The Peace President
Nobel Peace Price winner, American President Obama aka Messiah has finally revealed his Afghan policy, or shall we see Af-Pak policy. Mr. Obama’s plans calls for 30,000 additional US troops backed by more troops from the NATO countries. The news that captured the world attention was with drawl of troops by USA in 2011. This is wrong perception, what Mr. Obama said is that US will start withdrawing troops depending on the conditions on the ground with Pentagon making it clear that US civilian (aka XE contractors) and some military personnel will remain in Afghanistan for indefinite period. In summation, the so called deadline for troops with drawl is nothing except a vague date, subject to change on the whims of President of USA and not by the choice of Afghanis.
To sum up, Mr. Obama argument is that more troops and escalation of war is needed, because –
a) 9/11,
b) Murderous Taliban hell bent on taking over Pakistan and its nukes
C) Al-Qaeda’s safe heaven.
a) 9/11 – Happened on American soil, as per US committed by 11 hijackers of which 9 were Arab and none of them was Afghani. Furthermore, of 11, nine were in the country legally. So perhaps a better idea would have been securing the entry to good old USA. Secondly, the planning of 9/11, again as per USA was done in Germany and parts of Europe including the financial part. Last I checked Germany was not in Afghanistan.
b) Take over of Pakistan and its nukes by Taliban - Except for neo-cons, Indians and Israeli’s not a single credible security analyst has embraced this idea. The whole idea is so absurd that it invites a mental check of its holder. Mr. Obama conveniently forgot that his own Sec. Of State, Ms. Clinton, his own appointed Special Envoy, Richard Halbrooke and his own Chief Of Staff Mike Mullen has just recently called the take over Pakistan or its nukes by Taliban a fantasy. But may be they will change the statement now that Messiah has spoken.
c) Al-Qaeda’s safe heavens - As all Pakistanis are daily reminded that Al-Qaeda and its leadership is in Pakistan, I wonder what Mr. Obama is talking about. It is now consensus among security analyst and world intelligence agencies that Al- Qaeda has dispersed with gaining bases mostly in Yemen and Somalia. Mr. Obama also conveniently forgot that his staunch ally, UK PM Gordon Brown just two days earlier had claimed that Al- Qaeda and its leadership are in Pakistan.
This plan does nothing for Afghanistan, but it surely is a disaster for Pakistan. No matter what Pakistan does, it can’t seal of the border with Afghanistan, the surge in troops and desire to engage the enemy by Americans will do nothing but assure constant infiltration in Pakistan, creating security nightmare for Pakistan. In the name of securing Afghanistan, the blame will once again put on Pakistan for providing safe heavens to terrorists. The drone attacks will increase, with attacks going beyond FATA to Baluchistan area in the name of hunting down the so called “Quetta Shura”. In the guise of hunting Taliban in Baluchistan, the area will be used to de-stabilize Iran. US will use the doctrine of hot pursuit to enter troops in Pakistan, a doctrine that they tried to use to enter in Iran through Iraq and the same doctrine they used to bomb inside Syria. Pakistanis will pay the price in blood due to suicide attacks and weakening of democratically elected governments and its institutions. Let’s not even mention the economy. Furthermore USA has already convinced India to provide troops for Afghanistan once again allowing Pakistan to be sandwiched and squeezed by India from both sides. Every which way one looks this plan hurts only Pakistan. Mr. Obama has shown by his words and deeds he is no different then his predecessors, a blood thirsty and a war monger. But Hey!!! He does have Nobel peace prize.
Loading ...
Obama’s folly: By Andrew J. Bacevich
Which is the greater folly: To fancy that war offers an easy solution to vexing problems, or, knowing otherwise, to opt for war anyway?
In the wake of 9/11, American statecraft emphasized the first approach: President George W. Bush embarked on a “global war” to eliminate violent jihadism. President Obama now seems intent on pursuing the second approach: Through military escalation in Afghanistan, he seeks to “finish the job” that Bush began there, then all but abandoned.
Through war, Bush set out to transform the greater Middle East. Despite immense expenditures of blood and treasure, that effort failed. In choosing Obama rather than John McCain to succeed Bush, the American people acknowledged that failure as definitive. Obama’s election was to mark a new beginning, an opportunity to “reset” America’s approach to the world.
The president’s chosen course of action for Afghanistan suggests he may well squander that opportunity. Rather than renouncing Bush’s legacy, Obama apparently aims to salvage something of value. In Afghanistan, he will expend yet more blood and more treasure hoping to attenuate or at least paper over the wreckage left over from the Bush era.
However improbable, Obama thereby finds himself following in the footsteps of Richard Nixon. Running for president in 1968, Nixon promised to end the Vietnam War. Once elected, he balked at doing so. Obsessed with projecting an image of toughness and resolve — U.S. credibility was supposedly on the line — Nixon chose to extend and even to expand that war. Apart from driving up the costs that Americans were called on to pay, this accomplished nothing.
If knowing when to cut your losses qualifies as a hallmark of statesmanship, Nixon flunked. Vietnam proved irredeemable.
Obama’s prospects of redeeming Afghanistan appear hardly more promising. Achieving even a semblance of success, however modestly defined, will require an Afghan government that gets its act together, larger and more competent Afghan security forces, thousands of additional reinforcements from allies already heading toward the exits, patience from economically distressed Americans as the administration shovels hundreds of billions of dollars toward Central Asia, and even greater patience from U.S. troops shouldering the burdens of seemingly perpetual war. Above all, success will require convincing Afghans that the tens of thousands of heavily armed strangers in their midst represent Western beneficence rather than foreign occupation.
The president seems to appreciate the odds. The reluctance with which he contemplates the transformation of Afghanistan into “Obama’s war” is palpable. Gone are the days of White House gunslingers barking “Bring ‘em on” and of officials in tailored suits and bright ties vowing to do whatever it takes. The president has made clear his interest in “offramps” and “exit strategies.”
So if the most powerful man in the world wants out, why doesn’t he simply get out? For someone who vows to change the way Washington works, Afghanistan seemingly offers a made-to-order opportunity to make good on that promise. Why is Obama muffing the chance?
What Afghanistan tells us is that rather than changing Washington, Obama has become its captive. The president has succumbed to the twin illusions that have taken the political class by storm in recent months. The first illusion, reflecting a self-serving interpretation of the origins of 9/11, is that events in Afghanistan are crucial to the safety and well-being of the American people. The second illusion, the product of a self-serving interpretation of the Iraq War, is that the U.S. possesses the wisdom and wherewithal to guide Afghanistan out of darkness and into the light.
According to the first illusion, 9/11 occurred because Americans ignored Afghanistan. By implication, fixing the place is essential to preventing the recurrence of terrorist attacks on the U.S. In Washington, the appeal of this explanation is twofold. It distracts attention from the manifest incompetence of the government agencies that failed on 9/11, while also making it unnecessary to consider how U.S. policy toward the Middle East during the several preceding decades contributed to the emergence of violent anti-Western jihadism.
According to the second illusion, the war in Iraq is ending in a great American victory. Forget the fact that the arguments advanced to justify the invasion of March 2003 have all turned out to be bogus: no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction found; no substantive links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda established; no tide of democratic change triggered across the Islamic world. Ignore the persistence of daily violence in Iraq even today.
The “surge” engineered by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus in Iraq enables proponents of that war to change the subject and to argue that the counterinsurgency techniques employed in Iraq can produce similar results in Afghanistan — disregarding the fact that the two places bear about as much resemblance to one another as North Dakota does to Southern California.
So the war launched as a prequel to Iraq now becomes its sequel, with little of substance learned in the interim. To double down in Afghanistan is to ignore the unmistakable lesson of Bush’s thoroughly discredited “global war on terror”: Sending U.S. troops to fight interminable wars in distant countries does more to inflame than to extinguish the resentments giving rise to violent anti-Western jihadism.
There’s always a temptation when heading in the wrong direction on the wrong highway to press on a bit further. Perhaps down the road a piece some shortcut will appear: Grandma’s house this way.
Yet as any navigationally challenged father who has ever taken his family on a road trip will tell you, to give in to that temptation is to err. When lost, take the first offramp that presents itself and turn around. That Obama — by all accounts a thoughtful and conscientious father — seems unable to grasp this basic rule is disturbing.
Under the guise of cleaning up Bush’s mess, Obama has chosen to continue Bush’s policies. No doubt pulling the plug on an ill-advised enterprise involves risk and uncertainty. It also entails acknowledging mistakes. It requires courage. Yet without these things, talk of change will remain so much hot air.
Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University.
Two different things. Its amazing ppl still cant get it. Same analogy of head and arse applies.
Not surprising u didnt comment here
http://www.sohnidhurti.com/2009/10/29/khoon-ke-dhabbey-dhulaingain-kitni-barsatoon-ke-baad/
ARY: Rawalpindi: 17 children, 9 army men among 36 dead
RAWALPINDI: In a highly tragic incident 37 innocent people including 17 children, 10 civilian, 9 Army personnel embraced martyrdom when terrorists attacked a mosque in Parade Lane, Rawalpindi, Saddar on Friday.
According to ISPR, four terrorists approached a mosque inside officers’ residential colony in Parade Lane, Rawalpindi Saddar and hurled grenades on Namazies followed by indiscriminate firing. Meanwhile two suicide bombers entered the Mosque and blew themselves killing 35 Namazies who were offering Jumma prayers.
Security forces personnel in the area responded immediately and 2 other terrorists were killed in exchange of fire.
The deceased include 7 army officials and 9 soldiers. 75 personnel were injured in the same incident.
Those army officials embraced shahadat are Major General Umer Bilal, Brigadier Abdul Rauf, Lieutenant Colonel Fakhar, Lieutenant Colonel, Manzoor Saeed, Major Zahid, Major (Retd) Shoaib, Naik Masood.
Later, during the surveillance police recovered 22 hand-grenades and other weapons from the mosque’s premises.
Meanwhile, President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani telephoned Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and expressed grief and condolences over the killing of innocent people.
The premier and the president appreciated valor and courage of the armed forces in meeting the challenge of terrorism and lauded the sacrifices given by them in providing security to the life and property of the people.
TTP has “owned” the attack.
BTW this is CIA in name the person on ground we all kniow are XE. Should have been XE to expand. After all NATO forces already outnumber taliban as per usa 10:1 and now they adding 40,000 troops. Plus double the number of pvt (read Mercenaries) armies hired by usa.
NYT : C.I.A. to Expand Use of Drones in Pakistan
Gillani getting alot of media exposure. On Frost Over The World now.
YRG message to Obama is to win hearts and minds of Afghan population. Someone has been injecting him testosterone!!!
He probably also had a brain transplant! Or did they discover something new in KRL to enhance one’s IQ. I am almost starting to like the guy!!!
LoLzzzzzz…
Mr Peace President here is a video for you that you might be able to connect with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM4COZW_ySs
He Said, They said
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Hillary has already said ‘not confirmed’ as if we bought it.
The deadline will be announced by the “Dead”. Don’t worry it will come soon enough.
No Bin Laden information in years, says Gates
Hey Gordon the retard brown why dun u come down to pak and start loking urself, am sure pakistanis will really help u find osama. U STUPID FUck
Feingold: Why Surge Where Al Qaeda Isn’t?
and the world suffers recession.
My take on stream of suicide attacks in Pakistan
Every planned action has to have a motive.
To say this brazen act of innocent killing is result of mere frustration is not conceiveable.
Suiciders may be emotinally destablized, brainwashed and medicated but the hand behind plnning such accurate and organized targets is sane and calculating.
The first may be non calculating hand is Govt. which apparently can not get to the suiciders hideouts but at least can crack down on sale and availability of explosives used in such attacks.
Govt. can also catch the planners…we have a history of suicide attacks for the good part of last ten years amazingly not a single planners was caught and brought to justice to made an example of.
It remains to be seen if this Govt and the last Govt of Musharaf had a motive or just a tool to play i.e. a lesser degree of motive.
Those who usually claim the responsibility like TTP etc. again are the tools because after accepting responsibility of such heinous acts they lost the motive which they claim to Islamize the system…Man of basic knowledge can understand you can not Islamize by doing un-Islamic acts….They are zombies.
Few motives are served by such horrible acts
Depicting horrible picture of Islam
Alienating Pakistani masses from Islam
Destroying the concept that Islam could be implemented as complete way of life.
Destablizing Pakistan
Eunuchize Pakistan by destroying its nuclear potency.
I will hold my two cents…let the readers throw their pennies to find out who couls have all those motives.
My exact thoughts on TTP and the bombers. In-fact I have insisted on distinguishing TTP and Taliban, a subtle difference the media should be better at highlighting I would have thought.
I can’t understand what power play is going on at the moment and why a clear stance against the american presence is not being taken and demanded by the public from our so called “leaders”.
Come-on Imran Khan get better soon or bring back Kazi Hussain Ahmad.
Billi thailey se bahar aaagi
NYT: No Firm Plans for a U.S. Exit in Afghanistan
The News: By Rahimullah Yusufzai: Surge, and then what?
The first surge of 21,000 troops in Afghanistan ordered by President Barack Obama soon after he assumed office didn’t achieve much. After another review of the failed US strategy, and an agonisingly long wait of 92 days during which his war council repeatedly met, he has decided to send another 30,000 soldiers on a tough mission to reverse the Taliban momentum, increase the beleaguered Afghan government’s security capabilities over the next 18 months and stabilise a country that has come to be known as the graveyard of empires.
With 68,000 US troops deployed in the country and another 30,000 set to join them by next summer, the United States was not only commanding the NATO forces but also setting the goals of the war. Now Obama will be overseeing a threefold increase in the number of US forces in Afghanistan and escalating a war in a distant, hostile land with no firm prospects of success. Its outcome will define his presidency, decide his political fate and influence the chances of Democratic Party candidates in the next year’s elections.
The war hysteria built up by Washington has put pressure on reluctant US allies, particularly in Europe, to contribute troops and resources to the first NATO mission outside its traditional sphere of influence. Some 25 NATO members out of 28 have been coaxed to send 7,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and the organisation’s aggressive secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, is pushing others to do their bit. About 42,000 troops from 42 nations, excluding the US, are already deployed in Afghanistan, and in the words of Rasmussen, the extra deployment will see “a new momentum” in the allies’ Afghan mission.
Once the initial enthusiasm about the renewed war effort subsides and the NATO mission gets prolonged, the strong opposition in every western country to deployment of forces in Afghanistan could become still stronger. The most recent public opinion survey in Germany is instructive: two-thirds of the respondents wanted their soldiers to be pulled out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.
It is obvious that President Obama’s hand was forced by his military commanders to send more troops to Afghanistan. The delay in his making up his mind underscored the president’s dilemma in choosing a course that would escalates fighting, cause more death and destruction, cost the limping US economy a fortune and still fall short of ensuring success. As the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, he will be responsible for victory or defeat, though the military commander in Afghanistan, Gen Stanley McChrystal, will also have to bear responsibility and show results after demanding the 40,000 additional troops and warning that he could face defeat if his demand wasn’t conceded.
The president tried to appease everyone: the Pentagon and the Republicans, who wanted the troops’ surge, Democrats who were opposed to an open-ended conflict and the vocal anti-war lobby that accused the military-industrial complex and the neo-conservatives of landing America in another unwinnable war.
Despite being vague, his exit strategy marking July 2011 for starting the withdrawal of the 30,000 “surge” forces was designed to placate the Democrats and liberals, but it appears unrealistic and may not work. Besides, it has provoked the Republicans into accusing the president of endangering US troops and emboldening the Taliban fighters who may simply opt to retreat and wait out the 18 months before the American soldiers start pulling out from Afghanistan. Such a Taliban strategy would also provide the US and its allies an opportunity to claim that attacks by the insurgents have gone down and most of Afghanistan has been stabilised and thus it is time to start sending their troops home.
A clever politician, President Obama didn’t promise outright victory in Afghanistan, even though he spoke forcefully about the need to defeat Al-Qaeda. A victory will also require defeating the emboldened Afghan Taliban, an uphill task considering the performance of US-led NATO forces during the last eight years. Other benchmarks of victory will require enabling the Afghan government to stand on its own feet, ridding President Hamid Karzai’s government of corruption and undertaking some “nation-building” projects in Afghanistan.
Since victory in Afghanistan cannot be achieved without Pakistan’s cooperation, as US government functionaries say, reaching that elusive goal would require strengthening Islamabad’s ability to fight the terrorists and curb the militancy through both military and non-military assistance. This, indeed, is a tall order and will require patience from the US where voters are growing impatient that America is in the midst of its longest war.
The “surge” of 21,000 troops ordered by President Obama achieved limited success. A strong contingent of 10,000 US Marines was sent last summer to the Taliban stronghold of Helmand, joining the 9,000 British and a few thousand Afghan National Army forces to launch offensives to capture territory and strengthen the Afghan government in outlying, poppy-growing districts.
After much fighting and casualties and displacement of villagers, the US and British military commanders are now saying that their troops weren’t sufficient in number to control the captured places. The Taliban fighters simply pulled back to their safe havens, to bide time, launch hit-and-run attacks and plant roadside improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that have taken a heavy toll of the foreign forces.
This meant the need for more boots on the ground and thus the decision to double the number of US-led forces in one province, Helmand, alone in a bid to hold territory and keep the Taliban at bay. Gen McChrystal has already started implementing a new policy to abandon remote military bases and concentrate on defending towns and cities. The vacated outposts, like those in Nuristan, Paktia, Paktika and other Pakhtun-populated provinces, have been taken over by the Taliban and the change publicised through videotapes containing footage of their fighters happily displaying war booty.
On the ground the battle in Afghanistan is starkly uneven. On the one hand are the US-led coalition forces that will total 147,000 by next summer when the “surge” troops from all NATO countries are in place. In addition, there are around 103,000 so-called private contractors — or, to put it bluntly, mercenaries — assigned all kinds of tasks ranging from supplying foreign forces to protecting convoys and sensitive installations.
Then there is the Afghan National Army, now 90,000-strong and to be raised to 134,000 in 2010, and the Afghan National Police numbering more than 70,000. In fact, there are proposals to double the national army or even raise it to 400,000, without explanation as to who is going to pay for such a large force in a country that is dependent on foreign aid to run its government. Another armed force is the “Arbaki,” the village militias like the government-backed “lashkars” operating in Pakistan’s tribal areas and districts.
All this makes a formidable force of heavily-equipped foreign troops alongside Afghan forces, who may be lacking in training but know how to fight, particularly if ethnic Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras are deployed in Pakhtun areas to battle the Taliban. And yet this huge force is unable to defeat the lightly-armed Taliban fighters, whose strength until now was estimated at not more than 15,000.
Retired general James Jones, the national security adviser to President Obama, now believes the Taliban fighters number 27,000, a figure that appears on the high side. The same general recently estimated that there were less than one hundred Al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan. It is intriguing that these one hundred loyalists of Osama bin Laden, based in Afghanistan and some more hiding in Pakistan and able to cross the long, porous border, constitute the group that in President Obama’s view is occupying the epicentre of violent extremism and posing the biggest security threat to the US.
The outnumbered and outgunned Taliban and other resistance groups in Afghanistan know they cannot fight such a large and well-resourced military force. As has been their practice, they will retreat instead of fighting head-on, melting away and regrouping whenever opportunity arises to inflict painful blows on the coalition forces. They could follow the principle laid down by one Afghan Taliban commander who famously remarked that “the Americans have the watch and we have the time.”
The Taliban have shown determination until now in facing a superior enemy, and they will try to wait out this period while still keeping the resistance alive, in the hope that the foreign forces will leave eventually or offer them a negotiated political deal.
Well well now we know why marriott was targetteed.
Dawn: Rich man’s terrorist
@nota
we knew it was blackwater or US marines apppears the target was Prince itself. they were planning to take him out with other top command. Anyhoo, this does raise a serious qts, if TTP was behind the attack how they got the info? did ISI or other intelligence agencies ussed them to get rid of Prince and co? Or our security forces have TTP sympathizers all very worried scenarios. Or may be am conspiracy nut, would welcome some comments on this
@afzal some information leakage is delibrate. It is accepted practice in the West so it must be a right modus operandi!!! Don’t read too much in it.
Poor guy just wants a hug. Sorry at his missing his date in “heaven” / hell.
General says US will add counterterror forces in Afghanistan next year, beyond announced surge
Syed Talat Hussain: Pakistan’s window of hope
Much of Pakistan’s soft clout in Afghanistan in the coming months would be shaped by its ability to tag along with the world’s nation-building efforts. If Islamabad baulks at becoming a strong and willing partner in these, others would fill the gap
The American road-ahead policy presents Pakistan with a unique all-round policy opportunity to shape the strategic environment in Afghanistan, close festering sources of terrorism in tribal areas, and most crucially, regain broad-based clout with Washington. In other words, the ambitious multiple agenda the US has set for itself in Afghanistan, and partly also in the borders areas of Pakistan, provides exceptional room for Pakistan to make strong purposeful manoeuvres to earn solid diplomatic gains.
Take Afghanistan’s internal challenges first. Even though the US has lowered the bar for its nation-building stride, still it is committed to a tall order. In just under two years, endemic corruption has to be rooted out, drug lords’ formidable empire has to be torn down, and the economy has to be built-up and made self-sufficient. This is not all. In this tight time-frame, administrative efficiency has to reach a level where all of Afghanistan’s nearly 400 districts must have, in the words of General James Jones, the national security advisor, “economic development, good governance, and security”. Also included in the dreamland of benchmarks are “good and competent governors” for all the 34 provinces of the country.
It would be a miracle if even a fraction of this wish list comes true, especially by a weak and politically emaciated president whose second term election President Obama believes was marred by fraud. But Pakistan should resist the temptation of being the Jeremiah, the prophet of doom. Nor prepare to dance with vicarious joy in the event that the situation in Afghanistan defies Washington’s hopefulness. Instead it should, and seriously, partner in these efforts regardless of whether these are doomed to failure or destined for success. It is obvious that to make the first review of the progress in Afghanistan — in the middle of next year perhaps — a worthwhile exercise, the Obama administration will pull every stop to bring about visible change in all these indicators. Therefore, Washington is likely to be far more receptive to productive suggestions on pursuing its development agenda from other countries than it has been so far. Pakistan can step in with plans that enhance Afghans’ capacity to move in the right direction — infrastructure, education, agriculture, irrigation, basic science, technology, water management or many of the dozens of areas where it has expertise to proffer. Much of Pakistan’s soft clout in Afghanistan in the coming months would be shaped by its ability to tag along with the world’s nation-building efforts. If Islamabad baulks at becoming a strong and willing partner in these, others would fill the gap.
Helping rebuild the Afghan National Security Force, the army and the Afghan National Police, is another area Pakistan ought to eye for gaining goodwill and diplomatic ground in Afghanistan. Many of Islamabad’s objections to the conduct of the Afghan National Army (ANA) deployed on the border with Pakistan are sound. The ANA has lived up to its reputation of being a force viscerally hostile to Pakistan. Elements from the erstwhile Northern Alliance dominate the ANA. Its members are mostly Darri and Persian speaking. They have been trained over the past many years to mistreat Pashtuns, which is part of the problem in Afghanistan.
While this history makes them structurally inimical to Pakistan, the fact remains that for the Obama administration to build a truly national army, the institution’s ethnic imbalance shall have to be rectified. Pashtuns, former Taliban, even the personal armies of warlords, have to be integrated into the national army to become viable and take over responsibility of stabilising Afghanistan and paving the way for the start of the pull out of US troops. It is not known yet how much Washington would be willing to allow the Pakistan army to team up in efforts to train the ANA. However, for an Afghan force to be functional and effective in the south and the east of Afghanistan, its ethnic composition has to be such that Pakistan’s contribution to its training must be welcomed in any serious effort in building it up along strong durable lines. At any rate, Pakistan must make a solid gesture on this project: ditto should be done on Afghan police reforms. Remember, Pakistan cannot afford to be left out of the efforts to create institutions that would play a critical role in defining Afghanistan’s trajectory in the coming months. Also, international confidence that an Afghan national security force has come of age will help endorse Pakistan’s long-standing argument that the prospects of durable peace are inversely related to foreign troop level in Afghanistan. They will have to leave for peace to be fully restored and the Afghan resistance to be neutralised politically. Then there is the issue of safe havens inside North Waziristan and the presence of the Quetta Shura in Balochistan. On the face of it, the room for agreement between Washington and Islamabad is the least on this benchmark. US officials believe removing these sanctuaries is the first and foremost task to bring about a strategic shift in violence in Afghanistan. Members of Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment see the ‘safe havens’ refrain a stratagem Washington and its allies use to hide their long and spectacular military failure inside Afghanistan to stem the rising tide of the resistance. Beneath this mutual recrimination, however, lies the hard fact that Pakistan and the US have consistently cooperated with each other in combating cross-border movement of the Taliban. Their military operations, not always conceived in perfect harmony, have seen both parties alternately play the hammer and the anvil to smash and squeeze the militants moving across. In the last surge-related operation in Helmand, Pakistan ended up sealing a long stretch of the border with Afghanistan to disallow any spillover effect. A much deeper and wider cooperation will be required to manage far bigger and bloodier operations in the coming weeks.
It is in Pakistan’s core national interest to ensure that safe havens do not become Washington’s excuse for pinning the blame for poor performance in the battles with the Taliban on us. It also serves Pakistan’s paramount security concerns that the wild militant groups in the tribal belt are brought under the heel. The new and vicious wave of urban terrorism has rendered useless the distinction between North and South Waziristan militancy. Government officials themselves admit that much of this terrorism is now flowing out of Mir Ali. This is where Wali ur Rehman, Hakeemullah Mehsud and the other big fish are. Cleaning up this area is critical to making operation Rah-e-Nijat relevant to securing the people from the game of death the terrorists are playing. A hard hit at these safe havens will also take the US pressure off Pakistan and give Islamabad and Washington time to plan about the Quetta Shura.
Pakistani policy makers have a substantial window of opportunity to make wise choices — something they did not do when George W Bush and his neo-con cabal were sending forces into Afghanistan. Pervez Musharraf’s thoughtlessness landed the country in a heap of unintended problems. This nation cannot afford a repeat of a similar mistake now that Washington is seriously thinking about going home.
Robert Fisk comments on Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4ynybVuwXQ
Zafar Hilaly: Spare a thought, Mr Obama
President Obama has made his move. The surge in Afghanistan is the final throw of the dice. If it works American forces will leave with their heads erect. If does not, they do so with their tail between their legs. Both ways they leave?
Actually, no. A rump force of a few thousand US troops will probably remain well after 2012 sheltering with the Northern Alliance and ensuring that the Tajiks are propped up and the Taliban contained. Comprising Drones and Special Forces they will sally forth whenever an unusually tall man is observed in some valley of the Suleiman range. In essence this is the Biden strategy. It cuts costs and causalities. It enables the US to keep on eye on Al Qaeda and beat up on the Taliban every now and then for the foreseeable future.
Such a strategy threatens to splinter Afghanistan. Hopes that the Afghan National Army will prevent it happening are wishful thinking. An army consisting in the main of non Pushtuns officered by Tajiks is unacceptable to the Pushtun population. The concept of a “national” army in a largely tribal society where ethnic groups harbour significant antipathies is a non-starter. And, if the Afghan army were made to reflect the composition of the Afghan population, desertions would multiply and the penetration of the army by the Taliban which is already considerable would become pervasive.
Holbrooke has said that bringing about a fundamental re orientation of Pakistan’s policy is going to be his foremost endeavour, specifically to persuade Pakistan to repair relations with India and cleanse the safe havens that the Afghan Taliban enjoy on our soil.
While Holbrooke’s message was clear, what is not clear is Pakistan’s likely response. Although what troubles Pakistan is clear enough. We rightly fear the conjoining not only ideologically but also operationally of the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban; the diversion of their destructive efforts towards Pakistani society which is a softer target than American forces; the possible rupture of the current fairly fragile public consensus in Pakistan to side with America against the Taliban; the fear that attacks by the Pakistan Army, in collusion with the unpopular Americans, may be viewed as attacks on Pustuns in general rather than only the Taliban; the fallout of such perceptions on Pakistan’s unity and integrity, etc. All of which should also worry Holbrooke.
Perhaps the only politician that has constantly maintained that the fount of the region’s problems is the American presence in Afghanistan has been Imran Khan. He said it to his credit much before many eminent American experts such as William Polk came around to this view; when the American public were maundering and mumbling and when our own had not even begun to reason. His fellow politician Qazi Hussein Ahmed may have preceded him but that was probably because the only way he could get popular is if the liberals gang up on him or he is persecuted. Imran, it seems, does not need to go to jail to become popular.
No country would benefit more from peace in Afghanistan than Pakistan no matter who sits in Kabul. Yet not once have we heard our leaders come out categorically in favour of a US withdrawal. Pakistan unfortunately is now viewed by many Afghans and Pakistanis alike as an American stooge. An American withdrawal would set many things right. For example, at a fraction of the cost that it takes to maintain US forces in Afghanistan many of Afghanistan’s needs can be met. As one observer wrote:
“Afghanistan is a desperately poor, land locked and dry country with few resources. Its people have suffered through virtually continuous war for 30 years. Many are wounded or sick. Their normal passage through schools into jobs and secure lives have been derailed and disrupted. They are hurt and tired. They need help. It will be hard for them to pay for outside help. The world can help. Through the United Nations and a coalition of Afghanistan’s neighbours money can be provided for reconstruction projects. Such ventures as the building of farm to market roads, the opening of clinics, a programme of disease prevention, subsidy for food grain crops, electrification, purification of water, disposal of waste, etc will be well received as unthreatening and beneficial assistance. What will it cost? Even at $5 billion a year over a period of ten years it will cost less than the $80 billion that the war is costing annually.”
America’s exit would unleash a dynamic of its own. Afghans would be compelled to talk to each other. They may choose to fight or do both at the same time. They may even finally be forced into the terrible hand of the Taliban who, for many, are psychopaths. But that is the concern of the Afghans. The world after all watched impassively for years while Idi Amin ate his friends for dinner, General Suharto butchered as many as half a million Indonesians simply because they were suspected of being communists and the Mujahideen raped, pillaged and murdered their compatriots while being serenaded for their victory over the Soviets.
Pakistan has nothing to fear from extremism, that is if it wishes to cleanse itself of this affliction. And if it does not it will pay the price. For how long can another country or society save another people from themselves?
America too has every right to protect herself but not in a manner that ends up destabilising the subcontinent, robbing the Afghan nation of determining their own future, of settling their own feuds by imposing on them a system that does not suit their genius and foisting on them corrupt puppets as leaders. For how long can a whole nation be held hostage for the sake of 100 criminals and be occupied and despoiled.
Obama’s intentions are of no consequence. His actions are and these are proving devastating to life and society in Pakistan and Afghanistan. If America wants democracy and freedom for Afghanistan and wants it to take root in Pakistan it should argue and counsel and not shout, shoot and bomb.
Private guards ‘took part in raids on al-Qaeda militants’
Giles Whittell and Tim Reid in Washington
“We haven’t heard much from George W. Bush since he packed up his comics and moved to Dallas. But his policies remain like dog piss stains to stink up the Obama White House. Rendition and assassinations continue, as does warrantless spying on the citizenry, along with other civil liberties violations in the name of the “war on terror.”"
How true!
Accepting peace prize, Obama makes case for unending war
The Pieces President
& The Poodle
wow
And now Canada – Well I expeccteed that much from this conservative govt whose PM is George Bush plus but dun have numbers in parliment to really do his agenda. Bush was stupid, the Candian PM is not and thats whhy he is bush plus plus.
Canada kept feared Afghan governor in power despite rep as ‘human-rights abuser’
Up To 56,000 More Contractors Could Be Sent To Afghanistan – DOD: Obama’s Afghan Surge Will Rely Heavily On Private Contractors
I am loving the Americans now. The News’ editorial today.
Deviant diplomats?
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
There has been a string of incidents involving foreign diplomats in recent months, most recently in Lahore (again). Several of the incidents involve foreign nationals carrying unregistered firearms in their vehicles. In one incident in Golra Sharif, Islamabad, three Americans were found sporting beards, wearing shalwar-kameez and in possession of four M-4 machine guns and four 9mm pistols. They were coming from NWFP and we can only speculate what their purpose was. Dutch diplomats have been stopped and found to have pistols, bullet-proof jackets and hand grenades. An American security guard is said to have pulled his pistol and threatened an inspector of the Islamabad police. There are a number of reports of vehicles carrying diplomats bearing fake number-plates. There have been other incidents where usually Americans have been involved in altercations and threatening behaviour with our citizens. There does not appear to be any record of any foreign national being prosecuted for unlawful behaviour.
The government has stated emphatically on more than one occasion that no foreign diplomat of any nationality is permitted to carry weapons within our territorial limits – yet there is ample evidence that quite a few of them are carrying weapons. Diplomats everywhere in the world are accorded special rights and privileges, and these often include immunity from prosecution under the laws of the country they serve in. However, ‘diplomatic niceties’ are usually observed where laws are broken – fines for traffic offences are quietly paid, troublesome diplomats find themselves posted somewhere less comfortable – and a slightly tense equilibrium is maintained. We rarely hear about most of these diplomatic hiccups and it is only when they assume the magnitude and gravity of the transgressions currently being perpetrated here that they reach the eyes and ears of the public. It is no unsubstantiated rumour that diplomats are toting weaponry and acting aggressively; they have been caught red-handed. We need a little more clarity and a lot less fog around the issue of what diplomats here are and are not allowed to do. Because in a country where accidents happen with monotonous frequency, this is beginning to look like a large accident waiting to happen.
CNN: Official: Behind scenes, U.S. prodding Yemen to confront al Qaeda
Funny thing that “procedural errors” and “legal Technicalitie” won’t apply to Guatanamo inmates who will stand trail in NY or those who suffereed illegal rendition. May be cuz they are not US citizen but how abt US citizen who have been deemed enemy combatant and have been stripped of all thier rights, or how abt Umar Khadar and others like him who were in their early teens and have been subject to torture. Long Live US jutice.
Geo: Iraq outraged as Blackwater case is dropped
RAWA News: US Special Forces brutally kill 10 Afghan civilians in Narang
On Dec.27, 2009, at around 2:30 of mid night, US Special Forces raided Ghazi Khan Ghondi village of Narang District in Kunar province of Afghanistan. They enter the civilian houses and kill ten civilians, among them eight were school boys, one a poor farmer and a 12-year-old rancher. They all have been shot in the head.
Although the US occupation forces denied any involvement, but Kai Eide, special UN representative announced in a press conference that the “international forces” were engaged in the incident and “a preliminary United Nations investigation has found that eight students were among 10 Afghan civilians killed in Kunar province.”
Also the photos taken by Special Forces from the dead bodies on the crime scene are included in this gallery which are obtained by RAWA through its supporters in Afghanistan.