TALIBAN TELEPHONE TRICKS

Exclusive
DEFENCE SAYS TALIBAN DIDN’T MAKE CRANK CALL
By Sasha Uzunov
copyright 2009

Australian soldiers serving in Afghanistan have been warned as a security measure not leave personal mail, postcards or any other correspondence or emails unsecured or not properly disposed of after it was allegedly falling into the hands of the Taliban terrorists, and used in psychological warfare.

An American military source contacted TEAM UZUNOV to allege that an Australian female soldier from Western Australia had a letter inadvertently fall into the hands of the Taliban who then telephoned her parents back home threatening the soldier’s life.

Australia’s Defence Department Media unit, to its credit, has spent over a month investigating details but has denied the veracity of the allegation.

A Defence spokeswoman said:“The Australian Defence Force (ADF) has no record of the incident that is raised in your question.

“The ADF practices strict information security procedures that protect operational and personal information from falling into the hands of our adversaries.”

Mr Neil James, Executive Director of the Australia Defence Association, noted:“Perhaps the problem in this instance, if it occurred as described, resulted from improper disposal, that is a letter ended up at the tip instead of being shredded.

“The ADA is not aware of any Australian cases of families at home being targeted by the Taliban. However, in the era of the Internet, satellite phones, Taliban propaganda on blog sites being absorbed subjectively by so many, general misinformation on the war being so common, and sympathy for the Taliban among at least some in Australian society, it certainly seems possible.
As with Vietnam, the longer the war goes on the greater the risk that Australian extremists may resort to such harassment (or worse), either out of direct sympathy with and support for the Taliban, or as extreme and callous publicity seeking for their own extremist causes”.

“The harassment of families of personnel deployed during the Vietnam War certainly occurred. It was quite vicious in several cases and included vandalism of houses, constant telephone calls and personal confrontations involving foul-mouthed abuse and occasionally assault. The perpetrators were Australian extremists opposed to us being in Vietnam and some sabotage of military equipment and bases also occurred.”

Mr James said that during the Vietnam War (1962-72) the laws and legal loopholes of that era did not allow prosecution for actions, deliberately or recklessly taken, that aided the enemy the ADF were fighting on behalf of us all, even where some Australians disagreed.

Since the passage of the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act, 2002, an Australian citizen anywhere in the world again commits treason if he or she (among other things: intentionally assists, by any means whatsoever, an enemy, at war with the Commonwealth; intentionally assists, by ‘any means whatsoever’, another country or organisation that is engaged in armed hostilities against the ADF; or forms an intention to do any of the above acts and manifests that intention by an overt act.

The Executive Director of the ADA added: “this is as it should be in any liberal democracy where our defence force is lawfully committed to UN-endorsed action by a democratically elected government on behalf of us all. Members of our defence force, quite rightly, cannot disobey lawful orders.

“We therefore owe a responsibility to the ADF not to let them down in any way, no matter how much some Australians might disagree with the Government’s decision to send them. Lawful and peaceful dissent is OK, aiding the enemy is not. All dissent and associated action should be directed at our Government not the diggers”

(end)

MEDIA END CHEERLEADING OF DEF MINISTER

MEDIA END CHEERLEADING OF DEFENCE MINISTER
by Sasha Uzunov

It was a case of the Australian media finally laying down their pom-poms and ending the cheerleading routine in reporting how tough the Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon was in his war with his own Defence Department.

What civilians cannot understand is the Defence Department is a universe of its own. Outsiders who do not know how to operate in this environment get chewed up pretty quick. Mr Fitzgibbon, through no fault of his own, lacks two things: he has never served in uniform and secondly, he does not hold the aces when it comes to playing political poker with his own Defence Department.

Only one man, TEAM UZUNOV points out, is capable of doing so: Colonel Iron Mike Kelly, Federal Parliamentary Secretary for Defence.

It was a TEAM UZUNOV blog that first revealed the worsening relationship between the Minister and his own Department when an outsider, Mr Tim Holding, was being floated as go-between or trouble shooter in Afghanistan.

Later, TEAM UZUNOV revealed that because of the war between Mr Fitzgibbon and his Department that the only honourable thing was for him to fall on his sword.

The media have now revealed that Mr Fitzgibbon has apologised for not declaring trips he undertook to China

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25249324-601,00.html
Joel Fitzgibbon admits woman friend Helen Liu paid for China trips
Brad Norington and Patrick Walters March 27, 2009

Article from: The Australian
THE future of Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon was in doubt last night after he was forced to apologise for failing to declare two trips he made to China that were paid for by Chinese businesswoman Helen Liu.

The admission drew an immediate call by Malcolm Turnbull for Kevin Rudd to sack Mr Fitzgibbon.

Revelation of the trips came after it was reported yesterday a covert investigation by officials from Mr Fitzgibbon's own Defence Department allegedly unearthed security concerns about his links with Ms Liu. The Defence Department's internal security agency has begun its own urgent investigation into the allegations that Defence officials spied on the minister...
---

TEAM UZUNOV is not suggesting anything untoward in Mr Fitzgibbon's behavior and respects his privacy. However, with a real shooting war raging between the Taliban and Australian soldiers in Afghanistan the sideshow has taken the focus off that...

Mr Fitzgibbon was lightly rebuked by the Australian media when it was also revealed he had taken a mate on a joyride into a warzone on board a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) flight.
http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/fitzgibbon-defends-friends-afghan-trip-20080730-3naf.html
Fitzgibbon defends friend's Afghan trip
Maria HawthorneJuly 30, 2008

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says he has no regrets about his decision to take a friend on an official trip to war-torn Afghanistan.

University academic Scott Holmes paid his own way to accompany Mr Fitzgibbon to the Anzac Day service in Gallipoli, with the trip also taking in Ankara and the Middle East.

But they made an unscheduled diversion to Tarin Kowt after Australian soldier Jason Marks was killed in Afghanistan on their last night in Ankara.

The opposition has labelled the trip "Joel's joy flight" and questioned the additional cost and security risk of taking Professor Holmes, an economics specialist and part-time adviser in Mr Fitzgibbon's electorate office, into Afghanistan.
-------------------------------------------------

It is a pity that the Australian media play follow the pack mentality when reporting defence issues. The recent change in that behaviour could be explained that Mr Fitzgibbon's position has become untenable so the media now feel safe to move against him, without losing the privileges of free embedded trips to the Australian Army base in Tarin Kowt, Afghanistan.

Such cynical behaviour by the media does not serve the Australian taxpayer and his or her right to know about the goings on with the Defence Department

-------------------------------------

Thursday, March 12, 2009
DEFENCE MINISTER MUST GO
By Sasha UzunovCopyright 2009

Regardless of the SASR pay dispute, you know it is time for Australia's Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon to fall on his sword when he publicly has to wage a media war to bring his department under control.So much has been made by some journalists, acting more like cheerleaders and unofficial spin doctors, about how tough, feisty and angry Mr Fitzgibbon is with the Defence Department.

He has launched a well crafted media campaign where he has vented his “anger” at his department over being kept in the dark on a number of issues and the break down in communication of events in Afghanistan. In an unusual move, his predecessor, Dr Brendan Nelson, from the opposition, backed him up in Federal Parliament. Subsequent events, such as the SASR pay dispute, have confirmed what many have been saying for a long time, and that is Mr Fitzgibbon is out of his depth.

read more...

http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/defence-minister-must-go.html

---------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, January 30, 2009 - TEAM UZUNOV
MINISTER ON AFGHAN FACT FINDING TRIP?
ExclusiveTim Holding - Brumby’s man turned PM Rudd’s international man of mystery?

VIC MINISTER WON’T CONFIRM OR DENY AFGHAN TRIP
By Sasha Uzunov
Copyright 2009

Mr Tim Holding, a Victorian State government minister who is a former Australian Army Reserve Special Forces soldier, will not confirm nor deny speculation about him undertaking a short fact finding mission to Afghanistan on behalf of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
A prominent strategic analyst, who has the close ear of governments, and speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he wanted to “float the idea of Mr Holding undertaking a fact finding mission to the Australian base in Tarin Kowt province [in Southern Afghanistan].”

read more:
http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/holding-peacemakercircuit-breaker.html
---------------------

The Age, Diary Column, Tuesday, 3 February 2009.
Timmy, don't forget to pack the water canteen
by SUZANNE CARBONE

TIM Holding was dubbed "Twinkle Twinkle" because he was considered a little star, and he's really made an impact in the water portfolio with those faulty four-minute shower timers that last for 40 minutes or four hours. But Dim's moment to shine may have arrived.

Former Australian soldier Sasha Uzunov, now a photo-journalist, writes in his blog that Holding (below) could be destined for Afghanistan as Kevin Rudd's "eyes and ears" on the ground. You see, Holding is well credentialed as a former member of the Army Reserve in the 1st Commando Regiment - and he's Tourism Minister.

A "prominent Canberra strategic analyst" told Uzunov: "Mr Holding is an intelligent young politician with links to special forces. The Australian media underestimate his ability, which is why he would be ideal for the mission: he would slip under the media radar."

The analyst claimed the PM was not happy with the flow of information from Afghanistan so the analyst would suggest Holding embark on a "fact-finding mission" to the Australian base in Tarin Kowt. Diary asked Commando Holding about swapping a fluoro vest for a flak jacket, and he said:

....read more

i-Phone loving ex-Taliban Leader & David Hicks

i-Phone loving ex-Taliban Leader Mullah Zaeef in Kabul.

Photo copyright Sasha Uzunov 2007.

Apple i-Phone loving Afghan Mullah who once condemned David Hicks.

Here's a quirky story about an ex-Taliban leader Mullah Zaeef who loves his Apple iPhone that ran in the AP wire on March 3, 2009.

I had the good fortune to interview this guy, Mullah Zaeef in 2007 in Kabul, Afghanistan. I have him on video tape talking about Australian terrorism supporter David Hicks. See below the link to my Herald Sun article.

This was an exclusive story at the time! It ran in the Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph... I have video footage of the Mullah Zaeef condemning Hicks.

I wonder if Mullah Zaeef will give David Hicks a call on his new i-Phone?

In 2008 it was reported that Hicks was planning to marry a Sydney university student and he had consulted a christian pastor...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,24839726-2,00.html

David Hicks plans to marry girlfriend Aloysha Brooks, says pastor
By Verity Edwards, The Australian, December 24, 2008

------------------------------------------------------------------

Afghan tech boom: Mullah embraces iPhone

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090303/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_iphone_mullah Associated

Press (AP) - March 3, 2007. KABUL –

Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef is a former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan. He spent almost four years in Guantanamo. He wears a black turban, has a thick beard — and is never without his Apple iPhone.

The ultra-conservative Taliban banned modern technology like the Internet and TV during its harsh 1996-2001 rule, but those items have boomed in Afghanistan since the regime's 2001 ouster, helping to bring the country into the 21st century.

Zaeef, who reconciled with the Afghan government after being released from U.S. custody, says he uses his iPhone to surf the Internet and find difficult locations, employing the built-in GPS. He even checks his bank account balance online. "It's easy and modern and I love it,"

Zaeef said as he pinched and pulled his fingers across the iPhone's touch screen last week. "This is necessary in the world today. People want to progress."

-----------------------------

http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/2008/09/david-hicks-more-than-meets-eye.html
Tuesday, September 23, 2008

DAVID HICKS MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE

Sasha Uzunov dressed in native Afghan clothes behind the camera taping Mullah Zaeef. On the right is Canadian journalist David Pugliese, also in native dress. (Photo by Scott Taylor)

DAVID HICKS MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE
by Sasha Uzunov

David Hicks, the Australian convicted of supporting terrorism in Afghanistan, has been in the news again.

Whatever you think of David Hicks, there is certainly more to the story than meets the eye.
In May 2007 as an Australian journalist, along with Canadian colleagues, Scott Taylor and David Pugliese we were granted an interview with a former Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan, who spent 4 years in Guantanamo Bay, and were surprised to hear his negative thoughts about David Hicks...

This was an exclusive Australian story in the Melbourne Herald Sun newspaper at the time.
I also video taped an interview with the ex-Taliban diplomat.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21743054-662,00.html
Herald Sun newspaper

David Hicks not 'true Muslim'

by Sasha Uzunov, May 17, 2007 12:00am

DAVID Hicks was not a true Muslim and was regarded as a possible spy by other accused terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, says a former inmate and one-time Taliban diplomat.

"All the people, including me and the Arabs, we're thinking he was a spy," said Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, back in Afghanistan after spending nearly four years in US custody including at Guantanamo Bay.

"He was separated from us. The Americans were scared he would be killed by the other prisoners," the Afghan man said in an interview in Kabul. "He was not a true Muslim."

After five years in US custody, Hicks is expected to leave Guantanamo Bay within days for Australia, where he will serve nine months in a jail near Adelaide before being set free. He is being returned to Australia under a deal after pleading guilty in a US military commission to a charge of providing material support for terrorism.

Hicks was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001, where he was accused of training with al-Qaida and of fighting alongside Taliban troops. But Zaeef, a former Taliban minister and ambassador to Pakistan, denied Hicks was part of the Taliban regime, toppled from power in Afghanistan by the US invasion in 2001.

After his release without charge by the US, Zaeef now lives in Kabul but under the close watch of the Hamid Karzai Government, which provides a security guard for his protection. Zaeef said he was not in contact with the current Taliban leadership, who are fighting Australian and other coalition troops. He said Australia was now an enemy of the Afghan people because it had supported the US-led war in Afghanistan. Zaeef said coalition forces had killed a lot of Afghani people.

"And the people became enemies of the Americans, of the Canadians and others," he said.

"People are not thinking the Americans, the Canadians are neutral, that they have come for peace and stability. "The people are thinking that the Canadians, the British, the Americans are all enemies since they are killing us."

----------------------------------------
LINKS:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=86adcc80-9ee6-49bc-a35b-6df71597e5b0&k=37467

NATO, U.S. stand in way of peace in Afghanistan: Taliban chief
Most Afghans blame foreign forces for civilian deaths, former official saysDavid Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen. Published: Wednesday, May 09, 2007

---------------------------------------------------------

http://www.espritdecorps.ca/Traveling%20in%20Northern%20Afghanistan/Traveling%20in%20northern%20afghanistan.htm

BEATING THE TALIBAN?

Above: Wily Afghan General Abdul Rashid Dostum (left) pictured with Canadian journalist Scott Taylor in 2007. Dostum claims he can put together a 5,000 strong army and clean out the Taliban but is being stopped by NATO from doing so.

Australian freelance photo journalist Sasha Uzunov in local Afghan attire meets charismatic and unorthodox American woman Sarah Chayes who lives outside the wire in Kandahar, Afghanistan

On-Line Opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8328&page=0

Out-'talibaning' the Taliban:

can the US ‘win’ in Afghanistan?
By Sasha Uzunov - 30 December 2008


The late David “Hack” Hackworth, the most decorated American soldier from the Korean and Vietnam Wars and a respected military critic, once said that to beat the guerrilla or insurgent you have to “out-g the g” or out-guerrilla the guerrilla! That is you have to use his tactics against him.

The United States - and by extension the “Free World” including Australia - now finds itself poised for a make or break year 2009 in the Afghanistan War. The Taliban has become resurgent in more than 50 per cent of the country. Some are claiming more than 70 per cent.

But can the US really win the war in Afghanistan? It depends how you define winning. It has been easy for commentators to compare the Vietnam War and Afghanistan - with the focus on beating an elusive enemy that comes and goes: the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

With any counter-insurgency war, the key to winning is a two-pronged attack - political and military. That is removing the support for the insurgent or guerrilla from the people. The most obvious way from a political angle is to provide the local people with clean running water, sanitation, health, jobs and education and combat corruption within the government.

The sad truth is that much of the western aid in Kandahar, the Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan, is not getting through. Canadian journalist Scott Taylor and I had the opportunity to see for ourselves, outside the wire in June 2008, that local schools did not have books or computers. Literacy is at the heart of weaning the locals from the need for the Taliban.

One brave woman, Sarah Chayse, a former American journalist, lives outside the comfortable NATO base or western style compounds in Kandahar. She has gained street credibility by running a simple soap factory that employs local men and woman. She is Afghanistan’s version of John Paul Vann, the famous American advisor from the Vietnam War. The Commander of Canadian Forces, Brigadier-General Denis Thompson even paid her visit while we were her guests earlier this year.

Moreover, at some point the Taliban will probably have to be brought to the negotiating table. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has left the door open for such a possibility.

Critics always point out that the US is not good at winning counter-insurgency war with Vietnam cited ad nauseam as the example; that US military doctrine is geared towards set piece battles with enormous fire power. The irony of all this is that US has the answers staring it right in the face. The Whitehouse and the Pentagon need only go back into the history pages, back into the time of the founding of the US in the late 18th century.

Rogers Rangers or Petraeus' Patriots

Rogers Rangers were a group of irregular colonial American soldiers recruited by the British in the late 1700s to fight the competing French Empire and Indians in North America. They were famous for using what has now become known as guerrilla tactics, ambushing, hit and run and so on. Later, some of these tactics were used by the Americans fighting for Independence against the British. Those ex-Rogers Rangers that remained loyal to the British Empire during the American War of Independence moved to Canada.

Both the United States and Canadian Armies claim the legacy of Rogers Rangers. The present day 1st Battalion, 119th Field Artillery (United States) and the Canadian The Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment) trace their roots back to Rogers Rangers.
Both countries are now fighting side by side in Afghanistan. The Canadians have taken many casualties, with a hundred soldiers killed already.

Perhaps the US military might want to re-create a 21st century version of Rogers’s Rangers and call it Petraeus’ Patriots, after the famous US Army General David Petraeus from the Iraq War known for thinking outside the box.

Another man who could help the US is an articulate and fighting Colonel, HR McMaster, who in 2005 was successful in counter-insurgency operations in Northern Iraq. I had the good fortune to meet Colonel McMaster in Tal Afar, Northern Iraq in 2005.

Perhaps promoting him to Brigadier-General and giving him a command in Afghanistan should be considered top priority by incoming US President Barak Obama

The US, Australia and Canada, have their Special Forces units operating in Afghanistan. The Commander of Australia’s Special Operations Command, Major General Tim McOwan has claimed during a recent media meet and greet and slide show in Canberra that the elite SASR (Special Air Service Regiment) and 4RAR (Commando) were beating the Taliban at its own game.

"In many instances your Special Forces soldiers are able to clandestinely capture these leaders without ever firing a shot. On one occasion the commandos infiltrated undetected into the heart of a Taliban safe haven to capture the Taliban leader Ahmad Shah in his bed," he said.

General McOwan has not revealed in great detail what tactics the SASR and Commandos are using but it does not take a genius to work out that the key to any operations is to remain unpredictable - the enemy not knowing where and when you will strike. Moreover, not leaving a signature, that is the enemy does not know how you will strike: will you enter (insert) the battle with helicopters, armoured vehicles or just walk in?

The Black Hawk down episode in Somalia in 1993 saw a band of militia with cheap but effective weapons, Kalashnikov assault rifles, RPG rocket launchers, bring down two very expensive American Black Hawk helicopters and inflict casualties on US Army Specials Forces (Green Berets, Delta Force and Rangers). The political result was President Clinton withdrew from the mission. The Somali militias had learnt when and where the US military would strike because it had become routine in its operations and left a “signature”.

In 2001 when the US invaded Afghanistan and successfully removed the Taliban from power, Green Berets joined forces with Northern Alliance rebels, namely ethnic Uzbek forces led by the wily General Abdul Rashid Dostum. One of the traditional ways they travelled into the battlefield was by horse because of the hostile terrain.

Irregular and radical tactics

As a suggestion, and if it has not been already been adopted, why not have a brigade or regiment (over 1,500 soldiers) of US Army Green Berets or Petraeus Patriots dressed as local Afghanis, full beards, using traditional weapons such Kalashnikovs and RPGs supplemented but not dominated by the high-tech gadgets that the US likes to use in warfare, hunt down the Taliban. Throw in some tracker dogs as well. We could have a contingent of Canadian Special Forces, JTF 2, along for the ride. They could be nicknamed Hilliers’ Harrassers, in honour of the hugely popular Canadian Defence Chief, General Ricky “The Big Cod” Hillier.

In 2,000 years no one, including the British or the Russians has been able to subdue Afghanistan. History is against the US. However, history can also find the answers.

Afghanistan is a nation made up of various ethnic groups, Pushtuns namely in the south, Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras, the descendents of the Mongols, and two strands of Islam, Sunni and Shiite. Trying to keep Afghanistan, like multi-ethnic Iraq, as a central state is downright crazy. Some kind of federation should be considered, devolving power as a safety mechanism.

Pushtuns have their kinsmen living in neighbouring northern Pakistan. It comes as no great surprise that the Taliban, which draws its support from the Pushtuns, has safe heavens across the border in Pakistan. To revisit the Vietnam War, the communist North Vietnam used neighbouring Cambodia as part of its Ho Chi Minh trail as a supply line to the Viet Cong (Communist insurgent forces) in the South.

The US now has to also cut off the “Osama bin Laden Pass” connecting Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A federal Afghanistan with the national army complemented by regional forces - and private armies run by warlords are a fact of life in Afghanistan today as they were centuries ago - would act as a counter to the Taliban.

In June 2008, Canadian journalist Scott Taylor and I were told by Dostum in Kabul, the Afghan capital that he could round up an army of 5,000 fighters and clean out the Taliban. Similarly, leader Pocha Khan Zadran said he could do the same in the East alongside the border with Pakistan.

Critics, pundits, defence experts, armchair generals, and the media constantly bombards us with the notion that we need to be able to think outside the box, and have a willingness to try something unorthodox. But it seems many of these groups are set in their ways.

(end)

DAVID HICKS MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE

Sasha Uzunov dressed in native Afghan clothes behind the camera taping Mullah Zaeef. On the right is Canadian journalist David Pugliese, also in native dress. (Photo by Scott Taylor)

DAVID HICKS MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE

by Sasha Uzunov

David Hicks, the Australian convicted of supporting terrorism in Afghanistan, has been in the news again.

Whatever you think of David Hicks, there is certainly more to the story than meets the eye.

In May 2007 as an Australian journalist, along with Canadian colleagues, Scott Taylor and David Pugliese we were granted an interview with a former Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan, who spent 4 years in Guantanamo Bay, and were surprised to hear his negative thoughts about David Hicks...

This was an exclusive Australian story in the Melbourne Herald Sun newspaper at the time.

I also video taped an interview with the ex-Taliban diplomt.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21743054-662,00.html

Herald Sun newspaper

David Hicks not 'true Muslim'

Sasha Uzunov
May 17, 2007 12:00am

DAVID Hicks was not a true Muslim and was regarded as a possible spy by other accused terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, says a former inmate and one-time Taliban diplomat.

"All the people, including me and the Arabs, we're thinking he was a spy," said Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, back in Afghanistan after spending nearly four years in US custody including at Guantanamo Bay.

"He was separated from us. The Americans were scared he would be killed by the other prisoners," the Afghan man said in an interview in Kabul. "He was not a true Muslim."

After five years in US custody, Hicks is expected to leave Guantanamo Bay within days for Australia, where he will serve nine months in a jail near Adelaide before being set free. He is being returned to Australia under a deal after pleading guilty in a US military commission to a charge of providing material support for terrorism.

Hicks was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001, where he was accused of training with al-Qaida and of fighting alongside Taliban troops. But Zaeef, a former Taliban minister and ambassador to Pakistan, denied Hicks was part of the Taliban regime, toppled from power in Afghanistan by the US invasion in 2001.

After his release without charge by the US, Zaeef now lives in Kabul but under the close watch of the Hamid Karzai Government, which provides a security guard for his protection. Zaeef said he was not in contact with the current Taliban leadership, who are fighting Australian and other coalition troops. He said Australia was now an enemy of the Afghan people because it had supported the US-led war in Afghanistan. Zaeef said coalition forces had killed a lot of Afghani people.

"And the people became enemies of the Americans, of the Canadians and others," he said.

"People are not thinking the Americans, the Canadians are neutral, that they have come for peace and stability. "The people are thinking that the Canadians, the British, the Americans are all enemies since they are killing us."

----------------------------------------

LINKS:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=86adcc80-9ee6-49bc-a35b-6df71597e5b0&k=37467

NATO, U.S. stand in way of peace in Afghanistan: Taliban chief

Most Afghans blame foreign forces for civilian deaths, former official says
David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Wednesday, May 09, 2007
---------------------------------------------------------

http://www.espritdecorps.ca/Traveling%20in%20Northern%20Afghanistan/Traveling%20in%20northern%20afghanistan.htm

PHOTOS of 2007 Afghan trip
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

photo credit: ADF


"FAILED" NELSON-HOWARD DOCTRINE ON AFGHANISTAN?
By Sasha Uzunov
copyright 2008

The political and military fallout of the Taliban ambush attack on Australian soldiers in Afghanistan can be traced back to the failure of 2006 Nelson-Howard doctrine on the Afghanistan war.

Nine Australian Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan were recently wounded in some of the heaviest fighting seen so far. If I was the current Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, I would be raising questions in the Federal Parliament over the previous government's handling of the war.

SAS WITHDRAWAL- 2006

As the then Defence Minister, Dr Brendan Nelson, together with the Prime Minister John Howard made the decision to withdraw our Special Forces troops from Afghanistan in November 2006, giving the Taliban the breathing space it needed to re-organise.

Then Dr Nelson denied that there was a rift with our coalition partners the Dutch which was causing a delay in restoring stability to our Area of Operations in the Oruzgan province. But later read the Dutch the riot act if they pulled out of the mission.

“The consequences of a Dutch withdrawal, if we can't find another partner, is that we would be far too exposed to continue,” Dr Nelson said in August 2007.

German expert finds the "smoking gun" --Dutch-Aussie rift over mission

When I was in Afghanistan in May 2007, I bumped into a well respected Ulrich Ladurner, who is the foreign editor of the German weekly Die Zeit and co-author with Gerow von Randow of The Iranian Bomb. He said he had been to the Dutch-Australian base at Tarin Kowt in Oruzgan.

"The Dutch and Australians are making a big effort but it is too slow in bringing stability to the province," Mr Ladurner said."'The local people are not happy with the progress made. It is still not safe. The region is still wild." In the vacuum left by the Special Forces departure, the Taliban were roaming into other provinces such as Helmand, run by the British, and Kandahar, run by the Canadians.

KEVIN 07--Rudd was right on Afghanistan

Later, the Special Forces were sent back to Afghanistan in mid 2007, an admission that a mistake had been made. In the irony of ironies, the then Opposition Leader and now Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the previous reduction of Australian troops in Afghanistan was an absolute mistake that let Osama bin Laden, leader of the terror group Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, off the hook. In response to the criticism of withdrawing the SAS, the then Prime Minister John Howard said:

"But we will not win it without renewed and increased effort and that is why we are playing our part. It's important, in dealing with the Taliban, not to be too passive."

NELSON-HOWARD MILITARY DOCTRINE: contradiction?

To top that off, a legacy of the Nelson-Howard military doctrine has the Special Forces doing most of the fighting, because of the fear of casualties to our regular infantry units. The long term effect could be burn out of our Special Forces. But the irony is if we withdraw our SF units and do not replace them with infantry units, then the pressure on Taliban is eased. It is one contradictory military doctrine, to say the least.

SF BURN OUT?

"Twice now we have had to deploy special forces in Afghanistan and twice now we have had to withdraw them because they are too tired," said Neil James, of think tank the Australian Defence Association in October 2006.

The highly respected Brigadier Jeff Sengelman DSC CSC, deputy commander of Special Operations, revealed the SAS had faced problems with recruiting and retaining soldiers but put a positive spin by also saying that it did not affect its operational capability.

The Australian Defence Force Chief, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, was on the money when he said days ago that the increase in Taliban activity against Australian troops in Afghanistan was a last attempt to inflict casualties before the northern winter set in, bringing a close to the traditional war season for another year. But let us take a closer look and read between the lines, if we can.

"It was an ambush. My understanding is it was gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades," Brigadier Robert Dawson, Defence PR, said.

Brigadier Dawson said the Taliban were fighting hard to repel Coalition incursions into their heartland areas. "Some of the operations which ISAF are conducting are in areas where Coalition soldiers have not been before," he said. "I think we can expect more heavy fighting." (Herald Sun, 4 Sept 2008).

Our diggers were operating against the Taliban in the strategic Chora valley north east of Tarin Kowt.

Okay, an ambush means that the enemy knows you are coming and are waiting for you. Obviously the Taliban’s intelligence gathering is working excellently and it must be getting some form of support from the local population. However, what is distressing is the statement that our troops are operating in areas they have not been before.

BREATHING SPACE FOR THE TALIBAN?

We have been in Afghanistan since 2001 that is 7 years so far and have not been able to still secure our AO. Is this because of the Nelson-Howard "breathing space" given to the Taliban in late 2006? In the military when a senior commander makes a mistake he accepts full responsibility and falls on his sword. Under our Westminster system of Parliamentary democracy, the buck stops with the politicians.

MORE FORCE?

Victory in Afghanistan can be achieved through political means backed up by the surgical use of force. When you give the local people, security, clean water, education and hope, they will turn against the Taliban.

More force does not translate into winning.

(end)

----------------------------------------------

LINKS:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24301037-7583,00.html
Let the infantry do its job
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor September 06, 2008

THE wounding of nine Australian soldiers in a Taliban ambush on Tuesday night is not only the biggest single combat casualty incident since Vietnam. It also tells us important things about the Rudd Government, about the nature of the Australian Army, about the dreadful
----------------
Sasha Uzunov story - 10 July 2008 http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23995986-5000117,00.html
New options to blunt Taliban Sasha Uzunov
July 10, 2008 12:00am

The SASR and 4RAR (Commando) are our two Specials Forces units and are a precision tool to be used sparingly, not as a blunt instrument. Australian infantry soldiers have recently expressed their dissatisfaction at being kept away from the sharp end in Afghanistan. And the question must be asked: how long can the new Rudd Government use the SAS Regiment and 4RAR (Commando) in an infantry role before they become worn out? When will the Government allow our infantry to do the job they have trained for?

In 1999 the Howard government used the army's elite Special Forces unit, the SAS, to do most of the fighting in East Timor, which should have been performed by the infantry. The political logic was that the public and media would accept SAS casualties rather than a young infantryman, fresh out of home or from a small country town. That political priority seems to remain. But political logic does not necessarily make good military sense, and vice-versa.

In East Timor, the pro-Indonesian militia tried to inflict as many casualties as possible on our infantry units, including battalions made up of many reserve soldiers, in the hope that Australia would withdraw. The moral of the story is, no matter how hard the Australian Government tries to insulate our infantry from combat by using the SAS, the unexpected happens.
---------------------------------------------------------------
- August 31, 2007.
The Australian
Nelson warns Dutch on Afghan pullout
Dennis Shanahan August 31, 2007

BRENDAN Nelson has warned Dutch MPs that a decision to remove their troops from southern Afghanistan could lead to the withdrawal of Australia's military personnel based alongside the Dutch in Oruzgan province.

The Defence Minister met 12 Dutch parliamentarians in the Afghanistan capital of Kabul this week after meeting President Hamid Karzai and Australian commanders.The Dutch parliament is considering withdrawing the country's troops from Oruzgan province following a series of combat deaths and rising public concern in The Netherlands about the wisdom of the fight against theTaliban.

The Australian engineers and special forces - part of a 970-strong Australian contingent in Afghanistan - have had increased contact with Taliban fighters in recent weeks, with small arms fire being directed at police checkpoints being built by Australian soldiers to protect local Afghani police.The checkpoints are being used to control traffic around the Oruzgan town of Tarin Kowt and to monitor movements by Taliban insurgents.

Apart from the small arms fire near the Camp Holland base at Tarin Kowt, Australian soldiers on patrol have made contact more frequently with Taliban fighters in the nearby mountains and hills.Two weeks ago, Australian forces had a decisive victory against local Taliban forces with a US air strike killing 18 Taliban leaders, including one of their most senior commanders in Afghanistan.

The Dutch forces provide vital helicopter air cover for the Australian troops working and patrolling around Tarin Kowt, and Australian commanders fear they would not be able to operate without it.The Dutch parliamentary committee members met Dr Nelson and the Chief of Defence Forces, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, at Kabul Airport.

Dr Nelson told The Australian that the Dutch MPs were informed that Australia was against any decision to reduce the Dutch presence in the region."We are not in a position to increase our numbers in Afghanistan and we won't and can't take the lead position in Tarin Kowt," the minister told the MPs.

"There are Australian soldiers who owe their lives to the Dutch Apache helicopters and they play a critical role."The consequences of a Dutch withdrawal, if we can't find another partner, is that we would be far too exposed to continue."The Dutch have 2200 troops at the Camp Holland base at Tarin Kowt and have suffered the deaths of six soldiers, including one on the day the parliamentary delegation was visiting Kabul to assess the situation in Afghanistan.

---------------------------------------------------
http://newmatilda.com/2007/06/06/news-front
Afghanistan 6 Jun 2007
News from the Front By Sasha Uzunov

Australian journalist Sasha Uzunov reports from the Afghan front

The Forgotten War Sometimes it takes an outsider to tell us the most uncomfortable truths.
Last week, Defence Minister Dr Brendan Nelson took a swipe at critics who question the pace at which Australian troops are securing their designated province in Afghanistan, saying:

Any suggestion Australian troops are not pulling their weight in southern Afghanistan is beneath contempt. Australia is steadfastly committed to Uruzgan as shown by the recent decision to deploy a Special Operations Task Group of approximately 300 people to the region. However, the recent decision to send Special Forces back to Uruzgan could also be read as a tacit admission that not all is well with the mission. (Who was the genius who decided to remove our Special Forces soldiers from Afghanistan late last year?)

When I asked the Defence Minister if a rift had developed between Australian troops and the Dutch Army engineers they are serving alongside, over who was doing the most to secure Uruzgan, Nelson would not comment.

The controversy was sparked by prominent German journalist, Ulrich Ladurner, who claimed, in an interview he gave to me at Kabul airport on 14 May, that both the Australians and Dutch were being slow in establishing security in the province. Ladurner, who is the foreign editor of the German weekly Die Zeit and co-author with Gero von Randow of The Iranian Bomb, spent weeks as an embedded journalist with Dutch Army engineers in Uruzgan Province at the Tarin Kowt base they share with Australian troops.

'The Dutch and Australians are making a big effort but it is too slow in bringing stability to the province,' Ladurner said. 'The local people are not happy with the progress made. It is still not safe. The region is still wild.'

One of the reasons it takes a non-Australian to provide this insider's view of the situation around Tarin Kowt is the Defence Department's obsession with controlling media access to our troops.
--------------------
Ulrich Ladurner interview at Kabul Airport, 14 May 2007

Ulrich Ladurner on Afghanistan Australian and Dutch troops were making slow progress despite their best ...

Interview can be seen on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPSc9hP6qA4

TALIBAN PRISONER CONTROVERSY

LETS NOT JUMP ON ABU GHRAIB BANDWAGON
By Sasha Uzunov
Copyright 2008

A report in today’s The Australian newspaper by Mark Dodd has revealed that Australian soldiers are detaining Afghan Taliban suspects in dog pens, which are culturally insensitive.

Before we jump on the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner scandal bandwagon here, let us get all the facts before we condemn our soldiers.

I have visited Afghan administered prisons in Kabul in 2008, and Kandahar in 2007 and 2008.

Let me tell you, it is not the place I would like to be held. The NDS (Afghan Intelligence) run Detention centre for Taliban suspects in Kandahar has improved as the local authorities are eager to comply with western standards.

I am sure our soldiers are aware of the Geneva Convention and prisoner of war procedures and so on.

The balance that needs to be weighed up is keeping suspects safe and secure, and cultural sensitivity. In a war zone this is something very hard to juggle. But it is part of the winning of hearts and minds.

Photo of Taliban suspect being held in NDS detention centre in Kandahar 2007. A small, clean cell. copyright Sasha Uzunov 2007.


Links:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24279569-601,00.html
Fury as Diggers admit Taliban held in dog pens

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse - 181k

Video: Interview with an Afghan suicide bomber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3xSEGHm5xQ

Scott Taylor on NDS Detention Centre, Kandahar

http://www.espritdecorps.ca/Visit%20to%20Kandahar%20prison/Visit%20to%20Kandahar%20prison.htm

Sasha Uzunov interviewed on Triple J ABC radio about captured teenage Afghan suicide bomber
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s2287075.htm

TIME TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX

TIME TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX
By Sasha Uzunov
copyright 2008

The Australian Army’s new Chief, Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie, has recently called for a dramatic change in the way our army fights in a modern and complicated world. This is long overdue, but we will have to wait and see if that ever materialises or just gets buried away in some report.

General Gillespie has acknowledged the need to peel away the layers of headquarters and bureaucracy that hinder the chain of command’s ability to direct soldiers in battle. This makes excellent sense.

For the record, General Gillespie is held in high esteem by many.

The Chief of the army has also acknowledged that the “enemy” the Taliban has cleverly adapted the use of modern technology such as the internet to wage war. However, his claim that “our operations will often be less about killing the enemy than about making them irrelevant to the population,” is pie in the sky stuff unless we make some dramatic changes in our Army.

I do not believe that the Generals or politicians would be prepared to do that.

Let me explain, General Gillespie has acknowledged that soldiers will have more to do on the battlefield overseas.

That is they will have to undertake humanitarian assistance, nation building, and so on. We will need to have flexible soldiers. But where will these flexible soldiers come from? Army training can only do so much.

You have a 19 year old who enlists in the Army and his life experience is limited and yet he maybe required going to Afghanistan and assisting in that country’s restructuring. Or a 20 year old who is commissioned as an officer lead men into battle.

The current professional army does not allow for flexibility. I am not talking about changing the traditional chain of command structure or hierarchy. No army can function as a democracy, unfortunately. It is the nature of the beast.

What I am saying is a fully professional army consists of enlisted men and officers who, if they play the game, get promoted and move up the career ladder. Therefore, you do not encourage flexibility or initiative or the ability to think outside the box.

One way to overcome this is to have officers first serve two years as enlisted men before they can be lead men, the way they do in the Israeli Army. But our traditional military system inherited from the British is unlikely to change. There would be too much resistance because officers have a privileged role in our army.

Moreover, we need to encourage people from a wide variety of professional backgrounds to join the army. At present the system, known as Direct Entry Officer or Specialist Service Officer takes lawyers, dentists, doctors, engineers, journalists directly out of civilian life and puts them in fields related to their professions. This is a great idea.

However, we need flexible soldiers who will have to do the fighting. We need warrior-scholars, as opposed to a lawyer in uniform. We need to get people into infantry corps, the frontline troops.

How do we do that? One way, and this is highly controversial, is to re-introduce conscription. You might say why do you want people who do not want to be in uniform? They are precisely the people we need. It sounds crazy but a person who does not want to be in the Army is not interested in playing the career/promotion game and is more likely to speak his mind, within the boundaries of course. These are the people we need to fight these complicated new wars.

Let me give you an example of someone thinking outside the box. Colonel David H. Hackworth, US Army’s most decorated soldier from Vietnam, once proposed to the Pentagon that it hire a caving specialist (speleologist) who claimed he could locate all of the Viet Cong underground tunnels. But the Pentagon Generals with their narrow minded view knocked back the idea. It is one of the great what ifs of that controversial war.

Whilst the Taliban modify, adapt, change, organise, we just talk and pass ideas around.

(end)

links:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24248144-31477,00.html

http://www.theage.com.au/national/new-army-chief-flags-shakeup-to-fight-modern-war-20080827-4424.html