What is good enough in Afghanistan?

[Ray]

The Boston Globe

What is good enough in Afghanistan?

By H.D.S. Greenway

December 7, 2010


UNLIKE OTHER wars this country has fought, there is no commonly held agreement among friends or foes on what the war in Afghanistan is all about. Even among Americans there is confusion.


President Obama, who will soon conduct yet another Afghan review, once called it a war to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat'' Al Qaeda. But with Al Qaeda to be found more in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia these days, and with terrorists to be found in the Connecticut suburbs, as in the case of the failed New York City car bombing, Obama told American troops last week that the purpose was not to allow Afghanistan "to become a safe haven for terrorists'' again.

For George W. Bush, as Bob Woodward wrote, "it was all in, win at all costs.'' But he let Afghanistan drift as he headed for Iraq. His adviser, Karl Rove, has complained that he doesn't hear the word "win'' any more. Yet David Petraeus, Bush's favorite general and now Obama's, has said there is no military solution to Afghanistan.

Is it necessary to defeat the Taliban? If so, why do Americans keep talking about "reintegration'' and "reconciliation'' with the Taliban?

Some say this is part of a long, generational war against Islamic extremism. Yet recent intelligence reports have described the Taliban as driven as much by wanting to control territory, mineral wealth, smuggling routes, and just plain money as they are by ideology.

The Taliban is increasingly wrapping itself in the nationalist flag, fighting a war to rid Afghanistan of foreigners and their puppets, as Afghans have always done against the British, Russians, and now us. A viceroy of India in 1867, John Lawrence, once said that the Afghan will put up with every deprivation, but "he will not tolerate foreign rule. The moment he has a chance he will rebel.''

In countries in the region, some look at the Afghan war as a new "Great Game,'' with India, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and its European allies all vying for control and influence in the heart of Central Asia. For them protecting the American homeland doesn't enter into it.

Others say the war is all about ethnic rivalries, that by invading Afghanistan the United States simply took sides in a 20-year civil war backing a Northern Alliance coalition of Tajiks, Uzbecks, Hazaras, and other non-Pashtun minorities, against the Pashtuns, who make up the vast majority of the Taliban. A post-war assessment by the Soviets concluded that they had not sufficiently considered "the historic, religious, and national particularities of Afghanistan.''

Still others say it is all about the tribes, that the Americans are failing because they never understood the importance of tribal affiliations. Petraeus has admitted to not having a "granular'' feeling for tribal politics. According to Ahmed Rashid, a veteran journalist and Central Asian expert, a fatal flaw in the new Afghan National Army is that it lacks ethnic Pashtuns who traditionally made up the core of Afghanistan's army, especially Ghilzai Pashtun tribes from the eastern Afghan provinces of Khost, Paktia, and Paktika.

General William Caldwell, who is in charge of training an Afghan army to take over from us, hopefully by 2014, recently confirmed to me that these regions along the border with Pakistan are under-represented in the army he is trying to build.

Others will say that this is a fight for Islamic law and Islamic values, which are under attack from the West, while those opposed to them say the fight is for freedom, women's rights, civil liberties, and democracy.

The trouble is the Afghan war is about all these things, and more, and that's what makes this war so confusing — "unique in American history,'' in that the enemy is so fractured that we don't have "a telephone number to call to end the war,'' as a senior administration official told me.

So as our allies begin to slip away, are Americans fighting to "defeat the extremist insurgency,'' as the White House commanded the military in 2009? Or do we fight for "Afghanistan good enough,'' which you hear more and more around NATO headquarters in Kabul? If so, what is good enough?

H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe.

Boston Globe

So, is it Americans fighting to "defeat the extremist insurgency,'' as the White House commanded the military in 2009? Or do they fight for "Afghanistan good enough,'' which one is said to hear more and more around NATO headquarters in Kabul?

If so, what is good enough?

Is it a Great Game being played by India, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and its European allies and nothing to do with the War on Terror?

What is the way out?

 

[Ray]

Afghanistan backs off threat to close private security firms

By Dion Nissenbaum | McClatchy Newspapers

KABUL, Afghanistan — The Afghan government is scaling back its contentious plans to push private security companies out of the country.

After months of often-frustrating debate with Western leaders, Afghan officials announced Monday that they're going to allow the widely criticized security firms to keep providing protection for international development groups and NATO supply convoys for the foreseeable future.

The decision is expected to forestall a threatened flight of development workers, who'd warned that they'd be forced to abandon their risky work in Afghanistan if the proposed ban took effect.

"This has enabled us to keep our projects going," said Steven O'Connor, the chief spokesman for Development Alternatives International, a major U.S. contractor that had planned to shutter key projects in Afghanistan if the security-company closures went through.

We're cautiously optimistic," he said.

As part of the new order, security firms will be ordered to move their headquarters out of Kabul, where some have been involved in several confrontations with civilians that have sparked destabilizing riots in recent years.

In a surprise move last August, President Hamid Karzai announced a sweeping order that would have forced dozens of private security firms to close their operations in Afghanistan by year's end.

The decision threw into question the ability of NATO to ferry vital military supplies safely through Afghanistan, of embassies to protect their diplomats and of development groups to continue working on projects in volatile parts of the country.

Some security company officials saw the threat as an attempt by Karzai to push back against persistent criticism from Western leaders about corruption and mismanagement in his government.

Karzai soon revised the directive to allow diplomats to retain protection. But he stood firm on the rest of his decree until some major aid groups began warning that they'd leave the country if the government didn't relent.

Among them was DAI, an international consulting firm that's been a repeated target for insurgents in Afghanistan.

In one of the highest-profile incidents, Afghan militants abducted DAI contractor Linda Norgrove last fall. A U.S. grenade killed her during a botched rescue attempt.

Soon after Norgrove was abducted and killed, DAI publicly warned that it would shutter a five-year, $350 million development program if Karzai followed through with his directive.

After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appealed personally to Karzai to rethink his decision, he agreed in October to delay fully imposing the ban until February.

On Monday, the Interior Ministry went further by announcing that private security firms will be allowed to keep working with development groups until their contracts with the organizations expire.

The government also will allow several security firms to keep providing protection for NATO supply convoys until the Afghan police establish a special force capable of taking on the responsibility.

Abdel Manan Farahi, a top Interior Ministry adviser, optimistically predicted that the Afghan police would be ready to take on those protection duties in six months. But the country already is stretching itself to build up its police and military so that they can replace U.S.-led forces in protecting their country from Taliban insurgents looking to regain power in Kabul.

Until the new Afghan force is ready, Farahi said, the Afghan government will dispatch 50 police officers to oversee the convoy protection forces, which routinely have been accused of recklessly shooting and killing civilians while ferrying convoys across the country.

"They'll be here, but with new regulations and code of conduct," Farahi said.

The U.S. Embassy in Kabul, which has been intimately involved in attempts to revise Karzai's order, welcomed the news.

We will "continue to work with our Afghan partners to ensure that development workers are safe and project sites have adequate security," U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said.

More than 50 registered security firms employ more than 26,000 people under U.S. contracts, with the majority on military contracts. The companies include DynCorp, Four Horsemen International and Watan Risk Management, an Afghan firm run by two of Karzai's cousins.

While the registered firms will be allowed to keep operating, Farahi said the government was in the final stages of shuttering more than 50 unauthorized security companies that often acted as robber barons on the nation's roads.


Read more: [http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/...ment-backs-off-threat.html#ixzz17RT6sxiP]Here [/url]

Lewis Caroll's Through the Looking Glass?

 

[Ray]

Afghanistan backs off threat to close private security firms

By Dion Nissenbaum | McClatchy Newspapers

KABUL, Afghanistan — The Afghan government is scaling back its contentious plans to push private security companies out of the country.

After months of often-frustrating debate with Western leaders, Afghan officials announced Monday that they're going to allow the widely criticized security firms to keep providing protection for international development groups and NATO supply convoys for the foreseeable future.

The decision is expected to forestall a threatened flight of development workers, who'd warned that they'd be forced to abandon their risky work in Afghanistan if the proposed ban took effect.

"This has enabled us to keep our projects going," said Steven O'Connor, the chief spokesman for Development Alternatives International, a major U.S. contractor that had planned to shutter key projects in Afghanistan if the security-company closures went through.

We're cautiously optimistic," he said.

As part of the new order, security firms will be ordered to move their headquarters out of Kabul, where some have been involved in several confrontations with civilians that have sparked destabilizing riots in recent years.

In a surprise move last August, President Hamid Karzai announced a sweeping order that would have forced dozens of private security firms to close their operations in Afghanistan by year's end.

The decision threw into question the ability of NATO to ferry vital military supplies safely through Afghanistan, of embassies to protect their diplomats and of development groups to continue working on projects in volatile parts of the country.

Some security company officials saw the threat as an attempt by Karzai to push back against persistent criticism from Western leaders about corruption and mismanagement in his government.

Karzai soon revised the directive to allow diplomats to retain protection. But he stood firm on the rest of his decree until some major aid groups began warning that they'd leave the country if the government didn't relent.

Among them was DAI, an international consulting firm that's been a repeated target for insurgents in Afghanistan.

In one of the highest-profile incidents, Afghan militants abducted DAI contractor Linda Norgrove last fall. A U.S. grenade killed her during a botched rescue attempt.

Soon after Norgrove was abducted and killed, DAI publicly warned that it would shutter a five-year, $350 million development program if Karzai followed through with his directive.

After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appealed personally to Karzai to rethink his decision, he agreed in October to delay fully imposing the ban until February.

On Monday, the Interior Ministry went further by announcing that private security firms will be allowed to keep working with development groups until their contracts with the organizations expire.

The government also will allow several security firms to keep providing protection for NATO supply convoys until the Afghan police establish a special force capable of taking on the responsibility.

Abdel Manan Farahi, a top Interior Ministry adviser, optimistically predicted that the Afghan police would be ready to take on those protection duties in six months. But the country already is stretching itself to build up its police and military so that they can replace U.S.-led forces in protecting their country from Taliban insurgents looking to regain power in Kabul.

Until the new Afghan force is ready, Farahi said, the Afghan government will dispatch 50 police officers to oversee the convoy protection forces, which routinely have been accused of recklessly shooting and killing civilians while ferrying convoys across the country.

"They'll be here, but with new regulations and code of conduct," Farahi said.

The U.S. Embassy in Kabul, which has been intimately involved in attempts to revise Karzai's order, welcomed the news.

We will "continue to work with our Afghan partners to ensure that development workers are safe and project sites have adequate security," U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said.

More than 50 registered security firms employ more than 26,000 people under U.S. contracts, with the majority on military contracts. The companies include DynCorp, Four Horsemen International and Watan Risk Management, an Afghan firm run by two of Karzai's cousins.

While the registered firms will be allowed to keep operating, Farahi said the government was in the final stages of shuttering more than 50 unauthorized security companies that often acted as robber barons on the nation's roads.


Read more: [http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/...ment-backs-off-threat.html#ixzz17RT6sxiP]Here [/url]

Lewis Caroll's Through the Looking Glass?