Covering Afstan

Some serious reporting:

Reuters:

Taliban leader Mullah Omar should not be involved in Afghan reconciliation efforts despite a renewed interest in talks with members of the Islamist movement, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

"We as a government do not believe that Mullah Omar is somebody you reconcile with," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said.

"Mullah Omar has the blood of thousands of Americans on his hands, based upon the support that he provided Osama bin Laden," Morrell told reporters.

His comments contrasted with an appeal by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who called last month on Mullah Omar to come home and work for peace. Omar is believed to be in hiding in the mountainous areas straddling the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Insurgent violence has risen this year in Afghanistan to its highest level since U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban from power in 2001 for harboring al Qaeda leaders responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States.

Faced with the rise in violence, both the Afghan government and Western nations have showed a renewed interest in coming to terms with elements of the Taliban and other insurgent groups.

"You can't kill them all," Morrell said.

"You have to figure out a way to embrace those who are willing, ultimately, to work with the central government, lay down their arms -- at least stop pointing them at the government and at us -- and work in a constructive manner for the good of all the Afghan people," he said.

"This has been going on for some time, albeit, I will acknowledge this, clearly with a renewed emphasis lately by the Afghan government that we are working to support [emphasis added]."..

LA Times:

Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan -- The Afghan war is at its highest pitch since it began seven years ago, growing daily in scope and savagery. Yet on both sides of the conflict, the possibility of peace negotiations has gained sudden prominence.

Among Western and Afghan officials, analysts and tribal elders, field commanders and foot soldiers, the notion of talks with the Taliban, once dismissed out of hand, has recently become the subject of serious debate.

Both sides acknowledge that there are enormous impediments. Each camp has staked out negotiating positions that are anathema to the other. Neither side professes the slightest trust in the other's word. Each side claims not only a battlefield edge, but insists that it is winning the war for public support.

But whether they are willing to admit it publicly, both sides have powerful incentives for turning to negotiations rather than pushing ahead with a grinding war of attrition. Would-be mediators have emerged, preliminary contacts have taken place, and more indirect talks are likely soon.

All around, a sense of battle fatigue is undeniable.

"The most important consideration is the feelings of the Afghan people," said Humayun Hamidzada, a senior aide to Afghan President Hamid Karzai. "And the fact is that they are sick and tired of war."

A major poll released Tuesday by the Asia Foundation found that Afghans are growing more pessimistic about their future.

Large swaths of the country are under Taliban control. Travel by road between major cities is a life-threatening gamble. Here in the capital, where three Westerners were gunned down last week, abductions and attacks are becoming commonplace.

Karzai has been the strongest proponent of reconciliation, at times alarming his U.S. patrons with his appeals to the insurgents. But some ex-warlords who bear the scars of their own battles against the Taliban also support broad-based talks. A number of the movement's former adherents believe there is room for negotiation, as do tribal leaders who called for talks after a binational jirga, or traditional assembly, that ended Tuesday in the Pakistani capital.

The insurgency in Afghanistan, which is made up of many disparate factions, has serious internal disagreements over discourse with the enemy. Western allies, as well, appear divided...

U.S. officials have said little about the Karzai government's peace overtures other than that any talks must take place only with insurgents who accept the Afghan Constitution and are willing to lay down their arms.

But U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has suggested publicly that some form of negotiated settlement is possible, if not inevitable.

"There has to be ultimately, and I'll underscore 'ultimately,' reconciliation as part of a political outcome to this [emphasis added]," Gates told NATO defense ministers in Budapest, Hungary, this month. "That's ultimately the exit strategy for all of us."

While the Globe and Mail, for its part, continues to commit journalism:

Talking to the Taliban - long dismissed as unthinkable - was endorsed yesterday by senior envoys from the embattled governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Even the Bush administration conceded [emphasis added] it was considering "reaching out" to reconcile with some elements of the doctrinaire Islamist movement that once harboured al-Qaeda.

The fundamental policy shift reflects a stark reality: The raging insurgency in Afghanistan has proved the war may not be winnable militarily and that the resurgent Taliban may need to be included in any far-reaching peace.

The announcement that contacts would be sought with the Taliban came at the close of a two-day gathering of elders and prominent figures from Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"We agreed that contacts should be established with the opposition on both sides," said former Afghan foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, who led his country's delegation to the meeting in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad.

One Taliban spokesman rejected the overture, setting the pullout of all foreign troops as a condition for talks...

I guess the reporter, Paul Koring in Washington, missed this earlier "concession" in an Oct. 8 story from his colleague Graeme Smith in Kandahar:

...
U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates used a similar phrase this week, endorsing a reconciliation process with “people who are willing to work with the Afghan government.”..

More serious reporting:

Washington Post:

U.S. commanders in Afghanistan now believe they need about 20,000 additional troops to battle a growing Taliban insurgency, as demands mount for support forces such as helicopter units, intelligence teams and engineers that are critical to operating in the country's harsh terrain.

The troop requests, made in recent weeks, reflect the broader struggles the U.S. military faces in the Afghan war. Fighting has intensified, particularly in the country's eastern region, where attacks are up and cross-border infiltration of insurgents from Pakistan is on the rise. U.S. troop deaths in 2008 are higher than in any other year since the conflict began in 2001.

The Pentagon has approved the deployment of one additional combat battalion and one Army brigade, or about 4,000 troops, set to arrive in Afghanistan by January. Commanders have already requested three more combat brigades -- 10,500 to 12,000 troops -- but those reinforcements depend on further reductions from Iraq and are unlikely to arrive until spring or summer, according to senior defense officials. Now, U.S. commanders are asking the Pentagon for 5,000 to 10,000 additional support forces to help them tackle the country's unique geographic and logistical challenges [emphasis added]...

The troop requests, made in recent weeks, reflect the broader struggles the U.S. military faces in the Afghan war. Fighting has intensified, particularly in the country's eastern region, where attacks are up and cross-border infiltration of insurgents from Pakistan is on the rise. U.S. troop deaths in 2008 are higher than in any other year since the conflict began in 2001.

The Pentagon has approved the deployment of one additional combat battalion and one Army brigade, or about 4,000 troops, set to arrive in Afghanistan by January. Commanders have already requested three more combat brigades -- 10,500 to 12,000 troops -- but those reinforcements depend on further reductions from Iraq and are unlikely to arrive until spring or summer, according to senior defense officials. Now, U.S. commanders are asking the Pentagon for 5,000 to 10,000 additional support forces to help them tackle the country's unique geographic and logistical challenges...

The deterioration has been pronounced in eastern Afghanistan [emphasis added], where cross-border infiltration by insurgents from Pakistan has risen 20 to 30 percent and overall attacks have gone up by about a third since April, compared with the same period last year. At the same time, roadside bombings in the east increased 40 percent, according to Brig. Gen. Mark A. Milley, deputy commander of U.S. troops in eastern Afghanistan...

The Guardian:

One of Britain's most senior military officers warned last night that there was no point in sending reinforcements to Afghanistan until the Afghans themselves were able to control the ground captured by foreign troops.

Lieutenant General Sir Peter Wall, who is responsible for overseeing British military operations, said the notion that "flooding" Afghanistan with a "whole load" more troops was the solution was misleading.

The Afghans had to deliver better governance and build up their own armed forces, he said. There was no point in investing more money and men in the country unless security and economic and social projects were seen to be "inspired by the Afghans themselves", he added. "If we do it for them, it will just not count."

Giving evidence to a joint session of the Commons defence and foreign affairs committees [a serious committee, unlike our equivalent], the general was reflecting growing frustration among British defence chiefs about the failure of the Afghan government to support Nato military presence with economic and social progress. He said the process would be "incremental, gradual, and take some time".

The US is pressing its Nato allies to send more troops to Afghanistan. But British commanders say there is a limit to what military force can do, and that it could be counter-productive, by allowing the Taliban to argue that the foreign occupation of the country was increasing, they say.

The defence secretary, John Hutton, who was also giving evidence, said Britain had not received a call for help from the US. "I am not going to sit here and be speculative about a request ... It can't be the role of the UK to fill up every gap," he said.

However, he said that next year Britain would deploy to Afghanistan Merlin helicopters currently in Iraq [emphasis added]. The plan to reduce the 4,000 British troops in southern Iraq to a few hundred in the first half of next year was on track, Hutton said.

The foreign secretary, David Miliband, told the MPs that British troops would be in Afghanistan for as long as was necessary [emphasis added]. "When [the Afghans] are able to defend their own country, they won't need us," he said.