Berry Picker

Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, who served as minister for information under Pervez Musharraf, survived the attack on Monday though four others were killed.

Negotiating with the Taliban is too little, too late – western allies need to fix the socioeconomic mess started long before 9/11

Memory spans are short in modern politics, but even by those standards the relative ease with which the discourse on Afghanistan has shifted from fighting the Taliban to negotiating with them is remarkable.

Even more incredible is our collective refusal to admit the obvious. The Taliban are stronger than ever because the US chose a heavy-handed, unilateral military response to the 9/11 attacks. What's more, the insurgency is now more ideologically aligned with al-Qaida than ever before. Thanks to bin Laden's network, the Taliban have changed from rag-tag army to deadly insurgency and, most ominous of all, they believe they are more than a match for the world's only superpower.

Some will say that the climate following the deadly attacks on the US nearly nine years ago made it impossible to take the more nuanced approach now being attempted. Diplomacy back in 2001 was left to the Taliban. As the US began its carpet bombardment of Afghanistan, however, Mullah Omar expressed a willingness to hand bin Laden over provided the US gave evidence of his culpability. Any extradition, he added, would have to be to a neutral country and not the US.

The offer was flatly rejected in October 2001, along with an earlier suggestion to try bin Laden in a domestic or international tribunal. It is impossible to judge in hindsight the veracity or practicality of these overtures. But as US-led foreign and Afghan forces meander through an increasingly violent and destabilising war that has killed thousands of Afghans and hundreds of foreign nationals, including 253 British soldiers, the decision to favour unilateral war over diplomacy has proved disastrous.

The Afghan war is also a political liability for foreign governments embroiled in it. A majority of voters in most countries involved in the International Assistance Force for Afghanistan, including Britain, want their troops to return home. Western planners have realised that there can be no hope of a withdrawal in the foreseeable future unless there is dialogue with the Taliban.

This is no simple task. On the one hand, negotiating with the Taliban is a victory for realism. They may represent one of the most fanatical and oppressive streams of Islam, but the Taliban are now the dominant social movement in Afghanistan's Pashtun population, the country's largest ethnic group who inhabit the regions of the south and east – major frontlines in the current conflict. Support for the Taliban among Pashtuns, far from universal before 2001, has increased because the US and its allies decided to invade their country.

But these facts should not detract from other truths. There can be no doubt that the Taliban and the warlords backing the pro-US regime in Kabul pose a long-term threat to the development of Afghanistan, particularly for its women and minorities. New research suggests that support for the Taliban is based not on ideology but social ties, cultural affinities and the hope that the insurgents can improve living conditions more than President Karzai's hopelessly corrupt administration.

Karzai is a product of the US decision to unilaterally invade Afghanistan. Along with resentment towards the US for installing the Karzai regime, however, many Afghans are also openly hostile to regional powers, especially Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for promoting conflict in their country even after the Soviets left in 1989. Interestingly, Afghans view India more favourably than any other foreign presence in their country – up to 71% of them according to one recent opinion poll – including the UN. It cannot be a coincidence that there are no Indian soldiers in Afghanistan. India has invested billions of dollars in developing the country's civil infrastructure. India's involvement in Afghanistan is not an act of charity and it has a long history of supporting former Northern Allies warlords widely implicated in atrocities. But in post-2001 Afghanistan, the soft power of Indian development assistance has accrued enormous goodwill.

An extensive survey carried out by the Asia Foundation last year found that the central thing on Afghan minds is not the Taliban or the US, but access to education and employment for both men and women. And as Khalid Hosseini, author of The Kite Runner, points out, poverty is a far greater cause of death in Afghanistan than war.

In the rush to end our participation in the Afghan war it is important to remind ourselves that what Afghanistan needs is not an end to foreign involvement but an acceptance that it was a victim of the international community's collective interference long before bin Laden plotted the 9/11 attacks.

Talking to the Taliban should not mean appeasing extremists in exchange for a quick withdrawal. Rather, solving this morally ambiguous conflict will require a commitment to engage with all Afghans over a long period of time.

• Afghanistan
• September 11 2001
• Osama bin Laden
• Taliban
• Global terrorism
• US foreign policy
• Foreign policy
• Pakistan
• India
• Middle East

Mustafa Qadri
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Villagers from Pakistan strayed too close to a border checkpoint and were killed when Afghan forces believed they were trying to overrun the post.

News that the leader of the Pakistani Taliban was most likely killed by an American drone strike, while not yet confirmed, may already be setting off jockeying among his potential successors.

The death of Shazia Masih has served as a vivid reminder of the powerlessness of the poor in Pakistan.

A bomb ripped through a bus carrying Shiite Muslims in Karachi, and barely two hours later, another blast struck at a hospital where many of the wounded had been taken.

Bombs targeting Shia procession and hospital in Pakistan's commercial capital leave at least 25 people dead

A wave of panic rippled through Pakistan's commercial capital, Karachi, today after twin explosions targeting a religious procession and a major hospital killed at least 25 people and injured more than 100.

The chaos started when a bomb, thought to have been planted on a parked motorcycle, ripped through a bus carrying minority Shias to a procession in honour of the revered figure Imam Hussein. At least 12 people were killed and 49 injured, including many women and children.

Two hours later a second explosion occurred outside the emergency ward of the city's Jinnah hospital, where the injured were arriving from the first blast. At least 13 people were killed. A bomb disposal squad later defused a third bomb hidden in a television set in the hospital car park.

The violence, blamed on sectarian extremists, triggered scenes of pandemonium across the city. Television pictures showed emotional Shia mourners beating themselves amid clouds of dust outside the attacked hospital. Three ambulances were destroyed.

Hospital officials rushed to move the dead and injured from Jinnah to other city hospitals. Ambulances milled about in several directions in the streets, while dozens of paramilitary rangers and city police rushed to impose security.

Abdul Sattar Edhi, head of the Edhi Foundation and Pakistan's most famous charity worker, said he narrowly escaped injury at the hospital. Vehicles entering other hospitals were checked for explosives.

There were reports of angry mobs gathering on the streets amid fears of violent protests against the failure of the authorities to prevent the explosions.

Sharmila Farooqi, an adviser to the provincial chief minister, appealed to residents to remain calm. "If they want to help their poor brethren who have died, please help with blood donations, but don't create a law and order situation," she told Dawn News television.

Although the twin blasts had an ostensibly sectarian cause, they could have strong political consequences including the destabilisation of the ruling Pakistan People's party.

The sprawling metropolis of 18 million people has been rocked by instability since a similar attack on a Shia procession on 28 December that killed 45 people and wounded several hundred.

Recriminations over the failure of the security forces to prevent that blast deepened existing tensions between the city's main political players - the PPP, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement and Awami National party.

There have been walkouts from the provincial parliament while the city's slums have seen a series of brutal gangland-style killings carried by criminal groups linked to the political parties.

• Pakistan
• Global terrorism

Declan Walsh
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The people of Shah Hassan Khel want revenge for attack on volleyball game that caused 97 deaths

Volleyball might seem an odd sport of choice in Lakki Marwat, a scrubby district of bearded rifle-wielding tribesmen on the border between Pakistan's "settled" areas and its lawless tribal belt.

But it makes perfect sense. Volleyball requires little equipment or land, which suits the poverty-stricken players, and games can be played in small courtyards ringed by mud-walled farmhouses – ideal in a tribal society where blood feuds are common.

Unfortunately that also makes it a perfect target for a Taliban massacre.

On 1 January, a suicide bomber rammed his truck into a crowd watching a volleyball game in Shah Hassan Khel, a village on the edge of Lakki Marwat. The blast caused one of the highest death tolls of recent years – 97 dead and 40 injured, or about half of those present.

"It was a very horrible scene," said Muhammad Ayyub, the local police chief who evacuated survivors by torchlight.

The atrocity was an act of vengeance: six months earlier the people of Shah Hassan Khel had ejected the Taliban from their village, turning 24 militants over to the army.

But revenge runs in both directions in this rough, tribal land. Now that the traditional 40 days of mourning are coming to an end, the villagers are striking back. Local elders have formed a "peace committee" that is stocking up on weapons and ammunition. Armed patrols have started in the village and surrounding hills. And the villagers have vowed to hunt down those responsible for the carnage and kill them.

"We will track them down. We will capture them, one by one. Then we will kill them, one by one," said Mushtaq Ahmed, an elderly farmer with a wispy black beardwho heads the committee. He cradled an AK-47 as he spoke in a closely guarded compound in the district capital, Lakki Marwat. Police have warned him that a second suicide bomber is on the loose, possibly targeting him. "I'm a wanted man," he said wryly.

The vengeance-driven backlash is not unique. Tribal militias, known as lashkars, are operating in other corners of North West Frontier province and the tribal belt – in Swat, Buner and the Khyber agency. Some work well, others less so, but most analysts agree they can offer powerful resistance to the Taliban advance.

But the proliferation of such private militias, rooted in traditional Pashtun concepts of revenge, also highlight a more worrisome flaw: the failure of the weak Pakistani state to keep the extremists out in the first place.

The example of Shah Hasan Khel highlights the problem. For several years this hardscrabble place, pushed up against a ridge of dry hills, was known locally as a hub of Taliban sympathisers led by Maulvi Ashraf Ali, a charismatic local cleric.

Initially the villagers supported the Taliban, believing the rhetoric about sharia law. But the appeal crumbled after the militants funded themselves by smuggling, car theft and kidnapping. Girls were prevented from attending school, villagers stopped watchingtelevision; Ali cultivated links with the Taliban godfather, Baitullah Mehsud.

"He claimed to be enforcing sharia. What he really wanted was power," said Rehim Dil Khan, a tribal elder with a black beard and bloodshot eye in thevillage, who is also a member of the peace committee.

Last summer, under pressure from the army, the villagers evacuated Shah Hassan Khel to facilitate an army attack on the Taliban. Helicopter gunships and artillery hit their houses, many of which were damaged. The Taliban fled, with an injured Ali escaping on a donkey cart.

Months later the Taliban tried to come back, but the villagers, tired of fighting, rebuffed them. The Taliban assassinated a member of the peace committee as he tended his goats. The villagers chased the militants through the mountains. Tension rose.

On New Year's Day the volleyball bomber struck. Shockingly, he turned out be a local teenager, Obaidullah, who had fallen under the extremists' spell; his own step-brother was among the dead at the volleyball match.

Now the villagers are searching for Ali and his followers, who they believe are hiding in North Waziristan, in the nearby tribal belt.

They are backed by Anwar Kamal, an influential chieftain who embodies the contradictions of local governance. A qualified lawyer and pilot, he sleeps with a rocket launcher under his bed and once led his own lashkars against a rival tribe to "teach them a lesson" – all the while holding down a seat in the provincial parliament.

Now, he is helping the Shah Hassan Khel villagers to hunt down the Taliban. "Around here, might is right," he said.

Still, it might not be easy. Tariq Hayat Khan, the government's senior official in the tribal belt, said the process of flushing out Ali would involve complex tribal negotiations. "It's not a matter of sending in mercenaries," he said.

And back in Shah Hassan Khel, the Taliban have already notched up one small victory. Volleyball, a game they openly disdained, is no longer played, because most of the players are dead.

• Pakistan
• Taliban
• Global terrorism

Declan Walsh
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Gaping holes in security checks along the border remain at heavily trafficked crossings, a problem hardly contained to Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas.

Pakistan has not responded to an invitation by India for the first high-level talks since the Mumbai attack.

Officials said Thursday they have arrested 35 suspects as part of their investigation into a bombing that killed three U.S. soldiers and four Pakistanis on Wednesday.

Dr Aafia Siddiqui found guilty in New York of attempting to shoot a team of US soldiers in Afghanistan in July 2008

Pakistanis were united in anger today after an American court convicted Dr Aafia Siddiqui, a US-educated neuroscientist previously accused of al-Qaida links, on charges of assault and attempted murder.

A New York court found Siddiqui guilty of attempting to shoot a team of American soldiers and FBI agents in an Afghan police station in July 2008. She faces up to 60 years in prison.

A foreign office spokesman said he was "dismayed" by the verdict, adding that Pakistan's president, prime minister and foreign minister had appealed to the US authorities for Siddiqui's release. The government spent $2m on top flight lawyers to defend her.

Television reports carried furious comments from ordinary Pakistanis reflecting a widely-held view that the 37-year-old mother of three, who graduated from MIT and Brandeis University, was the victim of a grave miscarriage of justice.

In Siddiqui's hometown, Karachi, her sister Fowzia struck a defiant note. "Maybe they thought there would be crying and condolences. This is not so; we are rejuvenated," she said at the family home, surrounded by cheering supporters.

Shireen Mazari, editor of the rightwing Nation newspaper, wrote that the verdict "did not really surprise anyone familiar with the vindictive mindset of the US public post-9/11". Mushahid Hussain, a prominent opposition politician, called for Siddiqui to be sent home.

One of the few dissenting opinions came from Siddiqui's ex-husband, Amjad Khan, who said his ex-wife was "reaping the fruit of her own decision.

"Her family has been portraying Aafia as a victim. We would like the truth to come out," he said.

Hard facts have been elusive in one of the most intriguing and murky cases to emerge from the Bush administration-era "war on terror". It started in March 2003 when Siddiqui and her three children mysteriously disappeared from Karachi, probably picked up by Pakistani intelligence.

What happened next is hotly contested. Siddiqui's supporters, led by the British campaigner Yvonne Ridley, insist she was sent to Bagram airfield north of Kabul, where she was detained and tortured by US forces.

Sceptics say she was probably on the run in Pakistan, associating with Islamist extremists. In 2004 the FBI named Siddiqui as one of seven senior al-Qaida figures plotting to attack America, which earned her the nickname "Lady al-Qaida" in the US media.

But few of those events were examined in the trial, which concentrated on a narrow sequence of events in an Afghan police station in July 2008, when Siddiqui dramatically resurfaced.

The prosecution claimed that Siddiqui seized a US soldier's M-4 rifle and opened fire, before being shot in the stomach and arrested.

Notably, she was not charged with terrorism-related crimes or al-Qaida links, and after yesterday's guilty verdict was announced, defence lawyer Charles Swift said the case had been decided on "fear not facts".

The prosecution could produce little forensic evidence to support its case; with experts unable to produce incriminating bullet cases or fingerprints on the weapon Siddiqui allegedly fired.

Instead the jury appeared to have been swayed by statements from at least seven witnesses, including an Afghan translator and several US soldiers.

Jurors may also have been swayed by Siddiqui's erratic behaviour. The diminutive defendant, who appeared in court with her face mostly veiled, frequently made shouted outbursts that caused guards to hustle her back to her cell.

She said her case was been orchestrated by unspecified "Jews" and demanded that no person of Jewish descent be allowed to sit on the panel of jurors. After the guilty verdict was announced she cried out: "This is a verdict coming from Israel and not from America." She is due to be sentenced in May.

The hearing left many contentious questions about the enigmatic neuroscientist unanswered – particularly the fate of her missing children.

Siddiqui's oldest son, Ahmed, resurfaced alongside his mother in Afghanistan in 2008. He now lives in Karachi with Fowzia Siddiqui, who has not allowed him to speak publicly of his experience.

But the whereabouts of the other two children – Mariam, 11, and Suleman, 7 – remains a mystery. Their father, Amjad Khan, has called for an inquiry into their whereabouts.

"We would like the three governments to come up with a joint report to lay down the truth," he said. "Most of all we are concerned about the two kids – where they are, who is holding them, and why."

• Pakistan
• United States
• Global terrorism
• al-Qaida

Declan Walsh
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

US operations – from drone strikes to troops on the ground – in Pakistan are necessary to ensure America's security

Yes, there is a secret war going on in Pakistan, and it is one George W Bush should have started nine years ago. After the US abandoned Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal in 1989, Pakistan supported Islamist groups in a bid to secure a pro-Islamabad government in Kabul. When Bush went into Afghanistan in 2001 with no plan other than to kick out the Taliban, he also threw billions of dollars at Pakistan to help in the "war on terror".

Islamabad, however, did nothing to root out Islamist radicals near the border with Afghanistan, nor did it spend the $12bn on developing governance. Instead, the Pakistani government bought equipment such as F-16s to use in a war against India. Why the Bush administration allowed this to happen by selling them the equipment is beyond imagination.

It became pretty apparent a few years ago that it did not matter what Nato forces did in Afghanistan if the Taliban were allowed to operate freely in Pakistan. If the Quetta Shura – the Taliban command based in the Pakistani city of Quetta – and other Taliban bases in remote parts of Baluchistan, for example, were not eradicated, then sending more troops to Afghanistan was pointless. Withdrawing international forces from Afghanistan also won't solve the problem, because the Taliban forces would then just return to dig into Afghanistan to oust the current government. Given what the Taliban allowed to occur when they were last in power this is an unacceptable option for Washington, London and the rest of Nato. Furthermore, despite all the problems in Afghanistan, the current government is far more popular today with the average Afghan than were the Taliban.

The problems are multiple. The civilian government is too weak to take on the Taliban on its own. Some segments of the Pakistani military actually support the Taliban. They see the Taliban as a way to ensure a friendly government in Kabul, necessary for strategic depth in a war against India. If the US was to reduce the power of the Taliban, the situation in Pakistan needed to be addressed. Assassination of Taliban leaders using drones began under Bush and the programme quite rightly accelerated under Obama. So far in 2010 there have been a dozen drone strikes – a large increase on the average for 2009, which was about one per week.

The presence of US forces on the ground is rightly more contentious. But US forces, as well as British SAS forces, have been operating in Pakistan at various points for years. Initially this was without authorisation from the Pakistani government and often because of mistrust between US and Pakistan forces. But after this most recent attack both Washington and Islamabad have to grudgingly admit that they are working closely with each other. Islamabad has been loth to admit the extent to which US forces are helping the Pakistani military with counter-insurgency training, never mind the fact that US forces are at times engaging in operations within Pakistani territory. Given that 80% of Pakistanis reject American assistance in fighting the Taliban, it was perhaps a wise move to keep the issue quiet.

Ultimately the "secret war" in Pakistan represents an alternative model to Bush's very public "war on terror". Bush used the war on terror as a rhetorical tool to terrorise Americans into supporting a massive, ineffective global war abroad while taking away their civil rights at home. Obama and his administration have articulated a much more nuanced policy that does not reduce every actor to a "terrorist". It does not utilise grand rhetoric that elevates "terrorists" to the principal threat facing the US. It pushes them into dark corners, where they should be. It attempts to distinguish between al-Qaida and Taliban. It seems to classify Taliban into different groups.

It is a strategy for using American power effectively, rather than blundering into countries with no clear or definable objectives. Most importantly, it is a strategy that goes after the real problems rather than creating new ones, as was the case in Iraq. It is also one that is backed up with significant amounts of economic and development assistance – $1.5bn a year for Pakistan alone.

I have no doubt that this "secret war" being waged by the US with the approval of Islamabad will not be popular with many. At the end of the day, however, the US president is elected to keep the American people safe and to expect an administration not to act in the hope that the situation will just fix itself is fantasy.

• Pakistan
• Afghanistan
• US foreign policy
• Taliban
• al-Qaida
• Global terrorism
• US military
• Nato

Michael Williams
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The presence of U.S. soldiers, mainly for intelligence and training, has been handled with discretion.

A neuroscientist trained at an elite American university has been found guilty of two charges of attempted murder after she tried to kill US agents in Afghanistan in 2008

A Pakistani neuroscientist trained at an elite American university has been found guilty of two charges of attempted murder after she tried to kill US agents in Afghanistan in 2008.

The conviction, which could see Aafia Siddiqui sentenced to life in prison, is the latest chapter in a life story that has baffled observers and divided legal opinion. The scientist has been accused of being an al-Qaida sympathiser, but has claimed that she was kidnapped and held in secret detention by the US for five years before her arrest.

She was never charged with terrorism, but prosecutors called her a grave threat who was carrying "a road map for destruction" bomb-making instructions and a list of New York City landmarks when she was captured.

As jurors left the courtroom following her conviction, Siddiqui raised her arm and shouted: "This is a verdict coming from Israel, not America." Then she turned to the public benches and said: "Your anger should be directed where it belongs. I can testify to this and I have proof."

Her lawyer, Elaine Sharp, said: "This verdict is based on fear, not on fact."

Siddiqui, 37, was found guilty of two counts of attempted murder, armed assault, using and carrying a firearm and assault of US officers and employees. The jury found, however, that the crime had not been premeditated.

The charges related to her arrest at an Afghan police station in 2008. The prosecution alleged that as US agents were coming to interrogate her, she grabbed a military rifle and opened fire shouting "Allahu Akbar", Arabic for God is great.

None of the officers were hurt, but they returned fire and Siddiqui was injured.

Siddiqui took a degree from MIT and then gained a PhD in cognitive neuro­science at Brandeis University. She returned to Pakistan in 2002, and a year later she mysteriously disappeared.

• Pakistan
• Afghanistan
• United States

Ed Pilkington
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Villagers pull injured pupils from rubble after Taliban fighters kill seven in military convoy attack

Three American soldiers were killed and two others injured today in a bomb attack that marked the first fatal Taliban ambush on the US military in Pakistan.

Dozens of teenage girls were caught up in the blast outside their secondary school in Lower Dir, in the country's north-west. Three girls were killed along with one paramilitary force member.

The father of one wounded girl likened the scene to "doomsday".

A Taliban spokesman claimed responsibility for the attack. "We will continue such attacks on Americans," Azam Tariq told Reuters.

The US embassy said the Americans had been assigned to help train the Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force deployed in the tribal belt along the Afghan border. Local reporters initially mistook them for western journalists as they were wearing civilian clothes and carrying cameras.

The explosion, which appeared to be a remote-control roadside bomb, happened as the force's convoy passed the Koto girls' high school, where teenagers were streaming out for their mid-morning break.

Television footage showed distressed villagers scrambling to pull wounded girls from the rubble of collapsed buildings amid scattered books and bags.

"What was the fault of these students?" said Muhammad Dawood, a rescuer quoted by Associated Press.

The wounded were taken to the main district hospital at Timergara where Medécins sans Frontières doctors said they had treated more than 100 people, mostly schoolgirls. "Most of them have splinter injuries all over the body," said Ashraf Alam, chief medical officer at the hospital, speaking by phone. Sixteen of the wounded were seriously injured and three had died, he said.

Pakistan's foreign ministry said in a statement that the attack would "only serve to fortify Pakistan's resolve to eliminate the menace of terrorism".

The dead and wounded Americans were flown to Islamabad, where the survivors were treated at the city's al-Shifa hospital.

The bombing shone a light on a little-publicised American military programme. The US defence department sees the Frontier Corps as a key element of Pakistan's fight against the Taliban in North West Frontier province, and has quietly pumped in millions of dollars and dozens of personnel to improve the force's capability. In most cases US personnel train senior Frontier Corps officers.

The attack also highlighted an even less well-known civilian aid scheme: a retired US official said the defence department had been discreetly funding development projects such as schools in North West Frontier for years. The targeted soldiers could have been going to the school in Dir as "a show of solidarity" with their Pakistani colleagues, he said.

Until today the only American serviceman to die at the hands of the Taliban in Pakistan was an airforce engineer killed in the 2008 Marriot hotel bombing.

The risks of the convoy todaywere vividly apparent in retrospect, with Lower Dir being one of the most volatile areas of the province. Last year the district saw fierce fighting between the Pakistan army and Taliban fighters spilling out of the Swat valley. Dir is home to Sufi Muhammad, a Taliban ideologue whose son-in-law, Maulana Fazlullah, is the fugitive leader of the Swat Taliban. After the fighting the army declared Dir clear of militants.

Also nearby is Bajaur, a tribal agency bordering Afghanistan now embroiled in heavy fighting. Yesterday the army said it had captured a Taliban stronghold and that troops were advancing towards another militant hub in Damadola.

The American casualties will boost the morale of the Taliban in difficult times. This week Pakistan state television reported that a Taliban leader, Hakimullah Mehsud, had died of wounds suffered during an American drone strike last month. The Taliban have denied the reports but declined to provide proof of life.

Last autumn the militants were flushed from their South Waziristan stronghold after a sweeping army offensive that forced the leadership to flee into North Waziristan, where CIA-controlled drones now strike almost daily. In the most intense barrage yet an ­estimated eight drones fired at least 17 missiles at compounds and vehicles in North Waziristan yesterday. So far at least 31 people have reportedly died.

The Taliban has stepped up attacks on schools; 10 incidents have been reported in the last two months.

• Pakistan
• United States
• US military
• Taliban
• Afghanistan
• Global terrorism

Declan Walsh
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The latest Taliban bombing has uncovered America's low-profile funding of the Pakistan military

To many Pakistanis the most shocking aspect of the latest Taliban bombing was not the death toll, or the injuries inflicted on survivors, but the question that it raised: what was a team of American soldiers doing in a tense corner of North West Frontier province?

In a way, the attack tugged the veil from a multi-faceted military assistance programme that, while not secret, is rarely publicised – by either side.

President Obama's public aid to ­Pakistan is transparent: $1.5bn a year for the next five years, mainly to boost the civilian government. But behind the scenes the US is engaged in other ways. Over the past decade it has given over $12bn in cash directly to the ­military to subsidise the costs of fighting the Taliban and al-Qaida. The programme to train the Frontier Corps, which the killed ­soldiers were involved with, is ­estimated to be worth $400m more over several years.

Generously provisioned counter-narcotics programmes operate along the Afghan border, funding everything from wells to schools. In Islamabad military contractors – usually retired army personnel – are paid to advise the army, discreetly working out of suburban houses. All this is hugely sensitive. Public opinion in Pakistan is overwhelmingly hostile to American "interference".

Last year a media furore erupted over the role of the contractor Blackwater, which vocal right-wing commentators believed was part of a covert plot to steal the country's nuclear weapons.

The Taliban played on that fear yesterday with a spokesman describing the bomb as "revenge for the blasts carried out by Blackwater in Pakistan".

The critics are backed by public opinion. A survey last October found that 80% of Pakistanis rejected American assistance in fighting the Taliban.

• Pakistan
• Barack Obama
• US foreign policy
• Taliban
• Afghanistan

Declan Walsh
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Villagers pull injured pupils from rubble after Taliban fighters target military convoy

Three American soldiers were killed and two injured in a bomb attack on a military convoy in north-western Pakistan today that marked a surprise coup for Taliban fighters reeling under a barrage of CIA drone attacks.

Dozens of teenage girls were also caught by the blast, which occurred outside their secondary school in Lower Dir district, killing three of them along with a paramilitary soldier.

In a statement the US embassy said the Americans had been assigned to help train the Frontier Corps (FC), a paramilitary force deployed in the tribal belt along the Afghan border. Local reporters initially mistook them for western journalists because they were wearing civilian clothes and carrying cameras.

The explosion, apparently a remote control roadside bomb, occurred as their military convoy passed the Koto girls' high school, where teenage girls were streaming out for their mid-morning break.

Television footage showed distressed villagers scrambling to pull wounded girls from the rubble of collapsed buildings amid scattered books and bags.

"What was the fault of these students?" said Muhammad Dawood, a rescuer quoted by the Associated Press.

The wounded were rushed to the main district hospital at Timergara where doctors from Medécins sans Frontières said they had treated more than 100 people, most of them schoolgirls.

"Most of them are have splinter injuries all over the body — in the face, abdomen and feet," said Dr Ashraf Alam, chief medical officer at the hospital, speaking by phone.

Sixteen of the wounded were seriously injured and three had died, he said.

Among those awaiting major surgery was a girl aged about eight or nine. "We are busy in the operating theatre," he said, excusing himself.

Pakistan's foreign ministry said in a statement that the attack would "only serve to fortify Pakistan's resolve to eliminate the menace of terrorism".

The dead and wounded Americans were flown to Islamabad, where the survivors were treated at the city's al-Shifa hospital amid tight security.

The bombing shone a light on a little-publicised American military programme. The Department of Defence sees the Frontier Corps as a key element of Pakistan's fight against the Taliban in North West Frontier province, and has quietly pumped millions of dollars — and dozens of personnel — into an initiative to improve the force's capability.

In most cases the US personnel train senior FC officers — an approach known as "training the trainers". The attack also highlighted an even less well-known civilian aid programme. A retired senior US official with knowledge of the programme said the Department of Defence has been discreetly funding development projects such as schools in NWFP for years.

The targeted soldiers may have been going to the school in Dir as "a show of solidarity" with their Pakistani colleagues, he said.

The risks of the trip were vividly apparent in retrospect today.

Lower Dir is one of the most volatile corners of NWFP. Last year the district saw fierce fighting between the army and Taliban fighters spilling out of the neighbouring Swat valley during a major military offensive.

Dir is home to Sufi Muhammad, an elderly Taliban ideologue whose son-in-law, Maulana Fazlullah, is the fugitive leader of the Swat Taliban. After the operation the army declared that Dir had been cleared of militants.

Also next to Dir is Bajaur, a tribal agency bordering Afghanistan that is embroiled in heavy fighting. On Tuesday the army said it had captured a Taliban stronghold and that troops were advancing towards another militant hub in Damadola.

The American casualties will boost Taliban morale in difficult times.

Earlier this week Pakistan state television reported that a major Taliban leader, Hakimullah Mehsud, had died of wounds suffered during an American drone strike last month. The Taliban have denied the reports, but declined to provide proof of life.

Last autumn the militants were flushed from their South Waziristan stronghold after a sweeping army offensive that forced the leadership to flee into neighbouring North Waziristan, where CIA-controlled drones now strike almost every day.

In the most intense barrage yet an estimated eight drones fired at least 17 missiles at different compounds and vehicles in North Waziristan yesterday. So far at least 31 people have reportedly died.

At the same time the Taliban has stepped up attacks on schools, with reports of 10 incidents in the last two months. In the most recent assault, on 18 January, militants blew up a primary school for boys in Khyber tribal agency.

• Pakistan
• Afghanistan
• Taliban
• Global terrorism

Declan Walsh
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

In another exceptionally heavy barrage, eight American drones fired at least 17 missiles at suspected militants along the border with Afghanistan on Tuesday.

Pakistani and American officials said that they were increasingly convinced that Hakimullah Mehsud had died from wounds sustained in a drone strike.