Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Waxman Destroys AIG Executives in Hearings

Henry Waxman has confronted AIG executives at a hearing with information that they went on a weeklong luxury retreat costing over $1000 a night, charged to AIG, AFTER the company was nationalized. Perhaps they should have been smart enough to cancel their reservations. After all, Waxman, as the Congressman from Beverly Hills, may have known people who could tip him off to such activities.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5973452&page=1

After Bailout, AIG Execs Head to California Resort

Rescued by Taxpayers, $440,000 for Retreat Including "Pedicures, Manicures"

Less than a week after the federal government committed $85 billion to bail out AIG, executives of the giant AIG insurance company headed for a week-long retreat at a luxury resort and spa, the St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, California, Congressional investigators revealed today.

AIG
The St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, California, was the site of a week-long luxury retreat for executives of the AIG insurance company, who headed there less than a week after the federal government committed $85 billion to bail out the company.
(ABC News Photo Illustration)

"Rooms at this resort can cost over $1,000 a night," Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) said this morning as his committee continued its investigation of Wall Street and its CEOs.

AIG documents obtained by Waxman's investigators show the company paid more than $440,000 for the retreat, including nearly $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 in spa charges.

"Their getting their pedicures and their manicures and the American people are paying for that," said Cong. Elijah Cummings (D-MD).

"This unbridled greed," said Cong. Mark Souder (R-IN), "it's an insensitivity to how people are spending our dollars."

Appearing before the committee, Martin Sullivan, the AIG CEO until June, said the company was overwhelmed by a "financial global tsunami," and that "no simple or single cause" was to blame.

"I am heartbroken at what has happened," Sullivan said.

Robert Willumstad, the CEO from June to September, 2008, maintained AIG was a victim of a "crisis in confidence" and an "unprecedented global catastrophe." "Through the first week of September we were confident AIG could weather the crisis," Willumstad testified. He said the federal government offered its $85 million bail out on the afternoon it prepared for bankruptcy. Willumstad said the Federal Reserve demanded he resign, and will turn down his AIG retirement package of several million dollars.

But Congressional investigators raised question of "mismanagement" and whether AIG executives sought to "cook the books" and hide negative information from outside auditors.

On Dec. 5, 2007, Waxman said, CEO Sullivan told investors, "We are confident in our marks and the reasonableness of our valuation methods."

Documents obtained by the committee show that one week earlier, auditors Pricewaterhouse Cooper had "raise their concerns with Mr. Sullivan…informing him that PWC believed that AIG could have a material weakness relating to the risk management of these areas."

In March, 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision wrote AIG, "We are concerned that the corporate oversight of AIG Financial Products…lacks critical elements of independence, transparency, and granularity."

Asked about the letter by the committee, the SEC's former chief accountant, Lynn Turner, said the letter reflects "a serious problem from the top down of management, that can bring an organization down."

Former AIG CEO Sullivan said accounting rules required AIG to mark down the value of its holdings, even though it had no plans to sell them, the "mark to market" provision.

AIG had to sell at "fire sale prices," he told skeptical members of Congress. "Suddenly a company with a trillion dollars in assets" was in trouble, said Sullivan.

Waxman questioned both former CEOs about a former AIG auditor who claimed he had been blocked from reviewing the books of a London-based division that has since been blamed for a large share of the company's downfall.

Former CEO Willumstad, chairman of the AIG board at the time, said "I honestly don't remember" the concerns raised by the former auditor.

"I find that very disturbing," said Congressman Waxman.

Waxman also said there is evidence the two men changed the bonus schedule once the company began to post losses, so that executives under the "Senior Partners Plan" would continue to make multi-million dollar salaries.

"Mr. Sullivan and the other top executives should have had their bonuses slashed due to poor performance," said Waxman.

Sullivan said it was "substantially reduced" by the board in 2007 due to poor performance.

Sullivan was given a $15 million "golden parachute" payment after being replaced as CEO in June.

Russian Oligarchs Destroyed In Market Mayhem!

The recent falls of US markets have attracted attention to the problems of a lack of regulation and proper disclosure. However, these problems are much more severe in many middle and lower income markets. One of the worst of these is Russia. On Monday, the Moscow stock exchange had the largest fall in its 17-year history, declining by 19.1% in a single day. The Moscow exchange has lost over half of its value in the last few weeks.

Some of Russia's wealthiest men have been wiped out in "margin calls", which result from taking out a loan to buy an asset which then drops in value, which has to be sold for a price too low to pay off the loan. Metals magnate Oleg Deripaska, best known for his large stake in Arctic nickel and platinum producer Norilsk Nickel and in Siberian aluminum producers, has been the first to be hit. Ukrainian steel tycoon Konstantin Zhavago is reported to have been hit as well.

Russia's government has announced a massive $180 billion "rescue package", which is larger in proportion to GDP than the one in the United States. However, this was announced before the market selloff on Monday. One wonders if the government, feeling a decline in support because it could be seen as bailing out oligarchs, will begin criminal investigations. Many of Russia's oligarchs could be in danger of suffering the fate of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who in a high-profile 2004 case was sentenced to eight years in a Siberian prison for tax evasion.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/39bf0736-91ae-11dd-b5cd-0000779fd18c.html

Crisis takes toll on oligarch Deripaska

By Catherine Belton and Charles Clover in Moscow

Published: October 4 2008 03:00 | Last updated: October 4 2008 03:00

Oleg Deripaska became the first Russian oligarch to be publicly hit by the global financial crisis yesterday after he was forced to divest his 20 per cent stake in Magna International, the Canadian car parts maker, to creditors.

Mr Deripaska had faced margin calls on the $1bn loan that helped fund the $1.4bn investment as the value of the stake in Magna he had offered as collateral plummeted, two people familiar with the situation said.

On paper, Mr Deripaska is Russia's richest man with an estimated fortune of $28bn. But concern is growing about the level of indebtedness in his empire which spans aluminium, cars and construction amid the liquidity squeeze and a stock market rout that wiped more than half of the value off Russian stocks since May.

Mr Deripaska himself has taken issue with the tag of richest man because it does not take into account the high level of debt in his empire, otherwise known as Basic Element. His UC Rusal aluminium business has said it owes a total $14bn.

Rusal is battling to pay off part of a $4.5bn loan it raised to purchase a 25 per cent stake in Norilsk Nickel, the world's biggest nickel miner, this April which was backed by shares in Norilsk, several people familiar with the situation said.

The value of the stake held as collateral has more than halved since the loan agreement was reached. Mr Deripaska has won a preliminary agreement to raise partial refinancing for the loan, three people close to the company said.

The news of Mr Deripaska's forced divestment contributed to another dramatic slide of more than 7 per cent yesterday on the RTS with trading suspended three times to halt a wave of selling. Magna shares lost 4.7 per cent yesterday.

Additional reporting by Bernard Simon and Haig Simonian

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Arr! Pirates Holding Toxic Iranian Ship

Russian government media source Russia Today reports (in a video) that Somali pirates are holding an Iranian ship which is toxic. The pirates claim some of their men have lost hair and had skin burns and a few have died.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB2xyIPEEP4

The video also claims that an Iranian source alleges that the CIA offered the pirates $7 million to inspect the cargo. This below is the original, from Iran's Press TV:

US offers pirates $7m bribe for Iran ship entry
Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:25:56 GMT
The US has offered USD 7m to the pirates, who hijacked an Iranian ship in the Gulf of Aden, to receive entry permission and search the vessel.

The hijackers have yet to respond to the USD 7m offer, but a source close to the pirates told Press TV that the pirates are likely to accept the bribe and allow the Americans onboard the vessel.

The US the naval fleet off the Somali coast alleges that The Iran Diyanat was carrying 'uranium and chemical weapons'.

Iran's shipping company, however, has declared that the Iranian bulk carrier hired by a German company had no weapons or uranium on board and was carrying 42,500 tons of minerals and industrial products.

Ibrahim Mohammad-Nabi, Deputy CEO of Iran's shipping company also confirmed that no Russian or Syrian nationals were aboard the vessel, rejecting claims made by another Puntland minister that an international crew operates the ship.

Pirates have stepped up attacks on merchant vessels in the Gulf of Aden, as Somalia's current transitional government has failed to shackle the pirates in the key commercial shipping lane.

Saturday, October 4, 2008

More Evidence Linking Karzai's Brother to Heroin Trade

Some years ago, memory sticks surfaced in a Kabul bazaar containing US counternarcotics files. One of the things discovered from this is that US authorities suspected President Karzai's brother, who was head of Afghan counternarcotics at the time, was deeply involved in the heroin trade.

It appears that more evidence has surfaced. The New York Times has gone even farther, suggesting that attempts to inhibit investigation were made by the White House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?ref=world

Reports Link Karzai’s Brother to Heroin Trade

Ruth Fremson/The New York Times

Ahmed Wali Karzai, President Hamid Karzai’s brother, in 2001. Both say accusations of drug trafficking are politically motivated.

Published: October 4, 2008

WASHINGTON — When Afghan security forces found an enormous cache of heroin hidden beneath concrete blocks in a tractor-trailer outside Kandahar in 2004, the local Afghan commander quickly impounded the truck and notified his boss.

Before long, the commander, Habibullah Jan, received a telephone call from Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of President Hamid Karzai, asking him to release the vehicle and the drugs, Mr. Jan later told American investigators, according to notes from the debriefing obtained by The New York Times. He said he complied after getting a phone call from an aide to President Karzai directing him to release the truck.

Two years later, American and Afghan counternarcotics forces stopped another truck, this time near Kabul, finding more than 110 pounds of heroin. Soon after the seizure, United States investigators told other American officials that they had discovered links between the drug shipment and a bodyguard believed to be an intermediary for Ahmed Wali Karzai, according to a participant in the briefing.

The assertions about the involvement of the president’s brother in the incidents were never investigated, according to American and Afghan officials, even though allegations that he has benefited from narcotics trafficking have circulated widely in Afghanistan.

Both President Karzai and Ahmed Wali Karzai, now the chief of the Kandahar Provincial Council, the governing body for the region that includes Afghanistan’s second largest city, dismiss the allegations as politically motivated attacks by longtime foes.

“I am not a drug dealer, I never was and I never will be,” the president’s brother said in a recent phone interview. “I am a victim of vicious politics.”

But the assertions about him have deeply worried top American officials in Kabul and in Washington. The United States officials fear that perceptions that the Afghan president might be protecting his brother are damaging his credibility and undermining efforts by the United States to buttress his government, which has been under siege from rivals and a Taliban insurgency fueled by drug money, several senior Bush administration officials said. Their concerns have intensified as American troops have been deployed to the country in growing numbers.

“What appears to be a fairly common Afghan public perception of corruption inside their government is a tremendously corrosive element working against establishing long-term confidence in that government — a very serious matter,” said Lt. Gen. David W. Barno, who was commander of coalition military forces in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and is now retired. “That could be problematic strategically for the United States.”

The White House says it believes that Ahmed Wali Karzai is involved in drug trafficking, and American officials have repeatedly warned President Karzai that his brother is a political liability, two senior Bush administration officials said in interviews last week.

Numerous reports link Ahmed Wali Karzai to the drug trade, according to current and former officials from the White House, the State Department and the United States Embassy in Afghanistan, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity. In meetings with President Karzai, including a 2006 session with the United States ambassador, the Central Intelligence Agency’s station chief and their British counterparts, American officials have talked about the allegations in hopes that the president might move his brother out of the country, said several people who took part in or were briefed on the talks.

“We thought the concern expressed to Karzai might be enough to get him out of there,” one official said. But President Karzai has resisted, demanding clear-cut evidence of wrongdoing, several officials said. “We don’t have the kind of hard, direct evidence that you could take to get a criminal indictment,” a White House official said. “That allows Karzai to say, where’s your proof?”

Neither the Drug Enforcement Administration, which conducts counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan, nor the fledgling Afghan anti-drug agency has pursued investigations into the accusations against the president’s brother.

Several American investigators said senior officials at the D.E.A. and the office of the Director of National Intelligence complained to them that the White House favored a hands-off approach toward Ahmed Wali Karzai because of the political delicacy of the matter. But White House officials dispute that, instead citing limited D.E.A. resources in Kandahar and southern Afghanistan and the absence of political will in the Afghan government to go after major drug suspects as the reasons for the lack of an inquiry.

“We invested considerable resources into building Afghan capability to conduct such investigations and consistently encouraged Karzai to take on the big fish and address widespread Afghan suspicions about the link between his brother and narcotics,” said Meghan O’Sullivan, who was the coordinator for Afghanistan and Iraq at the National Security Council until last year.

Humayun Hamidzada, press secretary for President Karzai, denied that the president’s brother was involved in drug trafficking or that the president had intervened to help him. “People have made allegations without proof,” Mr. Hamidzada said.

Spokesmen for the Drug Enforcement Administration, the State Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.

An Informant’s Tip

The concerns about Ahmed Wali Karzai have surfaced recently because of the imprisonment of an informant who tipped off American and Afghan investigators to the drug-filled truck outside Kabul in 2006.

The informant, Hajji Aman Kheri, was arrested a year later on charges of plotting to kill an Afghan vice president in 2002. The Afghan Supreme Court recently ordered him freed for lack of evidence, but he has not been released. Nearly 100 political leaders in his home region protested his continued incarceration last month.

Mr. Kheri, in a phone interview from jail in Kabul, said he had been an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration and United States intelligence agencies, an assertion confirmed by American counternarcotics and intelligence officials. Several of those officials, frustrated that the Bush administration was not pressing for Mr. Kheri’s release, came forward to disclose his role in the drug seizure.

Ever since the American-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, critics have charged that the Bush administration has failed to take aggressive action against the Afghan narcotics trade, because of both opposition from the Karzai government and reluctance by the United States military to get bogged down by eradication and interdiction efforts that would antagonize local warlords and Afghan poppy farmers. Now, Afghanistan provides about 95 percent of the world’s supply of heroin.

Just as the Taliban have benefited from money produced by the drug trade, so have many officials in the Karzai government, according to American and Afghan officials. Thomas Schweich, a former senior State Department counternarcotics official, wrote in The New York Times Magazine in July that drug traffickers were buying off hundreds of police chiefs, judges and other officials. “Narco-corruption went to the top of the Afghan government,” he said.

Suspicions of Corruption

Of the suspicions about Ahmed Wali Karzai, Representative Mark Steven Kirk, an Illinois Republican who has focused on the Afghan drug problem in Congress, said, “I would ask people in the Bush administration and the D.E.A. about him, and they would say, ‘We think he’s dirty.’ ”

In the two drug seizures in 2004 and 2006, millions of dollars’ worth of heroin was found. In April 2006, Mr. Jan, by then a member of the Afghan Parliament, met with American investigators at a D.E.A. safe house in Kabul and was asked to describe the events surrounding the 2004 drug discovery, according to notes from the debriefing session. He told the Americans that after impounding the truck, he received calls from Ahmed Wali Karzai and Shaida Mohammad, an aide to President Karzai, according to the notes.

Mr. Jan later became a political opponent of President Karzai, and in a 2007 speech in Parliament he accused Ahmed Wali Karzai of involvement in the drug trade. Mr. Jan was shot to death in July as he drove from a guesthouse to his main residence in Kandahar Province. The Taliban were suspected in the assassination.

Mr. Mohammad, in a recent interview in Washington, dismissed Mr. Jan’s account, saying that Mr. Jan had fabricated the story about being pressured to release the drug shipment in order to damage President Karzai.

But Khan Mohammad, the former Afghan commander in Kandahar who was Mr. Jan’s superior in 2004, said in a recent interview that Mr. Jan reported at the time that he had received a call from the Karzai aide ordering him to release the drug cache. Khan Mohammad recalled that Mr. Jan believed that the call had been instigated by Ahmed Wali Karzai, not the president.

“This was a very heavy issue,” Mr. Mohammad said.

He provided the same account in an October 2004 interview with The Christian Science Monitor. Mr. Mohammad said that after a subordinate captured a large shipment of heroin about two months earlier, the official received repeated telephone calls from Ahmed Wali Karzai. “He was saying, ‘This heroin belongs to me, you should release it,’ ” the newspaper quoted Mr. Mohammad as saying.

Languishing in Detention

In 2006, Mr. Kheri, the Afghan informant, tipped off American counternarcotics agents to another drug shipment. Mr. Kheri, who had proved so valuable to the United States that his family had been resettled in Virginia in 2004, briefly returned to Afghanistan in 2006.

The heroin in the truck that was seized was to be delivered to Ahmed Wali Karzai’s bodyguard in the village of Maidan Shahr, and then transported to Kandahar, one of the Afghans involved in the deal later told American investigators, according to notes of his debriefing. Several Afghans — the drivers and the truck’s owner — were arrested by Afghan authorities, but no action was taken against Mr. Karzai or his bodyguard, who investigators believe serves as a middleman, the American officials said.

In 2007, Mr. Kheri visited Afghanistan again, once again serving as an American informant, the officials said. This time, however, he was arrested by the Karzai government and charged in the 2002 assassination of Hajji Abdul Qadir, an Afghan vice president, who had been a political rival of Mr. Kheri’s brother, Hajji Zaman, a former militia commander and a powerful figure in eastern Afghanistan.

Mr. Kheri, in the phone interview from Kabul, denied any involvement in the killing and said his arrest was politically motivated. He maintained that the president’s brother was involved in the heroin trade.

“It’s no secret about Wali Karzai and drugs,” said Mr. Kheri, who speaks English. “A lot of people in the Afghan government are involved in drug trafficking.”

Mr. Kheri’s continued detention, despite the Afghan court’s order to release him, has frustrated some of the American investigators who worked with him.

In recent months, they have met with officials at the State Department and the office of the Director of National Intelligence seeking to persuade the Bush administration to intervene with the Karzai government to release Mr. Kheri.

“We have just left a really valuable informant sitting in jail to rot,” one investigator said.

Arr! Ship Carrying Ukrainian Tanks Owned by Israel, not US?

Today's New York Times reports that the ship carring 33 Ukrainian tanks intercepted by pirates off Somalia is Israeli-owned. This conflicts with previous reports that it is US-owned. It also appears that payment of the ransom is being considered due to the risk of a commando raid. The article does not mention this, but I would think that all parties involved would be alarmed at the prospect of the Russians showing up to "rescue" the hostages-- the Russian commandos are known for high casualties among the "rescued".

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/world/africa/04pirates.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

Western diplomats have been huddling in Nairobi, trying to decide how to solve this hijacking and how to tackle the problem more broadly. In meetings on Friday, the preferred exit plan for the Ukrainian ship seemed to be to pay the ransom. The only other option, diplomats have said, is a commando raid on the ship, which could be extremely dangerous with explosives on board.

The trick now seems to be getting all the vested interests on the same page: the Israeli shipowner, the Ukrainian ship operator and the sailors — 17 Ukrainians, 2 Russians (not counting a Russian who died on board) and a Latvian.

Kim Jong Il Appears In "Public"- We Cannot Verify

There has been much speculation that Kim Jong Il is ill, or even deceased. Supposedly he has appeared in public, but since this is North Korea, even that cannot be verified. Even a major public event with tens of thousands of spectators often will not be attended by a single foreigner. The only way you can tell is if he meets with foreigners or travels outside the country:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2008/10/2008104142551914359.html

N Korean leader 'appears in public'

Rumours are rife that Kim Jong-Il had suffered a stroke [AFP]

Kim Jong-Il, the leader of North Korea, is said to have made his first public appearance since reports surfaced last month of poor health.

The state-owned Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), reported on Saturday that Kim watched a football game held to mark the 62nd anniversary of the founding of the university named after Kim Il-Sung his late father, and the country's founder.

However, the report did not state when the match had taken place.

"There was the football match between teams of Kim Il-Sung University and Pyongyang University of Railways that day, at which the former beat the latter 4-1," KCNA said.

"After watching the match, leader Kim Jong-Il congratulated the players on their good results, saying that the revolutionary and militant students in our country are good at art and sporting activities while devoting all their wisdom and enthusiasm to the study of science for the country and the people."

Missing in action

Kim had not been seen in public since mid-August. He also failed to appear at an anniversary parade on September 9.

According to US and South Korean officials, he suffered a stroke and had undergone brain surgery.

Rumours of his health raised questions about succession in Asia's only communist dynasty, as well as speculation as to who would make future decisions about the country's nuclear programme.

Friday, October 3, 2008

Canard Enchaîné Reveals British Talk of "Dictator" For Afghanistan

This is odd talk coming from the British-- you'd think they would be the ones that would know that Afghanistan has never had a strong central government, and the one thing ensured to unite the tribes is anyone trying to establish one. But a report has surfaced claiming the British ambassador to Afghanistan has privately called for a "dictator" to rule the country.

The report, in Le Canard Enchaîné, does not appear to be on the Internet yet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/world/asia/04afghan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Afghan ‘Dictator’ Proposed in Leaked Cable

Published: October 3, 2008

PARIS — A coded French diplomatic cable leaked to a French newspaper quotes the British ambassador in Afghanistan as predicting that the NATO-led military campaign against the Taliban will fail. That was not all. The best solution for the country, the ambassador said, would be installing an “acceptable dictator,” according to the newspaper.

“The current situation is bad, the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust,” the British envoy, Sherard Cowper-Coles, was quoted as saying by the author of the cable, François Fitou, the French deputy ambassador to Kabul.

The two-page cable — which was sent to the Élysée Palace and the French Foreign Ministry on Sept. 2, and was leaked to the investigative and satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaîné, which printed excerpts in its Wednesday issue — said that the NATO-led military presence was making it harder to stabilize the country.

“The presence of the coalition, in particular its military presence, is part of the problem, not part of its solution,” Sir Sherard was quoted as saying. “Foreign forces are the lifeline of a regime that would rapidly collapse without them. As such, they slow down and complicate a possible emergence from the crisis.”

Within 5 to 10 years, the only “realistic” way to unite Afghanistan would be for it to be “governed by an acceptable dictator,” the cable said, adding, “We should think of preparing our public opinion” for such an outcome.

Sir Sherard, as quoted, was critical of both American presidential candidates, who have vowed, if elected, to substantially increase American military support for Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.

In the short run, “It is the American presidential candidates who must be dissuaded from getting further bogged down in Afghanistan,” he is quoted as saying.

On Wednesday, General David D. McKiernan, the senior American military commander in Afghanistan, called on NATO to send more troops and other support as soon as possible to counter the insurgency.

British officials said that the comments attributed to Sir Sherard were distorted and did not reflect official British policy.

“It’s not for us to comment on something that is presented as extracts from a French diplomatic telegram, but the views it quotes are not in any way an accurate representation of the government’s approach,” said a spokeswoman for the British Foreign Office, who, like other French and British officials, spoke on the condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules.

The spokeswoman confirmed, however, that the two men did have a meeting, but said that the British ambassador’s comments were taken out of context. But Sir Sherard, a British career Foreign Service officer who has served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Israel, is known for his frank talk, and other British officials who know him say that his words ring true.

Mr. Fitou, meanwhile, is considered a responsible and precise diplomat who would be unlikely to misreport a conversation, a senior French official said. The cable did not say whether the two men spoke in English or French.

French officials, who said they were deeply embarrassed about what they called a serious leak, criticized the broad dissemination of the cable and have started a leak investigation.

The senior French official described it as a “diplomatic disaster” that could put French soldiers at more risk.

Reached by telephone, Seyamak Herawy, a spokesman for President Hamid Karzai, attributed Afghanistan’s problems, in part, to the “multiplicity in the viewpoints of the international community about Afghanistan.”

Claude Angeli, one of the executive editors of Le Canard Enchaîné and the author of the article, defended its publication.

“This is not the first time we have been the target of a leak investigation,” he said in a telephone interview. “The cable is authentic, and we reported its contents accurately.”

The pessimistic British analysis comes as France has increased its troops in Afghanistan amid concern over a further erosion of popular support for French troops present there.

At the last NATO summit meeting in April, President Nicolas Sarkozy announced that he would send an additional 700 French soldiers to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, bringing the total to about 3,000. He was criticized by the Socialist opposition, criticisms that grew louder after the deaths of 10 French soldiers in a Taliban ambush in August.

The deaths represented the highest death toll suffered by France in a military attack since the bombing of a French barracks in Beirut in 1983 that killed 58 French paratroopers.

In his cable to Paris, Mr. Fitou quoted the British ambassador as saying that the reinforcement of military troops “would have perverse effects: it would identify us even more strongly as an occupation force and would multiply the targets” for the insurgents.

The cable also quoted the British envoy as saying that despite public statements to the contrary, “the insurgency, although still incapable of a military victory, has the capacity to make life more and more difficult, including in the capital.”

Acknowledging that there is no option other than supporting the Americans in Afghanistan, the ambassador reportedly added, “but we must tell them that we want to be part of a winning strategy, not a losing one.” The American strategy, he is quoted as saying, “is destined to fail.”

Sarah Lyall contributed reporting from London, and Sangar Rahimi from Kabul.