The rude Admiral Michael Mullen is still wrong on Afghanistan

Categorized | Afghan, Current Affairs, Pak CA, US CA

The rude Admiral Michael Mullen is still wrong on Afghanistan

Posted on 31 March 2009. Tags: Afghanistan war, ISI, Pakistan, USA

If Admiral Mullen, Mr. Gates and General Patraeus had been right, NATO would not be in the pickle that it is in.

Obviously Admiral Mullen is a not a diplomat. He should therefore continue to perform his military services and not put his foot in his mouth on national television. His comments on the networks were beyond the pale and harmed US Pakistani relations. His comments in front of the Senators also did not help the relationship. Admiral Mullen knows that in the end it has to work with the Pakistani intelligence services. By publicly picking a fight with the ISI, he has done no one any favors. he has actually helped the enemies of the Pakistan-US relations. The level of cooperation may not be optimal.

Bluster before Exit: Obama’s last hurrah—30,000 troops “for 18 months” then withdrawal by 2011

International Council of Security and Development (ISOC): Taliban control “virtually all” of Afghanistan

Michael Moore to President Obama

Admiral Mullen then turned President Obama’s policy on its head by asking for 40,000 more troops. Doesn’t this smell like a military solution. Perhaps it is a desperate move to reverse the status quo.

Even with 80,000 troops, the result with the same!

Even before the President Barack Obama had completed his speech announcing his Af-Pak policy, his acolytes had fanned out on the news talks shows to begin their whining about the Pakistani ISI and the Pakistan Army. They did not mention the facts. They forgot that about 5000 members of the Pakistan armed forces have died in the American War in Afghanistan. They deliberately did not mention the fact that the ISI and Pakistani intelligence forces had arrested more than 800 Al-Qaeda members. Obama’s new strategy as confused as Bush’s was inept

Brzezinski: Don’t start new wars. Use diplomacy in Pakistan

Pakistan cheese for Western whine: Defeat in Afghanistan. Pakistan can cooperate with the US in some areas, but it cannot be expected that the Pakistanis toe the US line on every aspect. The US wants the Pakistani armed forces moved away from Bharat. The US wants the ISI to only concentrate of doing America’s bidding. Pakistan cannot leave its Eastern borders naked. India already occupies Kashmir, Siachin, Sir Creek. If The Pakistani army is to have a different demeanor, the US should eliminate the occupation of Pakistani territory. If the US wants the Pakistan army to concentrate on the Eastern borders, then the US should stop Bharat from stopping Pakistani waters in Kashmir.

Justifying the Banality of a brutal 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 . While Bruce Reidel and others understand the Pakistani point of view, but they still went public with their criticism of the Pakistani agencies. In diplomatic circles this is considered highly unusual. This public grand standing will bring the cooperation between the ISI and the CIA down a few notches. Convincing the US tin ear of the Pakistani point of view

You have to give it to the American propaganda machine. U.S. officials and America’s long list of self-styled ‘Pakistan experts’ are advising Islamabad to stop meddling in Afghanistan. But it is kosher for the U.S. military to travel half the world to occupy Afghanistan and that’s not meddling. Well guess what, Pakistan has more pressing interests as a next door neighbor of Afghanistan and it will protect its interests. Who says CIA’s interests in Afghanistan are more sacred than ISI’s?

Regardless of what many of his Pakistani cheerleaders say, President Obama’s new ‘Af-Pak’ policy is a lot of mumbojumbo that conceals two basic threads: expanding the war inside Pakistan and using the pretext of a ‘regional approach’ to bring India into Afghanistan as Washington and London’s new slave-soldier, especially when NATO members won’t deliver. Surely Washington is not thinking about empowering the Chinese or the Iranians in Afghanistan as part of its newfound regionalism. Ahmed Quraishi

American and internation papers are reporting total defeat in Afghanistan. ”I told you so’s” are so sweet. Pakistan was not consulted when an anti-Pakistan cabal of non-Pakhtun minorities, and coterie of corrupt incompetent warlords was imposed on Kabul. Pakistan was not listened to when she gave free advice to make the government more inclusive. Pakistan was not consulted when Mr. Karzai embraced India and opened up 4 Consulates and 13 information centers in Afghanistan.

Now the chickens have come home to roost. The Taliban for the first time in months attacked Kabul with the help of Karzai’s police and “army”. Western capitals are jittery and clearly a rattled Karzai doesn’t know hat to do.

Rand report: End GWOT. Defeat Al-Qaeda with police & Dollars

The current rhetoric is a direct result of the frustration of the US and NATO forces.

The News reports filtering in give us mixed messages–much of it obfuscated in typical diplomatic jargon–”Pakistan and Afghanistan are linked” “there is no military solution” and “we must help to stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan“. So far so good, but then comes the whammy–”save heavens in Pakistan have to be eliminated“, “we must ensure that the Taliban never come back to power“, and “we must ensure that Afghanistan stays clear of Al-Qaeda”. So what does one make of this. The only answer is that confusion rules.

Admiral Michael Mullen
The top U.S. military officer says there are indications Pakistan’s intelligence service is still helping al-Qaidaand Taliban militants in the country’s tribalareas, along the Afghan border, and he says that must change. And another senior U.S. officialindicated Friday that substantial new U.S. aid to Pakistan is contingent on such a change.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, told CNN the strategic approach of Pakistan’s intelligence services must change, and its members must stop supporting militants. Numerous experts and media reports have accused the service of supporting the militants, but Pakistani leaders have said they now recognize the threat those groups pose to Pakistan itself.

In many trips to Pakistan during the past year, Admiral Mullen has had a key role in trying to convince the country’s leaders that the threat they face from extremists in their north and west, along the Afghan border, is at least as significant as the threat they see from India to the south and east.

He said on CNN at least some members of the intelligence service are not convinced. But the admiral told reporters in his office earlier Friday that Pakistani leaders do recognize the threat, although they do not necessarily see it the same way U.S. officials do. “My overall view on that is yes, they do. We sometimes differ on timelines and on priorities. But yes, absolutely,” he said. Pentagon: Pakistani Intelligence Still Helps al-Qaida, US Aid Contingent on Change By Al Pessin, Washington, 27 March 2009

The Pakistani perspective: Peace deals only way to precipitate face saving for US & Obama’s smooth Exit strategy from Afghanistan

Admiral Mullen did mention the his opinion that the ISI shelters militants in FATA, but forgot to mention the fact that 80% of Afghanistan is in the hands of the insurgents. It is amazing that while Admiral Mullen calls the hideouts in FATA “hideouts”, he is unable to explain the safe havens in Afghanistan itself.

The story of Afghanistan and colonialism begins a long time ago. British tried to take up White Man’s burden in Afghanistan. It suffered badly in Kabul and could not hold it. NATO Lessons: 1880 UK defeat at Maiwand-Afghanistan. Today ISAF is making the same mistakes as the British did more than a century ago. Is NATO committing suicide in Afghanistan? There is a powerplay going on. …the CIA assassination. Juggling all the permutations and the permutations, the US has considered every possibility. However the most obvious one escapes the $80 Billion think tank industry in the USA. Saving the Pashtuns of Afghania from Afghanistan. Eradicating the Pashtun plight and ending occupation.

It is absolutely mind boggling to hear the Potomac pundits berate the Pakistani intelligence agencies and the Pakistani Army because they will not do America’s bidding in a foolish war that will go on forever. $1.5 Billion per year doesn’t quite cut it. Pakistan has lost more than $38 Billion in recent years and lost its surefooted step because of this silly war. The American DOD calculated the loss as $20 Billion per year. That makes it $140 Billion but about three times that number in opportunity cost since 2001. If we take the losses from the First Afghan War, the numbers really add up. If President Obama had any sense of fairness, he would not talk about blank checks. Pakistan cannot abandon its concerns about India and Afghanistan. General Mullen, General Patraeus should get over it.

And the admiral says while problems persist in the Pakistani intelligence service, there have been improvements in the performance of the Frontier Corps, which is responsible for border security, and more activity in the border area by the Pakistani Army. “They’ve moved dramatically over the last seven, eight months with their Frontier Corps, who’s had a big impact, and they’ve done pretty well. I would hope and want that kind of both leadership and focus to continue,” he said.

Another senior U.S. official says such movement is necessary if Pakistan wants to get $1.5 billion of new U.S. aid each year for the next five years — a key element of the new strategy President Obama announced on Friday. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy, was one of he top officials on the Obama strategy review team. The final document makes Pakistan a key element in a regional approach to reaching the president’s main goal, the defeat of militant groups based in its northwestern region. “Part of doing that is, first of all, providing assistance at a level that is meaningful, but also ensuring that they understand that our ability to provide that assistance depends on seeing changes in past behaviors,” he said.

While the administration of former-President George W. Bush also worked with Pakistan to fight militants who use its tribal areas as safe havens, Obama Administration officials say the enhanced regional approach is a key new aspect of their strategy.

Admiral Mullen says the effort to increase Pakistan’s involvement in the fight against the terrorists is made more difficult by past problems in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. “There’s a trust deficit between the two countries, certainly between the two militaries that’s been there. We sanctioned them for 12 years. We’re starting to come out of it, but it’s going to take some time,” he said.

Admiral Mullen says it is significant that President Obama is asking the congress for five years of aid to Pakistan because that sends a message that the United States plans to support the country for years to come, as long as its leaders and security services are willing to help fight the terrorists.Pentagon: Pakistani Intelligence Still Helps al-Qaida, US Aid Contingent on Change By Al Pessin, Washington, 27 March 2009

Imran Khan, the mercurial Pakistani politician said it best “The Americans will leave and we will have to clean the mess, just like they left the mess for us to clean when the USSR left Afghanistan“. Imran Khan in his sane advice to the Pakistani government asked it to not take the Obama Aid, and stop Pakistan’s cooperation with the USA in the “Global War on Terror” or its new name “COIN” (Counter insurgency operations) or whatever the Obama Administration calls it this week. The headlines about Pakistan in the media: Understanding the Rupert Murdock-Neocon-Hinduvata doomsayer machine which is running scared of defeat and retreat

“To talk about this policy and how we can have success, instead of having a buildup of 51,000 to [potentially] 100,000 and then we have got the same problem that other great nations have had in Afghanistan. They’re in a bad situation that they cannot get out of,” Representative Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican and one of the few Republican critics of former President George Bush’s Iraq war policies, describes what he and others in the group feel needs to be discussed. VOA

Ambassadar M.K. Bhadrakumar echoes the almost near international consensus that the new Obama policy has been the victim of “too many cooks” and is as clear as mud.

From available indications, the key American objective is two-fold: optimally getting Pakistani help in the fight against terrorism and, secondly, reducing American expectations for military victory.

However, contradictions are surfacing already. To be sure, the role of Pakistan becomes critical in the period ahead and the political uncertainty in Islamabad complicates matters. The robust American attempts in the recent days at persuading the obdurate protagonists in Pakistani politics to conciliate must be seen in this perspective. Asia Times. Ambassador M.K. Bhadrakumar

The stubborn Pakistanis. The pugnacious columnist and impetuous journalist has eloquently described the Pakistani position as a response to President Barack Obama’s speech. Most Pakistanis yawned at the euphoria from the office of the servile President Asif Zardari. Perhaps he was calculating what 10% of $7.5 Billion would be. Geo and other CNN/VOA subsidiaries began parading the “Blame Pakistan first” crowd, the Sehgals, Alams and the Askari type of analysts who have nothing good to say about Pakistan anyway. What surprises most Pakistanis is the fact that a Pakistani channel held hostage to his mentality and these columnists. The resilience of Pakistan and the nation’s continuing collective refusal to do what the west would like it to do

Washington and its list of ‘Af-Pak’ experts should stop treating our region as a laboratory for their strategic experiments. Instead of toying withsilly ideas like backing ’secular Pashtuns’ against the Taliban, the Americans can diffuse the entire tension in our region by sharing power with the Pashtuns in Kabul instead of the motley crew of Karzai, the drug lords and the assortment of former communist officials who sit in key offices today.

This American-British mess – the ‘Am-Brit’ – is the reason why Pakistan’s entire western regions are disturbed today and there are those busy ‘convincing’ us that the ‘Am-Brit’ scheme of things is the best option for us. The question is: Whose side our government is on? The ‘Am-Brit’ mess Tuesday, March 31, 2009 Ahmed Quraishi. The writer works for Geo TV. Email: aq@ahmedquraishi.com

Afghanistan defeat: British Failures of “the White Man’s burden”

Concerted Police Action, without a failed war, can solve Afghan terror

US AfPak policy review results mimic Chinese demads given to Hillary