Just this week, Afghan authorities blamed the Taliban for an attack on a wedding in southern Afghanistan, which killed nearly 40 people.  The Taliban denied responsibility, but the groom had links to anti-Taliban groups.  Also, Monday was the deadliest day so far this year for international forces in Afghanistan. Ten NATO soldiers, seven of them Americans, were killed in separate attacks in the eastern and southern parts of the country that day.

With this new violence, the director of Afghanistan’s Center for Research and Policy Studies, Haroun Mir, told me that he believes next month’s scheduled international conference in Kabul might not happen.

“I don’t think that it would be appropriate for a foreign minister from Europe to attend the Kabul conference when we know that there’s a huge risk, tremendous risk, that they could be eliminated by one rocket attack,” said Haroun Mir. “All we need is one rocket attack, and all these ministers are flying back to their homes and that would be a big humiliation.”

Even the top U.S. commander in the country, General Stanley McChrystal, said this week he expects the Kandahar offensive to take longer than anticipated.

“There are going to be tough days ahead,” said General McChrystal. “Violence is up, and I think violence will continue to rise, particularly over the summer months.  It is necessary that we roll back Taliban influence as we move toward increased security in the future.”

But McChrystal said that despite the violence, he thinks the perception of the insurgent’s momentum is reversing.  It’s this reversal in momentum that President Karzai and analysts hope will convince the Taliban to sit down for peace talks.

Amrullah Saleh has a different idea.  Saleh is the former head of the Afghan National Directorate of Security.  He resigned from the post, along with the country’s interior minister, following the insurgent attack on the peace jirga earlier this month.

Saleh criticized Mr. Karzai for wanting to reconcile with the Taliban.

“I want a dignified peace, a peace which will not reverse our achievements, a peace which will not undermine our constitution, a peace which will not allow a small terrorist group to dominate the political scene in Afghanistan,” said Amrullah Saleh. “Therefore, I am in favor of peace, but I am against bowing to the Taliban.”

He also has said that he believes President Karzai is taking a softer approach toward Pakistan in a bid to negotiate with the Taliban.  Saleh referred to Pakistan as Afghanistan’s enemy number one for its alleged support of the Taliban.

Ayaz Wazir is Pakistan’s former ambassador to Kabul.  He told me that he disagrees with Saleh, and he wonders about his motives for making these statements now, especially after his resignation.

“Had Pakistan been the ‘enemy number one’, then why was the intelligence chief not saying so before?  Now when he is resigned, he is accusing a neighboring country,” said Ayaz Wazir.

In another blow to the coalition, Britain’s newly elected government says it will not pledge more troops, despite being one of America’s biggest partners in the country since the toppling of the Taliban-led government in 2001.

Haroun Mir with Afghanistan’s Center for Research and Policy Studies says all these factors teach the Taliban an important lesson.

“You know with one or three rocket fires, they were able to get the resignations of two important ministers, and now the NATO  countries have lost their will,” he said.

He also says it seems unlikely that the Taliban will want to negotiate if they believe they have the upper hand against a coalition in flux and what Mir calls a dysfunctional government.

Do you think the Taliban has the upper hand?  What do you think needs to come out of the Kabul conference?

There were some 2,000 of us under a massive tent at the Polytechnic University in the western part of Kabul Wednesday morning:  1,600 delegates, members of the media and assorted foreign dignitaries.  (Some of my media colleagues came in late because:  1. we had to sit on the buses forever before the drivers took us to the event and 2. organizers split us into small groups for the long and thorough security process.)

Early in Mr. Karzai’s speech to open the three-day peace assembly, an explosion sounded outside the tent, briefly interrupting the president.  Watch how the situation evolved (also, click here for more info, along with my immediate phone interview with VOA’s Sarah Williams):

Everyone reacted calmly to the initial rocket, but the situation changed after President Karzai’s speech.

As my colleagues and I scrambled to conduct interviews with delegates outside the main tent, a piercing whistle sounded directly overhead.  My initial thought in the split second I heard the sound was “fireworks,” but then logic quickly hit me.  Instantly, I grabbed the camera and tripod (despite my interviewee still being attached by microphone), ducked and looked up, but by that time, we heard the explosion.

I understand that this rocket exploded closer than the first one.  Below is the picture I captured from the media center overlooking the jirga campus. 

The long white structure in the middle is the main jirga tent.  I’m told that the second rocket exploded near the outer green fence, close to the guard tower.

As you can see in my video above, jirga organizers were quick to usher journalists out, much to the amusement of delegates walking calmly among us.

It was a constant battle:  us journalists trying to talk to delegates and shoot video of the exterior of the event, and organizers and Afghan security forces rushing us away.

You could argue they were doing it for our safety.  Which is no doubt true… up to a point.  Once they took us outside the barricades of the jirga campus, they left us standing in the middle of a completely exposed parking lot.  The handful of Afghan policemen there seemed pretty unconcerned by the gunfire ringing out down the street.

I will give the organizers this though… while the buses took some time to show up, the drivers felt no need to hang around.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar first rose to prominence in Afghanistan during the 1970s when he founded Hezb-e-Islami, which means “The Islamic Party.”

Despite its origins in university student groups, Hekmatyar’s organization soon became known as one of the major Afghan guerrilla factions, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

During the next decade, the United States spent billions of dollars in covert assistance to fight the Soviet forces.  U.S. officials funneled the money through Pakistan’s spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, and the lion’s share went to Hekmatyar.

The ISI director general in the 1980s, Hamid Gul, says he knows Hekmatyar well.  He told me the ethnic-Pashtun mujahideen leader, who originally studied in the university to become an engineer, was an important asset for both the United States and Pakistan at the time. 

But Gul says Hekmatyar was always an outspoken critic of the United States.  He says it is Hekmatyar’s nature that is probably urging him now to negotiate with the current Afghan government for a share in the post-U.S.-invasion Afghanistan.

“He is very ambitious, and that is probably his undoing,” said Hamid Gul. “I mean, he is politically very, very ambitious; there is no doubt about it.  He has a charismatic personality, and his Hezb-e-Islami is a very well-organized force, and I think he could still draw a lot of loyalists.”

But the director of the Kabul-based Afghan Rights Monitor, Ajmal Samadi, has a less flattering recollection of the militant leader.  After the Soviets withdrew and the U.S. support for Afghan guerillas dried up, Hekmatyar’s fighters battled with other rebel factions in Kabul for control of the country.

Samadi describes how Hekmatyar solidified a reputation as a ruthless warlord.

“Forces under his command were accused of very, very appalling crimes, for instance: the rape of women, the use of child soldiers, sexual exploitation of children, shelling civilian-populated areas, blockading the city and denying people access to essential services,” said Ajmal Samadi.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar briefly served as Afghanistan’s prime minister in the 1990s.  But when his rival Mullah Mohammad Omar seized control of the government in 1996 with his Taliban fighters, Hekmatyar fled to Iran.

He apparently left that country sometime after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States.  Soon after, Hekmatyar announced his support for his former rivals, the Taliban, and his opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.

The United States targeted Hekmatyar with a drone missile strike in 2002, but missed.  U.S. officials labeled the Hezb-e-Islami leader a terrorist the following year, saying he participated in and supported terrorist acts committed by al-Qaida and the Taliban.

In recent years, analysts believe Hekmatyar has been living in Pakistan while directing his fighters in operations against coalition and Afghan troops in eastern and northern Afghanistan.

Speaking from Kabul, the director of Afghanistan’s Center for Research and Policy Studies, Haroun Mir, says Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s desire to reconcile with the Taliban is most likely making Hekmatyar consider shifting his alliances, as he has done many times in the past.

“Hekmatyar is keen to reach out to Kabul and find a negotiation because he knows that he could not enjoy the kind of support the Taliban receive from Pakistan and al-Qaida,” said Haroun Mir.

He points to the fact that earlier this month, a firefight erupted between some of Hekmatyar’s fighters and the Afghan Taliban, killing about 50 people.  It is unclear what caused the fight, but Mir says if the Taliban and Afghan government reach an agreement, Hekmatyar might be sidelined.

Daoud Sultanzoy is a member of the Afghan Parliament.  He told me that Hekmatyar appears to have more of a willingness to negotiate than the Taliban.

“The Taliban are saying one of the conditions is the removal of foreign troops and they will not accept the constitution of Afghanistan, but Mr. Hekmatyar or at least his aides are saying that they are prepared to sit down and talk about these things,” said Daoud Sultanzoy.

U.S. officials cautiously welcomed talks this week between President Karzai and the Hezb-e-Islami delegation.  But they stressed that any groups involved in peace talks must renounce violence and support for the insurgency, live in accordance with the Afghan constitution and sever any ties with al-Qaida and other terrorist networks.

It is unclear whether Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is prepared to do all those things, but at the very least, analysts say he is willing to talk.  At the same time, there is a fear that his violent reputation against Afghan civilians could undermine the Karzai administration.

What do you think?  Are peace talks with Hekmatyar in the best interest for Afghanistan?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FY6zWzxWpw

My interview with Edhi — who is known in some quarters for his humanitarian works as Pakistan’s “Father Teresa” — occurred a few weeks after the earthquake struck Haiti.  I spoke to him by phone today to see if his wait for visas was over.  It isn’t.

Initially, Edhi had gone to the Cuban Embassy in Islamabad to get visas for himself and his fellow team members.  However, he said Cuban officials denied their requests because the U.S. military is managing the traffic in and out of Haiti’s main ports of entry.

Edhi then went to the U.S. Embassy.  He has a permanent Green Card for the United States, but his team members do not.  Today, Edhi said he is frustrated because U.S. officials gave him the impression that his team would not receive any visas for at least six months.

The United States has tightened restrictions on issuing visas during the past few years.  In addition, a U.S. Embassy spokeswoman told me today that humanitarian efforts are not given any special consideration, and everyone has to go through the same process.

So as it stands, there is at least a million dollars and a team of workers with quake experience on stand by, half-a-world away.

What do you think?  I’d love to read your comments below about your views on the situation.

During his speech, President Obama explained the purpose of more troops is to break the Taliban’s momentum in the country and help lay the foundation for transitioning command from the coalition to Afghan security forces.

Mr. Obama also sought to reassure Afghans that the United States has no interest in taking over their country.  He said America seeks to isolate those who destroy and strengthen those who build in Afghanistan.  Watch my story below to see how Afghans reacted to the U.S. president:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sg08MrqXoU

Mr. Obama also had a message for the Afghan government: The time for writing “blank checks” is over.  U.S. officials have long warned Afghan President Hamid Karzai that he must address government corruption during his new five-year term.  The day before President Obama’s announcement, Afghan lawmaker Daud Sultanzoi told me that he thought the new U.S. strategy is premature.

Click here for the story.

Mr. Obama also promised that the United States will not abandon the region.  He said that ultimately, America wants to be a partner with Afghanistan and not a patron.