 Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" is anti-Semitism. For over 46 years, Turkey has knocked on Europe's door requesting membership in the European Union. The Europeans, however, have been in no rush to invite a Muslim country into their midst, even if it is the most westernized and most democratic Muslim country in the Middle East.
To add to it, Turkey is already a strategic partner in NATO and nearly 3 million of its citizens are peaceful and productive immigrants/guest workers in Europe. Joining the EU, however, demands of Turkey far-reaching political and social reform "on the ground" and "10 to 15 years of negotiations" while the Turks prove democratic changes are "irreversible." On the other end, U.S. [and the Quartet] yardsticks for the Palestinian Arabs, a hostile society demanding statehood, amount to praise for fabricated non-existent reforms and call to abandon the required incremental progress as clearly stated in the "goal-driven Roadmap." The end to violence and democratic reform, that Palestinians have yet to begin, is tolerable by the U.S. administration -- all in order to forge the way for the establishment of a Palestinian state within two years, one which will endanger the very survival of a free and democratic Israel and the rest of the free world. Comparison of the goals and the ramifications of each: The Turks' goal is membership in the European Union - a political alliance that the Europeans have already stated will have an iron-clad reversibility clause for Turkey if it fails to live up to its commitments. The Palestinians' goal is sovereignty as a State - status for which there is no reversibility mechanism if 'Palestine' turns into a rogue state - the kind of polity the U.S. is currently grappling with in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Yemen and elsewhere. Logically, the yardsticks of judging readiness and maturity should be at least equal, if not more stringent for the Palestinian Arabs, a society that consciously and purposely sacrifices its own youth for political gain and tactical advantage, with a leadership that champions the murder of Jews and suicide bombers. Freedom House, a non-sectarian organization founded by Eleanor Roosevelt to monitor civil rights around the world, appraised the Palestinian Authority with the lowest possible rating in its 2009 survey - deeming it "Not [a] Free" society.
At that level political rights and civil liberties are absent or virtually nonexistent, and people experience severely restricted rights of expression and association - all as a result of the extremely oppressive nature of the regime. These "realities on the ground" are totally ignored by the EU and the U.S. in their effort to advance immediate Palestinian statehood. Requiring Israel to cede parts of its land in favour of the Palestinians' empty promises, while their Charters call for the dismantling of the Jewish State, is "applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation." Hudson New York 
 Six people were killed Tuesday in southern Afghanistan, where protesters claiming that international troops destroyed copies of the Koran clashed with Afghan and foreign security forces, Afghan officials said. Also in the south, 13 insurgents were killed by a missile that international forces fired from an unmanned drone, NATO said. A protest of about 2,000 people in Helmand province's Garmsir district turned violent as demonstrators fought with security forces, leaving six civilians dead, according to the top official in the province, Abdullah Barak. Provincial spokesman Daoud Ahmadi confirmed six dead but did not say if they were civilians. NATO said only one person was killed during the protest — an insurgent sniper who allegedly shot at an Afghan official and was killed by NATO troops. A NATO spokesman denied that the foreign troops desecrated any copies of Islam's holy book in Sunday's operation with Afghan forces in Garmsir. Lt. Nico Melendez said no shots were fired, and no property was damaged. "We take such allegations very seriously and would support a combined investigation with local Afghan authorities," he said. Afghanistan is a Muslim nation where blasphemy of Muhammad and the Koran is considered a serious crime that is punishable by death. Similar allegations that U.S. troops desecrated the Koran during an operation in October in Wardak province also sparked protests. U.S. and Afghan authorities denied the allegation, insisting that the Taliban are spreading the rumor to stir up public anger. Tensions have intensified in southern Afghanistan as U.S. and other foreign troops step up their efforts to rout the Taliban. Coalition troops saw a group of insurgents near a safe house preparing ammunition as well as insurgent mortar teams moving equipment in the Naw Zad area of Helmand province, NATO said. The international force launched one missile, killing the 13 militants. On Monday, another missile fired from an unmanned aircraft killed three insurgents farther south in the Nad Ali district of Helmand, according to NATO. Drone attacks are widely associated with the fight against al-Qaida and its allies in neighboring Pakistan, where the unmanned aircraft are used to go after militants in areas where U.S. troops are banned from entering. But a NATO spokesman said the aircraft are also regularly used in Afghanistan. "The use of drones is routine and drone strikes are something that we're able to rely upon when we need them," Lt. Nico Melendez said, adding that their use has not increased or decreased in recent months. Melendez said drones are used in Afghanistan for reconnaissance, aerial monitoring and for attacks. In the south-central part of the country, a member of the Afghan National Police was killed and two others were wounded in a suicide attack Monday evening at a police station in Uruzgan province, police chief Juma Gul Hamit said. The suicide bomber detonated his cache of explosives near the gate of the police chief's office in Dihrawud district. Hamit said the attacker tried to enter the office where a meeting was under way. Although wounded by police, the bomber detonated his explosive vest, killing the one policeman and injuring the two others who kept him from going inside. In Paris, meanwhile, the French military said an army captain died Tuesday of wounds suffered a day before during an insurgent ambush in the Alasay valley east of Kabul. Another French soldier was killed instantly in the same ambush. Both casualties were with a joint Afghan and French army patrol that was attacked by small arms fire in a village market place. France has some 3,500 troops with NATO in Afghanistan. It has lost 38 men in Afghanistan since 2001. FoxNews
 By Bill Roggio The Afghan military claimed to have captured a dangerous Taliban commander who orders suicide and roadside bomb attacks in the southwestern province of Nimroz. Mullah Sher Malang was captured in a raid in the Khashrod district in Nimroz after a major clash with Taliban forces in the region. The initial clash took place after Taliban forces under the command of Mullah Ewaz ambushed an Afghan and Coalition convoy in the district. Ewaz and an estimated 20 of his fighters were reported killed during the battle, which took place on Dec. 18, Nimroz's governor and police chief told Pajhwok Afghan News. Afghan forces captured Malang during a follow-up raid that resulted in one Taliban fighter killed and five more wounded. Malang is known to organize suicide attacks and roadside bombings in the region, and is a close ally to Mullah Abdullah Zakir, the Taliban's chief of military operations in southern Afghanistan. Zakir, whose real name is Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, is known to operate a forward command center in the Chaman district in Pakistan's Baluchistan province, US military intelligence officials have told The Long War Journal. Zakir is a former detainee at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba. Zakir operates from Chaman as it shields him from US and NATO operations, the officials said. According to Pajhwok Afghan News, Zakir has also been operating from Farah province, which is under the command of a dangerous Taliban commander known as Mullah Hayatullah. Farah borders Helmand province, where Coalition and Afghan forces have gone on the offensive to uproot the Taliban. "He's [Zakir is] untouchable in Pakistan," one official said, noting the covert US air campaign is limited to Pakistan's northwest. "Right now we're not striking in Baluchistan, and Pakistan won't move against them [the Taliban] there." The Taliban have based their Shura Majlis, or executive council, in nearby Quetta, according to US, British, and Afghan officials. But recent reports indicate that Mullah Omar and much of the Quetta Shura have relocated to Pakistan's port city of Karachi, with the aid of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency. The report broke as the US threatened to expand the covert air war against Omar's forces from the tribal areas into Quetta and greater Baluchistan. In the past, the Pakistani government denied that the Afghan Taliban is based in Quetta. However, on Dec. 10, Pakistan's defense minister admitted that Mullah Omar's Quetta Shura is indeed in Pakistan, but said it is no longer a threat. Defense Minister Ahmad Mukhtar claimed Pakistan's intelligence services have neutralized the Quetta Shura.
There is no evidence, however, that any senior member of Mullah Omar's cadre has been killed or captured. Long War Journal
 AMONG the army huts clustered on the bleak, windswept outskirts of Kabul is the Counterinsurgency Training Centre, Afghanistan. It is where 50-year-old US special forces colonel John F. Agoglia devises strategy and tactics to deal with a worsening Taliban crisis that by some estimates has put about half of the country at risk of insurgent attack. "We've done some stupid shit. We focused on terrorism, not governance, and probably realised that about three years ago," the blunt Brooklyn-born officer says. In 2007, the buzz phrase was "ink spots". It was used by NATO to describe the strategy of deploying combat troops into lawless Taliban-held regions of Afghanistan as a way of winning hearts and minds. The theory goes like this. Surge enough troops into the badlands, the insurgents disperse and the coalition spots eventually join to form a uniform shade. Four years later, the hope is still there although the language has changed. Ink spots have given way to constructivist theory. Depending on who you speak to, the conflict in Afghanistan is an equilateral triangle where war fighting is just one facet of counter-insurgency that is equally dependent on economic development and governance to achieve desired outcomes. The final shape emerging last week around the International Security Assistance Force headquarters was a hexagon following general agreement on the use of a new buzzword, partnering. That is the term for joint Afghan-coalition combat operations as US combat troops begin to leave by July 2011. The December 2 announcement of US President Barack Obama's Pakistan-Afghan review was welcomed by US commander of NATO forces Stanley McChrystal. "The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President's address are critical steps towards bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security," McChrystal says. "The NATO-ISAF objective is equally clear. We will work towards improved security for Afghanistan and the transfer of responsibility to Afghan security forces as rapidly as conditions allow," he tells ISAF commanders. Two days after the unveiling of the new doctrine to send an extra 30,000 US combat troops into Afghanistan, nowhere were the challenges of achieving Obama's goals more keenly discussed than inside the US-run Counterinsurgency Training Centre, known as COIN. During the next 18 months, thousands of US combat troops will be deployed in the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan, notably the northeast frontier region and former no-go zones in southern Helmand. The first 1500 are due to arrive this week. Their mission will be to prise away from the Taliban districts under their control, re-establish security and buy time to fast-track training of Afghan security forces while aid and governance experts restore some desperately needed credibility to Hamid Karzai's graft-tainted government. Nobody, least all of the shadowy figures who inhabit the COIN centre, doubt the immense challenges of the assignment. More at the Australian
 In his speech at West Point last week, President Obama indicated that no amount of extra troops would offset the Afghan Taliban’s ability to retreat and regroup in their Pakistani cross-border sanctuaries. Before his young audience, the president then went on to the equally important subject of al-Qaeda. Referring to the terrorist organization’s presence in Pakistan’s rugged tribal areas, the American Commander-in-Chief told the military cadets “we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.” On Monday, the New York Times reported what the United States intends to do about those terrorist safe havens. While the American surge in Afghanistan involves building a security environment that will allow American and NATO forces to disengage in 18 months, leaving behind an Afghan government the Taliban cannot overthrow, America’s strategy in Pakistan calls for the defeat and elimination of al Qaeda. To this end, the Times reports that already a month before the West Point speech General James R. Jones, Obama’s national security advisor, delivered the Pakistanis “a blunt message,” telling them to become more aggressive in going after the Taliban and al Qaeda or the Americans would do it themselves. “I think they read our intentions accurately,” a senior administration official told The Times. America’s NATO allies also share her frustration concerning Pakistan’s continuing inability to deal with the Taliban/al Qaeda menace based on its territory.
Almost all the terrorist plots directed against their countries, and against others around the world, have their roots in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Showing this frustration, British Prime Gordon Brown recently accused the Pakistani government of not doing enough to capture Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, telling the Pakistanis to “take out” the al Qaeda leaders. “We have got to ask ourselves why, eight years after September 11, nobody has been able to spot or detain or get close to Osama bin Laden,” said Brown. Showing his seriousness about going after al Qaeda in Pakistan, even before his appearance at West Point, Obama approved an expansion of drone attacks.
It is reported drones will now, for the first time, fly over the southern part of Pakistan’s Balochistan province. This area contains Quetta, the provincial capital, where Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar is believed to be hiding with other leading Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda members. Drones have been a very effective weapon against al Qaeda and the Taliban. Many valuable mid-level and senior commanders have been lost to the Hellfire missile, affecting the terrorist organizations’ level of operations. In the 50 drone strikes so far this year in Pakistan’s tribal areas, it is estimated about 400 enemy operatives have been killed. Another unilateral action the administration is considering if the Pakistanis fail to measure up to expectations is a resumption of American Special Forces raids into Pakistan. These were halted after a covert cross border operation in 2008 became publicised, causing a backlash in Pakistani public opinion. These new measures signal a new direction in the war that will most likely see the conflict shift substantially in the coming months from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Observers see this as the war’s next phase, since it makes no sense, they say, to pull out of Afghanistan, leaving al Qaeda undefeated. The objective of the 2001 Afghanistan invasion, after all, was to take away Osama bin Laden’s strategic base in the region, a mission that will only be accomplished when his Pakistani sanctuaries are eliminated. Accordingly, American and NATO forces want the Pakistanis to launch offensives against the Taliban in North Waziristan, principally against the Haqqani network that organizes attacks against allied soldiers in Afghanistan, and against the Taliban groups around Quetta. More at FPM
 Some 25 countries involved in the US-led operation in Afghanistan have pledged to send an additional 7,000 troops, the Nato secretary-general has confirmed, meeting US expectations for added support. "At least 25 countries will send more forces to the mission in 2010," Anders Fogh Rasmussen said after a meeting with the military alliance and non-Nato members in Brussels on Friday. He did not name the nations pledging troops, but said further contributions from other allies could be made "in the coming weeks and months". "There is no doubt the going will be tough, no one should expect instant results. But it will not be a run for the exit," he said. His comments come after Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said she was confident allies would support calls by Washington for more troops in Afghanistan.
Barack Obama, the US president, had called on other countries to come up with 5,000 to 7,000 troops to bolster an additional 30,000 forces from the US. Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, is spending Friday explaining US plans to step up the campaign against the Taliban. "There's an understanding about the importance of the mission that the president has described," she said before arriving at Friday's meeting, adding that the "response has been positive". Rasmussen said the coming year will bring "new momentum" to the Afghanistan mission, he said during a talk with Nato foreign ministers in Brussels. There are currently around 100,000 troops from 43 countries involved in the US-led operation in Afghanistan. David Miliband, the British foreign secretary - whose country has so far committed an additional 500 troops - said alliance members must "ask themselves whether they are doing the maximum possible". "We know the stakes are very high indeed. So this is the time for all of the international community to make sure it steps up to support the efforts of governance in Afghanistan and Pakistan to ensure stability in that crucial part of the world." Italy's government has approved sending 1,000 extra soldiers to Afghanistan next year, the defence and foreign ministers announced on Thursday. In addition to Italy, Britain, Georgia, Poland and Slovakia have all promised increased troop deployments, while key allies France and Germany appear to be leaning more toward providing trainers for Afghan forces. But the Netherlands and Canada plan to withdraw their respective combat forces of 2,100 and 2,800 over the next two years, reflecting public unease with the war. The US now has 71,000 troops in Afghanistan, while other Nato members and allies collectively have 38,000 service members there. With the added reinforcements, the international forces will swell to more than 140,000 soldiers. Clinton said the United States was seeking a range of help, including civilian assistance and military training, in order to prepare Afghanistan to take charge of its own destiny. "We've got to bring the Afghan security forces into the fight," she said. Al Jazeera
 As I listened to the President address the nation from West Point, I was reminded of how well he can deliver a speech. It’s like watching a slight-of-hand magician. You marvel at his dexterity, but you know he’s still skillfully fooling you.
The speech, given in the Eisenhower auditorium at West Point, reminded me of President Eisenhower, the former general who led allied forces to victory in Europe in World War Two, the man called back to serve his nation, and a man who was hard on the ears when it came to delivering a speech. It made him more human. We forgave him his blunt manner. After all, he had spent his whole adult life in the U.S. Army, taking and giving orders.
Similarly President Bush never seemed all that comfortable giving a set speech, but you knew he meant what he said. You knew he hated the evil of al Qaeda and the Taliban. You knew he despised Saddam Hussein and other enemies of America, of freedom, and human dignity. He was not smooth, not articulate, but he was genuine.
Barack Hussein Obama never spent a day in uniform and something in the area of two years out of six of his first term in the Senate before being launched on the nation as its savior, its messiah. I always found the references to spiritual powers jarring though, like most, amusing in their over-reach. Obama did nothing to discourage the image.
His West Point speech was primarily political. The military elements revealed a get-in and get-out strategy in what has already been a long engagement of the U.S. military in the Middle East.
It was filled with talk of NATO partners, Afghani partners, and Pakistani partners, but it also told the enemy that, if they were just patient enough, the U.S. would leave.
Wars, the generals tell us, have to be fought in terms of what the enemy does, not by any timetable we devise. Obama handed us, al Qaeda, and the Taliban a timetable.
When we leave, the Afghan government will still be as corrupt as ever. When we leave the Pakistan government will be as shaky as ever, though perhaps a bit bolder in its desire to resist the Taliban.
Obama made a powerful argument for the need to stamp out the Taliban and kill al Qaeda. He also said that both had “defiled” Islam “one of the world’s great religions.”
Islam is also the world’s single most violent and destabilizing ideology, causing death and spreading terror recently in the Philippines, destroying Somalia, and with a list of atrocities from Mumbai, India, to Madrid, Spain, to London, England. And, of course, on 9/11.
Islam struck again at Fort Hood, Texas.
The one undeniable fact of our times is that the U.S. and the civilized world are in an open-ended war with Islam.
Ironically, one of the expressed aims of al Qaeda is the overthrow of the monarchs, despots or elected leaders of Middle Eastern Islamic nations.
Neither al Qaeda’s soldiers, nor the Taliban, wear uniforms. They are classic guerrilla fighters, fading away like fog into the indigenous population. Not since the day of the Kamikaze, has the world witnessed suicide as an act of war.
While listening to our young President, I was reminded, too, of John F. Kennedy’s inaugural speech, possibly one of the greatest ever delivered in America since Lincoln’s Gettysburg address.
On that cold January day in1961, Kennedy said, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
While Obama’s speech was delivered well and met with polite applause from the cadets and others at West Point, its real message was that America will not shoulder the burdens of an open-ended war by itself or with the desultory support of NATO allies.
I thought, too, of the long Cold War America fought with the former Soviet Union.
For a little while, Afghanistan will be Obama’s war. And then we will leave.
We have some big problems here at home, a recession and joblessness, but we have always been able to work our way out of these cyclical financial difficulties.
This time it’s different. We have a White House and Congress hell-bent on initiatives such as Obamacare and Cap-and-Trade that will utterly destroy the economy and the nation. And they know it. And they don’t care.
One wonders, at this time and place, which is the worse enemy?
 US President Barack Obama's revamped policy on Afghanistan will be a strategy for success in a bloody conflict characterised by worsening Taliban violence and a controversial presidential election result. At his first media conference yesterday, new US Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich spoke of his confidence that the new Obama blue print would check worsening insecurity in the troubled country.
Speaking after presenting his credentials to Governor General Quentin Bryce, Mr Bleich, a close friend of President Obama for more than 20 years - said Washington had no greater friend than Australia.
On the vexed issue of climate change Mr Bleich said Washington fully acknowledged Canberra's position as a "world leader'' in the lead up to the Copenhagen conference.
The Obama White House was highly appreciative of Australia's military contribution to the Afghanistan conflict, he said.
 FIVE Afghan border guards were killed when a roadside bomb blast hit their patrol in the troubled southern province of Kandahar today, police said. The attack occurred in the Spin Boldak district bordering Pakistan during a pre-dawn patrol, said General Abdul Raziq, provincial border police commander. "In an explosion this morning all five border policemen were killed when their vehicle was hit," he told AFP. The Taliban, waging a violent insurgency that is at its worst in the south, claimed responsiblity for the bombing, with spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi, speaking from an undisclosed location, saying eight policemen had been killed. The Taliban often make wildly exaggerated claims on such incidents. Roadside bombs, often made from a mixture of fertiliser, fuel and metal, have become the weapon of choice for the Taliban-led militants and are causing increasing numbers of casualties among foreign and Afghan forces. President Hamid Karzai, re-elected in a fraud-marred vote in August, used his inauguration speech on Thursday to say that Afghan forces will take responsiblity for national security in five years. The Australian
 Barack Obama is expected to announce his long-delayed plans for a troop surge in Afghanistan next week with a promise of between 3,000 and 7,000 extra troops from Nato allies — including Britain, so as to stop this looking like America’s war. An announcement by the US president is anticipated before the meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels on December 3.
American officials suggest a combination of US and European troops, amounting to a total reinforcement of some 35,000, is the likely move. That is fewer than the 40,000 troops General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, requested in the summer to curb the Taliban insurgency. Republicans have accused Obama of dithering. Senator John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate, argues that the delay in reaching a decision on Afghan strategy is creating uncertainty within the military, as the insurgency in Afghanistan continues to worsen. At the Halifax International Security Forum, which ends today, McCain said that “many of our young soldiers were wondering why there’s this delay”. Brown agreed to the reinforcement, which will take British numbers to 9,500, on the condition that each ally bears its “fair share”. The Georgians have agreed to send 1,000 extra troops, the Turks 500-600 and Slovakia is doubling its contribution to 250. Tomorrow Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato secretary-general, will travel to Poland in the hope of raising more there. “This is not just America’s war — the Europeans have doubled their contribution in the past 20 months from 18,000 to 36,000 and the secretary-general is confident there is more to come,” his spokesman said. Germany, Italy, Turkey, France and Romania — all of which have forces in Afghanistan — are under pressure to send at least a battalion of between 500 and 1,000 troops each, although Germany has insisted on waiting for the outcome of a conference on Afghanistan in January. Times Online
 Anders Fogh Rasmussen issued his warning just a day after Gordon Brown gave his clearest signal yet that he wants to begin the process of ending Britain’s Afghan mission within months. Mr Rasmussen said: “If we were to walk away and turn our backs on Afghanistan, al Qaida would be back in a flash.
They would have a sanctuary from which to launch their strategy of global jihad, a strategy that is directed first and foremost against us. Anyone who doubts the risk of a premature exit “is not living in the real world," he told a Nato conference in Edinburgh. Speaking to the same conference, David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said that British troops are fighting in Afghanistan not to defeat Taliban insurgents but to persuade them to lay down their arms and enter politics. Britain’s goal in Afghanistan is “not a fight to the death” but a political settlement, he said. Mr Rasmussen's intervention came as it emerged that a British soldier shot dead in Afghanistan on Sunday had complained before his death that new body armour had not been delivered. Rifleman Andrew Fentiman, 23, a Territorial Army soldier from Cambridge, wrote on the internet two weeks ago: "We are still waiting on these new body armour and helmets that were promised to us." A total of 234 British service personnel have died in Afghanistan since 2001, and public support for the 9,000-strong British mission there is flagging. To reassure wavering voters, the Prime Minister has begun to talk up the prospect of an exit from Afghanistan. On Monday, he proposed an international summit on Afghanistan that will set out a “timetable” for handing territory back to the Afghans starting next year. Mr Rasmussen backed that schedule, “where conditions permit”. However, Lord Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary, warned the Prime Minster not to be pushed into an early exit from Afghanistan, saying leaving too quickly would raise the terror threat to the West. He said: “Our people will never forgive this political generation if we were to walk away from the threat and horrors that we know would be the consequences of prematurely getting out of Afghanistan.” The Prime Minister’s new emphasis on a timetable for exit has also caused private concern among British commanders, who worry that any sign that Britain’s commitment to the Afghan mission is waning will encourage the Taliban. David Richards, the Chief of the General Staff, has said that it could be another five years before British troop numbers fall. Read more at the Telegraph
 Britain's foreign secretary has suggested that senior Taliban figures be given positions in the Afghan government to bring an end to the violence in the country. At a meeting of Nato's parliamentary assembly in Edinburgh, Scotland on Tuesday, David Miliband said that history suggested many Taliban members could be persuaded to stop fighting. Miliband said the Afghan government would need to reach out to "high-level commanders that can be persuaded to renounce al-Qaeda and pursue their goals peacefully". "This will be far from straightforward. But the historical lessons are clear," he said. "Blood enemies from the Soviet period and the civil war now work together in government. Former Talibs already sit in the parliament. "It is essential that, when the time is right, members of the current insurgency are
encouraged to follow suit," he said. Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera's senior political analyst, said there was nothing new about Miliband's proposal.
"It's kind of funny hearing foreign secretary Miliband speaking of this as if it is all new invention," he said.
"In fact, this has been tried since the 1950s. There's no counterinsurgency without a political programme.
"At the heart of it is winning the population. In fact, scaring the population into playing ball, if you will, with the occupier."
Miliband's comments came shortly after Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato secretary-general, said he expected the military alliance's member nations to pledge "substantially more forces" to Afghanistan. Rasmussen said the move would be part of a wider strategy of handing over security to Afghans. He said he expected the alliance to decide on "a counter-insurgency approach, with substantially more forces" in the coming weeks. "We can, and should, start next year to hand over more lead responsibility for security to Afghan forces. "We will do this in a co-ordinated way, where conditions permit, and this will allow us to progressively move into a support role." His comments reflected proposals by Gordon Brown, Britain's prime minister, who suggested on Monday that a timeframe for handing over security district by district could be drawn up in the new year. Read more at Al Jazeera (English)
 FRAUDULENT elections, attacks on UN officials in Kabul, and a US administration seemingly reluctant to fulfil its chosen general's requests for yet more troops; observers may be forgiven for thinking that Afghanistan is on track to become another Vietnam.
That, however, would be misreading the situation. Under General Stanley McCrystal, the International Security Assistance Force is finally developing a strategy that promises to bring success. While the Taliban is far from defeated, important aspects of the Afghan situation work in the favour of the West. Afghanistan is not yet a functioning state, but it is also easy to overstate the security problems there. In a country with roughly the same population as Iraq, daily attacks are still only a fraction of those in Iraq in 2006-07. Despite the odd high-profile attack, main economic and population centres such as Kabul, Jalalabad, Mazar-i-Sharif or Herat are essentially safe for foreigners and the local population. Anti-government forces have significantly increased their reach in recent years, but the Taliban is much less unified than that label suggests. Their influence remains localised and dependent on ethnic, historical and political conditions, which can differ from province to province and village to village. The hostile forces in the valleys of Nuristan and Kunar provinces are only temporary coalitions between local villagers, timber barons, the Haqqani network and al-Qa'ida foreign fighters. ISAF is now withdrawing its permanent presence from these marginal areas, where it is clearly not wanted. In contrast, insurgents in the Greater Paktia area in the southeast are dominated by the Haqqani network, which works in loose coalition with al-Qa'ida. Traditional tribal structures remain strong, which presents opportunities and constraints to both insurgents and coalition forces. While violence is persistent, it is at a much lower level than in Helmand or Kandahar. Insurgents in the south, and in Pashtun pockets in the north, are more centrally directed by the Mullah Omar's Quetta Shura. It continues to have national ambitions, and operates a shadow government in areas under its control. The heaviest resistance in this region was encountered in Helmand, but the centre of gravity is Kandahar city. ISAF forces are only thinly deployed to areas outside the city proper, which is controlled by the militias of the governor, brother of President Hamid Karzai, and Afghan National Security Forces. The Taliban strength in the city is unknown, but they are outnumbered by forces loyal to the government. Read more,,,, Source: The Australian Dr Stephan Fruehling is a lecturer at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University
 A key adviser to Nato forces warned today that Barack Obama risks a Suez-style debacle in Afghanistan if he fails to deploy enough extra troops and opts instead for a messy compromise. David Kilcullen, one of the world's leading authorities on counter-insurgency and an adviser to the British government as well as the US state department, said Obama's delay in reaching a decision over extra troops had been "messy".
He said it not only worried US allies but created uncertainty the Taliban could exploit. Speaking in an interview with the Guardian, he compared the president to someone "pontificating" over whether to send enough firefighters into a burning building to put a fire out. He was speaking as Obama left Washington for a nine-day trip to Asia without announcing a decision on troop numbers.
The options being considered by the US have been narrowed down to four: sending 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000, the latter the figure requested by the Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal. These would be on top of 68,000 US troops already deployed. The deep divisions with the Obama administration were exposed yesterday by leaked diplomatic cables from the US ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, who urged Obama to ignore McChrystal's request unless the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, cleaned up his corrupt government. Kilcullen expressed concern that Obama might deny McChrystal the 40,000 extra troops and split the difference between the four options, the kind of fudge common in domestic politics. "Time is running out for us to make a decision. We can either put in enough troops to control the environment or we can credibly communicate our intention to leave. Either could work. Splitting the difference is not the way to go," Kilcullen said. "It feels to me that all these options are dangerously close to the middle ground and we have to consider whether the middle ground is a good place to be.
The middle ground is a good place on domestic issues, but not on strategy. You either commit to D-Day and invade the continent or you get Suez. Half-measures end up with Suez. Do it or not do it." Read more,,,, The Guardian
 Debka is reporting here that the Iranians are about to launch a 200 kilogram (440 pound) satellite on top of their new solid fuel missile. If the second launch succeeds, it would mean that Iran is capable of producing solid fuel-powered rockets with a range of 2,450-2,450 kilometers, which covers not only all of Israel but would reach as deep into Europe as the Polish capital of Warsaw. Heads of the Islamic regime in Tehran hope that the advent of a second Iranian spy satellite in Middle East skies, boosted by the new Safir rocket, will so astound the Americans and Israelis that they will think twice before going after Iran’s nuclear installations. Analysis. Not a good sign. I would suggest that the Iranian regime’s launch of the satellite will not cause the United States or Israel to think twice but to expedite plans for destroying as much of Iran’s nuclear program as possible.
This could also become a NATO problem as the missile can reach well into NATO member’s territory. Also, the fact that this is a solid fuel missile cuts the warning time way down. Depending on the level of success of Juniper Cobra, the recent joint US-Israel missile defense exercise, we could see an accelerated push to increase sanctions on Iran. It is also time for the United States and others to seriously consider supporting the Iranian people in their so far generally peaceful revolution against the theocracy.
The demonstrations on Student’s Day should make it clear to the World that a large percentage of the population wants the mullahs gone including a lot of the mullahs. Source: World Threats
 There are already more than 100,000 international troops in Afghanistan working with 200,000 Afghan security forces and police. It adds up to a 12-1 numerical advantage over Taliban rebels, but it hasn't led to anything close to victory. Now, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan is asking for tens of thousands more troops to stem the escalating insurgency, raising the question of how many more troops it would take to succeed. The commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says the extra forces are needed to implement a new strategy that focuses on protecting civilians and depriving the militants of popular support in a country where tribal militias may be Taliban today and farmers tomorrow. The White House said Tuesday that President Barack Obama has nearly finished gathering information and advice on how to proceed in Afghanistan, where bombings killed eight more American troops.
With October now the deadliest month for U.S. forces in the war, many experts question the need for more troops. "The U.S. and its allies already have ample numbers and firepower to annihilate the Taliban, if only the Taliban would cooperate by standing still and allowing us to bomb them to smithereens," said Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations and history at Boston University, and one-time platoon leader in Vietnam. "But the insurgents are conducting the war in ways that do not play to (allied) strengths." The Taliban rebels are estimated to number no more than 25,000.
Ljubomir Stojadinovic, a military analyst and guerrilla warfare expert from Serbia, said that although McChrystal's reinforcements would lift the ratio to 20-1 or more, they would prove counterproductive. Read more,,, Source: FoxNews
 The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, plans to address NATO defense ministers Friday about the next steps for the military strategy. The NATO meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia, comes as the United States wraps up a review of its own military strategy in Afghanistan. "As has been said in Washington, I think the analytical phase is coming to an end and probably over the next two or three weeks we're going to be considering specific options and teeing them up for decision by the president," U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday after the morning NATO session. McChrystal is pushing Washington to send 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan amid skepticism from some of President Barack Obama's top advisers. The general planned to address the NATO defense ministers at a Friday afternoon "working lunch" that will focus on the Afghanistan war strategy, Gates said. Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak will also be present, he noted. A main focus of the meeting is how to transition power of security to Afghan forces. But that is still a long way off, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Friday. "We need to start thinking about and planning towards progressively handing over lead responsibility to the Afghan army and the Afghan police," Rasmussen said. "Now let me be clear: We have not agreed to start handing over the lead. The conditions are not yet right. The Afghan security forces are not yet strong enough." He stressed that when the transition happens, it "doesn't mean NATO forces leave. It means they go into a supporting role." NATO's International Security Assistance Force is made up of more than 71,000 forces from 43 contributing nations, including more than 34,000 from the United States. Source: CNN
 Pakistani forces have attacked Taliban bases near the Afghan border, as government-troops continued an offensive to take back control of the South Waziristan region. Helicopter gunships fired on the Taliban strongholds of Makeen and Ladha on Wednesday, security officials have said. They added that gun battles had taken place in Kotkai, the birthplace of Hakimullah Mehsud, the Pakistani Taliban chief. But Imran Khan, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, said the Taliban has denied reports that its fighters have lost control of Kotkai. "The Taliban are saying that Kotkai has not been secured by the Pakistani army. The Pakistani army sources through the local media say 'yes it has'. So we have this information battle going on." The offensive in South Waziristan, which began on Saturday, is being followed closely by Western powers involved in the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is being seen as a major test of the Pakistani government's ability to tackle fighters who have carried out attacks across Pakistan, killing at least 150 people in a string of suicide and bomb attacks in recent weeks. Pakistan's military has also called on Nato troops in Afghanistan to seal the border between the two countries "to prevent cross-border movement and flow of weapons". General Tariq Majid, chairman of the Pakistan Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (JCSC) made the call during talks with Sir Jock Stirrup, Britain's chief of defence staff, on Tuesday. Majid called for "synchronisation of effort on both sides and sharing of real-time intelligence with reference to the ongoing operations," About 28,000 soldiers are battling an estimated 10,000 Taliban fighters, including about 1,000 Uzbek fighters and some Arab al-Qaeda members. More than 100,000 civilians have fled from South Waziristan, with about 32,000 of them leaving since October 13, the United Nations said. The army says up to 200,000 could flee the region. Source: Al Jazeera (English)
 Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor A long-anticipated ground offensive begins against al-Qaida and Taliban strongholds along the Afghan border The United States has been pushing the government to carry out the assault in South Waziristan, which it must now attempt to complete before the onset of winter snows in early December. Pakistan has fought three unsuccessful campaigns since 2001 in the region, which is the heartland of Pakistani insurgents fighting the US-backed government. The area is also a major base for foreign militants planning attacks on Nato forces in Afghanistan and on targets in the west. Pakistani sources claim there are up to 1,500 foreign fighters and 10,000 local Taliban fighters in the region. After months of aerial bombing, Pakistan's cabinet yesterday ordered troops into the region from several directions, heading to the insurgent bases of Ladha and Makeen, among other targets. At least 11 suspected insurgents were killed, while a bomb hit a security convoy, killing one soldier and wounding three others, intelligence officials said. Source: The Guardian
 NATO officially denies that any of its members pay insurgents in Afghanistan for peace, but military sources said yesterday the practice is widespread among foreign forces fighting the Taliban. The Times newspaper said 10 French troops killed in Sarobi, near Kabul, last year had not properly assessed the risks, because their Italian predecessors failed to inform them they had paid the Taliban not to attack them. The Italian government described the British newspaper's report as "totally baseless" and said it had "never authorised any kind of money payment to members of the Taliban insurrection in Afghanistan". But a senior Afghan official suggested otherwise. "I certainly can confirm that we were aware that the Italian forces were paying the opposition in Sarobi not to attack them," he said. "We have reports of similar deals in (western) Herat province by Italian troops based there under NATO's umbrella. "It's a deal: you don't attack me, I don't attack you," he said, adding the practice was passed on between foreign forces and it was likely that senior commanders were either involved or turned a blind eye to it. It is simply a matter of buying time and surviving." A French army spokesman in Kabul, Lieutenant Colonel Jackie Fouquereau, said: "The French do not give money to insurgents." NATO spokesman in Afghanistan, General Eric Tremblay, said he was "not aware" of such practices and had no information about the Italian case. "It's not a counter-insurgency tactic. But the Afghan government can sometimes make local arrangements. If it's done, it's more by the Afghan government than the international forces," he said. But according to a number of Western and Afghan officers, the politically sensitive practice is fairly widespread among NATO forces in Afghanistan. One Western military source told of payments made by Canadian soldiers stationed in the violent southern province of Kandahar, while another officer spoke of similar practices by the German army in northern Kunduz. "I can tell you that lots of countries under the NATO umbrella operating out in rural parts of Afghanistan do pay the militants for not attacking them," the senior Afghan official said. He added that it "seems to be the practice with military forces from some NATO countries, excluding the US forces under NATO, the British forces and the whole coalition forces" under the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom. "I think more than 50 per cent of NATO forces deployed in rural Afghanistan have such deals or at least have struck such deals" to ensure peace, the official said. He said he did not want to say precisely how many but one Western officer said: "As it's not very positive and not officially recognised, it's never spoken about openly. It's a bit shameful. "Consequently, it's sometimes not communicated properly between the old unit and the new unit that comes in to relieve them," which may have happened between the Italians and the French. According to The Times, the Italian secret service gave tens of thousands of dollars to Taliban commanders and local warlords to keep the peace in the Sarobi region. The French soldiers had been deployed there for less than a month when 10 of them were killed and 21 others injured on August 18 last year in one of the deadliest ambushes by insurgents against foreign forces. The French Defence Minister was called on yesterday to give an urgent account to parliament of the Taliban ambush. As the Socialist Party reacted with anger to The Times report, the ministry said that it had long been aware of rumours that linked Italian bribery to the ambush in Sarobi. The reports had no basis, it said. President Nicolas Sarkozy said he would not be authorising extra troops for Afghanistan and wanted the Afghan army to take over security. He told the newspaper Le Figaro: "If we leave, Pakistan, a nuclear power, will be threatened. But France will not send one more soldier." Source: The Australian
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" is anti-Semitism. 
Posts
Early reports suggested the advancing troops were meeting fierce resistance from Taliban fighters.