Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | ??????? ????? | ???? | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ??????? | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ????? | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? |  ????? ????? |  February 18th, 2009 |

The Barack Obama team thinks it has invented a new term “AfPak” which refers to Pakistan and Afghanistan as a joint entity and a region. If they they had read Chaudhry Rehmat Ali they would have realized that  P-A-K-I-S-T-A-N is an aphorism– the “A” in it stands for “Afghania“. The inevitable union between Afghanistan and Pakistan has been expedited by the two wars in the “Graveyard of Empires“. During the 50s a confederation was contemplated between the two countries. In the 80s, Pakistan was home to half the Afghan population. In the 90s both countries were one with no border controls or passport checks. Today there are more Pakistan-born-Afghans than there are Afghans born in Afghanistan. Karachi is the largest Pakhtun city and most Pakhtuns live in Pakistan. It is natural for Afghanistan to join Pakistan. Old Pakhtunistan stalwarts like Abid Jan now say that the old movement now is working for the inevitable merger of the two countries.

Bruce Reidel, General Patraeus, Barack Obama, David Brown, David Milliband etc. all see Pakistan and Afghanistan as one entity–”PakAf”. Even sober journals like Newsweek quoting stalwarts have begun to seriously recognize the reality of the union and have been writing about the proposal to formally merge Pakistan and Afghanistan into one entity.

So why not just get out? As always, it’s not so simple. If the Americans pull their troops out, the already shaky Afghan Army could collapse. (Once they lost U.S. air support, South Vietnamese troops sometimes refused to take the field and fight.) Afghanistan could well plunge into civil war, just as it did after the Soviets left in 1989. Already, the Pashtuns in the south regard the American-backed Tajiks who dominate Karzai’s administration as the enemy. The winning side would likely be the one backed by Pakistan, which may end up being the Taliban—just as it was in the last civil war.

Some argue this wouldn’t be such a bad outcome, if the Taliban could be bribed or persuaded to not let Al Qaeda set up terrorist training bases on Afghan territory. According to one senior Taliban leader, a former deputy minister in Mullah Mohammed Omar’s government who would only speak anonymously, some Pakistani officials are urging the insurgents to do something like this now—in return for talks with the Americans. On the other hand, Islamabad could be playing with fire. Given the longstanding ties between the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban, a jihadist state on its border is a threat to Pakistan, too. And here, U.S. national-security interests definitely do come into play. Newsweek. With Ron Moreau and Sami Yousafzai

Afghanistan: The writing is on the wall. Can Obama read it? Barack Obama finds himself in a hole. Try as he may, his policy makers may be  unable to see beyond the Neocon’s myopic vision of war and occupation. The Plan for a New American Century (PNAC) is dead and the worst that “Barack of Afpakia” can do is to follow the advice of the Neocons. The Wall Street journal thinks that Obama is listening to the Neocons again. This would be compounding the disaster. President Obama should ask the fundament questions and ask Why five times to get to the root cause of the war in Afghanistan. Swat spells death knell of US defeat & Afghan occupation

Already, canaries on the left are asking a la columnist Richard Reeves, “Why are we in Afghanistan?” The President’s friends at Newsweek are helpfully referring to “Obama’s Vietnam.” Mr. Obama may find himself relying on some surprising people for wartime support — to wit, Bush Republicans and neocons. Wall Street Journal

Pakistan’s “Do More” list for the USA . Learning the wrong lessons from Iraq may yield bad policy in Afghanistan.Convincing the US Tin ear–of the Pakistani point of view

The Obama administration appears to be mistakenly applying the Iraq approach to Afghanistan, without a comparable military strategy or a new alliance with forces on the ground. It’s about to commit itself with the wrong-minded approach of using the military tool of America’s national power to resolve an enormously complicated situation.Ehsan Ahrari is a professor of security studies at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu, HI. He has been writing about the strategic affairs of the Middle East and South Asia for over two decades, and is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

Solutions to Obama’s “Vietnam” -Afghanistan? Obama’s Vietnam will bury his chances for a 2nd term. By adding more troops, he has fulfilled campaign promise. Now it is time to declare victory and bring the boys home. Kabul: The final assault begins-How long can NATO hang on?

As Tom Andrews, National Director of Win Without War put it, “The first principle for someone who finds himself in a hole is to stop digging, The US policy ‘hole’ in Afghanistan is not of the new Administration’s making. But it is important for the President to consider if adding new US combat forces in Afghanistan, without a new and comprehensive plan, for US policy there, might be digging an even bigger hole.”

Escalating the occupation of Afghanistan will bleed us of the resources needed for economic recovery, further destabilize Pakistan, open a rift with our European allies, and negate the positive consequences of withdrawing from Iraq on our image in the Muslim world. Escalation will not secure a better future for the Afghan people or increase US security. How will additional troops help meet the “clear and achievable objectives in Afghanistan and the region” that Obama spoke of Tuesday afternoon? We have not received a clear answer to that fundamental question. Don’t Bleed Resources in Afghanistan, posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 02/17/2009 @ 6:18pm

• Obama to unveil new policy: Marshal Plan & end to bombing raids in Pakistan
• Peek into Obama’s brains: Bruce Reidel on Pakistan
• Growing consensus in the Obama team: Much of Pakistan’s problems originate in Afghanistan
• Obama advisor Weinbaum predicts total Afghan policy review: Sees focus on talks & Reconciliation
• Afghanistan: Gen. Petraeus’ Pakistani advisers: Indians jittery
• Obama adviser Weinbaum gives deep insights into new Afghan policy

President Ayub Khan of Pakistan wrote a book a very long time ago. It was titled “Friends Not Masters”. The American establishment should read the book. Pakistanis to USA: We want “Friends Not Masters”.  Pakistan cannot be bullied into abandoning Afghanistan and its legitimate interests around the world.

The most ignored — and extremely important — fact of South Asia is that neither India nor Afghanistan will be stable or peaceful places until highly visible measures are taken to soothe the security-related concerns of Pakistan involving India. An important aspect of that concern is the lowering of India’s presence in Afghanistan, which Pakistan (rightly or wrongly) perceives as threatening its own security. The Bush administration ignored that fact, and the Obama administration will ignore it at the risk of damaging its own interests in South Asia. Ehsan Ahrari is a professor of security studies at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu, HI. He has been writing about the strategic affairs of the Middle East and South Asia for over two decades, and is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

Field Marshall Muhammad Ayub Khan who did the best bidding for America got sick and tired of the “do more” syndrome and wrote a book called “Friends Not Masters”. During the 60s, America had a airbase in Badabare, where the U-2s used to take off from, keeping tabs on the USSR. As a result, our cities became nuclear targets. He ended the “do more” chant with a “do less” strategy and threw the Americans out of Pakistan. Ayub Khan under the influence of our firebrand chosen successor, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was finally able to end the relationship with the USA and put our relations with the USSR on some sort of an even keel, and created an enduring one with China.

The idea of becoming subservient to India is abhorrent. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

Tough lessons in geography. The disadvantage of “doing America’s bidding” is that one always has to hear the deafening “Pakistan must do more” chant. The mantra never ends. Nothing is enough. Pakistanis and Muslim shed blood for America. 2 million Muslims died for America and the West in their silly egotistical “I have bigger cahunas” cold war. How much of the worlds resources were wasted on a war that ended with a whimper without any surrender documents. Today all the “enemies” are the best of friends. While airports are named after Ronald Reagan and the Republicans take credit for the destruction of the Soviet Union, no credit is given to Pakistan or Pakistanis or Muslims who died in destroying the USSR’s “evil empire”. The lunches on the White House lawns for the “mujahideen” are have been long forgotten, replaced with the deafening “Pakistan must do more”. Suharto or Indonesia, and Marcos of the Philippines were also called to “do more” and finally simply dumped before they had any chance of ending the relationship. Now the house of Saud and the Emirates are being asked to do more too. Facing the Khyber poltergeist & Ganges hobgoblin.

The vulnerability of our resupply routes through Pakistan, which jeopardizes our Afghanistan mission, makes finding alternative routes critical, but the options are few. Afghanistan can also be accessed from the west through Iran — an unlikely route for forces opposed to terrorism — or the north through Russia, the Caspian Sea and Moscow’s Central Asia allies: Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan. But any resupply route through the north gives Moscow leverage over the Obama administration for a variety of geopolitical concessions. And granting significant concessions to the Russians so early in the Obama administration could make America the underdog in future American-Russian negotiations.

Geographically, Pakistan provides the shortest resupply route to Afghanistan from the Indian Ocean. Currently, most of the supplies bound for the war zone are delivered to the port of Karachi, Pakistan and then trucked hundreds of miles through semi-hostile territory crossing at two points into Afghanistan. Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television and a senior strategist with the U.S. Army. Obama Needs a Diplomatic Miracle Abroad by  Robert Maginnis, 02/17/2009

Those who carry a condescending attitude towards Pakistani nationalism and sovereignty are simply the latest avatar of the “Ugly American” epitomized by the famous book by William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick. It is patronizing for Hillary Clinton to assume that Pakistani self-determination is based on paranoia against India. It is the height of hubris for Hillary Clinton to try to lecture Islamabad what is good for Pakistan, who its friends should be, and who the enemies are. Hillary Clinton cannot dictate who Pakistan’s BFFs are. Hillary should have inhaled the stuff that Bill didn’t, if she and Bruce Reidel can somehow wave a majic wand and concert Pakistanis into clones who think like her. Pakistanis are not imbecile children. Pakistanis know who their friends and enemies are. http://rupeenews.com/2007/11/27/%E2%80%9Cfriends-not-masters%E2%80%9D-a-response-to-deception-hiding-in-plain-sight-pakistan-and-nuclear-proliferation-by-chuck-leddy/ There are signs that the Obama Administration may come around and change its tune.Pakistan’s legitimate interests?

Integrate Pakistan policy within strategy for Afghanistan. Afghanistan and Pakistan’s crises are deeply intertwined, with Taliban and al-Qaeda elements operating within Pakistan’s northwest frontier, threatening the stability of both governments. U.S. policy towards Pakistan should recalibrate away from overwhelmingly military approaches and emphasize efforts toward strengthening the civilian government and civil society. Patrick Barry, Posted February 18, 2009 | 01:16 PM (EST). Huffington Post

How long can the “wink wink nod nod” farce of Drones go on? Obviously the surge in drone bombing in Pakistan has not worked. The expansion of the war has swelled the ranks of the insurgents. Betrayals & Blackmail in Bakiyev: Cloaking failure as success, hiding the defeat, declaring victory & withdrawing from Afghanistan within 12 months

Cambodiazation of the Afghan war. As part of the Obama administration’s strategic Af-Pak review, it needs to answer two questions: Has the Predator surge worked? What should be the future role of bombing Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan?

This enlargement of the Afghanistan war has occurred largely outside any public debate or scrutiny. In fact, despite physical evidence of Hellfire missiles – the Predator’s weapon of choice – it was only one month ago that a US official, Major General Jeffrey Schloesser, commander of US and NATO troops in Eastern Afghanistan, publicly admitted their use. He said, “The Predator strikes in Waziristan have caused a disruption across the border.”

This exponential growth of the Predator strikes against senior and mid-level lieutenants, however, has not helped to prevent the spread of jihadist sympathies in the tribal regions and beyond, nor has it slowed the stream of militants and material into Afghanistan. In fact, according to Pakistani intelligence reports, refugees from Afghanistan have flocked to the Taliban by the hundreds to avenge the drones’ killings of innocent civilians

However, they have failed to deter or dissuade young Afghani or Pakistani men from replenishing the Taliban’s rank and file. Before introducing more US troops into Afghanistan, as part of a new Af-Pak strategy, Americans should debate whether, or to what extent, the Predator surge should continue. Boston Globe. Micah Zenko is a researcher and analyst of national security issues and holds a Ph.D. in political science from Brandeis University

The Grand Bargain? Pakistan key to Afghan Great Game. Mulla Omar of Afghanistan has offered safe passage to America a way forward to make peace. Obama’s rhetoric on “war is not the only way” is meaningless unless he stops the drones, and builds hospitals and schools, and railroads in FATA and Afghanistan. The Grand Bargains for Kabul

USA has not met with any appreciable success to divide the Taliban by winning over the moderate elements and making them share power. Efforts will be renewed to win over Mullah Omar who has hinted at sharing power provided a firm time-table of foreign troop withdrawal is announced. Two-year timeframe will be offered as in case of Iraq, which will subsequently be dishonoured. Negotiations for power sharing will be undertaken only when the US-Nato military tilts the balance in its favour to be able to bargain from a position of strength. This implies more bloodshed, not realising that more the provocations by US troops, fiercer will be the response from the militant forces. Its oppressive acts will accelerate rather than de-accelerate violence thereby making foreign troops based in Afghanistan that much vulnerable to attacks. Military power can win a war but cannot defeat terrorism, which grows like wild weeds. Terrorism is a product of injustice; without eradicating root causes which breed terrorism, the disease cannot be cured by applying force. Obama and his team must take into account the consensus that has emerged among the western analysts that dialogue based on sincerity of purpose and genuine efforts to remove root causes is the key to settle Afghan imbroglio. The Statesman. US converting defeat into victory in Afghanistan. The writer is a retired Brig and a defence and political analyst based in Rawalpindi. ah.raja@yahoo.com . Asif Haroon Raja:      Pakistan first: The devastating effects of appeasing India and kowtowing to the USA

It is better for American prestige to declare victory and leave Afghanistan as soon as possible. Even the most conservative hawks in America are warning the administration of dire consequences. Raplh Peter is a recent article in the USA Today did exactly that

Instead of floundering in search of a strategy, we should consider removing the bulk, if not all, of our forces. The alternative is to hope blindly, waste more lives and resources, and, in the worst case, see our vulnerable supply route through Pakistan cut, forcing upon our troops the most ignominious retreat since Korea in 1950 (a massive air evacuation this time around, leaving a wealth of military gear). Raplh Peters writing in The USA Today

The definition of AfPak is a right step in that direction.

Solutions to “Obam’as Vietnam”

Kabul: The Final Spring Offensive? End of NATO?
Afghanistan: The writing is on the wall. Can Obama read it? UK Brig. Smith: “We’re not going to win this [Afghan] war”
Failure and Defeat in Afghanistan: Inevitable Frustration & misdirected Payback for ally Pakistan
US Charge of the Light Brigade into Pakistan is a US failure and has to stop
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan run by Taliban Huge Migraine for India
Facing the Khyber poltergeist & Ganges hobgoblin

NATO war: UK 1880 defeats in Afghanistan

Cambodiazation of the Afghan war
Rescueing the Pashtuns of Afghania from Afghanistan
Unite! Erase the Durand Line The only solution is the inevitable confederation between Pakistan and Afghanistan