Band-e-Amir, Bamiyan Afghanistan. Photo by Ali Asghar

UNWTO should prefer Bamyan as Host to 2010 World Tourism Day under the theme of “Peace and Prosperity through Tourism”

World Tourism Day is celebrated each year on 27 September. The United Nations World Tourism Organization marked the day in 1970, aimed at generating awareness about tourism and its importance to economy and culture of communities. Every year the day is celebrated by a host country.

There has been no effort at all, by the Government of Afghanistan to promote tourism in the country. Beside the Government inefficiency, insurgency has been another reason. Afghanistan is always on western headlines for insurgency, bomb blasts and suicide attacks but the other side of Afghanistan is less shown to the world.There are many tourist sites in safe parts of Afghanistan. The western media generally reports “Insurgency in Afghanistan” for incidents in South or Southeast. This negative and exaggerating reporting makes the western tourists think of entire Afghanistan as insurgency-hit. Thus many international tourists avoid coming to Afghanistan.

Before the civil war Bamyan was one of the most famous tourist sites in Afghanistan. Tourism was the only source of income for this isolated, yet safest province. Famous as roof of the world, heart of Asia and crossroad of the Western and Eastern ancient civilizations, the beautiful valley lies amidst the mountainous highlands of Hindu Kush and Pamir. Center of the ancient Kushan Empire. Bamyan centuries ago used to be an intersection where Eastern and Western civilizations met and co-existed. Thus the land was the center of trade between East and West. Bamyan has rich history of civilizations and tragic memories of brutality. Beauty of this valley had not only impressed Marco Polo, but also Alexander the Great. Bamyan is at the altitude of 9200 (feet), making it roof of the world. Its geographical location highlights the mountainous valley as heart of Asia.

During the brutal Taliban era, Bamyan was a symbol of resistance and sacrifice. It suffered the most. But today it’s the safest province of Afghanistan. There has ot been a single incident of insecurity in the province during the last eight years. The Kiwi forces of Provincial Reconstruction Team enjoy wrestling with local Hazaras.

Bamyan gained international attention in 2001 when Taliban destroyed the giant Buddhas that stood there since centuries. The brutal forces of evil deemed the Buddhas as non-Islamic. They not only committed the worst genocidal war crimes in the history of human beings, but also destroyed the centuries old Buddhas which was the only source of income for the downtrodden economy of the isolated mountainous province. According to some reports, one of the reasons behind the destruction of Bamyan Buddhas was to destroy the economic resources of the province. After the ouster of Taliban and during the last seven years of international efforts in Afghanistan, Bamyan has been neglected both by the Government and the international community.

There is only two kilometers of paved road in the entire province. Billions of dollars has been poured in Afghanistan for development. All these have been going to insurgency-hit areas. The roads from Kabul to Bamyan are risky due to insecurity on the way from Maidan Province, and the long uncomfortable way from Shiber Pass. Many tourists and travelers prefer traveling by air. There are no proper flights because Bamyan is yet deprived of a proper Airport. Some private flights of UN and PACTEC operate for INGOs, diplomats and journalists. Thanks to Laura Bush, whose visit of Bamyan last year in June blessed the province with 2 kilometer road from Governor House to the Runway. Many international tourists avoid traveling to Bamyan because of the deplorable way and unavailability of an Airport.

Governor Sarabi and UN Envoy Kai Eide boating in Band-e-Amir. Photo by A. Daiyar

After Buddhas, Band-e-Amir, the world famous group of lakes, is the second attractive site for international tourists. Govt. declared Band-e-Amir as the First National Park of Afghanistan. How can tourists visit the world-famous group of lakes with no airport in Bamyan? USAID is working on project of developing Band-e-Amir, the National Park. But a paved road from the center of the province to the lakes is needed. The road from Kabul to Bamyan should also be built to improve local tourists coming to Bamyan.

Bamyan Eco-Tourism, a project being run under the Agha Khan Development Network, is working for improving the tourism industry of Bamyan. Their office right in front of the giant Buddha statues are not only training professional tour guides, but also have been organizing trainings for local hoteliers. The 1.2 million aid by the Government of New Zealand is for the three-year project. Bamyan Eco-Tourism is doing all the best to revitalize the dead industry. It has organized many international events, including the recent Silk Road Festival held at Band-e-Amir.

The international community should focus to the peaceful areas of Afghanistan too. All the development aid has been going to insurgency-hit areas due to which places like Bamyan have remained neglected. If tourism industry in Bamyan is improved, it will not only be a good income for the province, but the entire economy of the country. It will create hundreds of jobs for local population.

To highlight this issue, the UN Envoy for Afghansitan Mr. Kai Eidie recently visited Bamyan province to bring the attention of international community to this peaceful, but neglected province.

Bamyan is the most peaceful province of Afghanistan, thus international tourists should flock without any security fear. The United Nations World Tourism Organization is requested to prefer Afghanistan’s Bamyan province as the 2010 host of the World Tourism Day under the theme of “Peace and Prosperity through Tourism”.

Also Posted on Atlantic-community.org

Comparisons between the Afghanistan conflict and the Vietnam war are completely unfounded as they have little in common. Obama has no choice but to agree to General McChrystal’s request of sending more troops into Afghanistan.

The US entered Afghanistan under the guise of “Operation Enduring Freedom” on October 8, 2001 following 9/11. This means it is more than 8 years since the war began. As a friend of mine noted, “it took the US less time to defeat Japan and Germany in World War II than it has so far taken to subdue the Taliban in Afghanistan.” As we pass the eighth anniversary of the war, there seems to be clear differences of opinion within the US government over the strategy to use whilst responding to the increasingly sophisticated Taliban insurgency. The initial aims of the war were to remove the Taliban from power and destroy their organization, which both supported and facilitated Al-Qaeda’s attacks on New York and the Pentagon. But the reality is that this is taking longer than the entire length of World War II.

Although the war started with overwhelming public support in the US, favor has slowly ebbed away. With surging casualties some American pundits and media sources have started calling the campaign in Afghanistan ‘Obama’s Vietnam,’ US military commanders on the ground are demanding more troops, as in the late 60’s and early 70’s in Vietnam, whilst public approval is waning. However, there is one huge difference: Afghanistan is not Vietnam. This time the US military leadership and strategy is better and the cause is very different. Vietnam was more of an ideological war caught up in the context of the Cold War but Afghanistan is a war of necessity against those who have terrorized innocent people. By calling it ‘Obama’s Vietnam,’ Western pundits fail to recognize the successes of the last eight years. Although Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omer have not yet been arrested, the Al-Qaeda network has been dismantled fairly effectively with many of its senior members killed. Despite Al-Qaeda’s stated desire to launch a major attack, it has not not struck against the West in four years.

Critics are also increasingly drawing similarities between the current situation and the action the USSR took in Afghanistan during the 80’s. For those reading the headlines thousands of miles away it seems terrible. However, for those Afghan’s with dreadful memories of three decades of war – the bloody Soviet occupation followed by the brutal era of the Taliban – it is far better now. Over 1 million Afghans were killed by the Soviet forces whilst around 5 million fled the country. Afghans became the largest refugee diaspora in the world during the 1980s with over 1.2 million people, including children and women, displaced. Initially, the entire population resisted the invasion, but today the resistance is led by a small ethnic minorities who lack mass support. These small groups fight against a UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), composed of troops from 42 different countries including 28 NATO members. Also it must be considered that during the Soviet invasion the entire infrastructure was destroyed but over the last 8 years Afghanistan has had the kind of development in its economy, infrastructure and governance that it has lacked over the last two centuries. The country has never experienced a peaceful transition of power but today we have a democratic government selected by popular vote and an elected parliament. We also have an Afghan army of 90,000 troops and a similar number of police. Right after the Soviet withdrawal these were totally destroyed.

Today, the war in Afghanistan is at a historic juncture. At this crucial stage President Obama is set to take a risky decision. He has to decide between sending more troops in line with General McChrystal’s demand or to reduce forces in accordance with an exit strategy. With the controversial election situation in Kabul, the White House is now re-evaluating its strategy and Obama is stuck with a dilemma. As Henry Kissinger says “if he refuses the recommendation and General McChrystal’s argument that his forces are inadequate for the mission, Obama will be blamed for the dramatic consequences. If he accepts the recommendation, his opponents may come to describe it, at least in part, as Obama’s war.”

President Obama has no other policy option than to acquiesce to Gen. McChrystal’s request. With a range of voices all calling for different priorities, such as a focused targeting of Al-Qaeda leadership or negotiating with the Taliban, many forget that a sophisticated comeback will only be possible with Al-Qaeda funding. Tahir Yaldosh and the many other leaders killed in the tribal areas of Pakistan were the ones who made the Taliban revival possible through a considerable increase in the insurgency. Negotiating with the Taliban will never be a viable policy option. Any separation between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is only temporary and the West must quickly realize that Afghanistan could easily become the home for international terrorists once again.

The bill of financial assistance for Pakistan presented in the US congress by Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar has fueled a heated debate in Pakistani media, parliament and political parties. Newspaper columnists, television anchor persons and opposition political leaders are blasting the bill for, what they call it “the controversial conditions that embarrasses Pakistan’s sovereignty and security”.

Pakistan Army in its public statement after a Corps Commanders meeting announced strong concerns over the bill and “its impacts on the national security of Pakistan”. The military statement said “army has strong concerns over this bill and the parliament representing the people of Pakistan can decide on this issue and help the Government to prepare a national reaction to the bill”. The Chief of Pakistan Army, General Ashfaq Kiyani in a meeting with General Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan has expressed his concerns over the conditions of the bill.

On the other hand, the Government of Pakistan People’s Party—that has a history of rift with military rulers—under President Asif Zardari has been defending the bill in media and parliament. The Information Minister after the military reaction said “all those opposing the bill should read it”.

The military statement on the US aid legalization was public rather than sending message to the Government through a proper channel. It shows that the army high commands are intensely unhappy with the bill.

The conditions of Kerry-Lugar Bill—The Enhancement Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009—that has raised the temperature of anti-Americanism in Pakistani media and opposition political circles are;

There is no condition on the development aid to Pakistan through this bill, but for military the Bill asks the Secretary of State to certify to the Congress that;

Pakistan is continuing its cooperation with the US and its efforts to dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials, such as proving relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks.

Pakistan is trying to eliminate the extremists and control on the elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agencies, which are suspected of rendering support to Al Qaeda, the Taliban and such groups as the Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jaish-i-Mohammed.

Pakistan is destroying the terrorists’ centers in its cities of Quetta and Muridke near Lahore which are serving as bases for terrorist operations.

Pakistan army is not trying to interfere in the political and judicial process of the country.

Other than these, the bill also asks Secretary of State to report about how much control is exercised by the government over all military matters, including its budget, chain of command, promotion process and involvement in civilian affairs.

Abovementioned are the conditions most criticized by media and opposition political circles in Pakistan. There are speculations about the countdown of President Zardari’s government following the strong opposition of army to the Kerry-Lugar bill. In the 60 years of Pakistan’s history, in which military has ruled for more than 25 years, whenever there has been any serious rift between the military decision makers and civilian government, the latter’s departure countdown has been started from that day. A similar fear is being expressed for the near future of President Zardari’s government.

The opposition from political parties is more political than rational. But the military opposition for the Kerry-Lugar bill is mostly due to the assessment and control on army promotion, its budget and as the bill says, “Elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agencies, which are suspected of rendering support to Al Qaeda, the Taliban and such groups as the Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jaish-i-Mohammed.” They consider it against the national security and sovereignty of Pakistan. It’s obvious that military which has ruled Pakistan more than about half its history would react to such words like “involvement in civilian affairs, or promotion and budget”.

Opposition political parties including Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-N, the right wing extreme religious parties like Jamat e Islami and Tehrik e Insaaf—the non-beard extremists—are all aimed at midterm elections. Kerry-Lugar bill is the most suitable weapon for them against the government of President Zardari. The two other major political parties of Pakistan, allied with PPP in coalition are Mutahida Qawmi Movement and Awami National Party, who have kept mum on Kerry-Lugar so far. According to the joint Accord of Democracy between PPP and PML-N, both the parties had promised the people of Pakistan to avoid military involvement in the political affairs of the country, but now that the army in a public statement is asking the Government about army’s concerns, the political parties have kept mum.  Mr. Nawaz Sharif, chief of PML-N is out of the country, while his brother, the Governor of Punjab province  Shehbaz Sharif, and PML-N leader in Parliament Nisar Ali Khan have met army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani secretly. Such meetings make the Zardari-countdown more speculated

After these concerns, an “explanotry” document has been attached to the Bill, now signed by President Obama. Apparently, the issue seems to be settled down. But the rift between military decision makers and civilian government is not ended. It takes Pakistan into a deeper political chaos, when security is already worst across the country.

The bill of financial assistance for Pakistan presented in the US congress by Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar has fueled a heated debate in Pakistani media, parliament and political parties. Newspaper columnists, television anchor persons and opposition political leaders are blasting the bill for, what they call it “the controversial conditions that embarrasses Pakistan’s sovereignty and security”.

Pakistan Army in its public statement last week after a Corps Commanders meeting announced strong concerns over the bill and “its impacts on the national security of Pakistan”. The military statement said “army has strong concerns over this bill and the parliament representing the people of Pakistan can decide on this issue and help the Government to prepare a national reaction to the bill”. According to source, the Chief of Pakistan Army, General Ashfaq Kiyani in a meeting with General Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan has expressed his concerns over the conditions of the bill.

On the other hand, the Government of Pakistan People’s Party—that has a history of rift with military rulers—under President Asif Zardari has been defending the bill in media and parliament. The Information Minister after the military reaction said “all those opposing the bill should read it”.

The military statement on the US aid legalization was public rather than sending message to the Government through a proper channel. It shows that the army high command are intensely unhappy with the bill and in an already-tempered public atmosphere such a public statement can be seen rarely in the past history of military-civilian government clash.

The conditions of Kerry-Lugar Bill—The Enhancement Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009—that has raised the temperature of anti-Americanism in Pakistani media and opposition political circles are;

There is no condition on the development aid to Pakistan through this bill, but for military the Bill asks the Secretary of State to certify to the Congress that;

Pakistan is continuing its cooperation with the US and its efforts to dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials, such as proving relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks.

Pakistan is trying to eliminate the extremists and control on the elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agencies, which are suspected of rendering support to Al Qaeda, the Taliban and such groups as the Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jaish-i-Mohammed.

Pakistan is destroying the terrorists’ centers in its cities of Quetta and Muridke near Lahore which are serving as bases for terrorist operations.

Pakistan army is not trying to interfere in the political and judicial process of the country.

Other than this, the bill also asks Secretary of State to report about how much control is exercised by the government over all military matters, including its budget, chain of command, promotion process and involvement in civilian affairs.

Abovementioned are the conditions most criticized by media and opposition political circles in Pakistan. There are speculations about the countdown of President Zardari’s government following the strong opposition of army high command to the Kerry-Lugar bill. The Pakistani Ambassador to Washington, Hussain Haqqani, who was a fierce supporter of the bill, is already said to be soon replaced with Ambassador Maliha Lodhi. In the 60 years of Pakistan’s history, in which military has ruled for more than 25 years, whenever there has been any serious rift between the military decision makers and civilian government, the latter’s departure countdown has been started from that day. A similar fear is being expressed for the near future of President Zardari’s government.

The opposition from political parties is more political than rational. But the military opposition for the Kerry-Lugar bill is mostly due to the assessment and control on army promotion, its budget and as the bill says, “Elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agencies, which are suspected of rendering support to Al Qaeda, the Taliban and such groups as the Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jaish-i-Mohammed.” They consider it against the national security and sovereignty of Pakistan. It’s obvious that military which has ruled Pakistan more about half its history would react to such words of invovlment in civilian affairs, or promotion and budget. But the Pakistani Ambassador to Washington, who might be replaced very soon, has said that why there should be opposition to terms like action against Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, when Pakistan is against such groups?

Opposition political parties including Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-N, the right wing extreme religious parties like Jamat e Islami and Tehrik e Insaaf—the non-beard extremists—are all aimed at midterm elections. Kerry-Lugar bill is the most suitable weapon for them against the government of President Zardari. The two other major political parties of Pakistan, allied with PPP in coalition are Mutahida Qawmi Movement and Awami National Party have kept mum on Kerry-Lugar so far. According to the joint Accord of Democracy between PPP and PML-N, both the parties had promised the people of Pakistan to avoid military involvement in the political affairs of the country, but now that the army in a public statement is asking the Government about army’s concerns, the political parties have kept mum.  Mr. Nawaz Sharif, chief of PML-N is out of the country, while his brother, the Governor of Punjab province  Shehbaz Sharif, and PML-N leader in Parliament Nisar Ali Khan have called on with army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani. Such meetings make the Zardari-countdown clearer.

In such a situation the Government of President Zardari will have options to whether reject the US aid bill through parliament, or to ask the US for amendments, which seems very difficult after it has been already passed from both the houses in the States. If it approves the bill through parliament, which is possible due to the majority that the coalition parties have, the countdown of President Zardari would get faster.

In case the bill is rejected and there is no amendment, the US-Pak relationship, vital for the war on terror in Afghanistan, would get the efforts to a less affective sway. It will badly affect the very own efforts of Pakistan army in tribal areas against Pakistani Taliban, who are now capable of attacking the very heart of military—Generals Headquarters. The military operation in South Waziristan has been started right a day after the audacious Taliban attack on the Headquarters of Pak Army.  It’s obvious that Pakistan cannot bear the heavy expenses of the war against extremists and terrorists.

Such a huge multibillion dollar aid legislation has been passed unanimously from the US congress, was not expected to spark such controversies. The bill would give Pakistan $1.5 billion annually over the next five years for economic and social development programs. It will triple the US civilian aid for Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan and US administration needs to bring about a midway on this controversial bill and resolve the issue under a common agreement. It’s in the best interest of Pakistan and the US war on terror.

According to the United Nations office on Drugs and Crime, Afghanistan produced 93% of world poppy cultivation last year. The insurgency-hit country is the biggest world producer of opium. Most poppy crops are cultivated in five southern militancy-hit provinces where Taliban have been challenging the writ of the Afghan Government making a strong comeback after they were ousted by the US-led forces. Over 50% of the total production is just cultivated in Helmand province, the heartland of Taliban militancy stronghold where a major military offensive—Operation Khanjar, the largest since the ouster of Taliban in 2001—with 4000 US Marines and over 600 Afghan troops, is underway. If Taliban are completely cleared from Helmand province, half of Afghanistan’s opium production can be controlled. Besides the recent deployment of 4000 US Marines for the military operation, there has been 8000 British troops stationed in Helmand.  Despite this, there are more than 50 drug processing labs in this province. There was an increased record of 160% in poppy production in Helmand last year. Before the massive military operation was launched in Helmand, Taliban insurgents controlled five of total 14 districts of this province during the last three years.

Infiltration of militants from the other side of border fills the safe havens of insurgents in Helmand that borders Pakistan. Taliban spread across the country from there. Most of their recruitment, training and planning is carried out in this province. Helmand is strategic for the terrorists not only from the economical point of view, but also human resource. The poor farmers are not to directly benefit from the cultivation. These landless peasants grow opium for landlords and druglords linked with Taliban. Before the crop is ready for cultivation, militants and paid “insurgents” are recruited for safeguard of the crops. The operation cost is paid by the big shots that have influence in both sides—among militants, and with Government institutions. After harvest and processing, Taliban are responsible for transportation. The 90% of the world heroin that’s produced in Afghanistan are being smuggled to other parts of the world through neighboring countries.  Mostly illicit drugs of Afghanistan are being smuggled across the world through neighboring countries of Iran and Pakistan.

In the past, there have been several military operations in Helmand, but in none, the forces stayed longer once clearing some districts. Even many times, the military has applied “negotiating” approach with insurgents. It has been a tactic by the Taliban druglords to make ground for their business.

Financing Taliban Insurgency

According to statistics, today Taliban receives over 63% of its financial assistance from the $ 4billion opium industry—53% of the GDP of Afghanistan. NATO forces have been trying to eradicate the financial supply line of Taliban, the drug trade. Officials calculate that Taliban earned $140 million from opium in 2007. Insurgents are involved in different ways, through direct cultivation to safeguarding and transportation of the production. According to officials, about 20 times more area has been brought under cultivation during the last eight years. In 2001, it was 7,606 hectares while last year cultivation was recorded at 1,57,000 hectares.

“US Anti-Drug Policy Ineffective”

International community is worried about the intensifying poppy production in Afghanistan, despite billions of dollars are spent on efforts to eradicate the illicit drugs from the war-torn country. Recently, the US Envoy Mr. Richard Holbrooke admitted the US anti-drug policy has been ineffective. “The US anti-drug campaign has been the most wasteful and ineffective program”, said Mr. Holbrooke while talking to media recently in the Brussels Forum in Belgium. The US spends annual $800 million on counter-narcotics program in Afghanistan. Mr. Holbrooke said the US “has nothing out of the counter-narcotics program.”

Different Approaches

There have been different approaches in counter-narcotics in Afghanistan during the last eight years. A couple of months ago, NATO had allowed its forces to target “insurgency related poppy networks”. Prior to this, the forces did not directly involve against the drug networks. The US wanted to spray herbicides on the vast poppy farmlands, but the Afghan Government has been opposing the idea. Last year, there was a US plan of spraying herbicides on heroin and poppy fields which were disallowed by President Karzai saying it would harm the fields and would drive poor farmers into Taliban insurgency. It’s doubtful to me. A former US expert in an article on NYTimes had said Government officials are involved in the big business of poppy. Unverified sources say Karzai’s brother is the tycoon of this business.

The Afghan Ministry of Counter-Narcotics has been launching livelihood programs for poor farmers in the southern provinces to encourage them grow other crops and give up poppy cultivation. But poverty is not the main reason behind this all. Bigwigs in power are involved.

A couple of months ago, a Triangular Joint Anti-Narcotics Operation was conducted by the anti-drugs police of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran on the joint borders.  This was the first joint counter-narcotics initiative by the neighboring countries to control drug smuggling on their borders. The joint operation was the initial action plan of the gradual task to reduce drug smuggling. The respective countries have declared the focal points to implement the joint operations against drug trafficking. A Joint Planning Cell has already been set up in Tehran in February of the current year.

New Strategy

The US envoy Richard Holbrooke talking to media after the G-8 Conference said the new US Administration under President Obama will change drug efforts from poppy eradication to ban on drug shipments and supplies. He admitted that the anti-drug efforts in Afghanistan have resulted in failure. Under the new strategy, the US will not support poppy eradication, but its movement and interception of chemicals and drug transportation while going after drug lords. Though Afghan Government had welcomed the new strategy, but British officials said they would continue eradication efforts. It shows a split which is concerning since British forces have been controlling the highest-poppy producing province Helmand—the Empire of Poppy.

Strategic communication has been one of the significant priorities for the international Jihadi terrorists. Al-Qaeda and Taliban have been using media and other means of communication to propagate among the mass of their aimed audience categorized as Muslims and the western world. Following the 9/11 attacks and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorists have been increasingly dependent on strategic communication and propagation in mass media. Al-Qaeda even established its broadcasting unit under the brand name of Al-Hasab, which aired regular statements of top Al-Qaeda leaders, attacks on foreign forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Suicide bombers used to tape their “message” before leaving to the “divine mission”. Top Al-Qaeda leaders have been emphasizing that media war is not less important than the military war against the “infidels”.

With the passage of time, experience and knowledge of the latest technology, terrorists started releasing video tapes including statements and footages of attacks on their “missions”. Initially they used to communicate their videos and messages through media, print and electronic broadcasting. But with the pace of time, they used to more depend upon online resources. Internet once became on the most significant mean of propagation and “expression” for Jihadi terrorists. For the first time in around 2005 an online Jihadi terrorist magazine was published. Following this, many Jihadi groups other than Al-Qaeda and Taliban, started using media as part of their strategic mean for an effective propaganda.

Whenever there is a civilian causality, terrorists use such incidents as a tool for their propagation among masses to legitimize their activities and recruit human resource.  There are five Jihadi websites. Taliban have their own website operating in five languages. Al-Qaeda has its own. They release messages and videos. In a recent move, Taliban terrorists have published large copies of a booklet “Code of Ethics for Mujahideen” which includes guidlines for Taliban fighters.

The recent video of the kidnapped US soldier, in which he was asking his fellow Americans to pressurize the Government for withdrawal of forces was an example of terrorists’ propagation to influence their western targeted audience.

In response, there is not much efforts from the Afghan Government, or other forces fighting in Afghanistan. They should have run a media campaign to show masses the brutality of Taliban. It can influence the mindset of people and win hearts and minds.

A recent poll shows a sharp increase in the public opinion against Taliban in Pakistan. The polling project by the University of Maryland says 81 percent of common Pakistanis view militants as a serious threat to their country. In response to questions regarding Afghanistan and Taliban, 87 percent thought Taliban fighting against the Afghan Government should not be allowed to establish camps and bases.

The NATO and Afghan Government should highlight the propagation of Taliban and there should be a stronger counter media attack.  People should know the fact that Taliban have killed larger number of civilians. The U-turn  in Pakistani public opinion is due to the extensive media support of the military offensive. TV channels’ anchor persons and programmers repeatedly talked about the atrocities of Taliban, thus the vast perception of the mass population about the war was totally changed against Taliban. A similar effort is needed for Afghan media outlets, TV channels and newspapers. Such sources should educate Afghans about the brutality of Taliban and their devilish aims.

Obama’s War is started in Afghanistan. The military offensive—Operation Khanjar, the largest since the ouster of Taliban in 2001—with 4000 US Marines and over 600 Afghan troops, was launched in southern province of Helmand—the heartland stronghold of Taliban insurgency where 8000 British soldiers are already deployed.

Unexpectedly, Taliban didn’t resist fiercely. Five districts that they controlled since last three years were regained in the first week of the operation. But, about a dozen British troops have been killed in Helmand during last week only. With the success of the Operation Khanjar, Afghan media is critical of the British role in Helmand questioning what the troops have been doing there while Taliban controlled five districts in the Empire of Poppy Cultivation, as Daily Guardian says.

Its likely Taliban will attempt to make a comeback in Helmand. With guerrilla tactics, they will try suicide attacks and roadside bombings.  Polling day will be their easy and broad target.

The Operation Khanjar—Strike of the Sword—is the largest and most important under the new US strategy by Obama Administration, who announced an extra 21000 troops for Afghanistan, changing the focus of the war against terrorism from Iraq to Afghanistan.

What makes this operation different from the ones in past is its long-term objectivity.  In the last three years, British forces had been launching small-level military operations in these districts for several times. They would not station there once clearing the districts controlled by Taliban. Thus insurgents would make a comeback later.

The largest military offensive is aimed at clearing the province from insurgents to lay the ground for peaceful and transparent presidential and provincial council elections to take place on August 20. For long-term, the US military say the forces would station in the districts not to give a chance of comeback to insurgents. Seeing the heavy deployment of  forces, its likely the troops will stay there longer to maintain the control and improve security in the province. Officials of the Afghan Ministry of Defense have been saying, forces once clearing the area from Taliban, would stay there to maintain good governance and speed up development programs.

Helmand Operation is also very strategic and importance because the province borders Pakistan, where insurgents used to cross easily in the past, whenever any military assault was launched. With a comprehensive operation at the Pakistani side of the border in tribal areas, its now much difficult for Taliban to easily make cross-border penetration. The Operation Khanjar would also decide the effectiveness of the new strategy.

The mass illiterate people of the war-torn Afghanistan are going to vote for the second time in post-Taliban “democracy”. With the polls day getting nearer, electoral process is gaining momentum. In capital Kabul, the electoral atmosphere is in full bloom with the presidential contenders actively campaigning through corner meetings, public gatherings, TV-debates and media statements. Meanwhile, the political environment is hot with claims and accusations.

In the presidential polls of 2004, there were 14 candidates. In 2009 there are 41.  It will also be very confusing for Afghans to find their candidates of choice in a list of 41 on the ballot paper. It’s very likely that almost 30 of the total 41 candidates will not be able to get 10,000 votes—a number they have submitted registration cards to the Election Commission.

Karzai Apparently Leading

A recent survey and the apparent atmosphere shows incumbent President Karzai with lead followed by two other prominent candidates Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, former Foreign Minister and Ashraf Ghani Ahmedzai, former Finance Minister. The survey by the International Republican Insititute Karzai with lead having favor of 31 percent of likely voters surveyed—a decline from 54 percent in 2004. What makes the ground favorable for him are comparatively weak competitors. The survey showed only 7 percent support for Abdullah Abdullah and 4 percent Ashraf Ghani. Meanwhile, 69 percent of those surveyed—about 3000 Afghans from different provinces—had a favorable opinion of President Karzai, and 43 percent said he deserves the second term.

However, these surveys cannot depict the actual picture of the electoral atmosphere. In a first-of-its-kind giant gathering two weeks ago in the historic Ghazi Stadium of Kabul—where Taliban used to persecute people—approximately 25000 Afghans rallied in favor of Mr. Karzai. President’s camp got weight last month when some of his presumed strong competitors like the influential Governor of Nangarhar Gul Agha Sherzai and former Finance Minister Mr. Ahady didn’t nominate for the race apparently favoring Karzai’s bid. Two other prominent figures, former US Ambassador to Kabul Mr. Khalilzad and former Interior Minister, the US citizen Dr. Jalali did not nominate at all. Later in an unexpected scenario, President Karzai become stronger when two prominent ethnic political parties—Wahdat Party and Junbish e Milli headed by prominent figures of Afghan politics—Abdul Rashid Dostum and Haji Muhammad Muhaqiq—politicians having considerable support among their respective communities, Hazara and Uzbek that make two of the largest ethnic groups of Afghanistan—joined the Karzai camp. Expectantly, the breakaway faction of militant Hizb-e-Islami of Hekmatyar also announced to support Karzai. Chairman Senate, Sibghatullah Mujaddadi said he has received a “divine hint” to vote for Karzai. Though not publicly, but its assumed former influential warlord, Rasoul Sayyaf will also support Karzai in exchange for a Ministry and the Supreme Court.

In a grand public rally in Mazar-e-Sharif city two weeks back, local media in Kabul reported about 70000 supporters of Wahdat and Junbish parties chanted in favor of Karzai. Such a large gathering in the home-town of Governor Ata was a blow to the expectations of Dr. Abdullah from Balkh province of Northern Afghanistan, which is assumed the backbone areas of vote bank for Abdullah.

Abdullah and Ghani Top Rivals

On the other hand, the second prominent candidate, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah of former Northern Alliance enjoys backing of some influential figures including the Governor of Mazar e Sharif, Muhammad Ata Noor. On addressing a gathering in favor of Abdullah Abdullah, the relations between Ata Noor and President Karzai got bitter followed by rumors in Afghan media that President Karzai is to ask Ata for resignation.

Hizb Harkat e Islami (Islamic Movement Party)—formerly headed by Iran-backed cleric of Kandhar, Sheikh Asif Mohsini, the supporter of the controversial articles of the Shia Family Law that outraged rights groups in Afghanistan and abroad—under the current leadership of former Governor of Herat Mr. Anwari announced support to Abdullah Abdullah. Meanwhile, some figures of another fragmented opposition group, United Front, have also pledged support for Abdullah.

There have been several public gatherings in favor of the third strongest Mr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmedzai and some tribal leaders announcing support. Other influential candidates include Mir Wais Yasini and Dr. Ramzan Bashardost, former Planning Minister. Bashardost was the first to launch campaign in provinces by visiting Nangarhar. Other candidates like Syed Karim Jalal have also been addressing public gatherings in Kunduz and Kabul.

The rivals of Karzai are campaigning under different slogans and programs. Mr. Abdullah talks of changing the system from Presidential to Parliamentary and decentralization of power. Ashraf Ghani is attracting voters through his comprehensive 10-years Framework for Afghanistan targeting one million jobs and full security across the country. All the rivals are at the same time claiming to be the next President.

Alliance Between the Rivals?

Apparently Karzai is in lead following Dr. Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai. There were rumors of alliance between the top rivals of Karzai. But in a press release last week, Ashraf Ghani denied chances of withdrawal. The alliance between Dr. Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani, as some analysts speculate, seems less likely due to their diverse policies as Abdullah emphasizes on parliamentary system while Ashraf Ghani favors Presidential.

Run-off?

All the top rivals of President Karzai strongly believe the elections of August 20 will go for a run-off vote. Sources say the top rivals Dr. Abdullah, Ashraf Ghani and Mir Wais Yasini have come to an understanding that who ever will lead in the first round, others would support him against President Karzai in the run-off.

Article 18 of the Electoral Law says; “If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the valid votes cast, a runoff election shall be held between the two most voted candidates within two weeks following the announcement of election results. The candidate who receives more valid votes in the runoff election shall be declared elected.”

Lack of financial assistance was one of the reasons; the Election Commission postponed the polls in May. Holding the election costs 223 million U.S. dollars which is contributed by the international community. Yet any country has not pledged support if polls go for a run-of.

Ahmedinejad is declared the winner after a limited vote-count. The post-election crisis in Tehran is getting off the screen. The internal affairs are not much discussed in foreign media now.  As expected, the reformist camp seems to be compromising surrender after the fierce violence against protesters. Contrary to his apparent passion saying he is “ready for martyrdom”, Mr. Mossavi has also compromised, while the real player behind him—the rival of Supreme Leader Khamenai—Ayatollah Rafsanjani was also out of the scene during the crucial moments of the movement in Tehran. He kept mum on the violence. Nor Rafsanjani provoked the movement, neither Mr. Mossavi raised his voice in the way he should have done. The giant defying public rallies were self-organized by people fed up of the regime. But a disintegrated movement before a ruthless tyrant regime, can not last longer.

The main player behind all the chaos, former President Hashmi Rafsanjani after a long silence has come up on scene with a goodwill statement towards the Supreme Leader, the unelected decision maker in Iran, Ayatllah Khamenai. It is a u-turn by one of the leading figures of the reformist camp that has been demanding reelection rather than limited vote count. It seems the reformist camp is compelled to sacrifice a term of rule for the system’s existential threat from the current crisis.

Though it was expected, no overnight revolution is going to happen in Iran. Everything will calm down after some days or weeks of angry young protesters on streets of Tehran. Once again a movement was brutally suppressed and once again the proponents of reformism abandoned the hopeful Iranian public. They surrendered to the call of might. Though it was nothing more than a clash for power by breeds of the same system, but world could deal easily with a new Administration in Tehran that would be—apparently so—comparatively easier to talk with.

Questions rises how did it happen? No doubt the continuous weeks of protests, initially enthusiastic, were the largest since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. But it was disorganized, disintegrated and unleaded. But here questions rise, why did Rafsanjani go off the scene and pulled himself back from the largest protests in Tehran–which a Grand Ayatollah of Qom—the headquarter of theocracy—Ayatullah Muntazeri had warned the system is endangered? Did the so-called reformists sacrifice a term of rule over the endangered existence of theocracy? Or that the ruling regime was too brutal and reformists lacked the gut to face it all without a proper planning, integration and communication?

The apparently strong camp of reformists with many influential faces, could have led the movement to a decisive situation, but it seems after hearing the voices of “we want freedom” from the self-organized protesters, they just preferred keeping mum and let the crisis die off. It was their lack of interest that the reformist leadership didn’t gear up the protests in cities other than Tehran and most importantly the rural parts of the country. Indeed, the reformists had not any considerable back from the Iranians living in larger rural areas. Their major strength was the educated youth from Tehran.

The serious split among the influential founders of the Islamic revolution was a good improvement in the sense that it generated awareness of the people against the tyrant regime. The belief of politically educated Iranians are further strengthened that the theocratic system has no remedy for their demands of freedom and a friendly relationship with the world

It was extremely terrible watching the video of Nida—the young girl shot dead on chest by the cruel Baseej. Death of over 20 people went all in vain because of the insincere reformist leadership and their lack of clear objectives.

Now the world has to bear another term of stubbornness, and extremism. Despite the sincere but cautious remarks of President Obama on the fraud elections and people’s will, Ahmedinejad reacted nonsense by accusing the US and Britain for the riots and crisis in Iran. A single foreign journalist was not allowed to report. Local media was banned. The accusations seems to be an attempt by the regime in Tehran to escape the efforts of President Obama for negotiations and resolution of nuclear ambitions.

The regime in Tehran feels extremism and continuity of the conflicts in Middle East is the assurance of their survival. Seeing the cold behavior, its much predictable a tough and decisive time is ahead for Obama Administration in dealing with Tehran for its nuclear weapon aims.  And President Obama is realizing this after Ahmedinejad in a silly way asked him to apologize for what he remarked on the violence.

Though Mr. Mossavi was also part of the same system, but its true that after coming into power, he had had to change some policies, at least women freedom or avoiding confrontational policy with the world that he had promised during his campaigns. Now that the reformist camp has surrendered to the ruling regime in Tehran, the world has to compromise with a denier of holocaust that can go mad once having a nuclear bomb. Diplomacy is not the only way President Obama should be considering. A nuclear race in Middle East is not in interest of China and Russia. President Obama other than focusing on engagement with Tehran, should also start efforts on building a decisive alternative.

Election campaign is in full bloom. Candidates are trying to attract voters through every channel they can. Whether in corner meetings, public gatherings, television programs, newspaper aids or online technology, voters are being offered with variety of slogans, programs, and foreign policy guidelines. Some of the candidates have launched their own websites. Internet is being used for campaign purposes overwhelmingly for the first time—a change that didn’t happen in previous Presidential elections of 2004. Youths are the most active. Bloggers are publishing supportive-arguments for candidates of their choice. Facebook and Youtube are most used for online-campaigning. Some candidates have uploaded appealing videos and messages. Some are emphasizing on corruption, others are promising of full security, while many talk about social justice and accountability. Some candidates are appealing for financial support of their campaigns.

Seemingly impressed with the US-style, live television debates are common nowadays. Some prominent channels are on-airing special coverage on elections. Candidates are being invited for debate and questions. Sometimes the discussion gets so hot that the anchor person has to interfere to avoid a hand-to-hand quarrel. In a similar story the other night in a television show, two candidates–Ramazan Bashardost and Bashir Bezhan–went almost about punching each other. The accusation got so hot that after the cameras were closed down, two of the candidates that had just finished a tough oral-fight tried to plunge into collars of each other. It was more amusing prior to fight, when a candidate was confused by a question on his choice about presidential or parliamentary system of governments. Puzzlingly, he answered “I will implement Islamic system.” When asked by the anchor, “what in the Islamic system, Presidential or Parliamentarian?” The candidate said it will be seen at that time (when elected). The atmosphere got embarrassing when his answer was followed by a “collective-laughter” from the audience.

A day before the live-tv show quarrel, another story made us laugh out loud. In a live press conference, Chairman of the Senate Sibghatullah Mujadadi said last night he has dreamt a “divine hint” to support President Karzai, thus he went for Istikhara (a religious practice before doing something, to know if it will result positive or negative). Mr. Mujadadi to support his “divine dream” recited a Hadis (Jurisprudence) from Prophet Muhammad about the importance of Istikhara. When faced a mocking question from a journalist, Mujadadi said, “its clear that I did Istikhara and got the hint from Allah Almighty to support and vote for this person (talking about Karzai). Since then, newspapers and people are making damn fun of the “divine hint.”

In relatively an old story, a couple of weeks ago a local “political party” by the name of  social justice and equality, had asked many laborers to join party’s protest rally. Organizer of the protest had promised of 200 Afghanis each laborer for a two-hour of chanting slogans and holding banners written “let the people of Afghanistan decide their fate themselves.” When the protest was over, the organizer had attempted to escape the scene. But laborers took the guy and started beating him before the police arrived and arrested him. Laborers now started the real protest against the organizer of the previous “protest” and were later paid.

As the official day for election campaigns reached, all the streets of Kabul were “decorated” and “polluted” with election posters and giant portraits of candidates. People were surprised with many new faces, whose names were never heard before. It was even more confusing when the next day almost all the posters on the main junctions and roads of the city were torn. Surprising is that all it happened in an overnight active “operation” by “unknown people”.  Seeing the cold behavior of the “unknown people”, a new fashion is common. Private vehicles are being decorated with portraits and posters of the candidates. Obviously, supporters thought, it was the only way out to avoid the campaign money go waste—torn posters.

There are so many candidates running for the office of President that voters will face difficulty in finding the election-symbol of their favorite candidates on the ballot paper on polling day. Over 40 candidates are running, majority of whom, are seen for the first time.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Religious Affairs (Hajj and Auqaaf) has banned election campaign meetings in mosques. Head of the Ministry Mr. Sadiq Chakari has said “mosques are places for prayers and recitation, not political competition. I have asked all the Mullahs of mosques not to allow any candidate campaign in the mosques.” But President Karzai is boldy having his campaign addresses in mosques of insecure provinces.

10th Fabricated Election exposed the democratic drama of theocratic regime, trying to legitimize its dictatorial rule. Online Photo

Iranian Diaspora abroad have been holding protest demonstrations with banners reading “Where are our votes?”  News websites including BBC and CNN and social networks such as Facebook have been blocked in Iran following the violent protest demonstrations in the streets of Tehran depicting the public anger against the fabricated election results of the Islamic Republic. Interesting to mention, Aljazeera is not blocked there. One would be surprised to read its biased coverage of the Iranian elections. On its website, they haven’t any news of violence in Tehran.

Text messaging and other communication means are all blocked. It was pity to see all those terrible photos from Tehran showing police beating up the young protesters drenched in blood, many of whom had voted for the first time in a hope for “change”. Many of whom now say, “our votes have been disregarded, we will never cast again!”

The trauma is still prevailing in Iran with the post-election protests. Reformist “former candidates” have demanded of the Council of Experts, an unelected body that supervises elections, to dismiss the fabricated results of the election and retain public trust with a new election. Mir Hussain Mossavi, the main rival of Ahmedinejad, requested his supporters to continue non-violent protest demonstrations against the results. The second strongest rival, Mr. Mehdi Karrobi has said he does not recognize Ahmedinejad as President.

According to the official results by Interior Ministry in Tehran, Of 39,165,191 votes counted (85 percent), Ahmedinejad won the election with 24,527,516 (62.63 percent). Mir Hussain Mossavi is with 13,216,411 votes (33.75 percent). Polling hours were extended till late night due to huge turnout. As polls were closed, Ahmedinejad was declared winner with 62 percent victory. It rises the questions. How could they announce it so quickly? Did they count all the ballots, from far-flung rural parts of the country that take an an entire day to be counted? Based on these facts, the supporters of Ahmedinejad’s rivals accuse the Government for fraud in the election results. They say as many as 17 million votes are missing. Some campaigners of Mr. Mossavi has said results of many ballots were announced even without opening them up after the polls were closed.
The day after election night, Tehran streets depicted a battleground between protesters and police torture. Seeing the large young population of Iran taking keen interest in the 10th Presidential Election of the Islamic Republic, foreign media used to predict a change of Administration in Tehran. For the first time, Iranians were participating in a large number with enthusiasm, but the predictions went wrong when the fabricated results were announced.
The rift in post-election scenario in Iran will continue for some days, or weeks and everything will get calm down.  Will of the Iranians were ruined long ago before the so-called elections since Ahmedinejad was favorite candidate of the decision-maker, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr. Khamenai—the unelected cleric that has final say on everything in Iran. Whoever the President maybe, Supreme Leader is the final decision-maker in state-affairs of Iran. Khamenai’s support for Ahmedinejad was visible long ago, but Iranians didn’t expect he will ruin their will so blatantly. Soon after Ahmedinejad’s victory was announced on the election night, the Supreme Leader greeted the “reelection” asking people to accept the results. According to the fake regulations of election process, Khamenai had to wait for three days to hear complaints before approving the final results, but he rushed in declaring Ahmedinejad’s victory. Iranians know well that election fraud had the blessings of the Supreme Leader. The theocratic regime has been trying to legitimize its rule by fake parliamentary and presidential elections but the real power remains with the unelected Supreme Leader. Khamenai supported Ahmedinejad to lead Iran with the confrontational-policy with the world. Reformists had promised to change it, but Khamenai didn’t want this.

The theocratic regime after the 1979 Islamic Revolution have been trying to legitimize the dictatorial system with so-called democratic drama, but the 10th Elections exposed it to Iranians that they would never be able to bring change within the theocratic dictatorship. They need a revolution to over throw the entire political set up and cleric-regime.

The cautious international reaction to the Iranian election drama is surprising. President Obama in his Cairo speech had said America won’t impose or chose any system of Government for any country, but will support democracy with the same spirit.