Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called for a timetable to end the occupation of Afghanistan by Western forces or if not, said that the West must accept negotiations with the Taliban to end bloodshed there.

President Hamid Karzai told a visiting U.N. Security Council delegation Tuesday that the international community should set a timeline to end the war in Afghanistan.

It appeared to be the first time Karzai has called for a time limit on the international effort to defeat Taliban militants and raise a stable and competent Afghan security force and government.

"If there is no deadline, we have the right to find another solution for peace and security, which is negotiations," Karzai was quoted as saying in a statement from his office.

Spencer Ackerman has the essential analysis, as usual. Although he thinks that Karzai is indeed trying to box the US and its allies into accepting a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, Spencer also writes:

My first instinct is that this is a measure to shore up Karzai’s waning support among war-weary Pashtuns. But could he really mean there ought to be a set date on ending the Afghanistan war? One thing that’s been entirely missing from the policy debate on Afghanistan — in the U.S., in NATO, in Afghanistan — is that no one even pretends to think about how the war is supposed to end. No one knows the endgame, and no one even proposes endgames.

Brian Beutler is right - it's about time someone in the West did start talking about an Afghanistan endgame and that someone is Barrack Obama. He was right about needing one in Iraq, something the Bush administration has belatedly signed on to in an embarassing climbdown. Now here's an opportunity for some more much-needed foresight and international leadership.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

November 10, 2008 CNN

Be sure to also check out Bob Geiger's "A Vet's Message To The GOP on Veterans Day -- Shove It":

... Veterans benefits are earned -- and they matter.

Which is why I get so disgusted whenever I see all the faux military-loving Republicans turning up on Veterans Day with their flowery pronouncements of how much we Vets mean to them when they prove at every turn that they really don’t give a damn about the troops, Veterans or military families.

Of course, Exhibit A is Iraq and the Republican party's steadfast refusal to ever allow our troops to come permanently home to their families and their continued desire to keep them bogged down in a war for nothing. But I mention the G.I. Bill specifically because of the following samples of Republican hypocrisy we see every Veterans Day:

“On Veterans Day – and every day – we thank the men and women who have fought to keep us safe and free.” - Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

"We must remember the great debt that we owe veterans and members of the armed services who fight to maintain our freedom around the world. Throughout history, our soldiers have risked their lives to defend our freedom, and we must not forget their sacrifices." - Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

“Veterans Day is our opportunity to honor America’s veterans who have courageously served our country. These brave men and women have fought to keep our nation free and secure, and we thank them and their families for their service and sacrifice on our behalf.” - Senator Bob Corker (R-TN)

"So this day, perhaps more than any other day, is a time to honor them. We owe them our respect and profound gratitude." - Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

What's the common denominator in this crew? They all were among 22 Republicans who voted against the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill, authored by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) -- a highly-decorated Vietnam Veteran -- and passed with 75 votes on May 22nd of this year.

Be sure to read it all. It's chockful of damning information.

James Brett is an Englishman who, in 1999 while on a business trip to Peshawar in the north west province of Pakistan, had his first glass of pomegranate juice, and fell in love with it. He founded the first pomegranate juice drink in the UK, Pomegreat (.pdf). Further research led him to Afghanistan, where the best pomegranates in the world are grown, particularly in the Kandahar region. A recovering substance abuser, Brett was also aware that Afghanistan was a major producer of heroin.

In 2007, Brett was invited to Kabul to talk to farmers from various regions of Afghanistan about growing pomegranates. He flew to Peshawar and drove through the Khyber Pass heading to Kabul While driving through the Nangarhar Province, he noticed a farmer in a field of opium poppies. After the seminar in Kabul, Brett bought a large piece of card and a blue marker pen, and wrote 'Pomegranate is the Answer'. On his return drive back to Peshawar, he saw the same farmer again in the field, jumped out of the car and ran toward the farmer with his makeshift sign. His horrified translator chased after this mad ginger-haired Brit, yelling, 'Don't go in there, you could be shot!' Undetered, Brett talked to the bewildered farmer through his translator, about the farmer's life, his family, his children, how he lived and why he grew opium, about Brett's own addiction to drugs. Brett explained that pomegranate was not only the best option as an alternative crop to opium poppies, but was the only feasible one for the Afghan climate and growing conditions, and promised to return to the farmer's land a couple months later with pomegranate saplings. He went home and set up a charity called Pom354.

Brett followed through on his promise, returning a few months later to find the farmer had discussed this idea with sixteen other families with land around his own; all of them wanted to become involved. From there, the plan snowballed – in January, 2008, Afghanistan Television interviewed him, and other farmers asked him for help in changing their fields from poppies to pomegranates. The local member of Parliament and a respected Elder in the Tribal system wanted to know more. A tribal meeting covering the entire Nangarhar Province was called, and 200 Tribal elders invited.

The tribal elders agreed to finish poppy cultivation and switch to growing pomegranates throughout the entire Nangarhar Province by next year, making the region of 1.3 million inhabitants opium poppy free for the first time in a hundred years. The elders told Brett that their decision was based not only on a desire to maintain a level of stability, but because he was the first person who had ever come to them as just an ordinary man rather than a member of a foreign government or a military advisor, someone who simply wanted to see positive change. The tribal elders and Brett then conducted the official opening ceremony in that first farmer's field, now cleared of poppies, and planted the first pomegranate tree sapling. A national meeting is now being planned to expand the pomegranate industry throughout Afghanistan, with the broad support of the Afghani tribal elders as well as the government.

If you'd like to listen to an interview with this remarkable, refreshingly mad Englishman, tune into this webcast on Radio New Zealand. You'll be glad you did. (h/t Sue Gee)

October 27, 2008 C-SPAN
The Army's use of involuntary extensions of combat duty will likely continue through 2009 despite pledges earlier this year by top military officials to reduce reliance on the policy known as stop loss. In September, 12,204 soldiers were affected by stop loss, a policy that forces them to remain in the Army after their service commitment has expired. The same number likely will be affected each month through 2009, Army Lt. Col. Mike Moose said last week. Stop loss strains troops and their families, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged in May. Gates and the Army say the policy is needed to maintain the cohesion of units heading to battle.

October 22, 2008 BBC World
Afghanistan's Defense Ministry officials say the strike hit an army checkpoint in Khost early Wednesday. The ministry condemned the attack, warning it could weaken the moral of Afghan security forces.
An American military statement says U.S.-led coalition forces were returning from an operation when they were involved in fighting that may have killed and injured Afghan soldiers. The statement called the incident "a case of mistaken identity on both sides."

October 21, 2008 NBC News
Richard Engel covering Bravo Company 126th Infantry located in the Korengal Valley, Afghanistan's version of "Death Valley". They prefer to call themselves Viper Company.
Day 1

Day 2

While the presidential candidates try to outdo each other on hawkishness on their Afghanistan/Pakistan policies and violence rises even further, the military seem to be the ones really running U.S. foreign policy in the region. And they're looking for a Grand Bargain.

This week's Sixty Minutes has eye-opening footage from a forward operating base in eastern Afghanistan, which includes up-close combat with Taliban militants.

Watch CBS Videos Online

The footage underscores what a recent draft of a National Intelligence Estimate called Afghanistan's "downward spiral", with a 30 percent increase in attacks in the last year.

These soldiers had not come this close to their enemy in Afghanistan before - close enough to lob hand grenades. Staff Sgt. Jake Schlereth had to crawl into a cornfield in pursuit. "You couldn't see [the enemy]…and…I had to get down on the ground and look and see if they were down there…you knew they were in there," he tells Logan.

At least twelve enemy fighters were killed in the skirmish and one U.S. soldier was wounded. The soldiers found a camera left behind by the enemy that contained images of at least 50 heavily armed fighters, showing details of their training and actual attacks. But it also showed enemy surveillance of U.S. soldiers on patrol. Says Capt. Thomas Kilbride, who leads such patrols, "This is showing a [U.S.] unit driving. I don't know if this is us or not." Does he think he and his men are being watched every time they go on patrol? "Oh, yeah," he says.

The images on the camera prove the enemy is better armed and organized. One of the men killed was carrying an identification card issued across the border in Pakistan. The U.S. military plans more fighting ahead in the winter months, when violence is usually less. "I'm here to predict this winter will be the most violent winter so far," says Gen. Schlosser.

Continue reading »

Amy Goodman talks with Nir Rosen about his Taliban embed.

Nir Rosen imbedded with the Taliban for his latest report on Afghanistan, out now in Rolling Stone. His experiences included almost being executed by a fanatical Taliban local warlord, but he came away with the conclusion that adding more troops to Afghanistan won’t work, and that we should prepare an exit strategy.

Simply put, it is too late for Bush's "quiet surge" — or even for Barack Obama's plan for a more robust reinforcement — to work in Afghanistan. More soldiers on the ground will only lead to more contact with the enemy, and more air support for troops will only lead to more civilian casualties that will alienate even more Afghans. Sooner or later, the American government will be forced to the negotiating table, just as the Soviets were before them.

"The rise of the Taliban insurgency is not likely to be reversed," says Abdulkader Sinno, a Middle East scholar and the author of Organizations at War in Afghanistan and Beyond. "It will only get stronger. Many local leaders who are sitting on the fence right now — or are even nominally allied with the government — are likely to shift their support to the Taliban in the coming years. What's more, the direct U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan is now likely to spill over into Pakistan. It may be tempting to attack the safe havens of the Taliban and Al Qaeda across the border, but that will only produce a worst-case scenario for the United States. Attacks by the U.S. would attract the support of hundreds of millions of Muslims in South Asia. It would also break up Pakistan, leading to a civil war, the collapse of its military and the possible unleashing of its nuclear arsenal."

In the same speech in which he promised a surge, Bush vowed that he would never allow the Taliban to return to power in Afghanistan. But they have already returned, and only negotiation with them can bring any hope of stability.

John McCain's strategy - following the Bush administration in handing policymaking to General Petraeus - isn't going to work any better. Talking our way to an exit from the doomed adventure in Afghanistan really is the only way out of that grim trap.

Spencer Ackerman calls Rosen's report an instant classic of war reporting and I totally agree. Just read it, ok?

Crossposted from Newshoggers

There's little doubt that General David Petraeus is a smart cookie whatever you think about his political loyalties, and quite a few people I respect highly as foreign policy reporters and analysts have good opinions of his military abilities. But when did a four star general get handed the authority to act as if he were Secretary of State?

The WaPo reports that:

Gen. David H. Petraeus has launched a major reassessment of U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and the surrounding region, while warning that the lack of development and the spiraling violence in Afghanistan will probably make it "the longest campaign of the long war."

The 100-day assessment will result in a new campaign plan for the Middle East and Central Asia, a region in which Petraeus will oversee the operations of more than 200,000 American troops as the new head of U.S. Central Command, beginning Oct. 31.

The review will formally begin next month, but experts and military officials involved said Petraeus is already focused on at least two major themes: government-led reconciliation of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the leveraging of diplomatic and economic initiatives with nearby countries that are influential in the war. [Emphasis Mine - C]

All of this seems like a good idea to me. But, crucially, neither of those themes are military ones and the military shouldn't be leading the way on them. It's about seperation of power and having the military subordinate to civilian policymakers rather than the other way around.

Continue reading »

Download | Play    Download | Play

Paul Rieckhoff of IAVA sits down with Rachel Maddow to discuss his group's 2008 report card on how members of Congress voted on Veterans issues. John McCain: D. Barack Obama: B.

RIECKHOFF: There were 53 original co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle [for the new GI Bill]. Eventually, right-wing folks like Senator Warner got involved with folks on the left like Senator Webb. Every major veteran services organization in the country supported it, more ¾ of the House. So, this was kind of a legislative locomotive. And one of the only blocks along the way consistently was Senator McCain.

So, it's not a partisan issue here. The G.I. bill had tremendous support. And he was just really behind this legislative issue. Now, he's made attempts to go back and say he was holding out for transferability. Transferability, being able to transfer your G.I. bill benefits to your family members. It was already in the law. It was at the discretion of the Department of Defense.

So, it's kind of a red herring there. But the reports are out there now. Everybody can check the vote. Go to VeteranReportCard.org, you can check their votes and everybody else who's up for reelection this year.

I know Senator Obama didn't serve in the military or endure years of torture thirty years ago, but isn't it time everyone acknowledge that John McCain simply doesn't own the veterans issue because of his history? His service is certainly admirable, but in order to claim that you support the troops, you actually have to, you know, support the troops -- not be one of the only "road blocks" standing in the way of the most important veterans bill of the past 40 years.

Full transcript below the fold:

Continue reading »

During the recent debate with Barack Obama, John McCain stated that "I know the veterans, I know them well, and I know that they know that I'll take care of them". Obama let it slide, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Our good friend Brandon Freidman of VetVoice has done some excellent work researching and compiling the Master List of how little McCain cares for troops and veterans. It's a must-read post that's too detailled to excerpt but it comprehensively lists all the times McCain: refused to support veterans by refusing to vote for veteran benefits, healthcare and support; refused to support the troops in combat by voting against extra armor for them; refused to  support the troops by first cheerleading for and then voting for enmiring America in Bush's war of choice in Iraq; refused to support the real front in Afghanistan by continually voting against any withdrawal from Iraq. It also lists a whole slew of McCain's foreign policy gaffes, pointing to systemic ignorance and bad judgement rather than a few accidental mis-speakings. Brandon has included sources for his list and YouTube videos to back many of the items.

Seriously, you'll want to read and cite this list often. His support for veterans and troops is a big part of McCain's pitch but in reality it's simply mythology created out of whole cloth.

And so is McCain's "judgement" on Iraq.

McCain: "We're going to win this victory. Tragically, we will lose American lives. But it will be brief.  We're going to find massive evidence of weapons of mass destruction . . . It's going to send the message throughout the Middle East that democracy can take hold in the Middle East." (Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, 2/21/03)

The Bush administration will keep trying to game the system until their last day in office. Good riddance.

Murray Waas:

The Bush administration is refusing to declassify a damaging National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan. Compare that to the White House's efforts to declassify the erroneous NIE saying that Iraq had WMD during the run-up to the war with Iraq...read on

Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is admitting that he's worried about Afghanistan.

I'm not convinced we are winning it in Afghanistan. I am convinced we can," Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in sobering testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee nearly seven years after U.S.-led forces toppled Afghanistan's former Taliban regime following the September 11 attacks.

Mullen said he was already "looking at a new, more comprehensive strategy for the region" that would cover both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

"In my view, these two nations are inextricably linked in a common insurgency that crosses the border between them," he told lawmakers.

"We can hunt down and kill extremists as they cross over the border from Pakistan ... but until we work more closely with the Pakistani government to eliminate the safe havens from which they operate, the enemy will only keep coming."

..."Add to this a poor and struggling Afghan economy, a still-healthy narcotics trade there and a significant political uncertainty in Pakistan, and you have all the makings of a complex, difficult struggle that will take time," he said.

He also warned that time was running out on the ability of the West to provide Afghanistan with vital nonmilitary assistance for Afghanistan including roads, schools, alternative crops for farmers and the rule of law.

"These are the keys to success in Afghanistan. We cannot kill our way to victory and no armed force anywhere, no matter how good, can deliver these keys alone," Mullen said.

That's pretty straight talk and is probably a result of commander's sense of frustration with the White House. Bush short-changed the commanders on the ground in Afghanistan, letting them have less additional troops than they'd asked for and later than they'd asked for them. And Mullen's words are an implicit endorsement of Obama's plan for the region.

Continue reading »

The story of an American airstrike on an Afghan village on the night of August 21 keeps getting stranger. At first, the US military said that militants had been killed in the attack, then Afghan officials alleged that only civilians had died - over 80, including at least 50 children. The US military investigated and stuck by its story and then mobile phone video of dozens of civilian casualties, ostensibly from the strike, turned up.

Now, the US has dispatched a general to Afghanistan to look anew at the events surrounding the airstrike and re-appraise the military investigation's conclusion.

But the story has taken a new turn - it appears the original investigation relied on the corroboration of an embedded journalist when it concluded that the airstrike had, after all, only hit militants. That journalist has now been revealed to have been former Iran/Contra conspirator and FOX correspondent Colonel Oliver North.

The US military said that its findings were corroborated by an independent journalist embedded with the US force. He was named as the Fox News correspondent Oliver North, who came to prominence in the 1980s Iran-Contra affair, when he was an army colonel.

Sources close to one of the investigations said that a video film was shot by Afghan officials the morning after the attack. It corroborates the doctor’s footage but has not been made public.

In a statement released on Saturday, the commander of Nato forces, General David McKiernan, appeared to back away from previous US accounts. He said: “Following the recent operation in Azizabad, Shindand district, we realise there is a large discrepancy between the number of civilian casualties reported by soldiers and local villagers. I remain responsible to continue to try and account for this disparity in numbers, but above all I want to express our heartfelt sorrow to all families that lost loved ones in this firefight.”

(Some of the mobile phone footage is at that Times link. It was shot by a doctor and the Times says "has been edited to remove the most graphic footage of dead children and adults". Even so, it's not for the faint of heart.)

As my colleague Anderson wrote at Newshoggers:

It is entirely unclear just what North did to "corroborate" US military claims of Taliban deaths, but his efforts to bolster the military stance appear about to go down in the same flames that killed 90 Afghan civilians.

While doubtful, perhaps the US military should rethink their reliance on the fantastical stories of a known bullshit artist and pathological liar, someone who by all rights ought to be in prison.

I wonder if we'll see North answer questions about what he said and why he said it on FOX? Somehow, I doubt it.

Keith Olbermann covered the airstrike massacre during his Bushed! segment, its disastrous diplomatic aftermath and North's involvement on Monday: "Realising that a) he's not a journalist b) he's not independent and c) his eye-witnessing includes seeing things that aren't really there, the US military has now reversed its stance..."

Download | play    Download | play

The US has kicked the investigation of an alleged airstrike-gone-wrong into high gear, sending a general to Afghanistan to take over from local commanders after they had confirmed that the airstrike hit militant targets. The reason? The UN has video evidence contradicting those local commanders.

Afghan and Western officials say Afghanistan's intelligence agency and the U.N. both have video of the aftermath of the Aug. 22 U.S. airstrikes on the village of Azizabad showing dozens of dead women and children.

The Afghan government and the U.N. have said the raid killed 90 civilians, including 60 children.

The U.S. military said in a statement Sunday it will send a general officer to review the findings of the initial U.S. investigation that up to 35 militants and seven civilians died.

Locals had alleged that the airstrike was based upon faulty intelligence after political enemies of a local leader falsely 'fingered' the village in return for a bounty payment.

The BBC adds more about the nature of the new evidence.

Video footage from mobile phones showing dozens of dead bodies has given increasing credibility to claims by local residents that up to 90 civilians were killed in the attack.

The footage shows bodies - many of them women and children - lined up in a mosque in the village of Azizabad, which was the subject of a combined ground operation and airstrike by US forces.

Both the Afghan government and the United Nations have already carried out their own investigations into the attack.

They say the video evidence, and the presence of a large number of fresh graves in the village, confirm the accounts of local people.

Until now, the US military has insisted that far fewer civilians died in what it says was a successful operation against Taleban militants in the area.

On Sunday, however, the senior US commander in Afghanistan, David McKiernan, said that in light of new evidence, he had asked for the American investigation to be reopened.

You can watch some of the video as part of a BBC World news report on the incident here.  

Violence is still rising in Afghanistan, with a higher rate of US troop deaths now than Iraq even at its worse. More than more than 2,500 people, including 1,000 civilians, have been killed in the last six months and, overall, coalition forces have killed almost as many civilians as militants have. Airstrikes have been blamed for many of the deaths.

Just after the airstrike in Herat district, Afghan president Hamid Karzai visited grieving relatives and told them "I have been working day and night over the past five years to prevent such incidents, but I haven't been successful in my efforts. If I had succeeded, the people of Azizabad wouldn't be bathed in blood."

Watch it.