Afghanistan Becomes U.S. Ally; American Troops Still Slated To Exit In 2014

U.S. Grants Special Ally Status to Afghans, Easing Fears of Abandonment

The United States declared Afghanistan a major, non-NATO ally on Saturday, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton personally delivering the news of Afghanistan’s entry into a club that includes Israel, Japan, Pakistan and other close Asian and Middle Eastern allies.

The move, announced as Mrs. Clinton stood with President Hamid Karzai amid the rose beds and towering trees on the grounds of the presidential palace here, was part of a broad strategic partnership deal signed by the United States and Afghanistan in May, she said. The pact went into effect last week.

“Please know that the United States will be your friend,” she told Mr. Karzai. “We are not even imagining abandoning Afghanistan. Quite the opposite. We are building a partnership with Afghanistan that will endure far into the future.”

The designation by the United States grants a country special privileges, like access to American military training and excess military supplies, Mrs. Clinton said.

In a separate statement, the State Department said Afghanistan would also be able to obtain loans of equipment from the United States and financing for leasing equipment. The agreement does not, however, “entail any security commitment” by the United States to Afghanistan, the State Department said.

Iraq was never given the status of a major ally, and American troops withdrew last year.

Afghanistan’s designation as a formal ally was the latest in a series of recent American moves that have eased — though not erased — Afghan fears of being abandoned at the end of NATO’s combat mission in 2014.

The moves also appear to have already yielded one dividend for the United States: Mr. Karzai has not recently lashed out at his backers, as he has in the past, at one point calling Americans “demons.”

On Saturday, he welcomed Mrs. Clinton, calling her “my old American friend” in his remarks. “We appreciate your concern and good will toward Afghanistan,” he said.

Later, as Mrs. Clinton said she was sorry to have to leave so soon, Mr. Karzai offered what he said was an old saying in Persian: “When a friend is alive, they will meet again.”

American and Afghan officials say they now must turn to working out a deal that would keep a residual American force here to continue training Afghan soldiers and tracking down insurgents after 2014. Talks on the arrangement have not yet begun, American officials say. Estimates of the number of troops that could stay vary from as little as 10,000 to as many as 25,000 or 30,000.

But Mrs. Clinton reiterated on Saturday that Washington did envision keeping American troops in Afghanistan, where they would provide the kind of air power and surveillance capabilities needed to give Afghan forces an edge over the Taliban.

“This is the kind of relationship that we think will be especially beneficial as we do the transition and as we plan for the post-2014 presence,” she said. “It will open the door to Afghanistan’s military to have a greater capability and a broader kind of relationship with the United States and especially the United States military.”

Mrs. Clinton made a short stop in Kabul en route to Tokyo, where an international conference will be held to raise money to support the Afghan government after 2014. At the American Embassy, she praised the work done by civilians in the war. State Department officials said that her remarks were intended to rebut what many in the State Department consider unfair criticism of their work in Afghanistan, where they have often been portrayed as not carrying their weight compared with the military.

But American soldiers and civilians alike have faced one common struggle: assuaging Afghan fears of abandonment. Many here fear that the country is headed toward a repeat of the early 1990s, when the fall of the Soviet-backed government, coupled with an American pullback from the region, left Afghanistan mired in a brutal civil war.

The Taliban grew out of the chaos, and they quickly took over much of the country.

Along with reassuring Afghans, Mrs. Clinton made clear that she was also sending a message to the Taliban.

The alliance and other American commitments to Afghanistan “should make clear to the Taliban that they cannot wait us out,” she said, according to a copy of her prepared remarks. “They can renounce international terrorism and commit to an Afghan peace process, or they will face the increasingly capable Afghan national security forces, backed by the United States.”

At the same time, Washington remains committed to the stalled Afghan peace process, she said. The insurgents suspended talks in March — halting negotiations before they really began — over delays in a proposed prisoner swap that would have the United States release five Taliban prisoners from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only American soldier known to be held by the insurgents.

Designating Afghanistan an ally, however, has the potential to raise awkward issues for the United States. There is Afghanistan’s hot-and-cold relationship with Pakistan, also an ally, and the possibility the two neighbors could have a falling-out, especially if Afghan officials believe in the years after 2014 that their Pakistani counterparts continue to aid the Taliban.

Afghanistan, one of the 10 poorest countries in the world, is also the least developed of America’s major, non-NATO allies by a wide margin. Other allies — like South Korea, Argentina, Australia and Thailand — are far more capable of defending themselves and policing their own territory; Afghanistan is capable of doing that now and for the foreseeable future only with ample American help.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CBS News, CNN, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Visits Afghanistan To Sign 10-Yr Agreement; Romney & McCain Approve

Transcript: Obama hails 'light of a new day' in Afghanistan

Good evening from Bagram Air Base. This outpost is more than 7,000 miles from home, but for over a decade it has been close to our hearts. Because here, in Afghanistan, more than half a million of our sons and daughters have sacrificed to protect our country.

Today, I signed an historic agreement between the United States and Afghanistan that defines a new kind of relationship between our countries -- a future in which Afghans are responsible for the security of their nation, and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states; a future in which the war ends, and a new chapter begins.

Tonight, I'd like to speak to you about this transition. But first, let us remember why we came here. It was here, in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden established a safe-haven for his terrorist organization. It was here, in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda brought new recruits, trained them, and plotted acts of terror. It was here, from within these borders, that al Qaeda launched the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children.

And so, ten years ago, the United States and our allies went to war to make sure that al Qaeda could never again use this country to launch attacks against us. Despite initial success, for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. In 2002, bin Laden and his lieutenants escaped across the border and established safe havens in Pakistan. America spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in Iraq. And al Qaeda's extremist allies within the Taliban have waged a brutal insurgency.

But over the last three years, the tide has turned. We broke the Taliban's momentum. We've built strong Afghan security forces. We devastated al Qaeda's leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders. And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

The goal that I set -- to defeat al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild -- is within reach.

Still, there will be difficult days ahead. The enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over. But tonight, I'd like to tell you how we will complete our mission and end the war in Afghanistan.

First, we have begun a transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Already, nearly half the Afghan people live in places where Afghan security forces are moving into the lead. This month, at a NATO Summit in Chicago, our coalition will set a goal for Afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations across the country next year. International troops will continue to train, advise and assist the Afghans and fight alongside them when needed. But we will shift into a support role as Afghans step forward.

As we do, our troops will be coming home. Last year, we removed 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. After that, reductions will continue at a steady pace, with more of our troops coming home. And as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.

Second, we are training Afghan security forces to get the job done. Those forces have surged, and will peak at 352,000 this year. The Afghans will sustain that level for three years and then reduce the size of their military. And in Chicago, we will endorse a proposal to support a strong and sustainable long-term Afghan force.

Third, we are building an enduring partnership. The agreement we signed today sends a clear message to the Afghan people: as you stand up, you will not stand alone. It establishes the basis of our cooperation over the next decade, including shared commitments to combat terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions.

It supports Afghan efforts to advance development and dignity for their people. And it includes Afghan commitments to transparency and accountability, and to protect the human rights of all Afghans -- men and women, boys and girls.

Within this framework, we will work with the Afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish two narrow security missions beyond 2014: counter-terrorism and continued training. But we will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling its cities and mountains. That will be the job of the Afghan people.

Fourth, we are pursuing a negotiated peace. In coordination with the Afghan government, my administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban.

We have made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban -- from foot soldiers to leaders -- have indicated an interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before them. Those who refuse to walk it will face strong Afghan security forces, backed by the United States and our allies.

Fifth, we are building a global consensus to support peace and stability in South Asia. In Chicago, the international community will express support for this plan, and for Afghanistan's future. I have made it clear to Afghanistan's neighbor -- Pakistan -- that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Pakistan's sovereignty, interests and democratic institutions.

In pursuit of a durable peace, America has no designs beyond an end to al Qaeda safe-havens, and respect for Afghan sovereignty.

As we move forward, some people will ask why we need a firm time line. The answer is clear: our goal is not to build a country in America's image, or to eradicate every vestige of the Taliban. These objectives would require many more years, many more dollars, and many more American lives. Our goal is to destroy al Qaeda, and we are on a path to do exactly that. Afghans want to fully assert their sovereignty and build a lasting peace. That requires a clear time line to wind down the war.

Others will ask why we don't leave immediately. That answer is also clear: we must give Afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize. Otherwise, our gains could be lost, and al Qaeda could establish itself once more. And as commander in chief, I refuse to let that happen.

I recognize that many Americans are tired of war. As president, nothing is more wrenching than signing a letter to a family of the fallen, or looking in the eyes of a child who will grow up without a mother or father. I will not keep Americans in harm's way a single day longer than is absolutely required for our national security. But we must finish the job we started in Afghanistan and end this war responsibly.

My fellow Americans, we have traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon. The Iraq War is over. The number of our troops in harm's way has been cut in half, and more will be coming home soon. We have a clear path to fulfill our mission in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to al Qaeda.

This future is only within reach because of our men and women in uniform. Time and again, they have answered the call to serve in distant and dangerous places. In an age when so many institutions have come up short, these Americans stood tall. They met their responsibilities to one another, and the flag they serve under. I just met with some of them, and told them that as commander in chief, I could not be prouder. In their faces, we see what is best in ourselves and our country.

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and civilians in Afghanistan have done their duty. Now, we must summon that same sense of common purpose. We must give our veterans and military families the support they deserve, and the opportunities they have earned. And we must redouble our efforts to build a nation worthy of their sacrifice.

As we emerge from a decade of conflict abroad and economic crisis at home, it is time to renew America. An America where our children live free from fear and have the skills to claim their dreams. A united America of grit and resilience, where sunlight glistens off soaring new towers in downtown Manhattan, and we build our future as one people, as one nation.

Here, in Afghanistan, Americans answered the call to defend their fellow citizens and uphold human dignity. Today, we recall the fallen, and those who suffer wounds seen and unseen. But through dark days we have drawn strength from their example, and the ideals that have guided our nation and lit the world: a belief that all people are created equal, and deserve the freedom to determine their destiny.

That is the light that guides us still. This time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end. With faith in each other and our eyes fixed on the future, let us finish the work at hand, and forge a just and lasting peace. May God bless our troops. And may God bless the United States of America.


Romney Praises Obama’s Afghanistan Visit

Putting aside recent political battles over last year’s Osama Bin Laden raid, Mitt Romney issued a statement praising President Obama’s visit to Afghanistan on Tuesday and echoed his commitment to preventing Al Qaeda from re-establishing a foothold in the wartorn nation.

His statement, in full:

“I am pleased that President Obama has returned to Afghanistan. Our troops and the American people deserve to hear from our President about what is at stake in this war. Success in Afghanistan is vital to our nation’s security. It would be a tragedy for Afghanistan and a strategic setback for America if the Taliban returned to power and once again created a sanctuary for terrorists. We tolerated such a sanctuary until we lost thousands on September 11, 2001. Many brave Americans have sacrificed everything so that we could win this fight for a more secure future. Let us honor the memory of the fallen, not only by keeping them in our daily thoughts but also by staying true to their commitment. We are united as one nation in our gratitude to our country’s heroes.”


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, CNN, TPM, Google Maps

Soldiers Urge Congress & Pentagon Officials' Help For PTSD-Related Illnesses (Fewer Deployments)

G.I.'s plea: Give troops with PTSD more help


The American soldier who allegedly shot and killed 16 Afghan civilians served three tours of duty in Iraq before serving in Afghanistan.

Some experts say U.S. troops are being stretched too thin - and it's having an effect.

The suspect in the rampage in Afghanistan was stationed here until a few months ago.

We talked to an active duty soldier here who says he worries that our military men and women are being stretched to their breaking points.

"It will get better and it will get easier, but you won't ever forget faces and things you saw; it becomes part of you," says Specialist Jared Enger.

He should be in Afghanistan right now, fighting alongside the very soldier suspected of killing 16 Afghan civilians.

"He's in the same brigade I'm in," Enger notes. "He's in a unit I've done work with, so it's very well someone I could have crossed paths with and done some training with."

Enger spent two tours in Iraq - nearly 27 months of combat - during which he saw one of his best friends die right in front of him.

Like hundreds of others here at Joint Base Lewis McChord, Enger was diagnosed with chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

"I'm having nightmares. I'm having flashbacks. I'm really just feeling completely on edge," he said.

And news about how the base is responding to its soldiers' issues has been dismal.

Last month, the head of the base medical center was placed on administrative leave for reversing the diagnoses of nearly 300 soldiers who were told they had PTSD, allegedly to save the military money.

Jared was one of them. But his diagnosis has now been reinstated and he's about to be discharged. Yet, he worries about his fellow soldiers, who have endured more than a decade of deployments.

Thirty-four thousand soldiers have been deployed from Lewis McChord, and 20,000 of those have served multiple tours, deployed more than once to Iraq or Afghanistan, according to the base.

"Is two tours too much?" Enger asks. "Is five tours too much? Who's to say? There needs to be a better system in place."

He's particularly upset about this: In the past two years, officials at Lewis McChord said, 26 soldiers at the base have committed suicide.

"Something like that should never happen, and the only way it's not going to happen is with guys getting the help they need," said Enger.

Members of Congress are now looking into how those PTSD issues have been handled here at the base.

As for Jared, he told us that, if he could, he would prefer to be in Afghanistan, because being in a battle zone is now where he feels most normal.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, CNN, Google Maps

Karzai's Corruption Costing U.S. Thousands Of Soldiers' Lives & Billions In Foreign Aid (Time To Leave!)

Via a Mandatory Draft I want EVERY Federal Gov't Official including Congress Members & Pentagon Officials, to immediately allow their Adult Sons & Daughters to fight in the Afghan War to help Defend Karzai's (Afghan President) Corrupt Government, then tell me its "Wise Foreign Policy" for U.S. Troops to remain in that region of the world.







Intractable Afghan Graft Hampering U.S. Strategy


For the past few months, possibly the most intriguing poker game in Kabul has been taking place in the sprawling pink sitting room of the man at the center of one of the most public corruption scandals in the world, the near collapse of Kabul Bank.

The players include people tied to President Hamid Karzai’s inner circle, many of whom have profited from the crony capitalism that has come to define Afghanistan’s economic order, and nearly brought down Kabul Bank. The game’s stakes “aren’t too big — a few thousand dollars up or down,” one of the participants said.

Betting thousands of dollars a night in a country where most families live off a few hundred dollars a year would seem like a bad play for Sherkhan Farnood, the founder and former chairman of Kabul Bank, the country’s biggest. His assets are supposed to be frozen, and he is still facing the threat of prosecution over a scandal that could end up costing the Afghan government — and, by extension, the Western countries that pay most of its expenses — almost $900 million, a sum that nearly equals the government’s total annual revenues.

But Mr. Farnood, who in 2008 won about $143,000 at a World Series of Poker event in Europe, appears to know a good wager when he sees one. Despite years of urging and oversight by American advisers, Mr. Karzai’s government has yet to prosecute a high-level corruption case. And now many American officials say that they have little expectation that Mr. Farnood’s case will prove to be the exception — or that Washington will try to do much about it, especially after violent anti-American protests in recent weeks have sowed fresh doubts in the Obama administration over the viability of the mission in Afghanistan.

As Americans pull back from Afghanistan, Mr. Farnood’s case exemplifies how the United States is leaving behind a problem it underwrote over the past decade with tens of billions of dollars of aid and logistical support: a narrow business and political elite defined by its corruption, and despised by most Afghans for it.

The Americans and Afghans blame each other for the problem’s seeming intractability, contributing to the deterioration in relations that now threatens to scuttle talks on the shape of ties between the countries after the NATO combat mission ends in 2014. What is clear is that the pervasive graft has badly undercut the American war strategy, which hinged on building the Karzai administration into a credible alternative to the Taliban.

Still, the Obama administration has concluded that pressing the fight against corruption, as many American officials tried to do in recent years, could further alienate Mr. Karzai and others around him whom Washington is relying on as it tries to manage a graceful drawdown.



“It’s a little late in the game to worry about anticorruption measures because what in the world is the alternative going to be?” said Anthony H. Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “If you find people who aren’t corrupt, it is largely because they haven’t had the opportunity.”

Some of the corruption will fade organically, as America and its allies cut back on their aid to Afghanistan, which is likely to have a harsh impact on the Afghan economy, Mr. Cordesman said. Efforts by the American-led coalition to better monitor the billions it spends each year in Afghanistan continue and are having an effect, although it remains slight largely because billions of dollars keep pouring in and are likely to do so for years to come.

The limits of the coalition’s efforts to police its own spending — and the newfound reluctance of top American officials to push back against Afghan intransigence over prosecuting corruption — were laid bare in December when Mr. Karzai’s office demanded that the coalition provide evidence if it wanted the government to prosecute the Afghan Army’s former surgeon general, Gen. Ahmad Zia Yaftali.

Coalition officials had in fact provided the evidence a full year earlier. General Yaftali was suspended in December 2010 after Gen. David H. Petraeus, then the coalition commander, told Mr. Karzai that NATO investigators had found that the Afghan officer had stolen tens of millions of dollars’ worth of drugs from the country’s main military hospital, an institution he ran and where Afghan soldiers regularly died from simple infections because they could not afford to bribe nurses or doctors to treat them.

The running of the hospital, like much of the Afghan Army, is financed by the United States, which last year spent $11.2 billion to pay, train and equip Afghanistan’s security force.

But after the suspension of the politically connected general, the investigation into his conduct remained in limbo — until Mr. Karzai on Dec. 29 unexpectedly demanded to see the evidence he had already seen.

The American officer in charge of the inquiry, Brig. Gen. H. R. McMaster, was furious. The investigation of General Yaftali and the Dawood Military Hospital was one of the major initiatives undertaken by General McMaster’s task force, a high-profile coalition effort set up in 2010 to go after corruption that was being financed by coalition spending. Now it appeared as if an officer who was accused of letting his own soldiers die so he could enrich himself would never be tried.

General McMaster and his staff quickly pulled together their evidence and wrote a statement to counter Mr. Karzai’s demand. Their draft, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, struck both accusatory and conciliatory notes.

It bluntly stated that the coalition had provided the evidence Mr. Karzai was now demanding. It said efforts to investigate had been met with “interference, obstruction, and delay.” It quoted a pledge Mr. Karzai had made in December at an international conference in Germany to end a “culture of impunity.”

The statement was never released. According to two NATO officials, the commander of coalition forces, Gen. John R. Allen, decided there was little to gain in picking a fight with Mr. Karzai over the matter.

A senior coalition officer who is involved with the case said he believed that it would eventually proceed. NATO is focused on preparing Afghan forces to take over the fight against the Taliban, and will continue to try to clamp down on corruption that undermines that goal, the officer said.

The American officials tracking the bank investigation seem similarly uninterested in challenging Afghan authorities over the status of Mr. Farnood and his former partner, Khalilullah Frozi.

Under pressure from the United States and its allies, Afghan authorities arrested both men in June. Kabul Bank was taken over nearly 10 months earlier amid accusations that its owners used it as their personal piggy bank.

Mr. Farnood spent more than $150 million of the bank’s money on villas in Dubai purchased in his own name. Kabul Bank money helped finance shell companies whose main function was to win subcontracts from businesses doing work for the American-led coalition, siphon a slice of the money and then find other subcontractors to do the actual work, American officials have said. Mahmoud Karzai, a brother of the Afghan president, and Abdul Haseen Fahim, a brother of the first vice president, Gen. Muhammad Qasim Fahim, both received interest-free loans so they could buy stakes in the bank.

News of the takeover prompted a run on the bank that almost led to its collapse. Afghanistan’s central bank spent nearly $900 million to keep it afloat, an outlay that the Afghan government, already short of cash, has since had to cover. While some of that money is likely to be recovered, some Western officials concede that donor funds will eventually be needed to close the hole in the Afghan budget, even if Western dollars do not go directly to cover Kabul Bank’s losses.

Deputy Attorney General Rahmatullah Nazari said the authorities this past fall gave permission to let Mr. Farnood and Mr. Frozi out of prison during the daytime so they could help recover assets owed to the bank. Mr. Farnood owes the bank $467 million, he said; Mr. Frozi owes $78 million.

Mr. Frozi has been helpful in tracking down missing assets; Mr. Farnood less so, Mr. Nazari said, although some Western officials disputed that characterization and said it was Mr. Farnood who was being more helpful.

But it is unclear how hard the Afghan government is pushing either man. The villas and a pair of partly constructed office towers in Dubai are still in Mr. Farnood’s name, and Mr. Nazari said the transfer of the property was being held up by a 2 percent tax that the United Arab Emirates levy on such deals. Some Western officials questioned why a routine tax would hold up such an important transaction.

Meanwhile, Mr. Farnood is collecting rent from tenants in some of the villas, Mr. Nazari said.

But, Mr. Nazari insisted, both will be prosecuted once the asset recovery has been completed.

American, European and even some Afghan officials say they doubt that will happen. Despite Mr. Nazari’s claim that both spend their nights in prison, the two have rented separate houses in Kabul and rarely, if ever, return to their cells, said people close to the men.

Mr. Farnood’s spacious house stands behind high walls in Kabul’s most expensive neighborhood, around the corner from the office of the International Monetary Fund, which is overseeing a forensic audit of Kabul Bank.

A pool table, a table for table tennis, a large Samsung flat-screen television and a set of purple faux-leather couches and arm chairs grace the cavernous pink sitting room. A pair of late-model black Toyota Land Cruisers sit in the driveway. The officer from Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security, the country’s intelligence agency, who mans the front door functions more like a doorman than a guard.

Mr. Farnood lunches regularly at the Kabul Serena Hotel, where the buffet costs about $25 a head. Mr. Frozi has his own spot, Boccaccio, an upscale Italian eatery popular with well-heeled Afghans and foreigners, including American and European diplomats.

Lunching there on afternoon last month with four other men, Mr. Frozi declined to talk to a reporter. He said the American press had “destroyed the bank,” and he dismissed his questioner with a wave of his hand.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, CNN, Fox News, US Navy Seals.com, US State Dept., Wikipedia, Google Maps

Leon Panetta Says U.S. Soldier Could Face Death Penalty: Afghan Shooting Massacre

Soldier could face death penalty in Afghan killings, Panetta says


The U.S. Army soldier accused of killing 16 Afghan men, women and children in a house-to-house shooting rampage could face the death penalty, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said.

Panetta spoke to reporters as he flew to the Central Asian nation of Kyrgyzstan for high-level talks Tuesday.

Hundreds of Afghans took to the streets Tuesday to protest the killings as the Taliban threatened to behead "Americans anywhere in the country."

An American sergeant is suspected of shooting nine children, three women and four men in two villages near his combat outpost in southern Afghanistan on Sunday.

He turned himself in after the killings, the military said. The Army's Criminal Investigation Command is leading the investigation. The suspect has not been charged.

In Jalalabad, near the border with Pakistan, "hundreds of protesters, many of whom are university students, have taken to the streets," said Ahmad Zaii Abdulzai, a spokesman for Nangarhar province.

He said there had not been any damage or casualties from the protests, but the Jalalabad-Kabul highway was closed to traffic.

"We are in the process of trying to reopen," he said.

And an Afghan official said he heard gunshots and grenades being launched Tuesday while a delegation of top officials visited one of the villages where the shootings took place.

"While we were in the village of Alokozai for a funeral, praying for a martyr killed in the massacre, we heard close-range, small-arms fire, followed by two rocket-propelled grenades," said Haji Agha Lali, a member of Kandahar's provincial council.

"According to my information, two to three Afghan security forces have been injured," he said.

He said high-level Afghan officials, including President Hamid Karzai's brother, a minister and a deputy minister, were all attending the funeral and may have been the target of the firing.

Another villager in the area said he heard a large explosion followed by gunfire.
Leaders from across Afghanistan's fragmented political terrain have expressed anger and outrage over the attack in the district of Panjwai in Kandahar province.

Karzai has condemned the weekend bloodshed as "unforgivable." Afghanistan's parliament has demanded a public trial for the suspect, and the Afghan Taliban have described U.S. troops as "sick-minded American savages" and vowed to exact revenge.
In a new statement Tuesday, the Taliban said the group would take revenge "by killing and beheading Americans anywhere in the country."

There are fears that Sunday's killings could reignite the anger that led to deadly riots directed at international forces last month over the burning of Qurans by U.S. troops. That was one of a string of incidents involving American forces that have strained ties between the United States and Afghanistan.

U.S. commanders were forced to condemn a video of a squad of Marines urinating on bodies in January, and several soldiers -- from Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state, like the suspect in Sunday's shooting -- were charged with taking part in a rogue "kill squad."

Sunday's killings have brought a deluge of high-level statements from Washington expressing shock, sadness and insistence that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan would stay on course.

As he set out for a trip to the Middle East on Monday, Panetta said the United States and its NATO allies "seem to get tested almost every other day." But he added, "It is important that, all of us, United States, Afghanistan, the (NATO-led) forces all stick to the strategy that we've laid out."

"War is hell," he said. "These kind of events and incidents are going to take place. They've taken place in any war. They're terrible events. This is not the first of those events, and they probably won't be the last."

The still-unidentified suspect in the attack served three tours of duty in Iraq before being deployed to Afghanistan, said Gen. John Allen, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan. A U.S. military official, who asked not to be named because he was talking about an ongoing investigation, said the suspect is an Army staff sergeant who arrived in Afghanistan in January.

During the suspect's last deployment, in 2010, he was riding in a vehicle that rolled over in a wreck, according to a senior Defense Department official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity. The sergeant was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury after the wreck but was found fit for duty after treatment, the official said.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, CNN, US Navy Seals.com, Wikipedia, Google Maps

Obama vs Afghan War Strategy: Exit? Yes But NOT Yet!

Obama: No "rush for the exits" in Afghanistan


President Obama said Monday the United States should not stay in Afghanistan any longer than is absolutely necessary -- but added that he does not want to "rush for the exits" in the wake of a shooting rampage by a U.S. soldier who allegedly killed 16 Afghan civilians, including nine children.

"I think it's important for us just to make sure that we are not ... in Afghanistan longer than we need to be," Mr. Obama said in an interview with Denver CBS affiliate KCNC television.

In a separate interview with Pittsburgh CBS affiliate KDKA, Mr Obama said, "it's important for us to make sure that we get out in responsible way, so that we don't end up having to go back in...but what we don't want to do is to do it in a way that is just a rush for the exits."

Mr. Obama's comments come as U.S. officials continue to investigate what happened over the weekend in Afghanistan. A U.S. staff sergeant is accused of leaving his Belembai base near Kandahar and shooting civilians in nearby villagers as they were sleeping.

The administration and its allies say the shooting will not change the timetable for the United States and its NATO allies to hand over security control to the Afghans by the end of 2014.

The United States is expected to reduce its troop force to about 68,000 by the end of September from about 91,000 in Afghanistan now.

The attack comes on the heels of another incident that caused increased hostility toward the U.S. presence in Afghanistan -- the burning of Muslim holy books last month. That incident led to a week of riots and attacks that left 30 people dead, including six U.S. soldiers.

"Obviously what happened this weekend is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic, and I expressed directly to [Afghan] President [Hamid] Karzai how the American people feel any time innocent civilians, especially children .. are killed and for it to happen in this kind of terrible way I think we all are concerned about," Mr. Obama told KDKA.

The president stressed that removing tens of thousands of U.S. forces is logistically complicated and needs to be done "in a responsible way," using the Iraq withdrawal as model. Doing so, he said, will allow the Afghans to "protect their borders and prevent al Qaeda from coming back."

Asked if that meant he did not want to speed up the withdrawal, Mr. Obama said he is "more determined" to make sure the troops come home.

"It's been a decade, and you know, frankly, now that we've gotten [Osama] bin Laden, now that we've weakened al Qaeda, we're in a stronger position to transition than we would have been two or three years ago," Mr Obama told KDKA.

On the campaign trail, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told CBS News the United States should leave Afghanistan as quickly as is feasible.

"My feeling is that we should leave. I think as fast as we can with safety. I think the possibility of us changing Afghan culture is virtually zero," Gingrich told congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Wikipedia, Google Maps

Pres. Obama Admits 2011 Full Troop Withdrawal Won't Happen

Watch CBS News Videos Online





Combative Pres. Obama defends Afghan plans



President Obama tacitly acknowledged in an interview broadcast Sunday that few American troops may actually be withdrawn from Afghanistan in July of 2011, the draw-down date he set earlier this month.

“[A]s Commander in Chief, obviously, I reserve the option to do what I think is going to be best for the American people at that point in time,” Obama said on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in response to a suggestion that many U.S. combat forces will still remain in the country beyond then.

He said it would be clear by the end of next year whether the surge of 30,000 American troops into Afghanistan had been effective in securing the country and bolstering its security forces.

“And if the approach that’s been recommended doesn’t work, then yes, we’re going to be changing approaches,” Obama explained.

His comments seemed to put the stamp of the commander-in-chief on the more direct statement voiced a week ago by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that July 2011 would only mark the beginning of U.S. forces returning home.

Asked by CBS’s Steve Kroft why he was even setting a deadline, Obama said that otherwise “the message we are sending to the Afghans is, ‘It's business as usual. This is an open-ended commitment.’”

Obama, who has sat for a series of high-profile interviews with Kroft dating back to before he even announced his intention to run for president, appeared combative at times with a familiar interlocutor.

When Kroft suggested that Obama seemed to lack emotion in delivering his Afghanistan speech at West Point, the president responded with a jab at the Bush administration.

“[O]ne of the mistakes that was made over the last eight years [was] for us to have a triumphant sense about war,” Obama said. “There was a tendency to say, ‘We can go in. We can kick some tail. This is some glorious exercise.’ When in fact, this is a tough business.”

And when Kroft said the address was “greeted with a great deal of confusion,” Obama interjected.

“I disagree with that statement,” the president shot back, observing that “a whole bunch of people understood what we intend to do.”

Obama also made no attempt to conceal his irritation when Kroft brought up the reality TV aspirants who crashed a White House State dinner last month.

It's really a shame that I had to go through a whole 60 Minutes interview without talking about the gate crashers,” Obama said with a laugh. “Good catch.”

Pressed on the incident, Obama offered a bit of unprompted media criticism.

“I don't think that from a policy perspective, this was - the most important thing or even the fifth or sixth most important thing that happened this week, although it got the most news,” he said.

It wasn’t just reporters who seemed to be annoying the president.

He also offered a harsh critique of Wall Street, acknowledging that some banks have paid back the funds they took from the TARP program to avoid compensation restrictions that would prevent them from lavishing big bonuses.

“I think [that] tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it,” Obama said… .They're still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks. Well, let's see. You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?”

The president’s former colleagues on Capitol Hill didn’t go entirely unspared, either.

Asked why new financial regulations had not been implemented, he said with a laugh: “Well, everything appears to take long in Congress. We can talk about health care if you want. This is democracy in action.”

Obama did, though, say he thought the Senate would pass a bill by Christmas.


Sources: CBS, 60 Minutes, Politico, The Daily Beast

Kill Osama Bin Laden! Mcchrystal's Afghan Mission

McChrystal: Bin Laden is key to defeating al-Qaida

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

McChrystal: Afghanistan will be decisive, successful. Gen. Stanley McChrystal told lawmakers he's totally on board with President Obama's Afghanistan strategy, and that the U.S. military could successfully wage war against the Taliban with 30,000 thousand troops. NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski reports.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

General: Bin Laden capture key to U.S. efforts


The U.S. General in charge of the war in Afghanistan says capturing Osama bin Laden is the ultimate key to defeating the al-Qaida terror network.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal told Congress on Tuesday that bin Laden is an "iconic figure" whose very survival eight years after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. serves as a recruiting tool for al-Qaida. U.S. intelligence officials believe bin Laden is in hiding in Pakistan, along that country's rugged border with Afghanistan.

McChrystal says finding bin Laden is not the key to winning the war in Afghanistan. But he says he does not think that the United States will defeat the terror network outright until bin Laden is found and brought to justice.

The general also said Tuesdy he did not get as many troops as he wanted and must work under a schedule he did not recommend, but he insisted the Obama administration's revamped strategy is the best way to win.

Comments by Afghanistan's president and the U.S. defense secretary suggested a long, slow effort.

As McChrystal defended President Barack Obama's new surge-and-exit strategy in Washington, the U.S. challenge was underscored in Kabul. Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai said, with Defense Secretary Robert Gates standing at his side, that it probably will be five years before Afghan forces can take the lead in the fight against Taliban insurgents. Karzai predicted it would be at least 15 years before his government could pay for its own forces.

In congressional committee rooms, McChrystal declared under questioning that "I'm comfortable with the entire plan." But in lengthy sessions before Senate and House panels, the four-star general cautioned against expectations of immediate results and said the strategy must show progress within 18 months, Obama's deadline for beginning to bring U.S. troops home.

"The sober fact is that there are no silver bullets," McChrystal said. "Ultimate success will be the cumulative effect of sustained pressure."

More uncertainty

Karzai's comments, following a meeting with Gates, added more uncertainty to the planned exit of American troops. They also lowered expectations of any quick progress by shrunken Afghan security forces, which long have been expected to be equal partners with U.S. forces and troops from 42 other countries stationed in Afghanistan.

In announcing last week his decision to order 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, Obama said they would begin coming home in July 2011.

Gates, in remarks to reporters in Kabul, reiterated that the administration expects the U.S. withdrawal to be "a several-year process — whether it's three years or two years or four years remains to be seen."

Karzai's repetition Tuesday of his earlier warnings of a five-year buildup of the Afghan army and police make it likely that the American pullout could be a slow-motion drawdown that could extend through 2014. He said Afghanistan will need international help to build homegrown security forces well beyond that date.

Administration officials have said the length and speed of the withdrawal will depend on the results of the military campaign against the Taliban, as well as the success of efforts to build up Afghan forces and strengthen the Kabul government.

In exchanges with lawmakers, both McChrystal and Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, said the July 2011 date for starting the U.S. withdrawal provides a "forcing function" to pressure the Afghans to get their own forces ready to handle security.

Hinting at a misgiving, McChrystal said the Taliban would make propaganda use of the withdrawal plan, presumably to encourage its fighters and their facilitators to believe the U.S. will is weakening. He added that he believed this could be overcome.

McChrystal said he had not recommended the 18-month deadline for beginning a pullout and had preferred that more fresh forces be sent in.

Friendly, frayed relations

Despite reports that McChrystal and Eikenberry have frayed relations and were at odds over the ambassador's opposition to a major troop surge, the two men took pains to say they are friends.

Both men fielded pointed questions about the viability of the Obama strategy, the reliability of the Afghan government and the wisdom of announcing the July 2011 withdrawal start.

McChrystal, who took over the top command job in Kabul in June, said the nature of the Taliban and the brutal way it ruled before being overthrown in late 2001 are among reasons he thinks the insurgency can be defeated.

"They were not credible in power, and they are not credible now," McChrystal said.

Eikenberry, who previously had privately expressed doubts about sending a large number of additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, said he was now "100 percent" behind the strategy, which includes emphasis on a bigger role for U.S. civilian agencies to assist in strengthening the Afghan government and its economy.

Sen. John McCain, senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, praised the decision to send more troops but said that setting a firm date for beginning to send them home was a mistake.

"We have announced a date divorced from conditions on the ground," McCain said.

Eikenberry, himself a former U.S. commander in Kabul, said the course outlined last week by Obama "offers the best path to stabilize Afghanistan and to ensure al-Qaida and other terrorist groups cannot regain a foothold to plan new attacks against our country or our allies."

McChrystal spoke not of defeating the Taliban but of attempting to "disrupt and degrade" its fighting capacity. "Rolling back the Taliban," he said, "is a prerequisite to the ultimate defeat of al-Qaida."

The House panel's highest-ranking Republican, Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, told McChrystal he was waiting to hear how "the president is not under-resourcing his own strategy," since the general had sketched ways that as many as 80,000 additional U.S. forces could have helped turn the tide.

McChrystal said he did not think he would need to ask for any more troops in a year's time but would not hesitate to recommend more if circumstances changed.

He also told McKeon he did not recommend the July 2011 exit plan but supports it.

"By the summer of 2011, it will be clear to the Afghan people that the insurgency will not win, giving them the chance to side with their government," McChrystal said. "From that point forward, while we begin to reduce U.S. combat force levels, we will remain partnered with the Afghan security forces in a supporting role to consolidate and solidify their gains."

"Afghans do not regard us as occupiers," he said. "They do not wish for us to remain forever, yet they see our support as a necessary bridge to future security and stability."


Sources: MSNBC, Politico

Is Obama Another War President? Long Term Afghan Commitment

Gates interview. TODAY’s Matt Lauer talks with Defense Secretary Robert Gates about President Obama’s new strategy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Will the U.S. be out of Afghanistan in 18 months? The Morning Joe panel discusses the surge in Afghanistan and whether troops can withdraw by 2011.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

About two years ago Senator Barack Obama said the Iraq US Troop Surge would fail.






Gates reassures Afghans over U.S. commitment


U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that the Afghan security force needs to be strengthened and more soldiers and police need to be recruited to battle militants, but he added that the U.S. is committed to help Afghanistan for the long haul.

Gates, who met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai at the presidential palace in Kabul, is the first member of President Barack Obama's Cabinet to visit since Obama announced last week that he is sending 30,000 reinforcements to Afghanistan, but intends to pare down the U.S. role in July 2011.

The defense secretary and other administration officials have described the 2011 date as just the beginning, with the process likely to take at least two or three years to complete.

Finding ways to strengthen and increase recruiting in the beleaguered Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police was among the topics Gates and Karzai discussed. At a joint news conference, Karzai said it would be 15 years before Afghanistan would be able to pay the cost of maintaining the Afghan security forces.


Pledge to Fight Corruption

Karzai also reaffirmed his commitment to fight corruption. The president, who won re-election to a second term in a ballot marred by fraud, is expected to announce his new Cabinet in the next several days. It will be the first test of Karzai's willingness to meet his pledge to reform the government.

He is under intense pressure from the international community to nominate a slate of reformists to help rid his government of bribery and graft.

Despite lawmakers' demand that Karzai submit a full slate of ministers for approval, Karzai said he will send parliament 40 percent of his Cabinet list in the coming days. He said those ministers who have proven track records of service will remain in the Cabinet, although he did not say if they would stay in their same posts.

Karzai has repeatedly argued that while there is corruption in the Afghan government, there is also corruption within international contracting processes.

Gates also said he had talked with the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, and the commander of NATO and U.S. forces about how to improve monitoring and rein in corruption among contractors working on projects funded by the international community.

During his visit, Gates is meeting with troops, but the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is in Washington to testify about the new U.S. war plan.

"We are in this thing to win," Gates told reporters en route to Kabul.

He said he believes the U.S. mistakenly abandoned Afghanistan in 1989 as it fought the Soviets and understands Afghan concerns that they will be left alone against the Taliban. Gates said he wants to assure Karzai and his advisers "that we are not going to repeat the situation in 1989" and that "we intend to be their partner for a long time to come."

He also said he will press Karzai and Afghan Defense Minister Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak on efforts to recruit and train more Afghan soldiers and police officers. McChrystal has set the goal of building the Afghan security force to 400,000 by 2013. There are roughly 94,000 Afghan police officers and 97,000 soldiers today.



View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Fox News, Youtube, Google Maps