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.

Via http://www.facebook.com/fightfirewithbeauty (Callligrapher @ deviantART)

I did a detailed search for the various spellings of the Prophet’s name and found seven groups in support of the controversial page that encouraged users to draw Muhammad.  A total of nearly 5,000 people had “Liked” the various pages.  On the other hand, there were almost double the number of groups in protest with more than 34,000 supporters.

In the spirit of full disclosure:  I did not individually check to see if people had “Liked” multiple groups or if each supporter was in fact a real live person (if you are so inclined and have the time, be my guest).  But I think it’s interesting that in its efforts to block the so-called “objectionable” pages on Facebook, the Pakistani government actually is blocking more pages that sympathize with its position.

The day before leaving Islamabad, I interviewed several young Pakistanis in the market about a variety of issues, including the Internet restrictions.  They were all very supportive of the Facebook ban and wanted the website to restrict any material that they considered offensive to Muslims.  However, they disagreed that YouTube should be totally banned because they said it had some good material on it.

Authorities unblocked YouTube this evening in Pakistan.  My colleagues there say they spoke earlier in the day with Wahaj-us-Siraj, a representative with the Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan.  He said he was surprised with the dramatic increase during the past week in user complaints about the restrictions on YouTube.

The popular video-sharing site is a prime example of the double-edged sword of the Internet.  For instance, you can view Koranic lessons on YouTube that explain and promote Islam as a religion of peace, or you can view the videos of Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American who preaches violence against Americans in the name of Islam.  Both sides are present for the user to decide on whether to watch or not.

I discussed that double-edged sword analogy with the young Pakistanis in the market.  I applied it to Facebook by telling them about a Karachi-based non-governmental organization that solicits donations of blood to help alleviate hospital shortages.  A representative with the group told VOA that they collect at least 6,000 units of blood each month.  The group uses Facebook because it is popular in Pakistan, and it provides a cheap form of advertising.  In fact, the group faced criticism for speaking publicly against the Facebook ban, saying people can use Facebook for noble pursuits and that an advertising alternative would take a long time and people need blood now.  My interviewees for the most part still strongly supported the Facebook ban, and one even said that the NGO in Karachi should find other online means to promote its cause.

In my searching of Facebook, I discovered a group that takes a different approach against “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.”  The group is called “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day – May 20th, 2010:  The Response!!!,” and it boasted 807 supporters at the time of this posting.  The group advocates drawing the Prophet’s name in calligraphy, and its page description had this to say:

…I have no intention of boycotting Facebook on May the 20th. Instead I intend to do exactly what the title of the page says, and draw the Prophet… The Prophet’s name has always been a favourite for Islamic artists of any era, and it is my suggestion that if these people want to draw the Prophet, then let us give them what they want, but on our terms, using our art. And I suggest we one up them; we will draw the Prophet indeed; we will sketch his teachings on the canvas of our lives; and paint his pursuit for justice with common sense, logic and rationality. We will show the world just a glimmer of his persona, because whilst it is perhaps true that nothing will ever aspire to the true splendour of his nature, there is certainly no harm in trying. Let us indulge the whims of the ignorant, and at the same time find joy in the creation of beauty.

A non-Muslim friend of mine in the United States said that as an outsider looking in, it looks like the Pakistani government acted prematurely in issuing its blanket ban on Facebook.  She said she believed the government didn’t give people enough credit to make their own response, and in the end, missed out on an opportunity to see freedom of expression in action.  What do you think?

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?

While women have made a modest comeback in Afghanistan regarding education and political participation, the country’s acting Public Health Minister Suraya Dalil told me Afghan women still are lagging in one key area: medical care.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA34z8dzGaQ

In keeping with the spirit of International Women’s Day, I made a point to talk to as many different Afghan women as I could about their thoughts on women’s rights in Afghanistan.  Granted, it’s not easy for an American man to just go up to an Afghan woman on the streets of Kabul and strike up a conversation, and it definitely isn’t easier if you have a microphone.  But, I spoke with a few female colleagues and some human rights activists.  They all made an interesting point: Why should they support the Afghan government’s policy of seeking reconciliation with the Taliban?

Sima Samar is the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission chairwoman.  She says she is concerned because the Taliban violated women’s rights during the years they were in power.  She says, “[They] even banned women from access to education, to health care, to work, to movement.  [The Taliban] will come back in power and we don’t have any right to say: What?!”

Samar also says it is critical Afghan President Hamid Karzai includes women in a meaningful way during the peace jirga.  She says, “What is important is that we have to be [at] the table on the decision-making policy [and] not only in the peace jirga as a piece of decoration.”

What do you think?  Will Afghan women play a meaningful role at the peace jirga?  And ultimately, will women’s rights be sacrificed if there is reconciliation between the Afghan government and the Taliban?