The Washington Post
BRUSSELS - U.S. and NATO officials said Thursday they expect that the military alliance will formally participate in the Obama administration's plan for a missile defense shield over Europe, scheduled to be activated next year.
"Based on today's discussion, I am quite optimistic," NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters after a joint meeting of foreign and defense ministers from the alliance membership. "There is, I think, a broad agreement that we should make such a decision, but there is still some technical work to do."
NATO is scheduled to vote at a summit in Lisbon next month on whether to make missile defense a formal part of its mission. If it does, European alliance members would plug their individual defense systems into a broader missile shield that the Obama administration is building to guard against potential attacks from Iran.
The United States would foot most of the bill for building and operating the shield over Europe. The combined cost for other NATO members to link into the system is projected to be about $200 million over 10 years, Rasmussen said.
Although U.S. and NATO officials said they are close to a consensus on missile defense, there are still hurdles to overcome. Turkey, a NATO member and neighbor of Iran that would host a key anti-missile radar installation, has yet to commit.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with their Turkish counterparts on the sidelines of the NATO meeting Thursday to discuss whether Turkey will allow a high-powered X-band radar on its territory. The location of the radar is the last unresolved piece in the first phase of the Pentagon's missile defense shield for Europe.
"I would say that we are not putting pressure on the Turks, but we are having continuing conversations with them as one of our allies," Gates said at a news conference in Brussels.
Although Turkey is a longtime NATO member, its government has developed closer ties with Iran in recent years and appears reluctant to take steps that Tehran might consider hostile. Turkish officials have also sought guarantees that the anti-missile shield would cover the eastern part of their country, which borders Iran.
Pentagon officials are seeking Turkey's agreement to host the radar installation but also to vote in favor of missile defense as a NATO mission at next month's summit. Because NATO operates by consensus, Turkish opposition could scuttle the alliance's plans.
"We've had some very good, deep discussions with Turkey, and now the decisions are in Ankara to make," Jim Townsend Jr., deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy, told reporters in Washington on Tuesday.
Pentagon officials said they have been negotiating with other NATO allies in southern Europe to host the radar in case Turkey balks. One alternative is Bulgaria, which like Turkey borders the Black Sea but is farther from Iran.
The radar installation - along with mobile radars deployed on Navy ships in the Mediterranean and Black seas - would provide a critical early warning of any launches from Iran, improving the odds of shooting down a missile.
Obama announced in September 2009 that he was overhauling the Bush administration's plans for missile defense in Europe. Although Obama had previously expressed skepticism of Bush's approach, he directed the Pentagon to build a more extensive and flexible missile shield for Europe that will be built in phases between now and 2020.
Mostrando postagens com marcador OTAN. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador OTAN. Mostrar todas as postagens
quinta-feira, 14 de outubro de 2010
Push on Talks With Taliban Confirmed by NATO Officials
The New York Times
BRUSSELS — The United States is helping senior Taliban leaders attend initial peace talks with the Afghan government in Kabul because military officials and diplomats want to take advantage of any possibility of political reconciliation, Obama administration and NATO officials said Thursday.
Even as top American officials cautioned that they are not yet ready to formally join the nascent peace effort with their Taliban foes of the past nine years, they acknowledged that the reconciliation effort is a key part of the American-led war in Afghanistan.
“Whenever opportunity arise that are worth exploring, we ought to take advantage of that,” said Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appearing before reporters alongside Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a NATO conference here. “Whether this leads into something concrete,” Mr. Gates said he couldn’t say, but added that “we need to be open to opportunities that arise.”
While Mrs. Clinton was even more cautious about the pace of the peace talks, she acknowledged during an interview on Thursday that while Americans may be squeamish about the idea of peace talks with the people who harbored Osama Bin Laden prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, the American public at some point may have to swallow the idea of reconciliation with the Taliban in order to have peace in Afghanistan.
“You don’t make peace with your friends,” Mrs. Clinton told ABC’s “Good Morning America” in an interview that aired on Thursday. She said that she thinks “it’s highly unlikely that the leadership of the Taliban that refused to turn over Bin Laden in 2001 will ever reconcile.” But, she added, “stranger things have happened in the history of war.”
The comments from President Obama’s two highest national security officials—which came during a press conference following a meeting of NATO foreign and defense ministers — came as the leader of Afghanistan’s new peace council, Burhanuddin Rabbani, confirmed in Kabul on Thursday that contacts with members of the Taliban had been made through mediators and that the international support for direct talks added new momentum to the effort.
On Wednesday, NATO and American officials confirmed that the United States and NATO have been doing much more to try to encourage a peaceful settlement than officials had previously disclosed, including helping former fighters and insurgents to travel to peace talks.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Thursday that the approach made sense. “This political reconciliation process is Afghan-led,” Mr. Rasmussen told a news conference. “But our position is that if we can facilitate this process through practical assistance, then why not? If we get a request and we can be of practical assistance, we are prepared to do that.”
Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, has for months been trying to persuade Taliban leaders to join his government, an effort which intensified last year after Mr. Obama announced that he would begin scaling back American troop levels in Afghanistan in July 2011.
American officials had previously said that they didn’t expect to begin serious reconciliation efforts until they had so degraded insurgents and militants on the field that Taliban leaders would feel they had no other choice but to pursue peace with the Afghan government. But while few military experts think the Taliban is degraded at this point, some administration officials in recent months have argued that the American military, backed by drone strikes, has at least rattled senior Taliban officials enough that they may be more amenable to a deal.
The officials caution that the outreach is deeply uncertain.
Still, Mr. Gates said Thursday that “we have always acknowledged that reconciliation has to be part of the solution in Afghanistan and we will do whatever we can to support this process.”
Burhanuddin Rabbani,Despite an uptick in airstrikes and intensified combat operations, this week has been an especially deadly one for NATO troops. Twenty-five service members were reported killed between Oct. 8 and Oct. 14.
In just the last two days, nine were killed in the south; two in the east and three in western Afghanistan, indicating insurgent activity in many parts of the country. The high number of deaths in the south are perhaps the least surprising since there are intense combat operations there.
The top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, told reporters in Afghanistan recently that high-level Taliban leaders were reaching out to senior Afghan officials to start discussions. General Petraeus seems determined to show progress on achieving American goals in Afghanistan — both military and political — ahead of the December review of the war effort ordered by Mr. Obama.
Support for talks also comes as American officials have expressed a growing frustration with the complex role played by Pakistan, which provides safe haven for many insurgents and has ambitions of dictating the postwar political situation in Afghanistan.
Pakistan has insisted that any lasting solution in Afghanistan must involve reconciliation with the Taliban, and has urged the United States to participate in peace talks. At the same time, Pakistan has disrupted some efforts by Mr. Karzai to reach out to Taliban leaders hiding in Pakistan, presumably because he made those overtures without Pakistan’s approval.
It is not clear which Taliban leaders have been allowed to travel to Kabul to conduct talks with Mr. Karzai’s government.
It took Mr. Karzai months to gather support for talks and form the 10-member council to conduct discussions. Mr. Rabbani — a political heavyweight who represents a faction long opposed to talks — was named its leader on Sunday.
In Kabul on Thursday, Mr. Rabbani expressed optimism. “I had talks with people related to the Taliban,” he said, “and I can feel willingness among the Taliban lines towards peace.”
For its part, the Taliban has publicly denied cooperating with moves toward negotiations.
In a statement e-mailed to news organizations on Wednesday, the Taliban denied the reports of high-level contacts as “baseless propaganda” and a tactic of psychological warfare by its enemies.
“The Islamic Emirate will not accept any kind of negotiation or ceasefire with the invading enemy until and unless the invaders have pulled out of Afghanistan,” the statement said.
Meanwhile, a diplomat in Kabul said that two government officials had been traveling to the eastern province of Khost to meet with representatives from the Haqqani network, Taliban allies operating in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The diplomat asked not to be named according to standard diplomatic ground rules of anonymity.
Officials in Washington have been cautious about prospects for a peaceful settlement. One senior American official noted recently that the Taliban, while war-weary, had little incentive to make concessions because they still had the sense that they could outlast the American presence in the country. Mr. Karzai, others noted, can be an erratic negotiator, and part of the mystery in Kabul is whether he is keeping American and NATO allies abreast of his conversations.
Mr. Obama signed off on a policy early this year that talks were possible as long as Taliban leaders, at the end of the process, agreed to renounce violence, lay down their arms, and pledge fidelity to the Afghan Constitution. As recently as August, two senior American officials said, Mr. Obama was updated on the progress of those efforts, officials said, and reaffirmed that the United States should aid the process, even if the Taliban involved in the talks represented only breakaway factions of the insurgent group.
“We’re not expecting Mullah Omar to walk in the door,” one senior administration official said recently, referring to the Taliban figure Mullah Muhammad Omar. “But there have been pings from commanders a few notches down.”
Congressional officials and independent experts voiced skepticism on Wednesday that the current discussions would lead to any immediate breakthrough.
“We’ve now got two years of reports of talks about talks, but none of it has panned out as serious,” said Bruce O. Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who led Mr. Obama’s first Afghanistan policy review.
But the increased NATO military operations in southern Afghanistan aimed at killing or capturing midlevel Taliban commanders has caused some Taliban leaders “nervousness about life and fortune,” Mr. Riedel said.
“It’s a more dicey game. You’re starting to see people wanting to put money down on all bets.”
BRUSSELS — The United States is helping senior Taliban leaders attend initial peace talks with the Afghan government in Kabul because military officials and diplomats want to take advantage of any possibility of political reconciliation, Obama administration and NATO officials said Thursday.
Even as top American officials cautioned that they are not yet ready to formally join the nascent peace effort with their Taliban foes of the past nine years, they acknowledged that the reconciliation effort is a key part of the American-led war in Afghanistan.
“Whenever opportunity arise that are worth exploring, we ought to take advantage of that,” said Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appearing before reporters alongside Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a NATO conference here. “Whether this leads into something concrete,” Mr. Gates said he couldn’t say, but added that “we need to be open to opportunities that arise.”
While Mrs. Clinton was even more cautious about the pace of the peace talks, she acknowledged during an interview on Thursday that while Americans may be squeamish about the idea of peace talks with the people who harbored Osama Bin Laden prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, the American public at some point may have to swallow the idea of reconciliation with the Taliban in order to have peace in Afghanistan.
“You don’t make peace with your friends,” Mrs. Clinton told ABC’s “Good Morning America” in an interview that aired on Thursday. She said that she thinks “it’s highly unlikely that the leadership of the Taliban that refused to turn over Bin Laden in 2001 will ever reconcile.” But, she added, “stranger things have happened in the history of war.”
The comments from President Obama’s two highest national security officials—which came during a press conference following a meeting of NATO foreign and defense ministers — came as the leader of Afghanistan’s new peace council, Burhanuddin Rabbani, confirmed in Kabul on Thursday that contacts with members of the Taliban had been made through mediators and that the international support for direct talks added new momentum to the effort.
On Wednesday, NATO and American officials confirmed that the United States and NATO have been doing much more to try to encourage a peaceful settlement than officials had previously disclosed, including helping former fighters and insurgents to travel to peace talks.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Thursday that the approach made sense. “This political reconciliation process is Afghan-led,” Mr. Rasmussen told a news conference. “But our position is that if we can facilitate this process through practical assistance, then why not? If we get a request and we can be of practical assistance, we are prepared to do that.”
Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, has for months been trying to persuade Taliban leaders to join his government, an effort which intensified last year after Mr. Obama announced that he would begin scaling back American troop levels in Afghanistan in July 2011.
American officials had previously said that they didn’t expect to begin serious reconciliation efforts until they had so degraded insurgents and militants on the field that Taliban leaders would feel they had no other choice but to pursue peace with the Afghan government. But while few military experts think the Taliban is degraded at this point, some administration officials in recent months have argued that the American military, backed by drone strikes, has at least rattled senior Taliban officials enough that they may be more amenable to a deal.
The officials caution that the outreach is deeply uncertain.
Still, Mr. Gates said Thursday that “we have always acknowledged that reconciliation has to be part of the solution in Afghanistan and we will do whatever we can to support this process.”
Burhanuddin Rabbani,Despite an uptick in airstrikes and intensified combat operations, this week has been an especially deadly one for NATO troops. Twenty-five service members were reported killed between Oct. 8 and Oct. 14.
In just the last two days, nine were killed in the south; two in the east and three in western Afghanistan, indicating insurgent activity in many parts of the country. The high number of deaths in the south are perhaps the least surprising since there are intense combat operations there.
The top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, told reporters in Afghanistan recently that high-level Taliban leaders were reaching out to senior Afghan officials to start discussions. General Petraeus seems determined to show progress on achieving American goals in Afghanistan — both military and political — ahead of the December review of the war effort ordered by Mr. Obama.
Support for talks also comes as American officials have expressed a growing frustration with the complex role played by Pakistan, which provides safe haven for many insurgents and has ambitions of dictating the postwar political situation in Afghanistan.
Pakistan has insisted that any lasting solution in Afghanistan must involve reconciliation with the Taliban, and has urged the United States to participate in peace talks. At the same time, Pakistan has disrupted some efforts by Mr. Karzai to reach out to Taliban leaders hiding in Pakistan, presumably because he made those overtures without Pakistan’s approval.
It is not clear which Taliban leaders have been allowed to travel to Kabul to conduct talks with Mr. Karzai’s government.
It took Mr. Karzai months to gather support for talks and form the 10-member council to conduct discussions. Mr. Rabbani — a political heavyweight who represents a faction long opposed to talks — was named its leader on Sunday.
In Kabul on Thursday, Mr. Rabbani expressed optimism. “I had talks with people related to the Taliban,” he said, “and I can feel willingness among the Taliban lines towards peace.”
For its part, the Taliban has publicly denied cooperating with moves toward negotiations.
In a statement e-mailed to news organizations on Wednesday, the Taliban denied the reports of high-level contacts as “baseless propaganda” and a tactic of psychological warfare by its enemies.
“The Islamic Emirate will not accept any kind of negotiation or ceasefire with the invading enemy until and unless the invaders have pulled out of Afghanistan,” the statement said.
Meanwhile, a diplomat in Kabul said that two government officials had been traveling to the eastern province of Khost to meet with representatives from the Haqqani network, Taliban allies operating in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The diplomat asked not to be named according to standard diplomatic ground rules of anonymity.
Officials in Washington have been cautious about prospects for a peaceful settlement. One senior American official noted recently that the Taliban, while war-weary, had little incentive to make concessions because they still had the sense that they could outlast the American presence in the country. Mr. Karzai, others noted, can be an erratic negotiator, and part of the mystery in Kabul is whether he is keeping American and NATO allies abreast of his conversations.
Mr. Obama signed off on a policy early this year that talks were possible as long as Taliban leaders, at the end of the process, agreed to renounce violence, lay down their arms, and pledge fidelity to the Afghan Constitution. As recently as August, two senior American officials said, Mr. Obama was updated on the progress of those efforts, officials said, and reaffirmed that the United States should aid the process, even if the Taliban involved in the talks represented only breakaway factions of the insurgent group.
“We’re not expecting Mullah Omar to walk in the door,” one senior administration official said recently, referring to the Taliban figure Mullah Muhammad Omar. “But there have been pings from commanders a few notches down.”
Congressional officials and independent experts voiced skepticism on Wednesday that the current discussions would lead to any immediate breakthrough.
“We’ve now got two years of reports of talks about talks, but none of it has panned out as serious,” said Bruce O. Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who led Mr. Obama’s first Afghanistan policy review.
But the increased NATO military operations in southern Afghanistan aimed at killing or capturing midlevel Taliban commanders has caused some Taliban leaders “nervousness about life and fortune,” Mr. Riedel said.
“It’s a more dicey game. You’re starting to see people wanting to put money down on all bets.”
Germany demands Nato show greater commitment to nuclear disarmament
The Guardian
Germany today demanded greater Nato commitment to nuclear disarmament, seeking to link support for a new system of missile defence in Europe to the removal of some 200 ageing tactical nuclear bombs around the continent.
However, the campaign ran into stiff resistance from France, which mocked the proposed missile shield as no better than the failed Maginot Line defences of the second world war. The French back retention of the "force de frappe", France's nuclear arsenal.
At a meeting of Nato foreign and defence ministers in Brussels, called to wrestle with a new 10-year Nato "strategic concept" to be agreed in Lisbon next month, Guido Westerwelle and Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, the German ministers, pressed for an innovative role for Nato in driving nuclear arms reduction.
"The missile shield is basically a good idea, but we also think that points such as disarmament can and must be an important component throughout the new blueprint," Guttenberg said.
"The disarmament caravan is on the move," said Westerwelle. "Disarmament is coming up the agenda. We want the peace dividend."
There are some 20 old nuclear B61 gravity bombs at US air bases in Germany, and around 200 across Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Turkey.
The German government has been campaigning for their removal, arguing that the expected agreement next month to push ahead with a missile shield protecting Europe against ballistic rocket attack also means that the tactical nuclear bombs are not needed.
The French defence minister, Hervé Morin, however, described the cold war relics as proof of the transatlantic relationship. The French are worried that giving the Nato alliance a role in nuclear disarmament could undermine their independent nuclear deterrent.
Missile defence represents the same problem as the Maginot Line," he said. "The best way to prevent a Maginot apocalypse is to have credible deterrence."
Analysts and diplomats say the row over remaining tactical nuclear weapons in Europe could be one of the biggest sticking points at next month's summit.
The confidential 11-page document drafted by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato secretary-general, affirms that as long as nuclear weapons exist, Nato will have to deter against them. But another passage, which the Germans are seeking to strengthen, also calls for support for nuclear disarmament in line with President Barack Obama's vision laid out in Prague last year of a nuclear-free world.
"France wants no language on nuclear disarmament," said Tomas Valasek, defence analyst at the Centre for European Reform. "France and Germany are very very far apart on this."
The newer east European members of Nato are also opposed to getting rid of the tactical weapons, except in an arms treaty with Russia.
"We want to live in a nuclear-free world, but unilaterally it will be impossible for Nato to make a step," said Urmas Paet, Estonia's foreign minister.
"The French want to keep their deterrent and the Germans are jealous," quipped a senior government official from central Europe.
Another senior diplomat said that nuclear disarmament was "a deeply held political belief in Germany. The French have equally strong differing views."
Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, also declared that the bombs would not be removed from Europe unless as part of a deal with the Russians.
But today's offensive by Berlin suggested the argument was not settled.
Germany today demanded greater Nato commitment to nuclear disarmament, seeking to link support for a new system of missile defence in Europe to the removal of some 200 ageing tactical nuclear bombs around the continent.
However, the campaign ran into stiff resistance from France, which mocked the proposed missile shield as no better than the failed Maginot Line defences of the second world war. The French back retention of the "force de frappe", France's nuclear arsenal.
At a meeting of Nato foreign and defence ministers in Brussels, called to wrestle with a new 10-year Nato "strategic concept" to be agreed in Lisbon next month, Guido Westerwelle and Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, the German ministers, pressed for an innovative role for Nato in driving nuclear arms reduction.
"The missile shield is basically a good idea, but we also think that points such as disarmament can and must be an important component throughout the new blueprint," Guttenberg said.
"The disarmament caravan is on the move," said Westerwelle. "Disarmament is coming up the agenda. We want the peace dividend."
There are some 20 old nuclear B61 gravity bombs at US air bases in Germany, and around 200 across Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Turkey.
The German government has been campaigning for their removal, arguing that the expected agreement next month to push ahead with a missile shield protecting Europe against ballistic rocket attack also means that the tactical nuclear bombs are not needed.
The French defence minister, Hervé Morin, however, described the cold war relics as proof of the transatlantic relationship. The French are worried that giving the Nato alliance a role in nuclear disarmament could undermine their independent nuclear deterrent.
Missile defence represents the same problem as the Maginot Line," he said. "The best way to prevent a Maginot apocalypse is to have credible deterrence."
Analysts and diplomats say the row over remaining tactical nuclear weapons in Europe could be one of the biggest sticking points at next month's summit.
The confidential 11-page document drafted by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato secretary-general, affirms that as long as nuclear weapons exist, Nato will have to deter against them. But another passage, which the Germans are seeking to strengthen, also calls for support for nuclear disarmament in line with President Barack Obama's vision laid out in Prague last year of a nuclear-free world.
"France wants no language on nuclear disarmament," said Tomas Valasek, defence analyst at the Centre for European Reform. "France and Germany are very very far apart on this."
The newer east European members of Nato are also opposed to getting rid of the tactical weapons, except in an arms treaty with Russia.
"We want to live in a nuclear-free world, but unilaterally it will be impossible for Nato to make a step," said Urmas Paet, Estonia's foreign minister.
"The French want to keep their deterrent and the Germans are jealous," quipped a senior government official from central Europe.
Another senior diplomat said that nuclear disarmament was "a deeply held political belief in Germany. The French have equally strong differing views."
Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, also declared that the bombs would not be removed from Europe unless as part of a deal with the Russians.
But today's offensive by Berlin suggested the argument was not settled.
quarta-feira, 15 de setembro de 2010
Zapatero descartó una retirada unilateral de tropas en Afganistán
La Nación
MADRID (DPA).- España no se retirará unilateralmente de Afganistán, como han hecho Holanda y Canadá, sino que permanecerá en el país asiático hasta que los aliados de la OTAN decidan conjuntamente la salida de las tropas internacionales, aseguró el presidente del gobierno español, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero.
Las tropas españolas se mantendrán en suelo afgano hasta que la situación del país "deje de suponer una amenaza para la comunidad internacional y para los españoles", manifestó Zapatero en el Congreso de los Diputados, donde compareció para informar sobre Afganistán.
Zapatero no puso fecha a un posible repliegue, ni siquiera aproximada. "Un calendario con certeza es prematuro" en este momento, dijo. El jefe del Ejecutivo español admitió que la misión en Afganistán "no puede tener duración indefinida". Debe concluir "cuanto antes", dijo, pero hasta que eso pueda ocurrir, España mantendrá su "compromiso firme e inequívoco".
La muerte en un atentado de dos guardias civiles españoles y su intérprete de origen iraní y nacionalidad española el pasado 25 de agosto reabrió en España el debate sobre la permanencia allí de sus efectivos, 1500 actualmente enmarcados en la ISAF, la misión que comanda la OTAN.
El jefe del Ejecutivo socialista español informó hoy en el Congreso de que han sido detenidas cuatro personas relacionadas con el ataque terrorista, en el que un conductor de la policía afgana abrió fuego contra los españoles. Desde que se inició la misión española en ese país, en 2002, han muerto 93 españoles.
El líder de la oposición, Mariano Rajoy, volvió a criticar a Zapatero por no "llamar a las cosas por su nombre". Su formación, el conservador Partido Popular (PP), apoya la presencia de tropas españolas en suelo afgano, pero ha pedido siempre que el Ejecutivo socialista reconozca la situación de "guerra" en la que se encuentra. "Todo el mundo dice que lo de Afganistán es una guerra", manifestó Rajoy. "Todos los que están allí lo dicen, salvo usted", le reprochó.
Zapatero, sin embargo, sigue resistiéndose a calificar de misión de guerra la que realizan los soldados españoles. El gobierno habla siempre de "misión humanitaria" y "misión de paz". Lo más que llegó hoy a decir el jefe del Ejecutivo es que los soldados "trabajan en un escenario bélico, de conflicto, de violencia y muy peligroso".
Los partidos de izquierda sentados en el Congreso, con excepción del Partido Socialista (PSOE) de Zapatero, pidieron al Ejecutivo un calendario de retirada del país asiático. "La situación actual es insoportable", dijo el portavoz de Izquierda Unida (IU), Gaspar Llamazares.
MADRID (DPA).- España no se retirará unilateralmente de Afganistán, como han hecho Holanda y Canadá, sino que permanecerá en el país asiático hasta que los aliados de la OTAN decidan conjuntamente la salida de las tropas internacionales, aseguró el presidente del gobierno español, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero.
Las tropas españolas se mantendrán en suelo afgano hasta que la situación del país "deje de suponer una amenaza para la comunidad internacional y para los españoles", manifestó Zapatero en el Congreso de los Diputados, donde compareció para informar sobre Afganistán.
Zapatero no puso fecha a un posible repliegue, ni siquiera aproximada. "Un calendario con certeza es prematuro" en este momento, dijo. El jefe del Ejecutivo español admitió que la misión en Afganistán "no puede tener duración indefinida". Debe concluir "cuanto antes", dijo, pero hasta que eso pueda ocurrir, España mantendrá su "compromiso firme e inequívoco".
La muerte en un atentado de dos guardias civiles españoles y su intérprete de origen iraní y nacionalidad española el pasado 25 de agosto reabrió en España el debate sobre la permanencia allí de sus efectivos, 1500 actualmente enmarcados en la ISAF, la misión que comanda la OTAN.
El jefe del Ejecutivo socialista español informó hoy en el Congreso de que han sido detenidas cuatro personas relacionadas con el ataque terrorista, en el que un conductor de la policía afgana abrió fuego contra los españoles. Desde que se inició la misión española en ese país, en 2002, han muerto 93 españoles.
El líder de la oposición, Mariano Rajoy, volvió a criticar a Zapatero por no "llamar a las cosas por su nombre". Su formación, el conservador Partido Popular (PP), apoya la presencia de tropas españolas en suelo afgano, pero ha pedido siempre que el Ejecutivo socialista reconozca la situación de "guerra" en la que se encuentra. "Todo el mundo dice que lo de Afganistán es una guerra", manifestó Rajoy. "Todos los que están allí lo dicen, salvo usted", le reprochó.
Zapatero, sin embargo, sigue resistiéndose a calificar de misión de guerra la que realizan los soldados españoles. El gobierno habla siempre de "misión humanitaria" y "misión de paz". Lo más que llegó hoy a decir el jefe del Ejecutivo es que los soldados "trabajan en un escenario bélico, de conflicto, de violencia y muy peligroso".
Los partidos de izquierda sentados en el Congreso, con excepción del Partido Socialista (PSOE) de Zapatero, pidieron al Ejecutivo un calendario de retirada del país asiático. "La situación actual es insoportable", dijo el portavoz de Izquierda Unida (IU), Gaspar Llamazares.
quarta-feira, 8 de setembro de 2010
NATO Drive on Kandahar Begins, With Mixed Results
The New York Times
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — The white flags of the Taliban no longer fly from neighborhoods in Kandahar City, as they did in some areas only two weeks ago, replaced instead by the red, black and green Afghan colors.
But if the Taliban have been driven further underground, there has been no significant let-up in their campaign of terror and assassination against anyone connected with the government or foreign forces.
The long-delayed push by NATO forces has finally come to town, in fits and starts, and with mixed results. “The deliberate campaign has begun in Kandahar,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, the NATO commander, said on Aug. 31. “In some areas the Taliban momentum has reversed, but there’s clearly a lot more work to be done.”
Several times a day lately, mostly in rural districts just outside the city, there has been the distinct metallic vomiting sound of an American A-10 Warthog attack plane blasting a target with its cannon, which fires 70 30-millimeter shells a second. Fighting in those rural areas has been intense, sometimes with heavy casualties for American troops and Taliban fighters. Inside this city of half a million, the traditional home of the Taliban, though, the coalition’s fight has been much more low-key.
Most of the recent effort has focused on the Mehlajat area, a semirural zone in the southwest of the city, and the adjacent District 6. It is a part of Kandahar that bedeviled the Soviets during their occupation, and until a recent joint military operation there, it was the Taliban’s most important redoubt within city limits.
The area was notorious as a place where the police were afraid to patrol and death sentences were handed out by Taliban courts. Hostages were chained to trees for days on end, and government employees hanged from poles. The Taliban’s white flag flew from many of the mud-walled homes, surrounded by dense cornfields and pomegranate orchards laced with twisting lanes and canals, and heavily booby-trapped.
A five-day operation that concluded Aug. 31, mounted at the insistence of the Afghan authorities but backed up by American troops, succeeded in routing the Taliban from the area without a single civilian casualty. Nor was there a single Taliban casualty, and only 21 Taliban suspects were confirmed as captured, according to American officials.
“It’s not perfect, but it’s a good news story,” said Lt. Col. John Voorhees of the United States Army’s 504th Military Police Battalion, who commanded the American task force that backed up the Afghan police in Mehlajat.
It is also a work in progress, a visit to the area on Monday made clear — what amounts to on-the-job training for many of the Afghans.
The Americans, too, have had to learn fast; many of them are part of this summer’s influx of troops and, like Colonel Voorhees’s men, have been in the field for only a month or two. One of the companies in his task force lost two men, who were killed by an improvised bomb in Mehlajat, but otherwise casualties have been slight: five Afghan police officers, wounded by another bomb.
Now the Afghan police and American troops are settling in to create a permanent presence in this quarter of Kandahar City. Many of the 200 Afghan policemen are fresh recruits, straight from a six-week training program; 10 to 20 percent have not even been issued rifles yet, one of their own commanders said and American officers confirmed.
“They get a police baton and that’s all,” said Police Col. Abdul Qadim. “Can you imagine coming here with a stick?”
The Americans bring an array of modern weaponry, from surveillance drones to close air support. “We have to backstop them at every stage,” Colonel Voorhees said. “But they are out in front.”
The Americans also bring a greater appreciation for Afghan sensibilities than in the past. Lt. David Thompson brought along a backpack stuffed with $45,000 in Afghanis, the national currency, and spent $20,000 of that in three days — paying on-the-spot reparations to residents whose homes or fields were damaged in the fighting.
The operation in Mehlajat has three companies of American troops hunkered down in the fields and orchards, patrolling on foot. The Afghans are patrolling on foot with them, and even sleeping in the open.
Colonel Qadim is the head of what will become the new Police Substation 15, which at the moment consists of a semicircular trench with an orchard wall at its back and fields of corn and okra in front of it. While the Afghans took a break at sunset to eat their iftar meal on Monday, marking the end of the day’s fasting for Ramadan, Americans took up prone positions atop the ditch’s berm, pulling security for them.
Colonel Qadim said he was not happy about bedding down in the dirt, but site engineers have already started planning a building there as a joint headquarters for Afghan and American forces. “We have nothing but this ditch for protection now, but at least it’ll be our turn to serve our country,” he said.
People in the area greeted the troops with friendly waves. “They were truly terrorized before,” said Capt. Bradley Rudy, who heads an infantry company that was also part of the operation. “They’re just really glad we’re here now and staying.”
Many others, however, liken the operation to squeezing a balloon. “Kandahar City is getting worse day by day,” said Hamidzai Lalay, a former police official who is now running for Parliament, and who narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in late July. “The operation in Mehlajat was good but not very effective. Good because no civilians were killed, but the negative part is that most of the insurgents just went to other parts of the city.”
On Wednesday, a policeman who was shopping for the coming holiday marking the end of Ramadan was shot to death. On Monday, two policemen and a civilian were shot to death in a local bazaar. On Sunday, a woman who worked for a humanitarian organization as a security guard was shot to death by gunmen who forced their way into her house. Also on Sunday, an employee working for an Afghan contractor who did business with the Americans was kidnapped from a restaurant in the city center, which has a police post right in front of it,.
One recent local media account put the number of assassinations in Kandahar City since mid-June at 397, suggesting a rate of four or five a day, a pace that appears to be continuing.
American officials will not confirm those numbers. “The city still has its challenges, that’s all I can say,” said Lt. Col. Victor Garcia, the deputy commander of Task Force Raider, in overall charge of Kandahar City. “I don’t want to go into any more details.”
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — The white flags of the Taliban no longer fly from neighborhoods in Kandahar City, as they did in some areas only two weeks ago, replaced instead by the red, black and green Afghan colors.
But if the Taliban have been driven further underground, there has been no significant let-up in their campaign of terror and assassination against anyone connected with the government or foreign forces.
The long-delayed push by NATO forces has finally come to town, in fits and starts, and with mixed results. “The deliberate campaign has begun in Kandahar,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, the NATO commander, said on Aug. 31. “In some areas the Taliban momentum has reversed, but there’s clearly a lot more work to be done.”
Several times a day lately, mostly in rural districts just outside the city, there has been the distinct metallic vomiting sound of an American A-10 Warthog attack plane blasting a target with its cannon, which fires 70 30-millimeter shells a second. Fighting in those rural areas has been intense, sometimes with heavy casualties for American troops and Taliban fighters. Inside this city of half a million, the traditional home of the Taliban, though, the coalition’s fight has been much more low-key.
Most of the recent effort has focused on the Mehlajat area, a semirural zone in the southwest of the city, and the adjacent District 6. It is a part of Kandahar that bedeviled the Soviets during their occupation, and until a recent joint military operation there, it was the Taliban’s most important redoubt within city limits.
The area was notorious as a place where the police were afraid to patrol and death sentences were handed out by Taliban courts. Hostages were chained to trees for days on end, and government employees hanged from poles. The Taliban’s white flag flew from many of the mud-walled homes, surrounded by dense cornfields and pomegranate orchards laced with twisting lanes and canals, and heavily booby-trapped.
A five-day operation that concluded Aug. 31, mounted at the insistence of the Afghan authorities but backed up by American troops, succeeded in routing the Taliban from the area without a single civilian casualty. Nor was there a single Taliban casualty, and only 21 Taliban suspects were confirmed as captured, according to American officials.
“It’s not perfect, but it’s a good news story,” said Lt. Col. John Voorhees of the United States Army’s 504th Military Police Battalion, who commanded the American task force that backed up the Afghan police in Mehlajat.
It is also a work in progress, a visit to the area on Monday made clear — what amounts to on-the-job training for many of the Afghans.
The Americans, too, have had to learn fast; many of them are part of this summer’s influx of troops and, like Colonel Voorhees’s men, have been in the field for only a month or two. One of the companies in his task force lost two men, who were killed by an improvised bomb in Mehlajat, but otherwise casualties have been slight: five Afghan police officers, wounded by another bomb.
Now the Afghan police and American troops are settling in to create a permanent presence in this quarter of Kandahar City. Many of the 200 Afghan policemen are fresh recruits, straight from a six-week training program; 10 to 20 percent have not even been issued rifles yet, one of their own commanders said and American officers confirmed.
“They get a police baton and that’s all,” said Police Col. Abdul Qadim. “Can you imagine coming here with a stick?”
The Americans bring an array of modern weaponry, from surveillance drones to close air support. “We have to backstop them at every stage,” Colonel Voorhees said. “But they are out in front.”
The Americans also bring a greater appreciation for Afghan sensibilities than in the past. Lt. David Thompson brought along a backpack stuffed with $45,000 in Afghanis, the national currency, and spent $20,000 of that in three days — paying on-the-spot reparations to residents whose homes or fields were damaged in the fighting.
The operation in Mehlajat has three companies of American troops hunkered down in the fields and orchards, patrolling on foot. The Afghans are patrolling on foot with them, and even sleeping in the open.
Colonel Qadim is the head of what will become the new Police Substation 15, which at the moment consists of a semicircular trench with an orchard wall at its back and fields of corn and okra in front of it. While the Afghans took a break at sunset to eat their iftar meal on Monday, marking the end of the day’s fasting for Ramadan, Americans took up prone positions atop the ditch’s berm, pulling security for them.
Colonel Qadim said he was not happy about bedding down in the dirt, but site engineers have already started planning a building there as a joint headquarters for Afghan and American forces. “We have nothing but this ditch for protection now, but at least it’ll be our turn to serve our country,” he said.
People in the area greeted the troops with friendly waves. “They were truly terrorized before,” said Capt. Bradley Rudy, who heads an infantry company that was also part of the operation. “They’re just really glad we’re here now and staying.”
Many others, however, liken the operation to squeezing a balloon. “Kandahar City is getting worse day by day,” said Hamidzai Lalay, a former police official who is now running for Parliament, and who narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in late July. “The operation in Mehlajat was good but not very effective. Good because no civilians were killed, but the negative part is that most of the insurgents just went to other parts of the city.”
On Wednesday, a policeman who was shopping for the coming holiday marking the end of Ramadan was shot to death. On Monday, two policemen and a civilian were shot to death in a local bazaar. On Sunday, a woman who worked for a humanitarian organization as a security guard was shot to death by gunmen who forced their way into her house. Also on Sunday, an employee working for an Afghan contractor who did business with the Americans was kidnapped from a restaurant in the city center, which has a police post right in front of it,.
One recent local media account put the number of assassinations in Kandahar City since mid-June at 397, suggesting a rate of four or five a day, a pace that appears to be continuing.
American officials will not confirm those numbers. “The city still has its challenges, that’s all I can say,” said Lt. Col. Victor Garcia, the deputy commander of Task Force Raider, in overall charge of Kandahar City. “I don’t want to go into any more details.”
terça-feira, 7 de setembro de 2010
NATO chief: Karzai must crack down on graft
The Washington Post
Reports about endemic corruption in Afghanistan are undermining public support for the war among NATO allies, the military alliance's leader warned Tuesday.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he has told Afghan President Hamid Karzai several times that he needs to crack down on graft. Karzai has irritated allies in Washington and European capitals by blocking corruption investigations of members of his palace staff. Meantime, U.S. officials have raised concerns that billions of dollars in foreign aid to Afghanistan are being siphoned off or diverted.
"It is essential that they strengthen the fight against corruption," Rasmussen said Tuesday in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors. "All these stories about irregularities and corruption are damaging for public support for our presence in Afghanistan."
Equally important, he said, is the need for ordinary Afghans to develop confidence in their government instead of the Taliban and other insurgents.
"He must get this right," Rasmussen said of Karzai. "And I think he understands it is crucial."
Although NATO has expanded its presence in Afghanistan over the past year - led by an increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops - it is grappling with the pending exits of some key contributors. The Netherlands withdrew its 2,000-member force last month and Canada is scheduled to bring its 3,000 troops home next summer. Britain has said it plans to end combat missions by 2015 and possibly start withdrawing some forces next year.
Rasmussen said pressure for a quicker pullout had eased since an international conference in Kabul in July endorsed a goal to have Afghan troops take the lead in all security operations by the end of 2014. NATO forces would remain after that to train and advise the Afghans, but in much lower numbers.
About 41,000 NATO and other foreign forces are currently in Afghanistan, in addition to about 100,000 U.S. troops.
Rasmussen, who was in Washington to meet with President Obama at the White House, said he hoped that Afghan forces could take over security responsibilities in at least some parts of the country by next July. That would dovetail with Obama's pledge to start withdrawing at least some U.S. forces by then.
The 2014 timetable, Rasmussen said, has "given some clarity" to NATO members and partners that had disagreed about when Afghan forces should be expected to fend largely for themselves.
At the same time, he cautioned that the timetable - which he variously characterized as "a road map" and "an ambition" - is not set in stone and will depend on how much progress is made in fighting the Taliban.
Another question is whether Afghanistan's troops and police officers, most of whom are illiterate and have scant experience, will be up to the job. NATO has tried since 2002 to rebuild the security forces, but the effort was dogged by so many problems that U.S. commanders announced last year that they were re-starting the training program from scratch.
And although U.S. officials say matters have improved, NATO is still struggling to fill a long-standing request for 450 additional trainers.
"Seen retrospectively, I think, one of the problems is that we have underestimated the task," Rasmussen said of the training effort. "That's exactly the problem - we started too late."
Reports about endemic corruption in Afghanistan are undermining public support for the war among NATO allies, the military alliance's leader warned Tuesday.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he has told Afghan President Hamid Karzai several times that he needs to crack down on graft. Karzai has irritated allies in Washington and European capitals by blocking corruption investigations of members of his palace staff. Meantime, U.S. officials have raised concerns that billions of dollars in foreign aid to Afghanistan are being siphoned off or diverted.
"It is essential that they strengthen the fight against corruption," Rasmussen said Tuesday in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors. "All these stories about irregularities and corruption are damaging for public support for our presence in Afghanistan."
Equally important, he said, is the need for ordinary Afghans to develop confidence in their government instead of the Taliban and other insurgents.
"He must get this right," Rasmussen said of Karzai. "And I think he understands it is crucial."
Although NATO has expanded its presence in Afghanistan over the past year - led by an increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops - it is grappling with the pending exits of some key contributors. The Netherlands withdrew its 2,000-member force last month and Canada is scheduled to bring its 3,000 troops home next summer. Britain has said it plans to end combat missions by 2015 and possibly start withdrawing some forces next year.
Rasmussen said pressure for a quicker pullout had eased since an international conference in Kabul in July endorsed a goal to have Afghan troops take the lead in all security operations by the end of 2014. NATO forces would remain after that to train and advise the Afghans, but in much lower numbers.
About 41,000 NATO and other foreign forces are currently in Afghanistan, in addition to about 100,000 U.S. troops.
Rasmussen, who was in Washington to meet with President Obama at the White House, said he hoped that Afghan forces could take over security responsibilities in at least some parts of the country by next July. That would dovetail with Obama's pledge to start withdrawing at least some U.S. forces by then.
The 2014 timetable, Rasmussen said, has "given some clarity" to NATO members and partners that had disagreed about when Afghan forces should be expected to fend largely for themselves.
At the same time, he cautioned that the timetable - which he variously characterized as "a road map" and "an ambition" - is not set in stone and will depend on how much progress is made in fighting the Taliban.
Another question is whether Afghanistan's troops and police officers, most of whom are illiterate and have scant experience, will be up to the job. NATO has tried since 2002 to rebuild the security forces, but the effort was dogged by so many problems that U.S. commanders announced last year that they were re-starting the training program from scratch.
And although U.S. officials say matters have improved, NATO is still struggling to fill a long-standing request for 450 additional trainers.
"Seen retrospectively, I think, one of the problems is that we have underestimated the task," Rasmussen said of the training effort. "That's exactly the problem - we started too late."
sábado, 21 de agosto de 2010
Iceland should keep its faith in Nato
The Guardian
Vera Knútsdóttir
Formal talks on Iceland's accession to the European Union started on 27 July, spurring heated debates between the pro-EU and anti-EU camps. Some of the more optimistic EU advocates believe that once Iceland joins the EU there will be no need for Iceland to stay in Nato. Their argument is that article 28a of the Lisbon treaty will suffice, but it states:
"If a member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations charter."
These optimists are unhappy with US policies in the Middle East and Nato operations in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. Their belief is that ending security agreements with the US and ending the long-standing alliance between the two countries would better serve Iceland's security interests.
Iceland's Nato membership has been contested from the beginning. The constitution of the newly independent nation in 1944 declared Iceland's neutrality and by joining Nato in 1949 the government was forgoing Iceland's neutrality. This was, of course, at the height of the cold war and Iceland was strategically important to the US.
Now that the cold war has ended and the US has removed its military base from Keflavik, many have wondered if the US was committed to the defence of Icelandic territory and others have celebrated and want the government to take a step further and leave Nato.
Even if Iceland joins the EU it is within its interest to remain a member of Nato. Iceland has no military (nor any interest in having one) and has agreements with Nato, a bilateral defence agreement with the US and arrangements with the Nordic countries, as well as Britain and France, on defending the Icelandic air space and on joint exercises.
Under these agreements, Nato is bound to send fighter aircraft units three times a year to defend Icelandic air space. The system and facilities used for the defence and observation of Icelandic air space and mutual alliance air space around Iceland were funded, developed and deployed by Nato.
Withdrawing from Nato would pose enormous costs for Iceland to replace and/or buy these systems and facilities. The government would have a hard time rationalising such costs, especially considering the health of the Icelandic economy. It would also be a political blow to the long-standing partnership between Iceland and the United States; after all, the reasons to leave Nato would be political and directly related to unhappiness with US policies.
What the optimists need to realise is that in any partnership and alliance like Nato and especially in the EU, states will not always agree and be satisfied with all policies of the other member states. When it comes to operations in Afghanistan it is certainly true that many citizens of Nato member states are dissatisfied with the situation and how operations have been conducted and the loss of lives, etc. These are all legitimate reasons.
Nato is not above criticism and many things could be better within the alliance. But let's face it: Nato is the most qualified multilateral institution to provide for European security. The EU is struggling with the most recent enlargements and integration processes and sometimes it appears to be falling apart.
We have seen how the financial crisis has affected the relations between EU member states and, of course, between Britain and Iceland. Iceland should definitely strengthen its Nordic co-operation to be able to rely less on the US. But when it comes down to it, it is comforting to have Uncle Sam watching over you from a distance.
Vera Knútsdóttir
Formal talks on Iceland's accession to the European Union started on 27 July, spurring heated debates between the pro-EU and anti-EU camps. Some of the more optimistic EU advocates believe that once Iceland joins the EU there will be no need for Iceland to stay in Nato. Their argument is that article 28a of the Lisbon treaty will suffice, but it states:
"If a member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations charter."
These optimists are unhappy with US policies in the Middle East and Nato operations in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. Their belief is that ending security agreements with the US and ending the long-standing alliance between the two countries would better serve Iceland's security interests.
Iceland's Nato membership has been contested from the beginning. The constitution of the newly independent nation in 1944 declared Iceland's neutrality and by joining Nato in 1949 the government was forgoing Iceland's neutrality. This was, of course, at the height of the cold war and Iceland was strategically important to the US.
Now that the cold war has ended and the US has removed its military base from Keflavik, many have wondered if the US was committed to the defence of Icelandic territory and others have celebrated and want the government to take a step further and leave Nato.
Even if Iceland joins the EU it is within its interest to remain a member of Nato. Iceland has no military (nor any interest in having one) and has agreements with Nato, a bilateral defence agreement with the US and arrangements with the Nordic countries, as well as Britain and France, on defending the Icelandic air space and on joint exercises.
Under these agreements, Nato is bound to send fighter aircraft units three times a year to defend Icelandic air space. The system and facilities used for the defence and observation of Icelandic air space and mutual alliance air space around Iceland were funded, developed and deployed by Nato.
Withdrawing from Nato would pose enormous costs for Iceland to replace and/or buy these systems and facilities. The government would have a hard time rationalising such costs, especially considering the health of the Icelandic economy. It would also be a political blow to the long-standing partnership between Iceland and the United States; after all, the reasons to leave Nato would be political and directly related to unhappiness with US policies.
What the optimists need to realise is that in any partnership and alliance like Nato and especially in the EU, states will not always agree and be satisfied with all policies of the other member states. When it comes to operations in Afghanistan it is certainly true that many citizens of Nato member states are dissatisfied with the situation and how operations have been conducted and the loss of lives, etc. These are all legitimate reasons.
Nato is not above criticism and many things could be better within the alliance. But let's face it: Nato is the most qualified multilateral institution to provide for European security. The EU is struggling with the most recent enlargements and integration processes and sometimes it appears to be falling apart.
We have seen how the financial crisis has affected the relations between EU member states and, of course, between Britain and Iceland. Iceland should definitely strengthen its Nordic co-operation to be able to rely less on the US. But when it comes down to it, it is comforting to have Uncle Sam watching over you from a distance.
terça-feira, 3 de agosto de 2010
Pour le président pakistanais, la coalition "est en train de perdre la guerre contre les talibans"
Le Monde
Le président pakistanais Asif Ali Zardari, élu en septembre 2008 et veuf de l'ex-premier ministre Benazir Bhutto, tuée dans un attentat fin 2007, a effectué une visite officielle de trois jours en France. Dans l'entretien qu'il a accordé au "Monde" daté du mercredi 4 août, M. Zardari s'exprime notamment sur le double jeu supposé du Pakistan avec les talibans et sur la guerre en Afghanistan.
Interrogé sur ce qu'il dira au premier ministre britannique, David Cameron, qui a demandé au Pakistan de choisir entre le camp des talibans et la lutte contre le terrorisme, le président pakistanais répond : "Je lui dirai en face que la guerre contre le terrorisme devrait nous réunir et non nous opposer. Je lui expliquerai dans les yeux que c'est mon pays qui paye le prix le plus élevé de cette guerre en vies humaines… Une franche discussion permettra de ramener un peu de sérénité. C'est pourquoi je n'annulerai pas ma visite à Londres en dépit de cette grave mise en cause. Les relations entre nos deux pays sont anciennes et suffisamment solides pour cela".
A propos des documents publiés par le site WikiLeaks montrant les difficultés de la coalition contre les talibans ainsi que l'existence de liens entre le Pakistan et les talibans, M. Zardari estime que "les informations dévoilées concernent avant tout l'action des Etats-Unis en Afghanistan. Les autorités militaires et politiques américaines ont dit ce qu'elles en pensaient". Il ajoute: "les faits évoqués concernant mon pays sont antérieurs à mon arrivée à la tête de l'Etat pakistanais".
M. Zardari considère surtout que "la communauté internationale, à laquelle appartient le Pakistan, est en train de perdre la guerre contre les talibans. Et ce, avant tout, parce que nous avons perdu la bataille de la conquête des cœurs et des esprits". Pour lui," les renforts militaires ne sont qu'une petite partie de la réponse. Pour gagner le soutien de la population afghane, il faut lui apporter du développement économique et lui prouver qu'on peut non seulement changer sa vie, mais surtout l'améliorer".
Le président pakistanais estime que "la réussite des insurgés, c'est de savoir attendre. Ils ont le temps avec eux. C'est toute l'approche qui me semble erronée. La population n'associe pas l'intervention de la coalition à un futur mieux-être."
Au sujet de l'attentat de Karachi qui a causé la mort de onze Français en 2002 et à l'hypothèse d'un non-paiement de pots-de-vin à des intermédiaires pakistanais dans le cadre de la vente de sous-marins français au Pakistan,qui en aurait été l'origine, M. Zardari, dont le nom a parfois été cité, répond: "Quand ces événements sont intervenus, j'étais en prison. Je ne vois pas comment je pourrais avoir un lien avec cette affaire. Par ailleurs, pour nous, cet attentat n'a rien à voir avec le contrat des sous-marins sur lesquels travaillaient les victimes, c'est un pur acte de terrorisme".
Le président pakistanais Asif Ali Zardari, élu en septembre 2008 et veuf de l'ex-premier ministre Benazir Bhutto, tuée dans un attentat fin 2007, a effectué une visite officielle de trois jours en France. Dans l'entretien qu'il a accordé au "Monde" daté du mercredi 4 août, M. Zardari s'exprime notamment sur le double jeu supposé du Pakistan avec les talibans et sur la guerre en Afghanistan.
Interrogé sur ce qu'il dira au premier ministre britannique, David Cameron, qui a demandé au Pakistan de choisir entre le camp des talibans et la lutte contre le terrorisme, le président pakistanais répond : "Je lui dirai en face que la guerre contre le terrorisme devrait nous réunir et non nous opposer. Je lui expliquerai dans les yeux que c'est mon pays qui paye le prix le plus élevé de cette guerre en vies humaines… Une franche discussion permettra de ramener un peu de sérénité. C'est pourquoi je n'annulerai pas ma visite à Londres en dépit de cette grave mise en cause. Les relations entre nos deux pays sont anciennes et suffisamment solides pour cela".
A propos des documents publiés par le site WikiLeaks montrant les difficultés de la coalition contre les talibans ainsi que l'existence de liens entre le Pakistan et les talibans, M. Zardari estime que "les informations dévoilées concernent avant tout l'action des Etats-Unis en Afghanistan. Les autorités militaires et politiques américaines ont dit ce qu'elles en pensaient". Il ajoute: "les faits évoqués concernant mon pays sont antérieurs à mon arrivée à la tête de l'Etat pakistanais".
M. Zardari considère surtout que "la communauté internationale, à laquelle appartient le Pakistan, est en train de perdre la guerre contre les talibans. Et ce, avant tout, parce que nous avons perdu la bataille de la conquête des cœurs et des esprits". Pour lui," les renforts militaires ne sont qu'une petite partie de la réponse. Pour gagner le soutien de la population afghane, il faut lui apporter du développement économique et lui prouver qu'on peut non seulement changer sa vie, mais surtout l'améliorer".
Le président pakistanais estime que "la réussite des insurgés, c'est de savoir attendre. Ils ont le temps avec eux. C'est toute l'approche qui me semble erronée. La population n'associe pas l'intervention de la coalition à un futur mieux-être."
Au sujet de l'attentat de Karachi qui a causé la mort de onze Français en 2002 et à l'hypothèse d'un non-paiement de pots-de-vin à des intermédiaires pakistanais dans le cadre de la vente de sous-marins français au Pakistan,qui en aurait été l'origine, M. Zardari, dont le nom a parfois été cité, répond: "Quand ces événements sont intervenus, j'étais en prison. Je ne vois pas comment je pourrais avoir un lien avec cette affaire. Par ailleurs, pour nous, cet attentat n'a rien à voir avec le contrat des sous-marins sur lesquels travaillaient les victimes, c'est un pur acte de terrorisme".
segunda-feira, 2 de agosto de 2010
Netherlands becomes first NATO country to end its combat mission in Afghanistan
The New York Times
KABUL -- The Netherlands became the first NATO country to end its combat mission in Afghanistan, drawing the curtain Sunday on a four-year operation that was deeply unpopular at home and even brought down a Dutch government.
The departure of the small force of nearly 1,900 Dutch troops is not expected to affect conditions on the ground. But it is politically significant because it comes at a time of rising casualties and of growing doubts about the war in NATO capitals, even as allied troops are beginning what could be the decisive campaign of the war.
Canada has announced that it will withdraw its 2,700 troops in 2011, and Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski has promised to pull out his country's 2,600 troops the year after.
That is likely to put pressure on other European governments such as Germany and Britain to scale back their forces, adding to the burden shouldered by the United States, which expects to have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan by the end of next month.
President Obama has pledged to begin withdrawing American troops starting in July 2011. But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told ABC's "This Week" broadcast Sunday that only a small number of troops would leave in the initial stage.
The end of the Dutch mission took place amid bad news from Afghanistan -- including rising casualties and uncertainty over a strategy that relies heavily on winning Afghan public support through improved security and a better performance by Afghanistan's corrupt and ineffectual government.
July was the deadliest month of the nearly nine-year-long war for U.S. forces, with 66 deaths. U.S. commanders have warned of more losses ahead as the NATO-led force ramps up operations in longtime Taliban strongholds in the southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand, which accounted for most of last month's American deaths.
Two more international service members were killed Sunday in fighting in the south, NATO said without specifying nationalities.
Twenty-four Dutch troops have died in Afghanistan since the mission began in 2006. Most of the Dutch force was based in the central province of Uruzgan, where it will be replaced by troops from the United States, Australia, Slovakia and Singapore.
KABUL -- The Netherlands became the first NATO country to end its combat mission in Afghanistan, drawing the curtain Sunday on a four-year operation that was deeply unpopular at home and even brought down a Dutch government.
The departure of the small force of nearly 1,900 Dutch troops is not expected to affect conditions on the ground. But it is politically significant because it comes at a time of rising casualties and of growing doubts about the war in NATO capitals, even as allied troops are beginning what could be the decisive campaign of the war.
Canada has announced that it will withdraw its 2,700 troops in 2011, and Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski has promised to pull out his country's 2,600 troops the year after.
That is likely to put pressure on other European governments such as Germany and Britain to scale back their forces, adding to the burden shouldered by the United States, which expects to have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan by the end of next month.
President Obama has pledged to begin withdrawing American troops starting in July 2011. But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told ABC's "This Week" broadcast Sunday that only a small number of troops would leave in the initial stage.
The end of the Dutch mission took place amid bad news from Afghanistan -- including rising casualties and uncertainty over a strategy that relies heavily on winning Afghan public support through improved security and a better performance by Afghanistan's corrupt and ineffectual government.
July was the deadliest month of the nearly nine-year-long war for U.S. forces, with 66 deaths. U.S. commanders have warned of more losses ahead as the NATO-led force ramps up operations in longtime Taliban strongholds in the southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand, which accounted for most of last month's American deaths.
Two more international service members were killed Sunday in fighting in the south, NATO said without specifying nationalities.
Twenty-four Dutch troops have died in Afghanistan since the mission began in 2006. Most of the Dutch force was based in the central province of Uruzgan, where it will be replaced by troops from the United States, Australia, Slovakia and Singapore.
sábado, 31 de julho de 2010
July becomes deadliest month for U.S. troops in nearly nine-year Afghan war
The Washington Post
KABUL -- With the deaths of six troops on Thursday and Friday, July has become the deadliest month for U.S. forces in the nearly nine-year-long war in Afghanistan.
The three killings on Friday came in a manner and location that has typified the recent increase in violence. NATO officials said that two of the American service members died in a roadside bombing and that the other was killed in a separate insurgent attack. Both assaults occurred in southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest. Rudimentary bombs, often made from fertilizer, are a favored weapon of the Taliban and the predominant killer of U.S. troops.
The six deaths over two days pushed the U.S. death toll to 66, surpassing the record in June, when 60 American troops were killed. The overall death toll for NATO forces in July is still below the record reached in June, when 103 NATO troops were killed.
With the buildup of 30,000 additional U.S. soldiers this year, American commanders have predicted a spike in casualties as they push into Taliban strongholds where there has been little coalition presence in the past. The most violent time in Afghanistan is typically summer, when the Taliban is not hampered by cold weather in the mountains and can go on the offensive.
But there also has been a steady growth in the size and potency of the insurgency. U.S. and Afghan officials estimate that the number of Taliban fighters exceeds 30,000. Insurgents have spread beyond their traditional havens in southern and eastern Afghanistan in recent years and now hold considerable power elsewhere in the country, particularly in the once-peaceful north.
A senior NATO official said one-third to one-half of the 82 districts around the country that NATO considers crucial to the war are now under insurgent influence.
The tension inherent in such a war zone escalated into an angry protest in downtown Kabul on Friday, as police fired to disperse a crowd that set fire to two vehicles after a traffic accident killed four Afghan civilians, according to Afghan officials.
The outburst occurred on the road leading from Kabul's airport, near the traffic circle named for the guerrilla commander Ahmed Shah Massoud, directly outside the U.S. Embassy. It started when an SUV driven by American contractors struck a car carrying the four Afghans, according to a statement from the U.S. Embassy.
The protesters chanted "Death to America" and threw rocks, the Associated Press reported.
The embassy statement said the American contractors "cooperated immediately with local Afghan Security Forces after the incident."
"Our sympathies go out to the families of those Afghans injured or killed in this tragic accident," the statement said.
KABUL -- With the deaths of six troops on Thursday and Friday, July has become the deadliest month for U.S. forces in the nearly nine-year-long war in Afghanistan.
The three killings on Friday came in a manner and location that has typified the recent increase in violence. NATO officials said that two of the American service members died in a roadside bombing and that the other was killed in a separate insurgent attack. Both assaults occurred in southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest. Rudimentary bombs, often made from fertilizer, are a favored weapon of the Taliban and the predominant killer of U.S. troops.
The six deaths over two days pushed the U.S. death toll to 66, surpassing the record in June, when 60 American troops were killed. The overall death toll for NATO forces in July is still below the record reached in June, when 103 NATO troops were killed.
With the buildup of 30,000 additional U.S. soldiers this year, American commanders have predicted a spike in casualties as they push into Taliban strongholds where there has been little coalition presence in the past. The most violent time in Afghanistan is typically summer, when the Taliban is not hampered by cold weather in the mountains and can go on the offensive.
But there also has been a steady growth in the size and potency of the insurgency. U.S. and Afghan officials estimate that the number of Taliban fighters exceeds 30,000. Insurgents have spread beyond their traditional havens in southern and eastern Afghanistan in recent years and now hold considerable power elsewhere in the country, particularly in the once-peaceful north.
A senior NATO official said one-third to one-half of the 82 districts around the country that NATO considers crucial to the war are now under insurgent influence.
The tension inherent in such a war zone escalated into an angry protest in downtown Kabul on Friday, as police fired to disperse a crowd that set fire to two vehicles after a traffic accident killed four Afghan civilians, according to Afghan officials.
The outburst occurred on the road leading from Kabul's airport, near the traffic circle named for the guerrilla commander Ahmed Shah Massoud, directly outside the U.S. Embassy. It started when an SUV driven by American contractors struck a car carrying the four Afghans, according to a statement from the U.S. Embassy.
The protesters chanted "Death to America" and threw rocks, the Associated Press reported.
The embassy statement said the American contractors "cooperated immediately with local Afghan Security Forces after the incident."
"Our sympathies go out to the families of those Afghans injured or killed in this tragic accident," the statement said.
Targeted Killing Is New U.S. Focus in Afghanistan
The New York Times
WASHINGTON — When President Obama announced his new war plan for Afghanistan last year, the centerpiece of the strategy — and a big part of the rationale for sending 30,000 additional troops — was to safeguard the Afghan people, provide them with a competent government and win their allegiance.
Eight months later, that counterinsurgency strategy has shown little success, as demonstrated by the flagging military and civilian operations in Marja and Kandahar and the spread of Taliban influence in other areas of the country.
Instead, what has turned out to work well is an approach American officials have talked much less about: counterterrorism, military-speak for the targeted killings of insurgents from Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Faced with that reality, and the pressure of a self-imposed deadline to begin withdrawing troops by July 2011, the Obama administration is starting to count more heavily on the strategy of hunting down insurgents. The shift could change the nature of the war and potentially, in the view of some officials, hasten a political settlement with the Taliban.
Based on the American military experience in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, it is not clear that killing enemy fighters is sufficient by itself to cripple an insurgency. Still, commando raids over the last five months have taken more than 130 significant insurgents out of action, while interrogations of captured fighters have led to a fuller picture of the enemy, according to administration officials and diplomats.
American intelligence reporting has recently revealed growing examples of Taliban fighters who are fearful of moving into higher-level command positions because of these lethal operations, according to a senior American military officer who follows Afghanistan closely.
Judging that they have gained some leverage over the Taliban, American officials are now debating when to try to bring them to the negotiating table to end the fighting. Rattling the Taliban, officials said, may open the door to reconciling with them more quickly, even if the officials caution that the outreach is still deeply uncertain.
American military officials and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan have begun a robust discussion about “to what degree these people are going to be allowed to have a seat at the table,” one military official said. “The only real solution to Afghanistan has got to be political.”
The evolving thinking comes at a time when the lack of apparent progress in the nearly nine-year war is making it harder for Mr. Obama to hold his own party together on the issue. And it raises questions about whether the administration is seeking a rationale for reducing troop levels as scheduled starting next summer even if the counterinsurgency strategy does not show significant progress by then.
A senior White House official said the administration hoped that its targeted killings, along with high-level contacts between Mr. Karzai and Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan’s army chief and a former head of its intelligence service — which is believed to have close links to the Taliban — would combine to pressure Taliban leaders to come to the negotiating table.
A long-awaited campaign to convert lower-level and midlevel Taliban fighters has finally begun in earnest, with Mr. Karzai signing a decree authorizing the reintegration program. With $200 million from Japan and other allies, and an additional $100 million in Pentagon money, American military officers will soon be handing out money to lure people away from the insurgency.
“We’re not ready to make the qualitative judgment that the cumulative effects of what we are doing are enough to change their calculus yet,” the White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. But, reflecting the administration’s hope that the killings are making a difference, he added, “If I were the Taliban, I’d be worried.”
Mr. Obama’s timetable calls for an assessment in December of how his strategy is faring. The administration has not yet begun a formal review of the policy. But while several officials said Mr. Obama remained committed to the strategy he set out at the end of last year, they conceded that the counterinsurgency part of it had lagged while the counterterrorism part had been more successful.
That divergence could lead to a replay of last year’s policy debate, in which Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. pushed for a focus on capturing and killing terrorist leaders, while the Pentagon, including the current commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, pushed for a broader strategy that also included a strong focus on securing Afghan population centers with more troops.
Still, in an interview Thursday with “Today” on NBC, Mr. Biden appeared to reiterate his earlier stance.
“We are in Afghanistan for one express purpose: Al Qaeda,” he said. “Al Qaeda exists in those mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are not there to nation-build. We’re not out there deciding we’re going to turn this into a Jeffersonian democracy and build that country.”
The administration’s shift in thinking is gradual but has been perceptible in the public remarks of various officials. The incoming commander of the military’s Central Command, Gen. James N. Mattis, was asked last week by Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, whether the administration’s July 2011 date for starting to withdraw American troops implied a shift in emphasis from counterinsurgency to a strategy concentrating on killing terrorists.
“I think that is the approach, Senator,” he replied.
The emerging American model can best be described as “counterterrorism, with some counterinsurgency strategy that forces the hands of insurgent leaders,” said a diplomat with knowledge of the planning. It melds elements of both strategies in a policy that continues to evolve, as conditions change.
Some of the feelers to the Taliban are being put out by the Karzai government and some by the Pakistanis. Some, eventually, will be handled by General Petraeus and other military officials. Contacts are being kept under wraps, several officials said, because any evidence that insurgent leaders are talking to American or Afghan officials could be used against them by rival insurgents.
Another factor that has spurred talk of reconciliation is a classified military report, called “State of the Taliban,” prepared by Task Force 373, a Special Operations team composed of the army’s Delta Force and Navy Seals, which has captured insurgents and taken them to Bagram Air Base for interrogation.
While the report does not offer a silver bullet for how to deal with the Taliban, one official said that for the first time, it gives Americans and their allies “a rich vein of understanding of why the Taliban was fighting and what it would take them to stop.” The report depicts the Taliban as spearheading a fractured insurgency, but one in which conservative Pashtun nationalism and respect for Afghan culture are both at play, this official said.
Despite deep American concerns about Pakistan’s trustworthiness as an ally, Pakistan has also emerged in recent months as a potential agent for reconciliation. Mr. Karzai has held at least two meetings with General Kayani of Pakistan. American officials say they believe that their talks have not yet delved into the details of negotiations with insurgent leaders, but Pakistan is eager to play a role in talks with the Haqqani network, a major insurgent group based in the country that has close ties to its intelligence service.
The links between Mr. Karzai and General Kayani, officials said, helped seal a recent trade deal between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which required concessions on the part of the Pakistani military.
“The best hope for resolving Afghanistan lies in Pakistan, and we have made some progress there,” said Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent visitor to the region.
WASHINGTON — When President Obama announced his new war plan for Afghanistan last year, the centerpiece of the strategy — and a big part of the rationale for sending 30,000 additional troops — was to safeguard the Afghan people, provide them with a competent government and win their allegiance.
Eight months later, that counterinsurgency strategy has shown little success, as demonstrated by the flagging military and civilian operations in Marja and Kandahar and the spread of Taliban influence in other areas of the country.
Instead, what has turned out to work well is an approach American officials have talked much less about: counterterrorism, military-speak for the targeted killings of insurgents from Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Faced with that reality, and the pressure of a self-imposed deadline to begin withdrawing troops by July 2011, the Obama administration is starting to count more heavily on the strategy of hunting down insurgents. The shift could change the nature of the war and potentially, in the view of some officials, hasten a political settlement with the Taliban.
Based on the American military experience in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, it is not clear that killing enemy fighters is sufficient by itself to cripple an insurgency. Still, commando raids over the last five months have taken more than 130 significant insurgents out of action, while interrogations of captured fighters have led to a fuller picture of the enemy, according to administration officials and diplomats.
American intelligence reporting has recently revealed growing examples of Taliban fighters who are fearful of moving into higher-level command positions because of these lethal operations, according to a senior American military officer who follows Afghanistan closely.
Judging that they have gained some leverage over the Taliban, American officials are now debating when to try to bring them to the negotiating table to end the fighting. Rattling the Taliban, officials said, may open the door to reconciling with them more quickly, even if the officials caution that the outreach is still deeply uncertain.
American military officials and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan have begun a robust discussion about “to what degree these people are going to be allowed to have a seat at the table,” one military official said. “The only real solution to Afghanistan has got to be political.”
The evolving thinking comes at a time when the lack of apparent progress in the nearly nine-year war is making it harder for Mr. Obama to hold his own party together on the issue. And it raises questions about whether the administration is seeking a rationale for reducing troop levels as scheduled starting next summer even if the counterinsurgency strategy does not show significant progress by then.
A senior White House official said the administration hoped that its targeted killings, along with high-level contacts between Mr. Karzai and Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan’s army chief and a former head of its intelligence service — which is believed to have close links to the Taliban — would combine to pressure Taliban leaders to come to the negotiating table.
A long-awaited campaign to convert lower-level and midlevel Taliban fighters has finally begun in earnest, with Mr. Karzai signing a decree authorizing the reintegration program. With $200 million from Japan and other allies, and an additional $100 million in Pentagon money, American military officers will soon be handing out money to lure people away from the insurgency.
“We’re not ready to make the qualitative judgment that the cumulative effects of what we are doing are enough to change their calculus yet,” the White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. But, reflecting the administration’s hope that the killings are making a difference, he added, “If I were the Taliban, I’d be worried.”
Mr. Obama’s timetable calls for an assessment in December of how his strategy is faring. The administration has not yet begun a formal review of the policy. But while several officials said Mr. Obama remained committed to the strategy he set out at the end of last year, they conceded that the counterinsurgency part of it had lagged while the counterterrorism part had been more successful.
That divergence could lead to a replay of last year’s policy debate, in which Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. pushed for a focus on capturing and killing terrorist leaders, while the Pentagon, including the current commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, pushed for a broader strategy that also included a strong focus on securing Afghan population centers with more troops.
Still, in an interview Thursday with “Today” on NBC, Mr. Biden appeared to reiterate his earlier stance.
“We are in Afghanistan for one express purpose: Al Qaeda,” he said. “Al Qaeda exists in those mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are not there to nation-build. We’re not out there deciding we’re going to turn this into a Jeffersonian democracy and build that country.”
The administration’s shift in thinking is gradual but has been perceptible in the public remarks of various officials. The incoming commander of the military’s Central Command, Gen. James N. Mattis, was asked last week by Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, whether the administration’s July 2011 date for starting to withdraw American troops implied a shift in emphasis from counterinsurgency to a strategy concentrating on killing terrorists.
“I think that is the approach, Senator,” he replied.
The emerging American model can best be described as “counterterrorism, with some counterinsurgency strategy that forces the hands of insurgent leaders,” said a diplomat with knowledge of the planning. It melds elements of both strategies in a policy that continues to evolve, as conditions change.
Some of the feelers to the Taliban are being put out by the Karzai government and some by the Pakistanis. Some, eventually, will be handled by General Petraeus and other military officials. Contacts are being kept under wraps, several officials said, because any evidence that insurgent leaders are talking to American or Afghan officials could be used against them by rival insurgents.
Another factor that has spurred talk of reconciliation is a classified military report, called “State of the Taliban,” prepared by Task Force 373, a Special Operations team composed of the army’s Delta Force and Navy Seals, which has captured insurgents and taken them to Bagram Air Base for interrogation.
While the report does not offer a silver bullet for how to deal with the Taliban, one official said that for the first time, it gives Americans and their allies “a rich vein of understanding of why the Taliban was fighting and what it would take them to stop.” The report depicts the Taliban as spearheading a fractured insurgency, but one in which conservative Pashtun nationalism and respect for Afghan culture are both at play, this official said.
Despite deep American concerns about Pakistan’s trustworthiness as an ally, Pakistan has also emerged in recent months as a potential agent for reconciliation. Mr. Karzai has held at least two meetings with General Kayani of Pakistan. American officials say they believe that their talks have not yet delved into the details of negotiations with insurgent leaders, but Pakistan is eager to play a role in talks with the Haqqani network, a major insurgent group based in the country that has close ties to its intelligence service.
The links between Mr. Karzai and General Kayani, officials said, helped seal a recent trade deal between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which required concessions on the part of the Pakistani military.
“The best hope for resolving Afghanistan lies in Pakistan, and we have made some progress there,” said Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent visitor to the region.
terça-feira, 20 de julho de 2010
Leaders Renew Vows of Support for Afghanistan
The New York Times
KABUL, Afghanistan — American, European and other foreign leaders met here Tuesday to pledge anew their support for Afghanistan as they committed to complete transition of security and budgeting responsibility to the Afghan government by 2014. They acknowledged that neither the people of their own countries nor those in Afghanistan had much patience left.
President Hamid Karzai promised to make concrete efforts to reduce corruption and find a way to end the fighting in his country — areas in which he has pledged improvement in the past. He painted a picture of a country that could flourish, lifting its “people from poverty to prosperity and from insecurity to stability.”
“Our vision is to be the peaceful meeting place of civilizations,” he said in an address. “Our location in the center of the new Silk Road makes us a convergence point of regional and global economic interests.”
Whether Afghanistan can get there without an enormous infusion of further foreign aid and the presence of a significant number of foreign troops seems doubtful — at least for the next few years. That point was underscored by the vague language around the timeline for handing over security responsibility.
The goal of a transition by 2014, which Mr. Karzai outlined last year, is nonbinding and essentially unenforceable. Much depends on how and when security responsibility will be transferred, for instance whether province by province or district by district. More specific plans will be developed later this year, according to the document.
Transition to Afghan control is the basis of the exit plan for NATO troops and member countries have differing senses of urgency. The western European democracies with the most troops in the country — Britain, France and Germany — are under great domestic pressure to reduce their contingents while the United States, which has by far the heaviest military presence, is somewhat more focused on how to give the best chance to its counter-insurgency strategy.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledged the unpopularity of the war in remarks to foreign leaders gathered in a large conference room at the Afghan Interior Ministry, saying that that winning popular support for the continued mission here, given the relatively limited progress so far, would be a challenge.
“We know the road ahead will not be easy,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Citizens of many nations represented here, including my own, wonder whether success is even possible — and if so, whether we all have the commitment to achieve it.”
She pledged to answer those doubts with actions. She also endeavored to reduce somewhat the significance of the July 2011 date, which President Obama set in his speech outlining his Afghan policy last fall as the date when he would begin to bring troops home.
“The July 2011 date captures both our sense of urgency and the strength of our resolve,” Mrs. Clinton said. “The transition process is too important to push off indefinitely. But this date is the start of a new phase, not the end of our involvement.”
Mrs. Clinton tried to dispel concerns about the transition, saying the Afghans had presented the most detailed plans yet for how to hand off control to Afghan security forces.
“Today was a real turning point,” Mrs. Clinton said.
However, the overall significance of the conference was hard to gauge because much of the final statement was a list of boards and commissions to be created, laws to be drafted and enforced and schedules to be fleshed out. The same themes, if not always the exact pledges, have been sounded many times before by Mr. Karzai’s government to little effect.
Mr. Karzai spoke only briefly about the reintegration and reconciliation with the Taliban although it is a major effort of his government and of considerable concern both to many Afghans and to NATO troops who are fighting here. The sparse commentary seemed to signal that there was still little agreement on exactly how to proceed after months of meetings and consultations both within the Afghan government and with American, United Nations and NATO allies.
In some respects, the most significant elements were in what was not said or what occurred during behind-the-scenes meetings. Mrs. Clinton met with Afghan women leaders before the conference began and heard their concerns that their interests would be left behind in the peace effort with the Taliban.
Fouzia Kofi, a former deputy speaker in the Afghan Parliament, said she was concerned by recent signals from Mr. Karzai’s government. If the reconciliation process is mishandled, she warned, it could “take the country back hundreds of years.”
“We need to make sure that not only we are protected, but also our children,” Ms. Kofi said.
Arezo Qani, who works with disadvantaged women in northern Afghanistan, expressed fears that rearming local militias, something the United States has pushed, would also threaten women. And she said women needed to be consulting in the drafting of new laws.
Mrs. Clinton said protecting women’s rights was a “personal commitment of mine.” While she said the United States was open to an Afghan-led reconciliation, “it can’t come at the cost of women’s lives,” she said.
The security transition timetable, though not the main focus of this meeting, is perhaps the most significant element for NATO leaders most of whom will face election challenges well before 2014. The European countries are looking for a more concrete withdrawal plan for their troops that they can advertise to their voters, while the United States military leadership, is hewing to a “conditions-based” approach that allows them to slow down in areas where the insurgency appears more tenacious or where Afghan troops and police appear to have inadequate capabilities.
The Iranian Foreign Minister used the conference as an opportunity to get in some digs at the foreign forces. The criticism came just a few weeks after the United Nations Security Council voted to enforce sanctions against Iran for failing to halt its nuclear program.
“The presence and increase in the number of foreign forces is one of the factors in the insecurity, violence and dissatisfaction of the public,” said Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran’s foreign minister.
A moment later the United Nations special representative to Afghanistan, Staffan de Mistura, interrupted and told him to get to the point. On Monday, the new American and NATO commander for Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, traveled to the south of the country together.
According to one NATO official, they have had “frank discussions.”
“There are indications that the timeline and what constitutes the conditions for transition are possibly different in terms of what NATO is thinking and what Petraeus may be thinking as he settles into an understanding of what he is dealing with in this insurgency,” said the NATO official, who, like several other diplomats and officials interviewed on Monday, refused to be identified by name because of the delicacy of the issue.
But another official from the American-led NATO coalition insisted that General Petraeus and Mr. Rasmussen were not in disagreement. “They see eye to eye,” that official said, “and anyone who reports otherwise clearly has missed key conversations, which is understandable, because some have been one on one.”
A Western diplomat in Kabul praised what he described as General Petraeus’s effort to “bring a sense of realism” to the debate. “He’s being very careful, especially in the first month, to not give a sense of expectations and promises that he will then not be able to deliver,” the diplomat said.
An administration official added that the general was focusing on the evaluation of the Afghan war due at year’s end. “He’s got four and a half months until the review, and he’ll brook no dissent,” the official said.
KABUL, Afghanistan — American, European and other foreign leaders met here Tuesday to pledge anew their support for Afghanistan as they committed to complete transition of security and budgeting responsibility to the Afghan government by 2014. They acknowledged that neither the people of their own countries nor those in Afghanistan had much patience left.
President Hamid Karzai promised to make concrete efforts to reduce corruption and find a way to end the fighting in his country — areas in which he has pledged improvement in the past. He painted a picture of a country that could flourish, lifting its “people from poverty to prosperity and from insecurity to stability.”
“Our vision is to be the peaceful meeting place of civilizations,” he said in an address. “Our location in the center of the new Silk Road makes us a convergence point of regional and global economic interests.”
Whether Afghanistan can get there without an enormous infusion of further foreign aid and the presence of a significant number of foreign troops seems doubtful — at least for the next few years. That point was underscored by the vague language around the timeline for handing over security responsibility.
The goal of a transition by 2014, which Mr. Karzai outlined last year, is nonbinding and essentially unenforceable. Much depends on how and when security responsibility will be transferred, for instance whether province by province or district by district. More specific plans will be developed later this year, according to the document.
Transition to Afghan control is the basis of the exit plan for NATO troops and member countries have differing senses of urgency. The western European democracies with the most troops in the country — Britain, France and Germany — are under great domestic pressure to reduce their contingents while the United States, which has by far the heaviest military presence, is somewhat more focused on how to give the best chance to its counter-insurgency strategy.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledged the unpopularity of the war in remarks to foreign leaders gathered in a large conference room at the Afghan Interior Ministry, saying that that winning popular support for the continued mission here, given the relatively limited progress so far, would be a challenge.
“We know the road ahead will not be easy,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Citizens of many nations represented here, including my own, wonder whether success is even possible — and if so, whether we all have the commitment to achieve it.”
She pledged to answer those doubts with actions. She also endeavored to reduce somewhat the significance of the July 2011 date, which President Obama set in his speech outlining his Afghan policy last fall as the date when he would begin to bring troops home.
“The July 2011 date captures both our sense of urgency and the strength of our resolve,” Mrs. Clinton said. “The transition process is too important to push off indefinitely. But this date is the start of a new phase, not the end of our involvement.”
Mrs. Clinton tried to dispel concerns about the transition, saying the Afghans had presented the most detailed plans yet for how to hand off control to Afghan security forces.
“Today was a real turning point,” Mrs. Clinton said.
However, the overall significance of the conference was hard to gauge because much of the final statement was a list of boards and commissions to be created, laws to be drafted and enforced and schedules to be fleshed out. The same themes, if not always the exact pledges, have been sounded many times before by Mr. Karzai’s government to little effect.
Mr. Karzai spoke only briefly about the reintegration and reconciliation with the Taliban although it is a major effort of his government and of considerable concern both to many Afghans and to NATO troops who are fighting here. The sparse commentary seemed to signal that there was still little agreement on exactly how to proceed after months of meetings and consultations both within the Afghan government and with American, United Nations and NATO allies.
In some respects, the most significant elements were in what was not said or what occurred during behind-the-scenes meetings. Mrs. Clinton met with Afghan women leaders before the conference began and heard their concerns that their interests would be left behind in the peace effort with the Taliban.
Fouzia Kofi, a former deputy speaker in the Afghan Parliament, said she was concerned by recent signals from Mr. Karzai’s government. If the reconciliation process is mishandled, she warned, it could “take the country back hundreds of years.”
“We need to make sure that not only we are protected, but also our children,” Ms. Kofi said.
Arezo Qani, who works with disadvantaged women in northern Afghanistan, expressed fears that rearming local militias, something the United States has pushed, would also threaten women. And she said women needed to be consulting in the drafting of new laws.
Mrs. Clinton said protecting women’s rights was a “personal commitment of mine.” While she said the United States was open to an Afghan-led reconciliation, “it can’t come at the cost of women’s lives,” she said.
The security transition timetable, though not the main focus of this meeting, is perhaps the most significant element for NATO leaders most of whom will face election challenges well before 2014. The European countries are looking for a more concrete withdrawal plan for their troops that they can advertise to their voters, while the United States military leadership, is hewing to a “conditions-based” approach that allows them to slow down in areas where the insurgency appears more tenacious or where Afghan troops and police appear to have inadequate capabilities.
The Iranian Foreign Minister used the conference as an opportunity to get in some digs at the foreign forces. The criticism came just a few weeks after the United Nations Security Council voted to enforce sanctions against Iran for failing to halt its nuclear program.
“The presence and increase in the number of foreign forces is one of the factors in the insecurity, violence and dissatisfaction of the public,” said Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran’s foreign minister.
A moment later the United Nations special representative to Afghanistan, Staffan de Mistura, interrupted and told him to get to the point. On Monday, the new American and NATO commander for Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, traveled to the south of the country together.
According to one NATO official, they have had “frank discussions.”
“There are indications that the timeline and what constitutes the conditions for transition are possibly different in terms of what NATO is thinking and what Petraeus may be thinking as he settles into an understanding of what he is dealing with in this insurgency,” said the NATO official, who, like several other diplomats and officials interviewed on Monday, refused to be identified by name because of the delicacy of the issue.
But another official from the American-led NATO coalition insisted that General Petraeus and Mr. Rasmussen were not in disagreement. “They see eye to eye,” that official said, “and anyone who reports otherwise clearly has missed key conversations, which is understandable, because some have been one on one.”
A Western diplomat in Kabul praised what he described as General Petraeus’s effort to “bring a sense of realism” to the debate. “He’s being very careful, especially in the first month, to not give a sense of expectations and promises that he will then not be able to deliver,” the diplomat said.
An administration official added that the general was focusing on the evaluation of the Afghan war due at year’s end. “He’s got four and a half months until the review, and he’ll brook no dissent,” the official said.
segunda-feira, 19 de julho de 2010
Clinton arrives in Afghanistan amid security concerns
The Washington Post
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton landed at dusk Monday at Kabul airport, where she was greeted on the runway by Amb. Karl W. Eikenberry and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces. She was immediately whisked to the U.S. Embassy by helicopter to avoid what officials consider a high threat level during an international conference scheduled for Tuesday.
"Everybody is concerned about security," Clinton told reporters traveling with her following a two-day visit to Pakistan.
Clinton's stay in Afghanistan will be brief -- she leaves mid-afternoon Tuesday. On Monday she held a late-night dinner with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and senior officials from both countries, followed by a one-on-one session with Karzai. The president walked outside the palace to greet her with a welcoming kiss. In a session inside for photographers, Karzai thanked her for "putting so much effort into the conference . . . and for making sure everyone comes."
Karzai also thanked her for "getting us this very good transit agreement with Pakistan. Your presence there, and your standing behind the signatures is a guarantee it should work," he said. The agreement, which is designed to promote commerce between the two nations, was announced Sunday.
Aboard the plane, Clinton said she would discuss corruption issues with Karzai even as the United States "begins to take a hard look at ourselves, because it's very clear that our presence, all of our contracting," has fed corruption in Afghanistan.
Lawmakers in Washington have held up the administration's new aid requests amid widespread reports that both the State and Defense Departments have poor oversight of the funds, which far exceed Afghanistan's national income. A recent House subcommittee investigation detailed tens of millions of dollars in payments to local warlords and powerbrokers to provide security to U.S. military supply convoys traveling through dangerous areas.
"This is a very challenging environment, and I can understand some of the [contracting] decisions," Clinton said. "But that's no excuse."
Clinton will meet with a group of Afghan women Tuesday morning before the official start of the conference. "I am absolutely determined that [women] are going to be part of this future in Afghanistan," she said. "I'm deliberately starting my day that way, so I can reference" the importance of women's rights" during the conference."
The conference will feature 72 delegations, including 57 foreign ministers. It is designed to demonstrate continued international support for Afghanistan even as the toll of the war -- both in terms of money and lives lost -- climbs.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton landed at dusk Monday at Kabul airport, where she was greeted on the runway by Amb. Karl W. Eikenberry and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces. She was immediately whisked to the U.S. Embassy by helicopter to avoid what officials consider a high threat level during an international conference scheduled for Tuesday.
"Everybody is concerned about security," Clinton told reporters traveling with her following a two-day visit to Pakistan.
Clinton's stay in Afghanistan will be brief -- she leaves mid-afternoon Tuesday. On Monday she held a late-night dinner with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and senior officials from both countries, followed by a one-on-one session with Karzai. The president walked outside the palace to greet her with a welcoming kiss. In a session inside for photographers, Karzai thanked her for "putting so much effort into the conference . . . and for making sure everyone comes."
Karzai also thanked her for "getting us this very good transit agreement with Pakistan. Your presence there, and your standing behind the signatures is a guarantee it should work," he said. The agreement, which is designed to promote commerce between the two nations, was announced Sunday.
Aboard the plane, Clinton said she would discuss corruption issues with Karzai even as the United States "begins to take a hard look at ourselves, because it's very clear that our presence, all of our contracting," has fed corruption in Afghanistan.
Lawmakers in Washington have held up the administration's new aid requests amid widespread reports that both the State and Defense Departments have poor oversight of the funds, which far exceed Afghanistan's national income. A recent House subcommittee investigation detailed tens of millions of dollars in payments to local warlords and powerbrokers to provide security to U.S. military supply convoys traveling through dangerous areas.
"This is a very challenging environment, and I can understand some of the [contracting] decisions," Clinton said. "But that's no excuse."
Clinton will meet with a group of Afghan women Tuesday morning before the official start of the conference. "I am absolutely determined that [women] are going to be part of this future in Afghanistan," she said. "I'm deliberately starting my day that way, so I can reference" the importance of women's rights" during the conference."
The conference will feature 72 delegations, including 57 foreign ministers. It is designed to demonstrate continued international support for Afghanistan even as the toll of the war -- both in terms of money and lives lost -- climbs.
"La communauté internationale a sous-estimé la mission en Afghanistan", affirme le secrétaire général de l'OTAN
Le Monde
A la veille d'une conférence de donateurs à Kaboul, à laquelle doivent participer des responsables de plus de 60 pays et d'organisations internationales, le secrétaire général de l'OTAN a affirmé que la communauté internationale avait mal anticipé la gravité de la situation avant de s'engager en Afghanistan.
"Sincèrement, je crois que la communauté internationale a sous-estimé la mission en Afghanistan. C'est pourquoi cela prend beaucoup plus de temps pour aider les Afghans à établir suffisamment de capacités" pour reconstruire le pays et assurer la paix et sa stabilité, a déclaré Anders Fogh Rasmussen, dans un entretien accordé à la chaîne danoise TV2 News. "Il existe assurément une volonté du pouvoir" à Kaboul pour résoudre les problèmes du pays. Mais "il manque surtout des moyens suffisants pour le faire", selon M. Rasmussen. "Il faut garder à l'esprit qu'à la chute du gouvernement des talibans en 2001, il fallait reconstruire la société afghane à partir de zéro", a-t-il dit.
"DES PERTES TROP LOURDES"
Le responsable de l'OTAN s'est cependant déclaré "optimiste" sur l'avenir de l'Afghanistan, malgré la forte résistance des talibans, qui a entraîné de lourdes pertes dans les rangs de la coalition internationale. "L'engagement militaire va dans la bonne direction. Malheureusement, nous enregistrons des pertes trop lourdes", a-t-il constaté, estimant que "c'est le résultat des renforts de la coalition envoyés sur le terrain, ce qui suppose plus de combats et plus de pertes pour déloger les talibans de leurs fiefs dans la province du Helmand et de Kandahar".
"Les talibans savent que s'ils perdent ces fiefs, ils perdront tout. C'est pourquoi ils contre-attaquent durement, ce qui entraîne et entraînera malheureusement plus de pertes dans les rangs de la coalition, dans les semaines et mois prochains."
La conférence des donateurs, à laquelle doit participer mardi la secrétaire d'Etat américaine, Hillary Clinton, constitue la suite de celle organisée à Londres en janvier. Selon des diplomates occidentaux, le président Hamid Karzaï doit y présenter un calendrier de montée en puissance de l'armée et de la police pour permettre en principe un retrait des troupes étrangères d'ici à la fin 2014.
Lundi, deux soldats américains et six policiers afghans ont été tués par des bombes artisanales, l'arme de prédilection des rebelles talibans, dans le sud de l'Afghanistan. Les deux soldats américains ont péri dans deux explosions séparées, a indiqué sans plus de détails le commandement de l'OTAN à Kaboul. Cinquante-huit soldats étrangers sont morts depuis le début du mois de juillet dans le cadre des opérations militaires en Afghanistan. Ces décès portent à 380 le nombre de militaires étrangers ayant trouvé la mort en Afghanistan depuis le début de l'année, selon un bilan de l'AFP.
A la veille d'une conférence de donateurs à Kaboul, à laquelle doivent participer des responsables de plus de 60 pays et d'organisations internationales, le secrétaire général de l'OTAN a affirmé que la communauté internationale avait mal anticipé la gravité de la situation avant de s'engager en Afghanistan.
"Sincèrement, je crois que la communauté internationale a sous-estimé la mission en Afghanistan. C'est pourquoi cela prend beaucoup plus de temps pour aider les Afghans à établir suffisamment de capacités" pour reconstruire le pays et assurer la paix et sa stabilité, a déclaré Anders Fogh Rasmussen, dans un entretien accordé à la chaîne danoise TV2 News. "Il existe assurément une volonté du pouvoir" à Kaboul pour résoudre les problèmes du pays. Mais "il manque surtout des moyens suffisants pour le faire", selon M. Rasmussen. "Il faut garder à l'esprit qu'à la chute du gouvernement des talibans en 2001, il fallait reconstruire la société afghane à partir de zéro", a-t-il dit.
"DES PERTES TROP LOURDES"
Le responsable de l'OTAN s'est cependant déclaré "optimiste" sur l'avenir de l'Afghanistan, malgré la forte résistance des talibans, qui a entraîné de lourdes pertes dans les rangs de la coalition internationale. "L'engagement militaire va dans la bonne direction. Malheureusement, nous enregistrons des pertes trop lourdes", a-t-il constaté, estimant que "c'est le résultat des renforts de la coalition envoyés sur le terrain, ce qui suppose plus de combats et plus de pertes pour déloger les talibans de leurs fiefs dans la province du Helmand et de Kandahar".
"Les talibans savent que s'ils perdent ces fiefs, ils perdront tout. C'est pourquoi ils contre-attaquent durement, ce qui entraîne et entraînera malheureusement plus de pertes dans les rangs de la coalition, dans les semaines et mois prochains."
La conférence des donateurs, à laquelle doit participer mardi la secrétaire d'Etat américaine, Hillary Clinton, constitue la suite de celle organisée à Londres en janvier. Selon des diplomates occidentaux, le président Hamid Karzaï doit y présenter un calendrier de montée en puissance de l'armée et de la police pour permettre en principe un retrait des troupes étrangères d'ici à la fin 2014.
Lundi, deux soldats américains et six policiers afghans ont été tués par des bombes artisanales, l'arme de prédilection des rebelles talibans, dans le sud de l'Afghanistan. Les deux soldats américains ont péri dans deux explosions séparées, a indiqué sans plus de détails le commandement de l'OTAN à Kaboul. Cinquante-huit soldats étrangers sont morts depuis le début du mois de juillet dans le cadre des opérations militaires en Afghanistan. Ces décès portent à 380 le nombre de militaires étrangers ayant trouvé la mort en Afghanistan depuis le début de l'année, selon un bilan de l'AFP.
sábado, 10 de julho de 2010
Six soldats américains tués en Afghanistan
Le Monde
Cinq soldats américains ont été tués, samedi 10 juillet, dans des attaques à la bombe et des combats en Afghanistan.
Trois ont péri dans l'est de l'Afghanistan, victimes de tirs à l'arme légère et d'une bombe artisanale, et les deux autres ont succombé à des attaques à la bombe dans le sud, selon un communiqué de la coalition. Un sixième a également perdu la vie samedi, mais du fait d'une explosion accidentelle, a annoncé à l'AFP un responsable de l'ISAF sous le couvert de l'anonymat.
Il s'agit des plus lourdes pertes subies par les forces internationales en Afghanistan depuis le 21 juin, lorsque 10 d'entre eux avaient été tués.
Ces six morts portent à 352 le nombre des militaires étrangers tués cette année dans le conflit afghan, selon un décompte établi par l'AFP à partir du site internet icasualties.org.
La coalition n'a pas précisé si la mort des trois soldats dans l'est était liée à la large offensive actuellement menée par les troupes américaines dans la province rebelle de Kunar (est), frontalière des zones tribales pakistanaises considérées comme la base arrière des talibans afghans.
SIX CIVILS TUÉS ACCIDENTELLEMENT
Sur fond d'intensification croissante ces quatre dernières années de la rébellion menée par les talibans, le mois de juin a été marqué par l'établissemnt d'un nouveau record depuis 2001 avec 102 soldats étrangers tués, d'après icasualties.org. La plupart sont ont été victimes de bombes artisanales disséminées par les rebelles sur les routes et qui explosent au passage des convois militaires.
Par ailleurs, l'OTAN a reconnu sa responsabilité dans la mort de six civils, jeudi. Dans un communiqué laconique, l'ISAF a expliqué que des "tirs d'artillerie d'une unité de l'Isaf avaient provoqué la morts de six civils et blessé plusieurs autres jeudi à Jani Khel", un district de la province de Paktia, au sud de Kaboul.
Cinq soldats américains ont été tués, samedi 10 juillet, dans des attaques à la bombe et des combats en Afghanistan.
Trois ont péri dans l'est de l'Afghanistan, victimes de tirs à l'arme légère et d'une bombe artisanale, et les deux autres ont succombé à des attaques à la bombe dans le sud, selon un communiqué de la coalition. Un sixième a également perdu la vie samedi, mais du fait d'une explosion accidentelle, a annoncé à l'AFP un responsable de l'ISAF sous le couvert de l'anonymat.
Il s'agit des plus lourdes pertes subies par les forces internationales en Afghanistan depuis le 21 juin, lorsque 10 d'entre eux avaient été tués.
Ces six morts portent à 352 le nombre des militaires étrangers tués cette année dans le conflit afghan, selon un décompte établi par l'AFP à partir du site internet icasualties.org.
La coalition n'a pas précisé si la mort des trois soldats dans l'est était liée à la large offensive actuellement menée par les troupes américaines dans la province rebelle de Kunar (est), frontalière des zones tribales pakistanaises considérées comme la base arrière des talibans afghans.
SIX CIVILS TUÉS ACCIDENTELLEMENT
Sur fond d'intensification croissante ces quatre dernières années de la rébellion menée par les talibans, le mois de juin a été marqué par l'établissemnt d'un nouveau record depuis 2001 avec 102 soldats étrangers tués, d'après icasualties.org. La plupart sont ont été victimes de bombes artisanales disséminées par les rebelles sur les routes et qui explosent au passage des convois militaires.
Par ailleurs, l'OTAN a reconnu sa responsabilité dans la mort de six civils, jeudi. Dans un communiqué laconique, l'ISAF a expliqué que des "tirs d'artillerie d'une unité de l'Isaf avaient provoqué la morts de six civils et blessé plusieurs autres jeudi à Jani Khel", un district de la province de Paktia, au sud de Kaboul.
quarta-feira, 7 de julho de 2010
Estratégia no Afeganistão será revisada no fim do ano, diz Obama
O Estado de S. Paulo
MILÃO - Os EUA irão revisar sua estratégia que visa aumentar o número de tropas no Afeganistão no final deste ano, disse o presidente Barack Obama em entrevista ao jornal italiano Corriere della Sera nesta quinta-feira, 8.
Em julho a Câmara dos Deputados dos EUA aprovou recursos para financiar um aumento de tropas para 150 mil soldados, com o objetivo de destruir a resistência e enfraquecer o Taleban. "Teremos uma revisão no final deste ano para ver se a estratégia tem sido eficaz", disse Obama ao Corriere.
Obama disse que uma redução gradativa da presença americana no Afeganistão começaria em meados de 2011. "Até o final do próximo ano devemos começar a transição, mas isso não significa que nossa presença irá desaparecer da noite para o dia", disse ele.
Os EUA lideraram uma invasão ao Afeganistão para derrubar o Taleban depois dos ataques de 11 de setembro de 2001. Nos últimos dois anos, no entanto, o Taleban tem aumentado a insurgência, e a pressão por uma estratégia de retirada das tropas vem crescendo.
Recentemente, o comando das tropas dos EUA e da Organização do Tratado do Atlântico Norte (Otan) foi trocado pelo presidente Obama, o que gerou dúvidas sobre a eficácia da estratégia americana no país. As autoridades, porém, disseram que a troca, que colocou o general David Petraeus no lugar do general Stanley McChrystal, não implica na mudança de planos estratégicos e de retirada das tropas.
MILÃO - Os EUA irão revisar sua estratégia que visa aumentar o número de tropas no Afeganistão no final deste ano, disse o presidente Barack Obama em entrevista ao jornal italiano Corriere della Sera nesta quinta-feira, 8.
Em julho a Câmara dos Deputados dos EUA aprovou recursos para financiar um aumento de tropas para 150 mil soldados, com o objetivo de destruir a resistência e enfraquecer o Taleban. "Teremos uma revisão no final deste ano para ver se a estratégia tem sido eficaz", disse Obama ao Corriere.
Obama disse que uma redução gradativa da presença americana no Afeganistão começaria em meados de 2011. "Até o final do próximo ano devemos começar a transição, mas isso não significa que nossa presença irá desaparecer da noite para o dia", disse ele.
Os EUA lideraram uma invasão ao Afeganistão para derrubar o Taleban depois dos ataques de 11 de setembro de 2001. Nos últimos dois anos, no entanto, o Taleban tem aumentado a insurgência, e a pressão por uma estratégia de retirada das tropas vem crescendo.
Recentemente, o comando das tropas dos EUA e da Organização do Tratado do Atlântico Norte (Otan) foi trocado pelo presidente Obama, o que gerou dúvidas sobre a eficácia da estratégia americana no país. As autoridades, porém, disseram que a troca, que colocou o general David Petraeus no lugar do general Stanley McChrystal, não implica na mudança de planos estratégicos e de retirada das tropas.
sábado, 3 de julho de 2010
Petraeus appelle les Afghans à s'unir contre l'insurrection
Le Monde
Le nouveau commandant en chef des forces internationales en Afghanistan, le général américain David Petraeus, appelle à "l'union des efforts" pour combattre l'insurrection, lors de sa première apparition publique à Kaboul. "Nous devons parvenir à unir nos efforts et à atteindre un but commun. Civils et militaires, Afghans et étrangers, nous faisons partie d'une même équipe avec une seule mission", a déclaré le général Petraeus samedi. "Dans cet important effort, la coopération n'est pas une option", a-t-il ajouté.
"C'est une mission difficile (...) Mais en travaillant ensemble, nous pouvons faire des progrès et atteindre notre objectif commun", a dit le général Petraeus, accompagné de l'ambassadeur Karl Eikenberry, devant un parterre de 1 700 personnalités réunies à l'ambassade des Etats-Unis à l'occasion de la fête nationale américaine du 4 Juillet.
Après la révocation du général Stanley McChrystal pour des propos irrévérencieux à l'endroit de l'administration de M. Obama, le général Petraeus arrive au pire moment en Afghanistan. Renforcées par 30 000 soldats supplémentaires, les troupes internationales ont lancé en février une vaste offensive à Marjah, un bastion taliban dans le sud. L'opération a été qualifiée de "fiasco" par une partie de la presse américaine. Et les talibans reviennent aujourd'hui à Marjah malgré les moyens militaires et l'argent engagés. L'OTAN est également lancée dans une vaste offensive à Kandahar, le berceau des talibans, mais son commandement a été obligé de différer le gros de l'opération de plusieurs semaines.
Parallèlement, les pertes des forces internationales atteignent un niveau inégalé depuis le début de la guerre, avec 102 soldats tués en juin. Ces pertes sont comparables à celles des forces étrangères prises dans le bourbier irakien aux pires heures du conflit en 2007.
Vendredi, il s'est rendu au quartier général de l'ISAF, la Force internationale d'assistance à la sécurité dirigée par l'OTAN en Afghanistan. Le Sénat américain avait confirmé mercredi à l'unanimité sa nomination à la tête de la coalition en Afghanistan. Le général Petraeus a déclaré, devant les parlementaires américains, que les combats en Afghanistan qui durent depuis près de neuf ans, devraient devenir plus durs avant que la situation ne s'améliore. Il débute sa mission à un moment particulièrement difficile pour la coalition internationale, alors que les pertes subies par les soldats étrangers atteignent un niveau sans précédent depuis le début du conflit en 2001.
Le nouveau commandant en chef des forces internationales en Afghanistan, le général américain David Petraeus, appelle à "l'union des efforts" pour combattre l'insurrection, lors de sa première apparition publique à Kaboul. "Nous devons parvenir à unir nos efforts et à atteindre un but commun. Civils et militaires, Afghans et étrangers, nous faisons partie d'une même équipe avec une seule mission", a déclaré le général Petraeus samedi. "Dans cet important effort, la coopération n'est pas une option", a-t-il ajouté.
"C'est une mission difficile (...) Mais en travaillant ensemble, nous pouvons faire des progrès et atteindre notre objectif commun", a dit le général Petraeus, accompagné de l'ambassadeur Karl Eikenberry, devant un parterre de 1 700 personnalités réunies à l'ambassade des Etats-Unis à l'occasion de la fête nationale américaine du 4 Juillet.
Après la révocation du général Stanley McChrystal pour des propos irrévérencieux à l'endroit de l'administration de M. Obama, le général Petraeus arrive au pire moment en Afghanistan. Renforcées par 30 000 soldats supplémentaires, les troupes internationales ont lancé en février une vaste offensive à Marjah, un bastion taliban dans le sud. L'opération a été qualifiée de "fiasco" par une partie de la presse américaine. Et les talibans reviennent aujourd'hui à Marjah malgré les moyens militaires et l'argent engagés. L'OTAN est également lancée dans une vaste offensive à Kandahar, le berceau des talibans, mais son commandement a été obligé de différer le gros de l'opération de plusieurs semaines.
Parallèlement, les pertes des forces internationales atteignent un niveau inégalé depuis le début de la guerre, avec 102 soldats tués en juin. Ces pertes sont comparables à celles des forces étrangères prises dans le bourbier irakien aux pires heures du conflit en 2007.
Vendredi, il s'est rendu au quartier général de l'ISAF, la Force internationale d'assistance à la sécurité dirigée par l'OTAN en Afghanistan. Le Sénat américain avait confirmé mercredi à l'unanimité sa nomination à la tête de la coalition en Afghanistan. Le général Petraeus a déclaré, devant les parlementaires américains, que les combats en Afghanistan qui durent depuis près de neuf ans, devraient devenir plus durs avant que la situation ne s'améliore. Il débute sa mission à un moment particulièrement difficile pour la coalition internationale, alors que les pertes subies par les soldats étrangers atteignent un niveau sans précédent depuis le début du conflit en 2001.
quinta-feira, 1 de julho de 2010
EUA cortarão US$ 4 bi em ajuda ao Afeganistão por suspeita de corrupção
O Estado de S. Paulo
WASHINGTON - Uma comissão no Congresso dos EUA votou pelo corte de quase US$ 4 bilhões em ajuda ao Afeganistão por conta das denúncias de corrupção em torno do governo do país asiático, informa nesta quinta-feira, 1º, o jornal britânico The Guardian.
Nos últimos meses, o governo de Hamid Karzai foi bombardeado com denúncias de corrupção e desvio de dinheiro. O presidente afegão chegou a bloquear as investigações contra seus aliados políticos, levantando suspeitas sobre os esforços de luta contra crimes políticos de sua gestão.
A decisão de retirar a ajuda ocorre no mesmo momento em que o Senado americano aprovou o general David Petraeus como o novo comandante das tropas americanas e Organização do Tratado do Atlântico Norte (Otan) no Afeganistão e em que o ministro da Defesa do Reino Unido, Liam Fox, insistiu que o Exército britânico não deve deixar o país asiático "enquanto o trabalho não for concluído".
A subcomissão na Câmara dos Representantes votou na quarta-feira o bloqueio de US$ 3,9 bilhões que seriam enviados pelos EUA a Cabul. Membros da comissão, porém, disseram que a concessão verba poderia ser reconsiderada caso o governo afegão comprove sua luta contra a corrupção. A comissão pediu ao governo dos EUA para que auditores verificassem toda a ajuda enviada para o Afeganistão nos últimos três anos.
Na semana passada, o jornal americano Wall Street Journal reportou que mais de US$ 3 bilhões em notas deixaram o país nos últimos três anos transportados em voos. Outro diário, o Washington Post, disse que funcionários do governo afegão impediram que fossem realizadas investigações sobre membros da gestão.
A retirada da ajuda ocorre no mesmo momento em que o Senado aprovou por 99 votos a favor e nenhum contra a nomeação de Petraeus como o novo comandante no Afeganistão, depois de o antigo chefe, o general Stanley McChrystal, renunciar após as duras críticas que fez contra o governo em um artigo de uma revista.
Apesar do apoio unânime a Petraeus, a troca de comando no Afeganistão levantou dúvidas sobre a estratégia de Obama para a guerra contra a insurgência, já que, nos últimos meses, o número de baixas entre os soldados também cresceu. "Não importa quem está no comando, a estratégia do presidente é contraproducente", disse o senador democrata Russ Feingold, que afirmou que Petraeus é "qualificado" para o trabalho.
No Reino Unido, Fox declarou que "a retirada prematura das tropas, sem degradar a insurgência e aumentar a capacidade das forças de segurança afegãs, pode ocasionado o retorno das forças terroristas". A declaração do ministro da Defesa é contrária à do primeiro-ministro, David Cameron, que estimou que as tropas britânicas devem estar completamente fora do país até 2015.
"Não apenas arriscaríamos um retorno da guerra civil no Afeganistão, criando um vácuo de segurança, mas também arriscaríamos a desestabilização do Paquistão com consequências impensáveis, possivelmente nucleares", disse Fox.
WASHINGTON - Uma comissão no Congresso dos EUA votou pelo corte de quase US$ 4 bilhões em ajuda ao Afeganistão por conta das denúncias de corrupção em torno do governo do país asiático, informa nesta quinta-feira, 1º, o jornal britânico The Guardian.
Nos últimos meses, o governo de Hamid Karzai foi bombardeado com denúncias de corrupção e desvio de dinheiro. O presidente afegão chegou a bloquear as investigações contra seus aliados políticos, levantando suspeitas sobre os esforços de luta contra crimes políticos de sua gestão.
A decisão de retirar a ajuda ocorre no mesmo momento em que o Senado americano aprovou o general David Petraeus como o novo comandante das tropas americanas e Organização do Tratado do Atlântico Norte (Otan) no Afeganistão e em que o ministro da Defesa do Reino Unido, Liam Fox, insistiu que o Exército britânico não deve deixar o país asiático "enquanto o trabalho não for concluído".
A subcomissão na Câmara dos Representantes votou na quarta-feira o bloqueio de US$ 3,9 bilhões que seriam enviados pelos EUA a Cabul. Membros da comissão, porém, disseram que a concessão verba poderia ser reconsiderada caso o governo afegão comprove sua luta contra a corrupção. A comissão pediu ao governo dos EUA para que auditores verificassem toda a ajuda enviada para o Afeganistão nos últimos três anos.
Na semana passada, o jornal americano Wall Street Journal reportou que mais de US$ 3 bilhões em notas deixaram o país nos últimos três anos transportados em voos. Outro diário, o Washington Post, disse que funcionários do governo afegão impediram que fossem realizadas investigações sobre membros da gestão.
A retirada da ajuda ocorre no mesmo momento em que o Senado aprovou por 99 votos a favor e nenhum contra a nomeação de Petraeus como o novo comandante no Afeganistão, depois de o antigo chefe, o general Stanley McChrystal, renunciar após as duras críticas que fez contra o governo em um artigo de uma revista.
Apesar do apoio unânime a Petraeus, a troca de comando no Afeganistão levantou dúvidas sobre a estratégia de Obama para a guerra contra a insurgência, já que, nos últimos meses, o número de baixas entre os soldados também cresceu. "Não importa quem está no comando, a estratégia do presidente é contraproducente", disse o senador democrata Russ Feingold, que afirmou que Petraeus é "qualificado" para o trabalho.
No Reino Unido, Fox declarou que "a retirada prematura das tropas, sem degradar a insurgência e aumentar a capacidade das forças de segurança afegãs, pode ocasionado o retorno das forças terroristas". A declaração do ministro da Defesa é contrária à do primeiro-ministro, David Cameron, que estimou que as tropas britânicas devem estar completamente fora do país até 2015.
"Não apenas arriscaríamos um retorno da guerra civil no Afeganistão, criando um vácuo de segurança, mas também arriscaríamos a desestabilização do Paquistão com consequências impensáveis, possivelmente nucleares", disse Fox.
quarta-feira, 30 de junho de 2010
Petraeus advierte que lo peor está por llegar en Afganistán
El País
El general David Petraeus ha comparecido hoy ante el Comité de Fuerzas Armadas del Senado de Estados Unidos como paso previo a su confirmación en el puesto que le llevará a comandar los destinos de la guerra en Afganistán. Respetado como una de las mayores figuras dentro del Ejército estadounidense, Petraeus logró modificar el curso de la guerra en Irak. El reputado general no hubiera estado hoy sentado en el Senado si el célebre general Stanley McChrystal no hubiera sido destituido de su cargo al frente de la tropas en Afganistán la semana pasada tras unas polémicas declaraciones sobre la Administración demócrata y algunos de sus miembros a la entrevista con la revista revista Rolling Stone.
De forma cauta, Petraeus -actualmente jefe del comando regional que cubre todo el Próximo y Medio Oriente- se ha sumado hoy al plan de retirada de Afganistán propuesto por el presidente Barack Obama. Pero con matices, porque Petraeus ha querido dejar la puerta abierta a sugerir cambios o retrasos al plan del mandatario. El general admitió que el propio presidente quiere que su consejo sea sincero.
Obama fijó julio de 2011 como fecha para el comienzo de la salida de las tropas norteamericanas, pero el ritmo de ese plan dependerá de las condiciones sobre el terreno, consideró Petraeus. Hoy, el general declaraba que pasarán años antes de que el Ejército afgano pueda asumir el control de las tareas de seguridad en su propio país. Guste a quien guste.
Dicho lo anterior, el general ha asegurado que el compromiso de EE UU con Afganistán es "duradero". "Pero mi impresión es que los duros combates continuarán; incluso pueden ser más intensos en los próximos meses", ha asegurado. "A medida que despojamos al enemigo de sus santuarios y reducimos su libertad de acción, los insurgentes lucharán cada vez más". Petraeus ha destacado que cualquier retiro de tropas se basará en las condiciones de seguridad y limitó el aumento a los 30.000 efectivos que Obama acordó enviar en diciembre, como parte de una estrategia que puso el foco en asegurar centros poblados, entre ellos, el corazón talibán en Kandahar.
No está en duda la confirmación de Petraeus, de 57 años. Más bien todo lo contrario. Se prevé que el Senado le dé el visto bueno como el héroe de la guerra de Irak. El general planea, de hecho, volar mañana miércoles a Bruselas para ser confirmado en su puesto por la OTAN. El viernes, a primera hora, tiene previsto viajar a Kabul.
Para Petraeus, la misión en Afganistán es técnicamente una pérdida de grado ya que su rango dentro del estamento militar era mayor que el del defenestrado McChrystal. Pero las circunstancias obligan y Petraeus es un hombre al servicio de su país, ampliamente respetado entre republicanos y demócratas. Los deseos presidenciales de que el general sea confirmado antes de la fiesta del 4 de julio parecen estar garantizados.
El general David Petraeus ha comparecido hoy ante el Comité de Fuerzas Armadas del Senado de Estados Unidos como paso previo a su confirmación en el puesto que le llevará a comandar los destinos de la guerra en Afganistán. Respetado como una de las mayores figuras dentro del Ejército estadounidense, Petraeus logró modificar el curso de la guerra en Irak. El reputado general no hubiera estado hoy sentado en el Senado si el célebre general Stanley McChrystal no hubiera sido destituido de su cargo al frente de la tropas en Afganistán la semana pasada tras unas polémicas declaraciones sobre la Administración demócrata y algunos de sus miembros a la entrevista con la revista revista Rolling Stone.
De forma cauta, Petraeus -actualmente jefe del comando regional que cubre todo el Próximo y Medio Oriente- se ha sumado hoy al plan de retirada de Afganistán propuesto por el presidente Barack Obama. Pero con matices, porque Petraeus ha querido dejar la puerta abierta a sugerir cambios o retrasos al plan del mandatario. El general admitió que el propio presidente quiere que su consejo sea sincero.
Obama fijó julio de 2011 como fecha para el comienzo de la salida de las tropas norteamericanas, pero el ritmo de ese plan dependerá de las condiciones sobre el terreno, consideró Petraeus. Hoy, el general declaraba que pasarán años antes de que el Ejército afgano pueda asumir el control de las tareas de seguridad en su propio país. Guste a quien guste.
Dicho lo anterior, el general ha asegurado que el compromiso de EE UU con Afganistán es "duradero". "Pero mi impresión es que los duros combates continuarán; incluso pueden ser más intensos en los próximos meses", ha asegurado. "A medida que despojamos al enemigo de sus santuarios y reducimos su libertad de acción, los insurgentes lucharán cada vez más". Petraeus ha destacado que cualquier retiro de tropas se basará en las condiciones de seguridad y limitó el aumento a los 30.000 efectivos que Obama acordó enviar en diciembre, como parte de una estrategia que puso el foco en asegurar centros poblados, entre ellos, el corazón talibán en Kandahar.
No está en duda la confirmación de Petraeus, de 57 años. Más bien todo lo contrario. Se prevé que el Senado le dé el visto bueno como el héroe de la guerra de Irak. El general planea, de hecho, volar mañana miércoles a Bruselas para ser confirmado en su puesto por la OTAN. El viernes, a primera hora, tiene previsto viajar a Kabul.
Para Petraeus, la misión en Afganistán es técnicamente una pérdida de grado ya que su rango dentro del estamento militar era mayor que el del defenestrado McChrystal. Pero las circunstancias obligan y Petraeus es un hombre al servicio de su país, ampliamente respetado entre republicanos y demócratas. Los deseos presidenciales de que el general sea confirmado antes de la fiesta del 4 de julio parecen estar garantizados.
sábado, 26 de junho de 2010
Afghanistan withdrawal before 2015, says David Cameron
The Guardian
David Cameron yesterday gave the first clear indication of the timing for a full withdrawal of British soldiers from Afghanistan, saying that he wanted troops home within five years.
Asked in Canada at the Toronto G8 summit if he wanted UK forces home before the 2015 general election, he said: "I want that to happen, make no mistake about it. We can't be there for another five years, having been there for nine years already."
Cameron said: "I want us to roll up our sleeves and get on with delivering what will bring the success we want, which is not a perfect Afghanistan, but some stability in Afghanistan and the ability for the Afghans themselves to run their country, so they [British troops] can come home."
The prime minister's aides insisted his remarks to Sky News were not designed to signal a change of strategy before his first bilateral meeting with Barack Obama today. Cameron added that he preferred not to "deal in too strict timetables".
During the election campaign, he said he wanted to see UK troops start to come home by 2015. But this was the first time as prime minister that he has indicated a timetable for withdrawal. Obama has committed himself to a review of the US counter-insurgency strategy next year.
Cameron and Obama have already spoken on the phone this week about the implications of the removal of General Stanley McChrystal as Nato commander in Afghanistan, insisting the British did not see his removal as the moment for a further strategic review.
But Cameron and his defence secretary, Liam Fox, have made it clear they are impatient with the slow progress in the counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan, notably in recruiting and training local security forces, the key to an exit strategy for Nato forces. Both Cameron and Fox have also made it clear they do not share Tony Blair's enthusiasm for "liberal interventionism" in foreign conflicts.
They are sceptical about the role of "nation building", as Fox demonstrated in an interview in which he compared Afghanistan to a 13-century state. Fox also rejected the idea that UK troops should next year be deployed in Kandahar, the Taliban's heartland, when Canada withdraws its troops.
The coalition government's sceptical attitude about Nato's military operations in Afghanistan, and Britain's role in it, has caused concern in Washington. It is also being observed with apprehension by some British military commanders who fear it might undermine their influence and role in Afghanistan, where the population suspects their troops will pack up and go home as soon as possible.
However, Cameron's impatience is likely to find favour with those – including Sherard Cowper-Coles, who recently resigned as the government's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan – who want a political settlement, including talks with the Taliban, soon.
The prime minister has already braced the public for further British troop casualties this summer, saying this was inevitable as the counter-insurgency seeks to spread itself across Afghanistan. In a separate interview with ITV News, Cameron acknowledged British troops can expect fierce opposition from the Taliban in the coming months. "It will be a difficult summer, there is no doubt about that," he said. "But [that's] partly because we are doing so much more with the Americans in Helmand province, with hundreds of thousands of troops rather than the few thousand we used to have, and it's making a big difference.
"It will be a difficult summer, but we are getting to a period where parts of Afghanistan can now be run by the Afghans themselves. That is a very exciting prospect for bringing our troops home."
Cameron is due to lead discussions at the G8 today on Afghanistan and Pakistan, including the need for an inclusive political settlement.
He added: "Britain should have a long-term relationship with Afghanistan, including helping to train their troops and their civil society, long after the vast bulk of troops have gone home."
Obama wants a US withdrawal to begin next summer, although General David Petraeus, the US commander in Afghanistan, has insisted that has to be based on conditions on the ground.
Obama and Cameron hold their first meeting as president and prime minister on the fringes of the G8 summit today. Obama will try to reassure Cameron that the war in Afghanistan will not go on indefinitely, in the week that the 300th British soldier died there.
A total of 307 UK service personnel have died there since the start of operations in 2001. In the latest incident on Wednesday, four died in Helmand province when their armoured vehicle rolled off a road and ended up underwater in a canal.
David Cameron yesterday gave the first clear indication of the timing for a full withdrawal of British soldiers from Afghanistan, saying that he wanted troops home within five years.
Asked in Canada at the Toronto G8 summit if he wanted UK forces home before the 2015 general election, he said: "I want that to happen, make no mistake about it. We can't be there for another five years, having been there for nine years already."
Cameron said: "I want us to roll up our sleeves and get on with delivering what will bring the success we want, which is not a perfect Afghanistan, but some stability in Afghanistan and the ability for the Afghans themselves to run their country, so they [British troops] can come home."
The prime minister's aides insisted his remarks to Sky News were not designed to signal a change of strategy before his first bilateral meeting with Barack Obama today. Cameron added that he preferred not to "deal in too strict timetables".
During the election campaign, he said he wanted to see UK troops start to come home by 2015. But this was the first time as prime minister that he has indicated a timetable for withdrawal. Obama has committed himself to a review of the US counter-insurgency strategy next year.
Cameron and Obama have already spoken on the phone this week about the implications of the removal of General Stanley McChrystal as Nato commander in Afghanistan, insisting the British did not see his removal as the moment for a further strategic review.
But Cameron and his defence secretary, Liam Fox, have made it clear they are impatient with the slow progress in the counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan, notably in recruiting and training local security forces, the key to an exit strategy for Nato forces. Both Cameron and Fox have also made it clear they do not share Tony Blair's enthusiasm for "liberal interventionism" in foreign conflicts.
They are sceptical about the role of "nation building", as Fox demonstrated in an interview in which he compared Afghanistan to a 13-century state. Fox also rejected the idea that UK troops should next year be deployed in Kandahar, the Taliban's heartland, when Canada withdraws its troops.
The coalition government's sceptical attitude about Nato's military operations in Afghanistan, and Britain's role in it, has caused concern in Washington. It is also being observed with apprehension by some British military commanders who fear it might undermine their influence and role in Afghanistan, where the population suspects their troops will pack up and go home as soon as possible.
However, Cameron's impatience is likely to find favour with those – including Sherard Cowper-Coles, who recently resigned as the government's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan – who want a political settlement, including talks with the Taliban, soon.
The prime minister has already braced the public for further British troop casualties this summer, saying this was inevitable as the counter-insurgency seeks to spread itself across Afghanistan. In a separate interview with ITV News, Cameron acknowledged British troops can expect fierce opposition from the Taliban in the coming months. "It will be a difficult summer, there is no doubt about that," he said. "But [that's] partly because we are doing so much more with the Americans in Helmand province, with hundreds of thousands of troops rather than the few thousand we used to have, and it's making a big difference.
"It will be a difficult summer, but we are getting to a period where parts of Afghanistan can now be run by the Afghans themselves. That is a very exciting prospect for bringing our troops home."
Cameron is due to lead discussions at the G8 today on Afghanistan and Pakistan, including the need for an inclusive political settlement.
He added: "Britain should have a long-term relationship with Afghanistan, including helping to train their troops and their civil society, long after the vast bulk of troops have gone home."
Obama wants a US withdrawal to begin next summer, although General David Petraeus, the US commander in Afghanistan, has insisted that has to be based on conditions on the ground.
Obama and Cameron hold their first meeting as president and prime minister on the fringes of the G8 summit today. Obama will try to reassure Cameron that the war in Afghanistan will not go on indefinitely, in the week that the 300th British soldier died there.
A total of 307 UK service personnel have died there since the start of operations in 2001. In the latest incident on Wednesday, four died in Helmand province when their armoured vehicle rolled off a road and ended up underwater in a canal.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)