Another 16 French soldiers were injured, some seriously, in the incident in Kapisa province.

An official told the BBC that an Afghan non-commissioned officer got into a “verbal clash” and opened fire.

President Nicolas Sarkozy said France was suspending its training programs in Afghanistan following the attack.

Marco Werman talks with the BBC’s Bilal Sarwary in Kabul.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. There was an incident today in Afghanistan that highlights a growing problem for US troops and their allies there. A soldier of the Afghan National Army opened fire on a group of French military trainers. Four French soldiers were killed and at least 16 more were injured. In Paris, French President Nicolas Sarkozy reacted by saying French troops are not in Afghanistan to be shot at by their allies.

Nicolas Sarkozy: [Speaking French] We are the Afghan people’s friend and we are the Afghan people’s allies, but I can’t accept that Afghan soldiers could fire on French soldiers. If the security conditions are not clearly established then the question of an anticipated withdrawal of the French Army will be raised.

Werman: This is not the first time an Afghan soldier has fired on allied foreign troops. The BBC’s Bilal Sarwary is in Kabul. What’s known about this soldier, this Afghan soldier and his motives, Bilal, and the circumstances under which his attack on the French soldiers took place?

Bilal Sarwary: Well, we do know that he is a noncommissioned officer with the Afghan National Army, and that he had a verbal clash. Soon afterwards he fired at the French, killing 4 and injuring 17 others. The Afghan Minister of Defense here in Kabul has sent a delegation to find out more, but we do understand that the Afghan National Security Forces, the French soldiers serving with NATO, the International Security Assistance Force, were conducting a huge clearance operation in what is known as a volatile region.

Werman: This is not the first time this has happened where an Afghan soldier or policeman kills foreign troops inside Afghanistan. Do you know how many coalition troops have been killed by Afghan forces in this manner?

Sarwary: I don’t have an exact number, but I know enough to say that this is a very grave problem, one which has created deep mistrust between the Afghans and the international forces.

Werman: Any sense of why it’s happening now?

Sarwary: Well, it’s very difficult to say why, but I’ve followed the case of one Afghan rogue soldier who killed six US Special Forces. In this case he was recruited for 3-1/2 years by the Taliban. His uncles were leading the insurgency in that region, and the Afghan government totally failed in terms of counter intelligence to really understand that this was no more an Afghan border policeman, but a Taliban infiltrator. And it’s really difficult to have intelligence on people who come from areas where the Afghan government is simply not there. What is really ironic is that a lot of the Afghan National Army and police soldiers have Taliban hypnotic chants as their ringtones on their mobile phones…

Werman: Really.

Sarwary: including those serving on joint Afghan international bases I have come cross in the eastern province of Nangarhar, I saw it in Kandahar last week. If you listen to those hypnotic chants, if you listen to those Taliban songs with their music, they really prey on the most basic emotion of an Afghan. And a lot of those people who come to the Afghan Security Forces come from the country’s royal areas with no education and with areas where the Afghan government has never been there. The second big problem that seems to be there is the issue of cultural differences. For example, when I was in the eastern province of Nangarhar I went to an Afghan border police training center where the Americans were training the Afghans. And the problem there was that the Americans were absolutely disgusted in their own words, tired and frustrated that the Afghans were taking hours for their lunch, prayer and tea breaks. And according to the Americans the Afghans there were simply lazy, they were not working hard. Now, if you went to the Afghans in the same camp they would have told you the Americans are using the F-word, they’re not allowing us to pray, they’re not allowing us to eat, so both sides were involved in a tit for tat sort of war.

Werman: Well, thanks very much for the update. The BBC’s Bilal Sarwary in Kabul.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

The Marine officers named a lead investigative officer in the case Friday.

All four Marines seen in the video have now reportedly been identified.

US officials, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, are worried that anger over the incident could undermine the US military effort in Afghanistan.

Anchor Marco Werman talks to Prof. Morris Davis of Howard University School of Law about the rules US service members are required to follow when it comes to enemy dead on the battlefield.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston. The Pentagon is following through on its promise to quickly investigate that infamous video, the one of four marines apparently urinating on dead Taliban fighters. Today the Marine Corps officially named a lead investigative officer in the case, and all four marines seen in the video have now reportedly been identified. U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, are worried that anger over the incident could undermine the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan. Fawzia Kofi, a member of the Afghan parliament is worried too.

Fawzia Kofi: Our deviated Taliban, and the utilities, and links to Taliban are looking for an excuse to use against intermission forces in Afghanistan. This could be good propaganda means.

Werman: A swift US investigation could help counter the negative image created by the incident. But, the Afghan government wants more than that. According to Afghan Foreign Ministry spokesman, Janan Mosazai.

Janan Mosazai: Our expectation is that an economist will conduct a thorough investigation into this incident, and punish all of those soldiers found to have been part of this reprehensible crime, and that they will be punished accordingly.

Werman: So what sort of legal charges could the four Marines involved be facing? Morris Davis is a retired Air Force colonel. He served as chief prosecutor at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from 2005 to 2007. He resigned from that post in 2008, and now teaches at Howard University School of Law. Colonel Davis, article 15 of the First Geneva Convention of 1864 prohibits the delivered mistreatment of a body on the battlefield. It appears that in this particular case in Afghanistan, the soldiers did not abide by the Geneva Convention. Would that be where the legal case starts?

Morris Davis: It could, but if you recall when we started the war in Afghanistan, the Bush administration said the Geneva Conventions didn’t apply. The Supreme Court disagreed in the Hamdan decisions, said Common Article 3 applies, but regardless, customary international humanitarian law recognizes that mistreating a corpse is prohibited.

Werman: And what are the guidelines for how you treat corpses in battle?
Davis: Well, there aren’t detail-specific guidelines other than the Geneva Conventions that talk about showing respect for the treatment of the dead body. I mean, there are certain things you would assume don’t need to be written down for most reasonable human beings to understand you don’t do, and certainly the behavior depicted in the video falls well below that standard.

Werman: This is not the first time we’ve heard of such an instance in Afghanistan; it also happened in Iraq. I’m also reminded of stories of American soldiers in Vietnam taking body parts as souvenirs. Can you help us understand how the generally accepted rules of war can fall by the wayside on the battlefield when it comes to the dead?

Davis: Some people have a hard time grasping that there are rules that apply to war. I mean, I think some people assume that if the situation reached a point where war is broken out, then it’s “anything goes”. And that’s one of the arguments that you hear now, is “look at how the Taliban behaves”. But, we don’t gage our conduct by the conduct of our adversaries. And there are certainly, as you mentioned, exceptions from Iraq and from Vietnam, and from World War II. But that doesn’t change the fact of the matter, that we pride ourselves, the military, for our professionalism and living up to a higher standard than our adversaries.

Werman: How psychically difficult do you think it is to treat the dead with respect when you’re in the midst of war and there’s bullets flying all over? Is it too much to ask of troops?

Davis: I don’t think it is; I mean, I think it’s basic human dignity not to mistreat the dead. I mean, the law of war permits conduct that in normal circumstances would not be permitted, for instance, killing. But, once the enemy is no longer capable of fighting, whether they’re sick, wounded, captured or killed, then you lose the right to do things that you ordinarily couldn’t do. And certainly, in this video, if it is what it appears to be, then our soldiers, their conduct fell below the standards that are acceptable.

Werman: Colonel Davis, when the rules of war are not followed, where do you place the blame? On the troops themselves or is this a leadership problem?

Davis: I think accountability and responsibility should be throughout the process. I mean, certainly there’s no excusing what’s depicted in the video. So that’s kind of the bottom of the pyramid, but at the top of the pyramid, when we started out this war in Afghanistan, the Bush administration said the Geneva Conventions were quaint and didn’t apply. Basically, “take your gloves off and anything goes”. So, there should be some accountability at the top too for creating this atmosphere that allows this kind of behavior to occur. I mean, it’s certainly a lack of leadership to create an environment where any troop would think that this behavior is acceptable for a member of the U.S. armed forces.

Werman: It sounds like you take it back to that statement from the Bush administration that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply. Do you think that things started there?

Davis: Without a doubt in my mind. You know, America for 200 years, we viewed ourselves as the city on the hill that others should emulate and live up to. We still serve as an example, but often we serve as a bad example, not a good one. So, I think in this instance, the Pentagon is taking it seriously; I think the people will be held accountable, and hopefully this kind of behavior will continue to be the very rare exception and not the rule.
Werman: Retired Air Force Colonel Morris Davis recently served as executive director at the Crimes of War Education Project in Washington, D.C., where he worked to enhance global public awareness of international humanitarian law, and to highlight violations of the laws of war. He’s currently teaching at Howard University School of Law. Colonel Davis, thank you very much for your point of view.

Davis: Thank you.

A statement confirmed the move, which has been backed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Marco Werman talks to David Roberts of the Royal United Services Institute in Qatar about the proposed Taliban office.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. Afghanistan today officially welcomed peace talks between the United States and the Taliban. It also welcomed the proposed opening of a Taliban office in the Gulf Emirate of Qatar. US and Afghan officials hope the new office will help hasten the end of the war in Afghanistan. Officials in Qatar lead by the country’s monarch may be relishing the fact that they get to play the role of matchmaker in any deal. Qatar, which is home to the Al Jazeera news network has worked hard to increase its influence in the region. David Roberts is with the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank. He’s based in Doha, the capital of Qatar. Roberts says the opening of a Taliban office there makes a certain amount of sense.

David Roberts: Qatar has been involved for a little while now with America and Germany specifically, to try to I suppose engineer some kind of a resolution to some degree. And to be perfectly honest it makes a lot of sense. It doesn’t come as a surprise to me that this has happened here. Qatar has a quite long and illustrious history in recent years of trying to help with mediating in various conflicts.

Werman: Well, we’ll get to that in recent history, but as far as the Taliban, what does it mean to have an office in Qatar? I mean in my mind I see Taliban headquarters on the door of the office. What kind of physical profile will this office actually have?

Roberts: Yeah, indeed, I’m curious about that myself. I confess I don’t know. I don’t think anyone does to be perfectly honest. A lot of the way things work in Qatar are pretty ad hoc, no one knows specifically what the form will be. But in terms of the use of the office, I mean if we look at a couple of recent attempts to get some kind of negotiation going in Afghanistan, in September last year an Afghan government mediator was assassinated because he couldn’t find the right Taliban person to speak to. And the year before the American was fined several hundred thousands dollars for pretty much the same reason. So with the office here it’ll provide a bona fide represents to the Taliban, which it’s a very small step, but a crucial one.

Werman: As you say David, I mean this is the latest of several efforts by Qatar. It’s made efforts to try and broker deals in Syria, and Darfur and Sudan, on and off in Yemen. It sent four of its Mirage jets to the no-fly zone over Libya. Now this business with the Taliban. Why is Qatar stepping forward internationally?

Roberts: To some degree it’s because it can. It’s a very small state. It’s a threat to no one. It’s completely secured by America, it has two huge bases here, so it’s sort of intrinsically able to do this. The last point on that idea is obviously it’s a very small place as I say; if the mayor or the prime minister who’s very emboldened here, if they have an idea that they want to push forward no one in the bureaucracy will stop them at all. So it’s quite personalized in that way. And in recent years the elite have obviously had this desire to mediate in conflicts around the region. And if I could just mention Qatar and Darfur, they’ve been involved there for many years now to affect some kind of a resolution there. So why they’re doing this, yes, I think we can mention some altruistic reasons perhaps, but let’s not forget that Sudan is the bread basket of Africa as it’s known. Qatar is a very food insecure country. And obviously with all these years of negotiations they’ve built up a huge amount of goodwill in the country, not to mention a huge raft of contacts. So in that specific example we can see other reasons afoot shall we say. And you know, we can’t go through all the examples, but there are always multiple reasons essentially for this.

Werman: David Roberts, the deputy director of the Qatar office of the Royal United Services Institute. He joined us from the capital, Doha. Thank you very much indeed.

Roberts: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

President Obama says he’s sending 100 American troops to help and advise government forces fighting the Lords Resistance Army (LRA).

The LRA is a small rebel group that’s notorious for its brutality.

It’s known for abducting children and in some cases, cutting off the lips of its victims.

This isn’t the first time the US has tried to help in the fight against the LRA.

Anchor Lisa Mullins speaks to Jendayi Frazer, who served as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the Bush administration.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: The United States has no plans to intervene in Somalia, but it is deploying military advisors to another African country, Uganda. President Obama says that he’s sending 100 American troops to help advise Ugandan government forces who are fighting the Lords Resistance Army, or the LRA. The LRA is a small rebel group. It’s notorious for its brutality. It’s known for abducting children and in some cases cutting off the lips of its victims. This is not the first time the US has tried to help in the fight against the LRA. In 2008 the US sent 17 military advisors to help the Ugandan Army. Jendayi Frazer served as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the Bush administration. She says it is not going to be easy to bring down LRA leader, Joseph Kony.

Jendayi Frazer: You can’t infiltrate him because he doesn’t take volunteers. He’s only abducting the basically to get his soldiers, his recruits, by attacking villages and then taking small children, and then grooming them to be killers. And so it’s very difficult to get solid information on him. The United States and Uganda have worked in partnership to do so however because we’ve developed the intelligence because they have to communicate by radio. And Ugandans have been able to use former abductees to get a better picture of how he operates.

Mullins: But you say it’s different now, how come?

Frazer: Well, the difference is in the escalation of the US action. And it’s also different because he has less strength than he did in 2008. Basically, when Ugandan forces working with the Congolese forces and the south Sudanese attacked him in what was Garamba Park in northern Democratic Republic of the Congo, it means that he’s been on the run and he has less forces, he has less capability, so he’s weaker. And secondly, this time the Obama administration is allowing our forces to be deployed. In the past they didn’t actually go into operations against Kony. And with our own troops there they will have at their availability the very best intelligence and they can provide that directly to the forces on the ground, and then increase the ability to track Kony. And given that he’s weaker and essentially on the run I think the chances of success are much higher today than they were in 2008.

Mullins: How come the United States is investing itself in this at all?

Frazer: Well, we have a responsibility to support other countries that support us. For instance, the Ugandans are very much involved in the fight in Somalia against terrorist groups that were linked to those who attacked our embassies in Kenya and in Tanzania in 1998. And so where other countries where we need the support of other countries and they help us, I think it’s our responsibility to reciprocate. When they’re asking for our assistance and we can provide it by you know, a small number of troops with the capacity to improve their strength, their capability, then I think that we should do so.

Mullins: Kony is presumably the individual that the United States would want to get. He is on a specially designated global terrorist list. Would the United States do you believe be wise to consider even a drone strike as controversial as that might be, against Joseph Kony?

Frazer: If we have the proper intelligence to be able to take a strike against Kony I think it would be wise for us to do so.

Mullins: And that would presumably replace the 100 American troops or not? I mean many would consider this a tremendous acceleration of the United States going into yet another African nation.

Frazer: Well, this is a continuation of policy. We’ve been going after Kony since 2005 in terms of providing the intelligence support to Ugandan forces, and then material assistance in 2008, and now advisors that can be deployed in 2011. So I don’t think that this has been a huge acceleration of our effort. In fact, I think we’ve been doing to little for too long.

Mullins: Jendayi Frazer, former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, she is now a professor at Carnegie Mellon University.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

"Ready for rent" (Photo: Laura Lynch)

Behind the security gates lie the secrets to living safely and living well in Afghanistan. I’ve come for a tour of a house, a mansion really, that is sitting empty.

“And it’s ready for rent and everything is clean and clear and recently painted,” said Mohammed Daoud Rahimi, the real estate agent. He eagerly showed the features of the five story, seven bedroom home.

“It has the central heater and also the cooling system.” The main salon also has a series of crystal chandeliers.

There is a jacuzzi tub downstairs and rows of roomy closets.

The influx of cash that accompanied foreign aid agencies, diplomats and private security firms led to a big building boom in Afghanistan, especially in the cities.

In 2009 alone, house prices jumped 75 percent, but it seems the good times may be coming to an end. Rahimi has 15 vacant houses on the market.

“For example, before the rent on this house was about $ 14,000 per month and this season it’s available for $9,000,” Rahimi said.

A conference focused on rebuilding Kabul was held in the splendor of the spectacular Babur Gardens southwest of the old city last week. It seemed a world away from the bleak reality of life for most Afghans. But it was where the mayor of Kabul was seeking fresh ideas and money to salvage his city.

Kabul Mayor Muhammad Younus Nawandish (Photo: Laura Lynch)

“All these houses you can see, this is illegal. 70 percent of the houses are unplanned and most of them are illegally. Because this is a big challenge for Kabul municipality,” he said.

It is an enormous challenge, caused partly by rising house prices and partly by the rising population. Kabul has grown from 1.5 million to 5 million residents over the last several years without any formal planning, as frightened Afghans piled into the city from rural areas. As rents climbed, people simply moved further out and built wherever they could.

Nawandish is keenly aware of the problems facing the community and also of the city’s dependence on foreign money to keep it going.

“This is very important for Kabul and Kabul economy to have the assistance of the international community. Now we have assistance from the World Bank, the United States, Turkish government, Japanese government, United Arab Emirates and other countries.”

It adds up to billions of dollars. The United States alone spends about $320 million a month in non-military aid across the country. Plucking grapes from a plate in front of him, Nawandish laments the end of such largesse, even as he promises he will find another way.

“Unfortunately, I became the mayor of the Kabul in the end of this big assistance. I am not happy to lose this big assistance. But it is the politics, if they want to leave we do not have another option. But we are working on another form of the income of the Kabul municipality. I am sure we will increase the income.”

Income may well mean higher taxes on residents and businesses in one of the few places in Afghanistan where it is safe enough to even try to collect them and that makes life even harder for local businesses.

Hajji Hameed (Photo: Laura Lynch)

Meant to cater to the tastes of foreigners living in the city, the store also attracted locals with three floors of food, clothes and hardware, but Hameed has watched business slide.

“The main problem here is security, the security situation is very bad,” said Hameed. “We do not have customers for months if there’s a bombing in Kabul.”

For him, it is all made worse by the rising costs that accompanied the foreign community driven boom of the last decade.

“The rent has gone up a lot recently even though the economy and the security situation is getting worse every day. In order to pay the rent, taxes and utility bills, I’ve had to get a loan and spend my savings.”

Add to that the unique and dramatic problems facing entrepreneurs here. Hameed has done well over the years, opening other stores, buying property. That made him a target. Two years ago, he was kidnapped.

The men who grabbed him one night as he made his way home from work demanded the equivalent of $700,000.

“I sold two houses and I borrowed $200,000 from the bank. I was held for 19 days and nights and they only released me after they received the ransom,” says Hameed.

Now, he has hired bodyguards to protect him and he closes the store early. He says it all makes it harder to pay back his growing debts. Hameed’s difficulties highlight the critical link between security and the economy – and the need for both to ensure Afghanistan’s future.

The only other viable parts of Afghanistan’s economy are illicit – drugs and smuggling. Earlier this year, the US Senate Foreign Relations committee warned that the country could suffer a severe economic depression when the majority of foreign troops leave in 2014.

That worries many Afghans who have never been able to build a sustainable economy and a peaceful existence.

Graffiti by Shamsia Hassani (Photo: Shamsia Hassani)

It began in the darkness of night. Guerrilla warriors of a different kind, armed with cans of spray paint. They painted slogans such as “cost of war” and stenciled images of helicopters, guns and soldiers onto the high concrete walls of buildings in the city.

They weren’t Afghan, but they came back in the daytime, and showed locals like Shamsia Hassani how to create street art.

“It was my first time and it was a very new experience for me because it was different. Usually we use brush but it was spray paint. It was different and a little difficult for me because it was my first time.”

Hassani was one of a group of Afghans who attended a workshop held by a British artist. She was captivated and soon went to an industrial park to create her first work – a huge mural showing a group of women wearing blue burkas emerging from water. (See the image above.)

“You can see the water and woman coming from the water,” she says. “Blue is a freedom color is a clean color and I shows that all Afghan women are like water clean and blue.”

It might be a portrait of progress or hope were it not for the menacing black background. Walls in Kabul are often covered in simple advertising slogans. This new artistic frontier is irresistible to many including Ahmed Ali Akbar. After the workshop, he created his own image of a man screaming.

“This kind of art has rarely been seen here in Afghanistan. It’s something new. Luckily, I was part of the first workshop on it. It’s new and it’s interesting,” says Akbar.

And just in case you think it’s all the preserve of young disaffected youth – Akbar is the director of Afghanistan’s National Gallery.

He says he’s seen a wide range of graffiti – from slogans critical of corruption, political incompetence and druglords to flowers that are meant to signify peace.

“There’s no one single way to characterize it, the main goal is for an artist to express his ideas to the public.”

But trying to exercise freedom of expression here isn’t easy. Even though many walls do carry advertising, graffiti artists aren’t so welcome. So they work at night and work quickly for fear of being caught by police, private security or criminal kidnap gangs.

As a woman, the challenges are even greater for Shamsia Hassani in this conservative country. She’s created wall art only twice – both times inside open air compounds but she’s not letting that stop her.

“I couldn’t go to street to do graffiti work and I decided to have to find a way for myself and I start.”

Captivated by the art form, Shamshia now uses computer software to digitally paint on photos of Kabul’s streets. While she may not gain the same kind of recognition of her male peers, she’s hoping she’ll be able to stage a show – trying to guarantee graffiti is accepted as real art no matter where it appears in the city.

The museum's focus is on landmines but it also features many other weapons, such as rockets (Photo: Iqbal Sapand)

* The broadcast of this report incorrectly cites 40 people that are estimated to be killed or injured each day in Afghanistan. The figure is actually per month. We regret the error.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: Hundreds of protestors took to the streets of Kabul, Afghanistan today. They demanded an international investigation into last week’s assassination of former president, Burhanuddin Rabbani. He was killed at his home in Kabul by a suicide bomber. The Afghan capital has seen a sharp rise in violence in the past couple of weeks, that includes two attacks on US targets in Kabul — one was a 20 hour siege of the US embassy by militants firing rocket propelled grenades from a nearby construction site; the other was Sunday’s fatal shooting inside the CIA office. The World’s Laura Lynch is in Kabul. All these reports make Kabul out to be suddenly more of a target for militant attacks. Have you sensed that on the ground, Laura, is it palpable?

Laura Lynch: Well, I think certainly people feel more tense than they have in a while and it is because so many things have happened in such a short space of time. I was speaking to a member of parliament this morning who told me that she noticed that everywhere she went and everyone she talked to just seemed to be so much more on edge than they had been in the past. And you’ve got to remember that this is a place and these are a people who are used to an awful lot of violence. So to sense that they’re feeling a little bit more on edge than they usually do, that’s saying something.

Werman: Have people changed their daily routines at all?

Lynch: To some extent they’ve been forced to change their daily routines because when these incidents have happened parts of the city have been locked down and you can’t move anywhere within those parts of town. So it’s all these disruptions to life here, which is not easy at the best of times. If you’ve ever been in Kabul, then there are the most extraordinary traffic jams you’ve ever seen. Well, this just makes it worse. In spite of all that, people are trying to get on with life and trying to stick to their routines as much as they can. The shops are open, not easy for them, but they’re trying to get things as normal as they can be.

Werman: Kabul used to be considered the one place in Afghanistan that US and Afghan forces could really protect. What has changed that?

Lynch: I think that some would say is that the US forces and the other international forces have drawn back and have let the Afghans take care of the security in this city. And it was seen as a test for the Afghans, if they could control security within Kabul itself. And when there was the incident two weeks ago, the 20 hour siege, you saw these insurgents were firing on the US embassy and they had to bring out US soldiers to get involved on the roof of the embassy to fire back. They didn’t want to get involved directly in the operation in the city itself because they needed to let the Afghan army show and the Afghan police that they could take care of their own. But boy, that sure shook a lot of people’s confidence in the Afghan forces’ ability to take care of security in this city.

Werman: In the wake of these high profile attacks, Laura, has it become harder for you and other journalists to do your jobs?

Lynch: Well, I’ve been here for a week now and I knew when I was coming that there were going to be restrictions in the way I could do my job, and that’s been true of working here as a journalist for some time now. It’s meant that I have to figure out where I’m going, if I should be in a crowd, whether that’s too much of a risk. So, absolutely it affects the way that you can report and it affects your ability to tell the story — the way you tell a story, if I was in London for example, or some other city where I could move about freely and stay anywhere as long as I want.

Werman: Well, yesterday you reported on Afghan widows who live in a neighborhood overlooking Kabul. Was that a dangerous thing to do?

Lynch: Well, you wouldn’t think so. It’s not dangerous in and of itself, Marco, but the rule of thumb nowadays is if you are going to go to a place perhaps on the fringes of the city, refugee camps, you better not stay long. And the fear is that there might be people who are looking at you, seeing you as a foreigner, seeing you as someone they might be able to kidnap for ransom. And these things you do pay attention to. So I stayed there for about 20 or 25 minutes. I would’ve much rather stayed longer, and I had to get back.

Werman: Laura, remind us of the last time you were in Kabul and tell us about one thing that you noticed that really struck you, something that surprised you.

Lynch: Well, the last time I was here was in 2007 and the first change that I noticed when I came back here this time was actually a good change — an airport that was an absolute mess and has now become a relative model of efficiency and security. So that is a good thing. But the other thing I’ve noticed driving around now is the number of barbed wire and security guards around government buildings, around cultural buildings, around private homes. To an extent it seems like this really is far more of a city under siege than it was a few years ago.

Werman: The World’s Laura Lynch in Kabul. Thank you, Laura.

Lynch: You’re welcome.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Banner commemorating Rabbani who had been meeting Taliban commanders, returning from abroad a few days ago specifically for the talks. (Photo: Laura Lynch)

People across Afghanistan are mourning the death of a former warrior who was trying to sow the seeds of peace. Burhanuddin Rabbani was assassinated last night in his home by a suicide bomber who detonated explosives hidden in his turban. Rabbani was the head of the peace council, charged with negotiating an end to conflict with the Taliban. Now, some are asking whether there is any hope for peace.

On the street outside Rabbani’s home the mourners gathered early and gathered in anger at the assassin who took his life. Soon, banners featuring his photograph were draped over the building, marking his status as a martyr for peace among those who supported him.

Member of Parliament Fawzia Koofi was one of the first people to go to Rabbani’s house last night, as soon as she heard the news. “Of course it was shocking for me to see his dead body and his face which was completely damaged,” Koofi said.

Koofi didn’t always agree with Rabbani, but they were from the same province of Afghanistan. His death makes her question the value of trying to make peace with the Taliban.

“It is a big political loss and of course morally it affects everybody,” she said, “because for people who struggle for peace this is the response they get from the enemies of Afghanistan.”

For Afghan president Hamid Karzai, it is yet another blow. Within the past three months, two other close advisers, including his half brother, were also assassinated.

Government spokesman Janan Mosazail predicted more will die on Afghanistan’s rough road to peace, but he insists it’s no reason to stop negotiating.

“We have made it very clear from the beginning, and I think the world agrees with us,” Mosazail said, “that there is no military solution to the war in Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan have suffered for thirty years. There has to be a political solution, there has to be an end to the war in Afghanistan that is supported, that is endorsed and that is respected by everybody – countries in the region, and others further afield.”

“So that’s why we have announced this peace process. Of course there have been setbacks, there will be setbacks. Professor Rabbani is not the first and he will not be the last prominent Afghan leader who has been killed by terrorists trying to derail the peace process. But we will continue with our efforts,” Mosazail said.

The peace process was already fragile under Rabbani’s leadership. One of his closest advisors, Atta Mhummad Nur, now wants only vengeance.

“I am calling on all the followers of the great leader to unite and take revenge on those parasitic worms and those dragon-like blood-thirsty people behind the killing of the martyr and national hero,” he said. The peace council does not have any meaning for us any longer. Peace and understanding do not mean anything with these killers in Afghanistan.

No one is certain who sent the men who killed Rabbani. But the prospect of more and more Afghans taking up arms is worrying in a country beset by civil war less than two decades ago, a civil war that gave way to the brutal rule of the Taliban.

On the streets of Kabul today, there is a continuing unease. Yesterday’s assassination came just a week after the city was locked down by a 20 hour attack by the Taliban. Rabbani’s violent death is one more reason to worry about the future.

As an elderly man made his way down the street with a prayer mat slung over his shoulder, he predicted the worst is yet to come. And not just in Kabul.

“Even in my home village,” he said, “a leading politician was recently killed. The continuing violence makes it harder for me and others to believe in the chances for a lasting peace.”

Read tweets about the Afghanistan

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: Candace Rondeaux is a senior analyst based in Kabul for the International Crisis Group. She says the killing of Berhanuddin Rabbani may widen the ethnic divide in Afghanistan.

Candace Rondeaux: Certainly, ethnicity has emerged in the last 10 years as the primary fault line. In a large part because the Taliban which resides primarily in the south and the east where there are lots of Pashtun tribes see themselves as the dominant power in Afghanistan. There has always been this linguistic divide between Pashtuns who speak Pashtun and non-Pashtuns who generally speak Persian, and that consists of several other ethnic groups including the Tajiks of which Mr. Rabbani was one. In fact, he was probably one of the most well-known, most powerful Tajik figures to enter into this reconciliation process, and that is why his death is so significant in many ways. Because it really implies that the divide between Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns is getting much bigger and I think that this really points toward a greater possibility of a move toward civil war upon the withdrawal of foreign troops. Essentially, what it comes down to is a sort of divide between several different ethnic groups that seems to be growing by the day.

Mullins: It’s growing by the day but what’s at the core of this particular divide that you are worried about?

Rondeaux: Well, at the core of it is that the Taliban for the last 10 years and more has been pushing for an Islamic emirate and an essentially closed state in which a small group of religious figures, much like an Iranian state controlled by the clergy, dictate the cultural norms, the legal norms and impose Sharia as a means of a political structure. But the non-Pashtuns, who I guess in this scenario sort of count as liberals if you will, fear is that everything that has been built out of the Islamic Republic will be lost. So the right to vote, the right to send girls to school, the right to conduct business as you see fit, without having to rely on religious figures as the final authority.

Mullins: Candace you have written for the Crisis Group that, you say it’s very clear that even if the Taliban were not directly responsible for this assassination though it seems that they are, there are some members who do not want this peace process to go forward, who are not interested in cutting deals (meaning with the Taliban) who are in fact frightened by the idea of a brokered peace deal taking place in Afghanistan. What frightens them?

Rondeaux: Well, I think for members of the inner circle of the Taliban, particularly from very hardcore sections of the Taliban, the fear is that they will lose their strategic advantage by cutting a deal with a government that is very weak. I think we can all agree that the government of President Karzai has never been weaker, and there is no guarantee that if the Taliban were to enter into a deal that they would receive the kind of security guarantees that he has been promising.

Mullins: We also see that those who are advocating peace and working toward peace, even those people who are extremely divisive like Mr. Rabbani himself, have lived such a fragile existence. What’s the upshot of this on the people of Afghanistan who do support some kind of peace process? Where does this leave kind of the psyche of the Afghan people you speak with?

Rondeaux: Well, the Afghan people are incredibly resilient. After 30 years of war, this country has really come through a lot and has slowly but surely tried to remake itself into something new. I also think that the Afghan people are under no illusions that what was taking place under the administration of Mr. Karzai and Mr. Rabbani was actually a peace process. I think there was general agreement, even within the High Peace Council itself, that, in fact, this is not a reconciliation process. This is about deal making. This is about money passing hands. This is about powerful men making decisions about marginalized peoples’ lives. And that, unfortunately, is why we are where we are today. I really do think that most Afghans recognize that to make peace happen here, what it needs, of course, is real institutions and real, genuine backing from a broad-based public. But right now the Karzai administration really doesn’t seem to understand that and nor do his backers in the United States who I think have really failed in the architecture of this process.

Mullins: All right, thank you Candace Rondeaux, senior analyst in Afghanistan for the International Crisis Group. Thank you.

Rondeaux: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

US officials are now downplaying the attack’s impact. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said it wasn’t an assault but more like harassment. Another US official put the total death toll at 27. He said the number included Afghan policemen, civilians, and the attackers themselves.

But even if no Americans were killed, the attack’s brazen nature has stunned many in Kabul. Candace Rondeaux is the International Crisis Group’s senior analyst based in Kabul. She was inside the building when the attack on the American embassy started.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: The insurgent attack against the US embassy and other key buildings in Kabul, Afghanistan is over.  The siege began yesterday.  It ended early this morning.  The US ambassador in Kabul, Ryan Crocker, is downplaying the attack.  He’s saying it was a form of harassment and not a very big deal.  Another US official put the total death toll at 27.  That number included Afghan policemen, civilians and the attackers themselves.  The attack’s brazen nature has stunned many people in Kabul.  Candace Rondeaux is the International Crisis Group’s senior analyst in Kabul.  She was inside the US embassy building yesterday when the attack began.

Candace Rondeaux: I was at the US embassy in the cafeteria having a working lunch with some of the staff when the P.A. alarm went off announcing that there was some sort of attack outside and that this was not a drill, and asking us to take cover.

Mullins: Where did you go for cover?

Rondeaux: First we were stuck in the cafeteria and then we were ushered upstair to a hardened area that had a lot less windows.  We were actually taken into a safe room.  There were about maybe 40 of us all in this very small safe room waiting to hear what was going to happen next.

Mullins: And what did happen?

Rondeaux: Well, we did hear some booms outside, but we didn’t hear any of the gunfire because the walls are very thick and hardened against these kinds of attacks.  There were constant announcements over the P.A. saying the situation was ongoing, asking us to take cover.  You know, we got some updates from the ambassador who was working at the time, and some of the other security staff kept coming in every 15-20 minutes to give us updates on what was happening outside on the street.

Mullins: So what was it like though during that time inside?

Rondeaux: Well, there was a lot of anxiety about how our families would view the situation, although we were feeling I think relatively safe.  However, I know that there were other people around the embassy who were much more exposed and for them it had to be very frightening.

Mullins: How long did this all last for you?

Rondeaux: It was almost 24 hours that I was at the embassy because there was fear of continued fighting in the morning until about 11:30 or 11:45.  So it was really pretty drawn out and I know for a lot of people, particularly the Afghan local staff at the embassy, they were extremely anxious, very worried, very worn out because of course they were thinking about their families, their children who were outside and exposed to some of these dangers.

Mullins: So, just to be clear, for 24 hours you were in that small safe room?

Rondeaux: Well, no, actually I was very lucky.  We happened to be a section of the embassy where there was a little bit more freedom of movement.  We were close to the cafeteria so food or water was not really an issue for us, but I know it was for others. We ended up actually, a few of us, bunking on the people’s floors in the embassy campus just waiting for something to change, basically.

Mullins: I can’t imagine what it was like to leave there when you finally did and came out.  I wonder what it was like when you finally emerged?

Rondeaux: Well, it was odd.  It was a bit surreal.  You know, sun was shining, things seemed to have returned to normal.  There were a cluster of police at the gates of the embassy who were sort of anxiously looking around when we were emerging, but otherwise, it was normal.  I think we were all a bit dazed and confused when we left.

Mullins: And you have been in Afghanistan for how long?

Rondeaux: I’ve been here almost four years.

Mullins: I don’t know if you’ve had any brushes quite as close as this one, you know when it’s a single, but spectacular event; but does something like this which you experienced so personally, can it have a bigger effect on the way you see things right now?

Rondeaux: Well, in four years time I’ve of course had much closer brushes, which is unfortunate and I’m sure my mother would not like to hear that, but it’s true.  So of course over time you know, your point of view about the violence here and the sort of shape of the conflict changes and in a way you do become a bit jaded.  I will say that yesterday’s attack certainly made me rethink you know, what we’re gonna do as an organization 2-3 years from now when the transition from NATO control of security to Afghan control actually happens and is completed.  And I think on a very personal level for many NGO and aid workers here, this is very much on our minds.  It’s becoming very difficult to work and get out in the open and talk to people.  And I think that is one of the more discouraging factors in terms of the kind of work that we do here.

Mullins: Are you gonna stay?

Rondeaux: I will stay.  I am committed.  I started this journey 10 years ago.  I used to work at the World Trade Center.  I was a cub reporter for the New York Daily News and I really feel strongly that part of getting to peace is understanding war.

Mullins: You were based at the World Trade Center in New York 10 years ago?

Rondeaux: I worked there.  I had a summer job and I’d just quit just before the towers fell.  And then I found myself on my second day of working for the New York Daily News as a cub reporter intern at Ground Zero basically.

Mullins: So this is in a way a bookend, but what you’re saying is it’s not over for you.

Rondeaux: It’s not over for me.  It’s not over for the Afghan people.

Mullins: Candace Rondeaux was in the US embassy in Kabul during yesterday’s attacks.  She is with the International Crisis Group in Kabul.  Candace, thank you, stay safe.

Rondeaux: Thank you, Lisa.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

BBC Afghanistan Coverage

Read tweets about the Afghanistan

BBC Afghanistan Coverage
Map of international deployments (ISAF)

Read tweets about the Afghanistan

Caroline Wadhams (Photo: Center for American Progress)

Lisa Mullins talks with Caroline Wadhams of the Center for American Progress about the Taliban and what Tuesday’s attacks in Kabul tells us about their current standing.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: Caroline Wadhams is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington.  So, Caroline, Jean MacKenzie there in Kabul tells us the Taliban is still a viable and destructive force which is exactly what they’re seeing today in Kabul.  What does Washington do with this?  I mean how does a day like today affect Washington’s calculation of the Taliban’s strength in Afghanistan’s future?

Caroline Wadhams: I think that the administration for some time has been very concerned that in fact, the United States is not winning in Afghanistan, that NATO is not winning.  And these attacks are just another example of the resiliency of this insurgency.  It is able for the first time to conduct a very coordinated set of attacks.  Yes, they were not able to breach walls or do significant damage in terms of lives lost, but still, the fact that they can hit the most secure part of Afghanistan I think shows that this insurgency is not going away. And I think the administration sort of understands this, which is why they have shifted the strategy to move into a desire to reach out to the insurgency and to try to come to some sort of political settlement which the insurgents…

Mullins: Does this mean talking, having a conversation with the Taliban which has been happening behind the scenes?

Wadhams: Yes, the fact that this insurgency is more resilient than was imagined, there’s a sense that there has to be some kind of deal with these insurgent groups.

Mullins: And have the insurgent groups themselves, has the Taliban changed in recent years or is this the same group we’re talking about now that we were talking about 10 years ago when the US first went into Afghanistan?

Wadhams: It’s uncertain, I mean what’s clear is that they are much more technologically savvy than they used to be.  They have only increased in strength.  In terms of their ideology it doesn’t seem that it’s significantly shifted.  You know, you get an indication from some that maybe some members of the Taliban are more receptive to decreasing the extremism around women, and others deny that, so it’s uncertain…

Mullins: But what about, sorry, but what about in the bigger picture though?  What is the ideology now?  What was it then and what is it now?

Wadhams: Well, they want to basically impose an Islamic form of government throughout all of Afghanistan.  And where there is debate is whether they have to be linked in with al-Qaeda.  al-Qaeda itself, which is why we went into Afghanistan to begin with, we saw them as sort of interchangeable. There is a belief by many people looking at this that those are very distinct identities, and that al-Qaeda has been significantly weakened.  That has been one success story within Afghanistan, that al-Qaeda is basically not a presence anymore.  And so there is a belief by many that the Taliban is its own local Afghan movement that does not have global aspirations. Now others may, there are some that disagree with this notion and it’s hard to know, but the Taliban at least publicly, they have tried to distance themselves from al-Qaeda and have, there was a recent statement by Mullah Omar where he was speaking about economic development in Afghanistan and the mineral sector, and you know, it’s the public rhetoric, it’s hard to know where the truth is underneath it.  But Mullah Omar and his insurgency, they’re trying to present themselves as a viable political movement within Afghanistan.

Mullins: So what is in your opinion the way forward for Washington?

Wadhams: I think the best way forward probably for Washington is to seek some kind of political settlement with the insurgency, as difficult as that’s going to be.  There has to be some kind of negotiation where more Afghan groups and especially there, both the armed and unarmed groups, are brought into this process, and brought into a political system in Afghanistan.

Mullins: Caroline Wadhams, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington, thank you.

Wadhams: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

It’s been nearly 10-years since the US went to war in Afghanistan.

The conflict began just after 9/11, with a US led invasion aimed at ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

But a decade later, polls show a steady decrease in support for the war back home.

President Obama has announced plans to withdraw tens of thousands of American troops from Afghanistan between now and 2014.

That’s when Afghan forces are due to take full responsibility for their country’s security.

“Where Soldiers Come From” is a new documentary about the war in Afghanistan as seen through the eyes of a small community in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

The film follows a tight-knit group of friends from Hancock, Michigan, population 4,300. The friends, including Bodi Beaudoin, were drawn to the National Guard by the $20,000 signing bonus and the promise of financial aid for college.

Beaudoin says he wants to be a cop like his old man. He also wants to have kids someday, and give them all the things his dad gave him.

Soon enough, Beaudoin and the other friends find out that they’ll be serving together in Afghanistan, and their unit begins training for a nine-month deployment.

The film is as much about these friends transitioning from aimless high-school grads to seasoned war veterans as it is about their friends and families, who anxiously await their safe return.

“Did you ever see the movie ‘The Deer Hunter?’” asked Mary Smith, the mother of Cole Smith, another soldier in the film.

She says the film reminds her a lot of her son and his friends. She’s not sure why, maybe because they’re as close knit as the friends in that film. She worries that if something happens to one of the guys from Hancock, it would devastate the whole group.

Fortunately the film’s subjects – including Beaudoin, Smith, and Dominic Fredianelli – return safely. But each is changed by his experience in Afghanistan.

Director, Heather Courtney, followed the young men closely for two years: before, during, and after their deployment. Still, she says she hadn’t anticipated the stress and trauma they’d carried home with them.

Courtney says she didn’t realise, for instance, that Bodi (Beaudoin) and Dominic (Fredianelli) both had traumatic brain injury. She says it was surprising when their symptoms started surfacing.

She added that there weren’t a lot of resources there for them to tap into to be able to deal with some of the issues they were dealing with.

Dominic Fredianelli is the group’s quiet leader. He’s an aspiring artist. In the film we see him back home trying to work through his issues by painting a giant mural – graffiti style – on the back wall of his university. We also see him on deployment trying to work out what he and his buddies are doing in Afghanistan, where they spend their days sweeping for improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

Fredianelli says when they find IEDs it’s important, but he thinks the insurgents are targeting them the US soldiers more than anything else. He suspects that if he and his fellow servicemen weren’t there, the IEDs wouldn’t be that much of a threat.

Based on what we see in the film, Dominic Fredianelli would appear to regret his decision to join the National Guard, but that’s not the case. He says he doesn’t regret anything, from joining, to going over there, to coming back.

Fredianelli says if there’s any take-away message here, it’s that war stinks, that people are changed by it and that society at large could and should do more to help soldiers when they return home.

Director Heather Courtney says that, “Where Soldiers Come From” isn’t an anti-war movie by any stretch. She describes it as a very personal, very human story about people from small-town America whom viewers may never meet but whom none of us should ever forget.

Courtney says she feels that many Americans are far removed from the Iraq and Afghan wars because they don’t know anyone personally who’s gone to fight in these wars.

“One of my motivations for doing the film was to tell a story about these guys, their families and their town so you really get to know them before they ever become soldiers,” she said.

She hopes that that way viewers will feel as if they do know someone who’s gone to war. She adds, that way, “it’s harder for you to just forget that the wars are going on.”

“Where Soldiers Come From” opens in theaters September 9th.

As the number of undocumented immigrants deported under the Obama Administration tops the one million mark, a growing number of American-born women married to deported men are sharing their experience through blogs. Bonding with each other online, the wives detail their daily struggles – from enduring long separations to dealing with complicated legal processes.

Every morning Beth Brotherton turns on her computer and logs into her blog, Diary of an Immigrants Wife. Beth met her husband in Utica, NY in 2005 and says everything about their story is pretty standard.

Except it’s not.

Beth’s husband, Khalid Nethagani, is a Muslim from India. He’s currently under a deportation mandate from the US Dept. of Homeland Security for overstaying his visa.

“Basically what that has meant is that he can be torn away from me at any time, officials can come even at his workplace, or at home if they want to, handcuff him and take him away,” Brotherton said.

Khalid’s family was living in Kuwait when he first came to the US to study engineering in the late 1980’s. When the first Gulf War started, his dad told him not to come back. Khalid overstayed his original student visa, and he’s been more or less hiding out ever since.

Beth started a blog to chronicle her experiences as the wife of a long term undocumented immigrant. To her surprise, she discovered a growing online community of women in a similar situation.

“It was just so hard going through this process and being alone and knowing that no one in your inner circle knows what it’s like,” Brotherton said. “But when finally this blogging community started I started to connect with other people who could understand. And that meant everything, really.”

Giselle Stern Hernández working on her blog. (Photo: C.U.)

“We went to the offices of the Chicago Immigration and Naturalization Services,” Hernández said. “We filled out some paperwork and half an hour later I was looking at him from behind bulletproof glass.”

Roberto was immediately deported to Mexico and banned from the US for 20 years.

Muzaffar Chishti, from the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute says that in cases like these, it doesn’t matter if you’re married to an American citizen – if you’re undocumented, you’re considered a criminal; and you don’t get a greencard.

“We changed our immigration laws in 1996, essentially enacting a scorched earth policy with respect to those people who are here unauthorized,” Chishti said. “And we made this law retroactive so it applied to people who had no knowledge that this was going to affect them. And we removed the discretion from judges to take into account other factors in their lives or to waive these things.”

Now Giselle travels between her husband in Mexico and Northern California where there’s more work for her.

Emily Cruz and her husband Raymundo (Photo: Emily and Raymond Cruz)

Senate Bill 1070 was the strictest anti-illegal immigration measure in recent US history. Among other things it cracked down on those sheltering unauthorized immigrants. The most controversial parts of the bill have since been blocked by an Appeals Court, but two days after the law was to go into effect Emily and her husband moved from Arizona to Juarez, Mexico

“I’m so happy because in Juarez of all places, I’m not afraid to go to the movies, we can go out and be about and be normal and not constantly be afraid,” Cruz said. “I feel more-free in Juarez, Mexico than I did in the suburbs of Phoenix.”

It’s hard to say exactly how many American citizens are married to undocumented immigrants. Figures suggest there are around 12 million unauthorized people living in the US today.

Advocates say 10 percent of those may be married to Americans. Legislation that would legalize the status of unauthorized people has been pending in Congress for around 10 years. Some even had bi-partisan support.

Officials have said they don’t want to split up families with mixed status; they’re just following current laws. Despite having overseen more deportations than the previous government, earlier this month the Obama Administration announced a controversial policy that – while not going as far as legalizing their status – will suspend the deportations of immigrants who haven’t been convicted of crimes.

But that’s little comfort to Beth Brotherton, whose husband will remain in immigration limbo. Like many of her fellow bloggers, Beth spends a good deal of her time writing letters, signing petitions and making phone calls in an effort to push politicians to act. She says the wide reach of the online community might be able to make some difference.

“I mean when you’re faced with the idea that any moment you could be separated, every moment becomes precious,” Brotherton said. “You know every hug, every kiss, every time that person comes home from work and comes through the door that’s an important moment.”