Total collapse in Afghanistan:-Chasing the ghosts of the “Ho Chi Minh” trail in Quetta
Afpak backstage: Bombing the ephemeral “Hindu Kush Ho Chi Minh trail” nurtures the Khemer Rouge of the Khyber– The Taliban
The White House has said that it will take no decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan until it determines the new government is a “true partner”.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN TV it would be “reckless” to take such a decision without a thorough analysis of the new government. Washington is debating a request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan. BBC
The reality of Afghanistan: Breaking the media paradigm
Fixing Afpak: Inability to define exit strategy spells inevitable US military catastrophy in Kabul
Obama’s “Surgers” vs. “Exiters”: Exit strategy now or scrambled hasty retreat later
While Senator Kerry is working to assuage the fraying tempers in the National Assembly, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is trying to build a long term relationship with Pakistan, Mr. Rahm Emanuel puts his foot in his mouth and blames Pakistan. Instead of focusing on the failure of ISAF, NATO and US forces in Afghanistan, Mr. Emanuel is going on a wild goose chase on the “Ho Chi Minh” trail in Pakistan. The analogy with Vietnam is apt. In Vietnam, the US began bombing the Ho Chi Minh along the border with Vietnam. By the end of war in Vietnam, the entire country of Cambodia had been bombed–with no discernable advantage for America. The Vietnamese won the war and the US retreated in ignominious defeat.
The US believed that the Vietcong was getting its support from the Cambodians. The bombing of the Bombing Ho Chi Minh Trail in Cambodia led to huge blowback and fueled the Vietcong insurgency and ultimately led to the Fall of Siagon
“The president is asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side and the strategic side,” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Among the things the Obama administration wants to know from Afghan leaders: “Do you have a credible Afghan partner for this process that can provide the security and the type of services that the Afghan people need?”
The United States faces “a much more complex decision” than just determining the appropriate level of troops, Emanuel told CNN chief national correspondent John King in a rare interview.
“It’s clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that’s adrift, that we’re beginning at scratch, just at the starting point … and that there’s not a security force, an army, and the types of services that are important for the Afghans to become a true partner,” Emanuel said. Echoing comments from Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, Emanuel said it would be “reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if, in fact, you haven’t done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there’s an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create.”CNN
Does the “Big Brother” of 1984 believe what he is saying? How long can Goebbels keep on repeating the big lie? How long will this farce go on?
No credible reporter in the US has the guts to ask a simple question “What about the safe havens inside Afghanistan–right under the noses of ISAF, NATO, US and British forces?” No one has given a credible answer to the fact that 80% of Afghanistan is under Taliban control–why would the insurgents need safe havens in another country. Semantics are important to many. Pakistan points out the fact that there may be “hideouts” in FATA but they are not “sanctuaries”. These type of excuses were used during the Vietnam era to bomb Cambodia and Laos. It was a total catastrophe and a failure.
— this war has become something of a sideshow in South Asia… In his initial statements, Obama has seemed more sophisticated about Afghanistan than Bush. In an interview with me in late October, Obama said Afghanistan should be seen as part of a regional problem … The Aimless War: Why Are We in Afghanistan? By JOE KLEIN Thursday, Dec. 11, 2008
Soviet pull out, on February 15: “I believe that the war was a huge and in many respects irreparable political mistake of the leadership of the Soviet Union at the time.” Nowadays, Gromov stresses “the Moscow region regularly sends humanitarian aid to Afghanistan”. If Obamaplaced a call to Gromov he would hear a few sobering words: persist in your “strategy” and you and NATO will be defeated at the “graveyard of empires“.
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
Hindu Kush cul de sac: Why are we in Afghanistan?
Obama’s Exit strategy: Negotiating with the “Taliban” (Pakhtuns)
Of course the Indian press is twisting the words of Mr. Emanuel and using them for their own preverse objectives. 
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? Blaming Pakistan is perilous to NATO
There is much talk of “Safe Havens” in Pakistan and how the USA must eliminate them in Quetta and other places. Toto we are not in Kansas anymore, but Alice we may be in La La land. Does the US Ambassador really believe that the world is as naive as that–blaming the “Ho Chi Minh” trail for the defeat in “Obama’s Vietnam“. The Cambodiazation of the Afghan war does not prevent the inevitable fall of Kabul. The statements emanating out of the Wsahington are as silly as the proof presented by General Colin Powell to the UN–recording of Arabs chatting about WMDs.
A top Obama aide on Sunday said the al-Qaeda is based in Pakistan and that the U.S. would “not rush” in finalising the new strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
White House Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, President' Obama's Israeli Chief of Staff who served in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)
“This is where al-Qaeda is based… not just in Afghanistan, it’s clear that they’re based in Pakistan,” Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, told the CNN in an interview.
“What is the relationship between the Taliban? Are there different grades of a Taliban? That is what the analysis is going on in the situation room, and I think the comfort for the American people is the President will not be rushed to making a decision without asking firm questions and challenging the assumptions behind those questions,” Mr. Emanuel said. The Hindu. Al-Qaeda is based in Pak, says Obama’s Chief of Staff, PTI
The Vietnam syndrome is being repeated in Afghanistan. According to most analysts, the American defeat is ”ireversable”. The Afghan hearts and minds have been lost and won, and the Afghans, specially the Pakhtuns have made up their mind on who the enemy is.
According to an ISoC report the US faces total collapse in Afghanistan. This is a map of Talibanistan: 2009 Afghan map showing Taliban control
So why does a Chief of Staff speak of Foreign policy matter. That is a question for the Secretary of State, the Vice President and the Secretary’s special envoys. Mr. Emanuel is simply coordinating the meetings between the White House and the different players. He however is going one step further and begins describing US policy. His opinions may conflict with those of Mr. Biden and Ms. Clinton. The personal opinions of Mr. Emanuel may not be of any consequence on the theatre of war. Here he is describing the various meetings on Afghanistan and Pakistan that he may have attended.
Five such meetings — each spreading over three hours — have been held so far and more are scheduled for the next two weeks, he said.
Mr. Emanuel said the Administration would not rush through its decision on Afghanistan and Pakistan and would take its own time to take a call on it.
He said: “The first part of this discussion, John, has been about the fact that, where are we, what is the context, what are the assumptions built into this? One of the things that has been analyzed in all this is that, you know, and people would like to reduce this down and would like the luxury that, you know, send more troops, as if that’s all that it takes.”
The decision, Mr. Emanuel said is much more complex rather than on just one issue — sending more troops to Afghanistan.
“This is a much more complex decision. Even the general’s own report and General Petraeus’ own analysis says the question, the real partner here is not how much troops you have, but whether in fact there’s an Afghan partner.
“And when you go through all the analysis, it’s clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that’s adrift.
“That we’re beginning at scratch, and just from the starting point, after eight years. And there’s not a security force, an army, the type of services that are important for the Afghans to become a true partner,” he said. The Hindu. Al-Qaeda is based in Pak, says Obama’s Chief of Staff, PTI
NATO war: UK 1880 defeats in Afghanistan
President Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff just happens to be Jewish. He was the first pick of the new president and Rahm Emanuel was instrumental in pulling together a very successful team for the new president. So how important is Mr. Emanuel’s Jewishness. Take the first reaction on his appointment. His father in Israel said something to the effect “He is not an Arab–he won’t be the janitor in the White House”. The bigotry of a man in the Israeli desert can be written off as the ravings of an old man surrounded by Arab enemies all around. So what about Mr. Emanuel himself–obviously he is a patriotic America who is more loyal to the US and would give his life for America. Well–kinda sorta—Mr. Emanuel actually served in the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) and completed his military service in Israel–not the US. So does it matter? Not really. But it does speak reams about the loyalty of the White House Chief of Staff and where is priorities lie.
Does Obama have the courage to implement the real solutions to Obama’s Vietnam (AfPak)
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, And the women come to cut out what remains, Just roll to your rifle, and blow out your brains. And go to your God like a soldier. Rudyard Kipling author of “White Man’s Burden”
All this talk of the ephemiral Quetta Shura and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan pure unadulterated nonsense which has been fed to the White House by his Indian friends in the MOSSAD. His opinions on Pakistan are wrong and he should put a sock in it. Pakistan rethinks Afghan policy & US alliance-Hit RAW agents in Afghanistan
Keywords: Barack Obama, al-Qaeda, Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff
Obama rejects McChrystal’s surge: Withdrawal Inevitable in 2011! 
Perpetual Mimitic War: Strategy for continued Failure in Afghanistan 
Obama’s Afghan ‘Strategy’ without an “Exit Plan” is a ‘Straightjacket’ named quagmire & defeat
Can the drama of a Joe Biden’s “resignation” end the Afghan war fiasco? 
Pakistan: Hillary Clinton still doesn’t have a clue
Pakistan: Why Ms. Clinton doesn’t get it 
Hillary Clinton admits to US support for Bin Laden & creation of Taliban
The rude US Ambassador Patterson in hot soup 
“The best way to get out of Afghanistan fast is (for) people to think we’re staying.” Sen. John McCain of Arizona. 
We are running the risk of replicating the fate of the Soviets” Mr. Brzezinski 
Brzezinski: Don’t start new wars. Use diplomacy in Pakistan“Can Karzai get away with a stolen election”- Carter 
Admiral Mullen is still wrong 
The crusty specious, Admiral is mistaken about Afghanistan
Obama’s Afghan timeout vs. Mullen’s surge 
Afghan Surge: McChrystal malarkey hides incompetence of NATO, ISAF & US forces 
McChrystal right on India: Delhi must scale back Afghan operations
“Taliban’s Winning Strategy in Afghanistan”: Overcoming “culture of poverty” 
The US occupation has not brought security to Afghan women 
Afghanistan’s Bravest Woman Malalai Joya: “Taliban are logistically & militarily growing stronger as each day dawns.” “Afghan women and men are not ‘liberated’ at all”Bluster before exit: US capitulates to Afghan Taliban: Negotiating retreat schedule 
The silent “K” in Holbrooke’s portfolio 
AfPak countercurrents beyond the Oxus to AfPakAzUzbKazTurkKyr-istan 
Tick Tock Tick Tock-2011: Obama’s shrinking Afghan timeline 
Truth not Orwellian propaganda: Best article on Afghanistan anywhereUS bluff: Other arduous US Supply Chain routes to Afghanistan not feasible 
Afghanistan fiasco: Cleaning up the Am-Brit failures in Kabul again 
Solutions to “Obama’s Vietnam”–AfPak
David Kilcullen incessant paranoid hallucinating Pakistanphobic rhetoric destroys his credibility 
Obama must avoid creating a backlash in neighboring Pakistan by heavy-handed U.S. military intervention there: David Kilcullen
Can Obama pull US out of the Afghan quicksand? Choosing China & Pakistan over Bharat (aka India)
NATO not buying the Obama Doctrine or surge after Surge?
Afghanistan & Pakistan: Can the US Prevail? No!
Fixing Afpak: Inability to define exit strategy spells inevitable US military catastrophe in Kabul 
Obama’s sane policy lost? Negotating with the Taliban 
Betrayals, blackmail in Bakiyev cloaking failure as success hiding the defeat declaring victory withdrawing from Afghanistan within 12 months
Obama’s new policy was supposed to be a Marshal Plan & end to bombing raids in Pakistan
Convincing the US tin ear of the Pakistani point of view 
Rahm Emanuel blames the “Ho Chi Minh Trail” for Afghan defeat
Obama’s Neocon: Bruce Riedel’s rancid racism against Pakistan 
Are bigoted Bruce Riedel’s diatribes still valid for Pakistan & Afghanistan? 
Mr. Bruce Riedel’s irrational rhetoric exacerbates US-Pakistani relations
Growing consensus in the Obama team: Much of Pakistan’s problems originate in Afghanistan
Obama advisor Weinbaum focus on talks & Reconciliation got lost in blood and gore. 
Afghanistan: Did Ahmed Rashid sell the American down the river? 
Afghan Surge fiasco: Ahmed Rashid’s bad advice 
Obama adviser insights into Afghan policy: Result same old same old
Why troops surges in Afghanistan are doomed to failure?Rand report: End GWOT. Defeat Al-Qaeda with police & Dollars 
Hindu Kush Curtain Call: The End Game in Afghanistan 
Harvard questions: Afghanistan Lost? Barnett Rubin & Maleeha Lodhi solutions to quagmire 
The Pakistani perspective: Peace deals only way to precipitate face saving for US & Obama’s smooth Exit strategy from Afghanistan
After NATO rejection Obama has few options left in Afghanistan 
Pakistan First by Shireen Mazari: The devastating affects of appeasing India and kowtowing to the USAPakistan to US: No pay-No play: Tough lessons in geography!
People talk glibly of ‘the total disarmament of the frontier tribes’ as being the obvious policy…but to obtain it would be as painful and as tedious an undertaking as to extract the stings of a swarm of hornets, with naked fingers.” Winston Churchill 
PEANUTS: Puny US Aid to Pakistan is too little too late. Marshall Plan, & Trade concessions missing 
Graveyard of Empires: AfPak-TurkTaj-UzbKaz-AzKyr -istan 
Obama’s “Vietnam”: Khyber & Hindu Kush
Afghanistan:– Pakistan’s Eminent Domain 
India’s dark shadow on Afghanistan 
Ambassador Haqqani has a huge headache and may be fired soon. Rupee News has written several articles on the machinitions of Ambassador Husein Haqqani. Now Foreign Policy magazine in an interesting article endorses the fact that Mr. Haqqani is the wrong man for the job in Washington.
Hussain Haqqani: dangerous 5th column or selfish opportunist
As the champions of the Pakistan aid bill scramble to put out fires and stem the bleeding caused by the negative media-fueled reactions to the package in Islamabad, behind the scenes, the blame game is underway, and all sides are trying to assess who was responsible for the public-relations failure surrounding the rollout of the bill.
One school of thought points the finger at the bill’s sponsors, Senate Foreign Relations Committee heads John Kerry, D-MA, (who may travel to Pakistan shortly), Richard Lugar, R-IN, and former sponsor Vice President Joseph Biden. These critics, many of them on Capitol Hill, lament that the lawmakers may have failed to do the spade work necessary to ensure the package received smooth reception in Islamabad. They also point to the White House, which rushed the Senate into passing the measure in order to announce it at a donor’s conference in September.
Another leading line of thinking among Pakistan watchers places the blame more on the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, and particularly Amb. Hussain Haqqani (shown rubbing his face above during State Department talks in February) and the Washington lobbyists on his payroll, who were involved in crafting the legislation but are seen to have dropped the ball in preparing their own countrymen — and particularly the Pakistani military — for its release, and explaining the conditions on the aid.
Haqqani has also come under fire in the Pakistani press, with anonymous and perhaps maliciously minded sources blaming “individuals and organizations representing Pakistan’s national interest in Washington” for “an attempt to cripple the Pakistan Army and the ISI,” the country’s powerful intelligence service.
In the end, most observers feel that some Pakistani complaining over any increased U.S. role in their country is unavoidable and that the aid package’s rough debut will eventually give way to a positive end result. But the optics of the botched rollout have many in Washington angry and a little bewildered.
“This bill or some version of it has been floating around for at least two years and Biden/Kerry/Lugar didn’t think to call over to Pakistan to see how it would be received?” one GOP source said.
One high-level source who was involved in the crafting of the package confirmed to Foreign Policy that the Pakistani Embassy saw the text of the aid bill in near-complete form and was well aware of the aid conditions, which require the U.S. government to report on the counterterrorism efforts of the Pakistani military and the civilian government’s effective control of those efforts.
The Pakistani military issued a statement Wednesday saying that senior commanders, including the Army chief, “expressed serious concern regarding clauses (of the bill) impacting on national security.”
The conditions in question actually represented a compromise between House and Senate negotiators. The House version had conditioned the release of military assistance on the president’s certification that the Pakistani government “demonstrated a sustained commitment to and made progress towards combating terrorist groups.”
The compromise version states that the president has to certify that Pakistan is “making significant efforts towards combating terrorist groups … including taking into account the extent to which the Government of Pakistan has made progress on matters” related to counterterrorism.
Congressional insiders saw the compromise as a way to preserve the accountability measures that many lawmakers felt were needed (considering what happened to billions already given) while granting the administration and the Pakistanis enough flexibility to set their own policies and still justify continued disbursement of the funds in future years.
Regardless, some on Capitol Hill are now suffering from a large dose of buyer’s remorse after supporting the bill.
One GOP Senate aide said that the White House called on Sept. 24 to press key senators who were holding up the legislation, namely Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-AZ, and Tom Coburn, R-OK, to let the bill move forward. They acquiesced but may now regret it.
“The White House pushed on the Senate to pass it by unanimous consent so they would have leveraging power at the donor’s conference and increase our standing with Pakistan,” said the senior Senate aide who worked on the bill, referring to the meeting of the 26-member Friends of Democratic Pakistan. “Looks like neither of those are true.”
Now, the bill is sitting on Obama’s desk waiting to be signed and insiders say he won’t do so until the hubbub in Islamabad calms down. The Pakistani legislature has begun debating the aid package and its endorsement would be helpful, but not absolutely necessary. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is also rumored to be planning a trip to Pakistan, but that also won’t happen until Obama signs the aid package into law.
There is also the issue of actually appropriating the money. The $7.5 billion Kerry-Lugar bill is only an authorization, meaning that there are no actually funds in it. Yes, $1.57 billion of real money, the first year’s batch, is included in the fiscal 2010 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, but that legislation is not expected to move anytime soon because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, is said not to be enthusiastic about having a floor debate about the issue ahead of the several other upcoming battles he will have to fight on Obama’s domestic agenda, including healthcare, energy, and Guantánamo Bay.
Experts warn that although U.S. engagement overall is positive, in the end the Pakistanis will have to sort out their own military policies based on their own perceived interests and their own domestic politics.
“The U.S. role is important but largely incidental,” former National Security Council official Bruce Reidel said at the rollout of the Brookings Institution’s new Pakistan index Monday.
“U.S. encouragement, U.S. pressure, U.S. handling, U.S. jawboning probably encouraged the Pakistani establishment and Pakistani Army to do what it’s done in Swat,” Reidel continued, referring to recent Pakistani efforts to retake control of the Swat Valley from the local branch of the Taliban.
“But at the end of the day the government of Pakistan did these things because it’s in Pakistan’s national interest, and in particular in the survival instincts of the Zardari government and its current relationship with the Pakistani Army,” Reidel said. Foreign Policy: Who’s to blame for the Pakistan aid bill fiasco? Fri, 10/09/2009 – 4:12pm
