The New Nation - Internet Edition

Is military solution possible in Afghanistan

Yvonne Ridley

The Taliban now control 72 per cent of Afghanistan according to a latest report by an influential think tank.

But within hours of the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) releasing this news various politicians and ambassadors from Afghanistan, America and Britain criticised its contents.

The reality is that none of these people really know what is happening on the ground in Afghanistan because it is not safe to travel and if any of them do venture out it is rarely beyond the confines of Kabul.

The reason I know the ICOS report carries weight is because I have just returned from Afghanistan myself and, unlike most politicians, diplomats and journalists who go to the country, I went in unescorted.

The Taliban is forming an ever tightening noose around Kabul with, as ICOS says, three out of four main highways into the capital city now compromised by Taliban.

How do I know? Because I drove around Afghanistan with film-maker Hassan al Banna Ghani and saw the evidence with my own eyes - we nearly got our heads blown off for our troubles as well, having inadvertently driven into a fire fight between Taliban fighters and Afghan police 30 minutes from Kabul on the main road to Ghazni.

We drove up from Peshawar, Pakistan, through the dramatic and historic Khyber Pass, down into Torkham and from there we had a straight run via Jalalabad to Kabul.

It was the fresh roadside carnage which punctuated the drive to the Afghan capital. We must have seen the skeletons of nearly 20 oil tankers targetted by rocket propelled grenade launchers of the Taliban.

We were able to talk to ordinary people who have to live day in and day out without the luxury of a heavily armed military escort, or a heavily fortified place to work and an even more heavily guarded place to sleep. We later drove to areas not frequented by others.

And thanks to that experience, it would be foolish to dismiss ICOS claims that the Taliban now holds a permanent presence in 72% of Afghanistan, up from 54% a year ago. They have advanced from their southern heartlands, where they are now the de facto governing power in a number of towns and villages, to Afghanistan's western and north-western provinces, as well as provinces north of Kabul.

President and Lead Field Researcher of ICOS, Norine MacDonald QC, told a London press conference: "The Taliban are now controlling the political and military dynamic in Afghanistan. The insurgency continues to turn NATO's weaknesses into its own strengths," she said.

"The Taliban are closing a noose around Kabul, and there is a real danger that the Taliban will simply overrun Afghanistan under the noses of NATO," said Director of Policy for ICOS, Paul Burton.

The British Ambassador to Afghanistan, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, commented on the report on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme earlier this month in a dismissive fashion, saying: "I'm afraid the methodology in the report is seriously flawed. I mean for example its map of Kabul, which I have in front of me, shows the area where I'm sitting talking to you from now, across which I drove this morning to see President Karzai, as being under heavy Taliban influence.

"It's quite the reverse: Afghans are strolling in the streets, celebrating the 'Id. It counts as one incident in the province the size of Yorkshire, meaning that that province is under permanent Taliban control. It's a very thin peace of work."

No foreigner dare venture out for a stroll in Kabul unescorted because of kidnap fears. And I'd like to bet he went under heavily armed escorts to do his interview.

I have seen the British Embassy in Kabul - it is hidden behinds vast mounds of concrete bunkers, barbed wire and a heavily armed guard presence. You can't just stroll in to the embassy there like I did in March 2003.

The American presence is loathed in Afghanistan even among those who don't want to see the Taliban back in power. This is down to many things not least of all their arrogance, refusal to acknowledge or even try and understand the culture and their habit of shooting at any motorist who tries to overtake their slow-moving convoys.

Then there's the endless list of US missile strikes on wedding parties which have slaughtered innocent Afghans - very rarely are these murders followed up by an apology but they continue to happen.

Norine also calls for a free and open media - that would be nice but there is also documented evidence that anyone writing against the US occupation can expect a visit from the Americans. I spoke to one young such journalist who ended up being kidnapped, beaten and thrown in a cell in Bagram for 18 hours after revealing out of date US army rations were being sold on the black market in Kabul.

The story is true as I found out trolling through the goods on sale at an open air market in Kabul. There indeed were US army rations on sale - and we have Hassan's film to prove it.

There are solutions to the Afghan crisis. Removing the US military is one way - and take out the Brits too because Afghans can no longer distinguish between the two.

Bombard the people with genuine aid and not artillery shells and give the Afghan Government real support instead of aid with conditions attached. Genuine job creation schemes offering decent money is a good start. And while it might be nice to have career women emerging from the rubble of Kabul, start with the men first. Give them their dignity back by providing real jobs.

Given the choice between starvation or fighting for the Taliban for around $40 dollars a month, I know what decision I would make.

(Yvonne Ridley and Hassan al Banna Ghani's documentary: In Search of Prisoner 650 will be broadcast on Press TV in early 2009.)

SOFA deal may seal Iraq's future

Saeed Shehabi

Iraq has never had shortage of contentious issues that had often led to internal feuding, factional clashes, sectarian strife or political stagnation. The State Of the Forces Agreement (SOFA) that has recently been debated, signed by Nouri Al Maliki's Government and approved by the Iraqi Parliament, is just another of these contentious issues.

The opposition and grievances my disappear after three years if its articles are fully implemented and the US combat forces leave Iraq, or may remain to haunt those who had signed it if the US adopts more aggressive occupational policies.

Still, the past few months have seen clear political and ideological polarisation between political parties between supporters and opponents of the deal. The most notable objectors are the Sadrist Movement which has vehemently rejected any deal with what it terms "the occupiers". Its Parliamentary Members, as well as its supporters in the street have put a strong opposition to one of the most controversial political step by the Al Maliki's Government.

While the Sunni political parties have sought to draw some political concessions on domestic issues, the Shi'a have been clearly divided over the deal, with massive demonstrations, boycott of or walkout from the Parliament.

What is the SOFA agreement that is instigating these sharp responses? A year ago, during an official visit by Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Al Maliki, to Washington, a broad agreement was signed that within twelve months a strategic agreement would be concluded between Iraq and the US, based on broad terms that did not evoke hostile reactions at the time. However, as the US Presidential elections got underway in the summer, the Bush administration moved rapidly on the issue and presented an extensive agreement to the Iraqi side for approval.

It consisted of two parts; the first was a strategic political, economic and cultural framework whilst the second dealt with the US forces in Iraq with a framework for eventual withdrawal. While the larger and probably more significant strategic framework has not received great attention, the SOFA agreement caused furore among the political figures and parties. There were five controversial clauses that received particular attention; the conditions attached to the withdrawal plan, the immunity of the American service personnel from prosecution by Iraq's judiciary, the postal services used by the US troops, the detention and interrogation of Iraqi suspects and the use of Iraqi soil for launching attacks against neighbours.

The Iraqi Government was adamant that these clauses be amended so as not to compromise its sovereignty. Eventually, Washington apparently conceded to most of these demands, though there still remains confusion and uncertainty as to how far the US would abide by the terms and the spirit of the agreement.

After weeks of political and media debates, the Iraqi Government finally signed the agreement before submitting it to the Parliament. The Sadrist Movement led the rebellion against it. The religious leadership, represented by Ayatullah Sayyid Ali Al Sistani, gave a muted response to the deal, calling first for a Parliamentary debate and consensus and then a referendum. He added a further condition for a consensus by the Shi'a, Sunni and Kurds on the agreement.

Among the greatest surprises has been the muted response by the religious parties representing the Sunni Muslims. Unlike the Sadrist Movement who openly opposed the deal and organised demonstrations, seminars and walkouts from Parliament, no such stands were taken by the Al Tawafuq Alliance (the main Sunni block in Parliament). The Sunni areas of Iraq did not see major demonstrations against the agreement.

Tehran has been incensed by what it sees as legalizing the American occupation of Iraq through the agreement. It has called on the Iraqis not to sign the deal and called for the immediate withdrawal of the US forces. The agreement envisages that the forces would remain in Iraq until December 31, 2011, and that they would withdraw from Iraqi streets by the end of June 2009.

Tehran appears to be on the brink of a new chapter in its relations with Washington, especially after Barrack Obama's victory in the Presidential elections. The extent of the behind-the-scene contacts between Tehran and Washington in the last few weeks is not clear, but the cooling off in the confrontational policies is a sign of a degree of understanding unseen since the Islamic Revolution three decades ago. The standoff in the confrontational policies on the nuclear issue is partly due to the undeclared understanding between Tehran and Washington. Despite Iran's unease vis-à-vis the deal between Iraq and the US, there is a general relief that the American occupation of Iraq may come to an end within the next three years. President-elect Obama has repeatedly asserted that he intended to withdraw the US forces within sixteen months, ie, before the date set by the SOFA agreement.

Despite what is seen as "legalisation" of the occupation by the SOFA agreement, the Iraqi Government has shown a degree of brinkmanship that Washington had not anticipated. Al Maliki Government has made the best of a bad situation. It also seems that several factors have worked to its advantage; the expected change in the White House following the election of Obama, the wind of change that is sweeping over the Iran-US relations, the weakening of the Al Qa'ida in Iraq that had adopted a sectarian agenda and the emergence of an Iraqi consensus that has been lacking since the downfall of Saddam's regime in 2003.

The Iraqis now believe that they have successfully returned the ball to the American court and it is up to Washington to abide by its commitment to withdraw its forces from Iraq in accordance with the SOFA agreement.

Mumbai terrorism: 46 Muslims among the dead

Abdul Hameed Yousuf in Mumbai

Thousands of miles away in a village in Patna (Bihar) a young woman is sometimes sobbing, and sometimes crying and weeping loudly. Shabana Perween, 28, lost her husband Mohammad Hussain on November 26 in Mumbai when terrorists sprayed bullets at people at CST Station. Her four-year-old son, Mohammad Raza Hussain, is too little to understand what happened. How will she tell the second child about the tragedy she is carrying in her womb about the tragedy, she thinks and weeps?

Mustaqeem of Jharkhand is among those who lost their dear ones in the bloodiest ever terrorist attack in Mumbai. Six members of his family including his son, daughter, uncle, aunt and two cousin brothers were killed during firing at the same railway station. They were going their home in Jharkhand to celebrate 'Id al-Adha.

The unprecedented attack shook Mumbai badly and belied the common saying among the Mumbaikars that 'Mumbai never stops' as the life of the business capital of India almost came to a halt for a couple of days. The attack not only caused irreparable losses of persons and finance but also raised a question on the capability of India's intelligence agencies.

How the attack unfolded

A group of around 10 terrorists with sophisticated weapons, credit cards and dry fruits reportedly reached Colaba jetty at dusk on November 26 from Karachi after a long voyage. According to one report they got off at Badhwar Park, Cuffe Parade, from where they split into four groups towards Taj Mahal Hotel, Oberoi Trident, Nariman House and CST Station.

The attack started at 9:20 pm when the terrorists opened fire on the passengers at CST Station. Following this, there was a continuous series of firings and explosions throughout the southern Mumbai for the next 62 hours with Taj Hotel, Oberoi Hotel, Hotel Trident and Nariman House the main targets.

Around 188 people were killed, 286 injured and nearly 610 people rescued from Taj Hotel, Oberoi, Trident and Nariman House. In addition, nine terrorists were killed and Ajmal Ali Qasab was captured alive.

Muslim casualties

Of the 188 people killed in the bloodiest ever terrorist attacks 46 were Muslims and among the 286 injured were 37 were Muslim. This clearly demonstrates that religion was not on their mind of the terrorists.

Mumbai Muslims didn't allow burial of terrorists in the city

Some Muslim organisations refused to bury the nine terrorists in Muslim graveyards saying they were not Muslims as they committed this , what they said was, clearly un-Islamic and barbarous act.

The President of the Muslim Council of India, Ibrahim Bhai, demanded the authorities of Jame' Masjid Trust not to allow bury the terrorists in Bada Qabrastan. The Trust supervises over the Qabrastan (cemetery), situated in L T Marg Police Station area, and takes care of abandoned Muslim corpses.

Maulana Khalid Rashid Firangi Mahali, member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, President of Ulama Association, Maulana Athar Maulana, and Zaheer Abbas Rizwi, a Shi'a leader also expressed the same opinion. The Muslim Council of India also requested the Muslim authorities to not allow interring terrorists anywhere in Mumbai.

However, Trustee of the Trust, Hanif Nakhande, said, "Personally, I agree with the opinion of the Council but according to Shari'ah, you cannot stop burying a Muslim in a Muslim graveyard, even if the deceased has been greatest sinner."

Muhammad Yahya, Crawford Market, said, "The decision of the organisations is right because the terrorists were not Muslims; they reportedly drank wine."

Muslims rush to help terror victims

The attack was on whole of India. Muslims being its loyal citizens naturally felt the pain of the mother land and offered assistance to those affected by taking the injured to hospitals and providing the needy people with financial assistance.

A Muslim youth, Rehan, 18, kept himself busy carrying the injured and the corpses from CST station to St George Hospital from 10 to 12 pm on November 26.

Rehan said, "I live near St George Hospital. When I heard shootings and explosions at CST I hurried to it and found many corpses lying on ground and injured moaning with pain. I was stunned. Suddenly my sight caught the glimpse of a hand cart. I started taking the cadavers to the hospital and carried almost 10 to 12 corpses one by one. Later I remained busy helping the corpses to be loaded at stretcher in the hospital."

Within hours of the terrorist attack several Muslim organisations such as Jamaat-e-Islami Hind Maharashtra, the Students Islamic Organisation of India, the Movement for Peace and Justice and Ideal Relief Wing sent a joint team to the city hospitals - J J, G T, St George and Nair - where the injured were being rushed in large numbers. At the hospitals on November 27 morning the team helped the doctors and distributed relief materials among the injured and their families

Are Muslims feeling insecure?

Most of the Muslims contacted by The Muslim News do not feel insecure even after the Mumbai attack. They say they are used to witnessing such terror acts.

Ahmad Bhai of Dharavi labeled the attacks as political natak (drama) and said that people have become used to them. "'Why should they be afraid of their habit?"

Usman Bhai Bagwale, Nawaz Ahmad and Muhammad Musa Panwale of Mahim East never feel insecure because they said the death will must come sooner or later.

But Abdur Rahman, a timber businessman in Dharavi, does feel insecure. "'Muslims always feel insecure. The Mumbai attack has increased it," he said.

"We are afraid. If we go out of our residence we are not sure of coming back," said Shaikh Danish of Dharavi.

Death of ATS officers and fate of Malegaon probe

In the Mumbai attack, three Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) officers of high rank also lost their lives. Hemant Karkare ATS chief, and his two assistants, Ashok Kamte and Vijay Salaskar, are said to have fallen prey to a "planned conspiracy".

ATS under Karkare's leadership produced solid evidence against terrorists from the Hindu community during its investigation of Malegaon September 29 terrorist bombing case. Two days before his assassination he received a call from an unknown person in Pune (cultural capital of Mahrashtra) threatening to bomb his house.

Karkare was reportedly shot dead along with his two officers near Cama Hospital whilst sitting in a police Qualis (make of a car) instead of his own car. There are the reports that their killers were speaking fluent Marathi (the language of Maharashtra state).

Noticeably the death of Karkare will surely affect Malegaon Investigation. The Union Minister of State for Home Sriprakash Jaiswal admitted at a press conference on November 28 that, "The death of an officer like Hemant Karkare is a strong blow to the country. It will badly affect the activities of ATS."

KP Raghuvanshi who has been temporarily appointed in the place of Karkare is said to be pro-Sangh Parivar (coalition of extremist Hindu organisations). Several Muslim leaders have demanded the removal of Raghuvanshi and appointment of an "honest and unbiased officer".

The Mumbai attack has raised many questions in the mind of the public, regarding their security. It remains to be seen whether the Government takes steps to ensure the complete safety of India's citizens.

(Additional reporting from Tarique Anwar in Patna, and Mumtaz Alam Falahi in Delhi. All are journalists for TwoCircles.net)