wurden.

Deswegen wird DIE LINKE einer Verlängerung und Aufstockung des ISAF-Mandats nicht zustimmen.

The UN Security Council released its October 2008 report on Afghanistan highlighting a number of issues including the extension of the ISAF mission, the UNAMA mission and concerns among the 15 members of the council over the issue of Civilian casualties. The report stipulates that to date this year around 1500 civilians have been killed as a result of the conflict in Afghanistan.

While a highly disturbing fact, what is of concern to some is that the pro-government forces have contributed 40 percent of these causalities according to the UN, while the insurgent attacks have led to 50 percent of the causalities. This situation must be addressed and Coalition operations must be conducted more carefully to avoid collateral damage. Naturally the issue of civilian casualities has driven a wedge between the government of Afghanistan and the Coalition forces and even among NATO countries, further exaserbating the already fragile state of affairs between these parties.

 At a time when increased cooperation is needed between the International Community and the host country, every effort must be made to reduce impediments to increasing cooperation. Apparently the issue was also on the agenda when President Karzai meet Mr. Bush this past week.

We should also be concerned about the possibility of malevolent politicking among rivals in the council particularly Russia, the fear is that the issue of civilian casualties is being hijacked by countries to bedevil the US for their own geopolitical reasons. while there is alot to criticiae the US for, Afghans in particular must be aware of the risk that Afghanistan might once again become the battle ground for outside forces, if it hasn’t become one already.

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/site/c.glKWLeMTIsG/b.4559881/

Afghanistan: What is the plan? By Bruce Haigh Updated Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:01pm AEST
 

Like his murdered wife, Zardari will be unable to meet US expectations. (United States Government, file photo)

The new President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, will do little to address US and NATO concerns at the flow of insurgents and weapons from Pakistan to Afghanistan.

The US transferred support from Bhutto to Zardari but like his murdered wife, Zardari will be unable to meet US expectations. Zardari doesn't have the strength of character and the domestic support to drive the US agenda. It is an agenda that is increasingly resented and resisted within Pakistan and its prosecution is fueling the ranks of Taliban recruits.

At the Nikah Ceremony, forming part of the arranged marriage of Benazir Bhutto to Asif Ali Zardari on 18 December 1987, a conversation with Zardari left me with the impression that he was rather lightweight with little interest in the matters seizing the mind and energy of his future wife. In taking my leave I said I looked forward to meeting him again and he said, "if you remember me."

For a person lacking self-confidence and any interest in politics it might be thought that Zardari has come a long way, but until the death of his wife he had done little to impress, other than feed the scorn and anger of Benazir's opponents with allegations of his corruption.

It was his media profile, through his wife, that the Pakistan People's Party sought in a country where illiteracy makes profile important and where the dynastic rule of the rich is accepted.

The mistake for the West is not to see the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan as a line on a colonial map. People on both sides of the line are related, they share a common language, culture, religion and economic hardship. They make a living from growing wheat, opium, herding goats and sheep, trading and smuggling. It is a tough and harsh environment in which males over 15 learn to use a weapon.

On the Pakistan side of the border the area comprises two of Pakistan's four provinces, Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier Province. The British did not entirely establish a presence and neither have the Punjabis who make up the bulk of Pakistan's army and public service. Maintaining some semblance of control from Islamabad has exercised the collective mind and talent of the ISI from the time of partition.

US bombing of villages and homes in the western tribal area of NWFP only serves to weaken the tenuous influence that Islamabad exercises over the region. The US has learnt none of the lessons of Vietnam. In a country that is short on technology, dominance of the skies and roads in Afghanistan gives an impression of dominance. The US and NATO presence conveys a sense of being occupied. Couple this with arrogance, the misuse of force, resulting in the destruction of property and homes and the deaths of innocents, including children, and it translates over time into armed recruits fighting for the opposition.

The Russians found in Afghanistan that they were fighting a number of different warlords, all with a different agenda. And so it is now for the US and its allies. Increasingly much of the opposition is focused on getting rid of the Western foreigners as much as it is around ideology and religion.

The policy driving the war and the manner in which it is being prosecuted makes the war in Afghanistan unwinnable. Terrorism is founded in belief, ideology and emotion. Does anyone in the western alliance seriously believe that they can blast, kill and maim their way to a victory in which no known terrorist is left standing in Afghanistan?

So who is talking to whom? What manner of diplomacy has been deployed? Are our diplomats in Pakistan talking to all and anyone who has a stake in the conflict? What are the expectations of those involved? Is there any common ground between the protagonists? Is there a possibility of negotiation?

President Ali Zardari offers the Americans as much hope in Pakistan as President Thieu did in Vietnam. US bombing within Pakistan will galvanise retaliatory action in the form of bombings and sniper attacks against Zardari and his supporters in government and against US and allied diplomats in Pakistan. Such action could derive as much from radical activists as from interests connected to the ISI.

The economic crises impacting on America will likely determine the level of its future commitment to Afghanistan which is another reason to talk while it still has leverage. Should the US come to rely on foreign loans it might be expected that at some point lenders might seek conditionality with respect to foreign and trade policy. Arab lenders might seek to force the US out of Afghanistan.

Australia has no business in the conflict. It is a regional issue. Australia allowed itself to be sucked in on the basis of our alliance with the US, which increasingly promises little. The war in Afghanistan will not bring about an end of Al Qaeda nor the Taliban, to do so by military means would take more troops than the US put into Vietnam and the absence of many other regional factors which play out against the US.

In these uncertain times Australia needs to get its house in order and prepare for unusual and unpredictable events that might unfold closer to home. Australia does not need its forces strung out around the world, particularly when the US has a reduced and reducing capacity to service our Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan contribution to the alliance.

Bruce Haigh is a retired diplomat who served twice in Pakistan and Afghanistan

La semaine dernière, dans un article sur ‘The New Atlanticist” je me suis demandé si l’élite Pakistanaise va changer son attitude vis à vis des militants. Suite à l’attentat contre l’hôtel Marriott à Islamabad, l’heure est venue pour une posture plus agressive contre les Talibans dans le Nord-Ouest du pays si le gouvernement veut éviter un désastre. 

IMI-Analyse 2008/030 - in: Junge Welt, 20.09.2008
Militärisch hat die NATO den Krieg um Afghanistan längst verloren. Immer mehr Soldaten bringen dem Land immer weniger Sicherheit. Mehr als 70000 Soldaten der Koalitionstruppen haben außerhalb ihrer Militärbasen nur sehr punktuell so etwas wie Bewegungsfreiheit, und die Zahl der »Sicherheitszwischenfälle« nimmt kontinuierlich zu. Das politische Eingeständnis dieser Niederlage wird jedoch durch immer härtere Militärschläge und durch den massiven Ausbau der Truppenpräsenz möglichst lange hinausgeschoben. Die Frage, die sich heute stellt, ist nicht, ob es einen militärischen Sieg geben kann, sondern wie viele Zehntausende zusätzliche Soldaten noch in das Land am Hindukusch geschickt werden, wie viele Milliarden an Steuergeldern für diesen Krieg noch ausgegeben werden und, vor allem, wie viele Zivilisten mit ihrem Leben für die rücksichtslose Machtpolitik der NATO-Staaten zahlen müssen, bis die NATO-Führung ihre Niederlage endlich eingesteht.
Die gesamte Analyse

Dutch Army Sergeant Major Jan, 2nd Platoon, E-company, Battle Group-7, Task Force Uruzgan, talks to an Afghan village elder about the needs of his community. Jan also discussed the importance of Afghan people getting involved with local government to improve quality of life issues. The platoon was on a 3-day International Security Assistance Force mission conducting foot patrols through villages to meet the Afghan people. ISAF-photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class John Collins, U.S. Navy.

Source: NATO, ISAF.int

Most of this picture seems to be bogus. Propaganda. The stylish sunglasses of the sergeant, how he sits, his body language in general. The machine gun in the back, within reach. He emanates a kind of baseless supremacy. According to the legend of this picture, he is talking about "needs for the community". But does he really talk about mobile phones? The sergeant was on a three-day mission conducting foot patrols through the villages to meet the people. The young man to the right should be a 'village elder'? What do you think is he thinking? In contrast to his discussion mate, he seems to be completely at peace with himself. He listens carefully. Obviously, he is even a bit amused, but not too much to be impolite.

Aghanistan is now at war for almost 30 years. It has been a playground first for the late Soviet Union and the US American CIA, then the Taliban, then G. W. Bush's war on terrorism. We know that before that, Britain completely failed in getting control over the proud people there in at least three wars, around 1840, 1880, and at the end of WWI.

The German novelist and poet Theodor Fontane wrote, in 1859, the following ballad (and I hope that some not familiar with the German language get at least a vague feeling of what is it about):

Das Trauerspiel von Afghanistan

Der Schnee leis stäubend vom Himmel fällt,
Ein Reiter vor Dschellalabad hält,
"Wer da!" - "Ein britischer Reitersmann,
Bringe Botschaft aus Afghanistan."
Afghanistan! Er sprach es so matt;
Es umdrängt den Reiter die halbe Stadt,
Sir Robert Sale, der Kommandant,
Hebt ihn vom Rosse mit eigener Hand.
Sie führen ins steinerne Wachthaus ihn,
Sie setzen ihn nieder an den Kamin,
Wie wärmt ihn das Feuer, wie labt ihn das Licht,
Er atmet hoch auf und dankt und spricht:
"Wir waren dreizehntausend Mann,
Von Kabul unser Zug begann,
Soldaten, Führer, Weib und Kind,
Erstarrt, erschlagen, verraten sind.
Zersprengt ist unser ganzes Heer,
Was lebt, irrt draußen in Nacht umher,
Mir hat ein Gott die Rettung gegönnt,
Seht zu, ob den Rest ihr retten könnt."
Sir Robert stieg auf den Festungswall,
Offiziere, Soldaten folgten ihm all',
Sir Robert sprach: "Der Schnee fällt dicht,
Die uns suchen, sie können uns finden nicht.
Sie irren wie Blinde und sind uns so nah,
So lasst sie's hören, dass wir da,
Stimmt an ein Lied von Heimat und Haus,
Trompeter blast in die Nacht hinaus!"
Da huben sie an und sie wurden's nicht müd',
Durch die Nacht hin klang es Lied um Lied,
Erst englische Lieder mit fröhlichem Klang,
Dann Hochlandslieder wie Klagegesang.
Sie bliesen die Nacht und über den Tag,
Laut, wie nur die Liebe rufen mag,
Sie bliesen - es kam die zweite Nacht,
Umsonst, dass ihr ruft, umsonst, dass ihr wacht.
"Die hören sollen, sie hören nicht mehr,
Vernichtet ist das ganze Heer,
Mit dreizehntausend der Zug begann,
Einer kam heim aus Afghanistan."

Do people learn from history?

Many of the CIVIC blog entries discussing assistance that has been provided to civilians in Afghanistan credit the Afghan Civilian Assistance Program (ACAP) for helping individuals. While ACAP is one of the best functioning civilian-assistance programs in Afghanistan, some of the civilians and NGO workers that I have talked to have lamented the fact that the assistance takes so long to reach civilians. Other problems have also been highlighted

One problem that was mentioned a number of times during my time in Kandahar was the difficulty field staff face in verifying the damage that has allegedly occurred to civilian property, and checking that the money is being properly spent. ACAP’s system of verification is important and necessary, but the security situation in Kandahar poses significant problems. I interviewed two civilians at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) office who told me that they had been given ACAP assistance to rebuild their houses that were destroyed in an ISAF aerial bombardment. The problem they are facing, however, is that ACAP is providing the assistance in four installments. They have given the family the first installment, but want to check on the progress of the building before the other installments are provided. But it is too dangerous to go into the family’s village at the moment as it is located in the heartland of Taliban territory.

ACAP has told these men that they need to guarantee the safety of the ACAP observer who will view the first stages of their reconstruction. But, as the men explained, “we cannot guarantee our own safety up there. So how can we protect an observer? The Taliban will see us bringing the observer and they will say that we are helping the government or bringing spies to the area.” These men therefore face significant problems: they have already hired the builders to construct their house, relying on the ACAP assistance that they were promised. “Now the laborers are asking for money and they have complained to the Taliban. The Taliban are giving us warnings and we are in a very difficult position.” This type of climate, with ongoing warfare and tense political struggles, makes it difficult for any aid program to operate. Ultimately, it is the civilians who suffer most.

L’assunzione, da parte della NATO, del comando dell’International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan nell’agosto 2003, rappresenta uno spartiacque nella storia dell’Alleanza Atlantica. Si tratta infatti della prima operazione mai condotta dalla NATO fuori dall’area euro-atlantica, tale che da molti è stata percepita come la nascita di una NATO veramente globale.
La missione ISAF era stata lanciata diciotto mesi prima a seguito della conferenza di Bonn durante la quale, sotto gli auspici delle Nazioni Unite (risoluzione 1386), si era deciso di dispiegare una forza militare di 5.000 unità volta a stabilizzare il Paese dopo la cacciata del regime talebano.
L’11 agosto 2003, dunque, l’ISAF si è trasformata in una missione di responsabilità della NATO ed ha iniziato ad espandere la sua area operativa a tutto l’Afghanistan. Nel giugno 2004, autorizzata dalla risoluzione ONU 1510, essa si è estesa comprendendo le province occidentali e settentrionali; nel luglio 2006, è stata la volta delle province meridionali, con 12.000 soldati statunitensi precedentemente inquadrati nell’operazione Enduring Freedom che sono stati messi sotto il comando della NATO; infine, nel successivo ottobre 2006, la risoluzione ONU 1707 ha allargato i compiti dell’ISAF anche alle rimanenti province orientali, in modo che tutto l’Afghanistan ora si trova sotto l’autorità della NATO.
Secondo i dati aggiornati a settembre 2008, in Afghanistan sono presenti circa 47.600 soldati – quasi dieci volte la cifra iniziale! - provenienti da 40 Paesi, inclusi tutti i 26 membri della NATO. La componente maggiore è quella statunitense, con poco meno di 18.000 unità sotto il comando ISAF oltre alle 31.000 dispiegate nel quadro di Enduring Freedom (dato, quest'ultimo, aggiornato a marzo 2008). Il secondo maggior contingente è quello britannico, pari a quasi 8.400 uomini. L’Italia si piazza al sesto posto, con un totale di 2.350 soldati, preceduta dalla Germania (3.200), dalla Francia (2.700) ed appena dopo il Canada (2.500).
Qui la descrizione grafica di come sono dispiegati i maggiori contingenti.
Il comando della missione, stabilito nella capitale Kabul, è affidato al generale dell’US Army David McKiernan; vi sono poi quattro comandi decentrati a livello regionale per ciascuna zona territoriale (Nord, Est, Sud ed Ovest). La direzione politica ed il coordinamento delle operazioni sono forniti dal Consiglio Nord Atlantico, il principale organo decisionale della NATO; il comando strategico è invece nelle mani del Supremo Comando Alleato in Europa, lo SHAPE di Mons in Belgio.
Ultima “pensata” dei vertici della NATO, annunciata a Bucarest lo scorso aprile, è la creazione di NATOChannel, emittente televisiva diffusa esclusivamente in rete che punta a recuperare terreno sul fronte della propaganda contrastando l’attivismo mediatico dei gruppi della guerriglia talebana, anche se il promotore dell’iniziativa, il primo ministro danese Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ne assicura la “provata imparzialità”. Affermazione che, in quanto ad attendibilità, potrebbe fare il paio con quella di un piano segreto di “exit strategy” nel tempo massimo di 5 anni, rivelato dal quotidiano tedesco Der Spiegel.

L'Italia è sempre stata nel limbo del "ci stiamo, ma non combattiamo". Per quanto questo giochino sarebbe potuto funzionare non era facile prevederlo. Oramai, comunque, non vi è più alcun margine di equivoco sulla natura del conflitto afghano, e sul ruolo delle forze NATO nel paese. Lo scorso mese 90 persone, tra cui 60 bambini, hanno perso la vita in un raid alleato. E le vittime civili, dall'anno scorso ad oggi, sono triplicate.

Il governo (senza interpellare il Parlamento) ha proposto ieri di inviare in Afghanistan 4 cacciabombardieri Tornado, ma ha esplicitamente aggiunto che si limiteranno a semplici compiti di osservazione e pattugliamento. Poco importa che, una volta lì, i nostri aerei non seguiranno più gli ordini del ministro della difesa, ma saranno sotto stretto controllo NATO, quindi sotto controllo USA. E che nulla può impedire che questi vengano impiegati per bombardare. Del resto, per questo sono stati fatti, non certo per scorazzare nei cieli. Il costo, solo per la messa in operatività dei 4 velivoli , è di 13 milioni di euro. E la scelta va inquadrata nell'ambito di una revisione complessiva delle missioni all'estero, revisione che genera una spesa di 161 milioni di euro.

Insomma, non siamo al mutamento delle regole d'ingaggio per i nostri soldati, ma poco ci manca. E sempre nascondendoci dietro l'assurda ipocrisia delle "missioni di pace" che ogni tanto, purtroppo, fanno strage di civili.

Sarebbe però disonesto dimenticare come, un anno fa, il ministro Parisi (governo Prodi) avesse deciso di inviare in Afganistan 5 elicotteri da combattimento Mangusta. Ma solamente per "pattugliare", s'intenda. Scelte bipartisan, dunque. Che bello il Parlamento senza opposizione.

The US has been fighting a loosing war in Afghanistan ever since their invasion. Kabul, Bagram and Jalalabad are just garrisons and ISAF forces have no control beyond them. In 8 odd years of fighting the allies have even yet to control 50% of the country yet they say that all their problems are stemming from Pakistan. One Indian embassy bombing and the pressure is put on Pakistan.

Why isnt anyone telling the Allies to sod off and get their administration imposed on 100% of Afghanistan (if possible) and then raise any pending issues with Pakistan ?

"From shortly after midnight on Saturday, there were 28 recorded incidents across the country during the Peace Day, to many of which the ANSF and ISAF were forced to respond to maintain the safety of the civilian population," the statement said.

A police officer was killed by small arms fire in Dahana-i-Ghuri district of northern Afghanistan's Baghlan province on Sunday while a soldier with Afghan National Army was shot dead in Sangin district of Helmand province in the south, it said.

Moreover, it noted that there was an as yet unconfirmed report that as many as 131 innocent civilians had been kidnapped in Bala Buluk district of western Afghanistan's Farah province.

"Once again, the insurgents have demonstrated their contempt for the democratically elected Government rule of law and stability in Afghanistan and their total disdain for the safety and fundamental right of the Afghan people to live in peace," it further added.

Conflicts and spiraling insurgency have claimed the lives of over 38,00 people with around 1,445 civilians so far this year in the war-torn country.

Source:Xinhua

Interview with LTC James "Maggie" Megellas, World War II veteran of the 82nd airborne division. This interview took place during the press event of the game Brothers in Arms Hell's Highway at the Wings of Liberation museum in the Netherlands.

]]> http://washingtonbruxelles.wordpress.com/?p=75 Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:34:51 +0000 Thomas Renard http://washingtonbruxelles.no.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/details-de-la-force-isaf/

Déploiement ISAF Septembre 08

With each passing day, Afghanistan is a given a reminder of how the threat from the Taleban is a continued and menacing threat. The reminders are clear for all to see: burnt-out lorries appear beside the road, abandoned vehicles hit by missiles and tankers that never made it to Kabul. The grip of the Taleban noose is being drawn ever tighter around the capital. But, by now, history should have taught something. The tactics being used against the British in 1841 and against the Russians, two decades ago, are identical to the methods being deployed, now, by a resurgent Taliban: to cut supplies to the city by blocking the few vital arteries leading through the surrounding mountains. Almost by a piecemeal operation the Taleban have gradually edged closer, and now hold territory just 20-miles southwest of the capital. The supply lorries attempt to run but fear and anxiety is growing. Casualties are rising. NATO is looking hard and long at ways to defy an ominous and portentous historical precedent.

Afghanistan is now home to 70,000 foreign troops, including around 8,500 British troops. Military commanders of the ‘International Security Assistance Force' (ISAF) insist that, with superior air support and logistics, this foreign gathering of troops will never suffer the defeat inflicted on the British and Russians like that of the past. But, is this confidence reflected in Western public opinion? In the past few weeks, for instance, the death of ten French soldiers in Sarobi - 30 miles along the Jalalabad road from Kabul - shocked France. A recent French poll indicated that more than half of those asked wanted France to end its involvement in Afghanistan.

Fortuitously, for NATO, and for the British, President Sarkozy of France remains resolutely steadfast and committed to France's role within ISAF. Britain, along with Canada, too, has suffered high casualties and knows that any wavering, now, would be fatal. Any weakening of NATO's position would further embolden the Taliban with disaffected Pashtuns likely rallying to the cause. Warlords would surely seize the chance to renounce any nominal allegiance to the Karzai Government. Drug production would increase yet further fuelling the Taliban's cause. And the credibility and cohesion of NATO would be seriously undermined, not just within Afghanistan but within Europe.

What is needed now, nevertheless, is a reassessment of the challenges and responses. Much more is at stake than simply the authority of the democratically elected Government in Kabul. The threat of a failed state is manifest on both sides of the Pakistani border, where the Taliban and Al-Qaeda now operate with impunity. India is not alone in seeking political and social breakdown in Afghanistan as a danger to its own security; most central Asian states struggling against Islamist insurgency feel the same way. The threat to the West is equally clear: if Afghanistan were again to become a haven for ideological extremists, the resulting export of terrorism could have devastating consequences. 

NATO must be clear that its own fighting mission in Afghanistan is being done to protect its own freedoms. There needs to be greater coherence, more joint operations, common rules of engagement and a more robust understanding of the mission at hand. The European contingents, especially, should look at the success of US forces: commanders have acquired considerable local expertise; military engineers carry out the infrastructure projects essential to the winning of hearts and minds of villagers who would otherwise easily be swayed by Taliban denunciations of infidels in their midst. In contrast, Britain's aid effort is uncoordinated and unprotected.

NATO cannot prevail by arms alone. Neither can it continue to operate without acknowledging historical precedent because, vitally, that precedent points to the vital need in rescuing a country from its history. It doesn't necessarily imply defeat.

© Mark Dowe 2008: all rights protected

- Copyright is the currency by which information may be exchanged in certain instances. If you are unsure of your rights relating to digital communications you should seek independent legal advice.

• Printable version
• Send to a friend
• Share
• Clip
• Contact us
• Article history

  About this article

  Close

  This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Tuesday September 02 2008. It was last updated at 10:17 on September 02 2008.

• License/buy our content |
• Privacy policy |
• Terms & conditions |
• Advertising guide |
• Accessibility |
• A-Z index |
• Inside guardian.co.uk |
• About guardian.co.uk |
• Join our dating site today

• guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

It quoted a NATO statement as saying "ISAF weapon malfunctioned which meant to target a spot used by insurgents to fire rockets." >>>>>

Zweiterscheinung eines Artikels aus dem Weblog SiPol

Die USA rechnen für den Winter mit verstärkten Aktivitäten der Aufständischen in Ostafghanistan und planen eine "Winteroffensive", um diese Aktivitäten zu unterbinden. Dazu würden ein Bataillon der US-Marines und eine Brigade des Heeres zusätzlich nach Afghanistan verlegt. Angesichts des bevorstehenden Abzugs weiterer amerikanischer Kräfte aus dem Irak stehen mittlerweile offenbar die notwendigen Fähigkeiten zur Verfügung.

Die USA hatten Anfang des Jahres zusätzliche Marines nach Helmand verlegt, um britische Kräfte im Raum Garmsir zu entlasten. Der Einsatz gilt als erfolgreich, und die starke Präsenz der Aufständischen dort wurde beendet. Garmsir liegt entlang einer strategisch wichtigen Nord-Süd Verbindungsstraße, und die Aufständischen hatten erfolglos versucht, es zu verteidigen. Es ist allerdings fraglich, wie nachhaltig der Erfolg nach der jetzt erfolgten Übergabe an die Briten sein wird.

Die USA haben zudem ihr Vorgehen gegen Ziele in Pakistan deutlich intensiviert. Bei einem Luftangriff auf das Anwesen Jalaluddin Haqqanis (dem operativen Führer des Haqqani-Netzwerks, das eine zentrale Rolle bei der Durchführung von Selbstmordanschlägen in Afghanistan spielt und mutmaßlich mit pakistanischen Behörden zusammenarbeitet), wurde möglicherweise der kürzlich ernannte Führer der Al-Qaida, Abu Haris, zusammen mit anderen Operateuren der AQ getötet. Auch zwei Frauen Haqqanis sowie rund 20 weitere Personen seien getötet worden.

Unterstützung erhielt das amerikanische Vorgehen in Pakistan vom afghanischen Außenminister Rangin Dadfar Spanta, der nochmals dazu aufrief, die Aufständischen an ihrer "Brutstätte" zu bekämpfen. Dadfar Spanta lebte lange Zeit in Deutschland und ist interessanterweise Mitglied von Bündnis90/Die Grünen.

Ohne eine deutliche Verstärkung der Präsenz von Sicherheitskräften in der Fläche Afghanistans wird die Lage in Afghanistan ebensowenig zu stabilisieren sein wie ohne eine Unterbindung der Aktivitäten der Aufständischen im Nordwesten Pakistans. Da afghanische Sicherheitskräfte noch nicht in der Lage sind, die notwendige Präsenz zu gewährleisten, besteht mittelfristig keine realistische Alternative zu einem Aufwuchs westlicher Streitkräfte. Das neue Afghanistan-Konzept der Bundesregierung trägt dem durch Erhöhung der Mandatsobergrenze auf 4.500 Soldaten und angekündigte verstärkte Anstrengungen für Aufbau von Polizei und Streitkräften immerhin bedingt Rechnung

Weblog Sicherheitspolitik: Afghanistan: USA planen "Winteroffensive"

The majority of fighting occurs in RC East and RC South. It can easy be traced along Highway 1 which runs from the Pakistani boarder, through Kabul and down into the Helmand River Valley where approximately 85% of the worlds opium is produced. The Taliban moves narcotics, money and weapons back and forth along Highway 1, which means they have a great interest in keeping Coalition Forces away from it.

Everything you never wanted to know about Afghanistan and more at the Spencerrific, Ackermanless Blogging Experience.

America would love Pakistan to retaliate for the US attacks. The West actually seems to target civilians, it is the policy. In this way the US can be sure to make all the militants angry (or broken). But all the Wests wars revolve around targeting civilians.

Even in Israel a "terrorists" family home is destroyed after any terrorist act. And this is Jewish Law.

But looking at Georgia, Lebanon, Iraq or Afghanistan will reinforce with certainty that targeting civilians is policy by design.

America is seeking to expand the war. All the borders were anyway created by colonialists, not the natives. And the borders do not reflect the tribal demography. After a War new countries can be made: Baluchistan (rich in gas), Pashtunistan etcetera.

The West is ruled by Industrialists, Speculators (finance), and also theology. In Pakistan there are just a small amount of ruling families in control. It is also the same in the West.

Below are 6 reasons to wage war on Pakistan. Any single one of the reasons is sufficient.

A/ The Muslims should not have a Nuclear bomb. The country needs destabilizing, and probably dismembering. "No Muslim bomb is:" non negotiable.

Telephone interview with professional Journalist in Kabul 9 Sept 08

Journalist wishes to remain anonymous

4 minutes

The situation is clearly deteriorating

(Adobe Flash required to see the player for the sound)

US to review Afghan attack case

US forces in Afghanistan are to review an inquiry into an air raid last month after new video evidence emerged indicating scores of civilian deaths.

The US had earlier said that no more than seven civilians died in the attack on the western province of Herat.

However, the Afghan government and the UN said up to 90 people were killed, including many women and children.

The US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) says such attacks are eroding support for the government and foreign forces.

HRW says civilians deaths from international air strikes nearly tripled between 2006 and 2007.

Disturbing footage

The US general in charge of NATO-led troops (Isaf) in Afghanistan said at the weekend that he was requesting the US military's Central Command to review the investigation into last month's air raid.

Gen McKiernan said Isaf realized there was "a large discrepancy between the number of civilian casualties reported by US and Afghan National Army soldiers, and local people".

The US and Nato need to dramatically improve their co-ordination with each other and with the government of Afghanistan Rachel Reid Human Rights Watch

The US military subsequently said it would "appoint a senior US military officer to review the investigation into the combined Afghan National Army (ANA) and US forces operation".

A US military statement said: "This review will consider new information that has become available since the completion of the initial investigation."

Disturbing video footage - apparently of the aftermath of the raid - has been seen by top military figures and diplomats in Kabul.

The shaky footage - possibly shot with a mobile phone - shows some 40 dead bodies lined up under sheets and blankets inside a mosque.

The majority of the dead are children - babies and toddlers, some burned so badly they are barely recognizable.

The covers are removed for the camera one by one: a little girl of perhaps four with brown curly hair; a boy with his eyes still eerily open; another girl with huge injuries on the side of her head.

Villagers say up to 90 civilians died in last month's attack by US forces

Another boy has his hand up as if to protect his face which was crushed under the rubble.

Clearly heard on the tape is the crying of relatives and the survivors of the bombing raid.

US forces had originally said seven civilians were killed in a "successful" US raid targeting a Taleban commander in Azizabad village in Herat's Shindand district.

However, the UN, the Afghan government and an Afghan human rights group said the number of civilian deaths was far higher.

Their estimates of the number of civilians killed varied between 76 and 90, with the UN eventually concluding that children accounted for 60 of the dead.

The dispute over the figures had escalated into a fierce behind-the-scenes battle behind the UN and the Pentagon.

Warning over deaths

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch said in a report released on Monday that decreased reliance on ground forces and greater use of air power was leading to "mistakes" that had "dramatically decreased" support for the Afghan government and international troops.

"Civilian deaths from air strikes act as a recruiting tool for the Taleban and risk fatally undermining the international effort to provide basic security to the people of Afghanistan," Brad Adams, Asia director of HRW, said in a statement.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai visited Azizabad after the air strike

The group found that in 2007 at least 321 Afghan civilians had been killed in international air strikes - a rise from at least 116 in 2006.

This figure was much lower than the number of civilians killed in militant attacks, the group said. Nearly 950 people were killed by insurgents in 2008, compared with 700 in 2006.

HRW said most of the air strike casualties occurred in unplanned raids, when air power was called to give support to troops on the ground.

"The US and Nato need to dramatically improve their co-ordination with each other and with the government of Afghanistan," HRW's Rachel Reid told the BBC.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly warned the US and Nato that civilian deaths undermine his government and damage the reputation of foreign forces in the country.

]]> http://allthewayto.wordpress.com/?p=279 Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:31:53 +0000 allthewayto http://allthewayto.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/veteran-is-special-guest-for-race-team/

Every year at O'Reilly Raceway Park thousands of people gather for the NHRA U.S. Nationals in Clermont.

Some call it the Super Bowl of Drag Racing. One race team brought in a super star to inspire their team this year.

Labor Day weekend is weekend is full of excitement, drag racing and hot rod competition.

"This is a tremendous sport that's gaining in popularity," James Megellas said.

The races are so popular, fans travel from across the country for the big weekend.

For a few days, teams battle it out for a top spot and bragging rights.

Retired Lieutenant Colonel James Megellas should know about battles and war, "War is the most brutal form of human endeavor."

The 91-year-old World War II veteran is the most decorated officer in the history of the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division.

"The true nature of war, which is the war, which I fought in and everyone since," Ret. Lt. Col. Megellas said.

Megellas is a guest of The Wiely X Pro Stock Team. The team's owner is a veteran. They also produce and manufacture ballistic eye protection for U.S. Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I figured we bring Jim "Maggie" Megellas in to inspire the race team and get some performance going in that direction," Myles Freeman with Wiley X Inc. said.

Lt. Col. Megellas has more than 20 medals to prove his battles. He has earned two Silver Stars, two Bronze Stars, two Purple Hearts and the Distinguished Service Cross.

He's also a Master Parachutist.

"He's been there, he's lived it, he know's what they are going through. He understands they need the support from our loved ones at home," Freeman said.

"It is fought by young men and women who are on the cutting edge of the battlefield who will determine whether or not we loose," Lt. Col. Megellas explained.

Retired Lt. Colonel James Megellas plans to make his second trip to Afghanistan to meet with U.S. soldiers next month.