PDA

View Full Version : Great news from US Embassy and US military in Bagdad



boutons_
04-08-2006, 02:31 PM
April 9, 2006
U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord

By ERIC SCHMITT (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/eric_schmitt/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and EDWARD WONG (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/edward_wong/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

WASHINGTON, April 8 — An internal staff report by the United States Embassy and the military command in Baghdad provides a sobering province-by-province snapshot of Iraq's (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) political, economic and security situation, rating the overall stability of 6 of the 18 provinces "serious" and one "critical." The report is a counterpoint to some recent upbeat public statements by top American politicians and military officials.

The report, 10 pages of briefing points titled "Provincial Stability Assessment," underscores the shift in the nature of the Iraq war three years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/saddam_hussein/index.html?inline=nyt-per). Warnings of sectarian and ethnic frictions are raised in many regions, even in those provinces generally described as nonviolent by American officials.

There are alerts about the growing power of Iranian-backed religious Shiite parties, several of which the United States helped put into power, and rival militias in the south.

The authors also point to the Arab-Kurdish fault line in the north as a major concern, with the two ethnicities vying for power in Mosul, where violence is rampant, and Kirkuk, whose oil fields are critical for jump-starting economic growth in Iraq.

The patterns of discord mapped by the report confirm that ethnic and religious schisms have become entrenched across much of the country, even as monthly American fatalities have fallen. Those indications, taken with recent reports of mass migrations from mixed Sunni-Shiite areas, show that Iraq is undergoing a de facto partitioning along ethnic and sectarian lines, with clashes — sometimes political, sometimes violent — taking place in those mixed areas where different groups meet.

The report, the first of its kind, was written over a six-week period by a joint civilian and military group in Baghdad that wanted to provide a baseline assessment for conditions that new reconstruction teams would face as they were deployed to the provinces, said Daniel Speckhard, an American ambassador in Baghdad who oversees reconstruction efforts.

The writers included officials from the American Embassy's political branch, reconstruction agencies and the American military command in Baghdad, Mr. Speckhard said. The authors also received information from State Department officers in the provinces, he said.

The report was part of a periodic briefing on Iraq that the State Department provides to Congress, and has been shown to officials on Capitol Hill, including those involved in budgeting for the reconstruction teams. It is not clear how many top American officials have seen it; the report has not circulated widely at the Defense Department or the National Security Council, spokesmen there said.

A copy of the report, which is not classified, was provided to The New York Times by a government official in Washington who opposes the way the war is being conducted and said the confidential assessment provided a more realistic gauge of stability in Iraq than the recent portrayals by senior military officers. It is dated Jan. 31, 2006, three weeks before the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra, which set off reprisals that killed hundreds of Iraqis. Recent updates to the report are minor and leave its conclusions virtually unchanged, Mr. Speckhard said.

The general tenor of the Bush administration's comments on Iraq has been optimistic. On Thursday, President Bush argued in a speech that his strategy was working despite rising violence in Iraq.

Vice President Dick Cheney (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/dick_cheney/index.html?inline=nyt-per), on the CBS News program "Face the Nation," suggested last month that the administration's positive views were a better reflection of the conditions in Iraq than news media reports.

"I think it has less to do with the statements we've made, which I think were basically accurate and reflect reality," Mr. Cheney said, "than it does with the fact that there's a constant sort of perception, if you will, that's created because what's newsworthy is the car bomb in Baghdad."

In their public comments, the White House and the Pentagon have used daily attack statistics as a measure of stability in the provinces. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, a senior military spokesman in Baghdad, told reporters recently that 12 of 18 provinces experienced "less than two attacks a day."

Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" on March 5 that the war in Iraq was "going very, very well," although a few days later, he acknowledged serious difficulties.

In recent interviews and speeches, some administration officials have begun to lay out the deep-rooted problems plaguing the American enterprise here. At the forefront has been Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador, who has said the invasion opened a "Pandora's box" and, on Friday, warned that a civil war here could engulf the entire Middle East.

On Saturday, Mr. Khalilzad and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior military commander in Iraq, issued a statement praising some of the political and security goals achieved in the last three years, but also cautioning that "despite much progress, much work remains."

Mr. Speckhard, the ambassador overseeing reconstruction, said the report was not as dire as its assessments might suggest. "Really, this shows there's one province that continues to be a major challenge," he said. "There are a number of others that have significant work to do in them. And there are other parts of the country that are doing much better."

But the report's capsule summaries of each province offer some surprisingly gloomy news. The report's formula for rating stability takes into account governing, security and economic issues. The oil-rich Basra Province, where British troops have patrolled in relative calm for most of the last three years, is now rated as "serious."

The report defines "serious" as having "a government that is not fully formed or cannot serve the needs of its residents; economic development that is stagnant with high unemployment, and a security situation marked by routine violence, assassinations and extremism."

British fatalities have been on the rise in Basra in recent months, with attacks attributed to Shiite insurgents. There is a "high level of militia activity including infiltration of local security forces," the report says. "Smuggling and criminal activity continues unabated. Intimidation attacks and assassination are common."

The report states that economic development in the region, long one of the poorest in Iraq, is "hindered by weak government."

The city of Basra has widely been reported as devolving into a mini-theocracy, with government and security officials beholden to Shiite religious leaders, enforcing bans on alcohol and mandating head scarves for women. Police cars and checkpoints are often decorated with posters or stickers of Moktada al-Sadr (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/moktada_al_sadr/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the rebellious cleric, or Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, a cleric whose party is very close to Iran. Both men have formidable militias.

Mr. Hakim's party controls the provincial councils of eight of the nine southern provinces, as well as the council in Baghdad.

In a color-coded map included in the report, the province of Anbar, the wide swath of western desert that is the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency, is depicted in red, for "critical." The six provinces categorized as "serious" — Basra, Baghdad, Diyala and three others to the north — are orange. Eight provinces deemed "moderate" are in yellow, and the three Kurdish provinces are depicted in green, for "stable."

The "critical" security designation, the report says, means a province has "a government that is not functioning" or that is only "represented by a single strong leader"; "an economy that does have the infrastructure or government leadership to develop and is a significant contributor to instability"; and "a security situation marked by high levels of AIF [anti-Iraq forces] activity, assassinations and extremism."

The most surprising assessments are perhaps those of the nine southern provinces, none of which are rated "stable." The Bush administration often highlights the relative lack of violence in those regions.

For example, the report rates as "moderate" the two provinces at the heart of Shiite religious power, Najaf and Karbala, and points to the growing Iranian political presence there. In Najaf, "Iranian influence on provincial government of concern," the report says. Both the governor and former governor of Najaf are officials in Mr. Hakim's religious party, founded in Iran in the early 1980's. The report also notes that "there is growing tension between Mahdi Militia and Badr Corps that could escalate" — referring to the private armies of Mr. Sadr and Mr. Hakim, which have clashed before.

The report does highlight two bright spots for Najaf. The provincial government is able to maintain stability for the province and provide for the people's needs, it says, and religious tourism offers potential for economic growth.

But insurgents still manage to occasionally penetrate the tight ring of security. A car bomb exploded Thursday near the golden-domed Imam Ali Shrine, killing at least 10 people and wounding dozens.

Immediately to the north, Babil Province, an important strategic area abutting Baghdad, also has "strong Iranian influence apparent within council," the report says. There is "ethnic conflict in north Babil," and "crime is a major factor within the province." In addition, "unemployment remains high."

Throughout the war, American commanders have repeatedly tried to pacify northern Babil, a farming area with a virulent Sunni Arab insurgency, but they have had little success. In southern Babil, the new threat is Shiite militiamen who are pushing up from Shiite strongholds like Najaf and Karbala and beginning to develop rivalries among themselves.

Gen. Qais Hamza al-Maamony, the commander of Babil's 8,000-member police force, said his officers were not ready yet to intervene between warring militias, should it come to that, as many fear. "They would be too frightened to get into the middle," he said in an interview.

If the American troops left Babil, he said, "the next day would be civil war."

Eric Schmitt reported from Washington for this article, and Edward Wong from Baghdad. Jeffrey Gettleman contributed reporting from Hilla, Iraq, and Abdul Razzaq al-Saiedi from Baghdad.


Copyright 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

ChumpDumper
04-08-2006, 02:38 PM
Obviously the real problem is the leaking of this report. I say we talk about that for awhile.

boutons_
04-08-2006, 02:56 PM
April 8, 2006

Time Running Out for Rebuilding of Iraq

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 3:33 p.m. ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- In their makeshift offices in a former Baghdad palace, a small army of American builders and engineers, oilmen and budgeteers is working overtime on last-minute projects to help reconstruct Iraq.

Their time is running short, their money running out.

After three years in which the U.S. government allocated more than $20 billion for Iraq reconstruction, a bill now making its way through Congress adds only $1.6 billion this year, just $100 million of it for construction -- not for building schools or power stations, but for prisons.

Does the sharp cut in aid surprise and disappoint the planners here? ''Probably both,'' said Michael P. Fallon, U.S. reconstruction program chief.

But ''the program in general has been very successful,'' he said in an interview -- ''with the caveat that it hasn't gone as far as we thought we'd be able to go.''

The ambitions of 2003, when President Bush spoke of making Iraq's infrastructure ''the best in the region,'' have given way to the shortfalls of 2006, in electricity and water supply, sanitation, health facilities and oil production. A University of Maryland poll in January found strong majorities of Iraqis hopeful about their country's future in general, but only one in five thought the Americans had done a good job on reconstruction.

Even after billions were spent on power plants and substations, electricity generation still hasn't regained the level it had before the U.S. invasion of 2003. When Fallon's experts keep the lights burning late, they're relying on emergency U.S. generators in their ''Green Zone'' enclave, since the rest of Baghdad gets power only a few hours a day.

Barely one-third of the water-treatment projects the Americans planned will be completed. Only 32 percent of the Iraqi population has access to clean drinking water now, compared with 50 percent before the war, according to the U.S. special inspector-general for Iraq reconstruction.

About 19 percent of Iraqis today have working sewer connections, compared with 24 percent before 2003.

Of more than 150 planned health clinics, only 15 have been completed, under a contract ending this month.

Oil production, meanwhile, has stagnated, averaging 2.05 million barrels a day in mid-March, short of the 2.5 million-a-day U.S. goal, and far short of Iraq's production peak of 3.7 million in the 1970s. Fewer than one-quarter of the rehabilitation projects for the oil industry have been completed.

Iraq's insurgency dealt a major blow to the rebuilding efforts,

... leading U.S. officials in 2004 to begin siphoning off reconstruction money to help train Iraqi police and military forces, build prisons and pay for private security for projects already under way.

Washington from the beginning also underestimated Iraq's needs, how badly its infrastructure had suffered from wars, the devastating looting of 2003, and neglect through years of U.N. economic sanctions and Saddam Hussein's rule. Now, says the special inspector-general, Stuart Bowen, the need for more aid ''has reached a critical point.''

But rather than sending more rebuilding money, the U.S. effort this year will shift toward ''sustainability'' -- to an oversight role, to training Iraqis to maintain what has been built, and to urging others to fill the aid gap.

''I think we've been pretty clear that we never intended to fix the entire infrastructure,'' said Kathye Johnson, Fallon's boss as reconstruction director for the U.S. projects agency in Iraq, the Gulf Region Division-Projects and Contracting Office.

''Fixing'' Iraq's infrastructure would probably cost at least $70 billion, experts estimate. Johnson and other U.S. officials say that money should begin to come from other foreign donors and the Iraqi government itself.

But prospects for that are uncertain.

More than two years ago, other foreign governments and international institutions pledged more than $13.5 billion in Iraq aid, but thus far barely $3.2 billion has been spent.

Donors continue to shun this dangerous country; the World Bank, front-line lender elsewhere, hasn't even opened an office in Baghdad. The Bush administration is pressing Persian Gulf states, in particular, to help their fellow Arabs in Iraq.

As for Iraq's own money, lagging oil exports leave it with nothing to spare.

The U.S. Embassy estimates Iraq must export 1.65 million barrels a day just to begin accumulating funds for repairing more roads and leaking water pipes, laying sewer lines, rebuilding hospitals and making other capital improvements. But in early March its foreign sales averaged only 1.38 million barrels.

''It is unclear how Iraq will finance these additional requirements,'' U.S. congressional auditors said in a recent study.

(... part of the Wolfowitz/warhawks/etc dream was that the US would need to spend very little because Iraqi oil would pay for the US war. That lie was necessary because "conservatives" would never have supported a war whose costs run the US $1T. But part of the real Repug objectives was to borrow money and spend the US govt into huge debt, "starving the beast", and constricting any future spending)

That budget gap will cripple the Iraqis as they try to pick up where the U.S. government leaves off. They estimate they'll need $20 billion to rebuild the electricity system alone. On water treatment, Ghazi Naji Majid, director-general of the Public Works Ministry, says plans for six major plants are on hold ''until the money becomes available.''
( the Repug war broke Iraq, but the Repugs refuse to own it or fix it )

Even where there's money, plans can stall. Majid said his ministry has stopped building a water-treatment plant in Abu Ghraib, just outside Baghdad, ''because workers were being kidnapped and killed.'' Within a few days last month, in the northern city of Beiji, attackers killed 12 men -- engineers and others -- who worked for the important local oil refinery and power plant.

Insurgency, lack of money, widespread corruption, inadequate training, poor maintenance -- all threaten to undercut even what's been accomplished. Congressional auditors, from the Government Accountability Office, went back to check completed water-treatment plants in Iraq and found that one-quarter of them were operating below capacity or not at all.

To preserve what's been done, to aid ''sustainability,'' the 2006 U.S. budget allocates almost $300 million to operations and training at new or rebuilt power and water plants and other facilities.

''What you don't want to happen is for facilities to fail because they didn't know which part was broken, or they didn't have the part,'' said David Leach, in charge of capacity development for the U.S. projects agency.

Leach sees a ''high risk with the investments we've made.'' Iraq's violence can make it difficult for trainers and trainees even to get to their work sites, he said.

''A lot of trips get canceled,'' he said.

One project, the Balad Ruz water-treatment plant 40 miles north of Baghdad, will become a test case in this transitional year. The Americans supervised the building and purchase of equipment for the plant, but after June 1 the Iraqis must install the equipment and lay 25 miles of pipe to deliver water to some 55,000 residents.

''It's meant to start to develop their talent for finishing projects,'' said Air Force Col. John Medeiros, project overseer. ''It's a case of 'Let's give you something to galvanize yourself around.'''

The special inspector-general wonders, however, how well a Baghdad government will ''galvanize.'' In his January report to Congress, Bowen recommended that instead the Americans should keep their hand in reconstruction for three or four more years.

Far from the halls of Congress and such budget decisions, the U.S. project managers here work with their spreadsheets and blueprints in the cavernous rooms of what once was a museum to Saddam. They haven't given up on possible major new infusions of U.S. money.

''We've just gone through a drill: If you get additional funding, what would you do with it?'' said Tom Waters, deputy director for electricity. Fallon, a civil engineer and 30-year-plus veteran of the Army Corps of Engineers, said a contingency plan has been drafted that would ''take us to the next levels.''

But so far no one's showing them the money.

''The question is, when do you pull the plug?'' Fallon said. ''We stand that risk of maybe taking a step or two back if we walk out. I'm concerned.''

If it's left to the Iraqis and the insurgency rages on, he said, ''I don't know if they'll ever make it.''

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press

boutons_
04-08-2006, 03:17 PM
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2006/db060408.gif


http://images.ucomics.com/comics/jd/2006/jd060408.gif

T-Pain
04-08-2006, 11:56 PM
i think this is starting to become a lost cause. Bush said the Iraqi people will get to choose their own government. Looks like they want civil war to settle their future. I say let it happen and start gradually pulling out in Iraq.

exstatic
04-09-2006, 11:15 AM
How arrogant to think we could change almost 1400 years of Islamic sectarian violence between the Shia and the Sunnis by toppling a government, and spewing some platitudes and a lot of wishful thinking. To put it in perspective, these folks have been killing each other since almost 1000 years before the Pilgrims landed in America. Mohammed died in 632 AD, touching off the succession struggle that became the Shia/Sunni conflict. The Pilgrms landed in 1614.

boutons_
04-09-2006, 12:12 PM
The 1000-1 odds against the Repug Iraq war succeeding (in what?) are playing out.

America is no safer.

Muslims world-wide are convinced US is fighting an anti-Muslim holy war, is planning to establish permanent bases in Iraq / ME to control/steal oil, and generally more radicalized against the USA.

The dubya/dickhead/rummy/Repug 2 terms will go down as some of the lowest, worst Administrations in US history, from not stopping 9/11, to fucking up federal government, to spending the US into decades crippling debt, to wasting 8 years NOT pushing oil conservation.

Brodels
04-09-2006, 03:51 PM
i think this is starting to become a lost cause. Bush said the Iraqi people will get to choose their own government. Looks like they want civil war to settle their future. I say let it happen and start gradually pulling out in Iraq.

I think we need to find a way to get out of there soon. We simply can't continue to pay for a war that really doesn't do much to benefit our country.

It's tricky, though. We can't really leave the nation in a state of chaos, as that would encourage activities that are definitely not in our best interests. We need to find a way to end the chaos quickly. Unfortunately, throwing large amounts of money at the problem seems to be the solution that has dominated over the past couple of years, and we simply don't have enough money to make it work. Sure, $100 billion dollars could really help put things back together and lead to at least a bit of stability, but that's not really something we can do.

It seems quite hopeless to me. We need to get out of there soon, but allowing civil war and chaos to rule the day would be a mistake.

Vashner
04-09-2006, 06:26 PM
Doesn't benefit?

So you would rather have a Post WWI type of Saddam running his shit regime?

We tried with with Hitler. We have to attack evil. It does benefit the country.

Let the volunteer soldiers fight.... You don't have to join.

Semper Fi.

ChumpDumper
04-09-2006, 06:49 PM
We have to attack evil.Thank god we saved all those people from being raped and hacked to death in Darfur.

Brodels
04-09-2006, 07:45 PM
Doesn't benefit?

So you would rather have a Post WWI type of Saddam running his shit regime?

We tried with with Hitler. We have to attack evil. It does benefit the country.

Let the volunteer soldiers fight.... You don't have to join.

Semper Fi.

I'm not sure what a "Post WWI type of Saddam" is. Could you please explain?

I guess that begs the questions: what exactly is evil? It's certainly a judgement call at best, but it can quickly turn into a condemnation of everything and everyone that is different. The concept of evil doesn't really mean anything to me. Is Mexico more or less evil than Iran for sending illegal immigrants across the border?

Besides, attacking "evil" can cost a lot of money. Bush believes that North Korea and Iran are evil (presumably along with many other places), and it attacking evil is the goal and is really in the best interests of our country, we better get busy. Attacking evil means that we'll be at war forever. In fact, we better get our armed forces ramped up for our invasions of North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Mexico, China, and about thirty other countries.

If you consider all of those places to be evil, which it seems like you would if you considered Iraqi leadership to be evil, some priorities need to be set. Would Saddam, for example, pose a greater threat to our nation than China in the long term? How about Mexico? How about Iran?

If attacking evil was really the goal, we wouldn't have chosen Iraq. Unless you really believe that Iraq was the biggest threat to us, I can't see how you would disagree. Saddam was an isolated leader with a weakened amount of power due to sanctions, geography, and bad decision making skills.

I don't have any issue with volunteer soldiers choosing to join the armed forces. My concern is paying for the war. With every passing day (and every dollar the nation goes into debt), the prospects of a good quality of life in future years decreases. I don't want to pay for the war. The nation is awful at handing its finances, and I'm paying for something that is sure to affect quality of life in the future. In addition, I don't feel particularly safer because we went into Iraq.

So what am I paying for?

boutons_
04-13-2006, 08:06 AM
And the good news keeps pooring in.

With govt still-aborning, it may end up still-born.

===================

BBC NEWS

Iraq unrest forces 65,000 to flee

By Andrew North
BBC News, Baghdad

At least 65,000 Iraqis have fled their homes as a result of sectarian violence and intimidation, according to new figures from the Iraqi government.

And the rate at which Iraqis are being displaced is increasing.

Figures given to the BBC by the Ministry for Displacement and Migration show a doubling in the last two weeks of the number of Iraqis forced to move.

There has been a sharp rise in sectarian violence since the bombing of an important Shia shrine in February.

This triggered the current tensions between the country's majority Shia Muslims and minority Sunni Muslims, and hundreds of people have since been killed.

Intimidation

Reports of people leaving their homes because of violence or intimidation, or simply because they no longer feel safe, are becoming more and more common.



Discovery of victims of execution-style killings almost daily

Some of the intimidation is being carried out by mobile phone.

People have been receiving threatening text messages and gruesome videos filmed on mobile phone cameras.

In one, a Sunni Iraqi man who entered a mainly Shia neighbourhood of Baghdad is seen being beaten and killed by men in black clothes.

The video was then sent out with the warning that this is what would happen to any other Sunni who comes to this area.

Makeshift camps

The Iraqi Ministry for Displacement and Migration told the BBC almost 11,000 families had left their homes - equivalent to about 65,000, based on the average Iraqi family size.


REGIONAL SPREAD OF RED CRESCENT AID
Baghdad 2000 families
Najaf 600
Wasit 360
Dhiqar 110
Diwaniya 500
Karbala 170
Basra 110
Anbar 400
Salahuddin 450

Much of this displacement is taking place in and around Baghdad where the violence has been worst, with many people moving in with relatives or friends.

The Red Crescent is providing food, water, blankets, and kerosene to 5000 families.

"Every day the number is going up," Dr Maazen Saloom, a senior official with the Iraqi Red Crescent, told the BBC. "We are trying to get more funds to help these people."

Some displaced people are living in makeshift camps, others are living with relatives or friends, or have moved into ruined buildings or other structures.

Some displaced Iraqis, the Red Crescent says, are hesitant to move to camps, concerned that the camps will become the target of attacks.

Hundreds of Sunnis from the overwhelmingly Shia south, have been heading north - many going to Sunni areas in and around Falluja, west of Baghdad.

The United Nations still has only a limited presence inside Iraq but officials in neighbouring Jordan say they are trying to secure emergency funds because of expectations this internal refugee problem will grow.
Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/4905770.stm

Published: 2006/04/13 12:05:32 GMT

© BBC MMVI

boutons_
04-13-2006, 08:14 AM
Meanwhile, back at the (Afghan) ranch ....

Same problem as Iraq, weak national govt and institutions incapable, with US and NATO assistance, of establishing law/order and security

====================

New Attacks Foment Fear in Afghanistan

Weak Governance Beyond Capital Is Blamed

By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, April 13, 2006; A16

KABUL, Afghanistan, April 12 -- A spate of terrorist attacks, from the murders of five medical workers in Badghis province in the north to bombings in the opium poppy region of Helmand in the south, is expanding a climate of insecurity across Afghanistan as NATO forces prepare to take over most military duties from the U.S.-led coalition.

Afghan officials vaguely blame the attacks on "enemies of Afghanistan" and denounce neighboring Pakistan for harboring Islamic insurgents bent on destroying this fragile new democracy. The reinvigorated Taliban militia, for its part, has vowed to wage a bloody spring and summer offensive against the Afghan state.

But a variety of foreign analysts and military officials here offer a different explanation: a vast canvas of weakly governed and unprotected territory in which drug traffickers, feuding tribesmen and opportunistic criminals -- as well as Taliban gunmen on motorbikes and mysterious suicide bombers -- operate with increasing ease, despite the presence of tens of thousands of foreign troops in the country.

"There are feudal fights, factional rivalries, people settling old scores, people opposed to anti-drug operations," said Cmdr. Susan Eagles, spokeswoman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force here. "There is no coordinated strategy between incidents," she added. "When there are areas of ungoverned space, where the rule of law is not in operation, it becomes a breeding ground for insurgent action."

In addition to the growing number of suicide bombings, a tactic once unknown in Afghanistan, Western officials cite persistent reports of a burgeoning collusion in Helmand and Kandahar provinces between drug traffickers and forces loyal to the Taliban, which banned opium poppies as un-Islamic when it ruled most of the country five years ago.

In recent weeks, violence has been concentrated there, including a bold armed assault March 29 on a U.S. and Canadian military base, coinciding with the start of an international program to forcibly eradicate opium poppy fields.

Over the next several months, more than 6,000 troops from Britain and other NATO countries are slated to take over security in the southern region, and analysts are predicting a bloody debut.

"Transitions are a time of testing, and both sides will have something to prove -- the NATO forces to show they are tough, their opponents to show they won't run," said Joanna Nathan, who heads the Kabul office of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, a nonprofit advocacy and research group. "There will be more troops and more targets. It will be a pretty messy summer."

Canada, Britain, Italy and the Netherlands have made strong commitments to a new, more muscular Afghan mission under the NATO umbrella. Their decisions followed heated domestic debates that were influenced by such incidents as the near-fatal ax bludgeoning of a Canadian soldier by a teenage boy during a village meeting in Kandahar.

In an interview Tuesday, Eagles said NATO forces were eager to shift from their current mission of policing cities and mostly quiet rural areas in the north to combating well-armed fanatics and drug runners in the south. The transition from U.S. leadership to NATO military control is on track to occur by July.

"We are extremely well prepared," she said, describing plans to flood the sparsely patrolled poppy and Taliban region with up to 17,000 troops, in coordination with Afghan government plans to bring in stronger local and regional officials. "We are not going to be deterred or lose heart. We are going to close down those ungoverned spaces so the Afghans can bring in governance, development and the rule of law."

There are signs the renewed Taliban insurgency could be particularly difficult to dislodge. U.S. military officials here, who often describe Taliban terrorist attacks as acts of desperation, acknowledged concern this week over the growing use of Iraq-style suicide bombings, which have killed several dozen people this year.

"They are doing it because it is successful; they have shifted their tactics to something successful," Col. James Yonts, the U.S. military spokesman here, said Monday. He described the recent suicide bombings -- one of which nearly killed the leader of Afghanistan's national assembly as he drove through the capital last month -- as "very hard to combat."

On Saturday a suicide bomber struck outside a U.S. military compound in Herat province in the west, which by Afghan standards has been largely secure.

None of the bombers has been identified. Speculation as to their identities include al-Qaeda foreigners, Pakistani agents and Afghan Taliban fanatics who have seized on a new tactic.

Conventional attacks continue unabated as well. Last Sunday, unidentified gunmen fired on a clinic in Badghis province, killing five Health Ministry workers, and then set the facility alight. On Tuesday, seven children were killed by a rocket that struck a crowded schoolyard in the town of Asadabad near the border with Pakistan.

The revived Taliban insurgency does not appear to have established a political foothold in Afghan society. But it has burned more than 200 schools and forced numerous foreign aid groups to retreat from much of the south and southeast. In the tribal areas just across the Pakistan border, moreover, Taliban adherents have begun carving out pockets of parallel rule, settling local disputes and beheading suspected informants.

Until the Afghan government begins to establish a solid official presence across the country, including in security, justice and social services, several analysts here said, no number of foreign troops will be able to quash the terrorist and criminal violence.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

======================================

When was the last time the Repugs paid any attention, or mentioned, Afghanistan?

CubanMustGo
04-13-2006, 11:12 AM
Doesn't benefit?

So you would rather have a Post WWI type of Saddam running his shit regime?

We tried with with Hitler. We have to attack evil. It does benefit the country.

Let the volunteer soldiers fight.... You don't have to join.

Semper Fi.

Let the volunteer soldiers fight ... and die. Including the ones who signed up for the National Guard and Reserves who suddenly find themselves fighting a war dreamed up by what apparently were a bunch of "leaders" on crack. I honor their memories but castigate those who put them in harm's way for no real reason. Equating a small-time bully like Saddam with Hitler is a joke.

In case you hadn't noticed, the real lunatics ... people with nukes or developing nuclear capability - are in North Korea and Iran. But because of our stupid actions in Iraq, we can't do a damned thing about either one. We have exhausted the worldwide political capital we had built up after 9/11 by bullying our way into Iraq and now do not have the military wherewithal to do anything about Iran ... which is no doubt why we are talking about NUCLEAR WEAPONS to take out C&C and weapons development sites in Iran.

Semper Fi, but in just causes, not because some lunatic on the throne wanted to avenge Daddy's honor.

Nbadan
04-13-2006, 04:29 PM
You know you war is a lost cause when West Point grads (http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/) set up a anti-war site