Afghanistan (Reuters) – In Afghanistan’s Taliban heartland, U.S. soldiers walk a short distance from their camp into a village in mourning with a daunting offer: protection from the insurgents that live in the area.
A roadside bomb killed a father and son and the Americans have come to urge people to turn to them for protection, an offer that few Afghans in this area dare accept.
“The Taliban could find out we talked to you and kill us when we work in our fields,” said 75-year-old farmer Haji Abdul Rahman, after describing how villagers had to retrieve the body parts of the father and son, who were riding a motorcycle when they were blown up.
The U.S. army patrol through Gurgan reflects how NATO’s efforts to improve security to enable the Kabul government to provide better services to Afghans are making little headway.
NATO commanders say the Taliban cannot be defeated by military force alone so they have launched a comprehensive plan to isolate insurgents, who have been fighting tens of thousands of Western forces for nine years.
The strategy can only succeed if ordinary Afghans are convinced that siding with foreign forces and the government of President Hamid Karzai won’t be too risky. The Taliban have made it violently clear they will not tolerate any contact with Western forces.
While Dand District, where Gurgan is located, is relatively peaceful compared to other parts of the Taliban’s birthplace, Kandahar Province, few Afghans believe they are safe.
Just a few kilometers (miles) away, Taliban fighters frequently attack other international troops. Retaliatory artillery can be heard in Gurgan and surrounding villages.
Lt. Matthew Bennett, a native of Greensboro, North Carolina, stopped every few minutes and spoke with Gurgan residents on the patrol, shaking hands with elders and handing out pens to excited children.
He wanted to know if pro-Taliban cleric preach at any of the village’s mosques, if militants had come around lately and intimidated anyone.
As night fell, Bennett sat down in the light of a kerosene lamp with a group of villagers at a small shop. The questions kept coming.
“You said you want to help, us but what about roads and schools?” asked one man. Another man said he felt threatened when U.S. helicopters flew overhead.
Aside from dealing with the Taliban’s military tactics and ferocity, NATO soldiers have to contend with a range of other issues in order to win over Afghans.
Villagers told Bennett they appreciate American efforts to secure the area but said troops had to pay closer attention to cultural sensitivities.
Soldiers manning machinegun turrets on the tops of armoured vehicles had a view of women in houses and something had to be done, they said.
(Writing by Michael georgy; Editing by Miral Fahmy)
Rudd, Abbott lock horns on health
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has used today’s leaders health debate to urge Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to take a national bipartisan approach to fixing the health system.
But Mr Abbott said he would only cooperate if Mr Rudd stopped “telling lies” about his record as health minister, accusing Mr Rudd of wanting automatic agreement to his ideas.
Mr Rudd and Mr Abbott have locked horns over health reform at the National Press Club debate, with both accusing the other of failing to make any headway to improve the system.
The move by Mr Rudd to hold a debate outside the election campaign was highly unusual.
Mr Rudd had the advantage of being able to spruik a substantial part of his new policy but Mr Abbott made no bones about his intention to pick it apart.
While Mr Rudd and Mr Abbott appeared to perform consistently, both the Nine and Seven Network’s “worms” favoured Mr Rudd as winner, as have some commentators.
The two leaders opted for very different strategies in their opening gambits before a panel of 11 press gallery journalists.
Mr Rudd began by acknowledging there was so much more to be done and said it was time for both sides of politics to work together.
“It’s time that as leaders we stopped pointing fingers at one another and started pointing to the way ahead,” he said.
“I just find this rolling tidal wave of negativity a bit hard to understand when mums and dads want practical action now.”
But when Mr Abbott’s turn came he wasted no time in attacking Mr Rudd as a do-nothing leader who is heading a Government that breaks promises and is incompetent in program delivery.
“Mr Rudd asks for me to cooperate with him and then he tells blatant lies about my record,” he said.
“You are not prepared to consult. Your problem is you want to dictate to people, and your own premiers are in revolt over this.”
When Rudd called on Mr Abbott to “work together for the future”, Mr Abbott laughed loudly over the top of his words.
During much of the debate Mr Rudd sought to emphasise that the Government was taking “positive” action on health, while painting Mr Abbott as a negative leader who had no alternative.
And he also took another opportunity to remind voters that Mr Abbott “ripped” $1 billion out of the health system, a claim Mr Abbott hotly denies.
“The [claim] is un-prime ministerial and you should stop making [it],” Mr Abbott said.
Despite the almost 90-minute debate, voters got very little new detail from either side about their health policies.
But Mr Rudd did say that if the funding-per-patient model caused rural hospitals to miss out, the Government would consider block grants.
“Of course we would look at a form of national block funding which was able to underpin the continuation of smaller rural hospitals in the future,” he said.
Mr Abbott seized on Mr Rudd’s comments as evidence he was changing his policy.
Mr Abbott also said the Opposition was committed to funding 3,500 new hospital beds.
Both leaders also dodged questions on whether they would commit to a government-funded dental scheme.
The Nine Network’s “worm” appeared to favour Mr Rudd for a substantial portion of the debate, noticeably diving when Mr Abbott went in on the attack.
During much of the debate Mr Rudd looked down while Mr Abbott spoke and took notes. In contrast Mr Abbott did not hesitate in interrupting Mr Rudd when he objected to his answers.
Mr Rudd used his closing remarks to appeal to Mr Abbott to “get behind” his plan.
“Every day that is lost is a day longer that it will take to fix this problem,” he said.
Mr Abbott finished his comments by saying all Mr Rudd had was a “series of platitudes”.
Earlier today the Opposition was forced to change a graph which illustrated past Coalition health spending, to acknowledge some of the funds in the 2007/08 year came from Labor.
Mr Abbott has so far provided little detail of the Opposition’s health policy but wants local boards to run hospitals in New South Wales and Queensland.
The Government wants to take over 60 per cent of hospital funding from the states and will spend more than $600 million on 5,500 GP and specialist places, with more details of its full plan still to come.
Unsurprisingly, politicians backed their leaders as the winner of the day.
Treasurer Wayne Swan said Mr Rudd had a plan while Mr Abbott had a “grudge”.
Opposition health spokesman Peter Dutton said he thought the public would “like what they see”.
Australian Medical Association president Andrew Pesce said the debate contained more politics than policy, but he was pleased with Mr Abbott’s commitment to more hospital beds and possible changes to rural hospital funding.
Carol Bennett of the Consumer Health Forum says people want more details from both sides.
“If you’re judging this debate on its value in terms of health and what it will do for the people as opposed to its entertainment value, then you’d have to say that at at least the Government put forward a plan,” she said.