New British leader reluctantly endorses Afghanistan war

Maybe David Cameron's endorsement of the U.S. and NATO mission in Afghanistan would have been more convincing had the British prime minister not been forced to re-route his helicopter because of threats from insurgent forces. Or maybe, just maybe, it would have been more convincing had it been an actual endorsement and not a bad facsimile of one. Cameron's remarks, delivered at a Kabul news conference with Afghani President Hamid Karzai, were apparently intended to reassure the war-ravaged country's leaders that the British were not planning to withdraw its 10,000 troops from the U.S.-NATO force fighting the Taliban. “This is the year when we have to make progress — progress for the sake of the Afghan people, but progress also on behalf of people back at home who want this to work,” Cameron said, according to the New York Times. "What we want — and in our national security interest — is to hand power over to an Afghanistan that is able to take control of its own security." Well, sure, but that's hardly the same thing as saying that Britain, like the United States, is committed to supporting NATO forces battling the Taliban until the government in Kabul is strong enough, and trustworthy enough, to stand on its own. The fact that Cameron left that part out is what's noteworthy. He didn't say it because Britain apparently doesn't think about Afghanistan in those terms. The British are fulfilling the commitment former British Prime Minister Tony Blair must have made to former U.S. President George Bush, but that's it. England is pulling out of the international force next year, success or failure notwithstanding. That probably doesn't come as news to current U.S. President Barack Obama, who recently increased the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and who probably talks honestly with whomever lives at 10 Downing St., but may be a source of consternation for the soldiers who are doing the actual fighting and risking their actual lives. Then again, Cameron's trip to a military base in Afghanistan's Helmand Province had to be called off because of intelligence reports of threats against his helicopter. Maybe Western leaders, U.S. officials included, will eventually have the good sense to be embarrassed about having to sneak in and out of countries being occupied at a cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives -- for the benefit, of course, of the people who already lived there long before Western soldiers arrived.

How do you solve a problem like Hamid Karzai?

In case anyone still was thinking that the U.S.-backed president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, who is suspected of stealing re-election last summer, was the best person to head his war-ravaged country, his comments Thursday slamming Western governments that keep him in power cost could change a lot of minds. Karzai, under fire for alleged corruption in his government as well as election fraud, blamed Western governments and the United Nations for the election fraud and Western news organizations for putting too much "pressure" on him. "There is no doubt the fraud was very widespread," Karzai said in a televised speech from Kabul, according to the New York Times, "but this fraud was not committed by Afghans, it was committed by foreigners." Karzai criticized by name United Nations special representative Peter Galbraith and European Union election monitor Philippe Morillon, who helped reveal the election fraud, the Times said. "This fraud was committed by Galbraith, this fraud was committed by Morillon and this fraud was committed by embassies," Karzai said in his speech, delivered several days after U.S. President Barack Obama visited Afghanistan to advise Karzai about cracking down on election fraud and corruption. "In this situation there is a thin curtain between invasion and cooperation-assistance,” Karzai said, warning that if foreign forces assisting his government were seen as invaders, the insurgency "could become a national resistance." Well, if this sounds crazy, it probably is. Western countries have committed thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars to oust Taliban insurgents from Kabul and to keep Afghanistan's government from being overrun, yet Karzai speaks as if their sacrifice is not the reason he's still in office. The question now, even as the United States commits tens of thousands of more soldiers to the battle, is whether the president is listening.

Situation in Afghanistan looks dire for this month's election

A formerly secret map showing nearly half of Afghanistan under insurgent control or at high risk of attack by the Taliban or other groups earlier this year has raised concerns about security for the presidential election scheduled Aug. 20. The map, produced in April, shows 133 of the country's 356 districts as high-risk with at least 13 under insurgent control, the Reuters international news service reported Wednesday. At-risk areas include regions near Kabul, the capital, according to the map, which bears markings from the country's Interior Ministry and the UN Department of Safety and Security. The Taliban have promised to disrupt the elections as part of recent violence that has escalated to the worst level since 2001, and have asked the population to boycott the polls, Reuters said. Insurgents fired nine missiles into Kabul on Tuesday, the first such attack in years. The UN confirmed the map's authenticity to Reuters but refused further comment. "The map is an Afghan government map," U.N. spokesman Aleem Siddique said in Kabul. "It's certainly not for us to speak publicly on it or comment on it or define it." But it bodes poorly for the new aggressive strategy put in place by U.S. President Barack Obama earlier this year. If violence in the south keeps ordinary Afghanis from the polls, it could threaten the reelection of Hamid Karzai, who has led the pro-Western government in Kabul since 2001 and won a national election in 2004. Karzai's main power base is the Pashtun region in the south, Reuters said. Aghanistan's Ministry of Defense said, however, that it would be able to protect the balloting. "The Afghan National Security Forces and the International Security Assistance Force are ready to secure the upcoming elections and we expect that no major security incident will take place during the elections," said Gen. Zaher Azimy, a ministry spokesman. The government and NATO insist that the Taliban only have strength in the south and east, Reuters said.

U.S. court system tries to heal itself in detainee case

Yes, it's frustrating how long this is taking. Finally, gradually, it looks like the U.S. court system is going to clean up the worst abuses of the Bush administration. How else to interpret Thursday's decision by a U.S. District Court judge in Washington, D.C., ordering the release of a young Guantanamo Bay detainee who alleged he had been tortured in detention in Afghanistan and mistreated while in U.S. custody? "Enough has been imposed on this young man to date," Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle told in a crowded U.S. District Court courtroom, according to the New York Times. Mohammed Jawad has been in custody since he was accused of throwing a hand grenade that injured two U.S. soldiers and their Afghani interpreter in Kabul, Afghanistan's capital, in 2002. Jawad may have been as young as 14 when he was captured, the Times said. Federal prosecutors have been trying to get Jawad before a military tribunal under the system set up by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks. But a military judge ruled last year that the case against Jawad was largely based on confessions he gave after being tortured. Those concerns were reflected in Huvelle's ruling on Thursday. She said the government's case was "riddled with holes," including violations of Jawad's rights and the fact that the confessions would likely not be admissible in court. Huvelle also said from the bench that she "hoped" Jawad would be returned to Afghanistan, where his lawyers said he would be released to his family, the Times said. Unfortunately, the new administration of President Barack Obama has not been much help in this case, the Times said, despite his promise during the 2008 campaign to close the Guantanamo prison by the year's end. A U.S. Justice Department spokesman told the Times on condition of anonymity that the government was considering filing charges against Jawad in civilian court, which could mean years of further delay. It looks like closing the prison was an easy position to take rhetorically but is turning out to be quite difficult and complex as a practical matter. For the courts, years of permitting the government to unabashedly commit gross violations of detainees' rights may finally be coming to an end.