Afghanistan: US Military Holds On to Detainees

Gareth Porter writes for Inter Press Service:

An initiative to revise the procedures for reviewing the cases of detainees in order to free marginal insurgents and innocent Afghans has run afoul of the interests of officers of the powerful Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in defending their role in earlier detention decisions.

A study of U.S. detention policy in Afghanistan by Maj. Gen. Douglas
Stone in early 2009 had concluded that holding hundreds of detainees
without charge in both U.S. and Afghan detention facilities was helping the hardcore Taliban radicalise the vast majority of the detainees.

Stone was reported by The Guardian Oct. 14 to believe that two-thirds of the prisoners held in Bagram were innocent and should be released.

But the new procedures for detainee review put in place late last year
have led to relatively few releases, and the conditions attached to
those releases have rubbed more salt on old Afghan wounds.


Of the 576 detainees whose cases had been reviewed under the new rules by late January, only 66 had been released, Brig. Gen. Mark S.
Martins, deputy commander of "Joint Task Force 435", which has
responsibility for detainee operations in Afghanistan, told IPS in a
recent interview.

In addition, the release procedure requires the detainees and the
village elders vouching for them to sign a paper saying the detainees
had been held on the basis of intelligence linking them to the
insurgency. At a meeting for the handover of some released detainees
in Kabul reported by The New York Times Saturday, village elders from Paktia province refused to sign the paper until the offending language was changed.

The commander of Task Force 435, Navy Vice Admiral Robert S. Harward Jr., defended the intelligence conclusions at the Kabul meeting, but ultimately agreed to allow the elders to sign a paper that rejected
that conclusion. In the future, the document will say that the
detainees were considered insurgents in the eyes of the U.S.,
according to the Times report.

Harward's role at the meeting highlights an apparent conflict of interest that hampers the achievement of the original aim of the Task Force.

Harward had been assistant commander of "Task Force 714", a covert
special operations group that conducted hundreds of targeted raids in
Afghanistan under JSOC, from 2006 to 2008. Those raids filled the U.S.
detention facility at Bagram Air Base with suspected insurgents.

Harward and other present and past JSOC officials, including Gen.
Stanley A. McChrystal, who was then overall commander of JSOC, have an obvious interest in ensuring that the results of case reviews do not
reflect negatively on JSOC's detention decisions.

Putting an officer with such an obvious conflict of interest in charge
of the Task Force - and assigning Martins, a lawyer who is clearly
more sympathetic to detainee rights, as his deputy - has all the
earmarks of a Pentagon compromise.

Read rest of article....

The Latest from Iran (21 March): Happy New Year, Mr Ahmadinejad

1750 GMT: It's All About US and Us. A slowish news phase, so the media are focusing on Ayatollah Khamenei's Sunday speech. It's on the lines of the Twitter publicity put out by his office (1330 and 1420 GMT), but this extract is especially provocative:

The enemies wanted to divide the people... and to create a civil war, but the nation was alert. If they were able to do it, the US and Zionist regime would have sent troops to Tehran's streets, but they knew it would hurt them. Thus they spread propaganda and supported the rioters.

1730 GMT: We've posted Iranian New Year videos featuring defiant chants from the opposition.

1440 GMT: Parliament v. President. Islamic Republic News Agency is claiming a fight-back against Parliamentary resistance to Ahmadinejad subsidy reform and spending proposals, quoting Arsalan Fathipour, head of the Parliament's economic commission, "We believe it is not possible to implement the subsidy reform plan at 20,000 billion tomans ($20 billion). So delegates intend to raise the figure to 35-38,000 billion tomans ($35-38 billion)." That would be almost all the $40 billion demanded by the President.

NEW Latest Iran Election Video: Nowruz and the Green Movement
NEW Iran Snap Analysis: A Rights-First Approach in Washington?
NEW Iran Video and Summary: Karroubi’s New Year Message
Latest Iran Video and Transcript: Obama’s Nowruz Message (20 March)
Iran Appeal: Japan’s Deportation of Jamal Saberi
Iran Analysis: Ahmadinejad Fails in Qom? (Verde)
Iran: Inside the Mind of the Interrogator
The Latest from Iran (20 March): Nowruz

1430 GMT: Obama and Iran. Edward Yeranian of the Voice of America claims that there was a "mized" reception amongst "Iranians inside and outside Iran" of President Obama's Nowruz message.


1420 GMT: "Rights" Annoys Khamenei. The emphasis in Barack Obama's Nowruz message on rights for Iran's people has annoyed the Supreme Leader. His office's Twitter barrage continues:

USA President sent letter and message to normalize relations, but his actions was against his words....USA President called distruptives "civil movement" and supported arsonists in recent events....Aren't you ashamed of killing in innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan while talking about Human Rights?

1340 GMT: Winning on the Internet. The Guardian of London offers an interview with Austin Heap, the creator of the Haystack initiative to assist Iranians with access to the Internet, evading regime blocks and protecting their security.

1330 GMT: Everything Most Excellent Here. Really. The Supreme Leader's Twitter machine is extracting English quotes from his Nowruz message. My favourite so far: "Last Iranian year was the nation's year and their victory; a year of seeming presence in glorious arena."

1005 GMT: Speaking of Rights. Nooshabeh Amiri, writing in Rooz Online, considers "Women’s Movement [As] a Prelude to the Green Movement".

1000 GMT: US, Iran, and Rights. We've put our snap analysis of a possible shift in US policy on Iran into a separate ent

0900 GMT: The Ruling of the Umpire. The Iran-based blogger Persian Umpire is back after an absence with three entries: one on the events of 22 Bahman (11 February), one on waiting outside Evin Prison for a detained friend, and one on last week's Chahrshanbeh Suri (Fire Festival) ceremonies.

The summary of the festival offers one of the classic observations of this post-election crisis: "No one gave a certain rodent’s bottom for the fatwa [of Ayatollah Khamenei]. In fact it solidified people’s resolve to come out and celebrate."

0700 GMT: As Iranians celebrate Nowruz, they have been greeted by messages for the New Year. And there is more than a bit of politics behind the best wishes. The most pointed intervention may have come from Mehdi Karroubi, who derided the regime (a "small barge" not a "galleon") as illegitimate. We have the video and a summary.

President Ahmadinejad offered his own message, but the question is whether it has been overshadowed by events which do not point to 1389 as his happiest year. Consider....

As EA's Mr Verde predicted, the President got both a slap and a warning with the release of Hashemi Rafsanjani's relative and political ally Hossein Marashi from prison. Officially, the freedom is only temporary for Nowruz --- Marashi was jailed on Thursday after an appeals court upheld a one-year sentence for "propaganda against the regime". Beyond the official, the political significance will be whether Marashi goes back to prison; if not, it will be a dent in the authority of the Government.

Rooz Online echoes Mr Verde's assessment of an Ahmadinejad failure in his Thursday mission to Qom to get the support of senior clerics, claiming "the chief authorities refused his presence". (Rooz adds a name to those who did meet with Ahmadinejad: Ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi.)

In Tehran three lawmakers, prominent in economic discussions, criticised Ahmadinejad for his Friday suggestion of a referendum on his subsidy reform and spending plans, saying he is legally obliged to execute the economic reform plan approved by the Parliament. Gholam Reza Mesbahi Moqaddam, Ali Tavakkoli, and Elyas Naderan  said in ajoint statement, "The president does not have the right to disobey a law which has been approved by the Parliament."

Iran Analysis: What Does the Fire Festival Mean?

Sometimes a celebration should be considered first as a celebration.

After months of reporting on tension and conflict, it was a pleasure to watch the joy of Iranians on Chahrshanbeh Suri, the eve of Iranian New Year celebration of the renewal of fire. Although there was a heavy security presence in main streets and squares, this did not --- as The Washington Post reported --- "block traditional celebrations".

Latest Iran Video: Two Views of the Fire Festival (16 March)

Instead, on side streets and outside residences across Iran, people gathered to set off firecrackers, sing, dance, and jump over the small fires which hark back to Zoroastrian tradition. An EA reader eagerly wrote us, "Our family live in a provincial town. It was rocking tonight with the sound of fireworks! Cud be heard in every part of the town :-)" Even in Press TV's state-sanitised video of events, there is the pleasure of an elderly woman gingerly skipping in her long dress over a few inches of flame.



I never had the sense, despite some eager chatter, that this was going to be an occasion for bring-down-the-Government marches. Some in the Western media, coming late to the party, had the misleading impression that this was going to be an attempted recovery of the blunted rally of 22 Bahman (11 February) --- The Guardian, which set up emergency LiveBlog coverage, seemed particularly disappointed --- but this was not a make-or-break Green Movement moment.

Instead, this was an occasion to celebrate Iranian identity and to have some fun. For me, that seems to be more than enough to observe and praise.

Sometimes a celebration should then be considered political.

But even if the videos coming out of Iran were limited and of basic quality --- the regime is still waging a cyber-war against communication --- and even if the direct protests of "Death to the Dictator" were scattered, don't be mistaken: even having fun and "being Iranian" can be a political act.

Ironically, we have the Supreme Leader to thank for making this clear. His clumsy intervention that Chahrshanbeh Suri “has no religious basis and is harmful and must be avoided” turned an appearance at the Fire Festival into a gesture of disregard or even defiance.

He may be Supreme Leader, but this was how far Ayatollah Khamenei's legitimacy extends. This morning, after thousands (how many thousands?) celebrated in his or her way, the Supreme Leader's "fatwa" has reportedly been removed from his website.

To show authority, security forces closed stores and shopping malls in Tehran during the afternoon and banned motorcycles in the city. Municipal garbage containers were collected to prevent their being used to make bonfires. Thousands of officers were placed at the capital's main gathering points. Neighborhood police officers went door to door warning residents that large celebrations were banned.

As thousands (how many thousands?) still sang and danced and set off their firecrackers, was this a sign of regime legitimacy or a sign of forced authority? As thousands (how many thousands?) shared the festivities with friends and family, was this a sign of confidence or a sign of fear?

As we closed coverage last night, the message came in from a Tehran resident, via another EA reader, who had been told of "Western" reports that nothing political had occurred during Chahrshanbeh Suri. The resident, after an evening of joy and celebration, simply responded:

"In Iran everything is political."

Iraq: We're Staying --- US Military Challenges Obama's Withdrawal Plan

Within days of President Obama's inauguration last January, I began writing of a military attempt to "bump him" on three fronts: preventing the closure of Guantanamo Bay, getting more troops in Afghanistan, and delaying the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

Well, the commanders, backed by key individuals in the Executive and the complications of Congress, succeeded on the first two matters. And, days before Iraq's national elections, they are pressing again on the third. General Raymond Odierno, the commander of US forces in Iraq and a man who (a la General David Petraeus) has learned how to work the press, started telling favoured reporters that Obama's August date for removal of most combat troops might not be tenable. Prominent columnists like Thomas Friedman and Thomas Ricks soon rolled out the arguments for sticking around.



In contrast to last year, this is not yet a head-on clash with the President; Odierno and his allies, possibly including Petraeus, now head of the US Central Command for the region, are working around him through media channels. But it does set up a challenge for Obama, especially if expected political complications with the elections occur: does he again give way on policy to his military brass?

Ranj Alaaldin writes for The Guardian of London:

Yesterday came the first signs of the inevitable in Iraq: a prolonged
presence of US troops beyond the status of forces agreement deadline of 2011.


President Obama has promised to get all combat troops (ie most of those still in the country) out of Iraq by August this year. But Thomas Ricks of Foreign Policy magazine has revealed that the top US military commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, has asked Obama to keep a combat force in the north for longer than that.

Odierno's request suggests that a somewhat flexible approach will be taken towards the remaining 40,000 to 50,000 troops. The general has asked for a combat brigade to remain in Kirkuk, the ethnically mixed, oil-rich and volatile disputed territory. But the problem of Kirkuk will not be
resolved by the end of 2011 and it may never be peacefully resolved at all (see the Falklands, the other oil-rich disputed territory that has had
historic battles fought over it, where disputes exist over the rights to
its oil and also where the UN, as with Kirkuk, has been called to look
into).

If Obama does indeed give his approval then it is likely to be a reflection of the US troop presence in Iraq over the next five, possibly
10, years. Yet, we may well be seeing the South Korea-style permanent military presence taking root here, both as a counter-measure against the impenetrable Iranian influence in the country as well as a measure to keep the peace; since Kirkuk could decide whether Iraq collapses or survives, a prolonged military presence in Iraq focused around the province, as well as other northern areas like Mosul and Diyala – where joint US-Kurd-Arab military patrols have been initiated – can be justified.

How will this be sold to the American and Iraqi public? As I explained to
the LSE Ideas Middle East programme, the remaining 35,000 to 50,000 troops are expected to carry on in "advisory" capacities, code for "on standby" if things get really bad and a status more acceptable to a public largely critical of any "combative", and therefore seemingly aggressive, military mandate. Iraqis may welcome this so long as the US keeps out of everyday Iraqi life, stays in the background as the Iraqi security forces become more assertive and generally improve, and so long as it leads to improved security.

Politically speaking, there will be some, especially among the Sunnis who deride Iran's influence and the Shia hold on power, that deem a strong US presence a necessary and imperative counter-measure against other domestic and external forces that have a degree of power far superior than their own.

It is election time in Iraq and the nation is gripped with the campaigning
process as they prepare to cast their vote in less than 10 days. For this reason, the US administration is doing well to wait before coming out officially to extend the deadline – lest it hurt any allies, potential or
otherwise – and it is likely to wait up to two months after the election
as the political framework settles. For these reasons, it is unlikely that
the revelation will have any bearing on the elections.