Showing posts with label kunduz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kunduz. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Obama: No quick decision on troops to Afghan- Need for training of Afganisthan security force in view of increase insurgents


President Obama said he is not rushing to send more troops to Afghanistan without knowing full details of the strategies involved. Increase criticism from home against sending more troops.


Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan , mention a charge in strategic methods in Afganisthan is required. Success is achievable. Already acknowledge that ground insurgents have increase in Afghanistan. Also change have reduce bombing by air strike to reduce ciliavian casulities but indirectly exposing ground troops to casualities.



US troops deployed in Afganisthan. Increase in bombing and attack of insurgents in Afganisthan causing more troops casualities and distability to Afganisthan to Taliban insurgents.


Adm. Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, taking his seat before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday. Requesting more troops to train the Afganisthan force and local police.


Above, Afghan girls queue to have their nails colored by an American soldier on patrol with German ISAF soldiers. Admiral Mullen says the growing complexity of the war necessitates more troops.

President Barack Obama said Wednesday there will be no quick decision on whether to send more U.S. troops into the widening war in Afghanistan, saying "my determination is to get this right."

The president's comments came one day after Adm. Mike Mullen, his top military adviser as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed an increase in U.S. forces as likely necessary to battle a deepening insurgency. The U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, also has delivered a grim assessment of the war and is expected to follow up soon with a request for thousands of additional troops.

Obama said he is still considering an assessment he received this month from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, and will await reviews from civilian and diplomatic officials and the results of the disputed Afghan election before making "further decisions moving forward."

Lawmakers have voiced increasing anxiety over the administration's war strategy, demanding more information about McChrystal's recommendations, including the need for additional forces. Some have called for a significant troop increase, while others have asked for a withdrawal timetable. Public opinion polls have indicated diminished support for the war, even as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, said Tuesday that more troops will probably be needed.

Why need to increase?

“I want to underline the fact that this is a matter of national security,” said Representative Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “We ought to listen to General McChrystal, and I’m of the opinion to give him what he needs.”

Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee this week that the war effort probably would require additional U.S. troops to stem the insurgency and train enough Afghan security forces to ultimately take over.

Mullen said that while McChrystal hasn’t submitted a request for more troops and equipment, increasing the size of the Afghan army and police probably would require 2,000 to 4,000 more trainers than the U.S. and its allies have on the ground now.

“But I do believe that — having heard his views and having great confidence in his leadership — a properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces, and, without question, more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan people and to the development of good governance,” Admiral Mullen said.

Response from Home ?

A range of officials have said that the White House hopes to have at least several weeks before having to deal with any request for more forces for Afghanistan — and the political implications of such a request here at home. But Tuesday’s debate on Capitol Hill, which framed the arguments for how to shape the mission, indicates that the sweeping public discussion is already under way.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said Tuesday that Mr. Gates’s initial opposition to expanding the American “footprint” in Afghanistan had at least been softened.A group of about 4,000 trainers is scheduled to arrive in Afghanistan by November, bringing the American troop level there to 68,000.

Previously, Mr. Gates expressed apprehension over a force so sizable that Afghans would view the Americans as occupiers. Now, Mr. Morrell said, the defense secretary was taking to heart General McChrystal’s “explanation that it’s not so much the size of the force, but the behavior of the force that determines whether or not it is accepted by the Afghan people.”

During Admiral Mullen’s appearance before the Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee’s chairman, laid out the emerging position of Congressional Democrats by insisting that accelerated efforts to train and equip Afghan security forces should precede any deployment of American troops beyond those already committed by the Obama administration. Mr. Levin’s stance is expected to have great sway because he is the committee’s chairman and the most powerful Democrat in Congress on military matters. Many House Democrats also oppose sending more troops.

But the committee’s ranking Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, countered by asserting that more troops were “vitally needed” in Afghanistan and that any delay in ordering more combat forces to the fight would put American lives at risk.

Admiral Mullen acknowledged the importance of the training effort advocated by Mr. Levin, but said that such a mission could not quickly provide the level of security required by the new counterinsurgency strategy.

“Quality training takes time and patience,” he continued. “Private trust by the Afghans — so vital to our purpose — is not fostered in a public hurry.”

Mr. McCain staked out an opposing view. He recalled that initial attempts in Iraq to shift the security burden to local forces from American forces were a colossal failure. “I’ve seen that movie before,” he said.

New goals for Afghanistan security force?

Mr. Levin said new goals should be established for Afghan security forces. The army, he said, should grow to 250,000 troops by the end of 2012, and the police to 160,000 officers by that date. The current targets are 134,000 army troops and 96,000 police officers by the end of next year.


---------

-----------

-------------





Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Former Times man Stephen Farell freed after Afghanistan kidnap ordeal-1 Brit commando dies in raid to free NYT reporter


Stephen Farrell, a reporter for The New York Times.is shown in Iraq on July 16, 2007. Commandos freed the New York Times reporter Wednesday Sept. 9, 2009, after he was kidnapped by militants in northern Afghanistan last week, the paper said.


A British journalist kidnapped by the Taleban has been freed by UK Special Forces in a pre-dawn raid in northern Afghanistan – but his Afghan colleague and a British commando were killed in the operation.

Stephen Farrell, who was working for the New York Times, was taken hostage on Saturday when he travelled to the site of an air strike in Kunduz which left up to 125 people dead.

His Afghan colleague, Mohammad Sultan Munadi, was killed in the crossfire, officials said today.

Moments after the raid Mr Farrell told his American colleagues: “We were all in a room, the Talebs all ran, it was obviously a raid. We thought they would kill us. We thought should we go out.”

The Times kept the kidnappings quiet out of concern for the men's safety, and other media outlets, including The Associated Press, did not report the abductions following a request from the Times.

A story posted on the Times' Web site quoted Farrell saying he had been "extracted" by a commando raid carried out by "a lot of soldiers" in a firefight.

British Special Forces dropped down from helicopters early Wednesday onto the house where the two were being kept, and a gunbattle ensued.

A Taliban commander who was in the house was killed, along with the owner of the house and a woman who was inside, Yowar said. He said Sultan was killed in the midst of the firefight.

Farrell, a dual Irish-British citizen, told the Times that he saw Munadi step forward shouting "Journalist! Journalist!" but he then fell in a volley of bullets. Farrell said he did not know if the shots came from militants or the rescuing forces.

Moments later, Farrell said he heard British voices and shouted, "British hostage!" The British voices told him to come over. As he did, Mr. Farrell said he saw Mr. Munadi.

Munadi, in his early 30s, was employed by The New York Times starting in 2002, according to his colleagues. He left the company a few years later to work for a local radio station.

Farrell was the second Times journalist to be kidnapped in Afghanistan in a year.

In June, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter David Rohde and his Afghan colleague Tahir Ludin escaped from their Taliban captors in northwestern Pakistan. They had been abducted Nov. 10 south of the Afghan capital of Kabul and were moved across the border.

---------






Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Airstrikes in Afghanistan drop by almost half -"Destroying a home or property jeopardizes the livelihood of an entire family — and creates more insurg


Gen. Stanley McChrystal new doctrine , discourage use of air power , reduce collateral damage and civilian casualties. However , this put more troops on the ground and expose to troop casualities.



Graphic shows monthly U.S. troop deaths in the Afghanistan war



An Afghan soldier rolls a fuel barrel Saturday at the site where two hijacked fuel tankers were hit by a NATO airstrike Friday in Kunduz, Afghanistan.


Airstrikes by coalition forces in Afghanistan have dropped dramatically in the three months Gen. Stanley McChrystal has led the war effort there, reflecting his new emphasis on avoiding civilian casualties and protecting the population.

NATO fixed-wing aircraft dropped 1,211 bombs and other munitions during the past three months — the peak of the fighting season — compared with 2,366 during the same period last year, according to military statistics. The nearly 50% decline in airstrikes comes with an influx of more than 20,000 U.S. troops this year and an increase in insurgent attacks.

The shift is the result of McChrystal's new directives, said Air Force Col. Mark Waite, an official at the air operations center in southwest Asia. Ground troops are less inclined to call for bombing or strafing runs, though they often have an aircraft conduct a "show of force," a flyby to scare off insurgents, or use planes for surveillance, Waite said.

The decrease in air attacks may also be the result of having more ground troops, Waite said. Air attacks are often used when ground forces aren't available to secure an area or seize an objective.

Protecting civilians is generally more effective than large combat operations, McChrystal said in counterinsurgency directives issued to NATO forces in Afghanistan. "Destroying a home or property jeopardizes the livelihood of an entire family — and creates more insurgents," McChrystal wrote. "We sow the seeds of our own demise."


Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said civilian casualties have been "dramatically reduced."

Airstrikes that accidently killed civilians have angered the population, undermining efforts to win over civilians.

Despite the reduction in airstrikes, a U.S. aircraft attacked two fuel tankers that had been hijacked by the Taliban last week in northern Afghanistan, killing civilians.

McChrystal has appointed a high-level commission to investigate the attack. An initial assessment concluded that civilians had been killed or injured in the blast, according to a statement issued Tuesday by NATO forces in Afghanistan.

The strike was authorized by German forces operating in the area. Tuesday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned against rushing to judgment regarding the airstrike.

U.S. forces have been told to exercise extreme caution before ordering airstrikes.

By exercising so much restraint, the U.S. military may sacrifice a key firepower advantage on the battlefield and expose ground troops to more risk, some officers and analysts say.

"There is a tradeoff," said Col. Gian Gentile, a former battalion commander in Iraq who has publicly criticized counterinsurgency doctrine. "You reduce civilian casualties, but you potentially increase your own casualties."

Doug Macgregor, a retired Army colonel and military historian, says the emphasis on having conventional forces trying to win over the population is futile.

"You surrender whatever military advantage you have by compelling the U.S. conventional soldier or Marine to fight on terms that favor the enemy, not the American soldier or Marine," Macgregor said.


------------------------------






Chancellor Angela Merkel defends German mission in Afghanistan


Site of 2 fuel petrol that were hijacked by insurgents , part near the river Kunduz. It is believed that insurgent and villager surround the tanker to siphon the previous fuel , when German requested a air strike.Killing those around.


German chancellor Angela Merkel addresses the German parliament Bundestag in Berlin, Germany, Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2009. Merkel has told the German parliament that the government will not accept "premature judgments" on a German-requested airstrike in northern Afghanistan last week that may have killed civilians and has drawn international criticism.



German Chancellor Angela Merkel makes a point during her speech at the German lower house of parliament Bundestag in Berlin, on Tuesday.


German ISAF soldiers get ready for a mission outside Kunduz, Afghanistan, Tuesday



German chancellor Angela Merkel, with furor at home over a deadly Afghan airstrike ordered by a German commander, told parliament today she “deeply regrets” the loss of innocent life but said the case should not be “prejudged” – an effort to push the radioactive issue past Sept. 27 elections, analysts say.

The airstrike ordered by Col. Georg Klein in Kunduz, Afghanistan, killed civilians as well as Taliban, according to a NATO report Tuesday. The deadliest use of German military force since World War II has injected an intense, emotional debate about the war in Afghanistan into a German election that had been devoid of the subject until now.


Germany and other European nations are unlikely to abruptly change their Afghan missions in the short term, despite high levels of public dissatisfaction. But German, French, and British leaders this week began to signal that their commitment is not indefinite.

“I can’t imagine any scenario where European forces are precipitously withdrawn… I don’t believe public opinion will drive this,” says Thomas Klau of the European Council of Foreign Relations in Paris. “But neither would I bank on a strong European presence a year from now.”


Berlin is an advocate of civil reform – “Afghanization” – and nonmilitary solutions to Afghanistan’s problems. It has also been the European state least publicly engaged and most shielded from war realities.

“In Germany, they aren’t even calling Afghanistan a war,” says Mr. Klau.

Across Europe, politicians may be chary of raising the unpopular war with the public, but they strongly back the UN and NATO deployment. French defense minister Hervé Morin, when asked Sept. 3 if there should be a debate on the French mission, said the debate had already taken place in parliament.

“What would happen if the international community left?,” Mr. Morin asked. “The bell would toll … there would be absolute chaos in Afghanistan,” he said, and the state could again be a terrorism stronghold.

In recent polls, 66 percent of the British and 64 percent of the French electorate said they wanted the Afghan mission ended. Some 22 percent of Italians want an immediate withdrawal, and 34 percent favor gradual withdrawal.

Of the 100,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, 17,000 come from France, Britain, and Germany. The 4,500 German forces in Afghanistan have led civil reconstruction efforts in the north, away from the fighting – until now.

“We will help with training and civilian reconstruction, but the goal is not to lose sight of a sustainable security structure in Afghanistan,” Merkel said after the meeting, and in the wake of the Kunduz airstrike. ““We must move forward decisively on this, and as the Afghans take on more responsibility for their security, then the international engagement can be reduced.”

“You have the Brits on the one hand and the Germans on the other, both looking at this differently,” says François Heisbourg, special advisor to the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. “But there’s a questioning on both sides of the Atlantic – what should we do next? Karzai is looking like a South Vietnamese dictator – vote fraud, corruption. It’s getting tricky.”

---------------




------------





Friday, September 4, 2009

Afghan anger after scores die in Nato air strike - ISAF air strike hit fuel truck hijacked by insurgents


Fuel truck were surrounded by people to siphon the previous fuel which were hijacked . German authority that time believe it was surrounded by insurgents and ordered an air strike. The explosion cause causalities. Many to believed to around 90 people. Could be combination of villagers civilians and insurgents.


Afghani policemen look at one of two burnt fuel tankers, near Kunduz, Afghanistan.


Local Afghan people prepare to burry their villagers killed in a NATO air strike, in a mass grave near Kunduz, Afghanistan,




A victim of the NATO airstrike on an oil tanker hijacked by Taliban insurgents is carried into the main hospital in Kunduz.


The two fuel tankers would have looked out of place, stuck by a river bank outside a small Afghan village. Local people came out to take a look and help carry makeshift containers with siphoned fuel inside from the stricken vehicles.

That is when the Nato missiles struck, wiping out much of the village of Omar Kheil, and doing critical damage to US and Nato hopes of making a fresh start in Afghanistan.

Taliban militants had hijacked the two tankers on the main road out of Kunduz, in northern Afghanistan, and driven them to Omar Kheil, which is under their control, about 12 miles from the city. The hijacking, on Thursday night, was reported to the German Nato soldiers garrisoned nearby, who spotted the lorries this morning. At some point the German commander called in an air strike to deal with the problem. Estimates differ as to how many people were killed in the fireball, but they range from a few score to more than a hundred.

Muhammad Omar, the governor of Kunduz province, told the BBC 90 people were dead, but that number included senior Taliban militants.

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, currently in the midst of an election controversy, said targeting civilians in any form was unacceptable and emphasised that innocent civilians must not be killed or wounded during military operations.

Nato's International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf) initially discounted reports that civilians were among the dead. "After assessing that only insurgents were in the area, the local Isaf commander ordered an air strike, which destroyed the fuel trucks, and a large number of insurgents were reportedly killed and injured," the first Isaf statement said.

That line was amended when the badly burned survivors started turning up at the local hospital.

Brigadier General Eric Tremblay told Reuters news agency: "It would appear that many civilian casualties are being evacuated and treated in the local hospitals. There is perhaps a direct link with the incident that has occurred around the two fuel trucks."

An investigation was launched into the incident which will focus on the decision by the German commander to call in the air strike. It happened in the same week the American commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal delivered a strategic assessment on the state of the war to Rasmussen and to Washington. It is known that one of its main thrusts was a change of emphasis from killing the Taliban to protecting civilians. Nato officers have been told that if they have Taliban fighters in their sights but there is a risk of civilian casualties they are to hold fire.

McChrystal believes Nato has alienated the Afghan people by excessive reliance on air strikes that have caused high civilian casualties. But Isaf functions as a patchwork of different national troop contingents, working in different circumstances and under different rules of engagement.

German troops function under restrictions imposed by Berlin, which are aimed at limiting their own casualties and have resulted in them being more operationally cautious. The restrictions, known as caveats, have infuriated other Nato contingents operating alongside them. If the investigation suggests that an air strike was called in because the German force was reluctant to commit troops on the ground to recover the tankers, it will escalate a long-running row over caveats in Afghanistan that is endangering Nato unity.

Alongside a Taliban resurgence, there have also been reports of Uzbek groups operating in affiliation with al-Qaida. Security on the roads connecting Afghanistan to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan is crucial to the Nato war effort after the route through the Khyber pass was crippled last year

Marastial, the MP from Kunduz, said the hijacking of the trucks was part of a concerted Taliban effort to disrupt trucks taking fuel down from the US built bridge at the border crossing from Tajikistan.

----------------------



---------------------





Today Top Recent Posts Here.


Blogger Widgets
Related Posts with Thumbnails

Entertainment News