The Cruel Face of Terrorism

President Obama to sign nuclear treaty with Russia

2010-04-09T11:29:00.000+05:30

President Obama landed in Prague this morning to sign a treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons in a historic move for the former Cold War foes that marks a long-overdue diplomatic success for the American leader.

The ceremony at Prague Castle, the site of a speech by Mr. Obama a year ago about his desire for a world without nuclear bombs, also reflects the "resetting" of relations between Washington and Moscow and places Russia at the heart of future attempts to encourage other states to ditch atomic warheads.

The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) — already delayed because of difficulties in negotiations — could yet be undermined, however, if either side fails to ratify the pact or if Russia chooses to exercise a right to withdraw unilaterally over concerns about American plans for a missile-defense shield in Europe.

Arriving in the Czech capital yesterday, Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian President, appeared committed to the agreement, which requires the two, former arch-enemies, which own 95 per cent of the world's nuclear weapons, to slash nuclear warheads by more than one-quarter and halve the number of launchers.

"The treaty is an important document on which the overall situation in nuclear disarmament depends to a great extent," President Medvedev said following a meeting with Vaclav Klaus, his Czech counterpart.

Amid tight security, the Russian leader is due to hold talks with Mr. Obama ahead of the midday signing ceremony at the medieval castle that overlooks Prague.

The bilateral discussion will focus on a US desire for a fourth round of sanctions on Iran, which the West believes is intent upon becoming the world's next nuclear power. Tehran insists its nuclear ambition is for civilian, energy needs.

Mr. Obama will again advocate a tougher stance against the Iranian regime at a two-day summit of 47 world leaders that he is due to host in Washington next week. That meeting will focus on stopping illicit trade in nuclear material and the need for stronger measures to protect vulnerable stockpiles.

It has been a busy few days for the American President on the nuclear front, coming on the back of a successful domestic battle over healthcare reform and giving his administration a new sense of confidence 14 months after taking office.

On Tuesday, Mr. Obama unveiled a revamped nuclear strategy that for the first time declared the US would never use the bomb against a non-nuclear state provided it complied with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — a caveat that leaves Iran and North Korea still vulnerable to attack.

In a shift that is also reflected in the latest treaty with Moscow, the new policy also focuses on the spread of atomic weapons in vulnerable regions such as the Middle East and South-East Asia or to terrorists rather than outdated and far less plausible fears of a nuclear conflict with Russia.

The evolution of the threat underlines the need to cut inflated Russian and US stockpiles of nuclear weapons, which no longer serve any purpose other than to add to the risk of dangerous material falling into the wrong hands.

The new US-Russia pact, which replaces the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that expired last December and represents the most concrete foreign policy achievement for Mr. Obama since he took office, reduces both sides' deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 from a previous cap of 2,200. Washington and Moscow must also cut the number of launchers, nuclear-armed missiles and heavy bombers in a move that will require vigorous verification procedures.

The treaty, which lasts for 10 years and could be extended, still needs to be ratified by the US Congress and the Russian Duma. One lingering headache is ongoing Russian concern over US missile-defense, an issue that has strained relations for years, even though Mr. Obama scrapped a plan by his predecessor to base interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic.

Russia viewed the system as a threat to its national security, rejecting American assurances that it was aimed at rogue states like Iran. It threatened to block the nuclear treaty last month after objecting to revise US plans that could see elements of the shield based in Bulgaria and Romania.

Analysts, however, said Moscow was merely a signal that this issue must not be overlooked in future US-Russia disarmament pacts, which are expected to follow the latest treaty as momentum builds behind reducing the risk of nuclear war.

In a day of symbolic significance, Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev are due to sign the agreement in the richly adorned Spanish Hall of Prague Castle, the official residence of the Czech president.

The men will then have a formal lunch before the Russian leader flies home to Moscow, while Mr. Obama — in a sensitive balancing act — is due to host a dinner for leaders of 11 Central and Eastern European nations who either belonged to or were affected by the former Soviet Union. They will be seeking assurance over concerns about slipping support from Washington as it courts closer ties with Moscow.

Sealing the nuclear pact will go some way to silence critics of the US leader who last year won the Nobel Peace Prize in part for his vision of a nuclear-weapons-free world despite having not made any tangible progress towards that goal.

Iran derides Obama's "cowboy" nuclear stance

2010-04-08T11:38:00.000+05:30

TEHRAN, Iran—U.S. allies on Wednesday lined up behind President Barack Obama's new policy aimed at reducing the likelihood of nuclear conflict. But Iran—classified as a possible target under the guidelines—dismissed it as a "cowboy" policy by a political newcomer doomed to fail.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in the Slovak capital Bratislava for an official visit, did not address the issue before leaving for Prague to sign a landmark treaty Thursday with Obama aimed at paring U.S.-Russian strategic nuclear weapons by 30 percent. But Washington's supporters in Asia and Europe welcomed Obama's pledge Tuesday to reduce America's nuclear arsenal, refrain from nuclear tests and not use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them.

North Korea and Iran were not included in that pledge because they do not cooperate with other countries on nonproliferation standards.

The U.S. considers them nuclear rogues—Pyongyang for developing and testing nuclear weapons and Tehran because it is suspected of trying to do the same under the cover of a peaceful program, something Iran denies. Outlining the policy Tuesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the focus would now be on terror groups such as al-Qaida as well as North Korea's nuclear buildup and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Addressing thousands in the country's northwest, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad derided Obama over the plan.

"American materialist politicians, whenever they are beaten by logic, immediately resort to their weapons like cowboys," Ahmadinejad said in a speech before a crowd of several thousand in northwestern Iran.

"Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended," Ahmadinejad said in the speech, aired live on state TV.

Ahmadinejad said Obama "is under the pressure of capitalists and the Zionists" and vowed Iran would not be pushed around.

"(American officials) bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn't do a damn thing, let alone you," he said, addressing Obama.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—whose country is the only mid-east nation considered to have nuclear weapons—dismissed speculation that the Jewish state could come under pressure.

"I'm not concerned that anyone would think that Israel is a terrorist regime," he said. "Everybody knows a terrorist and rogue regime when they see one, and believe me, they see quite a few around Israel."

Washington's key European partners on its efforts to contain Iran's nuclear activities welcomed the Obama initiative.

British Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth said it "delivers strong progress" on pledges first made a year ago, adding Britain "looks forward to working closely with the US and other key allies and partners in the future."

Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero of France, like Britain a nuclear weapons state that backs global disarmament efforts, said Obama's nuclear posture "is convergent with our views."

Hailing the U.S. policy review as a historic shift in U.S. nuclear strategy, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle urged Iran to see it—and Thursday's planned Obama-Medvedev treaty signing—as a sign that the international community is "serious about disarmament."

In Asia, key allies benefiting from being under the U.S. nuclear defense umbrella expressed support, suggesting the Obama statement helped defuse concerns that they would be left vulnerable by a change in Washington's policy.

"This is a first step toward a nuclear-free world," said Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. "Deterrence is important, but so is reducing nuclear arsenals."

Katsuya Okada, Japan's foreign minister noted that Japan, which is located near North Korea, China and Russia but has decided not to develop nuclear weapons of its own, was concerned about how the policy will affect its security.

"The United States had assured its allies that this position will not endanger them," he said. "This is important."

In South Korea, the foreign and defense ministries issued a joint statement saying the new U.S. stance would strengthen Washington's commitment to its allies and pressure North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons development.

"The government welcomes and supports" Obama's announcement, they said. There was no immediate reaction to Obama's plan from North Korean state media.

New Zealand Prime Minister John Key also welcomed the announcement.

"President Obama made good on his pledge a year ago to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security policies and set the world on a path to a nuclear-weapons-free world," he said in a statement. "The review clearly states the long-term objective of U.S. policy is the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, and implements the first of the actions that will be needed to get there."

Chinese vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai refused to comment on the new U.S. nuclear defense policy, which also calls on China to explain its nuclear intentions more clearly.

"China's nuclear policy and China's strategic intentions are clear. Since the 1960s we have repeated our position on many occasions and our position has never been changed," Cui said, without elaborating. "I believe people with fair and just minds will not question China's position."

Beijing, which is said to have 100 nuclear warheads, has said it would not be the first to attack with nuclear weapons.

Chinese President Hu Jintao is to travel to Washington to take part in an April 12-13 nuclear summit that will focus on securing nuclear material to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands. The meeting is expected to bring together about 46 leaders.

Jahn reported from Bratislava, Slovakia. Associated Press writers Anita Chang, Angela Charlton, Eric Talmadge, Geir Moulson. Matti Friedman and Danica Kirka and researcher Zhao Liang contributed to this report from Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

Obama announces new strategy on nuclear weapons

2010-04-08T11:32:00.000+05:30

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to constrain the use of the nation's Cold War-era nuclear arsenal, in a bold but politically risky move aimed at discouraging the technology from spreading.

Obama's plan, a sharp departure from his predecessor's policy, is a bid to play down the threat posed by nations like Russia and China while emphasizing the threat posed by terrorists or states believed to encourage terrorism.

"To stop the spread of nuclear weapons, prevent nuclear terrorism, and pursue the day when these weapons do not exist, we will work aggressively to advance every element of our comprehensive agenda – to reduce arsenals, to secure vulnerable nuclear materials, and to strengthen" international agreement, Obama said in a statement.

Under the new plan, the U.S. promises not to use nuclear weapons against countries that don't have them. The policy would not apply to states like North Korea and Iran, however, because of their refusal to cooperate with the international community on nonproliferation standards.

Obama's plan would lessen the role nuclear weapons play in America's defense planning.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he welcomes the president's reaffirmation of his commitment toward a nuclear-free world and believes the new Nuclear Posture Review "is a timely initiative in that direction."

Congressional Democrats also hailed the decision, while some Republicans said it could weaken the U.S. defense capability.

Rep. Buck McKeon of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said the policy change could carry "clear consequences" for security and said he was troubled by "some of the language and perceived signals imbedded" in the policy.

At a Pentagon news conference, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the unprecedented limits being placed on the U.S. nuclear arsenal won't weaken the nation's defense and will send a "strong message" to Iran and North Korea to "play by the rules."

"All options are on the table when it comes to countries in that category," Gates said.

Obama has stopped short of saying the U.S. will never be the first to launch a nuclear attack, as many arms control advocates want.

Gates said the administration decided against limiting the nation's options further because of the danger still being posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

"This is obviously a weapon of last resort," Gates told reporters. But "we also recognize the real world we continue to live in."

Moscow vows to 'wipe out' those behind bombings

2010-03-30T16:48:00.001+05:30

Russian leaders vowed to avenge the twin rush-hour suicide bombings on packed metro trains in Moscow that killed at least 38 people on Monday.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin vowed those behind the attacks would be destroyed as authorities pointed the finger at militants from the Northern Caucasus and perhaps beyond for the deadliest attack in Moscow in years.

The first explosion shortly before 8:00 am (0400 GMT) ripped through a train that had stopped in the Lubyanka station just below the headquarters of Russia’s FSB security service, the successor to the Soviet KGB.

About 40 minutes later, a second explosion went off in a carriage of a train on the platform at the Park Kultury metro station, named after Moscow’s iconic Gorky Park.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited the Lubyanka metro station to lay a wreath of red roses on the platform, and vowed we will find and wipe out those behind the blasts, calling them wild beasts

Rescuers grimly hauled out body bags from the depths of the Moscow metro, one of the world’s biggest transit systems with an average of more than 6.5 million passengers every day, an AFP correspondent saw.

Video shot with mobile phones and aired on state television showed dazed passengers holding their heads in despair and corpses strewn on the ground as dust and smoke swirled through the tunnel.

Officials said the attacks were carried out by women wearing belts packed with explosives, marking a return of the so-called Black Widows who terrorized Moscow a decade ago with a string of attacks.

Body parts of two terrorists female suicide bombers were found at the scenes of the blasts, FSB chief Alexander Bortnikov said in a televised meeting at the Kremlin.

According to preliminary information, these people had links to places of residence in the Northern Caucasus, he added.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that foreign involvement in the attacks had not been ruled out.

We all know very well that clandestine terrorists are very active on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Interfax news agency quoted Lavrov as saying in Canada at a Group of Eight ministers meeting.

We know that several attacks have been prepared there, to be carried out not only in Afghanistan, but also in other countries. Sometimes, these journeys go as far as the (Russian) Caucasus.

Video surveillance footage has allowed investigators to establish the bombers identities; a security source told Interfax, as well as those of two other women who accompanied the attackers to the metro.

The two women and a man, another possible accomplice, are being sought by police, the source said.

Bortnikov said the bombers belts were packed with the explosive hexogen equivalent to several kilograms (pounds) of TNT and metal shrapnel.

Emergency officials said the death toll had reached 38, not including the bombers. Another 64 people were wounded.

The injured included a woman from the Philippines and two women from Malaysia who were released from hospital after treatment.

Putin who cut short a visit to Siberia to return to Moscow, where he visited survivors in hospital warned earlier in the day that law enforcement agencies will do everything to find and punish the criminals.... The terrorists will be destroyed.

Western leaders offered their condolences to Russia, and US President Barack Obama called Medvedev to pledge Washington would help bring to justice those who undertook this attack.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility, but the so-called Caucasus Emirate group led by Chechen militant Doku Umarov has repeatedly warned in recent months it was planning to strike the capital.

Umaro’s group claimed responsibility for last November bombing of a passenger train that killed 28 people.

The Moscow city government declared Tuesday a day of mourning.

Monday’s explosions were the deadliest suicide attacks in Moscow since 2004 when the bombing of a metro train killed 41, part of a string of attacks carried out by Chechen militants.

Chechnya has seen rising violence in recent months as pro-Kremlin regional authorities seek to clamp down on an Islamist insurgency that has also spread to the neighboring majority-Muslim regions of Ingushetia and Dagestan.

Obama Makes a Surprise Visit to Afghanistan

2010-03-29T14:22:00.001+05:30

Mr. Obama’s visit was shrouded in secrecy and lasted only a few hours, but included a boisterous pep rally with American troops. It was his first trip as president to the scene of an eight-year-old war he has stamped as his own.

While Mr. Obama said “the American people are encouraged by the progress that has been made,” as he stood beside Mr. Karzai at the heavily fortified presidential palace, Mr. Obama also emphasized that work remained to be done on the governance issues that have frustrated American officials over the past year. “We also want to continue to make progress on the civilian process,” Mr. Obama said. He mentioned several areas, including anticorruption efforts and the rule of law.

The trip highlighted how far the administration believes the Afghan government has to go to make good on promises that Mr. Karzai has made on governance and even reintegration with certain reconcilable members of the Taliban insurgency.

The language used by Mr. Obama and Mr. Karzai in their private discussions was not disclosed. But Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, told reporters on Air Force One en route to Afghanistan that the administration wanted Mr. Karzai to “understand that in his second term, there are certain things that have not been paid attention to, almost since Day 1.”

General Jones said that the Afghan president “needs to be seized with how important” the issue of corruption, in particular, is for American officials.

The visit capped a high-profile week for Mr. Obama, in which he achieved a singular victory domestically — signing health care legislation — and reached an arms control agreement with Russia that calls for the two nuclear powers to slash their nuclear arsenals to the lowest levels in half a century.

Mr. Obama’s visit to Afghanistan came against a backdrop of tension between Mr. Karzai and the Americans that have not substantially abated since Mr. Karzai was declared the winner of an election tainted by fraud. In the wake of last August’s election, the United Nations and the United States, as well as other NATO countries, demanded that Mr. Karzai make major overhauls in the electoral system, tacitly indicating that they might withhold money for the next election if they did not see changes.

Mr. Karzai recently overhauled the Afghan election complaint commission, but made it less neutral by claiming the right to appoint all five members. Currently, three of the members are appointed by the United Nations. The move infuriated some Western diplomats here who saw it as almost a taunt.

Further aggravating tensions was a conference in London at the end of January at which corruption was a major topic and Western officials again made clear that they felt Mr. Karzai had fallen short. Recently, he has strengthened the anticorruption commission, and the attorney general appears to be moving forward on a handful of high-profile cases involving former government figures. Corruption remains pervasive, however, and Mr. Karzai has not used his position as a bully pulpit to change the culture.

“He’s slipping away from the West,” said a senior European diplomat in Kabul.

Mr. Karzai warmly received one of America’s most vocal adversaries, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, on an official visit to Kabul in early March. Mr. Karzai met with him again this past weekend in Tehran, when the two celebrated the Afghan and Iranian New Year together.

Mr. Karzai returned to Kabul only hours before Mr. Obama landed.

Last week, Mr. Karzai made a three-day trip to China, a country that is making economic investments in Afghanistan, notably in its copper reserves, taking advantage of the hard-won and expensive security efforts of the United States and other Western nations.

Air Force One landed at nighttime at Bagram Air Base after a 13-hour nonstop flight, for a visit kept secret for security reasons. Mr. Obama quickly boarded a helicopter for the trip to Kabul.

White House officials did not give advance notice of the trip, and even went as far as to inform reporters that Mr. Obama would be spending the weekend at Camp David with his family. In fact, the president’s trip occurred during the Afghan night, and he was flying back to Washington before most Afghans awakened Monday morning.

Besides General Jones, Mr. Obama was accompanied by Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, and a number of other officials from the White House and the Defense Department.

Mr. Obama also met with some of the tens of thousands of American troops who have been sent to Afghanistan since he took office. His visit with the troops was particularly significant because American combat casualties in Afghanistan have risen sharply while he has been commander in chief.

In the first three months of 2010, at least 83 American service personnel have died in Afghanistan, versus 43 in the first three months of 2009, according to icasualties.org, a database of casualties in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts.

Pakistan terror groups threat to all nations

2010-03-27T10:23:00.000+05:30

Osama Bin Laden threat to U.S. over 9/11 plotter

Osama bin Laden threatened in a new message released on Thursday to kill any Americans Al-Qaida captures if the U.S. executes the self-professed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks or other Al-Qaeda suspects.

In the 74-second audiotape aired on Al-Jazeera television, the Al-Qaeda leader explicitly mentions Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was captured in Pakistan in 2003. He is the most senior Al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody and is detained at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In 2008, the U.S. charged Mohammed with murder and war crimes in connection with the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. Pentagon officials have said they will seek the death penalty for him. Four of his fellow plotters are also in custody.

“The White House has expressed its desire to execute them. The day America makes that decision will be the day it has issued a death sentence for any one of you that is taken captive,” said Osama, addressing Americans.

A U.S. counterterrorism official said it is absurd for Al-Qaeda to suggest it is going to start treating captives badly.

“They may have forgotten Danny Pearl and all the others they've slaughtered, but we haven't,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss classified information.

After his March 2003 capture in Pakistan, Mohammed described himself as the architect of numerous terrorism plots and even claimed that “with my blessed right hand,”

Pakistan terror groups threat to all nations

2010-03-27T10:20:00.000+05:30

India on Thursday asked Islamabad’s “friends”, particularly the

US and the UK to persuade it to close terror malls operating
on the Pakistani soil. Home minister P Chidambaram, who gave vent to New Delhi’s irritation with Washington’s approach to terrorism emanating from Pakistan, said that no country will be safe if stern action was not taken against groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba.

“No country is truly safe.... Don’t think that India alone is under threat. Every country is under threat from these groups and the Lashkar-e-Taiba today is like the al-Qaeda, a multi-country group.” That Lashkar has emerged as an important member of a global jihadi network is being conceded by the US.

In an interview to the BBC, Mr. Chidambaram said it would be “naive” for Western countries to think that only India faces the threat from Pakistan-based terrorists. “Once you allow these terror groups to train, recruit and be able to build capacity to strike, they can strike in India, they can strike in UK, they can strike in Denmark as they were planning out of the Karachi Project,” he said.

The home minister also said that the civilian government in Pakistan has not moved towards reining in the ISI or the terror groups that are backed by it. “If there is a truly civilian government in Pakistan which can rein in the ISI and direct the army and the ISI to move in and dismantle their terror infrastructure. The camps must be closed. Training must come to an end,” he said.

To a question whether he has seen any movement in that direction in Pakistan, Mr. Chidambaram replied in the negative. “Nothing so far,” he said. Asked what could persuade Pakistan to do that, he said, “The UK, the US knows the answer to that question better. Certainly, we have not been able to persuade Pakistan. It is Pakistan’s friends, mutual friends, who would have to bring pressure on Pakistan.”

On the Pune attack, the minister said there were intelligence reports about jihadis targeting the town. “Pune was a case where it slipped through the cracks. Pune was a target. There was specific intelligence shared by the Central government with the Maharashtra police and the government. The area, Koregaon Park, was under a security cover.

Advisory was given to German Bakery and its manager’s acknowledged the advisory on every single occasion but they did nothing. They did not even take the minimum security precautions. So, it is an unfortunate case that I would say slipped through the cracks. As I said in Parliament, it’s a blot. But the lesson is that when there is intelligence, pointed intelligence and advisories are issued, people must cooperate. Shops, establishments, hotels, malls must take minimal security precautions,” he said.

New face of terror in US -'Jihad Jane'

2010-03-11T11:59:00.000+05:30

The "war on terrorism" just got a little more complicated with the indictment of an average white American female dubbed "Jihad Jane" on charges of plotting with Islamic radicals, bringing even the so-called soccer moms under the radar.

Colleen LaRose, 46, a Pennsylvania native, has been charged with trying to recruit Islamic fighters and plotting to assassinate a Swedish cartoonist who made fun of Prophet Muhammad, according to a federal indictment unsealed on Tuesday.

What is striking about the case is that Colleen LaRose, who called herself Fatima La Rose, is a regular workaday housewife. Blonde and green-eyed, she would have easily slipped under scrutiny that typically focuses on non-whites.

In fact, that is precisely what she and her jihadi consorts whom she reached out to over the internet banked on as they discussed plans to kill a Swedish cartoonist.

In 2008, LaRose allegedly posted a video on You Tube calling herself Jihad Jane and stating she was "desperate to do something somehow to help" ease the suffering of Muslims, a move that attracted the attention of law-enforcement authorities.

According to the indictment, in email exchanges with five unindicted and unnamed co-conspirators in South Asia, Eastern and Western Europe, LaRose allegedly agreed to recruit people for jihad, to raise money for fighters. She also agreed to one jihadist's request to marry him to enable him to get inside Europe.

LaRose stated "that her physical appearance would allow her to 'blend in with many people' which 'may be a way to achieve what is in my heart,'" the indictment said.

This is the first time a white American female has signed up for jihad. According to the indictment, in March 2009, shortly before she made the You Tube video, LaRose allegedly received a directive from her jihadist contacts to "go to Sweden... find location of (resident of Sweden)... and kill him... this is what i say to u". The target was identified as Lars Vilks, a cartoonist who had drawn Prophet Muhammad with the body of a dog.

LaRose was instructed to kill Vilks in a way that would frighten "the whole Kufar (non-believer) world." She was arrested in October 2009 but the case was kept under seal as authorities pursued leads to track down her jihadist contacts.

The indictment was unsealed on Tuesday after the arrest of seven Muslims in Ireland, in a case that was said to connect "Jihad Jane" to the plot to kill Vilks.

Brain behind Bali blasts killed, says Indonesia

2010-03-10T16:28:00.001+05:30

Indonesian counter-terrorism forces on Tuesday killed a man who was believed to have been one of the masterminds of the 2002 Bali bombings during a raid in the capital Jakarta, police and reports said.

The man was among three people killed in two raids on the city's outskirts. Police did not disclose the identities of the three, saying "a forensic examination was still being carried out".

But a police source said one was believed to be Dulmatin, a leader of the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) militant group and an al-Qaida-trained bomb maker with a US bounty of $10 million on his head.

It is not the first report of his death. In 2008, Philippine military officials said they believed Dulmatin's body had been exhumed on the island of Tawi-tawi. The security ministry's counter-terrorism chief, Ansyaad Mbai, said: "If it's true that it's him, we will be very grateful that the most wanted terrorist has been killed in Pamulang. It will be a big relief to us."

National police spokesman Edward Aritonang said one of the three was killed in a gunfight with counter-terrorism police at an internet cafe in Pamulang, west of the capital. Witnesses later saw a body bag taken from the cafe into an ambulance.

Believed to be in his late 30s, Dulmatin is accused of helping JI plan and carry out the Bali bombings, which killed 202 people on the Indonesian resort island, most of them foreign tourists.

JI is a Southeast Asian extremist group inspired by al-Qaida. Its ultimate goal is to unite Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and southern Philippines into a fundamentalist Islamic state.

Ahmadinejad hunkers down with Karzai

2010-03-09T14:52:00.000+05:30

On Monday, Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad was due to visit Afghanistan on a short trip with a heavy agenda of issues concerning regional security and a drug trafficking problem that is growing despite advances against Afghan insurgents in Helmand province, the world's opium capital.

On the eve of his trip, Ahmadinejad once again captured headlines by describing the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington as a "big lie" that was "intended to serve as a pretext for fighting terrorism and setting the grounds for sending troops to Afghanistan". His comment, directed at a regional audience, was clearly geared to one of Iran's main foreign policy goals - the removal of foreign forces in neighboring countries.

Thus, while relatively orderly parliamentary elections in Iraq favor
that goal by increasing the likelihood of the US's military departure in 2011, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) offensive in Helmand is likely to be replicated soon in Kandahar and other provinces. Given that counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics are two sides of the same coin, the offensive may make a major difference to Afghanistan's production of raw opium. While some opium is converted to heroin inside Afghanistan, according to a UN report, most "goes through Baramchin and Nimar to Iran." (See 'US, Iran seek to stop Afghan narco-traffic', March 10, 2009).

To some extent, the invigorated counter-narcotics campaign has benefited Iran by increasing security, although a UN report of a 109% increase in opium production in Herat province adjacent to Iran last year is a worrying sign. Little wonder that in late January, Iran, as an observer to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Central Asian security forum, didn't stand in the way of an SCO statement that put a seal of approval on the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) presence in Afghanistan until it achieves its central task of creating a self-sufficient Afghan army and police force

More broadly, insofar as the NATO operation in Afghanistan has a geostrategic dimension connoting NATO's "east-ward expansion", Ahmadinejad's strong objection at the weekend to the foreign presence in Afghanistan serves the SCO's geostrategic interest of erecting barriers to the organization.

Ahmadinejad's Kabul trip takes place at a time when trilateral Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan talks have produced a tangible dividend, mainly because Islamabad's recent cooperation with Iran in the arrest of Abdulmalik Rigi, the notorious head of the Jundallah terrorist group, seems to show Pakistan has shifted strategy to make cooperation with Iran an arm of its anti-India policy in Afghanistan.

There is a consensus in Tehran that Rigi's arrest would not have been possible without the cooperation of Pakistani intelligence, which has recently arrested a number of high-ranking Taliban leaders. As indicated by recent terrorist attacks on Indian citizens working in Kabul (attributed by India's media on Pakistan-backed groups), Islamabad has combined a more aggressive anti-India policy with a more compliant role with respect to Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Lahore blast-8 dead

2010-03-08T18:20:00.001+05:30

Eight people were killed and 45 injured on Monday when a suicide bomber struck at a building housing an investigative agency in this Pakistani city, police said.

The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) building, located in the up market residential Model Town neighborhood, was teeming with employees when the massive bombing took place.

"It was a car bombing. The terrorists detonated the explosive-laden vehicle at the main gate of the building," DPA quoted Tariq Saleem Dogar, the police chief for Punjab province, as saying.

Pervez Rathor, the Lahore police chief, said eight people had died while over 45 were injured.

He said 40 to 50 people were inside the building when the suicide attack took place.

Earlier reports had said that a security guard stopped a man entering the building located in Model Town area, but the bomber blew him up.

District Coordination Officer Sajjad Bhutta said at least 600-kg explosives had been used in the blast, Geo TV reported.

A police official said the secret agency was working in a residential area as there was shortage of offices.

The blast targeted the special investigation unit of the secret agency.

The deafening blast was so powerful that it created a huge crater and damaged buildings located close by.

An eyewitness said he could watch smoke billowing from the blast site.

Police say 12 people killed, 30 wounded in suicide attack in northwestern Pakistan

2010-03-06T11:01:00.000+05:30

A suicide bomber targeted Shiite Muslims on two buses being escorted by security forces through a northwestern Pakistan border area rife with sectarian and insurgent violence, killing 12 people Friday.

Tensions between Pakistan's majority Sunni Muslims and Shiites had made the road unsafe for the minorities traveling to the nearby Kurram tribal region. Police recently had declared it safe, but Shiites are provided security to travel through it.

Friday's attack only targeted the buses carrying Shiites, police official Akram Ullah said. Security forces escorting them weren't harmed.

The victims were passing through a gas station in the town of Hangu when the lone attacker on foot set off the bomb, Ullah said.

Five people were killed at the scene and seven others died at hospitals, he said.

Pakistan's northwest has been plagued for years by Islamist extremist violence fueled by anger over the war in Afghanistan and Islamabad's alliance with Washington. An army offensive that began in October against the Pakistani Taliban spurred attacks that killed more than 600 people.

But with the exception of a few attacks on northwest police stations, violence appears to have subsided in recent weeks, an indication that the army operation in the South Waziristan tribal region may be having an impact.

Sectarian tensions are another matter.

Extremist Sunnis and Shiites have targeted each other's leaders in violence that dates from well before the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.

Several of Pakistan's Sunni extremist groups also are allied with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, who view Shiites as infidels. The Sunni-Shiite schism over the true heir to Islam's Prophet Muhammad dates to the seventh century.

Also Friday, Pakistan army helicopters destroyed a sprawling hideout of a key al-Qaeda-linked militant leader, Maulvi Faqir Mohammed, in the northwestern tribal region of Bajur, killing 25 insurgents.

India rejects Holbrooke's opinion, Menon heads to Kabul

2010-03-05T10:01:00.001+05:30

Rejecting US Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke's remarks about the Feb 26 Kabul attacks, India is convinced that the terrorists' chief target were Indians and is hoping for more leads in the ongoing probe when National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon goes to Kabul on Friday.

We certainly don't go with it. He (Holbrook) is entitled to his personal opinion,” a government source familiar with developments in Afghanistan said.

"We have taken note of it, but we are not losing sleep over it,” the source said.
The sources pointed out that the terrorists' chief target was a building used by the Indian medical mission

Suicide bombers struck at a hotel and a guest house in central Kabul, killing six Indians, including two army majors, in what Indian Ambassador to Afghanistan Jayant Prasad has described as a "26/11-like operation."

Afghanistan's intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security, has said there was evidence that Urdu-speaking Pakistanis from Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba were involved in the attack and not the Afghan Taliban

The NSD has told Indian authorities that the terrorists were looking for Indians and had specific information about who was present, including women from SEWA, an India-based NGO.

In Washington, Holbrooke, US President Barack Obama's Special Envoy on Pakistan and Afghanistan said that Indians were not the target of the Kabul attack.” I don't accept the fact that this was an attack on an Indian facility… There were foreigners, non-Indian foreigners hurt. It was a soft target. Let's not jump to conclusions,” he told reporters.
“I understand why everyone in Pakistan and everyone in India always focus on the other. But please, let's not draw a conclusion for which there's no proof,” he added.
Within hours of the Kabul terror spree in Kabul, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna said in a statement: “This is the third attack on Indian officials and interests in Afghanistan in the past 20 months.” He stressed that these attacks were “clearly aimed against the people of India and the people of Afghanistan.”

The Indian embassy was attacked twice, first in July 2008 and then in October 2009.
India is hoping for more concrete leads in the ongoing Afghan probe into the Kabul blasts that will establish without doubt that the attack's chief target were Indians when Menon meets top Afghan authorities in the Afghan capital Friday.

He will meet Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Foreign Minister Zalmay Rassoul and other top Afghan leaders to discuss the latest attack, which India has said was designed to undermine the friendship between the Indian and Afghan people.

Menon will review the security for around 4,000 Indians engaged in a host of reconstruction activities in Afghanistan that ranges from building roads, bridges and power stations to training programs, earning India enormous goodwill in that country.
An inter-ministerial team of Indian investigators is already in Kabul and is assisting the Afghan authorities in the Kabul terror attack.

The Indian team of investigators comprises officials of the home and defense ministries. They will assist the Afghan authorities in the probe, sources said.

Holbrooke debunks talk of US mediation on Kashmir

2010-03-03T15:53:00.001+05:30

Without uttering the "K" word, a senior US diplomat has debunked suggestions that Washington should help India and Pakistan resolve the Kashmir issue as part of a regional approach to end the Afghan war.

"Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India... share a common strategic space," Richard Holbrooke, US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told reporters on Tuesday.

"And in order to understand America's policy and America's policy dilemma, one has to understand that both India and Pakistan have legitimate security interests in the region."

"And I'm not talking about that certain area between them which I'm not going to mention by name...because I am not going to get involved in that," he said, carefully avoiding a reference to Kashmir so as not to step on India's toes.

"And people who have advocated that are making a proposal which I believe runs counter to stability in Afghanistan. Afghanistan must be dealt with on its merits," said Holbrooke, who has taken pains to stress time and again that India or Kashmir are nor part of his portfolio.

Stressing that Pakistan and India have a "complicated historic relationship" going back to partition in 1947 and before 1947 "which people must respect", he said: "What happened then affects us today. But I need to stress that both countries have legitimate security interests (in Afghanistan)."

But as President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other US officials "have said repeatedly, there are many countries that have legitimate security interests in what happens in Afghanistan".

Asked if the issue of handing over terrorists involved in 26/11 Mumbai attacks and other terrorist attacks had come up in his talks with India and Pakistan, Holbrooke said: "Well, of course both sides raise issues like that, but it will not serve any purpose for me to make public confidential discussions."

"Our relations with both countries are good. We are improving relations with both countries," he said, noting: "Both in New Delhi and in Islamabad, people come up to us and say, oh, you're pro-the other country, you're favoring one country over another."

"That's not true. We are focused on the issues themselves and on generally good relations, and we seek to do everything we can to help Pakistan economically, which is, I think - which is my highest priority," Holbrooke said. "And we work closely with India on a whole range of issues."

Asked if Indians in Afghanistan could feel safe after the terror attack in Kabul last week that killed 16 people, including six Indians, Holbrooke said: "First of all, in regard to this attack, I don't accept the fact that this was an attack on an Indian facility like the embassy.

"They were foreigners, non-Indian foreigners (were also) hurt. It was a soft target. And let's not jump to conclusions," he said. "I understand why everyone in Pakistan and everyone in India always focus on the other. But please, let’s not draw a conclusion for which there's no proof."

Obama speaks to PM; condemns Pune blast

2010-02-18T17:16:00.000+05:30

US President Barack Obama on Thursday spoke to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and condemned last week's terror blast in Pune that has claimed 11 lives.

In the brief telephonic conversation, Obama condoled the loss of lives, the Prime Minister's Office said.

"The two leaders took the opportunity to review developments in Indo-US relations," it said.

The Obama administration has offered FBI help in the investigation into Saturday's blast at the German Bakery, a popular eatery in Pune's posh Koregaon Park area.

The US State Department has said it is working with India and Pakistan to combat the threats the three countries face from terrorist and extremist groups.

"The information we have shared so far has been quite unprecedented, and we intend to continue to working with the Government of India to try and protect our two societies from these types of attacks," Acting US State Department Spokesman Gordon Duguid said.

Unrest in Indian Kashmir enters 2nd week

2010-02-09T14:10:00.000+05:30

, India -- Authorities put separatist leaders under house arrest and thousands of armed troops in riot gear warned people to stay indoors in Indian Kashmir's main city Monday in an attempt to block a seventh day of violent demonstrations against Indian rule.

Widespread unrest has rocked the disputed Himalayan region for the past week, as protesters have taken to the streets in anger over the deaths of two teenage boys they say were killed by police and government forces.

The All Parties Hurriyat Conference, the main separatist alliance in Indian Kashmir, had called for protesters to march Monday to the local United Nations office in Srinagar, the region's main city, but it was unclear if the demonstration would go ahead.

"All our leaders have been either placed under house arrest or arrested ahead of the rally," said Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, a top separatist leader, in a telephone interview from his home. Police also confirmed the arrests.

The government has banned the assembly of more than four people in Srinagar in an attempt to suppress the protests.

Shops, business and government offices in the city remained closed for a seventh day and government forces erected steel barricades and laid razor wire on the roads leading to the U.N. office.

The protests started after a 14-year-old boy died after he was struck in the head by a police tear gas shell as an anti-Indian protest ended last Sunday. The police officer who fired the shell was suspended and police called it "a callous and irresponsible action."

Then on Friday, witnesses said paramilitary soldiers charged at a group of people gathered on a playground and began firing as they fled, killing a 17 year old. Hemant Lohia, a top police officer, confirmed that the boy died from a bullet wound but said details about his death were still under investigation.

Clashes between protesters and government forces since have injured at least 93 protesters and 33 troops in the region. Another 80 protesters have been arrested.

Kashmir, which is predominantly Muslim, is divided between India and Pakistan and claimed by both in its entirety. Anti-India sentiment runs deep in the Himalayan region, where more than a dozen rebel groups have been fighting for Kashmir's independence from India or its merger with Pakistan since 1989.

More than 68,000 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in the uprising and the subsequent Indian crackdown.

Iran's Two-Edged Bomb

2010-02-09T14:00:00.000+05:30

WITH Iran having notified the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency on Monday that any day now it will begin enriching its stockpile of uranium in order to power a medical reactor, we should admit that Washington’s approach to countering the Islamic Republic is leading nowhere. What’s needed, however, may be less of a change of plan than a change in how we view the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Believe it or not, there are some potential benefits to the United States should Iran build a bomb. (I’m speaking for myself here, and in no way for the Air Force.) Five possibilities come to mind.

First, Iran’s development of nuclear weapons would give the United States an opportunity to finally defeat violent Sunni-Arab terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Here’s why: a nuclear Iran is primarily a threat to its neighbors, not the United States. Thus Washington could offer regional security — primarily, a Middle East nuclear umbrella — in exchange for economic, political and social reforms in the autocratic Arab regimes responsible for breeding the discontent that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Until now, the Middle East autocracies have refused to change their ways because they were protected by the wealth of their petroleum reserves. A nuclear Iran alters the regional dynamic significantly, and provides some leverage for us to demand reforms.

Second, becoming the primary provider of regional security in a nuclear Middle East would give the United States a way to break the OPEC cartel. Forcing an end to the sorts of monopolistic practices that are illegal in the United States would be the price of that nuclear shield, bringing oil prices down significantly and saving billions of dollars a year at the pump. Or, at a minimum, President Obama could trade security for increased production and a lowering of global petroleum prices.

Third, Israel has made clear that it feels threatened by Iran’s nuclear program. The Palestinians also have a reason for concern, because a nuclear strike against Israel would devastate them as well. This shared danger might serve as a catalyst for reconciliation between the two parties, leading to the peace agreement that has eluded the last five presidents. Paradoxically, any final agreement between Israelis and Palestinians would go a long way to undercutting Tehran’s animosity toward Israel, and would ease longstanding tensions in the region.

Fourth, a growth in exports of weapons systems, training and advice to our Middle Eastern allies would not only strengthen our current partnership efforts but give the American defense industry a needed shot in the arm.

With the likelihood of austere Pentagon budgets in the coming years, Boeing has been making noise about shifting out of the defense industry, which would mean lost American jobs and would also put us in a difficult position should we be threatened by a rising military power like China. A nuclear Iran could forestall such a catastrophe.

Last, the United States would be able to stem the flow of dollars to autocratic regimes in the region. It would accomplish this not only by driving down the price of oil and increasing arms exports, but by requiring the beneficiaries of American security to bear a real share of its cost. And in the long run, a victory in the war on terrorism would save taxpayers the tens of billions of dollars a year now spent on overseas counterinsurgency operations.

What about the downside — that an unstable, anti-American regime would be able to start a nuclear war? Actually, that’s less of a risk than most people think. Unless the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and his Guardian Council chart a course that no other nuclear power has ever taken, Iran should become more responsible once it acquires nuclear weapons rather than less. The 50-year standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States was called the cold war thanks to the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons.

There is reason to believe that the initial shock of a nuclear Iran would soon be followed a new regional dynamic strikingly like that of cold-war Europe. Saudi Arabia and Iraq would be united along with their smaller neighbors by their fear of Iran; the United States would take the lead in creating a stable regional security environment. In addition, our reluctant European allies, and possibly even China and Russia, would have a much harder time justifying sales of goods and technology to Tehran, further isolating the Islamic Republic.

Iran may think its enrichment plans will put fear into the hearts of Americans. In fact, it should give us hopes of a renaissance of American influence in the Middle East.

Obama adviser: Stop criticizing anti-terror effort

2010-02-08T12:38:00.001+05:30

President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser said Sunday that lawmakers and others are using national security to score political points and defended the handling of the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner.

Deputy national security adviser John Brennan complained that politicians, many of them Republicans, were unfairly criticizing the administration for partisan purposes and second-guessing the case with a "500-mile screwdriver" that reaches from Washington to the scene of the abortive attack in Detroit.

Brennan said he had personally briefed top GOP lawmakers on Christmas night about the arrest of accused bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and that none of them raised objections.

"There's been quite a bit of an outcry after the fact, where again, I'm just very concerned on behalf of counterterrorism professionals throughout our government, that politicians continue to make this a political football and are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes," he said.

Among those he said he briefed were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio; and the top Republicans on the congressional intelligence committees, Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri and Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan.

"None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point," Brennan said.

Republicans have been outspoken in criticizing the administration for treating Abdulmutallab as a civilian and reading him his rights.

Brennan said that Abdulmutallab was treated no differently than any other terror suspect arrested on U.S. soil and that the FBI and others involved in his arrest acted appropriately.

"I think those counterterrorism professionals deserve the support of our Congress," he said. "And rather than second-guessing what they are doing on the ground with a 500- mile screwdriver from Washington to Detroit, I think they have to have confidence in the knowledge and the experience of these counterterrorism professionals."

Brennan spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press."

By MATTHEW LEE - Associated Press Writer

Hostile groups operating from across the border: Manmohan

2010-02-08T12:33:00.000+05:30

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Sunday that hostile groups and elements were operating “from across the border to perpetrate terrorist acts in our country, and Jammu and Kashmir bears the brunt of the acts of these groups.”

There was a marked decline in the number of terrorist incidents in Jammu and Kashmir from 2008 to 2009, he said, but expressed concern at the increase in the number of infiltration bids.

Among the other major threats to the country’s security were insurgency and violence in the northeast and left-wing extremism, he said, inaugurating the Chief Ministers’ conference on internal security here.

Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram described the Pakistan-based terror groups as “dark forces,” which were “implacably” opposed to India. They would be defeated whenever confronted, he said.

In his opening statement, he said such militant groups as the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Hizbul Mujahideen staged a meeting at Muzaffarabad in the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on Thursday. “Their weapons are mayhem and violence, and their goal is forcible annexation of Kashmir. Let me make it clear that these dark forces will not succeed in their designs,” Mr. Chidambaram said.

The observations of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister come at a time when India has offered to resume talks with Pakistan. The talks have remained suspended after the Mumbai terror attacks.

Cautioning against the forces that were trying to divide society on communal and regional lines, Dr. Singh said: “Each one of these threats requires a strong effort, determination, hard work and continuous vigilance to tackle. These threats to our society, to our polity and our country constitute a challenge that we must and we shall meet effectively at all costs.”

courtesy:The Hindu

Twin blasts in Karachi kills 25

2010-02-06T09:07:00.001+05:30

: Two bomb blasts in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, apparently targeting Shia Muslims marking a
Twitter Facebook Share
Email Print Save Comment

religious ceremony, killed at
Twitter Facebook Share
Email Print Save Comment
least 25 people and injured about 80 others on Friday.
The first attack occurred when a motorcycle rigged with explosives targeted a bus carrying Shias to a religious procession on Shahrah-e-Faisal, the main road of the country’s commercial centre, killing 12 people and wounding close to 50 others. Among the dead were several children and women, said Dr Seemin Jamali, head of the emergency department at Jinnah Hospital in Karachi.
Two hours after the first explosion, as the wounded were being brought into Jinnah Hospital, a second blast shattered the emergency ward, killing at least 13 including those wounded in the first blast, along with doctors, paramedics and rescuers. It left 30 others injured. The second attack was also caused by an explosive-laden motorcycle in the hospital’s parking lot. A large number of relatives of the first blast victims were present at the time of the second explosion.
Panic and fear gripped the hospital after the explosion, affecting the paramedical staff and media persons and throwing rescue efforts out of gear. As the Jinnah hospital was sealed off, the injured from the two blasts were then rushed to Civil Hospital and other private hospitals of the city.
The bus attacked in the first explosion was carrying Shia Muslim mourners to participate in a religious procession to mark the end of the holy month of Muharram in Karachi, a city of 16 million people. Friday was the last and most important day of the Shia religious ritual. Shias in Pakistan are marking Arbaeen — the end of a 40-day mourning period for Imam Hussein, a grandson of Prophet Muhammad who was killed in a 7th Century battle in Karbala.
The bus was one of dozens used to transport Shias from across the city to a central procession. But the attacker on Friday chose a different target, away from the security cordon. The motorcycle which rammed into the bus was completely destroyed, said police officer Shahid Hasan.
City police chief Waseem Ahmad told reporters that the motorcycle was rigged with an improvised-explosive device. It remained unclear whether the motorcycle was being driven by anyone when it struck the bus. Karachi has had a history of violence for the past two decades. Other than ethnic and political tensions, sectarian disputes between majority Sunni and minority Shia Muslims regularly rears its head

Teenager dies as protests rock Indian Kashmir

2010-02-06T09:03:00.002+05:30

Police were investigating the reported shooting death of a teenager in the capital of Indian Kashmir on Friday, an officer said, an incident that threatens to enflame protests that have rocked the city this week following the death of another boy.
Mushtaq Ahmed, a witness, said paramilitary soldiers charged at a group gathered in a playground in Srinagar, the main city in Indian Kashmir, and began firing as they fled, killing his friend Zahid Farooq Shah, 17.
Police official Hemant Lohia confirmed the death of Shah and said police were investigating.
"It's an unfortunate incident. We're gathering information from the area to know what exactly happened," Lohia said.
The government has banned the assembly of more than four people in Srinagar in an attempt to suppress protests which broke out after another teenage boy was killed when he was hit by a police tear gas shell Sunday.
Elsewhere in the city on Friday, angry mobs hurled rocks at police who fired tear gas in an attempt to disperse them.
At least 80 protesters have been arrested in Srinagar over the past two days, said Sajad Ahmed, a police officer.
Kashmir is divided between India and Pakistan and claimed by both in its entirety. Separatists, including armed rebels, seek Kashmir's independence from India or its merger with neighboring Pakistan.
More than 68,000 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in the violence in the region over the past two decades.

Obama says U.S. not to designate N. Korea terrorism sponsor

2010-02-05T09:22:00.000+05:30

The United States has concluded that North Korea does not meet the criteria to again be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism based on its examination of the North's conduct, President Barack Obama said Wednesday.

Japan had previously hinted that it expected the United States to put North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, but a senior Foreign Ministry official said in Tokyo on Thursday that the matter is for the U.S. government to decide.

"The Japanese government will refrain from making any comments on the decision," State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Koichi Takemasa told a regular press conference.

He also noted, "The U.S. government basically sees the designation of a state sponsor of terrorism as a symbolic thing and it continues to impose tough sanctions on North Korea."

In a letter addressed to congressional leaders, Obama said that the North does not meet the criteria to be designated once again in terms of its actions from June 2008 to November 2009.

The decision comes after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a television interview in June last year that the United States was considering placing North Korea on its list of state sponsors of terrorism in response to Pyongyang's nuclear test in May.

The United States announced in June 2008 that it would remove North Korea from the blacklist as part of efforts to move forward the six- party talks aimed at disbanding the North's nuclear arsenal. The North was removed from the list in October the same year.

Takemasa said that Japan will continue to cooperate with the United States in dealing with North Korea and in realizing the resumption of the stalled multilateral talks that also involve South Korea, China and Russia.

India, Kuwait to set up jt mechanism on combating terrorism

2010-02-05T09:18:00.001+05:30

Underlining the need to exchange information on terror groups, India and Kuwait have decided to set up a joint mechanism to combat the scourge of terrorism.

The decision to set up 'India-Kuwait Joint Mechanism on Combating International Terrorism' came following a series of meetings External Affairs Minister S M Krishna had with Kuwaiti leaders here.

The discussions on terrorism centred around the need to exchange information on how terror groups operate as well as the question of how the nexus exists among them. We have agreed on setting up an India-Kuwait Joint Mechanism on Combating International Terrorism, Krishna, who is the first External Affairs Minister to visit Kuwait since 1992, said.

The well-being of India and that of this region are inter-linked. We have a vested interest to see that we live in surroundings that are calm, where our peoples have the opportunity to develop and prosper in the shadow of peace, he said. Besides terrorism, Krishna discussed with Kuwaiti leaders issues related to developments in Pakistan and Afghanistan, energy security, Middle East peace process, developments in Iraq and Iran, UN Security Council reforms, culture and people-to-people contacts.

Pentagon seeks billions to battle terror abroad

2010-02-05T09:16:00.000+05:30

The Obama administration is seeking billions in budget increases to target terror threats from abroad, especially Pakistan and Yemen, with boosts for surveillance and attack drones, special operations forces and a new military cyber command.

The focus is on regions that have served as insurgent sanctuaries, where U.S. counterterror officials say the next attack against America is likely being planned.

Pentagon aid to Pakistan would balloon to $1.2 billion in 2011, aimed at bolstering its war on internal militants. And military funding to target al-Qaida could double in Yemen, where the U.S. spent more than $6 million last year just on aerial surveillance provided by drones, according to internal documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The rise in proposed counterterror spending reflects a new urgency within the administration, dovetailing with warnings this week from top intelligence officials of a possible terror strike from abroad within the next six months.

The boost in Pentagon funding would also target a wider array of enemies, from al-Qaida and allied militant networks and dangerous nation-states, to sophisticated computer hackers and homegrown insurgents armed with dirty bombs.

Pentagon and White House officials would not put an overall total on the amount of money in this week's proposed budget aimed at countering terrorists abroad. Much of that funding is hidden behind classified budgets, including the unacknowledged CIA effort to use drone-launched missiles to target al-Qaida and other militants along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

But one indication of the sweep of increased spending is evident in a massive Pentagon account used to provide training, equipment and other assistance to foreign militaries. Under President Barack Obama's budget proposal, that fund would increase from $350 million in 2010 to $500 million in 2011.

Documents obtained by the AP show that the account was used this year to provide counterterrorism aid, training and other programs to countries ranging from Bangladesh and Nigeria to Lebanon and Pakistan. The money paid for training, surveillance activities, aircraft, radar, communications equipment and other resources.

Administration and military officials noted that total U.S. counterterror funding also stretches well beyond the visible military aid. It is parceled into economic development, diplomacy and other socio-economic spending that is designed to stabilize and strengthen countries where insurgents take root.

In Pakistan, an already-growing counterinsurgency fund would jump from $700 million combined in 2009 and 2010, to $1.2 billion in 2011. That money would include expanded efforts by special operations forces to train and equip Pakistan's paramilitary Frontier Corps near the lawless border region that hides al-Qaida and internal militants.

On Wednesday three U.S. special operations soldiers who were participating in that low-profile program were killed and two others wounded in a roadside bomb attack. They were the first known U.S. casualties in northwest Pakistan's tribal area along the Afghanistan border.

U.S. officials have said they hope to train more than 9,000 members of the Frontier Corps, and slash their previous four-year training time by half. The Frontier Corps is considered a critical ally in rooting out al-Qaida leaders hiding in the mountainous border region.

The Pentagon's overseas funding — aimed at bolstering the ability of allied governments to stabilize and defend their nations — also is providing four helicopters at a cost of nearly $80 million and spending about $13 million on ground-based surveillance for Pakistan.

In Yemen, where al-Qaida elements are suspected of aiding in the Christmas Day attack on a Detroit-bound airliner by a Nigerian suspect, American counterterror funding is expected to more than double, from $67 million in the past year to as much as $140 million.

"It's obvious to us," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress this week, that "helping (Yemen's leaders) build their own capabilities in lieu of eventually perhaps having to have U.S. forces present on the ground in substantial numbers or doing this ourselves is clearly much cheaper and much better for us."

Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, has said he believes the Yemen funding will double. But Pentagon officials said Wednesday there have been no final decisions and the money allocated for this year has not begun to flow.

According to documents, the aid that began flowing to Yemen last year included almost $6 million for aerial surveillance. That figure would include flights of pilotless drones — which have been critical to the recent increase in Yemeni operations against insurgent leaders.

Another $6 million was spent on counterterrorism and efforts to defeat roadside bombs. The bulk of the remaining money was used to fund border and maritime security in Yemen, which is separated by the Gulf of Aden from Somalia, a haven in recent years for seagoing pirates.

The Pentagon also spent $10 million over the past year to help Ethiopia build counterterrorism platoons. The U.S. has worked with Ethiopia in the past to counter the rise of militants in neighboring Somalia, which is endangered by the al-Shabab terror faction, now allied with al-Qaida.

Special operations forces would also get more money and provide for more troops under the new budget proposal. U.S. Special Operations Command would get an additional $800 million — going from $9 billion in 2010 to $9.8 billion in 2011.

The plan would also add 3,651 more civil affairs and psychological operations forces and 4,027 combat and combat service support troops to the special operations forces by 2015. Military officials could not say how much those added personnel would cost.

There are currently about 2,500 psychological operations forces and 900 civil affairs troops assigned to Special Operations Command.

To augment counterterror operations, the Pentagon is also looking to dramatically expand its surveillance and strike capabilities. The proposed budget would double the number of unmanned Reaper drones over the next two years — from 24 in this fiscal year to 48 in 2012.

Use of the drones by the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other hotspots has skyrocketed in recent years.

Also moving up in priority, cyber threats will consume more of the federal budget in 2011 than ever before — including the launch of the military's new Cyber Command.

Pentagon officials are asking for $139 million — compared to about $34 million this year — to set up temporary facilities for the new command at Fort Meade in Maryland, and will spend an additional $59 million on personnel and operations.

Defense policy chief Michele Flournoy said the Defense Department has to better organize itself to deal with cyber challenges, both offensive and defensive.

Pentagon officials rarely discuss the nation's capability for offensive cyber strikes, but as the U.S. is increasingly targeted from abroad, they are growing more open about that prospect.

"There's a lot of ongoing activities," Vice Adm. Stephen Stanley told reporters when asked about cyber operations during a briefing on the budget.

"We're establishing defenses. We are involved in exploitation activities," he added. "And we're positioning ourselves in order to be able to conduct attacks. So all of those different areas are ongoing. The cyber command focuses it and establishes the structure that we'll use in the future."

Another Terrorist Attack in US; National Intelligence Director is "Certain"

2010-02-04T12:11:00.000+05:30

The heads of several intelligence agencies met before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday to discuss matters of national security. When asked how sure he was regarding an imminent attack against the U.S. in the next three to six months, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair uttered he was "certain". Blair was accompanied by CIA Director Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller. Each of the directors agreed with Blair's comment; the liklihood of another terrorist attack was most definately "certain". This comes just weeks after the failed Christmas day attack on a Detroit-bound airliner.

While none of the intelligence experts could provide a specific threat, each acknowledged an evolving al Qaeda terrorist network as their top concern. CIA Director Leon Panetta says, "My greatest concern, and what keeps me awake at night, is that al Qaeda and its terrorist allies and affiliates could very well attack the United States." The agency heads each provided testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee amidst much partisan bickering regarding President Obama's handling of national security threats. Republicans both on this committee and off have been very outspoken regarding the handling of the Christmas day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Many Republicans believe the terrorist should have been tried and prosecuted as an enemy combatant in a military commission rather than a civilian in a criminal court.

Of the topics discussed in the meeting, cyber terrorism was another issue noted as a major threat to national security. "Sensitive information is stolen daily from both government and private sector networks, undermining confidence in our information systems, and in the very information these systems were intended to convey", says National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair. Mr. Blair also says, "We often find persistent, unauthorized, and at times, unattributable presences on exploited networks, the hallmark of an unknown adversary intending to do far more than merely demonstrate skill or mock a vulnerability."

Blair 'used Iraq evidence for smears'

2010-02-04T10:14:00.000+05:30

Tony Blair and his closest advisers have used their evidence to the Iraq inquiry to smear those criticising the decision to taken Britain to war, according to one of the former Prime Minister’s most senior diplomats.

In an interview with The Independent, Sir Christopher Meyer, the former ambassador in Washington, said he regarded it as a “badge of honour” that he had faced criticism during the inquiry from Mr Blair, his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, and his director of communications, Alastair Campbell. He added that turning on opposition was the “modus operandi” of the Blair administration.

All three attacked Sir Christopher during their hearings after he had suggested Mr Blair may have committed troops to an invasion without gaining anything for Britain in return. Sir Christopher said that Mr Blair and President Bush had been alone for long stretches during an April 2002 meeting in Crawford, Texas, and that policy appeared to change after it.

“I said that to this day, I do not know what degree of convergence was, so to say, signed in blood at the Crawford ranch,” he said. “Powell, Campbell and Blair all made an argument as if I had asserted that I knew what had happened and I had been there.”

He said that the tactic was a hallmark of how No 10 operated under Mr Blair. “You turn on dissent, you distort the argument, you claim the other person has said something they never said, and then you seek to discredit it. It’s not only me that has had some of this. It is their modus operandi. Smear and smokescreen.”

Sir Christopher also criticised Mr Blair’s evidence for linking Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda and for apparently urging world leaders to take a hard stance against Iran. “Blair’s strategic approach to his evidence seemed to be a kind of double or quits,” he said. “In other words, it was to say no regrets, I’d do it again, and by the way if I was Prime Minister I’d do Iran also. It’s nonsense about Iran. The strategic beneficiary of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq has been Iran. It has enhanced the position of Iran in the region, there is no doubt about it at all.”

He added: “The fact that Blair has entrenched the idea that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were cut from the same cloth was extraordinary,” he said. “We’ve always known that Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and didn’t like al-Qaeda.”

Sir Christopher, whose BBC series on diplomacy, Getting Our Way, begins on Monday, said that it was now “utterly clear” that Mr Blair had “sub-contracted” the decision to take Britain to war to the White House by telling President Bush that Britain would “be there” if military action was necessary. “It was, in effect, a blank cheque, although at the time it did not seem like it,” he said. He added that Mr Blair botched the chance to push for a delay to the invasion, which could have been used to resolve problems with post-war planning and helped to unite the UN over the invasion.

“I think there were moments at Crawford for example or the Camp David meeting in September 2002 that if Blair had said he could not do this unless we have a clear, detailed plan for what happens after Saddam is toppled, it would have given them real pause. That is where he could have made a real difference,” he said. “It could have made a lot of difference between a French rejection and a French abstention [for military action], or even a French approval.”

US, Karzai split over Taliban talks

2010-02-04T10:09:00.001+05:30

On the surface, it would seem unlikely that Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who presides over a politically feeble government and is highly dependent on the United States military presence and economic assistance, would defy the United States on the issue of peace negotiations with the leadership of the Taliban insurgency.

But a long-simmering conflict between Karzai and key officials of the Barack Obama administration over that issue came to a head at last week's London conference, when the Afghan president refused to heed US signals to back off his proposal to invite the Taliban leaders to participate in a nationwide peace conference.

The peace negotiations issue is embedded in a deeper conflictover US war strategy, which has provoked broad anger and increasing suspicions of US motives among Afghans, including Karzai himself.

The current source of tension is Karzai's proposal, first made last November, to invite Taliban leaders - including Mullah Omar - to a national loya jirga or grand council meeting aimed at achieving a peace agreement.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded by pressing Karzai to demand far-reaching concessions from the Taliban in advance of the meeting. Clinton's conditions on Taliban participation included renunciation of al-Qaeda and of violence and acceptance of the Afghan constitution, conditions that would make it impossible for leaders of the insurgency to agree to if they are interpreted literally.

On November 23, Clinton said the US had "urged caution and real standards that are expected to be met by anyone who is engaged in these conversations, so that whatever process there is can actually further the stability and peace of Afghanistan, not undermine it".

Instead, Karzai publicly asked the US to join in talks with the Taliban. Following the issuance of a statement by Mullah Omar on November 25 that implied the Taliban would negotiate if they did not have to give up their demand for withdrawal of foreign troops, Karzai said there was an "urgent need" for negotiations with the Taliban.

In the face of what he knew was US hostility to the idea, Karzai announced on December 3, "Personally, I would definitely talk to Mullah Omar. Whatever it takes to bring peace to Afghanistan I, as Afghan president, will do it."

But he added, "I am also aware that it cannot be done by me alone without the backing of the international community." That is the phrase Karzai uses to refer to the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies.

A few days later, Karzai appeared to give way to US pressure against unconditional talks. He said he wanted to negotiate with Mullah Omar "provided he renounces violence, provided all connections to al-Qaeda and to terrorist networks are cut off and denounced and renounced".

But Karzai announced at the London conference that he would invite the leadership of the Taliban to a loya jirga without specifying that they would have to meet specific conditions in advance of the meeting.

The Obama administration again reacted with scarcely disguised disapproval. A State Department spokesman repeated the US line that "anyone who wants to reconcile and play a more constructive role in Afghanistan's future must accept the constitution, renounce violence and publicly break with extremist groups such as al-Qaeda".

Clinton pointedly avoided endorsing the invitation and did not use the word "reconciliation", which is the term in US counter-insurgency doctrine reserved for negotiations with insurgent leaders. Those conditions for participation in negotiations would represent demands for concessions by the Taliban on all key issues before negotiations even begin.

Karzai showed no signs of turning back from his intention to meet with the Taliban without conditions. Two days after the London conference, Karzai announced that he would convene the peace conference in less than six weeks.

And in an implicit response to US demands for conditions on participation in negotiations, Karzai called on the Taliban not to pose the condition that US troops must be removed before negotiations could begin.

In fact, a statement by Mullah Omar on November 25 did not say foreign troops had to be withdrawn before peace talks could begin, but only that the Taliban would not participate in "negotiations which prolongs and legitimizes the invader's military presence ..."

Significantly, the Taliban spokesman did not dismiss Karzai's invitation out of hand, as might have been expected, but announced that the Taliban would make a decision "soon" on attending the conference.

Asia Times Online has reported that the Taliban would be prepared to engage in talks immediately if the US were to shelve its plans for a surge of an additional 30,000 troops into Afghanistan, (See Taliban take on the US's surge February 3, 2010.)

The growing divergence of the US's and Karzai's policy toward the Taliban appears to be embedded in a wider clash over US war policy.

Karzai has not been as enthusiastic as the Obama administration about the prospects for weakening the Taliban by offering economic incentives for individual commanders and troops to abandon the insurgency, which he has viewed as competing with his own emphasis on reaching a peace agreement with the Taliban leadership.

In an interview with al-Jazeera in early January, Karzai said he would not request more money to reintegrate individual Taliban fighters into the government side.

Instead, Karzai said he would seek to constrain US military forces in the country. "We're going to ask the international community to end night-time raids on Afghan homes," he said, "to stop arresting Afghans, to reduce and eliminate civilian casualties. We're going to ask them not to have Afghan prisoners."

Karzai's public demands for an end to US night raids on homes and continued arrests and detentions aligns his position with that of Taliban officials who have said those would be among the demands they would raise in peace talks.

Karzai's commitment to a peace accord with the Taliban has been influenced by his own deep suspicions of US motives in Afghanistan, according to leading Afghan political analyst Haroun Mir, a former aide to the Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was killed by al-Qaeda in September 2001.

In an interview with Inter Press Service, Mir said he believed Karzai's opposition to US strategy was intensified by the Obama administration's openly declared hostility toward him in early 2009, and that Karzai had now embraced a conspiracy theory popular in Afghanistan, that the US had ulterior motives in its military intervention in the country.

Mir said he attended a meeting with Karzai and about 30 Afghan political analysts several weeks ago in which the president presented his conspiracy theory about the US presence to his guests.

"He thinks the United States is here not to fight the Taliban but for something else," Mir said, and "wants to convince everybody of this".

In November 2008, Karzai outraged the George W Bush administration by offering a guarantee of the safety of Mullah Omar if he agreed to attend peace negotiations in Kabul. The State Department spokesman ridiculed the idea, saying, "One can't imagine" that there would be "any safe passage with respect to US forces".

Karzai then defiantly posed the choice for "the international community" in a news conference as being "remove me or leave if they disagree".

Karzai has also proposed taking the names of Taliban leaders off the United Nations "black list" in order to allow Taliban officials to travel abroad for the purpose of negotiations.

Waheed Omer, a spokesman for Karzai, said in January that Karzai would "probably" ask the United Nations to take Mullah Omar's name off the "black list" of Taliban and former Taliban leaders.

At the London conference, Karzai requested only that five ex-Taliban figures be taken off the list, but he indicated that he would ask for more deletions in the future.

The US efforts to discourage Karzai from entering into talks with the Taliban should not be taken as evidence of opposition to such negotiations in the future, according to an official of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul. The Obama administration appears to want to postpone peace talks until mid-2011 - after it has sought to weaken the Taliban by adding 30,000 more troops.

US should encourage talks on Kashmir: Mullen

2010-02-04T10:08:00.000+05:30

Asserting that improved Indo-Pak relationship is key to success of the US war against terror in the Af-Pak region, top American military commander Admiral Mike Mullen has said the Obama Administration should encourage back channel talks between the two countries on Kashmir.

"As part of our long-term regional approach, we should welcome all steps these important nations (India and Pakistan) take to regenerate their 'back channel' process on Kashmir," Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a prepared testimony before the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mullen, who made a joint appearance with US Defence Secretary Robert Gates before the committee yesterday, told US Senators that the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan is the epicentre of global terrorism.

"This is where al-Qaeda plans terrorist attacks against the US and our partners? And from where the Taliban leadership targets coalition troops in Afghanistan," he said.

Pakistan's ongoing military operations against extremists in these areas are critical to preventing al-Qaeda and associated groups from gaining ground, Mullen noted.

"In Pakistan, the extremist threat, a fractious political system, economic weakness and long-standing tensions with India continue to threaten stability," Mullen said, adding the Obama Administration is working to rebuild its relationship with Pakistan and re-establish trust lost between the two countries.

Afghan president to meet Saudi king over peace talk with Taliban

2010-02-03T09:09:00.003+05:30

Afghan President Hamid Karzai left for Saudi Arabia Tuesday to discuss his new reintegration plan aimed at luring Taliban away from violence.

The president is scheduled to visit religious sites before meeting King Abdullah, Karzai's office said in a statement.

Karzai is expected to ask the Saudi ruler to play a role in guiding the peace process, it said.

He earlier called on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to play a role in peace talks with Taliban militants, who have waged a bloody war against his government and more than 110,000 NATO-led troops stationed in the country.

Under a new peace scheme, which was supported by the Western countries in London last week, the government would provide protection, jobs and vocational training for Taliban fighters in return for their renunciation of violence.

Karzai's government also showed readiness to initiate peace negotiation with Taliban leaders who have severed ties with the Al Qaeda network.

The initiative is likely to interest Saudi Arabia, which has longed for ways to isolate Al Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden, who is accused of carrying out attacks in the holy land.

Intelligence chief: Al-Qaida wans to attack US

2010-02-03T09:05:00.001+05:30

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair says Al-Qaida will continue to try to attack the United States until Osama bin Laden and his No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri are dead.

Blair and CIA Director Leon Panetta are among top intelligence officials outlining to Congress Tuesday the main threats facing the United States. Their annual threat assessment comes just weeks after a failed attack to bring down an airliner over Detroit. International terrorism again heads the list.

Blair also said the U.S. still does not know the intended targets of suspected terrorist Najibullah Zazi, who was arrested in September and charged with plotting to attack New York City with homemade bombs. And Blair said U.S. intelligence continues to believe that alleged Fort Hood shooter Maj Nidal Hassan is a homegrown extremist rather than a terrorist who worked with militants abroad.

Afghan Official Says Talks with Taliban Are Ongoing

2010-02-02T09:07:00.001+05:30

The Afghan official in charge of reconciliation acknowledged Monday that the government had been in talks for some time with Taliban leaders to bring them into the government and end the war, dismissing the Taliban’s denials.

The official — Mohammad Masoom Stanekzai, a top security adviser to President Hamid Karzai — made the statement at a news conference to discuss last week’s international Afghanistan conference in London and later elaborated on his announcement in an interview.

“There are some contacts and these contacts will continue, on the local, regional, national and broader political level, but it’s too early to speak about the outcome of these contacts,” Mr. Stanekzai said in response to a question on whether the government was in talks with Taliban leaders.

Later, in the interview, he dismissed Taliban denials of any such contacts. “They are continuing to say this, but it’s something they say in the media, but this is not a fact,” he said.

Mr. Karzai has said he would welcome talks with top Taliban figures like their leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar.

American officials, while supporting the Afghan government’s reconciliation efforts, have ruled out talking to hard-liners like Mullah Omar, whom they see as too close to Al Qaeda.

Mr. Stanekzai declined to say specifically with whom the government was negotiating. “It’s too early to say; it will ignite a lot of confusion,” he said. “We need a space for confidence building.”

The government is still working out the details of specific proposals to ensure security and jobs for Taliban members who change sides. Once those plans have been revealed, he said, “Then we can talk about this in more detail.”

In addition, Mr. Stanekzai said, many of the Taliban leaders were fearful of retaliation from other Taliban members. “We have to respect their safety as well,” he said.

At the London conference last Thursday, which brought together 50 allied and donor countries, reconciliation with and reintegration of insurgents was one of the leading topics. Mr. Karzai publicly invited the Taliban to join talks with the government, and said they would be included at a nationwide tribal assembly he has scheduled in six weeks.

Officials make a distinction between “reconciliation,” or talking to the Taliban leadership, and “reintegration,” which involves persuading lower-level followers to change sides. Both efforts, however, include providing positions and jobs to insurgents who change sides. The American military has been much more actively involved in reintegration efforts.

Last month, Kai Eide, the United Nations envoy to Afghanistan, met with a group of Taliban representatives, according to American and United Nations officials. Taliban leadership denied the reports.

“The leadership council once again emphasizes the continuation of the Islamic jihad against all invaders,” the Taliban said in a statement.

“If they deny the peace process, they are against the nation of Afghanistan,” Mr. Stanekzai said. “In Afghanistan, nobody is against the peace process. How could they stand against the peace process?”

There have been no formal peace negotiations since the war began in 2001. Publicly, the Taliban refuse to talk to the government until all foreign forces leave, while the government insists that the Taliban accept the Afghan Constitution.

At Monday’s news conference, also attended by the foreign and defense ministers as well as other officials, Mr. Stanekzai said, “We are working to find a way out of this that is not just military.”

As a part of that, he said, the government is “willing to incorporate various groups into Afghanistan’s government.” Also on Monday, Haider Reza, the director of the Mine Action Coordination Center of Afghanistan, which is financed by the United Nations, announced that the Afghan government would not be able to meet its mine-clearing goals because donor countries had not released all the money set aside for the work.

The country has received only $163 million of the $242 million pledged for the program year that begins March 21, Mr. Reza said.

Afghanistan and the international community pledged in 2006 to clear 70 percent of all mines by 2011 and 100 percent by 2013. “I can already now say Afghanistan will be forced to ask for an extension,” he said.

Mr. Reza attributed the shortfall to budgetary problems in donor countries stemming from the economic crisis. He said security problems in some parts of Afghanistan were also a problem.

In southern Afghanistan, three suicide bombers attempted to enter the Kabul Bank building in Qalat, the capital of Zabul Province, where police officers were lined up to receive their monthly pay. Police officers fired on them and two of the attackers detonated their explosives while the third escaped, according to Muhammad Jan Rasolyar, a spokesman for the provincial government.

One police officer was slightly wounded.

The international forces reported that three soldiers were killed Monday, two in southern Afghanistan during a firefight and another from a roadside bomb in western Afghanistan. The soldiers’ nationalities were not identified.

A United States soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan on Monday, according to a news release from the American-led NATO coalition. Thirty American soldiers died last month, according to the Web site of icasualties.org, an independent organization that tracks military casualties, double the 15 who died the previous January. Fifteen other allied soldiers also died last month.

Seven Taliban insurgents were reported killed in Helmand Province after a NATO airstrike on a safe house in Musa Qala District during an operation with the Afghan Army, said Gen. Sher Mohammed Zazai, the Afghan National Army commander in the neighboring province of Kandahar.

Terrorism, insurgency need to be tackled with firm hand: PM

2010-02-02T08:56:00.001+05:30

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Monday emphasised that “terrorism, insurgency and extremism need to be tackled with a firm and yet sensitive hand” as a requirement for rapid economic growth.

“It is one of the primary responsibilities of any government to ensure the rule of law. In addition, an atmosphere of peace and communal harmony is also a pre-requisite for rapid economic growth,” Manmohan Singh said while inaugurating a two-day conference of state chief secretaries here.

The first of a kind conference aimed at formalising the process of interaction with states and union territories is expected to serve as a standing forum for exchange of views and provide an occasion for interaction on internal matters.

“The law and order machinery has to be sensitized to the key security concerns that affect us. Terrorism, insurgency and extremism need to be tackled with a firm and yet sensitive hand,” said the prime minister.

“You have to be aware not only of local and regional happenings but also of pan-India and trans-border developments.”

Over the next two days, issues relating to the latest trends in technology, emerging global challenges and opportunities and key security concerns and the role of state governments would be discussed. Global developments that have a bearing on the country would also be deliberated upon.

PAKISTAN: 'Anti-terrorist' fertilizer ban hinders farmers

2010-02-01T09:09:00.001+05:30

Along a road leading to the Bajaur tribal area on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, two men cast stealthy glances around them as they guide donkeys carrying bags covered with blankets.

As they approach a check-post manned by Pakistani soldiers, the men scramble up a hillside with their consignments, hoping to make their way around the barrier undetected. The men are not carrying drugs or weapons, per se, but outlawed plant fertilizers which they hope to sell to farmers in Bajaur.

The ban on ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate and calcium ammonium nitrate fertilizers was imposed in Malakand Division - comprising the Dir, Swat, Chitral and Malakand districts of North West Frontier Province (NWFP) - in November 2009 by the NWFP government, following reports that those chemicals were used by militants to make explosives.

"Fertilizers which contain nitrates have been used by militants to make homemade bombs. This is why the restriction has been placed," Malakand Commissioner Abdul Karim Khattak said.

Neighbouring Afghanistan imposed a similar ban last week and is already facing a barrage of criticism from farmers.

Hunger threat

The restrictions were also imposed by authorities in Bajaur, which adjoins Malakand.

In Khar, the principal town of Bajaur, 40-year-old farmer Mobeen Khan told IRIN that the ban was affecting crop yields and food security.

"Without these, we cannot farm our lands," Khan said. "Already crops have been badly affected and many farmers are desperate to save what they can. We need the crops not only to sell but to feed our own families, or they will starve. There is no choice now but to buy fertilizers at inflated rates from smugglers who bring them in from neighbouring districts, especially Lower Dir."

While the ban is supposed to be only for fertilizers that contain nitrates, Khan alleged that all kinds of fertilizers had been banned in Bajaur and shops previously selling them had been closed down. "In some cases this is just a means used to harass people or extort bribes," Khan said.

NWFP Minister of Agriculture Arbab Ayub Jan told the media soon after the ban was imposed that the government would provide fertilizer to farmers through Model Farm Services Centres (MFSC), where the identity of buyers would be checked to "ensure they are farmers".

Abdul Uthmankhel, a 65-year-old local farmer, said the government's decision to sell through MFSCs was "pointless in Bajaur" as there were only "two such centres in the whole agency with very few members".

"The fertilizer ban simply means we will suffer even more. Crops of wheat and maize are being affected. When we were young men we knew how to manage without fertilizer, but the farmers of today are completely dependent on them," Uthmankhel said.

Muhammad Jamal, head of the Soil and Environmental Sciences Department at NWFP Agricultural University in Peshawar, said "local farmers have been using such fertilizers for decades. Their lack of availability will greatly affect crop production."

"Even my potato crops are less than usual. On the hillsides here we only have small areas of land to farm and if the crops fails it really affects us badly," said Wali Khan, 50, a local subsistence farmer. He said buying smuggled fertilizer "is simply not an option because the rates are too high".

Bajaur, where a military operation has been ongoing since late 2008, is one of the areas of Pakistan worst hit by militant activity. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), at the end of 2009, some 250,000 people were displaced from Bajaur.

The agency has also seen a succession of militant attacks, the latest when a suicide bomber killed 16 people at a market in Khar on 30 January.

Osama Hops on Global Warming Bandwagon

2010-01-30T09:04:00.000+05:30

Osama bin Laden sought to draw a wider public into his fight against the United States in a new message Friday, dropping his usual talk of religion and holy war and focusing instead on an unexpected topic: global warming.

The al Qaeda leader blamed the United States and other industrialized nations for climate change and said the only way to prevent disaster was to break the American economy, calling on the world to boycott U.S. goods and stop using the dollar.

"The effects of global warming have touched every continent. Drought and deserts are spreading, while from the other floods and hurricanes unseen before the previous decades have now become frequent," bin Laden said in the audiotape, aired on the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera.

The terror leader noted Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and painted the United States as in the thrall of major corporations that he said "are the true criminals against the global climate" and are to blame for the global economic crisis, driving "tens of millions into poverty and unemployment."

Bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders have mentioned global warming and struck an anti-globalization tone in previous tapes and videos. But the latest was the first message by bin Laden solely dedicated to the topic. It was also nearly entirely empty of the Islamic militant rhetoric that usually fills his declarations.

The change in rhetoric aims to give al Qaeda's message an appeal beyond hardcore Islamic militants, said Evan Kohlmann, of globalterroralert.com, a private, U.S.-based terrorism analysis group.

"It's a bridge issue," Kohlmann said. "They are looking to appeal to people who don't necessarily love al Qaeda but who are angry at the U.S. and the West, to galvanize them against the West" and make them more receptive to "alternative solutions like adopting violence for the cause."

"If you're looking to draw people who are disenchanted or disillusioned, what better issue to use than global warming," he said. While the focus on climate may be new, the tactic itself is not, he said: Al Qaeda used issues like the abuse of prisoners by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay to reach out to Muslims who might not be drawn to al Qaeda's ideology but are angry over the injustices.

Bin Laden "looks to see the issues that are the most cogent and more likely to get popular support," Kohlmann said.

The al Qaeda leader's call for an economic boycott helps in the appeal - providing a nonviolent way to participate in opposing the United States.

"People of the world, it's not right for the burden to be left on the mujahedeen (holy warriors) in an issue that causes harm to everyone," he said. "Boycott them to save yourselves and your possessions and your children from climate change and to live proud and free."

Al-Jazeera aired excerpts of the message and posted a transcript on its Web site. The tape's authenticity could not be independently confirmed, but the voice resembled that of bin Laden on messages known to be from him. The new message comes after a bin Laden tape released last week in which he endorsed a failed attempt to blow up an American airliner on Christmas Day.

In the new tape, bin Laden refers to the Dec. 18 climate conference in Copenhagen - indicated the message was made recently.

The message - whose length Al-Jazeera did not specify - makes only brief passing mentions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine and instead hits on issues that could resonate at a time of widespread economic woes.

"The world is held hostage by major corporations, which are pushing it to the brink," he said. "World politics are not governed by reason but by the force and greed of oil thieves and warmongers and the cruel beasts of capitalism."

To stop global warming, he called for the "wheels of the American economy" to be brought to a halt. "This is possible ... if the peoples of the world stop consuming American goods."

"We must also stop dealings in the dollar and get rid of it as soon as possible," he said. "I know that this has great consequences and grave ramifications, but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery and dependence on America."

He also called for the "punishing and holding to account" of corporation chiefs, adding, "this should be easy for the American people to do, particularly those who were effected by Hurricane Katrina or those who lost their jobs, since these criminals live among them, particularly in Washington, New York and Texas."

The message represents a honing of al Qaeda's rhetoric. In 2007, bin Laden issued a tape in which he warned that human life is endangered by global warning, and he blamed democratic systems for seeking the interests of major corporations, said the U.S.-based Site Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamic militant message traffic.

But in Friday's message, the anti-democracy rhetoric is dropped.

"It's populism, pure and simple," Kohlmann said.

Obama urges nervous Dems to fight for his agenda

2010-01-29T13:07:00.000+05:30

President Barack Obama voiced determination Thursday to change the tone of Washington politics and urged Republicans to get "off the sidelines" and help fix health care and other problems.

President Barack Obama voiced determination Thursday to change the tone of Washington politics and urged Republicans to get "off the sidelines" and help fix health care and other problems.

Stopping on his way out of a town hall meeting in Tampa, Fla., Obama hammered again on his State of the Union message - insisting that voters and politicians needed to "start thinking of each other as Americans first."

Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were in Florida to announce $8 billion in federal grants for high-speed rail projects nationwide - part of his push to combine spending on infrastructure with job creation.

Obama also used his first State of the Union speech Wednesday to push nervous Democrats to forge ahead on health care, despite voters' worries and opposition from newly strengthened Republicans.

On Thursday, he turned emphatically toward Republicans and implored cooperation.

"Our political dialogue in this country has always been messy and noisy," Obama told the crowd at the University of Tampa.

"We're all Americans. We all should anticipate that the other person, even if they disagree with us, has the best of intentions. We don't have to call them names. We don't have to demonize them."

Hanging over the Obama agenda and wobbly support among Democrats were fears fueled by events such as last week's stunning GOP victory in the Massachusetts Senate race.

That setback may have cost Democrats their filibuster-proof Senate majority, Obama said, but "we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills."

He accepted partial blame for the deep troubles facing his health care push, but he implored lawmakers to finish the task rather than yield to public opposition.

"The longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became," Obama told the joint session of Congress and a nationwide TV audience. But health care problems will continue for millions, he said, and "I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber."

House and Senate Democratic leaders are scrambling to see if they can salvage the ambitious health care package, which Republicans almost universally oppose. Obama offered no new strategies for overcoming the steep parliamentary and political hurdles they face.

The president devoted most of his speech to job-creation proposals, such as eliminating capital gains taxes on small business investment and extending tax breaks for businesses to invest in new plants and equipment. But those proposals also face uncertainty in Congress, where Senate Democrats say they may need a selective, piecemeal approach to win enough votes.

Obama said Republicans share a responsibility for governing, and he proposed meeting with their House and Senate leaders monthly. But his olive branch seemed brittle at times.

Without naming George W. Bush, he pointedly noted that the previous administration left him a big deficit and a deeply troubled economy. For good measure, Obama said the United States killed more al-Qaida terrorists in 2009 than in 2008.

Obama rebuked the Supreme Court for a recent decision that "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" and foreign corporations to make unlimited campaign contributions. At that, conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito made a dismissive face, shook his head in disagreement and seemed to mouth the words "not true."

Republicans in the House chamber generally greeted such remarks with stony gazes and smirks. The statements they issued as soon as Obama finished - or even before he finished, in some cases - were equally icy.

"We had hoped to hear a new commitment to keep his promises to govern from the center, change the tone in Washington, and work with both parties in a bipartisan way to help small businesses create jobs and get our economy moving again," said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio. "Unfortunately, the president and the Democrats in charge of Congress still aren't listening to the American people."

Vice President Joe Biden, appearing in an interview Thursday morning on NBC's "Today" show, described Obama as upset with the way his program has been handled in Congress.

"One of the things that's most frustrating to him," Biden said, "is the obstructionist ways of the United States Senate, on the part of the Republicans, requiring 60 votes, a supermajority, for virtually every single, solitary initiative we've had. Now that we have 59 votes, it's time for everybody to start taking responsibility."

UK summit unveils new Afghan policy

2010-01-29T09:00:00.000+05:30

Control over some of Afghanistan's provinces is to be handed over to the Afghan government by the end of 2010, according to foreign ministers attending a one-day international conference in London.

David Miliband, the UK foreign minister, said on Thursday that 2010 was a "decisive" year because a new government was in place, adding that security of all provinces would be under Afghanistan leadership within five years.

Miliband also announced a new fund to allow the Afghan government to woo Taliban fighters away from the conflict.

"Today alone there have been over $140m worth of commitments for the first year of the national reintegration programme and we are committed to seeing that through,"he said.

In a communique published at the end of the conference, which was attended by delegates from 70 countries, support was also offered for the continued growth and expansion of the Afghan national army and police force.

Delegates agreed a target of recruiting some 171,600 soldiers and 134,000 police officers by October 2011.

But Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said that plans to gradually transfer Afghan security from international to domestic forces were "not an exit strategy".

"We ... support the Nato transition plan," Clinton said. "But I want to make clear - to Afghans, to our partners, to our citizens, and to the extremists who hope for our failure: This is not an exit strategy."

Taliban reaction

Taliban dismissed the London conference as a propaganda ploy, saying the summit would fail to produce results, according to the AFP news agency, quoting an internet statement.
in depth

Your Views: Is it time to cut a deal with the Taliban?
Talking to the Taliban
Timeline: Afghanistan in crisis
McChrystal hopes for Taliban deal
Western donors 'back Taliban plan'
Video: Taliban groups continue to grow
Taliban issues code of conduct
Video: Taliban targets Afghan government
Deadliest year for Afghan civilians
Empire: The long war between the US and al-Qaeda

"The war-mongering rulers under the leadership of [US president Barack] Obama and [British prime minister Gordon] Brown want to deceive the people of the world by holding the London conference to show that people still support them".

If the decision is taken to "once again try to prolong the military, economic, cultural and political occupation of [Afghanistan], this conference will be mere wishful thinking like other conferences."

The statement also dismissed a plan by Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, to woo Taliban moderates with offers of money and jobs.

"They announce that they will provide money, employment and opportunity to have a comfortable life abroad for those mujahedeen who agree to part ways with jihad," the statement said.

"This is baseless and futile," it said. "Had the aim of the mujahedeen of the Islamic Emirate been obtainment of material goals, they would accept dominance of the invaders in the first place."

Presidential view

Earlier on Thursday, Karzai said that his country must reach out to its "disenchanted brothers" in an effort to stabilise the war ravaged nation, saying fighters who are "not part of al-Qaeda or other terror groups" must be reconciled with the government.

The Afghan leader said his government would set up a national council for peace and reconciliation, and has asked Saudi Arabia to help guide the process.

Karzai was seeking support for a $1 billion plan that would offer cash, jobs and other incentives to the Taliban and fighters in other armed groups, in an attempt to bring them back into mainstream society.

Taliban fighters have also been invited to a "peace jirga", or a traditional gathering of tribal elders, expected to be held early this year, a government spokesman confirmed.

Saudi role?

Hamid Elmi, Karzai's deputy spokesman, said: "We are using all kinds of possibilities - our neighbouring countries, the international community, the king of Saudi - to encourage the Taliban to come".

Whether Taliban would accept an invitation to a 'peace jirga' is a mute point.

However, Saudi Arabia said on Thursday that it would only take part in Afghan peace efforts if the Taliban denies sanctuary to Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, according to the kingdom's foreign minister.

"Unless the Taliban give up the issue of sanctuary [to bin Laden] I don't think the negotiations with them will be possible or feasible to achieve anything," Prince Saud al-Faisal told reporters on the sidelines of a London conference.

"We have two conditions: that the request comes officially from Afghanistan and the Taliban has to prove its intentions in coming to the negotiations by cutting their relations with the terrorists and proving it."

But Haroun Mir, deputy director for the centre for research and policy studies in Kabul, told Al Jazeera that Karzai's proposal could be hampered by plans to increase the number of foreign troops in Afghanistan.

"Karzai has been talking for a long time for reaching out to the Taliban.

"But ... the US military surge and additional Nato forces in Afghanistan in the coming months [will see] the intensity of fighting increase.

"I don't know how president Karzai could implement his own strategy of reaching out to the Taliban if there is increased fighting going on in Afghanistan," he said.

Secret talks

And Abdullah Abdullah, the presidential candidate who withdrew from last August's fraudulent elections, said obstacles remain to implementing such a policy.

"I don't think the Taliban at this stage are willing to enter negotiations. Also, their association with terrorist organisations, like al-Qaeda - that's the main issue at the moment - and they are working like one organisation."

Thursday's conference comes nearly a week after a meeting between Afghan government officials and members of an armed opposition group fighting alongside the Taliban.

Al Jazeera's David Chater, reporting from Kabul, said the talks were held with the group Hezb-e-Islami, in the Maldives islands, between January 23-24.

He said a Taliban leader had been due to attend the meeting but dropped out in the last minute citing health reasons.

U.S. tells Yemen to do more to fight militancy

2010-01-28T09:55:00.001+05:30

The United States called on Yemen at an international conference on Wednesday to make reforms to help root out al Qaeda militants, and Sanaa promised a drive to improve the lives of its impoverished people.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the government of President Ali Abdullah Saleh had to tackle the deep problems of a nation where almost half of its 23 million people live on less than $2 a day.

"We look to Yemen to enact reforms and continue to combat corruption and improve the country's investment and business climate," she told a meeting of Western and Gulf foreign ministers in London.

"If conflict and violence go unaddressed, they will undermine the political reform and reconciliation that are essential to Yemen's progress," she added.

For its part, Yemen said it would push ahead with political reform and start discussions with the International Monetary Fund about a programme to boost its economy.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, anxious to prevent Yemen becoming a failed state, called the London talks after a Yemen-based al Qaeda affiliate said it was behind an abortive bid to blow up a U.S.-bound plane with 300 people on board.

RADICALISATION DISPUTE

Major powers committed to supporting Yemen in its fight against al Qaeda by strengthening their counter-terrorist capabilities and improving aviation and border security.

The Dec. 25 attack on a Detroit-bound jet drove home how al Qaeda could threaten Western interests from Yemen and highlighted the risk that it could become a failed state, compounding security challenges already posed by lawless Somalia just across the Gulf of Aden.

However, Yemen's foreign minister Abubakr al-Qirbi disputed British statements that bomb suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was radicalised in Yemen. "He spent in London four years, and he spent in Yemen one year. Where did the radicalisation take place?" Qirbi told a news conference.

Abdulmutallab studied engineering at University College London between 2005 and 2008 before moving to Yemen.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband tried to laugh off the differences before defending the claim.

"I think it's important that I say in all seriousness that all of our evidence led us to make the very serious statements that we did about the radicalisation that took place," he said.

REGIONAL RISK

The joint statement released at the end of the two-hour meeting underlined the threat Yemen posed to neighbours including Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil producer.

"The challenges in Yemen are growing and, if not addressed, risk threatening the stability of the country and broader region," the statement said, affirming Yemeni sovereignty.

It was not a pledging conference and no fresh money was put on the table.

A donors' meeting in London in 2006 pledged about $5 billion for Yemen but only a small portion has been disbursed, partly because of concerns about how the money would be spent.

Clinton said Yemen must show it can allocate foreign aid effectively.

The meeting in London, on the eve of a major summit on the future of Afghanistan, is likely to be the first in a series.

Wednesday's talks brought together the Group of Eight world powers, Yemen's neighbours in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and Egypt, Jordan and Turkey.

Apart from al Qaeda, Yemen faces a Shi'ite Muslim revolt in the north, a secessionist movement in the south, water shortages, falling oil income and weak state control.

Keen to harness U.S. support and funding, President Saleh, 67, has sought to paint his internal foes as all somehow linked to al Qaeda.

Underlining the volatility in the region, Saudi Arabia declared victory on Wednesday over the Yemeni Shi'ite rebels after a truce offer from the insurgents.

Yemen's government had been fighting the rebels since 2004, while Saudi Arabia had stepped in since November when the rebels seized some Saudi territory.

Al-Shaabab claims attack on AU peacekeepers in Mogadishu

2010-01-27T11:27:00.001+05:30

Somalia’s hardline insurgent group Al-Shaabab claimed responsibility Tuesday for a mortar attack on an African Union (AU) peacekeepers’ base in Mogadishu that left several people dead. On Monday, a mortar round crashed into a group of Somali civilians queuing up at one of the entrances of the AU’s peacekeeping mission (AMISOM) to receive medical treatment from the force’s doctors.

“The attack on the compound of the African infidels was carried out by our mujahedins [holy warriors]. It was a successful attack which left many of the enemy doctors dead,” Al-Shaabab spokesman Sheikh Ali Mohamoud Rage told AFP.

Officials on the base said at least one Ugandan peacekeeper was killed in the blast. They added that several Somali civilians may have died but could not provide an accurate count.

A civilian source on the base said a total of five people had been killed.

The hardline Islamist insurgent group Al-Shaabab – an organization whose leader recently proclaimed allegiance to Al-Qaeda supremo Osama bin Laden – and their allies from the more political Hezb al-Islam movement routinely fire mortar shells on the base.

They launched a fierce military offensive in May 2009 aimed at toppling internationally-backed President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, whose administration has owed its survival largely to the protection of AMISOM’s 5,300 peacekeepers.

The Al-Shaabab accuse AMISOM’s Ugandan and Burundian soldiers of occupying their country and being engaged in a Christian crusade against Muslim Somalia.

Earlier Monday, the AU mission’s top civilian official and the UN special envoy to Somalia visited the base and reiterated their full support to Sharif’s transitional government.

The Ugandan soldier killed on Monday and a Burundian peacekeeper killed several days earlier were evacuated by plane on Tuesday, according to an AFP reporter at the AMISON base.

Don't test our patience: Antony

2010-01-22T14:01:00.000+05:30

India on Thursday made it clear that it was becoming impatient over the slow pace of investigation and trial of 26/11 terrorists by Pakistan and wanted the US to put pressure on it to do more.

“Unless Pakistan takes action against those involved in the heinous acts of 26/11....strong, convincing action to dismantle the terrorist outfits across the border, Indian people will be always impatient,” the defence minister, Mr A.K. Antony, said.

He was responding to questions regarding the US defence secretary, Mr Robert Gates’ remarks that it would “not be unreasonable to assume that India’s patience will be limited were there to be further attacks” such as the Mumbai attacks.

“I also told him that our people are becoming impatient. So you (the US) please advise Pakistan ... they must act against those involved in terrorist activities such as 26/11."

"Almost all these terrorist outfits are operating across the border and they are still very active,” he said.

The government and the people, Mr Antony said, did not want any confrontation with the neighbouring countries, but it would be difficult to move forward on the peace process unless Pakistan took tangible steps.

Unless Pakistan takes action on these two fronts, (punishing 26/11 perpetrators and dismantling terror infrastructure) forward movement is difficult,” he added.

Today in History

2010-01-22T13:57:00.001+05:30

On Jan. 22, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson pleaded for an end to war in Europe, calling for "peace without victory." (By April, however, America also was at war.)

On this date:

In 1498, during his third voyage to the Western Hemisphere, explorer Christopher Columbus arrived at the present-day Caribbean island of St. Vincent.

In 1561, English philosopher and statesman Francis Bacon was born in London.

In 1901, Britain's Queen Victoria died at age 81.

In 1905 (New Style calendar), thousands of demonstrating Russian workers were fired on by Imperial army troops in St. Petersburg on what became known as "Bloody Sunday."

In 1922, Pope Benedict XV died; he was succeeded by Pius XI.

In 1944, during World War II, Allied forces began landing at Anzio, Italy.

In 1959, 12 workers were killed in the Knox Mine Disaster in Pennsylvania when the mine became flooded with water from the Susquehanna River.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Roe v. Wade decision, legalized abortions using a trimester approach. Former President Lyndon B. Johnson died at age 64.

In 1995, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy died at the Kennedy compound at Hyannis Port, Mass., at age 104.

In 2008, actor Heath Ledger was found dead of an accidental prescription overdose in New York City; he was 28.

Ten years ago: Elian Gonzalez's grandmothers met privately with U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno as they appealed for help in removing the boy from his Florida relatives and reuniting him with his father in Cuba. Meanwhile, in Cuba, an estimated 150,000 people echoed the demand for the boy's return. Food writer Craig Claiborne died at a New York hospital at age 79.

Five years ago: The Iraqi government pledged to do everything in its power to protect voters from insurgent attacks during upcoming elections, as militants announced they'd killed 15 captive Iraqi National Guardsmen for cooperating with the Americans. Friends and family bade farewell to ten people killed when a mudslide damaged more than two dozen homes in La Conchita, Calif. President Richard Nixon's former secretary, Rose Mary Woods, died in Alliance, Ohio, at age 87. "Besame Mucho" songwriter Consuelo Velazquez died at age 84.

One year ago: President Barack Obama ordered the Guantanamo Bay prison camp closed within a year and banned harsh interrogation of terror suspects. The Senate Finance Committee cleared the nomination of Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary, 18-5, despite unhappiness over his mistakes in paying his taxes. A Chinese court sentenced two men to death and a dairy boss to life in prison for their roles in producing and selling infant formula tainted with melamine.

Today's Birthdays: Former Sen. Birch Bayh (D-Ind.) is 82. Actress Piper Laurie is 78. Actor Seymour Cassel is 75. Author Joseph Wambaugh is 73. Actor John Hurt is 70. Singer Steve Perry is 61. Country singer-musician Teddy Gentry (Alabama) is 58. Movie director Jim Jarmusch is 57. Hockey Hall-of-Famer Mike Bossy is 53. Actress Linda Blair is 51. Actress Diane Lane is 45. Actor-rap DJ Jazzy Jeff is 45. Country singer Regina Nicks (Regina Regina) is 45. Rhythm-and-blues singer Marc Gay (Shai) is 41. Actor Gabriel Macht is 38. Actor Balthazar Getty is 35. Actor Christopher Kennedy Masterson is 30. Pop singer Willa Ford is 29. Actress Beverley (cq) Mitchell is 29. Rock singer-musician Ben Moody is 29.

Thought for Today: "Would to God that we might spend a single day really well." — Thomas a Kempis, German monk and author (c. 1380-1471).

Fight against terror pretext for waging wars

2010-01-22T09:19:00.000+05:30

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says hegemonic powers wage wars under different pretexts to take over other countries' natural resources.

Ahmadinejad, in a meeting with Guyana's President Bharrat Jagdeo in Tehran on Wednesday, said that there are certain powers that are seeking to gain control of natural resources in the Middle East by waging wars in the region under the pretext of "freedom, human rights and fight against terror."

"If countries avoid seeking things beyond their rights and relations among countries are established based on justice, peace will be established in the world," Fars news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

He also called for expansion of ties between Iran and Guyana.

Jagdeo, for his part, urged strong ties between the two countries, noting that Western powers are trying to dominate other nations through media propaganda and their plot should be confronted using organized measures.

Obama talks US nonmilitary efforts in Afghanistan

2009-10-15T17:06:00.000+05:30

As President Barack Obama inches closer to a decision on new troops for Afghanistan, his latest war council debate Wednesday centered on how to strengthen U.S. civilian efforts there and significantly ramp up training of the Afghan police and army.

Obama met for three hours with his national security team, the fifth of six such meetings scheduled for the president to consider where to take the 8-year-old war.

The White House added a meeting for next week, by which time there may be a decision on whether to hold a runoff presidential election in Afghanistan between President Hamid Karzai and his chief challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.

The allegations of widespread fraud in the Aug. 20 voting are among the most troublesome factors in Obama's strategy review. An Afghanistan government seen as illegitimate by its people could create openings for the Taliban and a renewed safe haven for al-Qaida. Many fear that any U.S. effort - no matter how big or well-targeted - could fail as a result.

The U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission could rule as soon as Saturday on whether to discard enough Karzai votes to force a runoff with Abdullah. The new vote, logistically difficult to pull off, would have to be held within two weeks.

Though some administration officials and Obama advisers differ on whether a narrower, counterterror-style approach or a broader counterinsurgency mission is the better approach, all seem to agree that increasing nonmilitary efforts to improve Afghanistan's agricultural industry and economy, rule of law and governing institutions are key to any success. Similarly, the administration hopes to train significantly more local police and army in the hope they could eventually take the burden off of U.S. shoulders of protecting the country from a Taliban resurgence and al-Qaida infiltration.

"Having a strong and credible partner is extremely important to this process," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

He denied a report circulating in Britain that the president had made a decision on a troop increase that falls in about the middle-range of the options presented by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

McChrystal's still-secret troop request outlines three options - from as many as 80,000 more troops to as few as 10,000 - but favors a compromise of 40,000 more forces, officials have told The Associated Press. There now are 67,000 American troops in Afghanistan, and 1,000 more are headed there by the end of December.

Obama has said he would make up his mind in the coming weeks, and no announcement is expected before November. A senior administration official said the president is still working through and considering various options and has not settled on one. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the debate is ongoing.

"Like the other meetings, there wasn't one magic sentence or one magic phrase," Gibbs said of Wednesday's discussion in the White House Situation Room, in which nearly two dozen officials participated.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodman Clinton, who joined the discussion by phone because she was traveling overseas, said in a television interview that a big problem facing Obama and his team was "to sort out who is the real enemy."

"Our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies. But not every Taliban is al-Qaida," she told ABC News' "Nightline." "There are people who are Taliban, who are fighting because they get paid to fight. They have no other way of making a living."

Other tribal groups in Afghanistan find it beneficial to ally with the Taliban because they are conservative, she said. But those groups also are "not a direct threat to us," Clinton said.

However, a warning about overly de-emphasizing the focus on the Taliban came Wednesday from a key U.S. ally. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced his country would send 500 more troops to Afghanistan, for a total of about 9,500, but seemed to dismiss the notion of depending too much on increasing the focus on al-Qaida through precise aerial and special forces strikes.

"If we limit ourselves simply to targeting al-Qaida, without building the capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan to deal with terrorism and violent extremism, the security gains will not endure," Brown said.

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official who chaired Obama's previous policy review in March, said more troops are needed, though he didn't know the right level.

"We need some kind of shock therapy," he said. "If we stay where we are we are committing ourselves to a long-term stalemate."

Britain's Brown pledges more Afghanistan troops

2009-10-15T17:02:00.000+05:30

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown pledged Wednesday to send more troops to Afghanistan but only if NATO and the Afghan government do more to help fight the Taliban.

Brown said his government would increase British troop levels to 9,500 — an increase of about 500 — on the condition that President Hamid Karzai reduce corruption and improve his government’s performance. Brown also pledged to send troops only if he can provide them with the proper equipment, and if NATO allies increase their contributions to the war effort.

Military experts said Brown wants to show British support for the war as the U.S. debates an increase in its Afghan troop levels and he is unlikely to call off the deployment. Brown did not specify what contributions he is seeking from NATO nations, or exactly what the Afghans must do to get the extra forces, an indication that the conditions are largely designed to put political pressure on Karzai and NATO, they said.

The increase in British troops is small and may be of mostly symbolic importance, but it will likely be welcomed by President Barack Obama as his administration ponders difficult options in Afghanistan. These include a possible increase in U.S. forces, which now number about 67,000. Britain is the second-largest force in the 42-nation NATO coalition in Afghanistan.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration was pleased by Brown’s announcement. He said Brown informed Obama of his decision last week when the two leaders spoke by telephone.

“Obviously, the British people and those that serve there have borne an enormous price in casualties,” Gibbs said Wednesday. “Obviously, we’re thankful for a strengthening of the coalition, and our assessment continues. But again ... we’re happy for their increase in contributions.”

Retired Col. Christopher Langton, a senior fellow at The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said it is extremely unlikely that Brown will ultimately decide to cancel the deployment even if the conditions he demanded are not met, in part because Brown has said he is responding to requests from senior military advisers.

Langton said, however, that Brown will have to make sure the troops are properly equipped and trained, as promised, or face tremendous public anger at home. The government has already been criticized for not providing enough body armor and heavy vehicles.

“That’s the one condition he must meet,” Langton said. “The others he can sort of manage.”

Brown has faced conflicting pressures at home as public opinion polls show drooping support for the war and former commanders say more troops are needed fast to avoid defeat at the hand of Taliban insurgents.

Brown appeared to dismiss an argument put forward by some in the U.S. administration that Western forces should avoid raising troops levels and limit their goals to eliminating al-Qaida through precise strikes by aerial drones and special forces.

“Our objective is clear and focused: to prevent al-Qaida launching attacks on our streets and threatening legitimate government in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” he said. “But if we limit ourselves simply to targeting al-Qaida, without building the capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan to deal with terrorism and violent extremism, the security gains will not endure.”

Brown also said he will demand a better performance from Karzai’s government.

“I asked them for an assurance that they will sign a contract with us and the other allied powers about the elimination of corruption, the proper conduct of government, the appointment of governors who can actually manage in the provinces and the appointment of junior officials who can do that as well, as well as asking them to support our forces with a proper number of Afghan forces working with them,” Brown said.

He said Britain will also send 10 million pounds (US $16 million) in aid to Pakistan and Afghanistan. He said the fight against the al-Qaida terrorist network cannot be confined to Afghanistan while the government of Pakistan is under threat.

It is not clear that the proposed extra deployment is large enough to have an impact on the battlefield, where Taliban loyalists have been able to plant roadside bombs with devastating impact on British troops.

Steven Bowns, a specialist at the Chatham House think tank in London, said troops will remain vulnerable on the ground until more helicopters are procured.

“They are indeed needed but it seems like a political gesture rather than a serious deployment,” he said.

Brown’s recently retired army chief accused him of turning down the military’s request for an extra 2,000 troops, an allegation the prime minister’s office denied.

Brown’s supporters have questioned retired Gen. Richard Dannatt’s motives, noting that he has since been picked to become a senior adviser to the opposition Conservative Party.

CAPITAL CULTURE: The phrase Obama can't do without

2009-10-14T15:29:00.001+05:30

For all his flourish, President Barack Obama sure falls back on a few familiar phrases.

Make no mistake. Change isn't easy. It won't be happen overnight. There will be setbacks and false starts.

Those who routinely listen to the president have come to expect some of those expressions to pop up in almost every speech. (That includes you, cynics and naysayers, the ones Obama mentions all the time without identifying who is saying nay.)
Yet in the portfolio of presidential phrases, none is more pervasive than Obama's four-word favorite: Let me be clear.

It is his emphatic windup for, well, everything.

"Let me be clear," he said in describing his surprise at winning the Nobel Peace Prize. "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."

"Let me be clear," he said in one of his dozens of pitches for a health insurance overhaul. "If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them."

Presidents talk so much in public that is not surprising to find rhetorical patterns. Although Obama is known for a flair with the written and spoken word, his hardest mission is often to make complicated matters relevant to the masses.

So clarity, it seems, is of the highest order.

Terrorists? "Now let me be clear: We are indeed at war with al-Qaida and its affiliates."
Student testing? "Let me be clear: Success should be judged by results, and data is a powerful tool to determine results."

Iran? "Let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies."

Auto bailouts? "Let me be clear: The United States government has no interest in running GM."
The president takes the phrase everywhere.

In Moscow: "Let me be clear: America wants a strong, peaceful, and prosperous Russia."

In Ghana: "Let me be clear: Africa is not the crude caricature of a continent at perpetual war."

In Italy, bemoaning poor U.S. leadership on climate change: "Let me be clear: Those days are over."

In Trinidad, announcing new aid: "Let me be clear: This is not charity."

Obama has used the same phrase, or a variation of it, to make his point about the strategy in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, U.S.-China relations, bipartisanship, pet legislative projects and Turkey's bid to join the European Union.

He has relied on it to look ahead ("Let me be clear: We pay for this plan," Obama says of his college initiative) and to look back ("Let me be clear: Those ideas have been tested, and they have failed" he says of economic models he dislikes.)

White House spokesman Josh Earnest says Obama's style, which he referred to as presidential throat "clearing", is purposeful.

"While some in Washington seek political advantage by hiding behind ambiguity," Earnest said, "the president regularly seeks to make it clear where he stands and what he intends to do."

Perhaps the nation should have seen this coming. Candidate Obama set the tone.
"Let me be clear: It's outrageous that we find ourselves in a position where taxpayers must bear the burden for the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street and Washington," Obama said in September 2008.

Not that his Republican opponent ceded the expression. "Let me be clear," Sen. John McCain said in an August 2008 riff about Obama and Iraq. "I am not questioning his patriotism; I am questioning his judgment."

As president-elect, Obama broke out "let me be clear" in announcing his economic team.

And his national security team. And his intelligence team.

There must be something catchy to all this. The people around Obama are just as insistent.

Here's Vice President Joe Biden, assuring members of Georgia's Parliament that U.S. efforts to reset relations with Russia wouldn't come at their expense: "Let me be clear: They have not, they will not, and they cannot."

And senior adviser David Axelrod, on missed legislative deadlines on health care: "Let me be clear. We're less interested in hard deadlines than in moving the process forward."

Lest anyone get too serious about this, Obama has lightened the mood with the phrase, too. He made state lawmakers laugh when he said the massive taxpayer-financed stimulus plan wouldn't be spent on frivolous projects such as dog parks.

"Now, let me be clear," Obama said in March, before Bo the dog arrived. "I don't have anything against dog parks."

IBM to Apply Analytics to War on Terror

2009-10-14T15:24:00.000+05:30

Big Blue will supply its analytics know-how to a key U.S. military force in the battle against terrorism

Can the analytic science that powers operations at Wal-Mart (WMT) and Federal Express (FDX) make inroads against terrorists? IBM (IBM) is going to give it a shot. Big Blue's Global Services Div. just landed a five-year, $20 million contract to apply its analytical know-how to the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), the key military force in the battle against terrorism.

For years, industry has been using analytics to make so-called supply chains run well, ensuring companies are able to pull together all the pieces they need, at the right time, to build everything from airliners to chip fabs. But according to Kevin P. Green, a retired Navy vice-admiral who heads up defense consulting for IBM Global Business Services, the military has lagged behind. "In the past, they've had to depend on heroic administration, people responding on very short notice and putting together disparate systems," Green says. An operation in Afghanistan, for example, requires pulling up data on manpower, repair parts, weapons, food, and is often carried out piece by piece on different computers in place.

The new approach, which will take years to fully implement, would start with a model of the operation, and then suggest the most efficient and effective deployment of all the parts.
Lessons from World War II

It's surprising that the military would be a latecomer to industrial analytics. It was during World War II that British and U.S. mathematicians began using problem-solving approaches that would later evolve into what's now known as business analytics. At the time, these scientists were trying to confront the challenge posed by German U-boats that were sinking the ships carrying arms and provisions to Britain. These teams came up with large-scale mathematical models, and figured out how to deploy them to keep attrition at a minimum. This was called optimization, and the process gave birth to operations research, one of the pillars of analytics.

Following the war, IBM dedicated the new science to making the best use of its own industrial supply chain. Over the following decades, Big Blue and others embedded this expertise in software and sold it to industrial customers all over the world. In recent years, with the explosion of digital data, IBM has been scooping up analytics companies, spending more than $10 billion in acquisitions. The most recent is the $1.2 billion buyout of Chicago-based SPSS in July.

The IBM team, Green says, will involve 12 full-time consultants with expertise in cybersecurity, defense, transportation, and the other pieces needed to model the military's Special Operations. The company has carried out similar, smaller services contracts for the armed forces in Britain and Finland. IBM's team is supported by subcontractors, including CACI International (CACI) and National Interest Security Co., both specialists in defense, intelligence, and homeland security. A spokesman for U.S. Special Operations says the bidding involved a number of tech companies, but he could not provide the names.

Blood, rage & history: The world's first terrorists

2009-10-12T17:10:00.000+05:30

Imagine it. A network of violent radicals is picking off the world's leaders one by one. They have killed the American President, the Russian head of state, the French President, the Austrian head of state, and the Spanish Prime Minister.

Bomb attacks are ripping through the world's richest cities: explosions devastate Wall Street, the London Underground, a theatre in Barcelona, cafés in Paris, parades in Moscow. The police profile of a typical bomber warns: "He walks to his death with courage and no regrets." There is panic, and governments launch programmes of torture and deportation targeted at immigrant communities. Yet still the radicals wash defiantly across the world, killing as they go. They say they have "only one aim, one science: destruction".

It sounds like a feverish novel about al-Qa'ida, set 30 years from now. But it has already happened. It is a story from our past. In the late 19th and early 20th century, anarchist bombers did all this. They were prepared to die for their beliefs. They lived in the same places as today's Islamists – such as Whitechapel, in east London – and they struck the same targets, like lower Manhattan on a clear September morning.

In a new documentary – The Enemy Within, by Joe Bullman – young Islamists read the words of yesterday's Jewish anarchists, from their writings and trial transcripts. While the societies they dream of building after the bombs are very different, their rage, their alienation, and their tactics are almost identical. The words fit so easily into their mouths that the Islamists say it is "creepy".

Mark Twain said: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Are there lessons buried in this ripple of rage spreading across a century? For decades, anarchist radicals seemed like an ineradicable force that would bleed Western societies forever. Within a generation, they were gone. So can the anarchists show us what makes young men attack their own societies – and what makes them stop? Can it tell us what tactics defeat an amorphous underground movement, and what only makes them stronger? From the nitroglycerine of the 19th century, is there a fuse that ends with the jihadists of 2009?

I. Terminus

As the sun set on 12 February 1894, the Café Terminus at the Gare Saint-Lazare was full of young Parisians listening to an orchestra when the music stopped abruptly. A fireball consumed everything in sight: the world went black. When the survivors came round, there was a jigsaw of body parts around them, and people on fire, running, screaming. It was the work of a smartly dressed 20-year-old French accountant called Emile Henry. He had placed a bomb in a metal workman's lunchbox and hurled it at the orchestra. This wasn't his first attack: a few months before, he had blown up a police station, killing five people, and returned calmly to his desk, where he finished the ledgers he had been working on.

But it was the first time a private individual had randomly blown up civilians. As the historian Dr John Merriman, who teaches at Yale University, says: "It was the day that ordinary people became the targets of terrorists." But Emile Henry was not an anarchist from Central Casting. He was an intellectual born into the French bourgeoisie, living in part off handouts from his rich aunt. He was – by all accounts – a sensitive person who had spent his life appalled at the cruelty all around him. He claimed his act would save lives in the end: that he was murdering out of compassion.

Henry was living in a Paris of vertiginous inequalities. In a quarter of an hour you could walk from the palatial glamour of the opera house to slums where babies were routinely dying of tuberculosis. The divide ran right though his soul: he had the education of the rich, but he had slumped down into the tubercular slums.

Emile's father, Fortune Henry, had run away from his middle-class family in 1848 at the age of 16 to join the revolution in Paris. When Parisians seized control of their own city in 1871 and ran it as a democratic commune, Fortune manned the barricades and rallied the crowds. But when the French state recaptured Paris – massacring 25,000 people as it went – he was condemned to death, and fled to Spain. Emile Henry was born there, and he was raised on tales of how the French state had brutally suppressed freedom. The boy grew to see all governments as evil, especially when the Spanish authorities confiscated the family's belongings to punish their anarchist sympathies. His father was forced to work in filthy factories where he contracted mercury poisoning. He died when his son was 10.

Henry's mother begged for cash from her wealthy relatives, who helped send Henry to the best schools in Paris. He was an exceptionally successful student, and for a time – as a pale, tall young man, with a reddish beard – he became an engineer. But, on a meagre trainee engineer's salary, he was still stuck in the poorer arrondisements of Paris, where he was stunned by the waste of life all around him. The poor majority had no political voice, and scarcely enough food to live: a quarter of all children died before reaching adulthood.

"I would like simply to disappear, to annihilate myself, in order to escape the perpetual anguish that strangles and breaks heart and soul," he wrote. He concluded that wealthy Paris was dominated by "frauds", and "only the cynics and grovellers can get a place at the banquet ... [The rich have] appropriated everything, robbing the other class not just of the sustenance of the body but also the sustenance of the mind."

Across Europe, the nation-state was asserting its power over ordinary citizens in a deeper and harsher way than ever before, with governments seizing taxes and young men for conscription at an unprecedented rate. In response, there was a growing anarchist movement that simply said that the state was illegitimate, and should be disbanded.

The term "anarchist" had originally been an insult, but, in 1840, a French provincial printer's assistant called Pierre-Joseph Proudhon picked it up and wore it with pride. He said if governments were disbanded, people would organise themselves into peaceful democratic communes that would run their own affairs, without police or laws or taxes. It was the state – with its apparatus of coercion and violence – that made people bad. Remove the state, and you would have a natural order at last, based on personal freedom. Law is tyranny; property is theft.

In a society where the emaciated poor were routinely being worked to death, it was an appealing message. As he lay dying because he had been made to work in toxic factories since childhood, a porcelain worker known to history only as "M L" wrote: "Accursed society, you are responsible for my illness. Thoughtless and cynical bourgeois, do you not sense that I can transform myself into someone who can right wrongs, an avenger of the innumerable existences that your society has massacred, an avenger of all those who have revolted and live as outlaws, and those who have been tortured or eliminated? Bourgeois ... I want to talk with me at least some of those who are responsible for my death."

To Emile Henry, it seemed persuasive. He took money from his bourgeois aunt – and wrote cordial letters of thanks – but cursed the bourgeoisie as "evil". When he was ordered to attend the military lottery, where he could have been conscripted, he went on the run. At lectures across the city, he heard the argument put by anarchists that the only way to put their philosophy into practice was by "the propaganda of the deed". Acts of violence against the state or the populace would show the state's power was illusory and stir a general revolt. Just as most Muslims reject jihadism today, most anarchists rejected violence against civilians, calling it "common murder". But developments in France made Henry more determined to side with the furious fringe of anarchism: striking miners were crushed by troops, and the rich became richer. He wrote: "The entire bourgeoisie lives from the exploitation of the unfortunate, and all of it should pay for its crimes."

He was captured at the scene of the bombing. He said he had one regret: that he didn't kill more "bourgeois". If only he had a bomb big enough, he boasted, he would have blown up the whole of Paris. Only from the rubble could a just society emerge. In a letter to his mother, he said: "You must not believe those who will say that your son is a criminal. The real criminals are those who make life impossible for anyone with a heart, those men who uphold a society in which everyone suffers."

After Henry was executed at the age of 21, a series of revenge bombings staged by anarchists ripped through France. One of the killers, Auguste Vaillant, declared: "We will spare neither women nor children because the women and children we love have not been spared. Are they not innocent victims, these children, who in the faubourgs slowly die of anaemia, because bread is rare at home? Those women who in your workshops suffer exhaustion and are worn out in order to earn 40 cents a day? These old men whom you have turned into machines so that they can produce their entire lives and whom you throw out on to the street when they have been completely depleted? You will add other names to the bloody lists of our dead ... but what you can never destroy is anarchy. Its roots are too deep, born in a poisonous society that is falling apart. It is everywhere, which makes anarchy elusive. It will finish by killing you."

II. All-American Anarchism

Emile Henry was only one member of a scattered freelance army who believed they could end the idea of government itself, and usher in an era of perfect freedom. Their attacks were made possible by the coincidence of two historical developments: the development of anarchist philosophy, and the invention of dynamite. In 1866, the Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel invented this easy-to-carry, easy-to-make explosive, and it spread through the world's mining and construction industries like a rapidly fizzing fuse. But it took a tiny, malformed German anarchist to see how it could change the world's politics.

Johann Most was a 5ft-tall bookbinder filled with rage. As a child, an operation on his jaw had gone wrong, leaving it painfully jutting forward. His attempts to hide it under a huge red beard only attracted more attention. Most turned his humiliation outwards on to just causes – at least at first. He too ran away to Paris, and was immediately jailed after the crushing of the Commune, for demanding the vote for everyone. He argued for socialism, to be brought about through parliamentary democracy – and when he was released from jail he was elected to the German Reichstag on precisely this platform. But Otto von Bismarck launched a purge of all leftists, and Most had to flee again.

The purge crushed Most's belief in gradual reform. He became convinced the system could only be changed by blowing it up – and suddenly realised that explosives were now lying all over Europe and the US, in sheds controlled by ordinary workers. Dynamite needed no expertise to operate; it could be carried in your pocket; and it could kill. He announced: "It is within the power of dynamite to destroy the capitalist regime just as it had been within the power of gunpowder and the rifle to wipe feudalism from the face of the earth. A girdle of dynamite encircles the world!"

Most travelled from country to country, urging workers to pick up their dynamite and use it against the bosses who forced them to work 12-hour days, seven days a week, for starvation wages. He became the model for Ossipon, the refugee-anarchist Ossipon in Joseph Conrad's novel The Secret Agent, who walks the street with a bomb forever strapped to him, ready to blow himself up the moment the police swoop. In anticipation of Islamism, Ossipon brags that his enemies "depend on life ... whereas I depend on death, which knows no restraint and cannot be attacked. My superiority is evident."

Although it has been consigned to the memory-hole, one of the places where Most found the most recruits was the US. He washed up in the 1880s in a continent where 35,000 American workers died every year in industrial accidents. Whenever they went on strike for better conditions, they were savagely beaten by the police. The richest 2 per cent owned 60 per cent of the wealth, and the politicians and police did their bidding.

One of his most fervent disciples was a hard-drinking cowboy from Utah, never seen without a stetson and a strut. He was called "Big Bill" Haywood. He spent his childhood moving from one mining town to another, and had his eye slashed out in a mechanical accident when he was nine. By the age of 15, he spent almost all his time hacking at rock underground, where he saw men routinely get crushed or blasted. Writing about one typical town, he explained: "The people of this mining camp breathed copper, ate copper, wore copper, and were thoroughly saturated with copper ... Many of the miners were suffering from rankling copper sores, caused by the poisonous water. Human life was the cheapest by-product of this great copper camp."

Big Bill turned to anarchism after witnessing systematic state violence against ordinary people. When he organised a strike, US soldiers rounded up 1,000 miners at random and placed them in a barbed-wire bull-pen. They were detained there for seven months. As the police officer in charge declared, "To hell with the constitution!" They called it the "American Bastille."

Class war didn't seem like a metaphor to him: it was the reality of everyday life. The industrialist Jay Gould openly bragged: "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." So Haywood – some historians believe – blew up the governor of Idaho, Frank Steunenberg, in 1907, and his trial was the biggest news story of the year. His lawyer, the legendary Clarence Darrow, urged the jury to side not with "the spiders of Wall Street" but with "the men who toil with their hands ... through our mills and factories, and deep underneath the earth. I am here to say that in a great cause these labour organisations have stood for the weak, they have stood for every humane law that was ever placed on the statute books. I don't care how many wrongs they have committed – I don't care how many crimes – I just know their cause is just."

It is a sign of how widespread the sympathy for anarchists was that Haywood was acquitted, and became an American folk hero. He eventually had to flee the US during the First World War when he urged people to resist the draft, and was sentenced to 20 years in jail. He fled to the Soviet Union, found it to be "hell", and drank himself to death.

This is only one small slice of a larger story unfolding in every developed country. Anarchist attacks on politicians were remarkably successful, starting when three young men hurled bombs into a carriage carrying Tsar Alexander II in 1881, killing him and several members of the crowd. Anarchists claimed their heftiest scalp when, in 1901, a young militant called Frank Czolgosz waited in line to shake US President McKinley's hand in Buffalo – and stabbed him hard in the gut. (This act gave us President Theodore Roosevelt, one of the most aggressively imperialist and racist presidents in US history). But gradually the anarchist fervour boiled down further and further into attacks on ordinary civilians – which is why they still echo into our world today.

III. "It was written 100 years ago, but it is happening today"

Does this anarchism bear any relationship to the jihadists who bomb the very same targets today? When the film-maker Joe Bullman got young British Muslims with some sympathy for the 7/7 bombers to read the words of anarchists put on trial at the Old Bailey a century ago, they showed an exhilarated recognition. Adam Munevar Khan says: "It was written 100 years ago, but it is happening today – to the Muslims." Mohammed Rahmen says: "Anarchism has been represented to be a doctrine of insanity and murder – its principles, its ideals, they've been unmentioned, lied about. That really penetrated my way of thinking. That's exactly how Islam is."

The Islamists read the anarchist lines to camera with feeling. One of them says: "We are met by the cry of assassins, dynamiters, fiends – but let's see who utters these cries. It's the same people who daily massacre more people than the anarchists of all countries have ever killed." It could be Mohammad Sidique Khan, the 7/7 murderer, announcing: "Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security, you will be our targets. And until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people, we will not stop this fight."

Yet it's easier, at first glance, to see the differences between the two ideologies. Anarchists loathed religion, seeing it as another form of tyranny to be destroyed; Islamists want their severe interpretation of religion to be obeyed by everyone. Anarchists were some of the first to fight for feminism and sexual freedom; Islamists want to imprison women in burqas and in their homes, and to kill gays. Anarchists demanded absolute free speech; Islamists chant "death to free speech". Anarchists loathed racism; Islamists are frequently racist against Jews. Anarchists wanted a society of absolute freedom; Islamists want a society of absolute obedience.

But neither had a very clear picture of what the world would look like after the smoke from their bombs had cleared. Their visions of the future were vague: both no-state and the caliphate were hazy hope-dreams. Below and beneath them, there were deep structural similarities.

Both groups believed their violence was justified by the larger illegitimate state violence they witnessed as young men. For the anarchists, it was the crushing of the Paris Commune and the executions of innocent anarchists after the Haymarket bomb of 1886 in Chicago; for the Islamists it is the assaults on the Palestinians, on Afghanistan, and on Iraq. However warped, they believe they are killing out of compassion for the victims of these crimes. The anarchist Emma Goldman wrote: "To those who say hate does not give birth to love, I reply that it is love, human love, that often engenders hate."

They justified their attacks to themselves by claiming they were trying to give the wealthy, or the West, a taste of how "their people" felt. Yet in both movements, intriguingly, it was largely middle class intellectuals who turned to violence. Both Emile Henry and Mohammed Atta – the leader of the 9/11 hijackings – were engineers who found in mathematics a sense of purity and order and rationality that soothed them, and seemed like a refuge from a chaotic world. The leading anarchists in Europe – Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin – were both Russian noblemen, just as Osama bin Laden is the son of a Saudi billionaire. (Bakunin and Kropotkin, however, strongly opposed targeting civilians.) They were people who chose to renounce their riches and side with the embattled tribe "beneath" them, and claimed to be fighting for its survival.

Both waves of violence were reactions to tectonic shifts in how power worked in the world. Anarchist attacks were a violent reaction to the rise of the nation-state; Islamist attacks within the West are to a significant degree a violent kick-back against Western states asserting their power abroad. These reactions were only made possible by new networks of communication. For the anarchists, the revolution in shipping and telegrams made movement across continents suddenly faster and freer than ever: a genuinely international network moving rapidly between countries could develop for the first time. For Islamists, the internet made the movement of ideas and plans instantaneous: a global movement simultaneously operating in Tora Bora and Manhattan was suddenly possible.

And for this reason, both movements produced vicious backlashes against immigrants that went far beyond the people who actually carried out the attacks. In Bullman's film, he gets contemporary asylum-bashing pundits like Gary Bushell and Nick Ferrari to read the rage directed at Jews in Britain after a small number of Jewish immigrants became anarchists and launched bombings. Ferrari reads a Daily Mail column from 1911 that barks: "There are hundreds of anarchists in Whitechapel ... but there's no way of learning anything about them. In this great foreign city east of Aldgate the English policeman is an uncomprehending foreigner ... We can't continue to let the scum of Europe [come here]."

And this perhaps points to the most important echo of all. When governments reacted to these attacks, at first they charged angrily down a path that made anarchism worse – and guaranteed more of their citizens would die.

IV. Why did the attacks stop?

The postscript to anarchist bombings in almost every country was a bonfire of civil liberties. After Wall Street was blasted with a massive bomb in 16 September 1920, killing 38 people including a 16-year-old newspaper delivery boy, the US government launched a huge indiscriminate programme of deportations of "radicals" – often peaceful left-wingers. It was masterminded by a young man called J Edgar Hoover, who learned then the tactics of indiscriminate smearing he was to use throughout the cold war. For the first time in the country's history, Congress declared an idea to be "un-American", and said anybody preaching anarchism – however peacefully – would be held responsible for "aiding" the attacks. There was a raft of convictions of people who had done nothing except discuss anarchism and suggest there was some justice in its analysis.

There was a smattering of small countervailing voices in America, but in the initial hysteria, they were drowned out. The federal judge George W Anderson said the Justice Department was engaging in "utterly illegal acts, committed by those charged with the highest duty of enforcing the laws." The US Attorney Francis Fisher Kane resigned, warning that "the policy of raids against large numbers of individuals is generally unwise and very apt to result in injustice".

A presidential commission warned that this crackdown only made the anarchist warnings about a police state seem prescient. To the young men teetering on an act of violence, torture and police brutality made the anarchists sound right – and violent resistance necessary. The commission said the structural causes of the violence had to be dealt with instead, explaining: "The crux of the question is – have the workers received their share of the enormous increase in wealth which has taken place in this country? The answer is emphatically – no ... Throughout history where a people or a group has been arbitrarily denied rights, reaction has been inevitable. Violence is a natural form of protest against injustice."

But nobody wanted to hear these arguments. The public and the politicians wanted vengeance. Some governments, like France's, exploited the attacks to shut down all left-wing protest. Hoover employed a raft of agents to find a bogus "Russian connection" to the Wall Street bombing, to justify aggression against the Soviet Union.

Eventually, the American people returned to their senses, and chose a president who saw the threat in a cooler way. President Warren Harding said: "It is quite true that there are enemies of the government within our borders. However, I believe their number has been greatly magnified."

But the countries that had the harshest crackdowns ended up with the largest anarchist movements of all, while those that reacted calmly and kept their freedoms open saw the movements implode much faster. Professor John Merriman – whose book The Dynamite Club is one of the best accounts of the anarchist attacks – explains: "After the Italian king Umberto I was assassinated by the anarchist Gaetano Bresci, the Italian state response was deliberately restrained and minor. This undercut the movement. By contrast, Spain reacted at the same time with a programme of brutal repression and torture. They ended up with the biggest anarchist movement in Europe. Then later, when they stopped torturing people, the anarchist attacks stopped. I'm not an expert on contemporary terrorism, but the lesson for us seems pretty clear."

From the 1920s on, the anarchist attacks began to dwindle, and by the late 1930s they were over. Why? What happened? Nobody is entirely sure – but most historians suggest a few factors. After the initial wave of state repression, civil liberties slowly advanced – undermining the anarchist claims. The indiscriminate attacks on ordinary civilians discredited anarchism in the eyes of the wider public: after a young man blew himself up in Greenwich Park in 1892, his coffin was stoned and attacked by working class people in the East End. The anarchists' own cruelty and excess slowly deprived them of recruits.

But, just as importantly, many of the anarchist grievances were addressed by steady reforms. Trade unions were finally legalised, and many of their demands were achieved one by one: an eight-hour working day, greater safety protections, compensation for the injured. Work was no longer so barbaric – so the violent rejection of it faded away. The changes were nowhere near as radical as those demanded by the anarchists, but it stripped them of followers step-by-step.

Could the same be done with Islamism? The lesson from the death of violent anarchism is that the solution lies beyond blanket violent repression of them or its polar opposite, capitulation to their demands. The answer is gradual reform that ends some – but not all – of the sources of their rage. Clearly, many of Islamists' "grievances" should be left unaddressed: we must never restrict the rights of women or gay people or end the freedom to discuss religion openly, as they demand. But there is plenty we can do.

When the huge violence directed at workers and the poor stopped, violent anarchist attacks stopped. An end to the extensive violence directed towards many Muslims could have a similar effect. It would require significant changes here at home. We would have to kick our addiction to oil, so we will no longer be drawn into hellish oil-grabs into Muslim countries, or into holding hands with murderous tyrannies like the House of Saud. We will have unequivocally to renounce torture (even when it is practised by "allies" such as the Egyptian dictatorship), and press for peace for the Palestinians instead of arming and funding the assault on them. This will never be enough for the jihadists, of course – but if we do it, they will find their base of furious young men dissolving beneath their feet.

The ghosts of Emile Henry and Johann Most and Big Bill Haywood are standing before us, with their sticks of dynamite slowly fizzing. Are we going to make the same mistake that our governments did when dealing with them – or, after a century, have we learned how to put out the fire this time?

India is not exporting terrorism

2009-10-12T17:06:00.000+05:30

Prime minister Manmohan Singh dismissed Pakistan's charge of India fomenting trouble in Balochistan. He said, "We are not in the business of spreading terror in Pakistan, or any other country. The people of Pakistan will know that the accusations made against India by the government are false."

Singh was commenting on Pakistan interior minister Rehman Malik's allegations that India was promoting terrorism in Balochistan and Afghanistan. Expressing concern over the developments in these countries, he said, "The people of Pakistan should realise that patronising terrorist groups has caused great harm to them, as well as to the South Asian region. The situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan is not what it should be. The rising role of terrorists is a matter of concern to all of us."

"We have to make adequate preparations to deal with the consequences of this overflow of terrorism from our neighbours to our country. Even though adequate measures necessary to tackle cross-border terrorism are being taken, the results will be much better if the countries work together," he added.

White House weighs Pakistan's role in winning war

2009-10-09T15:53:00.000+05:30

Recognizing the US can neither win in Afghanistan nor succeed more broadly against Al Qaeda without Pakistan's cooperation, President Barack Obama's war council is weighing a new role for Pakistan in the 8-year-old struggle in the region.

Obama planned sessions Thursday with Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the White House to continue the intense discussion about the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan. The White House scheduled another, larger war council session — a fifth of five announced — for Friday, when the focus may finally shift to just how many additional troops would be needed to execute Obama’s vision for a war he inherited but now must execute.

The White House disclosed that Obama has in hand — and has for nearly a week — the troop request prepared by the top US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It is said to include a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 combat troops to — McChrystal’s strong preference — as many as 40,000.

A senior Pentagon official said Thursday that the Obama administration’s delay in deciding on a strategy has, in turn, stalled European allies who are weighing how much more to contribute to Afghanistan.

Allies ‘who may be asked to vote for additional resources at some point are all waiting to see exactly what the US decides to do in the wake of the McChrystal assessment,’ Assistant Defense Secretary Alexander Vershbow, who oversees international security affairs, told reporters. ‘In the meantime, they have their own domestic issues and each individual country, those countries that have suffered high casualties are obviously having to deal with some who are arguing that the cost of this war isn’t worth it.’

However, most foreign governments realize that the overall goal is security — and not necessarily improved relations with the United States or NATO, said Vershbow, a former ambassador.

‘When they have the answers for what the US is going to do, I think we can expect them to take leadership in their countries to try to keep up their side of the operation,’ he said.

Obama’s national security team marked the war’s eighth anniversary on Wednesday with a three-hour session in a secure room in the White House basement. The focus on Pakistan, the suspected hiding place of Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda terrorists as well as Taleban leaders, could provide a hint into the president’s leanings.

Obama and some of his key aides are increasingly pointing to recent successes against Al Qaeda through targeted missile strikes and raids in Pakistan but also in Somalia and elsewhere. Obama said Tuesday that Al Qaeda has ‘lost operational capacity’ as a result.

In Pakistan, though, the government has shown new willingness to battle extremists, with most believed to be operating from the largely ungoverned terrain along the border with Afghanistan. But these operations, as well as the strikes by unmanned US aircraft, continue to stoke controversy throughout the country, causing problems for the already weak U.S.-backed civilian government.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama asked for McChrystal’s request last week before he flew to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago’s bid to host the Olympics and meet with the general on the sidelines. The numbers could become the focus of concentrated White House attention as soon as Friday, Gibbs said.

While Gibbs had said previously that Obama did not want to see the request until he had determined the strategy, aides said the president decided it had simply become absurd to wait to read it given the high-profile debate.

McChrystal’s recommended approach calls for additional troops in Afghanistan for a counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taleban, build up the central government and deny Al Qaeda a haven. McChrystal, whose plan is somewhat reminiscent of President George W. Bush’s Iraq troop surge in 2008, says extra troops — preferably at the higher end of his option range — are crucial to turn around a war that will probably be won or lost over the next 12 months.

On roughly the opposite end of the spectrum, an alternative favored most prominently by Biden would keep the American force in Afghanistan around the 68,000 already authorized, including the 21,000 extra troops Obama ordered earlier this year, but increase the use of surgical strikes with unmanned Predator drones and special forces.

Shrinking the number of troops in Afghanistan and turning the effort into a narrow counterterror campaign is not on the table, officials say, and neither is drastically ballooning the military footprint.

In weighing whether to follow McChrystal or Biden or land somewhere in between, Obama faces a stern test and difficult politics.

Many lawmakers from his own Democratic Party, aware of rising anti-war sentiment in their ranks and the war protests that have dotted Washington this week, do not want to see additional US troops sent to Afghanistan. According to a new Associated Press-GfK poll, public support for the war has dropped to 40 percent from 44 percent in July.

Republicans, meanwhile, are urging Obama to heed the military commanders’ calls soon or risk failure.

With this and Americans’ dwindling patience in mind, Obama is engaged in a methodical review of how to overhaul the war.

Obama focusing on al-Qaida, not Taliban

2009-10-09T15:48:00.000+05:30

President Barack Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future and will determine how many more U.S. troops to send to the war based only on keeping al-Qaida at bay, a senior administration official said Thursday.

The sharpened focus by Obama's team on fighting al-Qaida above all other goals, while downgrading the emphasis on the Taliban, comes in the midst of an intensely debated administration review of the increasingly unpopular war.

Aides stress that the president's decision on specific troop levels and the other elements of a revamped approach is still at least two weeks away, and they say Obama has not tipped his hand in meetings that will continue at the White House on Friday.

But the thinking emerging from the strategy formulation portion of the debate offers a clue that Obama would be unlikely to favor a large military increase of the kind being advocated by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal's troop request is said to include a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 combat troops to - the general's strong preference - as many as 40,000.

Perpetrators of 26/11 attacks not friends of Pakistan: Qureshi

2009-10-08T12:53:00.000+05:30

Calling those who carried out the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks as no friends of Pakistan, its foreign

minister Shah Mahmood
Qureshi has said it's in Islamabad's enlightened self-interest to normalise and live in peace
with India.

The government of Pakistan believes that terror organisations like the one behind the Mumbai attacks "have to be checked, curtailed and shut," he said at the Council of Foreign Relations, a Washington-based think tank, on Wednesday.

India has asked Pakistan to give up terror as a state policy and has demanded concrete and speedy action against those responsible for the Mumbai terrorist attacks blamed on the Pakistan based terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba as a condition for normalising relations with its neighbour.

Indian external affairs minister SM Krishna had made it clear to Qureshi at their Sep 27 meeting in New York on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly that an environment free of violence and terrorism was essential for the success of a meaningful dialogue process.

Asked about what action Pakistan has taken against the Mumbai attackers, Qureshi on Wednesday avoided a direct answer. "Those who carried out the Mumbai terrorist attack that killed 166 innocent people are not friends of Pakistan," he said.

"In the interest of stability and peace in the region, it is in the interest of Pakistan's enlightened self-interest to normalise and live in peace with India," Qureshi said. "The government of Pakistan believes that these organisations have to be checked, curtailed and shut," he added.

In response to another question, Qureshi said the India-US civil nuclear agreement was discriminatory. "And when you sign agreements that are discriminatory in nature, it does not help," he said.

Pakistan wants conditionless dialogue with neighbours

2009-10-08T12:46:00.000+05:30

Pakistan foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi today sought an intensive dialogue between the South Asian neighbours without any conditions.

"It doesn't take much genius to understand that terrorists threats require more intensive dialogue between South Asian neighbours, accompanied by a sincerity of purpose and resolving disputes rather than pauses and conditionalities," Qureshi said in his address to the Council on Foreign Relations: a Washington-based think tank.

As the region is facing serious threat from terrorism, he said that it makes no sense that instead of pooling their resources to fight terrorism, they squander these to threaten the other.

"Instinctive reactions, coupled with hasty and unsubstantiated accusations, strengthen the very forces that we profess to defeat," said Qureshi, who is currently on a three-day visit to Washington to meet Congressional leaders and top officials of the Obama administration.

"It is fine to move beyond the rhetoric. Each country has to stand up to terrorism and be counted. Cold War calculations to gain short-term advantages have no relevance in these times. Long-term interests of all countries of the region lie in promoting stability and work towards socio-economic uplift of the people of the region," he argued.

Replying to a question, he said the groups responsible for the Mumbai terrorist attack are not a friend of Pakistan and needs to be checked, curtailed and shut. "Organisations that carried out the acts those results in Mumbai attack are certainly no friend to Pakistan because through those acts they not only killed people they could have triggered off something more serious than that," Qureshi said.

"We have to guard against that mindset. In the interest of stability and peace in the region, it is in the interest of Pakistan's enlightened self-interest to normalise and live in peace with India. The Government of Pakistan believes that these organisations have to be checked, curtailed and shut," he asserted.

His remarks comes even as the Pakistani Army and the ISI have been reportedly trying to push Taliban militants inside Jammu and Kashmir. India has insisted that Pakistan needs to show commitment and progress that it is taking action against those responsible for the Mumbai terrorist attack.

Qureshi had met external affairs minister SM Krishna in New York last month on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session. Though the meeting was said to be fruitful by both sides, no dates have been set for the next round of talks between the two South Asian neighbours.

In response to another question, Qureshi said the US civilian nuclear deal with India is discriminatory.

"And when you sign agreements that are discriminatory in nature it does not help," he said in direct reference to the civilian nuclear deal with India, which was signed by the then US president George W Bush last year.

US stands right beside Islamabad

2009-10-07T12:22:00.000+05:30

While the foreign policy debate here has focused primarily on Afghanistan and Iran over the past two weeks, official Washington has been moving to tighten ties with a key neighbor of both countries, Pakistan.

Late last week, Congress finally cleared legislation that would triple the current level of US non-military aid to Islamabad over the next five years, to an annual rate of US$1.5 billion. Only a fraction of the $11 billion provided to Pakistan under the administration of US president George W Bush from 2001 was devoted to non-military assistance.

While the additional assistance will likely help bolster Washington's badly damaged image among the general public in Pakistan, however, the new bill omitted a key provision that would have granted generous trade preferences for exports from the country's regions where both Taliban insurgencies in both Afghanistan and Pakistan have gained most of their recruits.

Passage of the bill, which President Barack Obama is expected to sign this week, comes amid reports that the Pakistani army is preparing to launch a major offensive - long encouraged by Washington - against the Pakistani Taliban's and al-Qaeda's main stronghold in South Waziristan.

The pending campaign, which follows the army's conquests of Bajaur and Mohmand agencies in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the Swat Valley in North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), is designed to take advantage of the August 5 killing - apparently by a US Predator drone strike - of the Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, and reported infighting among Taliban leaders that followed it.

While Washington had hoped that the Pakistani military would have moved earlier into South Waziristan, it has been encouraged by the army's recent performance in taking on the Taliban in North Waziristan and the NWFP.

"If South Waziristan is indeed next, that would be a significant development," said Bruce Riedel, a South Asia specialist and former senior Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst who chaired the White House's review on Afghanistan and Pakistan ("AfPak") after Obama came to office.

"More pressure is being put on al-Qaeda's safe haven [in Waziristan] today than at any time since 2003 and 2004," he told an audience at the Brookings Institution, where he serves as a senior fellow, Monday.

He credited both the Pakistani army's recent aggressiveness against the Taliban and Washington's increasingly effective use of drone strikes against suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders on Pakistani territory.

At the same time, he cautioned, neither al-Qaeda, which is closely allied with the Taliban, nor the Taliban itself should be considered any less dangerous.

Indeed, that assessment was echoed back in Pakistan itself on Monday when a suicide bomber dressed as a member of the paramilitary Frontiers Corps struck the lobby of the World Food Program's (WFP) headquarters in Islamabad, killing at least five aid workers.

The WFP has been the main provider of relief supplies to some two million people who fled the Swat Valley as the army's counter-insurgency campaign got underway there earlier this summer.

The attack followed two suicide car bombings that killed at least 16 people in northwest Pakistan, including the NWFP's capital, Peshawar, last week in what the Taliban claimed was retaliation for Mehsud's killing.

It also followed an interview with five Pakistani reporters on Sunday with Mehsud's apparent successor, Hakimullah Mehsud, and other key Pakistani Taliban leaders in the town of Sararogha in South Waziristan that embarrassed Pakistani and some US intelligence officials who had claimed that Hikimullah had been killed in factional fighting that broke out after Baitullah's death.

"We are fully prepared for that operation," Hakimullah told reporters in reference to the army's pending attack on Taliban strongholds in South Waziristan, "and we will give full proof of those preparations once the offensive is launched."

While Hakimullah's survival and confidence likely disappointed officials here, Washington is still much more hopeful about the direction of events in Pakistan than last winter when the Taliban's takeover of Bajaur put it within 100 kilometers of Islamabad itself. Some independent experts had warned at the time that the nuclear-armed Pakistani state, led by an increasingly unpopular President Asif Ali Zardari, could collapse under the pressure.

The Obama administration now believes that the Pakistani Taliban had effectively over-reached and that Pakistan's elite, including the army, has come to see it and its al-Qaeda ally as a much greater threat to the country than ever before.

This perception, in turn, has led to significantly greater military and intelligence cooperation by the army with the US, as demonstrated by the increased effectiveness of dozens of US drone strikes against suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban targets on Pakistani soil so far this year.

Such cooperation remains deeply unpopular within Pakistan, according to recent public opinion polls. Indeed, a survey of nearly 5,000 Pakistanis conducted at the end of July and early August and released late last week by the International Republican Institute (IRI) found that 80% of respondents oppose cooperation with the US "war on terror", up from 61% as recently as last March. A slightly smaller percentage opposes US drone attacks.

The same polls, however, have shown a strong shift against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, as well. Nearly nine out of 10 respondents in the IRI poll said they considered the two groups a "serious problem" in Pakistan, up from just over 50% one year ago. Seventy percent said they supported the army's counter-insurgency efforts, up from less than 30% two years ago.

It is in that context that Washington hopes to improve its own standing among the Pakistani public, in part by substantially increasing non-military aid and doing more to ensure that its intended beneficiaries receive it. The State Department last week announced that it intended to sharply reduce its reliance for the delivery of aid to Pakistan on private contractors which have been accused of waste and corruption.

Congress put some conditions on the new assistance package. Under one provision, for example, half of the annual disbursement would be withheld until the special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, currently Richard Holbrooke, certified that Islamabad was making "reasonable progress" in carrying out the main purposes of the aid. These include democratic reform, reducing corruption, and improving health care and public education, especially for women and girls.

Disbursement of military aid, which is also expected to increase as part of Washington's "AfPak" strategy, is also dependent on presidential certification that the army is cooperating with US counter-terrorism efforts, both in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The latter is likely to prove problematic, according to Riedel and other experts who say that, while the army clearly sees the Pakistani Taliban as a major threat, its position on Afghanistan's Taliban, whose main leadership is widely believed to be based in Pakistan's Balochistan, is far more ambiguous.

Pakistan's military was the Afghan Taliban's main sponsor in its rise to power in the 1990s and has long been seen as a strategic asset against India, a major backer of the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Pakistan goes for militants' jugular

2009-10-07T12:05:00.001+05:30

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari can be well pleased with his recent visit to New York, securing US$1.5 billion annually for five years in non-military aid and gaining unprecedented political support from over two dozen heads of states under the Friends of Democratic Pakistan initiative.

Now it is the turn of the military to deliver following its successful campaign this year in the Swat Valley in North-West Frontier Province: it is poised for a major operation in the heart of Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda territory, the North Waziristan and South Waziristan tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan.

The need for this operation in the two Waziristans, over which the Pakistani armed forces had previously expressed grave concerns, was agreed on in a meeting in New York last week between the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other US security officials and Zardari, who is also the supreme commander of the armed forces.

The director general of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, has been in the US to coordinate the operation with the US. The aim, simply, is to conclusively defeat al-Qaeda at its global headquarters in the Waziristans.

Adding urgency to task was the brazen attack on Monday by a suicide bomber dressed as a member of the paramilitary Frontiers Corps on the United Nations' World Food Program's headquarters in the capital Islamabad, killing at least five aid workers.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik said on Tuesday that the Taliban carried out the attack to avenge the August 5 killing in a US Predator drone missile attack in South Waziristan of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. "We should expect a few more [attacks]," he said.

Asia Times Online has learned that the operation in the Waziristans will be actively supported with technical and intelligence support from the CIA for Pakistani ground troops as well as the air force.

Pakistan is confident that the chances of success are higher than ever, even though the military will be venturing into dangerous territory and that previous operations in other tribal areas have proved highly divisive and unpopular across much of the country.

Malik told Asia Times Online recently in New York that the time was now ripe as it is believed all of the top al-Qaeda commanders of the South Asian region, in addition to commanders who have fled Iraq, are now based in the Waziristans.

The Pakistani political establishment is also upbeat in that there is a new positive mood in the country; even the stock exchange has surged to its highest levels in one-and-a-half-years. But most importantly, the tone in the military establishment has changed.

Immediately after the president's return to Pakistan, armed forces spokesman Major General Athar Abbas, who had earlier rejected the idea of an operation in the Waziristans, speaking from the garrison city of Rawalpindi, confirmed that the tribal areas would be attacked.

"It [the operation] is only a matter of time, which of course, the military will not disclose or give any hint about."

Abbas did hint hint, though. He said the weather could be one of the many factors that planners were taking into account - the winter snows are well set in by late November.

"The rudderless leadership of the terrorists provides an ideal opportunity to launch operations and inflict a severe blow to the terrorists," Abbas said, presumably referring to the killing of Baitullah Mehsud.

The army has mounted several operations in the two Waziristans, but they have all resulted in heavy casualties. As a result, the military has tended to sign peace deals, most of them on the militants' terms and conditions. This gave a morale boost to the militants, and after each operation their numbers increased, and numbers which were pumped into Afghanistan to aid the insurgency there.

This time, the stage is better set for the military. With the help of the CIA, many of al-Qaeda's and the militants' leaders have been eliminated, with drone attacks being particularly effective.

The military is also buoyed by its operation in Swat. In late April, the military began a massive offensive and by early June declared that most of Swat had been freed from the Taliban and that Mingora, the main town of Swat, was in complete government control. In the process, though, millions of people were displaced, causing a major humanitarian crisis. Ironically, the attack in Islamabad on Monday targeted the very United Nations organization that had helped with this tragedy.

The Swat operation also saw the military fully commit to its task - indeed, some say it displayed a level of ruthlessness not seen since its crackdown on Bengali separatists in the former East Pakistan, a struggle that led to the creation of Bangladesh in 1971.

This was so much so that several Western media outlets, including the British Broadcasting Corporation, have released videos of torture allegedly committed by the armed forced against the Taliban, including extra-judicial killings.

In addition to all this, however, is the key part played by the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which resolved that the best way to sap the strength of al-Qaeda and the militants lay in cutting their financial arteries.

This is not a novel approach to root out militancy, but one that has not successfully been implemented by Pakistan.

Soon after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation targeted financial institutions and charities that supported al-Qaeda, with some success.

However, US institutions were unable to track the Taliban's financial arteries as these are mostly primitive, based on non-banking and non-traditional financial sources and tribal connections. Asia Times Online has documented how difficult it is to disrupt this flow of money. (See How the Taliban keep their coffers full Asia Times Online, June 10.)

Interior Minister Malik recognized the problem, and tackled it head-on, first with Baitullah's Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP - Taliban Movement of Pakistan).

In an interview in New York, Malik confidently claimed that over 80% of the financial arteries of the TTP and al-Qaeda's funds coming from the Middle East had been blocked.

"The TTP's approach was unique in all aspects and it could have been very hard to trace. First, the TTP gathered information from Mehsud tribal people living in the Middle East. They were mostly skilled and unskilled labors who sent money to their families through hundi [non-banking money transfers]. The TTP contacted these labors, individually, and warned them that a certain percentage of the money they sent to their families should be remitted to the TTP," Malik said.

"We carefully studied the whole mechanism before we moved for a clampdown. The first thread of the strategy was the scanning and subsequent clampdown on illegal money transfers through hundi businesses. We studied all the business deals of the money exchange companies who were mostly involved in such transfers.

"Previously, Pakistan received US$3 billion to $4 billion [in remittances] through banking channels. After our operations on the money exchange companies, you will see that our [foreign exchange] reserves have soared [from $7 billion to $8 billion] to $14 billion to $15 billion as we have not left any choice to the remitters except to send their money through [regular] banking channels," Malik said, implying that the money the country now received from remittances had doubled.

"However, in this broader operation, we traced a triangular syndicate based in Pakistan comprising al-Qaeda, the TTP and the jihadi organizations, like the Laskhar-e-Jhangvi. Sometimes they got financial support from Middle Eastern philanthropists. Our intelligence agencies tracked the whole mechanism of how the money traveled from one hand to the other, so, for instance, money aimed for al-Qaeda benefited the whole syndicate. This syndicate had so strongly knitted its financial arteries together that they [militants] were able to hire a fighter for $500 per month," Malik said.

"After 9/11, security institutions tried to break down financial arteries. They spotted several institutions and successfully blocked their financial support. However, in the past few years, the dynamics of the money supply to those terror networks changed. They split themselves into segments and they developed a human chain network which could pass on cash from one hand to the other.

"In the past year, the situation became more complicated as the financial arteries feeding the insurgencies to this region and to Iraq were merged in our region," Malik said, adding that it happened because after the US military operation in Iraq against al-Qaeda, all top al-Qaeda operators relocated in North Waziristan and South Waziristan.

Having begun the process of strangling the financial lifeblood of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Islamabad now feels it is in a position to go for the jugular with an all-out military offensive. In Pakistan's eyes, this battle will be the start of the endgame. The militants might view it differently, as just the beginning of a real war.

Arab governments move to ease Yemen crisis

2009-10-06T14:11:00.000+05:30

Arab League's Amr Moussa to meet president after Yemen government launched offensive against Houthis in August

Yemen may be a faraway land of which the west knows little. But Arab governments are showing alarm at its multiple crises and are stepping up efforts to help amid concern that the poorest country in the region is incapable of dealing with problems that could risk pushing it to the edge of collapse – and benefit al-Qaida.

Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, is due in the capital Sana'a tomorrow for urgent talks with President Ali Abdullah Saleh, one of the Middle East's veteran leaders. Ahmed Abu al-Gheit, the Egyptian foreign minister, warned yesterday that "foreign hands" were stirring trouble – an unmistakable reference to Iran's alleged support for northern rebels.

Abu al-Gheit and Egypt's powerful intelligence chief, General Omar Suleiman, flew from Sana'a to Saudi Arabia, which is also backing the Yemeni government and deeply concerned about the instability of its impoverished neighbour. Egypt, which always aspires to an Arab leadership role, is taking this crisis very seriously and trying to persuade others to do the same.

Yemen's latest trouble erupted in mid-August when the government launched an offensive – codenamed "Scorched Earth" in case anyone doubted its intention – against Houthi rebels from the northern Sa'ada region. The Houthis belong to the Shia Zaydi sect – but Saleh is also a Zaydi, underlining why portraying this as simply a sectarian conflict is misleading. Still, there is no doubt Sunni fundamentalists have gained in strength because of Saleh's intimate ties to the Saudis.

The political temperature rose at the weekend when Abdel-Majid al-Zindani, Yemen's most popular Sunni cleric (he once taught Osama bin Laden and is accused by the US and UN of financing terrorism), blamed Tehran for backing the Houthis. "The way events are moving indicates that Iran wants to export the Shia ideology by force, which we utterly reject," Zindani said.

Otherwise there is a general sense of grievance about resources, marginalisation and the crushing of the independence the Zaydis enjoyed until the 1960s.

In recent weeks unrest has also escalated in the south, where a separatist opposition movement wants to reestablish the south Yemeni state that unified with its northern neighbour in 1990 and failed to secede in a brief war in 1994.

On top of all that, the US, Britain and other western governments fear the unrest may make life easier for al-Qaida, which over the last two years has found a haven in Yemen after being defeated in Saudi Arabia. In August a Saudi al-Qaida fugitive travelled from Yemen to Jeddah and blew himself up in a failed attempt to kill the Saudi security supremo. Yemen's record of tolerance towards homegrown extremists does not inspire confidence about its ability to contain this threat: three years ago 23 al-Qaida suspects escaped from a Sana'a prison en masse, arousing strong suspicions of official collusion.

Yemen, once known as "Arabia Felix" (happy Arabia), is beset today by declining oil revenues, mass unemployment, rapid population growth and crippling water shortages. Diplomats and analysts see it as a dangerously fragile state that is "failing in slow motion". The Sa'ada war has already created some 150,000 refugees, a crisis which Oxfam and other aid agencies warn could ignite into a full-blown disaster unless immediate action is taken to stop the fighting between the government and the Houthi rebels. Arabs and others will be hoping that Egypt's mediation efforts bear fruit sooner rather than later.

WH says Obama won't pull US out of Afghanistan

2009-10-06T13:51:00.000+05:30

WASHINGTON (Map, News) -
President Barack Obama won't walk away from the flagging war in Afghanistan, the White House declared Monday as Obama faced tough decisions - and intense administration debate - over choices that could help define his presidency in his first year as commander in chief.

The fierce Taliban attack that killed eight American soldiers over the weekend added to the pressure. The assault overwhelmed a remote U.S. outpost where American forces have been stretched thin in battling insurgents, underscoring an appeal from Obama's top Afghanistan commander for as many as 40,000 additional forces - and at the same time reminding the nation of the costs of war.

Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, appealed Monday for calm - and for time and privacy for the president to come to a decision.

Last week the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, called publicly for the administration to add more resources, which prompted a mild rebuke from Obama's national security adviser, James Jones, for lobbying in public.

Obama may take weeks to decide whether to add more troops, but the idea of pulling out isn't on the table as a way to deal with a war nearing its ninth year, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

"I don't think we have the option to leave. That's quite clear," Gibbs said.

The question of whether to further escalate the conflict after adding 21,000 U.S. troops earlier this year is a major decision facing Obama and senior administration policy advisers this week.

Obama also invited a bipartisan group of congressional leaders to the White House on Tuesday to confer about the war. And Obama will meet twice this week with his top national security advisers.

Divided on Afghanistan, Congress takes up a massive defense spending bill this week even before the president settles on a direction for the war.

Gates said Monday that Obama needs elbow room to make strategy decisions about the war - as the internal White House debate goes increasingly public.

"It is important that we take our time to do all we can to get this right," Gates said at an Army conference. "In this process, it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations - civilians and military alike - provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately."

Gates has not said whether he supports McChrystal's recommendation to expand the number of U.S. forces by as much as nearly 60 percent. He is holding that request in his desk drawer while Obama sorts through competing recommendations and theories from some of his most trusted advisers.

"I believe that the decisions that the president will make for the next stage of the Afghanistan campaign will be among the most important of his presidency," Gates said.

In trying to blunt the impression that the White House and military are at odds, Gates did not name names. But his remarks came days after McChrystal bluntly warned in London that Afghan insurgents are gathering strength. Any plan that falls short of stabilizing Afghanistan "is probably a shortsighted strategy," the general said.

For his part, Jones, a retired four-star Marine general, said of McChrystal's comments that is "better for military advice to come up through the chain of command," said Jones.

At issue is whether U.S. forces should continue to focus on fighting the Taliban and securing the Afghan population, or shift to more narrowly targeting al-Qaida terrorists believed to be hiding in Pakistan with unmanned spy drones and covert operations.

Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday the goal for the war remains to disrupt al-Qaida and prevent it from again threatening the United States, but they added that a reassessment of the means to do that is appropriate. Speaking to CNN during a rare joint interview with Gates, Clinton said a "snap decision" about the next step would be counterproductive. The interview will air Tuesday.

Gates and some other advisers appear to favor a middle path. A hybrid strategy could preserve the essential outline of an Afghan counterinsurgency campaign that McChrystal rebuilt this summer from the disarray of nearly eight years of undermanned combat, while expanding the hunt for al-Qaida next door.

"Speaking for the Department of Defense, once the commander in chief makes his decisions, we will salute and execute those decisions faithfully and to the best of our ability," Gates told the annual meeting of the Association of the U.S. Army.

The top three U.S. military officials overseeing the war in Afghanistan favor continuing the current fight against the Taliban, and have concluded they need tens of thousands more U.S. troops beyond the 68,000 already there.

Officials across the Obama administration have acknowledged that the Taliban is far stronger now than in recent years, as underscored by the U.S. deaths in Nuristan province.

The fighting Saturday marked the biggest loss of U.S. life in a single Afghan battle in more than a year. It also raised questions about why U.S. troops remained in the remote outposts after McChrystal said he planned to close down isolated strongholds and focus on more heavily populated areas as part of his new strategy to focus on protecting Afghan civilians.

Also being considered as part of a potential force increase is the impact on troops who are already stretched thin from fighting in two wars. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey told reporters that he cannot rule out extending the length soldiers are sent to fight - from 12 months to 15 - although "I would hope we don't get there."

Casey also signaled that the year that soldiers are currently guaranteed at home between deployments could be at risk.

"Simple math: The more troops you have deployed, the less time they'll spend at home," Casey said Monday.

Turkey seeks tie-up with Iraq

2009-09-23T17:33:00.001+05:30

Turkey and Iraq held the first ministerial meeting of the High Level Strategic Cooperation Council (HLSCC) in Istanbul on September 17-18. To give substance to the HLSCC, eight Turkish and 10 Iraqi ministers with responsibility for various portfolios gathered at a joint cabinet meeting. The ministers then held face-to-face meetings with their counterparts to elaborate joint projects in their respective fields.

The parties agreed to sign agreements or memorandums of understanding in over 40 areas. The detailed technical work on these projects will continue before final approval at the Turkish-Iraqi inter-governmental meeting during Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's visit to Baghdad in October.

The Turkish and Iraqi delegations agreed to cooperate on a widerange of issues, ranging from environmental cooperation to energy partnership. Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz said he agreed with his Iraqi counterparts to "develop joint projects for the production and transportation of natural gas and oil". The two delegations discussed the renewal of the Kirkuk-Yumurtalik pipeline carrying Iraqi crude oil to world markets through Turkish territory. Yildiz referred to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's remarks during the Nabucco signing ceremony in July that Iraq could export up to 15 billion cubic meters of gas to Europe through the Nabucco pipeline. He said that they will continue their bilateral talks on signing a memorandum of understanding on this issue.

One of the most remarkable decisions was to create a free-trade area and form a joint commission to streamline mutual investments. This idea reflects the political weight that Ankara attaches to the HLSCC initiative: aimed at integrating both economies. Turkey also has initiated a similar HLSCC process with the Gulf Cooperation Council and Syria and expects this form of partnership to include other countries in the region. Ankara also plans to organize a Turkish-Arab forum.

Given Turkey's experience of a free-market economy, it could spearhead the integration of the regional countries into the global economy. In return, the region might serve as a future destination for Turkey's growing exports and investments, while Turkey could also attract capital from the region, especially the Persian Gulf, to stimulate its economic development.

The Turkish government increasingly views such bilateral partnerships as the nucleus of a regional cooperation scheme, which might evolve into an organization similar to the European Union. The Turkish press has started to discuss the prospect that the current idea of "full economic cooperation" might produce a common market, which could eventually lead to political integration. The idea is to use economic interdependence as a peace building project to ensure the stability of the region. Obviously, the prospects for such an ambitious vision, among others, depend on the elimination of political differences and conflicts of interest among the regional countries.

The need to reduce political tension brings to the fore another area of cooperation agreed at the HLSCC: combating terrorism. Ankara has been fostering closer relations with Baghdad and Irbil, the capital of the regional Kurdish government in northern Iraq, to tackle the threat posed by the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which is using northern Iraq as a safe haven to carry out its terrorist campaign inside Turkey. The tacit support of the Northern Iraqi Kurdish authorities for the PKK and the inability of the Baghdad regime to end the PKK's presence in the region has long strained Turkish-Iraqi relations and has provoked occasional Turkish cross-border operations.

Ankara's engagement policy has partly paid off, as the Iraqi authorities have taken steps toward reducing the activities of the PKK inside their country. Moreover, a trilateral Turkish-Iraqi-American security mechanism has been established to coordinate the fight against the PKK. Speaking at the end of the HLSCC, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hosyar Zebari reiterated Baghdad's support for Turkey's fight against the PKK, arguing that "no armed entity can operate on our territory under the Iraqi constitution".

Nonetheless, the intensification of PKK terrorism inside Turkey in recent weeks has raised questions about the effectiveness of Turkey's campaign against the PKK despite the improvement of diplomatic relations. A spokesperson for Turkey's Chief of the General Staff General Ilker Basbug announced that the Turkish army conveyed a request to the government to extend its mandate to conduct cross-border operations in northern Iraq for another year. The current mandate, originally granted in October 2007, will expire on October 17, and the renewal of the authorization will require parliamentary approval.

Although representatives of the opposition parties declared that they would support the renewal bill, the government has yet to clarify its position on the issue. The discussions on the cross-border military authorization bill may further test the government's efforts to solve the Kurdish issue through closer diplomatic ties with Iraq and enhancing democracy at home.

The conclusions of the HLSCC meeting signifies a major step toward the implementation of Turkey's new policy of boosting closer political and economic integration with its Middle Eastern neighbors, through the creation of new inter-governmental institutions. The road to this goal will be long and full of political obstacles, such as the ones raised by the issue of terrorism. Moreover, at a more fundamental level, this new process highlights Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu's efforts to fulfill his grand vision for his country.

As he has advanced in his academic work, Davutoglu assigns Turkey with the mission of reviving the once glorious Islamic and Turkish civilization. His remarks at the HLSCC echo his geo-cultural vision, which was already formed in his seminal book, Stratejik Derinlik (Strategic Depth).

Davutoglu described the meeting as a historical turning point for bilateral relations and the region, adding that the projects created at the gathering "will link Basra [southern Iraqi province] to Edirne [western Turkish province]. The fate of Baghdad and Istanbul will be joined ... If the Turkish-Iraqi process expands [to other countries], the Middle East will no longer be mired in crises and conflicts, but it will be transformed into a common economic area, with a common political dialogue and security mechanism ... An area that will be able to revive that great civilization"

Obama Crafts New Plans For Iraq, Afghanistan

2009-09-23T17:30:00.000+05:30

On his busy first day in office, President Barack Obama ordered military commanders, Joint Chiefs, national security advisers and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to launch a comprehensive review of Iraq policy.

Thirty-eight days later, Obama had his new Iraq plan, and he chose to unveil the strategy at Camp Lejeune, N.C., before a rapt audience of Marines. The plan centered on three goals: a responsible combat troop pullout, sustained diplomacy and comprehensive "engagement" in the Mideast.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can," Obama told the assembled Marines, "by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."

Obama entered the Oval Office with a mountain of challenges to tackle, including the meltdown of the U.S. economy. But also at the top of his agenda was setting a new plan for U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In his Feb. 27 speech, Obama said that the United States would pare its 142,000 combat troops to a transitional force of 35,000 to 50,000 by August 2010. Those residual forces would have three jobs, he said: train, equip and advise Iraqi security forces, conduct counter-terrorism missions and protect ongoing civilian and military initiatives.

All U.S. forces would be withdrawn by the end of 2011, Obama said.

"As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security of our troops and civilians in Iraq," Obama said.

The plan marked one notable shift in his position from his campaign -- an extended timetable of 19 months for withdrawal, instead of 16.

After the Lejeune speech, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates promptly outlined their support for the plan.

Mullen, who in July had said setting timetables was dangerous, said after Obama's speech that he was comfortable with the president's strategy. Mullen explained on March 1 on "Fox News Sunday" that the conditions had improved "fairly dramatically," thanks in part to the surge, and were now right for Iraqi leaders to successfully take control of the country.

Gates told NBC's "Meet the Press" on March 1 that it was "fairly remote" that changing conditions in Iraq would alter Obama's plan, although he noted that Obama has the authority to change the strategy if U.S. security is endangered.

After August 2010, troops would be consolidated in a smaller number of bases for their protection, Gates said. The risk to troops there has gradually declined, Gates said.

Obama acknowledged that Iraq was not yet secure and that there would be "difficult periods and tactical adjustments" as the U.S. withdraws.

That put it mildly, said critics of the plan, many of whom predict a dramatic increase in violence as August 2010 approaches.

Obama should have given himself more flexibility, said Meghan O'Sullivan, a Harvard lecturer and deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan from 2005 to 2007.

"What is more important -- adherence to the 18-month timetable or safeguarding Iraqi and regional stability?" O'Sullivan said in the Washington Post.

Other critics noted that political stability has not increased as security in Iraq has improved. Disputes inside Iraq remain on fundamental issues, including whether the nation's constitution is supreme law and how Iraq's regions should share in the country's rich resources, critics say.

"The United States will not be able to leave behind a stable and functioning Iraq until these disputes are resolved," Qubad J. Talabani, representative of the Kurdistan Regional Government to the United States, told the Post.

Obama Puts Renewed Attention On Afghanistan

Obama's strategy in Iraq is tied to his plan for Afghanistan, where the president said he would send an additional 17,000 troops this spring and summer, a hefty boost to the 36,000 already there. Even more could be committed after further review, the White House said.

Al-Qaida is supporting a resurgent Taliban and threatens America from its posts along the Pakistani border, Obama said. The troops are needed to "stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires," the president said in announcing the decision Feb. 17.

Obama added that the problem of Afghanistan cannot be solved by troops alone, stressing his plans for more diplomacy and development there.

The administration has said it plans to press U.S. allies in NATO to commit more troops. Obama also aims to invest more in Afghanistan�s economic development.

White House officials also have said they plan to demand the Afghan government do more to improve security in the country, including weeding out corruption and squelching the thriving illicit opium trade.

Some experts say challenges in Afghanistan are even thornier than those in Iraq.

Critics argue that troop increases could be counterproductive in Afghanistan, given resentment there for U.S. forces. Critics also have argued that Obama is escalating spending and stretching troops thin for a war with an undefined mission.

After seven years, the U.S. has not broken al-Qaida or the Taliban, has not found Osama bin Laden, and the Afghan government is still "woefully corrupt and ineffective," argued New York Times columnist Bob Herbert.

"Instead of cutting our losses, we appear to be doubling down," he wrote.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., on March 3 said he was uneasy with Obama's plan to raise troop levels before a goal was defined. He estimated it would take 600,000 troops to quell violence there.

Obama's plan amounts to a troop shuffling from Iraq to Afghanistan that won't work, Andrew J. Bacevich, a Boston University international relations professor, said in the Washington Post. The U.S. has achieved modest and tenuous gains in Iraq, he noted.

"To imagine that simply trying harder in Afghanistan and Pakistan will produce a happier outcome is surely a fantasy," he said.

U.S. prosecutors vie for Sept. 11 plotter trials

2009-09-22T17:20:00.000+05:30

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - Federal prosecutors in New York, Washington and Virginia are vying to try the accused plotters of the Sept. 11 attacks if their cases are moved into U.S. civilian courts, the chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo war crimes court said.
File photo of a sketch by courtroom artist Janet Hamlin, reviewed by the U.S. Military, Sept. 11, 2001 attack co-defendants Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (2nd L) and Waleed Bin Attash (L) sit during a hearing at the U.S. Military Commissions court for war crimes, at the U.S. Naval Base, in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, January 19, 2009. (REUTERS/Janet Hamlin)

The Obama administration said last week it would decide by Nov. 16 whether to try Guantanamo prisoners in a revised version of the much-maligned military tribunals or in regular civilian courts.

Case files for self-described 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged al Qaeda co-conspirators are already under review by U.S. attorneys in four federal court districts, the chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo court, Navy Captain John Murphy, told journalists at the base late on Sunday.

Those are Washington, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the Eastern District of Virginia, he said.

"They are working with us in a joint review of these cases and it is our collaboration that will ultimately make its way in written reports that go up to the attorney general and the secretary of defense to make a decision," Murphy said.

The Obama administration has ordered the Guantanamo detention camp shut down by Jan. 22 and is still debating what to do with the 226 captives it holds. Murphy said he still hopes to try 65 of them in military tribunals.

Some of those have already been indicted in U.S. federal courts, though Murphy would not say how many.

President Barack Obama has said he considers military commissions to be an appropriate forum for terrorism trials of Guantanamo captives but would prefer to try them in the federal courts if feasible.

Many congressional representatives, Republicans and Democrats alike, have tried to block efforts to move any Guantanamo prisoners to the United States, where they would enjoy U.S. constitutional rights.

EVER-CHANGING RULES

The federal court districts in question are near the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and holding the accused plotters' trials near the sites of the hijacked plane attacks would draw from a pool of jurors close to the conflagration.

The five defendants are accused of 2,973 counts of murder and could be executed if convicted.

Moving the cases into the federal courts, where the rules are well established, would remove one major criticism of the ever-changing Guantanamo tribunals, which have undergone several revisions since U.S. President George W. Bush first authorized them shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Obama has asked Congress for additional changes to the 2006 law underpinning the current set of rules, including banning the use of evidence obtained through coercion and making it more difficult to use hearsay evidence.

The changes were approved in the Senate but are still pending in the House of Representatives, which has given no indication when or if it will take up the matter.

"We all understand that ultimately whether we can proceed with a case or not will be dependent on what the legislation looks like in the end," Murphy said.

If the tribunals survive, they could be held at other locations once Guantanamo is closed, Murphy said, adding that no location had been decided upon.

Over the objections of military defense lawyers, pretrial hearings were scheduled at Guantanamo this week in the Sept. 11 case and in the case of a Saudi prisoner accused of plotting boat-bomb attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

Obama asked last week for a 60-day freeze on the proceedings, until his administration decides where the trials will take place. The judges scheduled hearings to consider that request and to address the Sept. 11 defendants' request to fire all their lawyers.

"President Obama's words apparently don't amount to a hill of beans in (Defense Secretary Robert) Gates' Guantanamo," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is working with civilian defense lawyers.

"What part of 'Halt' does the Department of Defense not understand?"

The military defense lawyers contend the hearing is designed to give the defendants another chance to boast of their guilt as they have in previous hearings, providing more non-coerced confessions for use against them at trial.

Musharraf backtracks, denies diverting US aid

2009-09-18T15:56:00.000+05:30

Facing flak in Pakistan, former president Pervez Musharraf today backtracked from his statement that the US military aid meant for the war on terror was diverted to bolster defences against India.

In a statement issued in Philadelphia, Musharraf, currently on a lecture tour of the US, said Pakistan "never violated any agreement or mis-utilised US funds."

"As far as the equipment issued to a military unit is concerned, the equipment moves wherever the unit is deployed," he said.

"The US at the time was aware of what we were doing," he was quoted as saying by Dawn News.

His U-turn came three days after he admitted in a TV interview that the military aid provided by the US to Pakistan for the war against terror during his tenure had been used to strengthen defences against India. He had also said he "did not care" whether the US would be angered by his disclosure.

"No question was asked regarding US funds for fighting the militants in this interview or at any other time," Musharraf said in the statement. "I have never said Pakistan violated any agreement."

The US State Department had said it took "very seriously" Musharraf's admission, but refrained from stating whether it would investigate the matter.

Washington has given a whopping over USD 7 billion in aid to Pakistan since the 9/11 attacks in America to fight terrorism.

Musharraf's retraction came on a day when Pakistan foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi accused him of doing disservice to the nation by making remarks on the aid issue.

"If he (Musharraf) has said what has been printed in newspapers, then he has not done any service to Pakistan. If he has said this, he has not strengthened Pakistan's case," Qureshi told reporters in his hometown of Multan.

After Musharraf's disclosure, India had said his statement did not come as a surprise.

The perpetual grief over 9/11

2009-09-17T16:19:00.000+05:30

THE anniversary of the infamous tragedy of Sept.11, 2001 and its subsequent ramifications induce, throughout the world, deep feelings of sorrow.

9/11 should never have taken place. Regardless of the situation, targeting civilians is unconditionally reviled. No matter where we stand on war, and how do we wish to rationalize and define extremism, and even terror, we must pause to remember those who died on that day, and the many, many more who died in the months and years that followed. Sadly, we must even pause today for those who will die tomorrow, in order to avenge the victims of the Twin Towers.

9/11 was a tragedy that should have been studied within the parameters of US foreign policies Muslim countries, in the Middle East in particular. If we do not wish to venture that far, then an honest look at the period that followed the first Gulf War of 1990-91, and the tragic sanctions that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, is certainly warranted.

Anger, when it becomes protracted and multifaceted, is at risk of inspiring extremism and justifying terror. But there are other facets to be examined when political violence is to be scrutinized. 9/11 cannot be divorced from surrounding events, preceding tragedies or subsequent ones. By doing so, one undermines the seriousness of the tragedy.

And while one simply cannot pardon blind hate or terror, how can one honestly argue that the millions who perished in Iraq, prior to or following 9/11 ought not to be remembered on that day as well?

Does their fate have any link at all to the tragedy? And what about the many thousands who died in Afghanistan, including the 90 people who were burned alive when NATO forces bombed two fuel tankers in the northern part of the country a few days ago? Do they not deserve commemoration as well? Are not their destinies somehow intimately intertwined? This cannot be denied.

Yet, such a view is overshadowed by another which in some ways reflects man’s most basic primal instincts and the lust for sheer revenge. Examining the Bush legacy — which, if anything, gave life and credence to the idea that violence is a justified political ways of achieving set goals and even economic interests — one comes face to face with the ultimate antitheses of such a notion.

But with the help and expertise of media czars, especially the likes of Fox News, such primeval ways of thinking were embraced with ease. “Shock and Awe” was much more sophisticated than 9/11; it was accompanied by a voice over, and eloquent commentators who kindly explained exactly what we were seeing on the screen, but the idea was still the same. Innocents died so horribly that political scores would be settled and gains could be exacted.

But Barack Obama is not George W. Bush, we are told. The new president has promised to fix what his predecessor destroyed, and Muslims — and the world as well — are still waiting to see.

When the US president spoke in Cairo, on June 4, he said: “So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations — to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.”

Obama spoke and Muslims listened. They clapped and cheered when he greeted the Cairo crowd with “Assalamu alaikum.” Sadly, they were desperate for validation, for hope, that perhaps in the recognition of these common aspirations of which he spoke, perhaps there would be some softening of the US iron fist that is slowly strangling Muslims in so many parts of the world.

And although Obama went to great lengths to express a common humanity, his forces continue to ravage Muslims without pause: news from Afghanistan is ever grim. Iraq’s calamities are also continuing. His statements on Palestine are lukewarm and faithfully precluded with a solemn pledge of America’s undying allegiance to the Jewish state. Keeping these things in mind, it is at times difficult to have full trust in the sincerity of the president’s proclamations.

MUSLIMS, like the rest of humanity, remember 9/11 with a somber pause. They remember the day’s victims, all of them, and they wonder if the death count will end any time soon.

The lessons of that day are still buried beneath our anger, frustration, and prejudice.

The tragedy of 9/11 and the previous and subsequent tragedies are too serious, too terrible to give up hope so quickly that common sense will prevail, that horrible scenes will be replaced by better ones, that dialogue will replace hostility, and that Obama will meet even the minimum expectations of the Muslim world.

9/11 should not be a political episode to underscore the reason of why the fight in various Muslim countries should continue; nor should it be an opportunity to rejoice at the death of “infidels.”

We should collectively abhor the rationalization of violence on the basis of vengeance, and consider what it might take to relieve those afflicted with a sense of hostility: Could it perhaps be that our common aspirations to peace and freedom are somehow out of reach? Could it be possible that we just might be culpable for the denial of those simple aspirations to peace and freedom?

We must embrace again the anguish of what happened on 9/11, ever aware that the body count grows even today. And although the wreckage of that horrible day was cleared away years ago, the lessons of that day are still buried beneath our anger, frustration, and prejudice.

To unearth these lessons, we must widen our horizons, from New York to Baghdad, from Kabul to Gaza, cities that are in some way worlds apart, but in other ways much closer than we may innocently suspect.

Terror toll in Maharashtra was more than J&K in 2008

2009-09-16T16:34:00.001+05:30

The restive state of Jammu and Kashmir is the first name that usually comes to mind when one thinks ofterrorism in the country. Thusit may come as surprise to many that in 2008 the number of victims of terror in Mumbai was just two less than in Kashmir.

The single terror strike of 26/11 on Mumbai resulted in the deaths of 164 people. In contrast there were 708 terrorist attacks in J&K during 2008 in which 166 people were killed. Thus at the end of the year the total number of terrorists' victims in J&K was only two more than in Mumbai.

And if the death toll of seven from the September 29, 2008 Malegaon bomb blast is added to number of persons killed during 26/11 attack in Mumbai then it emerges that in 2008 more people died at the hands of terrorists in Maharashtra than in insurgency-hit J&K.

The number of people falling victim to terrorists' bullets in J&K has been steadily declining over the past few years. The toll came down from 540 in 2006 to 268 in 2007 and finally 166 last year.

During the same period Maharashtra had a bad year in 2006 when 187 people were killed in Mumbai suburban train bombings and 37 people died of explosions at Malegaon. It was followed by a lull in 2007 when no major attacks took place and terror shifted to other places such as Hyderabad, Ajmer, Ludhiana and Varanasi. The quiet was shattered at the fag end of 2008 when the three day terror siege of Mumbai left 164 dead.

In fact J&K now is not as severely hit by terrorism as many other parts of India. It stands a distant third on the list in terms of lives lost to terror in 2008. It was the Naxal-affected states that suffered most -- where 721 civilians and security men were killed. The Northeast came second with 512 deaths. In both these regions the number of terrorist attacks has only been going up every year since 2006, whereas they are on the decline in J&K.
Mumbai and Terror

Mumbai's vulnerability to terror can be understood from the fact that since 1993 it has witnessed bomb blasts at 22 locations. These explosions killed 333 people and injured more that one thousand. Moreover, it is the only megapolis in the world to have been serial bombed twice -- once in 1993 and then again in 2006.

Terror challenge more grave after 26/11: Chidambaram

2009-09-15T14:07:00.002+05:30

NEW DELHI: After Mumbai attacks, Pakistan-based groups like Lashker-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed persist in their attempts to launch terror attacks in India posing "grave" challenge, home minister P Chidambaram warned on
Monday. ( Watch Video )

"Terrorist groups including LeT and JeM persist in their endeavour to launch terror attacks. They continue to innovate new ways and means of deniability. They find support among disgruntled elements within India," Chidambaram said.

Inaugurating a three-day long conference of Directors General and Inspectors General of police organised by Intelligence Bureau, Chidambaram cross border terrorism "is a matter of deep concern" and policing in India was always a challenge and after "26/11, the challenge has become more grave."

"Let me state our position clearly. On terrorism, our stance is zero tolerance. We shall raise our level of preparedness to fight any terror threat attack and, in the case of threat or attack, our response will be swift and decisive," the home minister said.

He said the security agencies have neutralised 13 terror modules in the first six months of this year.

Describing 26/11 attacks as a "game-changer", he said "We meet under circumstances that pose formidable challenges to the security of the nation. The attacks in Mumbai on November 26, last year were a game changer. We can no longer afford to business as usual," he said.

The home minister said the country's security faces many threats from sources like -- terrorism, Left Wing Extremism and insurgency -- in certain states.

On Left-Wing extremism, Chidambaram said it was purporting to be a radical form of communism. "Today, various groups adhering to this outdated ideology have their pockets of influence in 20 states," he said, adding the banned CPI (Maoist) remaining the most potent of the Naxal groups with a presence in 17 states and a 90% share in Naxal violence.

In a bid to expand its network and influence, the Maoists have been seeking alliances with secessionist and terrorist elements in the country, the Home Minister said.

"It has been keenly seeking ideological resonance and tactical understanding with the Northeast insurgents and has begun to lend support to their secessionist ideology and demands," he said

Obama 'powerless' to stop wars - Bin Laden

2009-09-15T10:18:00.000+05:30

AL-QAEDA leader Osama Bin Laden warned President Barack Obama that he is "powerless" to halt the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and must rethink his policy on Israel, in his first message for three months.

The message, which accused "neo-conservatives" of maintaining a grip on the White House, was released Sunday, two days after the United States marked the eighth anniversary of Al-Qaeda's September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

Titled "Message to the American People,'' the video -- released by the As-Sahab media branch of al-Qaeda -- features a still image of Bin Laden and an audio statement, said the IntelCenter US monitoring group.

Bin Laden said that among "some other injustices," US support to Israel motivated al-Qaeda to launch the September 11 attacks, IntelCenter reported.

He also stated that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were driven by the pro-Israeli lobby in the White House and corporate interests, and not by Islamic militants.

"If you think about your situation well, you will know that the White House is occupied by pressure groups," he said.

"Rather than fighting to liberate Iraq -- as Bush claimed -- it (the White House) should have been liberated.''

Bin Laden harangued Mr Obama for keeping appointees of Republican President George W. Bush such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and General Robert Petraeus as head of US Central Command running the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Reasonable people knew that Obama is a powerless man who will not be able to end the war as he promised, but rather, will continue it to the highest point possible," said the al-Qaeda chief.

"The bitter truth is that the neo-conservatives continue to cast their heavy shadows upon you."

Bin Laden urged Americans to pressure the White House to end the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and US support to Israel, rather than succumb to what he called "the ideological terrorism" exercised by neo-conservatives.

If the wars are not ended "all we will do is to continue the war of attrition against you on all possible axes, like we exhausted the Soviet Union for 10 years until it collapsed with grace from Allah the Almighty and became a memory of the past," Bin Laden said.

If Americans want to end their confrontation with al-Qaeda they must reconsider their attitude towards Israel, Bin Laden said. "Put the file of your alliance with Israelis on the discussion table," he stated.

"Ask yourselves to determine your position: is your security, your blood, your children, your money, your jobs, your homes, your economy, and your reputation dearer to you than the security of the Israelis, their children and their economy?

"If you choose your security and cessation of war, and this is what the polls have shown, this requires you to work to punish those on your side who play with our security," Bin Laden said.

"We are ready to respond to this choice on aforementioned sound and just bases."

Bin Laden typically releases such a statement annually around September or October.

The last audiotape by the al-Qaeda leader was released on June 3. In that missive he scorned Mr Obama's overture to the Islamic world and warned of decades of conflict ahead.

That audiotape aired on the al-Jazeera satellite news channel less than an hour after Mr Obama landed in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden's home country, at the start of a Middle East tour.

Bin Laden has a 50-million-dollar bounty on his head and has been in hiding for the past eight years.

Intelligence officials, military analysts and other experts have long believed he is hiding along the remote mountainous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In March, an audio attributed to Bin Laden accused some Arab leaders of being "complicit" with Israel and the West against Muslims and urged holy war to liberate the Palestinian territories.

The same month, he urged the overthrow of the Somali president.

An Afghan headache

2009-09-14T10:33:00.000+05:30

WASHINGTON wants closure, but election fallout continues.

REALPOLITIK suggests that the sooner a functioning government can be established in Kabul the better. But after weeks of revelations about widespread fraud in the August 20 election, the prospect of moving on quickly in Afghanistan remains elusive. At the weekend, opposition leader Abdullah Abdullah urged supporters not to take to the streets in protest, but insisted he would not be part of a national unity government with President Hamid Karzai - the solution being pressed by the international community.

With about 90 per cent of the vote counted, Mr Karzai has more than 54per cent support but the stories of bribery and ballot-box interference have destroyed confidence in the outcome. Monitors suggest up to 23per cent of votes counted so far could be fraudulent, according to a report in The Sunday Times.

It's a mess, but the problem is what happens next as governments involved in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force face falling domestic support for involvement in Afghanistan. It is a particular headache for the US, which favoured Mr Karzai in the first presidential election in 2004. With Americans increasingly unhappy about their troops in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama needs the electoral debacle to go away before it undermines his military strategy.

The problem is that while there seems little alternative to a continued international presence in the region, support is also dropping in Britain and Europe. David Kilcullen, the Australian counter-terrorism expert, says the international community must be prepared for the long haul against a Taliban strategy to "basically wait us out until we get tired and go home".

Under General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of the ISAF, the focus is on turning a counter-terrorist operation into a bigger nation-building exercise - one that could take a decade to achieve. As part of this, he is expected to ask Mr Obama soon to commit extra troops to the 60,000 Americans already on the ground. All this at a time when support for the war in Afghanistan has plummeted among the American public and media commentators, and when Mr Obama's own popularity is being tested by his health plan.

A nation-building strategy in Afghanistan makes sense, but it needs the support of the people to work and such trust will be harder to establish if electoral fraud is ignored or minimised. The assumptions that Mr Karzai would be re-elected because he was favoured by the West misread the changes in the electorate in recent years. As William Maley of the Australian National University wrote in this paper recently: "Afghanistan's problem is not that ordinary Afghans do not understand democracy. It is that some in the political elite do not like it".

In April, Australia reaffirmed its commitment to securing a stable Afghanistan by increasing our forces there, although there is little interest in any further commitment. We share with our 41 partners in the ISAF the goal of denying Islamist extremists and terrorists a safe haven and a breeding ground in that country. But this will not be achieved through a military strategy alone. It must involve civilian development, including building state institutions and addressing corruption.

Last month's election was seen as an important step in developing that civic society. It will be hard to resolve this crisis, but a credible government in Kabul is an essential prerequisite for achieving a stable Afghanistan.

Fears of Taliban takeover in southern Afghan

2009-08-29T14:34:00.001+05:30

Southern Afghanistan's largest city, Kandahar, is slipping back under Taliban control as overstretched U.S. troops focus on clearing insurgents from the countryside a potentially alarming setback for President Barack Obama's war strategy.

Afghan authorities promise a counteroffensive against the militants in Kandahar — a pledge that appears aimed primarily at boosting public morale after a devastating bombing killed 43 people on Tuesday.

Losing Kandahar, a city of nearly 1 million and the Taliban’s former headquarters, would be a huge symbolic blow because it is effectively the capital of the ethnic Pashtun-dominated south, the main battlefield of the Afghan war.

It is difficult to measure the extent of Taliban control, and NATO officials publicly discount the possibility that Kandahar is about to fall to the militants.

Thousands of U.S. and Canadian troops are deployed throughout the province and around the city, which includes a major NATO base. NATO officials say the U.S. troop buildup in Afghanistan will enable them to send more troops into Kandahar.

“Because there’s one bombing, it doesn’t mean the situation is going down the tubes,” said Maj. Mario Couture, a spokesman for NATO in Kandahar province.

Nevertheless, many Afghans believe more Taliban forces are operating clandestinely in the city, while the Islamist movement tightens its grip on districts just outside the urban center.

As guerrillas, the Taliban doubtless don’t want to capture and run the city. Instead their goal is probably to wield enough influence to block any government efforts to expand services, prevent international relief agencies from operating there, force merchants to pay protection money and undermine the government’s image in one of the country’s major cities.

“The Taliban are inside the city. They are very active. They can do anything they want,” said an Afghan employee of an international aid organization who requested anonymity because he feared reprisals from the militants.

The Taliban’s resurgence in Kandahar city, the movement’s main power base during the 1990s, has been slow and gradual over the past four years, said an international security official who is familiar with the area.

These days, the Taliban control many of the city’s streets at night, the official said. Residents who spoke to The Associated Press also said militants were active at night, though they did not describe them as being in control.

The security official also pointed to a number of attacks, aside from Tuesday’s bombing, that indicate the Taliban want to take over the city. One was last year’s brazen bomb and rocket attack on a major prison that freed hundreds of militants and other prisoners.

The militants have targeted tribal elders in surrounding districts, and have a notable presence in the city’s north, south and west, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

A chilling indicator of the militant presence are fliers posted in the city.

Haji Tooryalai, a 45-year-old Kandahar resident, said he’d seen some of the so-called shabnamas, or “night letters,” ahead of the Aug. 20 elections warning people not to vote. No voting figures have been released from Kandahar but turnout appears to have been low.

“Poor men, rich men — everyone is worried about their security,” Tooryalai said. “A few months ago, business was good, but now we are just sitting in our shops and there are just not that many customers.”

Tuesday’s explosion was especially unnerving.

It struck near a Japanese construction company involved in reconstruction efforts. The Taliban denied responsibility, as they typically do when attacks kill many civilians.

Since the blast, people talk of little else.

A radio announcement asking for blood donations for the wounded spurred a huge response. Early Thursday, about 200 men gathered to sacrifice seven cows and pray for the victims.

Farid Ahmad, a real estate worker who appeared to be in his 50s, said people feel hopeless.

“Everybody can’t afford security guards, and if you are hiring security guards it means you are an important person and that will make you a target,” Ahmad said.

Kandahar province Gov. Tooryalai Wesa said authorities planned to review the security of the city as part of their investigation of the attack, a report likely to be finished in the next three or four days.

Gen. Sher Mohammad Zazai, the Afghan National Army commander in Kandahar, said security forces were planning to launch an operation in the city.

He would not give a date for the crackdown or detail its size and scope, but said it would be “soon” and spearheaded by Afghan security forces. NATO forces will be offering backup, but in districts surrounding the city, he said.

NATO officials would not comment on any planned operation.

The U.S. is sending additional 21,000 U.S. troops this year to turn the tide against the Taliban, part of Obama’s effort to shift the focus of the fight against terrorism away from Iraq and toward the Pakistan-Afghanistan region.

The American military effort so far, however, has focused primarily on the countryside. U.S. military officials have not explained their strategy publicly but it was believed they wanted to cut Taliban supply lines, interrupt poppy production and attack insurgent units in areas unlikely to produce significant civilian casualties. The Taliban have also set up Islamic courts in some rural communities.

U.S. Marines have launched operations in nearby Helmand province to wrest control of the Helmand River valley and the Now Zad district from Taliban fighters.

But some officials believe securing Kandahar and the surrounding areas is more important because of the large civilian populations and the city’s role as the political and economic center of the south.

They would like to see more of the extra troops in Kandahar and not Helmand.

NATO spokesman Capt. Glen Parent, however, noted that over the past month 4,000 more U.S. troops were deployed to both Kandahar and Zabul provinces, including vast stretches around the city.

About 2,000 Canadian troops are based in and around Kandahar, said Couture, the other NATO spokesman.

He said it’s been difficult for the Canadians to deal with the city because they lacked enough troops and were busy battling the militants in nearby Zhari and Panjwai districts.

“With the massive arrival of the Americans, that allows us to focus on Kandahar and surrounding areas of the city,” he said.

Suicide bomber kills 22 Pakistani border guards

2009-08-28T11:29:00.000+05:30

A suicide bomber killed 22 Pakistani border guards on Thursday in an attack at the main crossing point into Afghanistan, government officials said.

It was the first big attack in Pakistan since Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud was killed in a U.S. missile strike on Aug. 5 and will raise fears that the militants, who officials say have been in disarray, are hitting back.

The bomber struck as the guards were sitting down at sunset to break their daily fast for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

"The guards were about to break their fast when a teenaged boy carrying a bottle of Pepsi walked towards them and blew himself up," said Wakil Khan, a witness at the Torkham border crossing.

Nasir Khan, a senior government official in the Khyber region, said 22 people had been killed.

Pakistan has been hit by a series of suicide bomb attacks over the past two years, launched by al Qaeda-linked militants fighting the government because of its support for the U.S.-led campaign against Islamist militancy.

Security forces have cleared most militants from the Swat valley, northwest of Islamabad, in an offensive since late April, and have also been attacking Mehsud's men in the South Waziristan region on the Afghan border.

Earlier on Thursday, two missiles believed to have been fired by a U.S. drone struck a militant hideout killing six fighters in South Waziristan, intelligence officials said.

NEW LEADER

The Taliban had been denying Mehsud's death for weeks, but on Monday two of his aides, Hakimullah Mehsud and Wali-ur-Rehman, confirmed their leader had been killed.

Hakimullah, who led militants in the Khyber, Orakzai and Kurram ethnic Pashtun tribal regions, has been picked as the new overall commander of the Pakistani Taliban.

Security officials have been saying they were expecting reprisal attacks by Hakimullah's men and Thursday's blast in Khyber would appear to indicate he is determined to press on with the fight against the government.

Pakistani action against militants on its side of the border is vital for U.S.-led efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan.

The Pakistani Taliban are allied with the Afghan Taliban but Mehsud directed his attacks on Pakistani security forces.

Some Afghan Taliban factions, which have bases in lawless Pashtun lands on the Pakistani side of the border, have argued against attacks in Pakistan, saying all fighters should concentrate on expelling Western forces from Afghanistan.

Western governments with forces in Afghanistan are watching to see if a new Pakistani Taliban leader would shift focus from fighting the Pakistan government to supporting the Afghan insurgency.

Torkham is at the top of the Khyber Pass, through which a large amount of supplies for Western forces in Afghanistan, including much of their fuel, pass into landlocked Afghanistan.

Hakimullah Mehsud's men stepped up attacks on convoys trucking supplies through the pass early this year, forcing the United States and its allies to look for new routes into Afghanistan, but their raids have fallen off in recent months.

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani said in a statement the attack at Torkham was a cowardly act and his government was determined to stamp out terrorism.

Terror network 'larger than thought'

2009-08-28T11:17:00.000+05:30

THE terror network blamed for the Jakarta hotel bombings is "larger and more sophisticated" than thought, a think tank said as police quizzed suspects over possible al-Qaeda links.

Analysts at the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) said the group led by Malaysian Islamist Noordin Mohammed Top was finding it "disturbingly easy" to recruit members to carry out fresh attacks.

"More than a month after the 17 July, 2009, hotel bombings in Jakarta, Noordin Mohammed Top remains at large, but his network is proving to be larger and more sophisticated than previously thought," the ICG said.

"Noordin may still be the commander, but he has some exceedingly well-connected lieutenants who made their debut in the hotel bombings."

The twin suicide blasts at the JW Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels killed nine people including two bombers and six foreigners. They marked the bloody end of a four-year hiatus in such attacks in the mainly Muslim country.

Noordin, 41, is the most wanted extremist in Indonesia and calls his group "al-Qaeda in the Malay Archipelago".

He allegedly received al-Qaeda backing for an attack on the Marriott in 2003 which killed 12 people, but no such link has been confirmed this time around.

Police say they have killed three cell members and hold five others in custody, including an Indonesian Islamist journalist known as the "Prince of Jihad" who is accused of helping arrange funds for the attacks.

Counter-terror squad officers arrested the journalist, Mohammad Jibril Abdurahman, near Jakarta late on Tuesday and also raided the office of his extremist website, Arrahmah.com.

Police believe the Pakistan-educated suspect was an accomplice of Saudi national Al Khalil Ali, who was arrested in Indonesia earlier this month on suspicion of smuggling money from abroad to pay for the July 17 operation.

The source of the funds is not known, but police have said they are investigating whether the money came from al-Qaeda brokers in the Middle East, among other possible donors.

ICG analyst Sidney Jones said Mohammad Jibril was not a known member of al-Qaeda but had reportedly had contacts with Osama bin Laden's group in the past.

Iraq and Syria recall envoys in bomb suspects row

2009-08-27T16:13:00.001+05:30

Iraq and Syria recalled their ambassadors on Tuesday after Baghdad demanded Damascus hand over two people it says masterminded bombings in the Iraqi capital last week which killed almost 100 people.

Iraq's Shi'ite-led government has blamed supporters of Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party for massive truck bombs and other attacks last Wednesday, and says it has already captured some suspects it deems responsible.

In a tape aired on Sunday, one man captured said he acted under orders from a man in Syria called Sattam Farhan, a member of a wing of the Baath party headed by Mohammad Younis al-Ahmed.

"The cabinet requests (that Syria) hand over Mohammad Younis al-Ahmed and Sattam Farhan for their direct role in Wednesday's terrorist act," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

Dabbagh said the Foreign Ministry would ask Syria to hand over all those wanted for crimes in Iraq and "to banish the terrorist organisations that use Syria as a base from which to carry out terrorist acts against the Iraqi nation".

He also said the cabinet had summoned Iraq's ambassador to Syria back to Baghdad to discuss the issue, prompting the Syrian government to recall its ambassador to Iraq in response.

Diplomats in Damascus say Syria, ruled by a rival branch of the Sunni Arab Baath party, expelled Younis earlier this year.

Syria's official news agency SANA, quoting "an official Syrian source", rebuffed Dabbagh's comments about the attacks, which Damascus has strongly condemned as a "terrorist act".

"Syria informed the Iraqi side of its readiness to receive an Iraqi delegation and discuss with it available evidence on the perpetrators of the bombings. Otherwise, it would consider what is broadcast on Iraqi media as evidence fabricated for domestic political goals," the source said.

IRAQI PM ACCUSES NEIGHBOURS

Ties between Damascus and Baghdad have been strained since around the time Saddam came to power in 1979.

Since 2003, tensions have centred around charges from the U.S.-backed Iraqi government that Syria, estranged from Washington, has permitted insurgents to stream into Iraq.

But Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's visit to Damascus earlier this month appeared to be another sign that bilateral relations were on the mend.

Dabbagh did not say what measures Iraq would take if the suspects were not handed over.

Iraqi officials frequently blame neighbouring countries for fomenting violence in Iraq. Despite a sharp drop in violence since the worst of the killing in 2006 and 2007, the Iraqi government is facing sharp criticism over continuing attacks.

Other Iraqis blame the recent violence on jostling among political, ethnic and sectarian groups ahead of anticipated parliamentary elections in January.

Led by Sunni Arab Saddam from 1979 to 2003, the Iraqi Baath party brutally oppressed Iraq's Shi'ites and Kurds.

On Tuesday, Maliki handed out compensation to victims of the attacks and called on neighbouring countries to place greater value on regional ties.

"We are in an open war that unfortunately is backed by neighbouring countries, and that is why what happened has happened. They want more to happen before the elections," Maliki said.

Dabbagh also said the cabinet had asked the foreign ministry to petition the United Nations Security Council to create a criminal court to try "war criminals who planned and executed war crimes and crimes against humanity" in Iraq.

West loses its values in Afghanistan

2009-08-27T15:47:00.000+05:30

If the Afghan elections are presented as fair, any remaining moral authority the west might have will be eroded

The elections in Afghanistan are turning out to be a game changer for the war. It was not evident until the last few weeks before the elections that the Taliban would seriously try to undermine the process. In fact, they more or less acquiesced in the voter registration that took place during winter time. Some claim that individual sympathisers with the Taliban even registered themselves.

The Battle of the Elections is not yet over. In fact, it is likely to rage for the next few weeks and could indeed mark the beginning of the war's eulogy. As Havana Marking commented in the Observer on Sunday, it became clear to her that "whatever the outcome, whatever events unfolded, the UN, the EU, the US, and the west in general, would declare the day an unmitigated success". These institutions and their spokespeople are well on their way down this exact path but they would be wise to pause. They are gambling not only with the lives of Afghans but with fondly held western values and also with what used to be an effective (western) political weapon in the geopolitics of the world. To most people, democracy means the process of one person one vote, and the due counting of votes cast should determine who is in and who is out of power. Elections are not yet seen by the wider public as mere rituals, nor should they be.

To claim, as the EU election observer mission does, that these elections were "fair" ranks close to the statements from Comical Ali in Baghdad in 2003. In large parts of the south, less than 10-25% voted. And those that turned up probably did so at almost gunpoint or induced with bribes of one sort of another. The widely reported estimate of 40-50% turnout came out long before the polls even closed. If turnout even in Kabul was only a moderate 30% how can the average be so high?

Votes have already been counted, we are told. But it takes time to collect and sort out the data. Really? It is reasonable to suggest that whatever goes on behind the scenes now is not the scrutiny of votes actually cast but calculations about what numbers are tactically most suitable to be presented by the so-called Independent Election Commission. Should Hamid Karzai be declared the winner with 65%, or perhaps 53% will pass more easily, or even 48% in order for there to be a runoff?

Presenting these elections as "secure, credible and inclusive" – the words replacing the widely held standard of "free and fair" – will tarnish the reputation of the west for years to come. It is outright hypocrisy. Not only were Afghans cajoled into participating at great risk to their own lives, the weight of their votes are simply brushed off by western diplomats eager to legitimise to their own publics their continued military occupation of the country.

Even more worrying is that certain US diplomats seem to welcome this debacle over the elections. Most likely Karzai did not get the 50% required to avoid a second round. Only by rigging could he have achieved that. But avoiding a runoff makes sense to more people than the incumbent. Astute Afghan and international observers are worried about the polarising effect of a second round. The predominantly non-Pashtun north of the country would probably rally around Dr Abdullah Abdullah and Pashtuns behind Karzai, in so far as the Taliban would allow them to vote.

One should not be surprised if the US turns to offer Karzai backing for his claim of outright victory in the first round in exchange for more influence over his government. Perhaps by the inclusion of Ashraf Ghani or even Zalmay Khalilzad as some sort of chief executive that would diminish the power of Karzai himself. Of course, Abdullah would also have to be bought off but that seems doable. To extract the maximum from Karzai the US could threaten to play stupid and refer to the option of a runoff. Even after these violent and low-turnout elections on 20 August, some internationals hold the view that a second round would show the legitimacy of the elections and the depth of Afghan democracy. Apart from again asking the Afghans to risk their lives at another sham election it could indeed hasten the coming of an ethnically based civil war.

The Battle of the Elections is a tragic testimony to the fate of values when they meet hard political and military realities. Which dictator will feel compelled to hold free and fair elections because of western moral criticism after what is now taking place in Afghanistan? The falsehoods presented by western representatives is a further erosion of the moral authority that the US was said to have lost as a result of the global war on terror, and that President Obama has claimed he would resurrect. Only this time Europe is seemingly fully on board on the shenanigans as well. One can be rather certain that political leaders in neither Europe, Canada, Australia nor the US have the slightest mandate from their publics to throw away the general values of free and fair elections in this haphazard manner.

But everyone is of course in a bind. How to get out of this situation? First, rather than despairing over the fact that the Taliban showed their power and the government of Afghanistan showed its utter incompetence and corruption during these elections, one should consider what opportunities could arise. The elections need to be acknowledged as below an acceptable standard and an apology need to be made to the people of Afghanistan. Admitting this and that elections are no way to choose a government until there is peace, one has immediately opened up for use processes more familiar to Afghans and more suitable in the circumstances of war than the universal, western-based electoral democracy. Although a great deal of preparation would need to take place before it is convened, it seems logical that only an inclusive loya jirga with the full participation of the Taliban, including their leader, Mullah Omar, could get Afghanistan (and the west) out of this morass.

I am not saying such an option guarantees success either, far from it. But to throw away the values of democracy to find a way to continue convincing your own western public that the Afghan war is worth fighting, funding and dying for, is very close to being a criminal offence. There is a lot at stake now both for the Afghans and for the west.

Pakistani Taliban name two extremists to replace assassinated leader

2009-08-26T14:38:00.003+05:30

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan --

Pakistan's extremist Taliban movement acknowledged Tuesday that its leader, Baitullah Mehsud, had died in the aftermath of a U.S. drone missile attack early this month and confirmed that two men would replace him.

Hakimullah Mehsud, a violent young jihadist with links to al-Qaida, will be in nominal control but his rival, Waliur Rehman, will take charge of Waziristan, a vital region for the militant movement. Rehman, in a telephone interview Tuesday with reporters, threatened attacks against the West and called President Barack Obama "our foremost enemy."

The Pakistani Taliban provides sanctuary for al-Qaida and the Afghan insurgents in Pakistan's lawless tribal area, and its leadership and goals will affect international forces in Afghanistan and terror plots against Western targets.

The militant group sustained heavy losses in late April following the launch of a U.S.-backed Pakistan army operation, and the death of Baitullah Mehsud appeared to leave it in disarray. Now Pakistan and the United States will be watching to see if new leadership can stabilize the Pakistan Taliban.

Both of the top contenders for the leadership said Baitullah had succumbed to his injuries Sunday, not on Aug. 5, when a U.S. missile struck a house in South Waziristan, his native region, as U.S. and Pakistan intelligence officials had thought.

The admission came after weeks of denials from militants that Baitullah, who brought together 13 extremist groups in the country's northwest to form the umbrella organization known as Tehreek-i-Taliban in December 2007, had been eliminated in application.

On the surface, the power struggle to replace Baitullah appears to have been won by Hakimullah, a trigger-happy tribesman with the reputation of a thug. But his rival, Rehman, who was closer to Baitullah and is regarded as much less brutal than Hakimullah, was given charge of the all-important Waziristan region.

"The real power is in Waziristan, and Waliur Rehman will run things there," said Saifullah Mahsud, an analyst at the FATA Research Center, an independent think tank in Islamabad. "It's a clever compromise formula. Waliur Rehman has the real power."

Remote, mountainous Waziristan is a potential hiding place for Osama bin Laden and a safe haven for jihadists from around the world.

According to a tribesman in South Waziristan, who could not be named for his own safety, Hakimullah, thought to be just 28, had threatened to form a breakaway group if he wasn't given the title of leader.

"In order to avoid bloodshed, Waliur Rehman has been forced by the Afghan side to agree. He's a decent, respected guy," said the tribesman.

He added that the dispute was mediated by a representative of Mullah Omar, founder of the Afghan Taliban, and Sirajuddin Haqqani, the son of veteran Afghan jihadist Jalaluddin Haqqani. The Pakistani Taliban regards its older Afghan counterpart as its mentor, and the Haqqani network in particular wields considerable influence over the Afghan branch.

Hakimullah could be the choice of al-Qaida, analysts say, as he is linked closely to two terrorist groups banned in Pakistan - Sipah-e-Sahaba and its even more extreme offshoot, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi - that now take their lead from bin Laden.

Hakimullah formerly belonged to Sipah-e-Sahaba. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi is regarded as a key al-Qaida facilitator in Pakistan and played a role in many of the bombings and other attacks that have rocked the country over the last two years, including the assault on the visiting Sri Lankan cricket team earlier this year.

Given the rivalry between Rehman, who is more popular in South Waziristan, and Hakimullah, analysts think that the power struggle could erupt again. According to an unconfirmed report, denied by the Taliban, the rivalry had led to a gun battle earlier this month in which both were injured. Until Tuesday, many were convinced that Hakimullah had died in that clash.

The pair appeared to be sitting together as they called select local journalists Tuesday evening, after the end of the Ramadan fast, as they passed the phone between them, according to one person who spoke to both.

"There are no differences between the various Taliban factions, and we are all united," Rehman told reporters from an undisclosed location.

Rehman, who has a religious education, unlike Hakimullah, hit out at the West, even threatening attacks.

"Obama is our foremost enemy and our workers are raring to face him," Rehman said. "Our workers cherish death more than the life and London, Paris and New York are not far away from them."

The Pakistani Taliban has no known capacity to mount attacks in the West.

Speaking before the announcement on the Taliban leadership, Pakistan's interior minister, Rehman Malik, was confident that the extremist movement was sinking.

"They cannot hide," Malik said. "We are close to their jugular vein. Now the people have turned against them."

US attorney general poised for criminal investigation into reported CIA abuse

2009-08-25T14:58:00.001+05:30

• Agents may have gone too far during interrogations
• Prosecutor already looking into why videos destroyed

The US attorney general, Eric Holder, is set to name a special investigator into possible crimes by CIA officers after publication yesterday of an internal report on interrogation techniques described as "inhumane".

Holder is due to appoint John Durham, a career prosecutor in the justice department, as head of the inquiry. Durham is already investigating how CIA video tapes of the interrogations came to be destroyed.

Holder's decision to expand the extent of the inquiry contrasts with the position in Britain, where the government has opposed any similar investigation into UK involvement.

Barack Obama's administration has been torn over whether to rake back through what Democrats see as some of the blackest days in US history. But Holder, according to US media reports, was sickened by what he read in the report published yesterday. It set out a series of incidents in which agents apparently went too far in interrogating al-Qaida suspects.

The 2004 internal CIA report, by the agency's then inspector-general, John Helgerson, investigated allegations of abuse during interrogation. Helgerson, while noting the agency said it had gained some crucial intelligence about al-Qaida plots, concluded that its officers had used "unauthorised, improvised, inhumane and undocumented detention and interrogation techniques".

The CIA resisted a legal action by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to publish the report under the Freedom of Information Act. A copy was published last year under the Bush administration, but almost the entire contents were blacked out. President Obama had promised that as much as possible would be published. In spite of that, 35 of the 109 pages were almost entirely blacked out.

The ACLU gave a tentative welcome to the decision to appoint a special investigator. Anthony Romero, its executive director, said: "While this is a welcome first step, we are disappointed that attorney general Holder still appears unwilling to conduct a full investigation." He added: "The CIA's own inspector-general documented in disturbing detail the level of the torture committed and the extent to which laws were broken."

Holder's decision will renew the fierce debate with former members of the Bush administration, led by the former vice-president Dick Cheney, who argue that the CIA officers gained information that prevented fresh attacks by al-Qaida.

Leon Panetta, the CIA director appointed by Obama, exposed the extent of the division inside the Obama administration when he echoed many of Cheney's arguments in defence of the agents.

Panetta said: "The CIA obtained intelligence from high-value detainees when inside information on al-Qaida was in short supply." He qualified this, by adding: "Whether this was the only way to obtain that information will remain a legitimate area of dispute, with Americans holding a range of views on the methods used."

In a note sent to the CIA workforce yesterday ahead of the report's release, Panetta echoed another argument from the Bush officials, that the justice department had looked at Helgerson's report in 2005 and decided against prosecution, except in the case of one contractor.

He added: "My primary interest – when it comes to a programme that no longer exists – is to stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given. That is the president's position."

Obama has adopted a neutral position in the face of the differing views within his administration. His press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said: "The president has said repeatedly that he wants to look forward, not back, and the president agrees with the attorney general that those who acted in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance should not be prosecuted. Ultimately, determinations about whether someone broke the law are made independently by the attorney general."

The White House tried to take some of the sting out of the release of the report by announcing that there will be a special group set up which is specifically trained in interrogations, to be housed in the FBI headquarters rather than at the CIA.

Durham's investigation could theoretically lead to criminal prosecution of CIA officers. His remit is to decide whether there is enough evidence. In reality such prosecutions are difficult to achieve, partly through lack of evidence and partly because of the difficulty in establishing whether the agents involved believed they were acting within guidelines laid down by the Bush administration.

Joanne Mariner, a spokeswoman for Human Rights Watch, said: "The CIA inspector-general's report provides compelling official confirmation that the CIA committed serious crimes.

She added: "It's heartening that the attorney general has opened a preliminary investigation of these crimes, but it's crucial that its scope include senior officials who authorised torture.

The Hidden Face of Terrorism

2009-08-22T11:33:00.002+05:30

In our modern world, discomforting truths are usually discarded in favour of fictions. One such fiction is the idea that terrorists are disenfranchised dissidents who independently generate the wealth and resources necessary for their heinous acts. Such is the contention of Professor Mark Juergensmeyer. In his article, "Understanding the New Terrorism", he says that modern terrorism "appears pointless since it does not lead directly to any strategic goal" (p. 158).

Juergensmeyer arrives at this conclusion because he restricts his examination to the visible perpetrators, whose motives may be, in fact, irrational. However, he does not examine the patrons of terrorism. Given the exceptional subtlety and discretion of terrorism's shadowy sponsors, Professor Juergensmeyer may just be oblivious to their existence. On the other hand, he could simply be parroting his fellow academicians in order to maintain the status quo.

Whatever the case may be, this contention seems to be the overall view held by the orthodoxy of academia. With such a view vigorously promulgated by the arbiters of the dominant national paradigm, few can recognise those shady individuals who stand to profit from terrorist acts.

To understand terrorism, one must discard the view that arbitrarily characterises it as "a resort to violence or a threat of violence on the part of a group seeking to accomplish a purpose against the opposition of constituted authority" (Adler, Mueller & Laufer, p. 309). Such an impotent notion is predicated upon the hopelessly flawed accidentalist perspective of history. It relegates terrorism, which is the product of conscious effort and design, to the realm of circumstantial spontaneity. In other words, a contrived act suddenly becomes an inexplicable social phenomenon.

In November 1989, Father Ignacio Martín-Baró, a social psychologist, delivered a speech in California on "The Psychological Consequences of Political Terror". In his speech, Martín-Baró gave a much more precise definition of terrorism, one that is ignored only at great peril. Noam Chomsky provides a synopsis of this speech (p. 386):

He [Martín-Baró] stressed several relevant points. First, the most significant form of terrorism, by a large measure, is state terrorism--that is, "terrorizing the whole population through systematic actions carried out by the forces of the state". Second, such terrorism is an essential part of a "government-imposed sociopolitical project" designed for the needs of the privileged.

Disturbing though it may be, Martín-Baró's definition is one validated by history. The majority of terrorism throughout history has found its sponsors in the hallowed halls of officialdom, in the entity known as government. Terrorism is surrogate warfare, a manufactured crisis designed to induce social change. Its combatants consciously or unconsciously wage the war on behalf of higher powers with higher agendas. Whether its adherents are aware of it or not, terrorism always serves the ambitions of another.

In his article, "Fake Terror: The Road to Dictatorship", Michael Rivero states that "It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times: creating the enemies you need" (p. 1). The strategy is quite simple: individuals create a crisis so that they can then introduce their desired solution.

Are there recent, modern examples of state-sponsored terrorism? Unfortunately, the answer to that question seems to be "Yes".
Operation Northwoods

The first example is in 1962. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lyman L. Lemnitzer, and his fellow JCS members wanted to remove Castro from Cuba. Exactly what interests Lemnitzer and his fellow warhawks represented are unclear. However, one thing is apparent: these military men considered Castro an impediment to be expunged by means of overt war.

According to James Bamford, former Washington investigative producer for ABC, the Joint Chiefs of Staff planned to engineer several terrorist acts to instigate war (p. 82):

According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the US government. In the name of anticommunism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.

Codenamed Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, DC, Miami and elsewhere.

People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

Northwoods even called for the military to turn on itself (p. 84):

Among the actions recommended was "a series of well-coordinated incidents to take place in and around" the US Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This included dressing "friendly" Cubans in Cuban military uniforms and then have them "start riots near the main gate of the base. Others would pretend to be saboteurs inside the base. Ammunition would be blown up, fires started, aircraft sabotaged, mortars fired at the base with damage to installations".

Operation Northwoods would draw upon history as well, using the 1898 explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana harbour as inspiration (p. 84):

"We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," they proposed; "casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

The attempt to create a Cuban terrorist threat makes it clear that the US government has no reservations about using state-sponsored terrorism to achieve its ends.

Terrorism: India's unending war

2009-08-21T10:46:00.003+05:30

Since its independence in 1947, India has been facing the problem of insurgency and terrorism in different parts of the country. For the purpose of this column, insurgency has been taken to mean an armed violent movement, directed mainly against security forces and other government targets, to seek territorial control; terrorism has been taken to mean an armed violent movement directed against government as well as non-government targets, involving pre-meditated attacks with arms, ammunition and explosives against civilians, and resorting to intimidation tactics such as hostage-taking and hijacking, but not seeking territorial control.

India has faced exclusively terrorist movements in Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir, bordering Pakistan, and part insurgent-part terrorist movements in the northeast, bordering Myanmar and Bangladesh; in Bihar, bordering Nepal; and in certain interior states like Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa that do not have international borders.

India has also faced terrorism of an ephemeral nature, which sprang suddenly due religious anger against either the government or the majority Hindu community or both and petered out subsequently. Examples of this would be the simultaneous explosions in Mumbai on March 12, 1993, which killed about 250 civilians, and the simultaneous explosions in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, in February 1998. Tamil Nadu has also faced the fallout of terrorism promoted by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka in the form of attacks by LTTE elements on its political rivals living in the state and in the assassination of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in May 1991.

India had also faced, for some years, Hindu sectarian terrorism in the form of the Anand Marg, which, in its motivation and irrationality, resembled to some extent the Aum Shinrikiyo of Japan. The Marg, with its emphasis on meditation, special religious and spiritual practices and use of violence against its detractors, had as many followers in foreign countries as it had in India. Its over-ground activities have petered out since 1995, but it is believed to retain many of its covert cells in different countries. However, they have not indulged in acts of violence recently.

Causes

The causes for the various insurgent/terrorist movements include:

Political causes: This is seen essentially in Assam and Tripura. The political factors that led to insurgency-cum-terrorism included the failure of the government to control large-scale illegal immigration of Muslims from Bangladesh, to fulfil the demand of economic benefits for the sons and daughters of the soil, etc.

Economic causes: Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Bihar are prime examples. The economic factors include the absence of land reforms, rural unemployment, exploitation of landless labourers by land owners, etc. These economic grievances and perceptions of gross social injustice have given rise to ideological terrorist groups such as the various Marxist/Maoist groups operating under different names.

Ethnic causes: Mainly seen in Nagaland, Mizoram and Manipur due to feelings of ethnic separateness.

Religious causes: Punjab before 1995 and in J&K since 1989.

In Punjab, some Sikh elements belonging to different organisations took to terrorism to demand the creation of an independent state called Khalistan for the Sikhs. In J&K, Muslims belonging to different organisations took to terrorism for conflicting objectives. Some, such as the Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front, want independence for the state, including all the territory presently part of India, Pakistan and China. Others, such as the Hizbul Mujahideen, want India's J&K state to be merged with Pakistan. While those who want independence project their struggle as a separatist one, those wanting a merger with Pakistan project it as a religious struggle.

There have also been sporadic acts of religious terrorism in other parts of India. These are either due to feelings of anger amongst sections of the Muslim youth over the government's perceived failure to safeguard their lives and interests or due to Pakistan's attempts to cause religious polarisation.

The maximum number of terrorist incidents and deaths of innocent civilians have occurred due to religious terrorism. While the intensity of the violence caused by terrorism of a non-religious nature can be rated as low or medium, that of religious terrorism has been high or very high. It has involved the indiscriminate use of sophisticated Improvised Explosive Devices, suicide bombers, the killing of civilians belonging to the majority community with hand-held weapons and resorting to methods such as hijacking, hostage-taking, blowing up of aircraft through IEDs, etc.

Certain distinctions between the modus operandi and concepts/beliefs of religious and non-religious terrorist groups need to be underlined, namely:

Non-religious terrorist groups in India do not believe in suicide terrorism, but the LTTE does. Of the religious terrorist groups, the Sikhs did not believe in suicide terrorism. The indigenous terrorist groups in J&K do not believe in suicide terrorism either; it is a unique characteristic of Pakistan's pan-Islamic jihadi groups operating in J&K and other parts of India. They too did not believe in suicide terrorism before 1998; in fact, there was no suicide terrorism in J&K before 1999. They started resorting to it only after they joined Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front in 1998. Since then, there have been 46 incidents of suicide terrorism, of which 44 were carried out by bin Laden's Pakistani supporters belonging to these organisations.

Non-religious terrorist groups in India have not resorted to hijacking and blowing up of aircraft. Of the religious terrorists, the Sikh groups were responsible for five hijackings, the indigenous JKLF for one and the Pakistani jihadi group, the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (which is a member of the IIF), for one. The Babbar Khalsa, a Sikh terrorist group, blew up Air India's Kanishka aircraft off the Irish coast on June 23, 1985, killing nearly 200 passengers and made an unsuccessful attempt the same day to blow up another Air India plane at Tokyo. The IED there exploded prematurely on the ground. The Kashmiri and the Pakistani jihadi groups have not tried to blow up any passenger plane while on flight. However, the JKLF had blown up an Indian Airlines aircraft, which it had hijacked to Lahore [ Images ] in 1971, after asking the passengers and crew to disembark.

All terrorist groups -- religious as well as non-religious -- have resorted to kidnapping hostages for ransom and for achieving other demands. The non-religious terrorist groups have targeted only Indians, whereas the religious terrorist groups target Indians as well as foreigners. The Khalistan Commando Force, a Sikh terrorist group, kidnapped a Romanian diplomat in New Delhi in 1991. The JKLF kidnapped some Israeli tourists in J&K in 1992. HUM, under the name Al Faran, kidnapped five Western tourists in 1995 and is believed to have killed four of them. An American managed to escape. Sheikh Omar, presently on trial for the kidnap and murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl in Karachi in January last year, had earlier kidnapped some Western tourists near Delhi. They were subsequently freed by the police.

Non-religious terrorist groups in India have not carried out any act of terrorism outside Indian territory. Of the religious terrorist groups, a Sikh organisation blew up an Air India plane off the Irish coast and unsuccessfully tried to blow up another plane at Tokyo the same day, plotted to kill then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi during his visit to the US in June 1985 (the plot was foiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation), attacked the Indian ambassador in Bucharest, Romania, in October 1991, and carried out a number of attacks on pro-government members of the Sikh diaspora abroad. The JKLF kidnapped and killed an Indian diplomat in Birmingham, England, in 1984. In the 1970s, the Anand Marg had indulged in acts of terrorism in foreign countries.

None of the non-religious terrorist groups advocate the acquisition and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Of the religious groups, the Sikh and the indigenous Kashmiri terrorist groups did/do not advocate the acquisition and use of WMD. However, the Pakistani pan-Islamic groups, which are members of the IIF and which operate in J&K, support bin Laden's advocacy of the right and religious obligation of Muslims to acquire and use WMD to protect their religion, if necessary.

The Sikh terrorist groups did not cite their holy book as justification for their acts of terrorism, but the indigenous Kashmiri groups as well as the Pakistani jihadi groups operating in India cite the holy Koran as justification for their jihad against the government of India and the Hindus.

The Sikh and the indigenous Kashmiri groups projected/project their objective as confined to their respective state, but the Pakistani pan-Islamic terrorist groups project their aim as extending to the whole of South Asia -- namely the liberation' of Muslims in India and the ultimate formation of an Islamic Caliphate consisting of the Muslim homelands' of India and Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The Sikh terrorist groups demanded an independent nation on the ground that Sikhs constituted a separate community and could not progress as fast as they wanted to in a Hindu-dominated country. They did not deride Hinduism and other non-Sikh religions. Nor did they call for the eradication of Hindu influences from their religion. The indigenous Kashmiri organisations, too, follow a similar policy. But the Pakistani pan-Islamic jihadi organisations ridicule and condemn Hinduism and other religions and call for the eradication of what they describe as the corrupting influence of Hinduism on Islam as practised in South Asia.

The Sikh and indigenous Kashmiri terrorist organisations believed/believe in Western-style parliamentary democracy. The Pakistani jihadi organisations project Western-style parliamentary democracy as anti-Islam since it believes sovereignty vests in people and not in God.

Religious as well as non-religious terrorist groups have external links with like-minded terrorist groups in other countries. Examples: The link between the Marxist groups of India with Maoist groups of Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh; the link between the indigenous Kashmiri organisations with the religious, fundamentalist and jihadi organisations of Pakistan; the link between organisations such as the Students Islamic Movement of India with jihadi elements in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; and the link between the Pakistani pan-Islamic jihadi organisations operating in India with bin Laden's Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The role of the diaspora

Religious as well as non-religious terrorist groups draw moral support and material sustenance from the overseas diaspora. The Khalistan movement was initially born in the overseas Sikh community in the UK and Canada and spread from there to Punjab in India. The indigenous Kashmiri organisations get material assistance from the large number of migrants from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, called the Mirpuris, who have settled in Western countries. The Marxist groups get support from the Marxist elements in the overseas Indian community.

Funding

The following are the main sources of funding for terrorist and insurgent groups:

Clandestine contributions from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence.

Contributions from religious, fundamentalist and pan-Islamic jihadi organisations in Pakistan.

Contributions from ostensibly charitable organisations in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Contributions from trans-national criminal groups, such as the mafia group led by Dawood Ibrahim who operates from Karachi, Pakistan.

Extortions and ransom payments for releasing hostages.

Collections -- voluntary or forced -- from the people living in the area where they operate.

Narcotics smuggling.

The funds are normally transmitted either through couriers or through the informal hawala channel. Rarely are funds transmitted through formal banking channels.

Sanctuaries

Religious terrorist organisations have their main external sanctuaries in Pakistan and Bangladesh, while non-religious terrorist organisations look to Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar. Some northeast non-religious terrorist groups also operate from Bangladesh, while certain religious groups get sanctuary in Nepal.

Since 1956, Pakistan has been using its sponsorship of and support to different terrorist groups operating in India as a strategic weapon to keep India preoccupied with internal security problems. Before the formation of Bangladesh in 1971, the then East Pakistan was the main sanctuary for non-religious terrorist groups operating in India. Since 1971, the present Pakistan, called West Pakistan before 1971, has been the main sanctuary for all Sikh and Muslim terrorist groups.

Pakistan has given sanctuary to 20 principal leaders of Sikh and Muslim terrorist groups, including hijackers of Indian aircraft and trans-national criminal groups colluding with terrorists. Despite strong evidence of their presence in Pakistani territory and active operation from there, its government has denied their presence and refused to act against them. It has also ignored Interpol's notices for apprehending them and handing them over to India.

For some years after 1971, the Bangladesh authorities acted vigorously against Indian groups operating from their territory. This has gradually diluted due to the collusion of the pro-Pakistan elements in Bangladesh's military-intelligence establishment with Pakistan's military-intelligence establishment, the collusion of Bangladesh's religious fundamentalist parties with their counterparts in Pakistan and the unwillingness or inability of successive governments in Dhaka to act against these elements.

In Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar, there is no collusion of the governments with the Indian terrorist groups operating from their territory. Their authorities have been trying to be help India as much as they can. However, their weak control over the territory from which the terrorists operate and their intelligence and security establishment does not allow for effective action against the terrorists.

Guns,Third World Countries,Alliances and Terrorism

2009-08-20T15:56:00.002+05:30

When terrorism strikes victims are often unsuspecting and helpless. The reports of such attacks often make others feel anger towards the perpetrators of such attacks and in some instances can motivate individuals to seek out personal protection in the form of guns. Many see reports of terrorist activities on television or read about events in the newspapers and vow that should a similar situation happen to them, they will be ready. This can result in a large increase in gun sales following a well-publicized terrorist attack. This natural response to a perceived increased threat on personal safety can help stimulate the growth of companies related to the production of guns and weapons as well as ammunition.

Training

The increase in the number of new gun owners means that there will be an influx of people who want to learn how to effectively use a gun. This translates into shooting clubs, shooting instructors, and safety instructors being supplied with a larger clientele base.

Government Response

While the number of individuals that own a gun tends to increase following a terrorist attack, there is a higher level of scrutiny on gun control. The government of a country will usually respond to terrorist activity be reevaluating their current gun control statutes in order to prevent guns from being sold to terrorists. This can result in the tightening of gun control laws and may dissuade citizens from trying to purchase a gun due to the increased amount of red tape that is associated with purchasing a gun.

Outcome

The overall economic outcome of such a combination of events makes it difficult to predict how gun sales will react in response to terrorist activities. On one hand there are more people who are motivated to buy a gun for protection. On the other hand, gun control laws usually become more stringent and can deter those that are not highly motivated from going through the necessary background checks and procedures that are created by a government in response to terrorism. Thus, each individual case is different and no country’s reaction is exactly the same in regards to gun control and terrorism. Therefore, there is no hard and fast way to predict whether terrorism has a positive or negative effect on gun sales across the board.

Terrorism and Third World Countries

Terrorist attacks often kill thousands of people and send a clear message to millions of people in the developed countries of the world. News of such events reaches citizens almost instantaneously as CNN and other news providers seem to be live on location mere minutes following an attack. The spread of information regarding the terrorist attack is further spurred on by the internet and satellites which get reports to all four corners of the globe within seconds. With such a highly advanced and media-driven world it is difficult to avoid being made aware of a major terrorist attack or breaking news stories involving terrorism in any Third World country.

Third World Countries

A small tribe in a thick African jungle is not globally connected to the internet. They have no television to watch CNN reports of a terrorist attack and are often unaware of such terrorist events. Third world countries are technologically less advanced in comparison to other developed nations, such as the United States, Japan, or Britain. This results in local economies not responding to news of such events because such news has little or no bearing on the local economy. For example, a small farming community in a Third World country does little or no importing or exporting of goods and relies only on economic factors that are geographically close to the local community. Thus, events in other parts of the world have less effect on their local economy in comparison to the global economy which reacts in a very volatile fashion following a large scale terrorist attack.

Outcome

With the more developed countries focusing more attention to restoring or stabilizing their own economies and making larger efforts to increase their national security, spending on foreign aid that could have possibly gone to help those in third world countries by providing food or medical care is often cut. The result is hunger and disease going unaided ultimately because of the terrorist activities that occurred. Thus, while a Third World country may not be locally affected or even aware of a terrorist event, they quite possibly could feel the fallout effects of spending cuts in the more developed countries due to terrorism.

Terrorism and Alliances

Terrorism will generally result in a retaliatory response by the nation that is attacked. This response may or may not be seen by other nations as proper and may or may not be supported. Thus, countries that support a retaliatory action seem to be on the same side as the nation retaliating. Such an alliance signifies good will and can even help to perpetuate a positive relationship when such a retaliatory campaign finally comes to a close.

Economic Effects

The economic effect of a strong alliance assures that there will be future strengthening and cohesion between the economies, often growth in trade, among other things. The result is often a strengthening of both of the nation’s respective economies. In essence, a traumatic event such as a terrorist attack can bring two or more nations together to fight side by side with a common goal in mind. This military alliance often lays the ground work for an economical alliance which can be beneficial to all parties involved. Such an alliance is often seen between the United States and Britain as the two nations typically share both an economical and a military alliance in today’s modern era.

Left Out

Those countries that do not choose to takes sides with the eventual winner of a military struggle are often left with less of an economic advantage. For example, countries that allied themselves with Nazi Germany during World War II suffered the economic consequences once the Nazi alliance was defeated. In much the same way, countries that allied themselves with Britain and the United States in response to 9/11 attacks have had much more economic opportunity available to them through trade as a result of their military stance on terrorism.

Outcome

It seems that alliances against terrorism adhere to the old adage that states, “to the victor go the spoils.” It is historically advantageous for a nation to align themselves with the eventual winner of a military struggle if they wish to see economical reward for their military actions. Throughout history, those that align themselves with small terrorist organizations stand less of a chance to prosper financially than those that side with the larger and more powerful nations of the world. This is sound evidence that terrorism can be a rallying point around which nations can ban together to establish alliances in many areas of the political world.

Terrorism On Latin America and the Caribbean And More On Defense Spending

2009-08-18T12:38:00.001+05:30

Latin America and the Caribbean

America’s importance in the world economy is well known and terrorist attacks that affect the spending habits of American’s cause a ripple effect across other countries in the world. Generally, a terrorist attack causes people to hold on tighter to their money during times of uncertainty. Consumers are less willing to spend and as a result the world’s economy will usually take a turn for the worst after a large scale attack. One region that is particularly tied into the spending habits of American consumers is Latin America and the Caribbean. This region relies heavily on tourism from Americans as well as tourists from such places as Canada and Britain.

Terrorism Effects

Terrorism results in more people staying closer to home which means that the tourism industry in Latin America and the Caribbean takes an especially hard hit because of the region’s strong reliance on tourism to support its local economies. For example, prior to the 9/11 attacks that scared many would-be American tourists from traveling outside of the United States, the Latin American and Caribbean economies were expected to see a 1.3 percent increase in overall economic growth. After the attacks, this prediction did not come to pass and the unexpected attacks left many of the Latin American and Caribbean local economies in shambles and thousands without jobs.

Industry Effects

Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean that rely on shipping and exporting also take a hit when there are terrorist attacks around the world. Countries that experience attacks generally go through a period in which they rely less on importing because of the heightened awareness of security risks and the increased costs of maintaining security around port cities. As a result, Latin American and Caribbean countries pay a heavy price as the textile industry and agricultural industry see a financial downturn due to the decrease in the amount of goods that are exported from the region.

Dependence

Latin America and the Caribbean countries have a large dependence on the wealth of countries outside the region and rely on such countries as the United States and those found in Europe and Asia to fuel much of the region’s economy. Such a dependence magnifies the effect that terrorism has on the spending habits of consumers around the world.
Defense Spending

In reaction to terrorist activities, governments often call for increases in defense spending. This often translates into tax hikes for the average citizen as governmental spending increases. While this may ease the minds of citizens and actually provide a higher level of security for a nation, the fact remains that every dollar that is given to the government is taken out of the cash flow of a nation’s natural market economy. The following highlights some of the effects of this trend and relates only to countries such as the United States that have at least somewhat of a market economy. Economies such as those of Communist regimes are exempt from the effects of the following because of the absence of market influence in the economy.

Jobs

It can be argued that a war can be good for an economy since a war creates a new demand for supplies such as ammunition, planes, and other military supplies. This can create new jobs as the market responds to increased demands. Thus, terrorist activities that trigger an increase in defense spending can actually serve to stimulate the economy within certain sectors, especially those related to producing military supplies and weapons. Often, terrorism causes governments to increase regulation on imports and exports as well as beef up security on public transportation. The result is an increased demand for security personnel and regulatory agents which in turn creates more jobs.

New Offices

Another response to terrorism is the creation of new branches of government in order to keep a closer eye on terrorist activities and secure the individual country from attack. An example of such a creation is the Department of Homeland Security which was created in response to the 9/11 attacks on America and has served the dual purpose of creating more government jobs while at the same time working to protect the United States from future terrorist attacks.

Disadvantages

As defense spending increases in response to terrorism, governments, both Federal and local, typically move other issues to the back burner. Healthcare, foreign aid, and education take a back seat to National Security at the expense of many. The United States increased its defense spending by nearly $100 billion between 2001 and 2003 in response to terrorism around the world. These budget increases made up for an estimated 45 percent of the total budget increases in the United States during that span. It is clear that when terrorism becomes the main priority of a nation, other government programs lose funding and are sometimes eliminated entirely.

Importing,Exporting,Tourism,Insurance And Terrorism

2009-08-17T16:06:00.003+05:30

Importing And Exporting

Every country has its own special blend of natural resources that are indigenous to its particular region of the globe. These resources help to drive a country’s economy and fuel the markets around the world. However, very few countries can be entirely self-sufficient in every aspect of the marketplace. Even if a country does have the resources to produce all its basic products domestically, there is always a market for imported luxury items. The following highlights some of the ways in which terrorism impacts how importing and exporting is done throughout the world.

Disease

The threat of biological terrorism raises fears in regards to the importing and exporting of products from one country to another. Terrorists could possibly contaminate a shipment with a biological weapon, such as anthrax, in order to infect those that will receive the contaminated shipment. This has led to many countries making stronger regulations and taking security precautions to help deter the threat of biological contamination.

FDA

The United States has responded to such threats by passing the Bio-Terrorism Act in 2002 which mandates that manufacturers of products that are considered food or beverage be registered with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before any shipments will be allowed to enter the United States. Along with the manufacturers being required to have registered with the FDA, notice of the actual shipment must be given to proper authorities before any foreign import will be allowed across the borders of the United States.

Market Effects

The effects of heightened security surrounding the importing and exporting of goods result in higher costs passed onto the consumer. Such price increases serve to shape the financial world of importing and exporting. Due to higher costs, companies may decide that importing or exporting a particular product is no longer cost effective. If importing and exporting continues to occur, profit margins may be effected which will in turn hurt the overall performance of the company and its value on the market. This is how terrorism serves to shape the world economy by affecting the importing and exporting habits of virtually every nation around the globe.

Tourism and Terrorism

For many, a vacation means taking time away from work in order to rejuvenate the mind and body and get away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. To others, vacations are a key part of livelihood. Countries and regions that depend on tourism to keep their economy afloat are especially susceptible to the negative effects that terrorism can have on tourism. The fear that is caused by terrorist attacks generally compels people to stay closer to home and to play it safe versus risking terrorist activity. The tourism and travel industry, together, are in a much better financial position when there is a minimal amount of terrorism.

Travel

The targeting of mass public transportation such as buses, planes, and trains for terrorist attacks has made many travelers leery of straying too far from home. Events such as subway bombings and plane hijackings serve to hurt the travel industry as well as the hotel industry, especially in Middle Eastern countries. Both India and Nepal experienced a massive drop in tourism after the September 11th attacks on America in 2001. The reason for this drop in tourism was because of their close proximity to Afghanistan and the subsequent war that followed the September 11th attacks.

Industry Effects

Prior to the September 11th attacks that brought terrorism to the forefront of the world’s political scene, tourism was the world’s largest industry. Nearly 10 percent of all the jobs around the world were related to tourism and travel prior to the attacks. After the attacks of 9/11 the public’s reluctance to travel resulted in thousands of employees in the travel and tourism industry to lose their jobs. Since this initial market downturn, fears have cooled and the tourism industry has begun to slowly recover, but this example is an excellent reminder of how fine a line the tourism industry is walking.

Dependence

Any country that depends heavily on tourism for economical stability is playing with fire. The threat of a terrorist flare up can cause the loss of millions of dollars in revenue and cripple an economy. This realization has prompted many of the leaders of tourism dependent countries to begin efforts to promote other industry in their respective regions in order to safeguard their local economies should terrorism temporarily derail the tourism industry as it did after the September 11th attacks.

Terrorism and Insurance

The basic concept of insurance is simple; pay a premium in exchange for the comfort of knowing that should a disaster occur, an insurance company will foot the bill. Therefore, it is only natural that insurance agencies evolve to offer higher levels of insurance against terrorist attacks in a world that has become increasingly aware of terrorism’s devastating effects.

Government

Many people in the private sector of insurance feel that since it is the government’s duty to provide security to the American public against terror attacks, the government should also help in the rebuilding process should an attack occur. Private insurance agencies are very skeptical about providing terrorism insurance because of the lessons learned from the damages incurred from such attacks as the September 11th attacks on America and the bombings in London in early 2005. The September 11th attacks alone caused the loss of $32.5 billion in insured damages. This was exponentially more costly than any other disaster that had ever been faced by the United States with the previous most costly disaster being Hurricane Andrew that struck in 1992 and caused an estimated $21 billion in damages.

Businesses

Large companies, especially airlines, have seen insurance prices skyrocket due to the costs associated with insuring against terrorist attacks. Prior to 9/11, businesses were paying premiums that were substantially lower. For example, Chicago’s O’Hare airport was paying a monthly premium of around $125,000 before the events of 9/11 in order to receive $750 million worth of coverage. After 9/11, the premium rose to an estimated $6.9 million for a coverage of only $150 million. This is how terrorism affects the economical structure of the insurance industry. As the threat of attack rises, so do premiums, while the amount of coverage that is provided falls. This translates into business paying more and getting less.

Government Help

In response to the 9/11 attacks, the American government passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act in 2002 which was designed to allow the United States government to foot most of the bill should another catastrophic attack occur. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act runs through 2005 and has many debating whether its renewal is needed or whether private insurance agencies should be left alone to insure America against terrorist attack. This illustrates the dilemma that is faced by all nations regarding what is the proper course of action in response to providing insurance against terrorist activities. The world seems to be divided between those that believe governments are responsible and those that want the private sector to take responsibility.

Air Travel Terrorism And Ethnic Businesses

2009-08-14T10:22:00.003+05:30

It is not uncommon for an individual to have a fear of heights. Others fear moving at very high rates of speed. Combine these two fears together and you are left with a fear of flying. Although thousands of people travel on airplanes safely everyday, it is a logical fear to have. People are placing their lives in the hands of mechanical parts as well as other humans. This can be a scary proposition in itself, but coupled with the threat of terrorism the fear can be petrifying. Although the hijacking of planes is more common in movies than in real life, terrorist attacks such as those that happened in America on September 11, 2001, made the worst nightmare of many air travelers a horrifying reality.

Helpless

Airplanes are excellent targets for terrorists for one simple reason, the helplessness that passengers have when on an aircraft. If a terrorist tries to take hostages on the ground, people can try and run, the police will soon arrive, and the situation is contained within one location. On an aircraft, there is nowhere to run, no police in sight, and the location of the hostage situation is constantly changing. This presents a very difficult problem to law enforcement who are incapable of defusing a situation.

Economic Effects

The moment at which terrorists succeed at using airplanes to inspire fear in air travelers they have accomplished their aim. Since 9/11, the airline industry has been wracked with increasing economic problems, from security to increased ticket prices, to a drop in air travelers, along with a host of other fall-out factors. And, now, the increasing cost of oil is forcing once solid industry giants to lose their financial footing.

Security

Airlines have had to invest in expensive baggage and passenger scanning equipment, as well as hire many extra security personnel to help regain the public’s trust that air travel is safe. While such responses are necessary to secure the safety of passengers and ensure that further attacks are prevented, the resulting economic losses are large. This is why terrorist attacks that use airplanes have such a profound effect on society. Individuals lose their lives, fears are heightened, and companies lose money. Overall, terror in the air is a horrifying and effective way for terrorists to make their point and results in both economic and human loss that can permanently affect world markets.

Ethnic Businesses There has always been some level of distrust or prejudice between two peoples who are from different ethnic backgrounds. The United States’ history is an excellent example as blacks were forced to endure decades of unfair treatment as minorities. Practices such as ethnic cleansing can be found in places around the globe throughout the world’s history with the most publicized and large scale example coming from the Nazi Germany era when thousands of Jews were killed during Hitler’s terrorizing reign. Since the days of Nazi Germany and pre-Civil Rights America, many would like to think that society as a whole has moved forward from the primitive thinking that one race is superior to another. While this may be true to some extent, the fact remains that terrorist attacks can have a large impact promoting prejudices against certain ethnicities.Muslim ExampleAfter the events of 9/11, the American public was looking for someone to take the blame and the group that was deemed responsible for the terrorist actions was slated as radical Muslims that were bent on destroying America’s way of life. This triggered an across the board reaction against all Muslims. Muslims in America suddenly felt themselves being alienated from their communities and as a result, Muslim businesses suffered. Some American’s believed that all Muslims were in some way linked to the events of 9/11 and responded by boycotting or protesting against Muslim businesses. The financial difficulties that were faced by Muslim business owners and workers serve as an example of how today’s society is not immune to prejudice and how this prejudice can affect the economic structure of a whole society.Guilt by AssociationThe human mind is quick to associate meaning to characteristics that can at times be unrelated. In the case of ethnicity being related to terrorism, many around the world are willing to make such a jump all too quickly and at the expense of the financial status of the ethnic group that is accused of being associated with terrorism. The prejudice that was spawned in the aftermath of 9/11 served to remind the world that guilt by association can be costly to everyone involved and is an unfair practice that should be left to grace only the pages of history books in the interest of bettering the world’s economy.

Oil and Terrorism

2009-08-13T10:24:00.001+05:30

Terrorists typically have a cause that they believe in very strongly and they commit terrorist acts because they feel it is the most effective way to get their message heard. Terrorists believe that if they can cause enough devastation, that they will be taken seriously and that their message will reach the most people possible. They send strong messages to outsiders by the killing of innocent people and often capture the attention of many with these actions. However, as terrible as these human losses are, they are often not as effective as hurting others economically over long periods of time. When the anger of such attacks has faded, the financial aspects of an attack are left that continue to send out ripples. For this reason many terrorists have turned to oil as a weapon of terror.

Dependency

Terrorists recognize the dependency of much of the civilized world on oil. Terrorists know that entire economies are based on the importing and exporting of oil and realize that in order for many businesses to operate, transportation is needed and in order to have transportation, there must be oil. This is why terrorists have turned to suicide bombings and other horrific measures to destroy oil supplies. Attacks on oil sources force the price of oil upward, increase erratic market behavior and gets the attention of oil dependent countries.

Reaction

The reaction to such attacks on oil supplies is always to increase security. In recent years, there has been a movement towards finding alternative forms of energy. This would result in less harm to the environment due to the reduced amount of fossil fuel usage as well as take away this key weapon that is often used by terrorists. Terrorists may be able to destroy hundreds of oil drums, but it is next to impossible to take away an energy source such as solar power.

Economy

An increase in oil prices means an increase in shipping costs. This hurts virtually every business that relies on the producing of products to make profits. Oil products must be shipped in order to reach consumers. The increase in shipping costs can eat into a company’s bottom line and cause a decrease in stock value on the market. Thus, the company makes less money, the stockholders suffer, and the market as a whole takes a hit. With so many negatives associated with terrorism on oil supplies, it is easy to see why measures are being taken to stop such acts as well as reduce the economies of the world’s dependence upon oil

Terrorism And World Market

2009-08-12T16:27:00.005+05:30

Terrorism and the Market

Terrorism is a real threat to all nations in the world. Wherever there are different groups of people, there are sure to be conflicting ideas. Some of the differences in opinions and beliefs lead radicals to turn to terrorism to push their ideas onto others and to send messages that result in the death or injury of many. While this tactic is frowned upon by society as a whole, it is all too real a danger to ignore. The human tragedies that result from terrorist acts are horrifying and the economical impacts that follow terrorism can be almost as devastating.

Fear

Terrorism can bring an economy to its knees because of fear. Businesses may be afraid to operate as normal because of fear that another attack will happen. Increased costs in security can cause companies to fall on economic hard time ultimately decreasing the value of their stocks and hurting shareholders. One such example of this phenomenon is the resulting collapse of small or floundering airlines after the September 11th attacks on Americans in 2001. Fear can often lead to erratic stock market behavior. Those that play the stock market are looking for predictability and a terrorist attack provides anything but a stable market.

Resilience

Although the typical reaction of the market to a terrorist attack is an immediate downturn, the initial panic, fear, and shock does wear off. This has historically resulted in markets recovering from their short term slumps and even going on to long term bull periods. Such turnarounds were witnessed after terrorist acts like the Kennedy assignation, the World Trade Center Bombing, and the Oklahoma City Bombing. The market turnaround is attributed to many things ranging from a society that bonds together to overcome tragedy to changes in security that make people feel more secure and more confident than before.

Human Loss

The loss of human life is undoubtedly the tragic side of terrorism. The effects of the deaths of loved ones are tremendous. The business world does not go unaffected by these human losses; the loss in labor force and other key players in a company can cause significant negative effects. During the September 11th attack, the lives of many were lost, including top level executives from Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, American Express, and many other publicly traded companies. Not only did these companies lose a corps of wonderful human beings, but many lost their most important leaders and thinkers. The result was a tragedy for the victims’ families and the companies, as well.

Information Awareness Office

2009-08-10T10:56:00.004+05:30

The Information Awareness Office (IAO) was established by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in January 2002 to bring together several DARPA projects focused on applying information technology to counter asymmetric threats to national security. The IAO mission was to "imagine, develop, apply, integrate, demonstrate and transition information technologies, components and prototype, closed-loop, information systems that will counter asymmetric threats by achieving total information awareness".

Following public criticism that the development and deployment of these technologies could potentially lead to a mass surveillance system, the IAO was defunded by Congress in 2003, although several of the projects run under IAO have continued under different funding.

History

Diagram of Total Information Awareness system, taken from official (decommissioned) Information Awareness Office website

The IAO was established after Admiral John Poindexter, former United States National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan and SAIC executive Brian Hicks approached the US Department of Defense with the idea for an information awareness program after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Poindexter and Hicks had previously worked together on intelligence-technology programs for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. DARPA agreed to host the program and appointed Poindexter to run it in 2002

The IAO began funding research and development of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) Program in February 2003 but renamed the program the Terrorism Information Awareness Program in May that year after an adverse media reaction to the program's implications for public surveillance. Although TIA was only one of several IAO projects, many critics and news reports conflated TIA with other related research projects of the IAO, with the result that TIA came in popular usage to stand for an entire subset of IAO programs.

The TIA program itself was the "systems-level" program of the IAO that intended to integrate information technologies into a prototype system to provide tools to better detect, classify, and identify potential foreign terrorists with the goal to increase the probability that authorized agencies of the United States could preempt adverse actions. As a systems-level program of programs, TIA's goal was the creation of a "counterterrorism information architecture" that integrated technologies from other IAO programs (and elsewhere, as appropriate). The TIA program was researching, developing, and integrating technologies to virtually aggregate data, to follow subject-oriented link analysis, to develop descriptive and predictive models through data mining or human hypothesis, and to apply such models to additional datasets to identify terrorists and terrorist groups.

Among the other IAO programs that were intended to provide TIA with component data aggregation and automated analysis technologies were the Genisys, Genisys Privacy Protection, Evidence Extraction and Link Discovery, and Scalable Social Network Analysis programs.

On August 2, 2002, Dr. Poindexter gave a speech at DARPAtech 2002 entitled "Overview of the Information Awareness Office"in which he described the TIA program.

In addition to the program itself, the involvement of Poindexter as director of the IAO also raised concerns among some, since he had been earlier convicted of lying to Congress and altering and destroying documents pertaining to the Iran-Contra Affair, although those convictions were later overturned on the grounds that the testimony used against him was protected.

On January 16, 2003, Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation to suspend the activity of the IAO and the Total Information Awareness program pending a Congressional review of privacy issues involved.A similar measure introduced by Senator Ron Wyden would have prohibited the IAO from operating within the United States unless specifically authorized to do so by Congress, and would have shut the IAO down entirely 60 days after passage unless either the Pentagon prepared a report to Congress assessing the impact of IAO activities on individual privacy and civil liberties or the President certified the program's research as vital to national security interests. In February 2003, Congress passed legislation suspending activities of the IAO pending a Congressional report of the office's activities (Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, No.108–7, Division M, [signed Feb. 20, 2003]).

In response to this legislation, DARPA provided Congress on May 20, 2003 with a report on its activities.In this report, IAO changed the name of the program to the Terrorism Information Awareness Program and emphasized that the program was not designed to compile dossiers on US citizens, but rather to research and develop the tools that would allow authorized agencies to gather information on terrorist networks. Despite the name change and these assurances, the critics continued to see the system as prone to potential misuse or abuse.

As a result House and Senate negotiators moved to prohibit further funding for the TIA program by adding provisions to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004 (signed into law by President Bush on October 1, 2003). Further, the Joint Explanatory Statement included in the conference committee report specifically directed that the IAO as program manager for TIA be terminated immediately.

IAO research

IAO research was conducted along five major investigative paths: secure collaboration problem solving; structured discovery; link and group understanding; context aware visualization; and decision making with corporate memory.

Among the IAO projects were:

Babylon

Babylon to develop rapid, two-way, natural language speech translation interfaces and platforms for the warfighter for use in field environments for force protection, refugee processing, and medical triage.

Bio-Surveillance

Bio-Surveillance to develop the necessary information technologies and resulting prototype capable of detecting the covert release of a biological pathogen automatically, and significantly earlier than traditional approaches.

Communicator

Diagram (from official IAO site) describing capabilities of the "Communicator" project

Communicator was to develop "dialogue interaction" technology that enables warfighters to talk with computers, such that information will be accessible on the battlefield or in command centers without ever having to touch a keyboard. The Communicator Platform was to be both wireless and mobile, and to be designed to function in a networked environment.

The dialogue interaction software was to interpret the context of the dialogue in order to improve performance, and to be capable of automatically adapting to new topics (because situations quickly change in war) so conversation is natural and efficient. The Communicator program emphasized task knowledge to compensate for natural language effects and noisy environments. Unlike automated translation of natural language speech, which is much more complex due to an essentially unlimited vocabulary and grammar, the Communicator program is directed task specific issues so that there are constrained vocabularies (the system only needs to be able to understand language related to war). Research was also started to focus on foreign language computer interaction for use in supporting coalition operations.

Live exercises were conducted involving small unit logistics operations involving the United States Marines to test the technology in extreme environments.

Effective Affordable Reusable Speech-to-text (EARS)

Effective Affordable Reusable Speech-to-text (EARS) to develop automatic speech-to-text transcription technology whose output is substantially richer and much more accurate than previously possible. EARS was to focus on everyday human-to-human speech from broadcasts and telephone conversations in multiple languages.It is expected to increase the speed with which speech can be processed by computers by 100 times or more.

The intent is to create a core enabling technology (technology that is used as a component for future technologies) suitable for a wide range of future surveillance applications.

Evidence Extraction and Link Discovery

Evidence Extraction and Link Discovery (EELD) development of technologies and tools for automated discovery, extraction and linking of sparse evidence contained in large amounts of classified and unclassified data sources (such as phone call records from the NSA call database or b0ank records).

EELD was designed to design systems with the ability to extract data from multiple sources (e.g., text messages, social networking sites, financial records, and web pages. It was to develop the ability to detect patterns comprising multiple types of links between data items or people communicating (e.g., financial transactions, communications, travel, etc.).

It is designed to link items relating potential "terrorist" groups and scenarios, and to learn patterns of different groups or scenarios to identify new organizations and emerging threats.

Futures Markets Applied to Prediction (FutureMAP)

Futures Markets Applied to Prediction (FutureMAP) was intended to harness collective intelligence by researching prediction market techniques for avoiding surprise and predicting future events. The intent was to explore the feasibility of market-based trading mechanisms to predict political instability, threats to national security, and other major events in the near future.

Genisys

Genisys aimed at developing technologies which would enable "ultra-large, all-source information repositories".

Vast amounts of information were going to be collected and analyzed, and the available database technology at the time was insufficient for storing and organizing such vast quantities of data. So they developed techniques for virtual data aggregation in order to support effective analysis across heterogeneous databases, as well as unstructured public data sources, such as the World Wide Web. "Effective analysis across heterogenous databases" means the ability to take things from databases which are designed to store different types of data—such as a database containing criminal records, a phone call database and a foreign intelligence database. The World Wide Web is considered an "unstructured public data source" because it is publicly accessible and contains many different types of data—such as blogs, emails, records of visits to web sites, etc—all of which need to be analyzed and stored efficiently.

Another goal was to develop "a large, distributed system architecture for managing the huge volume of raw data input, analysis results, and feedback, that will result in a simpler, more flexible data store that performs well and allows us to retain important data indefinitely. "

Genoa / Genoa II

Genoa and Genoa II focused on providing advanced decision-support and collaboration tools to rapidly deal with and adjust to dynamic crisis management and allow for inter-agency collaboration in real-time.Another function was to be able to intelligently make estimates of possible future scenarios to assist intelligence officials what to do, in a manner similar to the DARPA's Deep Green program which is designed to assist Army commanders in making battlefield decisions.

Human Identification at a Distance (HumanID)

Diagram (from official IAO site) describing capabilities of the "Human Identification at a Distance (HumanID)" project

The Human Identification at a Distance (HumanID) project developed automated biometric identification technologies to detect, recognize and identify humans at great distances for "force protection", crime prevention, and "homeland security/defense" purposes.

Its goals included programs to:
Develop algorithms for locating and acquiring subjects out to 150 meters (500 ft) in range.
Fuse face and gait recognition into a 24/7 human identification system.
Develop and demonstrate a human identification system that operates out to 150 meters (500 ft) using visible imagery.
Develop a low power millimeter wave radar system for wide field of view detection and narrow field of view gait classification.
Characterize gait performance from video for human identification at a distance.
Develop a multi-spectral infrared and visible face recognition system.

Scalable Social Network Analysis

Scalable Social Network Analysis (SSNA) aimed at developing techniques based on social network analysis for modeling the key characteristics of terrorist groups and discriminating these groups from other types of societal groups.

Sean McGahan, of Northeastern University said the following in his study of SSNA:

The purpose of the SSNA algorithms program is to extend techniques of social network analysis to assist with distinguishing potential terrorist cells from legitimate groups of people ... In order to be successful SSNA will require information on the social interactions of the majority of people around the globe. Since the Defense Department cannot easily distinguish between peaceful citizens and terrorists, it will be necessary for them to gather data on innocent civilians as well as on potential terrorists.
—Sean McGahan

TIDES

Translingual Information Detection, Extraction and Summarization (TIDES) developing advanced language processing technology to enable English speakers to find and interpret critical information in multiple languages without requiring knowledge of those languages.

Outside groups (such as universities, corporations, etc) were invited to participate in the annual information retrieval, topic detection and tracking, automatic content extraction, and machine translation evaluations run by NIST.[20]

Wargaming the Asymmetric Environment (WAE)

Wargaming the Asymmetric Environment (WAE) focused on developing automated technology capable of identifying predictive indicators of terrorist activity or impending attacks by examining individual and group behavior in broad environmental context and examining the motivation of specific terrorists.

Components of TIA projects that continue to be developed

Despite the withdrawal of funding for the TIA and the closing of the IAO, the core of the project survived.Legislators included a classified annex to the Defense Appropriations Act that preserved funding for TIA's component technologies, if they were transferred to other government agencies. TIA projects continued to be funded under classified annexes to Defense and Intelligence appropriation bills. However, the act also stipulated that the technologies only be used for military or foreign intelligence purposes against foreigners.

TIA's two core projects are now operated by Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA) located among the 60-odd buildings of "Crypto City" at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, MD. ARDA itself has been shifted from the NSA to the Disruptive Technology Office (run by to the Director of National Intelligence). They are funded by National Foreign Intelligence Program for foreign counterterrorism intelligence purposes.

One technology, now codenamed "Baseball" is the Information Awareness Prototype System, the core architecture to integrated all the TIA's information extraction, analysis, and dissemination tools. Work on this project is conducted by SAIC through its Hicks & Associates, consulting arm that is run by former Defense and military officials and which had originally been awarded US$19 million IAO contract to build the prototype system in late 2002.

The other project has been re-designated "TopSail" (formerly Genoa II) and would provide IT tools to help anticipate and preempt terrorist attacks. SAIC has also been contracted to work on Topsail, including a US$3.7 million contract in 2005.

Media Coverage

The first mention of the IAO in the mainstream media came from New York Times reporter John Markoff on February 13, 2002.Initial reports contained few details about the program. In the following months, as more information emerged about the scope of the TIA project, civil libertarians became concerned over what they saw as the potential for the development of an Orwellian mass surveillance system.

On November 14, 2002 the New York Times published a column by William Safire in which he claimed "[TIA] has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans."Safire has been "credited" with triggering the anti-TIA movement.

Concerns and criticism

Critics believe that massive information aggregation and analysis technologies are a grave threat to privacy and civil liberties. Many fear that allowing a government to monitor all communications, and map social networks will give them the ability to target dissenters or political threats. Critics claim that this concern is not unfounded, citing COINTELPRO and other government programs that targeted peaceful political activists in the U.S. Programs such as those the IAO funded would greatly enhance their ability to identify, track, infiltrate, and target such groups. Such a system of surveillance is a necessary component of a strong totalitarian state.

Proponents believe that development of these technologies is inevitable and that designing systems and policies to control their use is a more effective strategy than opposition.