Afghanistan News and Discussions

[sob]

Additional Nato Troops to Afganistan

U.S. allies must send more troops to Afghanistan: NATO

Allies of the United States must follow its lead and boost their troop levels in Afghanistan, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Thursday.
President Barack Obama is expected to announce on Tuesday that he will send an additional 30,000 troops to help stabilize Afghanistan, where violence has surged to its deadliest levels since the Taliban were ousted in 2001.

The New York Times reported on Thursday that Obama was also seeking about 10,000 additional troops from NATO allies, but was unlikely to get more than half that number.

Speaking at a news conference in Berlin after talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Rasmussen said he was contacting members of NATO and pressing them to support Washington with more soldiers.

"It is premature to make any final decision as far as the concrete number of troops is concerned, but I can confirm that I am right now traveling and contacting a number of allies with the aim to urge them to increase their contributions to our mission in Afghanistan," Rasmussen said.

"I think it's of utmost importance that an American announcement of an increased troop number in Afghanistan is followed by additional troop contributions from other allies," he added.

Germany has the third biggest troop contingent in Afghanistan after the United States and Britain, with about 4,250 soldiers in the country.

But the conflict has become increasingly unpopular in Germany and Merkel has pushed back a decision on increasing Berlin's contribution until after a conference in January, which is expected to set targets for transferring security tasks to Afghan authorities.

"In Germany we will decide after the Afghanistan conference whether and which additional activities we will take on, particularly in the area of training," Merkel said.

The White House said on Wednesday that U.S. troops would be out of Afghanistan by 2017, but Rasmussen said he did not believe in speaking about exit dates.

"We will stay in Afghanistan as long as it takes to finish the job. Obviously that is not forever," he said.

 

[icecoolben]

Hope india finds an air base in afghanistan. It would be easy to air-lift troops there, just in case nato withdraws.

 

[sob]

Hope india finds an air base in afghanistan. It would be easy to air-lift troops there, just in case nato withdraws.

The only problem will be that we will have to fly over the Pakistani Airspace and they will definitely not allow that.

 

[sob]

More Troops for Afganistan

Gordon Brown to announce 500 more British troops for Afghanistan

Gordon Brown will announce tomorrow that he is sending more British troops to Afghanistan, pre-empting a long-awaited statement from Barack Obama expected on Tuesday.

According to reports in Washington, Obama will announce that 9,000 marines will be sent to Helmand province within days, and the prime minister is expected to confirm that Britain will increase its deployment by at least 500 to 9,500.
Brown will hold a final video conference with Obama tomorrow before the president's address in the symbolic setting of the West Point military academy at 8pm on Tuesday.

Brown today anticipated what is expected to be one of the main themes of Obama's statement: Anglo-American frustration at the failure of Pakistan to capture Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The prime minister told the BBC: "The Pakistan government has started to take on the Taliban and to take on al-Qaida in South Waziristan. But we have got to ask ourselves why, eight years after September 11, nobody has been able to spot or detain or get close to Osama bin Laden, nobody has been able to get close to Zawahiri.

"We have got to ask the Pakistani security forces, army and politicians to join us in the major effort that the world is committing resources to, not only to isolate al-Qaida but to break them in Pakistan."
Brown, who alerted the Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari, to his intervention in a telephone call on Saturday , will make his criticisms directly to the Pakistani prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, in London on Thursday.

Britain has been encouraged by the actions of the Pakistan army in confronting al-Qaida and the Taliban in South Waziristan, where Islamabad has sent 30,000 troops, and in the North-West Frontier province. But officials believe Zardari needs to do more to confront Pakistani state agencies such as the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. The ISI encouraged the Taliban in the 1990s and Kashmiri extremist groups.

One diplomat said: "The Pakistanis do not trust the Afghans. They do not trust the Indians. This is how they have done business and that is why we are where we are."

Islamabad reacted angrily to Britain's intervention. Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Pakistan's high commissioner to Britain, told BBC Radio 4: "Our military is fully engaged in these operations, so what do people want?"

Brown, who returned to Britain today from the Commonwealth heads of government meeting (CHOGM) in Trinidad and Tobago, will tell MPs whether his three conditions for further British involvement in Afghanistan have been met. These are that:

• Nato countries other than Britain and the US are sharing the burden.

• Afghan forces are available for British forces to train.

• Ministers are satisfied that troops are properly equipped.

Brown will report progress because non-US Nato countries have committed an extra 5,000 troops. Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, has agreed to attend a conference in London on 28 January, where he is expected to agree that an extra 5,000 troops will be trained by British troops in Helmand in 2010. Military chiefs have given assurances on equipment.

The prime minister set out at CHOGM a series of benchmarks Afghanistan will have to meet over the next year and which are designed to allow a gradual withdrawal from the end of next year. The benchmarks call for Afghan forces to take the lead in five out of the country's 34 provinces by the end of 2010.

Brown has been liaising closely with Obama in the run-up to the president's statement. Simon McDonald, his foreign affairs adviser, has been in Washington as the White House finalises its response to a report by the US commander General Stanley McChrystal. This calls for a surge of around 35,000 troops and a more sophisticated political strategy.

While Britain agrees with much of Obama's thinking, there is some frustration in London about how long the president has taken to respond to McChrystal. This explains why Brown has had no qualms about making announcements before Obama speaks.

 

[sob]

International Conference on Afganistan to be held in January in London

Britain to host conference on Afghanistan in January next year

Britain is to host a conference on Afghanistan on Jan. 28 next year, where members of the international coalition will discuss plans for handing control of the country back to local authorities, the prime minister's office announced on Saturday.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown joined United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to make the announcement Saturday from the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad and Tobago.

Brown said Afghan President Hamid Karzai would be asked to commit to boosting his country's army, police and local governance during the meeting.

"Within three months, our benchmark is that the Afghan government should have identified additional troops to send to Helmand province for training. This is part of our idea that we will build up the Afghan army by nearly 50,000 over the next year," he said.

"Within six months, we will want a clear plan for police training that means corruption is being dealt with and we have a police force that works with the local community rather than sometimes against it," the prime minister said.

Within nine months, President Karzai should have completed the process of appointing 400 provincial and district governors, he added.

Brown said the milestones would put in place the conditions for control of Afghanistan to be handed over to Afghan authorities, district by district, and for British troops to withdraw.

He said that a timetable for a British troop withdrawal would only happen when the Afghan army and police show themselves capable of maintaining security in growing areas of the country.

 

[ejazr]

Obama Plan Must Help Speed Build-Up of Afghan Army, Levin Says

Obama Plan Must Help Speed Build-Up of Afghan Army, Levin Says - Bloomberg.com

Nov. 30 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama must show how more U.S. combat troops will speed the build-up of the Afghan army to generate Democratic support for his new war strategy in Afghanistan, Senator Carl Levin said.

“The key here is an Afghan surge, not an American surge,” Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a Michigan Democrat, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” program yesterday.

“If the president lays out the case for why our combat forces that are going particularly to the south will increase the speed-up of the Afghan army, it seems to me that that would be very, very important,” he said.

Obama will outline his plans tomorrow in a nationwide speech from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York. The president has spent months reviewing the situation. His talks with military commanders and foreign policy advisers have focused on adding 30,000 to 35,000 U.S. troops, according to a U.S. official.

A report by Democratic staff on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee says that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was “within our grasp” in Afghanistan’s Tora Bora region in December of 2001. Calls for more troops to prevent bin Laden’s escape were rejected by U.S. military leaders, the report says.

Asked about the report, Levin said “there would be a good chance we would not have forces or need to have forces there” today, had bid Laden been captured or killed. “But this has been kind of well-known for some time.”

Afghan Build-Up

Levin said showing that the mission of more U.S. troops is to “very quickly build up the Afghan army,” and “give them the capacity to take on the Taliban” is important to winning Democratic support.

Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, said Obama needs to outline a plan that gives more responsibility to Afghan forces.

“The key element here is not just more troops, the key element is shifting the operations to the Afghanis,” Reed, a member of the Armed Services Committee, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “If that can be done, then I would support the president.”

The president will lay out how an increase of troops will allow the U.S. to help build up Afghan forces and “shift the burden,” said Reed, an Obama confidant and a former Army officer.

Terrorist Haven

The U.S. is in its ninth year of fighting in Afghanistan, and is battling a resurgent Taliban that gave safe haven to the al-Qaeda terrorist network before being ousted by a U.S.-led offensive following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington.

The U.S. now contributes about 70,000 of the 110,000 international troops waging the Afghan war. Obama has said he wants to set benchmarks to measure improvements in Afghanistan’s military and government, and lay out a path for an exit strategy.

Obama is under pressure from both political parties about his plans for Afghanistan. Some Democrats are resisting a deeper U.S. involvement in the war, while Republicans are pushing for quick action to add more troops to the fight. The president also faces a skeptical public. In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 52 percent of Americans said the conflict hasn’t been worth the cost.

Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said yesterday that Obama “is in a moment in which he really has to regain the approval of the American people.”

“This is why this speech and the plan is so important,” he said on CNN.

Postpone Health Debate

Lugar said the Senate should postpone a debate on overhauling the U.S. health-care system to instead focus on the war and how to pay for it.

“The war is terribly important,” Lugar said. “Jobs and our economy are terribly important. So this may be an audacious suggestion, but I would suggest we put aside the health-care debate until next year.”

Representative David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, said his plan to increase taxes on people with higher-incomes to pay for the war will create a sense of “shared sacrifice.” Service men and women and their families would be exempt.

“If this war is important enough to engage in the long term, it’s important enough to pay for,” Obey said on CNN.

Levin said it would be difficult to increase taxes “in the middle of a recession.”

Deadly Month

October was the deadliest month for U.S. forces since the fighting began, with 59 military personnel dead from combat and accidents, according to Department of Defense figures.

As many at 9,000 Marines will deploy to southern Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, starting final preparations within days of Obama’s speech outlining his new strategy for the conflict there, the Washington Post reported, citing unidentified senior U.S. officials.

To build support for Obama’s plan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will be dispatched to outline the strategy to Congress.

Republican Support

Republican senators on the Sunday talk shows supported additional troops for Afghanistan.

Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said on “Fox News Sunday” that it’s “important for the president to get as many troops in there as quickly as he can.”

The Taliban “will never take back over Afghanistan” with an increase in U.S. troops there, Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said on ABC’s “This Week” program. “We’re going to put measurements and benchmarks on the Afghan government, but we’re going to have troops in Afghanistan to win the conflict.”

Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana, said on Fox that he expects 30,000 to 35,000 troops to be sent to Afghanistan, with NATO providing additional troops.

“The American taxpayer should not have to pay for this whole thing if our allies are willing to step up and do their part,” Bayh said.

An international conference will be held in London next year to plan a timetable for the handover of security to Afghanistan’s government, U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Afghan President Hamid Karzai will be among those attending the meeting on Jan. 28, Brown told a televised press conference at the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad and Tobago.

The U.S. should be able to begin scaling back troops by 2013, according to an assessment by General Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, given to lawmakers who visited Kabul last week, Reuters reported.

 

[RPK]

Barack Obama to order 34,000 troops to Afghanistan

President Obama will today announce the deployment of an extra 34,000 American troops to Afghanistan, according to sources briefed since the President issued new orders to his top military commanders.

The precise figure, reported last night by the Washington Post, was close to previous estimates and enough to bring the total US troop strength in Afghanistan to over 100,000.

With an additional 5,000 reinforcements from other Nato countries, the long-awaited “surge” will consist of close to 40,000 soldiers – the number requested by General Stanley McChrystal, the Nato commander in Afghanistan.

The extra US troops are expected to start arriving in the south and east of the country in January, with orders to dislodge the Taleban from strongholds in Helmand Province where militants have defied British forces for years.

Related Links
Special forces push UK troops over 10,000
Obama sends Marines into Taleban heartland
US Marines and soldiers from the army’s 101st Airborne Division and the 10th Mountain Division are also expected to surround Kandahar, Afghanistan’s second city, in an effort to cut off Taleban units operating there in open defiance of the regime of President Hamid Karzai.

President Obama will not go into detail in his speech at West Point military academy on how his $30 billion escalation of the eight-year Afghan war will be paid for, his spokesman said, but he will offer American voters an exit strategy and set out clear tests of progress in the fight against corruption that Mr Karzai must pass to be sure of continued US support.

The scale of the surge will bring the total number of troops sent to Afghanistan by Mr Obama to 55,000. It will propel his presidency into a new phase in which responsibility for American success or failure will be his alone, however much he may be tempted to blame his predecessor for neglecting the Afghan conflict in favour of a war of choice in Iraq.

In the months it has taken Mr Obama to settle on a new Afghan strategy the White House has rejected a series of media estimates of the number of new troops it would involve, often blaming Pentagon sources for leaking them. The figure of 34,000 is the first to emerge since a series of high-level meetings over the past 36 hours in which the President briefed his commanders, his cabinet, and the leaders of Britain, France, Australia and Russia.

He will outline the new strategy to 31 invited Congressional Democrats and Republicans this afternoon, before flying to West Point in New York state to address the nation at 8 pm, East Coast time.

Congressional hearings on the future of US-led operations in Afghanistan will begin on Wednesday and continue into next week, when General McChrystal and retired General Karl Eikenberry, the US ambassador to Kabul, are expected to testify.

Stark differences between Mr Eikenberry’s preferred strategy and General McChrystal’s were laid bare two weeks ago when two of his cables to Washington were leaked. Both urged the President to veto any reinforcements because of the fragility and corruption of the Karzai regime they would be supporting.

General McChrystal has argued, sometimes publicly and passionately, that the only way to deny al-Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan is to root out the entire Taleban insurgency. He will now have his chance. If he fails, American prestige will suffer immeasurably. Whatever happens, casualties on both sides will rise and a President elected partly for his opposition to one war will be defined by his escalation of another.

 

[sob]

Taliban vow to fight US troop surge in Afghanistan

The Taliban say they will step up their fight in Afghanistan, after pledges by the US and its allies to send large reinforcements to the country.

A Taliban spokesman said such moves would "provoke stronger resistance".

US President Barack Obama, announcing a long-awaited strategy on Tuesday, said another 30,000 American troops would be deployed quickly in Afghanistan.

Nato's secretary general said non-US members would contribute at least 5,000 extra troops next year.

"Obama will witness lots of coffins heading to America from Afghanistan," Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahamdi told AFP news agency.
"Their hope to control Afghanistan by military means will not become reality."

Mr Obama reached his deployment decision after more than three months of deliberations and 10 top-level meetings with advisers.

Stressing that the US was in Afghanistan because of the 9/11 attacks on America by al-Qaeda militants, the president said their Taliban allies had "begun to take control over swathes of Afghanistan" while committing "devastating acts of terrorism" against Pakistan.

US forces, he said, lacked "the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population".

"I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan," he told the cadets.

"After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home."

 

[sob]

NATO seems to have responded positively to the troop surge announce by the US President

Nato makes 'substantial' troop pledge for Afghanistan

Nato's secretary general has said members will do "substantially more" to contribute to the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen said non-US Nato countries would provide at least 5,000 extra troops, and "probably a few thousand on top of that".

His pledge came as President Barack Obama said he would increase US forces in Afghanistan by 30,000 - to 100,000.

Mr Rasmussen said Nato troops would remain there "as long as it takes".

"In 2010, the non-US members of this mission will send at least 5,000 soldiers and probably a few thousand on top of that," Mr Rasmussen said, clarifying that this number was in addition to the more than 38,000 already there.

 

[ppgj]

BBC News - Will extra US troops make a difference in Afghanistan?

Will extra US troops make a difference in Afghanistan?

A US Marine at at a forward operating base in Mian Poshteh in Helmand Province

President Obama has announced that the US will send another 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan. Michael Codner, head of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, assesses what difference this will make on the ground.

President Barack Obama had the difficult challenge of not just speaking to his own nation. He also needed to send the right messages to the government of Afghanistan, to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, to allies, and to the world at large.

To that end, it will be important that subsequent rhetoric will develop issues - such as timelines for drawdown - with all of these actors in mind.

Mr Obama has, as expected, announced an increase in 30,000 troops to begin in early 2010.

This number is somewhat less than the 40,000 asked for by General McChrystal, commander of both Nato and US forces. However, he expects other nations to increase troop levels, and the additional 10,000 is feasible.

For the UK, Gordon Brown has announced an additional 500, taking its total to 10,000 including 500 special forces and enablers already in theatre.

The German government has indicated an additional 3,000.

Leadership of this sort by the larger European nations could prompt smaller nations to bolster their stakes in the "strategic bargain".

There is, of course, the problem of some nations' plans to withdraw forces - Canada and the Netherlands in particular - bearing in mind that they have been prepared to contribute to the more violent southern provinces.

Pattern of integration

It's worth remembering that the US contribution - which will reach 100,000 - will be no larger than the Soviet presence at the height of its occupation of Afghanistan. And that resulted in failure.
US Soldiers Patrol Sarhowza District Of Afghanistan
US troops must halt the Taliban while Afghan forces are built up

Of course, troop numbers alone are not the answer to the problem, as the Obama and McChrystal strategies acknowledge.

There must be a surge in the civilian contribution. But they are a sine qua non, and the total US and ISAF military presence will begin to approach some historical levels that have delivered progress.

In particular, armed forces must in the short term halt the momentum of the Taliban. They must also dominate further attempts at escalation while the Afghan military and police security forces are expanded to the 200,000 plus that Mr Obama wants.

But the quality of Afghan security forces is every bit as important as quantity.

How will the 30,000 new US troops be made up? Mr Obama did not announce this detail, but it is understood that they will include combat forces, engineers and aviation.

US Marines will be deployed to Helmand Province, a particularly problematic province, alongside British forces. What the command arrangements will be is not yet known.

However, there is a clear pattern of greater integration between US and British forces. This indicates more emphasis on US rather than Nato leadership in Afghanistan, with the UK in a strong supporting role in command of the area known as Regional Command South (RC South).

Full-scale attack

A specific problem in RC South is Kandahar, the second largest city in Afghanistan and the Pushtun capital, where the Taliban have been effective in gaining control.

Clearly this will be a priority for US reinforcements, bearing in mind the probable withdrawal of Canadian forces who currently have responsibility.

One option might be a full-scale attack along the lines of the Second Battle of Fallujah in Iraq. Decisive events of this kind can be very effective in reversing enemy momentum and convincing local populations of progress.

However there could be large numbers of civilian casualties, which could send the opposite message of an unwelcome victor and weaken support for the US in Europe and globally.

Hamid Karzai
President Karzai must show commitment to change

Other options might be a more incremental approach, with the accompanying challenge of the July 2011 timeline. Or an attempt to limit Taliban influence in the city, and isolation from the surrounding region if this is realistic and feasible.

From a military viewpoint, there are three problems with Mr Obama's strategy.

The first is whether the force levels are enough to turn the tide against the Taliban and win Gen McChrystal's "short fight" by July 2011. This is when Mr Obama has announced that withdrawal of US forces will begin, assuming transition and transfer of responsibility to Afghan forces takes effect.

Second, this very issue of a stated date for drawdown could play into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, allowing them to bide their time before returning to the offensive - a common feature of insurgencies.

Importantly, Mr Obama stated that the July 2011 date would take "into account conditions on the ground".

Finally, there is the matter of President Karzai's commitment to change - to deal with corruption and criminality and to expand and improve Afghan security forces.

This uncertainty exposes the paradox of timelines. Unless Mr Karzai and his government have deadlines to face, there is every possibility of a pattern and culture of dependency on the US and international support.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

So the nobel peace prize winning Obama decided to send more troops and intensify the war effort, same thing any nobel peace prize winner would have done and revealing his hypocrisy again in his claim that he wants to end the war, a bigger war monger than Bush.

 

[ppgj]

opinion
Healing The Hindu Kush

Manmohan’s warning on Afghanistan is one Obama must heed
Bruce Riedel

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh delivered a strong message to the US this week: Don’t go wobbly on Afghanistan. At a time many Americans are asking why we are in Afghanistan, the soft-spoken Indian prime minister was very direct and candid in describing the stakes in Afghanistan in an interview with the Washington Post on the eve of his meetings with President Barack Hussein Obama in the Oval Office.

Manmohan told the newspaper: “A victory for the Taliban in Afghanistan would have catastrophic consequences for the world—particularly for South Asia, for Central Asia and for the Middle East. In the 1980s, religious fundamentalism was used to defeat the Soviet Union. If this same group of people that defeated the Soviet Union now defeats the other major power, this would embolden them in a manner that could have catastrophic consequences for the entire world.”

The Indian prime minister’s assessment comes on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack since that of September 11, 2001—the assault on Mumbai a year ago by the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba. In its tactics and targets, 26/11 had all the hallmarks of the global Islamic jehad. The attack on Mumbai was the first crisis in the world after Obama’s election last November and it had an important impact on his thinking about the risks and threats he faces as president. It is undoubtedly part of the reason why he made dealing with the jehadist threat in Pakistan and Afghanistan his highest foreign policy priority. As he reviews how many more troops to send to Afghanistan now, Manmohan’s warning should be listened to carefully by all Americans.

The US and India confront a syndicate of terrorist groups in the badlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are not a monolith, nor do they have a single agenda. They have no single leader, although most groups (including Al Qaeda) swear allegiance to Mullah Omar, the leader of the Afghan Taliban. But they work together, they inspire each other, and they often protect each other. A victory for the syndicate in Afghanistan would have enormous implications throughout the Islamic world. It would symbolise dramatically that the global Islamic jehad movement was on the march.

The impact would be most immediate in Pakistan, where a weak civilian government is already tottering. The Pakistani army, which has long had close ties to parts of the syndicate (especially the Lashkar and the Afghan Taliban), would have to make adjustments to live with a victorious Taliban next door. The Pakistani Taliban would be emboldened to push for a jehadist state in Islamabad. India’s own enormous Muslim minority would face the danger of radicalisation. Central Asia would be infested with Taliban-inspired violence. Moderate Muslim voices throughout the Islamic world would be on the defensive.

President Obama inherited a disaster in Afghanistan from his predecessor, who neglected the war for seven years and failed to resource it properly. The situation has gotten worse in the last year, but it is not yet hopeless. The United States has strong partners in the effort to stabilise Afghanistan. The nato alliance has made Afghanistan its first ever ground war and the alliance’s future will now be decided in the Hindu Kush mountains. Over 40 countries have troops on the ground now in Afghanistan. India has already provided $1.2 billion in economic aid to the effort, building the new Afghan parliament and a critical road project linking Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea via Iran.

The nations of the international community trying to help Kabul can still succeed in Afghanistan if they explain to their domestic audiences why it is so important to succeed. In the first state visit of the Obama administration, a visible symbol of India’s importance for this presidency, Manmohan has laid out the stakes in Afghanistan eloquently and clearly this week.

(The writer is a senior fellow at the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution. He chaired President Obama’s strategic review of the Af-Pak policy last winter and is the author of The Search for Al-Qaeda.)

www.outlookindia.com | Healing The Hindu Kush

 

[enlightened1]

Afghanistan is now Obama's war​

Ajai Shukla / December 03, 2009, 0:53 IST

The United States Military Academy at West Point, where America trains cadets to officer its army, has long provided an emotive rostrum for sounding the trumpet to battle. John F Kennedy, chose West Point to brace America, in 1962, for the looming Vietnam conflict. In 2002, George Bush took the podium at West Point to publicly unveil his doctrine of “pre-emptive action”, which opened the doors to Iraq. Barack Obama, too, decided to look into the eyes of the cadets he would commit to battle, when announcing today that the US would despatch 30,000 additional troops to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

f George W Bush’s presidency is condemned to be associated with the Iraq war, Obama has ensured that his will be linked with Afghanistan. Since he was sworn in, Obama has tripled America’s military commitment to Afghanistan from 32,000 US soldiers in that country to 98,000, once this latest surge is implemented. This increase disregards growing opposition in America to remaining embroiled in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is now Obama’s war.

Obama’s political isolation is highlighted by his allies’ reluctance to bear a greater share of the military burden. The 19 coalition members who are fighting in Afghanistan have mustered --- after protracted US lobbying --- a mere 7,000 additional soldiers.

Given these risks, Obama spent the greater part of his 30-minute speech laying out a clear and inflexible exit strategy for eventually quitting Afghanistan. He declared that the troop surge would allow America to, “begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011…. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These [30,000 soldiers] are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.”

Obama’s commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, should be pleased with his commander-in-chief’s support. Exactly two months earlier, McChrystal had presented his plan for Afghanistan, asking for 40,000 troops to execute it. Obama has given him almost as much as he asked, and strongly endorsed General McChrystal’s strategy of training 400,000 Afghan soldiers and policemen, who would handle security after America headed home.

Obama’s plan could provide an equal satisfaction to the Taliban, who now know exactly when their enemy plans to leave. For years now, senior Taliban leaders have predicted that the West does not have the stomach for a long haul in Afghanistan. Their videotaped reactions have not yet reached Al Jazeera Television, but it is safe to predict an element of ‘I told you so’.

Obama implicitly acknowledged this danger, but emphatically rejected calls for “a nation-building project of up to a decade”. An open-ended commitment, said Obama, would incur heavy costs, while “the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.”

But Obama’s readiness to declare victory and leave sits uneasily with his reassurances to Pakistan. Praising Pakistan’s military offensive in Swat and South Waziristan, Obama proffered substantial military and aid flows, provided Pakistan finished the job. Addressing Pakistan’s deep-rooted suspicion that --- like at the end of the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan --- Washington would turn its back on Islamabad, Obama declared, “We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries… the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.”

For Afghanistan watchers, Obama’s West Point speech raises many questions. Can 140,000 troops pacify Afghanistan? The US Army Chief, General Eric Shinseki, had estimated that half a million US soldiers would be needed to pacify Iraq, a significantly smaller country. Next, how will Afghan President Hamid Karzai, allegedly corrupt and a proven vote rigger, survive after US forces leave?

And, finally, is Obama being too optimistic in saying that Pakistani public opinion had turned against extremism and that Islamabad was now genuinely on the side of America?

 

[ejazr]

I think the key is rebuilding of the Afghan National Army and police forces. A 250,000 strong army by 2012 is a realistic goal if given priority. A strong Afghan army will also put a check on Pakistani elements trying to destabilise it.

Overall, A strong Afghanistan that can defend itself and a policeforce that can root out Taliban/AQ supporters is in the best interests of this region.

I wonder how far India will be involved in training and assitance in rebuilding the Afghan Army / Air force e.t.c.. Any one have any info on this?

 

[sob]

IIRC the main reason for the fall of the Najibullah Govvt. in Kabul was that the Russians had stopped supplying him with money and arms. This was a decision by President Gorbachov to stop the bleeding of the Russian economy.

What is required in Afganistan as suggested by Ejazr is a stong Govt. in Kabul backed by a robust Afgani force which is bankrolled by the International community for about 10-15 years till the entire situation stabilises and Afganistan as a nation has the means to fund it's own way.

 

[IBRIS]

US Marines launch offensive in Afghanistan


KABUL – U.S. Marines swooped down behind Taliban lines in helicopters and Osprey aircraft Friday in the first offensive since President Barack Obama announced an American troop surge.

About 1,000 Marines and 150 Afghan troops were taking part in "Operation Cobra's Anger" in a bid to disrupt Taliban supply and communications lines in the Now Zad Valley of Helmand province in southern Afghanistan, the scene of heavy fighting last summer, according to Marine spokesman Maj. William Pelletier.

Hundreds of troops from the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines and the Marine reconnaissance unit Task Force Raider dropped by helicopters and MV-22 Osprey aircraft in the northern end of the valley while a second, larger Marine force pushed northward from the main Marine base in the town of Now Zad, Pelletier said.

A U.S. military official in Washington said it was the first use of Ospreys, aircraft that combine features of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, in an offensive involving units larger than platoons.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to detail the operation, said that Ospreys have previously been used for intelligence and patrol operations.

Combat engineers used armored steamrollers and explosives to force a corridor through Taliban minefields — known as "IED Alley" because of the huge number of roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices, and land mines, Pelletier said.

Roadside bombs and mines have become the biggest killer of American troops in Afghanistan.

There were no reports of U.S. or Afghan government casualties. The spokesman for the Afghan governor of Helmand province, Daood Ahmadi, said at least four Taliban fighters had been killed and their bodies recovered.

He said more than 300 mines and roadside bombs had been located in the first day of the operation.

Pelletier said insurgents were caught off guard by the early morning air assault.

"Right now, the enemy is confused and disorganized," Pelletier said by telephone from Camp Leatherneck, the main Marine base in Helmand. "They're fighting, but not too effectively."

The offensive began three days after Obama announced that he was sending 30,000 reinforcements to Afghanistan to help turn the tide against the Taliban and train Afghan security forces to take responsibility for defending against the militants.

America's European allies will send an estimated 7,000 more troops to Afghanistan next year "with more to come," NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced Friday.

Most of the new troops are expected to be sent to southern Afghanistan, including Helmand, where Taliban influence is strongest.

Friday's fighting was taking place in one of the most challenging areas of the country for the U.S.-led NATO force, which has been trying for years to break the Taliban grip there.

Now Zad used to be one of the largest towns in Helmand, the center of Afghanistan's lucrative opium poppy growing industry.

However, three years of fighting have chased away Now Zad's 30,000 inhabitants, leaving the once-thriving market and commercial area a ghost town. Instead the area has become a major supply and transportation hub for Taliban forces that use the valley to move drugs, weapons and fighters south toward major populations and to provinces in western Afghanistan.

British troops who were once stationed there left graffiti dubbing the town "Apocalypse Now-Zad," a play on the title of the 1979 Vietnam War movie "Apocalypse Now." The British base was nearly overrun on several occasions, with insurgents coming within yards (meters) of the protection wall. The area was handed over in 2008 to the Marines, who have struggled to reclaim much of the valley.

In August, the Marines launched their first large-scale offensive in the barren, wind-swept valley, which is surrounded by steep cliffs with dozens of caves providing cover to Taliban units.

Although only about 100 hardline insurgents are believed to operate in the area, their positions are so strong that a fixed front line runs just a few hundred yards (meters) north of the Marines' base, according to Associated Press reporters who were with the Marines there last summer.

Elsewhere in Helmand, the leader of Britain's opposition Conservative Party warned that NATO had one "last chance" to succeed in Afghanistan and that patience was running out in countries that have provided troops to the NATO-led mission.

"We can't be here for another eight years," David Cameron told the British Broadcasting Corp. after touring a public market in Nad Ali, well south of Friday's fighting. "I think following President Obama's speech and the increase in American and British forces we have a chance, probably our last chance, to get it right, but we do have a chance."

In London, the Sun newspaper said the son of the Helmand governor is seeking asylum in Britain because of fears for his safety.

The newspaper said Barai Mangal, 25, applied for sanctuary in Britain at an immigration office in Liverpool in July. Britain's Home Office declined to discuss the asylum application.

His father, Gov. Gulab Mangal, would not confirm the report but told The Associated Press on Friday that his son was the target of an attempted kidnapping last summer.

"I have an armored car, I have security guards, but my family has no such possibility of security," the governor said.
US Marines launch offensive in Afghanistan - Yahoo! News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCMyynmIM2Y&feature=player_embedded

 

[ppgj]

India, Pakistan and the Battle for Afghanistan
By Ishaan Tharoor Saturday, Dec. 05, 2009

Fighters with the Taliban stand on a hillside at Maydan Shahr in Wardak province, Afghanistan.
AFP / Getty

The road to success for President Obama's Afghanistan strategy runs through India, goes an increasingly familiar refrain. That's because reversing the Taliban's momentum requires getting rid of the movement's sanctuary in Pakistan, where the insurgent leadership is known to be based in and around the city of Quetta. But while Pakistan is aggressively tackling its domestic Taliban, it has consistently declined to act against Afghan Taliban groups based on its soil — because it sees the Afghan Taliban as a useful counterweight to what it believes is the dominant influence in today's Afghanistan of Pakistan's arch-enemy, India. Unless India can be persuaded to take steps to ease tensions with Pakistan, some suggest, Pakistan will not be willing to shut down the Afghan Taliban.
(Read Joe Klein's take on Obama's speech on Afghanistan.)

Needless to say, that argument is not exactly conventional wisdom in New Delhi.

Indian influence has expanded after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and toppled the Taliban — it had been a longtime supporter of the Northern Alliance, the anti-Taliban coalition that dominated the Karzai government, and it poured hundreds of millions of dollars of aid into supporting the new regime. That's left many in Pakistan raising the specter of Indian encirclement — a concern noted by U.S. General Stanley McChrystal in September, when he said that "increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions." Some U.S. pundits have even called for India to scale back its operations in order to appease the Pakistanis.

Indian officials have little time for such reasoning. Events northwest of the Khyber Pass have had a central place in the strategic calculations of generations of rulers in Delhi, dating back to the imperial Mughals and the colonial British. India's ties with Kabul had lapsed during the bloody civil war that saw the Pakistani-backed Taliban rise to power in 1996, turning Afghanistan into a hotbed of extremism, some of it directed against India. In 1999, an Indian passenger airliner was hijacked by Pakistani nationals and flown to Afghanistan — negotiating for the release of the hostages, India was forced to free three Islamist militants, one of whom was later implicated in the killing of American journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan. The Taliban also forged links with fundamentalist groups waging war on India in the disputed territory of Kashmir. "The consequences of that vacuum where Pakistan stepped in and meddled were horrendous for India," says Harsh Pant, professor of defence studies at King's College London. "It's a lesson no one in India is in the mood to learn again."

That's why India has pumped over $1.2 billion in development aid to the Karzai government, funding infrastructure projects ranging from highways to hydroelectric dams to a 5,000-ton cold storage facility for fruit merchants in Kandahar. India is building schools and hospitals, as well as flying hundreds of Afghan medical students to train in Indian colleges, because its own experience of the last period of Taliban rule has given it a vested interest in preventing a recurrence.
(See pictures of the battle against the Taliban.)

The popularity of Bollywood music and Indian soap operas also hints at India's significant cultural influence in Afghanistan, which is buttressed by lasting bonds with Afghanistan's political elite. Afghan President Hamid Karzai went to university in India, while his electoral opponent, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, belongs to the old Indian-backed Northern Alliance. Kabul and New Delhi also share a common distrust of Islamabad, seeing the 1996 Taliban takeover as having been enabled by Pakistan's military intelligence wing.

But in the India-Pakistan relationship, each side often thinks itself the victim of the other's machinations, and Pakistan's generals view India's growing influence in Afghanistan as motivated by an intent to destabilize Pakistan. In recent months, officials in Islamabad have claimed that India's consulates in the Afghan cities of Kandahar and Jalalabad have been orchestrating terrorist activity in Pakistan, particularly in the vast, restive province of Baluchistan. India vehemently rejects such claims, for which no evidence has been offered in public. During her trip to Pakistan last month, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also dismissed the notion that India was trying to foment trouble in Pakistan. "The Pakistani fears are completely imaginary," says Bahukutumbi Raman, a former top-ranking Indian intelligence official and prominent strategic analyst.

The problem for Washington, at least according to Raman and other Indian analysts, is that regardless of their validity, Pakistan's fears translate into inaction when it comes to tackling the Afghan Taliban on its soil. "[The Afghan Taliban] are important to the Pakistanis. They give them a strategic depth," says Raman. Commodore Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation, a think-tank attached to the Indian navy, says the Pakistani military is still struggling to accept a strategic universe in which India is no longer its most dangerous enemy. "You get the sense that if [India] does not loom large as a threat, then the Pakistani military loses much of its raison d'etre as an institution," says Bhaskar.
(See pictures of Obama visiting Asia.)

Indian analysts fear tensions could be exacerbated by President Obama's declaration that the U.S. will begin to draw down 18 months after surging some 30,000 more American troops into Afghanistan. "It makes political sense for Obama, but the decision has really set the cat amongst the pigeons in the region," says Bhaskar. "Everyone is rattled." The prospect that the U.S. will soon depart Afghanistan makes it even less likely that Pakistan will want to crack down on a group that could still be a strategic asset in an uncertain situation.

India, for its part, is unlikely to change its own strategy in Afghanistan. It is developing a port at Chabahar in Iran, which could become a key point of entry for Indian goods and materiel into Afghanistan because Pakistan refuses India land transit rights to the Afghan border. India also runs an air base at Farkhor in Tajikistan on Afghanistan's northeastern border — a facility it secured with Russian support. Neither Moscow nor Tehran want to see the Taliban return to power, and a growing consensus between Russia, Iran and India — all traditional backers of the Northern Alliance — could work to prevent that in the months and years to come. "India may have to hedge its bets with these regional partners," says Harsh Pant. "When America leaves Afghanistan, they may be the ones left to deal with the mess."

India, Pakistan and the Battle for Afghanistan - TIME

 

[ppgj]

Af-Pak Conundrum

Af-Pak Conundrum

Paper no. 3538 7-Dec-2009

Af-Pak Conundrum

By Kazi Anwarul Masud

There are two basic propositions in this essay.

The first is that despite the struggle against the al-Qaeda in Afghanistan a day will come when the US will be faced with Vietnam syndrome (totally discounted by President Obama in his West Point speech on 1st December on grounds of legitimacy of Afghan war given by the international community, unlike Vietnam the US is not facing a broad based insurgency, and unlike Vietnam Americans were viciously attacked in the US homeland from Afghanistan).

One may recall that President Reagan suggested that Americans could have defeated the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese Army, alleging that the American public had turned against the war due to the influence of North Vietnamese propaganda, and implying that the Johnson and Nixon administrations had been "afraid ... to win" the war in Vietnam. Reagan equated the "Vietnam syndrome" not only with a reluctance on the part of the American public to support US military interventions, but also with feelings of guilt about the devastation brought about due to the Vietnam War and with feelings of doubt over the morality of America's intentions and actions during the war( Wikipedia).

A day may come when the American people will get tired of young men and women being killed in a war in a far flung area that had never for centuries seen anything remotely liberal progressiveness or modernity as is generally understood and practised. Hamid Karzai’s reelection to the Presidency has been questioned by the UN and the powers that have propped his regime and the US has now pledged conditional support to his regime. His brother, governor of a province, is accused of all possible criminal acts that a thug can commit.

Besides Afghanistan has no minerals to attract the Western entrepreneurs nor strategic importance that would convince the American soldiers to bunker down in a God forsaken land. If the US is not considering an exit strategy, then an endless military engagement would not make any sense in the long run. Professor Rory Stewart in his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said that Obama strategy of building a stable government in Afghanistan was impossible because, he thought , it was highly unlikely that the US would be able to build a legitimate state in Afghanistan or defeat the Taliban. He strongly opposed troop increase and a total fight. He proposed reduction of troop level from the current level of 90000 to far fewer with the international community focussing on the twin objective of development and counterinsurgency.

This position is different from that of General Stanley McChrystal who would like to have additional 40000 troops who will fight their way into areas of large population where Taliban currently operate. The NATO troops would drive the Taliban out of those areas, fracture the Taliban and encourage defections that would give hope to the Afghans that the Americans can be relied upon and extend cooperation to the NATO forces. Stanley McChrystal also plans to reduce air strikes to contain civilian casualties.

The question, however, remains whether such expectation would materialize or indeed if such a policy is at all necessary to safeguard US national interest assuming the al-Qaeda would not venture to attack US and Western interests after the US response to the carnage of 9/11 and given the belief that al-Qaeda is now disjointed lacking a central command and the video speeches to destroy the “Western infidels” are mere propaganda. On the other hand the daily terrorist acts in Pakistan by Islamic extremists testify to their growing strength to destabilize the democratically elected government that the Taliban do not consider to be Islamic enough and seek its replacement to establish a Caliphate. But the cross border terrorism in India is not so much for the sake of Islam as it is more to destabilize the preeminent enemy-the Hindu India-a country that has defeated Pakistan in three wars and is now considered a global power.

The second proposition is that since the birth of Pakistan was on religious ground and successive regimes in that country believes Pakistan as the place of last resort for ‘distressed Muslims’ Islamization of Pakistan is inevitable, and perhaps this will lead to Talibization or to a form of extremist Islamic rule and the supremacy of Sharia law in the governance of the country. Under this scenario Pakistan will pose a threat to international peace and security and a heaven for the Taliban whom the Pakistan army is now fighting in the tribal areas. While leading South Asian analyst Stephen Cohen considers Pakistan as “a case study of negatives-a state seemingly incapable of establishing normal political system, supporting radical Islamic Taliban, and mounting Jihadi operations into India while its own economic and political systems were collapsing and internal religious and ethnic based violence were rising dramatically”

Hussein Haqqani( presently Pakistan ambassador to the US) sees Pakistan’s weakness being embedded in disproportionate focus on ideology, military capability and external alliance since the country’s inception in 1947and Ashley Tellis( of Carnegie Foundation) considers “Pakistan is clearly both part of the problem and the solution to the threat of terrorism facing the United States”. Added is Leon Haader’s (of Cato Institute) warning to Washington to view Pakistan “as a reluctant supporter of US goals at best and as a potential long term problem at worst”. In such a scenario it is possible that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of religious extremists with incalculable consequences for the world.

This perception of threat to global security presupposes Islamic extremists’ hatred of Western civilization that concurs with Samuel Huntington’s thesis that “civilization will be increasingly important in the future and the world will be shaped in large measure by the interaction among seven or eight civilizations”. This re emergence of civilizational consciousness is deeply associated with disillusionment with liberal progressiveness. Historian Bernard Lewis would like to explain the conflict between Islam and Judeo-Christian civilizations as the defeat of the Muslims at the hands of the latter. Added to these factors, controversial as these are because of binary position placed of two great religions-Islam versus Christianity- is the undying enmity of Pakistan towards India. Under no circumstances would Pakistan acquiesce with Indian primacy in South Asia. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s “thousand years war against India” and his determination to acquire nuclear weapons even if Pakistanis had to eat grass remains an article of faith with Pakistanis who deeply believe in Indian ‘conspiracy’ for an Akhand Bharat to materialize eventually.

The possibility of danger of nuclear weapons in Pakistani hands has been revealed in Seymour Hirsch’s article in The New Yorker (In an unstable Pakistan can nuclear warheads be kept safe-16.11.09) that extensively explored President Obama’s concern over the fragility of the Pak civilian government and the US’ concern of transfer of some nuclear assets, not to the Taliban, but to extremists in Pak military establishment by staging a coup d’etat. Despite denial by Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen of secret negotiations that would allow specially trained American units to provide added security for the Pakistani arsenal in case of a crisis, Seymour Hirsch writes that Hizbul Tahrir, a Sunni extremist organization determined to establish the Caliphate, has made inroads into Pak army. In reply to Pakistani argument that the officers are not only professionals but are also trained in England it has been argued that indoctrination of Islamist ideology takes place, according to an official of Obama administration, “ in services every Friday for Army officers, and at corps and unit meetings where they are addressed by senior commanders and clerics”.

The question however remains as to what should be done even if nuclear Pakistan were to be Talibanized. Should the world repeat Bush’s doctrine of preemption with predictable disaster or remain satisfied with a 21st century version of Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement that Hitler reportedly asked Von Ribbentrop to tear up the document as Chamberlain left for Britain?

One should also take into consideration that Pakistan is neither Afghanistan nor Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to be treated lightly. President Bush?s invasion of Iraq had been seen by many in the Islamic world as a war against Islam and has devalued the US as the fountainhead of democracy and the unquestioned global leader not because of its hard power but for the ideals the US had stood for ever since seventeenth century, and more particularly in the last century. Bush’s use of hard power failed because the world used to authoritarian and coercive form of leadership of earlier military-industrial eras had in post industrial era changed to softer, persuasive and inspiring leadership style.

Bush’s failure is not that of Austrian leader Metternich who was compared by Henry Kissinger to Don Quixote, a man of genius out of touch with his contemporaries, unable to convince his contemporaries of his vision and ultimately forced to accept the “doctrinaire of status quo” nor of President Woodrow Wilson’s failure, argues Kissinger, that was caused by the pressure of domestic politics that opposed at that time Wilsonian ideals as utopian. So suggests Kissinger, a statesman must not only contend with a shifting and unstable world but also with colleagues who lack his sophisticated view (Henry Kissinger’s philosophy of history-Thomas J Noer).

Therefore, though ideally if Pakistan were to turn to Islamic extremism the world has to tread softly with a combination of hard and soft powers. It is difficult to believe that Pakistan army messes and civilian clubs where wine was favored over water has over the last sixty years totally abjured alcohol, among others, and taken to strict Islamic laws as the basis of their regulatory behavior. The point is not to advertise the benefits of wine consumption to stave off heart attack but to try to understand the societal change that Pakistan might have undergone. But then increase of Islamic extremism possibly has taken place as the successive army rulers exploited and encouraged the Islamic parties to fill the vacuum of secular politics that the army displaced. Given the fact that army ruled most of post-independence Pakistan and General Ziaul Huq’s Islamic xenophobia , aided by the US assistance to displace the Soviets from Afghanistan, Pakistan society, partly pre-modern, has perhaps shifted towards Islamism. The role the madrasa (religious school) education plays in Pakistan coupled with anti-female education campaign carried out by the Taliban but acquiesced by a part of the society has played a significant role in the societal transformation in the country. Despite the seemingly secular character of the civilian government of President Zardari one has to take into account the domestic compulsions that led the NWFP government to enter into agreement with Baitullah Meshud?s (now deceased) Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan over Swat valley.

A Stanley Foundation report states “The 21st century is imposing new pressures on the nonproliferation regime from several directions. The NPT was never designed to deal with the rising danger of nuclear terrorism and Al Qaeda has stated that obtaining nuclear weapons is a priority goal.” Terrorist organizations have proven that they can operate globally, plan quietly, and inflict devastating damage. Pakistan has been called the most dangerous nuclear state in the world.

That is likely an exaggeration and President Obama stated in April that he was confident that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal was being adequately secured by its army. But the terrorist activity in that country, especially attacks on military personnel and the Rawalpindi headquarters, and in Afghanistan, provides good reason for continuing concern. To its credit, Pakistan has taken important steps over the last decade to improve its nuclear security and command and control processes. Pakistan has also been cooperating with the United States on improving its nuclear and border security since 2001. The United States has provided over $100 million for these initiatives. While this work was begun under Presidents Bush and Musharraf, it remains a high priority under the Obama administration. The US dialogue with Pakistan is facing challenges, which are particularly acute when high-profile charges of nuclear insecurity in Pakistan arise in the Western press. This raises questions of trust between the two and Pakistan is especially sensitive to any suggestion that the United States might seek to remove its nuclear weapons in a crisis. Rather than focus on removal, there should be a dialogue with the Pakistani military and civilian leaders on how United States and NATO Special Forces in Afghanistan could assist with nuclear asset security in an emergency. One additional way to regain this trust is to widen the nuclear dialogue beyond the security issue and discuss the possible resumption of civil nuclear discussions with Pakistan. This could eventually establish the political and technical basis for a criteria-based civil nuclear cooperation agreement that could better integrate Pakistan into the non proliferation regime (securing vulnerable nuclear materials-Stanley Foundation-November 2009).

continued.... here ........ http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/so...afghanistan-news-discussions-2.html#post98153

 

[sob]

This is the main crux for India. Obama has made a deadline and within this period neither Afganistan nor Pakistan is going to be stabilised. The main thrust is going to fall on India.How we deal with this issue has to be decided by us today and not after 18 months.

There is a very interesting editorial by Shekhar Gupta in Indian Express on the Afganistan-Pakistan situation and the required Indian response required.

His Af, our Pak

Just when the three basic postulates of India’s post-Cold War geostrategic position were becoming established comes the game-changer. How does India prepare to live, and protect its interests, in a neighbourhood which is now not only the playground of the world — but where the leader of the world has also given himself a deadline for retreat?

In the history of warfare, conventional or unconventional, nobody has ever won by announcing a deadline before deployment. That’s what Obama has now done. The Taliban will be telling their hordes, all they have to do is hunker down and survive in the mountains for just 18 months. All they need to tell other, moderate or pro-American, Afghans is: you’ve just got 18 months. After that, we will deal with you — or you now start dealing with us. And Afghans are pragmatic people when it comes to deal-making. You’d have to be that way if you live in such a brutal place, where the only national industry and employment for two millennia has been fighting wars. As usual, a humorist has put it more accurately and cruelly: Jay Leno said this week, with a straight face, that Obama has announced he will bring his troops back after 18 months — and the Taliban announced they will continue fighting for just 19 months.
Jokes apart, where does this leave India? We had just got used to the idea of having active American military presence in our neighbourhood when they tell the world two more things. One, that they intend to build a new state in Afghanistan, change the nature of state and society in Pakistan. And second, that they intend to achieve this in 18 months and return home. We are a civilisation and neighbourhood where wars last generations. So July 2011 looks closer here than it would in Washington DC. Look at it this way: it would come just about the time West Bengal goes for the assembly polls.

There are three pillars of India’s post-Cold War foreign-strategic policy doctrine: one, that India’s territories must not shrink any further, while it has no appetite for expansion; two, that India’s freedom of stockpiling, control and doctrine over its strategic nuclear assets must remain undiminished; and three, that there should be no challenge to India’s preeminence in its immediate neighbourhood. It is that last pillar that is now shaky.

First of all, the coalition that has now been built to fight the “bad” jehadis in Afghanistan is a lot more global than the one put together to fight alongside the “good” jehadis in 1979. This is no Great Game or Cold War sideshow, and there is no balance-of-power. Second, we have as big a stake as others — in some way even bigger than Washington — that Obama does not return from Kabul a loser. And third, which is the most significant, the Global Afghan Project-II is fundamentally different from the first, because a “fixing” of the Pakistani state is integral to it. While all three may be the source of some anxiety to us, the last one brings some opportunity as well.

Concern, because changing the nature of Pakistani state and society, or in other words, democratising a 14-crore-plus population that is deeply Islamic, fiercely nationalist, insecure and suspicious, and has tasted many freedoms of democracy, howsoever faulty, is a formidable challenge. And America’s experience and expertise so far lie in propping up and sustaining dictatorships. They may be spending billions on democratising now, but in their hearts they must pine for a Musharraf. Makes life much simpler. There is no way they can achieve success within 18 months, particularly when their very presence is such an irritant to most Pakistanis. And if they think they will continue working in Pakistan after their military pull out from Afghanistan, they are being optimistic.
And opportunity, because, should they succeed, won’t it be just what we have been wishing for decades, but never had the resources or traction to achieve? Particularly since the era of Islamisation, with the Zia takeover, began? Every million dollars that the Americans spend taking Pakistani scholars, soldiers, NGO activists, opinion leaders, journalists, parliamentarians to Western institutions to strengthen and widen the base of a new, liberal and democratic elite in Pakistan is a million invested in our future. Nothing will serve our interests better than a stable, prospering, democratic Pakistan, at peace with itself, looking inwards, and focusing its energies on its own growth, and competing with us economically. Beggar-my-neighbour may be a tempting thought each time a big terror attack takes place. But big, serious nations do not run a foreign policy for cheap thrills.
That is why, while we build roads, schools and the parliament building in Afghanistan, we must also make our own contribution to the larger project by changing our approach to Pakistan and coming out of this permanent post-26/11 sulk. We need to engage with its democratic establishment, with all its imperfections and all the irritating verbosity of some of its leaders. The 26/11 investigations, Headley revelations and now Robert Gates’ statement have left no doubt that what we are fighting is more than just the ISI. While the Pakistani establishment may still nurse LeT as a likely strategic asset, the use-by date on that is now over. And it is not because they have got scared of us, or of the prospect of an Indian bombing of Muridke if another attack takes place. It is because the rest of the world — not just America — will never accept such nuancing. Those times will not even return after 18 months, irrespective of whether Obama returns a loser or victor or, as is most likely, goes to his Congress and asks for more time.

Our biggest worry will be if he returns a loser, or in haste by claiming a partial success as victory. The situation we would then be left with will be like that of a patient who the surgeon has left unstitched on the operation table. Our policy has to work to ensure that does not happen, and if it does, to build the strength to deal with not one, but two debris states next door. Until then, we also have to accept living in our region with our preeminence deeply curtailed.

If Obama wins, we win. If he loses, we have to be strong enough to look after ourselves — because unlike him, we have no escape. He, indeed, will be watched closely by an increasingly unsure American population. What Jay Leno did this week was to underline an old Washington truism: it doesn’t matter how much they abuse you in this city. But you’ve got to get worried when they start laughing at you.

 

[Flint]

So the nobel peace prize winning Obama decided to send more troops and intensify the war effort, same thing any nobel peace prize winner would have done and revealing his hypocrisy again in his claim that he wants to end the war, a bigger war monger than Bush.

I thought you would be more supportive of Obama's decision, considering how vitally important it is for us that the Americans succeed in Afghanistan.