#1
It hasnt been easy. While accidental civilian deaths dropped by 87 percent in the eight weeks following the order, American fatalities have more than doubled from 2008 levels.
There are good reasons to conclude that the new US strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan announced by President Obama on 1 December will fail. But it could have serous consequences for Pakistan and the region.
First, the objectives of the strategy are too broad and opaque. Last March, President Obamas emphasis was on defeating and eliminating Al Qaeda. Now, the aim is also to roll back the Taliban insurgency. To eliminate Al Qaeda in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, it must be separated and isolated from the Taliban sea in which it is currently hiding. But, the US troop surge will be mainly directed against the Taliban insurgency. It will push Al Qaeda and the insurgents closer together, making it more difficult to isolate and target Al Qaeda.
Second, the strategy is mostly a military plan. It fails to address the motivation and causes of the Taliban insurgency, which derives mainly from Pashtun alienation and disempowerment and is now emerging as a Pashtun liberation movement. The Taliban and other Pashtun insurgent groups cannot be peeled off to side with a government in Kabul that is dominated by the Tajik and other warlords the Taliban were fighting prior to the 2001 US intervention or with a foreign army supporting this regime. The Taliban may not enjoy significant popular support. But, they are mostly Pashtun and better placed to secure local support and cooperation from common people in the Pashtun regions.
Third, the additional 30-40,000 US-NATO troops may be able to clear and even temporarily hold some of the areas in the South and East of Afghanistan. But, the troop numbers will still be entirely insufficient for sustained control over Afghanistans vast deserts, valleys and mountains. (The Soviets could not do this with 140,000 troops plus an effective Afghan Army of 80,000.). In fact, the McChrystal plan envisages defending civilian population centres and withdrawing from indefensible outposts including those along the border. As a result, the areas under Taliban and insurgent control are likely to enlarge not contract after this surge.
Fourth, the aim of transitioning security responsibility to the Afghan Army in three years is an impossible benchmark. President Karzai has said so. Apart from the admitted difficulties and costs of training, the question is whether a sufficient number of Pashtuns can be found to join a 240,000 strong Army. If not, it will continue to be largely composed of recruits from the non-Pashtun regions. Unless it is ethnically balanced, the ANA will be rejected and fought as an alien force by Pashtun insurgents.
Fifth, the parallels drawn between the Iraq surge and the current escalation are inappropriate. Whether the surge in Iraq was successful remains to be finally determined. The Sunni tribes in Iraq turned on foreign Al Qaeda elements in order to gain the political and military influence to counter the growing power of the Shias and Kurds. Afghanistans tribal and ideological conditions are very different. And, the Taliban are not being offered any credible inducement to discard their links with Al Qaeda. On the contrary, they are the main targets of this surge. Winning their cooperation through force is unlikely.
Sixth, the expansion of aerial attacks against Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders and training camps may achieve some tactical success. But, slain leaders and rudimentary training camps can be quickly replaced. With the Taliban also being targeted, reliable intelligence on the location of Al Qaeda leaders is likely to dry up. Without such intelligence, aerial strikes are likely to result in incorrect targeting and high civilian casualties, losing rather than winning hearts and minds.
Seventh, as is already evident, the US and NATO presence in Afghanistan will be difficult to sustain over time. In the short-term, the support of the US Congress, and a slim majority of Americans, has been secured partly by indicating a short timeline for withdrawal. Other NATO governments are being cajoled to commit additional troops (7,000) in the face of opposition from the majority of their peoples. This tenuous support is likely to erode over the coming months as casualties mount, costs increase and the military, political and economic benchmarks set out in the strategy are unmet. Faced with an expensive, open-ended war, domestic pressure will intensify in Europe and the US to bring the troops home.
Although President Obamas speech did not dwell on this, it is evident from the leaks to the US media, that the onus is to be placed on Pakistan for the success of the new US strategy. The US surge will obviously push more of the Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents into Pakistan, who it would then be asked to deal with. Pakistan will also have to assume responsibility for securing the border and protecting the larger US-NATO supply lines.
Reportedly, Pakistan has been asked to undertake military action against the Taliban groups led by Jalaluddin Haqqani, Gulbedeen Hikmatyam and Mullah Omar (and the so-called Quetta Shurra) although these groups are currently not fighting Pakistan. Pakistans acquiescence is sought for more intense US air strikes against a larger number of Al Qaeda and Taliban targets in the FATA as well as NWFP and Baluchistan. For good measure, Pakistan is also asked to advance Indias agenda by taking action against pro-Kashmiri militant groups.
The consequences of this for Pakistan are not difficult to project.
One, wider military operations will severely stretch the capacity of the Pakistan Army, which has already deployed 150,000 troops on the western frontier. It would jeopardize the success of the ongoing operations in South Waziristan and adjacent areas against the TTP and other insurgents who are attacking Pakistan with help from Indian and Afghan intelligence;
Two, it will escalate retaliatory strikes against Pakistani civilian and military targets from a wider range of militant groups;
Three, it will revive the general perception that Pakistan is fighting Americas war and thus erode the existing national consensus to confront and defeat the TTP and other groups targeting Pakistan;
Four, it will, inevitably, require the movement of more troops from the Eastern border, further diminishing Pakistans ability to deter and repel possible Indian military action which has been repeatedly threatened in the event of another Mumbai-like incident.
If Pakistan does not take the demanded actions, the US has threatened it will do so unilaterally. A strategic partnership of limitless potential, promised by Secretary Clinton, cannot be forged in a crucible of coercion.
In fact, the limitations of such a partnershipon offer are evident from the incentives offered to Pakistan i.e. US support for a dialogue with India, (not a fair solution for Kashmir; nor even an end of Indias repression of the Kashmiris, or stopping Indian interference in Baluchistan and FATA). Also, undefined defense cooperation, (whose limitations Pakistan should be well aware of, not least in the wake of the conditionalities incorporated in the Kerry-Lugar Bill). Finally, additional economic assistance (whose cumbersome delivery and limited impact is evident from Pakistans past history.).
Pakistans response to the US strategy should reflect its own national interests and the sentiments of its people. It should be formulated in consultations between the Government, Parliament and the armed forces.
From Pakistans perspective, it would be unwise to agree to a blanket escalation of military and police action simultaneously against all Taliban and militant groups. Pakistans priority must be to finish the job of putting down the anti-Pakistan TTP militants. Pakistan must also display determined opposition to wider, unilateral US air strikes on its territory and insist on joint control of all strikes against jointly determined Al Qaeda targets.
Even within these parameters, Pakistans cooperation should be offered only in exchange for tangible and immediate US support for Pakistans national objectives: an end to Indian-Afghan interference in Baluchistan and FATA; a Kashmir solution; a military balance between Pakistan and India; parity with India on nuclear issues; transfer of equipment and technology for counter-terrorism; unconditional defense and economic assistance; free trade access.
At the same time, Pakistan, in its own interest, should take the lead to promote a political solution to the Afghan and Pashtun insurgency. This could be in the form of reconciliation initiative with all Pashtun and Taliban groups. Such an initiative would need to be undertaken though credible intermediaries, e.g. a commission consisting of respected Pashtun and tribal leaders and some other eminent Islamic personalities. Through such mediation, agreements could be evolved with the Taliban and other insurgent groups for a cessation of hostilities, support for economic development, creation of a genuine Afghan national Army, a decentralized political governance structure in exchange for the progressive and complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan and continued economic support for Afghanistan and Pakistan. A political plan for Afghanistan, based on such a reconciliation effort, should be discussed and agreed, specially with Saudi Arabia., Iran and other Islamic countries as well as Pakistans consistent geo-political partner China.
The outcome of this approach may be messy. It may not respond to Western values. But it stands a better chance of restoring peace in the region, dismantling Al Qaeda and securing the graceful exit of foreign forces from Afghanistan which are now part of the problem, not the solution than the new US strategy.
The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan to the UN.
Posted by: john frum ||
12/14/2009 12:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What does the following excerpt mean:
Through such mediation, agreements could be evolved with the Taliban and other insurgent groups for a cessation of hostilities, support for economic development, creation of a genuine Afghan national Army, a decentralized political governance structure -- in exchange for the progressive and complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan and continued economic support for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It sure sounds like 1) Leave, 2) Leave us in charge, 3) Send lots of money, and 4) if it doesn't work blame can be spread so thin that nobody is responsible and everyone has an alibi and it's probably still our fault.
What "islamic" country does not operate according to this formula?
Cascade theory? Madness of crowds? Is it easier to adopt the opinions of others than to form your own? This article is a serious read. It is not a short sixth-grade reading level article you are used to in the newspaper. If you are a thinking person, read it carefully as there is a lot in there. For example:
Is belief in global-warming science another example of the "madness of crowds"? That strange but powerful social phenomenon, first described by Charles Mackay in 1841, turns a widely shared prejudice into an irresistible "authority". Could it indeed represent the final triumph of irrationality? After all, how rational is it to pass laws banning one kind of light bulb (and insisting on their replacement by ones filled with poisonous mercury vapour) in order to "save electricity", while ploughing money into schemes to run cars on ... electricity? How rational is it to pay the Russians once for fossil fuels, and a second time for permission (via carbon credits) to burn them (see box page 36)? And how rational is it to suppose that the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere take between 200 and 1,000 years to be felt, but that solutions can take effect almost instantaneously?
I discovered this on Bishop Hill's blog. It is well worth the read.
#1
Australia wins. No other nation can possibly match the level of comedy that weve brought to this international save-the-planet chucklefest.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd deserves much of the credit. Aiming for laughs even before the conference began, Rudd improvised a sublime chasing Obama routine.
Hed first planned to attend the closing day, when Barack Obama was scheduled to turn up. Then Obama changed his mind and decided to appear when the conference opened so Rudd scrambled for an earlier flight instead. But Obama, not unusually, backflipped; the closing date was back on again. So what did Rudd, the one-man conga line, do? As The Australian reported: Mr Rudd, who had the RAAF on standby for a snap trip to Denmark, will now attend the late stages of the conference.
Still, while Copenhagen awaits Rudds visit, there are already enough other Australian government representatives over there. This is a team effort, and what a team weve sent: up to 114 of us, according to provisional attendance lists, including official photographers, drivers and baggage wranglers.
Thats equal to more than two-thirds of our House of Representatives. Its greater than our entire Senate. The carbon figures for this little glory jaunt will be worth framing.
How many Americans, I wonder?
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/14/2009 6:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"How many Americans, I wonder?"
Too, Bobby.
As in "too damn many." :-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/14/2009 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
People such as George Soros and Michael Moore certainly talk a good game, but the next Mother Teresa they are not. Mother Teresa never criticized the free-market system; wealth just wasn't for her. Soros and Moore are quite the opposite. They will never take a vow of poverty and dedicate themselves to helping the poor. They just want our civilization to take a vow of poverty and become poor.
This has caused many to wonder: How can someone preach socialism while being the most rapacious "capitalist" imaginable? Well, I have a theory about this.
It has often been observed that those who preach liberalism the most practice charity the least, and research bears this out. For example, in a piece titled "Bleeding Heart Tightwads," self-proclaimed liberal Nicholas Kristof wrote,
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, 'Who Really Cares,' cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Then there is a fascinating article by Peter Schweizer, titled "Don't listen to the liberals -- Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows." In defense of this thesis, the author presents some scientific findings and then a bit of anecdotal evidence, writing,
Most surprising of all is reputable research showing those on the Left are more interested in money than Right-wingers.
Both the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey reveal that Left-wingers are more likely to rate 'high income' as an important factor in choosing a job, more likely to say "after good health, money is the most important thing," and more likely agree with the statement "there are no right or wrong ways to make money."
You don't need to explain that to Doug Urbanski, the former business manager for Left-wing firebrand and documentary-maker Michael Moore. "He [Moore] is more money-obsessed than anyone I have known -- and that's saying a lot," claims Urbanski Facinating article. More at the link.
#1
This started with Engels (sponsor of Karl Marx). Complaining about the evils of capitalism while crushing unions and oppressing workers.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
12/14/2009 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
See also WORLD NEWS > AMERICAN FASCISM: BY POLITICAL DEFINITION, THE US IS NOW FASCIST, AND NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC; + THE USA IS NO LONGER IMMUNE TO WORLD IDEOLOGICAL FORCES.
Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that US President Barack Obama has issued orders to his Northern Command's (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to "begin immediately" increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.
According to these reports, Obama has had over these past weeks "numerous" meetings with his war council about how best to manage the expected implosion of his Nations banking system while at the same time attempting to keep the United States military hegemony over the World in what Russian Military Analysts state is a "last ditch gambit" whose success is "far from certain".
And to Obama's "last ditch gambit", these reports continue, he is to announce in a nationwide address to his people this coming week that he is going to expand the level of US Military Forces in Afghanistan by tens of thousands of troops, while at the same time using the deployment of these soldiers as a "cover" for returning to the United States over 200,000 additional American soldiers from the over 800 bases in over 39 countries they have stationed around the Globe bringing the level of these forces in America to over 1 million, a number the US Military believes will be able to contain the "explosion of violence" expected to roil these peoples when they learn their economy has been bankrupted.
These reports further state that at the same time Obama will be attempting to keep his Nation from violent disintegration, the tens of thousands of additional troops he will send to Afghanistan are to be ordered to Kandahar where the Americans and their NATO allies will begin their final attempt to secure their TAPI (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India) pipeline, which without the Western Nations, due to their grave lack of alternative energy resources, and being cut off from these vast Central Asian supplies (which both Russia and China are seeking to insure), are warned will totally collapse.
Making the American's (and by extension the West's) situation even worse are new reports coming from the International Energy Agency stating that "under pressure" from the US government they have been "deliberately underplaying" a looming Global oil shortage for fear of triggering panic buying and raising the Americans fear over the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to our World's last remaining oil resources. Balance at the link. Pinch of salt required.
#3
I can see similar events but for totally different reasons and outcomes. To start with, the recall of most US forces except in a few critical places would *have* to be done if the US and/or international economy collapsed. In fact, it *should* have begun, with little fanfare, over a year ago.
That is, most of our military personnel move by commercial transport. But if the dollar collapses, they would be stranded all over the world. Some creditor nations might even try to delay their return, until their loans had been repaid.
As far as oil goes, the collapsing economies would also dry up the international oil trade, but the US would not be in terrible shape.
To start with, there is a lot of oil "in the system", and the strategic petroleum reserve would start pumping into the system immediately, though it cannot pump a lot, this would slow down the eventual running out.
At the same time, there are a bunch of idle wells that would come on line, and the oil companies would begin extensive drilling. The utility companies would switch to natural gas in parts of the country that could, freeing up oil for the parts without natural gas.
While the Democrats might think they would be happy to see $5/gal gas, when that happens the public will scare the heck out of them, so any nonsense about not drilling will be quickly forgotten.
#6
I'm glad to see the Ruskies are drinking from the same well as zero. Once the intel is peeled back, bringing troops home, oil and bank failures, etc... They look at it from their jaded glasses that America is weak and will fall apart. While Obama may fail and drag America down a little, we will never fail.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
12/14/2009 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I see the Russians haven't given up the vodka - in fact, I'd say they've doubled down.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/14/2009 13:18 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I'm pretty sure the vodka consumption has increased here also since Obama became Czar
Posted by: chris ||
12/14/2009 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Nobody's overthrowing sh&*. Just try it libtards.
#10
While Obama may fail and drag America down a little, we will never fail.
An utter failure by Obama from this point forward would, indeed, damage America a bit; a successful Obama, on the other hand, could destroy it. That's a feature not a bug in the eyes of The One and his ilk.
#13
Just remember as you read this horse manure that a fair portion of the Euro-masses will take it at face value, that benighted continent having exported many its best genes westward or to the antipodes in former times or slaughtered them in various wars in more recent days.
#14
Well, it's not really aimed at the "euromasses", brwosning the articles archives, you can't miss it's a red-brown website, with a thing for jews (hey, they covered the 25000 ukrainian kiddies stuff) and the NWO/bankers meme. Comments follow suit. It's a bit like reading Jeff Rense, really.
#15
"Some creditor nations might even try to delay their return, until their loans had been repaid."
Brings Xenophon and the 10,000 to mind. It was their march home through the rotting Persian Empire that turned Greek eyes toward the conquest of the East.
#16
So. How many of these 1 million troops would actually side with a rotten and arguably illegitimate Federal Government, in the face of several million heavily armed and pissed off U.S. citizens? 10%, 20%?
I think if Civil War were to breakout, D.C. would go down faster than they could whistle Dixie. I can't say for sure, but I bet that there have been several BCD talks among certain Governors about just what would trigger a secession, and then how to use their collective National Guard troops to the greatest benefit. Just sayin'.
* ION WMF > "CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR" US MEDIA: AL-QAEDA ["Base" Group] TO BEGIN ENTERING THE USA FOR TERROR OPERATIONS. MUSLIM AMERICANS TO BE INCREASING RECRUITED ON-LINE.
#18
TOPIX > REPORT: ISLAMIC TERROR RISING AS AL QAEDA FADES. Many Islamist Milit-Terrs Gruppes are acting unilaterally or locally to accomplish their Group-specific agendums.
SAME > THE ALLEGED GROWING DOMESTIC MUSLIM THREAT. Many International Muslims are angry at US-NATO mil presence in Muslim nations, thus are eager to join Milit-Ter Groups including for suicide attacks. ARTIC NUTSHELL > IIUC THE LONGER ARMED US TROOPS STAY OVERSEAS IN MUSLIM LANDS, THE GREATER THE RISK OR PROBABILITY OF TERROR STRIKES BEING LAUNCHED INSIDE AMERICA.
Muslim Amers agz Americans???
* SAME > YEARENDER: ARMED MAOIST INSURGENCY SPREADING ACROSS INDIA; + THE "PAKISTAN" OF CHHATTISGARH [inside India]LEAVES ANTI-NAXAL FORCES PUZZLED.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that US President Barack Obama has issued orders to his Northern Command's (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to "begin immediately" increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.
