WASHINGTON POST– Off a dusty street flanked by piles of rubble and bombed-out car skeletons, the Saleh family is rebuilding their home with American aid money they got because three family members were accidentally killed in crossfire between U.S. forces and insurgents.

In another neighborhood of the battleground city of Ramadi, a new boat motor and fishing nets are tucked into a corner of the Zeyadan family’s courtyard, bought with money from the same U.S. aid fund.

The aid for these families and hundreds of others like them came from a special fund earmarked by Congress for innocent civilians killed in U.S. military operations in Iraq. But recently, members of Congress asked the U.S. Agency for International Development in Baghdad, which manages the fund, to explore having Iraq take over financing and management of the project.

Though no timeframe was given for the transition, the request is one small example of how the U.S. is looking to cut more than just military ties with Iraq as it withdraws its remaining troops over the next 17 months. Already some victims are worried they will never see the compensation if Iraqi authorities – seen as corrupt and inefficient – run the process.

Christopher Crowley, USAID director in Iraq, said the push for Iraqis to take over the U.S. victims aid program is part of a general trend for all American assistance programs here. The U.S. is “seeking a larger contribution from the (Iraqi) government to these programs so they will become more sustainable as time goes on,” he said.

Read full article about US Wanting Iraq to Pay War Victim Bill.

Photo by flickr user US Army

© COPYRIGHT WASHINGTON POST, 2010

AL JAZEERA– The US government has announced a major new aid package for Pakistan, with hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent on projects in Pakistan’s energy and water sectors. Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, announced the $500m package at the start of a day-long “strategic dialogue” in Islamabad between American and Pakistani officials.

Monday’s meeting is the second such dialogue between the US and Pakistan.

The money – part of a five-year, $7.5bn aid package approved by the US congress last year – will support a total of 26 projects.

© COPYRIGHT AL JAZEERA, 2010

MR: This article is more of an acknowlegment from the Afghani people of what we already know to be true. In late ’09, Obama signed a supplemental war bill that included a provision allowing Taliban members to be “paid off” by the US in the hope that the money will make them “switch sides” and become loyal to the US. Learn more about this bill HERE.

GUARDIAN– It’s near-impossible to find anyone in Afghanistan who doesn’t believe the US are funding the Taliban: and it’s the highly educated Afghan professionals, those employed by ISAF, USAID, international media organisations – and even advising US diplomats – who seem the most convinced.

One Afghan friend, who speaks flawless English and likes to quote Charles Dickens, Bertolt Brecht and Anton Chekhov, says the reason is clear. “The US has an interest in prolonging the conflict so as to stay in Afghanistan for the long term.”

The continuing violence between coalition forces and the Taliban is simple proof in itself.

“We say in this country, you need two hands to clap,” he says, slapping his hands together in demonstration. “One side can’t do it on its own.”

It’s not just the natural assets of Afghanistan but its strategic position, the logic goes. Commanding this country would give the US power over India, Russia, Pakistan and China, not to mention all the central Asian states.

“The US uses Israel to threaten the Arab states, and they want to make Afghanistan into the same thing,” he says. “Whoever controls Asia in the future, controls the world.”

“Even a child of five knows this,” one Kabuli radio journalist tells me, holding his hand a couple of feet from the ground in illustration. Look at Helmand, he says; how could 15,000 international and Afghan troops fail to crush a couple of thousand of badly equipped Taliban?

And as for the British, apparently they want to stay in Afghanistan even more than the Americans. The reason they want to talk to the Taliban is to bring them into the government, thus consolidating UK influence.

This isn’t just some vague prejudice or the wildly conspiratorial theories so prevalent in the Middle East. There is a highly structured if convoluted analysis behind this. If the US really wanted to defeat the Taliban, person after person asks me, why don’t they tackle them in Pakistan? The reason is simple, one friend tells me. “As long as you don’t get rid of the nest, the problem will continue. If they eliminate the Taliban, the US will have no reason to stay here.”

Continue reading about US Funding the Taliban.

Photo by repSos.de flickr user

© COPYRIGHT GUARDIAN, 2010

USA TODAY– The monthly cost of the war in Afghanistan, driven by troop increases and fighting on difficult terrain, has topped Iraq costs for the first time since 2003 and shows no sign of letting up.

Pentagon spending in February, the most recent month available, was $6.7 billion in Afghanistan compared with $5.5 billion in Iraq. As recently as fiscal year 2008, Iraq was three times as expensive; in 2009, it was twice as costly.

The shift is occurring because the Pentagon is adding troops in Afghanistan and withdrawing them from Iraq. And it’s happening as the cumulative cost of the two wars surpasses $1 trillion, including spending for veterans and foreign aid. Those costs could put increased pressure on President Obama and Congress, given the nation’s $12.9 trillion debt.

“The overall costs are a function, in part, of the number of troops,” says Linda Bilmes, an expert on wartime spending at Harvard University. “The costs are also a result of the intensity of operations, and the number of different places that we have our troops deployed.”

Obama made clear Wednesday that the U.S. role in Afghanistan would remain long after troops are withdrawn, a process planned to begin in July 2011. “This is a long-term partnership,” he said during a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Continued American support will be crucial as U.S. troop levels and costs in Afghanistan escalate:

•The number of U.S. servicemembers in Afghanistan has risen to 87,000, on top of 47,000 from 44 other countries. At the same time, the number of U.S. servicemembers in Iraq has dropped to 94,000. By next year, Afghanistan is to have 102,000 U.S. servicemembers, Iraq 43,000.

•Afghanistan will cost nearly $105 billion in the 2010 fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, including most of $33 billion in additional spending requested by Obama and pending before Congress. Iraq will cost about $66 billion. In fiscal 2011, Afghanistan is projected to cost $117 billion, Iraq $46 billion. To date, Pentagon spending in Iraq has reached $620 billion, compared with $190 billion in Afghanistan.

•Costs per servicemember in Afghanistan have been roughly double what they are in Iraq since 2005. That is due to lower troop levels, Afghanistan’s landlocked location, lack of infrastructure, high cost of fuel and less reliable security. “The cost just cascades,” says Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “That’s always been an issue in Afghanistan.”

“Iraq, logistically, is much easier,” says Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress. “You get the stuff to Kuwait and just drive it up the road.”

Photo by US Army

© USA TODAY, 2010

TIMES OF INDIA– US President Barack Obama has signed a $680 billion defence appropriations bill with one provision giving commanders the ability to pay Taliban members to switch sides, but some experts feel the programme may buy only temporary loyalty.

The payments to Taliban would be made under a Taliban reintegration provision under the Commander’s Emergency Response Programme (CERP), which is now receiving $1.3 billion in the bill pay for military operations in the 2010 fiscal year, signed by Obama on Wednesday.

CERP funding is also intended for humanitarian relief and reconstruction projects at commanders’ discretion.

The buyout idea, according to Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is to separate local Taliban from their leaders, replicating a programme used to neutralise the insurgency against Americans in Iraq.

“Afghan leaders and our military say that local Taliban fighters are motivated largely by the need for a job or loyalty to the local leader who pays them and not by ideology or religious zeal,” Levin said in a Senate floor speech Sep 11.

“They believe an effort to attract these fighters to the government’s side could succeed, if they are offered security for themselves and their families, and if there is no penalty for previous activity against us.”

The top commander in Afghanistan has backed the plan for the Taliban. “Most of the fighters we see in Afghanistan are Afghans, some with (a) foreign cadre with them,” said Gen. Stanley McChrystal in a July 28 Los Angeles Times interview.

Most are not ideologically or even politically motivated, he said in the interview.

“Most are operating for pay; some are under a commanders charismatic leadership; some are frustrated with local leaders.”

But Nicholas Schmidle, an expert on the Afghanistan-Pakistan region for the non-partisan New America Foundation, cited by CNN said that while the plan has a “reasonable chance for some success”, the old Afghan saying – “You can rent an Afghan, but you can’t buy him” – will eventually be borne out.

“So long as the Americans are keenly aware of this, you’re buying a very, very, very temporary allegiance,” he said. “If that’s the foundation for moving forward, it’s a shaky foundation.”

CNN security analyst Peter Bergen said the idea of paying off Taliban members to quit is nothing new. “There’s been an amnesty programme for low-level Taliban in place for many years now and thousands of people have taken advantage of it,” he said.

© COPYRIGHT TIMES OF INDIA, 2010