Afghan girl holds poster with photos of her family members, who were killed on August 22, 2008 during a US led raid in Azizabad village of Shindand district of Herat province west of Kabul, Afghanistan(AP Photo/Fraidoon Pooyaa)

by Frank James

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been bashing Sen. Barack Obama for a statement he made in August 2007 when he told an audience in New Hampshire:

"Now you have narco drug lords who are helping to finance the Taliban, so we've got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there,'' Obama said.

At a campaign stop yesterday in Jacksonville, Fla., Palin hit Obama with the following line:

... And he said too that our troops in Afghanistan are just, quote, "air raiding villages and killing civilians." (Boos.) I hope Americans know that is not what our brave men and women in uniform are doing in Afghanistan.

The U.S. military is fighting terrorism and protecting us and protecting our freedom. (Cheers, applause.) They're protecting our democratic values and all that it is that we stand for. They're also building schools for children in Afghanistan so that there is hope and opportunity there, too.

Palin's right that U.S. and other NATO troops in Afghanistan are risking their lives to help rebuild that country as they fight the Taliban. And Obama probably wishes he had chosen his words more carefully back in 2007.

But his concerns about the adverse effects that arise from accidental civilian deaths at the hands of the U.S. military came to mind today because of this story in today's New York Times.

30 Civilians Died in Afghan Raid, U.S. Inquiry Finds

WASHINGTON -- An investigation by the military has concluded that American airstrikes on Aug. 22 in a village in western Afghanistan killed far more civilians than American commanders there have acknowledged, according to two American military officials.

by Kim Barker and Aamer Madhani

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Abdullah Masjidi cannot go home anymore, though his village is only 30 miles from the capital. When he tried to drive there this summer, he was stopped by friendly villagers warning that he looked too Western. "You don't have a beard," he was told. "The Taliban will kill you."

Masjidi and other Afghans are looking for someone to re-establish law and order in their country, where Taliban-led insurgents have gained increasingly more power and now threaten provinces near Kabul, the capital.

For American military officials and both U.S. presidential candidates, the answer is more troops--a "mini-surge" of about 10,000 personnel. But those extra troops would find a far different scenario in Afghanistan than in Iraq, one complicated by mountainous terrain and a population famous for resisting foreign invasions and suspicious of U.S. motives. That suspicion has increased since the issue of civilian casualties in the conflict has tainted the image of international troops.

It also would probably be more difficult to separate Afghanistan's ethnic Pashtuns from the Taliban insurgency, which is a homegrown movement, than it was for U.S.-led forces to separate some of Iraq's Sunni insurgents from Al Qaeda, which was born of a foreign ideology, analysts say.

And it's hard to imagine any victory as long as insurgents can find refuge in neighboring Pakistan.

On Monday, Pakistan's top security official acknowledged that Al Qaeda's leadership moved freely in and out of the country. Rehman Malik, the Interior Ministry chief, said the Al Qaeda "syndicate" had been allowed to operate across the region and "free passage was given to them" to come to Pakistan.

Meanwhile, Pakistani intelligence and a witness told The Associated Press that at least 15 people were killed in an attack Wednesday involving U.S.-led forces in a Pakistani village near the Afghan border. The U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan said it had no report of an incursion; Pakistan's army confirmed an attack but did not specify if it believed foreign troops were involved.

Masjidi, like many average Afghans, Afghan officials and Western analysts, does not think more troops alone are the answer to Afghanistan's Taliban-led insurgency. Some say more troops could even stiffen the resistance.

"If they put more U.S. troops in my village, there will be more bloodshed," said Masjidi, 22, from Wardak province, which borders Kabul. "There will be more people killed by the Americans protecting themselves. Then there will be more suicide bombs and other attacks."

Those are the issues for the U.S. presidential candidates as they weigh plans to send more troops to Afghanistan.

by Aamer Madhani

As Osama bin Laden's driver awaits the verdict in the first military tribunal case at Guantanamo Bay, the Pentagon made clear today that they are not about to give up custody of Salim Hamdan if he beats the charges against him.

"Even if he were acquitted of the charges that are before him, he would still be considered an enemy combatant and therefore would continue to be subjected...to continued detention," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said at an afternoon news briefing today.

Morrell said that Hamdan would have an opportunity to go before an administrative review board to appeal his enemy combatant status, but in the near term Hamadan is considered a danger to U.S. national security and will remain in U.S. detention regardless of the verdict.

Hamdan was captured on Nov. 24, 2001, at a roadblock in Afghanistan as he tried to flee the country with his family after U.S. forces were deployed to Afghanistan to decapitate the Taliban and root out Al Qaeda fighters.

There is no doubt that Hamdan was working for a terrorist organization. There is debate over wheter he was a key player or just a hired hand carting bin Laden around Afghanistan.

Hamdan's defense has attempted to portray as an unwitting driver, who was nonetheless cooperative and provided intelligence to U.S. forces following his capture. In testimony read to the jury, purported 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed described Hamdan as primitive and nothing more than a driver.

The prosecution has painted a picture of Hamdan as a trusted associate of Bin Laden who helped shuttle weapons to the Taliban and other Al Qaeda members.

During closing arguments on Monday, Hamdan's defense attorney, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, suggested that Hamdan had offered to help U.S. forces in a significant way soon after he was captured, but U.S. forces failed to exploit the intel Hamdan provided.

by Aamer Madhani

The good news is that July is on pace to be the least deadly month for U.S. troops in Iraq since the start of the war. The bad news is that nearly twice as many Americans have been killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq this month.

Iraq has been relatively quiet this month with the American death toll standing at 11 with two days remaining in the month. And that figure includes the deaths of Sgt. Alex Jimenez and Private Byron Fouty--whose bodies were recovered earlier this month more than a year after their patrol was ambushed. The U.S. military listed five of the July troop deaths as occurring in "non-hostile" incidents.

In fact, it's been more than two weeks since the last U.S. service member was killed in action in Iraq.

"This is not the metric by which we measure success," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said during a Pentagon news conference yesterday. "But it is stunning nonetheless that there remain four U.S. KIA [killed in action] in Iraq so far this month... it is certainly an encouraging sign."

by Frank James

When Sen. Barack Obama recently tried to sell the importance of his European trip to American voters, he used a formulation that essentially went like this: more European NATO troops in Afghanistan could ultimately mean the need for fewer U.S. troops which would then result in lower taxes for American taxpayers.

It seemed obvious that such an idea wouldn't be popular with many Europeans and there has been some blowback, as pointed out on The Wall Street Journal's editorial page today.

.... On Sunday the Secretary General of the opposition German Free Democrats, Dieter Niebel, responded to Mr. Obama by telling the Bild am Sonntag that "Under no circumstances will the German taxpayer pay with more money and more troops for Afghanistan for tax cuts in the U.S."

Welcome to President Bush's world, Senator Obama. The myth is that Mr. Bush's "unilateralism" has so antagonized America's allies that they will rush to share more of the war burden once the Texan is back in Crawford. But Europeans have long enjoyed the free ride of U.S. military protection while enjoying even more their freedom to criticize how that protection is provided.

It should be noted that the Free Democrats are liberals while the CSU are conservative. So Obama's idea to save U.S. taxpayers at European expense isn't going over that well across the German political spectrum.

by Frank James

Candy Crowley of CNN interviewed Sen. Barack Obama before he left Berlin for Paris. Among her questions: Why are we in Berlin with a little more than three months before the election? And what message are American voters supposed to draw from this?

Part of Obama's answer was this:

"If we have more NATO troops in Afghanistan, then that's potentially fewer American troops over the long term, which means we're spending fewer billions of dollars, which means we can invest those billions of dollars in making sure we're providing tax cuts to middle class families who are struggling with higher gas prices that will have an impact on our economy."

It's hard to go wrong in the swing states with the argument that you have a strategy for lowering their taxes.

Of course, the European governments might have to raise taxes to fund the type of expanded military and nation-building role Obama wants them to play in Afghanistan. Which is one of the reasons NATO nations haven't committed more to the cause and why Obama, if he becomes president, is going to find himself challenged in getting significant boosts in troops and other assistance to Afghanistan.

by Kim Barker and John McCormick

KABUL, Afghanistan - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama arrived Saturday in this war-torn country seen as crucial to his foreign policy, in an attempt to shore up his presidential credentials on the world stage and show how important Afghanistan is to the future of the war on terror.

But Obama was almost invisible to most Afghans, despite accusing Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his government recently of spending too much time in a bunker and not enough on development.

Security for the two-day visit of the congressional delegation in Afghanistan was so tight, all of Obama's plans were kept secret. He was described as having met with only one Afghan official - the governor of an eastern province - and U.S. officials and troops.

Most Afghans did not even know he was in the country. U.S. officials would not acknowledge it publicly or that Obama planned to move onto Iraq as soon as Sunday afternoon. Obama's campaign verified that he arrived in Kabul just before noon.

"I want to, obviously, talk to the commanders and get a sense, both in Afghanistan and in Baghdad of ... their biggest concerns," the Illinois senator said before leaving the U.S. "I want to thank our troops for the heroic work that they've been doing."

Enroute to Afghanistan, the delegation briefly visited troops in Kuwait. But the Afghanistan leg is the first lengthy stop of a much-hyped international journey designed to make Obama seem more presidential. The trip also aims to counter critics who say Obama has little foreign-policy experience compared to his Republican opponent, John McCain, a Vietnam War hero with an extensive foreign background.

The congressional delegation, paid for by taxpayers, is also expected to visit Iraq and meet with Iraqi leader Nouri al-Maliki. Separately, in a campaign-funded trip, Obama plans to visit Europe and the Middle East.

Sen. Barack Obama is seen being photographed during a meeting with Gul Agha Shirzai, the governor of Nangarhar province, center rear, and US military personnel in Jalalabad east of Kabul, Afghanistan on Saturday, July 19, 2008. Obama started a campaign-season tour of combat zones and foreign capitals, visiting with U.S. forces in Kuwait and then Afghanistan, the scene of a war he says deserves more attention and more troops. (AP Photo)

by Aamer Madhani

The Pentagon continues to inch towards shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, today said he continues to be pleased by the progress on the ground in Iraq and was hopeful that he could recommend further troop reductions early in the fall.

"I won't go so far as to say that progress in Iraq, from a military perspective, has reached a tipping point, or it is irreversible," Mullen said. "It has not, and it is not. But security is unquestionably and remarkably better. Indeed, if these trends continue, I expect to be able early in the fall to recommend to the secretary and to the president further troop reductions."

Mullen's statement, which did not include any specific numbers, is not new. Gen. David Petraeus, who is the top commander in Iraq, told Congress back in May that he was hopeful of recommending a further reduction in troops before he takes off for his new job in September as head of U.S. Central Command.

But Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who spoke with reporters this afternoon, acknowledged that the situation in Afghanistan has become increasingly volatile in recent months. Last week, nine U.S. troops were killed when hundreds of militants attacked them at a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan.

The incident, which occurred on Sunday near the village of Wanat, was deadliest attack on American forces in Afghanistan in more than three years. U.S. troops have since abandoned the outpost. Mullen said the attack underscored that the militants have "grown bolder, more sophisticated and more diverse."

by Jill Zuckman

While Sen. Barack Obama was giving a speech this morning saying that the war in Iraq is distracting the United States from Afghanistan, Sen. John McCain said at a town hall meeting in New Mexico that Obama was wrong on the surge and wrong to lay out his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before traveling there next week.

"In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy," McCain said.

McCain said that both he and Obama agreed that the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy in Iraq. But at that point, they part company.

"I called for a comprehensive new strategy -- a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible," McCain said.

"Today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded," said McCain, noting that the commander-in-chief is not allowed a learning curve.

by Aamer Madhani

In a sobering assessment of the situation in eastern Afghanistan, a top U.S. general said today that attacks have increased by 40 percent this year in the large swath of area controlled by American troops.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon by video conference, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Schloesser said there have been 40 U.S., Polish and Czech troops as well as civilian coalition members killed in the eastern part of the country since the start of April.

"They're burning schools, and in fact they've attacked 43 in our sector ever since school started here in Afghanistan in late March," said Schloesser, who heads the American operation in eastern Afghanistan. "And they are also killing teachers and they are killing students."

The militants, which include Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, easily glide between the Pakistan and Afghan borders. For the first time last month, the monthly death toll of U.S. troops in Afghanistan was greater than the number of troops killed in Iraq.

Schloesser explained that the insurgents seem to be making a special effort to target district centers--an equivalent of a county government center. Since March, there have been 28 attacks in 16 separate district centers throughout the eastern swath of the country.

"They're attacking road development projects, because they know that where the roads...start is where governance and development actually takes place," Schloesser said. "They're basically trying to kill survey crews, road construction crews, including Afghan laborers that are being paid to basically just build the roads and all they're really trying to do is feed their families. What I would say is, is that overall what you're seeing is, is the deliberate targeting of anything that will improve the quality of life for the normal Afghan citizen."

by Aamer Madhani

The U.S. military announced earlier today that four U.S. marines were killed in a roadside bomb in western Afghanistan, marking the deadliest attack against U.S. forces in Afghanistan this year.

Just yesterday Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointed out to his European counterparts that for the first time last month, the total number of coalition troops killed in Afghanistan exceeded the coalition death toll in Iraq.

Fifteen U.S. and two Georgian troops were killed in action in Iraq last month, while 19 coalition troops, including 14 Americans, were killed in Afghanistan.

While one month hardly makes a trend, it seems as the news gets better in Iraq the situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate.

Gates pointed to the grim numbers to underscore the importance of the European nations meeting their military commitment in Afghanistan.

"It's important that we live up to our pledges in both the civilian and military spheres as necessary for success in Afghanistan," Gates said Friday in Brussells.

Gates ordered an additional 3,000 U.S. Marines to Afghanistan in March on a one-time deployment. It remains unclear if NATO countries will step up and fill the gap when the marines leave Afghanistan in November.

by Katie Fretland

The first lady traveled to Afghanistan today in a surprise visit ahead of a conference in Paris where the United States hopes donors will pledge international aid to help the country, The Associated Press reports.

Laura Bush flew to the nation's capital, Kabul, before taking a helicopter to Bamiyan Province, a central region where the Taliban destroyed two giant statues of Buddha in March 2001.

"The people of Afghanistan don't want to go back and live like that," Mrs. Bush told reporters. "They know what it was like. The international community can't drop Afghanistan now, at this very crucial time."

Here is the wire report on the visit :

by Aamer Madhani

Nearly 14,000 U.S. service members who had previously served in Iraq and Afghanistan were newly diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder last year, according to statistics released today by Army Surgeon General Eric Schoomaker.

The detailed figures for the four military services shows about a 46 percent increase in the number of troops diagnosed with PTSD in 2007--a spike that coincided with the most violent year of the Iraq war. Overall, nearly 40,000 have been diagnosed with the illness since 2003, though it is likely many more haven't sought help out of fear of being stigmatized.

Lt. Gen. Schoomaker, the Army's top medical officer, said that the Army needs to improve facilities and has too few mental health care providers.

"I think we can say as a nation that our mental health facilities and access to mental health providers is not adequate to the need right now," Schoomaker said. "So part of the problem that we as a military are suffering is a shared national problem."

Schoomaker released the figures to defense writers earlier today and just weeks after Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a new policy under which troops and civilian defense employees no longer have to divulge previous mental health treatment to receive security clearance.

Last month, the RAND Corporation published a study that showed nearly 300,000 U.S. veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were suffering major depression or symptoms of post traumatic stress.

The RAND study found that only about half of those suffering PTSD or depression seek help. The Pentagon has estimated that about 15 to 20 percent of returning troops suffer from symptoms of post traumatic stress.

About 12 to 15 percent of soldiers are on a combination of either mild anti-depressants or sleep medication, and some troops that have suffered post traumatic stress have returned for subsequent duty in war zones.

"We do know that there is a subset of soldiers that are over there and are actively on medications...for prior or ongoing treatment, but by all accounts that's being done well," Schoomaker said.

by Bay Fang

Although mystery still swirls around Saturday's sudden release of Pakistan's ambassador to Afghanistan after over three months in captivity, the Pakistani government insists it did not free any militants in exchange.

"There was no exchange of any militants or terrorists for the release of the ambassador," said Nadeem Kiani, spokesman for the embassy of Pakistan in Washington, DC.

Even if there were no explicit tit-for-tat, the release of Azizuddin could have been used as a pawn in the ongoing negotiations between tribal militants in the region bordering Afghanistan and the young coalition government led by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

A prisoner exchange took place last week as a direct result of the negotiations, with the release of dozens of suspected militants for army officers in Waziristan, a tribal area considered a stronghold of Taliban and al-Qaida militants.

by Aamer Madhani UPDATED with Pelosi comment

House minority leader John Boehner accused the Democrats of "playing political games" for stacking the spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with what he and other Republicans have called extraneous spending.

Boehner and his GOP colleagues didn't like a provision to extend unemployment benefits, or the Democrats call to raise taxes on wealthy Americans to pay for an overhaul of the GI Bill. They adamantly opposed including language in the measure that would have required President Bush to begin pulling out troops from Iraq within 30 days once the bill becomes law.

When it came time to vote today on the $163 billion supplemental to pay for the wars, the Republicans decided to clean their hands of a measure that the White House had already threatened to veto.

The Democratic-led House approved more money for the jobless and boosted GI education benefits, but dozens of Republicans unexpectedly voted "present" to spend $163 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus blocking the bill from winning approval.

The Democratic leadership split the measure into three parts, so the antiwar members of their party could vote against further war spending, while voting in favor of the overhaul of the GI Bill and extension of the unemployment benefits.