Rashid, a highly touted Pakistani journalist, begins the final chapter of his 2000 ‘Taliban’ by calling the country one of world’s ‘orphaned conflict’s’.  The country would quickly change from being orphaned to a month after 9/11 being the center of global politics, as the United States uprooted the Taliban government and sent them packing, unfortunately for only a short-term vacation.

Rashid’s valuable book walks its readers through a rather dense social, religious, military, and even psychological history of the group of radicalized Pashtuns, known as the Taliban.  He provides a solid regional historical overview and does not forget the many geopolitical actors involved in the fragmented country (Iran, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.).  A solid half of the book details the violent rise to power of the Taliban as they battled first fellow Pashtun groups, than the government in Kabul, and finally the Northern Alliance actors, which would never relinquish their autonomy to Taliban-ruled Kabul and Kandahar.  This book is worth reading just for those who don’t know just how fractious the Afghan society can be with many various ethnicities and sects, all with foreign partners, that have had to violently attempt to protect themselves and further their own people’s positions.  This book, just like Afghanistan today, is full of conflict and violence that shows no real sign of ebbing.

Rashid provides a telling description of the early members of the Taliban (around 1994) as Afghans born in Pakistan and raised mainly by madrassas as their parents, especially mothers, may have been lost in the years of fighting during and after the Soviet invasion and withdrawal.  These young men had ‘no memories of the past, no plans for the future’ and knew of nothing else but their Taliban leaders.  Like we have heard many times in reference to terrorist and gang groups, the Taliban offered these men, and boys, a meaning to their lives that they could embrace and fight for.

This type of camaraderie of course becomes dangerous when it is based on ignorant, stubborn, violent, yet a strong ideology and form of Islam, as they, the Taliban, surely had.  The Taliban, which by 1996 controlled large swaths of Afghan territory, including Kabul, ruled with a fundamental Islamic iron fist that showed no accommodation, not even towards UN aid providers.  The Taliban was controlling a large population and recruiting members with a version of Islam that ‘divested’ it of nearly all of its positive legacies, including Islamic philosophy, science, arts, civil society, etc.  It was the Taliban’s way or the knife.  One has never read about a more oppressive society.

The Taliban did not become the Taliban, or rule, in a vacuum.  They were of course incubated and constantly nourished by the Pakistani government and ISI.  When the Taliban needed more troops in their battles with Masud and what would become the Northern Alliance, Pakistan would just close some of their madrassas in FATA or the Northwest Provinces and send the men over the border.  Rashid, who also spends time on Osama bin Ladin’s terrorist network in Afghanistan, accurately predicted that the Pakistani state and military were creating their own nightmare with their support of the Taliban, instead of the ’strategic depth’ they aimed for.  The author stated that the Islamic fundamentalism, drugs, weapons, and social breakdown that the Pakistani government was assisting the Taliban in performing or using, was making Islamabad ‘ripe for a Taliban-style Islamic revolution.’  While what is occurring today in Pakistan is so far, thankfully, not this extreme, it is too close for comfort.

Rashid’s ‘Taliban’ also details the human and women right’s abuses by the Taliban in great detail.  In addition, Rashid spends several chapters describing the ‘great game’ of pipeline politics in the Central Asia region and not surprisingly was correct in his assessment that Afghanistan, and the region as a whole, was just too unstable for Western groups to come in and build major gas and oil pipelines, no matter how much they wanted too.  Though these pipeline chapters were well researched, they can be passed over by most readers.

Rashid’s book provides much more than the history and make-up of a group that the powerful United States military is having a hell of a time defeating, it brings to life the challenging modern history of a people who have only known violence in their lives.  It is sad to think that one cannot imagine this changing in the near or even long-term future.  Though Rashid’s work is far from perfect, too many assumptions presented as facts (he is a journalist by trade), it brings light on a dangerous and important group, geopolitical actors and actions in a key region of the world, and on the suffering of millions.

US Defense (or is it War) Secretary Robert Gates spoke candidly about the war in Afghanistan to group of reporters yesterday aboard an Air Force plane. Gates, who has gone from a seemingly short, holdover type term to one filled with significance, warned that unless “a perceptible shift in momentum” occurs with the Obama administration’s Afghan strategy, American public support for the war will ‘dissipate’.  Gates went on…”People are willing to stay in the fight, I believe, if they think we’re making headway.  If they think we’re stalemated and having our young men and women get killed, then patience is going to run out pretty fast.”

This possibility becomes more acute when one looks at US poll numbers and the fact that dozens of Democratic representatives already support a withdrawal.  Gates’ concern emphasizes how important it will be for not only some signs of progress in Afghanistan’s (and Pakistan’s) stability, but also the fact that President Obama will have to use some of his political capital and weight to keep morale and ‘hope’ up in the States.

Gates not only stated that the US was basically ‘losing’ in Afghanistan, but also that the Taliban were the ones with momentum.  This unfortunately is obviously true as US and NATO forces in past year have sustained increased fatalities and injuries, lost more regions to Taliban control, and have watched the group make strategic gain after gain in Pakistan.

In the interview, Gates also bluntly stated that Iran was ‘hurting US interests’ in Afghanistan by sending weapons to the Taliban and other violent groups.  He specifically voiced concern over possible Iranian shipments of ‘penetrators’, which I guess can be used as extremely powerful roadside bombs that can pierce ‘the strongest armor.’  These warnings by Gates fly in the face of talks about Tehran being a positive force in Afghanistan.  Yes, Iran and the US share certain strategic elements in the conflicted state and region (stability numero uno), but their interests and policies are clearly not completely in-line.

The Heads of State of Afghanistan (Karzai), Pakistan (Zardari), and Iran (Ahmadinejad) met in Tehran on Sunday for the first trilateral meeting between the neighboring states in years.  Extremism, terrorism, and drug trafficking were the main issues on the agenda, but the most important accomplishment was setting a tone of cooperation for future dealings.  The one concrete outcome of the talks was the Tehran Statement, which is a pledge by all three to work together to ‘eradicate’ terrorism and drug trafficking across their respective borders.

Besides the usual anti-American swipes by Ahmadinejad, most statements made during and before the summit by the 3 leaders and their foreign ministries stressed the need for regional cooperation on the aforementioned problems, which truly are regional in nature.  While Karzai argued for the three to act like ‘good neighbors’, his ministry also eloquently stated how further cooperation between these states was needed in “eradicating extremism, terrorism and drugs which run counter to Islamic beliefs and morals, and the culture and traditions of the three Islamic countries.”

Sorry to throw a sad water on a happy fire, but though these state actors have many reasons to cooperate, the past and present does not really make one optimistic.  These states have failed to make significant partnerships in decades and a flashy meeting does not guarantee this has changed.  Yes, the governments of Iran and Afghanistan desire the Taliban’s defeat, but this does not necessarily translate to firm action.  It was only a month or two ago when the Afghan military was accussing Iran of funneling weapons to the Taliban, or at least not stopping the insurgent group from acquiring them.  Even if Iran was dead set on getting rid of the Taliban, what could they really bring to the table militarily or politically?  I’m afraid to say not much.

Regarding Pakistan and Afghanistan, we know their cooperation problems well.  Pakistan and Iran also have a long history of Sunni/Shia regional rivalry to overcome.  It also doesn’t help that Iran continues to oppose the US presence in Afghanistan, as Ahmadinejad’s statements showcase.  Though President Obama has opened the door for negotiations and cooperation with Iran, specifically regarding Afghanistan, behind the door has not appeared much substance.

Check out this short video by Al Jazeera discussing Iran-US-Afghanistan relations:

I think this triumvarite should concentrate on drug trafficking and go from there.  The Afghan military announced this weekend that they destroyed approxiametly 92 tons of ‘heroin-processing chemicals and bomb-making materials’ in Helmand Province, a good start.  Tighter borders and more vigilant law enforcement by all three could pay dividends in at least slowing the opium drug trade.

This Memorial Day, I would like to pay tribute to all those American military men and women fighting in Afghanistan and beyond.  Actually, I would like to go further and thank all those Americans who have sacrificed for this country by serving in our militaries throughout our history, whether in Vietnam, Iraq, WWII, etc.  To the many men and women who suffered mental and physical injuries and to those that lost their lives we owe more than we can ever repay.  Everyday we walk up and go about our lives in this country is a testament to what you fought for and what is still worth fighting for.

Thank you.

It is very easy to just sit here and write about US political and military strategy in Afghanistan and discuss how these battles are either won or lost and lose track of what is actually happening in the lives of the individuals actually doing the fighting (and dying), both Americans, Europeans, Afghanis, etc. The iconic picture of U.S. Army Specialist Zachary Boyd crouched in a defensive position against enemy fire, wearing pink ‘I love NY’ boxers brings a stark reminder that the people waging the war we talk and read about back home are…real people. People that every morning wake up and choose what underwear they are going to put on and wonder what the day holds for them in a foreign land ripe with dangers and unknowns.

As Boyd’s mother has stated, this picture helps remind us Americans that the men and women fighting for our safety over there are really just the ‘kid next door’. It’s a shame we need things like pink boxers to remind us of this at times.

In the below one question daily briefing by the US State Department, Spokesman Ian Kelly attempts to describe the ongoing process of the so-called civilian surge in Afghanistan. Though the ‘people surge’ is considered an integral part of the Obama administration’s Afghan strategy, many have wondered where exactly they were going to obtain the necessary civilian experts. Kelly states that 50 civilians are ready to get to work in the country this summer and that ‘hundreds’ more are on the way, but one comes away still curious as to how and if the US can fulfill the many civilian-level needs of the Afghan conflict. Here is the transcript of the curt and rather shallow overview of the ’surge’ so far:

Question: How many (new and increased) civilian personnel will the State Department be sending and what is the timeline for their arrival?

Answer: The primary mission of the civilian staff in Kabul and the field is to build the capacity of the Afghan government at all levels and help strengthen the ties between the government and the governed. The civilian plan is totally integrated with the military plan and reflects the strong partnership between U.S. civilians and military. The deployment of civilians is timed to synchronize with the deployment of the military units with which they will be working, beginning in early this summer and extending into early 2009. We already have identified more than fifty civilians who will be in position by early summer. These committed men and women represent a 50 % increase to our current civilian staffing outside of Kabul. They will deploy in the east and south, the same areas which are the focus of U.S troop increases. Hundreds more will follow. The State Department is already assigning additional U.S. Foreign Service Officers and hiring highly qualified Americans from the private sector, many of whom have extensive experience in Afghanistan or civil-military operations. Civilians will receive tailored training, including with US military, to ensure maximum effectiveness upon arrival in country. The United States is working closely with the Afghan government and its international partners on determining the right number and mix of civilians throughout Afghanistan. We will continue to review the U.S. civilian deployment plan to determine whether additional civilians are required to meet needs identified in the field. We will be using all hiring authorities and creative mechanisms to ensure that the right people are in place at the right time.

It took a matter of hours for President Hamid Karzai’s administration to deny the rumor that his government was to take on former U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad as a CEO or ‘unelected prime minister’ of the central Asian state. The New York Times reported yesterday, based on unnamed American and Afghan officials, that Karzia would bring the Afghan born, American citizen Khalilzad on to help him govern the fractured state, but today Karzai’s spokesman said this was false. “We are not aware of this. We cannot confirm this. There is no truth in it,” spokesman Siyamak Herawi said.

Khalilzad, a former US ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, is an influential politician and figure in Afghanistan and has friends throughout the region. While he was the US ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003-05 he was a powerful figure, as could be expected as the US took out the previous rulers of the state, the Taliban, and helped place the current government led by Karzai in power, and there were rumors that he may run for president against Karzai, but that time has passed.

If Khalilzad did take on an important executive role in the new government it could have many benefits, but also several pitfalls. As ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq he showed he could deal with stressful, fractious situations and people in an effective manner and this tough leadership is needed by the boatloads in Afghanistan today. The central government needs to show it can provide for its citizens and Khalilzad may be able to get the state’s engines humming a little tighter and efficiently. Khalilzad’s American connection can also be valuable as the Afghan-US partnership has never been more integrated and important for the nation’s future. Of course it is this strength that will also be a major hangup to Khalilzad actually becoming part of the solution in Afghanistan as there are valid fears that his place in government will further create the feeling that the US is dominating the Afghan state.  The Afghan people need to feel that they have a say in how their government is run and that it is not really controlled from across the globe by people who may not share their interests.  One can easily see the Taliban and other groups criticizing the appointment as proof that the US plans to dominate Afghanistan for years to come.

It is for these reasons that Karzai may be backing off the idea right now, or at least waiting until after the election in August.  We shall see.

Afghan school girls have been targets of the Taliban ever since the group starting gaining power in the country in 1994 and the group remains vigilant in stopping women from gaining access to such basic rights, especially an education. The Taliban have burned down hundreds of girl schools in the past few years and has even sprayed acid on the faces of young girls heading to school, all of this to discourage young women from getting an education. Early last week things may have gotten even worse, as a third incident occurred featuring a large group of school girls falling ill at school because of some unknown gas in the country’s northeast.

Sick girls in Kapisa Province

There were multiple incidents in the province of Parwan a couple weeks ago, with the most recent occurring in the city of Charikar last week, where dozens of girls started to feel nausea, irritable, and confused for unknown reasons. It is suspected, but unconfirmed, that extremist elements may have put a poisonous gas into the three schools ventilation systems causing the illnesses, with the purpose of scaring girls and their families away from the schools. This apparently has been working. “I am scared because of this chemical thing happening in our school. My mother isn’t allowing me because she is scared too,” said 10-year-old Manila, a fourth grader at Aftabachi who stayed home.

Blood tests were being to examined to find the true reason behind the illnesses. Gas attacks are extremely frightening as in many cases they cannot be discovered by normal human senses, such as sight and smell, before it is too late. I couldn’t imagine trying to learn while worrying about this! The sad part of these incidents is that they are occurring in the relatively peaceful and girl-friendly northeast region of Afghanistan, where the Taliban do not have a strong hold. Confidence needs to be restored in the safety of the schools as soon as possible as staying home is the worst thing for these young girls. Well check that, suffering from unknown poisonous gases is worst.

These horrifying attacks come at the same time the country is attempting to come to terms and investigate the accused deaths of about 140 Afghan civilians by US air strikes and the apparent wrongful death of an Afghan civilian by American security contractors in Kabul. Apparently, four Xe Services, formerly known as Blackwater, employees have been fired and in custody for killing a Kabul man during a traffic accident. At least this case seems to be heading somewhere rapidly instead of being shoved under the table for months before a real investigation occurs.

The US House of Representatives passed a $94.2 billion dollar funding bill for Afghanistan yesterday, but cracks may be appearing in overall US support of the war effort there. The bill passed 368 to 60, with 51 Democrats and 9 Republicans voting against providing more funds for a conflict that new President Barack Obama has emphasized and hopefully energized.

About a month ago, I wrote a column discussing how recent polling showed American support for Afghanistan still strong, but weakening, especially on the American Left. This latest funding bill showcases that this drift may be real and a great challenge to the Obama administration’s hopes of a sustained commitment. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi emphasized that the bill had no ‘time limits’ on a US presence in the country, and media outlets like the New York Times are still arguing that it is a ‘must-win‘ war, and other liberal groups such as Moveon.org remaining largely silent, there are influential people who either want a clear exit strategy or just plain want US troops sent home.

I mean Pelosi herself had to emphasize that there were no time limits instead of just passing the bill. House Representative David Obey, the chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, told reporters on Monday that he would give President Barack Obama ‘a year’ to succeed in Afghanistan. I think Obama has mentioned the word ‘decade’ in terms of this struggles length more than he has 1 year. Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts stated his concern and compared the Afghan conflict to the one in Iraq:

“When George Bush was president, I was on this floor saying we need an exit strategy. The same applies with Afghanistan. I’m tired of wars with no deadlines, no exits and no ends.”

In addition, the Out of Iraq Caucus is considering setting up a similar group for Afghanistan. Caucus member Rep. Raul M. Grijalva has argued that the Out of Iraq Caucus and other progressive Congress groups should put more attention on Obama’s Afghanistan plan:

“I think we see that we have the same problems in Afghanistan that we once had in Iraq: no end, no exit strategy, no clear end product of our presence there. There’s going to be a meeting to organize that concept of what the Out of Iraq is going to do.”

Former Bush administration official Peter Feaver compares Obama’s Afghanistan clock with Bush’s Iraq clock, in terms of public and congressional support. Though Feaver rightly acknowledges that the Afghan clock is much slower than the Iraq one has been, he correctly notes that the clock is indeed running. As can be seen from the voices up above, some people’s clocks are running faster than others.

The Los Angeles Times has reported a significant change in US-Pakistani usage of drone attacks inside Pakistan territory, and that is that both sides have agreed on a framework to work together. US and Pakistani military officials both anonymously acknowledged that they had joined forces in using US Predator drones to attack Al Qaeda and militant targets inside of Pakistan. At least on the outside, this is quite the sea change as Pakistani authorities have strongly criticized the ‘violating of their sovereignty’ by these types of incursions so far during the Afghan conflict.

The LA Times reports that the Pakistani military and ISI are partnered with a US military drone command center in Jalalabad, where the two sides have been said to work together on sharing intelligence, choosing targets, and operating strikes. One senior U.S. military official said at least two missions had been flown in recent weeks under Pakistani direction.

However, this does not mean 1. That the US and Pakistani military and intelligence agencies completely trust each other 2. That these type of air strikes will have a dramatic impact on reducing Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other insurgent group capabilities or morale. A major issue in not partnering with the Paki ISI and military has been that plain and simple they have proven untrustworthy, especially in terms of their connections with senior Taliban leaders. Why would the US want to tell or partner with someone who may actually really support the enemy? Of course on the other hand, the Pakistani ISI and military could provide a dramatic increase on militant and Al Qaeda intelligence that hides in shadows from US intelligence agencies. The partnering in the drone efforts also bestows a certain amount of legitimacy on the US strikes into Pakistan as they can now be seen as ‘approved’ by the target state itself. This may also help the Pakistan government seem more in control of the situation instead of manhandled by a strong foreign power.

Another facet of this whole debate to remember is that though these drones must make the lives of the Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders filled with fear, they have not so far proven to dent the insurgency or bring stability to the region. The incident in Farah, which I believe was not done by drones but by conventional air strikes, showcases the dangers of these air strikes as civilians will inevitably be killed or injured. How will it sit with Pakistanis to know their government may now be involved? Could this bring further resentment and separation from the people of FATA and the Northwest Provinces, pushing them even more towards the Taliban?

I believe this is an overall positive development as the government of Pakistan appears to be finally taking the threat of the Taliban seriously to their own survival, but it is a move and partnership that comes with many question marks.