Afghans Offer Jobs to Taliban Rank and File if They Defect

By DEXTER FILKINS

Published: November 27, 2009

JALALABAD, Afghanistan — The American-backed campaign to persuade legions of Taliban gunmen to stop fighting got under way here recently, in an ornate palace filled with Afghan tribal leaders and one very large former warlord leading the way.

Majid/Getty Images

Guns laid down by former Taliban fighters lined a wall at a reconciliation meeting. Many were promised paid work.

The New York Times

“O.K., I want you guys to go out there and persuade the Taliban to sit down and talk,” Gul Agha Shirzai, the governor of Nangarhar Province, told a group of 25 tribal leaders from four eastern provinces. In a previous incarnation, Mr. Shirzai was the American-picked governor of Kandahar Province after the Taliban fell in 2001.

“Do whatever you have to do,” the rotund Mr. Shirzai told the assembled elders. “I’ll back you up.”

After about two hours of talking, Mr. Shirzai and the tribal elders rose, left for their respective provinces and promised to start turning the enemy.

The meeting is part of a battlefield push to lure local fighters and commanders away from the Taliban by offering them jobs in development projects that Afghan tribal leaders help select, paid by the American military and the Afghan government.

By enlisting the tribal leaders to help choose the development projects, the Americans also hope to help strengthen both the Afghan government and the Pashtun tribal networks.

These efforts are focusing on rank-and-file Taliban; while there are some efforts under way to negotiate with the leaders of the main insurgent groups, neither American nor Afghan officials have much faith that those talks will succeed soon.

Afghanistan has a long history of fighters switching sides — sometimes more than once. Still, efforts so far to persuade large numbers of Taliban fighters to give up have been less than a complete success. To date, about 9,000 insurgents have turned in their weapons and agreed to abide by the Afghan Constitution, said Muhammad Akram Khapalwak, the chief administrator for the Peace and Reconciliation Commission in Kabul.

But in an impoverished country ruined by 30 years of war, tribal leaders said that many more insurgents would happily put down their guns if there was something more worthwhile to do.

“Most of the Taliban in my area are young men who need jobs,” said Hajji Fazul Rahim, a leader of the Abdulrahimzai tribe, which spans three eastern provinces. “We just need to make them busy. If we give them work, we can weaken the Taliban.”

In the Jalalabad program, tribal elders would reach out to Taliban commanders to press them to change sides. The commanders and their fighters then would be offered jobs created by local development programs.

The Pashtuns, who form the core of the Taliban, make up a largely tribal society, with families connected to one another by kinship and led by groups of elders. Over the years, the Pashtun tribes have been substantially weakened, with elders singled out by three groups: Taliban fighters, the rebels who fought the former Soviet Union and the soldiers of the former Soviet Union itself. The decimation of the tribes has left Afghan society largely atomized.

Afghan and American officials hope that the plan to make peace with groups of Taliban fighters will complement an American-led effort to set up anti-Taliban militias in many parts of the country: the Pashtun tribes will help fight the Taliban, and they will make deals with the Taliban. And, by so doing, Afghan tribal society can be reinvigorated.

“We’re trying to put pressure on the leaders, and at the same time peel away their young fighters,” said an American military official in Kabul involved in the reconciliation effort. “This is not about handing bags of money to an insurgent.”

The Afghan reconciliation plan is intended to duplicate the Awakening movement in Iraq, where Sunni tribal leaders, many of them insurgents, agreed to stop fighting and in many cases were paid to do so. The Awakening contributed to the remarkable decline in violence in Iraq.

In the autumn of 2001, during the opening phase of the American-led war in Afghanistan, dozens of warlords fighting for the Taliban agreed to defect to the American-backed rebels. As in Iraq, the defectors were often enticed by cash, sometimes handed out by American Army Special Forces officers.

At a ceremony earlier this month in Kabul, about 70 insurgents laid down their guns before the commissioners and agreed to accept the Afghan Constitution. Some of the men had fought for the Taliban, some for Hezb-i-Islami, another insurgent group. The fighters’ motives ranged from disillusion to exhaustion.

“How long should we fight the government? How many more years?” said Molawi Fazullah, a Taliban lieutenant who surrendered with nine others. “Our leaders misled us, and we destroyed our country.”

Like many fighters who gave up at the ceremony, he shrouded his face with a scarf and sunglasses, for fear of being identified by his erstwhile comrades.

The Americans say they have no plans to give cash to local Taliban commanders. They say they would rather give them jobs.

In a defense appropriations bill recently approved by Congress, lawmakers set aside $1.3 billion for a program known by its acronym, CERP, a discretionary fund for American officers. Ordinarily, CERP money is used for development projects, but the language in the bill says officers can use the money to support the “reintegration into Afghan society” of those who have given up fighting.

For all the efforts under way to entice Taliban fighters to change sides, there will always be the old-fashioned approach: deadly force. American commanders also want to squeeze them; such is the rationale behind Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s request for tens of thousands of additional American troops.

Indeed, sometimes force alone does the trick. On Oct. 9, American Special Forces soldiers killed Ghulam Yahia, an insurgent commander believed responsible for, among other things, sending several suicide bombers into the western city of Herat. Mr. Yahia had changed sides himself in the past: earlier in the decade, he was Herat’s mayor.

When the Americans killed Mr. Yahia, in a mountain village called Bedak, 120 of his fighters defected to the Afghan government. Others went into hiding. Abdul Wahab, a former lieutenant of Mr. Yahia’s who led the defectors, said that the Afghan government had so far done nothing to protect them or offer them jobs. But he said he was glad he had made the jump anyway.

“We are tired of war,” he said. “We don’t want it anymore.”

Sangar Rahimi and Taimoor Shah contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan.

Correction: November 28, 2009

A previous version of this article said that Gul Agha Shirzai was the governor of Jalalabad. He is governor of Nangarhar Province.

Russia and China Endorse Agency’s Rebuke of Iran

By HELENE COOPER and WILLIAM J. BROAD

Published: November 27, 2009

WASHINGTON — The United Nations nuclear watchdog demanded Friday that Iran immediately freeze operations at a once secret uranium enrichment plant, a sharp rebuke that bore added weight because it was endorsed by Russia and China.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the I.A.E.A., left, listened to Glyn Davies, the American ambassador to the United Nations agency, as the group's governing board met in Vienna on Friday.

The governing body of the watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, meeting in Vienna, also expressed “serious concern” about potential military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program.

Administration officials held up the statement as a victory for President Obama’s diplomatic efforts to coax both Russia and China to increase the pressure on Iran. They said that they had begun working on a sanctions package, which would be brought before the United Nations Security Council if Iran did not meet the year-end deadline imposed by Mr. Obama to make progress on the issue.

“Today’s overwhelming vote at the I.A.E.A.’s Board of Governors demonstrates the resolve and unity of the international community with regard to Iran’s nuclear program,” the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said in a statement. “Indeed, the fact that 25 countries from all parts of the world cast their votes in favor shows the urgent need for Iran to address the growing international deficit of confidence in its intentions.”

In recent weeks, the Obama administration has been painstakingly wooing Russia and China, the two permanent members of the Security Council most averse to imposing sanctions.

Russia’s president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, has rewarded the administration’s outreach on missile defense with stronger statements signaling more willingness to impose sanctions on Iran. After meeting with Mr. Obama in Singapore earlier this month, Mr. Medvedev said he was not happy about how long it was taking Iran to respond to an offer to move its enriched uranium out of the country for further processing, adding that “other measures” might have to be considered.

Persuading China has, so far, proven more difficult. After meeting with Mr. Obama in Beijing, China’s president, Hu Jintao, said nothing about additional pressure on Iran.

But administration officials said that behind the scenes they had been working hard to get China on board, and expressed hope that those efforts would pay off. Before Mr. Obama traveled to Beijing this month, the United States sent two senior National Security Council officials, Jeff Bader and Dennis Ross, to China to make a personal case for why the United States was so concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, administration officials said.

Iranian officials insist that the nation’s nuclear program is for nuclear energy, although many nations believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said China’s support on Iran and its decision to set a climate change goal on Thursday showed that Mr. Obama’s trip to Beijing was producing results despite criticism of the visit. “This is the product of engagement,” Mr. Emanuel said, adding that it was “a direct result” of the trip.

But even as the United States and its Western allies were exulting over the step by an agency often accused of being too soft on Iran, administration officials and foreign policy experts cautioned that the largely symbolic resolution was a long way from meaningful sanctions from the Security Council.

Indeed, although the resolution approved on Friday in Vienna is the first time that the I.A.E.A.’s board has demanded an immediate halt to construction of the Iran uranium enrichment facility at Qum, it falls short of the diplomatic step of finding Iran in formal “noncompliance” or violation of its nonproliferation commitments, which would provide strong evidence to bolster the drive for a new round of sanctions.

Administration officials and Western diplomats were still holding out hope, however slim, that a negotiated deal with Iran before the end of the year may be possible.

For one thing, even if Russia and China do end up agreeing to additional sanctions, such measures have so far had little effect on Iran’s behavior.

Beyond that there is the Israeli government’s running threat, or bluff, that it may take military action against Iran in 2010 if negotiations fail — an action that could provoke Iranian retaliation against United States troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

The proposal to ship Iran’s uranium out of the country, where it would be processed into nuclear fuel for use in a medical reactor in Tehran, “is still on the table,” a senior administration official said Friday. But, he added, “time is running short.”

The demand by the I.A.E.A. board for the immediate suspension of construction at the Qum enrichment plant was the first time it had made such a demand of Tehran. Iran has told the agency that it plans to complete the half-built facility, which is tunneled into the side of a mountain, by 2011.

The vote was 27 in favor, 3 against and 5 abstentions. China and Russia voted for the rebuke.

Iran’s nuclear efforts involve hundreds of sites, programs and planned facilities. The closest the international agency’s board had previously come to demanding a halt to the establishment of a new plant came in 2006 when it requested that Iran “reconsider the construction” of a nuclear reactor at Arak. Western experts fear that Iran could use the Arak reactor, on which it continues to work, to make plutonium fuel for nuclear warheads.

Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a private group based in Washington, called the resolution “the appropriate censure” given the Qum disclosure. “The revelation has led to an important shift in opinion at the board and probably at the Security Council,” he said. “Patience with Iran is running out and, more importantly, Qum severely undercuts Iran’s claims that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.”

The resolution was the first against Iran by the agency’s 35-nation Board of Governors since February 2006. At that time, the board criticized Iran’s “many failures and breaches of its obligations” to inform the agency of its nuclear activities, as well as its defiance in ignoring calls for the suspension of uranium enrichment.

Helene Cooper reported from Washington, and William J. Broad from New York.

Taliban Open Northern Front in Afghanistan

KUNDUZ, Afghanistan — Far from the heartland of the Taliban insurgency in the south, this once peaceful northern province was one place American and Afghan officials thought they did not have to worry about.

This month, an Afghan police officer patrolled Baluchai Alchin, near Kunduz, Afghanistan. NATO and Afghan troops recently fought insurgents around Kunduz.

Afghan officials cut the police force here by a third two years ago and again earlier this year. Security was left to a few thousand German peacekeepers. Only one Afghan logistics battalion was stationed here.

But over the last two years the Taliban have steadily staged a resurgence in Kunduz, where they now threaten a vital NATO supply line and employ more sophisticated tactics. In November, residents listened to air raids by NATO forces for five consecutive nights, the first heavy fighting since the Taliban were overthrown eight years ago.

The turnabout vividly demonstrates how security has broken down even in unexpected parts of Afghanistan. It also points to the hard choices facing American, NATO and Afghan officials even if President Obama decides to send more soldiers to Afghanistan, as he is expected to announce next week.

Even under the most generous deployments now under consideration, relatively few additional troops are expected in the north; most will be directed to the heartland of the Taliban resistance in the south and east.

Afghan and international officials say security never had to deteriorate so badly here. The Taliban were a scattered and defeated force in northern Afghanistan, long home to the strongest anti-Taliban resistance, the Northern Alliance.

But the government, and American military trainers, failed to remain vigilant to signs of Taliban encroachment, and reduced deployments in the northern provinces in order to bolster other, more volatile regions.

The decisions created vulnerabilities as Kunduz became a target with the opening of a new logistics route here for NATO supplies from Russia and Central Asia, over an American-financed bridge that opened in 2007. The route is supposed to serve as a strategic alternative to the treacherous passage through Pakistan, which is regularly attacked by Taliban militants.

Now, the Taliban have re-emerged with such force that during the presidential election in August, police officers were fending off attacks on the outskirts of the city of Kunduz, and militants were poised to overrun the center, officials said.

“The Taliban were at the door of the city; the people thought the government was at an end,” said a senior security official, who asked not to be named because of the nature of his work.

Since then, the threat has been somewhat contained after an operation by NATO and Afghan forces, but the province remains at risk.

Residents of Kunduz said they noticed that the Taliban reappeared in numbers in the region in the spring of last year.

At just that time, under pressure from the American military in charge of training the Afghan security forces, the government of President Hamid Karzai reduced the number of police officers in Kunduz to just 1,000 from 1,500, officials said. Then, earlier this year, the Interior Ministry ordered 200 police officers from every northern province to help secure the capital, Kabul, which was suffering increasingly serious attacks from insurgents.

A district like Khanabad, with a population of 350,000, has just 80 police officers now, the governor of Kunduz, Muhammad Omar, said in an interview. In the district of Chahardara, where hundreds of insurgents are at large, there are only 56 police officers, enough only to guard the district center and the main road.

“It deteriorated suddenly,” the governor said. “The first reason is that we have very few police in Kunduz considering the strategic position of our region, and our police are not able to cover the whole region.”

In fact, after their defeat in 2001, the Taliban never left the region. The insurgents lay low but remained a menace to be constantly watched, according to the former governor of Kunduz, Gen. Muhammad Daoud, now a deputy interior minister.

The Taliban, who are mostly Pashtun, draw natural support through tribal ties with Pashtuns, who make up nearly half of Kunduz’s population. Many of the fighters are local men who fled to Pakistan after 2001 and have returned in the last two years.

Central Asian fighters from a group linked to Al Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, who also took refuge in Pakistan have reappeared, Afghan security officials said. Local journalists have seen some of them. The officials, who have captured some of the insurgents, accuse Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Al Qaeda and even Iran of supporting the resurgence. Pakistan and Iran routinely deny supporting the insurgency.

Whether it is the influence of foreign fighters, or the growing capability of the Taliban and another regional militant group, Hezb-e-Islami, Western officials say the insurgency in Kunduz has grown more sophisticated, mounting coordinated suicide car bombings and ambushes.

“Clearly this year we have seen much better fighters, capable of complex attacks,” said one Western official.

China Joins U.S. in Pledge of Hard Targets on Emissions

By EDWARD WONG and KEITH BRADSHER

Published: November 26, 2009

BEIJING — The Chinese government announced Thursday that it had set a target to slow the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, a day after the Obama administration set a provisional target for reducing United States emissions.

The Chinese offer, which focuses on energy efficiency, contrasts with the strategy of the United States and most other nations to reduce total emissions. China has resisted demands from American and European negotiators to adopt binding limits on its emissions, arguing that environmental concerns must be balanced with economic growth and that developed countries must first demonstrate a significant commitment to reducing their own emissions.

With its enormous population and breathtaking pace of economic development, China surpassed the United States two years ago as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

It was unclear whether the timing of China’s announcement was coincidental, though the Chinese have been preparing an opening position ahead of international talks on climate change in Copenhagen next month. In the past, Beijing has tried to avoid looking as if it has been directly influenced by American decisions.

A senior Obama administration official said that the United States had pressed hard for a public commitment from China and was relieved that it had delivered. But the official, who spoke anonymously because of the delicacy of the matter, called the carbon intensity figure “disappointing,” and said that the administration hoped it represented a gambit that would be negotiated upward at Copenhagen or in subsequent talks.

The Chinese propose, by 2020, to reduce so-called carbon intensity — or the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic output — by 40 to 45 percent compared with 2005 levels. By that measure, emissions would still increase, though the rate would slow. That falls far short of what many in Europe and other nations had hoped for — an increase in energy efficiency of at least 50 percent.

Analysts said the Chinese offer might take some of the pressure off the United States, which is offering to reduce the total tonnage of its greenhouse gas emissions “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. But now China seems to be offering almost no deviation from its business-as-usual path, a more troubling development to some.

In a sense, the Chinese offer is less ambitious than the American proposal because China is already well on the way to its target with existing energy efficiency initiatives, while the American offer would require changes in many government policies. American efforts, though, have been mired in Congressional infighting.

Yet the offers by the United States and China both amount to politically safe opening bids in what is likely to be a long, tough process of negotiations on concrete steps that the two countries should take to address climate change.

How that will play out in Copenhagen, where nations will negotiate terms for a post-2012 treaty on reducing emissions, or in follow-up sessions next year, is unclear.

President Obama discussed climate change with Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, when the two met in Beijing on Nov. 16. Officials from the two countries were in talks on the issue under President George W. Bush, but Mr. Obama earlier this year made climate change a top priority in diplomacy between the governments.

China’s arguments about balancing environmental concerns with economic growth resonate with other developing countries like India, and both countries propose slowing the growth of emissions relative to the growth of their economies.

The target announced Thursday “is not so low that China can get to it easily without actual effort, nor is it too high to believe,” said Jin Jiaman, executive director of the Global Environmental Institute, an advocacy group based in Beijing.

China, India and the United States are expected to be crucial players among the 190 or so nations at the meetings in Copenhagen. Leaders have said they do not expect to come to a firm agreement there.

The State Council, China’s cabinet, said Thursday that fixing the target for 2020 was a “voluntary action” taken by the Chinese government “based on our own national conditions,” according to the state-run news agency Xinhua. Chinese officials also announced Thursday that Prime Minister Wen Jiabao would attend the Copenhagen talks.

Michael A. Levi, director of the climate change program at the Council on Foreign Relations, called the target announcement disappointing because it did not move the country much faster along the path it was already on.

“The Department of Energy estimates that existing Chinese policies will already cut carbon intensity by 45 to 46 percent,” Mr. Levi said. “The United States has put an ambitious path for emissions cuts through 2050 on the table. China needs to raise its level of ambition if it is going to match that.” Some environmental advocates have also said that the substance of Mr. Obama’s announcement on Wednesday was weak as well.

Ahead of Copenhagen, China has been trying to deflect criticism by showing that it can make commitments to battling climate change. In September, Mr. Hu said at the United Nations that China would slow its emissions growth by 2020, but drew some criticism by not giving a target at the time.

Both Washington and Beijing face domestic pressure from business and political constituencies pressing their governments not to make energy and environmental pledges that could limit economic growth during a recession. Members of Congress made it abundantly clear to the Obama administration that they would not approve any treaty that did not include a firm promise from major developing countries, particularly China and India, to at least slow the growth of emissions.

Meanwhile, the two countries have come under increasing pressure from European and other nations to bring some sort of commitment to the Copenhagen talks or risk their total collapse. Officials in China and the United States waited until just two weeks before the start of the conference before putting their offers on the table.

Some analysts said China might be unwilling to make larger commitments until Congress passed stalled legislation on emissions reduction targets.

The figures released by the White House on Wednesday were based on targets specified by legislation that passed the House in June but is stalled in the Senate. Congress has never enacted legislation that includes firm emissions limits or ratified an international global warming agreement with binding targets.

“China is in a more comfortable negotiating position,” Yang Ailun, the climate and energy campaign manager for Greenpeace China, said earlier this month. “In fact, every country is in a more comfortable negotiating position than the U.S. right now.”

Edward Wong reported from Beijing, and Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong. John M. Broder contributed reporting from Washington, James Kanter from Brussels and Jonathan Ansfield from Mequon, Wis. Zhang Jing contributed research from Beijing.

Top 10 Reasons to SMILE..

1. Smiling Makes Us Attractive

We are drawn to people who smile. There is an attraction factor. We want to know a smiling person and figure out what is so good. Frowns, scowls and grimaces all push people away -- but a smile draws them in.

2. Smiling Changes Our Mood

Next time you are feeling down, try putting on a smile .. �There's a good chance you mood will change for the better. Smiling can trick the body into helping you change your mood.

3. Smiling Is Contagious

When someone is smiling they lighten up the room, change the moods of others, and make things happier. A smiling person brings happiness with them. Smile lots and you will draw people to you.

4. Smiling Relieves Stress

Stress can really show up in our faces. Smiling helps to prevent us from looking tired, worn down, and overwhelmed. When you are stressed, take time to put on a smile. The stress should be reduced and you'll be better able to take action.

5. Smiling Boosts Your Immune System

Smiling helps the immune system to work better. When you smile, immune function improves possibly because you are more relaxed. Prevent the flu and colds by smiling.

6. Smiling Lowers Your Blood Pressure

When you smile, there is a measurable reduction in your blood pressure. Give it a try if you have a blood pressure monitor at home. Sit for a few minutes, take a reading. Then smile for a minute and take another reading while still smiling. Do you notice a difference?

7. Smiling Releases Endorphins, Natural Pain Killers and Serotonin

Studies have shown that smiling releases endorphins, natural pain killers, and serotonin. Together these three make us feel good. Smiling is a natural drug.

8. Smiling Lifts the Face and Makes You Look Younger

The muscles we use to smile lift the face, making a person appear younger. Don't go for a face lift, just try smiling your way through the day -- you'll look younger and feel better.

9. Smiling Makes You Seem Successful

Smiling people appear more confident, are more likely to be promoted, and more likely to be approached. Put on a smile at meetings and appointments and people will react to you differently.

10. Smiling Helps You Stay Positive

Try this test: Smile. Now try to think of something negative without losing the smile. It's hard.. When we smile our body is sending the rest of us a message that "Life is Good!" Stay away from depression, stress and worry by smiling.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

Abstinence Makes the Heart ... Oh, You Know

By MANOHLA DARGIS

Published: November 20, 2009

The big tease turns into the long goodbye in “The Twilight Saga: New Moon,” the juiceless, near bloodless sequel about a teenage girl and the sparkly vampire she, like, totally loves. When last we saw Bella (Kristen Stewart) and her pretty dead guy, Edward (Robert Pattinson), in “Twilight” — the series hadn’t been saga-fied yet — the two had pledged their troth, a chaste commitment solidified during moody walks in the woods, some exhilarating treetop scrambling and a knockdown fight with a pack of vamping vampires.

But love is cruel and sometimes so too are multivolume juggernauts like Stephenie Meyer’s “Twilight” series, which, because they need a prolonged shelf life, are as much about narrative delay (and delay) as release and resolution. That’s particularly the case here given that Edward belongs to a stylish vampire clan that has given up human blood in order to live, if conspicuously out of place, in a Washington town called Forks. Abstinence is the name of this franchise’s clever game — a demographically savvy strategy that the filmmakers exploit with a parade of bared male chests — which is why Edward refuses to stick his teeth in Bella’s unsullied neck, despite her increasingly feverish pleading.

The problem, already evident in the first movie, is that a vampire who doesn’t ravish young virgins or at least scarily nuzzle their flesh isn’t much of a vampire or much of an interesting character, which initially makes Edward’s abrupt and extended disappearance from the second film seem like a good idea. “New Moon” opens with a seemingly content Bella turning 18, a happy occasion that takes a frightening turn during a party at Edward’s house. While the rest of the vampires ghoulishly beam at her with their amber cat eyes, Bella accidentally pricks her finger while opening a gift, sending a drop of blood onto the carpet and one of the less-repressed vampires, Jasper (Jackson Rathbone), into a violent frenzy.

Edward saves Bella, but soon decides to split town. Dead or alive, men can be brutes (authors too): he also tells her that she’s not good for him, leaving her bereft. This act of cruelty throws her into a long depression that the director Chris Weitz (“The Golden Compass,” “About a Boy”), having taken the filmmaking reins from the sloppier if more energetic Catherine Hardwicke, tries to translate into cinematic terms, mostly by circling Bella with the camera as the months melt away. Ms. Stewart’s darkly brooding looks are convincing, but her lonely-girl blues soon grow wearisome, as does the spinning camera. Happily, there’s another attractive diversion in the wings in the form of her friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner), a member of a mysterioso Indian tribe, who brightens her mood with his blindingly white smile.

Jacob has secrets of his own that soon emerge, first in the form of some massive biceps. My, what big muscles you have, Bella tells him, nicely exposing her inner wolf. Alas, Bella, whose palpable hunger for Edward gave the first movie much of its energy and interest, has been tamped down for “New Moon,” partly because she’s in mourning, though largely because a ravenous female appetite wouldn’t work with this story’s worldview. (Melissa Rosenberg’s screenplay is dutifully subservient to the source material.) So, while Jacob’s body grows harder and harder before Bella’s widening eyes, she looks — mirroring the audience’s appreciative gaze — but doesn’t at first touch. Even when they start fixing up some old motorcycles, hands brushing and engines gunning, the relationship remains safely in neutral.

Bella, of course, belongs to Edward, who, though physically gone, hasn’t left the picture. Every so often he materializes in hazy, semi-transparent form to caution her about something, much as Woody Allen’s fictional mother does when she nags from the sky in “New York Stories.” Realizing that her vampire has gone guardian angel on her, Bella, like a classic crazy ex, begins throwing herself into ever more dangerous situations to summon him. Although this perks up the slack proceedings, the spectral image of Edward only underscores how damaging it is to separate Romeo from Juliet, even if there’s a hormonally revved-up teenage wolf lurking in the shadows. Chastity is only hot, after all, when it seems like it actually might be violated.

There’s more — the book is another doorstopper — crammed between the weeping and dolorous gazes, including a pack of snarling, not terribly effective CGI wolves. They’re amusing if not as diverting as either Dakota Fanning or Michael Sheen, who pop up in a late-act detour to Italy, where the vampires, unlike their puritanical American cousins, still like to drink. (In a rare moment of narrative wit, Bella flies Virgin.) Mr. Sheen, who’s carved out a twinned specialty playing Tony Blair (in three movies) and vampires (four), preens with plausible menace. But it’s Ms. Fanning, with the cruel eyes and sleekly upswept hair suggestive of an underage dominatrix, who shows real bite. Mr. Weitz doesn’t know what to do with her, but when she smiles, you finally see the darker side of desire.

“The Twilight Saga: New Moon” is rated PG-13. (Parents strongly cautioned.) Some bared fangs, little blood, no sex.

THE TWILIGHT SAGA

New Moon

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Chris Weitz; written by Melissa Rosenberg, based on the novel “New Moon” by Stephenie Meyer; director of photography, Javier Aguirresarobe; edited by Peter Lambert; music by Alexandre Desplat; production designer, David Brisbin; produced by Wyck Godfrey and Karen Rosenfelt; released by Summit Entertainment. Running time: 2 hours 10 minutes.

WITH: Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan), Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), Taylor Lautner (Jacob Black), Ashley Greene (Alice Cullen), Rachelle Lefevre (Victoria), Billy Burke (Charlie Swan), Peter Facinelli (Dr. Carlisle Cullen), Nikki Reed (Rosalie Hale), Kellan Lutz (Emmett Cullen), Jackson Rathbone (Jasper Hale), Anna Kendrick (Jessica), Michael Sheen (Aro) and Dakota Fanning (Jane).

During Visit, Obama Skirts Chinese Political Sensitivities

By MICHAEL WINES and SHARON LaFRANIERE

Published: November 17, 2009

BEIJING — Whether by White House design or Chinese insistence, President Obama has steered clear of public meetings with Chinese liberals, free press advocates and even average Chinese during his first visit to China, showing a deference to the Chinese leadership’s aversions to such interactions that is unusual for a visiting American president.

Mr. Obama held a “town hall” meeting with students on Monday. But the students were carefully vetted and prepped for the event by the government, participants said. And the Chinese authorities, wielding a practiced mix of censorship and diplomatic pressure, succeeded in limiting Mr. Obama’s exposure to a point where a third of some 40 Beijing university students interviewed Tuesday were unaware that he had just met in Shanghai with their peers.

Some students who were aware cast him in terms rarely applied to American leaders, like “rather humble” and “bland.”

“Is America being capricious because their economic difficulties force them to be nicer to China and other countries, or is this a genuine change?” asked Liu Ziqi, 18, a freshman at the University of International Business and Economics. “I don’t know.”

This is no longer the United States-China relationship of old but an encounter between a weakened giant and a comer with a bit of its own swagger. Washington’s comparative advantage in past meetings is now diminished, a fact clearly not lost on the Chinese.

Human rights is the prime example. In 1998, President Bill Clinton staged a nationally broadcast discussion with the president at the time, Jiang Zemin, about human rights, the Dalai Lama and perhaps China’s most taboo topic, the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. In 2002, President George W. Bush stressed liberty, the rule of law and faith in a speech to university students broadcast across China.

When Mr. Obama visited Moscow in July, he met with opposition political activists and journalists, and he publicly questioned the prosecution of an anti-Kremlin businessman.

In China, by contrast, Mr. Obama, in nuanced references to human rights, has shied away from citing China’s spotty record, even when offered the chance. Asked Monday in Shanghai to discuss China’s censorship of the Internet, the president replied by talking about America’s robust political debates.

American scholars and activists, who requested anonymity for fear of damaging relations with the White House, said the administration rejected proposals for brief meetings in Beijing with Chinese political activists, and then with lawyers.

American officials did consider organizing meetings between Mr. Obama and Chinese lawyers, university students in Beijing and Hu Shuli, a well-known Chinese journalist who recently ceded control of Caijing, one of the nation’s most respected and independent magazines. But officials say time constraints, not political considerations, sidelined those options, although the sightseeing agenda remained intact.

One prominent defense lawyer, Mo Shaoping, said Tuesday that an American official called this month to ask if he would meet with Mr. Obama but never called back. “The U.S. should be the safeguard of universal values,” Mr. Mo said, but Mr. Obama “actually didn’t make it a very high priority.”

For its part, the Chinese government made sure Mr. Obama did not bump into protesters by placing well-known activists under tighter security. Chinese Human Rights Defenders, a local organization, said 20 people were detained, placed under house arrest or prohibited from traveling before Mr. Obama’s visit.

Zhang Zuhua, once a Communist Party official and now among China’s most influential civil rights activists, said that additional police officers were watching his apartment and that he had been warned to avoid political activity.

Mr. Zhang expressed concern over what he called America’s growing reluctance to criticize China on human rights, saying “the Communist Party can pay even less regard to it and tighten up.”

But an alternative explanation for Mr. Obama’s comparatively low profile here, curiously, is the very insecurity of China’s autocratic government.

In contrast to Mr. Jiang, who sparred openly with President Clinton over human rights, President Hu Jintao is a cautious politician whose tenure has been marked by an obsession with stability. In Mr. Obama’s case, for example, Chinese officials hamstrung negotiations over items like the national broadcast of Shanghai’s town hall meeting until they achieved most of their objectives to limit its exposure.

In China, Mr. Obama does not enjoy the matinee-idol status that has followed him elsewhere. But the Chinese are curious about the young president, and in some cases, they clearly find him a refreshing contrast to their own retirement-age, shoe-black-haired leadership.

A topic of awe on Chinese chat sites this week was the image of Mr. Obama descending from Air Force One into rainy Shanghai, holding his own umbrella, without an aide’s assistance.

In a Nov. 11 Internet poll, people were asked to say what was most memorable about Mr. Obama. A majority noted his Nobel Peace Prize. No. 2, improbable to foreigners, was a Chinese report that the president had insisted on paying for his own hamburger at a Washington restaurant.

In this basketball-crazy nation, Mr. Obama might single-handedly have remade America’s image by showing up on one of the city’s many outdoor courts for a few rounds of hoops. Instead, he tiptoed around fractious issues like human rights, as Chinese authorities took extra steps to ensure that the state media not project any hint of disharmony.

One state newspaper editor said his newsroom now was more tense even than in June, when China passed the 20th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown.

Late Monday, he said, after a Foreign Ministry official combed over the paper, editors scrapped two articles scheduled for publication on Tuesday, including one straightforward news article on the value of China’s currency.

Mr. Obama’s trip, journalists at the paper joked, “had driven the homeless from Beijing and brought more censorship to China.”

“It’s as if they think he’d read the paper and it would offend him and trigger an international uproar,” the editor said. “As it is now, it would only trigger a snore.”

Edward Wong, Jonathan Ansfield and Xiyun Yang contributed reporting, and Li Bibo and Zhang Jing contributed research.

INFO: 10 Things You Should Do Before The Interview

You must distill VALUE.

Show an employer that you are a wise investment worth their time in training and development. Let the interviewer see who you are as a manager, problem solver, team member/builder and resource developer/manager with humility. Remember, you’re an intelligent, innovative and proven professional and with lots to offer but at a fair price.

1. Obtain the name, title, correct spelling and PRONUNCIATION for all interviewers. This information will come in handy when you mail or email your interview thank you letters.

2. Know the position for which you are interviewing and review relevant duties and responsibilities. Be sure to ask about short and long term goals for the position during your interview.

3. Note the location/address of the interview. Find out where to park; the best way to get to appointment by train, car or bus; where you should check-in when you arrive; and if any barriers exist.

4. Secure interview schedule and agenda in advance, if possible. Be sure to confirm the time, location, and contact person at least 24 hours in advance. To be safe, take down the name of the person you are going to interview with as well as their assistant or HR contact.

5. Research the organization and/or job. Check the company’s website for information or go to the library and research industry and corporate relevant publications, look in the newspaper, and/or ask friends/colleagues/ family/professio nal networks. Also, by researching the company you will be able to ascertain the professional benefits, stability and growth potential of that company and what that means to you. Be prepared to answer the question "Why do you want to work here?

6. Prepare and practice for questions you may be asked. Have "prove it" answers ready. Practice linking soft skills (work traits) to some answers. Begin to recall major achievements. Memorize your resume. Interviewers will ask you questions based on information provided in your resume.

7. Compile questions you need to ask and write them in your note pad. You should always have three questions prepared. One of the questions should recap the key responsibilities of the position.

8. Collect and have handy information for completing an application, including full addresses and phone numbers of employers and schools.

9. Pack for the interview (briefcase or folder): extra résumés, reference list, pens, company card file, note pad, tissues, mints, application information, certificates of training and any items you were asked to bring. You should always have a minimum of two resumes on hand.

10. Dress conservatively and practice good grooming. Look the part. Avoid heavy make-up and scents. Remember to clean nails, shine your shoes and clean your eyeglass lenses.

Modern Love

All I Wanted Was a Hug

By HOLLY WELKER

Published: October 30, 2009

I WAS strolling through a park in Taichung, Taiwan, hand in hand with my missionary companion at the time, Sister Shi. Although she was Chinese and I American, we both were 22-year-old women serving as missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — the Mormons. Our stroll wasn’t recreational; we were looking for people to chat up, hoping to persuade them to accept a pamphlet and invite us to their homes for an in-depth discussion of the church.

We hadn’t met with much success, so partly for mutual support, partly because we liked each other well enough and partly because it was a perfectly acceptable thing for women to do in Taiwan, we held hands. Before long, we came upon a teenage girl and boy who, like us, were conservatively dressed and holding hands.

“Will you look at that?” Sister Shi said in Mandarin, turning slightly to watch them walk away. “That’s disgusting.”

I was a year into my 18-month mission and could talk comfortably in Mandarin. “Why?” I countered. “They’re just doing what we’re doing.”

“But anyone can look at us and see there’s nothing going on,” she said. “If you look at them, you know something is definitely going on.”

The teenagers actually struck me as utterly innocent. But Sister Shi was right about one thing: Nothing was going on between us. In fact, nothing was going on between me and anyone. Up to that point in my life, nothing much ever had. Courtesy of my Mormon upbringing, I was, aside from a few unremarkable dates, completely inexperienced.

Heading off on my mission only extended and, by design, enforced my isolation and inexperience. Many of the rules missionaries live with are meant to reduce intimacy so that we are seen — by ourselves and by others — as servants of God, individuals set apart for a specific period of righteous labor, rather than as normal human beings pursuing normal human activities and relationships.

We were instructed not to let anyone call us by our first names. We were forbidden to engage in physical contact beyond a handshake with any member of the opposite sex. We were forbidden to date or pursue romantic relationships with anyone living within our mission territory.

Girlfriends or boyfriends back home were allowed, but interaction with them was limited to weekly letters — no phone calls. While men become eligible for missions at age 19, women can’t serve until they are 21, partly because many believe that the slight age difference reduces romantic attractions between missionaries. Companions are reassigned every few months, which can prevent either love or hatred from becoming too intense.

I sought out connection where I could, within the bounds of what was permitted. Descended from no-nonsense Mormon pioneers, I am not and never have been excessively affectionate, so even today it jars me to look at photographs from my mission; I am shocked at the displays of physical affection that became part of my friendships with women when I had so few other avenues for intimacy.

There I am in the photos, over and over, my arms draped around my roommates, their arms around me, one woman kissing another on the cheek. This is not to say that I was overtly affectionate with every companion or roommate I had. A few shared my strong physical reserve, so although we liked each other, we did little but exchange an occasional awkward hug. But in many cases, when we women felt at liberty to express our affections, we did so enthusiastically, without reservation, because we knew it was both innocent and harmless.

My desire for affection from male missionaries — that was neither innocent nor harmless. In most of the photographs of me with the “elders” (an ironic title, given they were only 19 or 20), we stand discreetly side by side, a good six inches or more between us, my hands clasped chastely in front of me, while their hands are in their pockets.

The Messenger (2008)

Review Summary

At one point in “The Messenger” a soldier, just back from an overseas tour of duty, is telling a story during a welcome-home party with some friends. It starts out as a funny reminiscence of a local character he knew in Iraq, but when the anecdote takes a gruesome turn, the laughter is replaced by uncomfortable silence. Nobody gets the point of what he’s saying, or maybe nobody wants to hear it, and the happy mood of the reunion fractures. That soldier is not one of the main characters in this movie, Oren Moverman’s sober and satisfying drama. He disappears after that one scene, having emphasized one of the film’s central insights. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have created a fissure in American society, a split that is not political but rather experiential — between the people who have been directly affected and those who have not. — A. O. Scott, The New York Times

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

Review Summary

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is a proudly analog animated entertainment, making its handmade way into a marketplace glutted with digital goodies. Next to the three-dimensional, computer-generated creatures that swoop and soar off the screen these days, the furry talking animals on display here, with their matted pelts, jerky movements and porcelain eyes, might look a little quaint, like old-fashioned wind-up toys uneasily sharing the shelf with the latest video game platforms. At times this adaptation of Roald Dahl’s slender anti-fable — truer to the spirit than to the letter of the source — does not even look like a movie. In spite of the pedigreed voices (Meryl Streep and Bill Murray, along with George Clooney in the title role), it feels more like an extended episode of what progressive educators call imaginative play. The sets might just as well have been built out of available household stuff, the stiff figurines animated and ventriloquized on a classroom or bedroom floor by precocious children. All of which may only be another way of saying that this is a Wes Anderson film. The spirit of self-conscious juvenile playacting has informed his work from the start, providing a theme for “Rushmore” and a sensibility for everything else. His live-action subjects often move like stop-motion figures through landscapes that resemble drawings and models more than real places. (Think of the cutaway ship set in “The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou.”) There is a deadpan, understated quality to his performers that also suggests puppetry, and he shows a stubborn reluctance to let story take precedence over style. So “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” which Mr. Anderson wrote with Noah Baumbach, and which he has been hoping to make for many years, is in some ways his most fully realized and satisfying film. — A. O. Scott, The New York Times

U.S. Asks More From Pakistan in Terror War

By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: November 15, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is stepping up pressure on Pakistan to expand and reorient its fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, warning that failing to do so would undercut the new strategy and troop increase for Afghanistan that President Obama is preparing to approve, American officials say.
While Afghanistan has dominated the public discussion of Mr. Obama’s strategy, which officials say could be announced as early as this week, Pakistan is returning to center stage in administration planning. As the president traveled to Asia, his national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, was quietly sent to Islamabad, its capital.
His message, officials said, was that the new American strategy would work only if Pakistan broadened its fight beyond the militants attacking its cities and security forces and went after the groups that use havens in Pakistan for plotting and carrying out attacks against American troops in Afghanistan, as well as support networks for Al Qaeda.
General Jones praised the Pakistani operation in South Waziristan but urged Pakistani officials to combat extremists who fled to North Waziristan.
General Jones also delivered a letter from Mr. Obama to Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, in which Mr. Obama said he expected Mr. Zardari to rally the nation’s political and national security institutions in a united campaign against extremists threatening Pakistan and Afghanistan, said an official briefed on the conversations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks were confidential.
For their part, Pakistani officials have told the Americans that they harbor two deep fears about Mr. Obama’s new strategy: that the United States will add too many troops on the Afghan side of the border, and that the American effort will end too soon.
Their first concern, described by officials on both sides of the recent discussions, is that if Mr. Obama commits an additional 30,000 or more troops, it will inevitably push more Taliban fighters across the border into Pakistani territory and complicate the South Waziristan offensive.
Every time Mr. Obama declares that the United States will not have an “open-ended” military commitment in Afghanistan, he fuels a second concern of the powerful Pakistani military and intelligence establishment, which believes the United States commitment is fleeting.
It is a concern that some of them say justifies Pakistan’s continuing ties to the militants who fight American troops in Afghanistan.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to fuel this concern on Sunday in her comments on the ABC program “This Week,” saying: “We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We have no long-term stake there. We want that to be made very clear.”
White House officials have said comparatively little about the Pakistan side of the administration’s evolving war strategy, in part because they have so few options. They cannot place forces inside Pakistan, and they cannot talk publicly about the Central Intelligence Agency’s Predator drone strikes in the country, though they are so much of an open secret that Mrs. Clinton was asked about them repeatedly in meetings she held late last month with Pakistani students and citizens. (She refused to acknowledge the program’s existence.)
In his letter to Mr. Zardari, Mr. Obama offered a range of new incentives to the Pakistanis for their cooperation, including enhanced intelligence sharing and military cooperation, according to the official who had been briefed on the letter’s contents.
During Mr. Obama’s Situation Room briefings on his alternatives, those advocating a minimal commitment of new troops in Afghanistan have argued that the United States needs only enough forces to keep Al Qaeda “bottled up” in the mountainous tribal areas of Pakistan.
“You could argue that even under the status quo, we don’t see Al Qaeda coming into Afghanistan,” said one official sympathetic to this view. “And so an additional commitment of forces isn’t going to apply more pressure on our main target.”
Those arguing for a more forceful presence — including Mrs. Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen — have contended that while Afghanistan is not now a haven for Al Qaeda, it could easily become one if the Taliban make further inroads.
American officials have praised Pakistan’s leaders for finally launching comprehensive military attacks against Taliban forces that have conducted suicide bombings in the capital, on the military headquarters and last week against a key office of the main Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate.
But the Americans are now trying, as the Bush administration did with little success, to persuade Pakistan to do more, not just against the Qaeda leadership holed up in the country’s unruly tribal areas, but also against the Afghan Taliban leadership in the southern Pakistani city of Quetta and the Haqqani militant network in the tribal areas.
Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat who heads the House Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence and who visited Pakistan last week, summed up the administration’s frustrations and her own after meetings with senior Pakistani officials: “They are focused on who they think are threats to them. Period.”
A recurring theme in Mrs. Clinton’s visit to Pakistan was the perception that the United States and NATO forces are drawing down troops along the Afghan border with Pakistan. This, Pakistani officials said, allows Afghan militants to pour across the border into South Waziristan, where they become Pakistan’s problem.
Mrs. Clinton argued that NATO had actually increased troop levels along that border but had decided to consolidate about a half-dozen remote outposts into fewer, larger installations, because they were easier to defend. According to American military officials, the Pakistani military got no warning of the change.
So great was the Pakistani concern over the outpost closures that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, made a special point during an unannounced trip to Islamabad after Mrs. Clinton’s visit to reassure Pakistani officials of American resolve.
“We’re stuck between not wanting to suggest we’re going to be there forever, but on the other hand, if we don’t show some kind of commitment, everyone continues to play the same game,” a senior administration official said Sunday. “That’s the challenge.”
If Pakistanis voice concerns about a lack of American commitment, they express equal concern that sending tens of thousands more American troops to Afghanistan could force Taliban militants into Pakistan.
“Whatever we do — put in more troops or put in fewer troops — they’ll freak out,” said an American intelligence officer who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid jeopardizing his relations with Pakistani officials. But the intelligence officer acknowledged that the long-term security picture and the American commitment in Afghanistan were still unclear. “Look, if I were in Pakistan, I’d be hedging my bets, too,” the officer said. “We need to be much more convincing that we have a better game plan.”
Mark Landler contributed reporting.