The Story You May Have Missed: Afghanistan

With all the attention to the unfolding events in Mumbai and, to a lesser extent, the manoeuvres in Iraq over the Status of Forces Agreement, here's a development that slipped by:

"Afghan President Hamid Karzai has sharply criticized the United States and NATO, demanding a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces."

Yep, withdrawal. What's more, this was not a call for withdrawal after military victory but for withdrawal after political negotiation, even with former and current enemies:

This war has gone on for seven years. The Afghans don't understand anymore how come a little force like the Taliban can continue to exist, can continue to flourish, can continue to launch attacks with 40 countries in Afghanistan, with entire NATO force in Afghanistan, with the entire international community behind them. Still we are not able to defeat the Taliban....

If there is no deadline, we have the right to find another solution for peace and security, which is negotiations.

The Afghan President has been pushing for talks with factions of the Taliban for months. Last month, there appeared to be some US recognition of his position, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates indicated that there might be scope for engagement with "moderate" Taliban.

Then, however, the US headlines were taken over by President-elect Obama's posture that more forces were the way to go. Meanwhile, leading Taliban --- probably believing they could manoeuvre for an even better position --- pointedly rejected Karzai's suggestion. And democracy's clock is ticking: Karzai faces a Presidential election next year.

To my knowledge, only The Washington Post picked up Karzai's speech, made to a visiting UN Security Council delegation. The next day, headlines returned to violence --- 4 killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul --- and unwelcome progress --- "U.N. Reports That Taliban Is Stockpiling Opium".

With respect, folks better start paying attention. It's not Karzai who wants to erase, over a period of time, the US military footprint. Washington may disagree with his assessment, shared by some within the Pakistani Government, that "hard power" is not offering a solution. If President Obama shares that disagreement, however, he needs to recognise that he is proceeding in defiance of --- not with --- his purported ally in what remains of the 2001 "War on Terror".

Fact x Importance = News: The Stories We're Watching

Top Story of the Day: Hillary or Nicolas?

Nope, it's not Senator Clinton, who may or may not be the next Secretary of State.

Nor is it the Global Financial Summit --- yet. Although President Bush welcomed the guests last night, the serious talkin' doesn't start until today. And even then, given the relatively low profile the US will have --- the Bush Administration is almost paralysed, and the Obama folks have chosen to stay in the background --- it will be up to the Europeans to make the running.

No, the surprise headline for this morning is the rocket that French President Nicolas Sarkozy sent to Washington. Or, rather, the US missiles that he is trying to hand back to President Bush.

In talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Sarkozy "joined Russia in condemning the Pentagon's plans to install missile defence bases in central Europe yesterday and backed President Dmitri Medvedev's previously ignored calls for a new pan-European security pact".

The New York Times spectacularly misses the significance, somehow deciding that it lies in "Russia Backs Off on Europe Missile Threat". Russia's feint at putting missiles on its western borders was a political manoeuvre, and to the extent that it has brought Sarkozy away from (or reinforced his existing opposition to) US missile defence, it's worked.

The French President's statement isn't a detachment of Europe from the US. His proposal is that the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe, to which both Russia and the US belong, discuss the security pact next summer.

It is, however, a distancing of France from not only missile defence but the US-preferred attempt to expand NATO's reach. That is going to prompt an immediate tangle between France and governments such as Czechoslovakia, which are still clinging to the US missile defence plan, but I suspect Sarkozy is looking to Germany for backing. And I think --- with a smile --- that will put a marker down for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

All in all, the timing of Sarkozy's announcement should add a bit of political spice to the financial talks in the US today.

Under-noticed Story of the Day: Food rather than Rockets

The sad ritual is again being played out on the Israel-Gaza border. The Israelis have made tank raids across the border, and Palestianian groups have lobbed rockets into southern Israel. The Israelis send out their Government spokesmen and, as few US and British media outlets will speak to a Hamas representative, the narrative of Tel Aviv standing firm against Hamas-backed terror gets another paragraph.

The far-from-insignificant story behind the story is the effects of the Israeli blockade on Gaza. On Wednesday, Juan Cole highlighted a UN report that it is running out of food to distribute in the besieged area. The Washington Post in cautious terms --- "residents are warning of a humanitarian crisis because Israel has sealed the territory's borders" --- has now picked up on this, but it is The Independent of London that highlights the impact:

The Israeli blockade of Gaza has led to a steady rise in chronic malnutrition among the 1.5 million people living in the strip, according to a leaked report from the Red Cross.

Speculation of the Day: Obama and Gitmo

William Glaberson in the New York Times pens the analysis that Barack Obama's "pledge to close the detention center is bringing to the fore thorny questions under consideration by his advisers". Significantly, however, this is no comment from the Obama camp.

Adam Cohen in the NewYork Times has a more substantial development. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, in my opinion one of the most honourable men in Congress, is not going to let President Obama rest in indecision on issues such as Camp X-Ray, surveillance, and other civil rights issues:

Mr. Feingold has been compiling a list of areas for the next president to focus on, which he intends to present to Mr. Obama. It includes amending the Patriot Act, giving detainees greater legal protections and banning torture, cruelty and degrading treatment. He wants to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to restore limits on domestic spying. And he wants to roll back the Bush administration's dedication to classifying government documents.

Negotiation of the Week: Talks with the Taliban?

As violence escalates in Afghanistan, The Independent of London reported on Thursday: "The Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, will today brief Gordon Brown on talks being held with the Taliban with the aim of ending the conflict in his country."

This is a continuing development. Karzai and the Pakistani Government are now pressing the option of discussions with the "moderate" Taliban. Western governments are not necessarily averse to the idea, with US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates saying it should be considered. However, with the Bush Administration in a no-win position --- it gets no credit if talks eventually succeed under an Obama-led effort and it takes the rap if the discussions collapse before 20 January --- this story will be carried forward by folks outside the US.

Return to the World: The Stories We're Watching

US BOMBING RAIDS IN NORTHWEST PAKISTAN:

General David Petraeus, who has just taken over the US Central Command, met Pakistani officials on Monday. The Pakistani Defence Minister claimed that he warned, "Launching further missile strikes in the country's troubled tribal areas could increase tensions between the two nations." Pakistani President Asif Zardari warned, ""Continuing drone attacks on our territory, which result in loss of precious lives and property, are counter-productive and difficult to explain by a democratically elected government. It is creating a credibility gap." Petraeus offered no public reaction.

The meeting should be set against a significant if curious column by David Ignatius of the Washington Post. Ignatius claimed that Pakistani officials were quietly endorsing the US attacks: "The country's new chief of intelligence, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, visited Washington last week for talks with America's top military and spy chiefs, and everyone seemed to come away smiling."

Ignatius added, "The secret accord was set after the September visit to Washington by Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari. It provided new mechanics for coordination of Predator attacks and a jointly approved list of high-value targets. Behind the agreement was a recognition by the Zardari government, and by Pakistan's new military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, that the imminent threat to Pakistan's security comes from Islamic terrorists rather than from arch-rival India.

The Ignatius piece is clearly the case of a reporter being used by the US military and intelligence stories to put out their version of events. What is unclear is whether that version corresponds with the Pakistani understanding. If both the civilian, military, and intelligence branches of the Islamabad Government are all on the same page, then the US Government may have finessed a situation where Pakistan publicly condemned unilateral American action but privately accepts the operations. On the other hand, if some in the Pakistani Government are working with Washington but others are opposed to the acceptance of US bombing, then there could be turmoil within the Government which dwarfs the unrest in the Northwest Frontier.

US BOMBING AND CIVILIAN DEATHS IN AFGHANISTAN:

href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/afghan-villagers-say-airstrikes-killed-civilians-993287.html">Associated Press reports that a US attack on Monday killed or wounded dozens of women and children in a wedding party. Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his concern in a message to Barack Obama: "We cannot win the fight against terrorism with air strikes. This is my first demand of the new president of the United States -- to put an end to civilian casualties."

US TO MEND FENCES WITH AFGHAN OPPONENT?:

The Washington Post reports: "With casualties among foreign forces at record highs, and domestic and international confidence in Karzai's government at an all-time low, U.S. and Afghan officials may have little choice but to grant [Gulbuddin] Hekmatyar a choice seat at the bargaining table."

Hekmatayar has been a player, often a dangerous and chaotic one, in Afghan politics from the 1980s. He was a leader of the US-supported insurgency against Soviet occupation but, after the Soviet withdrawal, he fought other Afghan factions for power. His rule in Kabul, marked by bloodshed, was ended by the Taliban's accession to power in 1996. Hekmatayar was opposed to the US strategy, including support of the Northern Alliance, to oust the Taliban in 2001; within months, US forces were seeking his assassination.

If true, the report could herald a modified version of General David Petraeus's strategy of talking to former anti-American insurgent groups to turn them against "real" enemies, in this case, the Taliban rather than al-Qa'eda.