UN report blames Pakistan government in aftermath of assassination

Sometimes, the audacity of government officials who violate the public trust is truly breathtaking. How else to describe Thursday's conclusion by a United Nations investigation that Pakistan's political and law enforcement establishment deliberately failed to adequately protect former prime minister Benazir Bhutto after she returned from exile in 2007 or to conduct a proper investigation into her assassination in Rawalpindi two months later? This question has no doubt been asked millions of times in the Western-aligned Asian nation since the death of Bhutto, who was expected to oppose then-president Pervez Musharraf in the 2008 election. After her death, Bhutto's husband, Ali Asaf Zardari, took the reins of her Pakistan's People's Party and defeated Musharraf at the polls. Musharraf, who has since retired from politics, is the former army chief who seized power in a 1999 coup. The United Nations commission's report does not name any suspects but does blame the Musharraf government for failing to prevent the attack and for not investigating the assassination properly, according to the Reuters international news service. "While she died when a 15-and-half-year-old suicide bomber detonated his explosives near her vehicle, no one believes this boy acted alone," the report said. "Ms. Bhutto's assassination could have been prevented if adequate security measures had been taken." The three-person commission of inquiry, impaneled after a formal request by Zardari, was headed by Chile's U.N. ambassador, Heraldo Munoz. The 65-page report also blamed government officials for trying to obstruct the investigation. "The commission was mystified by the efforts of certain high-ranking Pakistani government officials to obstruct access to military and intelligence sources," the report said, and recommended that the new government conduct a new investigation. Speculation continues in Pakistan that she was killed by Musharraf supporters trying to prevent her from capturing the presidency, Reuters said, particularly after authorities in Rawalpindi did not collect evidence but hosed down the scene immediately after the assassination, and failed to conduct an autopsy on Bhutto's body. The Musharraf government blamed Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud for the assassination, but Mehsud, an al-Qaida ally, was killed by a U.S. drone strike last year, Reuters said.

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.

How does diplomacy make sense when dealing with Taliban?

News that Turkey plans to bring Afghanistan's often warring neighbors together at an international conference raises some interesting questions, but not all of them are good ones. While it seems like things can only get better in the region if the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan talk, their reported plans to invite Taliban leaders to join them is a sad miscalculation. Who can forget the Taliban's misogynistic misrule of Afghanistan from 1996-2001, their destruction of ancient statues of Buddha and their decision to protect Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader blamed by the United States for planning the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.? Who in their right mind would expect them to bring anything positive to negotiations? Well, Turkey, for starters. NATO's only Islamic nation has been actively engaged in behind-the-scenes talks to get Afghanistan, Pakistan and Taliban insurgents together in the week before a planned international conference on the future of Afghanistan in London, according to the Reuters international news service. "The Turks are playing a behind-the-scenes role patching up relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan," an unnamed official told Reuters. "The Turks are among those working on negotiations with the Taliban. There's a lot happening behind the scenes that people don't know about." Turkey has unique ties to both countries since the days of the Ottoman Empire, Reuters said. Afghanistan's discredited president, U.S.-backed Hamid Karzai, is said to be a major source behind trying to open negotiations with the Taliban. But the military defeat of the Taliban's ruthless government in 2001 is the very reason Karzai was elected in Afghanistan, and the reason why Western nations still support him despite a questionable re-election in November. And fighting a resurgent Taliban is why U.S. President Barack Obama announced in December that 30,000 additional troops would be sent there. Moves toward negotiations with the Taliban under these conditions do not make any sense.

Afghanistan situation just keeps getting worse

Just when it seemed the chaotic political situation in war-torn Afghanistan was about to get some clarity comes word that presidential challenger Abdullah Abdullah had withdrawn from Sunday's runoff election. Abdullah's decision to withdraw casts further doubt on the legitimacy of the troubled Western-backed government in Kabul led by Hamid Karzai, which has been wracked by a growing insurgency, corruption charges and fraud allegations from the first round of balloting in August, according to the Reuters international news service. With tears in his eyes, Abdullah told thousands of supporters in a tent in Kabul that he was dropping out because Afghani authorities would not meet his demands to ensure a fair runoff, including sacking the country's top election official. Karzai got the most votes in the first round but a United Nations investigation found widespread fraud, triggering the runoff, Reuters said. The fraudulent election was an embarrassment to the United States and its allies, who have dedicated more than 40,000 troops to defend Afghanistan's government against resurgent Taliban forces battling for control of the country. The Taliban had threatened to disrupt the first round of voting with limited success and also is threatening to disrupt Sunday's balloting. The election crisis comes as U.S. President Barack Obama was said to be waiting for the outcome of the voting before deciding on a proposal to send 30,000 additional soldiers to bolster Afghanistan forces. But Abdullah's withdrawal could be even more embarrassing to Western countries, because it leaves an election with only one candidate -- hardly an example of vibrant democracy. The prospect and promise of democratic government was expected to help the West make its case against Taliban influence. "It is a shocking failure of efforts by the West and other international communities to build a democracy in Afghanistan," said Norine MacDonald of The International Council on Security and Development, a policy research group. Nevertheless, Karzai defiantly refused to consider a unity government with Abdullah and the Independent Election Commission said the election must proceed as scheduled on Nov. 7. "It is now a matter for the Afghan authorities to decide on a way ahead that brings this electoral process to a conclusion in line with the Afghan constitution," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Reuters from Morocco. "We will support the next president and the people of Afghanistan, who seek and deserve a better future." British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Karzai must fix his government's corruption problem, improve the country's security forces and speed up efforts to improve economic conditions in the impoverished countryside.

Pakistan fights back -- military launches massive attack on insurgents

News from Pakistan that government forces had captured the South Waziristan village of Kotkai from insurgents linked to the Taliban and al-Qaida was a welcome change from the usual depressing news coming from the nuclear-armed country and its troubled next-door neighbor, Afghanistan. At least four soldiers were killed in Pakistan's massive attack against militants operating in the country's south, along its long border with Afghanistan, according to Cable News Network (CNN). The attack comes as suicide attacks by terrorists against Pakistani government and security installations have been soaring, forcing tens of thousands of civilians to flee. On Friday, a car bomb killed 13 people, mostly civilians, at a police station in Peshawar, a northern city near Islamabad, the nation's capital. Officials said there are as many as 15,000 insurgents in South Waziristan, the result of years of neglect, and the government has committed nearly 30,000 troops to battle them, CNN said. Pakistan's democratically elected government has been slow to fully engage the militants, observers say, but now appears committed to the fight. The wave of bombings has increased international pressure on the government in Islamabad, headed by President Asif Ali Zardari, the widow of Benazir Bhutto, because of fears over the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal. Bhutto, the daughter of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, founder of the Pakistan People's Party, became the first female prime minister of a Muslim nation in 1988. She was a leader in exile of the battle against former President Pervez Musharraf, the military commander who seized power in a 1999 coup and held it for eight years. Bhutto returned from exile in 2007 but was assassinated during the campaign for the 2008 election. Zardari took over party leadership after her death and outpolled Musharraf, who voluntarily gave up power. In Washington, a spokesman for U.S. President Barack Obama said the wave of attacks was evidence that Pakistani militants "threaten both Pakistan and the United States," CNN said. Obama recently approved an additional $7.5 billion in assistance to Pakistan over the next five years.

Top commander wants U.S. to figure out what it wants to do in Afghanistan

Well, it certainly is nice to hear some common sense now and again. We're speaking, of course, of Sunday's broadcast of an interview with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, who has urged U.S. President Barack Obama to commit tens of thousands more soldiers to battle to stabilize the country and defeat the Taliban, according to Cable News Network (CNN). McChrystal said the key to winning in Afghanistan is gaining the support of ordinary Aghanis, many of whom have turned against the United States and its allies over what they see as indiscriminate bombings and high civilian casualties. "The greatest risk is . . . to lose the support of the people here," McChrystal said on the CBS show "60 Minutes," CNN said. "If the people are against us, we cannot be successful," McChrystal said. "If the people view us as occupiers and the enemy, we can't be successful and our casualties will go up dramatically." The United States has supplied 60 percent of the combined force of nearly 100,000 soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. U.S. and allied forces were dispatched to Afghanistan after determining that the radical Islamic group al-Qaida was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Al-Qaida was under the protection of another radical Islamic group, the Taliban, which was then in control of Afghanistan. The troops drove the Taliban from power but were unable to locate al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden despite years of searching. Obama has called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" and has authorized 21,000 additional soldiers to be sent there to battle a resurgent Taliban, but he has started a process of re-evaluating the U.S. engagement. McChrystal is expected to ask for as many as 70,000 more troops when he makes recommendations to the president in the coming weeks. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates told CNN on Sunday that Obama could turn down his generals' requests for more troops, as urged by some Democratic Party leaders in Congress. "The reality is, do we need additional forces. How many forces? And to do what?" Gates told CNN. "It's the 'to do what' that I think we need to make sure we have confidence, we understand, before making recommendations to the president." What's that? The administration is still figuring out the "to do what" in Afghanistan? Yes, it certainly would be nice to know what the troops are fighting and dying for in Afghanistan before risking any more lives -- ours and theirs.

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.

Pakistan offensive highlights unintended consequences of warfare

Now we can see why Pakistan was so reluctant to go to war against the Taliban in the Swat valley. In the two days since Islamabad launched its all-out campaign to force the radical Islamic group's fighters from their strongholds, hundreds of thousands of residents have fled the area and sought refuge at U.N.-run refugee camps along Pakistan's long border with Afghanistan, according to the Associated Press. Pakistan's attack began Thursday, at least partially in response to pressure from the United States and other Western nations, which were highly critical of Islamabad's peace deal with the Taliban in January that surrendered control of the valley. The Taliban promptly imposed Islamic law in the former tourist locale and began expanding its influence to the neighboring Buner and Lower Dir districts, just 60 miles from the capital, the AP said. Pakistani officials said they wanted to give the peace deal a chance to work before going on the offensive. The flight of so many residents from the war zone, where Pakistan has sent 15,000 soldiers backed by warplanes, has created a humanitarian crisis on top of the region's already dire security, economic and political problems, the AP said. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani convened an emergency cabinet meeting today and authorized millions of dollars in relied to the border region, calling the campaign a "war of the country's survival." Taliban militants dominate the tribal region just across the border in Afghanistan, where the United States believes al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is hiding. Pakistani and U.N. officials say as many as 500,000 people could be displaced by the fighting, the AP said.

Pakistan changes course, attacks Taliban militants

What a difference a visit to the White House makes! From Pakistan comes word that the government under seige from Taliban militants in the Swat Valley has launched a full-scale counterattack against Taliban militants aimed at returning the area to Islamabad's control. An army spokesman in the garrison city of Rawalpindi said Friday that scores of Taliban fighters had been killed in the initial attack by up to 15,000 soldiers and security forces, the Washington Post reported. The new attack comes just one week after Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai met with U.S. President Barak Obama to discuss the ongoing fighting in Afghanistan and, until then, Pakistan's apparent unwillingness to take on the Taliban. We know the Taliban from its fundamentalist Islamic rule in Afghanistan from 1996-2001, when it was ousted by a Western coalition composed primarily of U.S. troops. Under Taliban rule, women were forced to cover their heads in public and were not permitted to attend school. But Pakistan and its new civilian government, headed by Zardari, the widower of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and current Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani, have conceded control of the once-prosperous Swat Valley to Taliban forces, which promptly began moving into nearby Bunder and Dir in an apparent effort to expand their territory. But the army spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, told a news conference that Pakistani forces were determined to defeat the "miscreants" and "anti-state elements." Abbas' talk followed up Gillani's speech to the nation Thursday in which the start of the offensive was announced. Both Abbas and Gillani said there was no reluctance on the part of the army to fight the Taliban, but officials wanted to give the peace agreement negotiated in January a chance to work. But Western nations had criticized the agreement as appeasement, particularly after the Taliban imposed Islamic law in Swat. Reuters said the army's stepped-up military posture appeared to have wide popular support, even though it was criticized in some circles as capitulating to the United States.

Not talking with Taliban in Pakistan speaks louder than the alternative

Let's face the simple facts, however counterintuitive they may be. There will be no settlement with the resurgent Taliban militant group, which is now trying to take over nuclear-armed Pakistan. We know from what they did in Afghanistan -- indoctrinating men, subjugating women, trying to wipe out a proud nation's long history. So news Monday that a radical cleric in the Swat valley was breaking off his services as a Taliban representative in negotiations with Pakistan's civilian government cannot be a bad thing. According to the Reuters international news service, Sufi Mohammad broke off negotiations with the government after Islamabad launched a military offensive against the Taliban in the lawless northwest region of Lower Dir. Swat and Lower Dir are part of the Malakand division, where Prime Minister Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of slain former leader Benazir Bhutto, agreed in talks with Mohammad to appease the Taliban by allowing them to impose Islamic law. But violence has surged since then, prompting increased concern by Western nations fearing for the safety of Pakistan's nuclear weaponry. The West has been trying to convince Zardari to commit his army to fight the Taliban and stop their power grab. Zardari is scheduled to meet in Washington next month with U.S. President Barack Obama and Aghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai. Zardari tried to reassure Western nations on Monday that Pakistan's arsenal was not in danger of falling to the Taliban. "I want to assure the world that the nuclear capability of Pakistan is under safe hands," he told the international media, Reuters said. Mohammad caused an uproar last week by denouncing Pakistan's parliament, democracy and Supreme Court as un-Islamic, Reuters said.