Thanks, Dick

And sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.  Not that I have any problems with Richard Holbrooke - the new US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan - criticizing the CIA; after all, if you need a scapegoat for US intelligence failures in the region, the CIA is a perfectly respectable (tho not particularly imaginative) choice.

That said, Dick felt the need to go further.  According to the AP:

"Holbrooke said the U.S. would 'concentrate on that issue, partly through the intelligence structure' and partly through private aid groups that provide humanitarian and other services in Afghanistan. He estimated that 90 percent of U.S. knowledge about Afghanistan lies with aid groups."

Thanks.  Nothing better than for a senior US Government official to announce that the key to improving US intelligence-gathering in Afghanistan is through siphoning information from NGOs.

That whole "perception of neutrality" thing was overrated anyway.

And somewhere, in a cave, Zabiullah Mujahid is smiling.  For those who haven't followed Zabiullah's career, he's the rather plucky Taliban spokesman who got quite a bit of airtime back in August, after the Taliban slaughtered four aid workers in Logar province.

Zabiullah was given the unenviable job of explaining why the Taliban would want to kill three unarmed women and their driver. Zab - as I like to think of him - patiently explained the Taliban position that aid workers aren't neutral at all, but in fact part of the "foreign invader forces".

And now Holbrooke has come along and said pretty much the same thing.  Vindication, it is so sweet.

To put these comments in perspective - according to the Afghanistan NGO Security Organization (ANSO), attacks against NGOs in the first quarter of 2009 were 25% higher than during the same time last year.

Further, more and more of these incidents are directly connected to the conflict, as opposed to purely criminal attacks. According to ANSO:

"NGO[s] have made no gains in being able to present themselves as impartial or independent actors and continue to be forced from the field by security concerns...It is evident that our attempts to reduce risks are being outpaced by the expansion of the conflict."

As always, Harry Rud offers the most succinct commentary:

"'All data confirms ongoing, widespread and intensifying war.' No shit Sherlock."

(The most recent ANSO report is available here.)

In other Afghanistan news:

- Harry Rud again on the impact of drought:

"Through the tedious business of analysing the results of a rapid food security assessment, I saw a picture of hunger emerge from the rows of numbers. It’s not normal to find a database so emotive, but the statistics were depressingly bleak."

- Or, as the World Food Program recently stated: "Millions remain hungry amid growing insecurity".

Finally, for anyone optimistic about the US policy in Afghanistan, perhaps time to think again.  As the AP reported: "Frequently, in meetings with Afghans as well as Pakistanis, Holbrooke posed simple questions: Who are the Taliban? Why do people join them?"  After all, we've only been there for eight years.

[Photo of Richard Holbrooke from www.daylife.com]