RUPEE NEWS: Recording History, Narrating Archives, Strategic Intellibrief Analysis: Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | اخبار روپیہ

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | RUPEE NEWS | March4th, 2009 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

President Barack Obama is an intelligent man. However it doesn’t take a genius to see the writing on the wall in Afghanistan. The reality on the ground where the Taliban control 80% of the territory is a tell tale sign that the military campaign has not worked in the graveyard of empires. The Bush Administration has created so much hostility in the entire region that it almost impossible to build goodwill and win the hearts and minds of the people. How could a $80 Billion think tank industry be so wrong. Three trillion Dollars wasted on two wars with little to show for expect war, mayhem and chaos. There was tremendous goodwill in Afghanistan and Pakistan for the United States. Through its miscalculations, bad policies and arrogant attitude, the Bush Administration evaporated the good feelings of the people towards the USA.

Four days after 9/11, Pakistani-British writer and political activist Tariq Ali wrote about an encounter he had with a Pakistani army general whom he asked about Islamist militants in the region.

Why had they been so receptive to American financing and weapon support during the Cold War, only to turn against the US overnight?

“Pakistan was the condom the Americans needed to enter Afghanistan,” replied the general. “We’ve served our purpose and they think we can be just flushed down the toilet.”

“The old condom is being fished out for use once again,” wrote Ali at the time. Ali Rizvi. Huffington Post. March 9, 2009 | 02:27 PM (EST), A Peek at America’s Possible Future Pakistan Policy

The US used the Pakistani military and abused the Pakistani nation. This from ingrate ally who had fought the Cold war together. Instead of building Pakistan and thanking the nation for its support for the war against the USSR, the Bush Administration (41) slammed sanctions on the former friend. To add salt to injury the US confiscated $450 million worth of F-16s and never did give Pakistan the planes or the money. All this for a founding member of SEATO and CENTO which had helped the US monitor the USSR from a base near Peshawar. All these abuse for a country that had helped the US in Vietnam and Korea.

Under the Bush administration the goal in Afghanistan was “to help the people defeat the terrorists and establish a stable, moderate, democratic state that respects the rights of its citizens, governs its territory effectively, and is a reliable ally in this war against extremists.” President Bush wanted regional democratization.

On Jan. 27, during his first testimony under the Obama administration, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates described the strategic goals for Afghanistan as “an Afghan people who do not provide a safe haven for al-Qaida, reject the Taliban, and support the legitimate government that they elected and in which they have a stake.” Gates’ more modest goal today is a legitimate government. Tulsa World. By JOSEPH WIGNARAJAH
Published: 3/5/2009  2:26 AM, Afghanistan needs security, stability and an exit strategy

Bruce Reidel commenting on Tariq Ali’s book “The Duel” says the following:

The Duel makes a strong case that the United States should back Pakistan’s civilian leadership, flawed as it is, in an effort to build a modern Islamic democracy”

“That will require much more economic aid, creative diplomacy to ease tensions with Afghanistan and India, straight talk about ending Pakistan’s ties to terrorism, and patience. It will take time to recover from the Bush-Musharraf legacy, but we cannot afford a failed state in Pakistan, especially one that bears the label Made in the U.S.A.”

“You… have to deal with [these problems] with a great degree of subtlety and sophistication,” .. “Because there are decades-old fears among all the parties about American intentions.” Bruce Reidel

The Bush administration ignored the sagacious advice of the Pakistanis in 2001. Islamabad told the US not to attack Afghanistan with full force, instead use a contingent of about 5000 Marines who could go after the evil doers. The Pakistani intelligence services also informed the CIA that bombing large sections of Afghan society and occupation would not produce any results. In 2001 and on multiple other occasions, the Pakistanis tried to help the Americans by making peace deals with the moderate insurgents which would have led to a wider peace in the region. Every time, the CIA sabotaged the deals, and riding the high horse of hubris resorted to more punitive military action. The covert operations in Pakistan and the overt bombing of Pakistani citizens has created a wave of Anti-Americanisms which will take years to subside.

President Obama conceded yesterday that America was not winning the war in Afghanistan and opened the way for negotiations with moderate elements of the Taleban, much as the US did with Sunni tribes in Iraq.

The new strategy, which comes as Mr Obama prepares to send an additional 17,000 US troops to Afghanistan, emerged after a frantic 48 hours of American diplomacy in the region involving new overtures to Iran, Russia and the Muslim world. The fresh approach to Tehran, however, is causing significant concern in Israel and the Arab world, amid fears that Mr Obama is making too many concessions at a time when his own officials say Iran has enough enriched uranium to make one nuclear weapon.

Mr Obama’s admission of the dire situation in Afghanistan followed an invitation to Iran by Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, to participate in a regional conference on Afghanistan this month. The offer was part of a broad arc of diplomacy in recent days that marks a decisive shift away from the Bush Administration’s more hardline approach to the region. Asked during an interview with The New York Times if the US was winning in Afghanistan, Mr Obama replied “no”. He pointed to the success of peeling away Iraqi insurgents from al-Qaeda in Iraq, and said there might be “comparable opportunities” with the Taleban, although he warned that the situation there was more complex than in Iraq.

The British Government has made it clear to Washington that it also supports contacts with the Taleban, and that moves have already been made by Western officials to talk to lower-ranking Taleban fighters. It is part of a new strategy to try to unblock the stalemate that military commanders believe is undermining the campaign.

Yesterday the US military said that 12,000 troops would leave Iraq by the end of September, as Mr Obama seeks to focus on the war in Afghanistan. But, as if to underline the continued security threat in Iraq, a suicide bomber killed 28 people outside a police academy in the first big attack in Baghdad for a month.Obama says US is losing war in Afghanistan and hints at Taleban talks. Tim Reid in Washington and Michael Evans, Defence Editor

We have repeatedly written that there is no military solution in Afghanistan and the only way to deal with the AfPak region to institute a Marshall Plan for Pakistan. Treating Pakistan like an Outsourced force, behaving like the Viceroy of Islamabad, and thinking of the relationship as a transactional business deal are some of the reasons that has brought the war to the situation it is in.

The US strategy on Afghanistan suffered inertia – focusing narrowly on al-Qaeda and leaving large parts of the countryside empty of either troops or government.

Progress has been made with improving the Afghan army

“The international community dealt with Afghanistan on the cheap. It was not the priority,” former finance minister and presidential candidate Ashraf Ghani explains.

Into the vacuum, the Taleban emerged. Now with the endgame in play in Iraq, the US is turning back to Afghanistan.

But it is faced with rebooting its Afghan mission in a much harder climate than 2001 – one in which the Taleban is resurgent, allies weary and neighbouring Pakistan in turmoil. By Gordon Corera, BBC security correspondent, Kabul, Rebooting the Afghan mission

Instead of taking the advice of the Pakistanis, the Bush Administration tried to ram through the Neocon approach to diplomacy-daisycutters and cluster bombs. These Israeli tactics did not work in Lebanon and did not work in the killing valleys of the Hindu Kush. The Indian also jumped into the fray and tried to take political advantage of the situation attempting to play “Lord Curzon’s Great Game”. Had they listened to the advice given to Lord Curzon by Rudyard Kipling, they would have been saved themselves the $1 Billion that they wasted on the 150 km highway whose bridges have already been blown up. The last time Delhi tried to play “Big power” in Afghanistan it was sent packing with bag and baggage.

The US Secretary of State is making the right noises in the right forums, but there are a lot of steps between the lip and the cup. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

“We will be working with our NATO allies and other partners to come up with a comprehensive strategy that integrates military and civilian assets in a way that can try to stabilise both Afghanistan and Pakistan from the mutual threat they face from Al Qaeda and the Taliban,” State Hillary Clinton has pledged. She made the statement to told German ZDF-TV during her tour of Europe.

The Canadians and the Europeans are also saying he right thing. But the drone continue. The aid being offered to Pakistan is very inadequate and the US has up till now refused to give the Frontier Corps, Night Vision glasses, bullet proof vests, Predator drones, Cobra and Chinook helicopters, and machine guns.

[Peter] MacKay also said Ottawa supported Washington’s plans for a regional approach to the conflict that would address the role of Pakistan.

He said “Pakistan is a country that you absolutely have to include on the way forward and on the plans that will eventually lead to improved status for both countries.” AFP

The problem with the US approach is that it is US-centric. The US wants to prevent further attacks from AfPak. However its actions are actually doing the opposite. For example a drone bomb, even it takes out a really really evil person, also causes damage to civilians and kills bread-earners and children. The drone attacks also have an impact on Muslims populations from Morocco to Indonesia. Of course the Pakistanis are seething. Each drone attack wreaks havoc with the political infrastructure in Pakistan. The pro-American government feels the pressure to stop the counterproductive attacks.

Riedel points out the part that both of his employers — the CIA and the Brookings Institution — have played in the genesis of Pakistan’s current state, and also agrees with Ali’s criticism of Barack Obama’s pledge to unilaterally strike Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan in the presence of actionable intelligence and absence of cooperation from the Pakistani government. In an interview with Dubai-based Pakistani news channel ARY One World, Riedel, while acknowledging the success of recent US strikes in Pakistan near the Afghan border, noted that there was a “counterproductive element” to them, as they alienate the Pakistani people away from the United States. Ali Rizvi. Huffington Post. March 9, 2009 | 02:27 PM (EST), A Peek at America’s Possible Future Pakistan Policy

Bruce Reidel has parts of the puzzle and some of his earlier writings showed some promise. However he is now bent upon destroying the “Taliban” and eliminating their force–an impossibility. This is more of the Bush doctrine albeit in a softer gentler discussion

Contributing to regional stability is the only way to support a decreased U.S. presence in the region. Joseph Wignarajah

The Bush Administration is actually on a collision course with stability in the region. It has antagonized all the geographic stakeholders in order to ram down a half-baked strategy based on vested interests. The consulting world doesn’t have a clue on how to deal with the Pakistanis and the Afghans. Pakistan faced sanctions for ten years but did not bend down to American demands.

The invitation to Iran to attend the Afghan conference, on March 31, sets up the first face-to-face meeting between the Obama Administration and Iranian officials. It fulfils a campaign promise by the President to talk to Tehran without first demanding that it suspends its uranium enrichment programme, which the West suspects is part of a project to develop nuclear weapons.

The Obama Administration, which is due to complete a review of Iran policy soon, is also considering joining talks between Iran and Britain, Germany and France, The Times has learnt.

Mr Obama dispatched two envoys to Damascus over the weekend, initiating the first serious talks between senior US officials and their Syrian counterparts for more than four years. Jeffrey Feltman, a senior State Department official, and Dan Shapiro, a White House national security official, met Walid al-Moualem, the Syrian Foreign Minister. Mr Feltman said the US wanted to see “forward momentum” on peace talks between Syria and Israel, and said Syria could help Middle East stability.

At the same time Mrs Clinton pushed a broad diplomatic engagement with Russia during a meeting with its Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, in Geneva. She went so far as to hand him a large red plastic button with the word “reset” on it — which is what Mr Obama says he wants to achieve with US-Russian relations.

The button also had a Russian word — peregruzka — above it, which was meant to convey the same message. Embarrassingly, Mr Lavrov had to tell Mrs Clinton that it translated as “overcharge” — raising questions about the quality of Russian linguists inside her State Department.

Mrs Clinton and Mr Lavrov talked about the need for a new nuclear arms reduction treaty, and how Russia could help in persuading Iran to abandon its alleged nuclear weapons programme. She repeated the Obama Administration’s overtures to Moscow about how a US missile shield in Eastern Europe would not be needed if there was no nuclear threat from Tehran.

The White House also announced that Mr Obama will travel to Turkey next month, making good on another campaign promise to give a speech in a Muslim country.

Some Western diplomats are concerned about Washington’s new efforts with Moscow, so soon after Russia’s invasion of Georgia and its clear ambition to widen its influence in the region. Yet Mrs Clinton insisted: “We are being extremely vigorous in our outreach because we are testing the waters, we are determining what is possible, we’re turning new pages and resetting buttons, and we are doing all kinds of efforts to try to create more partners and fewer adversaries.” Obama says US is losing war in Afghanistan and hints at Taleban talks. Tim Reid in Washington and Michael Evans, Defence Editor

The Obama Administration has make a choice–peace and stability in AfPak or a relationship with Bharat 9aka India). The Bush Administration had it wrong on two counts. It messed up Afghanistan with brute force, ignored the Pakistanis and tried to build Bharat as a counterweight to China. This antagonized Pakistan and China both–ensuring defeat and humiliation for the US machine in Afghanistan.

Favoring a multi-pronged approach to the problems facing and arising from Pakistan, Riedel has stressed the need to look at them in a regional context. He emphasizes the importance of recognizing the influence that Pakistan’s concerns about India has had on how it handles Afghanistan.

He also understands that all of this will need to be balanced delicately with a strategy to deal with the distrust that citizens in all of these countries have developed towards the United States in the last few decades. The people in the region still remember Ronald Reagan famously calling the Afghan Mujahideen (which literally means “those involved in a jihad”) the “moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers” when they were helping the United States fight the Soviet Union — and then turning on them as they became Taliban terrorists. As Tariq Ali points out in The Duel, if America once turned on the allies that helped it defeat the Soviets, many Pakistanis feel, what would stop it from turning on Pakistan?Ali Rizvi. Huffington Post. March 9, 2009 | 02:27 PM (EST), A Peek at America’s Possible Future Pakistan Policy

If the US is serious about rebooting the AfPak initiative and put it into a positive mode, it needs to develop the Marshall Plan beyond the $7.5 Billion promised to Pakistan. That is peanuts. Compare to the $143 President Bush wasted on Afghanistan. If that money had been really spent in the Pakhtun areas of Pakistan, the Pakhtun children would be so busy enjoying life that they would not be bothered with the are next door and the insurgency would have died. Instead the Bush Administration bombed the heck out of the Afghans who moved to safer hideouts. With the US bombing FATA the population moved to Swat and the cities of Pakistan. It is the typical push theory which pushes criminals out of 42nd street to 56th street right after a police raid. Peter Senge in a seminal book on Systems thinking describe this in detail. In order to end the insurgency the US has solve the problem.

Sources close to the State Department say the new strategy is likely to reenergize a broad Afghan-Pakistan regional approach, with a set of more tightly focused but downsized goals. The previous goal to “democratize” Afghanistan will probably shift toward “efficient” and “achievable” stabilization – avoiding an open-ended mission, but requiring more immediate “heavy lifting” by allies. The strategy will require more troops to achieve a balance of military and civilian help, but also to bring in India, Iran, Russia, and even China.

“You need a buy-in on the strategy by allies,” says one US diplomat in Europe. “If you are Europe, and you don’t believe in the strategy, you offer cosmetic help, but you don’t make life–and-death decisions and commitments in Afghanistan.” CSM. Clinton pushes NATO allies for united strategy on Afghanistan. The Secretary of State also calls for a ‘fresh start’ with Russia. By Robert Marquand | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor. from the March 6, 2009 edition

The US failed to comprehend the security concerns of Pakistan and China. The rise in the Indian influence in Kabul raised hackles from Riyadh to Beijing. The militancy was a natural reaction to the American Gung Ho policy of occupation and wanton destruction in the Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US learned the old hard way. No solution is possible in Afghanistan without Pakistan

Here’s what the new strategy should address:

First, it must address how to create lasting security. That is, how we intend to bolster the Afghan and Pakistani security forces’ abilities to combat insurgents that operate within each country and move through their porous border. Our attacks by unmanned aircraft will not be enough to secure the Pakistani government, which has nuclear weapons, against repeated attempts by militants to destabilize it. Additionally, it is imperative that it address winning the war against the drug trade. In 2008, the Afghan drug trade was estimated to be about $4 billion, supplying somewhere between $200 million and $400 million annually to the Taliban.

After we have choked the insurgents’ ability to operate, we must sustain new security by underscoring the importance of reconstruction, restoration of essential services free from corruption, and economic development. When the Afghan people have reliable basic services and the opportunity to provide for themselves, they will reject Taliban rule in favor of a legitimate government.
Second, the strategy must emphasize diplomacy between NATO, other countries in the region and the new government to be elected this year. It must address how we intend to engage Russia, India, China, and even Iran, as hinted by Gen. David Petraeus, which all have a stake in regional stability.
Each of these countries can make significant contributions to the war. Russia recently allowed NATO to resume using supply routes after suspending an earlier agreement in protest of U.S. support for Georgia. Iran can offer additional supply routes. China and India currently invest generously in Afghanistan. Moreover, contributing to regional stability is the only way to support a decreased U.S. presence in the region.

And finally, it must include an exit strategy that delineates milestones that must be reached before we withdraw, and, more importantly, that specifies that we will withdraw once milestones are reached. Tulsa World. By JOSEPH WIGNARAJAH, Published: 3/5/2009  2:26 AM, Afghanistan needs security, stability and an exit strategy

The US has to make amends to Pakistan, pour in $100 Billion in schools, hospitals, roads, and universities with “Made in America” written on them. Jefferson hospital in FATA and Madison school in Lahore would do more to eliminate militancy than drone bombs. The US has clear choices. It can choose Pakistan and China for peace and prosperity in West Asia, or it can choose India and perpetual war Hindu Kush. Unless and until the Obama Administration has clear goals and an exit strategy, it will face a Vietnam type of defeat.