US to target 'Afghan drug lords'

SOURCE-BBC
The US has put 50 Afghans suspected to be drug traffickers with Taliban links on a list of people to be "captured or killed", the New York Times reports.Two American generals have told the US Congress that the policy is legal under the military's rules of engagement and international law, the paper says. In a report, yet to be released, it was described as a key strategy to disrupt the flow of drug money to the Taliban. The move is a major shift in America's counter-narcotics drive in Afghanistan.

In interviews with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is due to release the report later this week, two American generals serving in Afghanistan said that major traffickers with proven links to the insurgency have been put on the "joint integrated prioritised target list", the New York Times reported. That means they have been given the same target status as insurgent leaders, and can be captured or killed at any time.

It quoted one of the generals as telling the committee: "We have a list of 367 'kill or capture' targets, including 50 nexus targets who link drugs and the insurgency." The generals were not identified in the Senate report, the paper said.

Poppy destruction

For many years, US policy in Afghanistan had focused on destroying poppy crops. But in March Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy to the region, said that US efforts to eradicate opium poppy crops in Afghanistan have been "wasteful and ineffective".

He said efforts to eradicate poppy cultivation had failed to make an impact on the Taliban insurgents' ability to raise money from the drugs trade. The southern Afghan province of Helmand is the main producer of Afghan opium, which accounts for more than 90% of the global supply.

Sanctions Unlikely to Stop Iran's Nuclear Quest

SOURCE-TIME
Unless Iran responds positively to President Obama's offer of talks on its nuclear program by next month, it could face what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls "crippling sanctions." That was the message from Administration officials touring the Middle East in recent weeks. And it's backed by congressional moves to pass legislation aimed at choking off the gasoline imports on which Iran relies for almost a third of its consumption, by punishing third-country suppliers. It sounds impressive and, for an undiversified economy like Iran's, potentially calamitous. But a number of Iran analysts are skeptical that new sanctions will break the stalemate.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government has promised to present a new package of proposals on the nuclear issue to Western negotiators in the coming weeks. But that package is unlikely to reflect any shift in Tehran's rejection of the U.S. demand that it forgo the right to enrich uranium as part of its nuclear-energy program. "If the U.S. position remains unchanged," says Farideh Farhi, an Iran expert at the University of Hawaii, "Iran may well come to the table, but only in order to demonstrate to its own people that its regime has been recognized, not to seriously engage with U.S. proposals or give ground."



Iran's postelection turmoil has left Ahmadinejad politically weakened, and his focus in the coming weeks will be on assembling a government and stabilizing a divided regime, rather than on seeking a compromise with the Western powers he blames for the election debacle. "Iranians have never responded well to deadlines and red lines," says Farhi, "and there's no reason to believe they will do so now."

In a TV interview two weeks ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Iran, "You have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil nuclear power. You do not have a right to obtain a nuclear weapon. You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control." But both the Iranian government and its opposition believe that Iran is due the same rights as any other signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which includes the right to enrich uranium to the levels necessary for reactor fuel, under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). "There is no disagreement among political leaders in Iran on proclaiming Iran's right to enrich uranium," says Farhi. Iran's previous government had shown flexibility on the pace of an enrichment program, but not on the principle. Explains Farhi: "It is simply not feasible for any political leader in Iran to accept an arrangement that denies Iran the rights enjoyed by others, that treats Iran as a special case."


Iran's current enrichment efforts are monitored by IAEA inspectors and certified as within permissible limits. The U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, recently wrote to Congress that "it is unlikely that Iran will have the technical capability to produce [weapons-grade uranium] before 2013". Blair added that U.S. intelligence believes Iran has not yet decided whether to produce weapons-grade materiel, and would be unlikely to do so while its nuclear effort remains under international scrutiny. But with hawks painting Iran's nuclear program as a grave and gathering danger and the Israelis threatening to take preemptive military action, the Obama Administration is under pressure to produce results from its efforts to engage Iran.

Effective sanctions, say Administration officials, require participation by Iran's key trading partners. That's a problem, since neither Russia nor China is convinced that there's an imminent danger of Iran producing nuclear weapons. Coalition of the willing–style sanctions of the sort envisaged by the congressional legislation may have limited impact because they're unlikely to be implemented by neighbors such as Turkey and Iraq. And the use of naval power to enforce a blockade could easily provoke a war that the U.S. military is eager to avoid.

But even if "crippling sanctions" were somehow imposed, Tehran still might not back down. "If it were possible to choke off the gasoline supply into Iran, the likelihood is that Iran's existing refinery capacity would be used first and foremost to ensure that the needs of the security forces and the regime are taken care of," says Dr. Gary Sick, a Columbia University professor and former National Security Council Iran specialist. "Those who are going to suffer most will be the ordinary Iranians with whom we sympathize. You can argue that this might spur them to revolt, but more likely is that if their fuel rations are suddenly cut in half, ordinary Iranians will be very upset with the West."

"The economic well-being of the Iranian people has never been a first-tier priority for the Iranian regime," says Carnegie Endowment Iran analyst Karim Sadjadpour. "The last three decades have shown us that this regime is willing to endure tremendous hardship rather than compromise for reasons of economic or political expediency."

Farhi points out that Iran's regime began making preparations for U.S. petroleum sanctions as early as 2007, diversifying its sources of supply, moving to upgrade its refineries and implementing a comprehensive rationing system, all of which can help the regime manage the impact of a fall in gasoline imports.

So what can the West possibly do? A number of Iran watchers recommend that in the postelection turmoil the Obama Administration should simply reset its clock. "We should continue to allow the rifts between political élites, and the rift between the people and regime, to widen on their own," suggests Sadjadpour. "As Napoleon once said, 'If your enemy is destroying himself, don't interfere.' The truth is, we don't know how sanctions on refined petroleum could play out, and our bottom line should be to do no harm to the prospects for political change in Iran."

Easy enough for policy analysts to say, but not for a President. "A lot of people are going to be putting immense pressure on President Obama to set a deadline and take firm action," says Sick. The Administration may have no good options beyond continuing to explore diplomacy, he warns, but "it's extraordinarily difficult to sell that to a chorus of people shouting 'Do something!'"

Chavez Urges Military to Be Prepared for Conflict

SOURCE-TIME
Chavez Urges Military to Be Prepared for Conflict
By AP / CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER Monday, Aug. 10, ..
(CARACAS) — President Hugo Chavez told his military to be prepared for a possible confrontation with Colombia, warning that Bogota's plans to increase the U.S. military presence at its bases poses a threat to Venezuela.

"The threat against us is growing," Chavez said Sunday. "I call on the people and the armed forces, let's go, ready for combat!"

The former paratroop commander said Colombian soldiers were recently spotted crossing the porous 1,400-mile (2,300-kilometer) border that separates the two countries and suggested that Colombia may have been trying to provoke Venezuela's military.

"They crossed the Orinoco River in a boat and entered Venezuelan territory," Chavez said. "When our troops arrived, they'd already left."


In Bogota, Colombia's foreign ministry issued a news release denying reports that soldiers crossed into Venezuela, after a revision of troop movements by the Colombian military.

Chavez said Venezuela's foreign ministry would file a formal complaint and warned Colombia that "Venezuela's military will respond if there's an attack against Venezuela."

Chavez said he would attend this week's summit of the Union of South American Nations in Quito, Ecuador, to urge his Latin American allies to pressure Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to reconsider plans to increase the U.S. military presence.

"We cannot ignore this threat," Chavez said during his weekly radio and television program, "Hello President."

Chavez also halted shipments of subsidized fuel to Colombia, saying Venezuela should not be sending cheap gasoline to an antagonistic neighbor.

"Let them buy it at the real price. How are we going to favor Uribe's government in this manner?" he said.

Colombian officials say Venezuela has no reason to be concerned, and that the U.S. forces would help fight drug trafficking. The proposed 10-year agreement, they claim, would not push the number of American troops and civilian military contractors beyond 1,400 — the maximum currently permitted by U.S. law.

Tensions between the neighboring South American nations also have been heightened over Colombia's disclosure that three Swedish-made anti-tank weapons found at a rebel camp last year had been purchased by Venezuela's military.

Chavez has accused Colombia of acting irresponsibly in its accusation that the anti-tank rocket launchers sold to Venezuela in 1988 were obtained by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. Sweden confirmed the weapons were originally sold to Venezuela's military.

Chavez denies aiding the FARC. He claims the United States is using Colombia as part of a broader plan to portray him as a supporter of terrorist groups to provide justification for U.S. military intervention in Venezuela.

Chavez said Sunday that diplomatic relations with Uribe's government "remain frozen" even though he ordered Venezuela's ambassador to return to Colombia more than a week after he was recalled.

INTERVIEW SHOWS SPLIT IN PAKISTANI TALIBAN-TALIBAN INTERVIEW

SOURCE-CNN
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The car in front of me is carrying a man at the heart of the Taliban uprising in Pakistan
This has been a carefully orchestrated rendezvous: Secrecy is everything.We arranged for our cars to pass at a designated spot at a turnoff on the outskirts of Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad.We slow down, and the other car positions in front of us.We are led down a narrow alleyway and into a non-descript house for a face-to-face interview.This has all been patiently organized by our intermediary, a man known to the militant and trusted by us.But there are always nagging concerns. Some in our car are a little nervous, and that is perfectly understandable, but I am comfortable we have taken every safeguard.The man I finally meet is tall, probably in his mid-to-late 30’s with a heavy black beard. He is wearing a white shawal kameez (traditional Pakistani dress), and he ties a white turban around his head.He is wanted by Pakistani police for terrorism.This is a man who has fought on the front lines both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He was a leader of the Red Mosque in Islamabad, the scene of a siege by Pakistan military in 2007 which left more than 100 people dead.We can’t film his face, and we can’t identify him. He tells us we can refer to him only as “Mullah Wajid.”As we begin the interview, at first he won’t meet my eye. When we shake hands he looks slightly away.My cameraman can only film him from behind, and he won’t allow us even to film his hands.Two men stand behind our camera watching every shot. When the interview is over they command us to stop filming immediately.But the interview itself is a surprise. Interviews with Taliban are rare. To have the chance to put questions directly to a man so heavily involved in the insurgency shines a light into a world often closed from us.I expect the usual anti-America diatribe, and there is. He says the U.S and coalition forces must leave Afghanistan, and he wants a return to Taliban rule there.He also criticizes some in Pakistan for being pro-U.S and implementing U.S. foreign policy.

What I wasn’t expecting was his denunciation of other Taliban.He says some in Pakistan have gone too far and are inflicting suffering on ordinary civilians. He says the supreme Taliban leader, Mohammed_Omar" rel=wikipedia>Mullah Omar, has rejected these militants and says they are not “real Taliban.”This is a twist, and it comes after the release of a new Taliban code of conduct. The code says civilian suffering and casualties are to be avoided, urging Taliban to go after “high value” targets like coalition troops and government officials.The Taliban is bogged down in heavy fighting both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Like any insurgency, if it loses the people, it loses the war.

And now the U.S. and others are seeking out what they call “good Taliban:” moderate militants they can negotiate with.

The Taliban leadership wants to cleanse itself of the rogue elements. It wants to present a disciplined, cohesive force that can’t easily be divided and conquered.

“Mullah Wajid” may be rejecting some hard-liners, but he hasn’t gone soft. He wants nothing less than the U.S. out of all Muslim land.

I ask him if he is prepared to kill and die for his beliefs.“Yes. Inshallah (God willing).”In that he is not so different from other Taliban after all.

Posted by: CNN Correspondent, Stan Grant

ISRAEL AND US TRYING TO STOP RUSSIA FROM SELLIN S300 SAM TO IRAN

SOURCE ALJAZERA
As mutual fear, mistrust and polarisation increases between Iran and Israel, an arms race between the two sworn enemies is gathering momentum.

Central to this is the Russian-made S-300 missile system.

It is one of the most advanced multi-target anti-aircraft missile systems in the world today and air power experts say it represents a formidable defence against conventional aircraft.

In 2005, Iran sought to buy five batteries of the S-300 from Russia in a deal believed to be worth around $800 million.

The S-300 would significantly boost Iran's defence capability at a time when it is concerned about the US military's presence in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan and Israeli threats to target its nuclear facilities.

But the S-300 deal has yet to go through and Israel has been engaging in some diplomatic wrangling in an attempt to ensure that it does not.

In early June 2009, Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's Russian-speaking foreign minister, visited Moscow.

He was on a mission to convince Russia to put an end to its arms deals with Iran and Syria and, in particular, to halt the sale and delivery of Russia's S-300 missile system to Iran.

Lieberman had a bargaining chip: If Russia went ahead with the sale to Iran, Israel might continue to provide hi-tec weapons to neighbouring Georgia, which engaged Russia in a war last year.

Filmmaker Abdallah el-Binni investigates this high-stakes game of brinkmanship as it threatens to spread to other countries in the region.BELOW IS THE FOUR PART REPORT .

India's artillery upgrade remains in limbo

SOURCE-JANES.COM

The Indian Army's long-overdue plans to upgrade around 390 Bofors FH-77B 155 mm 39-calibre howitzers to 155 mm 45-calibre, stand jeopardised due primarily to the 'over-ambitious' qualitative requirements (QRs) drawn up by the artillery directorate for the retrofit.

The army first acquired the howitzers in 1987 and currently has a total of 410 in its inventory. The upgrade is intended to enhance the range of the guns, and includes replacing the gun barrel, breech block, strengthening the undercarriage and fitting the howitzers with a state-of-the-art sighting system, allowing them to fire heavier ordnance.

"Some of the upgrade QRs are unrealistic for these 25-year-old guns, demanding even more capability than newer howitzers," said an armament industry source associated with the project.

The army, he declared, was unwilling to revise or modify the request for proposals (RfP), even though many in the artillery directorate conceded that the QRs were unrealistic because only the defence minister had the authority to effect a change in the tender and they were circumspect about approaching him.

An earlier, similar RfP issued by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in 2006 lapsed unfulfilled. It required competing vendors such as BAE Systems (which now owns Bofors AB), the FH 77B's original equipment manufacturer (OEM), private defence contractor Tata of Mumbai and the state-owned Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) to develop an upgraded prototype howitzer within a year

US 'biggest' threat say Pakistanis

SOURCE - ALJAZERA
A survey commissioned by Al Jazeera in Pakistan has revealed a widespread disenchantment with the United States for interfering with what most people consider internal Pakistani affairs.

The polling was conducted by Gallup Pakistan - a separate organisation affiliated with the US-based Gallup Inc - and more than 2,600 people took part.

Interviews were conducted across the political spectrum in all four of the country's provinces, and represented men and women of every economic and ethnic background.

When respondents were asked what they consider to be the biggest threat to the nation of Pakistan, 11 per cent of the population identified the Taliban fighters, who have been blamed for scores of deadly bomb attacks across the country in recent years.

Another 18 per cent said that they believe that the greatest threat came from neighbouring India, which has fought three wars with Pakistan since partition in 1947.

But an overwhelming number, 59 per cent of respondents, said the greatest threat to Pakistan right now is, in fact, the US, a donor of considerable amounts of military and development aid.

Tackling the Taliban

The resentment was made clearer when residents were asked about the Pakistan's military efforts to tackle the Taliban.

Keeping with recent trends a growing number of people, now 41 per cent, supported the campaign.

About 24 per cent of people remained opposed, while another 22 per cent of Pakistanis remained neutral on the question.

A recent offensive against Taliban fighters in the Swat, Lower Dir and Buner districts of North West Frontier Province killed at least 1,400 fighters, according to the military, but also devastated the area and forced two million to leave their homes.

The military has declared the operation a success, however, some analysts have suggested that many Taliban fighters simply slipped away to other areas, surviving to fight another day.

When people were asked if they would support government-sanctioned dialogue with Taliban fighters if it were a viable option the numbers change significantly.

Although the same 41 per cent said they would still support the military offensive, the number of those supporting dialogue leaps up to 43 per cent.

So clearly, Pakistanis are, right now, fairly evenly split on how to deal with the Taliban threat.

Drone anger

However, when asked if they support or oppose the US military's drone attacks against what Washington claims are Taliban and al-Qaeda targets, only nine per cent of respondents reacted favourably.

A massive 67 per cent say they oppose US military operations on Pakistani soil.



Forty-one per cent of Pakistanis say they support the offensive against the Taliban


"This is a fact that the hatred against the US is growing very quickly, mainly because of these drone attacks," Makhdoom Babar, the editor-in-chief of Pakistan's The Daily Mail newspaper, said.

"Maybe the intelligence channels, the military channels consider it productive, but for the general public it is controversial ... the drone attacks are causing collateral damage," he told Al Jazeera.

Nearly 500 people, mostly suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters, are believed to have been killed in about 50 US drone attacks since August last year, according to intelligence agents, local government officials and witnesses.

Washington refuses to confirm the raids, but the US military in neighbouring Afghanistan and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are the only forces operating in the area that are known to have the technology.

The government in Islamabad formally opposes the attacks saying that they violate Pakistani sovereignty and cause civilian casualties which turn public opinion against efforts to battle the Taliban.

The consensus of opinion in opposition to US military involvement in Pakistan is notable given the fact that on a raft of internal issues there is a clear level of disagreement, something which would be expected in a country of this size.

Pakistani leadership

When asked for their opinions on Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, 42 per cent of respondents said they believed he was doing a bad job. Around 11 per cent approved of his leadership, and another 34 per cent had no strong opinion either way.

That pattern was reflected in a question about Zardari's Pakistan People's Party (PPP).

Respondents were asked if they thought the PPP was good or bad for the country.

About 38 per cent said the PPP was bad for the country, 20 per cent believed it was good for the country and another 30 per cent said they had no strong opinion.

Respondents were even more fractured when asked for their views on how the country should be led.

By far, the largest percentage would opt for Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister and leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) party, as leader. At least 38 per cent backed him to run Pakistan.

Last month, the Pakistani supreme court quashed Sharif's conviction on charges of hijacking, opening the way for him to run for political office again.

Zardari 'unpopular'

Zardari, the widower of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, received only nine per cent support, while Reza Gilani, Pakistan's prime minister, had the backing of 13 per cent.



The survey suggests Sharif is Pakistan's most popular politician by some distance [AFP]
But from there, opinions vary greatly. Eight per cent of the population would support a military government, 11 per cent back a political coalition of the PPP and the PML-N party.

Another six per cent throw their support behind religious parties and the remaining 15 per cent would either back smaller groups or simply do not have an opinion.

Babar told Al Jazeera that Zardari's unpopularity was understandable given the challenges that the country had faced since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US.

"Any president in Pakistan would be having the same popularity that President Zardari is having, because under this situation the president of Pakistan has to take a lot of unpopular decisions," he said.

"He is in no position to not take unpopular decisions that are actually in the wider interests of the country, but for common people these are very unpopular decisions."

FOR COMPLETE POLL RESULTS http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/08/2009888238994769.html