Karzai urges Afghan war timeline

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called for a timetable for ending the war against the Taleban in his country.

Mr Karzai made the call in a speech to a visiting UN Security Council team.

He said if Afghans had "no light at the end of the tunnel" they had the right to pursue other options, such as peace negotiations with the Taleban.

Mr Karzai also demanded an end to arrests of Afghans "in their homes, in the roads" by international forces, saying it was the job of Afghan police.

[snip]

Mr Karzai said there were two options.

First would be to set a timeline, saying that what had not been achieved in the past seven years would be achieved in the next "four years, five years or another seven years".

But he added: "If we cannot give a light at the end of the tunnel to the Afghan people, [do] the Afghan people have a right to ask for negotiation for peace? [Do] the Afghan people have a right to seek other avenues?"

Mr Karzai said he would continue to fight al-Qaeda and Taleban members "who are ideologically against the rest of the world".

However, he said Taleban members who were "part of the Afghan community" could be brought back to serve Afghanistan.

[More]


Comment:

That last part is the crux of the matter. Karzai has been (rightly) calling for negotiation with the reconcilables for quite some time now — indeed, he has actually engaged in some negotiation with the mediation of King Abdullah. His borrowing of the words "timeline" and "withdrawal" from Iraq is blatant electioneering, and nothing more.

The fact that he felt it would be beneficial to say it, however, is emblematic of a real problem, which is that we are running out of time. The good will of the Afghan people cannot last forever, and it is beginning to wear thin.

We gain one, we lose one.

There's a lot to talk about today, so I'm going to depart from my usual format.

According to Al Jazeera:

In a second battle in Helmand province, Afghan and international troops retook the Nad Ali district centre - which had been held by fighters - during a three-day fight, Ahmadi said.

That battle, which also involved airstrikes, ended on Saturday and resulted in the death of 40 Taliban fighters, officials said.

Afghan police and soldiers were now in control of the district centre.

Nato said its aircraft bombed fighters after they were seen gathering for a major attack, killing "multiple enemy forces".

"If the fighters planned a spectacular attack prior to the winter, this was a spectacular failure," Richard Blanchette, an Isaf spokesman, said.

Although I was somewhat disappointed to learn that there had been a district that I had not known was held by the Taliban, this is of course good news, as is the news, also reported in the article, that NATO had repulsed a major attack on Lashkar Gah. However, AJ did not mention this somewhat less cheerful development, which I found out about via Quqnoos:

Taliban claim to have forced NATO-led troops from a remote district

THE NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has withdrawn from a district in the north-eastern province of Nuristan, the international force said.

ISAF said it retreated from its forward operating base in the Kamdish district on Friday following advice from Afghanistan’s Defence Ministry.

But the Taliban claimed that it forced ISAF troops in the district to retreat after engaging them in fierce fighting in the district, one of the country’s most insecure.

The situation in Nuristan has been growing increasingly worrying. According to my current map prototype, the Taliban currently controls three of its eight districts, as well as the Dara-ye Pech District just across the border in Kunar Province, and a fourth district, Bargomatal, was attacked by Tehrik-i-Taliban-i-Pakistan back in July. I still have been unable to determine the outcome of that battle, but am inclined to think that, even if the TTP did manage to take it, which I don't think they did, their forces have since been withdrawn to fight the Pakistani security forces in Bajaur, which would leave the district only nominally in the Taliban's hands, just as so much of the rest of the province is only nominally in the hands of NATO and the central government. I have seen reports that some of the forces currently fighting in Bajaur had previously been fighting in Afghanistan, which lends some credence to this theory.

Nuristan, for those of you who are not familiar with it (i.e. pretty much all of you), is one of the most isolated inhabited regions on the face of the Earth. Its terrain is nearly impassable, and it is so out of the way that Islam didn't reach it until the end of the 19th century. Before then it was known as Kafiristan (land of the unbelievers) and its inhabitants as the Red Kafirs; their cousins, the Black Kafirs, or Kalasha, live on the Pakistani side of the Durand line and still practice their age-old pagan religion. The Nuristanis speak languages that are unusual even for Mianistan; while most languages in the region are either Iranian (e.g. Pashto, Wakhi, Yidgha) or Indo-Aryan (e.g. Khowar, Kalasha, Torwali) (although this "Dardic" sub-group of the Indo-Aryan branch is pretty weird), the Nuristani languages form a group all of their own.

There is, however, yet another major development regarding Afghanistan in the news today. Quqnoos reports:

US wants to reduce dependence on government by arming militias

THE UNITED States plans to arm tribal militias against the Taliban, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said at a NATO summit in Hungary.

As part of a plan to create greater co-operation on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border, the US wants to train tribal militias in an attempt to reduce its dependence on the central government in Kabul.

Parliament members had already suggested arming the tribes, but the idea was not given any currency at the time.

This is a superb idea. Working with the tribes worked in Iraq, is working in Pakistan, and, unlike McCain's bizarre idea to "clear and hold" some of the most impassible terrain on Earth, it would also work in Afghanistan. In case you haven't noticed, I am strongly pro-tribe, not only because of my own tribal identity (Stewart of Bote FTW!), but also simply because it works. Indeed, in regions such as Mianistan I would venture to say that it is the only strategy that will work. My friend Woke at News Hounds has often said that it is impossible for a conventional army to defeat a popular insurgency. Although it is possible to do it if you brutally punish the civilian population, as Genghis Khan did, that's not really an option if you're the good guys, so it's true so far as we are concerned. This means that if you are faced with an insurgency, the only way that you can win is if it stops being popular. The psychopathic, woman-oppressing, elder-beheading Taliban are already helping us out on this one. However, their antisocial ways can be counteracted by the collateral damage we often inflict when we fight them directly. This means that there needs to be a popular insurgency against the unpopular one. We can then support the locals rather than killing them. And in the tribal reality of Mianistan, supporting the locals means supporting the tribes.

Taliban targeted near Kandahar

At least two Afghan soldiers and about 20 Taliban fighters have been killed after Afghan and Nato forces launched an operation near the southern city of Kandahar.

The fighting in Arghandab province on Wednesday came after Taliban fighters staged a raid on Kandahar jail freeing hundreds of prisoners and took control of a number of villages.

"A group of enemies of the people was targeted by Nato air force in Ta-been village in Arghandab [district]," an Afghan defence ministry statement said. "Based on information received, 20 local and foreign terrorists were killed."

Another statement said two Afghan soldiers were "martyred".

Meanwhile, four Nato soldiers died and two were wounded when a roadside bomb exploded in Helmand province.

The British defence ministry confirmed the deaths on Wednesday, saying that one of those who died was a female soldier.

She would be the first British female soldier to die in Afghanistan.

Roads blocked

The Arghandab operation began at 8am local time [0300 GMT], the deffence ministry said.
Mark Laity, a Nato spokesman in Kabul, told Al Jazeera: "The operation is pretty much on track.

"There have been a number of engagements with the insurgents, but they have been minor rather than major battles. "We have killed some insurgents but we have not yet suffered any Isaf [the International Security Assistance Force] casualties." The number of troops involved in the operation is "substantial", he said. "The bulk of the troops are from the Afghan army. They are leading that operation and we are backing them," said Laity. Al Jazeera's Hashem Ahelbarra, reporting from Kandahar, said that the main road leading to Arghandab was blocked and that more army reinforcements were heading towards the district, including tanks, armoured vehicles and soldiers. "The threat from the Taliban in Arghandab is being taken very seriously by the Afghan army and the coalition forces," he said. "They are concerned that with the military operation going on, the Taliban could retaliate using suicide bombers and attack inside [the city of] Kandahar."

'Made progress'

Zemarai Bashari, spokesman for Afghanistan's interior ministry, said "the operation is going very well". "Afghan security forces have made progress … the initial reports are stating that 16 enemies have been killed and around four others are injured." He said that Afghan and Nato troops were carrying out the operation as a joint force with neither leading the other. "This is a joint operation … everyone is playing their role and we are seeing very good co-ordination and implementation of this operation," Bashari said. However, Yousuf Ahmadi, a Taliban spokesman, denied that his group's fighters had been dislodged by the Afghan-Nato offensive. "The fighting started today in the morning but they have not been able to take a metre of the land under our control. We do not intend to leave Arghandab at all," he said. "We will use Arghandab for specific attacks with motors and cannons on targets in Kandahar city. We have also planned a suicide attack which will be carried out in Kandahar."

'No resistance'

Afghan and soldiers from the multinational force soldiers sealed off the Arghandab district on Tuesday, after the Taliban claimed its fighters had taken control of 10 villages. The Taliban said it met no resistance as it took control of the villages. Ahelbarra said on Tuesday that hundreds of Taliban fighters had taken up positions in the area.

It was unclear if the group was just trying to make a statement as it did late last year when it captured the same area for just a few days before retreating under heavy bombardment, or if it would try to take back control of large swaths of the country.

As soon as news of the Taliban takeover circulated, residents fled their villages, some of them with cattle and all their belongings. The Taliban encouraged them to leave.

"We left the area to protect ourselves from the bombing and the risks of a military confrontation. There are many Taliban fighters - some told us they are more than 800," one resident said. Gholam Razeq, the district chief of Arghandab, said "the enemy wants to create insecurity in Arghandab which was the most secure area". Haji Ikramullah Khan, a tribal leader from the region, cautioned that the Taliban fighters could use the cover of the district's grape and pomegranate orchards to mount an attack on Kandahar itself. "All of Arghandab is made of orchards. The fighters can easily hide and easily fight," he said. "It is quite close to Kandahar. During the Russian war, the Russians didn't even occupy Arghandab, because when they fought here they suffered big casualties."

Via Al Jazeera.


Comment:

The location of the village mentioned, together with the mention of closing off "the main road leading to Arghandab", effectively confirm my suspicions that the Taliban struck from Khakrez district, which borders Arghandab to the northwest. The two districts are divided by a small mountainous region traversed by a single major road, the terminus of which is in the vicinity of Ta-Been. This indicates that Khakrez is held by the Taliban. I suspect Ghorak district is (or was) as well, as that would result in a continuous swath of Taliban or formerly Taliban territory stretching from Khakrez to Sangin and Musa Qala (which were retaken during Operation Achilles).

Joint assault on Taliban-held town

Afghan and Nato troops have launched a major offensive on a town in southern Afghanistan. Musa Qala in Helmand province has been under the Taliban's control for 10 months. The country's defence ministry said troops had surrounded the area and were using heavy fire and air strikes to regain control of the town.

A Nato soldier, two children and a dozen "terrorists" were killed in battles to reclaim the area from the Taliban, the defence ministry said. Ground troops were approaching Musa Qala, which is in the middle of the country's poppy-growing belt, from three directions, the ministry said.

Between 200 and 300 civilians had fled the fighting in the area, it said. The two children were killed when a vehicle they were travelling in was caught up in a gun battle, said General Mohammad Zahir Azimi, adding five civilians were also wounded in the incident. The Nao soldier was reportedly killed by a landmine. Musa Qala had become a base for "foreign terrorists," Azimi said. "Hundreds of terrorists had massed there." However, A Taliban spokesman downplayed its importance as a base. Qari Mohammad Yousef Ahmadi told Al Jazeera: "Musa Qala is not the only district for our Mujahideen to be there, we have bases in other districts that are still in our control".

Heavy fighting

The Taliban took control of Musa Qala in February and the town and the region around it have seen heavy fighting this year.

A deal which saw British troops hand control of the area back to tribal elders lasted only a few months before the Taliban returned. They briefly imprisoned the elders. Afghan and international troops have been keeping a watchful eye on Musa Qala ever since. Speaking to Al Jazeera on Saturday, Lutfullah Mashal of the Security Council of Afghanistan said: "The Afghan nation army is the lead element in this operation. "We are sure that with the co-operation of the local tribes, the Afghan national forces will be able to recover the area from the foreign terrorists who are holding the people of Musa Qala hostage."

[More]


Comment:

Musa Qala has been one of the few (indeed, nearly the only) districts in Afghanistan that the media has openly admitted are in Taliban hands. It is good to see that it is finally being retaken.

It is also interesting that the Taliban spokesman said, "Musa Qala is not the only district for our Mujahideen to be there, we have bases in other districts that are still in our control". This does not seem like the language the Taliban would use if they were in control of half the country, as SENLIS has claimed.

ISAF authorization extended another year

SECURITY COUNCIL EXTENDS AUTHORIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE FORCE IN AFGHANISTAN AS RUSSIAN FEDERATION ABSTAINS FROM VOTE

Strongly condemning the violence that continued to destabilize Afghanistan, the Security Council decided this afternoon to extend the authorization of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in that country for another year beyond 13 October 2007.

By resolution 1776 (2007), adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter by a recorded vote of 14 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (Russian Federation), the Council also called on Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and funding to strengthen the Force and make it more effective.

It stressed, in addition, the importance of improving Afghan security services in order to provide long-term solutions to the violence in the country, and encouraged ISAF and other partners to sustain their efforts to train and empower the National Police and other Afghan forces.

Speaking before the vote, the representative of the Russian Federation said his country had traditionally supported ISAF and the continuation of its mandate as the Force continued to be important in combating the terrorist threat posed by the Taliban and Al-Qaida. However, the Russian delegation had abstained in the vote because the new issue of maritime interception had yet to be clarified.

In statements after the vote, the representatives of Italy and China said they had voted in favour of the resolution because it gave the best support to Afghanistan’s stability. China’s representative, however, expressed the hope that future decisions on the issue would be made by consensus.

The meeting opened at 5:20 p.m. and closed at 5:30 p.m.

Via UNSC Department of Public Information.


Comment:

The source link includes the full text of the resolution.

While it is good to see that the Security Council is still backing us on this, some of our allies have been growing frustrated. In Canada, opposition to the war in Afghanistan has been growing. As one Canadian I know told me, "There has been little if no progress with the original mission due mostly to the shift in focus to Iraq by the U.S. administration. As a basically peace loving liberal population we have grown tired of this bullshit. This is a major issue with our country. We are no longer willing to support a 'War on Terror' when the main player has decided to move on for other reasons." Canada's contribution to the war has been immense, with the 2,500 or so Canadian troops responsible for securing volatile Qandahar. If they were to withdraw, we would face a serious problem. At the same time, though, my friend does have a point. Canada is under no obligation to continue helping us defend ourselves if we ourselves have stopped doing that.

Russia abstained because of the clause in which the UNSC states that it is "Expressing its appreciation for the leadership provided by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and for the contributions of many nations to ISAF and to the OEF coalition, including its maritime interdiction component" (boldface mine). What, you may ask, does a mission in a landlocked country have to do with naval activities? Well, according to Bloomberg.com, Japan currently has some naval forces in the Indian Ocean, which are refueling various US forces involved in Afghanistan. This is regarded with suspicion by Russia, which is evidently concerned that they might be used in a US attack on Iran, and is outright opposed by the Japanese opposition party. The inclusion of the phrase in question was apparently meant to bolster the majority party's efforts to extend the Imperial Navy's deployment.

'Supporting the troops' means withdrawing them

By General William E. Odom

Every step the Democrats in Congress have taken to force the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq has failed. Time and again, President Bush beats them into submission with charges of failing to "support the troops."

Why do the Democrats allow this to happen? Because they let the president define what "supporting the troops" means. His definition is brutally misleading. Consider what his policies are doing to the troops.

No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq. In World War II, soldiers were considered combat-exhausted after about 180 days in the line. They were withdrawn for rest periods. Moreover, for weeks at a time, large sectors of the front were quiet, giving them time for both physical and psychological rehabilitation. During some periods of the Korean War, units had to fight steadily for fairly long periods but not for a year at a time. In Vietnam, tours were one year in length, and combat was intermittent with significant break periods.

In Iraq, combat units take over an area of operations and patrol it daily, making soldiers face the prospect of death from an IED or small arms fire or mortar fire several hours each day. Day in and day out for a full year, with only a single two-week break, they confront the prospect of death, losing limbs or eyes, or suffering other serious wounds. Although total losses in Iraq have been relatively small compared to most previous conflicts, the individual soldier is risking death or serious injury day after day for a year. The impact on the psyche accumulates, eventually producing what is now called "post-traumatic stress disorders." In other words, they are combat-exhausted to the point of losing effectiveness. The occasional willful killing of civilians in a few cases is probably indicative of such loss of effectiveness. These incidents don't seem to occur during the first half of a unit's deployment in Iraq.

After the first year, following a few months back home, these same soldiers are sent back for a second year, then a third year, and now, many are facing a fourth deployment! Little wonder more and more soldiers and veterans are psychologically disabled.

And the damage is not just to enlisted soldiers. Many officers are suffering serious post-traumatic stress disorders but are hesitant to report it – with good reason. An officer who needs psychiatric care and lets it appear on his medical records has most probably ended his career. He will be considered not sufficiently stable to lead troops. Thus officers are strongly inclined to avoid treatment and to hide their problems.

There are only two ways to fix this problem, both of which the president stubbornly rejects. Instead, his recent "surge" tactic has compelled the secretary of defense to extend Army tours to 15 months! (The Marines have been allowed to retain their six-month deployment policy and, not surprisingly, have fewer cases of post-traumatic stress syndrome.)

The first solution would be to expand the size of the Army to two or three times its present level, allowing shorter combat tours and much longer breaks between deployments. That cannot be done rapidly enough today, even if military conscription were restored and new recruits made abundant. It would take more than a year to organize and train a dozen new brigade combat teams. The Clinton administration cut the Army end strength by about 40 percent – from about 770,000 to 470,000 during the 1990s. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld looked for ways to make the cuts even deeper. Thus this administration and its predecessor aggressively gave up ground forces and tactical air forces while maintaining large maritime forces that cannot be used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sadly, the lack of wisdom in that change in force structure is being paid for not by President Bush or President Clinton but by the ordinary soldier and his family. They have no lobby group to seek relief for them.

The second way to alleviate the problem is to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as possible and as securely as possible. The electorate understands this. That is why a majority of voters favor withdrawing from Iraq.

If the Democrats truly want to succeed in forcing President Bush to begin withdrawing from Iraq, the first step is to redefine "supporting the troops" as withdrawing them, citing the mass of accumulating evidence of the psychological as well as the physical damage that the president is forcing them to endure because he did not raise adequate forces. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could confirm this evidence and lay the blame for "not supporting the troops" where it really belongs – on the president. And they could rightly claim to the public that they are supporting the troops by cutting off the funds that he uses to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.

The public is ahead of the both branches of government in grasping this reality, but political leaders and opinion makers in the media must give them greater voice.

Congress clearly and indisputably has two powers over the executive: the power of the purse and the power to impeach. Instead of using either, members of congress are wasting their time discussing feckless measures like a bill that "de-authorizes the war in Iraq." That is toothless unless it is matched by a cut-off of funds.

The president is strongly motivated to string out the war until he leaves office, in order to avoid taking responsibility for the defeat he has caused and persisted in making greater each year for more than three years.

To force him to begin a withdrawal before then, the first step should be to rally the public by providing an honest and candid definition of what "supporting the troops" really means and pointing out who is and who is not supporting our troops at war. The next step should be a flat refusal to appropriate money for to be used in Iraq for anything but withdrawal operations with a clear deadline for completion.

The final step should be to put that president on notice that if ignores this legislative action and tries to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril, impeachment proceeding will proceed in the House of Representatives. Such presidential behavior surely would constitute the "high crime" of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest.

Via Nieman Watchdog.

Comment:

I realize that this is not the type of article I usually post. However, the issue it addresses—that of troop fatigue and resultant atrocities—is becoming ever more central to the conflict in Afghanistan. According to Wikipedia,¹ there are currently some 25,000 American troops deployed in Afghanistan. In order to function at peak psychological capacity, according to General Odom, that number would have to be increased by 25-50,000. The only place way we could get that many troops is by withdrawing from Iraq.

The Wiki reports that the United States has a quarter of a million troops in Iraq.² This number does not include those troops currently in between deployments (or preparing to deploy), but it is enough. With that many troops, you could assemble a force 83,000 to 125,000 strong, with adequate troop rotation. If transfered to NATO's command and sent to Afghanistan, this would at least triple, and possibly more than quadruple, the number of active duty soldiers at ISAF's disposal.³ I have long been in favor of quadrupling our forces in Afghanistan. It's high time this war once again became a one-sided exercise in American military might. It's been over a half a decade already, let's just get it over with so that we can all go home.

I understand that withdrawing from Iraq would have grave consequences, but short of mobilizing the country and instituting the draft (which is about as likely as Representative Ron Paul defecting to the Socialist Party) or a whole bunch of other nations suddenly offering us the use of their armed forces (which is about as likely as the Socialist Party endorsing Ron Paul), I don't see how we can succeed in Iraq. I had not thought it was possible for the United States of America to lose a war, but Rumsfeld and Bush have proven me wrong. Let's not lose Afghanistan, too.

Afghan air strike kills dozens

An air assault by Nato-led forces has killed at least 25 Afghan civilians, police officials said. Twelve members of one family were believed to have been killed in the joint Afghan-foreign forces strike in Helmand province on Thursday night. Up to 20 Taliban fighters were also among the dead.

Nato forces called in air strikes after being attacked by Taliban fighters based in a compound north of Lashkar Gah. Nato's International Security Assistance Force issued a statement saying it was "investigating reports that a small number of civilians may also have been in the compound".

Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Smith, a Nato spokesman, said he was concerned about reports of civilian loss of life. "However, it must be noted that it was insurgents who initiated this attack, and in choosing to conduct such attacks in this location and at the time, the risk to civilians was probably deliberate." The Taliban confirmed its fighters from the group had ambushed troops in the area but said its fighters "left the area before the air strike", Yousuf Ahmadi, a spokesman, said.

[More]

Comment:

I actually believe the Taliban this time, though not exactly in the way that they would hope. I suspect that what they have done is select a nice, densely populated area, launch an attack from it, and skedaddle as fast as their legs can carry them. If the Coalition strikes back, it will kill plenty of innocent civilians, thus further upsetting the general populace; if it doesn't strike back, the Taliban will have carried out a raid without suffering a single casualty. Either way, they win, except for the part where their souls burn for all eternity. The teachings of Islam, however, have never played all that important a part in the Taliban's strategy.

This seems like as good a time as any to introduce my idea for a non-lethal chemical weapon, which might be used in situations like this. The active ingredient would be ethanethiol (C₂H₅SH). Ethanethiol is a readily available substance that is tied with butyl seleno-mercaptan (skunk spray) as most foul smelling molecule known to man. Anyone whose pet has ever been sprayed — or, God forbid, has been sprayed themselves — will understand how useful this could be. My principle concern is that ethanethiol is known to be flammable at sufficient concentrations, so a certain amount of fine tuning would be in order.

Taliban military commander killed

Mullah Dadullah, the Taliban's chief military commander, has been killed in southern Afghanistan according to government officials. James Bays, Al Jazeera's correspondent, was shown a body the authorities said was Dadullah's on Sunday morning.

The body was shown to media in the governor's compound in Kandahar.

A sheet was removed from the body up to the knee to show that part of one of the legs was missing. Dadullah lost a leg fighting Soviet forces in the 1980s.

An Interior Ministry statement said Dadullah was killed in fighting with security forces in Helmand's Girishk district on Saturday night.

Officials from Nato and the US-led coalition could not confirm it and Bays says a Nato source had told him privately that there was still some confusion over the reports but that they did believe the body was Dadullah.

Bays said the Taliban was still confused over whether Dadullah had been killed. Some sources had confirmed the body was his while some others said it was another military commander who also happened to only have one leg. A Taliban spokesman had earlier rejected the government's claim labelling it "propaganda".
Standing next to the body Bays said that although he had never met Dadullah face to face, the corpse was either him or someone bearing a striking resemblance to him.
Television stations interrupted routine broadcasting to give breaking news of the killing.

'Commander of commanders'

Dadullah is the most important rebel commander to be killed since the Taliban was driven from government by a US-led coalition in late 2001, the Afghan intelligence department said. Asadullah Khalid, the Kandahar provincial governor, said Dadullah was killed "in an operation carried out based on very accurate information." Sayed Ansari, the Intelligence agency spokesman, described him as the "biggest Taliban commander ever killed." "He was the commander of commanders," he said. Dadullah was known as the key military strategist in Taliban and was said to be close to Mullah Mohammad Omar, the fugitive Taliban supreme commander. He has bragged to the media about having thousands of men at his command, including hundreds of suicide bombers.

Comment:

Gotcha.

While it's a pity that he wasn't captured alive (see a previous post in the Dungeon), this is an immeasurably great victory for the Coalition. Moreover, it looks as if he was killed by the Afghan military, which speaks well of their growing competency. Hopefully this victory will persuade the Afghan parliament to let us continue on our mission, and hopefully it means we deserve to.

Via Al Jazeera.

U.S. Official: Libyan Behind Afghan Attack During Cheney Visit

KABUL, Afghanistan — A Libyan Al Qaeda commander was likely behind the suicide bombing that killed 23 people outside the main U.S. base in Afghanistan during a February visit by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, a U.S. military official told The Associated Press.

Abu Laith al-Libi, who was featured in an Al Qaeda video last week, is believed to have trained bombers at terror camps, including one busted by U.S. forces in the eastern province of Khost in 2005, said Maj. Chris Belcher, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan.

Cheney was deep inside the sprawling Bagram base at the time of the attack and was not hurt, but the bombing added to the impression that Western forces and the shaky government of President Hamid Karzai are vulnerable to assault by Taliban and Al Qaeda militants.

"Our information suggests that Abu Laith al-Libi was the terrorist who planned the Feb. 27 suicide bomb attack at Bagram Airfield," Belcher said.

"We have information that the planning of this attack was falsely attributed to Usama bin Laden by (Taliban commander) Mullah Dadullah, in order to boost the morale of bin Laden's followers worldwide, in an attempt to reassure those followers that bin Laden is not ill or dead," he said. [More]

Comment:

I thought that seemed a little suspicious. I am slightly skeptical of Maj. Belcher's explanation, though. How is a lie so transparent that even most invertebrates aren't fooled supposed to boost morale? Is Dadullah's opinion of his followers' intelligence really that low? And who in their right mind would hire someone named "Belcher" to be their spokesman?

Nato retake Taliban-held town

Nato-led forces have retaken the town of Sangin in southern Afghanistan from the Taliban after two days of fighting.

More than 1,000 troops took part in the operation, supported by air strikes on suspected Taliban positions in the town in Helmand province.

"Military troops have successfully engaged several Taliban extremist strongholds and discovered a number of large weapon caches," Nato's International Security Assistance Force said in a statement late on Friday.

The operation to retake Sangin started late on Wednesday and was part of Nato's largest ever offensive in Afghanistan, Operation Achilles.

Nato commanders are trying to push the Taliban out of the northern tip of Helmand to allow multimillion-dollar repair work to go ahead on a dam in the Kajaki district which would supply the country's south with electricity.

'Information war'

"Six weeks ago Al Jazeera filmed in this same area. It was clear then it was entirely under Taliban control," James Bays, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Afghanistan, said.

"There is an information war as well as a military battle going on. Nato now say they have retaken Sangin but before they never admitted it had been held by the Taliban."

A local Taliban commander has told Al Jazeera that the group plans to recapture the town from Nato and Afghan forces within days.

Haji Akhtar Mohammad, a Sangin resident, told The Associated Press news agency that Nato and Afghan troops were in control of the centre of Sangin on Saturday and the Taliban appeared to be moving towards the neighbouring district of Musa Qala.

About 4,500 Nato and 1,000 Afghan troops are in and around Helmand province as part of Operation Achilles.

There have been over 220 "tactical engagements" since the start of the operation and dozens of fighters have been killed or captured, according to Nato officials in Kabul.

Taliban meetings

On Friday, Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, admitted meeting members of the Taliban movement in an attempt to to bring reconciliation to the country.

Speaking in Kabul, he said Taliban representatives had been regularly meeting government bodies, adding: "I've had some Taliban coming to speak to me as well, so this process has been there for a long time."

On the same day, elsewhere in the Afghan capital, a suicide bomber struck a few hundred metres from the parliament building, killing at least five people including a policeman.

"It was a suicide bombing ... The bomber was driving a yellow and white taxi," General Alishah Paktiawal, the city's criminal investigation police chief, said.

He said it was unclear if the attacker was targeting parliament but added that the device may have exploded prematurely.

Via Al Jazeera.