Taliban suggest "Nobel violence prize" for Obama

October 9, 2009

KABUL (Reuters) - Afghanistan's Taliban mocked the award of a Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday, saying he should get a Nobel prize for violence instead.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said it was absurd to give a peace award to a man who had sent 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan to escalate a war.

"The Nobel prize for peace? Obama should have won the 'Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians'," he told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location.

"When Obama replaced President Bush, the Afghan people thought that he would not follow in Bush's footsteps. Unfortunately, Obama actually even went one step further."

In awarding the Nobel Prize to Obama, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said he had "created a new climate in international politics" and praised his promotion of multi-lateral diplomacy and advocacy for arms control.

"For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman," it said.

Obama ordered 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan this year, continuing a strategy of dramatically ramping up forces that began in the final months of the presidency of his predecessor George W. Bush.

There are now more than 100,000 Western troops in Afghanistan, two thirds of them American. In July, thousands of newly arrived U.S. Marines launched the biggest offensive of the eight-year-old war.

The United Nations says 1,500 civilians have died so far this year, with insurgents killing three times as many as Western and government forces.

The new commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has asked for 40,000 more troops to implement an overhauled counter-insurgency strategy.

The White House is still deciding how to respond, and Obama has described himself as a sceptical audience for the case.

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize source of 'mockery'

Pundits believe that after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, US President Barack Obama is now open to criticism an even mockery should he fail to deliver his promises.

Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford in Britain, yet argues that the "unusual" decision by the Nobel Committee is going to encourage Obama to complete an unfinished process.

"It is certainly a surprise (but) the Nobel Peace is quite often awarded for what you might call process, things under way, rather than completed achievements."

"We remember the prize being awarded to Nelson Mandela and Frederik De Klerk in the early nineties, before apartheid had ended," he told AFP on Friday.

Nevertheless, "there is certainly a risk that this could backfire. I would expect there to be very strong opposition to this decision in Republican circles in the United States," the British university professor reiterated.

Dana Allin, a senior fellow for US foreign policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, also believes that the gorgeous prize could be a source of 'criticism' and 'mockery' for Obama.

"Even for people who are generally supportive of Obama and what he is trying to achieve, this is going to be very easily parodied," he said.

"So the fact that it has come so early in his presidency before any of the things he has set out to do in international terms have been achieved is going to cause some controversy," Allin said.

Iain Martin, deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe, challenged the Nobel Committee's decision by describing the award-giving a "completely bizarre" issue.

He said it was unclear why Obama had bagged the prize.

"For making peace, of a kind, with Hillary Clinton? For giving up the missile shield …For preparing a surge of troops and weaponry in Afghanistan?" Martin wrote on the newspaper's website.

Obama's stated goal of a world without nuclear arms prompted the Nobel Committee to offer the US President the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

Barack Obama wins Noble Peace Prize

The first African-American President of the United States Barack Obama has been named as surprise winner of Noble Peace Prize.

Obama won the prestigious award on Friday for his calls to reduce the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons and working for world peace.

The head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee Thorbjoern Jagland said that Obama was honored "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

"Very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said in a citation.

The US president wins over more than 200 nominees.

Last month, Obama chaired a meeting of the UN Security Council, which unanimously approved a US-drafted resolution calling on nuclear weapons states to scrap their arsenals.

Obama is the third senior US Democrat to win the award this decade after former president Jimmy Carter and former vice president Al Gore won the prize in 2002 and 2007 respectively.

The prize, worth 10 million Swedish crowns ($1.4 million), will be handed over in Oslo on Dec. 10.

Obama, advisers weigh Afghanistan shift, Pakistan

By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON – The Afghanistan war reached its once-unthinkable eighth anniversary Wednesday as President Barack Obama, seeking a revamped strategy for the increasingly unpopular conflict, focused more closely with his war council on neighboring Pakistan's role in the fight against al-Qaida.

The White House also revealed that Obama has in hand — and has for nearly a week — the troop request prepared by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. It is said to include a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 additional combat troops to — McChrystal's strong preference — as many as 40,000.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama asked for McChrystal's request last Thursday, before he flew to Copenhagen where he lobbied for Chicago's bid to host the Olympics and met with the general on the sidelines. The numbers could become the focus of concentrated White House attention as soon as Friday, Gibbs said.

When former President George W. Bush launched the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan less than a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the country's Taliban government was providing safe haven for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorists. Eight years later, the Taliban regime is no more and al-Qaida is scattered and weakened. But the Afghan government is considered corrupt and ineffective, Taliban insurgents hoping to retake control are gaining strength and terrorists continue to plan attacks.

This uncertain progress has come at a cost of nearly 800 U.S. lives.

With this and Americans' dwindling patience in mind, Obama is engaged in a methodical review of how to overhaul the war.

Wednesday's nearly three-hour meeting in the Situation Room between Obama and more than a dozen of his top advisers on the war was the third of five currently scheduled. The next is Friday, concentrating on Afghanistan — though it could also include McChrystal's report. The final discussion is slated for next week, though aides have said more could come.

Gibbs said Obama's decision is still weeks away.

Wednesday's focus on Pakistan, the suspected hiding place of bin Laden and other al-Qaida terrorists as well as Taliban leaders, could provide a hint into the president's leanings.

Obama and some of his key aides are increasingly pointing to recent successes against al-Qaida through targeted missile strikes and raids in Pakistan but also in Somalia and elsewhere. Obama said Tuesday that al-Qaida has "lost operational capacity" as a result.

Also, serious doubts about the Afghan government that only deepened with the questionable Aug. 20 presidential election make a true counterinsurgency mission there difficult. Intense poverty and other troubles in the "graveyard of empires" make it an even more complicated pursuit.

In Pakistan, though, the government has shown new willingness to battle extremists, with most believed to be operating from the largely ungoverned terrain along the border with Afghanistan. But these operations, as well as the strikes by unmanned U.S. aircraft, continue to stoke fiery controversy throughout the country — causing problems for the already weak U.S.-backed civilian government.

Further, the vast majority of the U.S. aid to Pakistan is believed to be diverted from its intended purpose of battling militants. A bill awaiting Obama's signature would triple U.S. aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year while attaching conditions aimed at stopping that diversion. Those protections, however, have prompted fresh complaints in Pakistan about Washington meddling — including a rejection by the country's powerful military of links between aid and increased monitoring.

All this makes the U.S.-Pakistan relationship fraught, and asking for additional cooperation extraordinarily delicate. Regardless, U.S. officials believe they can neither win in Afghanistan nor succeed more broadly against al-Qaida without it.

Wednesday's White House meeting began with intelligence and political assessments from key players. The ensuing discussion focused on possible ways to gain additional help from Pakistan, said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to reveal details. That includes efforts on diplomatic and civilian fronts, as well as military.

A senior government official, also talking on condition of anonymity because of the private nature of the talks, said the discussion continued a genuine debate among advisers in which Obama remains undecided.

McChrystal's recommended approach calls for additional troops in Afghanistan for a counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban, build up the central government and deny al-Qaida safe haven. McChrystal, whose plan is somewhat reminiscent of Bush's Iraq troop "surge" in 2008, says extra troops — preferably at the higher end of his option range — are crucial to turn around a war that will probably be won or lost over the next 12 months.

On roughly the opposite end of the spectrum, an alternative favored most prominently by Vice President Joe Biden would keep the American force in Afghanistan at around the 68,000 already authorized, including the 21,000 more troops Obama ordered earlier this year, but increase the use of surgical strikes with Predator drones and special forces.

Shrinking the number of troops in Afghanistan and turning the effort into a narrow counterterror campaign is not on the table, and neither is drastically ballooning the footprint.

In weighing whether to follow McChrystal or Biden or land somewhere in between, Obama faces a stern test and difficult politics.

Many lawmakers from his own Democratic Party, aware of rising anti-war sentiment in their ranks and the war protests that have dotted Washington this week, do not want to see additional U.S. troops sent to Afghanistan. According to a new Associated Press-GfK poll, public support for the war has dropped to 40 percent from 44 percent in July.

Republicans, meanwhile, are urging Obama to heed the military commanders' calls soon or risk failure.

In giving McChrystal's request to Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates bypassed the commander's direct bosses in the military chain of command who would ordinarily have a chance to add their own comments first.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell denied the unorthodox move provides evidence of a divide between the uniformed military and its civilian bosses over management of the war. He said Gates and Obama wanted to prevent a leak to the news media, as McChrystal's underlying war assessment was last month.

And though Gibbs had said previously that Obama didn't want to see the request until he had decided strategy, aides said the president decided it had simply become absurd to wait to read it.

Attending the White House meeting Wednesday was a now-familiar cast of characters including Biden; Gates; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Afghanistan/Pakistan special envoy Richard Holbrooke; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the region including Iraq and Afghanistan, and McChrystal by videoconference.

US 'will' disregard borders in terrorist hunt, says Obama

Afghanistan and Pakistan are not the Pentagon's sole targets in its war on terror, says Obama adding that the US will not hesitate to attack anywhere it deems a threat.

US President Barack Obama, speaking at the Counterterrorism Center in McLean Virginia on Tuesday, pledged that the US would target al-Qaeda "wherever they take root" and do everything to wipe out safe havens, where Osama bin Laden's network can plot against the United States.

"The United States and our partners have sent an unmistakable message: We will target al-Qaida wherever they take root," he said, Xinhua reported.

The US president cited East Africa, Southeast Asia, Europe and the Persian Gulf in addition to Afghanistan and Pakistan, as the hotbeds for terrorist activities and what he called threats against Washington.

Obama's speech was reminiscent of his predecessor George W. Bush's notorious 'Bush doctrine', which says the United States has 'the right' to launch preemptive strikes on countries that pose a threat to the US security.

"We will not yield in our pursuit; and we are developing the capacity and the cooperation to deny a safe haven to any who threaten America and its allies," said Obama.

With its primary mission to synchronize the fight on terrorism, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) was established in 2001 on the hills of the 9/11 attacks on the US soil.

The center, a government agency under the Director of National Intelligence, coordinate and share data with US government departments and agencies and US foreign partners.

Obama orders federal government to cut emissions

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama ordered federal agencies on Monday to set a goal within 90 days for cutting their greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, the White House said, aiming to "lead by example" in fighting climate change.

The new executive order, signed by the president, mandates agencies across the federal government to "measure, manage, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions toward agency-defined targets," the White House said in a statement.

Other environmental measures such as reducing petroleum use in vehicle fleets by 30 percent by 2020, improving efficiency f water usage by 2020, and increasing rates of recycling by 2015 were also included in the order.

"The federal government can and should lead by example when it comes to creating innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste, and use environmentally-responsible products and technologies," Obama said in a statement.

Obama's international credentials on fighting climate change have been called into question as chances dim that the Senate will pass a bill mandating emissions cuts across the United States economy by December, when U.N. talks on a global warming treaty take place in Copenhagen.

The White House order may be intended to counter concerns about the president's climate change commitment.

The federal government is the largest consumer of energy in the U.S. economy, the statement noted, occupying nearly 500,000 buildings and operating more than 600,000 vehicles.

The order also calls on the government to "leverage federal purchasing power to promote environmentally-responsible products and technologies."

Brown, Sarkozy in 'row' with Obama on Iran

The British Premier and French President had reportedly had a secret row with the US President to push him to slam Iran's peaceful nuclear program during UN talks.

A new report published in Britain's Daily Telegraph on October 2 reveals that the Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Franc's Nicholas Sarkozy had a clandestine '"row" with Barack Obama ahead of a UN Security Council session in late September, demanding Obama take a tougher stance on Iran during a joint press conference.

Obama's expressions of "worries" and "reservations" after Iran informed the UN nuclear watchdog about the newly-constructed Fordu nuclear plant had angered Brown and Sarkozy who sought to compel the US president "to draw a line in the sand" on the country's nuclear plans, the report adds.

Brown eventually used the term "line in the sand" in his address about relations with Iran.

The report also indicates that the French and British leaders looked for an opportunity to pretend that the 'three countries' intelligence services' joint efforts unveiled Tehran's uranium enrichment activities monitored by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The Brown-Sarkozy efforts led to a joint appearance with Obama on the sidelines of a September 25 global economic forum in Pittsburgh, US, in which Obama charged Iran with attempting to cover the nuclear project for years.

The US and a number of European states have accused Iran of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons; a charge Tehran has rejected vigorously.

In turn, Iran has called for the elimination of all nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction across the globe.

The IAEA, though, has on various occasions confirmed that Iran has enriched uranium-235 only to a level "less than 5 percent" - the enrichment degree needed for civilian purposes. The UN nuclear watchdog has also confirmed that it has found no evidence of the diversion of any nuclear material from civilian facilities to military purposes.

Uranium, the fuel for a nuclear power plant, can be used for military purposes only if enriched to high levels of above 90 percent.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, gives the country the right to the full nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes.

Obama agrees to cover up Israel's nukes: report

Israel has reportedly received an assurance by US President Barack Obama that it would not be pressured into accounting for its alleged nuclear arsenal or signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

In a meeting with, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu obtained President Obama's guarantee that the White House would continue a 4-decade-old secret deal to allow Israel keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, The Washington Times reported on Friday quoting officials familiar with the matter.

"The president gave Israel an NPT treaty get out of jail free card," said a Senate staffer speaking on the condition of anonymity. "What this means is that the president gave commitments that politically he had no choice but to give regarding Israel's nuclear program."

"However, it calls into question virtually every part of the president's nonproliferation agenda."

Israel, which has allegedly introduced nuclear weapons in the volatile Middle East, maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity and has so far refused to sign the NPT- a treaty which seeks to limit the spread of such weapons of mass destruction.

The tacit agreement prolonged the nuclear understanding reached between President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meir in 1969.

In a reference to the May meeting with President Obama, the Israeli premier said in an interview with Israel's Channel 2 last week he had received "an itemized list of the strategic understandings that have existed for many years between Israel and the United States" regarding the nuclear arsenal.

"It was not for naught that I requested, and it was not for naught that I received [that document]," Netanyahu said.

Avner Cohen, author of the revelatory Israel and the Bomb, which has drawn upon thousands of documents and tens of interviews on the Israeli nuclear firepower, said the accord amounted to "the United States passively accepting Israel's nuclear weapons status as long as Israel does not unveil publicly its capability or test a weapon."

In 1958, Israel began building its suspected plutonium and uranium processing facility near Dimona in the Negev desert. The regime claims the facility - which was originally revealed as "textile factory" - is a "research reactor."

In early June, George Washington University's National Security Archives declassified a 1960 report by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) which had explained how Tel Aviv was to benefit from a nuclear arsenal.

"Possession of a nuclear weapon capability, or even the prospect of achieving it, would clearly give Israel a greater sense of security, self-confidence and assertiveness," the documents said.

Obama meets with Afghanistan commander in Denmark

By JULIE PACE, Associated Press Writer

COPENHAGEN – President Barack Obama summoned his top commander in Afghanistan for a 25-minute meeting aboard Air Force One on Friday as part of his review of a war strategy that has divided the president's national security team.

Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Obama met just before the president returned to Washington from Copenhagen, where he was pitching the International Olympic Committee on Chicago's bid to host the 2016 games.

McChrystal had been in London, where he said in a speech Thursday that insurgents are gaining strength in Afghanistan and more troops are needed to "buy time" for the Afghan military and police forces to prepare to take control of the country in 2013.

A White House spokesman said the meeting was part of the ongoing discussion about Afghanistan and no decisions were made. The pair met in the president's cabin.

"The president wanted to take the opportunity to get together with Gen. McChrystal," spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters aboard the presidential aircraft just before takeoff.

The meeting was the third conversation between the two since McChrystal disclosed in a television interview that aired Sunday that he had spoken with Obama only once since taking over the U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan. Obama tapped McChrystal in May to replace ousted Gen. David McKiernan.

Obama and McChrystal spoke on Wednesday before Obama convened a meeting later that day of his war council, which McChrystal joined by video conference. When Obama learned McChrystal would be in London, he asked him to meet him on the tarmac in Copenhagen after Obama made a last-minute pitch for Chicago's bid, Gibbs said.

Obama's strategy review was prompted in part by a critical assessment of the war effort that McChrystal sent him last month. He declared that the U.S. would fail to meet its objectives of causing irreparable damage to Taliban militants and their al-Qaida allies if the administration did not significantly increase American forces.

While the Pentagon has so far locked away specifics of McChrystal's troop request, he is widely believed to want to add between 30,000 and 40,000 to the current force of 68,000.

Wednesday's war council meeting, the second of at least five planned by Obama, exposed emerging fault lines within the administration over Afghanistan — with military commanders pressing for more troops and other advisers expressing skepticism.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and special Afghan and Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke appeared to be leaning toward supporting a troop increase, while White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Gen. James Jones, Obama's national security adviser, appeared to be skeptical of troop increases. Vice President Joe Biden also has been reluctant to support sending more troops, favoring a strategy that directly targets al-Qaida fighters who are believed to be hiding in Pakistan.

The assessment of divisions within Obama's inner circle came from a senior administration official who attended the meeting and spoke on the condition of anonymity, because the discussions were private.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both support McChrystal's strategy. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has remained noncommittal.

Obama's war council divided on Afghanistan

By STEVEN R. HURST and PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama summoned his war council to the White House Situation Room on Wednesday for an intense, three-hour discussion that exposed emerging fault lines over Afghanistan — with military commanders pressing for more troops and other advisers expressing skepticism.

There was no discussion of specific troop levels during the meeting in the West Wing basement, according to a senior administration official. But the talks underscored the divisions throughout Obama's inner circle that must be navigated in the coming weeks, the official said.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and special Afghan and Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke appeared to be leaning toward supporting a troop increase, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions were private. The official, who attended the meeting, based the assessment on the tone and substance of their participation.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Gen. James Jones, Obama's national security adviser, appeared to be skeptical of troop increases, the official said. Vice President Joe Biden, who attended the meeting, has been reluctant to support a troop increase, favoring a strategy that directly targets al-Qaida fighters who are believed to be hiding in Pakistan.

No firm or final recommendations were offered to Obama, the official said, suggesting that views were still evolving.

The differences are not new and they were aired civilly in the meeting, the official said. But for most of Obama's advisers, this was the first time they exchanged views in person — rather than via official channels and media leaks — and in a large group that included the president.

The meeting, the second of at least five Obama has planned as he reviews his Afghanistan strategy, comes after Obama received a critical assessment of the war effort from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the man he put in charge of the Afghan war earlier this year. McChrystal declared that the U.S. would fail to meet its objectives of causing irreparable damage to Taliban militants and their al-Qaida allies if the administration did not significantly increase American forces.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both support McChrystal's strategy, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is on the fence, the spokesman said.

Obama has taken a go-slow approach on the McChrystal report. White House officials say it may take weeks before the president decides whether to overhaul the U.S. strategy or send more troops.

Jones told senators in a classified briefing after the White House meeting that the administration's evolving Afghanistan strategy depends in large part on the outcome of the disputed Afghan election. Those decisions are expected in a matter of weeks.

"It's not just the election, but the reaction to the election, that we'll be watching for," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.

One alternative to McChrystal's call for additional troops for a counterinsurgency is to use special forces and unmanned drone aircraft for tactical strikes on the Taliban and al-Qaida leadership, a move that would require much more U.S. action in Pakistan but fewer troops.

While the Pentagon has so far locked away specifics of McChrystal's troop request, he is widely believed to want to add between 30,000 and 40,000 to the current force of 68,000.

The senior administration official said Obama has refused to prejudge what his conclusion would he and hasn't been forthcoming with his opinions.

Much of Wednesday's discussion was focused on how Afghanistan has changed since Obama sent 21,000 additional troops to the country in March and what remains to be done. The president heard from 17 high-level officials and pressed them on their views and how they reached their conclusions.

In the end, though, Obama asked the group to meet with him twice more next week.

Obama is moving with extreme deliberation even though he said during the presidential campaign that defeating the Taliban militants and al-Qaida was essential to U.S. security. He moved swiftly on that pledge in the early days of his 8-month-old term, ordering an additional 21,000 forces into the country.

In combination with NATO forces, the allies have about 100,000 personnel in Afghanistan's rugged terrain.

But key Democrats in Congress have begun voicing concern about the U.S.-led effort, questioning whether a further commitment of blood and treasure is wise or necessary. The most vocal support for continuing or even expanding the conflict comes from Republicans.

Support for the war has fallen off sharply among Americans, with just more than half now saying the conflict is not worth the fight.

Republican Sen. John McCain, Obama's opponent in last year's election, said in a television interview Wednesday that the president cannot give up on Afghanistan. The Arizona senator argued that the entire region would be destabilized if the U.S. and NATO pulled back.

Urging Obama to quickly accept McChrystal's recommendations, McCain said: "Time is not on our side. So we need a decision pretty quickly. I think history is pretty clear that when the Taliban took over, it became a base for attacks on the United States and our allies."

Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the No. 2 House Republican, said that Obama was endangering U.S. troops in Afghanistan by spending time weighing his next move in Afghanistan. "As long as they are delaying, that puts in jeopardy, I believe, our men and women," he said.

The U.S. went to war in Afghanistan in late 2001 with a mission to remove the Taliban from power and to capture or kill al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden, the sponsor of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The Taliban fell quickly, but bin Laden escaped across the border into the towering mountains in Pakistan and has eluded American forces ever since.

In the meantime, the Taliban have staged a resurgence and now have taken control of more than half the country. The insurgents have regained so much strength that August became the deadliest month of the war so far for U.S. troops. Fifty-one died.

Wednesday's White House session was believed to have been the most high-powered gathering so far.

Obama: No 'perfect answers' in Afghanistan

The US President Barack Obama has warned that there are no "perfect answers" in Afghanistan, as he conducts a wide range review of strategy in the war-torn country.

After the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, on a day when NATO announced the death of five more US soldiers in Afghanistan, Obama said he understood that Americans and others were becoming discouraged by the war.

"This is not easy, and I would expect that the public would ask some very tough questions," said Obama, whose task in selling the war to Americans has been complicated by the disputed Afghan presidential election.

"That's exactly what I'm doing, is asking some very tough questions, and you know, we're not going to arrive at perfect answers."

Obama repeatedly said the US mission was to disrupt and dismantle the al-Qaeda, in the kind of language, which some observers see as a possible sign of a narrowing of the broad counter-insurgency fight against the Taliban.

Obama's statement on Afghanistan comes as two US soldiers were killed outright and three died later of their injuries in a trio of separate incidents on Thursday.

Obama warns Iran: `come clean' on nukes

By CHARLES BABINGTON and ROBERT BURNS, Associated Press Writers

PITTSBURGH – Backed by other world powers, President Barack Obama declared Friday that Iran is speeding down a path to confrontation and demanded that Tehran quickly "come clean" on all nuclear efforts and open a newly revealed secret site for close international inspection. He said he would not rule out military action if the Iranians refuse.

Obama joined the leaders of Britain and France in accusing the Islamic republic of clandestinely building an underground plant to make nuclear fuel that could be used to build an atomic bomb. Iranian officials acknowledged the facility but insisted it had been reported to nuclear authorities as required.

"Iran's action raised grave doubts" about its promise to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only, Obama told a news conference at the conclusion of a G-20 summit whose focus on world economic recovery was overshadowed by disclosure of the Iranian plant.

Obama said a telling moment could come next week when Iran meets with U.S. and other major nations to discuss the nuclear issue.

"Iran is on notice that when we meet with them on Oct. 1 they are going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice" between international isolation and giving up any aspirations to becoming a nuclear power, he said. If they refuse to give ground, they will stay on "a path that is going to lead to confrontation."

In a dramatic, early morning announcement about the secret Iranian facility, Obama said, "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow. The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program."

Unbowed, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country had done nothing wrong and Obama would regret his accusations.

At a news conference in New York, Ahmadinejad said the plant wouldn't be operational for 18 months but sidestepped a question about whether Iran had sufficient enriched uranium to manufacture a nuclear weapon. Still, he said such armaments "are against humanity, they are inhumane," and he said anyone who pursues them "is retarded politically."

Later Friday on CNN's "Larry King Live," Ahmadinejad said Iran did inform international authorities about its program and questioned what exactly Obama found fault with.

"We exceeded our commitment to the agency based on the regulations, and so is Mr. Obama really questioning why we informed the agency," Ahmadinejad said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The head of Iran's nuclear program suggested U.N. inspectors would be allowed to visit the site. Ali Akbar Salehi called the facility "a semi-industrial plant for enriching nuclear fuel" that is not yet complete, but he gave no other details, according to the state news agency IRNA.

The plant, near the holy city of Qom southwest of Tehran, would be about the right size to enrich enough uranium to produce one or two bombs a year, but inspectors must get inside to know what is actually going on, one U.S. official said.

At his Pittsburgh news conference, Obama appeared to hold out limited hope for the Oct. 1 meeting, which will be the first of its kind in more than a year. Iran has said its nuclear program should not be on the agenda.

"When we find that diplomacy does not work, we will be in a much stronger position to, for example, apply sanctions that have bite," Obama said. "That's not the preferred course of action. I would love nothing more than to see Iran choose the responsible path."

He said he was confident in the reliability of the intelligence information about Iran's secret nuclear facilities.

"This was the work product of three intelligence agencies, not just one," Obama said. "They checked over this work in a painstaking fashion."

Obama said he was especially pleased that Russia and China agreed with him that Iran must live up to its obligations under international rules on nuclear activities. The leaders of Britain and France joined Obama at his morning announcement.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, at his own news conference in Pittsburgh, urged Iran to cooperate and "demonstrate its good intentions" at the Oct. 1 meeting and in allowing inspections. "We call on Iran to show maximum cooperation with the IAEA on this issue," he said.

Beyond tougher economic sanctions, options for acting against Iran are limited and perilous.

Military action by the United States or an ally such as Israel could set off a dangerous chain of events in the Islamic world. In addition, Iran's facilities are spread around the country and well hidden, making an effective military response difficult.

Asked about the prospect of using military force to stop Iran from getting the bomb, Obama said, "With respect to the military, I've always said that we do not rule out any options when it comes to U.S. security interests, but I will also re-emphasize that my preferred course of action is to resolve this in a diplomatic fashion. It's up to the Iranians to respond."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking Friday on CNN's "State of the Union," said it would be a mistake to rule out military action, but he also said there was still room to pursue diplomacy.

"The reality is, there is no military option that does anything more than buy time," Gates said, adding that the U.S. believes Iran could have a nuclear weapons within one to three years. "And the only way you end up not having a nuclear-capable Iran is for the Iranian government to decide that their security is diminished by having those weapons, as opposed to strengthened."

Obama's European partners talked tough, too.

"We will not let this matter rest," said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who accused Iran of "serial deception."

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Iran has until December to comply with demands for a fuller accounting of its program or face tough new sanctions.

On Capitol Hill, three senators — Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana, Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona and Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut — issued a joint statement condemning Iran.

"Given Iran's consistent pattern of deceit, concealment and bad faith, the only way to force Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions is to make absolutely clear to the regime in Tehran that its current course will carry catastrophic consequences," the senators said. "We must leave no doubt that we are prepared to do whatever it takes to stop Iran's nuclear breakout."

Iran had previously acknowledged having only the one uranium enrichment plant, under international monitoring, and had denied allegations of undeclared nuclear activities.

James Acton, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said a consensus has developed that if Iran were to decide to manufacture nuclear weapons the key material probably would be produced in a clandestine facility.

"This should persuade any doubters that Iran's program is not for peaceful purposes," Acton said.

Obama to meet China, Russia, Japan leaders at UN

WASHINGTON, Sep 18 (Reuters) President Barack Obama will meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama during the UN General Assembly next week, U S Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said today.

Obama's decision to abandon missile defence part of greater plans

Moscow, Sep 19 : Former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze has welcomed US President Barack Obama's decision to shelve plans for deployment of missile shield in Europe, saying it is a part of 'greater plans.' 'Now that the US has canceled its plans to deploy missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, the US and Russia should begin a real reduction of nuclear weapons and the UN has an opportunity to begin a new chapter in world history,' Mr Shevardnadze said in a statement.

''I have always talked about indications of a new Cold War, specifically, the deployment of US radars in the Czech Republic and Poland, because it would immediately be followed by a response from Russia,'' Interfax news agency quoted Mr Shevardnadze as saying.

''Fortunately, US President Obama has met my expectations.

Yesterday, I was very happy that he has given up the plans to deploy missile defense systems in Europe,'' he said.

''Russia will have no choice but to agree,'' he added.

Mr Shevardnadze said he believes Obama's decision is part of his foreign policy strategy.

''This step will be followed by more large-scale actions. I am confident that he has greater plans,'' Mr Shevardnadze stressed.

''The main thing is that Russia should take appropriate steps.

If Russia analyzes the situation correctly, both countries should begin the real process of nuclear weapons reduction, and the peoples of the world will support it,'' the former Georgian President said.

''There is nothing unexpected in my statement because the relations between the Soviet Union and the US changed radically when I was Foreign Minister, which resulted in the halving of both nuclear and conventional weapons,'' Mr Shevardnadze said.

''Obama's step may also be important in terms of regional stability if this process continues,'' he said.

''I think it will be good for Georgia, too,'' he said.

''Also, a lot depends on how the UN General Assembly and Security Council will proceed when this process begins. They are given an opportunity to begin a new stage in world history,'' Mr Shevardnadze said.

Analysis: Obama abandons view of Iran, not Europe

By ROBERT BURNS, AP National Security Writer

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is not abandoning missile defense in Europe, but it is junking the previous administration's view of the missile threat posed by Iran and what that means for Europe.

The old idea was that Iran was focused on building long-range ballistic missiles capable of hitting Europe and the U.S., although it so far has none in its arsenal. So the defense plan inherited by President Barack Obama was based on interceptors and radar primed to shoot down a long-range missile.

The new view is that Iran has made slower progress on long-range missiles than previously estimated and is going faster on missiles of shorter range — the types that mainly threaten Europe and parts of Asia.

So Obama has torn up the old defense plan and replaced it with one the Pentagon says will be more effective.

It's a gamble, but so was the Bush approach.

Pentagon chief Robert Gates offered sound technical reasons Thursday for Obama's decision to scrap his predecessor's approach, which was unfolding slowly and causing diplomatic headaches for Washington.

If the assertions laid out by Gates prove correct — if, in particular, Iran is not developing a long-range missile as quickly as previously assumed — then the revised missile defense system in Europe makes military sense. Gates says it could be adapted later to meet a long-range missile threat if that emerges.

Gates' explanation did little to shield the administration from a barrage of political strikes by Republicans who portrayed Obama's shift as a weak-kneed capitulation to Russia and an abandonment of U.S. allies.

Before Gates had even finished his news conference, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio issued a statement accusing Obama of a "willful determination to continue ignoring the threat posed by some of the most dangerous regimes in the world." He said Obama had sold out the allies and empowered Iran.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., called the decision misguided and dangerous. She likened it to appeasement.

Those reactions, and other similar expressions of disappointment by missile defense advocates, say much about the ideological divide between supporters and skeptics of the missile defense push that began in earnest with former President Ronald Reagan's famous "Star Wars" speech in March 1983.

The Clinton administration quickly deep-sixed the Reagan program, but a scaled-down version was revived by President George W. Bush, leading to a decision in 2007 to go ahead with the system in Europe.

Bush also gave the go-ahead in 2004 for a U.S.-based system to defend against a long-range missile threat from North Korea.

As it happened, Gates was in charge at the Pentagon when Bush made the 2007 decision. Gates backed Bush's move in 2007, but now the holdover defense secretary is singing a different tune, telling reporters Thursday that two big changes since 2007 led him to conclude that the Bush approach is outdated.

The first change was the U.S. assessment of Iranian missile developments. The second was advances in U.S. missile interceptor and missile-tracking sensor technologies — improvements that Gates said allow the U.S. to pursue defensive capabilities in Europe six or seven years earlier than the Bush approach's timetable.

In place of the Bush blueprint, he said, is a less costly system that would provide defenses more compatible with NATO plans, while preserving flexibility to expand and improve as technology allows and the missile threat requires.

It would consist initially of anti-missile weapons based on U.S. Navy ships in the Mediterranean and the waters of northern Europe, plus land-based Patriot missile interceptors and a more advanced land-based interceptor known as the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense missile that has been largely successful in tests.

The ship-borne missile, known as an SM-3, gained international acclaim in February 2008 when a souped-up version was launched from a Navy cruiser in the Pacific and shot down a failing U.S. satellite in space.

By about 2015, a newer version of the SM-3 interceptor is to be available for basing on land in Europe, Gates said.

Still further improvements to the interceptor would allow more upgrading of the system by about 2018, and two years after that the U.S. could field a version of the SM-3 that would have "a substantial capability" to intercept not only missiles headed for Europe but also those targeting the U.S., according to Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Compared with the interceptor that Bush had planned for use in Europe, known generically as the ground-based interceptor, the smaller SM-3 is believed to be "the more effective killer," Cartwright said.

Obama scrapping missile shield for Czech, Poland

By KAREL JANICEK and WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writers

PRAGUE – President Barack Obama has decided to scrap plans for a U.S. missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland that had deeply angered Russia, the Czech prime minister confirmed Thursday.

NATO's new chief hailed the move as "a positive step" and a Russian analyst said the move will increase the chances that Russia will cooperate more closely with the United States in the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.

Premier Jan Fischer told reporters that Obama phoned him overnight to say that "his government is pulling out of plans to build a missile defense radar on Czech territory."

"The same happened with Poland. Poland was informed in the same way about this intention," Fischer said.

Under the plan, which had been proposed by the Bush administration to defend the United States and its European allies against a possible missile attack from Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East, 10 interceptor rockets were to have been stationed in Poland and a radar system based in the Czech Republic.

But Russia was livid over the prospect of having U.S. interceptor rockets in countries so close to its territory, and the Obama administration has sought to improve strained ties with the Kremlin.

A top Russian lawmaker praised the move.

"The U.S. president's decision is a well-thought and systematic one," said Konstantin Kosachev, head of the foreign affairs committee in the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament. "It reflects understanding that any security measure can't be built entirely on the basis of one nation."

Fischer said Obama assured him that the "strategic cooperation" between the Czech Republic and the U.S. would continue, and that Washington considers the Czechs among its closes allies.

Fischer said after a review of the missile defense system, the U.S. now considers the threat of an attack using short- and mid-range missiles greater than one using long-range rockets.

"That's what the Americans assessed as the most serious threat," and Obama's decision was based on that, he said.

In Poland, officials declined to confirm Fischer's remarks, saying they were waiting for a formal announcement from Washington.

Obama took office undecided about whether to continue to press for the European system and said he would study it. His administration never sounded enthusiastic about it, and European allies have been preparing for an announcement that the White House would not complete the shield as designed.

Alexei Arbatov, head of the Russian Academy of Science's Center for International Security, told a Moscow radio station Thursday that the U.S. was giving in on missile defense to get more cooperation from Russia on Iran.

"The United States is reckoning that by rejecting the missile-defense system or putting it off to the far future, Russia will be inclined together with the United States to take a harder line on sanctions against Iran," he said.

The Czech government had stood behind the planned radar system despite fierce opposition from the public, which has staged numerous protests.

Critics fear the Czech Republic would be targeted by terrorists if it agreed to host the radar system, which was planned for the Brdy military installation 90 kilometers (55 miles) southwest of Prague, the capital.

In Washington, Defense Secretary Robert Gates scheduled a news conference Thursday with a top military leader, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, who has been a point man on the technical challenge of arraying missiles and interceptors to defend against long-range missiles.

The decision to scrap the plan will have future consequences for U.S. relations with eastern Europe.

"If the administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it," said Jan Vidim, a lawmaker with Czech Republic's conservative Civic Democratic Party, which supported the missile defense plan.

Obama hosts Iftar, calls Islam a great religion

US President Barack Obama on Tuesday praised American Muslims for enriching the nation's culture at a dinner to celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

"The contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalogue because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country," Obama said at the iftar, the dinner that breaks the holiday's daily fast.

The President joined Cabinet secretaries, members of the diplomatic corps and lawmakers to pay tribute to what he called "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress."

Attendees included Congress' two Muslim members -- Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and Andre Carson, D-Ind., as well as ambassadors from Islamic nations and Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren.

Obama shared the story of Bilqis Abdul-Qaadir, another invited guest, who broke a state record for most career points as a Massachusetts high school student.

"As an honour student, as an athlete on her way to Memphis, Bilqis is an inspiration not simply to Muslim girls -- she's an inspiration to all of us," he said.

Obama also noted the contributions of Muhammad Ali, who was not in attendance, though the president borrowed a quote from famous boxer, explaining religion.

"A few years ago," Obama said, "he explained this view and this is part of why he's the greatest, saying, 'Rivers, ponds, lakes and streams -- they all have different names, but they all contain water. Just as religions do -- they all contain truths.'"

Ramadan, a month-long period of prayer, reflection and sunrise-to-sunset fasts, began from August 22 in most of the Islamic world. It is believed that God began revealing the Quran to Muhammad during Ramadan, and the faithful are supposed to spend the month in religious reflection, prayer and remembrance of the poor.

White House dinners marking the holy month are nothing new. Former President George W Bush held iftars during his eight years in office.

Obama has made a special effort since taking office to repair US relations with the world's Muslims, including visits to Turkey and Cairo. In a June speech at the Egyptian capital, as well as in one to another important Muslim audience, in Turkey, Obama said: "America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam."

Obama also released a video message to Muslims before the start to Ramadan. In the video, he said Ramadan's rituals are a reminder of the principles Muslims and Christians have in common, including advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

Obama facing hard choices on Afghanistan war plans

By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – As public support for the war in Afghanistan erodes, President Barack Obama soon may face two equally unattractive choices: increase U.S. troops levels to beat back a resilient enemy, or stick with the 68,000 already committed and risk the political fallout if that's not enough.

Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is completing an assessment of what he needs to win the fight there. That review, however, won't specifically address force levels, according to Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

But military officials privately believe McChrystal may ask for as many as 20,000 additional forces to get an increasingly difficult security situation in Afghanistan under control. And one leading Republican is already saying McChrystal will be pressured to ask for fewer troops than he requires.

"I think there are great pressures on General McChrystal to reduce those estimates," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in an interview broadcast Sunday. "I don't think it's necessarily from the president. I think it's from the people around him and others that I think don't want to see a significant increase in our troops' presence there."

Mullen on Sunday described the situation in Afghanistan as "serious and deteriorating," but refused to say whether additional forces would be needed.

"Afghanistan is very vulnerable in terms of (the) Taliban and extremists taking over again, and I don't think that threat's going to go away," he said.

Mullen also expressed concern about diminishing support among a war-weary American public as the U.S. and NATO enter their ninth year of combat and reconstruction operations.

In joint TV interviews, Mullen and U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry said last week's presidential election in Afghanistan was historic, given the threats of intimidation voters faced as they headed to polling stations. It could be several weeks, however, before it's known whether incumbent Hamid Karzai or one of his challengers won.

"We're not sure exactly what the level of voter turnout was," said Eikenberry, a retired three-star Army general. "Taliban intimidation, especially in southern Afghanistan, certainly limited those numbers."

Charges of fraud in the election are extensive enough to possibly sway the final result, and the number of allegations is likely to grow, according to the commission investigating the complaints.

The independent Electoral Complaints Commission has received 225 complaints since the start of Thursday's vote, including 35 allegations that are "material to the election results," said Grant Kippen, the head of the U.N.-backed body.

President Obama's strategy for defeating the Taliban and al-Qaida is a work in progress as more U.S. troops are sent there, Mullen said.

Three years ago, the U.S. had about 20,000 forces in the country. Today, it has triple that, on the way to 68,000 by year's end when all the extra 17,000 troops that Obama announced in March are to be in place. An additional 4,000 troops are arriving to help train Afghan forces. More civilian workers are going as well to help rebuild Afghanistan's economy and government.

Mullen said the security situation in Afghanistan needs to be reversed in the next 12 month to 18 months.

"I think it is serious and it is deteriorating, and I've said that over the last couple of years, that the Taliban insurgency has gotten better, more sophisticated," he said.

Just over 50 percent of respondents to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this past week said the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting.

Mullen, a Vietnam veteran, said he's aware that public support for the war is critical. "Certainly the numbers are of concern," he said. But, he added, "this is the war we're in."

"I recognize that we've been there over eight years," he said. "But this is the first time we've really resourced a strategy on both the civilian and military sides. So in certain ways, we're starting anew."

"We're just getting the pieces in place from the president's new strategy on the ground now," he said. "I don't see this as a mission of endless drift. I think we know what to do."

McChrystal's orders from Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates was "to go out, assess where you are, and then tell us what you need," Mullen said. "And we'll get to that point. And I want to, I guess, assure you or reassure you that he hasn't asked for any additional troops up until this point in time."

McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said McChrystal should say exactly how many troops he needs, let the Congress debate it and Obama would make the ultimate decision.

McChrystal and other military leaders in Afghanistan should use the same aggressive "clear and hold" approach that Gen. David Petraeus used successfully in Iraq, McCain added. That will create a secure environment for people so that economic and political progress can be made, he said.

On the question of what it will take to turn the tide in Afghanistan, McCain echoed Mullen's projection: "I think within a year to 18 months you could start to see progress."

McCain acknowledged that public opinion on Afghanistan is slipping. But he said that opinion could be reversed.

"I think you need to see a reversal of these very alarming and disturbing trends on attacks, casualties, areas of the country that the Taliban has increased control of."

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Obama's leadership on Afghanistan is key to bolstering public support.

"He really can't just leave this to the Congress, to General McChrystal, and say, 'Folks, sort of, discuss this,' after the report comes in," Lugar said.

Mullen and Eikenberry appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and CNN's "State of the Union." Lugar was on CNN. McCain's interview Friday with ABC's "This Week" was aired Sunday.

Poll: Americans losing confidence in Obama

WASHINGTON – A new poll says that Americans, concerned over the future of health care reform and anxious about the growing federal budget deficit, are losing faith in President Barack Obama.

The Washington Post-ABC News survey found that less that half of Americans — 49 percent — say they believe the president will make the right decisions for the country. That's down from 60 percent at the 100-day mark of the Obama presidency.

The poll published Friday says Obama's overall approval is 57 percent, 12 points lower than it was at its peak in April. Fifty-three percent disapprove of the way he's handling the budget deficit and his approval on health care continues to deteriorate.

The national survey was conducted Aug. 13-17 and has a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Obama welcomes Sotomayor as first Hispanic justice

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says Justice Sonia Sotomayor's (SOHN'-ya soh-toh-my-YOR) achievement in becoming the first Hispanic member of the U.S. Supreme Court is an inspiration for young and old alike.

Obama says her weekend swearing-in moved the country a step closer to becoming a more perfect union.

But the president also said the historic moment isn't just about Sotomayor. He says it's about children everywhere growing up and thinking that if she can do it, maybe they can, too. Sotomayor, who is a Hispanic, grew up in public housing projects in the Bronx, N.Y., before getting an Ivy League education and starting her legal career. Obama spoke Wednesday at a White House ceremony in her honor.