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

For the past several months Rupee News has maintained that the current American war in Afghanistan is neither sustainable nor maintainable. After wasting Three Trillion Dollars on the two wars, the US does not have anything to show for it. Liberated Afghanistan has more violence, more rapes, more drugs, and more deaths–all under the guise of “democracy”.

We have written several dozen articles on the fact that President Obama will be withdrawing from Afghanistan by 2011. Our rationale for the prediction was based on election politics of 2012 and the fact that the British and the Canadians will be leaving the Hindu Kush in 2011. Afghanistan: The writing is on the wall. Can Obama read it? Time is not on the side of the USA. The war in Afghanistan is unsustainable and the Taliban can carry on forever, harassing the supply chain, continuing the hit and run operations against the US forces, keeping the Europeans at bay, and keeping the pressure on Kabul with hard hitting and morale destroying attacks every few weeks.

America is in the throes of a depression the likes the world has never seen. It wants to get out of Afghanistan. To make matters worse, there is serious consideration in Washington to let Pakistan run Afghanistan like it did in the 90s. The Pakistan army very cognizant of this want to prove that it can deal with the Taliban and make it work. Hence the war in Swat.

Obama’s earlier bluster was simply election politics.

Now its official. While the press corps was busy covering Iran,  China, the first Laitan Judge and Honduras, president Obama thought it fit to slip in his Afghan plans without much fanfare. 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Raising expectations for scaling back military operations in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama said Tuesday he hopes U.S. involvement can “transition to a different phase” after this summer’s Afghan elections.

The president said he is looking for an exit strategy where the Afghan security forces, courts and government take more responsibility for the country’s security. That would enable U.S. and other international military forces to play a smaller role.

Obamamade his remarks after an Oval Office meeting with Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende. Talks between the two leaders included discussion of the Netherlands’ help with the U.S.-led effort to defeat Taliban and al-Qaida forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Dutch combat troops have been a mainstay among the allied forces fighting in the volatile southern reaches of Afghanistan.

After taking office in January, Obama reviewed U.S. progress in Afghanistan and announced in March a new approach that included sending an additional 17,000 combat troops, including Marines who have just kicked off an offensive in Taliban strongholds in the south of the country.

The president has faced some congressional misgivings over his Afghanistan policy, with some Democrats pushing for early results from the new administration strategy.

In remarks in Moscow last week, Obama said it was too early to judge the success of his new approach in Afghanistan because “we have just begun” to implement it. Obama also installed a new U.S. ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, in May and a new U.S. military commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, in June.

On Tuesday, however, the president emphasized an exit strategy.

“All of us want to see an effective exit strategy where increasingly the Afghan army, Afghan police, Afghan courts, Afghan government are taking more responsibility for their own security,” he said.

If the Afghan presidential election scheduled for Aug. 20 comes off successfully, and if the U.S. and its coalition partners continue training Afghan security forces and take a more effective approach to economic development, “then my hope is that we will be able to begin transitioning into a different phase in Afghanistan,” Obama said.

Washington is again buzzing with the possibilities. The Pentagon has already completed a study on how to deal with Kabul. The State Department did its own study. The NEI gave the President another review. Of course the Right wing and Left Wing Think tanks are competing for space with their own agendas and policy preferences. Each new report proposes its own nuances based on the funding it receives and the demeanor and philosophy of its writers. There is a cacophony of voices from the Potomac on how to reduce the blood flowing into the Kabul River. There are the “Surgers” who are in the minority but went along with Obama’s mini-surge, and then there are the “Exiters” who recognize the reality of the Afghan situation and want to do what is good for America.

Mr. Bruce Reidel, one of President Obama’s main advisors is a “Surger’who wants to teach the Taliban a lesson and show that that they will stay in Afghanistan for a long time. Mr. Reidel in a short span of nine months has proven himslef to be a total crackpot and a bigoted idito. He has no credibility. Dr. Henry Kissnger is a “Surger” who wants to surround China through bases in Afghanistan and Central Asia. He too has lost credibility because he has repeatedly stated that the US will stay in Iraq and Afghanistan permanently

Pakistan and Afghanistan are also giving feedback on new Afghan policy which was really “more of the same“. Pakistan’’s ten economists are proposing a Marshall Plan for the region. One of the economists has suggested $60 Billion for Pakistan. The review on Afghanistan is a decision on whether Afghanistan becomes Obama’s Vietnam or Reagan’s East Germany. Based on the volume of paper from Washington, it seems the “Exiters” seem to be winning. Even Newsweek magazine, a very sober and somewhat balanced magazine seems to have joined the “Exiters“.

Mr. Ralph Peters once a “Surger” is now an “Exiter“. Mr. Peter’s four possibilities can be listed as choice between an exit strategy or a hasty retreat after the defeat. We see it as follows:

1) Plan an exist strategy and leave with dignity now or

2) Wait for the Taliban to run over Karzai’s forbidden city

The ranks of the “Exiters” is surging because of several interlinked factors—the economy and China. Both are inter-related and the dependencies weigh heavy on the White House. Why the US gave up India as a Strategic partner? Without China’s help, the USA cannot sustain the bailouts or hope for a recovery. China is willing to give the US a reprieve, but may have a couple of strings attached. China will exact a price. It seems that Beijing at this point will require a pullout from Afghanistan and the resolution of Kashmir. We have always considered Kashmir as the silent “K” in Holbrooke’s mission. India’s worst nightmares come true: Long term strategic malaise in a changing world . The People’s Daily leaves no doubt that the resolution of Kashmir is not simply a “nice to have” on the “wish list” of Mr. Holbrooke–it a mandated requirement-China’s pound of flesh for agreeing to buy American T-Bonds. India feels the pain: The US begs Beijing for money

It is clear that without Pakistan’s cooperation, the US cannot win the war on terror. Therefore, to safeguard its own interests in the fight against terrorism in South Asia, the US must ensure a stable domestic and international environment for Pakistan and ease the tension between Pakistan and India. This makes it easy to understand why Obama appointed Richard Holbrooke as special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan issues, and why India is included in Holbrooke’s first foreign visit. In fact, the “Afghan problem”, the “Pakistani problem” and the “Indian-Pakistani problem” are all related. China’s Official Newspaper: The People’s Daily

The other factor weighing in favor of the “Exiters” is the economy. Neither the US, nor the Europeans are in any position to waste another three Trillion Dollars on unsustainable and unwinnable wars.  And then there is the minor matter of finding a supply chain route to Kabul. the one through Karachi gets choked once too often. The one through Iran is a minefield of Iranian demands and Israeli suspicions. The route through Russia in untenable and too arduous with too many strings. The price of transferring “non-military” hardware through Russia is to give up Ukraine and Georgia back to Russia is too big a price to pay. Moscow’s pound of flesh for allowing base & supplies to Afghanistan

European countries, including the Netherlands, have long argued that Afghanistan is primarily a challenge of economic, political and diplomatic dimensions, rather than mainly a military problem. Obama praised the Dutch for their assistance in the region and noted that he had embraced the Dutch strategy of combining defense, diplomacy and development to move Afghanistan to greater autonomy.

The president’s remarks came in the second week of a push by an estimated 4,000 Marines who are carrying out one of the biggest U.S. military operations in Afghanistan since the Taliban was removed from power in 2001.

The Marines are operating in Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold and the world’s largest opium poppy producing area. So far, 107 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan this year; there were 151 U.S. deaths in the country in all of 2008. AP National Security Writer Robert Burns contributed to this report. Obama hopes for new phase after Afghan elections By JIM KUHNHENN

Betrayals & Blackmail in Bakiyev: Cloaking failure as success, hiding the defeat, declaring victory & withdrawing from Afghanistan within 12 months . Mr. Peters calls it a strategy. It is an plan to exit Afghanistan. Mr. Peter’s has read the writing on the wall.

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).

Ranked from best to worst, here are our four basic options going forward:

• Best.Instead of increasing the U.S. military “footprint,” reduce our forces and those of NATO by two-thirds, maintaining a “mother ship” at BagramAir Base and a few satellite bases from which special operations troops, aircraft and drones, and lean conventional forces would strike terrorists and support Afghan factions with whom we share common enemies. All resupply for our military could be done by air, if necessary.
• Stop pretending Afghanistan’s a real state. Freeze development efforts. Ignore the opium. Kill the fanatics.
• Good. Leave entirely. Strike terrorist targets from over the horizon and launch punitive raids when necessary. Instead of facing another Vietnam ourselves, let Afghanistan become a Vietnam for Iran and Pakistan. Rebuild our military at home, renewing our strategic capabilities.
• Poor. Continue to muddle through as is, accepting that achieving any meaningful change in Afghanistan is a generational commitment. Surge troops for specific missions, but not permanently.
• Worst. Augment our forces endlessly and increase aid in the absence of a strategy. Lie to ourselves that good things might just happen. Let U.S. troops and Afghans continue to die for empty rhetoric, while Pakistan decays into a vast terrorist refuge. Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer, a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors and the author of Looking For Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World. Posted at 12:16 AM/ET, February 24, 2009 in Foreign Affairs – Middle East – Forum,Peters | The mendacity of hope The U.S. essentially has four options — from best to worst — going forward in Afghanistan. By Ralph Peters 

If President Reagan will be remembered for the breakup of the USSR, and the reunification of Germany, President Bush will be remembered for losing wars in Iraq-Afghanistan and losing the Central Asian republics to Russia. Mr. Ralph Peters is wrong when he says that “Afghanistan wasn’t a war of choice“. President Bush had a choice of stationing 5000 marines in Tarbela and smoking out the evil guys. He chose to carpet bomb all of Afghanistan with Daisy Cutters and not work to moderate the rulers of Kabul. He had an opportunity to use a moderate Afghanistan to placate and win over the Central Asian Republics. By listening to the likes of Mr. Peters, Bush lost the battle and America lost the war, and the world lost Central Asia to Moscow. The implications of the IMU activity in Pakistan

Imran Khan, Pakistan’s mercurial politician said it best “the Americans will leave, and we will have to deal with the mess that they created” in Afghanistan. This is the same sort of mess that the Russians left behind. At the time Afghanistan deteriorated into a decade long civil war. US, Pakistani, Saudi and UEA policy makers came up with the Taliban to bring peace to the war ridden region. It worked. Unfortunately the insane elements within the Taliban and the evil people within Al-Qaeda tangled with the USA and brought US intervention. If 9/11 had not happened, the Taliban could have been convinced and coerced into moderation. At the time they were in control of the Pakistanis and could have been molded in a different direction.

However President Bush’s Gung Ho Cowboy testosterone “Charge of the Light Brigade” wanted to destroy them with “shock and awe“, humiliate them with Abu Ghraib, and decapitate them with Gitmo. Looking back–it was a failed policy based on fear and reprisals against the wrong people. Imran Khan appearing on GPS with Fareed Zakaria reminded the American people that “The Taliban was not the enemy–the enemy was Al-Qaeda“. American Cut and Paste Armchair analysts, and British  Lazy-Boy Thinktankers were unable or unwilling to differentiate between the various players. the inability to distinguish the differences among the competing forces was a fatal mistake. Perhaps those with a vested interest were happy to see armed conflict.

In a blind orgy of insane hatred the Indian population supported eight years of Bush–just because he bombed four Muslim countries, and threatened a couple of other three of them long time Indian allies. All notion of independence and non-alignment were thrown into the Indian ocean–all under the lure of the ephemeral goal of “Superpower”.

The new administration does not see “India” as a counterweight to China–rather Hillary Clinton see China as a strategic partner with the US. This new policy and thinking has huge implications for South Asia.