A summary of the day's strategic security news and publications.

Opinion and publications

China's rise will "distort trade, foster huge financial imbalances and trigger... competition for scarce raw materials" - Robert Samuelson, Newsweek via RCP

Rudd shifting regional policy from office in dive shop - Michael McKenna, The Australian

Pacific Islands crime problems likely to worsen - Gaurav Sodhi, The Australian

US re-enacting epic Great White Fleet voyage - Les Kennedy, SMH

Australia needs US alliance - Christian Kerr, The Australian

Russians mock NATO's rebuke - Paul McGeough, SMH

Russia will punish NATO - Pravda

NATO must focus on Afghanistan, not Russia - Daily Telegraph (UK)

Excluding Russia from Caucasus security will stoke conflict - The Guardian

Kyrgyzstan in fragile state - IHT

Pakistan troubles will have direct Aust impact - Greg Sheridan, The Australian

Loosening nuclear rules for India will destabilise South Asia - Edward Markey & Ellen Tauscher, NYT

NATO statement on Georgia situation - CFR.org

Al-qaeda "morphing" in Iraq - Greg Bruno, CFR.org

Northeast Asia's territorial disputes - Malcolm Cook, Lowy Institute

Consequences and lessons of the Caucasus - RSIS (1), RSIS (2)

Australian news

DNA testing may reveal identity of newly discovered WWI Digger - The Australian

Rudd: Fiji still on Niue agenda - ABC

Report claims Pacific Island aid should not be tied to governance - SMH

Mentally ill Australian soldiers being medicated and deployed - Herald Sun

Australia could face nuclear threat from own region - news.com.au

Police defuse bomb in Brisbane - news.com.au

International news

Bali bomber executions delayed - The Australian

Saddam's private luxury train filling Iraq train shortage - news.com.au

Iraqi unit raids Governor's office - news.com.au

US, Iraq agree on troop withdrawals - NYT

UN preparing a deal over disputed Iraqi city of Kirkuk - NYT

Taliban executes women in Pakistan - news.com.au

Thai ex-PM Thaksin to seek asylum in Britain - news.com.au

Pacific leaders expected to be tough on Fiji - news.com.au

Pacific leaders contemplating action on Fiji - The Australian

Rudd: Fiji boycott an insult - The Australian

Pacific Islands still in grip of poverty - The Australian

Poland, US sign missile shield deal - news.com.au

Russia condemns US-Poland missile deal - BBC

US-Polish missile defence deal riles Moscow - Washington Post

Poland worried by Georgia events - NYT

Poland believes US missile deal will protect them from Russia - The Age

Russia ready to recognise Georgian separatists - news.com.au

Pirates seize Malaysian ship off Somalia - BBC

China gives women hard labour, "re-education" after requesting permission for Olympics protest - NYT

Opposition party wants Bhutto's widower to be Pres as Pakistan power struggle intensifies - IHT

Struggle over Pakistan presidency - The Age

Bhutto's widower leads race for Pakistan presidency - FT

Phillipines Govt cancels peace deal following rebel killings - IHT

US financial crisis deepens - FT

Taliban creeping back towards Kabul in repeat of 1990s tactics - FT

NZ PM Clark finds critical Australian briefing note amusing - NZ Herald

This Australian security news summary prepared by Lachlan McGoldrick, editor, The Australian Interest.

(Some links via Breakfast Politics, RealClearPolitics and CFR.org)

Zardari has played down speculation that he covets the top job. However, opposition backing will strengthen his hand in a struggle with coalition partner Nawaz Sharif over a compromise candidate to fill the post and the even more urgent issue of restoring judges purged by the former army strongman.

The AP cited a leader of the MQM, Haider Razvi, who said the party "wanted Zardari as president because of his past sacrifices and for his 'wisdom and vision' in handling Musharraf's ouster." The official advocated the next president be from outside Punjab, and noted that Zardari - a Sindhi - was "most eligible" for the job. The MQM, added the news agency, "dominates Karachi, Pakistan's biggest city, and other urban areas in the southern province of Sindh and recently buried its long animosity with Zardari's Pakistan People's Party."

An article released by Geo TV's website today reported that Zardari thanked MQM chief Altaf Hussein for his "positive role during the political developments over the last few days." In a statement released Wednesday, Zardari asserted, "I am thankful to all democratic forces including MQM that helped coalition government achieve key objective of forcing President Musharraf to resign."

As speculation over Pakistan's next president is likely to increase, news of clashes within the coalition government continues. According to the NY Times on Wednesday, "Political order in Pakistan frayed further on Tuesday, the day after President Pervez Musharraf resigned, raising questions about who in the deeply divided civilian government would be in charge and for how long." The news agency added:

The instant deterioration in relations within the government became evident when Nawaz Sharif, the leader of one of the two major parties in the governing coalition, the Pakistan Muslim League-N, walked out of a meeting here over the restoration of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who had been dismissed by Mr. Musharraf. He then headed back to his home in Lahore, a four-hour drive away.

An article in The News today seemed to affirm these reports. According to the piece, "Because of the recurrence of their [the PPP and PML-N] differences on the judges issues, the situation at one stage was so tense between the two leading coalition partners that some of those present in the meeting room of the Zardari House feared that the coalition might collapse sooner than later." Dawn, in its coverage, echoed that coalition leaders failed to resolve their differences on the judiciary restoration, since both sides "refused to relax" their stance on the issue. The news agency added, "Sources told Dawn that Awami National Party president Asfandyar Wali Khan saved the day for the coalition by offering to play the role of a mediator between the two parties."

What exactly is the issue over the judiciary? While Nawaz Sharif centered his political campaign around the reinstatement of the judges suspended by Musharraf, particularly Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Zardari "has made it clear that he does not want Mr. Chaudhry back on the bench," noted the NY Times. The news agency added, "He prefers the chief justice installed by Mr. Musharraf after he imposed emergency rule in November, Abdul Hamid Dogar." Given the iconic status of Chaudhry for the lawyers' movement, compromising on his reinstatement seems unlikey. In fact, noted the Times, the movement regards Mr. Dogar as an illegal appointee. However, noted the news agency, "Mr. Dogar comes from Sindh Province, Mr. Zardari’s political base, and the two men are friendly." [Image from Dawn]

Zardari's reported unease with reappointing Chaudhry lies in the fear that the chief justice might undo an amnesty agreement that absolved the PPP co-chairman of corruption charges, part of a package arranged by Musharraf when Zardari returned to Pakistan with his late wife, former PM Benazir Bhutto. Such a development would of course complicate Zardari's reported aspirations for the presidency.

Although officials like the ANP's Asfandiyar Wali Khan and Pakistan's ambassador to the United States Hussain Haqqani have played down the disputes between coalition members, it seems we may be headed towards yet another political deadlock, a development that has serious ramifications for the future of this government. That is, of course, unless a miraculous compromise is reached during the next coalition meeting, slated to take place Friday. Dawn reported today that the ANP leader and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-F (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman "are expected to come up with a solution" for that session.

Meanwhile, the security situation remains increasingly volatile. According to media coverage, a suicide attack in the FATA region Tuesday, for which the [Pakistani] Taliban claimed responsibility, killed 32 people and wounded 55 in Dera Ismail Khan, a town near Waziristan. The NY Times cited a police chief who said the bombing "was part of continuing sectarian strife between Sunni and Shiites." Many of the dead were Shiites, media sources reported, although two police officers were also killed in the attack. The NY Times also reported, In another unexpected move after Mr. Musharraf’s resignation, the chief of staff of the Pakistani Army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, visited the Afghan capital, Kabul, on Tuesday...the first time the Pakistani general had attended a meeting of the commission in Kabul since assuming command of the Pakistani military in November." [Image from NY Times]

How do issues related to security and economic problems factor into the political environment? Simple - The longer this coalition government argue over the current judiciary issue, the more distracted they are from these other problems. Moreover, a fracture in the coalition, as has occured in the past, would create a power vacuum that would inevitably have dangerous repurcussions for Pakistan's volatile political, economic and security environment.

The Taliban have mounted their most serious attacks in six years of fighting in Afghanistan this week, including a co-ordinated assault by at least 10 suicide bombers against one of the largest American military bases in the country, launched just before midnight on Monday.

That attack, on Camp Salerno in the eastern province of Khost, wounded three American soldiers and six members of the Afghan Special Forces.

Source

He also stressed the importance of close ties between Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan, which he said was facing a "period of political uncertainty" after the resignation of President Pervez Musharraf.

"We'll be pressing on the Pakistanis themselves to be involved with us in fighting terrorism and making sure the number of terrorists coming into Afghanistan from Pakistan is limited," he said.

Source

When “students” start wearing masks, it is time for the nation to be worried. Of late, members of the banned Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) have been operating wearing the “mask of terror”.

Over the years, SIMI has been developing itself into “a fist of fury” with the aim of creating Islamic terror. Fears exist in government circles that the SIMI has been penetrated by Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaida through Taliban-trained cadres.

Source

It is the deadliest incident for international soldiers based in the country since the United States-led war began in 2001.

The French soldiers were killed in an ambush by a group of 100 Taliban insurgents near the Afghan capital Kabul.

Source

Source

The people who so stridently blamed America for attacking Iraq stand silently - or even worse yet, actually defend - the Russian attack of Georgia.

These are just a couple of examples of the leftists in America and the world who routinely demonize the United States while pointedly turning their backs on shocking acts of evil being perpetrated by leftist regimes around the world.

As writer Victor Davis Hanson points out, it is forgotten that America is the model, not the villain. And when the United States wearies of the constant attacks and ceases to stand up for freedom in the world, you will see a reawakening of evil such as the world hasn't witnessed since the 1930s.

I came across this article by Hanson. It deserves a wide reading:

August 19, 2008
Brave Old World
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services

Russia invades Georgia. China jails dissidents. China and India pollute at levels previously unimaginable. Gulf monarchies make trillions from jacked-up oil prices. Islamic terrorists keep car bombing. Meanwhile, Europe offers moral lectures, while Japan and South Korea shrug and watch — all in a globalized world that tunes into the Olympics each night from Beijing.

"Citizens of the world" were supposed to share, in relative harmony, our new "Planet Earth," which was to have followed from an interconnected system of free trade, instantaneous electronic communications, civilized diplomacy and shared consumer capitalism.

But was that ever quite true?

In reality, to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions:

First, the U.S. economy would keep importing goods from abroad to drive international economic growth.

Second, the U.S. military would keep the sea-lanes open, and trade and travel protected. After the past destruction of fascism and global communism, the Americans, as global sheriff, would continue to deal with the occasional menace like a Muammar al-Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il or the Taliban.

Third, America would ignore ankle-biting allies and remain engaged with the world — like a good, nurturing mom who at times must put up with the petulance of dependent teenagers.

But there have been a number of indications recently that globalization may soon lose its American parent, who is tiring, both materially and psychologically.

The United States may be the most free, stable and meritocratic nation in the world, but its resources and patience are not unlimited. Currently, it pays more than a half trillion dollars per year to import $115-a-barrel oil that is often pumped at a cost of about $5.

The Chinese, Japanese and Europeans hold trillions of dollars in U.S. bonds — the result of massive trade deficits. The American dollar is at historic lows. We are piling up staggering national debt. Over 12 million live here illegally and freely transfer more than $50 billion annually to Mexico and Latin America.

Our military, after deposing Milosevic, the Taliban and Saddam, is tired. And Americans are increasingly becoming more sensitive to the cheap criticism of global moralists.

But as the United States turns ever so slightly inward, the new globalized world will revert to a far poorer — and more dangerous — place.

Liberals like presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama speak out against new free trade agreements and want existing accords like NAFTA readjusted. More and more Americans are furious at the costs of illegal immigration — and are moving to stop it. The foreign remittances that help prop up Mexico and Latin America are threatened by any change in America's immigration attitude.

Meanwhile, the hypocrisy becomes harder to take. After all, it is easy for self-appointed global moralists to complain that terrorists don't enjoy Miranda rights at Guantanamo, but it would be hard to do much about the Russian military invading Georgia's democracy and bombing its cities.

Al Gore crisscrosses the country, pontificating about Americans' carbon footprints. But he could do far better to fly to China to convince them not to open 500 new coal-burning power plants.

It has been chic to chant "No blood for oil" about Iraq's petroleum — petroleum that, in fact, is now administered by a constitutional republic. But such sloganeering would be better directed at China's sweetheart oil deals with Sudan that enable the mass murdering in Darfur.

Due to climbing prices and high government taxes, gasoline consumption is declining in the West, but its use is rising in other places, where it is either untaxed or subsidized.

So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain — and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions.

Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s — with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite.

If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause.

If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won't listen to the United Nations, the European Union or Michael Moore.

Brace yourself — we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.

The Taliban response was immediate and costly. A minibus carrying 18 Pakistani Air Force personnel was destroyed by a bomb on a major road in Peshawar yesterday morning, killing at least 13 people. The Taliban said the attack was in retaliation for the air strikes on Monday.

Source

The people who so stridently blamed America for attacking Iraq stand silently - or even worse yet, actually defend - the Russian attack of Georgia.

These are just a couple of examples of the leftists in America and the world who routinely demonize the United States while pointedly turning their backs on shocking acts of evil being perpetrated by leftist regimes around the world.

As writer Victor Davis Hanson points out, it is forgotten that America is the model, not the villain. And when the United States wearies of the constant attacks and ceases to stand up for freedom in the world, you will see a reawakening of evil such as the world hasn't witnessed since the 1930s.

I came across this article by Hanson. It deserves a wide reading:

August 19, 2008
Brave Old World
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services

Russia invades Georgia. China jails dissidents. China and India pollute at levels previously unimaginable. Gulf monarchies make trillions from jacked-up oil prices. Islamic terrorists keep car bombing. Meanwhile, Europe offers moral lectures, while Japan and South Korea shrug and watch — all in a globalized world that tunes into the Olympics each night from Beijing.

"Citizens of the world" were supposed to share, in relative harmony, our new "Planet Earth," which was to have followed from an interconnected system of free trade, instantaneous electronic communications, civilized diplomacy and shared consumer capitalism.

But was that ever quite true?

In reality, to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions:

First, the U.S. economy would keep importing goods from abroad to drive international economic growth.

Second, the U.S. military would keep the sea-lanes open, and trade and travel protected. After the past destruction of fascism and global communism, the Americans, as global sheriff, would continue to deal with the occasional menace like a Muammar al-Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il or the Taliban.

Third, America would ignore ankle-biting allies and remain engaged with the world — like a good, nurturing mom who at times must put up with the petulance of dependent teenagers.

But there have been a number of indications recently that globalization may soon lose its American parent, who is tiring, both materially and psychologically.

The United States may be the most free, stable and meritocratic nation in the world, but its resources and patience are not unlimited. Currently, it pays more than a half trillion dollars per year to import $115-a-barrel oil that is often pumped at a cost of about $5.

The Chinese, Japanese and Europeans hold trillions of dollars in U.S. bonds — the result of massive trade deficits. The American dollar is at historic lows. We are piling up staggering national debt. Over 12 million live here illegally and freely transfer more than $50 billion annually to Mexico and Latin America.

Our military, after deposing Milosevic, the Taliban and Saddam, is tired. And Americans are increasingly becoming more sensitive to the cheap criticism of global moralists.

But as the United States turns ever so slightly inward, the new globalized world will revert to a far poorer — and more dangerous — place.

Liberals like presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama speak out against new free trade agreements and want existing accords like NAFTA readjusted. More and more Americans are furious at the costs of illegal immigration — and are moving to stop it. The foreign remittances that help prop up Mexico and Latin America are threatened by any change in America's immigration attitude.

Meanwhile, the hypocrisy becomes harder to take. After all, it is easy for self-appointed global moralists to complain that terrorists don't enjoy Miranda rights at Guantanamo, but it would be hard to do much about the Russian military invading Georgia's democracy and bombing its cities.

Al Gore crisscrosses the country, pontificating about Americans' carbon footprints. But he could do far better to fly to China to convince them not to open 500 new coal-burning power plants.

It has been chic to chant "No blood for oil" about Iraq's petroleum — petroleum that, in fact, is now administered by a constitutional republic. But such sloganeering would be better directed at China's sweetheart oil deals with Sudan that enable the mass murdering in Darfur.

Due to climbing prices and high government taxes, gasoline consumption is declining in the West, but its use is rising in other places, where it is either untaxed or subsidized.

So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain — and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions.

Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s — with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite.

If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause.

If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won't listen to the United Nations, the European Union or Michael Moore.

Brace yourself — we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.

U.S. Gen. David D. McKiernan, who took over the NATO command in Afghanistan in June, said attacks have spiked this year. McKiernan said the insurgency is drawing its strength from a "deterioration of conditions across the border in Pakistan."

"Militant sanctuaries are expanding in the tribal areas," McKiernan told The Associated Press on Monday. He said insurgents are mustering larger forces against international troops and carrying out more roadside bombings, suicide attacks and ambushes.

The U.S. and NATO are concerned the weak hold Pakistan's new government has on the tribal region, where they fear cease-fire deals have allowed militants based in the frontier areas to step up attacks across the border in Afghanistan and plot attacks on the West.
 
Pakistan army chief General Ashfaq Kayani (front) arrived in Kabul on Tuesday for talks with Afghan and international military officials, security officials said.(AFP/File/Aamir Qureshi

McKiernan, who described the insurgency as "resilient," said the most violent attacks come near the Pakistani border and are often connected to Afghanistan's ring road that links the country's major cities.

Earlier this week, militants ambushed a group of French soldiers, killing 10 in a gorge just 20 miles outside the capital, Kabul.

And in a July attack that left nine American troops dead, upwards of 200 insurgents ambushed U.S. soldiers in a mountainous region that borders two Pakistani districts so troublesome that Pakistan was forced to send in troops this month despite the government's attempts at a truce.

Over the past several months McKiernan said NATO has seen an influx of Chechens, Turks and Middle Eastern fighters as well as "sometimes Europeans."

By KATHY GANNON, Associated Press WriterRead the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080820/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan_nato_general_1

The US says it is ready to help Pakistan look after huge numbers of people displaced in military operations against militants in the north-west.

Pakistan says more than 250,000 people have fled fighting in Bajaur, a suspected al-Qaeda sanctuary on the country's border with Afghanistan.

Hundreds of people, many of them civilians, have been killed in fighting that erupted two weeks ago.

The government wants help to provide food and shelter to displaced people.

Relief

"We stand ready to offer humanitarian assistance to the government of Pakistan, if requested, in regards to the situation in the tribal areas," US Embassy spokesman in Islamabad, Lou Fintor, told the Associated Press news agency.

When contacted by BBC News website, Mr Fintor did not comment on whether the US had assessed the requirements of displaced persons, or whether the offer had been officially conveyed to the Pakistani government.

Read the rest:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7572214.stm

COMMENTARY:

The decline and fall of Pakistan continues apace. Should it become a failed state, locked in an extremist embrace, Pakistan's crucial geographical position and nuclear arsenal would pose grave dangers to peace in Central and South Asia, and throughout the Muslim world.

President Pervez Musharraf's imminent passing from the scene brings sighs of relief and may possibly end military rule. However, the immediate future will most surely see the continuation - in fact, accentuation - of distinctly troubled times for Pakistan and, prospectively, the region.
 
Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf responds to people gathered during a farewell ceremony at the presidency in Islamabad on August 18. The United States said Tuesday it would study any application for asylum by Musharraf but pointed out that no such bid had been made so far.(AFP/File/Farooq Naeem)

The country's history has been far from rosy since gaining independence from Britain and separation from India in 1947. Muslims from India swarmed to the bifurcated Pakistan, located to the northwest and east of the Indian Subcontinent, as Hindus fled from the newly created nation, to join their respective coreligionists. At least 1 million souls perished and perhaps 40 million were more made homeless in the massive, panic-driven migration.

Initially a dominion of the British Commonwealth, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was declared in 1956. Within 15 years East Pakistan became Bangladesh, independent from the dominant, domineering and less numerous West Pakistanis, bringing to an end what were widely divergent ethnicities, languages and lifestyles, plus an unworkable geographical divide of more than 1,000 miles.

A major development that inhibited U.S.-Pakistani relations for several years, was the 1998 detonation of the country's first nuclear device, virtually simultaneous with India's initial nuclear explosion. Even more unsettling was the subsequent revelation that Dr. A.Q. Khan, the "father" of Pakistan's nuclear program, had sold vital development technology to numerous countries, including North Korea and Iran.

Since the two entities separated, Bangladesh has had a flawed and corrupt, if nominally democratic history; while former West Pakistan has endured a flawed and corrupt, military-dictated existence for 30 of the last 52 years.

Granted, Mr. Musharraf's reign, launched with a coup that ousted corrupt Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999, was different from its predecessors. Mr. Musharraf's finance minister, later prime minister, Shaukat Aziz (a former top Citibank executive) put the country on a sound and growth-oriented footing that continued until early 2007. In fact, Pakistanis generally admit that, for eight years, they had not known life to be so peaceful or prosperous.

Moreover, Mr. Musharraf was able to advance greatly Pakistan's always poor relations with India, creating a solid working relationship with India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

To maintain power, President Musharraf triangulated among moderate and radical factions in his own military base of support, and the United States. Following Sept. 11, 2001, he negotiated an anti-terror partnership of sorts with Washington, reversing Pakistan's previously having been one of only three nations that recognized Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. But the U.S. alliance came at a high financial price to the United States and resulted in stiff demands by the jihadist bloc in the military.

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug
/20/decline-of-pakistan/

Related:
Musharraf's Legacy: Mixed But Not Good (BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7567592.stm

The New York Times: Insurgents carried out attacks in Sarobi and Camp Salerno.

The attack on the French, in a district near Kabul, added to the sense of siege around the capital and was the deadliest single loss for foreign troops in a ground battle since the United States-led invasion chased the Taliban from power in 2001.

Taken together, the attacks were part of a sharp escalation in fighting as insurgents have seized a window of opportunity to press their campaign this summer — taking advantage of a wavering NATO commitment, an outgoing American administration, a flailing Afghan government and a Pakistani government in deep disarray that has given the militants freer rein across the border.

As a result, this year is on pace to be the deadliest in the Afghan war so far, as the insurgent attacks show rising zeal and sophistication. The insurgents are employing not only a growing number of suicide and roadside bombs, but are also waging increasingly well-organized and complex operations using multiple attackers with different types of weapons, NATO officials say.

NATO and American military officials place blame for much of the increased insurgent activity on the greater freedom of movement the militants have in Pakistan’s tribal areas on the Afghan border. The turmoil in the Pakistani government, with the resignation of President Pervez Musharraf on Monday, has added to the sense of a vacuum of authority there.

But at least as important, the officials say, is the fact that Pakistan’s military has agreed to a series of peace deals with the militants under which it stopped large-scale operations in the tribal areas in February, allowing the insurgents greater freedom to train, recruit and carry out attacks into Afghanistan.

More foreign fighters are entering Afghanistan this summer than in previous years, NATO officials say, an indication that Al Qaeda and allied groups have been able to gather more foreigners in their tribal redoubts.

The push by the insurgents has taken a rising toll. Before the attack on Monday, 173 foreign soldiers had been killed in Afghanistan this year, including 99 Americans. In all of 2007, 232 foreign troops were killed, the highest number since the war began in 2001.

The attack with multiple suicide bombers, which struck Camp Salerno in the eastern province of Khost, wounded three American soldiers and six members of the Afghan Special Forces, Afghan officials said. It was one of the most complex attacks yet in Afghanistan, and included a backup fighting force that tried to breach defenses to the airport at the base.

The assault followed a suicide car bombing at the outer entrance to the same base on Monday morning, which killed 12 Afghan workers lining up to enter the base, and another attempted bombing that was thwarted later.

A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahed, reached by telephone at an unknown location, said the attack was carried out by 15 suicide bombers, each equipped with machine guns and explosives vests, and backed by 30 more militants.

He also claimed that some of the bombers had breached the walls of the base and had killed a number of American soldiers and destroyed equipment and helicopters. This last claim was denied by Gen. Zaher Azimi of the Afghan military.

The insurgents began attacking with rockets and mortars at 11 p.m. Monday, and a group of militants began to move toward the airport side of the base, the Afghan military said. An Afghan commando unit encircled them, killing 13 militants, including 10 who were wearing suicide vests, General Azimi said.

A fierce battle raged through much of the night, until 7 a.m. Tuesday, said Arsala Jamal, the governor of Khost. American helicopter strikes against the militants, who were moving through a cornfield around the base, also struck a house in a village, killing two children and wounding two women and two men, the provincial police chief, Abdul Qayum Baqizoy, said.

The attack on the French also began late Monday and continued into Tuesday, after they were ambushed by an unusually large insurgent force while on a joint reconnaissance mission with the Afghan Army in the district of Sarobi, 30 miles east of Kabul, according to a NATO statement.

The French soldiers, part of an elite paratrooper unit, had only recently taken over from American forces in the area as part of the expanded French deployment in Afghanistan under President Nicolas Sarkozy.

In addition to the 10 French soldiers killed, 21 were wounded, the NATO statement said. It was the deadliest attack on French troops since a 1983 assault in Beirut killed 58 French paratroopers serving in a United Nations force.

The latest casualties bring to 24 the number of French troops killed in Afghanistan since they were first sent there in 2002.

The Taliban have seemingly made it part of their strategy to attack newly arriving forces, as well as those of NATO countries whose commitment to the war has appeared to waver, in an effort to influence public opinion in Europe. NATO countries have been under increasing pressure from the United States to increase their troop commitments to Afghanistan, which many have been hesitant to do.

The Taliban’s surge in attacks also comes at a delicate moment in American political life, as the departing Bush administration will have to hand over control of the war to a new president, whose administration will need time to get up to speed.

But Mr. Sarkozy, who has been a strong supporter of the United States, made it clear that the French would be undeterred.

“In its struggle against terrorism, France has just been hard hit,” Mr. Sarkozy said in a statement. He arrived in Kabul on Wednesday, according to Reuters, a trip he made to reassure French troops that “France is at their side.”

But Mr. Sarkozy said France would not be deterred from its Afghan mission, where 3,000 troops are serving in a NATO force of more than 40,000 soldiers from nearly 40 nations.

“My determination is intact,” he said. “France is committed to pursuing the struggle against terrorism, for democracy and for freedom. This is a just cause; it is an honor for France and for its army to defend it.”

The Sarobi District has been the scene of a growing number of insurgent attacks in recent months, most thought to be instigated by fighters loyal to the renegade mujahedeen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who is allied with the Taliban but not formally part of the movement.

Mr. Hekmatyar, who NATO officials say is based in Pakistan, has increased his militant activity in northeast Afghanistan and around Kabul, while the Taliban, foreign fighters and Al Qaeda have accelerated their attacks in the east, southeast and south.

The increase in insurgent activity northeast of Kabul is part of an attempt by the insurgents to encircle the capital and put pressure on the Afghan government and the foreign forces, some NATO and Afghan officials say.

Insurgent activity has also increased sharply in recent months in Logar and Wardak Provinces, south of the capital, sometimes making the main roads impassable.

The deployment of elite French troops to the area was intended to reinforce the Afghan Army and help keep the insurgent threat to the capital at bay. General Azimi, the Afghan military spokesman, said two companies of Afghan Army soldiers were sent in at dawn to assist the French.

In all, about 27 Taliban were believed to have been killed in the clash in the Sarobi District, around Uzbin, he said. Thirteen insurgents were later found dead on the battlefield, including a Pakistani fighter, he said.

Carlotta Gall reported from Bamiyan, and Sangar Rahimi from Kabul, Afghanistan. Steven Erlanger contributed reporting from Paris.

The attacks, which began on Monday and continued yesterday, are the latest in a series of dramatic raids by the militant group, including a prison break in Kandahar and the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, suggesting a tactical shift from multiple skirmishes to bold offensives.

They have also raised fears that the Taleban are expanding their operations in eastern Afghanistan as part of a new strategy to cut off supply routes to Kabul, the capital.

The attack on the French, of whom 21 were also injured, was one of the deadliest on foreign troops in Afghanistan since the start of the US-led war in 2001, which originally ousted the Taleban from Kabul. It was the heaviest loss of life suffered by the French since 1983 and increased pressure on President Sarkozy to withdraw from Afghanistan.

“In its struggle against terrorism, France has just been hit hard,” Mr Sarkozy said, before boarding an aircraft to Afghanistan to show support for his troops.

The French soldiers were on patrol with the Afghan National Army 30 miles (50km) east of Kabul when they were ambushed by about a hundred insurgents, sparking a gunfight that continued into yesterday, according to military officials. France has 2,600 soldiers in Afghanistan, mostly as part of the Nato International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), and has lost 24 in action or accidents since sending them there in 2002.

Mr Sarkozy dispatched an extra 700 soldiers after a Nato summit in April, when Washington asked allies to contribute more troops. Critics accused him of leading France into a Vietnam-style quagmire to regain favour with the Bush Administration.

The French are mostly deployed in Kabul province and Kapisa province, northeast of the capital, which is dominated by conservative Pashtun tribes.

Kapisa is also considered a stronghold of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former Mujahidin leader who is now fighting Nato forces and is wanted as a terrorist by the US. The French were ambushed in Sarobi district, which is on the main eastern supply route between Kabul and Pakistan and is dominated by Pashtun tribes considered loyal to Mr Hekmatyar. Senior Taleban commanders told The Times this year that they aimed to cut off supply routes to Kabul. Since then the Taleban have closed in on the capital to such an extent that it is now dangerous for troops, aid workers and civilians to travel on the routes to the south, east and west of the city.

Haroun Mir, of the Afghanistan Centre for Research and Policy Studies, said that the Taleban appeared to be using the same tactics as the Mujahidin against Soviet forces.

Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taleban spokesman, declined to explain the aims of the Sarobi attack, but said that the French had lost 30 troops.

“Many civilians were killed when the French called in an airstrike,” he told The Times, without giving further details.

The Taleban also carried out two bold attacks over the past two days on Camp Salerno in the eastern province of Khowst, 20 miles from the Pakistani border, according to Isaf and Mr Mujahid.

Several car bombs on the base perimeter killed ten Afghans and wounded thirteen on Monday. Seven insurgents, including six suicide bomb-ers, were killed trying to attack the base yesterday, Isaf said.

Mr Mujahid said that 30 insurgents took part and had killed 40 US soldiers, but Isaf said that no Americans had died.

Comments

Oi Mac..the problem with the Russian involvement was that the Afghans were against them. This conflict is different. Nobody wants the Taleban in there..they are an obscene group who are hated by their own people. I get so annoyed at this defeatist attitude. Sympathise with the families of the dead!

kirk, Rotherham, UK

Good for the insurgents. They are defending their land.
All talk of democracy and western values... Do people really believe that rubbish.. or do they actually know they are complicit in murder and occupation for cheap transit of pipelines?

Conrad Konig, London, UK

In a word? Oil.

Thank you and good night.

Scott, Los Angeles, USA

God bless the French soldiers and their families. They are fighting for freedom from terrorism and we in the United States appreciate their ultimate sacrifice.

Wm., Madison, Wisconsin , USA

7 years and still no democracy or reelection. Hamid Karzai has been the prime minister or government head since the invasion. Only a few have been ruling and the rest mind their business so they do not caught between talebans and the ruling government. Foreigner's come and go all the time.

Naleen Lal, Northern California,

"Struggle against terrorism"? Pull the other one. What's going on in Afghanistan is an occupation by foreign forces. The locals don't want to be occupied and will win in the end, as they always have. Remember the USSR's humiliating defeat?

David MacGregor, Auckland , New Zealand

The best way to avoid problems, is to avoid them.

Look around, you will get to see people who are perfect, they just dont seem to have any kind of conflicts, or any issues, they get well with any situation, any kind of people, they appear so natural, so flawles, sometimes we call them as happy go lucky, but sadely,the moment we try to act like them, we are in deep deep trouble..Heaven sake dont try to copy someone because it appears attractive or seems so perfect and so right for them. Once you are in a problem, dont crib over you getting caught in there when someone else was deserving it, just accept the fact that you werent smart enough to get out of it.

Last week, an errant rave party convict started screaming at me explaining that the rave party was good, he was innocent, and things like that..Actually, I didnt bother anything, but I realized, that he, along with his physiotherapist sister were facing problems, just like I described above. For them, rave party wasent the problem. The problem was, they found their names in the list of convicted people I had put up almost year ago..I imply said- If all that you are fgetting problamatic over seeing your name, the best solution was not to attend the party where you knew drugs were distributed freely...Maybe thats was their fasination, who cares?? That called me a moral brigadeer, a moral police(Hey, what does it mean?), he also called me a Talibani (rofl)..

Anyway, all I can say is - 'Dont ever get into trouble, and if at all you do, just accept it as fate.'

From the Associated Press:

Toby Keith, perhaps best known to non-country audiences for his post-Sept. 11 song "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue," says he's a Democrat, and was impressed by the senator from Illinois.

Keith has said in the past that the 2002 song — which included lines aimed at the Taliban like "we lit up your world like the Fourth of July" — was more patriotic than pro-war.

Asked while promoting his new movie "Beer For My Horses" about the role of patriotism in the current presidential election, Keith replied: "There's a big part of America that really believes that there is a war on terrorism, and that we need to finish up.

"So I thought it was beautiful the other day when Obama went to Afghanistan and got educated about Afghanistan and Iraq. He came back and said some really nice things.

I saw Toby Keith in concert just this past month and he is obviously very patriotic and loves his country. Many people would be led to believe that he is a hardcore conservative Republican but this is not the case. Keith wants what we all want, a country which is safe from terrorism and free to speak its mind. Isn't that what we all want? Thoughts?

Scoopit!

Adam was interested to find this in depth piece, labelled a web exclusive, at the Vanity Fair site.

Like many Adam is confused/bemused by Pakistan, perhaps more particularly he lacks knowledge which reduces his capability to attempt an understanding of what is happening in that country. Following the resignation of Pervez Musharraf, Adam was keen to understand more.

This article deals only with a limited aspect of Pakistan, but it does perhaps provide some insight into what is happening in that populous country, especially in the border regions. Let us remember that Pakistan is a nuclear armed power. One which borders Afghanistan and India, and a power which has fought wars with India. It is home also to many extreme adherents to Islam. It is home also to many moderate followers of the Islamic faith.

Pakistan's Phantom Border - Gateway to Jihad

It has been more than 60 years since Pakistan was carved out of India by the British as a moderate, Muslim nation, a refuge rather than an Islamic state. For most of those six decades, Pakistan has been a friend of America’s. Since 9/11, it has been a so-called partner in the war on terror.

Up to a point. Newsweek recently called Pakistan arguably the most dangerous country on earth, harboring as it does a lethal combination of mostly foreign-born al-Qaeda terrorists and a native-born Taliban movement that is supported by its Taliban brethren across the border in Afghanistan. (American intelligence calls them “Big T” and “Little T.”) Given that the border is ridiculously porous and difficult to patrol, Pakistan has become a kind of haven for potential terrorists eager to be set loose into the wider world.

Pakistan’s border trouble is concentrated in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, a mountainous, semi-autonomous no-man’s-land that abuts Afghanistan, is home to three million people, and is off limits to foreigners and to most Pakistanis. (This is the rugged area where many believe Osama bin Laden is hiding.) Since 9/11, America has pumped in nearly $6 billion to aid the country’s military in catching terrorists who operate out of the Tribal Areas and other border regions, but so far, at least from Washington’s vantage point, there hasn’t been much return on the investment. A scathing report by the Government Accountability Office, released in April, noted that there is still “no comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national-security goals” in the Tribal Areas.

On the ground in Pakistan’s border regions—where the recently elected Pakistani government has further angered the U.S. by negotiating truces with militants—things look far worse.

The above are the initial paragraphs to the article by Janine di Giovanni.

Janine di Giovanni is one of Europe's most respected and experienced reporters, with vast experience covering war and conflict. Her reporting has been called "established, accomplished brilliance" and she has been cited as "the finest foreign correspondent of our generation".

Born in the US, she began reporting by covering the first Palestinian intifada in the late 1980s and went on to report nearly every violent conflict since then. Her trademark has always been to write about the human cost of war, to attempt to give war a human face, and to work in conflict zones that the world's press has forgotten.

Picture and biographical details from Ms di Giovanni's website, which is worth a visit.

Pervez Musharraf resigned as Pakistan's president on Monday in order to avoid impeachment following a series of crises, starting with the sacking in March 2007 of the country's chief justice.  >>>>>

The audacious strikes suggested a bolder insurgency is now willing to launch frontal assaults on U.S. and NATO troops.  >>>>>

It's about time that we, the Western powers, leave the region.  We had no justifiable reason for occupying them in the first place.

Justin Raimondo was on al Jazeera yesterday, with Christopher Hitchens and Nazar Janabi from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Riz Khan was the host.

The show was about al-Qaeda: after 20 years of existence, what is it’s future? Is it recruiting? Those were the questions we were supposed to address. And yet the idea that Al Jazeera was actually having Hitchens on – a militant atheist, who wants to invade practically every country in the Middle East, and has nothing but disdain for the religious and cultural ethos of the region – answers the question of why al-Qaeda is still around, albeit unintentionally.

Here it is in two parts:

[One can imagine the Al-Jazeera "company memo" to producers. "Two 'realists' for every non-interventionist." –dt]

At issue is the restoration of some 60 judges, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, who were deposed by Musharraf. Sharif wants them restored, Zardari does not (he is afraid he will be prosecuted if independent judges are on the bench). Sharif is threatening to pull out of the governing coalition. All of which is a prelude to a power struggle for the Presidency.

Meanwhile, the Taliban is on the march in the tribal region of northwest Pakistan. From a story by Jane Perlez at the the New York Times:

In an attack claimed by the Taliban within the tribal region on Tuesday, a suicide bomber ripped into the emergency room of the district hospital in Dera Ismail Khan, a town near Waziristan, killing 25 people and injuring 30, said the inspector general of the police in the North-West Frontier Province, Malik Naveed Khan. He said there was some evidence that the suicide bomber was linked to Waziristan, the base of the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud.

And in Afghanistan:

Taliban insurgents mounted their most serious attacks in six years of fighting, one a complex attack with multiple suicide bombers on an American military base on Monday night, and another by some 100 insurgents on French forces in a district east of the capital, killing 10 French soldiers and wounding 21 others, military officials said Tuesday.

Lastly, there are rumors going around that Musharraf will seek asylum in the United States.

What does all this mean? A dangerous and complicated world just got more dangerous and complicated. Let us hope, and work, for a president with the intellectual power to deal with such circumstances.

And, they all pledged to hunt down Musharraf and eliminate him for aligning with the Western countries and killing hundreds in Pakistan in the name of war on terror, particularly during the Lal Masjid attack.

According to reports, Taliban warlords pledged last night to hunt down and murder Pakistan’s ousted President Pervez Musharraf. They were determined to exact brutal revenge for his dedication in supporting the West’s fight against Islamic terrorism.

Source

Taliban are the sons of Qabeel the first murderer of this earth.