Get all your latest International news here. From North Korea to Afghanistan. FarrukhsNews is your destination for all the latest International News.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
12 Killed in Fort Hood shooting!
12 Dead, 31 Wounded in Base Shootings
At least one gunman killed 11 soldiers and wounded 31 others on Thursday afternoon at Fort Hood in Texas. Authorities then killed the gunman, who was identified as Malik Nadal Hasan, an Army major who was about to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, the commanding officer at Fort Hood, the largest active military installation in the country, said the base was placed in lockdown as military authorities, with the help of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, investigate the rampage.
“This was a terrible tragedy,” said General Cone, speaking at a news conference Thursday afternoon. “Stunning.”‘
Mr. Hasan was a medical officer, military officials said, and The Associated Press reported that his specialty was psychiatry.
The Austin-American Statesman quoted Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison’s spokesman, Jeff Sadoski, as saying Major Hasan was upset about his deployment.
President Obama, speaking from the White House, called it “a horrific outburst of violence.”
“My immediate thoughts and prayers are with the wounded and with the families of the fallen,” the president said.
“We don’t yet know all the details at this moment,” he said. “We will share them as we get them. What we do know is that a number of American soldiers have been killed and even more have been wounded in a horrific outburst of violence.”
“It is horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil,” the president said.
General Cone said the shooting began at about 1:30 p.m. Central time, when a soldier entered the soldier readiness unit, where soldiers receive last-minute medical attention and other instruction before being being deployed overseas, including to Iraq and Afghanistan.
“A soldier opened fire, and due to the quick response of the police forces, he was killed,” General Cone said.
“There were several eyewitness accounts that there was more than one shooter,” he said. Two other soldiers were also taken into custody, he said, but the authorities are continuing to sort out what exactly happened.
General Cone said that the sprawling base has facilities that house children, but that there were no children among the dead or wounded.
“The soldiers and family members are absolutely devastated,” he said.
He said that the local police had responded quickly and that the wounded were taken to an area hospital.
Earlier, Senator Hutchison she had been apprised of the shootings.
“Our hearts go out,” she told Fox 4 News. “These are soldiers who are getting ready to go out to Iraq or Afghanistan and their families were under stress already. This was just a terrible tragedy and we don’t even know the extent of it yet.”
The based was the site today of the annual college graduation ceremonies for soldiers and family members who have not had the opportunity to participate in college commencement exercises during the past year because of deployment, according to the Fort Hood Sentinel.
In 1991 in Killeen, Tex., not far from the fort, one of the worst mass killings in United States history took place, when a crazed gunman drove his pickup truck through a cafeteria window, shot 22 people to death with a handgun, then killed himself.
Massive pullout by UN in Afghanistan
KABUL -- The United Nations said Thursday it is sending more than half of its foreign staff out of Afghanistan in response to the murder of five of its workers at a guesthouse in Kabul last week.
The U.N. called the move temporary, but its top official in Afghanistan issued an unusually stern warning to the government of President Hamid Karzai, saying the U.N. could curtail work permanently if it doesn't see marked reforms.
"There is a belief among some that the international community will continue, whatever happens, because of the strategic importance of Afghanistan," said Kai Eide, head of the United Nations Mission in Afghanistan, at a news conference. "I would like to emphasize that that's not true."
The U.N. is evaluating how to move its staff to bigger and more tightly guarded compounds before it allows its 600 evacuated staff to return, officials said. Until recently, about 1,100 foreign workers have been dispersed through 90 residences around Kabul. The U.N. would like to reduce that number to about 30, one official said.
Some fear the U.N.'s move could further blunt the effectiveness of aid programs as workers withdraw to fewer fortress-like residences. Kabul, unlike Baghdad, has no green zone, a tightly defended portion of the city where diplomats and foreigners are concentrated.
If the U.N. moves its workers into a central location, such a zone could begin to coalesce on its own. "There's definitely a tendency towards one day having a large, secured area," said a Western diplomat who monitors the security situation. "Its always easier to protect a large area since you can concentrate your forces there."
Some in the aid community said that the U.N. was too quick in deciding to leave. "They should take more time to assess," said Sardar Mohd, deputy country director of Mercy Corps, an American nongovernmental organization. "These days after the elections are very complicated, and it's not the time to leave the country. It's a time to figure out how to move forward."
"The U.N. decreasing their involvement will have a negative impact," he added. "Everyone in the humanitarian community is connected to the U.N. somehow."
The U.N. is hoping to bring back its foreign staff to Kabul "within weeks," said Adrian Edwards, spokesman for the U.N. in Kabul. He said the U.N. is trying to send only its nonessential staff abroad, and will do its utmost to prevent their relocation to affect operations.
"We have tried in our half a century to live and work in the community and not be sealed off here," he said. "But before we were not a target and we have to adapt to being a target now."
"We don't see this as a pullout or evacuation," he said. But he said the U.N. is trying to determine whether some of its foreign workers can perform the same work from abroad.
One U.N. official said that the U.N. is planning to establish an office in Dubai to oversee activities, and that some of the staff evacuating this week will remain there.
The U.N. has already suspended most of its operations in northwest Pakistan because of crumbling security there. U.N. workers in Pakistan have been targeted a number of times in recent months, including a bombing of the U.N. World Food Program office in Islamabad last month that killed five employees.
Courtesy: Wall Street Journal and ITN
YANKEES WIN! DAAAAAAAAA YANKEEES WIN!
Friday morning the Yankees will celebrate with a ticker-tape parade up lower Broadway.
“Right where we belong," Derek Jeter bellowed from a stage in the middle of the $1.5 billion Stadium.
And they looked very comfortable. Alex Rodriguez, who doesn’t have to answer any more questions about choking in the postseason, let loose with a river of victory tears and promised the parade will be a huge party.
Mariano Rivera held a copy of The Post’s front page with the No. 27 on the cover.
Hideki Matsui, who went 3-for-4 with a homer and six RBIs that tied the single-game record, was named MVP and took the occasion to lobby for a return.
“I hope so,’’ when asked if he would be back. Matsui can become a free agent in 15 days. “I hope it works out. I love New York and I love the fans.’’
From 1996 to 2000 the Yankees won four Series titles and three straight (1998-2000). They came within two outs of winning in 2001, were bounced from the Series in six 2003 games, and didn’t make it back until this year when they spent almost a half-billion dollars of Steinbrenner’s fortune to import CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira to successfully plug gaping holes in the rotation and lineup.
When the subject of money surfaced, GM Brian Cashman was ready with an answer.
"You can call us anything you want. You're also going to have to call us world champions,’’ said Cashman, who didn’t join the Steinbrenner family on the stage to accept the World Series trophy.
Sabathia, Burnett and Teixeira played big roles in the Yankees success but it was Matsui who turned Game 6 into a knockout audition for 2009 employment.
“Tonight he was as locked in as I have ever seen him,’’ Jeter said.
Matsui, the 2000 MVP of the Japan Series, hit a two-run homer in the second, a two-run single in the third, and a two-run double in the fifth that broke the Phillies’ will.
Andy Pettitte, another free-agent candidate who has a better chance of the Yankees wanting him back than Matsui, provided 5 2/3 gutsy innings on three days' rest.
Pettitte struggled with command problems from the first pitch, and his fifth walk to Chase Utley with one out in the sixth inning was followed by Ryan Howard’s opposite-field, two-run homer to left that cut the Yankees’ lead to 7-3.
Following a chat with Joe Girardi, Pettitte caught Jayson Werth looking for the second out. But when Raul Ibanez rifled a double into the right-field corner, Joba Chamberlain trotted in from the bullpen.
Pettitte, who is 18-9 in the postseason and 4-0 this year, left to a loud standing ovation. He allowed three runs, four hits and five walks.
With copies of yesterday’s Post poster of Pedro Martinez in a diaper being flashed around the Stadium that was filled with “Who's Your Daddy?!’’ chants, Martinez lasted four innings. He gave up four runs and three hits, including Matsui’s two-run homer.
The victory vindicated Girardi’s decision to use Sabathia, Burnett and Pettitte on three days' rest instead of trusting a World Series start to Chad Gaudin. And the manager erased all that criticism for using so many relievers in the ALCS against the Angels.
Jeter, Rivera, Pettitte and Posada will be fitted for their fifth World Series rings, all as Yankees.
Damaso Marte topped off a wonderful Series (five Ks in 2 2/3 innings) by fanning Chase Utley with two out to end the seventh and Ryan Howard starting the eighth.
Girardi then called for Rivera to get the final five outs.
Courtesy: NYPOST.COM
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Talking to the "Axis Of Evil": DC And Tehran to hold talks
U.S. to Accept Iran’s Proposal to Hold Talks
NYTIMES.COM
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that the United States would accept Iran’s offer to meet, fulfilling President Obama’s pledge to hold unconditional talks despite the Iranian government’s insistence that it would not negotiate over the future of its nuclear program.
The decision to engage directly with Iran would put a senior representative of the Obama administration at the bargaining table, along with emissaries from five other nations, for the first time since Mr. Obama took office.
The decision is bound to raise protests from conservatives who contend that unconditional talks are naïve, and from human rights groups that say the United States should not legitimize an Iranian government that appears to have manipulated its presidential election in June and crushed protests after the vote.
In advance of Friday’s announcement, senior administration officials said that their offer to negotiate directly with the Iranians, for what could turn into the first substantive talks since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, was, as a senior official had earlier put it, a “bona fide offer.”
But at the same time, officials said their expectations were extremely low. They also said their willingness to proceed was based in part on a recognition that some form of talks had to take place before the United States could make a case for imposing far stronger sanctions on Iran.
“We’ll be looking to see if they are willing to engage seriously on these issues,” said a State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley. “If we have talks, we will plan to bring up the nuclear issue.”
The talks would also include Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, which in the past have negotiated with Iran without the presence of an American representative, except for one meeting at the end of the administration of President George W. Bush.
During his first term, talks with unfriendly countries like North Korea and Iran were usually rejected out of hand in the hope of speeding their collapse. That loosened in Mr. Bush’s second term, but even then agreements to talk were usually under highly restricted conditions.
The result was a stalemate — one that Mr. Obama argued during last year’s presidential campaign was a huge mistake, in part because Iran was producing nuclear material while the standoff dragged on.
The United Nations Security Council has issued several rounds of sanctions against Iran for failing to comply with resolutions demanding it stop enriching uranium. It has called on Tehran to answer questions from international arms inspectors about documents that suggest that the country worked in the past on a nuclear weapons design.
Iran’s government insists that its efforts are aimed at the peaceful generation of electricity, and has charged that the documents were Western forgeries.
Iran made its offer to meet in a five-page letter delivered to several nations on Wednesday. Titled “Cooperation, Peace and Justice,” it touched on political, social and economic themes, called for reform of the United Nations and a Middle East peace settlement, and for universal nuclear disarmament.
But the letter said nothing about Iran’s nuclear program, and as recently as this week President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed never to halt the fuel production, saying Iran would not relinquish its fundamental rights.
Administration officials were dismissive of the letter, saying that it rehashed past statements and offers. But they said they would consider the offer to meet, and they spent less than 48 hours studying its contents before deciding to tell Iran that the United States would join its negotiating partners in talks.
It is unclear where the discussions will take place, but the most likely American representative is William J. Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, who is leading the diplomatic effort.
The first announcement of the decision was made Friday in Brussels by Javier Solana, the foreign policy chief of the European Union, who acts as an intermediary for the six countries.
Hours earlier, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, appeared to take a softer line on Iran, saying the administration would not impose “artificial deadlines” on Iran.
It was difficult to judge Mr. Obama’s outreach to Iran because, she said, “the elections and their aftermath have added a layer of complexity to assessing the overtures and offers of diplomatic engagement.”
Some administration officials argued that Mr. Obama’s overtures, which included a videotaped New Year’s greeting and at least one letter to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, had thrown the Iranian leadership off balance. They thought that for the first time in recent history, the United States had Iran on the defensive, rather than the other way around.
Russia and China have expressed deep reservations about imposing additional sanctions on Iran. On Thursday, the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, expressed opposition to additional sanctions.
On Friday, Mr. Crowley also said the United States would be willing to hold direct talks with North Korea over its nuclear program, within the context of existing six-party negotiations.
“We are prepared to meet with North Korea,” he said. “When it’ll happen, where it’ll happen, we’ll have to wait and see.”
Saturday, September 5, 2009
So what now in Afghanistan
US general sees strike aftermath
The head of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan has visited the area where a Nato air strike destroyed two fuel tankers hijacked by Taliban militants.
Gen Stanley McChrystal's visit came amid reports that civilians were among scores of people killed in the attack.
Gen McChrystal has made avoiding civilian deaths a priority in the alliance's Afghan campaign.
A Nato investigative team also visited the site of the attack, on the Kunduz River in northern Afghanistan.
The 10-member team led by US Rear Admiral Gregory J Smith had earlier visited a hospital in Kunduz city where some of the injured are being treated.
Rear Adm Smith said there were few confirmed details so far.
"Two fuel trucks were stuck in the sandbar. There were two bombs dropped on that area," he said.
"The sense was that there were insurgents there, but we need to discover what really happened.
"We are really trying to learn and understand, and we are listening."
In a statement broadcast on Afghan television, Gen McChrystal promised a full investigation into the air strike.
"As commander of the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), nothing is more important than the safety and protection of the Afghan people," he said.
"I take this possible loss of life or injury to innocent Afghans very seriously."
Meanwhile, the German defence minister has defended his country's troops for ordering the air strike.
Franz Josef Jung said the two fuel tankers had posed a considerable danger to the German soldiers stationed close by.
The Nato attack occurred about 7km (four miles) south-west of Kunduz city before dawn on Friday.
German forces had reported the two tankers hijacked by the Taliban while they were being driven from Tajikistan to supply Nato forces in Kabul.
Witnesses said one of the tankers had become stuck in a river and militants asked villagers to extract fuel to make it lighter.
At that point, the air strike occurred.
The death toll is still not confirmed, with reports varying from 56 to 90.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the attack had been a "big mistake".
The West should "work with the Afghan people, not bomb them", Mr Kouchner said in Stockholm, where European Union foreign ministers have concluded two days of talks focusing on their strategy in Afghanistan.
The ministers agreed there was "a need to reinforce our political, civilian and economic efforts in Afghanistan", Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said.
They also said there should be a greater focus fighting corruption and the production of opium.
Gates Says time not right to leave Afghanistan
WASHINGTON — Faced with waning public support for the military escalation in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that the war is worth fighting and signaled for the first time he may be willing to send more troops after months of publicly resisting a significant increase.
Gates urged patience amid polls showing rising disenchantment among the public with the war effort, saying the American military presence in Afghanistan was necessary to derail terrorists.
At a Pentagon news conference, Gates said efforts by President Barack Obama — including ordering an additional 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan this spring — are "only now beginning" and should be given a chance to succeed.
"I don't believe that the war is slipping through the administration's fingers," Gates said. Later, he added: "I absolutely do not think it is time to get out of Afghanistan."
At the same time, there is a "limited time for us to show that ... this approach is working," Gates said.
Sitting beside Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen described "a sense of urgency" in securing Afghanistan to make sure extremists can no longer hatch terrorist plots against the United States and it allies from within its borders.
"Time is not on our side," Mullen said, adding that the military mission in Afghanistan until recently has been underfunded and undermanned. "Part of why it has gotten more serious and has deteriorated has been directly tied to that."
Both Gates and Mullen declined to talk about any of the recommendations contained in a new review of Afghanistan strategy sent this week to them and the president. Gates said only he could consider a major increase in combat troops under certain conditions.
Gates said he would be comfortable with a larger U.S. military presence in Afghanistan as long as the increase reassured the country's citizens that the Americans were there for the benefit of Afghans.
"If they interact with the Afghans in a way that gives confidence to the Afghans that we're their partners and their allies, then the risks that I have been concerned about the footprint becoming too big and the Afghans seeing us in some role other than partners I think is mitigated," Gates said.
A separate recommendation on troop increases is expected in the coming weeks from the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who wrote the new review, but how many troops McChrystal wants is unclear. There could be as many as 20,000, but in recent days military officials have predicted it will be far less, closer to or fewer than 10,000.
Mullen said the question of a new jump in troop deployments is just one element of a larger plan that the Pentagon will soon ask Congress to authorize. "It's a piece — critical, but it's not total," Mullen said.
Despite recent calls from leftist activists and also from conservative columnist George Will to wind down U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, Gates forcefully argued for continued American efforts there.
Fifty-one U.S. troops died in Afghanistan in August, making it the bloodiest month for American forces there since the U.S.-led invasion in late 2001.
Gates cited the continuing threat from al-Qaida and its Taliban allies as the top reason why the U.S. should stay in Afghanistan. Leaving would allow terrorists to re-establish staging bases in a nation where the political leadership is unable to curb insurgent threats, Gates said in a blunt reference to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"We're in Afghanistan less for nation building than we are in giving the Afghan state the capacity to oppose al-Qaida, to oppose the use of their territory by other violent extremists, and for them to have that capacity that can be sustained over a period of time," the secretary said.
Recent public opinion polls have shown Americans' dwindling support for the idea of sending more troops to the conflict and falling confidence in how the Obama administration's strategy in Afghanistan is working. Part of the issue for Americans, the polls show, is confusion over what is the U.S. mission in Afghanistan — a concern echoed by senators from Obama's own party.
Last week, Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin questioned the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, saying it has lost focus and needs a flexible timeline for withdrawing troops from the country. Additionally, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said he is "concerned that this war not last a whole lot longer."
"We've got to begin seeing changes," Brown said after returning from a trip to Afghanistan. "We don't stay forever if they don't meet the goals they need to meet."
Any additional funding approved by Congress likely will be spent to train Afghan army, police and other security forces to take over the fight against the Taliban, and on equipment to protect U.S. troops from attacks and homemade bombs known as IEDs.
By the end of the year, an estimated 68,000 troops will be in Afghanistan, 21,000 of which were ordered there by Obama last spring. Military commanders and State Department officials on the ground, however, say many more are needed to get the job done.
Despite waving off questions about the contents of McChrystal's review, both Gates and Mullen repeatedly referred to some of his recommendations, with Mullen calling it a "frank and candid" look at how military forces can accomplish the Afghanistan mission.
Obama is reading the report during the long Labor Day weekend at Camp David, his aides said.
Pakistan's Defence day today: The nation remembers its Heros
Captain Muhammad Anwar Shaheed
Major Tufail Muhammad Shaheed
Major Raja Aziz Bhatti Shaheed
Major Muhammad Akram Shaheed
Pilot Officer Rashid Minhas Shaheed
Major Shabbir Shabir Shaheed
Jawan Sarwar Muhammad Hussain Shaheed
Lance Naik Muhammad Mahfuz Shaheed
Captain Muhammad Karnal Sher Khan Shaheed
Havaldar Lalak Jaan Shaheed
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Political Stability in Pakistain: Too much to Ask?
Saturday, August 29, 2009
India Loses Contact with moon satellite
All communication links with the only Indian satellite orbiting the Moon have been lost, India's space agency says.
Radio contact with the Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft was lost abruptly early on Saturday, said India's Bangalore-based Space Research Organization (Isro).
The unmanned craft was launched last October in what was billed as a two-year mission of exploration.
The launch was regarded as a major step for India as it seeks to keep pace with other space-faring nations in Asia.
Related Links
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-4949898,prtpage-1.cms
http://in.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idINTRE57S13B20090829
Following its launch from the southern state of Andhra Pradesh, it was hoped the robotic probe would orbit the Moon, compile a 3-D atlas of the lunar surface and map the distribution of elements and minerals.
Useful mission?
Last month the satellite experienced a technical problem when a sensor malfunctioned.
CHANDRAYAAN 1
1 - Chandrayaan Energetic Neutral Analyzer (CENA)
2 - Moon Impact Probe (MIP)
3 - Radiation Dose Monitor (RADOM)
4 - Terrain Mapping Camera (TMC)
5 - Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3)
6 - Chandrayaan 1 X-ray Spectrometer (C1XS)
7 - Solar Panel
An Isro spokesman said at the time that useful information had already been gathered from pictures beamed to Earth from the probe, although the picture quality had been affected by the malfunction.
Powered by a single solar panel generating about 700 watts, the Isro probe carries five Indian-built instruments and six constructed in other countries, including the US, Britain and Germany.
The mission was expected to cost 3.8bn rupees (£45m; $78m), considerably less than Japanese and Chinese probes sent to the Moon last year.
But the Indian government's space efforts have not been welcomed by all.
Some critics regard the space programme as a waste of resources in a country where millions still lack basic services.
Farrrukh's Note: Obama's War and The Afghan Elections
His allegations should not be the base for questioning the credibility of these elections as the atmosphere in Afghanistan is anarchic. The Taliban called for a complete boycott of the electoral process, but the Afghans didn't need the Taliban to tell them to boycott these elections as the entire setup in Kabul is seen as an extension of the international boots on ground.
There were murmurs and hints preceding the elctions in the media that a run off is expected between Karzai and Abdullah. Coincedentally that seems most likely as Karzai is leading with 44 % and Abdullah with 36 % according to unconfirmed reports. As per the Afghan electoral process if one candidate fails to gain 50 % of the vote a run is necessary. Richard Hoolbrooke, the United States' ambassadir for Afghanistan and Pakistan also happened to be in the region and was in Afghanistan on election day. He met with Karzai following the elections, in what is being described as a very tense meeting after Hoolbrooke brought up the rigging allegations.
Karzai wants to get rid of the American poodle label which is why he is often seen weeping in public over civilian deaths. And now his defiance in a meeting with Hoolbrooke suggests he is in a hurry to become an 'independent Afghan.'
Gen. McCrystal, the new American commander in Afghanistan is conducting a review for the Afghan war, after 8 years if the American commanders are still conducting reviews it shows the problems they are having in dealing with the Taliban there.
Friday, August 28, 2009
British forces facing heavy Casualties in Afghanistan
The British force in Helmand suffered one casualty for every Afghan vote in the area retaken from the Taliban during the bloody Panther's Claw offensive.
It has also been disclosed that polling day in Afghanistan was the most violent during the conflict with 400 attacks across the country, including one which killed two British soldiers.
Early vote counts show that the incumbent President Hamid Karzai is likely to win the first round but not by an outright majority leading to second polling day
Despite the British force seizing the insurgent stronghold in the Babaji area freeing 80,000 potential voters from Taliban control only 150 people turned up to vote, according to BBC figures.
Since the launch of Operation Panther's Claw in early July and up to polling day on Aug 20 the British have suffered 37 dead and an estimated 150 wounded in action in southern Afghanistan.
Part of the operation's aim had been to allow the local population to vote and 13 polling stations were set up within the district but these averaged just over 11 voters each.
But Mark Sedwill, the British Ambassador to Afghanistan, said the operation was not specifically aimed at providing security for last week's elections.
Speaking to reporters via videolink from Kabul, he said: "Panther's Claw, although timed to try to improve security for people to move around for the election, was not specifically itself about the election."
He added: "The clear phase of that operation only ended a couple of weeks before the election ... there is a long road to go until that entire area is fully secure."
Mr Sedwill said turnout was expected to be lower than the last presidential election and he accepted Taliban intimidation would have "had an impact".
The most recent polling shows Mr Karzai leads his nearest rival Abdullah Abdullah by 45 per cent to 35 per cent in votes counted.
A candidate needs to secure 50 per cent of the votes to avoid a run-off contest against his leading rival that is scheduled for 1 Oct.
The ambassador predicted that British troops could be involved in dangerous tasks for many years to come, even once they were withdrawn from the front line.
He said: "I would hope that British forces are no longer in combat roles three to five years from now because the Afghan forces should by then be big enough and capable enough to take on that front-line task."
telegraph.co.uk
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Ted Kennedy: A great American
Boston Mourns a Kennedy Brother, Again
By LIZ ROBBINS
Thousands of mourners, clapping and waving flags, lined the streets from Cape Cod to downtown Boston on Thursday afternoon, watching as the lengthy funeral procession for Senator Edward M. Kennedy concluded its three-hour journey at the John F. Kennedy Library in Dorchester, Mass.
Mr. Kennedy died late Tuesday at his home in the compound in Hyannis Port, Mass., after battling brain cancer for 15 months. He was 77. His body will lie in repose through 3 p.m. on Friday at the presidential library that Mr. Kennedy helped build to honor his brother.
As Mr. Kennedy’s coffin was taken from the hearse and into the library’s Stephen E. Smith Center, the extended Kennedy family — numbering 85 in the motorcade — emerged from black limousines, sport utility vehicles and a chartered bus. Crowds had been gathering since early morning to enter the public viewing, which was to last from at 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. Thursday and from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Friday. A private memorial service will be held later Friday at the library.
All day Thursday, the sun sparkled in the late summer sky, lending something of a celebratory air to the otherwise solemn proceedings. Around noon family members began filing into the senator’s house in Hyannis Port for a private Catholic funeral Mass, celebrated by the Rev. Donald MacMillan of Boston College. The Mass ran about 90 minutes longer than expected. When it ended, Kennedy relatives young and old stood behind Mr. Kennedy’s widow, Vicki. They watched in silence as the coffin, draped in the American flag, was put into the hearse just before 2 p.m. Eastern time.
Beside Vicki Kennedy was Jean Kennedy, Mr. Kennedy’s last surviving sibling; immediately behind them were the senator’s four young grandchildren.
Some family members touched the hearse softly as they walked past. A flag flew at half-staff in the center of the circular driveway. When the motorcade finally began its 72-mile journey, the procession was met by people flanking the local streets and the sides of the main highway, Route 3, back to Boston.
In Boston, mourners and tourists of all nationalities and backgrounds mingled, waiting patiently in front of several sites for the motorcade. For some, their connection to Mr. Kennedy was deeply personal, even if they had never met the man.
“I grew up with my dad always telling me that as long as Ted Kennedy was around everything was safe,” said Susan Jackson, 44, a social worker from Worcester, Mass., who went to the Kennedy library early Thursday to be among the first to sign a condolence book for Mr. Kennedy.
By 12:30 p.m., Ms. Jackson was in line a second time to sign the book in her late father’s name. Her father was a bricklayer and active in a union whose events Mr. Kennedy often attended.
“He really fought for the working-class people and that’s exactly what I am,” Ms. Jackson said. “I’m a social worker — I help people too. It was like I lost a part of my family even though I wasn’t related to him, just because growing up he was so dominant in my house.”
In front of St. Stephen’s Church in the city’s North End, the funeral procession’s first destination in the city, Sister Christina Cullen stood near the steps. Mr. Kennedy’s mother, Rose, was baptized at the church, and her funeral Mass was celebrated there.
Sister Cullen, originally from Ireland, took time to praise the Senator as he had once taken time for her.
“He did an awful lot for peace in Ireland and also for immigration issues,” Sister Cullen said. “I met him on the streets a few years ago in Boston and we talked for about five minutes. He always had time for everyone, he asked me what I was doing, how I was doing and all that. Ireland has lost a very important person who used to speak for them, they’ve lost an advocate.”
From the North End, the motorcade crossed over the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway, the park Mr. Kennedy helped create, and passed by Faneuil Hall, the colonial-era landmark where Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston rang the bell 47 times — once for each year Mr. Kennedy served in the Senate.
It passed by the State House on Beacon Hill about 4:15 p.m., where about 1,000 people burst into spontaneous applause and waved small American flags as the motorcade turned a corner and drove by 122 Bowdoin Street, where Mr. Kennedy had his first office as an assistant district attorney. His brother John lived on Bowdoin Street while running for Congress in 1946.
Dean Massey, 61, had come to the State House with his son, Michael, his sentiment fueled by a personal connection. Before Mr. Massey had moved to Florida, he and his family lived in Hyannis, about 10 minutes from the Kennedy compound. A computer programmer, Mr. Massey, said he had set up some networks on the compound.
“The Kennedys were involved in the community heavily,” Mr. Massey said. “The family was a symbol for all families to stick together. They went through so much, but they stood by each other.”
He added: “Ted Kennedy has fulfilled the idea that the last will be first.”
Michael Massey, 25, said, “I wanted to catch a glimpse of the motorcade because most presidents don’t get the attention Ted Kennedy has gotten for being a Senator.”
Ecila Gabadon, 53, from Dorchester, brought two of her grandchildren Kryanna Wallace, 11 and Jasseim Wallace, 9 to wait for the procession outside the State House.
Ms. Gabadon, originally from Jamaica, said she came to pay tribute to Mr. Kennedy “because of all the work he’s done for poor black people.”
“He’s for everybody,” she said, “black and white and Hispanic, rich and poor. He’s done a lot for everybody and that’s why I’m here.”
From the State House and Bowdoin Street, the procession passed the John F. Kennedy Federal Building, where Senator Kennedy maintained an office in recent years, and then arrived at the presidential library. The Boston Globe reported that since Mr. Kennedy’s death, museum officials have been hastily constructing an exhibit in the center’s foyer, with photographs and artifacts relating to his speeches, including his 1968 eulogy for his brother Robert F. Kennedy and his Democratic National Convention addresses from 1980 to 2008.
Outside the library mourners left American flags, flowers, a stuffed teddy bear, and a Boston Red Sox cap that someone had placed to mark Mr. Kennedy’s love for his home team.
The family formed a greeting line outside the library, and then was to attend a private service inside the museum. Select Kennedy friends and family, the senator’s aides, as well as relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the family of a serviceman killed in Iraq, will keep a vigil at the library until a funeral Mass Saturday morning at the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Boston. Mr. Kennedy had befriended the families after their children’s death.
President Obama will deliver a eulogy at the funeral, after which Mr. Kennedy’s body will be flown to Washington. He is to be buried at 5 p.m. Saturday at Arlington National Cemetery outside Washington, near the gravesites of his brothers John and Robert.
Matt Collette, Abby Goodnough and Ariana Green contributed reporting from Boston.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
New CIA Training Centers in Pakistan & Afghanistan
Seems like the US is determnined to stay in the region for a while. Derek Harvey, considered to be David Petraeus right hand man will lead the centers- Here is a report in the Washington Times:
Petraeus to open intel training center
EXCLUSIVE:
Gen. David H. Petraeus plans to open an in-house intelligence organization at U.S. Central Command this week that will train military officers, covert agents and analysts who agree to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan for up to a decade.
The organization, to be called the Center for Afghanistan Pakistan Excellence, will be led by Derek Harvey, a retired colonel in the Defense Intelligence Agency who became one of the Gen. Petraeus' most trusted analysts during the 2007-08 counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq.
Mr. Harvey distinguished himself in Iraq by predicting that the Iraqi insurgency would spiral out of control, at a time when it was widely underestimated by the Bush administration, in 2003 and 2004.
He later dissented from the emerging consensus in Congress and the CIA, when he said, as early as March 2007, that al Qaeda had been strategically defeated. This was during the early days of the surge, at a time when most of the intelligence community thought the Sunni insurgency was intact.
In an exclusive interview with The Washington Times, Mr. Harvey said the center will build on some of the lessons that he and the military learned in Iraq, not just for counterinsurgency but also in terms of intelligence analysis.
In this sense, Mr. Harvey is a believer in two reforms in developing reliable intelligence. The first involves altering the methods of interpreting raw data. He said the intelligence community tends to rely too much on information from human sources such as spies and from signal intercepts such as wiretaps, to the exclusion of reports from people on the ground such as military officers and aid workers.
Mr. Harvey said the new center would focus on integrating all sources of information to develop strategic products for both war fighters and decision makers in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"We have tended to rely too much on intelligence sources and not integrating fully what is coming from provincial reconstruction teams, civil-affairs officers, commanders and operators on the ground that are interacting with the population and who understand the population and can actually communicate what is going on in the street," he said. "If you only rely on the intelligence reporting, you can get a skewed picture of the situation."
Mr. Harvey calls this approach "widening the aperture."
The second reform Mr. Harvey advocates involves training. He said many analysts at the CIA, the State Department and other intelligence-collecting bureaus are moved from one country or region to the next after two years, right at the moment the analysts are gaining fluency and expertise in their areas.
The training academy will submerse future analysts, officers and covert operators in Pashtu and Dari language and culture courses. Recruits also will be asked to sign a form that commits them to work on Afghanistan and Pakistan for at least five years.
"These people are going to be working this program for the next five to 10 years," Mr. Harvey said. "We did not plan for the long term. In Afghanistan, we are planning for success, and that requires human capital. We are putting into place the things we need to do for that."
Asked whether the new training commitments suggest a long-term military presence in Afghanistan, Mr. Harvey said those decisions are above his pay grade. But he said, "Even if we downsize, we are still going to have investments in South Asia."
The center will be coordinating with the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the (NATO) International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. Missing from the list, however, is the CIA.
Mr. Harvey said the CIA had detailed many analysts to support his new center, and he dismissed claims that the CIA was deliberately cut out of the loop.
A spokesman for the agency, George Little, said, "The CIA has an excellent relationship with Centcom. There's a robust and routine exchange of intelligence and analytic views between the two organizations."
Mr. Harvey at times clashed with CIA analysts on the direction of Iraq when he was advising Gen. Petraeus. Behind the scenes, he pressed for changes to a January 2007 national intelligence estimate that concluded at the time that al Qaeda did not command the Sunni insurgency and did not acknowledge the prospect that tribal chieftains in western Iraq would turn on the insurgents and join the military.
By August, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence revised the estimates on Iran to reflect Mr. Harveys perspective.
It was not the first time. In 2005, Mr. Harvey wrote a paper on how to reform the intelligence community based on his experience in Iraq, a report disclosed by Rowan Scarborough in his 2007 book, "Sabotage."
"I put together a paper to outline the way ahead to address the shortcomings of the intelligence community's posture for addressing the threat in Iraq and the emerging problems I anticipated. I outlined what we could do, in building architecture, training, realigning resources and developing new architecture," he said.
But when he presented the report to Gen. Petraeus, the general told Mr. Harvey not to go public with his critique. "His counsel was let me help you, there is a better way to bring change. Sometimes you don't go public."
Mr. Harveys perspective was developed by an almost forensic approach to intelligence analysis. Mr. Harvey in 2003 and 2004 would pore through the interrogation reports and analyses of battalion-level intelligence officers, becoming a master of detail about the Iraqi insurgency. He was also known for traveling, sometimes at great risk, to one-on-one meetings with insurgent and tribal leaders at safe houses. He said he even would bring, on occasion, a bottle of scotch to those meetings with Muslims who did not always observe Islam's ban on alcohol.
A retired four-star general who helped develop the Iraq counterinsurgency strategy, Jack Keane, compared Mr. Harvey's work to that of a homicide detective: "deliberate, methodical, thankless work, putting all the evidence together to form a story."
"As it turns out, Harvey in my view is the only intelligence analyst who was right from the beginning to the end in Iraq. So it's no wonder that General Petraeus, who has tremendous confidence in him, wants him to focus on Pakistan and Afghanistan, which is the next-thorniest problem our troops are facing," Mr. Keane said.
Other former colleagues echo this sentiment.
John Nagl, a former Army lieutenant colonel who worked with Mr. Harvey in Iraq, said, "Derek Harvey understands insurgent networks to a finer degree of detail than anyone I ever met. He can think through motivations, project future actions, and evaluate courses of action to counter them completely in his head. He has also become absolutely obsessed with this process at the expense of his health."
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/24/petraeus-to-open-intel-training-center/?feat=home_headlines
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The Battle against the Taliban: No help from Afghans say Marines
Marines Fight Taliban With Little Aid From Afghans
KHAN NESHIN, Afghanistan — American Marines secured this desolate village in southern Afghanistan nearly two months ago, and last week they were fortifying bases, on duty at checkpoints and patrolling in full body armor in 120-degree heat. Despite those efforts, only a few hundred Afghans were persuaded to come out here and vote for president on Thursday.
In a region the Taliban have lorded over for six years, and where they remain a menacing presence, American officers say their troops alone are not enough to reassure Afghans. Something is missing that has left even the recently appointed district governor feeling dismayed. “I don’t get any support from the government,” said the governor, Massoud Ahmad Rassouli Balouch.
Governor Massoud has no body of advisers to help run the area, no doctors to provide health care, no teachers, no professionals to do much of anything. About all he says he does have are police officers who steal and a small group of Afghan soldiers who say they are here for “vacation.”
It all raises serious questions about what the American mission is in southern Afghanistan — to secure the area, or to administer it — and about how long Afghans will tolerate foreign troops if they do not begin to see real benefits from their own government soon. American commanders say there is a narrow window to win over local people from the guerrillas.
Securing the region is overwhelming enough. The Marines have just enough forces to clear out small pockets like Khan Neshin. And despite the Americans’ presence, Afghan officials said 290 people voted here last week at what is the only polling place in a region the size of Connecticut. Some officers were stunned even that many voted, given thereports of widespread intimidation.
Even with the new operation in Helmand Province, which involves the Marines here and more than 3,000 others as part of President Obama’s troop deployments, the military lacks the troop strength even to try to secure some significant population centers and guerrilla strongholds in central and southern Helmand.
And they do not have nearly enough forces to provide the kinds of services throughout the region that would make a meaningful difference in Afghans’ lives, which, in any case, is a job American commanders would rather leave for the Afghan government.
Meanwhile, Afghans in Khan Neshin, the Marines’ southernmost outpost in Helmand Province, are coming to the Americans with requests for medical care, repairs of clogged irrigation canals and the reopening of schools.
“Without the Afghan government, we will not be successful,” said Capt. Korvin Kraics, the battalion’s lawyer, who is in Khan Neshin. “You need local-level bureaucracy to defeat the insurgency. Without the stability that brings, the Taliban can continue to maintain control.”
Local administration is a problem throughout Afghanistan, and many rural areas suffer from corrupt local officials — if they have officials at all. But southern Helmand has long been one of the most ungovernable regions, a vast, inhospitable desert dominated by opium traffickers and the Taliban.
It not clear what promises of support from the Afghan government the Americans had, or whether they undertook the mission knowing that the backing necessary to complete it, at least in southern Helmand, might not arrive soon — if at all. The Americans in Khan Neshin doubt that the Afghan government promised much of anything.
Governor Massoud said he personally admired the Marines here, from the Second Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, but he said many people “just don’t want them here.”
He estimated that two of every three local residents supported the Taliban, mostly because they make a living growing poppy for the drug trade, which the Taliban control. Others support them for religious reasons or because they object to foreign forces.
Not least, people understand that the Taliban have not disappeared, but simply fallen back to Garmsir, 40 miles north, and will almost surely try to return.
Lt. Col. Tim Grattan, the battalion commander, said the local residents’ ambivalence reflected fears of what could happen to anyone who sided with the Marines, an apprehension stoked by past operations that sent troops in only for short periods.
“They are on the fence,” Colonel Grattan said. “They want to go with a winner. They want to see if we stay around and will be able to protect them from the Taliban and any repercussions.”
As for follow-up assistance, Colonel Grattan said the Afghan national government “has been ineffective to date.”
The shortfall in Afghan government support is important not only in terms of defining the Marines’ mission here, but also because it crimps their operations. The Marines, unlike units in some other regions, answer to a NATO-led command and are under orders to defer to Afghan military and civilian officials, even if there are none nearby.
For instance, Marines must release detainees after 96 hours or turn them over to Afghan forces for prosecution, even if the nearest prosecutors or judges are 80 miles away. Some detainees who the Marines say are plainly implicated in attacks using improvised explosive devices or mortars have been released.
The problems are compounded by a shortage of American troops, despite the recent reinforcements. The Marine battalion, which deployed with less than 40 percent of its troops, can regularly patrol only a small portion of its 6,000-square-mile area.
To do even that they have stretched: three-fifths of the Marines are stationed at checkpoints and a handful of austere outposts ringing Khan Neshin, living without air-conditioning or refrigerated water.
That leaves no regular troop presence across the vast southernmost reaches of Helmand. On the Pakistani border the town of Baramcha — a major smuggling hub and Taliban stronghold — remains untouched by regular military units. American and Afghan officials say Baramcha’s influence radiates through southern Helmand, undermining Marine and British military units elsewhere. “It’s the worst place in Afghanistan,” Governor Massoud said.
If the Afghan national government can provide more resources and security forces — and the Marines add more men — then the United States may be able to leave in two to three years, Colonel Grattan said.
Without that, he said, it could take much longer. For now, little help is materializing.
Frustrated, Governor Massoud said his “government is weak and cannot provide agricultural officials, school officials, prosecutors and judges.”
He said he was promised 120 police officers, but only 50 showed up. He said many were untrustworthy and poorly trained men who stole from the people, a description many of the Americans agree with. No more than 10 percent appear to have attended a police academy, they say. “Many are just men from the streets,” the governor said.
The Afghan National Army contingent appears sharper — even if only one-sixth the size that Governor Massoud said he was promised — but the soldiers have resisted some missions because they say they were sent not to fight, but to recuperate.
“We came here to rest, then we are going somewhere else,” said Lt. Javed Jabar Khail, commander of the 31-man unit. The Marines say they hope the next batch of Afghan soldiers will not be expecting a holiday.
In the meantime, at the local bazaar, just outside the Marines’ base, the foreign troop presence remains a hard sell.
When one man, Abdul Hanan, complained that “more people are dying,” First Lt. Jake Weldon told him that the Taliban “take away your schools, they take away your hospitals; we bring those things.”
Mr. Hanan remained doubtful. Some people have fled the area, fearful of violence since the Marines have arrived. He asked, “So you want to build us a hospital or school, but if nobody is here, what do we do?”
Friday, August 21, 2009
Mexico Eases ban on Marijuana, Cocaine and Heroin
Courtesy- WSJ.COM
MEXICO CITY -- Mexico decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and heroin on Friday, in a move that creates one of the world's most permissive narcotics markets and that opponents say could complicate President Felipe Calderón's war against illegal drug cartels.
The law goes beyond what is allowed in many other countries by making it legal to possess small amounts of a wide array of drugs. For instance, the new law allows the equivalent of about five joints of marijuana or four lines of cocaine.
The softened approach to small-scale drug possession comes as Mexico fights drug gangs that account for a large part of the marijuana and cocaine sold on U.S. streets. In Mexico, more than 12,000 people have died in the past three years in the cartels' battles for turf and clashes with law enforcement.
The gangs are also selling more and more drugs domestically, fueling drug addiction. A 2008 government survey found that the number of drug addicts in Mexico had almost doubled in the past six years to 307,000, while the number of those who had tried drugs rose to 4.5 million from 3.5 million.
Mexican prosecutors say the law will help the war on drug gangs by letting federal prosecutors focus their attention on traffickers rather than small-time users.
"This frees us from a flood of small crimes that have saturated our federal government and allows the authorities to go after big criminals," said Bernardo Espino del Castillo, an official with Mexico's Attorney General's office who helped design the new law.
Still, Mexico's move could anger some allies in Washington. Mexico tried to pass a similar law in 2005, but the Bush administration objected strongly, killing the initiative.
This time around, the Obama administration has kept largely silent on the issue. U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said in July he would adopt a "wait-and-see attitude" about the new Mexican law, which was passed in April.
Looking Back at Mexico's War on Drugs
Journal articles on Mexico's fight against drugs:
- Opium Poppies Grown in Mexico (Aug. 6, 1925)
- U.S. Border Agents Spur Drive Against Narcotics Smugglers (April 26, 1960)
- 'Operation Intercept' Turns Up Little Dope, Lots of Resentment (Oct. 3, 1969)
- How Mexican Soldiers Traipse Through Hills Pulling Opium Poppies (May 3, 1972)
"We know that Mexican law-enforcement authorities are continuing their efforts to target drug traffickers," Department of Justice spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said on Friday. "Our friends and partners in Mexico are waging an historic battle with the cartels, one that plays out on the streets of their communities each day. Here in the United States we will continue to enforce federal narcotics laws as we investigate, charge, and arrest cartel leaders and their subordinates in our joint effort to dismantle and disrupt these cartels."
Julie Myers Wood, who worked closely with Mexican authorities when she headed Immigrations and Customs Enforcement under President George W. Bush, said she was opposed to decriminalizing drugs. "I'm sympathetic with the Mexicans that they need to find a more effective way to deal with the cartels," she said. "But just giving up, in terms of small amounts of drugs like and cocaine and heroin, does not seem to me to be the most sensible approach."
Polls show that support for legalizing marijuana is growing in the U.S. In a Zogby poll in April, 52% of those polled thought marijuana should be legal, taxed, and regulated.
Mexico joins a growing list of countries in Europe and Latin America that are rethinking parts of the decades-long war on illicit drugs. Launched by former President Richard Nixon after the boom in drug use during the 1960s and 1970s, the war on drugs tried to attack demand by passing stricter sentencing laws for users, as well as trying to slow supply by promoting eradication efforts in countries like Colombia, Bolivia, and Afghanistan.
Mexican soldiers prepared to burn packets of marijuana near a methamphetamine lab in Tamazula earlier this month.
Early this year, three former presidents of Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia blasted the drug war as a failure that threatened the stability of countries throughout Latin America and called for the decriminalization of marijuana. Last year, courts in Brazil and Argentina ruled that possession of drugs for personal use was not a criminal offense, putting the courts at odds with local laws. In Ecuador, President Rafael Correa, whose father was jailed in the U.S. for three years for carrying drugs, pardoned hundreds of low-level drug couriers known as mules.
Despite billions of dollars spent both in the U.S. law enforcement system and in eradication efforts, the supply of drugs has grown, while usage remains about the same globally. That has caused some nations to focus more attention on drugs as a public health issue that requires treatment and prevention rather than a criminal issue that is solved by jail time.
In 2001, Portugal decriminalized personal use of psychotropic drugs, including marijuana and cocaine. The U.K. softened its anti-drug laws in 2003, setting guidelines that make it much more difficult for police to arrest someone with small amounts of marijuana. In Switzerland, heroin addicts can go to a doctor to get a prescribed dosage for heroin and can consume it at monitored sites.
Until now, Mexico has followed the law-and-order approach. Possession of any amount of drugs in Mexico was a federal crime, punishable by long jail sentences. But rates of drug use have risen steadily, while corrupt Mexican cops have used the law to shake down casual users for hefty bribes.
The new laws may not change things much in Mexico. Most Mexican police never bothered to arrest someone caught with drugs. Even if an arrest was made, few people were actually prosecuted because federal prosecutors didn't have the time or energy to go after casual users. Of the 21,456 arrests for drug possession in Mexico City from 2005 to 2007, only 1,084 were prosecuted, according to the city government.
The new law states that anyone caught with the small amounts of drugs will be encouraged to seek treatment. For those caught a third time, treatment becomes mandatory. "We think we will have more success preventing local drug use through a combination of prevention and treatment in addition to coercion," said Ricardo Najera, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office.
Many in Mexico welcomed the changes. "This is a good law. It helps the government focus on the bad guys and lets state and local governments get involved in drug abuse as a public health issue," said Alberto Islas, a security consultant in Mexico City. Mr. Islas said he didn't think the changes would create a bigger market for local drug cartels, who are more focused on the rich U.S. market.
Javier Armenta, a valet parking attendant in Mexico City who supplements his income by selling a few marijuana joints to customers, is a fan of the new law. He has never been arrested, but he says Mexican police often hit him up for $50 bribes to look the other way. "This law only recognizes the reality: If someone wants to use drugs, they will use them," he says.
Some Mexicans fear that condoning drug possession will only encourage consumption, including among tourists who visit Mexico. "We believe there should be zero tolerance for consumption," said Regina Kuri, who works at the Monte Fenix drug rehabilitation center in Mexico City.
Still, Mexico is not likely to turn into another Amsterdam, where drugs are legally sold. "This has been confused with the idea that Mexico is allowing people to go out on the streets with drugs. That's false," Mr. Espino del Castillo said. "The new legislation allows police to determine that if a person is dealing drugs, even a smaller quantity than the guidelines, he is committing a crime."
—Cam Simpson and Ricardo Millan contributed to this article.Abdullah and Karzai Claim Victory
The two leading contenders for Afghanistan's presidential election have both claimed victory.
The campaign teams for incumbent Hamid Karzai and ex-Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah both said they had won an outright majority in Thursday's poll.
Electoral officials say the ballot counting is now over and the official result will be announced soon, but warned against predicting the outcome.
They say initial results suggest turnout was between 40 and 50%.
If confirmed, that would be a lot lower than the 70% who turned out to vote in the first presidential election, in 2004. Have Your Say
But observers have hailed this election a success, after voting passed off relatively peacefully amid threats of Taliban attacks.
The UN said the vast majority of polling stations were able to function.
However, Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission (IEC) said on Friday that 11 people had been killed by insurgent attacks while trying to organise the election.
Allegations of ballot box tampering and block voting are also threatening to overshadow the result. Abdullah Abdullah told the BBC he had complained to the electoral commission about alleged voting irregularities by supporters of Mr Karzai in the southern province of Kandahar. Mr Karzai has not commented on the claims.
And, in a sign of the ongoing difficulties facing the next president, the UK government announced the deaths of two British soldiers, killed by an explosion while on routine foot patrol in Helmand province.
The deaths happened on Thursday but were not connected to the election, the Ministry of Defence said.
'Different turnouts'
Deen Mohammad, the campaign chief for Hamid Karzai, said they predicted victory after reports from nearly 29,000 monitors they had at polling stations across the country.
Hafizullah Fayaz BBC Uzbek/Afghan service, Mazar-i-Sharif Security men are still guarding this girls' school-turned-polling station. One said they would stay until all the counting was done and the ballot boxes had gone to the city's main election centre.
Counting for the presidential poll was completed in many of Mazar's voting centres late on election night.
The results are hanging on the walls inside the polling stations - sheets of paper with the candidates' names and number of votes next to them.
Not many voters are around to check on the results. Most of the delegates of the main challengers seem happy with the count, though some have complained of problems with the indelible ink used to mark the fingers of voters who cast their ballots.
Early results at six polling stations here do not give any candidate more than 50%.
"Initial results show that the president has got a majority," he told Reuters news agency. "We will not go to a second round. We have got a majority."
But a spokesman for Abdullah Abdullah was quick to play down the Karzai camp's claims.
Fazl Sangcharaki said the results from his observers at polling booths around the country suggested Abdullah Abdullah had won 63% of the vote to Hamid Karzai's 31%.
"This is not a final result," he told the AFP news agency. "We are still receiving more results from our people on the ground. We might be done by tomorrow."
The 62,000 polling stations are required to make public the results as they count them, but Afghan election officials refused to confirm either candidates' claims.
Instead, they asked the campaign teams to stay calm and refrain from speculating on the results. "We cannot confirm any claims by campaigning managers," said Zekria Barakzai of the IEC. "It's the job of the election commission to declare the results. They should be patient."
Official results had not been expected for a couple of weeks, but the IEC confirmed on Friday that ballot counting was over for the presidential election in all parts of the country and the result could come in the next few days.
Pre-election opinion polls suggested Hamid Karzai was leading the field of 30 candidates, but might face a second round run-off with Mr Abdullah.
If neither candidate wins an outright majority of 50%, then the vote is expected to go to a second round in October.
The IEC said that preliminary results suggest up to 50% of the 17 million registered voters actually came out to vote - a significant drop from the 70% of 10 million voters in 2004.
Mr Barakzai said turnout was different from north to south, where the Taliban's campaign of voter intimidation and attacks in its strongholds was believed to have had some effect.
But, says the BBC's Ian Pannell in Kabul, some people would have stayed at home because of disillusionment with the current administration of Hamid Karzai.
People are unhappy that the changes they had expected have not happened - unemployment is still high and poverty still endemic, our correspondent says.
But, he says, Western sponsors of the government believe there are some very good members in the cabinet - and the hope is that once the new president is sworn in changes can be made.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Growing up, and acquiring new habits, takes time- Ayaz Amir
Islamabad diary Friday, August 21, 2009 Ayaz Amir If we see the political class floundering and taking false steps, if we see political gurus who have been in politics for a long time — and who perhaps for that reason are unable to free themselves from the clutches of the past — fighting yesterday’s battles, we should neither be surprised nor dismayed. Old mindsets are hard to conquer. The past is comfortable territory. Stepping into the future needs a new kind of mental equipment. We are not the only country in the world with a history of military coups. Authoritarianism has had strong roots and a more pervasive presence in societies more sophisticated than ours. Spain had Franco ruling for decades. Salazar in Portugal ruled even longer than Franco. Greece in the 1960s was under a brutal military dictatorship. In all three countries democracy has established itself in such a way that it takes an effort of the imagination to remember their past. The journey from national darkness to light is never easy. To succeed it needs farsighted leaders: pilots who can negotiate narrow straits and treacherous shores. Spain, Portugal and Greece had such leaders. We are in a similar transition and, as is only natural, having a rough passage as we transit from dictatorship to democracy. But whatever our difficulties, we should remember that voyages such as ours, on rolling seas, are never smooth. We shouldn’t be such simpletons as to think that powerful quarters with a vested interest in authoritarianism would reconcile themselves to democracy so soon. Such elements will always conspire against democracy, always insidiously whisper that the Pakistani political class is irredeemably corrupt and incompetent. And there will always be sections of the media, and a section of the political class, willing to play into the hands of such elements. There is nothing new about corruption in Pakistan. Pakistan’s dominant classes — political, military and bureaucratic — are all bathed in the same waters, drinking from the same stream, supping at the same table. About military and bureaucratic corruption what we usually encounter is the silence of the lambs. But let politicians come to power — Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari or Yusuf Raza Gilani — and we hear the roar of the lions. Which is not to say that our politicians couldn’t do better. In a milieu such as ours they are, like Caesar’s wife, under a double obligation to be above suspicion and not give cause to slanderous tongues to wag. Spain, Portugal and Greece had a better cast of democratic leaders than we can lay claim to. Even so, some balance has to be kept if we wish to preserve the large scheme of things. By all means excoriate the corrupt and inept politician. Hold him to a higher level of conduct. But do so in good faith, without falling into the trap of elements whose goal is not the good of the nation but their own good: individual interest overriding the collective interest, in the name of the smoothest promises. And it is not only the political class or its leaders who are stuck in the past, fighting yesterday’s battles, flailing mightily at dead horses. Much of the national commentariat — pundits, analysts, and TV stars — are afflicted with the same syndrome, more at ease with familiar categories than with the agenda of the future. Why are some of our TV channels so mesmerized with such certified political comics as Shaikh Rashid Ahmad? Politics should rise above the level of buffoonery, even if the buffoonery is carried on with a serious face. Why has a section of the commentariat honed such an expertise for kicking dead horses? Why do they go on and on about dead issues? They are not to blame. Walking old trails is easier than charting new territory. Musharraf was swept aside by circumstances. History overtook him somewhere in 2006-2007 and then left him far behind. His exit was long drawn out but it was foretold. He is yesterday’s man. Why is a section of the political class so bent on keeping his memory alive? Other countries have gone through worse dictatorships. South Africa’s past was more brutal and repressive than ours. But when white rule ended and the ANC came to power, South Africa, under Nelson Mandela’s inspiring leadership, drew a line under the past and moved swiftly beyond it. The country has huge problems, social and economic, but it is trying to grapple with them as best as it can, instead of shouting endlessly about the evils of white rule which, in the circumstances, would be little better than escapism. The history of military coups in Pakistan will not end with political gimmickry or rhetoric. It will only end when politicians can prove by their competence and understanding of things that they are superior to any alternative. But if they are caught in petty squabbles, if the quality of their discourse is not uplifting, and if, on the other hand, the military remains a powerful and disciplined institution, no Article Six of the Constitution can be a sufficient safeguard of democracy. The question of Musharraf’s trial has proved a nine-days’ wonder, PM Gilani neatly stepping out of this complication by declaring that as he was a consensus prime minister he would only go for a trial if there was a consensus of the entire National Assembly behind the move. With the National Assembly divided on this issue it is now as good as dead, which is some embarrassment for those crying, so to speak, for Musharraf’s blood. Gilani’s further admonition that we should do only that which is doable amounts to rubbing salt into this discomfiture. Gilani is proving a more adept politician than most people gave him credit for when he became prime minister. He is cool and unflappable and measures his words carefully. As a self-proclaimed consensus prime minister he is proving true to the description by tending to the legitimate concerns of everyone — repeat, everyone — in the National Assembly. For this reason it is scarcely surprising that he enjoys enormous goodwill across the house, regardless of party affiliations, which is a feat unrivalled in the parliamentary history of this country. Reports of his differences with President Asif Zardari are exaggerated. Insofar as he is more his own man than when he was picked as prime minister, some friction between his office and the presidency is inevitable. Chairmen of the board and chief executive officers always have their differences: two swords in one scabbard, etc. But this doesn’t amount to a revolt or anything like it. Gilani’s only political home and base is the PPP, without which he would be out in the wilderness. And he knows it, or should. For reasons we are all familiar with, Zardari is a divisive figure. While inspiring loyalty among his close friends he doesn’t have much of a reputation (except for things he would gladly forget) as far as the public is concerned. The unifying figure is Gilani and when the succession in the PPP finally takes place, the torch passing from Zardari to Bilawal, Gilani will have played a role in this process. Gilani as keeper of the PPP flame: whoever could have thought it possible a year and a half ago? The minus-one formula is less formula than fantasy, the wish to see Zardari put on a flying suit and disappear from the presidency. It is not going to happen. Indeed, there is no way to make this happen short of an intervention by Triple One Brigade. And if those trucks ever roll we can all go to the mountains and seek nirvana there. So whether anyone likes it or not, if we want to preserve democracy the first requirement is to abide Zardari. Admittedly a tough choice but then who said life was easy? The times are critical. We are slowly stepping out of the wreckage of the Musharraf era. Amongst other things, the Taliban are on the run, for which we owe our soldiers our deepest thanks. They have performed splendidly, redeeming the army’s reputation tarnished by Musharraf’s many follies and blunders. At this of all junctures we can afford no disruption in our national life. The people of Pakistan paid no heed to the gloom pundits on Aug 14. It was a joy to see them celebrate. We should take heed from the people and leave the pundits to their devices. |
Counting underway after Violence marred Afghan Elections
Afghan Election Called a Success Despite Attacks
KABUL, Afghanistan — Scattered rocket attacks and Taliban intimidation suppressed turnout in Afghanistan’s presidential election Thursday. But enough voters cast ballots that Afghan officials said they had thwarted efforts by the insurgents to derail the vote.
The election is the second in the nearly eight years since an American-led invasion ousted the Taliban, but the security situation in the country has deteriorated so sharply, and the credibility of the Afghan leadership has sunk so low, that the ability of the government to hold the election at all was in doubt.
American officials were quick to declare the poll a success — worth the expanding commitment of troops and money to an increasingly unpopular and corruption-plagued government.
But it was still too soon to say how many Afghans actually cast ballots, leaving questions about whether the low turnout would affect the legitimacy of the vote, skew the results, and resolve multiple claims of fraud.
Early accounts put the total far below the 70 percent who cast votes in the 2004 election.
In some parts of the heavily embattled south, only a trickle of men — and almost no women — defied Taliban threats to bomb polling stations and cut off fingers stained with the indelible ink used by election monitors. But Taliban attacks killed at least 30 people, and those who did vote wavered between resolution and terror.
“I am happy to use my vote, and I hope things will change and peace will knock at our door,” said Zainab, a 40-year-old voter in the southern city of Kandahar.
“Yes, I am scared!” Akhtar Mohmmad, who voted in the southern town of Khan Neshin, said, fearing his purple-stained finger would make him a target.
Slowed by insecurity across Afghanistan, declaring a winner could take at least two weeks or more, although Afghan officials said they would release preliminary results by Saturday.
It remained unclear how a low turnout would affect President Hamid Karzai’s chances of winning re-election in the first round of voting.
But early reports showed more voters in the north than in the volatile south — a pattern that would favor Mr. Karzai’s main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, and raise the chances of a runoff.
Especially in the south, the Taliban made good on their threats to try to disrupt the vote. And even in the places where insurgents failed to stop the voting, they did a good job of putting a scare into everyone who did vote.
In Garmser, a dusty town in the insurgency’s heartland in the southern province of Helmand, the signs of the Taliban’s strength were evident. The bazaar — which now, on the eve of Ramadan, would ordinarily be bustling — was mostly closed, just as the Taliban had demanded.
Inside the polling center, voters and election workers covered their faces whenever they were approached by someone with a camera. They said they were fearful of retribution.
At the only polling center in southern Helmand, set up in the forecourt of a mosque in Khan Neshin, election officials estimated that no more than 300 people voted all day — and not a single woman.
On Tuesday, the Taliban distributed a warning to surrounding villages.
“If we see anyone on the street or outside your house from today until Friday noon, you will be punished severely,” it said.
In Kandahar, witnesses said, the Taliban fired nine rockets near polling stations and hanged two people who had ink-stained fingers.
At a news conference at the presidential palace, Mr. Karzai thanked those who braved the Taliban threats, saying there had been 73 attacks in 15 provinces. Nevertheless, 94 percent of the polling centers opened, election officials said.
“I am very grateful to our people, who tolerated the suicide attacks, rockets attacks, and bomb attacks,” Mr. Karzai told journalists.
“Let’s see what the turnout was.” he said. “They came out and voted. That’s good, that’s good.”
Ballot counting started immediately at polling stations after voting closed at 5 p.m. But United Nations officials, who were assisting in the process, said official returns could take up to a month if complaints of fraud or irregularities needed to be adjudicated.
Mr. Abdullah, a former foreign minister, said his supporters would lodge complaints of fraud, in particular from the southern province of Kandahar. He called the low turnout in Kabul “unsatisfactory,” but also said the early returns were “hopeful” and offered his own praise.
“Despite all the difficulties, despite all the security problems and other problems, people went to the polls, and they participated in this day,” he said at a news conference in the garden of his home. “And in fact they stood up to those who wanted to take away the people’s right to choose their destiny.”
Two polling stations visited for the count in Kabul showed that the contest might be close. Male voters in one polling station gave Mr. Karzai 45 percent and Mr. Abdullah 38 percent. A women’s polling station next door, where only 41 women voted all day, gave Mr. Karzai 56 percent and Mr. Abdullah 26 percent.
Other candidates made a very small showing, and only one woman in 41 voted for one of the female candidates. In Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home city, a selection of four polling stations showed Mr. Karzai with 48 percent and Mr. Abdullah with 18 percent.
The turnout in Kabul, which officials said was lower than in 2004 in the last election, stemmed as much from disillusionment with progress since 2001 as with fear of violence, residents said.
In one area of western Kabul, where four small bombs exploded in the early morning, few people ventured out early. But by midmorning, election officials said, voting was brisk. “Why should we be scared?” said Nurzia, a mother of four who brought her daughter and nieces to vote. Like many Afghans she has only one name. “We came to have a say in our future and for our children.”
Across town, Muhammad Qasim, 55, a mason, voted after a day at work. “I think it was our duty,” he said. “A change is good.”
But he was accompanied by three young relatives, all in their 20s, none of whom were voting. One, Muhammad Wali, a tailor, said he was not interested. “Last time I voted but I did not see any result,” he said.
Azizullah Ludin, the head of the election commission, said that counting would take place at polling stations, with the results called in to the election headquarters in Kabul and collated in the coming days. But insecurity in some areas made it necessary to transfer some ballot boxes to district centers, officials said.
In the most insecure areas, not even Afghan election monitors could attend the voting, raising concerns of fraud. Even as officials from the Obama administration, who were also on hand to observe the elections, expressed reserved optimism that the voting was transparent, they fretted about whether the ballot counting would be equally so.
“The test is going to be in the counting,” Richard C. Holbrooke, the American special envoy to the region, said in an interview after he toured four polling stations in Kabul. “If the will of the electorate is going to be thwarted, it will happen in the counting.”
At the same time, he was clearly pleased that the vote had come off. “On the basis of what we’ve seen so far, it seems clear that the Taliban utterly failed to disrupt these elections,” he said.
One candidate, Ashraf Ghani, the former finance minister, sent an e-mail message to American officials to say that he had reports that his opponents were stuffing ballot boxes.
Other presidential candidates were making similar complaints, which competed with reports of sporadic violence throughout the day.
In Kabul, the capital, police fought a gun battle with people suspected of being Taliban infiltrators who took over a house overlooking a police headquarters, killing two of them and capturing a third, as bystanders applauded the officers.
In the southern province of Paktia, two would-be suicide bombers were shot to death before they could detonate their explosives, Zahir Azimi, a Defense Ministry spokesman, said.
In Wardak Province, an hour’s drive south of Kabul, a barrage of six rockets fell just before the polls opened, and three more soon afterward.
A mechanic, Qudratullah, 32, said he encountered Taliban representatives on the road from Narkh District, just over a mile from the provincial capital of Wardak.
“They were standing on the road telling people not to vote,” he said.
“Of course I am scared,” he said. But, like a good number of others, he voted anyway. “We want to see change and a younger generation in a better condition,” Qudratullah said.
www.nytimes.com