Christian Parenti’s fixer was one of the best. Ajmal Naqshbandi was only 24 when he was killed in a botched prisoner exchange, a murder that is significant not just from a humanistic perspective but as it reflects the current state of Afghanistan as well.

Parenti, who produced and is featured in the documentary “Fixer: The Taking of Ajmal Naqshbandi,” explains how the film was made, and why.

“Fixer” is currently playing at the Mayles Cinemas in New York City.

Click here to view the embedded video.

British Paras in Basra 2003

With all the headlines, you’d think that the Chilcot inquiry was actually living up to its mandate and identifying lessons to be learned from the Iraq conflict. But the controversy surrounding equipment shortages is, sadly, nothing new. Anyone who has served in the British military can tell you that its chiefs have a long history of sending troops into battle without the proper kit. During the first Gulf War, my mates and I we were forced to improvise claymore defensive mines out of ice cream containers and dockyard confetti. We went on the ground with stripped down short wheelbase Land Rovers with gun mounts crudely welded on the back. We had to buy blankets and coats from locals to keep warm in what was arguably the coldest Iraqi winter in living memory.

That’s not to say that past mistakes in any way excuse the equipment shortages and budget tightening that compromised the safety of British troops serving in Iraq from 2003 and continue to jeopardize the lives of our brave soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. I find it outrageous for example, that Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup who was the deputy chief in charge of equipment for Iraq, had the nerve to go before the Chilcot Inquiry and complain that he didn’t have enough time to resource everything needed for the invasion. In my view, if Sir Jock really wanted to support the troops, he could have made a stand back then and resigned in protest to draw attention to the issue. The same goes for retired MoD boss Sir Kevin Tebbit who told the inquiry that Gordon Brown “guillotined” the defense budget back in 2003. Why didn’t Tebbit resign at the time?

Of course, all the after-the-fact naming and shaming begs the question, is the inquiry really worth resuming once the election is over? If it was about holding political and military leaders accountable for their decisions regarding Iraq, I would definitely see the merit in continuing hearings. But that’s not what the Chilcot Inquiry is about. In fact, it’s so limited, witnesses aren’t even testifying under oath.

Personally, I’d like to see an Iraq inquiry with teeth – a judicial inquiry with the power to punish those who misled the public and failed in their duty of care to the troops. An inquiry that delved into the role oil played in the decision to go to war would also be welcome. Barring that, I really don’t see the point in funding another round of hearings that won’t tell us anything we don’t already know and will fail to hold anyone to account. The money could be put to better use – such as reactively funding a military hospital for wounded troops or proactively buying equipment for the troops.

Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.

But the minister of state home affairs didn’t stop there when he quit his post late Wednesday. While his boss, Home Minister Bhim Rawal, continued claiming to be working hard on a security plan, in the aftermath of several high-profile murders, Ansari called Rawal out for irresponsibility and ineffective use of Nepal’s police force.

“The entire police administration was used unilaterally and so law and order went on deteriorating,” reads the resignation letter, adding, “My sense of morality does not allow me to continue in my post when cases of murders, abduction and violence are rife.”

Ansari, Rawal and Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal are all from the same party – CPN UML. However, the prime minister wasn’t happy with Ansari after the latter publicly expressed his dissatisfaction with Rawal, saying that he wasn’t given any responsibility in the Ministry.

Rijwan Ansari

Ansari is the latest fall-out for the high-profile murders of two prominent media figures. Security Officials said that they are investigating about different groups, especially in the murder of media entrepreneur Arun Singhaniya.

But Ansari’s resignation has further created intra-party complications for the prime minister, at the time the Maoists have been demanding his resignation. And, there is now a lapse in the chain of command in the Home Ministry just as regional violence is increasing.

- Rajneesh Bhandari

Arun Singhaniya, owner of two main news outlets in the southern province of Janakpur, was shot three times at point blank range on March 1 while walking home from celebrations for the Holi festival. So far, 10 people have been arrested on suspicion of involvement in his murder, but the police have yet to file a claim.

Not all fun in the sun in the Terai

According to Nepal’s Home Ministry, there are more than one hundred armed groups in the Terai region, which includes Janakpur, on the Indian border. Human rights records show that there were 240 killings last year in the Terai, 89 of which remain unsolved.

Industrialists and entrepreneurs have started putting serious pressure on the government to improve the security situation. In a recent meeting, a group of businessmen warned Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal that the country’s main industries would fail if the violence continues.

In response, the prime minister promised to beef up security – especially in the Terai.

However, the Terai is a vast, rural area of jungles and plain, and the prime minister has had security issues in his own capital.

Barely a month ago, another prominent media figure, Nepali cable TV magnate Jamim Shah, was gunned down in broad daylight in a rich and “safe” neighborhood in Kathmandu, allegedly by Indian gangsters.

Indian newspapers have regularly accused Shah’s TV channels and newspapers of propagating anti-Indian sentiment. Shah was shot dead on February 7—which, according to the Nepali astrological calendar, is supposed to be among the luckiest days of the year for marriage ceremonies.

- Rajneesh Bhandari

I for one could not be more outraged by Washington’s indulgence of Argentina’s sabre rattling. For me, the 1982 Falklands War feels like it happened only yesterday. I’m proud to have been part of the task force sent there. I still mourn mates resting at the bottom of the South Atlantic who lost their lives in The Falklands. Today, at the age of 55, I’m well up for putting on a military uniform and going back to fight for my country if that’s what it comes to. I’m sure there are thousands of Brits who feel the same way.

Of course, back in the 1980s, Britain’s armed forces were in a position to react to a crisis thousands of miles away. Today, it’s a different story. Having expended vast amounts of blood and treasure fighting America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan we are poorly positioned to mount a task force to defend British interests. With plans to gut the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force to pay for ongoing operations in Afghanistan, our ability to react to challenges to our sovereignty will be compromised further still.

Having stood ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ with America the very least the US could have done for Britain is remain neutral on The Falklands. By moving off the sidelines and against British interests, the US has laid bare just how one-sided the ‘special relationship’ is between our two countries. For years, the British government has done whatever the Yanks have asked and we’ve paid a high price for our loyalty. Not only have our brave soldiers been killed and wounded and our financial resources depleted; our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has fueled a wave of homegrown terrorism that will likely plague Britain for decades to come.

I don’t blame the Obama administration for doing what it feels is necessary to protect US interests in South America. The United States is being pragmatic. Britain should heed the example. It’s time the British goverment reassessed the special relationship and stopped acting as if our armed forces exist solely to promote American foreign policy. Because as the latest row over The Falklands has shown, when it comes to defending our sovereign territory, Britain may have to do it alone.

Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.

Read the latest on bio-jetfuel in this episode of “A Minute of Your Time.”

Two of the explosions occurred at guesthouses for Indians working in Afghanistan, and a Taliban spokesman told Al Jazeera that the goal had been to strike at the “enemies of Afghanistan from among the foreign Indians.”

So what does this mean as the US steps up its involvement?

Well, for one thing, as Bob Shepherd tells us today, “It would appear as several steps back from the exit strategy if McChrystal has to put troops back into securing Kabul again.

No Love for India

“It makes the flag raising on the dot on the landscape of Marjah look very insignificant when NATO have nothing to do with securing the capital.”

The Pakistani government, as we know, has been working with the US to track down—and successfully so—Taliban members. Additionally, only yesterday, the foreign ministers of Pakistan and India met, for the first time since the Mumbai bombing. “The attack looks to have more to do with [that] meeting, given the amount of Indian deaths in the attacks and Indian managed establishments that were hit,” Shepherd points out.

The Taliban—and others—have a vested interest in keeping up tensions. For one thing, more trouble between Pakistan and India means less heat on them. Seven out of 15 members of Mullah Omar’s branch of the Taliban have been captured by Pakistan in the past few weeks.

- Michele Mitchell

Luis Morales saw an an opportunity in the crisis. With two fellow investors, he decided to open the first modern pan-Asian restaurant in San Jose, Costa Rica. Called Gan-Bei – which means “Cheers” in Chinese – the restaurant is the one place that serves fortune cookies in all of Costa Rica. So if you’re in San Jose and want to hear your fortune, go to Gan-Bei!

We recently spoke with Morales about the trials and tribulations of starting a business.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Admittedly, General McChrytal has a tough balancing act. Limiting the rules of engagement, especially in an insurgency, makes it harder for the troops on the ground to pursue the enemy. But the devastating impact of civilian causalities on the coalition’s objectives cannot be overstated. Afghanistan is unquestionably a media-led war and an incident like the one in Uruzgan can easily overshadow weeks of restrained operations by coalition forces. Every time a civilian is killed inadvertently by NATO forces it is a public relations victory for the Taliban and other militant groups.

Not Winning Hearts and Minds

For the better part of this conflict, coalition troops have been spread thin on the ground and artillery attacks and airstrikes have been used to compensate whenever they get into trouble. But the cost of using these blunt instruments is proving too dear, especially in a conflict where the enemy uses civilians as human shields (a time honoured terrorist tactic). I fought my first insurgency at the age of 17 and continued fighting them throughout my twenty-three year military career. I can’t imagine what would have happened if the British military had whacked a missile into a Belfast estate because an IRA member had fired on a patrol or was believed to be hiding in a house. Such tactics would have obliterated any chance of a peaceful resolution to ‘the troubles’.

Afghanistan is a messy conflict and the Taliban will always nestle among innocents. But NATO must hold itself to the highest possible standards by doing everything in its power to avoid civilian deaths. Airpower in Afghanistan should be restricted to mobility and surveillance purposes only. To compensate for the loss of airstrikes, NATO should concentrate its forces in specific areas to achieve its objectives. No more leaving the troops to battle against extraordinary odds because they’re spread out like butter.

Restricting the rules of engagement further could very well draw out the conflict even more. But unless it wins the battle for hearts and minds, NATO’s war in Afghanistan will never end.

Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.

Check out the latest “Political Graffiti” episode, featuring the conclusion of the battle to save the Iwig family farm.

Laurel and Tim Iwig: Bring It On