Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | ??????? ????? | ???? | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ??????? | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ????? | RUPEE NEWS | March4th, 2009 | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | ????? ????? |

Kabul: The Final assault begins. How long can NATO hang on? Many are looking for solutions to the Afghan quagmire. Fixing AfPak: Inability to define Exit strategy spells inevitable US military catastrophy in Kabul. Rupee News has for years suggested that the only strategy for Pakistan that will work is the one that is based on Non-Military means. We have long suggested that a Marshall Plan for Pakistan and the lifting of trade barriers would solve many of the short term and long term issues facing the region. Reconstruction Opportunity Zones and FTA with USA. The US has wasted $143 Billion in Pakistan and belatedly sent $5 Billion to Pakistan with much fanfare and a lot complaining. The other $5 Billion was for reimbursement made to the Pakistanis. No money was given for the four bases that the US uses or the 100 truck a day that rumble on Pakistani highways. No compensation was given to the 300,000 refugees from FATA that have left their homes to evade American drone bombing and covert sabotage operations. No compensation was ever given to Pakistan for the loss of business and revenue from the war that the US imposed on Afghanistan and Pakistan. 2009: Obama’s South Asian policy: A Marshall Plan for AfPak. The US can open up the gates to Pakistani Textiles. An FTA and elimination of tariffs on Pakistani textiles would enable Pakistan to export $15 worth of textiles. Better than any aid package this would reverse extremism. Showing them “how to fish” is better than giving them a fish. Trade First not Aid First

Rupee News believes that this war has expedited the inevitable union between Afghanistan and Pakistan. the union was proposed in the 50s and King Zahir Shah agreed. The De Facto union existed in the 90s after the departure of the USSR.

…way to stabilize both countries is to make a deal with the devil and engineer a very strong, close military alliance with the Pakistan military and its intelligence operation. That means we choose Pakistan over its other regional rivals — and that we cede Afghanistan to satellite status under Pakistan. Steve Clemons

An emerging consensus seems to be emerging from a wide spectrum of thinkers in the US about the exit strategy in Afghanistan. Steve Clemons in a note in the right wing Washington Times suggests that a possible way out of Afghanistan is to work with the Pakistani military and the Pakistani intelligence services. Newsweek magazine and Ralph Peters have suggested the same. Indian Ambassador Bhadrakumar is saying the same thing. Bruce Reidel’s AfPak approach signals the movement of Washington towards this thinking.

China would be willing to see the Taliban accommodated in Afghanistan while also backing efforts to stabilise Pakistan, its traditional ally, in a realignment which would clip Indian power in the region. Myra McDonald summarizing Ambassador Bhadrakumar’s analysis

US goes begging to Beijing: India feels the pain. Actually Ms. McDonald puts it rather politely. Reading the original article in the People Daily links the purchase of T-Bills to the withdrawal and stability in Pakistan.  Why the US gave up India as a strategic partner

Solution: Fixing “AfPak” expedites the inevitable union between Pakistan & Afghanistan

There is no other real option to extricate the US out of Afghanistan. Everything else has been tried. India has been given a free reign in Kabul and it with traditional incompetence screwed things up so royally that today 80% of Afghanistan is in insurgent hands. India’s worst nightmares come true: Long term strategic malaise . ISAF and NATO tried to force down peace through the barrel of a gun. It ended up in controlling Kabul and a few other areas.

• AfPak solutions: Beyond hubris, dictation, threats, sanctions, bombings, overt invasion & covert sabotage
• Impact of Indian RAW strike against Sri Lankans–this time in Pakistan. Delhi payback for defeat of LTTE in Lanka
• Hindu Kush cul de sac: Why are we in Afghanistan?
• AfPak backstage: Bombing the ephemeral Hindu Kush “Ho Chi Minh trail” nurtures the Khemer Rouge of the Khyber–the Taliban

My friend and New America Foundation colleague Nicholas Schmidle has just published an extensive profile of Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari titled “The Black Widower“. The piece got me thinking about what a successful strategic shift in our eroding situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan would look like. I’m not convinced Zardari matters in the overall equation of achieving a strategic shift in the future.

While most realists — even Bob Gates — have been saying that there is no military solution to the AfPak problem, it seems that most of what is being deployed there are military approaches, including the deployment of a new 17,000 U.S. troops — this before the “strategic review” that Obama has requested has been completed.

A former top strategic adviser to an American president told me that our engagement in Afghanistan has more complexity than the Soviet invasion, which didn’t set one combat foot into Pakistan. He told me that ultimately the U.S. has a very, very difficult choice to make in Pakistan regarding Afghanistan, its regional neighbors, and our other allies.

He said that one possible way to stabilize both countries is to make a deal with the devil and engineer a very strong, close military alliance with the Pakistan military and its intelligence operation. That means we choose Pakistan over its other regional rivals — and that we cede Afghanistan to satellite status under Pakistan.

The implications of this course would be profound and potentially disrupt our improving relationship with India. I haven’t thought through other implications of this strategy and am not convinced such a plan would even work.

But what is missing in much of our discussion about the AfPak mess is a discussion of serious alternatives and a clear-headed comparison of hard choice scenarios.

This may be one of them. – Steve Clemons

80% of Afghanistan is under insurgent control. Taliban sanctuaries around Kabul thumb thier noses at ISAF, NATO & US forces. Why would Taliban need safe havens far away in Pakistan?Getting out of Valhalla or new goals for war in AfPak: Can Obama’s “Neocon Lite” advisors sell old wine in new bottle
Revising Finance 101 for the Chinese Century: Political impact of Center of Gravity shift from New York to Beijing
Obama’s “Surgers” vs. “Exiters”: Exit strategy now or scrambled hasty retreat later
China sets conditions for bailing out US and buying US T-Bills
Swat and FATA for dummies: Who are the terrorists?
Zaid Hamid video on Swat
US goes begging to Beijing: India feels the pain
Why the US gave up India as a strategic partner
India’s worst nightmares come true: Long term strategic malaise
Fixing AfPak expedites the inevitable union between Pakistan and Afghanistan
Betrayels and Balckmail: Cloaking failure as success, Hiding the defeat, declaring Victory, Withdrawing from Afghanistan within 12 months
Kabul: The Final assault begins. How long can NATO hang on? Does Obama have the courage to implement the real solutions to Obama’s Vietnam (AfPak)
2009: Obama’s South Asian policy: A Marshall Plan for AfPak
Selective Amnesia of Americans: Pakistan is the most mistreated friend in the world
Fixing AfPak expedites the inevitable union between Pakistan and Afghanistan
The Algeriafication of Pakistan, the Egyptianization of Bangladesh may will yield Iranian type of revolutions

Reuters has become the Starbucks for all those who hate Pakistan–a gathering place for everyone and anyone who has an axe to grind against Islamabad. During the Mumbai insurgency in India it ran stories by Indians. During the attack on Pakistan by Indian agents and LTTE terrorists, the Reuters blog is silen. The Reuters blog run by Pakistanphobes Myra McDonald and others usually gather up the anti-Pakistan news and puts it in one spot for all the Anti-Pakistan bigots to cherish and worship. Even Myra McDonald and her bigoted team now suggests that the sane strategy for the US is to hand over Afghanistan to Pakistan.

The Washington Note, in a post this weekend, floated the idea that the United States might give up on Afghanistan and opt instead for a strong alliance with Pakistan.  It quotes a former top strategic adviser to an American president as saying that ”ultimately the U.S. has a very, very difficult choice to make in Pakistan regarding Afghanistan, its regional neighbors, and our other allies. He said that one possible way to stabilize both countries is to make a deal with the devil and engineer a very strong, close military alliance with the Pakistan military and its intelligence operation. That means we choose Pakistan over its other regional rivals — and that we cede Afghanistan to satellite status under Pakistan.”

The writer admits he does not know whether such a plan would work – it would certainly alienate India and would possibly find few takers even in Pakistan, where anti-American sentiment is strong. But that the idea should be floated at all, more than seven years after the United States overthrew the Pakistan-backed Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, highlights quite how serious the challenges are in the region.

The aim would presumably be to reach a deal with the Afghan Taliban, allowing the United States to focus its energies in targetting al Qaeda and helping Pakistan defeat the Pakistani Taliban, who appear bent on overthrowing the government in Islamabad. In doing so, the United States would face a deterioration in its relationship with India – cultivated by the Bush administration as a counterweight to China.

Retired Indian diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar picked up a similar theme in an analysis of China’s attitude to the deepening crisis in South Asia. He writes that China would be willing to see the Taliban accommodated in Afghanistan while also backing efforts to stabilise Pakistan, its traditional ally, in a realignment which would clip Indian power in the region.

… So to return to my original question. Has Pakistan become the central front in the battle against al Qaeda and Islamist militants? And if so, what are the implications?

Swat Peace deal: Separating fact from fiction. Like many other analysts Ms. MdDonald is wrong on many points. She confuses the Taliabn in Afghanistan with the Swat insrugents. Afghan Taliban repudiate links with Swat-admonish Bait Mehsud

We answer Ms. Mocdonald’s question on our site Rupee News (http://www.rupeenews.com). the answers are there in plain site, if Ms. McDonald finds the time to read an unbiased site. The real question is: Does Obama have the courage to implement the real solutions to Obama’s Vietnam (AfPak)

US AfPak policy review results mimic Chinese demads given to Hillary Force is all-conquering, but its victories are short-lived. ~Abraham Lincoln In 1821 The Taliban was a construct of the CIA and was armed by the CIA:–Congressman Dana RohrabacherObama’s Vietnam & Cambodiazation of the Afghan war Solutions to “Obama’s 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
Pakistan’s do more list for the USA Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan & Swat run by Taliban Huge Migraine for India
Facing the Khyber poltergeist & Ganges hobgoblin NATO war: UK 1880 defeats in Afghanistan
“Charge of the Light Brigade” in Afghanistan AGAIN: Unfortunately the lessons of the unmitigated disaster of “Auckland’s Folly”, (First Anglo-Afghan War 1838–42) have not been taught to the Oxbridge students.
Bin Laden used Reagan’s USSR strategy to Destroy US Capitalism? Cambodiazation of the Afghan war Rescueing the Pashtuns of Afghania from Afghanistan
Unite! Erase the Durand LineSolution: Fixing “AfPak” expedites the inevitable union between Pakistan & Afghanistan