Bombings push U.S. toll to worst month in Afghan war

By Maria Golovnina

KABUL (Reuters) - Eight U.S. troops were killed in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday ahead of a run-off presidential election, the NATO-led alliance said, in the deadliest month for U.S. forces since the start of the war eight years ago.

The mounting violence comes as U.S. President Barack Obama is weighing whether to send more soldiers to Afghanistan to fight a Taliban insurgency that is at its fiercest since 2001.

The foreign ministers of Russia, China and India said the world must remain engaged in Afghanistan, with Moscow seeking a greater role for regional powers to restore stability and "counter terrorism and drug trafficking."

"The timing of the statement is significant because the Americans are now reviewing their war and it's a clear signal to the U.S. that it cannot go it alone," said Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation thinktank in New Delhi.

Across the border in Pakistan, which Washington sees as a crucial ally, Islamabad's troops are in the midst of a massive offensive against Taliban militants in South Waziristan.

The eight U.S. soldiers killed in the bomb attacks in Afghanistan on Tuesday pushed the October death toll to 53, topping the previous high of 51 deaths in August, Pentagon officials said.

The NATO-led force said several soldiers were wounded in the attacks in the south, just a day after 11 U.S. troops and three American civilians died in separate helicopter crashes.

The bombings also killed an Afghan civilian and wounded several service members. No other details were available.

Efforts to stabilize Afghanistan have been complicated by weeks of political tension over an election in August marred by widespread fraud in favor of the incumbent president, Hamid Karzai, forcing a second round set for November 7.

Karzai's camp said on Tuesday a run-off must take place even if his challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, quits the race.

Karzai agreed last week to a run-off under severe international pressure after a U.N.-led fraud investigation annulled a large chunk of his votes in the original election.

Fueling talk he might pull out altogether, Abdullah set out a range of conditions this week. Karzai rejected the demands.

"We should not deprive the people from their right of voting and their right of citizenship," Waheed Omar, Karzai's chief campaign spokesman, told Reuters. "Whether or not the president and Abdullah take part in the run-off or not should not result in depriving the people of what they want."

PAYING TALIBAN TO DEFECT

Abdullah has given Karzai until Saturday to remove the country's top election official and meet other demands but would not say what he would do if his conditions were not met. Abdullah could not be reached for comment on Tuesday. Continued...

Concerns about security and a repeat of the fraud that tainted the first round have cast a shadow over the process, prompting some diplomats to suggest that a power-sharing deal between the two contenders looked more practical.

Karzai and Abdullah have so far publicly denied suggestions they could be in talks on a possible deal to share power.

The Taliban has already vowed to disrupt the November 7 poll, highlighting the kind of challenges facing Western powers seeking to turn the tide in the eight-year war.

U.S. soldiers now make up two-thirds of the 100,000-strong coalition force, with Obama considering proposals to send an extra 40,000 troops or a far smaller number.

Public support in the United States for a troop increase is up from last month, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released on Tuesday.

The poll found 47 percent of respondents supported raising troop levels in Afghanistan, with 43 percent opposed. That was a reversal from a similar poll in September, when 51 percent opposed an increase and 44 percent supported it.

As part of his review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, Obama is set to meet on Friday with Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the heads of the military services, the White House said.

The meeting was "probably getting toward the end" of Obama's decision-making process, spokesman Robert Gibbs said, reiterating that an outcome was likely in the "coming weeks."

To reach out to moderate members of the Taliban, a defense bill Obama will sign into law on Wednesday contains a new provision that would pay militants who renounce the insurgency, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said.

The provision sets up a program in Afghanistan similar to one in Iraq in which former fighters were re-integrated into society, Levin told Reuters.

"You got 90,000 Iraqis who switched sides and are involved in protecting their hometowns against attack and violence," said Levin, the leading Senate Democrat on military matters.

The way forward for the United States and its allies is complicated by opposition to a troop build-up from some of Obama's fellow Democrats and many opinion polls showing public support for the war waning on both sides of the Atlantic.

In Afghanistan, the protracted election process and prospect of another round has disillusioned many voters, with the onset of the bitter winter adding to the challenges.

"Widespread fraud in August 20 presidential and provincial council polls has deeply undermined the credibility of Hamid Karzai's government, the main beneficiary of the rigging," International Crisis Group said in a statement.

"A flawed second round will hand Taliban insurgents a significant strategic victory and erode public confidence in the electoral process and the international commitment to the country's democratic institutions." (Additional reporting by Golnar Motevalli and Sayed Salahuddin; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani and John O'Callaghan)

No guarantees on Senate health bill's public plan

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The focus of the health overhaul debate now shifts to whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can persuade a handful of moderate senators to get behind his new proposal for a government-sponsored insurance plan.

That's no sure bet. Even Reid, D-Nev., didn't claim to have the 60 votes needed to pass his proposal when he ended weeks of speculation by announcing that the Senate version of sweeping health care legislation would include a provision for the government to sell health insurance in competition with private insurers.

The issue has been the biggest flash point in the health care debate, and government-sponsored insurance had been seen as unlikely to be included in Senate legislation because of opposition from moderates. The House's health care bill, expected to be released as early as this week, is certain to contain a strong provision for a so-called public insurance option, though details aren't final.

"I think it's the fairest way to go," Reid told reporters Monday.

"We have 60 people in the caucus," he said. "We all hug together and see where we come out."

Individual states would have the choice of opting out of the government plan under Reid's proposal. It still amounted to a victory for liberal lawmakers who have pushed for a public insurance option they contend would create needed competition for private industry and provide affordable choices to consumers.

The reaction from moderate Democrats — they fear a public plan could drive insurers out of business and take over the marketplace — ranged from muted to skeptical. The one Republican who has so far lent her support to Democratic health overhaul proposals, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, said she was "deeply disappointed" by Reid's decision.

Snowe had supported allowing government insurance in individual states only if the private market wasn't providing sufficient choice and competition. But Reid said he wasn't sending that "trigger" option to the Congressional Budget Office for evaluation, as he did Monday with the opt-out proposal.

"We hope that Olympia will come back. She's worked hard. She's a very good legislator. I'm disappointed that the one issue, the public option, has been something that's frightened her," Reid said.

If Snowe doesn't come back, the fate of Reid's public option could rest in the hands of a few key moderate Democrats including Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

Landrieu said in a statement that she's still "very skeptical" about a government plan run from Washington but would keep working with Reid to find a "principled compromise."

Nelson "is not committing how we will vote regarding any proposal Sen. Reid is advancing," said spokesman Jake Thompson.

Lincoln, who's up for re-election in 2010, said through a spokesman she intends to study the details and decide how to vote based on the impact on her home state.

The White House released a statement saying Obama was "pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out."

Obama has long voiced support for such a plan but has also signaled it was not a requirement for a health care bill he would sign. He has also said he would like bipartisan support for the legislation — and Snowe appeared to be his best hope for that.

Changes on the public option — and numerous other provisions in the measure — are possible during a debate expected to last for weeks. If Reid's public option proposal is knocked out during the amendment process, liberals will at least have had their shot, possibly answering pressure from Democratic base voters.

The insurance industry was sharply critical of Reid's announcement.

"A new government-run plan would underpay doctors and hospitals rather than driving real reforms that bring down costs and improve quality," said Karen Ignagni, head of America's Health Insurance Plans.

Both the House and Senate are struggling to complete work by year's end on legislation extending coverage to millions who lack it, banning insurance industry practices such as denying coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions, and slowing the rise in medical costs nationally.

Officials said Reid had prepared several variations of key provisions so he could make adjustments in his bill at the last minute and still make sure he was within Obama's target of a $900 billion price tag over a decade.

Differences in bills passed by the House and Senate would have to be reconciled before any legislation reaches Obama's desk.