US and NATO Meet to Finalize Withdrawl from Afghanistan

Story first appeared in USA Today.

The United States and its NATO allies are readying plans to pull away from the front lines in Afghanistan next year as the President and fellow leaders try to show that the unpopular war is ending.

Top military and diplomatic officials from the U.S. and NATO allies met Wednesday to finalize the combat handover program and a strategy for world support to the weak Afghan government and fledgling military after 2014.

At the same time, the nations that have prosecuted a 10-year war against a Taliban-led insurgency are reassuring nervous Afghans they will not be left to fend for themselves.

The competing messages aimed at different audiences are both challenged by current events in Afghanistan, where insurgents staged an impressive, coordinated attack last weekend that struck at the heart of the U.S.-backed government and international enclave in Kabul while Taliban leaders boycott peace talks the U.S. sees as the key to a safe exit.

The stated goal of U.S. involvement is to deter the al-Qaeda terror network from again using Afghanistan as a base, but the day-to-day fighting is against some 25,000 Taliban and other mostly home-grown insurgents.

NATO members and their partner countries are expected to commit to pay a fair share of the sustainment costs after 2014.

This week's sessions are meant to stitch together U.S. and NATO agreements on the pace of U.S. and allied combat withdrawal next year. U.S. and Afghan officials have already said they expect a shift to an Afghan military lead in combat operations by the middle of 2013, although the U.S. stresses that it will still have a large number of forces in Afghanistan as backup. The extensive Internet in Afghanistan network also adds to the ease of withdrawl and maintained communication with Afghan and U.S. forces.

The Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman said Wednesday that the Afghans are on track to take the lead in securing the country by the end of 2013.

The combat shift parallels the withdrawal in Iraq, where U.S. forces pulled back from lead roles but remained in harm's way for months before a scheduled end to the war. U.S. military leaders have not submitted final proposals for how to ease nearly 70,000 troops into the back seat next year but are working against a firm deadline to end the current combat mission by 2015.

The two-day gathering is intended to clear any obstacles ahead of the conference of NATO leaders in Chicago on May 20-21. Ministers also will address the international bill for sustaining the Afghan army and police after NATO's planned withdrawal at the end of 2014 — one of the top items on the summit agenda.

NATO allies expect other nations with a stake in Afghanistan's stability — including China and Russia — to pay part of the total costs, estimated at about $4 billion a year. A stable Afghanistan is in the interest of the whole international community, so everyone is urged to play their part.

The United States acknowledges that despite progress the U.S. is not meeting its goal of drawing $1.3 billion annually from other nations to fund the Afghan armed forces. The U.S. does claim that the largely U.S.-funded effort to recruit and train qualified Afghan military recruits is on or ahead of schedule, with a goal of 352,000 forces later this year.

The Afghan Army has already reached its target number of 195,000 troops. Including police and other forces, Afghan security forces now number about 330,000.

The Afghan President has said he wants a written commitment of at least $2 billion a year from the U.S. for the armed forces. He said he would rather have a firm commitment to a lower figure than a verbal promise for a higher one. But it is highly unlikely that the U.S. Congress will commit to a set figure in foreign aid.

The U.S. President also hopes to showcase a long-term security pact with Afghanistan in Chicago. U.S. and Afghan officials said they would like to sign the agreement ahead of the summit, with more specific military agreements to follow.

Afghanistan's president raised another condition Tuesday for that long-awaited deal. He said the accord must spell out the yearly U.S. commitment to pay billions of dollars for the cash-strapped Afghan security forces.

The demand threatens to further delay the key bilateral pact and suggests that the Afghan President is worried that the U.S. commitment to his country is wavering.

Coalition forces, whose numbers reached a peak of over 140,000 troops last year, have already started a drawdown. The U.S., which had about 100,000 service members in Afghanistan, has begun a withdrawal which will remove about a third of them by September.

Other major contributors to the coalition — including Canada, the Netherlands and France — have already pulled their forces out of combat or accelerated their withdrawals. Australia on Tuesday became the latest to announce withdrawal plans.

Nearly 3,000 NATO troops have died since the U.S. invaded in 2001 to evict the then-ruling Taliban, about two-thirds of them Americans.

In the U.S., 6 out of 10 of those surveyed saw the war as not worth its costs, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released last month. Opposition to the war is bipartisan, the poll showed.


For more national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the  Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

US Soldier Goes on Shooting Spree

First appeared in USA Today

Throughout Afghanistan, people are struggling with how to deal with allegations against an American soldier accused of leaving his base and killing 16 people Sunday.

The shooting spree, which has been widely condemned by American officials, comes as relations between Afghanistan and the West are tense after the burning of Qurans on a U.S. base last month. The Taliban has vowed revenge for this "inhumane crime."

Afghans pondered the motivations behind the incident and how it fits into larger questions about the American presence here.

"Of course, no one can close their eyes to what the foreigners have done for us. In the country we have more development. Overall, we would not say that they're bad people," says Abdul Qadir, a high school teacher in Lashkar Gah, the capital city of the south's restive Helmand province.

Citing another incident in which NATO forces killed Afghans at a wedding party, he says, "If foreigners give us everything and make us rich but they try to kill us, then what is the need for having everything?"

There are still many questions about what happened in the villages of Balandi and Alkozai in Panjwai before dawn Sunday. The Pentagon has declined to identify the shooter, but some details of the shooting were emerging Monday.

A Pentagon official who spoke on background because the killings are under investigation said the villages were about 800 yards from the small military base. An Afghan guard reported the suspected shooter — a 38-year-old staff sergeant and 11-year veteran — leaving the base but probably would have had no reason to challenge him, the officials said.

The official said victims of the shootings, which occurred in three houses, were as young as 2. The death toll is 16, and it may rise as some of those who survived were wounded critically.

Shortly after the shootings, by about 4 a.m., villagers began bringing bodies and the wounded to the base. The soldier was noticed missing and troops put "two and two together" and quickly realized he was the likely suspect, the official said.

The suspect could be court martialed in Afghanistan and be subject to the death penalty. The murders were premeditated, the officials said.

Another senior Pentagon source said the shooter acted on his own and described him as a "troubled individual" but that the signs of his problems were not obvious.

Plans call for the withdrawal of U.S. and allied forces while turning over security to the Afghan government in 2014. The pace of the Afghanistan withdrawal is one of the topics of this week's visit to Washington by British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Afghanistan also will top the agenda at the G-8 and NATO summits Obama will host at Camp David.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday the killings will not affect the timetable of the U.S. withdrawal.

Obama — who apologized to Afghanistan for the burning of Qurans less than a month ago — said Sunday, "I am deeply saddened by the reported killing and wounding of Afghan civilians."

"This incident is tragic and shocking and does not represent the exceptional character of our military and the respect that the United States has for the people of Afghanistan," the president said.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the attack .

"This is an assassination, an intentional killing of innocent civilians and cannot be forgiven," Karzai said Sunday.

Villagers described how they cowered in fear as gunshots rang out while the soldier roamed from house to house firing on those inside.

"He was walking around taking up positions in the house — in two or three places like he was searching," said 26-year-old witness Mohammad Zahir, who watched the gunman while hiding in another room.

"He was on his knees when he shot my father" in the thigh, he told The Associated Press. His father was wounded but survived.

Zahir recounted the harrowing scene in his family home when the soldier came in before dawn.

"I heard a gunshot. When I came out of my room, somebody entered our house. He was in a NATO forces uniform. I didn't see his face because it was dark," he said.

Zahir said he quickly went into another room in the house, where animals are penned. "After that, I saw him moving to different areas of the house - like he was searching," he said.

His father, unarmed, then took a few steps out of his bedroom door, Zahir recalled. "He was not holding anything - not even a cup of tea," Zahir said. Then he fired.

"My mother was pulling my father into the room. I put a cloth on his wound," he said.

After the gunman left, Zahir said he heard gunshots near the house again. He stayed in hiding for a few minutes to make sure he was gone.

The soldier accused in the shooting was in custody at a NATO base in Afghanistan.

The Taliban said in a statement on its website that "sick-minded American savages" committed the "blood-soaked and inhumane crime" in Panjwai district, a rural region outside Kandahar that is the cradle of the Taliban where coalition forces have fought for control for years.

The militant group promised the families of the victims that it would take revenge "for every single martyr with the help of Allah."

Protests that followed the Quran burnings last month ended with almost 40 dead, including four U.S. service members, but as of Monday, there were no major demonstrations in response to the shootings. Nor were there any violent demonstrations in response to a recent video of U.S. Marines urinating on dead Afghans. Internet in Afghanistan proves to be important.

"Overall, this was a really bad incident, especially looking at the photos of the kids who were killed," says Jalil Babak, an Afghan soldier stationed in Nangarhar province. "But this is a conflict, and anything can happen in war. This is not the first time a soldier or policeman, foreign or Afghan, has done something like this. In the past, many times the Afghan security people opened fire on their foreign colleagues and killed them. This is not a new issue."

He says the support of the U.S. and international community has been indispensable to Afghanistan, and he hopes people will not focus to heavily on this issue and risk losing international backing.

As the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan shifts from war fighting to small groups of U.S. troops training Afghan security forces in their communities to counter insurgent groups like the Taliban, American troops will be more isolated and vulnerable, according to Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

U.S. officials who want to support a continuing war effort need to educate Americans "that this is war," he said. "We're going to see incidents like this and we're also going to see that this is the new IED (improvised explosive device) for the Taliban and Haqqani network -- to push as much strife between Afghan troops and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) and NATO as possible."

Michael O'Hanlon, director of research at the Brookings Institution, said the shooting is the wost incident of its kind by a NATO service member in Afghanistan, and could precipitate a significant reaction by Afghan civilians and a change in Afghan policy makers' attitude toward NATO.

The shooting of multiple civilians at a Baghdad intersection by the security firm Blackwater "affected everything" in Iraq, including the Iraq legislature's unwillingness to give immunity to U.S. service members there, which led to an early departure of NATO troops last winter, O'Hanlon said.

Some Afghans questioned whether Americans respect fundamental Afghan values.

"America is saying they are the defenders of the human rights … but the things they are doing in Afghanistan are completely against human rights," says Abdul Rahim Ayobi, a member of parliament from Kandahar. Though it's clear the killings were not planned at a high level or part of the American strategy, he says, "it finally gives us the message that now the American soldiers are out of the control of their generals."

The issue could complicate negotiations between the United States and Afghanistan that would allow U.S. troops to stay beyond the 2014 deadline. Last November, leaders agreed at a loya jirga, or grand assembly, that any such agreement should make any international service member who commits a crime accountable to the Afghan courts. Satellite Internet in Afghanistan proves to be important.

Sunday's shooting has brought this issue into sharp relief once more. During a parliamentary session Monday, the legislative body condemned the action and called for the prosecution of the soldier in Afghanistan.

"The person committed the crime here in Afghanistan, and if he gets punished in Afghanistan, it will be a lesson for others, but since foreign soldiers are not prosecuted in Afghanistan, that's why they continuously commit crimes in Afghanistan," says Qazi Abdul Rahim, a member of parliament from Badghis province and a former judge. "America always says they are here for security and helping Afghans, but in reality, you see it's the opposite."

U.S. troops accused of wrongdoing in Afghanistan are subject to U.S. military law and proceedings, according to the Military Technical Agreement between Afghanistan and the United States.

One of the most difficult challenges for the immediate future may be controlling Afghan perception of the incident.

"This crime was an individual crime done by a single person. It is not the policy or strategy of Americans to kill innocent civilians, but still the public reaction will blame the government of America, not the soldier," says Kamal Safai, a member of parliament from Kunduz.

Afghanistan Role Changes for US

First appeared in Wall Street Journal

The U.S. plans to shift the war strategy in Afghanistan from a combat to a train-and-assist mission in 2013, limiting the role of international forces ahead of the scheduled pullout at the end of 2014.

The U.S. and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization partners have been privately discussing such a change in the mission for months. In comments Wednesday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and his top advisers provided the clearest timetable yet for the shift. Those troops with Internet in Afghanistan are staying informed.

Under the plan outlined by Mr. Panetta, the U.S. and its allies in mid-2013 would transfer to the Afghan government and to Afghan security forces control over a final tranche of Afghan provinces. The U.S. and its NATO allies have been handing over provinces gradually as security has improved in those areas and Mr. Panetta said this final tranche in 2013 would include "some of the most difficult areas."

"Our goal is to complete all of that transition in 2013 and then hopefully, by mid to the latter part of 2013, we'll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise and assist role," Mr. Panetta told reporters traveling with him to Brussels for talks with NATO members.

Mr. Panetta and his advisers said the planned shift didn't amount to a change in the administration's strategy, but rather a "fulfillment" of the goals set out by NATO.

The Wall Street Journal reported in November that the Obama administration was exploring the shift announced on Wednesday.

Mr. Panetta's comments came after French President Nicolas Sarkozy surprised the U.S. and other NATO allies last week by saying he would propose giving Afghan security forces "complete control of NATO's combat missions during 2013."

U.S. officials hope the shift will help prepare Afghan security forces to take responsibility for securing the country by the end of 2014.

Mr. Panetta said the U.S. has yet to decide how the planned shift in the mission will affect the pace of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. President Barack Obama has ordered reducing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to 68,000 by the end of this summer, down from around 91,000 now.

Mr. Panetta said the U.S. would remain "combat-ready" after the shift to a train-and-assist mission in 2013 but would mainly provide support to Afghan units. U.S. officials said the Washington intended to maintain a substantial presence in Afghanistan in 2013 but they didn't say how large it would be.

In 2014, the U.S. would focus on "consolidating the transition and making sure that those gains are in fact held," Mr. Panetta said.

Mr. Panetta and other senior defense officials compared the planned shift in Afghanistan to Mr. Obama's 2009 decision to switch to an "advise and assist" role in Iraq and to declare a formal end to U.S. combat operations there. In Iraq, after mid-2009, American troops largely were confined to their bases.

Security conditions in Afghanistan are different, however, and will likely require U.S. troops, particularly Special Operations forces, to continue to accompany their Afghan counterparts into battle after the U.S. takes an advisory role.

Wednesday's announcement could help the Obama administration demonstrate progress at the height of the U.S. presidential campaign. Internet Afghanistan is busy with the story.

The timing of Mr. Panetta's comments could also help soothe anxious NATO allies. Some are under domestic pressure to follow the lead of France, which has suggested it might scale back its combat commitments early.

"We all went in together. And we'll all go out together," Mr. Panetta said he would tell his NATO partners.

Recent U.S. intelligence assessments have cast doubt on progress in the war in Afghanistan, describing what amounts to a "stalemate."

Mr. Panetta, who headed the Central Intelligence Agency before taking over as Pentagon chief last year, said the problem with the National Intelligence Estimate is that such assessments are quickly out of date. He said the document also wrongly assumed a full U.S. withdrawal after 2014. The U.S. is expected to keep at least some special operations forces in Afghanistan beyond the handover.

Troops Leave Iraq

First published by Associated Press

 The last U.S. soldiers rolled out of Iraq across the border into neighboring Kuwait at daybreak in the middle of December, whooping, fist bumping and hugging each other in a burst of joy and relief. Their convoy's exit marked the end of a bitterly divisive war that raged for nearly nine years and left Iraq shattered and struggling to recover.

The war cost nearly 4,500 American and well more than 100,000 Iraqi lives and $800 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The question of whether it was worth it all — or whether the new government the Americans leave behind will remain a steadfast U.S. ally — is yet unanswered.

The 5-hour drive by the last convoy of MRAPS, heavily armored personnel carriers, took place under cover of darkness and under strict secrecy to prevent any final attacks on the withdrawing troops. The 500 soldiers didn't even tell their Iraqi partners they were leaving before they slipped out of the last American base and started down the barren desert highway to the Kuwaiti border before dawn Sunday.

The atmosphere was subdued inside one of the vehicles as it streamed down the highway, with little visible in the blackness outside through the MRAP's small windows. Along the road, a small group of Iraqi soldiers waved to the departing American troops.

But after crossing the berm at the Kuwaiti border, lit with floodlights and ringed with barbed wire, the troops from the 3rd brigade of the Army's 1st Cavalry Division were elated. They cheered, pumped fists in the air and gave each other chest bumps and bear hugs. "We're on top of the world!" shouted one soldier from the turret of his vehicle.  Soldiers were looking forward to seeing their families and not using Satellite Phone Iraq anymore.

The quiet withdrawal was a stark contrast to the high-octane start of the war, which began before dawn on March 20, 2003, with an airstrike in southern Baghdad where Saddam Hussein was believed to be hiding, the opening shot in the famed "shock and awe" bombardment. U.S. and allied ground forces then stormed from Kuwait across the featureless deserts of southern Iraq toward the capital.

Saddam and his regime fell within weeks, and the dictator was captured by the end of the year — to be executed by Iraq's new Shiite rulers in 2006. But Saddam's end only opened the door to years more of conflict as Iraq was plunged into a vicious sectarian war between its Shiite and Sunni communities. The near civil war devastated the country, and its legacy includes thousands of widows and orphans, a people deeply divided along sectarian lines and infrastructure that remains largely in ruins.

In the past two years, violence has dropped dramatically, and Iraqi security forces that U.S. troops struggled for years to train have improved. But the sectarian wounds remain unhealed. Even as U.S. troops were leaving, the main Sunni-backed political bloc announced Sunday it was suspending its participation in parliament to protest the monopoly on government posts by Shiite allies of the Prime Minister.

In the final days, U.S. officials acknowledged the cost in blood and dollars was high, but tried to paint a picture of victory — for both the troops and the Iraqi people now freed of a dictator and on a path to democracy. But gnawing questions remain: Will Iraqis be able to forge their new government amid the still stubborn sectarian clashes? And will Iraq be able to defend itself and remain independent in a region fraught with turmoil and still steeped in insurgent threats?

Some Iraqis celebrated the exit of what they called American occupiers, neither invited nor welcome in a proud country. Others said that while grateful for U.S. help ousting Saddam, the war went on too long. A majority of Americans would agree, according to opinion polls broadcast on Internet Iraq websites.

Iraq's military chiefs believe that troops were up to the task of uprooting militant groups. Sunni militants continue to carry out bombing and shooting against police, soldiers and civilians, and Shiite militias continue to operate.

The U.S. convoys were the last of a massive operation pulling out American forces that has lasted for months to meet the end-of-the-year deadline agreed with the Iraqis during the previous presidential administration.

In the middle of the week, there were two U.S. bases and less than 4,000 U.S. troops in Iraq — a dramatic drop from the roughly 500 military installations and as many as 170,000 troops during the surge in 2007, when violence was at its worst. As of the last night, that was down to one base — Camp Adder — and the final 500 soldiers.

On the last evening at Camp Adder, near Nasiriyah, about 200 miles southeast of Baghdad, the vehicles lined up in an open field to prepare and soldiers went through last-minute equipment checks to make sure radios, weapons and other gear were working.

Early the last morning, the brigade's remaining interpreters made their routine calls to the local tribal sheiks and government leaders that the troops deal with, so that they would assume that it was just a normal day.

The Iraqi soldiers were to wake up in the morning without any knowledge of move.

In a guard tower overlooking a now empty checkpoint at the base soldiers talked about what they looked forward to most in getting home. They planned to go for Mexican food at a restaurant in Killeen, Texas. Another joy of home, she said: you don't have to bring your weapon when you go to the bathroom or go on the Internet in Iraq.

At its height, Camp Adder boasted a Taco Bell, a KFC, an Italian restaurant and two Green Beans coffee shops. On the last night, it felt empty, with abandoned volleyball and basketball courts and a gym called "House of Pain." Hundreds of vehicles — trucks, buses — waited in a lot to be handed over to the Iraqi military, which is taking over the site. With the Americans gone, the base reverts to its former name, Imam Ali Air Base.

Despite the President’s earlier contention that all American troops would be home for Christmas, at least 4,000 forces will remain in Kuwait for some months. The troops could also be used as a quick reaction force if needed.

The U.S. plans to keep a robust diplomatic presence in Iraq, hoping to foster a lasting relationship with the nation and maintain a strong military force in the region. The President met in Washington with the Iraqi Prime Minister last week, vowing to remain committed to Iraq as the two countries struggle to define their new relationship.

U.S. officials were unable to reach an agreement with the Iraqis on legal issues and troop immunity that would have allowed a small training and counterterrorism force to remain. U.S. defense officials said they expect there will be no movement on that issue until sometime next year.