Afghanistan and Central Asia

If you read most of the news and editorial pieces I posted on Monday, you probably have a negative outlook on the stability and chances for progress in Afghanistan, and for the most part, rightly so. But there are positive things going on in the country, things that before 2001 probably seemed impossible to most Afghanis. I have mentioned before on this page that the tremendous work of NATO soldiers, humanitarian aid workers, and skilled trainers, both foreign and domestic, has brought progress to many sectors of Afghan life and that these people’s work was largely unreported, and this is still true today. The US State Department and the Afghan government are aware of this and have started to try to get the word out, but they need to do more. So does the overall US/Western/Middle East/Asia media, who too easily just report on the latest bombing, Taliban attack, civilian casualties, all vitally important, but not the entire story.

So as I said above, how has Afghanistan ‘improved’ lately and how has the US State Dep and Afghan government tried to get the word out about this progress? While US Ambassador and Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy David A. Gross and his Afghan counterpart, Amir Zai Sangin, Minister of Communications and Information Technology have written editorials and made appearances in an attempt to showcase the nation’s progress in the communication field, mainly in the growth of the Internet and telephone industries. Though they acknowledge the tremendous amount of work to be done, they are proud of the accomplishments so far of the Afghan ministry of communications, which has ‘quickly licensed private mobil phone providers, effectively regulated a competitive communications environment and encouraged direct foreign investment into the extremely challenging post-conflict economy.’ In 2001, Afghanistan had fewer than 40,000 telephones and no cell phones, but today the country has 6 million telephone subscribers, of which an incredible 5.4 million of are cell phone. Five national and three highly competitive regional carriers support these networks. The amount of foreign direct investment in the telecommunications industry has exceeded $1 billion and the sector was expected to bring in revenues topping $100 million for the Afghan government.

Regarding the Internet, Afghanistan now has more than 500,000 Internet users and at least 18 providers. With US government support the Afghan government has started a project to construct a national fiber-optic network ring along with a new national system of highways. This project in Afghanistan is part of a larger State Department endeavor called the Global Internet Freedom Task Force, which brings together government, NGOs, and private industry to work toward these goals: 1. To address the challenges to free expression and the free flow of ideas on the Internet, 2. To advocate for the availability of the widest possible universe of content through the Internet, and 3. To actively minimize the success of repressive regimes in censoring information, and increase the transparency of content restrictions.

Perhaps the best aspect of a growing telecommunication’s network in Afghanistan is its ability to provide employment opportunities, as Gross and Sangin stated that already the sector has created 60,000 jobs. The other positives are that greater availability of phones and Internet services can help businesses begin and start up with greater potential for growth and these industries provide outlets for the Afghan people to see and hear views and cultures from anywhere in the world. New ideas and avenues for information will be more and more at their finger tips. The spread of greater telecommunications networks will hopefully also aid the Afghan government’s work, helping it be more efficient and effective in reaching its citizens and providing them the services they deserve. As Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post warns though, we must be careful where our aid money is spent, as even positive steps such as those mentioned above could have unintended negative consequences.

Tomorrow I will discuss another sign of progress in Afghanistan, the role of women in the workplace and in society. A few personal stories will show how far the nation has come since the oppressive Taliban regime, but also how far it has to go.

The ways the world’s leading newspapers have covered NATO’s efforts in Afghanistan and the situation on the ground there have morphed several times in recent years. After taking a backseat to the War in Iraq for nearly 4 years, the Afghan conflict came back into the mainstream about a year ago, mainly with statements that it was ‘the right’ or the ‘good’ war. But lately, we have seen a harder, more nuanced look at the troubling situation brewing in Afghan/Pakistan, and more and more cautious and negative toned editorials and articles have appeared of late. Of course, this seems mostly logical as the war in Iraq has settled down quite a bit, we had a presidential candidate emphasize its policy, and most importantly the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has become increasingly volatile and unstable to be ignored any longer. So here a few recent news stories and editorials to take a look at below. Have you noticed a change in coverage? What about its tone? More negative? Positive? Why has this occurred?

News

Firstly, here are two articles both focusing on Afghan civilian casualties in this conflict and the fog of war; one reporting last Thursday’s brazen Taliban attack on two buses in which dozens of civilians appeared to have been killed, and another discussing the increasing toll on NATO generals of either mistaken or ‘unavoidable’ instances where Afghan civilians have perished, specifically the Azizabad airstrike that may have killed around 90 people.

Here is an update on the progress of a reassessment review of US strategy in the country by top level officials which is due to be completed right after the Nov. 4 US election.

Lastly, here is quick report about President Karzai’s recent shuffling of his cabinet and its possible implications.

Editorials

The following pieces present to the audience a gloomy picture of the Afghan situation and acknowledge that time may be running out for a chance at stability and strong government in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The New York Times editorial boards’ ‘Downward Spiral
Spiegel Online’s Susanne Koelbl’s ‘The West is at a Loss in Afghanistan‘
Financial Times Rodric Braithwaite’s ‘New Afghan Myths Bode Ill for Western Aims‘

David Miliband, foreign secretary of the UK, contrary to the previous editorials, argues in ‘Mission Possible‘ that NATO’s mission in Afghanistan is winnable, we just have to have a greater understanding of what that mission is. Miliband stresses that we should not expect Britain-style society to flower, but that we must help create an Afghan government with institutions with the capability and legitimacy to deny the Taliban power and influence. Miliband does not deny the sacrifices needed for this to come to fruition, but he thinks it is far from ‘mission impossible.’

Larry Everest in ‘Afghanistan: Not a Good War Gone Bad‘ argues against the idea that the US and NATO are in Afghanistan for legitimate and global order purposes, and instead, with much paranoia and dubious assertions, claims it is another imperialist adventure by a Western power and has the undeniable support of both future presidential candidates Obama and McCain.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

How does one reconcile the governmental promotion of atheism in a society with strongly entrenched religious beliefs and customs? The Chinese communist government has tried to square this circle for years now, and the Xinjiang Province’s Uighur Muslim majority has proven its greatest challenge. Edward Wong of the New York Times explores this societal conflict and reports on the most recent Chinese government efforts to control and undermine Xinjiang’s Uighur Muslims.

Here is a portion of Wong’s article where he discusses rising Chinese government attempts to restrict Islamic practices in Xinjiang, emphasizing that a more serious ‘crackdown’ may be in the works:

Many of the rules have been on the books for years, but some local governments in Xinjiang have publicly highlighted them in the past seven weeks by posting the laws on Web sites or hanging banners in towns.

Those moves coincided with Ramadan, which ran from September to early October, and came on the heels of a series of attacks in August that left at least 22 security officers and one civilian dead, according to official reports. The deadliest attack was a murky ambush in Kashgar that witnesses said involved men in police uniforms fighting each other.

The attacks were the biggest wave of violence in Xinjiang since the 1990s. In recent months, Wang Lequan, the long-serving party secretary of Xinjiang, and Nuer Baikeli, the chairman of the region, have given hard-line speeches indicating that a crackdown will soon begin.

Mr. Wang said the government was engaged in a “life or death” struggle in Xinjiang. Mr. Baikeli signaled that government control of religious activities would tighten, asserting that “the religious issue has been the barometer of stability in Xinjiang.”

Anti-China forces in the West and separatist forces are trying to carry out “illegal religious activities and agitate religious fever,” he said, and “the field of religion has become an increasingly important battlefield against enemies.”

The Chinese government does indeed face a violent threat from extremist elements in Xinjiang and from foreign sources who support the province’s muslims, but these crackdowns and rules targeting Uighurs are mainly imposed to further expand the government’s rule over the region. Wong details the government’s efforts in controlling Uighurs’ Hajj to Mecca and Ramadan practices, both sacred rights for all Muslims. The Chinese government fears the spread of Islamic radicalization and separatist motivations and organizations, and both of these they believe can be combatted if they strengthen their control over the Xinjiang region and its people. That is why the government has been importing Han Chinese into the region in great numbers, diluting the Uighur majority and their cultural and societal norms, and building infrastructure, specifically railways, which connect the region to Central Asia and more importantly, to eastern China.

How successful do you think the Chinese government’s anti-religious and anti-Uighur custom laws have been and will be? Are these measures, some quite oppressive and restrictive, more likely to sow a more governable and stable state for the Chinese government or are they more likely to foment greater amounts and degrees of radicalization and separatist feelings and actions? What would a McCain or Obama administration policy be towards the Chinese government’s treatment and efforts in Xinjiang?

(Photo Source: New York Times)

Most of you have probably heard the reports of Christian-targeted violence in Iraq in recent weeks. Religious minorities face many uphill battles, some higher and harsher than others, in most societies. Just this last week we heard people, though on a very marginal scale, at McCain rallies shouting derogatory Muslim references toward Barack Obama. It is in this light that I came across these two pieces regarding Christianity and its spread in Central Asia: Pope Benedict’s meeting with CA Catholic Bishops and leaders and observations from a group of American Southern Baptists who recently completed a missionary trip to the region.

Pope Benedict XVI hosted the bishops of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan and the heads of church missions in Turkmenistan and Tajikistan at the Vatican on Oct. 2. The Pope encouraged these Christian leaders to keep the faith and remain united in their mission to ‘find new ways of ministering and sharing the Gospel taking into account the language and culture of the faithful entrusted to you.’ The report acknowledged the difficulties of spreading any type of religion in the region as most their government’s keep them under tight control, mainly fearing a radical Islamic uprising. Pope Benedict, who early this decade made a controversial speech regarding Islam, did not shy away from discussing Islam and the region’s ‘plague of violence and terrorism and the spread of extremism and fundamentalism.’ He also cautioned against any measures that would or do repress religious freedom: “Law must never be transformed into inequity, nor can the free exercise of religion be limited because to profess one’s faith freely is a fundamental and universally recognized human right.”

Now I’m not exactly sure where I came across this next piece, but I hope you find it of interest. It is report of and by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who sent a group of about a dozen missionaries, mainly students, to the CA region, unfortunately it never says exactly where, to promote Christianity. The groups leader, Shawn Wright has made numerous missionary trips to the region attempting to spread the Gospel and pass out native-tongue New Testaments to the Muslim dominated population. The missionary group on this trip attended a Friday prayer service at a large Mosque and recorded their thoughts. Here is a interesting and enlightening quote: “It was eye-opening. This mosque had between 5,000 and 6,000 men, so there were more people worshiping there at that moment than there are believers{Christians} in the entire country. For several of us, it was a shock, but a very good shock, because as you watch these very devout people, it forces you to ask yourself, ‘How do I know that what I believe is right?,’ It was a great time for me to reflect upon the Gospel and its truthfulness and fullness while I was watching these people who are deceived. It is also very sad.” This group of Southern Baptists was also surprised at what they called the ‘nominalism’ or lack of knowledge of many of the CA muslims they came across, especially in regards to the Koran.

So two very different pieces discussing nearly the same thing. What does the Southern Baptists’ observations say about American religious views? What do say about religion in Central Asia? What effect may the Pope’s statements about Islamic extremism have? What about his comments regarding religious freedom?

On a side note here is an update about the legal situation of those 17 Uighur Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Make sure to go back and read a comment left by one observer, he provides a more detailed legalistic argument than I could. What are your views of the situation? What would you do if you were the Bush administration? Judge Urbina?

In recent weeks the Mediterranean states of Greece and Turkey have pushed to strengthen their diplomatic ties to the Central Asian region and its states. In the case of Turkey, it is the continuing of a growing relationship, and in the case of Greece, it is an attempt to reinvigorate what has in recent times been a minimal presence in the region.

Turkey has successfully reemphasized its historic connections to the region and its people, and Prime Minister Erdogan diplomatic visits to Turkmenistan and Mongolia in early October is just the latest in a series of up close efforts to strengthen bilateral relations. Erdogan, who traveled with a group of influential Turkish ministers, attended a Turkish-Turkmen Business Council meeting and met with Turkish expatriates and businessmen in Ashgabat. Though I could not find a report stating so, there is no doubt that energy supplies were also discussed as Turkey and the EU desire routes circumventing Russia and in the weeks following the Georgia crisis, Moscow has been deepening its energy supply monopoly with the states of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan, while also making efforts in Azerbaijan. In Mongolia, Erdogan inaugurated the Bilge Khan highway, constructed with Turkish assistance, the Orkhon Museum, and a monument of Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, in Mongolia’s capital city of Ulan Bator.

Greece’s relations with the Central Asian states has been lackluster as their Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis would agree, but she was out to change this during the recently concluded Forum of Security between the EU-Central Asia in Paris. Bakoyannis met privately with all five CA attending states foreign ministers and stated that 2009 was to be the year when relations with the CA states was to become an ‘absolute priority.’ Bakoyannis mentioned energy supplies and common historical and ethnic connections as being important reasons for closer ties.

Now here are what some of FPA’s other blogs are doing in regards to issues related to Central Asia:

FPA Blogs: Provocative stories involving Central Asia

A. Karin Esposito at Religion & Politics writes about the Islamicization of the Afghan judiciary and the Karzai government’s failure to contain it.  The piece centers on infringements of religious and women’s rights.

B. Bilal Qureshi’s Pakistan blog daily provides in-depth insight and analysis of ‘the most dangerous place in the world.’  Today he tells us the story of Haroon Bacha, a talented singer who desperately seeks refuge from the Taliban who have targeted him because of his musical profession.  I consider Balil’s page a great resource for my discussions on the  current situation of unrest and violence in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

C. Nikolaj Nielsen of Human Rights blog recently did a piece on Uzbekistan’s illegal child labor practices, specifically the harvesting of cotton.  Nielsen takes a European perspective of the purchasing of Uzbek cotton to manufacture clothing and links to several interesting background reports.

On October 6, Federal Judge Ricardo Urbina ordered the release of 17 Uighurs imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, arguing that the US government had no evidence and no right to hold them as ‘enemy combatants.’ The Bush administration has already stated that these 17 prisoners are not a security threat and conceded that they do not plan on accusing them as enemy combatants anymore. However, Urbina’s ruling is being fought by the Bush administration, who fear it will set a precedent for the removal and possible allowance of Guantanamo prisoners into the US homeland as other nations are not likely to want these prisoners.

As we know the Uighurs, who were picked up in Afghanistan/Pakistan, are not going back to China, where they most likely would be welcomed with torture or imprisonment, and most other nations do not desire to anger the Chinese government by taking them on. This leaves the US government with very few choices, one being sending them to small nations that support Taiwan and therefore are already earning China’s ire, and secondly letting them come and stay in the US where a network of Uighur immigrants have shown interest in hosting them and smoothing their transition. The US obviously owes these prisoners more than they could ever payback, and a decent life in the US would be a good start, but the Bush administration fears this precedent will force them to admit all of Guantanamo’s prisoners in the future.

Now this issue is very controversial and involves some complicated legal dealings and definitions, which I am far from an expert on, but this is an important aspect of US relations with Muslims throughout the world, and obviously in China’s Xinjiang Province and Central Asia. Whatever the reasons the US had for arresting these Uighur prisoners now appears to be discredited and the US must fix the situation as soon as possible and this does involve freeing them to a safe location where they can renew their lives. As of right now, their status is still in limbo.

While I have not discussed legal mandates for holding suspected enemy combatants on this page, I have looked into the Xinjiang’s province and its Uighur majority’s population battles with the Chinese government and with radical Islam. There is definitely a connection between Uighur human and religious rights and the aftermath of 9/11, one that goes beyond those 17 prisoners. Peter Navarro author of ‘The Coming China Wars’ articulately describes how the Chinese government used 9/11 as a Golden Opportunity to get the US to either implicitly or explicitly let their government do what they needed to do to deal with their own ‘Muslim extremists’, the Uighurs in Xinjiang. After 2001, China sped up a Hanification policy for the province, bringing in Han Chinese and deporting Uighur women of birthing age to the factories in the east. Navarro rightly sees this process as radicalizing elements of the Uighur community, which he argues led to the terrorist attacks against Chinese police forces around the Olympics.

Now this goes back as to how the US, Chinese government, and the world see the situation. Are the Uighurs an oppressed community who’s way of life is being stripped from them by a brutal overlord? or Are they tainted by other Muslim extremists in the Middle East and Central Asia region who vow for the destruction of western and modern society? Do both elements exist? To what degree?

Any way one sees the situation, I would argue that the US detainment of these 17 Uighurs could only further the radicalization of their community. If the US government does not have evidence that these 17 individuals were enemy combatants it must find a suitable place for them to freely live, otherwise, it risks alienating the whole Uighur community, a group who is busy trying to fight for their way of life against the Chinese government.

These are complicated issues and conflicts, and in no way am I defending terror attacks by any group, nor do I want to ignore the dilemma the US government finds itself in in dealing with what to do with prisoners in this still new way of warfare. Balancing acts are occurring everywhere: within the US government, regarding what to do with enemy combatants; the Chinese government, with their Hanification and Tibetan policies conflicting with their international presence and stature; and with the Uighur people, who are seeing their way of life being taken away, but with the utilization of terrorist attacks as probably the most effective but inhumane and possibly counterproductive method of achieving autonomy.

(Map Source: Economist)

I apologize for the lack of posts since Wednesday as I am in the middle of a move from New York to California. Today I would like to go over a few important stories that have occurred in the last week.

Ahmed Wali Karzai a Drug Dealer? - The New York Times ran an article last week, citing American and Afghan sources, accusing President Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, of being involved in the heroin trade in Afghanistan. Ahmed Wali and his brother have denied these reports, calling them ‘baseless,’ and arguing that they spring from political pressure that the Karzai government has put on the US recently regarding civilian casualties. The New York Times report centers around informants’ descriptions of two large drug shipments intercepted by Afghan police that showed strong links to Ahmed Wali, including a phone call where he told the government to leave the shipment of heroin alone since it was his.

I have discussed the importance of the drug trade in Afghanistan before on this page, mainly as it relates to funding the Taliban, and regarding the combating and neutralizing of the growing practice, not punishing corrupt officials and major civilian perpetrators, like the suspected Ahmed Wali, was not part of the prescribed plan. There is a consensus that for the Afghan government to gain legitimacy and strength in all of the nation’s regions it must show it can combat the drug trade and its perpetrators, especially those who are involved in government. For the people of Afghanistan, and for us in America and NATO who send our soldiers over there, the Afghan government must not be seen as impotent or corrupt, and this case shows both. There is the obvious fear that if Karzai actually prosecuted corrupt drug officials in his government, the breadth of the indictments would cause great instability and may further its lose of legitimacy, and this is most likely the reason the US has not pushed him too hard, but something must be done.

Condoleezza in Kazakhstan - US Secretary of State Rice made a one day stopover in Astana last week and held a press conference with Kazak Foreign Minister Marat Tazhin. She and Tazhin stated that Kazakhstan and the US were ’strategic partners’, but that Kazakhstan had ‘excellent contacts’ with Russia and all of its neighbors. In recent weeks, after the Georgia conflict, Russia’s President Medvedev has laid out in several speeches that Russia has a special sphere of influence, and Rice made several comments combating any thought that this involved Kazakhstan; “We don’t see any of this as a zero-sum game. We don’t see and don’t accept any notion of a special sphere of influence and so we look forward to continue to building our relationship with Kazakhstan.” Another major issue addressed was Kazakhstan’s role in stabilizing and helping in the economic development of Afghanistan, including infrastructure and energy projects. Though Rice and Tazhin did not explicitly discuss this during the news conference, there is also no doubt that energy relations were a hot topic, as Russia has made several successful inroads in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan since the Georgia crisis and West has been put on its heals.

Turkmenistan’s New Constitution - In very late September the government of Turkmenistan adopted a new constitution which seemed to be largely aimed at securing foreign investors and not its citizens’ rights. The constitution abolished former dictator Niyazov’s 2,500 hand-picked legislature and replaced it with a 125 member elected parliament. President Berdymukhammedov made a statement that these parliamentary elections, set for December, would be monitored, but by whom it remains unclear. The constitution also sets the presidential term at 5 years, but it is unclear if there were term limits, but this is highly, highly doubtful. The president was also given the power to appoint regional governors, just like Putin instituted a couple years back. On the positive side, the new constitution did several things to increase commerce and the freedom of investment in the nation. Property rights were strengthened along with market-economy principles, both in hopes of soothing the fears of foreign energy investors. I do not know all the ins-and-outs of this new legal document and only time will tell if it provides for any real progress in the country’s citizen rights and freedoms. A recent protest by Reporters Without Borders at the Turkmen embassy in Paris for the release of journalist Annakurban Amankiychev and human rights activist Sapardurdy Khajiyev, both in jail since 2006, showcases how far the country has yet to go in providing a safe and secure life for all its citizens, no matter what their beliefs or political leanings.

(Photo Source: International Herald Tribune)

Contrary to the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates during the recent debates, new leader of the US Central Command Gen. David Petraeus provides us with some straight talk and analysis about the Afghanistan conflict and possible strategies for success.  However, his position is still political and politics seep through at times, especially regarding whether or not the US should use force inside of Pakistani territory, in this interview with Spiegel Online. The interview covers many of the questions we have gone over on this page, including: Can the ‘Surge’ work in Afghanistan?, stability or democracy?, should the use force in Pakistani territory?, troop level needed for victory?, why exactly is the US in Afghanistan and what kind of commitment should it make?, and what is the role of NATO, what can NATO do?

In discussing the possibility of the US strategy in Iraq, basically the Surge and Sunni-US partnership, being translated to Afghanistan, Petraeus exhumes not confidence, but cautiousness, a regular practice for the man, as he adamantly calls himself not a pessimist nor an optimist, but a realist.  Concerning a shared strategy in both nations; ‘There are some ideas that will translate from Iraq to Afghanistan and there are many that will not. The first lesson of counterinsurgency, in fact, is that every situation is truly unique, has its own context, its own specific set of factors—and you have to understand that context in enormous detail to be able to craft a sound and comprehensive approach.’  Petraeus  acknowledges the challenges that Afghanistan brings that were not so dramatic in Iraq, in fact he stated that in Iraq  ‘you are rebuilding, and in Afghanistan you are building.’

He proceeds to describe the differing elements to each case and segues to the critical and deteriorating Pakistan/Afghan shared border situation.  Petraeus argues, along with ISAF commander Gen. David McKiernan, that you cannot approach Afghan on its own, that you have to view the situation as a region, not as one country or another.  Concerning the US conducting military strikes or incursions in Pak territory, Petraeus tippy toes around the question and just repeats the mantra that the US is in a ‘close dialogue’ with the new Pak government to stem the tide of extremism.  According to this report, the new Pakistani government is making a move on a major extremists sanctuary.  Spiegel also asks the General about the importance of stability in the Pak and Afghan, even at the expense of democracy.  Petraeus stated that ‘both would be best’ and then moves on. 

Now one of my pet peeves is that US politicians, Obama, McCain, and to a lesser extent President Bush, have failed to express to the American people, EU, and the world how difficult a task this is and why it is important for the Taliban and other extremist insurgents to be defeated.  In fact, Robert D. Kaplan just wrote a provocative piece analyzing why the US is in the region, is it because of just a Manhunt for Osama or do we have a greater regional mission?  Petraeus is unequivocally on the side of seeing the situation as a strategic necessity and argues that we must defeat the extremists in the Pak/Afghan border and greater region.  The General argues the US has ‘vital interests’ in Afghanistan as do other countries.  His greatest stated concern is the return of an extremist sanctuary.  Lastly, concerning about the length of the conflict, Petraeus gives a sober assessment that Afghanistan ‘was going to be the longest campaign’ of ‘the long war.’

What did Spiegel Online fail to ask the General?  What did he fail to answer?  Will Gen. Petraeus as Central Command leader have the same influence in Afghanistan as he had in Iraq?  Or will he be kept too busy by the many other important and strategic issues in the Middle Eastern region?  How were his answers different than the ones you have heard from the presidential candidates?

(Photo Source: Spiegel Online)

Last night’s Vice -Presidential debate made last Friday’s Presidential debate’s discussion of what is going on and what strategy to implement in Afghanistan look depressingly deep. Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin barely scratched the surface of defining the seriousness of the conflict there, besides just mentioning Al Qaeda, and what strategy to implement, besides just more troops and for Biden more military presence in Pakistan. Here is a transcript and video.  And here is a five minute part where each candidate addresses the Afghanistan situation:

It was obvious that Biden, who is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, had a better grasp of the issue than Palin, who was most shaky discussing foreign policy. Palin advocated for the General Petraeus, now leader of Central Command which is includes Afghanistan, ’surge’ strategy, but did not go into detail as to how this would be different than in Iraq, as in the type of insurgency, geography, and number of troops. Biden voiced his support for more troops, mainly coming from a lessening of them in Iraq, greater pressure on Pakistan to confront the militants, and greater economic development. Both Biden and Palin mentioned the building of schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it is in this context where I really hoped each would take the opportunity to explain to the American public just how extraordinary our mission is this strategic area. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and their supporters have destroyed hundreds of schools, kidnapped and killed tens of teachers and students, and brought a tremendous sense of fear to the millions in the area. And they are only getting stronger. The American people need to know what Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post rightly calls the ‘extraordinary ambition of this enterprise’ in Afghanistan/Pakistan. She is right that no NATO government has explained to its voters how fragile the situation is there and what it will take for success. In short, it will take more than just greater troop numbers and missile attacks in Pakistan’s FATA region, it will take a long-term commitment, lives, and amazing perseverance by the American and our Allies public and politicians.  As I mentioned before, the Bush Administration is reviewing its Afghan policy and one of their major assessments has to do with proposals for a military campaign plan for Afghanistan for the next 5 to 10 years, which would obviously create a need for long-term troop levels.

I sympathize with these politicians who have to cover these vital and complicated issues in one to two minutes and to deal with moderators who constantly give them too broad a question, but the American and world public need to hear how these future leaders see the situation and what exactly they think should be the next step and why.  The situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan is indeed perilous and the US is in very deep and about to go in deeper and as Applebaum concludes, ‘it has only begun to test our stamina.’

Here are a few items you may find of interest…please find them of interest!

1. Central Asia’s Railroad - Continuing yesterday’s discussion of China’s growing influence and investments in Central Asia, well according to this Turkish Weekly report even the Yuan can’t buy everything. The report argues that prospects for building a railroad that would connect Europe and China through the Middle East and Central Asia looks ‘unrealizable’ in the near future due to economical and political challenges. Kyrgyzstan with its slow economic growth, poor investment climate, political instability, and mountainous terrain, is highlighted as being too risky for investors, even China. The report also mentions that the Chinese government may be afraid of connecting its unstable Xinjiang Province with the politically volatile CA states. Let us hope that a deal can be worked out as improving the transportation in region is vital for it to become more connected to the outer world, especially economically.

2. Afghanistan’s Opium Production - Last month the UN’s Office on Drugs and Crime released a report stating that for the first time in 3 years the Afghan Opium production had dropped. and by a not insignificant 19%. Unfortunately, the report gives most credit to the drop to the recent drought in the nation’s north and northwest regions. The UN report also cites stronger government leadership in certain areas that has discouraged farmers from planting opium through campaigns, peer pressure, and the promotion of alternative crops. One thing the report does not give credit for is the government-led eradication of fields effort. To no surprise, the analysis also came to this conclusion: “There is now a perfect overlap between zones of high risk [Taliban invested areas] and regions of high opium cultivation.” In addition, here is a policy recommendation from ISN Security Watch’s Maseh Zarif advocating shoring up regional cooperation and support (basically in Central Asia, Iran, Pakistan, and the Middle East) and rooting out internal corruption. Not new ideas, but the analysis and details are worth reviewing.

3. Update on the CA’s Water Situation - Here is a discussion from a Kyrg point of view about the growing conflict between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan over water and energy rights, specifically regarding the building of the Rogun power station. Apparently, Uzbekistan is trying to get Mother Russia on its side. The paper discusses a compromise based on the exchange of discharged water for supplies of gas and oil in the winter, but it also underlines the competing interests and challenges of dealing with water as a commodity.

4. Dictators Bad, but it could be Worse - The fall of Musharraf in Pakistan and the stroke of Kim Jong-il in North Korea are small reminders that political instability, especially in nations with nukes and extremists, can be even worse. Dictators can be brutally oppressive leaders who take away the rights and hopes of their citizens, but it is true that they do provide a certain level of stability that when gone, can be sorely missed.

5. Barack Obama in Muslim Eyes - The Jerusalem Post and Daniel Pipes take a crack at analyzing how Muslims see the US presidential candidate. Is he a fellow Muslim, a Christian, an apostate, just another US president, or something else?

6. Conference on Afghanistan Today - NYU’s Center on Law and Security will be hosting a major conference on October 17 titled ‘Afghanistan Today: Drugs, Detention, and Counterinsurgency.‘ The list of speakers is quite impressive: Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke, Steve Coll, Peter Bergen, Barnett Rubin, Scott Horton, Steve Simon, David Kilcullen, Hekmat Karzai, Joanne Mariner, Imtiaz Ali, Lt. Gen., David Barno, Shuja Nawaz, Lawrence Wright, Elizabeth Rubin, Nir Rosen, Sean Langan, Doug Wankel, Andrew Wilder, Stephen Holmes, Karen Greenberg, Ambassador Omar Samad, and others. If you are in New York stop by, and for all of us who may miss it, I will do my best to post the transcripts and major happenings.