Why not let the Afghans decide what is best for Afghanistan?

If I understand Roger Cohen correctly, we must send additional forces to Afghanistan in order to counter the Taliban effectively.
Were we to cede any additional ground to the latter, Al-Qaeda would swiftly occupy that space to plot against the West.
This assessment prompts a number of questions:
*when Mr. Cohen and his interlocutor British foreign secretary David Milbank speak of the Taliban, what do they mean and who are they referring to?
The Taliban do not constitute a homogenetic movement, ninety percent is a tribal, localized insurgency. Ten percent are hardcore ideologues fighting for the Taliban, according to a US intelligence official quoted in The Boston Globe.
If, therefore, they are not all pro-Al-Qaeda Islamic fanatics, would a standard counterinsurgency campaign, even if wisely and effectively conducted, be sufficient, and likely, to neutralize all of our enemies?
*The defense of the West begins in the Hindu Kush and Helmand. Would-be bombers must be kept off-balance. To believe otherwise is wishful thinking, writes Mr. Cohen.
Perhaps, but it surely does not end there.
Is Mr. Cohen advocating that we launch a global counterinsurgency to defeat Al-Qaeda where it is also present, and in more significant numbers than in Afghanistan, in Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen, not to mention Pakistan, for instance?
If this counterinsurgency is a counterterrorist strategy is vital in Afghanistan, how can it possibly be less so in the countries previously mentioned?
*a successful counterinsurgency is predicated on the emergence of a credible government able to provide security and economic development to the Afghans.
These last eight years, the presence, ever larger, of foreign troops, and billions in foreign aid have failed to foster such a government.
Why would the arrival of an extra 40,000 troops suddenly transform Mr. Karzai (the likely winner of a fraudulent election) into an effective president, and the Afghan government into an assembly of upright and efficient servants of the people?
*we shall pursue a policy of outreach to the insurgency to divide it, and pursue a political settlement that includes the disaffected Pashtuns, backbone of the insurgency.
Are both of these developments likely to occur if the number of foreign troops occupying Afghanistan (for they are increasingly being perceived as forces of occupation) actually increases?
Could it be, in fact, that it is our very presence that is fueling the insurgency, or all the localized insurgencies, and thus actually furthering the interests of the hardcore Taliban?
Is a political settlement with the Pashtuns even possible, let alone likely, as long as foreign forces occupy Afghanistan?
In essence, is our departure not a prerequisite for the emergence of such a settlement?
*what makes Mr. Cohen so sure we are even qualified to undertake an effective counterinsurgency strategy, and nation-building effort?
Judging by our performance of the last eight years, what leads him to conclude that we can succeed in both these areas now after having failed for so long?
*how would Mr. Cohen describe the notion that we can defeat the Taliban, destroy Al-Qaeda and build an effective, modern and benign Afghan state without injecting massive financial and human resources, and staying committed for at least one, if not two, generations, wishful thinking?
The Afghan project propounded by the counterinsurgency school is simply unrealistic and thus dangerous.
In all likelihood, it will end in failure because vastly over ambitious if not overweening.
Obama’s meticulous approach to the issue is long overdue: the Iraq disaster has aptly demonstrated where haste, hubris and ignorance will lead you.
Let us be humble and rely on those who know Afghanistan and intend to stay there.
Why not let the Afghans decide what is best for Afghanistan?
(the photographs of the war in Afghanistan can be found here)
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

It hasn't ended, and it won't end

In the village of Surkhakhi, some ten kilometers from Nazran, Ingushetia’s largest city, three thousand mourners gathered in the small cemetery to bid farewell to Maksharip Aushev.
The human rights activist was assassinated about 9:30 am on Sunday as he was driving his Lada on the Kavkaz highway, near the village of Nartan, in western Kabardino-Balkaria.
Gunmen using automatic weapons fired some sixty shots at the vehicle, killing him instantly and severely wounding the woman seated next to him, his cousin.
The assassins quickly fled the scene in a silver Vaz.
Mr. Aushev, a businessman who came from a prominent family, had become a human rights activist only recently, after the kidnapping of his son and nephew in 2007.
Suspecting that the state’s security services were the instigators of the crime, he organized a series of protests against the Ingush authorities, and the republic’s President, Murat Zyazikov, a former KGB general.
His campaign succeeded in obtaining their release. He started working in human rights in Ingushetia and tried to combat abductions. He was a very brave man, said Tatyana Lokshina, deputy director of the Moscow branch of Human Rights Watch.
He then pursued his campaign and worked with Magomed Yevloyev, a lawyer and opposition activist as well as a journalist who ran an independent news agency, ingushetia.org.
The agency widely reported on human rights abuses and corruption in the republic.
This may be the reason why Mr. Yevloyev, who was 37, was shot dead while in police custody, August 31, 2008.
Arriving on a commercial flight from Moscow, which he happened to share with the republic’s President, Mr. Zyazikov, he was arrested at the Magas Airport, ostensibly because his testimony was required in a criminal investigation involving the bombing of a local official’s house.
According to the police, Mr. Yevloyev was accidentally shot as he tried to seize the gun of one of the police officers accompanying him in the van driving them to Nazran.
He died at the Nazran hospital.
The authorities had tried, on a number of occasions to shut down his website because of its highly critical content, but were unable to do so, the server being located in the United States.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) made light of the official version of his death, calling it instead an assassination, the aim of which was to undermine the political opposition in Ingushetia.
Mr. Aushev took over ingushetia.org after its founder’s death and pursued its mission, all the more vital as human rights abuses of all kinds were rampant in the republic.
The crimes in Ingushetia, although on a far smaller scale, evoke the thousands of enforced disappearances, killings, and torture cases that plagued Chechnya for more than a decade. Russia’s brutal counterinsurgency policies are antagonizing local residents. Far from ending the insurgency, ‘dirty war’ tactics are likely to further destabilize the situation in Ingushetia and beyond in the North Caucasus, said Tanya Lokshina, as she presented a HRW report on Ingushetia in June 2008.
Against this background of increasing insurgent activity, law enforcement and security forces are carrying out abduction-style detentions of those suspected of insurgency; those abducted are regularly tortured, and sometimes “disappear.” Abduction-style detentions and killings in Ingushetia often happen during “special operations,” which resemble the pattern of abusive sweep operations and targeted raids seen in earlier years in Chechnya. Groups of armed personnel arrive in a given area, often wearing masks. They do not provide the residents with any explanation for the operation, force entry into homes, beat some of the residents, and damage their property, she added.
Last fall, in a renewed effort to bring peace to the republic, Moscow repudiated Murat Zyazikov and replaced him with Yunus-Bek Yevkurov, a former intelligence official.
The new president promised to put an end to human rights abuses in Ingushetia, and earned the trust and support of Mr. Aushev. He accepted the President’s proposal to become a member of his new Council for Human Rights, abandoned politics, and resumed his business career.
Yet, Mr. Yevkurov was not able to halt the violence. Last June, he was grievously wounded when a suicide bomber attacked his motorcade.
The situation began to significantly deteriorate in 2004, due to the violence wracking neighboring Chechnya, and spreading throughout the North Caucasus.
On June 22 of that year, a band of insurgents led by the radical rebel leader Shamil Basayev stormed into Nazran and killed over 100 officers of the security forces.
The counterinsurgency measures adopted by the authorities only fueled the crisis. In fact, the insurgency was becoming more and more active, reaching unprecedented levels by mid-summer 2007. Insurgents regularly attacked police officers, military personnel and officials-all the way up to the highest levels. In response, law enforcement staff conducted aggressive special operations. They killed young men suspected of insurgent activity in the middle of public streets, in broad daylight, and in some cases in front of their relatives in their own houses, wrote Tanya Lokshina.
It was in this context that Mr. Yevkurov was selected to crush the insurgency. He sought however, to adopt a novel strategy: resolve the crisis by respecting the law.
Unfortunately, his efforts have failed and he almost lost his life in the process.
Those intent on promoting human and civil rights through legal means are clearly at risk in Medvedev and Putin’s Russia.
When they are not gunned down, they are simply ignored.
Russia does not even pretend to be a democracy anymore, as the recent local elections evince.
Sadly, the Russian people do not seem to care.
The party of MM. Medvedev and Putin, United Russia, won an overwhelming victory in local elections held nationwide, earlier this month.
In Moscow alone, United Russia won over 90% of the vote, thus 32 out of 35 seats. The Communists won the other three.
The leader of Yabloko, a small pro-Western party, Sergei Mitrokhin, said he would lodge a formal complaint in order to obtain the cancellation of the elections.
In his polling station, Yabloko officially received zero votes, even though both he and his wife voted for the party. Independent electoral observers Golos claimed there was ballot stuffing, impersonation and biased campaigns in many parts of Russia and warned the country could soon revert to a Soviet-style society, wrote Reuters.
Though the election was obviously rigged, there was no reaction of any kind, apart from a few feeble complaints on the part of some opposition parties.
People are passive because they feel that there is absolutely no opportunity to change the system, Andrei Gerasimov, a Russian blogger told The New York Times.
As such, very few bother to actually vote.
In Moscow, 36% of voters officially participated, though the actual figure is most likely closer to 22%. The invisible 14%, needless to say, all voted for United Russia.
Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, for his part, was appalled, this is a complete failure of political strategists, who were guided by the utterly worthless principle that 'it doesn't matter how the people vote; what matters is how we count.' In everyone's eyes, the elections turned into a mockery of the people and showed a deep disrespect for their voices. The party of power gained the result it needed by discrediting political institutions and the very party itself, he declared after the election
The Putin strategy, since 2000, of concentrating power in the Kremlin, and marginalizing and demoralizing the opposition has clearly succeeded.
However, it has also led to the complete demobilization of the Russian people. They no longer participate, because the system does not need them. One recent poll indicated that 94 percent of respondents believed that they could not influence events in Russia. According to another, 62 percent did not think that elections reflect the people’s will, wrote the NYT.
One can safely say that the word democracy has ceased to have any meaning at all in Russia today.
Yet, what is even more worrisome is that those who believe in the rule of law, in justice and democracy and actively and publicly promote these values are in danger, and sooner or later will be killed.
That is the kind of country Russia has become, one where thugs rule, and intimidation and violence are the most potent and effective forms of expression.
Those who refuse to resort to such vile means are ignored and gunned down if they become too officious.
Maksharip Aushev, who died at the age of 43, knew that his life was in danger. All activists in Russia know that, and that is why all those who refuse to be cowed into submission, and continue to fight for justice and democracy deserve not only our respect and admiration, but the vigorous support of Europe and the US as well.
Last September, he was nearly kidnapped.
In a recent interview, he claimed he had received very strong information that I was going to be killed. Yet, he refused to flee…
So, who killed him, and why did they do it?
Aushev had many enemies, particularly in former President Zyazikov’s entourage.
For Magomed Khazbiyev, an Ingush opposition leader, the answer is obvious, the blame lies with the government and Yevkurov -- first of all with President Yevkurov, and then former [Ingush] leaders, and other officials, right up to the Kremlin. It is the bandit government of this country and its bandit methods that are to blame for [Aushev's] murder, he declared.
Maksharip was a famous and well-respected person in the republic, President Yevkurov said on Sunday. He suspects that elements within the security apparatus may have committed the deed
Yesterday, in a significant gesture of respect, he went to the Aushev house to pay his condolences, and said he would lead the murder investigation himself…
In Medvedev and Putin’s Russia however, the assassins are never arrested, let alone tried.
No one is ever held accountable. The authorities have no use for human rights activists, independent journalists, those interested in truth and justice.
Only the laws that suit them are enforced, visibly.
You see how they kill journalists and human rights workers, it continues, and there is no real investigation into any of them. It hasn’t ended, and it won’t end, Magomed Mutsolgov, of the human rights organization Mashr, told the NYT.
Anna Politkovskaya, Magomed Yevloyev, Stanislas Markelov, Natalia Estemirova,
Zarema Sadulayeva and now Maksharip Aushev…
Who shall be next, Magomed Khazbiyev, for there will be another victim and another and another as long as the likes of MM Medvedev and Putin rule Russia.
Sadly, the new killing ... clearly shows an atmosphere of impunity in the North Caucasus. Civil activities, human rights and opposition activities have virtually become a form of suicide, Tatyana Lokshina told the Interfax news agency.
The Russians and their henchmen are meticulously eliminating the political opposition in the North Caucasus, those seeking justice and respect for human rights through legal channels, and civilized means.
The tragedy is that those demanding justice are now likely to resort to violence to achieve their goals.
Aushev’s death is a big loss because this man has shown that there can be another way besides violence, besides armed resistance, said Aleksandr Cherkasov, of the Russian human rights organization Memorial, which was recently awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought by the European Parliament. There is a nonviolent way toward justice. He was a remarkable person, and it is a big loss for Ingushetia and the whole of Russia. Memorial mourns him.
That non-violent path is losing credibility, however.
Soon, the only opponents remaining will be the ones bearing guns and planting bombs.
That, obviously, is Russia’s strategy.
Insurgent violence will then justify and legitimize its own brutal counterinsurgency campaign.
Violence may then subside, but at what cost?
A semblance of peace may be restored, as in Kadyrov’s Chechnya, but justice, the rule of law, civil and human rights, democracy, all the trappings of a civilized society will have been destroyed in the process.
For that signal achievment we can thank Mr. Putin…

(the photograph of Maksharip Aushev's funeral is by Kazbek Bassayev/Reuters)
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

Is that how a democracy should handle the matter?

This was not the response many were expecting.
Instead of launching an impartial investigation into the conduct of the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) during Operation Cast Lead, last winter’s onslaught on Gaza, as required by the Goldstone report, adopted by the UN Human Rights Council last week, the Israeli government decided to establish a special lobby.
Composed of seven cabinet ministers, its mission will be to urge the US to use its veto should the report’s recommendation that Israeli officials be prosecuted for war crimes following their refusal to launch their own inquiry within six months, be examined by the Security Council.
The lobby will also do its utmost to convince other countries of the legitimacy of Israel’s case, particularly democratic nations.
Israel claims that the report undermines its right to defend its people. Our struggle is to delegitimize the continuing attempt to delegitimize the state of Israel. The most important sphere we need to work in is the sphere of public opinion in the democratic world, Prime Minister Netanyahu said. We must continue to put holes in this lie (that Israel committed war crimes in its December-January war with Hamas), which is being spread with the help of the Goldstone Report. Weapons are being stockpiled all around us with the aim of targeting Israeli civilians. I want to make it clear that no one will damage our ability and right to protect our children, civilians and communities, he added.
In fact, no serious observer either seeks to delegitimize the state of Israel, or prevent it from protecting its citizens.
Every nation has the right and, indeed, the obligation to shield its people from harm.
The questions posed by Israel’s conduct during the war on Gaza are the following: in ethical terms, how far should one go to fulfill that obligation?
When fighting against a terrorist organization, and, in the case of Hamas, one that is also a resistance movement democratically elected by the people to administer its territory, what constitutes a legitimate target?
What means can be used against an enemy that has no qualms about firing crude rockets on Israeli neighborhoods, but that has no army, no air force, no weapons to speak of?
The UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict came to a number of disturbing conclusions. In Gaza, I was surprised and shocked by the destruction and misery there. I had not expected it. I did not anticipate that the IDF would have targeted civilians and civilian objects. I did not anticipate seeing the vast destruction of the economic infrastructure of Gaza including its agricultural lands, industrial factories, water supply and sanitation works. These are not military targets. I have not heard or read any government justification for this destruction, wrote the head of the mission, Richard Goldstone, in the Jerusalem Post.
The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics estimates that $2 billion will be necessary to repair infrastructure damage.
In addition, PCHR ( the Palestinian Center for Human Rights) also reports that 215 factories and 700 private businesses, 17 universities or colleges, 15 hospitals and 43 health care centers, and 58 mosques were destroyed or damaged during the attacks. The United Nations says that 298 schools were destroyed or damaged, wrote Electronic Intifada.
6,400 homes were obliterated, 52,000 others damaged, according to the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
The crux of the matter resides in one’s definition of the word civilian.
In Gaza, it seems that the Israelis did not consider that there were very many civilians to be found, and thus spared.
Those individuals belonging to the Hamas government, movement or militia were obviously legitimate targets, as far as the IDF were concerned.
Yet, what about police officers and other civil servants who were paid by the government but did not necessarily belong to the movement itself?
On the very first day of the onslaught, several hundred police officers were killed and wounded during a graduation ceremony by Israeli fire.
Should these be considered militants, therefore terrorists?
According to international law, the answer is no.
Furthermore, Israel’s policy concerning the whole of Gaza since Hamas was elected by the people to rule the strip following free and fair elections conducted in January 2006 is revealing. Hamas had soundly defeated the incumbent Fatah, winning 74 seats to 45.
Israel imposed economic sanctions after the Islamic movement stipulated that it would not be bound by previous agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority.
A total blockade was imposed following the Battle of Gaza (in June 2007), when, after five days of armed conflict, Hamas routed Fatah (which, according to some reports, had organized a putsch against the Islamic movement, supported by Israel and the Bush administration), wresting military control of the territory away from Fatah and the Palestinian Authority.
Hamas was then expelled from the national government and outlawed by President Abbas.
What does a total blockade entail?
According to the UN, 3,900 truckloads had been allowed to enter Gaza from January to May 2007. From January to May 2009, only six were authorized….
Since 2007, only humanitarian aid, food and medicine has been allowed in, no construction material, no agricultural or manufacturing equipment, nothing that Hamas could possibly make use of.
Many essential items, such as fuel, are smuggled in through underground tunnels linking Gaza and Egypt, but not in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of the population.
Israel obviously considers all Gazans to be responsible for Hamas’ election victory.
Everyone in the strip, including women and children, is being punished for having made what Israel considers an unacceptable, unconscionable error, supporting Hamas, instead of Palestinian Authority President Abbas’ Fatah, the corrupt and feckless party that now presides only over the West Bank.
It is probable that the Israelis were hoping to pressure the Gazans into repudiating Hamas so that the siege would be lifted.
Israel clearly intended to punish the entire population, and not solely the Hamas administration.
Needles to say, collective punishment is a violation of international law.
Clearly, if Israel makes no distinctions between Hamas and civilians in time of peace, why should there be any in time of war?
Hamas was not ousted (could one seriously hope to threaten a people into doing one’s bidding?), but is firmly in control, fundamentally unscathed by the Israeli winter onslaught on Gaza.
Gazans appears to be holding Israel responsible for their plight, and not Hamas.
The bombs and guns that killed so many, after all, were Israeli…
Yet, why were there so many young victims during the conflict?
If approximately 1,340 Palestinians were killed, and over half of them civilians,
315 were minors, and 235 under the age of 16. 115 were women, according to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem (thirteen Israelis were killed, including ten soldiers).
Surely Israelis did not consider them to be terrorists.
The safety of children is first and foremost the responsibility of their parents.
The latter should do everything in their power to shield them from harm.
If they do not, then they are to blame. The responsibility is entirely theirs.
If Gaza children died during the war, it is because their parents were reckless.
Had they, their neighbors and the rest of the Gaza population risen up against the Hamas terrorists that govern the strip, Israel would never have had cause to attack in response to rocket fire on its territory.
Their children would still be alive, and they would be able to feed, house and educate them properly, for there would be no blockade.
Consequently, the Gazans, all the Gazans are guilty of being the accomplices of Hamas, either directly by participating in the Hamas movement or administration, or indirectly, by tolerating them.
Israel's only recourse, after it violates the rights of Palestinians, is to deny that such rights exist, wrote the progressive, Jewish blogger Jerry Haber.
In essence, there is no such thing as an innocent Gazan.
They are all terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers.
As a result, the IDF spared no one and made sure that everyone suffered.
Here is our idea of the "laws of war", concluded Larry Derfner, the Jerusalem Post columnist. When Israeli bulldozers rolled across the border into Gazan villages and flattened house after house so Hamas wouldn't have them for cover after the IDF pulled out, that was self-defense. But if a Palestinian boy who'd lived in one of those houses threw a stone at one of the bulldozers, that was terrorism.
The goal was to teach the Gazans a lesson they would never forget, and remind them that they were at the mercy of the IDF.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Israeli government believed it acted appropriately during the 23-day onslaught, and that those who accuse them of war crimes are Israel haters or anti-Semites.
Interestingly however, last Tuesday, Israel implicitly admitted that it had violated international law, it is in the interest of everyone fighting terrorism to change the laws of war. We must back up the IDF and grant it freedom to act, said Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
Current international law, based on the Geneva Conventions, is no longer suited to the conflicts of our age, often pitting modern armies against terrorist movements that have no regard for civilians and innocent life, apologists of Israel explain.
In such conflicts, it is difficult to determine who the enemy actually is, as the terrorists wear no uniforms. They do not fight openly, and fairly but surreptitiously.
As such, yesterday’s norms, restraint, proportionality are obsolete, and are exploited by the terrorists.
Hence, it is international law that must change, and not IDF tactics, the Israeli government contends.
It seems highly unlikely that the Israelis will launch an independent inquiry.
That is unfortunate, for such a development would render the Goldstone report irrelevant, if the Israeli government set up an appropriate, open investigation, it will really be the end of the matter. That's where the report would end as far as Israel is concerned, Mr. Goldstone told the BBC.
Such a reversal however, would create its own set of problems.
A number of inquiries into the war has already been conducted by the IDF.
The armed forces were cleared of wrongdoing in all of them…
There is no need for a committee of inquiry, Barak said Tuesday. The Israeli military knows (how) to examine itself better than anyone else.
The deeply held notion that the IDF is the most moral army in the world could be severely undermined by a thorough investigation.
A report published last July by an organization of Israeli soldiers, Breaking the Silence, has already begun that process.
The testimony of 26 soldiers describes an army far different from the one Mr. Barak so staunchly defends.
According to this testimony, the IDF used human shields, deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure and fired phosphorous shells indiscriminately.
Excessive fire power was also often the rule, if you’re not sure, kill. Fire power was insane, one soldier wrote.
You felt like a child playing around with a magnifying glass, burning up ants. A 20-year-old kid should not be doing such things to people, another added.
The IDF dismissed the report and accused the organization of defaming and slandering the IDF and its commanders…
Hence, the genuine risks exists that an impartial investigation would reach conclusions similar to those of the Goldstone report.
That would be deeply embarrassing for Mr. Netanyahu, and humiliating for the IDF.
Its senior leaders could also face prosecution…in Israel…
As a result, it is ethically and politically more palatable to excoriate the UN report, ignore its conclusions, strive to discredit the UN Human Rights Council and Mr. Goldstone, and hope Obama‘s America will utilize that veto if need be…
Is that how a democracy should handle the matter?
It is true that Hamas is under less pressure to follow the report’s recommendations and investigate its own behavior.
Who can reasonably doubt that the firing of rockets on Israeli civilians is indeed a war crime, and should be prosecuted as such?
We held those attacks to constitute serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity, wrote Mr. Goldstone in the Jerusalem Post.
No one seriously expects Hamas to abide by international law in Palestine, and prosecute those responsible for launching rockets on Israel.
Hamas is not a democratic organization committed to the rule of law. It considers itself a resistance movement fighting foreign occupation.
We expect much more from Israel, and, in particular, a legitimate impartial inquiry, because it shares the same vision for the future and the same values as we do (to quote former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni), or purports to do so.
Now is the time to prove it anew.
There are precedents.
The Kahan Commission was created after the Sabra and Shatila massacre in September 1982.
In 2006, the Winograd Commission investigated the failings of the Second Lebanon War.
Israel has an internationally renowned and respected judiciary that should be the envy of many other countries in the region. It has the means and ability to investigate itself. Has it the will, asks Mr. Goldstone?
Judging by Tuesday’s decision, the answer, alas, is no…

(the photograph above can be found here)
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

Let's focus on what we can do

The Afghan issue currently being debated in Washington and European capitals should focus not so much on General McChrystal’s troop increase request, or the merits of the Biden option, that is to say, counterterrorism instead of counterinsurgency, the policy in place since 2001, and that has failed to provide any tangible results, argues Roger Cohen, the astute New York Times columnist.
Instead, it is our capacity and willingness to stay committed to the Afghan people that is at stake. Numbers matter less than endurance, details less than overall design, wrote Mr. Cohen.
But, what should that overall design be?
Rebuilding Afghanistan, economically and politically; preventing the Taliban from regaining power; dismantling the Al-Qaeda network, thereby inhibiting it from sponsoring, organizing or launching terrorist attacks against the West?
Which is it?
All three, or option number three only?
If the overriding mission, the one that led us to invade Afghanistan in the first place, is to destroy Al-Qaeda, does that really entail building a modern, efficient state, and defeating the Taliban?
Mr. Cohen suggests that we be firm with the Afghan leader, President Karzai, assuming he remains in office — must be presented with certain non-negotiable demands: better governors; officials not beholden to Narcoshire; a transparent outreach program to “small T” Taliban; strong cooperation in fast-forwarding the Afghan Army and police.
Mr. Karzai has been in power for years, and unwilling, unable or both, to deliver any progress in the critically important areas mentioned by Mr. Cohen.
Should we reasonably expect him to govern effectively and responsibly now, if he is reelected?
Debilitating the Al-Qaeda network is a mission that will be long and arduous, demand resolve, several thousand troops (mainly Special Forces) on the ground, but that, most likely, can be successfully accomplished.
Do we really have the means and the will, financial and political, to accomplish the other two requirements demanded by the proponents of the counterinsurgency option, that is to say, creating a modern and benign state, and defeating the Taliban?
This will require massive human and financial resources, and lead to substantial casualties, not only US and NATO, but also civilian Afghan casualties.
And, suppose that we had both the determination and stamina to undertake such an ambitious mission, are we even qualified to make the attempt?
McChrystal himself has emphasized the fact that US and NATO troops knew next to nothing of the culture, politics and language of the Afghans…
In light of this crass ignorance should it not be the responsibility of the Afghans to decide what Afghanistan should look like, how it should be ruled, and by whom?
The Taliban (and they are not a homogeneous group) are Afghans too, and cannot be simply dismissed as medieval fanatics and terrorists. They will not go away tomorrow, (we will), and the grievances they voice must somehow be dealt with. Needless to say, this does not mean that we should simply hand over the levers of power to Mullah Omar.
It does mean however, that some sort of accommodation must be found with this current of Afghan politics
In addition, would so many of them have taken up arms, if 100,000 mostly Christian soldiers not invaded their land?
Furthermore, what do we have to show for our eight-year presence on the ground?
If last August’s failed and fraudulent presidential election is any indication, not much…
Our military presence, incompetence, and inability to significantly improve the lives of most Afghans has alienated legions of them. Many experts in and from Afghanistan warn that our presence over the past eight years has already hardened a meaningful percentage of the population into viewing the United States as an army of occupation which should be opposed and resisted, wrote Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis, in a report on the Afghan situation.
All those who respect the Afghan people and admire their fortitude (the country has been devastated by thirty years of war) sincerely hope that one day, Afghanistan will be a prosperous, democratic country, respectful of its people and able to protect them.
But, we shall never be able to impose a western, democratic model on the Afghans.
A punitive expedition against Al-Qaeda is one thing; but to seek, against the grain of history, to rebuild Afghanistan from the ground up, in the name of a western concept of democracy and human rights, is futile.
If this madcap venture is to take 40 years, as General Sir David Richards, chief of the general staff, averred this year, no conceivable national interest can be served by such an eccentric concentration of resources on a country of marginal importance, wrote Christopher Meyer, Britain’s former ambassador in Washington.
What we can do is concentrate on eradicating the Al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
We should also do our utmost to train, and equip an effective Afghan army and police able to defend and protect the Afghan people, and that the nation will be able to afford and sustain when we are gone. It is remarkable how little we have accomplished in this area these last eight years.
Let us heed the advice of Rory Stewart, an expert on Afghanistan and a professor and director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, focus on what we can do. We don't have a moral obligation to do what we can't, he told Lynn Sherr of PBS.
As for the rest, it is the Afghans’ responsibility, not ours…

(the photograph of the Taliban can be found here)

Time is on Morgan Tsvangirai's side

Should he stay, or resign in protest?
What, ultimately, would be in the best interest of the beleaguered people of Zimbabwe?
Roy Bennett, a white senator whom Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai had nominated to become deputy agriculture minister was sent back to jail Wednesday by a Mutare high court magistrate. He is to be tried on terrorism charges.
As a result, Mr. Tsvangirai postponed all his official duties, and cancelled Thursday’s weekly cabinet meeting.
President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF (Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front) party retains control of the judicial system, as well as the military and the media, in the coalition government now led by his arch rival Morgan Tsvangirai, the former trade union leader and head of the MDC (Movement for Democratic Change). They are alleging that he was the financier in the purchase of firearms. They are also alleging that he kept arms of war to topple the government, but he denies all the charges, Bennett’s lawyer, Trust Manda, said after the hearing.
Mr. Bennet, who owned a coffee farm that was seized in 2003, following the implementation of Mugabe’s controversial land reform policy, the aim of which was to redistribute Zimbabwe’s rich farm land then still largely owned by the white minority, was initially arrested in February, accused of having participated in a plot to assassinate the president in 2006.
Several MDC members were also detained, but eventually released. The evidence against Mr. Bennett is based on a confession by Peter Michael Hitschmann, a former constable, obtained under torture.
Hitschmann, the only party convicted in the case, has refused to testify against M. Bennett, considering the latter to have played no part whatsoever in the alleged plot.
The trial is to open next week.
The rule of law is an alien concept in Mr. Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.
Like all dictators, he uses the law to brutalize and crush all those brazen enough to question the legitimacy of his rule.
Mr. Tsvangirai is well versed in the old despot’s ways.
On March 11, 2007, he and 49 other activists were arrested while attending a rally the authorities deemed illegal.
The MDC leader and many others were savagely beaten by the police.
A police officer who witnessed the brutal assault, which lasted some two hours, told Zimonline but what I saw on Sunday was not assault. It was attempted murder, especially on Tsvangirai, [opposition leader Lovemore] Madhuku and [MDC deputy secretary for international affairs Grace] Kwinjeh.
The attack was perpetrated by a commando unit belonging to the army’s Cranbone Barracks.
Mr. Tsvangirai had to be hospitalized to receive treatment for a fractured skull, and necessitated blood transfusions due to internal bleeding.
Tsvangirai was the first to be attacked. They said they wanted to show the others that they meant business. Tsvangirai's colleagues openly wept as their leader was being beaten, the policeman added.
The opposition leaders then appeared in court, but were released. The lawyers for the prosecution never bothered to attend the hearing…
The attack was filmed by a Zimbabwean journalist, Edward Chikombo, a cameraman for the state channel ZBC. The footage was broadcast around the world, fueling international indignation and embarrassing Mr. Mugabe and his government.
Three weeks later, the body of Mr. Chikombo was found some 50 miles west of the capital Harare.
Many in Zimbabwe suspect that Mr. Chkombo was murdered by the security apparatus, in a clear warning to all those intending to defy Mr. Mugabe.
The March 11 incident was not the first time Mr. Tsvangirai was attacked by the President’s thugs, and harassed by his judicial system.
He has been twice charged with treason, in 2000 and 2003, and in both cases, the charges were eventually dropped.
He has also been the target of several assassination attempts.
The first took place in 1997, when he was the secretary general of the ZCTU (Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions).
Several assailants attempted to throw him out the window of his office, located on the tenth floor of the building.
After months of protracted and contentious negotiations, Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition, whose coalition holds a majority in the House of Assembly, became Prime Minister last February, consenting to share power with the despot Mugabe, who was declared the winner of last year’s presidential election, after the withdrawal of Mr. Tsvangirai, just days before the second and final round.
Mr. Mugabe, a wily and ruthless octogenarian, has ruled the country since its independence in 1980.
A nationalist leader belonging to the dominant Shona people, who initially trained as a teacher before being involved in the struggle for independence, and who was jailed ten years in the 60s and 70s because of his activities, he became the head of the Zimbabwe African National Union in 1974. He actively participated in the guerilla war launched on white-ruled Rhodesia led by Ian Smith.
Yet, very early did he display his ruthlessness.
He did not hesitate to crush a rival liberation movement, ZAPU (Zimbabwe African Peoples Union) led by Joshua Nkomo, of the Ndebele tribe. Some 20,000 people were killed by his Fifth Brigade, trained by North Korea.
Morgan Tsvangirai, against his better instincts, no doubt, accepted the offer to lead the Zimbabwean government in order to alleviate the desperate plight of his countrymen.
Indeed, 90% of the population is unemployed. Nearly half of the country’s population of 12.5 million cannot survive without donations of food. Inflation figures were no longer even released by the government for they had reached unimaginable levels, several million percent per year…Last winter, a cholera epidemic killed over 3,400 people.
In Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, a boy born today can expect to reach the age of…37.
This is what 30 years of criminal incompetence has done to Zimbabwe, a potentially rich nation.
It is now one of the poorest in the world, with a gdp of about $500. Only Liberia and the Republic of Congo are worse off.
Hence, the challenges facing Mr. Tsvangirai would have been staggering, even if he had had full control of the government.
Unfortunately, he must contend with Uncle Bob, as the President used to be called affectionately.
The Bennett case has clearly demonstrated that Mugabe will continue to do all he can to weaken Mr. Tsvangirai and his government.
Had the 2008 (and 2002) elections been free and fair, Morgan Tsvangirai would be the undisputed leader of Zimbabwe.
But it was not to be.
The first round of the presidential election was held the same day as elections to the lower house of parliament, the House of Assembly, on March 29, 2008.
Oddly, the campaign was remarkably peaceful, at first.
I’m going into places I could never go to, Tsvangirai told The Sunday Times.
It was clear that Mugabe and his ZANU-PF were heading towards certain defeat, even though they resorted to their usual tactics. To ensure the voters would make the right choice, Mugabe distributed on one day alone … 300 buses, 500 tractors, 20 combine harvesters, 50,000 ox-drawn ploughs, 680 motorcycles and 100,000 litres of petrol.
The distribution of food was also manipulated for political purposes.
Though ZANU-PF supporters were given access to government-subsidized grain, it was withheld from those suspected of being opposition supporters. I cannot buy government-subsidized maize because traditional leaders suspect I support the Movement for Democratic Change. When I reported this to the police they refused to intervene. The village head said that he had been instructed by ZANU-PF officials not to allow opposition supporters to buy government-subsidized maize, Thami told Amnesty International. In Zimbabwe, only those who support Mugabe are allowed to eat and feed their families.
Yet, even that would not be enough to sway the mood of the country.
We are crying for change, one waiter told the paper.
Look at what has become of us, said one man selling firewood along a highway.
We used to work on a farm but we were kicked off when they threw out the white men and now we hide like animals in the bush, running away from police and hunting for mice, he added.
The mood is such, there’s no way Mugabe can win legitimately, said Tsvangirai. How can he with 90% unemployment, his record of beating people and demolishing their houses, and when he’s an 84-year-old who wants to govern till he’s 90?
According to the official results, the MDC won 100 seats, and the ZANU-PF 99.
Another MDC faction, led by Arthur Muntabara won an additional ten seats, giving the opposition a majority in the House, for the first time since independence.
The presidential election, a more crucial one for Mr. Mugabe, was not so easily conceded.
The MDC announced its own results, since none were forthcoming, April 2, four days after the polls closed.
According to its own tally, Mr. Tsvangirai had won with 50.3%. Mugabe had received 43.8%, and his former finance minister, Simba Makoni 7%.
The authorities announced the official results on May 2, thirty-four days after the first round…
Officially, Morgan Tsvangirai was ahead, but with only 47% of the vote. Mugabe polled 43%.
A second round would thus be necessary, as no candidate had reached the 50% barrier.
It was set to take place June 27.
This time, Mugabe would exploit all the resources at his disposal to ensure he won the election.
All the regime’s supporters, all those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo were mobilized by Mugabe.
In Harare, members of the ruling ZANU-PF youth militia and war veterans moved from house to house, ordering people to go and vote for Mugabe, according to The Christian Science Monitor.
With Tsvangirai abroad seeking foreign support, and aid in pressuring Mugabe to allow a free and fair election, the regime’s security apparatus was unleashed on the MDC and its supporters.
In late April, some 250 police officers invaded the MDC’s headquarters, Harvest House, and arrested hundreds of people, including women and children who had sought refuge in the building. Computers and documents were also seized.
In a statement, the MDC said these armed police have taken hundreds of people that were now staying at the party headquarters running away from the different parts of Zimbabwe, where the regime has been unleashing brutal violence.
In a report on the post-first-round election violence, Human Rights Watch declared, torture and violence are surging in Zimbabwe. ZANU-PF members are setting up torture camps to systematically target, beat, and torture people suspected of having voted for the MDC in last month’s elections.
In June, after his return, Morgan Tsvangirai was arrested for seeking to attend a political rally without authorization. A week later, the MDC’s Secretary General, Tendai Biti, was arrested on charges of treason.
Today’s election is being held against a backdrop of widespread killings, torture and assault of perceived opposition supporters. Zimbabwe has been allowed to operate outside the African Union (AU) and UN human rights framework for far too long.
It is time for effective African and international solidarity with the victims of human rights violations in Zimbabwe. The people must not be left alone to suffer this ongoing violence, declared Amnesty International in a statement on election day.
Between the first and second rounds, over 80 Zimbabweans were killed, almost all MDC supporters.
According to the MDC, 20,000 houses were destroyed, 200,000 driven from their homes, 10,000 injured in the violence, and 2,000 supporters arrested.
Given this context, one of rampant violence and intimidation, Morgan Tsvangirai decided to withdraw from the election five days before it was to take place, because Mugabe was waging a war against the people of Zimbabwe, he declared in a statement. The Zanu PF candidate has no respect for the MDC, observers, the regional and international community. He has made public pronouncements to the effect that he will not accept defeat. He has declared war by saying that the bullet has replaced the ballot. The statement by General Chiwenga and Commissioner of Prisons Zimondi that they will not respect and accept the will of the people is regrettable and is a clear manifestation that a free and fair election is impossible, he added.
The militia, war veterans and even Mugabe himself have made it clear that anyone that votes for me in the forthcoming election faces the very real possibility of being killed, he concluded.
In such conditions, he simply could not continue…
On election day, serial numbers were included on each ballot so as to monitor the votes of all participants. The youth militia were saying if I don't submit my serial number and identification number I will be in big trouble, so I did as they wanted, a young voter told The Christian Science Monitor. This is persecution, it should not be allowed to happen in a civilized country like Zimbabwe.
Mr. Tsvangirai sought refuge from the violence in the Dutch Embassy.
Running unopposed, Robert Mugabe easily won a sixth term.
A month later, an effort to reconcile the two leaders and induce them to share power was launched, mediated by South African President Thabo Mbeki, and the SADC (the Southern African Development Community).
An agreement was reached September 15, 2008.
Morgan Tsvangirai was formally sworn in as Prime Minister February 11, 2009, and his government two days later.
It was on February 13 that Mr. Bennett was arrested for the first time on terrorism charges.

The old man and his sycophants will never relinquish power voluntarily.
They have much too much to lose. They have committed far too many crimes to be allowed to retire peacefully, as they well know.
A cell at the International Criminal Court in The Hague would most likely await Mr. Mugabe and his Generals were the former to fall….
There is no freedom without struggle, and there is no freedom without sacrifice, Morgan Tsvangirai once said.
Zimbabwe has long struggled, and greatly sacrificed. Its people earned the right to a better future long ago.
In the current context, how can Morgan Tsvangirai be the most useful to the hapless Zimbabwean people?
Should he remain Prime Minister?
Perhaps it is only in this function that he can at least attempt to undo the untold damage brought about by thirty years of Mugabe misrule and repression…
We can only wish him luck, and assure him that time is on his side….
(the photograph of Morgan Tsvangirai being sworn in as Prime Minister by Robert Mugabe is by Alexander Joe, AFP/Getty Images)
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

We've been fighting in Afghanistan for one year, eight times in a row...

It was a sound decision.
The US and NATO have been present in Afghanistan since 2001, and yet, the situation continues to deteriorate.
The time had come to reassess the mission, clarify its goals, and devise a strategy capable of realizing these objectives. All relevant parties would be consulted: the State Department, the National Security Council, the Pentagon, the intelligence community, NATO, and the diplomats and military leaders on the ground.
Critics on the right, however, have accused President Obama of wasting precious time. This should not be a leisurely process, John McCain admonished the president at a recent meeting.
But Obama is determined not to be rushed and pushed into adopting a strategy that may not be suited to the needs of the moment. Unlike his predecessor, who consulted little and relied on instinct, Obama is wont to examine all the aspects of a particular issue before charting a course.We should have learned as a country that you want the president to make smart, reasoned decisions based on fact and not to make rash decisions that are more about instinct, David Axelrod, a senior presidential adviser told Reuters.
The process will take time, a decision is not expected before several weeks, but only a painstaking review will enable the president to craft a policy actually able to produce the desired results. When a president is dealing with such extraordinarily complex situations, it's more important that you get it right than do it fast, suggested Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Some critics were not convinced and scolded the president for being indecisive.
One pundit referred to the review process as Young Hamlet’s Agony.
No doubt some regretted the days when the Decider was in charge, and decisions were made expeditiously (many would say impetuously). I’m a gut player, he liked to say…
Furthermore, these same critics have also chided him for not meeting with General McChrystal, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, more often.
During the last administration, president Bush would consult his top commander in Iraq, David Petraeus at least once a week, usually by video conference.
President Obama, on the other hand prefers to rely first and foremost on Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates when soliciting the opinion of the military. Many in the military establishment were pleased that Obama restored the traditional links between the White House and the military. This commander in chief uses the chain of command. There are a lot of military leaders who very much appreciate that, one official told the WP.
Though General McChrystal’s recommendations have attracted much media attention, they are but one element of a broader review of the overall strategy to be adopted in Afghanistan. It would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of other elements of the strategy, stated James Jones, the National Security Adviser.
Though the general has suggested that jettisoning an enhanced counterinsurgency policy would lead to what he called Chaos-istan, (he made the remark in a speech in London that some characterized as inappropriate), Jones considers that the current situation, though serious, is not dire, and that Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling into the hands of the Taliban. Furthermore, he added, alQaeda is very diminished there, with less than 100 (terrorists) operating in the country.
Other options, not solely McChrystal’s, and including the counterterrorism approach advocated by Vice President Biden, had to be examined. The president should be presented with options, not just one fait accompli, concluded Jones.
In essence, the president will not be compelled to go where he does not wish to go.
The new policy will be conditioned by the answers provided to the following fundamental questions:
*what is the ultimate objective of the mission: destroying alQaeda, defeating the Taliban, building a viable Afghan state? The first, the second, all three?
*if the paramount goal is to destroy al-Qaeda, do we need to defeat the Taliban to achieve it? Would it be sufficient to prevent them from seizing power? Does it matter?
*Do the Taliban, as such, pose a threat to the security of the US and the West?
In other words, what does winning the war mean, and, conversely, what does losing entail?
In this context, the troop increase demanded by the general is but one element of a larger, much more complex puzzle.
For those critics on the right who have suddenly rediscovered the Afghan war, after having considered it as a secondary endeavor for the better part of the last eight years, when they did not actually ignore it altogether, the Obama review is superfluous since a strategy for victory has already been proposed by General McChrystal. The counterinsurgency strategy, that is to say, a surge of 30,000 to 40,000 troops to stabilize a downward spiral and save Afghanistan the way a similar surge saved Iraq, to quote one observer who writes a weekly column in the WP is certain to succeed if Obama provides the necessary resources.
These Washington strategists have discovered the solution, the ultimate panacea for the Afghan quandary: the surge!
It worked in Iraq, they claim,why should it not do wonders in Afghanistan, all the more so, as the world's foremost expert on counterinsurgency (he saved Iraq with it), David Petraeus (to quote Charles Krauthammer) supports the plan?
For one thing, and assuming Iraq is saved, it was not the surge as such that led to a lessening of violence in Iraq, but a combination of factors. An increase in manpower would not have sufficed.
The Sunni tribes of Iraq, by and large, alienated by the brutal methods of the Islamic insurgents, seeking a modus vivendi with the US occupation forces, were financially enticed by the US military to switch sides and support its efforts in the country. Thus, thousands joined the Sunni Awakening movement, depriving the anti-American insurgency of efficient and lethal combatants.
Simultaneously, yet equally significant, the Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia created by Muqtada al-Sadr to defend the Shiite community, decided to call a truce at the instigation of its leader, therby preventing the country from sliding into an all out civil war.
It was the combination of these three factors that allowed the situation in Iraq to stabilize somewhat, giving the Iraqi government (elected by the people) some breathing space to try and restore some order and basic public services.
The situation in Afghanistan is vastly different.
There are no functioning institutions to speak of. As McChrystal himself wrote in his report, the weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF's own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government. ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force, is the official name of the US-NATO dominated mission.
The recent presidential elections held in August (the official results of which have still not been announced) and that were supposed to allow the Afghan people to freely choose their new leader were characterized by widespread fraud.
In Helmand province for instance, 38,000 people voted, according to the United Nations. Yet, 134,804 votes were tallied, 112,873 of them for president Karzai.
In Kandahar province, some 100,000 voters went to the polls.Yet, Karzai won 221,436 of the 252,886 registered votes.
The list goes on…
The election further discredited the very notion of democracy, and the victor, when he is finally designated, perhaps after a second round runoff, will lack all legitimacy.
In Iraq, a credible government was in place.
In Kabul, how will the West be able to work effectively with such a weakened leader?
A counterinsurgency strategy can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner. That’s in doubt now. Part of the reason you are seeing a hesitancy to jump deeper into the pool is that they are looking to see if they can make lemonade out of the lemons we got from the Afghan election, Bruce Riedel, who led the Afghanistan-Pakistan policy review in the early days of the Obama administration, told the NYT.
Secondly, the enemy is determined as ever to rid all of Afghanistan of foreign forces. In a message released on Thursday, the Taliban declared if you want to turn the country of the proud and pious Afghans into a colony, then know that we have an unwavering determination and have braced for a prolonged war.
Thirdly, no significant Taliban forces have rallied to the Karzai government side…
As such, would 40,000 troops make a decisive difference?
Some in the US military establishment estimate that for the counterinsurgency plan to succeed, 600,000 soldiers and policemen will be needed.
By 2012, the Afghan army (we hope) will consist of 240,000 soldiers, and 160,000 policemen should be available (currently the numbers are 92,000 and 14,000 respectively), according to Carl Levin (D-Michigan), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. That leaves 200,000 that the US and NATO will have to provide…Currently, there are 67,700 troops in ISAF, with the US contributing almost 32,000. An additional 21,000 that Obama promised to send earlier this year should arrive in the fall. Even if McChrystal obtains his 40,000 troop request, the total force is still some 70,000 soldiers short. NATO members are unlikely to increase their participation, as the war is more and more unpopular in Europe.
As such, is McChrystal’s request the first of many others to come? The general’s request included three main options, according to people briefed on its contents. Most officials have focused on his request for 40,000 troops to avoid failure in Afghanistan, but some of them confirmed Friday an ABC News report that his maximum request outlined a troop buildup that was substantially larger than that.
The Wall Street Journal reported that one of his options called for more than 60,000 additional troops, but several officials said the maximum variant was even larger, wrote Peter Baker in the NYT.
If Obama decides to implement McChrystal’s plan, incremental force increases are thus inevitable. The Vietnam scenario comes to the mind of many, here. McChrystal’s initial request is relatively low, so as not to alienate his superiors in Washington who, already under pressure from anti-war democrats and the US public whose support for the war is waning, would find a more significant increase politically unpalatable.
McChrystal argues that he needs the additional forces not to kill more enemy forces, but to protect the civilian population, the basis of any counterinsurgency policy.
US forces must abandon their armored vehicles and fortified bases, and live among the people. ISAF personnel must be seen as guests of the Afghan people and their government, not an occupying army. Key personnel in ISAF must receive training in local languages, the general wrote.
McChrystal is also quite conscious that the fact that Western troops know next to nothing about Afghan society and culture inhibits their ability to counter the Taliban effectively.
Only by understanding Afghan needs and aspirations, and addressing their grievances will they make any progress in their struggle against the Taliban.
Yet, how long will it take before we are in a position to achieve this?
General John Nicholson, a specialist in the field, told CBS that, on average, a successful counterinsurgency campaign lasts fourteen years. As far as he is concerned, we are not in the eighth year of the process, but in the early stages.
Nothing, it seems, has been accomplished since 2001!
As one officer told the NYT, we haven’t been fighting in Afghanistan for eight years. We’ve been fighting in Afghanistan for one year, eight times in a row.
In such a context, how much longer will Western public opinions tolerate the presence of their forces in Afghanistan?
How much longer will the Afghan people countenance foreign forces on their soil?
It is most likely too late to engage in nation building, assuming we ever had the ability and the means to do so.
Rory Stewart, a professor and director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University told PBS, Afghanistan is very poor, very fragile, very traumatized. To rebuild a country like that would take 30 or 40 years of patient, tolerant investment, and probably that's what we should be aiming for. But in order to do that, we need to have a presence there which is affordable, which is quite small, which is realistic, and which the American people will endorse, and more importantly, that the Afghans will accept.
Only the Afghan government, with the support of its people, can rebuild the Afghan state. The Afghan government needs to convince these people that they have a long term future in working with the government in Kabul. It's not something that foreign troops can do, Stewart said. Unless you understand what a frankly low base that country's starting from — a country where 60 percent of civil servants don't have a high school education, where maybe 40 percent of the population can't read and write, where maybe a quarter of teachers are illiterate. Unless you get that, you don't get why you can't build that amazing thing that you're trying to build, he added.
We must be realistic about what we can accomplish there.
Stewart’s advice? Focus on what we can do. We don't have a moral obligation to do what we can't…
What can we do?
The last eight years have cruelly demonstrated that pacifying Afghanistan, rebuilding the state and its institutions, defeating the Taliban in order to defeat alQaeda was overly ambitious.
The election fiasco has only underscored this point. We put a strategy in place, clarified our goals, but what the election has shown, as well as changing circumstances in Pakistan, is that this is going to be a very difficult operation. We’ve got to make sure that we’re constantly refining it to keep our focus on what our primary goals are, Obama said on CNN last Sunday.
What is the mission?
Last spring, Obama had defined the mission’s objective as making sure that al Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests and our allies. That's our number one priority.
The mission also had a humanitarian dimension: prevent the return of the Taliban, for that would lead to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights, the president said then. ISAF failed to accomplish this aspect of the mission, these last eight years. If it was not able to conduct a sustained and effective counterinsurgency campaign, it was more successful in the counterterrorism domain.
Vice President Biden thinks that the US should concentrate on counterterrorism. A smaller, not larger force would focus on destroying the alQaeda network, where its leadership resides, using drones and special forces, not on fighting the Taliban.
According to the vice president, we must shift our focus and resources.
Today, we spend $30 in Afghanistan for every $1 spent in Pakistan, even though alQaeda prospers in the latter country. Obama seems to be heading in this direction…
Eradicating al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and Pakistan is the fundamental mission, not the Afghan war against the Taliban as such, which does not constitute a homogeneous force, thus a homogeneous threat. We will support and assist the Afghan army, who will take the lead in fighting the Taliban.
Though, as one senior official told The Times of London, Obama will not tolerate their return to power, he is prepared to accept some Taliban participation in the politics of the Afghan nation.
As for the Taliban they have astutely joined the discussion, and released a statement emphasizing that their interests are purely local in nature, and thus differ from those of alQaeda, we did not have any agenda to harm other countries, including Europe, nor do we have such agenda today.
Should we believe this?
There is evidence to support that conclusion.
After all, the presence of alQaeda in Afghanistan led to the overthrow of the Taliban government. Would they be so hospitable a second time, should they return to power?
Given the Taliban’s limited interest in issues outside the "AfPak" region, if they came to power again now, they would be highly unlikely to host provocative terrorist groups whose actions could lead to another outside intervention, wrote John Mueller, professor of Political Science at Ohio State University. And even if al Qaeda were able to relocate to Afghanistan after a Taliban victory there, it would still have to operate under the same siege situation it presently enjoys in what Obama calls its "safe haven" in Pakistan.
In essence, those who consider Taliban and alQaeda to be synonymous are making a serious mistake.
The emphasis, it, seems, will now be on destroying alQaeda, and Obama is prepared to provide the resources to meet that objective, and no other.
The McChrystal surge, much to the chagrin of his many vociferous supporters, now seems out of the question…
The proposal came too late, eight years too late…
(the photograph of President Obama and General McChrystal was released by the White House)　

Happy birthday Mr. Putin

A neighbor found the body shortly after 5pm.
The killer had been waiting for her, and as she entered the elevator of her apartment building, he shot her several times at point blank range, in the head and chest.
Before leaving the scene, the tall, young assassin, wearing dark clothes and a black baseball cap (he was caught, but only on film, by a video security camera), deposited a Makarov 9 millimeter pistol and silencer next to Anna Politkovskaya’s body.
The message was crystal clear : it was a contract killing. Anna had just returned form the supermarket, and had most likely been followed all day.
One of Russia’s most prominent journalists, surely one of its bravest (she worked for the liberal investigative weekly Novaya Gazeta, whose share holders included Mikhail Gorbachev), and one of president Putin’s most incisive and persistent critics was dead.
She specialized in human rights, and devoted much of her time investigating abuses taking place in Chechnya.
In 2004, she wrote Putin’s Russia, a scathing attack on the authoritarian and corrupt state presided over by Vladimir Putin, then president of Russia, and now prime minister.
A work depicting the everyday horrors of the war waged in Chechnya by the Russians, A Small Corner of Hell, was published a year earlier.
She was murdered exactly three years ago, October 7, 2006, on Vladimir Putin’s birthday…
For Vitaly Yaroshevski, deputy editor of Novaya Gazeta, there was no mystery as to the motive behind the killing: we are certain that this is the horrible outcome of her journalistic activity. No other versions are assumed, he said.
After remaining silent for several days, Putin felt compelled to comment on the murder. Though initially characterizing the deed as a dreadful and unacceptable crime, he took pains to add she had minimal influence on political life in Russia. Furthermore, he said: this murder does much more harm to Russia and Chechnya than any of her publications. In his view, the only victims of the incident were the reputations of Chechnya, Russia and their leaders. It did not matter that she paid for her courage with her life; he had been embarrassed. Politkovskaya and her writings were superfluous, and a waste of his time…
In an interview that she gave to RFE/RL’s Russian Service (it was to be her last) two days before, October 5th , Anna may have unwittingly given the killers the pretext they sought: I am conducting an investigation about torture today in Kadyrov's prisons, today and yesterday. These are people who were abducted by the Kadyrovtsi [members of Kadyrov's personal militia] for completely inexplicable reasons and who died. They died as part of a PR campaign…these were people whom they had seized, had 'disappeared' for some time, and were then killed.
October 5th happened to be Ramzan Kadyrov’s birthday, a mere two days before that of his idol (in an interview with RFE/RL last August, he had said the following: Putin is my idol. I love him. I respect him. There's no one else like him, personally for me. I owe him more than anyone else. I owe him my life).
The future president of Chechnya, whom she referred to in the interview as a Stalin of our times, is widely suspected by human rights organizations, both in Russia and abroad, of having resorted to kidnappings, torture and executions in order to pacify the rebellious Caucasian republic.
This was the present she hoped to be able to give him some day: personally I only have one dream for Kadyrov's birthday: I dream of him someday sitting in the dock, in a trial that meets the strictest legal standards, with all of his crimes listed and investigated.
It was not to be.
Last February, a military court acquitted the three men charged with complicity in the murder. Rustam Makhmudov, suspected of having pulled the trigger, has fled and is believed to be hiding somewhere in Europe.
In June, Russia’s Supreme Court ordered a retrial, thereby overruling the lower military court’s decision. At the request of Anna Politkovskaya’s children, Vera and Ilya, a new criminal investigation will be launched. As such, the retrial has been postponed.
They are increasingly skeptical however, that those responsible for their mother’s murder will ever be brought to justice: our family is starting to lose hope that the whole chain of those involved in this crime will be found and brought to court, because as time goes by, the chances of finding the people involved in this murder are fading, Vera declared at a Moscow press conference on Tuesday.
Two French representatives of Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based organization that defends journalists, and promotes freedom of the press everywhere were denied visas by the Russian authorities, and thus could not attend the event.
Back in Paris, Jean-François Julliard, the general secretary of the organization said:
we are shocked by this decision, especially as we have always acted openly with the Russian authorities. They decided to prevent us from expressing our solidarity with Russian journalists and human rights activists. Moscow does not want us to address the Russians directly. But we will not give up.
Human rights activists have a Sisyphean task ahead of them in Russia. Since the year 2000, 22 journalists have been killed in the country. In Reporters Without Borders 2008 press freedom index, Russia was in 141st place (out of 173). Tikhon Dzyadko, the organization’s representative in Moscow told The Guardian: to our great regret there is a culture of total impunity with regard to crimes against journalists…
A number of ceremonies were organized in several European capitals, including London and Paris, to commemorate the life and work of Anna Politkovskaya.
In Moscow, a rally took place in a city park, attended by prominent Russian human rights activists and opposition politicians.
Many flowers and posters were also placed in front of Anna Politkovskaya’s apartment building. On one, an anonymous mourner had written: The smart, honest and brave cannot survive in Russia.
The Russian authorities had no comment on this day of commemoration.
On Tuesday night, the Reach All Women in War organization, a group that supports women human rights defenders working in countries in war and conflict, and help(s) end abuse and persecution against them, selected its third Anna Politkovskaya Award winner. The prize, according to its founders, is to be given to a woman human rights defender from a conflict zone in the world who, like Anna, stands up for the victims of this conflict, often at a great personal risk.
The first recipient, in 2007, a year after Anna Politkovskaya’s murder was her friend Natalia Estemirova, a researcher for Memorial (Russia’s most important human rights organization) in Chechnya, who had often provided vital information on human rights abuses to the Novaya Gazeta journalist.
She was also murdered, in Grozny on July 15, 2009. No arrests have been made in that case…
Two months after Anna’s murder, Natalia had said: it's extremely clear to me that those who killed her thought that they were silencing her, but that is not the case. Because now in Novaya Gazeta, in the space where her articles are published, there is and there will be information from Memorial.
Who will now occupy the space that she has left vacant?
This year, the award was given to the Iranian One Million Signatures Campaign, launched by Shirin Ebadi (2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner), among countless others, the aim of which was to demand the modification of discriminatory laws against women in Iran.
Meanwhile, back in Moscow, and also on Tuesday, Memorial chairman, Oleg Orlov, who had been sued by Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov for libel, was ordered by a Moscow court to pay the latter 20,000 rubles (some $670) in damages.
Memorial was compelled to pay 50,000 rubles.
Though Kadyrov had requested 10 million rubles, he appeared satisfied with the court decision: from the very beginning, I attempted to explain to Orlov that he was not right, and very respectfully and reasonably explained to him my opinion on this issue, he said.
The day after Natalia Estemirova’s murder, Mr. Orlov had stated: I know, I am certain who is to blame for the murder of Natasha Estemirova. We all know this person. His name is Ramzan Kadyrov, the president of the Chechen Republic.
During the trial he explained that what he meant by that was that he held Mr. Kadyrov politically responsible for the hideous deed, in that he had created a nefarious climate in the republic, where the most heinous crimes were committed in all impunity.
Mr. Orlov was also ordered by the court to withdraw his accusation.
According to The New York Times, Judge Tatyana A. Fedosova needed just two hearings and 30 minutes’ deliberation to reach a decision in Mr. Kadyrov’s libel suit.
It seems that, in Russia, the judicial system moves efficiently when the interests of the powerful are at stake. This rush to judgment in this lawsuit chills debate about things that should be open to public discussion. The authorities should encourage people to discuss current events and be able to tolerate a certain amount of criticism, concluded Human Rights Watch Russia director, Allison Gill.
Mr. Orlov was not satisfied with the verdict, and plans to appeal: I don't agree with the court's decision, of course, but now I understand that in today's Russia, no other ruling should have been expected, he said.
Were he to lose his appeal, he would then seek redress with the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, France.
More and more Russians, dismayed by their inability to obtain justice in their own country, are petitioning the Court in Strasbourg instead.
Since 1998, Russians have lodged some 46,000 complaints with the Court, and account for 20% of all new cases. A great many originate in Chechnya.
Though Russia regularly pays compensation and legal fees when ordered to do so by the Court, it never follows any of its recommendations.
Aleksandr Cherkasov, of Memorial, told RFE/RL’s Russian Service that the government has to pay, but it is also obliged to investigate the offenses and to eliminate the factors that made these crimes possible. In the North Caucasus, there have been neither investigations nor systemic changes to the structures that generate these crimes.
In essence, an inordinate number of crimes in Russia are neither investigated nor prosecuted.
Human Rights Watch examined 33 of the 115 Chechen cases that the Court has handled: in almost every case, the court ruled that the Russian government was responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, and forced disappearances. And in almost every case, the court also found the government guilty of failing to carry out an adequate investigation. In the cases we've studied, the court rulings have not led to a single prosecution, Allison Gill said.
Alas, MM. Putin and Medvedev seem to have no interest in justice, and certainly no political use for it.
Anna Politkovskaya, Natalia Estemirova and many others have been silenced by the guns of those who objectively serve the narrow political interests of MM. Putin, Medvedev and Kadyrov. Alas, Memorial has suspended all its activities in Chechnya.
Evidently, in some regions of Russia, including Moscow, it is simply too dangerous to investigate human rights violations or undertake any investigation reporting..
Who will now bear witness to the crimes being committed there?
(the photograph of flowers in front of Anna's apartment building was taken by Yuri Kochetkov/EPA)