Air Force gives air bridge 30-day reprieve

By David Sharp - The Associated Press Posted : Friday Oct 29, 2010 5:38:37 EDT PORTLAND, Maine — The Air Force has delayed dismantling a National Guard program that provides in-air refueling of military aircraft headed to and from Iraq, Afghanistan and Europe, giving a 30-day reprieve to more than 400 personnel in Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Sen. Susan Collins said Thursday. Gen. Raymond Johns, commander of the Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base, Ill., will visit the Maine National Guard’s 101st Air Refueling Wing in Bangor on Nov. 4 as part of an assessment that will determine the future of the so-called air bridge program, said Collins, R-Maine. The Air Force had notified National Guard and Reserve personnel that they would stand down at month’s end under a budget-cutting directive, but those orders are now being extended until Nov. 30, she said. Related reading • Funds low for standby reservists • Cost reductions could affect vital air bridge Collins, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, said she hopes the general’s visit will lead to the vast majority of personnel being retained through October 2011. “I am hopeful that we’re making progress on the vast majority of the jobs, but I recognize that there will be some individuals for whom the active duty order won’t be renewed past Nov. 30,” Collins told The Associated Press after being briefed by the Air Force undersecretary. The program is called the “air bridge” because it contributes to the flow of military personnel, equipment and materiel that’s needed to support the war in Afghanistan, and continuing operations in Iraq. For critical flights, military aircraft can continue flying while taking on jet fuel from an aerial tanker as the two aircraft fly in tandem at more than 400 mph. About 1,000 planes in the past year have received fuel in this way under the air bridge program, officials say. In Bangor, the Maine National Guard’s 101st Air Refueling Wing holds a strategic location as the last U.S. base for outgoing flights and the first for incoming flights. Its KC-135 tankers can reach the primary refueling route over Nova Scotia in just 18 minutes flying time. The decision to cut the program caused consternation for the program’s supporters because most active-duty refueling tankers are located farther away in the Midwest. It costs $100 a minute to keep a KC-135 in the air, Collins said, so extra time and travel to reach the refueling zones over the North Atlantic would carry a steep price tag. Contributing to the uncertainty is the fact that Congress adjourned without approving a budget. The Air Force asked for an extra $378 million, much of which would go to Air Mobility Command; the Senate Appropriations Committee has approved the extra money but the House has not, Collins said.

U.S. operations in Kandahar push out Taliban

By Joshua Partlow and Karin Brulliard Washington Post Foreign Service Monday, October 25, 2010; 9:37 PM KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN - With 2,000-pound bombs, 12,000 troops, and one illiterate but charismatic Afghan border police commander, the American military has forced insurgents to retreat from key parts of this strategically vital region, according to U.S. and Afghan commanders. The developments are far from decisive, but senior military leaders believe they have made progress on the western outskirts of Kandahar city and in the pomegranate orchards of the Argandab valley. The ground remains treacherous, seeded with bombs that reverberate daily through the city. The Taliban departure from some areas could be a strategic response to an operation NATO has trumpeted for months. Or insurgents could be lying low, developing new avenues of attack. NATO forces have cleared villages before, including in Kandahar province, and failed to hold them. Whether insurgents can be kept away this time, or prevented from grabbing new parts of the city or its surroundings, remains to be seen. The most unexpected, and potentially risky, aspect of NATO's resurgence is Abdul Razziq, the 32-year-old police colonel best known for allegations of pocketing millions of dollars in illegal customs dues, who has left the border to lead hundreds of his militiamen into Taliban-held villages that have bedeviled NATO troops for years. Behind Razziq's hardened fighters - who possess a local knowledge that police officers and soldiers from Afghanistan's national security forces cannot match - American soldiers have taken back territory previously out of reach. He's led clearing operations in all of the areas central to the American campaign here - Panjwayi, Zhari, Argandab and Kandahar city - and has captured hundreds of Taliban fighters. "He's like a folk hero now," said Col. Jeffrey Martindale, who commands an American army brigade in Kandahar. "The Taliban fear him." Afghans who live in these areas, and have witnessed earlier clearing operations give way to Taliban comebacks, often do not share the U.S. military's optimism. And some believe insurgents may be moving into the city to avoid U.S. troops on the periphery. "Security in the city is now drastically worse," said Samsor Afghan, 27, a university student who runs a computer software store downtown, across the street from where a suicide bomber attacked the day before. "The Taliban are everywhere. We don't feel safe even inside the city." American commanders have nevertheless been buoyed by changes in areas where the bulk of their forces are located. Among the shifts is what they describe as a new assertiveness from Afghan security forces, which now outnumber NATO troops in this operation. A late-night call Officers trace the change to one night in mid-August, when Kandahar governor Toryalai Wesa called President Hamid Karzai to report that Taliban forces were blocking a road and searching cars in Malajat, an insurgent stronghold in western Kandahar city. "Could you, Mr. President, order NATO to come and help us?" Wesa asked, according to an Afghan official present in the palace. "Shame on you," Karzai replied. Karzai had recently issued a decree instructing governors to act as the commander of all Afghan security forces in their provinces. He told Wesa to assemble his own force and respond. "Go after them. Don't wait for NATO," he said. Just hours later, Wesa had cobbled together a few hundred Afghan police, soldiers and intelligence officers, and sent them into Malajat, a move that surprised the Americans in Kandahar. The operation began with Afghan government forces capturing 11 insurgents, but the contingent was soon trapped in a minefield. Five Afghans were killed getting out. Wesa emerged chastened from the operation, U.S. officials said. For a second run at Malajat, the solution was Razziq. On the border, he developed an outsize reputation - part Robin Hood, part warlord. He was a close ally of the Karzais with thousands of tribal warriors at his command. "If you need a mad dog on a leash, he's not a bad one to have," said a U.S. official in Kandahar. U.S. troops hastily planned support and coordinated to have Afghan forces ring the neighborhood, while Razziq, cellphone and satellite phone in hand, roared up from the southern desert with a few hundred men. They arrested about 20 suspected insurgents and found scores of explosives. There was little violence, but U.S. troops noted Razziq's style. At one point his men spotted a stolen Afghan police truck. They fired at it with a rocket-propelled grenade, which deflected off the truck, and exploded in the trees. Suddenly a man in white robes fell from the branches, himself blowing up when his suicide vest hit the ground, which then blew up the truck - a story that Razziq chuckles in recalling, U.S. officials said. As this partnership has developed, Razziq has been partnered with a U.S. Special Forces commander to help coordinate his moves. He's been called on elsewhere, including particularly treacherous parts of the Argandab valley, where whole villages had been rigged with explosives that had made them impenetrable to previous American units. The Afghan operations have stunned U.S. troops, accustomed to years of prodding along their reluctant allies. At 3 a.m. on Sept. 15, Capt. Mikel Resnick, a company commander in Argandab, learned that 1,000 Afghan forces were moving into his area. "I don't know if they're going to go burn the orchards down and leave me to clean it up," he said of his initial reaction to the plan. The Afghans, who took 72 hours to capture 50 detainees, five large bombs and 500 pounds of explosives, required only advice and air support from the Americans, said Lt. Col. Rodger Lemons, the battalion commander at the Argandab district center. "We basically sat in here and monitored the fight," Resnick said, referring to his outpost at the village of Sarkari Bagh. "They essentially cleared this entire place out." U.S. military officials acknowledge that it is not ideal to have the border police leading the operation, because the goal is for the Afghan army and police to provide security in their own areas. "We need to make sure this is not undermining the legitimacy of the Afghan government," said a senior NATO military official in southern Afghanistan. â??The fight in Kandahar, unlike the previous U.S.-led operation in Marja, has also benefited from a more intensive campaign by U.S. Special Operations forces to hunt down Taliban commanders and bomb-making networks before the infantry push. The local victims During the Kandahar operation, Americans have unleashed ferocious air bombardments. In some parts of the Argandab, U.S. troops discovered the Taliban had cleared out whole villages and rigged each house with homemade explosives. In one October operation to clear the way for Razziq's troops, American aircraft dropped about 25 2,000-pound bombs and twice as many 500-pound bombs, while also firing powerful rockets over the ridge from the Kandahar Air Field miles away. "We obliterated those towns. They're not there at all," Martindale said. "These are just parking lots right now." Martindale said civilians had long ago fled the Taliban-dominated area, and that the U.S. attacks did not cause civilian casualties - a claim that could not be independently verified. Faced with the NATO and Afghan push, American commanders believe that many Taliban leaders have retreated to Pakistan, leaving lower-level fighters to stage attacks in Kandahar. Part of this appears to be the normal ebb of fighting in Afghanistan, as insurgents slow their tempo in the colder months. Afghans living in Zhari and Panjwayi cited many complaints with the current operations, including homes and orchards damaged by American troops, no government support for the people and elusive Taliban guerrillas who dodge the conventional armies. "Who are the victims of these operations? Just the local people. If the Taliban comes, the people suffer, if the foreign forces come, the people suffer," said Mohammad Rahim, a member of Panjwayi's district council. "The Taliban always leave, and the Taliban always come back."

India, U.S. aim to lift defence ties during Obama trip

By Krittivas Mukherjee NEW DELHI | Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:59pm IST NEW DELHI (Reuters) - When U.S. President Barack Obama arrives in India next month, he will face a key challenge of boosting defence ties that are on the upswing but mired by political suspicion over pandering to Washington's interests. Underlying the visit will be lobbying for billions of dollars in contracts to overhaul India's mostly Russian-supplied military, a relic of their Cold War era partnership. Those orders include a $11 billion deal for 126 fighter jets that could benefit U.S.' Boeing and Lockheed Martin Corp. France's Dassault, Russia's MiG-35, Sweden's Saab and the Eurofighter Typhoon are also competing. But Washington faces a host of hurdles, including Indian worries that signing defence pacts which are necessary for the U.S. arms sales to go through may land New Delhi into a wider entanglement with the U.S. military. While Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has reached out to Washington over his last six years in powers, many within his own Congress party as well as his parliamentary allies are reluctant to embrace these pacts, pending over three years. "India is weighing to see if all these agreements are to give a wider room to manoeuvre for U.S. forces in the region," said Siddharth Varadarajan, strategic affairs editor at Hindu Newspaper in Delhi. "There is a mismatch in expectations from the relationship. India wants weapons sales as a transactional relationship, the U.S. is seeking exclusivity in partnership," he said, referring to any U.S. desire to make the Indian military an active element in its strategic expansion in the region. A KPMG report this month said the misgivings over the pacts were "roadblocks" in sustaining the momentum in the relationship. Obama's challenge is not as much in winning contracts as it is in lifting ties to a long-term military partnership in a region where Washington is now fighting a war and seeking ways to contain China's rise. And the defence pacts Washington wants India to sign underscore some of those challenges. One pact is the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), which would allow American military to use Indian facilities for operations like refueling. Indians fear India could be used as a launching pad for military operations in the region. Two other pacts are required under US domestic laws to transfer sensitive defence technology. India fears the military will have to share communications secrets with the United States. "These agreements need wider consultation. They have various implications," an Indian defence ministry official told Reuters. DEVELOPING TIES Once on the opposite sides of the Cold War, India and the United States began warming up to each other about a decade back, the paradigm shift coming with a 2008 civil nuclear deal that then President Bush pushed to end India's nuclear isolation.

Karzai Takes Iranian Cash, Just in Case

Max Boot - 10.25.2010 - 10:22 AM Commentary Online Blog Give Hamid Karzai points for honesty. He has made no attempt to deny a report in the Saturday New York Times that he receives bags of cash from the Iranians. Instead he came right out and admitted it and vowed to continue accepting the cash that he said amounts to about $2 million a year. “They have asked for good relations in return, and for lots of other things in return,” he said of the Iranians. No kidding. In a way, this should hardly be a shocker. The Iranians have attempted similar dollar diplomacy in Iraq, Lebanon, and lots of other countries. No surprise that they should try the same thing with another neighbor. Nor should anyone be particularly shocked that the Iranians appear to be playing both sides of the street — giving both to Karzai and to the Taliban. In a way, what the Iranians are doing, while undoubtedly cynical, is not that far removed from conventional foreign-aid programs run by the U.S., Britain, and other powers that also seek to curry influence with their donations. Even the Iranian resort to cash — which is more than a bit seedy — is hardly all that different from what the U.S. does. The CIA, in particular, is known for handing out suitcases stuffed full of bills to our allies, including Karzai. I am more concerned about lethal aid that the Iranians provide to insurgents in places like Iraq and Afghanistan that is used to kill American troops — aid that has been highlighted once again by WikiLeaks. These cash payments hardly mean that Karzai is a dupe of Iran. He gets much more money and support from the U.S. than from the Iranians, and he knows that. He is, like most politicians, primarily looking out for numero uno and that means ensuring that he is not entirely reliant on a single ally that has proved fickle in the past. This should, however, alert us to the geopolitical stakes in Afghanistan. If we leave prematurely, Afghanistan will once again be the scene of a massive civil war, with neighboring states, and in particular Pakistan and Iran, doing their utmost to exert their influence to the detriment of our long-term interests. That is yet one more reason why it is important to prevail in Afghanistan

Afghan capital enjoys relative calm amid security crackdown

Muhammed Rasoul, manager of the Kabul City Centre Mall, stands in front of the building on October 14, 2010. | Dion Nissenbaum/MCT By Hashim Shukoor and Dion Nissenbaum | McClatchy Newspapers KABUL, Afghanistan — Muhammad Rasoul was heading to work last February when a powerful explosion rocked his car and sent dust through the quiet, early morning Kabul streets. Within minutes, it became clear that a powerful car bomb had ravaged Kabul's first modern indoor mall — where Rasoul works as the manager — killing 17 people and putting the Afghan capital on edge again. It took Rasoul and his colleagues two months and $4 million to get the $35 million Kabul City Centre mall and adjacent four-star Safi Landmark hotel back in full operation last spring. These days, however, as workers construct an ugly steel security entryway for the mall, Rasoul worries less about another attack. "We are building this door for security," Rasoul said while standing next to the new barrier, "but security has gotten better." While insurgent violence has expanded steadily throughout the country, the capital has remained relatively quiet since that attack. The last major assault was in May, when a suicide bomber drove into a small military convoy in Kabul, killing 18 people, including four high-ranking NATO officers. The U.S. military and Afghan security officials said they'd killed or captured hundreds of would-be assailants around Kabul this year, significantly blunting the effectiveness of insurgent forces looking to target the capital. "Our capacity in Kabul is much better," said Abdul Manan Farahi, a special adviser in the Interior Ministry who served for more than four years as the head of the counter-terrorism unit. "Our focus now — the government focus — is on security for Kabul." Nestled in a high-altitude valley below the Hindu Kush mountains and with some 4 million inhabitants, Kabul has remained largely insulated from the worst violence over the past decade. The capital is akin to the crown jewel in the counterinsurgency strategy of Army Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, who drafted the new doctrine focusing on protecting populations from insurgent attacks and instability. Relative calm in the capital is one of the key signs of success that Petraeus is touting as progress in the nine-year-old war. The capture of two U.S. sailors outside Kabul last June was one unexpected catalyst for the improved security. The intense search for the two, whom insurgents killed within days, churned up a number of significant leads. "A lot of stuff was coming actively and very heavily at that time," said a Western intelligence official, who received permission to discuss Kabul security only on the condition of anonymity. "We've been going after them aggressively since July." While Afghan forces are responsible for Kabul security, U.S. Special Operations Forces have been quietly supporting them by staging operations in the capital. From April through October, according to figures from the American military, special forces killed 13 people and detained six. Most of the big attacks to hit Kabul have been the work of the Haqqani network, a Taliban ally based in Pakistan's North Waziristan region that has ties to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency. This year, the U.S-led military coalition has focused more attention on the Haqqani forces. American forces said they'd killed 115 Haqqani members and captured 250 more from June to August. In September, U.S. officials said, they killed or captured more than 100 Haqqani and Taliban leaders. Rangin Dadfar Spanta, Afghanistan's national security adviser, told McClatchy that military operations around Kabul and in Haqqani's border sanctuaries in Pakistan had disrupted the network's operation. "The number of commanders that they have lost is significant," Spanta said. Afghan officials have tripled the number of police officers who guard Kabul and have expanded the so-called "Ring of Steel" checkpoints at key entrances to the city's power centers. Afghan and U.S. officials say they're doing better at sharing intelligence, which allowed them to thwart attempts to attack an international donors' conference in July, as well as track down insurgents responsible for an embarrassing mortar attack on the capital's closely watched peace conference in June. The Afghan police force that's responsible for Kabul has jumped from 5,000 officers to 18,000, and the Afghan army has established a new division with 7,000 soldiers to help protect the capital. The U.S. has demanded repeatedly that Pakistan rein in the Afghan insurgents it covertly supports, but American and Afghan intelligence officials said there were few signs of restraint. Spanta and other Afghan government leaders called for still more U.S. pressure on Pakistan to crack down on Haqqani operatives and Taliban leaders who orchestrate attacks on Afghanistan from their border sanctuaries. "This is other evidence for my central thesis: We have to fight the source," Spanta said. Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/20/102338/afghan-capital-enjoys-relative.html#ixzz130FaJ5y2

Taliban Elite, Aided by NATO, Join Talks for Afghan Peace

By DEXTER FILKINS New York Times KABUL, Afghanistan — Talks to end the war in Afghanistan involve extensive, face-to-face discussions with Taliban commanders from the highest levels of the group’s leadership, who are secretly leaving their sanctuaries in Pakistan with the help of NATO troops, officials here say. The discussions, some of which have taken place in Kabul, are unfolding between the inner circle of President Hamid Karzai and members of the Quetta shura, the leadership group that oversees the Taliban war effort inside Afghanistan. Afghan leaders have also held discussions with leaders of the Haqqani network, considered to be one of the most hard-line guerrilla factions fighting here; and members of the Peshawar shura, whose fighters are based in eastern Afghanistan. The Taliban leaders coming into Afghanistan for talks have left their havens in Pakistan on the explicit assurance that they will not be attacked or arrested by NATO forces, Afghans familiar with the talks say. Many top Taliban leaders reside in Pakistan, where they are believed to enjoy at least some official protection. In at least one case, Taliban leaders crossed the border and boarded a NATO aircraft bound for Kabul, according to an Afghan with knowledge of the talks. In other cases, NATO troops have secured roads to allow Taliban officials to reach Afghan- and NATO-controlled areas so they can take part in discussions. Most of the discussions have taken place outside of Kabul, according to the Afghan official. American officials said last week that talks between Afghan and Taliban leaders were under way. But the ranks of the insurgents, the fact that they represent multiple factions, and the extent of NATO efforts to provide transportation and security to adversaries they otherwise try to kill or capture have not been previously disclosed. At least four Taliban leaders, three of them members of the Quetta shura and one of them a member of the Haqqani family, have taken part in discussions, according to the Afghan official and a former diplomat in the region. The identities of the Taliban leaders are being withheld by The New York Times at the request of the White House and an Afghan who has taken part in the discussions. The Afghan official said that identifying the men could result in their deaths or detention at the hands of rival Taliban commanders or the Pakistani intelligence agents who support them. The discussions are still described as preliminary, partly because Afghan and American officials are trying to determine how much influence the Taliban leaders who have participated in the talks have within their own organizations. Even so, the talks have been held on several different occasions and appear to represent the most substantive effort to date to negotiate an end to the nine-year-old war, which began with an American-led campaign to overthrow the Taliban after the 9/11 attacks. “These are face-to-face discussions,” said an Afghan with knowledge of the talks. “This is not about making the Americans happy or making Karzai happy. It’s about what is in the best interests of the Afghan people.” “These talks are based on personal relationships,” the official said. “When the Taliban see that they can travel in the country without being attacked by the Americans, they see that the government is sovereign, that they can trust us.” The discussions appear to be unfolding without the approval of Pakistan’s leaders, who are believed to exercise a wide degree of control over the Taliban’s leadership. The Afghan government seems to be trying to seek a reconciliation agreement that does not directly involve Pakistan, which Mr. Karzai’s government fears will exercise too much influence over Afghanistan after NATO forces withdraw. But that strategy could backfire by provoking the Pakistanis, who could undermine any agreement. Mullah Muhammad Omar, the overall leader of the Taliban, is explicitly being cut out of the negotiations, in part because of his closeness to the Pakistani security services, officials said. Afghans who have tried to take part in, or even facilitate, past negotiations have been killed by their Taliban comrades, sometimes with the assistance of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI. “The ISI will try to prevent these negotiations from happening,” the Afghan official said. “The ISI will just eliminate them,” he said, referring to the people who take part. Earlier this year, the ISI detained as many as 23 Taliban leaders residing in Pakistan after the intelligence service discovered that the Taliban leaders were talking secretly with representatives of the Afghan government. Cutting Mullah Omar out of the negotiations appears to represent an attempt by Afghan leaders to drive a wedge into the upper ranks of the Taliban leadership. Though there is some disagreement among Afghan officials, many regard Mullah Omar as essentially a prisoner of the Pakistani security establishment who would be unable to exercise any independence. Some American and Afghan officials believe that the Taliban is vulnerable to being split, with potentially large chunks of the movement defecting to the Afghan government. The Haqqani group is the namesake of Jalalhuddin Haqqani, a former minister in the Taliban government in the 1990s who presides over a Mafia-like organization based in North Waziristan, in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The Haqqani network has sheltered several members of Al Qaeda and maintains close links to Pakistan’s security services. The group is believed to be responsible for many suicide attacks inside Kabul that have killed hundreds of civilians. Earlier this year, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of NATO forces here, asked the Obama administration to declare the Haqqani network a terrorist organization. That has not happened. Indeed, the endorsement of such talks presents the Americans with a paradox. Many if not most of the leaders of the Taliban and the Haqqani group are targets for death or capture. Many of the same individuals are also on the United Nations “black list,” which obliges governments to freeze their assets and prevent them from traveling. Waheed Omar, a spokesman for President Karzai, acknowledged that the government was in contact with a range of Taliban leaders, but he declined to discuss any details. “I cannot confirm that there have been discussions with the Quetta shura,” he said. The Taliban leadership and those in their immediate circle appear to be in the dark as well. A Pakistani cleric close to the Quetta shura and the Haqqani leadership said in an interview that he was unaware of any face-to-face discussions with Afghan leaders. But he said the Afghan government had recently sent out feelers to several Taliban commanders, with the proviso that Mullah Omar be left out. “The problem is, they want to exclude Mullah Omar,” the cleric said. “If you exclude him, then there cannot be any talks at all.” The Pakistani cleric said that some discussions among members of the Quetta shura may have taken place recently in Saudi Arabia, where many of the group’s leaders had traveled during the holy month of Ramadan. One Pakistani security official said he was aware of talks involving a member of the Quetta shura. But he said those discussions would likely come to nothing, because the Taliban leader did not any have official endorsement. “He’s useless,” the Pakistani security officer said of the Taliban leader. “This guy is not in a position to make a deal.” For their part, American officials say they are wary of investing too much hope in the discussions. In the past, talks — or, more accurately, talks about talks — have foundered over preconditions that each side has set: for the Taliban, that the Americans must first withdraw; for the Afghan government, that the Taliban must first disarm. Perhaps the biggest complication lies on the battlefield. As long as the Taliban believe they are winning, they do not seem likely to want to make a deal. In recent months, as the additional troops and resources ordered up by President Obama have poured in, the American military has stepped up operations against Taliban strongholds. So far, the insurgents have shown few public signs of wanting to give up. That much was acknowledged Tuesday by the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta. “If there are elements that wish to reconcile and get reintegrated, that ought to be obviously explored,” he said in Washington. “But I still have not seen anything that indicates that at this point a serious effort is being made to reconcile.”

Post: How Obama sabotaged Middle East peace talks

Jackson Diehl, Washington Post October 19 For 15 years and more, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas conducted peace talks with Israel in the absence of a freeze on Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Now, it appears as likely as not that his newborn negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu -- and their goal of agreement on a Palestinian state within a year -- will die because of Abbas's refusal to continue without such a freeze. The Palestinian president's stand has frustrated a lot of people -- including his own prime minister, Salaam Fayyad, and the president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, both of whom have said that the settlement issue should not be an obstacle to the negotiations. At a recent dinner in Washington, Fayyad pointed out that any building in the settlements during the next year would have no effect on the outcome of the talks or the future Palestinian state. So why does Abbas stubbornly persist in his self-defeating position? In an interview with Israeli television Sunday night, he offered a remarkably candid explanation: "When Obama came to power, he is the one who announced that settlement activity must be stopped," he said. "If America says it and Europe says it and the whole world says it, you want me not to say it?" The statement confirmed something that many Mideast watchers have suspected for a long time: that the settlement impasse originated not with Netanyahu or Abbas, but with Obama -- who by insisting on an Israeli freeze has created a near-insuperable obstacle to the peace process he is trying to promote. A standoff between Obama and Netanyahu over settlements paralyzed Middle East diplomacy for more than a year, while Abbas happily watched from the sidelines. Netanyahu finally announced a 10-month, partial moratorium on new settlement construction. In July, following a meeting at the White House, it looked like the U.S. and Israeli leaders had overcome their differences. Obama said nothing about settlements afterward, and instead urged Abbas to begin direct talks with Netanyahu. Yet to the surprise of both Netanyahu and some in his own administration, Obama reintroduced the settlement issue. First in a press conference and then in his September address to the UN General Assembly, he called on the Israeli government to extend the settlement moratorium, which expired on Sept. 26. In doing so, he made it impossible for Abbas not to make the same demand. In his television interview, Abbas said that Netanyahu had told him that he could not extend the settlement moratorium without causing his right-wing government to collapse. So both leaders are trapped. Netanyahu is a hostage to his cabinet; and Abbas is the prisoner of Obama's misguided rhetoric.

Pentagon bracing for new WikiLeaks release

By Olivia Hampton (AFP) – 5 hours ago WASHINGTON — The Pentagon scoured through an Iraq war database Monday to prepare for potential fallout from an expected release by WikiLeaks of some 400,000 secret military reports. The massive release, possibly early this week, is set to dwarf the whistleblower website's publication of 77,000 classified US military documents on the war in Afghanistan in July, including the names of Afghan informants and other details from raw intelligence reports. Another 15,000 are due out soon. In order to prepare for the anticipated release of sensitive intelligence on the US-led Iraq war, officials set up a 120-person taskforce several weeks ago to comb through the database and "determine what the possible impacts might be," said Colonel David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman. The Department of Defense is concerned the leak compiles "significant activities" from the war, which include incidents such as known attacks against coalition troops, Iraqi security forces, civilians or infrastructure in the country. The data was culled from an Iraq-based database that contained "significant acts, unit-level reporting, tactical reports, things of that nature," said Lapan, noting that Pentagon officials still do not know how many and which documents would be released. He urged WikiLeaks to return the documents to the US military, which he said found no need to redact them in the interim. "Our position is redactions don't help, it's returning the documents to their rightful owner," Lapan said. "We don't believe WikiLeaks or others have the expertise needed. It's not as simple as just taking out names. There are other things and documents that aren't names that are also potentially damaging." For the Iraq leak, Wikileaks is believed to be teaming up with the same news outlets as it did for the Afghanistan document dump -- The New York Times, Britain's Guardian and Der Spiegel of Germany -- and Newsweek magazine has reported that all partners would release the material simultaneously. The July release caused uproar in the US government, with director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA director Michael Hayden warning it could undermine the post-9/11 effort to break down walls between rival intelligence agencies. Difficulties in sharing intelligence information have been repeatedly identified as a problem plaguing spy and law enforcement services since the attacks of September 11, 2001. In a speech this month, Clapper said President Barack Obama was full of "angst" over a "hemorrhage" of leaks of sensitive intelligence from government officials. "I think it's going to have a very chilling effect on the need to share," he said. WikiLeaks has not identified the source of the documents it has released so far but suspicion has fallen on Bradley Manning, a US Army intelligence analyst who is in military custody. Manning was arrested in May following the release by WikiLeaks of video footage of a US Apache helicopter strike in Iraq in which civilians died, and he has been charged with delivering defense information to an unauthorized source. Launched in 2006, WikiLeaks is facing internal troubles amid criticism its releases harm US national security and an ongoing investigation into its founder, Julian Assange, over an alleged sex crime in Sweden. It also has some money problems. Assange told The Guardian that British firm Moneybookers, an online payment company it uses to collect donations, closed his website's account in August after the US and Australian governments blacklisted WikiLeaks in the days following the initial release of Afghan documents. The website has been undergoing "scheduled maintenance" since September 29, but promises to "be back online as soon as possible."

U.S. and Vietnam Build Ties With an Eye on China

By SETH MYDANS HANOI, Vietnam — A visit to Vietnam this week by Robert M. Gates, the United States defense secretary, is just the latest step in a bilateral relationship that is at its warmest since diplomatic ties were established 15 years ago. A steady progression of careful gestures has eroded the enmities of the Vietnam War, built a basis of increasing trust and turned the two nations’ attention, in large part, from issues of the past to the present. It is the second American cabinet-level visit to Vietnam in four months; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton came in July. Exchanges at this level have become almost common, if not routine. Mr. Gates was here for a gathering of defense chiefs from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations and partner countries. “I would say that relations are at their highest point in 15 years,” said Hung M. Nguyen, director of the Indochina Institute at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. “We have basically removed the major hurdles of suspicion in military-to-military relations, and I would expect things to proceed quite fast,” he said. The main concern shared by the two nations underscores the shifts in alliances in the 35 years since the war came to an end: Chinese claims in the South China Sea. It is an issue with some historical paradox. While the United States sought during the war to contain an expansion of Chinese Communism into Vietnam, it is aligned with Vietnam today in concern over an escalation of China’s maritime claims. China was an ally of North Vietnam in its war against South Vietnam and the United States in the 1960s and ’70s and is now a partner of a unified Vietnam in an uneasy relationship between Communist nations of vastly different size. “Vietnam worries about Chinese in the South China Sea, and America worries about interference in freedom of navigation,” Dr. Hung said. “Because of this, the strategic interests of Vietnam and the United States converge.” On Tuesday, Vietnam announced that China had released a Vietnamese fishing boat and crew it had seized near the disputed Paracel Islands a month ago, ending the latest flare-up between the nations. China earlier said that the crew must pay a fine, and Vietnam said that the crew members had been mistreated. By Vietnam’s count, 63 fishing boats with 725 crew members have been seized since 2005 in areas claimed by China. In March, China raised the level of its territorial claim, asserting that the South China Sea was a “core concern,” a phrase that placed it on a par with Taiwan and Tibet, its most politically contentious territorial interests. In response, during a visit to Hanoi in July, Mrs. Clinton hardened Washington’s stance by saying the United States had a “national interest” in freedom of navigation in the area. In balancing its relations between the two major powers, Vietnam has been at pains to reassure China, the giant on its doorstep, that it would have no alliances, military bases or military coalitions that threatened China. While Vietnam marked the 15th anniversary of diplomatic ties with the United States this year, it also celebrated a much longer diplomatic relationship of 60 years with China. Hanoi’s warming toward Washington has also been slowed by suspicions of American motives and commitment to a Vietnam policy, analysts said. They said Washington’s relations with Vietnam had always been part of larger international interests and could shift as those interests changed. Once again, as it was during the war, America’s stance toward Vietnam is one piece in a broader China policy. Toeing a careful line, Vietnam insists that its policies toward the two nations are independent of each other. “You should not look at Vietnam’s relationship with the United States through the prism of China,” said Nguyen Nam Duong, a research fellow at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, a branch of the Foreign Ministry. “Vietnam will have independent relations with both the United States and China, and we want to separate those relations from each other,” he said in an interview on Tuesday. Quite apart from their relations with China, the two former wartime enemies have grown steadily closer. Trade relations were normalized in 2006. Port calls by United States naval vessels have become more frequent since the first one in 2003. “It’s a very deliberate pace that’s being kept here,” said Carlyle Thayer, an expert on Vietnam at the Australian Defense Force Academy at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. “Neither side wants to be used by the other, but both want to advance the relationship,” he said. Mrs. Clinton took an exuberant tone last month when she said, “The progress between Vietnam and the United States has been breathtaking.” Vietnamese officials have been less effusive, but they seem to agree. “Vietnam and the United States are enjoying an excellent period of bilateral relations,” the Vietnamese ambassador to the United States, Le Cong Phung, said in remarks quoted by the official Vietnam News Agency last month. However, warming relations have been slowed by American concerns over human rights abuses in Vietnam and by Hanoi’s suspicion that Washington is using the issue to undermine the Communist government. The Vietnamese often use the phrases “peaceful evolution” and the “color revolutions,” expressions that refer to their view that the collapse of the Soviet Union and other European Communist governments was brought about at least partly by outside support for democracy and human rights. The competing concerns involving human rights renew themselves in something of a vicious circle. Vietnam’s fear of American motives leads to the arrests of dissidents it sees as connected with the West. And those arrests in turn intensify concerns of the United States over human rights abuses. The two nations’ alignment on the issue of the South China Sea illustrates the emergence of a more forward-looking relationship, said Kim Ninh, the country representative in Vietnam for The Asia Foundation, which is based in San Francisco. For the United States, the chief issue from the past continues to be a full accounting for military service members still missing from the war, though that concern no longer carries the power that it once did. For Vietnam, the chief remaining postwar issue is a demand for greater American assistance in addressing the effects of Agent Orange, a chemical defoliant that was sprayed in parts of the country, causing widespread birth defects. Mr. Duong of the Foreign Ministry said these postwar issues remained “very relevant.” “In terms of defense relations, we still need to settle the issues of the past so as to build trust to move toward the future,” he said. But he said that bilateral relations “have never been better” and that “they can only go upward. They cannot go downward.”

Payoff seen in Afghan surge

Taliban demoralized and changing sides, military says RESCUE READY: Air Force Pararescueman Alejandro Serrano with the 46th Expeditionary Rescue Squadron test-fires his weapon over Kandahar province in case it's needed during casualty-pickup missions in Afghanistan. The U.S. military is starting to see signs that the troop surge in Afghanistan is working on a timetable similar to the Iraq reinforcement campaign in 2007, according to an outside adviser and military sources. "There are already some early signs of a beginning of a momentum shift in our favor," retired Army Gen. Jack Keane told The Washington Times. Gen. Keane just returned from a two-week tour of the battlefield, where the focus is on ousting the Taliban from Kandahar, its birthplace, as well as from Helmand province and other southern and eastern areas. Gen. Keane reported his findings to Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Kabul, who saw the surge of 30,000 troops completed in August, placing about 100,000 American service members in country. An architect of the Bush administration's surge of troops in Iraq, Gen. Keane advised Gen. Petraeus when he was the top commander there. Gen. Keane told The Times he has witnessed in Afghanistan the same shift in fortunes: Taliban fighters are changing sides, villages are being cleansed of the enemy and protected, and intercepted communications show flagging Taliban morale. "Overall, we can see now that the surge forces are starting to make a difference," he said. "And you have to be encouraged by some of the progress that's being made. All that said, we're in a tough fight, and I believe we will continue to gain momentum." Gen. Keane offered two observations as evidence. First, most commanders with whom he spoke said they are encountering Taliban who want to stop fighting and reintegrate into Afghan society. "That's a big deal," he said. Second, "There's evidence of erosion of some of the will of the Taliban. We pick it up in interrogations, and we also pick it up listening to their radio traffic and telephone calls in terms of the morale problems they're starting to have," Gen. Keane said. A military officer in the U.S. who monitors the war confirmed that Taliban radio chatter sounds a bit frantic. "The Taliban are not anxious to engage us, because we come after them once they start shooting at us," the officer told The Times on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press. "One of the translations I saw came out as 'Marines are insane.' So, maybe that means that little by little things are getting better." Gen. Keane said the drop in Taliban morale can be traced to soldiers and Marines going after hillside hamlets and safe havens. The Taliban has thrived in such areas, where they regroup, plan raids and store ammunition. "What is happening is, the Taliban's freedom of movement," he said. "We are literally taking away from them things they are used to. We are denying them some of the safe havens that they have in the south. We are denying them the support zones they've been operating out of with impunity. "Support zones are up in the mountains, where they use villagers to help hide their weapons caches. Safe havens are up there, too, usually away from everybody, and we are denying them the use of those. We are interdicting and disrupting their operating areas, which had a tendency to focus on the roads quite a bit, and we're interdicting what they're doing there." Gen. Petraeus is on a schedule to show positive results by July 2011, when President Obama's war strategy calls for the beginning of a troop exit. The four-star general's job may have gotten tougher last week, when James L. Jones, a retired four-star Marine Corps general, quit as Mr. Obama's national security adviser. He will be succeeded by Thomas Donilon, a Democratic Party operative and lawyer who served as Gen. Jones' deputy and who opposed more troops for Afghanistan, which puts him at odds with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. In a recent NPR interview, Gen. Petraeus cited the Malajat district in Kandahar city as an area infested with Taliban but now controlled by U.S. and Afghan forces. "A month ago, it was a sanctuary for certain elements of the Taliban who were carrying out assassinations, intimidation activities, extortion and a variety of other illicit acts," he said. "They largely controlled it. That Malajat district was [one] in which the Taliban had freedom of movement, freedom of access, and again, considerable influence in that area." Maj. Gen. Richard Mills, the top Marine in Afghanistan, who is focused on retaking Helmand, has been guarded about war progress. But last week at a change-of-command ceremony, he declared, according to press reports: "We're hurting the enemy, and we're hurting him badly. For every casualty we suffer, the enemy suffers numerous casualties." Stephen Biddle, a Council on Foreign Relations analyst who advises the command in Afghanistan, like Gen. Keane, has seen territorial gains. "There are places that had been deeply Taliban-held that are now certainly contested and in some places increasingly government-controlled, like the central Helmand River Valley for example," he said on the council's website. "This may happen increasingly over coming weeks and months in previously dangerous parts of Kandahar province, where progress has not been as fast as many had hoped." Mr. Biddle said the Obama administration made a mistake in calling out Afghan President Hamid Karzai publicly for rampant corruption, which embarrassed him in front of his people and forced him to lash out at Washington. Now, the U.S. command and State Department have embarked on a "bottom-up" strategy to try to root out corruption network by network, he said. There are still plenty of skeptics, given the rampant government corruption, Pakistan's inability to stop the Taliban from infiltrating Afghanistan, and the mixed loyalties of Afghan police and army. The Taliban issued a statement last week on the war's ninth anniversary claiming they control 75 percent of Afghanistan. Robert Maginnis, a military analyst and Army consultant, said "big problems" exist. Mr. Obama's 2009 Afghan strategy put new emphasis on Pakistan-U.S. cooperation in defeating the Taliban. Yet, elements of Islamabad's intelligence service are still helping the Taliban, according to a London School of Economics study. "Pakistan is not helping our efforts, and Obama made Islamabad a major part of the solution," he said. "Part of the problem with Pakistan is the major distraction created by the floods, but also because the civilian government is utterly incompetent." Mr. Maginnis also said that if Mr. Obama insists on the July 2011 deadline, it will result in the Taliban simply returning from Pakistan to retake villages and cities. "We may spend more blood and treasure in the counterinsurgency, but next summer there will be little to show for the investment other than a few population centers enjoying some security but little governance and an economy," he said. Still, Gen. Keane said he sees Marines and soldiers methodically taking territory once controlled by the Taliban. "We've made significant progress in Helmand province," he said. "The Marines will continue to make progress as they push farther north, as well. The effort in the south, in Kandahar, is just beginning."

In Vietnam, Gates to Discuss Maritime Claims of China

By THOM SHANKER HANOI, Vietnam — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates landed Sunday in Vietnam, where the narrative of a past war with the United States has faded as the leadership here openly seeks American support to counter an increasingly assertive China. Shared Concern About China Aligns U.S. and Vietnam (October 11, 2010) As Hanoi Marks 1,000th Birthday, Some Are Cynical (October 10, 2010) Mr. Gates has scheduled private talks with his Vietnamese counterpart during a conference of defense ministers from across the region, where a key issue will be how to manage China’s expanded claims of maritime rights in the South China Sea. China has backed those claims with threats of economic retaliation against some nations in the region. A senior Defense Department official traveling aboard Mr. Gates’s airplane to Hanoi said the defense ministers from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations would look for common ground on the issues of counterterrorism, peacekeeping and, with China in attendance, a response to Beijing’s push for increased sovereignty over international waters. Mr. Gates faces a delicate balancing act. He must reassure Asian partners and allies that the United States will remain engaged in the region and will work for a peaceful resolution of the competing claims over islands, undersea mineral wealth and fishing rights. But he must do so without jeopardizing his equally important efforts to restore a healthy military-to-military dialogue with China. China and the United States have already sparred over China’s claims in the South China Sea, with the United States allied with Vietnam on the issue. In March, at least one senior Chinese official raised the level of its claim, asserting to two senior White House officials visiting Beijing that the South China Sea was a “core interest,” a phrase that placed it on a par with Taiwan and Tibet, which China considers parts of its territory. In Hanoi in July, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hardened Washington’s stance by saying the United States had a “national interest” in freedom of navigation in the area. The defense secretary’s expected arguments to China are clear: Beijing’s dash to become a global economic power requires it to honor accepted standards for sharing oceans and airspace, and harassment of ships and airplanes in international lanes off its shores will harm China’s long-term interests. China is expected to invite Mr. Gates to Beijing, a significant change in tone. China froze military relations with the United States this year when the Obama administration announced $6.4 billion in arms sales to Taiwan. Mr. Gates arrived in Vietnam 15 years after normalization of relations between the two countries, but the streets were overflowing with revelers for another celebration, the 1,000th anniversary of the founding of Hanoi. China and Vietnam have a long history of bloody competition, one that was buried for the years that China backed North Vietnam in pushing back American military involvement here. Vietnam’s worries over Chinese encroachment were reflected in its recent choices for weapons purchases. Last year, Vietnam signed deals with Russia to buy six Kilo-class diesel-powered hunter-killer submarines for $1.8 billion and eight Sukhoi jet fighters for another $500 million, according to the Congressional Research Service. Both weapons are designed for protecting territorial waters and airspace, and the deals also illustrate Russia’s support of nations trying to curb China’s power. The United States, while seeking to improve diplomatic and military relations with Vietnam, has offered little in the way of arms, mostly focusing its assistance on military training and officer education. Washington has continuing human rights concerns with Vietnam, mostly about ensuring freedom of religion here.

Pentagon pitches austerity plan to nervous Wall Street

Tue, Oct 5 2010 By Andrea Shalal-Esa WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn met with over a dozen Wall Street analysts last week to map out Pentagon cost-cutting plans aimed at averting a collapse in defense spending the likes of which was seen at the end of the Cold War. Lynn tried to assure the analysts that the Defense Department could continue to fund its biggest weapons purchases and still meet personnel costs by trimming $100 billion over five years from overhead and low priority programs, according to accounts of the meeting obtained by Reuters. The Pentagon confirmed the meeting took place, but gave no details. Investors remain worried and industry executives are already scrambling to find other revenues to offset the expected contraction in military demand. "Nobody on Wall Street believes that defense spending will remain stable. The country is running a budget deficit of $1 billion every six hours, and defense will have to be part of the solution," said analyst Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute. He said Pentagon officials were losing credibility because they were not facing up to that budget reality, and had not yet drafted policies to deal with the coming downturn and the wave of consolidations already hitting the sector. Analysts at the meeting were sworn to secrecy, but sources familiar with the proceedings said Lynn faced tough questions about future profit margins and the Pentagon's ability to maintain a choice of suppliers given decreased demand for weapons. Lynn, a former executive with Raytheon Co, responded, according to these accounts, that the Pentagon funds most research and development programs -- in contrast to the commercial sector -- pays its bill faster, and still offers companies profit margins around 12 percent. Joseph Nadol of JP Morgan cited current modest valuations and poor performance of defense shares in a note on Tuesday, saying the stocks "will have a difficult time outperforming the broader market in the coming years." The Standard & Poor's Aerospace and Defense Index has risen 6 percent this year but is off 25 percent from an all-time high reached in October 2007. While there could be some trading rallies, and prices could rise somewhat if the Pentagon's fiscal 2012 budget guidance was "mediocre but not disastrous," Nadol said his firm's estimates were generally declining. NOT MUCH UPSIDE Nadol and other analysts say the bad news is already factored into defense stocks, which should give them some resilience. But they don't see much upside either, given the overall economic outlook and growing concern about deficits. Friday's closed-door meeting in New York was the latest of a series of outreach meetings with industry, lawmakers and investors that have been hosted by Lynn, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and chief weapons buyer, Ashton Carter. The meetings stand in stark contrast to the tenure of Gates' predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, who refused to meet with industry executives on principle. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said the meetings were part of a larger outreach effort to change the culture of the Defense Department and not some new lobbying campaign to "woo or win over industry investors." "It is in our interest for there to be a healthy industrial base in this country," he said. "But we don't do investor relations here. That's not our responsibility." Defense consultant Jim McAleese said the frequency of the meetings, and the involvement of the most senior Pentagon officials showed that they "do realize that the threat to defense funding is both credible, imminent and quantifiable." Rob Stallard with RBC Capital Markets Corp said Gates' personal engagement had helped him cancel some programs long propped up by Congress, including the Lockheed Martin Corp F-22 fighter. "It's a sign that Gates means business." But Stallard said Congress would still likely defy a veto threat and continue funding the Pentagon's current target for cuts -- a second F-35 engine built by General Electric and Britain's Rolls Royce. Gates' plans to retire next year could also make it difficult to sustain the reforms and stave off bigger cuts to the budget in coming years, analysts say.

Pentagon cuts are just a preview of what's to come

Monday, October 4, 2010; 10:58 PM The bipartisan uproar in Congress caused by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates's attempt to reduce excess Pentagon spending by eliminating the no-longer-needed Joint Forces Command in Virginia is just a preview of the battle that will occur next year when the country awakens to the drastic measures needed to bring overall federal taxes and outlays in line. Pentagon cuts are just a preview of what's to come That argument was made last week at a House Budget Committee hearing called primarily to give the Virginia congressional delegation another chance to complain about Gates's plan to end the command set up nine years ago to promote jointness among the services. At that time, it had a staff of 2,000 military and civilian personnel and cost $200 million. Today, with jointness an established service reality, JFCOM has a $1 billion price tag because it has ballooned to 3,000 military and civilian personnel and 3,000 contractors. "The defense budget is in many respects a microcosm of the rest of the federal budget, and the issues in the defense budget - such as the rising cost of pay, pensions, health care, contracting, infrastructure and education - are issues in other parts of the federal budget as well," Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, told the House panel. CSBA describes itself as an "independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options." CSBA's board includes former congressman David McCurdy (D-Okla.), former senator Dan Coats (R-Ind.), former Army vice chief of staff Jack Keane and former CIA director R. James Woolsey Jr. Harrison said the Defense Department initially publicized "targeted cuts to programs and activities it has deemed to be a lower priority." Calling it "a sound approach" and "a step in the right direction," he added that he recognized that "in some cases, it will mean lost jobs. In other cases, it will require taking on vested interests, both within the Pentagon and outside the building." But he cautioned about the first announced cuts, "They do not address some of the fundamental issues that plague the defense budget, such as the rising cost of military health care." The details Harrison then presented are stunning. The Defense Department spends about $246 billion on the uniformed military and DOD civilian personnel, a payroll of 2.3 million direct, full-time employees. That is 51 percent of the federal workforce, he said. Military health-care costs are rising "due in part to more and more military retirees and their dependents electing to use their military health-care benefits," Harrison said. That is not surprising, because the fee charged retirees under the Tricare military health plan is $460 a year for a family. That fee was set in 1995 and has not increased, Harrison said. Compare that to the $3,500-a-year average annual premium that workers in the private sector pay for coverage, and you will not be surprised that more and more of the 70 percent of military retirees with access to private health plans are staying with the military system. And with 9.5 million Americans eligible for military health-care benefits, the cost to the Defense Department will only grow. That is because Congress in 2001 approved Tricare for life, meaning that military retirees who are older than 65 and are on Medicare can also use Tricare as their supplemental insurance program. "Accrual payments to this trust fund now total $11 billion annually out of the DOD budget," Harrison said. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last week about Gates's planned reductions, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn acknowledged that Pentagon health-care costs are growing "in dramatic fashion." He assured members that "as part of the fiscal 2012 budget, I think we will be proposing to Congress some ideas about how to restrain health-care costs." If you think the howls of the Virginia delegation about eliminating JFCOM have been loud, wait until the veterans organizations see the first steps toward limiting military retirees' health-care benefits. And all this is just a Pentagon-based preview of what is to come when the inevitable steps are proposed to raise taxes for, and reduce payouts from, Social Security and Medicare and other broad federal programs.

Israel seals deal for 20 Lockheed F-35s

An F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft banks over the flightline at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida on, April 23, 2009. The aircraft is the first F-35 to visit the base which will be the future home of the JSF training facility. (UPI TEL AVIV, Israel, Sept. 21 (UPI) -- Israel has finalized its plan to buy 20 Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighters for $2.75 billion despite opposition from some military chiefs who say the funds could be better spent and smaller-than-expected spinoff contracts for Israel's defense industry. The Israeli business daily, Globes, described the sale as the country's most expensive arms deal. "Purchasing the most advanced fighters jets in the world is an important step in strengthening the State of Israel's military power," Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said in a statement after the deal won final approval by a ministerial committee Thursday. Defense Minister Ehud Barak gave his go-ahead in August. The first of the aircraft are scheduled for delivery in 2015. The deal also includes spare parts, maintenance costs and simulators for pilot training. Each aircraft costs $96 million. That's considerably less than the $137 million price tag on the F-35 because of lengthy delays in the development program and hefty cost overruns that have set back delivery of the jets by up to two years. It wasn't clear whether the Pentagon had lowered the price to encourage the Israelis to accept a plan by U.S. President Barack Obama's administration to sell Saudi Arabia advanced aircraft worth an estimated $60 billion, ostensibly to bolster Persian Gulf Arab forces to counter Iran. Israel acquiesced on that after the Americans agreed not to provide Saudi Arabia with long-range standoff weapons systems that could threaten Israeli security. Acquiring the F-35, even in limited numbers, would allow Israel to maintain the technological edge over its regional adversaries that the United States has long pledged to preserve. The F-35 buy was pushed through instead of upgrading Israel's Boeing F-15I Ra'am and Lockheed Martin F-16I Sufa jets. Israel is the first foreign country to buy the F-35, with which the Pentagon plans to equip the U.S. Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps. Indeed, the 20 F-35s, enough to equip one squadron, aren't likely to involve any significant outlay by Israel since the bulk of the $2.75 billion cost will be financed by U.S. military assistance to Israel. This currently totals around $3 billion a year. Globes reported Monday that senior military officials "said that $150 million from the defense budget will be allocated for the purchases of the F-35s spread over eight years." Uri Shani, director general of the Defense Ministry, said that Israel may order further F-35s sometime in the future. The Israeli air force wanted 75 F-35s but had to trim the initial purchase because of the high cost of the fifth-generation fighter and development program setbacks. Negotiations dragged on for more than two years. The Israelis wanted their own electronic warfare and communications systems installed in the jets. They also wanted to expand the aircraft's payload capabilities so it could carry Israeli-made missiles. The Americans balked at those demands but eventually agreed to allow the incorporation of some Israeli systems. The Pentagon also initially said that Israeli defense firms would get about $4 billion in contracts from Lockheed Martin, the lead U.S. contractor in the F-35 program. But now it turns out that deal was contingent on Israel buying 75 of the aircraft, so Israeli firms will get $1 billion-$1.3 billion in contracts related to the F-35. The Israeli daily Haaretz reported: "The Israeli defense companies are pleased even with the smaller figure and consider this an opening that could be expanded in the future." Among the companies likely to benefit from these spinoff contracts are Israel Aerospace Industries, flagship of Israel's defense sector; Elbit Systems, a leading electronics outfit; and Blades Technology, part-owned by Pratt & Whitney, which would be involved in the production of engines. But if the defense industry is happy with the deal, others aren't. Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz objected to the F-35 buy on the grounds it involved a huge outlay at a time when unmanned aircraft, far cheaper and without involving expensive pilot training, are becoming increasingly important in aerial warfare. Even the defense companies objected initially, claiming the deal would damage them. Some members of the General Staff criticized the price tag, which they said prevented investment in weapons systems for the army and navy.

The Afghan Robin Hood

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, October 4, 2010; A1 IN SPIN BOLDAK, AFGHANISTAN When Abdul Razziq, a colonel in the Afghan Border Police, walks through the chockablock bazaar in this sand-swept trading hub on the frontier with Pakistan, he is mobbed by a crowd that deferentially addresses him as General Razziq. Young boys want his photograph. Gray-bearded men offer him tea. Merchants refuse to sell him anything - if he wants a bottle of cologne, he gets it for free. U.S. officials say Razziq, who is illiterate and just 32, presides over a vast corruption network that skims customs duties, facilitates drug trafficking and smuggles other contraband. But he also has managed to achieve a degree of security here that has eluded U.S. troops elsewhere in the country: His force of 3,000 uniformed policemen and several thousand militiamen pursue the Taliban so relentlessly that Spin Boldak has become the safest and most prosperous district in southern Afghanistan. Despite the allegations, which he denies, Razziq represents the Obama administration's best hope for maintaining stability in this vital part of Afghanistan. Keeping Spin Boldak quiet, which allows more U.S. and Afghan forces to be employed elsewhere, is critical to fulfilling the president's pledge to start withdrawing U.S. troops next summer. "Is it a long-term solution? That's for others to decide," said the top NATO commander in the south, British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter. "But it is a pragmatic solution. . . . He's Afghan good-enough." Meanwhile, U.S. and NATO officials have begun an ambitious plan to reform Razziq, hoping they can turn him into a more savory strongman. They are attempting to chaperone him, to offer incentives aimed at improving his behavior, and to set down new rules to compel him to put less money in his own pocket and more in the national treasury. "We're trying to promote integrity by watching his operations a whole lot more closely, but we don't want him to stop doing all of the good things that he's doing," said U.S. Army Special Forces Col. Robert Waltemeyer, who runs a border coordination center here with representatives of the Afghan and Pakistan security forces. "We want to capitalize on his leadership." The question of what to do about Razziq has vexed U.S. and NATO officials. Some have advocated for his ouster to demonstrate a hard line against graft, while others have argued that he be left alone because his force, which is more than five times the size of the U.S. military presence here, provides vital security for NATO supply convoys heading into Kandahar. "If we didn't have him, we'd be screwed," a U.S. Army officer said during a visit here in August. "It wouldn't be this quiet." Razziq, a lanky man with a close-cropped beard, is the chief of the Achakzais, one of the two principal tribes in this part of southern Afghanistan. His position as local strongman could have sparked the kind of conflict over power and resources that has driven people in other places to ally themselves with the Taliban. But thus far, Razziq has managed to spread the spoils deftly to avoid an open rebellion by the rival Noorzai tribe. "He's like this Robin Hood figure who appears from nowhere, takes money and uses it to meet [the people's] needs," said Lt. Col. Andrew Green, the commander of a U.S. Army infantry battalion in Spin Boldak. "He picks favorites, for sure, but he's smart enough not to make too many enemies, which isn't something you can say about every power broker in Afghanistan." Razziq has begun to extend his influence west toward Kandahar, the country's second-largest city and the site of major U.S. military operations against the Taliban. Dozens of his men have participated in Afghan-led operations in recent weeks to flush the insurgents out of sanctuaries to the north and south of the city. One Afghan official said that Razziq's force is prized by the government because its well-paid members fight more ably than most Afghan soldiers. Razziq and his men also are valued because he is fiercely loyal to President Hamid Karzai and his half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, the chairman of the Kandahar province council. Razziq owes his job and control over the border crossing to the president, and several U.S. officials said he repays that debt by funneling proceeds from corrupt activities to people linked to the Karzai brothers. The officials also said they have credible reports that Razziq countenanced widespread fraud in support of the Karzais in last year's presidential election and last month's parliamentary election. Several boxes stuffed with identically marked ballots for President Karzai were stored in his house overnight for what he deemed "safekeeping." "Razziq is the poster child for all that is wrong with Afghanistan's government," said a civilian adviser working for the U.S. government in Afghanistan who opposes working with him. "He's a militia leader who denies people the right to vote. What sort of message are we sending by keeping him in power?" Stabilizing force That concern prompted senior officials at the NATO military headquarters in Kabul to call for Razziq's removal late last year as the first step in the overall campaign to improve the quality of government in Kandahar and surrounding areas. The commanders in Kandahar pushed back, citing Razziq's cooperation with international forces and his willingness to conduct independent operations against the Taliban, which few Afghan units are able or willing to do. "If we pulled him out of there, our control of the border would have collapsed," said a senior U.S. official who advocated for Razziq. Ultimately, it was the need to ensure that trucks bearing military equipment could travel to Kandahar unimpeded that led then-Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the former top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, to decide that Razziq could stay. The general traveled to Spin Boldak twice to meet with the self-proclaimed general and deliver a mixed message: You need to help us, and you need to reform. U.S. officials then told Razziq not to interfere in the customs process. Duties and other fees would have to be collected by authorized personnel, not his men. He also was warned to keep his force operating within the border police's mandate, which allows independent operations along the frontier but not into other parts of the country. To reduce opportunities for graft, the U.S. and Canadian governments are spending $20 million to build a new customs facility that is separate from the border police station. They eventually hope to have truckers pay duties electronically, a tall order in a nation where inspections still are conducted by jabbing a wooden stick into the cargo compartment. In an interview at the main U.S. base here, Razziq insisted he is not corrupt and denounced allegations of malfeasance as "just rumors." "I don't need money," he said. "I have everything I need. Everyone likes me and respects me." Confronting an 'enigma' The centerpiece of the new American approach has been an attempt to watch over him by assigning him a mentor. After concluding that the previous U.S. battalion commander in Spin Boldak had grown too close to Razziq, senior American officials sent in Waltemeyer. His goal, which he spelled out in a memo to his superiors, was to "redirect [Razziq's] energies from day-to-day influence at the. . .border crossing point" to more traditional law-enforcement activities. As Razziq walked through the main market in Spin Boldak on a recent morning, there was little indication that his sway has been attenuated. A throng of well-wishers and supplicants gathered around him as he walked from stall to stall. "How are you?" he said to every shopkeeper as he reached over to hug them. "Do you need any help?" One man complained about the erratic supply of electricity. Another asked about the construction of a new school. Several merchants thrust business cards in his hand, imploring him to find jobs for their relatives. "He is responsible for everything good here," said Mohammed Qasim, a television vendor. As the merchants spilled out of their shops to greet Razziq, one asked another to keep watch on his wares. "Don't worry,'' Razziq said. "The thieves do not dare steal in front of me." An aide followed behind with a phone glued to his ear. He said Razziq has seven mobile phones, one of which is a dedicated line for top officials from Kabul and Kandahar. "You can see the enigma he presents," Waltemeyer said. Razziq scoffed at U.S. attempts to confine him to security patrolling along the border. "My duties are universal," he said. Some U.S. officials said Razziq has been emboldened by a lack of coordination among international troops. U.S. Special Operations forces have encouraged him to conduct the very sorts of combat missions that other officers have told him to avoid, the officials said. "Our messages to him are not consistent," the U.S. Army officer here said. Because Razziq's speed-dial includes everyone from Karzai to senior U.S. officers, he has not been timid about trying to change the terms of his relationship with his foreign partners. After repeated requests to work with someone other than Waltemeyer - Razziq wanted a "partner" with more forces at his disposal, not a "mentor" - commanders in southern Afghanistan recently assigned the task to a U.S. Army colonel who has more soldiers. But that colonel also has less time to watch over him than his previous minder. With security a non-issue in Spin Boldak, U.S. and NATO officers seem willing to forgo some of the supervision they once envisioned. "As long as we don't catch him moving trucks full of opium through the desert, we'll let him slide," the Army officer said. "If his men are shaking people down on the highway, well, that's just the way it's done here. It's no different from tollbooths on the highways back home."

Signaling Tensions, Pakistan Shuts NATO Route

By JANE PERLEZ and HELENE COOPER ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — American officials pressed their Pakistani counterparts on Thursday to reopen a vital supply route for American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, as relations deteriorated after the fourth strike by coalition helicopters in a week killed three members of Pakistan’s border force. Workers unloaded a container from a truck carrying NATO supplies at a warehouse in Peshawar on Thursday, after Pakistan shut down the main land route for NATO supplies into Afghanistan. Pakistan angrily closed the crossing to protest the strikes on its side of the border, leaving American officials to use meetings and phone calls to try to soothe relations and get the route reopened. Both sides indicated that they might be able to resolve the dispute with a joint investigation. But the border closing, and the exceptional series of strikes by piloted aircraft, as opposed to drones, signaled a general increase in tensions between Pakistan and the United States, already uncomfortable allies that are pursuing competing interests in the Afghan war. The C.I.A. carried out a record number of drone attacks inside Pakistan last month, and new reports surfaced this week of unlawful executions by the Pakistani Army in areas where it has opened operations against Taliban forces threatening the government. The Pakistani offensives have not extended to North Waziristan, the prime stronghold of the insurgents who infiltrate Afghanistan, a growing source of frustration for American officials who face a deadline this year to show progress in the Afghan war. “We are clearly in the phase of our relationship where we’re trying to tell them we’re being diddled,” said Teresita C. Schaffer, director of the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. But, she added: “We have been trying for a couple of years to decrease our logistical dependence on Pakistan, and have only managed to get it to 80 percent from 90 percent. So, no, we clearly don’t have anyplace else to go.” The border closing was a clear demonstration of the leverage Pakistan holds over the American war effort. It coincided with a previously scheduled visit by the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, who met Thursday with the Pakistani military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, part of a stream of American officials who have come to alternately cajole and coerce Pakistani cooperation. On Friday, unidentified assailants in Pakistan attacked and set fire to tankers carrying supplies for NATO troops in Afghanistan, officials told Reuters, apparently in retaliation for the incursions into Pakistani territory. No one was wounded, an official said. After the border closing on Thursday, Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, spoke with Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, trying to calm the tensions. That conversation followed a telephone call several days ago between Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Kayani, about the previous strikes. The border closing signaled the limits of Pakistan’s tolerance for intrusions on its sovereignty and for the pressure it was willing to absorb from American officials on any range of issues, despite receiving nearly $2 billion a year in military aid from Washington. The Pakistani government indicated Thursday that the cross-border strikes were more than it could bear without protest. “We will have to see whether we are allies or enemies,” said the Pakistani interior minister, Rehman Malik. At the same time, Pakistani officials tried to contain the damage from a video that came to the attention of American officials in recent days showing the execution of six young men, bound and blindfolded, by Pakistani Army soldiers. Responding to questions from American officials, Pakistani officials acknowledged Thursday that the video had not been faked, as they had first contended, an American official said, and that they had identified the soldiers and would take appropriate measures. It is in both the American and the Pakistani interests to keep the relationship going, the official said. The Pakistanis, facing economic collapse after the devastating floods of the summer, need American military aid — some $10 billion since 2001 — which could be cut off from units committing atrocities, the official said. American commanders are eager to continue C.I.A. drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas that have focused on militants from the Taliban and Al Qaeda who cross the border to attack NATO and American troops. The Pakistani government has agreed to the drone campaign, but could always suspend its permission or shrink the area in which the strikes are allowed. The country is also the prime supply route for the Afghan war, a fact Pakistani and American officials are both keenly aware of. The vast majority of nonlethal supplies — water, food, vehicles — for the coalition forces in landlocked Afghanistan must travel the length of Pakistan, from the southern port of Karachi to the Afghan border. Along that route, trucks and fuel tankers have at times been hijacked and attacked by Taliban forces. Pakistani authorities have closed the border crossings only occasionally, however, usually citing security concerns. But they have rarely appeared to hold up supplies in retaliation for NATO or American actions. In 2008, the Pakistanis closed the border crossing for several days after American aircraft bombed a Pakistani paramilitary post in Mohmand, another tribal area. Eleven Pakistanis were killed in the attack. American commanders in Afghanistan, long fearful that Pakistan could choke off the supply route more permanently, have been seeking alternate paths through Central Asia, but with little success. On Thursday, Pakistani officials gave them a glimpse of how much harder they could make the Afghan war. Trucks and oil tankers bound for coalition forces sat idle at the border post of Torkham, just north of Peshawar, with no word on when the post, one of two major land crossings to Afghanistan, would reopen, a Pakistani security official said. But American officials noted that Pakistan had shut only one of several supply routes to Afghanistan, a sign that the Pakistani government wanted to minimize the episode’s fallout. “We have many different capabilities, routes, ways to resupply, so there’s no immediate impact,” Col. Dave Lapan told reporters in Washington. The blocked route, the Khyber Pass, connects the frontier city of Peshawar to Jalalabad, in eastern Afghanistan. Colonel Lapan said American military officials were also looking into whether all procedures had been followed properly in the cross-border incidents. The Pakistani government took no similar action and made no such public protest after the earlier coalition airstrikes, even though they killed an estimated 55 people inside Pakistan. Those strikes, on Sept. 24 and Sept. 25, took place on the border separating Khost Province in Afghanistan from North Waziristan. Coalition helicopters fired into Pakistan three times, with one helicopter briefly breaching Pakistani airspace, according to Maj. Sunset Belinsky, a NATO spokeswoman. In the airstrike on Thursday, a NATO helicopter attacked a border post at Mandati Kandaw, a town close to Parachinar, in the Kurram tribal area, the Pakistani security official said. Three soldiers of Pakistan’s Frontier Corps were killed and three were wounded, he said. Another border post, at Kharlachi, also in Kurram, was struck a few hours later, the official added. The two posts are about 15 miles apart and border Paktia Province, in Afghanistan.