Canada wanted Afghan Prisoners Tortured: Legal Expert

Legal expert: Canada Wanted Afghan Prisoners Tortured.

Even before this new accusation was made Harper had prorogued parliament in part because of embarrassing opposition questions about transfer of detainees to Afghan authorities. Now the situation has become far worse. The government will no doubt refuse to do anything on the grounds of national security but to cover its fanny the government will ask a retired Supreme Court Judge Frank Iacobucci to advise it on whether release of documents would be ""injurious". If the lawyer's claims are true it is obvious that the release of the documents would have injurious effects. Some people could be charged with war crimes. Iacobucci is a great choice. He is already known for the Iacobucci inquiry which can be found in summary here.That inquiry was carried out almost entirely in secret and with the three people on whose behalf it was called not able to testify or take part in the investigation of those who were involved indirectly in their incarceration in Syria and Egypt. Even Iacobucci concludes they were tortured. Iacobucci will not doubt collect a very handsome fee for his advice which may not even be made public depending on whether the government likes it or not.Canada wanted Afghan prisoners tortured: lawyer
Unredacted documents show officials hoped to gather intelligence, expert says

CBC News

Federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert.If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year."If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said."There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. That's what's in these documents, and that's why the government is covering up as hard as it can."......Diplomat Richard Colvin says he warned top Canadian officials as early as 2006 that Afghan detainees handed over to Afghans were subsequently being tortured. ....However, Attaran said the full versions of the documents show that Canada went even further in intentionally handing over prisoners to torturers."And it wasn't accidental; it was done for a reason," he said. "It was done so that they could be interrogated using harsher methods."..."High-value targets would be detained under a completely different mechanism that involved special forces and targeted, intelligence-driven operations," Richard Colvin, a former senior diplomat with Canada's mission in Afghanistan, told a parliamentary committee last November.Colvin claimed that all detainees transferred by Canadians to Afghan prisons were likely tortured by Afghan officials. He also said that his concerns were ignored by top government officials and that the government might have tried to cover up the issue..
The Conservatives insist that releasing uncensored files on the issue would damage national security. On Friday, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson asked former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Frank Iacobucci to review whether there would be "injurious" effects if some Afghan detainee documents were made public."Parliament is supreme," said Ontario NDP MP Paul Dewar. "What this is, is a skate around Parliament.""Who knew what and when, and who allowed the continuing saga of Afghan detainees being sent to a potential risk of torture?" Dosanjh said.It's not clear whether the government will make Iacobucci's advice public. Moreover, he is not a sitting judge and can't legally rule or force the government to do anything

from All Voices

Harper insists military mission in Afghanistan to end by 2011.

What is noticeable about this article is not that the military mission will end so much as the assumption that some other types of missions will be continued. Many other missions will require military protection. Of course this could be carried out by other NATO troops. Hopefully there will be debate about whether there should be any further missions in Afghanistan. I expect that the Liberals will be happy to go along with any mission that is non-combat and perhaps even the NDP might support such a scheme of throwing good money after bad and ensuring that there are still some Canadian casualties. This is from the Globe and Mail.

PM unequivocal on Afghanistan withdrawal
Gloria Galloway

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his ministers – notably Defence Minister Peter MacKay – have been saying for some time that the military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011.

At some points, however, they have talked about the withdrawal of the troops being followed by a humanitarian effort led by civilians – which has provided fodder for those who say they actually plan to keep Canadian soldiers on the ground. Any humanitarian effort would naturally require security and that may require a military presence.

But Mr. Harper makes it absolutely clear in this interview with David Akin of Canwest New Service, published Tuesday, that the more than 2,500 Canadian troops will be coming home.

"We will not be undertaking any kind of activity that requires a significant military force protection, so it will become a strictly civilian mission," Mr. Harper said.

"We will continue to maintain humanitarian and development missions, as well as important diplomatic activity in Afghanistan. But we will not be undertaking any activities that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy."

Mr. Harper goes on to say that the NATO allies have lowered their objectives for the mission in Afghanistan. "I think the reality is that all actors over the past few years have been downgrading their expectations of what can be achieved in Afghanistan."

"But it is still important that we have a viable, functioning state in Afghanistan that has some acceptable democratic and rule of law norms. If we don't, we run the serious risk of returning in Afghanistan to what we had before. No matter what differences people have on the mission, everybody agrees that the mission has the purpose to ensure that Afghanistan does not return to being a failed state that is an incubator of terrorism."

Natynczyk says Afghanistan situation is worsening

At least Natynczyk is willing to modify his line somewhat in light of obvious facts. However he neglects to notice that there have also been security problems lately in the west of Afghanistan far from the Pakistan border. Natyncyzyk is toeing the U.S. line however that more troops are what is most necessary even though many experts claim that this will not help. One thing is sure and that is that there will be more casualties then. The attempts to reduce troop casualties by air support is probably counterproductive in that it results in bombing of innocent civilians which in a tribal society creates whole family groups eager to wreak revenge on the occupiers. The argument for more troops is presented well enough by Natycyzyk but it is doubtful that there will ever be enough troops to pacify the whole country. Before that happens Karzai or whoever is in power will probably broker a deal with insurgents or at least many of them with or without allied blessings. Or maybe the U.S. can put some Taliban groups on the payroll in exchange for nominal support of the Karzai government!

Natynczyk says Afghanistan situation is worsening
Updated Sun. Jul. 20 2008 4:42 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Despite the significant gains Canadian troops have achieved in Afghanistan, Gen. Walter Natynczyk admitted Sunday the country's overall situation is worsening.
Canada's top soldier told CTV's Question Period that insurgent attacks have increased year over year, specifically in some parts of the country.
"You have a worsening security situation, especially localized in three areas -- the Kabul area, in the Regional Command East, where the Americans are, and in the south where we are with the British forces and the Dutch," he said.
The statement appeared to backtrack from what Natynczyk said earlier this month after he completed his first visit to Afghanistan as the Chief of Defence Staff.
On a five-day visit to the region, Natynczyk put a positive spin on security issues in the war-torn country, which has seen a resurgence of Taliban activity. Natynczyk, who became the country's top soldier on July 2, had said the increased violence is negligible.
"We're generally along the same lines as we have been the past few years,'' Natynczyk said at a news conference on July 13 at Kandahar Airfield. "Looking at the statistics, we're just a slight notch -- indeed an insignificant notch -- above where we were last year.''
On Sunday, Natynczyk agreed with statistics presented on Question Period that suggested year-to-year violence was up 34 per cent.
"The statistics you cite are absolutely true," he said.
"On the other hand, when I was in Kandahar, from a soldiers' perspective, what they see are localized, fragile signs of success."
He noted the Taliban "is throwing everything against" NATO troops and Afghan security forces in an effort to undermine the government ahead of next year's elections. Natynczyk reiterated the need for more NATO troops to help quell insurgent violence.
"In a counterinsurgency, it is troop intensive. It's not enough just to clear the Taliban out ... you need to have that security blanket to ensure that there is time for police and the army to have that capacity to address their own security," he said.
Natynczyk said that NATO troops have helped the country make significant improvements. He said Canadians have helped train police officers who are respected by the local population, and Afghan battalions have increasingly taken on roles to protect major regions of the country.

Natynczyk upbeat on Afghanistan.

Perhaps Natanczyk is upbeat due to his positive experiences helping the U.S. in Iraq and because he was awarded a medal(by Canada) for his service in that illegal and immoral war. He can probably expect a medal for his services in the Afghan invasion led by the U.S. No doubt the cheerleaders in both the Liberal and Conservative parties who eagerly support our troops by providing them as cannon fodder will gladly recognise his further services to U.S. imperialism under the guise of NATO and the UN.


New defence chief upbeat on Afghanistan
The Canadian Press
July 13, 2008 at 11:47 AM EDT
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Canada's newly appointed top soldier has completed a five-day visit to Afghanistan and offered the uniquely upbeat assessment that any increase in violence this year has been negligible.
The cheerful prognosis from Canada's new chief of defence staff, General Walter Natynczyk, flies in the face of an independent analysis that shows a 77-per-cent surge in Taliban attacks in Kandahar province this year.
The comparatively sunny assessment from Gen. Natynczyk after his tour of Afghanistan is also at odds with the increasingly grim portrait being painted by Canada's allies.
The Pentagon has cited a 40-per-cent increase in insurgent attacks in eastern areas of Afghanistan where U.S. forces operate, and notes that it is now losing more soldiers here than in Iraq.

Britain's Defence Secretary calls Afghanistan a generational struggle that will require a foreign troop presence for many years.
Local business people say they are increasingly discouraged about the security situation in their city, amid fear that the economic gains after 2001 are being wiped away.
In Ottawa, however, the Canadian government has been a beacon of unparalleled optimism and its sunny read of the situation was echoed this week by the new military boss.
Gen. Natynczyk flew into Kandahar only two weeks after being sworn in as defence chief, visited a handful of outlying Canadian bases, and toured the region by helicopter and in convoys.
He has been in the region three times before and said he sees encouraging signs.
”We're generally along the same lines as we have been the past few years,” Gen. Natynczyk told a news conference at Kandahar Airfield.
”Looking at the statistics, we're just a slight notch – indeed an insignificant notch – above where we were last year.”
According to a prominent security firm that compiles insurgent incidents reported by NATO and local security forces, that notch is actually a 77-per-cent increase in attacks from 2007.
Statistician Sami Kovanen at Vigilant Strategic Services Afghanistan says the number of killings, bombings, kidnappings, suicide strikes, mine explosions, and mortar assaults by pro-Taliban insurgents through July 6 was 532 incidents this year, compared with only 300 last year.
When confronted with such numbers, Canadian officials respond that incident tallies tell only part of the story.
They note that the economy has grown since 2001, far more children are going to school, and human rights have expanded dramatically since the days of the Taliban.
When asked about security, their optimism appears based on anecdotal evidence; some locals have tipped them off about the location of a roadside bomb, they have seen a traffic jam – a sure sign of activity in Kandahar city, a bazaar has reopened and there are new businesses.

Hillier's personality masked mistakes..

This is from the Star. Hillier's personality may have masked his mistakes but it also caused his mistakes. But I question whether they are mistakes at all. Hillier is not responsible for NATO's losing the war in Afghanistan assuming NATO is losing rather than just facing a stalemate. Backing NATO's mission is hardly a mistake. Hillier has managed to align Canadian military policy with that of the U.S. We are now not a peacekeeper but a fighting force acting as a junior partner to the U.S. military in supporting the global hegominic policy of the U.S. Not only has he changed Canada's role from peacemaker to powdermonkey for the U.S. but he has ensured that more and more taxpayers dollars are fed into the military and indirectly into the military-industrial complex both in the U.S. and Canada. At the same time he has managed to sell the military and the mission to the Canadian public to such a degree that supporting the troops means having them serve warlords, Islamic extremists, and corrupt politicians in Afghanistan together with their U.S. handlers with some troops coming home in coffins and stretchers. Bringing the troops home out of harms way would be not supporting the troops. This is a type of Orwellian MilitarySpeak.


Hillier's personality masked mistakes
TheStar.com - comment - Hillier's personality masked mistakes

April 19, 2008
James Travers

OTTAWA — Most of what is being said and written about Rick Hillier is mostly true. Up to a point, he is a soldier's soldier, a transformational leader and the folksy down-home voice of sophisticated uptown communications spin.

All of that clings close enough to experience to explain the gush after this week's announcement that, come summer, Hillier will step aside. But the man is more than the sum of the clichés and the general's seminal term as Chief of Defence Staff deserves and demands analysis, not pompoms.

In fighting to the top of the military and in now walking away on his terms at his chosen time, Hillier was, and is, a shrewd master of the power vacuum. He filled one in changing then prime minister Paul Martin's mind about who should modernize the military and another in pushing the rump defence department into the premium hierarchical space once occupied by foreign affairs. In leaving he creates two more: one that puts almost impossible pressure on a successor to fill his boots as well as the job description he meticulously defined and another that leaves a contentious – and failing – mission without personal ownership.

Afghanistan connects Hillier's disparate parts. He used it to give the military renewed purpose, erase memories of the Somalia disgrace and change the armed forces' image from peacekeeping to, as he put it, a force able to kill people. Afghanistan was also the catalyst for Hillier's efforts to morph the CDS from obedient public servant to outspoken champion of uniformed men and women in harm's way.

Hillier's successes are obvious and subtle. After decades of decline, the forces are again a proud and prominent national institution. Without fanfare, he has completed former defence minister Paul Hellyer's controversial '60s plan to unify three forces into one that can be led at home and abroad by the army, air force or navy.

Still, his greatest success may be how his larger-than-life persona distracted public attention from what, in the absence of a better word, are his failures. NATO is losing the war Hiller was determined to make Canada's and almost single-handedly managed. And his successor inherits head-hurting problems including a charged and unstable relationship with the military's political masters, a continuing struggle to attract and keep troops and finding the billions needed to balance soaring operational costs against the bills now tumbling in from a Conservative spending spree that was often needed and sometimes a lobbyist's windfall.

Often forgotten, too, are Hillier's mistakes. He was wrong in framing the mission as a test of civilizations fought against a Taliban that turns out to be consumed by imposing its will on Afghanistan, not destroying Westerners or their culture. He had no qualms about biting the hand that appointed him and fed the military. And more than once he crossed the line that democracies draw to safely distance generals from politics.

Hillier's legacy is best left to military historians. In the meantime, his replacement should be pepared for pushback. This obsessively controlling government will be reimposing much of the discipline he escaped and this grasping capital will be clawing back all that it can of the influence over national spending and international policy he and the defence department seized.

As inevitable as the pendulum swing, a system once content to let a powerful individual advance common interests is now ready to take back what it considers its own. If there's a moist eye on Parliament Hill in July it will be hay fever, not the sight of Hillier's back.



James Travers' national affairs column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.

West's botched funding fuelling insurgency: Report

The "West" suffers from the contagious hubris that characterises U.S. foreign policy. Afghanistan itself is primarily a U.S. reaction to 9/11--or perhaps an extension of U.S. hegomony with 9/11 providing an excuse. The U.S. has managed with the help of others including NATO to establish a pro-Western government but that government does not fit the ideal image of the West. It is decidedly influenced by Islamist ideals that go counter to toleration, and women's rights, in many cases. The government also contains warlords whose record on human rights was if anything worse than that of the Taliban. Corruption is rampant. It is not clear how this can be solved by occupiers without alienating the general population even more. Somehow
the U.S. and others believe they can invade, overthrow governments, and then as occupiers create a regime in the desired image. No matter the occupiers lose soldiers shoulder huge costs and are unlikely to ever achieve their aim. The best that can happen is that the Afghan govt. manages to forge some agreement with the Taliban that will create some semblance of security and send the occupying troops packing.


West's botched funding risks fuelling insurgency, report finds
OLIVER MOORE

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

March 25, 2008 at 3:55 AM EDT

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — A group of nearly 100 aid organizations operating in Afghanistan issued a scathing report today that accuses donor countries of botching development funding so badly they risk a spreading insurgency.

The 33-page report, entitled Falling Short, paints a worrying picture. Among their complaints, the groups say that Western countries have come up with far less funding than promised, have been unwilling to tackle Afghan corruption and have used aid funding as a political rather than humanitarian tool.

"Given the links between development and security, the effectiveness of aid also has a major impact on peace and stability in the country," Matt Waldman wrote on behalf of the group.

"Yet thus far aid has been insufficient and in many cases wasteful or ineffective. There is therefore no time to lose: donors must take urgent steps to increase and improve their assistance to Afghanistan."

The report was released by the Agency Co-ordinating Body for Afghan Relief, a group of 96 aid organizations that includes numerous local groups, as well as such global heavyweights as the Aga Khan Foundation, Oxfam, Save the Children and World Vision International.

These groups say donor countries are delinquent with promised funding. The ACBAR report notes that $25-billion (U.S.) has been pledged for development aid but that $10-billion of that total has yet to materialize.

Canada and Japan, however, are notable as the only two nations to have come through with 90 per cent of their pledged aid.

Ehsan Zia, Afghanistan's Minister of Rural Rehabilitation and Development, said yesterday the report is misguided to focus on the numbers alone.

"It's important to distinguish between the amount and the way it is used. The way it is used is more important," he said in a telephone interview from Kabul. "The aid which is being delivered is being effectively used."

Mr. Zia acknowledged that "there is always room for improvement," but argued that Western criticism about corruption often goes too far. "I don't think there is so much corruption as is being spoken about."

The report paints a very different picture of business practices in the Kabul government. It alleges that the government does not know how one-third of the $15-billion in aid so far provided has been spent, a situation that is "largely due to lack of co-ordination and communication," according to the report.

The report goes on to argue that too much of the aid that does come into the country is spent in the south. People in the "most insecure" provinces of the country received more than $200 per capita in aid in the past year, according to the report, which notes that people in some other provinces received less than one-third that amount.

While the south is certainly the area most in need of stability - and most analysts agree that quelling the insurgency requires a mixture of military force and development assistance - the NGOs in ACBAR believe such an approach is worsening the insurgency.

"Given the links between poverty and insecurity, the resentment which these significant disparities has generated, and the perverse incentives created for secure areas, which perceive that insecurity attracts aid, this approach is dangerously short-sighted and has contributed to the spread of insecurity," the report says.

Harper failing to lead Afghan mission: Ignatieff

Harper needn't worry about Ignatieff's or Manley's criticism either. The smirky-faced hot air balloon, who along with Rae talks for the Liberals instead of Dion, simply cribs from the Manley report as Manley cribbed from himself. Ignatieff is of course famous for supporting the Iraq war until it didn't work out well. Anyway unless polls improve or Harper comes up with some radical proposal on Afghanistan such as sending thousands more troops in combat roles Harper can count on support from the Liberals on the matter. At their most oppositional they will sit on their hands and abstain.


Harper failing to lead Afghan mission: Ignatieff
Updated Sun. Jan. 27 2008 3:42 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Recent gaffes surrounding the military transfer of Afghan detainees shows how badly the Harper government is mishandling the Afghanistan war, Deputy Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says.
"The very least you can say is that Canada's soldiers deserve better civilian leadership than this," Ignatieff told Question Period on Sunday.
In his first interview since returning from a visit to Afghanistan in early January, Ignatieff said he was concerned about Prime Minster Stephen Harper's mismanagement of military operations there.
Ignatieff said that the public and Parliament have not received "honest answers" from the government and that Harper has to grab the mission "by the throat and pull it together."
"Afghanistan is the most important thing Canada has done in 50 years, and he's not leading," he said. "The prime minister has to act like a prime minister, and not like a partisan leader on this issue of Afghanistan."
The comments stemmed from a series of public miscues following the release of the Manley report on the future of the Canada's mission.
In November, the Canadian military stopped transferring detainees to the Afghan military after diplomats found clear evidence of torture.
But the Harper government stayed silent on the subject until the facts came to light last week in government documents filed in a lawsuit by human rights groups opposing the handling of detainees.
Sandra Buckler, director of communications in the Prime Minister's Office, this week blamed the military for not telling the government that the practice had changed. She later claimed she "misspoke."
The opposition has accused the government of not revealing the change mainly to protect itself from embarrassment.
Military leaders have reportedly been furious, saying they kept the government in the loop.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier both declined to appear on Question Period.
On Sunday, Ignatieff confirmed that he and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion had been briefed by civilian and military officials while visiting Afghanistan in January. Dion had told reporters on Friday the Prime Minister's Office had "lied" about not knowing.
Ignatieff told Question Period that Buckler had lost the confidence of the press, of Parliament and likely of the Conservative caucus.
"Frankly, I could care less about Sandra Buckler," he said. "The issue is the prime minister. He's the boss here. The Manley commission has been scathing about the failure of the prime minister to coordinate Canadian policy."
Layton
The Afghan detainees controversy is expected to dominate when Parliament resumes sitting on Monday.
NDP Leader Jack Layton told Newsnet on Sunday that two cabinet ministers now appear to have lied to the House of Commons on the Afghan detainees issue.
"(NDP defence critic) Dawn Black asked on Nov. 14 whether prisoners were being transferred -- and that they shouldn't be, given the evidence -- and the minister didn't tell the truth," he said.
"Frankly, a minister shouldn't be occupying that position if they're not going to tell the truth to Canadians about how a war is being conducted. That's certainly evidence of a deep-seated problem, and we're asking the prime minister to take action in that regard."
Laurie Hawn, the Conservative parliamentary secretary for defence, told Question Period the government is aware of what's going on in Afghanistan.
"Those are not things we talk about and that's been mentioned over and over again. That's an operational security issue."
Manley report
The Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan, headed by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley, released its report of the mission in Afghanistan on Jan. 22.
Among other suggestions, it said Harper had to take a more active role to ensure NATO support for Canadian troops, as well as "assert a stronger and more disciplined diplomatic position."
"Mr. Manley has made it very clear that the prime minister has failed to lead this mission, failed to coordinate it, and failed to tell what he needs to tell the Canadian people about the mission," Ignatieff said.
The report also said the government "should provide the public with franker and more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan."
Panel member Pamela Wallin, a former diplomat and broadcaster, said the "information deficit" surrounding the Afghanistan mission has led to public discontent in Canada.
"It's what we all felt, in our hearts and our guts during this whole process," she told Question Period. "Now that they've got information on board, they're making smarter decisions."
Wallin said the report focuses strongly on the government's failure to allow information to flow "openly and steadily."

Resurgent Taliban closing in on Kabul: Report

This report is a bit surprising in that the Senlis Council has traditionally been concerned with drug policy and has argued against the standard technique of eradication in favor of other modes of dealing with the problem. In Afghanistan it has suggested that the production be used for legitimate medical purposes. It has also criticised aid programmes and has its own aid program. However, this report is quite different and paints an alarming picture of the situation one that I really doubt. Certainly, I do not think that the Taliban control large areas but rather that they are able to operate in them and influence them. There is no way that the Taliban could actually hold even a larger city for any length of time. It would be suicide. What they can do is cause greater and greater trouble for the occupying forces. The Taliban at this stage remain basically a guerilla movement that is establishing firm support over larger areas of Afghanistan but that is all.
But even if the report is close to being correct the Afghan mission is clearly one that Canada should abandon. All one can expect is more and more conflict and destruction. The Afghans do not take to foreign invasions. If history teaches anything it teaches that.



Resurgent Taliban closing in on Kabul: report
Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:16 AM EST



By Luke Baker

LONDON (Reuters) - The conflict in Afghanistan has reached "crisis proportions," with the resurgent Taliban present in more than half the country and closing in on Kabul, a report said on Wednesday.

If NATO, the lead force operating in Afghanistan, is to have any impact against the insurgency, troop numbers will have to be doubled to at least 80,000, the report said.

"The Taliban has shown itself to be a truly resurgent force," the Senlis Council, an independent think-tank with a permanent presence in Afghanistan, wrote in a study entitled "Stumbling into Chaos: Afghanistan on the brink."

"Its ability to establish a presence throughout the country is now proven beyond doubt," it said. "The insurgency now controls vast swaths of unchallenged territory including rural areas, some district centers, and important road arteries."

Senlis said its research had established that the Taliban, driven out of Afghanistan by the U.S. invasion in late 2001, had rebuilt a permanent presence in 54 percent of the country and was finding it easy to recruit new followers.

It was also increasingly using Iraq-style tactics, such as roadside and suicide bombs, to powerful effect, and had built a stable network of financial support, funding its operations with the proceeds from Afghanistan's booming opium trade.

"It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when," the report said.

"Their oft-stated aim of reaching the city in 2008 appears more viable than ever."

TROOP BOOST

NATO has a little over 40,000 troops operating in Afghanistan as part of the International Security Assistance Force. The United States and Britain are the largest contributors, with 15,000 and 7,700 soldiers, respectively.

Those numbers pale in comparison to Iraq where at the peak of operations there were nearly 200,000 troops on the ground and where around 160,000 remain.

While Iraq is showing the first signs of an improvement in security, Afghanistan's situation is becoming more precarious, Senlis argued, underlining the need for a rapid increase in troop numbers in a country that is larger than Iraq.

"In order to prevent NATO's defeat at the hands of the Taliban, a rejuvenated 'coalition of the willing' is needed," the report said, calling the proposal 'NATO Plus'.

"Every NATO state is mandated to contribute to this new force, with a firm level of commitment that will provide a total force size of 80,000."

Bolstering NATO's presence in Afghanistan, and getting member countries to contribute more, is expected to be a major issue on the agenda at a NATO summit in Romania in April.

Before then, Britain, which is responsible for security in the restive south of Afghanistan, where violence has been greatest, is expected to unveil new security strategies, including a possible increase in troops and proposals to deter Afghan poppy farmers from selling their crop to the Taliban.

Senlis said that without the troop "surge," and renewed efforts to win over the Afghan population and make reconstruction take hold, the country was in danger of falling back into the hands of the Taliban.

(Editing by Kate Kelland and Michael Winfrey)



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

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.