SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: maceng2 who wrote (40409)8/28/2002 5:13:00 AM
From: maceng2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
US troops focus on border's caves

news.ft.com

By IAN FISHER with JOHN F. BURNS

ASADABAD, Afghanistan, Aug. 23 — After months of frustration, American commanders appear to have concluded that Osama bin Laden is probably still alive and moving between mountain hideouts somewhere on a 250-mile stretch of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The hunt for Mr. bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has proved to be as murky as the silted rivers flowing through these inhospitable mountains. Nearly a year after Sept. 11, and nearly nine months after Mr. bin Laden's associates delivered their last videotape of him discussing the attacks in New York and Washington, hard facts about the quest are elusive.

But some American officers, speaking privately, say the assumption driving the manhunt is that the men are alive. They cite Afghan and Pakistani intelligence reports, mostly sketchy, that have spoken of Mr. bin Laden and an entourage of several dozen moving more than once since the American bombing of the Tora Bora mountains late last year.

Some of those reports, the officers say, have suggested that the fugitives may have moved through the mountains on horseback, probably on cloudy nights to elude aerial surveillance. The region being searched covers four provinces — Kunar, Nangahar, Paktika and Paktia — and the adjoining Pakistani tribal areas.

At the time of the biggest American ground battle of the war — at the Shah-i-Kot Valley, 100 miles southwest of Kabul, in March — American commanders said Qaeda and Taliban fighters, who resisted American troops for 11 days, might be protecting Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahiri.

But after the battle, no trace of the Qaeda leaders was found. United States military spokesmen said some Qaeda men appeared to have slipped through mountain passes toward Pakistan.

A spokesman for the American command, Lt. Col. Roger King, said Special Forces units deployed to bases like the one at Asadabad were working on the assumption that applying pressure on any possible hideout was the best means of exposing their quarry.

"I'd say it's a reasonable conclusion that we feel that if bin Laden is alive, we're providing enough pressure to make sure he keeps moving," Colonel King said. "It's easier to spot a moving target."

The Special Forces units leading the hunt move by helicopter or in camouflaged Humvee jeeps, often followed by clusters of helmeted soldiers clutching assault rifles.

Operating deep in tribal areas where suspicions of outsiders run high, the soldiers show an edginess that hints at the hazards and the importance of their mission. Twice in August, the Americans opened fire on Afghans in the Asadabad area, killing five men. On one occasion, the Americans acted after a man in a passing vehicle appeared to be aiming his rifle at them.

The victims turned out to be relatives of a local tribal chief with past Taliban connections, but many here say the Americans killed men with no current links to Islamic militants.

Who is on whose side, whom to trust, whom to regard as a potential enemy has been a conundrum for the Americans from the moment they arrived. Mostly the Americans have relied on local tribal leaders, but relations with them can be fickle.

On Wednesday evening, surrounded by some of the most powerful men in Asadabad, Hajji Rohullah Wakil, a tribal leader, said it was "possible" that Al Qaeda was regrouping in the mountain fastnesses. But Mr. Wakil said he had his doubts and had passed them on to the Special Forces, who set up a base here several months ago.

"I told them, `If there are Al Qaeda, tell us and we'll take care of them,' " Mr. Wakil, 42, said as he sat on a pile of mats in his compound, in the satisfied afterglow of a dinner for a new regional governor. As if to prove the futility of the American quest, he added, "It's been three months, and they haven't caught any Al Qaeda."

A few hours after that conversation, American soldiers made a surprise swoop in Asadabad, and their target could hardly have been a bigger surprise: Mr. Wakil and 11 of his associates, all of whom were tied up with plastic handcuffs, were loaded aboard a helicopter and whisked off to the American military headquarters at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul.

American troops on both sides of the border have dropped leaflets urging the people to turn in any Qaeda "terrorists" who seek refuge and proclaiming the $25 million reward that Washington has posted for Mr. bin Laden. One Pashto-language pamphlet handed out in Torkham, a Pakistani border town, read: "The Taliban and Al Qaeda have devastated your country. They are your, and our, enemies, so help us arrest them."

In public, American commanders continue to say what they have for months: that Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahiri may be alive, or they may be dead, and that if they are alive, they may be in Afghanistan or in Pakistan.

Those statements form a pattern of understatement adopted after the failure last year to find any fugitives at Tora Bora. The Pentagon believed then that it had the Qaeda leader trapped in the caves southeast of Jalalabad, but failed to find any trace of him after pulverizing the caves with waves of B-52 bombing.

In the recriminations that followed, with some American officers saying poor strategy had allowed Mr. bin Laden to escape to Pakistan through snow-clogged passes that the American forces had failed to seal, the Pentagon's approach shifted. Instead of declaring the capture of Mr. bin Laden and other top Qaeda leaders to be their prime objective, the commanders began saying their aim was to disrupt Qaeda's ability to function by "mopping up" its remnants in the hinterland.

[When they have been asked about Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahiri, senior officers have been elusive, as Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of the American military effort in Afghanistan and Pakistan, was in a news conference at Bagram on Sunday.

["What I will say is that we have not seen convincing proof that bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are dead," he told reporters, standing before a huge American flag for a morale-boosting pep talk to some of the 7,800 American troops in Afghanistan. "So what we do is we continue to confirm or deny the intelligence reporting that we get."

[The general added: "Now, am I going to say where i think bin Laden is right now? No, I'm not. Because I wouldn't want to give anybody any source of alert. I actually don't know whether he's alive or dead. I do know that a great many nations on this planet are very interested in the man if he is still alive. And I'll leave you by saying, `If he's still alive, it's only a matter of time.' "]

The Special Forces unit also briefly detained and questioned a photographer for The New York Times who took their pictures. They demanded that the photographer clear his photographs from his digital camera and hand over a roll of exposed film, saying photographs of them could compromise their mission. Some photographs survived.

The American units have technical advantages, especially helicopters and surveillance satellites and drones. But the terrain also presents big handicaps to pursuers. Roads are little more than goat tracks. Villages lie scattered deep in gorges, or high on the mountain shoulders, and the tribespeople, living in mudwalled compounds, are heavily armed.

Culture and faith, too, seem to favor the fugitives. Despite the rewards offered by the Americans, anyone who turned in Qaeda leaders would be inviting certain punishment locally.

The frontier areas have long been strongholds of militant Islamic groups that began to flourish in the 1980's, when Muslim guerrillas fought Soviet occupation troops. In addition, the Pashtun people who predominate on both sides of the border have a strict tribal code that makes it a binding duty to offer hospitality to strangers and protect them from enemies.

In Asadabad, as at other American bases along the border, the soldiers get accustomed to the danger of sudden attacks.

[In late August, the Asadabad base came under rocket attack from the neighboring mountainside twice in two days, though none of the rockets hit the base. After the second attack, commanders at Bagram dispatched two A-10 ground attack aircraft that pounded the mountainside, but no attackers were found, alive or dead.

[The attacks came hard on the heels of the arrest of Hajji Wakil, and seemed to fulfill the predictions made by his supporters after he was seized.

["I don't know why the Americans did this," said Muhammad Amin, an intelligence officer on the new governor's staff, who is part of a local establishment that at least nominally is allied to the Americans. "But I can see it will upset the tribes here, and it will create problems."]

For the Americans, Mr. Wakil could stand as a metaphor for the uncertainties they face. He seems the model of an American ally — veteran of the American-backed guerrilla war against the Soviet invaders in the 1980's, a man grown wealthy from frontier trade and other businesses, a member of the tribal assembly that elected Hamid Karzai president in June.

But some Afghan military commanders paint a different picture, of a man suspected of having ties to Arab militants. Those Afghans suggest that Mr. Wakil might know quite a lot more than he had disclosed to the Americans about Qaeda activities in the area — that he might, in effect, have been a sort of double-agent, keeping contacts with the Americans so he could pass information to fugitives in the mountains.

Adding to the complexities, the hunt has led to new strains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, with each country seeking to move the focus of the American search into the other's territory. Government leaders in Islamabad and Kabul have engaged in a tit-for-tat, with first one, then the other, citing intelligence reports indicating that Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahiri, if alive, are no longer on their territory.



To: maceng2 who wrote (40409)8/28/2002 6:28:15 AM
From: maceng2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Russian roulette (opinion by the UK Financial Times)

By Robert Cottrell


news.ft.com

As the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks approaches, old problems are re-emerging in Russia's relations with the United States.

They include Russia's insistence on maintaining close relations with Iran, Iraq and North Korea, countries that the US calls an "axis of evil". Perhaps more ominously still, tensions are spilling over again from Russia's civil war in Chechnya. The durability of the new US-Russian partnership, forged when Vladimir Putin, Russian president, backed the US-led assault on the Taliban, is being tested.

Russia has denied responsibility for a bombing raid last week on villages in northern Georgia, across the border from Chechnya, that killed one person and wounded seven. Sergei Ivanov, Russia's defence mister, has suggested Georgia's own forces might be to blame. But the US, an ally of Georgia, holds Russia responsible. Washington says it is "deeply concerned" by "the violation of Georgia's sovereignty".

The incident has reduced Russian-Georgian relations, always fractious, to one of their lowest levels in a decade. Georgia's parliament has called on Eduard Shevardnadze, its president, to start pulling out of the Russian-dominated Commonwealth of Independent States and has demanded the closure of the last Russian military bases left in Georgia from Soviet times.

The US has said it does not want this dispute to threaten its generally good relations with Russia. In some practical ways those relations are still improving. Last week Russia and the US co-operated in a dramatic operation to remove enriched uranium from a disused nuclear reactor in Serbia. But the tensions along the Russian-Georgian border may not easily be contained.

Russia's argument is that Chechen rebels are taking refuge and resupplying themselves in the wild border regions of Georgia close to Chechnya. The alleged bombing raid last week was against targets in one such region, the Pankisi Gorge. Georgia says Russia is greatly exaggerating the problem. But Russia goes further. It says that if Georgia cannot secure its own border regions, it should let Russian troops do the job.

The brutality of the Chechen war made it a defining issue in Russia's relations with the west when fighting began in 1994 and again in 1999 when Mr Putin, then prime minister, launched a second campaign. The war has destroyed Chechnya's economy and infrastructure, scattered its population and radicalised its separatists. Russia calls the rebels "bandits and terrorists". It says they have links to al-Qaeda, making the fight against them part of the west's war against terrorism.

After September 11, the US and Europe muted their criticism of the Chechen war for fear of angering a Russia whose help was needed elsewhere. But now, as the situation in central Asia stabilises and yet Chechnya remains a battleground, concern and criticism are resuming.

Even if the west partially accepts Russia's view of the war in Chechnya as an "anti-terrorist action", extending that war into Georgia would mean spreading the chaos, rather than containing it.

Chechnya is not the only problem now reasserting itself in US-Russian relations. Russia's refusal to reduce ties with Iraq, Iran and North Korea is also starting to irritate Washington. Last week Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, said Russia was damaging its interests by "parading" its friendships with "terrorist" countries.

But the underlying problem here may be less than meets the eye. It is true Russia has dismayed the US by preparing to sign an economic agreement with Iraq, under which Iraq is promising $40bn or more in contracts to Russian companies over the next 10 years. But this may also be Russia's way of putting a price on its economic interests in Iraq. It may be indicating that, as long as these are respected and protected, it will accept a US ousting of Saddam Hussein.

Similarly, by offering publicly in July to build five more nuclear reactors in Iran, in addition to one already under construction, Russia may merely be raising the "sticker price" of ending its nuclear co-operation there, in line with US demands.

As for North Korea, Russia has placed a modest diplomatic bet that seems to be paying off. By courting Kim Jong-il, the North Korean dictator, Russia has partially displaced China as Pyongyang's main ally. North Korea has recently proposed its first economic reforms and is said to have asked for Japan's help in improving relations with the US. Mr Putin can claim much of the credit for coaxing North Korea out of its shell.

It is hard to imagine any similarly optimistic scenarios for the Chechen problem, based on current trends. The destruction there is already so complete, the hatred between Russians and Chechens so deep, that the two sides have locked themselves into a near-medieval fight that other countries can only view with horror and thinly disguised disgust.

Oleg Mironov, Russia's human rights ombudsman, returned from a trip to Chechnya last week saying it was hard to tell Russian soldiers from Chechen bandits. "The most appalling thing is that, by their actions, the soldiers swell the ranks of the militants," he said.

Perhaps the only hope for Chechnya may come if Russia can bring itself to reassess the damage the war is doing to its economic and social fabric, and to relations with the west, in the context of a supposedly pro-western foreign policy. Russia cannot hope to be trusted completely by western countries as long as it demonstrates, through the conduct of a scarcely controlled civil war, that it differs from them in fundamental ways.

Mr Putin's bid to align Russia with the west reduces the question of Chechnya to a relatively simple dilemma. Either a continuing Chechen war can harm Russia's rapprochement with the west, or Russia's rapprochement with the west can help stop the Chechen war. The second of those outcomes implies an arrangement for Russia to receive international help, both military and financial, to resolve what it has so far defended as an internal affair.

This week the Financial Times suggested that the west save Russia from itself by offering so much aid to reconstruct Chechnya, under direct international supervision, that Russia simply could not afford to refuse. The idea has made front-page news in the Russian press.

Nezavisimaya Gazeta, a conservative newspaper, under the headline "Farewell the Caucasus", reported the FT's proposal as evidence that plans were being drawn up for the US to take control of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Chechnya.

The prospect of foreign peacekeepers, administrators, accountants, builders and engineers thronging Chechnya would be viewed by many Russian politicians as an outrage to Russian sovereignty, however close the co-operation with the Russian government. The sceptics would probably include high-ranking people close to Mr Putin, including Mr Ivanov, his own defence minister, who initially opposed the US presence in central Asia last year.

But the more important domestic consideration would be the effect of such a plan on Russian public opinion. Parliamentary and presidential elections are approaching in 2003-2004. Would voters approve?

Given Chechnya's isolation from the rest of Russia, and given the fatigue and indifference with which most Russians have come to view the war there, it is hard, in principle, to imagine why they should suddenly be outraged by plans to bring peace instead.

That would be especially true if Mr Putin presented a rebuilding of Chechnya with western money as the logical triumph of his own diplomacy. He promised an end to the war when he was first elected president in 2000. Who could fault him now for going out and finding the resources to keep that promise?