The Taliban insurgents have claimed that the attack which killed 8 CIA agents on Wednesday in the eastern Afghan province Khost was carried out by an Afghan army officer they have identified as Samiullah.

According to a news claim posted by the movement’s purported spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, on their website’s Pashto page, www.alemarah.info, the CIA officers were present in a fitness center in civilian clothes when the army officer, wearing a suicide vest, entered the club and blew himself up.

Mujahid in his claim put the number of the killed CIA agents as 20 and added that 25 more were injured. However, the international media, quoting reliable sources, has confirmed the killing of at least 8 CIA agents. Initially the reports said that 8 civilian Americans were killed in the attack.

The fatal attack, described as the single deadliest attack on the American intelligence, took place in Forward Operating Base Champan in Khost, near Pak-Afghan border, where the CIA officers mostly plan attacks on the Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants across the border where they have safe havens and allegedly receive support from Pakistani intelligence.

The officials in the US did not release further information about the attack and how the bomber entered the heavily fortified base. And the claim made by the Taliban is confirmed by neither the Afghan and American officials nor the independent sources, which of course is impossible because the independent sources often don’t have access to these areas. However, if there is ample evidence that the attack was carried out by an Afghan army officer, then this is a signal of an increasingly dangerous situation for the international forces working with the Afghan officials as this is not the first time that an attack of this kind takes place. Just two days ago, an Afghan soldier killed one American soldier and wounded two Italians in the western Afghan province, Badghis. Similarly, an Afghan soldier, named Gulbuddin, killed 5 British soldiers in southern Helmand province on November 4, 2009. Before that, similar attacks have been occurred in many other provinces.

Elsewhere, in the southern Kandahar province, a bomb explosion on Wednesday killed 5 Canadian soldiers and one journalist accompanying them. The year 2009 is going to end with horrible stories of attacks on the forces in Afghanistan.

The Taliban militants, leading the world’s bloodiest insurgency in recent history, have vowed to oust the international forces from Afghanistan in 2010, claiming that the year 2009 was very successful for them in terms of political and military achievements ‘against an arrogant western and American power.’

This was stated in a fresh statement posted on the movement’s website, www.alemarah.info (Pashto page). The statement, written in Pashto, and titled as ‘The year 2009: the Mujahedeen’s success and the invaders’ confusion,’ further says that everyone now is talking about reconciliation and peace talks with the Taliban which means a defeat to the Afghan government and its international supporters.

The statement refers to the heavy casualties inflicted on the international forces in 2009 and the low turnout in the August 2009 Afghan presidential and parliamentarian elections and hails them as their military and political successes. ‘This has put our enemy in a confusing and troubling situation and is now confronting internal conflicts and public opposition; has no solid and firm policy; on one side they talk about sending additional troops, but on the other side expresses the unreasonable opinion of their hurried withdrawal and on the same time demand for a political solution to the issue,’ the statement adds.

The statement also mentions the new Obama strategy, announced on Dec. 1, 2009, in which the US President promised to send additional 30,000 troops to change the momentum. ‘In response to this, the Leadership Council of the Islamic Emirate, in a letter, ordered the Mujahedeen across Afghanistan to launch new operations called ‘Nusrat’ (victory) from Saur (April),’ the statement continued.

The statement also gives figures of the casualties of 2009 which greatly differ from the figures given by the Afghan government and the NATO-led ISAF forces and independent sources. The Taliban statement puts the total number of the international forces’ deaths as 5587, but www.icasualties.org, a website that tracks military deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, reported the total number of international forces’ deaths in 2009 as 506, of them 310 deaths were Americans, double than the deaths occurred in 2008. The Taliban statement says that 7254 Afghan soldiers were killed in 2009 and puts the Taliban fighters’ casualties only as 540. There is no independent source that could give the accurate numbers of the casualties of the Afghan soldiers and police, as well as the Taliban fighters. However, these figures greatly differ than those given by the Afghan officials in press releases.

At the end of the statement, the Taliban have repeated their determination to step up the attacks further in 2010, which, according to their claim, will eventually force the international troops out of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan in 2010: challenges and expectations.

First of all, a warm welcome to 2010 with hopes for peace and stability! This year is crucial for Afghanistan in many ways: the insurgency has expanded its presence to nearly every corner of the country and the perpetrators have vowed to carry it on with much more force; the international community has promised a long term commitment and the United States is focusing to change the momentum of the insurgents with a troop surge and several other programs, such as the expansion of a secretive commando operation which will target ‘the most lethal insurgent groups;’ an effective reconciliation and reintegration process is recommended and voiced for from most of the influential stakeholders; and the new-in-process Afghan government is expected internationally to crackdown on the most despicable problem of the country: corruption.

The additional 30,000 American troops along with the 7000 NATO soldiers to arrive next year while President Hamid Karzai has introduced his not-so-new cabinet to the Wolesi Jirga (Parliament). On the opposite side, the insurgents killed an American soldier in the south of the country on Dec. 27 confirmed by a NATO-led ISAF press release on Dec. 28. This new death, according to AFP, doubled the US casualties in 2009.

‘The death takes this year’s international military casualties in Afghanistan to 506. Of those deaths, 310 have been Americans. That figure compares with a total of 155 Americans for 2008. The total number of foreign troops killed in Afghanistan in 2008 was 295’ (506 in 2009).

The most important point for 2010 is a hope of victory on both sides. It was not only President Obama’s Dec. 1 strategy that promised to turn the situation in favor of the international forces in next 18 months, but a NATO official even warned that a shadow Taliban government is in place if the international community failed this year. Quoted by Reuters, this senior NATO official said, ‘Time is running out. We’ve got about a year to prove that our strategy can actually work. The Taliban has shadow governors in 33 out of 34 provinces.’

He was also quoted to have said that the reason behind this was a weak government (we are witnesses of this): ‘Where the government is weak, the enemy is strong.’ ‘He also said international development ‘has not met the expectations of the people’ and that the ‘Taliban have an incredible ability to sustain themselves.’ This is an alarming situation for the Afghan government as well as the international community.

So growth in the insurgency, reconciliation with the reconcilable elements, combating corruption, and more effective efforts for capacity building on all levels are the main challenges that the Afghan government and the international community are facing together. And unfortunately, after 8 years lost, we have only one year (2010) now. By no means should we loss this chance.

The Dec. 22 suicide attack on Peshawar Press Club that brutally killed at least three people was not the first heinous act of terrorism that targeted journalists in the conflict-hit AfPak region, many talented and brave reporters have lost their lives during the past several-year long wave of the ruthless insurgency, but it was unique in many ways: it was the first attack that directly targeted the profession of journalism as a whole instead of the target killing of an individual and was unique because the target was a group that can be described as the long-time eloquent ‘admirers’ of the terrorism and insurgency in the region, at least in Afghanistan and Kashmir.

The targeted Peshawar Press Club had been the place where a majority of reporters, columnists and feature writers (except its current president Shamim Shahid and few others) of the jingoist Urdu and English media of Peshawar, the capital of Pashtunkhwa or North West Frontier Province (NWFP) of Pakistan, and correspondents of the media outfits in the rest of the country, sat on comfortable tables and wrote lengthy propaganda news stories and eulogizing feature articles in which the terrorists were being described as freedom fighters and the true sons of their motherland. These heavily romanticized and extremely exaggerated stories encouraged the ignorant youths from Peshawar to the tribal areas to take up arms and volunteer to be used as fodder by the ISI-backed terrorist campaign.

The terrorist campaign was then limited only to Afghanistan and Kashmir. But when the terrorists increased in number and grew in strength, thanks to the all-out support of Pakistan or some powerful elements within the Pakistani government and intelligence, they had to expand their presence and authority beyond Afghanistan and Kashmir. The Pakistani media, however, still did not realize the magnitude of the threat and continued to support terrorism with attractive words and terms like ‘freedom fighters,’ ‘reformers of the society’ etc. Unfortunately, it is still the case though thousands of innocent people have lost their lives in the most condemnable and despicable suicide attacks and bomb blasts that take place every other day across Pakistan. But Pakistani media, like Pakistani officials and politicians, is still in the state of denial. Just recently, when a Canada-based Pakistani mullah, Tahir-ul-Qaderi, issued a 150-page fatwa in which he condemned the terrorist attacks in Pakistan while justified them in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kashmir, I had a discussion with a journalist who was member of the Peshawar Press Club. This journalist defended the fatwa and argued that there was a big difference between the Pakistani and Afghan militants.

‘What is that difference?’ I asked.

‘The Pakistani militants are very cruel, they don’t believe in any religion, they get support from foreign countries and they kill innocent people. While the Afghan militants are very good people, they want to free Afghanistan and they don’t kill innocent people.’

I told him that both the militants have safe havens in the same tribal areas, both operate under the same name, both follow the same ideology, both have the same shuras, both use the same tactics, both support one another, and both have the same goal. He had this curt reply: ‘whatever they do, I will condemn the Pakistani militants and support the Afghan militants.’ Before him, I got the same answer to one of my questions from a former Pakistani official during a conference. (Also, the Pakistani government had immediately welcomed Tahir-ul-Qaderi’s fatwa). With having that mentality from the top ranks to the common people, from the intellectuals to the reporters, I don’t think if Pakistan will ever be able to get rid of the menace of terrorism.

Now the question is that why will the terrorists want to kill their admirers. The answer is a verse from the popular classic Pashtun poet, Hamid Baba:

Mahroyan kala khpalegi tol da cha?

Tar spogmey chapera kegi shpol da cha?

It means that you cannot keep all your lovers happy all the time.

The same with the terrorists! As long as you keep them happy, they are okay, but the moment you did something that went against their mood, they will turn against you and target you. Pakistan has yet not learned from the example of its army and state institutions which are being targeted by the same people who were trained and equipped by it. The United States is also a good example: the 9/11 was planned by the people who were trained and equipped by the CIA 20 years ago.

While the fresh terrorist attack in Dera Ghazi Khan district of Pakistan has killed at least 34 people and wounded another dozens, the President of the country, Asif Ali Zardari, according to Washington Post, resisted to expand the operation against the militants. The Post reported on Dec. 16, 2009, that: ‘Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has resisted a direct appeal from President Obama for a rapid expansion of Pakistani military operations in tribal areas and has called on the United States to speed up military assistance to Pakistani forces and to intervene more forcefully with India, its traditional adversary.’

Concurrently, a US embassy official in Pakistan, traveling with Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that though the Pakistani military had seized nearly all of the former Taliban stronghold of South Waziristan, but militant leaders who fled were still able to carry out deadly attacks deep inside Pakistan’s heartland from new hide-outs, reported New York Times on Tuesday.

Pakistan seems to be in the state of deep confusion in its stand and commitment to the war on terror, which the country claims is its own war, but the facts on the ground tell something else. There are reports that the country’s military, the intelligence agency, and some political-religious parties – also a creation of the military and the intelligence- are strongly opposed to the operations against terror groups, particularly those who are committed to fight in Afghanistan. The Zardari government seems to be either too weak to make a decisive plan or it also does agree with the policies that are made and implemented by the military establishment.

A few days back, two different statements by the Pakistani Prime Minister was a manifestation of the confusion the country has been facing towards its anti-terror efforts. On Dec. 12, while talking to reporters in Multan, the Prime Minister, Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani made an unexpected announcement that the military operation in South Waziristan was over. But the next day, while talking to a different audience in Karachi, he changed his statement and said that the operation was not over.

This state of confusion, or double standard as many describe it, to be reluctant and willing at the same time, and to have strict policy towards one faction (Pakistani) of the terrorists while being protective to another (Afghan), makes the country’s position vulnerable for the terrorists and suspicious for the anti-terror world.

Many times when we say that Pakistan, or a powerful faction within the government and the establishment, support the terrorism, the Pakistanis immediately say that Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism. In fact, it is a victim of confusion and double standard policies.

Saifullah Ahmadzai, Senior Research Analyst, Abdul Halim Achakzai, Senior Research Analyst, Shoaib Harris, Research Fellow and Abdulhadi Hairan, Research Analyst at the Centre for Conflict and Peace Studies (CAPS) participated in the Regional Network of Strategic Studies Center (RNSSC) conference from 18^th to 22^nd November, 2009. The conference was hosted by the Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis (IDSA) in New Delhi, India.

The conference had been planned to provide a platform for Network participants in order to discuss ongoing research, plan future collaborations, draft publications, and welcome new centers into the network.  To this end, four working groups had gathered to discuss counter terrorism, non-traditional security, democracy & governance, border security and weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, relatively smaller and focused plenary sessions followed to discuss issues concerning water Security in the Near East and South Asia Region, New Challenges and Opportunities in Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, Exploring the Region’s Stake in Afghanistan.

Click to read full story.

The suicide car bomb on Tuesday that killed at least 8 and wounded another 40 people in Kabul’s heavily fortified area of Wazir Akbar Khan district took place after a series of important events that affected or likely to affect Afghan politics. This was the first major attack in Kabul after President Obama announced his widely debated new Afghan strategy on Dec. 1, 2009. This coincided with the formation of a new cabinet that is internationally expected to curb corruption in the Afghan government. President Karzai has been under heavy pressure in picking up his new ministers. To work out both these crucial issues, the United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently visited Kabul followed by an unannounced visit by the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

The main focus of the new Obama strategy was on sending the additional 30,000 troops to be arrived soon and deployed in different parts of Afghanistan. The Taliban had vowed to step up attacks and turn the new policy into a failure. The new wave of attacks – the killing of 16 policemen in Baghlan and Helmand in two separate attacks and the killing of 5 government officials in Paktia province – along with today’s deadly Kabul attack could be quoted as an example.

As usual, the Taliban spokesman, calling from an undisclosed place, took the responsibility of the attack and claimed that the target was a guest house, favorite of the European visitors and international workers, owned by the son of a former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani. There are rumors that the owner of the guest house is going to be included in the new Afghan government formation. But nearby to the place where the attack took place is the house of the former first vice president, Ahmad Zia Massoud, brother of the legendary Afghan commander Ahmad Shah Massoud. The Massouds were reported to have claimed that the former first vice president was the target but he survived.

In any case, the attack was a ‘new message’ for the new Afghan government as well as the new international commitment with Afghanistan as how the Taliban have still the capability to responding to the new strategies. This emphasizes on the need of multi-faceted mechanisms on the part of the international community to combat terrorism. For the Afghan government, President Karzai has to realize the enormity of the challenges his next government will have to face.

For a long time, the Afghans have been the victims of policies, ideologies and strategies imported and enforced from outside the country. An internal Afghan solution has never been a priority for the international players of the Afghan conflict. The new Obama strategy, which has two main parts: sending more 30,000 troops to gain the momentum against the terrorists, and invest huge amounts to lure the Taliban fighters to switch sides, is another part of this series.

This strategy is for the next 18 months. The key question is: what will happen after that? The Taliban is not a pure Afghan dilemma. It has local and international powers behind it as supporters. If these supporters continue to support and pay for fighting, the insurgency will never see an end. They will pay to make them fighters and you will pay to switch sides. At the end of the day, Obama, or the next US President, will have to draw another new strategy. Thus, the conflict will continue until the time the basic regional problems and issues are understood and resolved, not through foreign strategies but through local mechanisms.

As an effort to provide a further explanation of the basic problem, for example, we can discuss the role Pakistan does play in the regional conflicts and politics. This nuclear-armed country is seen as the major contributor to the international terrorism and extremism and at the same time a major front to fight against the global threat of terrorism. From the events that have been taking place within this country, we can tell that Pakistan is extremely confused over the issue of fighting against terrorism. Two days back (on Dec. 12, 2009), Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani told reporters in Lahore that the anti-terror operation in South Waziristan was over. This he said after having claimed that the military had cleared the area of local and foreign terrorists and was now in its control. But the next day, while speaking to a different audience in Karachi, he changed his statement and said that the operation was not over but will continue to an indefinite time. This created confusion and suspicion about the coordination between the political officials and the military commanders.

Similarly, there are reports that the country is widely divided on the issue of anti-terror operations. According to these reports, the powerful military, the intelligence agencies, the political-religious parties that were originally created and later supported by the establishment, are against the operations and support the extremist groups for their local as well as international agendas, while the weak political government and the liberal circles want an all-out campaign to be launched against the terror groups that are hiding and operating in the tribal areas as well as the settled and urban areas.

The reasons behind the fact that a majority of Pakistan’s military, political, and religious elements support terrorism or extremism are not very much complicated: Pakistan has a 62-year long enmity with India and its military gets benefited from this conflict. And the use of terrorist groups has proved the most effective and lethal method against India. So, unless the Pak-India conflict is solved, the military will never want to put a complete end to the terror groups. The second reason: Pakistan is not happy with the US presence in the region because that has been harming its strategic role in Afghanistan. As troubling as the Pak-India conflict is the Durand Line issue between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This conflict has deep political dimensions. A remarkable majority of the Afghans believe that Pakistan has illegally occupied the Pashtun-dominated areas. They think that the Pashtun-dominated areas of Pakistan should be a part of Afghanistan or turned into an independent state, known as Pashtunistan. Pakistan’s political powers are aware of these perceptions and know that a stable and peaceful Afghanistan may mean a re-emerge of the Pashtunistan issue. So without resolving this crucial issue, Pakistan’s political powers may never want to stop supporting the Afghan insurgency.

So reconciliation with the insurgents is okay. But there is still a strong need to look at these issues as important factors because only the solution of these problems can bring a long-lasting peace and stability to the region.

The Afghanistan – Pakistan – India Friendship Forum (APIFF) is for peace-loving people of this region. As South Asian countries, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India can play a major role in making the region socially peaceful, politically stable and economically prosper. Fortunately, majority of the people of these countries want these values and hate the warmongers who are always seeking conspiracies and conflict. This group is for people who want peace, stability and prosperity in these countries and the region. Let’s share our thoughts on these matters, be friends and think positive. Let’s throw the wars and conflicts where they have thrown us. To join the group and contribute to this cause, please click on the link and join:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=mf&gid=193145820705