India Loses Contact with moon satellite

India loses Moon satellite links
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

The recently concluded violence marred elections in Afghanistan have proved nothing but the fact that Afghanistan is still in a state of chaos even after 8 years of coalition forces' occupation. Preliminary election results suggest Hamid Karzai is slightly ahead of his main opponent, Abdullah Abdullah- who coincidentally served under Karzai for more than three years as Foreign minister. President Obama congratulated the Afghans on a historic election. However, anyone who thought these elections would be held in a transparent manner, were simply naive, for lack of a kinder term. Immediately following the elections Abdullah, who seems to be the new blue-eyed of western forces, addressed a packed news conference alleging massive fraud in the 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.

British forces facing heavy Casualties in Afghanistan

UK suffered one casualty in Afghanistan for every vote
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

Ted Kennedy: A great American

August 28, 2009
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.

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

The Battle against the Taliban: No help from Afghans say Marines

August 23, 2009

Marines Fight Taliban With Little Aid From Afghans

By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.

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?”

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.

Associated Press

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

Afghan rivals claim poll 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

Zia, Kabul

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.

AT THE SCENE
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.

COUNTING THE VOTES

Counting began after polls closed at 1700 local time on Thursday

Votes counted by hand at each of the 6,200 polling stations

Polling stations are required to post their results immediately, to prevent fraud

Candidates' representatives are also given immediate access to results

The counting appeared to be completed by Friday lunchtime, with official returns due over the weekend

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.

American Soft Power "Obama Style"- Meeting with the Right in Pakistan

Growing up, and acquiring new habits, takes time- Ayaz Amir

Growing up and aquiring new habits takes time!

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

August 21, 2009

Afghan Election Called a Success Despite Attacks

By CARLOTTA GALL and STEPHEN FARRELL

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

As Afghans get ready to vote, what is at stake for the US?

Q+A-What are the stakes for US in Afghanistan vote?

By Paul Eckert, Asia Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Aug 19 (Reuters) - Afghans were set to vote in a presidential election on Thursday under threat of violent disruption by the Taliban in a critical test of President Barack Obama's strategy in what he calls a "war of necessity."

Following are questions and answers about the U.S. stakes and role in Afghanistan's second presidential election since the American-led military overthrow of the Taliban in 2001.

WHAT HAVE TOP U.S. OFFICIALS SAID ABOUT THE AUG. 20 VOTE?

Obama has withheld comment on U.S. ally and incumbent President Hamid Karzai and his nearest challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, to avoid charges of U.S. interference. Obama has shifted focus from Iraq to Afghanistan as his top foreign policy priority. Obama this week called the eight-year-old conflict "fundamental to the defense of our people" because of the risk that a successful Taliban insurgency could enable al Qaeda to operate more freely to plot another attack akin to the one launched against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said the United States hoped the election would "reinvigorate, or invigorate if it's a different president, the leadership" of Afghanistan in tackling the country's many problems such as the opium trade, corruption and low economic development.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that Taliban threats to disrupt the vote created "adverse circumstances" for the election. But he said last week that there would be as many as 1,300 to 1,400 more polling places and several million more Afghans registered to vote than in the previous election in 2004, offering the potential for a "quite credible election" in all parts of the country.

FOR THE UNITED STATES, WHAT WOULD BE THE WORST OUTCOME?

The most troubling scenario would be an election outcome that is not seen as credible in the eyes of the Afghan people, diminishing their hope in the future and their support for U.S.-backed alternatives to Taliban rule, analysts say.

An election marred by excessive violence could produce a negative reaction by the U.S. Congress and erode American public support for the Afghan war, which has started to slip as U.S. troop deaths have risen this summer. After 44 U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan in July, making it the deadliest month of the war for the U.S. military, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp poll showed U.S. popular support for the war at an historic low, with 54 percent opposed to the war and 41 percent in favor.

In a race in which Karzai is thought to be leading Abdullah by a narrowing margin, Brookings Institution foreign policy analyst Michael O'Hanlon said neither man represented "a terrible outcome" because each has strengths Washington could build upon in working with the next Afghan government.

Karzai relies on the backing of powerful -- and in the case of Uzbek militia leader Abdul Rashid Dostum, controversial -- warlords. Some U.S. analysts have said a victory by Karzai would be problematic if he rewarded warlords with Cabinet posts.

WHAT ARE THE NEXT CHALLENGES FOR THE OBAMA STRATEGY?

If no candidate wins more than 50 percent of votes cast, there would be a run-off election pitting the top two candidates, provisionally set for Oct. 1. Analysts have expressed concern that a run-off would prolong the uncertainty in Kabul and require U.S., NATO and Afghan forces to maintain election security for more weeks in the face of Taliban threats.

Obama has deployed 30,000 extra U.S. troops, raising the level of American forces in Afghanistan to 62,000. Obama may face calls in the future from his generals for more troops, some analysts say. The request would come after General Stanley McChrystal, the new U.S. commander in Afghanistan, concludes a review of counterinsurgency strategy.

War in afghanistan- An excellent article

August 17, 2009

Afghanistan’s Tyranny of the Minority

By SELIG S. HARRISON

Washington

AS the debate intensifies within the Obama administration over how to stabilize Afghanistan, one major problem is conspicuously missing from the discussion: the growing alienation of the country’s largest ethnic group, the Pashtun tribes, who make up an estimated 42 percent of the population of 33 million. One of the basic reasons many Pashtuns support the Taliban insurgency is that their historic rivals, ethnic Tajiks, hold most of the key levers of power in the government.

Tajiks constitute only about 24 percent of the population, yet they largely control the armed forces and the intelligence and secret police agencies that loom over the daily lives of the Pashtuns. Little wonder that in the run-up to Thursday’s presidential election, much of the Taliban propaganda has focused on the fact that President Hamid Karzai’s top running mate is a hated symbol of Tajik power: the former defense minister Muhammad Fahim.

Mr. Fahim and his allies have been entrenched in Kabul since American forces overthrew the Taliban in 2001 with the help of his Tajik militia, the Northern Alliance, which was based in the Panjshir valley north of the capital. A clique of these Tajik officers, known as the Panjshiris, took control of the key security posts with American backing, and they have been there ever since. Washington pushed Mr. Karzai for the presidency to give a Pashtun face to the regime, but he has been derided from the start by his fellow Pashtuns with a play on his name, “Panjshir-zai.”

“They get the dollars, and we get the bullets,” is the common refrain among Pashtuns critical of the government. “Dollars” refers to the economic enrichment of Tajiks and allied minority ethnic groups through an inside track on aid contracts. The “bullets” are the anti-Taliban airstrikes and ground operations in Pashtun areas in the south and east of the country.

While Mr. Karzai has tried to soften the image of Tajik domination by appointing Pashtuns to nominally important positions, much of the real power continues to rest with Tajiks. For example, he appointed a Pashtun, Abdul Rahim Wardak, to replace Mr. Fahim as defense minister — but a trusted Panjshiri, Bismillah Khan, remained an army chief of staff and kept fellow Tajiks as his top corps commanders and in other vital spots, including director of military intelligence, army inspector general and director of counternarcotics forces.

The National Security Directorate, which oversees the civilian and military secret police and intelligence agencies, is headed by a Northern Alliance veteran, Amrullah Saleh. Michael Semple, a former adviser to the European Union representative in Kabul, told me that Mr. Saleh had appointed “some credible Pashtun provincial directors” but that “the intelligence services are still basically seen as anti-Pashtun and pro-Northern Alliance because the power structure in the directorate is still clearly dominated by the original Northern Alliance group,” and above all because “they also have control of the prosecution, judicial and detention branches of the security services.”

The Obama administration is pinning its hopes for an eventual exit from Afghanistan on building an Afghan National Army capable of defeating the insurgency. But a recent study by the RAND Corporation for the Pentagon, noting a “surplus of Tajiks in the A.N.A. officer and NCO corps,” warned of the “challenge of achieving ethnic balance, given the difficulty of recruiting in the Pashtun area.” The main reasons it is difficult to recruit Pashtuns, one United Nations official recently said, are that “70 percent of the army’s battalion commanders are Tajiks” and that the Taliban intimidates the families of recruits. It doesn’t help that many of the army units sent to the Pashtun areas consist primarily of Tajiks who do not speak Pashto.

Pashtun kings ruled Afghanistan from its inception in 1747 until the overthrow of the monarchy in 1973. Initially limited to the Pashtun heartland in the south and east, the Afghan state gradually incorporated the neighboring Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek areas to the north and west.

It was understandable, then, that Pashtun leaders tried to make the last king, Zahir Shah, the president of the interim government that ruled from 2002 until the first presidential election in 2004. The king, revered by the Pashtuns, was to have limited powers, with Mr. Karzai, as prime minister, in day-to-day control. The Tajiks, however, objected, and on the eve of the national assembly that set up the interim government, the Bush administration’s special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, sided with the Tajiks and had a bitter 40-minute showdown with the king, who then withdrew his candidacy.

Pashtun nationalism alone does not explain the Taliban’s strength, which is fueled by drug money, Islamist fervor, corrupt warlords, hatred of the American occupation and the hidden hand of Pakistani intelligence agencies. But the psychological cement that holds the disparate Taliban factions together is opposition to Tajik dominance in Kabul. Until the power of the Panjshiris is curbed, no amount of American money or manpower will bring the insurgency to an end.

Selig S. Harrison is the director of the Asia program at the Center for International Policy and a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Happy Independence Day

Pakistan celebrates its 62nd Independence Day. Unity, Faith and Discipline is what the 'Quaid called for but we have settled for Zardari, Drones and loadshedding. After 62 years, rather than celebrating independence we are fighting for liberation. From Fuedalism, Hegemony, and "Talibanisation." We have more questions rather than answers. Our ruling elite, in their Italian suites have nothing to offer except "democracy is the best revenge." As for the people of Pakistan, they can offer but so much. The fact that our country's inhabitants still say Pakistan Zindabad is a blessing considering the many boots and 'chapliya' which have been placed on their throats. We must take the country back from the thugs who rule it.