Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | ??????? ????? | ???? | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ??????? | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ????? | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? |

Seven years after the war, many debate the very premise of the attacks, and the goals and reasons attributed to the attack. The main reason for attacking Afghanistan was to apprehend Osama Bin Laden. This is no longer a strategic objective of the US forces. So we circle around to the basic question “Was there a need for Shock and Awe“?

We have often analogized the Afghan Adventure with the “Charge of the Light Brigade” which was predispositioned to failure. We also have often mentioned it as Dox Quixote’s fool hardy mission to destroy the “Turkish Armies” which turned out to be Windmills.

“Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills  . . .  And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, “Fortune is guiding our affairs . . .  Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich,  for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.”

“What giants?” asked Sancho Panza.

Michael Sheuer was part of the CIA Unit whose mission was to hunt down Osama Bin Laden. In his seminal book “Imperial Hubris” he questioned the war in Afghanistan when it was not cool to do so. An important point about the book is that at the time, Sheuer was a CIA operative and the agency gave him permission to publish the book. It is pedagogical to question whether the CIA in a round about way endorsed his views. If the intelligence agency had found Sheuer’s ideas repugnant to its own calculations, or if it had in any way jeopardized American national security, the CIA would never have allowed the book to be published. Initially the book was published under the pseudonym of “anonymous“, however later Sheuer was “outed” and he publicly campaigned for Police Action to hunt down Osama Bin Laden.

A police SWAT team of a team of dedicated marines could have scoured the mountains and gotten hold of OBL and his accomplices. They still could. The ongoing war–perpetual mimetic warfare is not necessary, useless and too expensive. It does not solve the problems, it simply creates more OBLs. The criticism against Pakistan is nothing new. There is a lot of apprehension about Pakistani intentions. However the worst criticism is about thinking of the Pakistanis as servants or as an outsourced division of the US Army.

The historical analogies have course been presented by all those who have an inkling of history.

President Eisenhower inherited the Korean war from his predecessor and then negotiated a cease-fire.  President Lyndon Johnson took over Vietnam from his predecessor and committed his country to eventual humiliating defeat. And almost fifty years later President Barack Obama has been gifted the Afghan debacle by a moron who spent most of his catastrophic eight years tilting at windmills in “righteous wars.”

NATO war: UK 1880 defeats in Afghanistan. The First, Second and Third Afghan Wars were waged by the British between 1839 and 1919 in three disastrous campaigns totaling nine years.  The Fourth resulted in the degrading defeat of Russia in 1989 when its troops had to leave after a decade. And now the Fifth Afghan War is being conducted by America and some allies from 2001 to . . . Well, when?  It’s seven years, and counting. The Fifth Aghan War, Tilting at Afghan Windmills, By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

The US should declare victory and leave Afghanistan–while it still can. The US faces a two year deadline to leave Kabul with honor. It will be increasingly difficult for American to sustain a war without the Germans, the Canadians and most importantly the British. It would be extremely hard to manage Afghanistan without the Britishers who have been doing much of the heavy lifting in the heart of the insurgent strongholds.

• Former president General Pervez Musharraf tried to convince then-president George W Bush to reconcile with the moderate Taliban after September 11, 2001.
• From the outset in October 2001, when Pakistan joined the US’s “war on terror” and abandoned the Taliban, Islamabad has had serious reservations about the US’s plans.
• But the US invasion of Afghanistan went ahead, and the US ignored Musharraf’s advice to secure eight power centers in Afghanistan, not just Kabul, to effectively control the country.
• Pakistan’s strategic quarters were sure all along that the US’s policies would lead to the quagmire that exists today, but under immense American pressure and the dire need for economic assistance, Pakistan stood by the US as its ally.
• At the same time, though, it developed its own policies…save their own skin in a region in which Pakistan has to be ready to counter Iranian and Indian moves once the Americans leave.
• Michael Mullen’s… believes in cordial relations with Pakistan’s security forces and sympathizes with the Pakistan armed forces, their efforts, sacrifices, and believes that armies can work together
• the situation is going to get worse as the parliaments of several countries, including Britain, Canada and Germany, have given a deadline of 2011 for their troops to get out of Afghanistan. ”
• … President Obama is not very optimistic on the success of American military operations. If he assesses that he is getting into a Vietnam-like quagmire, he will certainly back off
• “Leaving Afghanistan to Pakistan” may be the only viable option
• Fixing Afpak: The inevitable Union between Pakistan and Afghantan

One of the most important centers of knowledge and wisdom about Afghanistan is in Rawalpindi Pakistan. America and NATO can ignore the advice from the wisdom of the National Defece University (foremally known as the National Defence College) at its own peril. The most prestigious and prominent think tank in South Asia is run by experts from a wide variety of fields. Many of the members are veterans of past wars in Afghanistan and some have links to the security agencies which have the most reliable assets on the ground in all major cities of Afghanistan. A majority of the Pakhtuns live in Pakistan. Karachi is the largest Pakhtun city. The Pakhtuns make up a large proportion of the Armed forces of Pakistan. These Pakhtuns have family, tribal,kinship and fridhipt links with the Pakhtuns everywhere–including Afghanistan. A huge portion of the Afghan population was born in Pakistan. Some claim that a majority of the Afghans were born in Pakistan. At one time, about half the population was surviving as re
fugees in the land of the Indus. Concerted Police Action, without a failed war, can solve Afghan terror

Another folly committed by USA after occupying Afghanistan was to virtually condemn 13 million Afghan Pashtuns after demonizing them as Taliban linked with Al-Qaeda. They didn’t understand that the Pashtuns in Afghanistan led by Taliban had the moral right to rule the country because of their demographic superiority. Having neglected the Pashtuns the Americans started to consolidate their power base in Kabul and ignored southern Afghanistan which forms almost half of the country and is the heartland of Pashtuns.

The Americans did not take into consideration that it was natural for 22 million Pashtuns in Pakistan with majority living in FATA, NWFP, eastern Baluchistan and Karachi had sympathies towards Afghan Pashtuns because of ideological, cultural and linguistic commonalities. Those living in seven tribal agencies of FATA attached with Afghanistan have blood relations with the Pashtuns residing in southern and southeastern Afghanistan and both frequent each other. The Durand line was drawn by the British in 19th century arbitrarily suiting the Great game played by USSR-UK, which resulted in division of villages and tribes. Asian Tribune. US forces should exit from Afghanistan honorably Tue, 2009-03-17 02:34 By Asif Haroon Raja

 

It is no surprise that the National Defence University has the largest repository of knowledge about Afghans, the Taliban and many other insurgent groups. There is a widespread confusion in Delhi–over the past several decades, they have not been able to understand Afghanistan. The same goes for Moscow and Washington. Many don’t understand the despite blood feuds, and infighting, which is a part of the culture of the Pakhtuns, the Pakhtuns are essentially loyal to the family and the tribe. In the case of foreign occupation and external threats, all infighting stops and resources are diverted towards the common enemy. Once the enemy is defeated and leaves, the infighting and tribal rivalries resume.

ISLAMABAD – Now eight years on, the United States-led occupation of Afghanistan and Washington’s contentious relationship with Pakistan have both reached critical junctures.

Despite the President Barack Obama administration’s much-hyped strategic review of the war against the Taliban and the escalating militancy in Pakistan, the US still does not have a clear picture of the Afghan war theater.
In tandem with the initiative to talk to “moderate” Taliban, the US is expected to experiment with a new policy in Afghanistan under

which the focus will be to secure Kabul only. The capital’s surrounding provinces are under Taliban influence.
Top American experts believe the results of any increase in troop numbers will be difficult to assess before the summer of 2010. In the event of failure, the US will have few options left, because sending another 30,000 troops would present a political challenge. The US already has 65,000 troops in the country following a recent injection of 17,000.

The US wants to focus these troops on areas where they can make a real difference, that is, around Kabul, and not in southwest Helmand province. This will allow the allies to build sustainable Afghan institutions and eventually withdraw their military forces.

On Sunday night, Obama told the CBS program 60 Minutes that “what we’re looking for is a comprehensive strategy” for Afghanistan. “There’s got to be an exit strategy. There’s got to be a sense that this is not a perpetual drift.”
However, there is no timeframe for this, according to Mushahid Hussain Sayed, the chairman of the Pakistan Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations, who spoke to Asia Times Online in Islamabad.

“No basic decision has been made so far. There is an ambiguity on the objectives in Afghanistan on the part of Western troops and in what time frame they will end this war,” said Mushahid.

“If you go through their statements you will find that there is no mention of any plan for [al-Qaeda leader] Osama bin Laden’s capture, which was the prime reason for their presence in Afghanistan in the first place. Instead, the whole new plan is for the security of Kabul,” Mushahid said.Pakistan’s peace deals offer US a pointer By Syed Saleem Shahzad. Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online’s Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

The origin of the National Defence University (NDU) goes back to the year 1963, when the 1st Army War Course started at the Command and Staff College, Quetta. Subsequently , in 1971, a dedicated National Defence College was established at the old building of the National Assembly of Pakistan in Rawalpindi. In 1995, the National Defence College shifted to its present campus at the foothills of  picturesque Margalla Hills of  Islamabad.

By a decree of the Government of Pakistan, the National Defence College was upgraded as the NDU. An Ordinance to this effect was signed on 27 January-2007 by the President of Pakistan. The NDU will continue to operate from the same campus.

Mushahid has for many years been close to Pakistan’s military oligarchs and their thinking processes, having been taken onboard on major strategic decisions. He is also a visiting member at the National Defense University, Islamabad, Pakistan’s most influential think-tank and which is run by the armed forces. Mushahid believes the Americans now face the most crucial phase of the insurgency in Afghanistan, yet there is no consensus on any single strategy.

“Five different studies in America will be concluded before the next NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] summit [this month]. These include the strategy of [US Central Command chief] General David Petraeus, [Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman] Admiral Michael Mullen, [White House Afghan expert] Lieutenant General [Douglas E] Lute, [special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan] Richard Holbrooke and Bruce Riedel.” (Riedel is a former Central Intelligence Agency Middle East expert tasked with overhauling US policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan.)
“Probably the best of these will be Michael Mullen’s. He believes in cordial relations with Pakistan’s security forces and sympathizes with the Pakistan armed forces, their efforts, sacrifices, and believes that armies can work together,” said Mushahid.

“Mullen believes in direct relations between GHQ [Pakistan military headquarters in Rawalpindi] and the Pentagon. There is a lot of appreciation in the US for the role of the Frontier Corps in Bajaur [Agency in Pakistan],” Mushahid said, adding that while a segment of the American establishment trusts Pakistan and supports its role in the war theater, there are other complications which undermine the whole scheme.

“There is a serious lack of coordination, even among the countries whose forces are deployed in Afghanistan. Th
ere are 11 different intelligence outfits in Afghanistan, but they don’t share intelligence with each other and this is a big issue among them. At times, it happened that a country conducted an operation in a particular area and could not achieve its targets, and when they presented their reports in coordination committee meetings, another country’s force commander would complain that they were aware about the movement of insurgents at that particular time, but they had not been taken on board during the operation.”

Mushahid is convinced the situation is going to get worse as the parliaments of several countries, including Britain, Canada and Germany, have given a deadline of 2011 for their troops to get out of Afghanistan. “And even President Obama is not very optimistic on the success of American military operations. If he assesses that he is getting into a Vietnam-like quagmire, he will certainly back off,” said Mushahid. Pakistan’s peace deals offer US a pointer By Syed Saleem Shahzad. Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online’s Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

The US is in a pickle today. Islamabad thinks and says “we told you so”. US faces ignominious defeat in Afghanistan because it ignored Pakistani advice. Pakistan and China fully realized the real reasons behind the adventure in Afghanistan. “NATO is in Afghanistan to contain China”: NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Schaffer

Part so the US Congress comprehend the problems caused by extending the war into Pakistan.

WASHINGTON: A bipartisan group of 15 US congressmen warned the US administration on Wednesday that increased US military activities in Pakistan would have dangerous consequences for the entire region.

In a signed letter to President Barak Obama, the lawmakers also opposed US drone attacks in Pakistan, saying that it’s the continuation of the Bush administration’s policies towards the region.

‘We are also concerned that any perceived military success in Afghanistan might create pressure to increase military activity in Pakistan,’ the lawmakers warned.

Justifying the Banality of Occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan: The Thinktanks attempt to complete the circle of complicity between a sycophantic press, and a non-inquisitive servile public. The nation is forced to accept the only argument that it is being repeatedly inundated with. We have consistently and repeatedly said that the US hubris does not allow it to hear the sane and sagacious advise of Islamabad, before and after it attacked Pakistan. Pakistan had suggested using moderate elements of the Pakhtuns and not destroying the entire country. Sanity was ignored and all of Afghanistan was bombs. As a result all of  West Asia now up in arms. 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?

Obama’s “Surgers” vs. “Exiters”: Exit strategy now or scrambled hasty retreat later

Fixing Afpak: Inability to define exit strategy spells inevitable US military catastrophy in Kabul

The emerging “Leave Afghanistan to Pakistan” strategy goes mainstream. Extricating the US from the Lost war in the KhyberAfPak: Solutions beyond hubris, dictation, threats, sanctions, bombings, overt invasion, covert sabotageHindu 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

The 2640 km long porous nature of Pak-Afghan border can not be sealed to prevent cross border movement. Nearly100,000 cross the border from both sides daily. Brutal persecution of the Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan acted as a catalyst to further bond the Afghan-Pak Pashtuns together. Both view USA as common enemy and secular Pakistan and Afghan armies as mercenaries hired by USA to kill them. The liberal and westernized Pashtuns in both the neighboring countries residing in urban areas are in small minority. They interpret jihad in their own way and decry resistance to the foreign occupation but have little say and stand marginalised. Asian Tribune. US forces should exit from Afghanistan honorably Tue, 2009-03-17 02:34 By Asif Haroon Raja

Pakistan’s choices: From the outset in October 2001, when Pakistan joined the US’s “war on terror” and abandoned the Taliban, Islamabad has had serious reservations about the US’s plans.

Former president General Pervez Musharraf tried to convince then-president George W Bush to reconcile with the moderate Taliban after September 11, 2001. But the US invasion of Afghanistan went ahead, and the US ignored Musharraf’s advice to secure eight power centers in Afghanistan, not just Kabul, to effectively control the country.
Pakistan’s strategic quarters were sure all along that the US’s policies would lead to the quagmire that exists today, but under immense American pressure and the dire need for economic assistance, Pakistan stood by the US as its ally.
At the same time, though, it developed its own policies. The aim was to deceive the Americans, and also to save their own skin in a region in which Pakistan has to be ready to counter Iranian and Indian moves once the Americans leave.
From 2007 to 2009, Pakistan, under US pressure, was forced to mount military operations in its tribal areas in an all-out war against militants. This was unpopular in many parts of the country and the air force caused severe civilian casualties. Thousands of soldiers and militants were killed, and tens of thousands of residents were displaced.
The hostilities reached such a level that the army went so far as to declare militants like Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud and the Swat Valley leader Mullah Fazlullah Indian agents. Stories were planted by Pakistani intelligence outfits that Indian Hindus were operating inside the Swat Valley.

One advantage that Pakistan did gain at this time was American satisfaction. For the first time, Washington was impressed and appreciative of Pakistan’s sacrifices in the “war on terror” in Bajaur. They believed this had secured the corridor which goes up to Kapisa province in Afghanistan that had helped the Taliban reinforce
its sanctuaries on the northeastern gates of Kabul.

Then came the the terror attack on the Indian city of Mumbai last November, which was carried out by gunmen linked to Pakistan, and the threat of an Indian reprisal attack on Pakistan was high.

This caused a lull in the fighting between the army and the militants and both Baitullah and Fazlullah announced that in the event of an Indian attack they would fight with the Pakistani army. Overnight, these two were officially hailed as “Pakistan’s precious assets” and loyal to their country. Pakistan’s peace deals offer US a pointer By Syed Saleem Shahzad. Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online’s Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

The US has the means and the technology to closely monitor the happenings on the Durand Line. It has the means to capture criminals. It has also has the means to crate more terrorists by following the failed policies of other countries. The Cambodiazation of the Afghan war has failed miserably. Gazafication of FATA will only exacerbate a bad situation and make it worse, not only for Pakistan but also for the USA.

• The headlines about Pakistan in the media: Understanding the Rupert Murdock-Neocon-Hinduvata doomsayer machine which is running scared of defeat and retreat

The resilience of Pakistan and the nation’s continuing collective refusal to do what the west would like it to do

• Selective Amnesia of Americans: Pakistan is the most mistreated friend in the world

Revising Finance 101 for the Chinese Century: Political impact of Center of Gravity shift from New York to Beijing
China sets conditions for bailing out US and buying US T-Bills
US goes begging to Beijing: India feels the pain
The end of an era: The shrinking superpower-The emerging quad led by China
Hainan Naval incident: Beijing to USA-Back off–Can’t you read the sign “Sea of China is Chinese territory”?
Why the US gave up India as a strategic partner
India’s worst nightmares come true: Long term strategic malaise
Kabul: The Final assault begins. How long can NATO hang on? Will NATO buy the Obama Doctrine? What’s in between the lines? Does Obama have the courage to implement the real solutions to Obama’s Vietnam (AfPak)
Betrayels and Blackmail: Cloaking failure as success, Hiding the defeat, declaring Victory, Withdrawing from Afghanistan within 12 months

Subsequently, Islamabad struck a public peace deal with Fazlullah and a secret deal with Mehsud, after which he stopped all hostilities against Pakistan and announced he would join hands in a united front of mujahideen to fight against the foreign forces in Afghanistan. Similarly, the joint Pakistan army and North Atlantic Treaty Organization operation – Lion Heart – in Bajaur Agency and Mohmand Agency petered out.

In the Swat area the police force and the local administration have vanished and Pakistan was forced to enter into an arrangement with militants under which Islamic courts replaced the state’s judicial system.
Even in this environment, though, the US believes it can trust Pakistan and that its Predator drones, along with the Pakistan military, will be able to guard the southern border with Afghanistan.

But the Taliban have regrouped and control large areas, including around the capital and a second tier behind that, as well as all the important provinces in the south.

Since 2001, Pakistan has had to suffer on the battlefield before striking peace deals. The US, too, has had a tough fight and striking Pakistan-like deals with the Taliban, before an exit strategy, is perhaps the only way forward.
Pakistan’s peace deals offer US a pointer By Syed Saleem Shahzad. Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online’s Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

The imperial hubris and arrogance has created and will continue to create problems for American in West Asia and South Asia. Comprehending the consequences of the “Do More” chorus. Senator Biden has been persistently professing a “non transactional” relationship with Pakistan. However mutual respect is immediately destroyed when military aid is “performance based”. Imagine sending aid to Israel on the basis of “performance’ or telling the Turks or the Egyptians that the check will be based upon their performance! Pakistan US Relations should be normal not transactional

“If you keep saying, ‘Let’s do it together — but if you won’t, then we’ll do it alone,’ then what you’re doing is undermining the spirit of working together to begin with” Pakistani Ambassador. Pakistan: Deflecting the US “Do more mantra”

Concerted Police Action, without a failed war, can solve Afghan terror
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
The folly of the UKs “Charge of the Light Brigade” in Afghanistan AGAIN reminds us of Britian’s previous defeat in Afghainstan. 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 The emerging “Leave Pakistan to Afghanistan” strategy goes mainstream–Extricating the US from the Lost in the Khyber