Just days after American military officials stated their readiness to logistically remove their presence from the Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan, it appears they can unpack their bags, or at least the ones without weapons.

The Kyrgyz parliament has approved a more limited American presence in the country and has received a hefty raise on their rental fees.  Although there are varying reports on ‘new restrictions’ such as only non-military gooods can pass through the pass, the new financial agreements seem more transparent.  Annual rent will go from $17.5 million dollars to a whopping $60 million and the US will provide approximately $36 million for airport upgrades, $30 million for new navigational equipment, and more than $40 million for economic development and anti-drug trafficking measures.

Regarding other logistics, the Manas air base will now be referred to as a ‘transit center’ and the Kyrgyz government will now be in charge of security outside the base.  Though the New York Times stated that it heard nothing about restrictions on weaponry, other reports, such as Voice of America and the Associated Press, stated differently.  If there is indeed serious restrictions on military goods I’m not so sure I agree with the NY Times assessment that this is a ‘victory’ for the Obama administration.  (Why do they have to say for ‘Obama’ or ‘Bush’, why can’t they just say the US?).  The Manas air base, which was threatened to be closed down a few months back conspicuously after a Moscow-Bishkek loan agreement, is a major hub for getting American soldiers into and out of Afghanistan.  Are troops considered ‘millitary’ goods and will this new agreement restrict them going through Manas?  This is a crucial question.

The Obama administration does deserve credit for making this a priority as losing the base would have been a strategic defeat on several grounds, but I think the real winners here is the Kurmanbek Bakiyev’s Kyrgyz government.  They were able to play off Washington with Moscow and ended up with funds from both sides.  This deal also lets the Kyrgyz government look stronger to its people as they are dictating terms to the Americans.  They played their relatively weak hand beautifully.  I mean did anyone really think that they didn’t want the millions of dollars the US was throwing at them?

Check out this Council on Foreign Relations report on Winning the Information War in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The work analyzes both American and Taliban/Al Qaeda media usage and effectiveness.  Here’s an Exerpt:

With overwhelming firepower, Western armies rarely lose in combat to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. But in the communications battle, the militants appear to hold the edge. The gap has grown especially wide in the Afghan war zone, analysts say. Using FM transmitters, the Internet, and threatening notes known as “night letters” (TIME), Taliban operating from the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan have proven effective at either cowing citizens or winning them over to their message of jihad. U.S. special representative Richard Holbrooke told journalists in March 2009 that “the information issue–sometimes called psychological operations or strategic communication” has become a “major, major gap to be filled” before U.S.-led forces can regain the upper hand. As part of its new strategy for the Afghan war, the White House has called for an overhaul of “strategic communications” in Afghanistan “to improve the image of the United States and its allies” and “to counter the propaganda that is key to the enemy’s terror campaign.”

The report itself contains various other worthwhile resources to, that’s right, check out.

Also regarding the daring escape of US and Afghan journalists David Rohde and Tahir Ludin, check out the blog posts and pieces referenced at Registan.net

Check out my review of the latest Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit in Yekaterinburg, Russia over at FPA’s Central Asia blog.  I’m not cheating on you Afghanistan, I just think we should see other regions once in a while.

Quick little round up…

McKiernan officially out, McChrystal officially in as the top US and overall commander of forces in Afghanistan.  McChrystal, known for his special ops strategic strikes in Iraq, has been hammering the point that protecting Afghan civilians is what will bring a change in the conflict’s direction.  He is already reviewing troop placement with this idea in mind.

In accordance with the growing Americanization of Afghan conflict (that’s what tens of thousands of troops added on one side with barely nothing from the other side will do) NATO ministers have acquiesced to new command structure with the US clearly taking a dominant role.  The most interesting aspect of the change is the separation of military and training operations.

The Afghan Presidential election is off to the races (Karzai opens at a 100-1 favorite).

The FPA has had some interesting pieces regarding Afghanistan as well:

Daniel Markey’s ‘From AfPak to PakAf: A Response to the New U.S. Strategy for South Asia‘

The PBS one hour special ‘Afghanistan and the War on Terror‘

David Anderson takes a three religion approach to analyzing ‘Radical Islam‘

A couple days ago, my US  State Department daily feeder cooked me up this press conference by US Afghan/Pakistan Envoy Richard Holbrooke. The Q & A, though centered on Holbrooke’s most recent trip to Pakistan and the Gulf States, held several interesting items regarding Afghanistan and the nascent Obama administration strategy for the region.

Right away, Holbrooke emphasized the displaced person ‘crisis’ in Pakistan due to the governments military battles with the Taliban in Swat and elsewhere.  He highlighted the already $310-330 million in aid the US had given (a large percentage of the UN’s requested $560 million) and acknowledged that the US ‘cannot bear this burden at this level’ for much longer, calling for other states, especially from the Gulf, to contribute.  It can be assumed that his trip to the Gulf states (Oman, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar) afterward included a plea for more aid.

After reiterating that Pakistan was vital to US national security, he voiced his approval for the Pakistani military’s efforts in the Swat and beyond, but was short in his discussion about whether he thought they were ‘winning’ or could ‘hold’ the recovered areas and cities formerly in Taliban control.  After pretty much sidestepping a ‘can Pak military hold Swat’ question, Holbrooke went into Afghan-Pakistan relations and connections.  Holbrooke first took an opportunity to criticize the Bush administration before discussing how the US had attempted to get Afghan and Pakistan government officials together.  Here is Holbrooke:

And one of the things we discovered was that some of these ministers have never met before. The two interior ministers didn’t know each other. The two agriculture ministers didn’t know each other. The two finance ministers didn’t know each other.

These two states have integral history’s, ethnicities, policies, and problems, and though even Holbrooke admits that ‘Af-Pak’ is a flawed term that Afghanis and Pakistanis dislike, it is shame that their governments have had so little contact.  Holbrooke argues that with a couple trilateral summits already concluded, that relations and connections are improving.  The Us envoy stated that so far these trilateral summits had led to 19 Action Items dealing with issues such as agricultural and detainee policy, had been presented to President Obama.  It will be interesting to see how indepth and workable these AI’s turn out to be (or if we even hear of them again).

Holbrooke also had kind words to say about Russian Ambassador to Afghanistan, Kabulov, but declined to go into detail about any strategic discussions between the two of them.

Holbrooke’s a good talker and he goes on over many other issues and into greater depth if you would like to read the whole thing.

Below is a movie review of the Afghan film ‘Osama’ by FPA’s Global Film Review blogger Sean Patrick Murphy.  If you have seen the film please let us know what you thought about it in the comments.  Enjoy…

“Osama” is the story of a 12 year-old girl living in Afghanistan during the rule of the Taliban.  When the girl and her mother lose their jobs at the local hospital because of the Taliban crackdown on women’s rights, she must cut her hair and pretend to be a boy so she can work. The mother’s husband and brother have been killed in battle and there is no one to bring home a paycheck. The Taliban have also forbidden women to appear in public without a male companion.

Now disguised as a boy named Osama, the girl finds work with a shop keeper who promises to keep her secret. Also, a boy about her age finds out her true identity and does what he can to run interference with the authorities so she is not found out.

Much of the film revolves around the daily struggle for the girl and her family to survive. It also shows the desperate attempt by the girl to not be discovered.
“Osama” is a bleak film, holding no punches when showing the plight of Afghan women under the Taliban. And the ending is anything but a typical Hollywood ending. The repression under the Taliban is palpable in this movie and never lets up, even in the film’s resolution.

Inspired by a true story, “Osama” was the first entirely Afghan film shot from the fall of the Taliban. It is available on DVD.

The author can be reached at: lojano@comcast.net

Reports are slipping out from the US military’s official investigation into the accidental bombing of civilians in Afghanistan’s Farah Province last month and it looks like the US is admitting some mistakes.  The investigation, according to the LA and NY Times, acknowledges that all rules of engagement were not followed during the incident, including reports that the Taliban threat at the time was not a grave enough threat to to call for a 2,000 lb bomb to be dropped and a lack of assurance that civilians were not present at the scene of the attack. The details of the report are a case study in the ‘fog of war’.

From the articles it appears that US marines and the Afghan army were in heavy fighting with the Taliban and as the fighting went into the night, the marines called in an airstrike in a building they believed the Taliban were being sheltered in.  Sadly, this building apparently became filled with civilians at an unknown time, and how this occurred and who should have known about it have become the key investigative questions asked.  The US still claims that around 20-30 civilians were killed, while the Afghan government claims around 140.  60-65 Taliban members were also reported killed in the fighting.

This incident goes to the heart of struggle in battling an insurgency; killing the bad guys and protecting the citizenry.  Unfortunately, ‘bad guys’ and ‘citizens’ are both hurt at times and the question becomes, ‘Was killing those blank number of bad guys worth killing those blank number of civilians?’  ‘Are we winning the battles (fights against the Taliban), while losing the war (hearts and minds)?’

The incoming commander of US forces in Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal and for US troops along the Af-Pak border Maj. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, each emphasized the importance of protecting Afghan civilians in recent weeks.  McChrystal vowed that the protection of civilians would be ‘essential to our credibility’.  During his testimony before Congress, McChrystal, while emphasizing that airstrikes and Special Ops would maintain a central part of US military strategy, stated American success in Afghanistan should be measured by “the number of Afghans shielded from violence,” not the number of enemy fighters killed’.  Scaparrotti was quoted; “We look very closely at the use of close air support in terms of being deliberate and very precise.  We are here to protect the people of Afghanistan and we intend to pursue our operations with that first in mind, and use CAS (close air support) only where we need to protect our force and complete the mission.”

These men have quite the task ahead of them, as the tragic incident in Farah shows all too well.

I apologize for my absence as we have been having good ol’fashioned technical difficulties.  There are many Afghan-related in the past week and I hope to catch up and comment on at least a few of them (McChrystal’s testimony, airstrikes and civilian casualties, poppies, etc.), but for now let’s discuss what President Obama said in his Cairo address about Afghanistan.  First, the short Afghan portion of his speech:

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That’s why we’re partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America’s commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths - more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

First off, I really like how Obama firmly faces and objects to any idea that 9/11 was anything but a cruel act by Al Qaeda, as polls have shown that an unfortunate percentage of Arabs/Muslims feel that 9/11 was an inside job or some other conspiracy so the US could go into Afghanistan and Iraq.  Obama continues this thread by calling the US invasion of Afghanistan ‘necessary’ and quickly emphasizes how the US desires to keep our troops home, but that the situation on the ground denies us that choice.

I think the President was rather effective in this regard, stating the enemy we all face, Arabs, Muslims, Pakistanis, Afghans, Americans, Europeans, etc., and that is radical, violent Islamic extremists, but things get a little bleary, as he just discusses Al Qaeda and other extremists, without ever mentioning the Taliban.  There is no doubt that the US is in Afghanistan to stop international terrorism and terrorists, but it is also trying to secure a stable government, very preferably democratic, and is fighting the Taliban to do so.

Unfortunately, Obama made the situation seem a little to tight and tidy.  I also think the President missed an opportunity to call for regional support, both diplomatic and strategic, in America’s wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  He went to great pains in the speech to emphasize that the US wants to fight extremist elements in Islam with the majority of Muslims who are moderate, but failed to connect this to actual policies and requests.  For example, the Taliban are being funded from various foreign sources, couldn’t he have discussed polling regional resources to combat this?  I may be getting to0 picky as this speech was more about overarching West-Islamic-Arab relations, Israel-Palestine, with many other issues (including Iraq and Iran) getting set aside.