By Joshua Partlow and Greg Miller in Washington Post, August 5

MAIMANA, AFGHANISTAN — Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called for an investigation into a U.S.-backed anti-corruption task force, following the arrest of several senior Afghan officials on graft charges.

The new probe centers on the Major Crimes Task Force, an investigative unit launched last year in which U.S. and British law enforcement officers oversee the work of Afghan police and intelligence officials. The unit played a key role in the arrest last week of Mohammad Zia Saleh, an official in the office of the national security adviser.

Saleh, one of the most senior officials targeted so far by the task force, was taken at night from his home for allegedly asking for a bribe, said Waheed Omar, Karzai’s spokesman.

A U.S. law enforcement official said the arrest was based on wiretaps and other evidence that Saleh had been bribed to help block a corruption probe of New Ansari, a Kabul-based financial firm suspected of helping politically connected Afghans transfer millions of dollars out of the country.

Omar said Saleh’s arrest alone had not triggered the investigation into the task force.

"This institution had actually been engaging in activities which go beyond the constitution and which does not adhere to Afghanistan’s rules and regulations," he said.

Such remarks reflect a struggle between the Obama administration and Karzai’s government over efforts to root out graft in a country that ranks as one of the most corrupt in the world. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/04/AR2010080406923_pf.html

2. Portrait of Pain Ignites Debate Over Afghan War: The NY Times, Aug 5

By ROD NORDLAND in Kabul:— She cannot read or write and had never heard of Time magazine until a visitor brought her a copy of this week’s issue, the one with the cover picture of her face, the face with no nose.

On Wednesday, the young woman, Bibi Aisha, left Kabul for a long-planned trip to the United States for reconstructive surgery. Earlier in the day, as she prepared to leave the women’s shelter at a secret location here that has been her refuge for the past 10 months, the 18-year-old was unaware of the controversy surrounding the publication of that image.

“I don’t know if it will help other women or not,” she said, her hand going instinctively to cover the hole in the middle of her face, as it does whenever strangers look directly at her. “I just want to get my nose back.”

Reaction to the Time cover has become something of an Internet litmus test about attitudes toward the war, and what America’s responsibility is in Afghanistan. Critics of the American presence in Afghanistan call it “emotional blackmail” and even “war porn,” while those who fear the consequences of abandoning Afghanistan see it as a powerful appeal to conscience.

The debate was fueled in part by the language that Time chose to accompany the photograph: “What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan,” pointedly without a question mark.

“That is exactly what will happen,” said Manizha Naderi, referring to Aisha and cases like hers. An Afghan-American whose group, Women for Afghan Women, runs the shelter where Aisha stayed, Ms. Naderi said, “People need to see this and know what the cost will be to abandon this country.”

President Hamid Karzai, once seen as a champion of women’s causes until he failed to deliver on promises to appoint many women to cabinet posts, convened a commission to investigate complaints against women’s shelters. A report is expected soon. The panel’s chairman is a conservative mullah, Nematullah Shahrani, who has publicly bandied about the prostitution claim.

Even in the absence of a government run by the Taliban, Afghan women suffer from religious extremism, although they have enjoyed a great deal of progress. Thousands of girls’ schools have opened since the fall of the Taliban, and women are active in the Parliament and the aid community, where an estimated half a billion dollars in international assistance is now destined for gender-equality programs.

BagNews, a left-leaning Web site about the politics of imagery in the media, saw the matter in conspiratorial terms. “Isn’t this title applying emotional blackmail and exploiting gender politics to pitch for the status quo — a continued U.S. military involvement?” wrote Michael Shaw.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?ref=asia

3.Petraeus establishes new rules of conduct for Western forces in Afghanistan

By Laura King, Los Angeles Times, Aug 5

Kabul: The new American commander of Western forces in Afghanistan has issued a directive asserting troops’ right to defend themselves, but also calling on them to continue efforts to safeguard Afghan civilian lives, military officials said Wednesday.

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus’ tactical directive, his first since assuming command last month, appears aimed at countering some grumbling within the ranks that Western forces’ hands are tied in confrontations with insurgents because of battlefield rules handed down last year by his predecessor, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.

It is a delicate balance to strike, because civilian casualties are one of the most inflammatory issues between North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces and the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The proportion of civilian deaths attributed to Western troops has declined significantly since last summer’s directive from McChrystal. In a departure from previous practice, he ordered that airstrikes and artillery not be used if civilians might be present, unless troops are in imminent danger of being overrun.

Petraeus’ directive, which supersedes McChrystal’s, is classified, but parts of it were made public Wednesday.

U.S. military officials speaking on condition of anonymity said the new version includes some refinements to guidelines on use of aerial bombardment and artillery fire, and spells out more instances in which such methods should not be used.

However, the directive is also meant to address what those officials described as a "misperception" among some junior field commanders that airstrikes and artillery — two of the international forces’ main battlefield advantages against the insurgents — were all but forbidden.  http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-afghan-combat-rules-20100804,0,3057384,print.story