Thursday, December 3, 2009

Russia prepared to build Kalashnikov arms factory in Venezuela

Russian AK-103 rifle.

Russia prepared to build Kalashnikov arms factory in Venezuela

December 2, 8:31 AM

Sylvia Longmire

In line with agreements between the governments of Venezuela and Russia, the latter is preparing to begin the construction of arms plants in Venezuela's Aragua state to produce AK-103 automatic rifles and cartridges.

According to Forbes.com, Russia is also finalizing contracts to send 53 military helicopters to the Andean nation, Moscow's envoy to Venezuela said Monday.

Ambassador Vladmir Zaemskiy told a news conference that Russian engineers and Venezuelan construction firms were building the rifle and cartridge plants which, when operational, would employ more than 1,500 workers.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez purchased 100,000 AK-103 rifles in 2006, and also obtained the license to manufacture them in Venezuela at that time.

The main concern among observers stems from the fact that the Venezuelan National Guard only has around 60,000 soldiers. Even if every soldier was issued a new AK-103, the big question is, where will the other 40,000 AK-103s go, as well as the rifles soldiers were previously using?

Ample evidence has demonstrated in recent years that rifles from Venezuelan military stocks have ended up in the hands of Colombian terrorists, like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Some are concerned this may happen with the "excess" AK-103s.

Chávez has also expressed interest in arming a militia of one million men and women to defend Venezuela against outside threats—specifically from invasion by the U.S. This is also a possible destination for any weapons not going directly to the regular military.

Many leaders of neighboring countries have expressed concern that Venezuela and other Latin American countries are entering into a regional arms race—a charge that Chávez denies.

He claims the extensive weapons purchases from Russia and elsewhere are strictly for domestic defense and the upgrading of existing systems.

http://www.examiner.com/x-17196-South-America-Policy-Examiner~y2009m12d2-Russia-prepared-to-build-Kalashnikov-arms-factory-in-Venezuela

--
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --
Albert Einstein !!!

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Ambassador Gajendra Singhs Articles on the Bush Manipulated Illegal war on Iraq-Updated

FOUNDATION FOR INDO-TURKIC STUDIES

Tel/Fax ; 43034706 Amb (Rtd) K Gajendra Singh

Emails; Gajendrak@hotmail.com A-44 ,IFS Apartments

KGSingh@Yahoo.com Mayur Vihar –Phase 1,

http://tarafits.blogspot.com/ Delhi 91, India

December, 2009

Iraq War- A review

I have written regularly on Iraq since August, 2002 analyzing the situation with historical perspective and assessing future developments , which have generally stood the test of time . I had a ringside view of 1991 Gulf war from Amman (1989-92 ) and moved to Ankara (1992-98, earlier spell 1969-73), with concurrent accreditation to Baku ,with earlier postings at Cairo and Algiers in 1960s and France in early1970s. Apart from Turkey and Jordan, I headed Indian missions in Romania and Senegal.

Out of over 250 in depth online articles , over 80 pieces are on the Iraq war  and the region . The key articles are listed below with URLs and can be easily accessed .

Atimes pieces ( 60 ) were on average copied by scores of websites all around the world including of US universities ; New York, Columbia, Colorado, California ,Utah etc ,think tanks and websites from rightist 'Free Republic " to leftist Salon.com, "Zmag" etc and in other western countries, Turkish ,Kurdish , Arab ,Armenian, Greek and Serbian websites ,as well in Israel , Asia , Africa and all over the Islamic world from Kyrgyzstan to Nigeria and Indonesia to Morocco. Atimes has a Chinese edition too. The articles have been translated into Chinese, Arabic, Turkish, French, German, Italian , Spanish , Danish , Russian , Bahasa Indonesia, Vietnamese etc .

Atimes and Saag pieces have been used /hosted by, Christian Science Monitor and other websites in USA , London Economist , Chatham House ,Channel IV, Pravada, Russian Times , many newspapers in Turkey , Lebanon , Gulf , Central Asia , Japan ,Pakistan ,Israel etc in the world.

I have been frequently interviewed by BBC Hindi Radio program , on Turkey, Iraq, Russia , Caucasus , Central Asia etc .Also by Slovenian National TV and Realitatea of Bucharest, Star and Sahara in India.

I spoke on the Flouting of International Law and Failure of International Institutions along with George Galloway, British MP and Cynthia Mckinny, six times US Congresswoman , at the Kuala Lumpur International Conference to Criminalize War and War Crimes Tribunal – 28 October to 30 October, 2009. It related to war crimes committed in Iraq and elsewhere

Before the March 2003 war on Iraq :

1. The Bush family's phony wars 27 August, 2002.
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DH27Ak01.html

An entire region from Jordan to Iran is on the brink of catastrophe as it awaits one man's decision on how he will pursue his family' vendetta .India's former Ambassador to Jordan looks inside the Pandora's box which George Bush holds in his hands - Editor Atimes

(Written when George W Bush along with old chieftains and neo-cons handed over by his father were beginning to beat the war drums )

For the Bush family, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is the tempting Apple in the Middle Eastern Garden of Eden. The results of succumbing to the temptation to take a bite could be as disastrous as they were for Adam and Eve.

2. The decline of the American Century 11 September, 2002 www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DI11Ak06.html

"When there is a general change of conditions, it is as if the entire creation had been changed and the whole world been altered." - Ibn Khaldun "History is but glorification of murderers and robbers." - Karl Popper

BUCHAREST - It is the afternoon sun that dazzles onlookers though it is past its prime. That sums up the height of US power before last September 11. If the US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki without fear of retaliation was the acme of the American Century, then the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, symbols of economic and military might, could be termed the beginning of the end of the American Century.

3. Iraq and the war of words by K Gajendra Singh 29 January, 2003

www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EA29Ak02.html

The US administration led by President George W Bush, with loyal support from British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has waged a personalized war on Saddam Hussein for months. Armadas of battleships and massive war-making machines are now moving towards Iraq, and military exercises are covered daily in the international press.
4. MIDDLE EAST- Iraqi Mosaic in Pandora's Box 17 February, 2003 www.saag.org/papers7/paper607.html

Iraq is a delicate mosaic, which must be handled carefully, but a US led war would shatter and scatter it to bits.

Whenever post Saddam Hussein Iraq is discussed in USA and elsewhere, not enough serious thought is given to ethnic, religious and other differences of its constituents and their tortuous history, which go to make Iraq a delicate mosaic.

After the war

5. West vs East, at daggers drawn 3 April, 2003
By K Gajendra Singh www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED03Ak01.html.

Veni, vidi, vici ("I came, I saw, I conquered") spoke Julius Caesar in 78 BC at a town called Zile, 300 kilometers northeast of Ankara, after victory in a battle lasting barely four hours over Pharnaces II, son of Mithradates VI of Pontus. Mithradates the Great (meaning "gift of the Aryan god Mithra"), a common name among Anatolian rulers, had contested Imperial Rome's hegemony in Asia Minor.

Of course, the self-styled successors of Imperial Rome, the hawks in the US administration, had hoped to emulate Caesar after a few days of Operation Iraqi Freedom in the cities of Basra, Baghdad and Kirkuk. But the reality has been quite disillusioning - even to the point of bringing some "Shock and Awe" home to the States.

6. Iraq's history already written 15 July, 2003 www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG15Ak01.html

Written soon after the US appointed Iraqi governing council , with historic parallel to British regime established by Sir Percy Cox after the First World War. It ended in the assassination of King Feisel and his detested PM Nuri-el Said ending the Hashemite line in Iraq.

7. BAGHDAD BATTERED UN: Need to have a hard look 4 September , 2003 www.saag.org/common/uploaded_files/paper779.htm

"The UN's own 9/11 [September 11] crisis. " Former US ambassador to the UN, Richard Holbrooke on devastating 19 August bombing of UN compound in Baghdad. "Who sows war reaps terrorism"-A Paris anti-war protest banner in February, 2003.

8. Turkey: 'Sow war and reap terror' 22 November, 2003
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EK22Ak02.html
Sow war and reap terror - A banner in a February peace march in Paris

Many disquieting messages have been sent with the two car bombings in Istanbul on Thursday, just five days after attacks on two synagogues and coinciding with Queen Elizabeth's hosting of United States President George W Bush in London

9. Occupation case studies; Algeria and Turkey 7 January, 2004 www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FA07Ak01.html

In an era of nation states based on patriotism and shared history, people just hate occupying powers. While Vietnam's example and its people's fight for freedom and making it a quagmire for US forces has been talked about, Iraq's comparison with post World War II Germany and Japan shows little historic understanding. The ground situation and the evolution of the war for independence in Muslim, Arab, and till now secular Iraq, is closer to the wars of independence in Algeria and Turkey.

10. COMING OUT OF CHAKRAVHYU ( military trap)- US Iraq Exit Policy! www.saag.org/papers9/paper894.html 15 January , 2004

Illegal and most ill prepared project .It is becoming quite obvious every day .Hamid al-Kifai, a spokesman for the United States-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, in rejecting on January 12 a call made by Shi'ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani that general elections be held ahead of a power transfer to Iraqis, has opened the way for even more uncertainty and unrest following the decision to create a Kurdish federal area in the country.

11 . IRAQ WARS: WESTERN MEDIA- PROPAGANDA ARMS OF GOVERNMENTS AND CORPORATE INTERESTS 12 March, 2004 www.saag.org/papers10/paper948.html

"Demand a broader view." BBC – "-of 840 experts interviewed on American news programmes during the invasion of Iraq, only four opposed the war "BBC-DG Dyke. How ever, BBC itself gave in its over all coverage a mere 2% time to opposition's anti-war voices, -- according to Media Tenor; a Bonn-based non-partisan media research organization.

12. Iraq: A perplexing predicament 10 June, 2004 www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FF10Ak01.html
Finally, after ignoring the United Nations and diminishing it before the illegal invasion of Iraq in March last year, the United States, faced with the prospect of the unraveling of its ill-planned project in Iraq and the Greater Middle East, has turned to the world body to give its occupation some sense of legality. In the end, the UN Security Council's members obviously acknowledged that the strategic implications of a substantial US failure in Iraq were too serious even to contemplate.

13. Dropping the sovereignty baton 2 June, 2004
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FF02Ak06.html

"It was by force that the sons of Osman seized the sovereignty and Sultanate of the Turkish nation; they have maintained this usurpation for six centuries. Now, the Turkish nation has rebelled and has put a stop to these usurpers and has effectively taken sovereignty and Sultanate in its own hands." Kemal Ataturk .The post-June 30 government being assembled for Iraq is likely to be as unpopular within the country as the now defunct US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. ED

14. Turkey, Israel aim to forgive and forget 27 July, 2004 www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FG28Ak02.html

Before returning home, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was in Ankara in mid-July to mend Israel's deteriorating relations with Turkey, said, "I was reassured of the continuity and stability of relations." --And if the US were forced to withdraw, even with a face-saving solution with help from the international community, it might then look for a scapegoat. If Israel wants to play a role in creating an independent Kurdistan, it would become a willing tool in the regional balance, at US behest. --But such a development would be inimical to Turkey and would not be accepted.

15. Turkey snaps over US bombing of its brethren 18 September, 2004
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FI18Ak02.html

The United States claims that attacks on the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar - home to Turkey's ethnic cousins, the Turkmens - were to root out terrorists. Others say that the US has unwittingly been drawn into a devious Kurdish plot. Either way, Ankara has warned the US in no uncertain terms to lay off: this is a pot not to be stirred Editor

16. NEW BUSH ERA BEGINS: DECKS BEING CLEARED FOR HOLY WARS http://www.saag.org/papers12/paper1174.html 27 November,2004

In ancient days, before the start of a battle, warriors galloped up to enemy front lines and challenged them. That seemed to be the purpose of the last Osama bin Laden video released just before 2^nd November presidential polls in USA. Just in case; Laden wanted to make sure that President George W. Bush was re-elected. But then, even Sen. John Kerry had promised more of the same, but along with allies, mostly Christian nations

17. WOULD 30 JANUARY ELECTIONS MAKE OR BREAK IRAQ? 10 December, 2004 http://www.saag.org/papers12/paper1185.html

A debate is raging inside Iraq, Washington and Moscow and in neighbouring capitals and elsewhere whether the polls scheduled for next January to elect a Constituent Assembly for Iraq should be held or postponed, with various parties taking different positions. While USA, the Iraqi government appointed by it and Iraq's Shiite leadership are insistent on sticking to the date, Iraq's Sunnis, many Sunni governments in the region, Europe Union and Russia are opposed to it and have suggested postponement. Even if the elections were held as scheduled, would it solve Iraq's problems and keep it a united country?

18. The Kirkuk tinderbox                                                         22 January, 2005
     www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA22Ak01.html

There is much media focus on the inauguration of US President George W Bush for his second term, as well as the Iraqi elections scheduled for January 30. But the ethnically divided city of Kirkuk in north Iraq remains a dangerous tinderbox. Even the losing US presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry, who voted against the nomination of Condoleezza Rice as the next secretary of state in the Senate's Foreign Affairs Committee, felt compelled to warn of possible turmoil in Kirkuk, which has been a bone of contention between Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens - Turkey's ethnic cousins, with Ankara taking up their cause regularly.

19. IRAQI KURDS FLEX MUSCLES -RICE WAS NO TURKISH DELIGHT http://www.saag.org/%5Cpapers13%5Cpaper1254.html 15 February, 2005

On February 13, soon after the announcement of provisional results of 30 January elections for Iraq's new Parliament, Turkey said that the results failed to ensure a fair representation for all ethnic groups and called for measures to compensate for flaws and irregularities in the electoral process. The Kurdish alliance of Kurdish Democratic party (KDP) and the rival Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) won over 25% of the vote , giving it a kingmaker's role . It has already suggested 72 year old Jalal Talbani ,PUK leader , for the President's post .The alliance is likely to join with the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) , which is supported by the religious establishment and won over 47% of the votes. Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's slate got 14% votes, while the slate of President Ghazi Yawar, a Sunni managed only 2%.

20. New Iraq Government: Allenby's Damascus or Rumsfeld's Baghdad - 8 April, 2005 www.aljazeerah.info/.../April%202005%20Opinion%20Links.htm

"Just you wait until we have democracy in Iraq, and I'll throw you in jail!", said one lifelong opponent of Saddam Hussein to another at the Iraqi opposition conference in London organised to promote his 'heirs' by the Anglo-Saxons in December , 2002 ," and to bring about stability, rule of law and democracy in Iraq." That the conference did take place was an achievement in itself. Many a times the proceedings degenerated into scenes from the film "Lawrence of Arabia " with the Arab tribes squabbling and fighting after reaching Damascus following the with drawl of the Ottoman forces in the First World War in the wake of the military onslaught led by the British General Allenby , with guerilla support from Arab tribes of Sharif Hussein of Hijaj .

21. Neo-Cons Grip Slipping as Iraqi Resistance Morphs Into Liberation War or Worse  http://www.saag.org/%5Cpapers15%5Cpaper1435.html   June 30 ,2005

Bush offers old wine in old bottles; To uplift his sinking popularity and avoid becoming a lame duck President, six months after his second inauguration, on the first anniversary of the sham transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis, President George W. Bush offered nothing new to the Americans or the Iraqis - more of the same. Addressing the nation from Fort Bragg military base in North Carolina, Bush called for staying the course ( and going overboard the Niagara falls of Iraq as some critics said long ago ). An emotive defence institution was chosen again to tap patriotic fervour and rally the military, which is becoming uneasy at the falling home support for the war in Iraq. Ironically, Bush himself avoided military duty in Vietnam.

22. Neo-Cons Middle East Project Brings It to Boil: Now, the Constitution Fiasco. www.aljazeerah.info/.../August%202005%20Opinion%20Links.htm August 30 , 2005

"The nation-state offers most of its members a stronger sense of security, belonging or affiliation and even personal identity, than does any alternative large group" - Karl Deutch.

It has been said that democracy is not only a form of state and administration but a philosophy of life and an outlook. And for a nation's constitution to manifest the authority of the state and its laws, it must be bas2ed on a general agreement among all its citizens.

23. Saddam Trial: Another Western Kangaroo Court October 20, 2005 www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10691.htm

"It's all about justifying the US invasion"- A top Swiss legal expert The charade trial of illegally toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by yet another Western organized Kangroo court finally opened under a veil of secrecy on 19 October and was adjourned to 28 November. Saddam Hussein was defiant and claimed that he was the legitimate President of Iraq as he had done when he was first charged in July, 2004. (TRIAL OF SADDAM HUSSEIN & THE RULE OF LAW www.saag.org/papers11/paper1046.html ) He and six co-defendants are accused of killing 143 people after an unsuccessful assassination attempt on him in 1982. Western media was miffed at the show of defiance by the combative and aggressive former Iraqi leader.

24. Flawed Referendum Would Morph Iraq Into Regional Black Hole October 27 2005 www.aljazeerah.info/.../October%202005%20Opinion%20Links.htm

"Democracy is not alone a form of state and of administration. It is a philosophy of life and an outlook on the world. The authority of the state and its law is derived from general agreement among citizens upon the main postulates of philosophy of life". President Masaryk.

US franchised 'Landmark" towards democracy brings Iraq to precipice's brink

Ten days after allegations of wide spread fraud , Iraq's Election Commission on 24 October declared that the referendum had ratified the Constitution as in the third province of Nineveh, out of 18 provinces , only 55 % voted against it .If it were 2 /3^rd the Constitution would have collapsed.

25. US Franchised Torture Refuses To Go Away- 20 January,2006. www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11601.htm

01/18/06 "ICH" -- -- The ramifications of US franchised torture and street revolutions in Serbia, Georgia ,Ukraine , Kyrgyzstan et al are not going to go away . The recent fence-mending visit to Washington by the newly sworn in right wing German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overshadowed by human right violations and torture at US base in Guantanamo and rendition of terrorism suspects to prisons in Europe and elsewhere by CIA.

26. Before the March 2003 US-Led Invasion of Iraq 31 March, 2006

http://rebellenation.blogspot.com/2006/04/before-march-2003-us-led-invasion-of.html

"This young century will be liberty's century and Iraq and Afghanistan were poised to become examples for the rest of the Middle East of peaceful, democratic societies, Gorge Bush told the UN General Assembly ,

"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state" — Noam Chomsky

On the 3^rd anniversary of the US led illegal invasion of Iraq, a number of comments have appeared in Western media, saying I told you so . Many have been consistent in their views .But many changed the course midway , some remarking that the operation to colonise Iraq should have been better planned and executed , sitting in their plush corporate financed think tanks and media offices .They remain out of touch with the reality on the ground .

27. The Great Western Demnology Circus: Now the Halabja Show April 10, 2006

http://bgtruth.blogspot.com/2006/04/great-western-demnology-circus-now.html

Western leaders and in house corporate and subservient media, continue to line up one show after another. Soon after the death of Serbian nationalist hero Slobodan Milosevic's death in western custody, which ended his trial ( the Hague tribunal did not even allow him to be treated in Moscow ), another third world leader has been put on trial ,Charles Taylor of Liberia . Just a little side show.

28. The Generals Revolt-A Symptom Of U.S. Malaise 23 April, 2006
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m22799&l=i&size=1&hd=0

"War is too serious a matter to be left to Generals" or to civilians who have never seen a battlefield.

The retired generals' revolt only highlights the malaise in the US polity which has crept in , specially in recent decades. The disconnect between an arrogant, ill informed Administration and the military executors of its policies in Iraq has opened a Pandora's box which hopefully might become the tipping point for much needed changes in US polity.

29. U.S. Dunkirk In Iraq; The Tipping Point 20 June, 2006

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13697.htm

06/20/06 "Information Clearing House" In an excellent recent piece 'Nightmare Scenario' in the respected US magazine 'The Nation ', Nicholas von Hoffman ,speculates that the badly outnumbered American expeditionary force in Iraq , now in danger of being trapped in spite of all its firepower, could possibly face some kind of a military defeat.

Already the number of US soldiers dead has crossed 2500 and counting ; two per day , with tens of thousands maimed and injured.

30. The Mother Of All Battles: For Oil 12 July, 2006
http://peakoil.blogspot.com/2006/07/mother-of-all-battles-for-oil.html

07/10/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Noam Chomsky's comments on the" Israel lobby 'in US article by two respected US university professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt hit the nail on the head ,where in he points out that US and Israel interests coincide in the West's policy to control hydrocarbon energy resources ie petroleum and gas, ever since the emergence of its importance in warfare and economy. Chomsky points out how western energy corporations have flourished with "profits beyond the dreams of avarice" with "the Middle East (ME) their leading cash cow."

31. The US Empire –Beginning of the End Game 24 Nov, 2006 www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15729.htm

11/24/06 "Information Clearing House" --- - A 15th century Ottoman Sultan Murat II arranged for Mehmet II , not the favourite son , to be trained in the art of governing at the capital city Edirne ,under an able Grand Vizier. Mehmet II had been a wild and disobedient brat, so Murat II advised his teacher use of the rod , which was done to good effect. A Sunni, Sultan Mehmet II fell under the unwholesome influence of a Shia cleric, fought with the Grand Vizier and the military Janissaries rebelled. Before Mehmet II could create further mess, Murat II returned from Manisa, where he had retired for spiritual pursuits and took back the reins of the empire.

32. The Moving Finger and the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group- 2 January, 2007 http://www.chowk.com/articles/11486

The Moving Finger Writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to Cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. –Omar Khayam

It took the US Congress 3 years, after the Washington led illegal invasion of Iraq against world opinion, to establish on March 15, 2006 , a bipartisan Commission, the Iraq Study Group (ISG), to salvage something from the bloody Iraqi quagmire. There is now a full fledged civil war with Iraq slipping towards breakup, under US led occupation.

33. The US-Saudi-Wahabi Nexus ! January 3, 2007

http://boloji.com/analysis2/0165.htm

"History is ruled by an inexorable determinism in which the free choice of major historical figures plays a minimal role", Leo Tolstoy By K Gajendra Singh

01/01/07 "Information Clearing House" -- -- When the powerful US Vice-President Dick Cheney made a rare long haul to Riyadh in November , reportedly it was to create against Iran , Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon , a new US led Sunni alliance in the region, composed of the six Gulf Co-operation Council states, pro-US Arab governments in Cairo and Amman and willing NATO allies with covert support from Israel.

--- The break up of US-Saud-Wahab nexus will release the Muslim masses kept chained to backward ideas and usher in modern education, science , new ideas and progress to face the West.

34. SADDAM HUSSEIN; VICTIM OF OLD WEST JUSTICE & VENDETTA http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m29623&hd=&size=1&l=e January 7, 2006 After illegal invasion, barbaric occupation, now Kangaroo court execution

"The world seeks America's leadership, looks for leadership for a country whose values are freedom and justice and equality." Texas Governor George W. Bush in 2000.

President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, overthrown after the US led illegal invasion of Iraq in March, 2003 , against UN Charter and world opinion , became an other victim of 'Old West Justice' exercised by European colonizers and Americans ( against Red Indians and Blacks ) during the last few centuries . He was hanged on 30 December morning in Baghdad under US occupation by Washington controlled government of exiles, quislings, embezzlers and war lords.

35. Texan Poker Bluff and Persian Chess Moves 21 January, 2007

http://www.chowk.com/articles/11552

"The arrogance of military power has led to a grave crisis - and to a decline of the United States' role and influence." Mikhail Gorbachev. "The president is living in a dream world,'' US Sen. Barbara Boxer.

On Iran , US Administration has reached the pre-Iraq invasion rhetoric level of 2003 , when against the UN Charter and world opinion ,President George Bush decided to invade Iraq after having assembled a naval armada and air and land forces in the region ,cheerlead by a subservient US media

Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are accusing Tehran of developing nuclear weapons and exporting terrorism, just as Saddam Hussein was allegedly doing. Iran is also not abiding by U N resolutions on its nuclear weapons program, which, like Iraq then, it denies it has. UN Nuclear Agency in Vienna has found no proof of a weapons program .Neither there was one in Iraq in 2003. Almost all accusations made by US President , his deputy and others , exaggerated by US corporate owned media proved to be false.

--
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --
Albert Einstein !!!

CLIMATE GATE SCANDAL

Climategate – read all about it

Posted: 02 Dec 2009 05:01 PM PST

Andrew Bolt Christopher Monckton writes the first book(let) on Climategate, the greatest scientific scandal in our lifetime. The summary: The whistleblower's data file revealed, for the first time, the innermost workings of the tiny international clique of climate scientists, centered on the Climate Research Unit at East [...] Related posts:

"Climategate": Peer-Review System Was Hijacked By Warming Alarmists Dissenting viewpoints on warming were shut out regardless of...
Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit www.dailymail.co.uk The scientist at the heart of the climate...
Global Warming: It's A Myth www.stirringtroubleinternationally.com Martin McCauley writes: Where has our summer gone?...
Viscount Monckton on Climategate: 'They Are Criminals' The man who challenged Al Gore to a debate...

Minister slammed over new planning proposals

Posted: 02 Dec 2009 04:40 PM PST

www.westmeathexaminer.ie County councillors in Westmeath have rounded on Minister John Gormley over proposed new planning regulations being prepared in the Oireachtas, accusing him of trying to set up a "dictatorship", and being "opposed to the development of local government". The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was the subject of fierce criticism, as Westmeath councillors [...] Related posts:

€3,000 for chopper; no money for clerk www.donegalpost.com (July 29th, 2009) Ballyshannon town councillors were furious...
Donegal, Ireland, Concerns over register of electors and postal voting www.donegaldemocrat.ie County councillors are to hold a special meeting...
Bord Snip's proposals fascist www.galwayindependent.com GALWAY, IRELAND – An Bord Snip's recommendations amount...
Controversial gangland Bill to be sent to President CONTROVERSIAL PROPOSED legislation on gangland crime is likely to...

EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator presents discussion paper, implementation report on the EU strategy and action plan to combat terrorism

Posted: 02 Dec 2009 04:25 PM PST

The EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator produced a far-reaching discussion paper which describes the changing nature of the threat from terrorism in EU, reconfirms the validity of the EU's Counter-Terrorism strategy, and set out some key challenges which need to be addressed in the future. 1. The threat De Kerckhove warned about a growing sense [...] Related posts:

False Flag Terrorist Attack imminent in U.K. Terror attack 'highly likely' The Home Secretary has warned that...
Australia; No-warrant terrorism raids proposed www.abc.net.au Australia – The Federal Government has unveiled plans...
(UK) Government anti-terrorism strategy 'spies' on innocent www.guardian.co.uk Data on politics, sexual activity and religion gathered...
European Union to Monitor Deviant Behavior in Fight against Terrorism www.spiegel.de The European Union is funding ambitious programs aimed...

You are subscribed to email updates from Infowars Ireland To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

--
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --
Albert Einstein !!!

PRESIDENT OBAMS NEW TROOP SURGE STRATEGY-ANALYSIS-A.H AMIN

WHILE IT IS NECESSARY THAT USA STAYS IN AFGHANISTAN THE CRUCIAL PART IS THE OPERATIONAL STRATEGY HERE.I.E HOW THIS STRATEGY IS IMPLEMENTED.BECAUSE US PRESENCE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BOTH STABILISE AND DESTABILISE THE REGION.ONCE AGAIN OBAMA HAS PROVED THAT THE REAL SHOTS IN USA ARE CALLED BY THE PENTAGN,STATE DEPARTMENT,DIA AND CIA.

NOTHING IS INEVITABLE IN HISTORY THOUGH.AS I SEE IT THE RISK OF INSTAY IS GREATER BECAUSE AS CLAUSEWITZ SAID THERE IS THE INDEPNDENT WILL OF THENEMY AND MANY REGIONAL ACTORS WANT USA TO FAIL.

IN AFGHANISTAN SPECIALLY ITS NOT USA ALOND THAT DECIDES THE GAME

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Remarks of President Barack Obama -- As Prepared for Delivery
United States Military Academy at West Point
December 1, 2009

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention – and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation's Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and Constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan – General McChrystal – has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people – and our troops – no less.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These 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.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you – a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So no – I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility – what's at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas – such as agriculture – that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation – by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand – America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect – to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani 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.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe 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.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who – in discussing our national security – said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons – true security will come for those who reject them.

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World – one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values – for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home – which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America's authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

As a country, we are not as young – and perhaps not as innocent – as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people – from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue – nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united – bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we – as Americans – can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment – they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

America – we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IS US POLICY IN AFGHANISTAN AMBIGUOUS ????????

A.H Amin

Afghanistan will remain the greatest challenge for the strategist and statesman alike for the next ten years and more.It is not so because Afghans are more martial or Islam a great religion.But because Afghanistan has too many crafty neighbours hell bent on destroying this once most peaceful neutral state.

Key trends are as following :-

The south having a Pakistani vassal enclave known as good Taliban in Pakistan and as the Quetta Shura in Afghanistan.These are regarded by US Army also except few groups suported by Iran which supplies IEDs to them to attack US Army.These good boys have most of the lucrative US LOGISTICS AND CONSTRUCTION SUB CONTRACTS.

AT SOME STAGE WHEN US WITHDRAWS A DEAL WOULD BE STRUCK WITH THEM AND HERALDED AS A TRIUMPH OF US STATESMANSHIP.ALL IS ON THE CARDS.ONLY AT THE RIGHT TIME.THIS WAY THE TALIBS WILL HAVE THE BEST OF BOTH THE WORLDS .THE ISLAMIC AND THE CHRISTIAN.

THE US LOVES THEM FROM INSIDE BECAUSE THEY ARE ANTI IRAN.THE PAKISTANI MILITARY LOVES THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE GOOD CANNON FODDER AGAINST INDIA.

I AM SURPRISED THAT NO US JOURNALIST HAS NOTICED THAT USA HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY DRONE ATTACK ON PAKISTANI BALOCHISTAN FROM WHERE TALIBS CAUSING MAXIMUM CASUALTIES ON US FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN IN HELMAND,KANDAHAR AND ZABUL OPERATE.ALSO THE USA HAS NEVER PRESSURISED PAKISTAN INTO LAUNCHING ANY OPERATION AGAINST THESE TALIBAN IN BALOCHISTAN.

THE SIMPLE DEDUCTION IS THAT USA , PAKISTAN AND SAUDI ARABIA REGARD THESE AS GOOD TALIBAN.

HOWEVER THE SITUATION GETS COMPLICATED WHEN THE RUSSIAN,IRANIAN AND INDIAN FACTOR ENTERS.ALL THREE DO NOT AGREE WIT THE US ,PAKISTAN AND SAUDI VIEWS ABOUT GOOD TALIBAN.

The North strongly anti any Talib with a strong Russian/Indian supported populace , solidly anti Talib ,comprising both Pashtuns , although in minority and a majaority non Pashtun element.This area is by and large peaceful and has government control.

The major Talib weapon are IEDs , Iranian manufactured well tried in Iraq, or Russian origin well tried in Russian Special Forces trials or local versions well tested in the sandy wastes of Posti Camp or Shorawak.

The USA views the Taliban in the south , the so called good Taliban as a useful future ally against Iran and possibly China at some stage.It sees this as a Pakistani linked force which is safe as long as removed from the more internationalistic elements like Al Qaeda etc.Saudi Arabia sees them as good killers of Shias in Pakistan and possibly Iran.

The very idea of USA talking to Taliban is naieve at best and Quixotic at worst.The Taliban do not represent whole Afghanistan.If any settlement has to be negotiated with them Afghanistan would have to be divided.What the Taliban signify is not acceptable to at least 50 % of Afghans.So how can USA or NATO comprmise with a barbarian force that does not represent all Afghans.

Any US withdrawal from Afghanistan in totality would be a great US strategic failure.Even if the USA withdraws it must retain bases because the Afghans respect B 52 s and fear Allah although I doubt the second assertion somewhat.

US or NATO withdrawal would lead to a renewed war between Northern Alliance supported by Russia ,India and Iran and the good Taliban supported by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.There would be no Taliban occupation of Kabul or Mazar.Although the Taliban may practice their brand of Islam at Kandahar and Ghazni. Afghan war would continue as long as the Indian Pakistani issue is not decided militarily.

A final round has to be fought as all forces of history are moving in this direction.The military in Pakistan is not an army of a state but an army with a state. At some stage the Pakistani military will have to decide for a defined course and all indicators are that the final course will be confrontation with India.

The issue is simple.Musharrafs political game led to a conflict between the Punjabi military and Pashtuns and Baloch over Islam and political autonomy.Both have to be fooled again and re-located in the cannon fodder pool in name of Islam and Pakistan.Thus the renewed support to the good Taliban and re-starting of supporting the Kashmiris and other insurgents in India.The Pakistani generals find their old friends useful allies.

All serves the forces in Pakistan who want to use confrontation with Pakistans neighbours as a card for their personal ambitions .Use Islam to rule Pakistan. The issue is simple.The Pakistani generals have decided once again to reintroduce their primacy by intensifying the conflict with India.It suits the generals and the Pakistani military establishment .Thus Zardari has to be removed.

In history nothing is simple like many in Pakistan think that the USA will withdraw and Islam would prevai.A rather extremely naieve view of history.

What actually happens is different from what many think or imagine.It is so because there are so many forces , tangible and intangible that define history.And long ago Machiavelli discovered that God was neither with us nor with them.

To sum up the Afghan war would be fought as a war between USA and Russia and China and Saudi Arabia and India and Pakistan and Iran till either the Russian-IndianIranian side prevails or Pakistan-USA-Saudi Arabia prevails.USAs role remains ambiguous and variable.

All said and done Afghans will be the main losers and India or Pakistan or both may be seriously devastated.Freud long ago discovered that man is not sane.At least not the populace and the soldiers or politicians who lead them.

-Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." -Albert Einstein !!

--
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --
Albert Einstein !!!

Afghan Dilemma by My Friend Dr Hamid Hussain

November 6, 2009

Dear All;

Following are my two cents compiled in response to several questions from a diverse group about Afghan review process currently going on in Washington. It is quite limited in perspective to the review process and ongoing debate. One theme which is getting some traction is engaging local tribes on a larger scale on both sides of Durand Line. It may have some temporary value at local level but in view of lethal combination of arrogance and ignorance on part of Washington at all levels, this has the potential to open another Pandora box with possible expansion of violence both horizontally and vertically. In my view, the necessary human resources required for such projects are not there as far as U.S. is concerned and amateur attempts will result in a situation where we will be holding another 'shit sandwich' in our hands.

Contrary to popular belief among local population in the region, British experiment of social re-engineering of the region had far reaching effects (one can argue whether they were negative or positive; probably a mix with more benefits). This was achieved only due to human resources and very little economic investment. I'm amazed at the quality of material British society produced in one century. One may agree or disagree with any policy but the dedication and sense of duty of these military and civil administrators has very few parallels in history. General Abraham Roberts spent fifty years in India and his son Field Marshal Frederick Roberts spent 42 years. Between father and son, it comes out to be 92 years. Robert Warburton spent 18 years dealing only with Afridi tribe of Khyber. All these men spoke local languages, had intimate knowledge about the people and had genuine respect for the 'natives'. Many tough Baluchi chiefs were seen crying when Robert Sandeman (he came to India at the tender age of sixteen joining the regiment his father has been commanding for a long time and spent 26 years among Baluch) lay on his death bed. That era is gone when men wanted to be men and after a life long career were content with titles of C.E., CBE at the end of their names. Now kids want to finish a six month tour in God forsaken lands and dream about having CEO, CFO at the end of their names. The quickly we wind up these operations the better for us.

'Adjust your ends to your means'. Liddllehart

Regards,

Hamid

Afghan Dilemma – Review of the Afghan Strategy Review

Hamid Hussain

'Victory in the true sense implies that the state of peace, and of one's people, is better after the war than before.' Liddelhart

Currently, America's Afghan project is under the microscope. All segments of U.S. government, legislative branches, Pentagon and media are looking at all aspects of the conflict with a flurry of activity on the internet at various blogs. Debate is revolving around hollow words like victory, defeat, cut and run, winning hearts and minds and abandoning while real talk should be constructed around more practical themes such as Liddelhart's words like 'adjust your ends to your means'. In a 24 hour news cycle focusing on bombs and 'death dance' sometimes 'inconvenient good things' are completely ignored. Most people will be surprised to know that until 2006, there were only 21,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. Given these small numbers, there was relatively low level of violence and life for a number of ordinary Afghans improved with roads, schools, clinics and job opportunities for a number of people. More than five million Afghan refugees voted with their feet and came back to their homes. (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e486eb6) Undivided attention of U.S. in Iraq Theater prevented a coherent and long term plan for Afghanistan and things started to go from bad to worse. After an abrasive and arrogant discourse which irritated many friends, U.S. is showing some signs that it is willing to listen. Commander of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), General Stanley McChrystal summed up the mood by stating that "when I am asked what approach we should take in Afghanistan. I say humility." (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929103,00.html) In addition to humility, a genuine desire to listen to views other than our own with a lot of reflection will be needed to address some crucial issues in Afghanistan. In places like Afghanistan, we will need the wisdom of Solomon, patience of Job and mercy of Jesus to get the desired results.

After eight years in Afghanistan, the review process was long overdue. In March 2009, President Barrack Obama publicly announced a comprehensive counterinsurgency approach towards Afghanistan. It made sense and everybody agreed with it. New Commander of ISAF General Stanley McChrystal started his own review process in the summer. McChrystal prepared his list of commitment of large number of troops and money thinking that this was in sync with White House stated policy. However, something had changed in the meantime. Many democrats including Vice President Joseph Biden are not comfortable with increasing commitment of U.S. troops and resources on a seemingly unending project. Severe shock to U.S. economy and rising unemployment increased pressure on legislatures to address domestic issues with muted response or objections to overseas projects of nation building. Rising U.S. casualties, rampant corruption in Afghanistan and severe damage to the credibility of President Hamid Karzai due to voter fraud in recent presidential elections cast a dark shadow on the legitimacy of government in Afghanistan. All those who are disagreeing with increased U.S. commitment have turned the tables and are now quoting the counterinsurgency bible which states that legitimacy of the host government is critical for the success of the counterinsurgency campaign waged by a foreign force. In the absence of that all efforts will fail.

The ongoing debate clearly shows the difference of opinion among various power brokers in U.S. government. Uniformed community including Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, Central Command (CENTCOM) Chief General David Petraeus and General McChrystal are of the opinion that rapid induction of about 44,000 additional U.S. troops is crucial to turn the tide. Their view is based on the counterinsurgency model currently in vogue among U.S. military. At operational level, however they are moving away from the standard script and now favoring consolidating in major towns and not to try to secure every hamlet and village of the country. White House is also leaning towards allowing local power brokers in Afghanistan to secure their areas thus avoiding costly direct U.S. presence. White House asked for breakdown of power structure at provincial level looking at tribal leaders and militias to answer their dilemma. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804490.html)

Bob Woodward of Washington Post reported about the leaked McChyrstal's assessment with the headline of "McChrystal: More Forces or Mission Failure". (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804490.html) General Tommy Franks once said that 'Washington, D.C. is the only vessel on this planet that leaks from the top' (General Tommy Franks. American Soldier, p. 385), however there was something unusual about this leak. Someone not just sat down with Bob for few minutes to give him few 'pearls' from the report but handed him full sixty six page report. If I have to guess, I'll put all my money that former Vice Army Chief of Staff retried General Jack Keane is the source of the leak. Keane is mentor of Petraeus and was instrumental in securing current appointment of Petraeus. The question is about the timing and manner in which McChrystal report was leaked? Some suggest that it was to box in President Obama so that he could not refuse the troop increase request. This 'leak game 'is played by all power brokers in Washington which in most cases simply increases the friction among key decision makers and creates unnecessary tension in the room at a time when there is urgent need of a frank but cool and clam discussion.

Leaks and some public statements by uniformed officers increased friction between White House and the military. Leak of McChrystal report and his subsequent comments such as complaining that he had talked only once to President Obama and in a response to a question in London calling Biden's view as 'shortsighted' as well as Mullen's statement to Congress in September that 'without reinforcements the war will be soon beyond winning' (http://www.theleafchronicle.com/article/20090927/NEWS01/909270357/-1/STEWART01) irritated White House. National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Gates gently rebuked the generals asking them to 'stay in their own lanes'. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also chastised the generals. President Obama is also not an innocent bystander. All along, he had rejected Iraq war and embraced Afghanistan war. On the campaign trail he said that the war to fight was in Afghanistan and not Iraq. Later he called Afghan war as 'war of necessity' and a war for U.S. national security. Main reason was that he had to own at least Afghanistan war for his Commander-in-Chief credentials. This was a political necessity but now that he is sitting in the Commander-in-Chief seat, it limits his maneuverability.

Military's view of asking for more troops and resources is not new. In the fall of 2008, Mullen told House Armed Services Committee that "Frankly, we are running out of time," adding that not sending U.S. reinforcements to Afghanistan is "too great a risk to ignore." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR2008091001396.html) Prior to his resignation in early 2009, Then U.S. commander in Afghanistan General David McKiernan asked for 30,000 additional troops. (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30588_20091006.pdf) He only got 17,000. Uniformed brass is now of the view that deteriorating situation in Afghanistan needs a quick insertion of troops to reverse the trend. Simply increasing the numbers of troops is not going to answer all the questions and even military officers are fully aware of it. Mullen was realistic about the nature of task and stated in 2008 that "No amount of troops in no amount of time can ever achieve all the objectives we seek," he said, adding later: "We can't kill our way to victory." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR2008091001396.html)

There has been a steady rise of U.S. troops in Afghanistan in the last three years. In 2006, there were only 21,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. In early 2008, the number was 31,000 and by the end of the year there were 38,000 U.S. soldiers (addition of 3^rd Brigade Combat Team which was sent to the eastern part of the country). In January-February 2009, 17,000 additional combat troops were sent to Afghanistan by the new administration (this included 8,000 Marines of 2^nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade sent to South and 4,000 troops of 5^th Stryker Brigade). Some of these additional troops were sent to Lowgar and Wardak provinces, where violence was escalating. Spring 2009 deployments included 17,000 combat troops and 4,000 trainers. (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30588_20091006.pdf) Total number of U.S. troops in the country are now around 60,000 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-26-afghanistan-troops_N.htm) 90% of U.S. troops are operating under ISAF while remainder operating independently under Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).

Initially President Obama met with uniformed officers, ambassadors and intelligence officials as well as legislators from both parties to get the feeling of all these players. Now he is huddled with a smaller inner core group which includes Biden, National Security Advisor Jim Jones, Defence Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Afghan and Pakistani officials also held meetings with the administration officials. From Pakistan side, military view is dominant and army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani and Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lieutenant General Ahmad Shujah Pasha gave their input to U.S. officials. On Afghan side, Defence Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak, Interior Minister Muhammad Hanif Atmar and local governance chief Jilani Popal gave their input. (http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2009/February/20090224170936idybeekcm0.8434107.html) We have to be careful as power brokers in Pakistan and Afghanistan will likely use us for their own internal power struggles. A more representative input from different segments of Afghan society may give Washington a better feel about the ground realities and wishes of Afghan people. President Obama has to sort through this enormous complexity of domestic, regional, international, military, economic and diplomatic issues to chart a course for Afghanistan.

McChrystal report is a comprehensive and sound analysis of the situation. He has done his job by accurately presenting ground realities and then forwarding his take on what should be done and what resources will be needed to get the job done. However, there are many areas which will need more detailed analysis. He states in his report that 'conflict in Afghanistan is a war of ideas' but does not offer what ideas U.S. will be advocating. If whatever has been advocated so far such as democracy, pluralism, rule of law, improved life for ordinary Afghans etc. has not worked and in fact according to McChrystal situation is dire, the question is whether more of the same ideas will deliver in the next five, ten or twenty years. He admits that 'ISAF is a conventional force that is poorly configured for COIN, inexperienced in languages and culture and that we need to 'change operational culture to connect with people and ISAF requires a new approach'. (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf) He has not articulated how simply adding 44,000 additional U.S. troops will make the contingent a counterinsurgency force. He knows fully well that it will take years for U.S. soldiers to become proficient in languages and culture to be more effective. One can only guess how long the Afghan army consisting of illiterate poorly motivated souls will take to become an effective fighting force. I think McChrystal is not candid enough in his assessment about Afghan forces and some of his projection is outright from fantasy world. He is advocating increasing Afghan army from 90,000 to 134,000 by October 2010. (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf) It will be naïve to think that any army can add 50'0000 competent soldiers in one year let alone Afghan army. You can only do it by giving each recruit four weeks training, hand him a gun and push him on the street. However result of this exercise is that when first shot is fired, the chap throws away his gun and bolts from the scene. This kind of 'numbers gimmick' was played in Iraq in 2004 and results were not encouraging. McChrystal's boss Petraeus is very well aware of that experiment as he led the training mission of Iraqi security forces in 2004. Such lessons should not be forgotten so quickly. Adequately trained and disciplined Afghan forces are U.S. ticket out of Afghanistan and more innovative ideas will be needed in this regard.

Ambitious projects in far off lands to secure nationals security interests are not cheap and Rudyard Kipling called this phenomenon 'Arithmetic on the Frontier' during colonial expansions. Average yearly cost of only maintaining U.S. military troops in Afghanistan was about $20 billion per year. In the year 2007, it jumped to $37 billion and in 2008, it was $34 billion. (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33110_20090515.pdf) In October 2008, monthly spending on Afghanistan was $2 billion and by June 2009 it jumped to $6.7 billion. (Robert Dreyfuss. The Generals Revolt. Rolling Stone, October 29, 2009) The Pentagon has estimated that for every 1,000 additional U.S. solders, cost will go up about $ one billion every year. This means that addition of 40,000 U.S. troops will add $40 billion per year more to the bill in addition to the current expenditure of about $65 billion every year. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102502633.html) Total cost for 2009 for Afghanistan project is estimated to be $189 billion. (http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf) These facts need to be clearly communicated to the public so that everybody is clear about the nature of the task ahead. Most recent poll shows an evenly divided U.S. public opinion about involvement in Afghanistan. Forty eight percent say they would favor a decision by President Obama to send more troops, while forty five percent would oppose it. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/123521/americans-divided-sending-troops-afghanistan.aspx) Three factors which can rapidly change these numbers are increasing U.S. casualties, rapid escalation of cost and stagnant economic conditions at home.

Option 1: Go Long

This option envisages at least 120'000 U.S. troops for about one to two decades to help overhaul the whole state and society of Afghanistan along with enormous economic resources. Troops will only address security dilemma and a parallel enormous civilian surge and huge economic investment will also be needed to turn the tide. This is not a guarantee for success but at least chances are much better. Usually American way is that when faced by a problem, we throw more bodies and money and hope that the problem will go away. This solution is not going to work and first step is a change at psychological level as far as American society is concerned. This approach will require long term investment in human resources to carry out this project of social reengineering.

Pentagon is working on a long term program to have a dedicated cadre of officers who deal mainly with Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are called 'Af-Pak hands' and about 300 soldiers from different backgrounds will go through the program with focus on long term strategy to ensure continuity of the overall mission. (http://www.centcom.mil/en/news/af-pak-hands-strives-for-continuity-in-u.s.-mission.html) Similar effort on civilian side will also be needed but such projects are measured not in months or years but in decades.

There are certain limitations to this long term commitment to Afghanistan. American public wants 'instant gratification' and if annual casualty rate of U.S. troops exceeds 300 per year or financial situation at home does not turn around in 2-3 years, the support for the project will evaporate more quickly than anticipated. Current ground realities are not in favor of this approach and I'll veto this option.

Option 2: Pruning at the Edges

This is a middle ground where a clear and realistic end game plan is envisioned. A reasonably functioning Afghan government with a representative and fairly functioning army should be considered an adequate outcome. Gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces over 3-5 years period should be articulated clearly. This interim period is then used with first priority of reconciling with insurgents. In one of the few reliable polls, 71% of Afghans support government's efforts to negotiate and reconcile with insurgent groups. (http://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/Afghanistanin2009.pdf) Different insurgent groups identified by General McChrystal should be contacted through various channels including Afghans, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan with primary focus on second and third tier leadership and foot soldiers. The process should be organized at different levels with relevant Afghan ministries on board to make sure that reconciled elements are not harassed and arrested by their rivals inside Afghanistan. The 'black list' should be quietly reviewed and amended. The more quickly these elements are integrated in Afghan society, the more lasting the peace will be. One should be realistic about this objective and the most optimistic estimate is that probably not more than fifty percent of the insurgents will reconcile. Force of arms used in a judicious way will be the instrument used against those who insist on staying outside the tent pissing inside. However, unless U.S. has a window to the dark side, it will not be able to identify the hardcore leadership allied with Al-Qaeda and their subsequent elimination by whatever means necessary. Once there is reasonable amount of security in unstable areas (mainly south and east), then reconstruction should quickly follow to consolidate the gains. In security, economic and political aspects, regional countries should be taken into confidence and they should be nudged gently to work on common interests rather than pushing the cause of their Afghan proxies.

To achieve these ambitious goals, in the short run (2-3 years), U.S. may have to add at least 15 to 20 thousand troops. More important than numbers is how these troops are used. One brigade should be dedicated to training Afghan army and at least two combat brigades for southern region to create the security platform on which other pieces of the puzzle can be laid. Key element of this option is some kind of timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces and if things start to turn around, pulling even one or two brigades will convince all players that we are serious about our overall strategy and have no hegemonic agenda for the region.

This approach even in the best case scenario means accepting a certain degree of violence among various competing groups inside Afghanistan in the short run. It will also require a grand bargain with Taliban as well as accepting a role of Pakistan in Afghan affairs. This is a potentially explosive issue as it will most likely bring in Iran and India to support their own Afghan proxies and the stage will look like where Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in one corner and India and Iran in another supporting their Afghan proxies. This is the main reason that an important leg of the stool should be regional approach. I'll vote for this option.

Option 3: Springboards

This option includes firmly holding large population centers where government function is strengthened. In outlying areas, local tribal security structure is used through money and armed militias for engaging insurgents and for intelligence. This will be a great bonanza for border tribes along Durand Line. Large gatherings of insurgents which are too big for local militias to handle are tackled by drones and Special Forces. Currently, a consensus is emerging between civilian and military leaders about a plan which resembles this approach. Large cities such as Kabul, Kandahar, Heart, Jalalabad, Kunduz and Mazar-e-Sharif will be fully protected while there is some debate going on about areas which have sparse population but have economic significance such as Helmand river valley and major road networks. This strategy is being nick named as 'McChrystal for the city, Biden for the country'. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28policy.html) It is very likely that U.S. will go for this option which will require addition of about four additional brigades (15-20'000 troops). This will probably include three combat brigades and one brigade exclusively for training Afghan forces. One combat brigade will likely be dispatched to Kandahar and second possibly to Helmand to secure that area. Third brigade will act as reserve to be used where the need arises such as in the east or in provinces surrounding Kabul such as Wardak or Lowgar.

Benefit of this approach is another shot at stabilizing the country with the hope that Afghans will be strong enough in 6-8 years to hang on their own although lessons from history are not too encouraging. Down side of this approach is that U.S. pull back from the countryside will give the insurgents more room of maneuverability. In addition, increased reliance on local militias to solve the 'periphery problem' will add another complexity to the equation. This approach requires at least ten year commitment of adequate military and economic resources. A rough estimate is that about 60-80 thousand troops will be needed for at least a decade and cost will be about $150 to 200 billion per year. To offset some of these costs, Washington may have to work with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to wean off more Taliban from hardcore and press Afghan government to make room for newcomers. If violence decreases to some extent by these measures in about 2-3 years then U.S. can pull out three to four brigades gradually over 12-24 month period thus cutting the cost. If some elements of option 2 are incorporated in this approach, it may become a viable one and I can live with that.

Option 4: Grand Pow Wow

This option includes embracing neighboring countries and other players fully. Current U.S. military posture is maintained while a contact group consisting of U.S. Pakistan, Iran, China, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia and India is activated on a single point agenda of stability. Every country is encouraged to vigorously discuss real danger of extremism to its national security and find a common ground on this issue. In addition economic integration of regional countries may help in changing their perspective forcing them to look at other aspects of stability rather than through military prism. U.S. can offer to decrease its troops over 3-5 year period while ISAF is reorganized on another model. This new model can have financial and logistical support from U.S. but troops from Muslim countries not bordering Afghanistan. Countries such as Bangladesh, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia and some Gulf emirates can contribute troops which will be more acceptable to Afghans.

Major benefit of this approach is hope for long term stability because when regional economies benefit from peace and goodwill, then they will have less incentive to stir trouble as this will hurt their own economies. Stability will be seen as in their own interest and not as a favor to any party. Major obstacle to this approach is deep suspicion and long standing rivalries between countries. They are prisoners of the past and this mistrust is preventing them to comprehend the nature of the beast and its potential ill effect on their political, economic and security health. This psychological barrier needs to be removed first followed by a spirit of give and take rather than trying to play a zero sum game.

Even if this option fails, from strictly U.S. security interests it is still not a bad deal. Once we extricate ourselves from Afghanistan, if naughty boys decide to continue to fight it out, they will invariably be sucked into the vacuum. It will be someone else's blood and treasure used in Afghanistan and not ours. Some Afghans have already vowed that if the neighbors (particularly Pakistan and Iran) don't behave, in the next round of chaos, they will send these winds right across the borders. In that case, Pakistan may loose its already shaky hold on Baluchistan and large swath of N.W.F.P. and Iran will see escalation of instability in Sistan-Baluchistan region. This will be a bad omen for the whole region and every effort should be made to avoid this outcome. Only way to avoid this nightmare is to have increased cooperation between Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. Regional approach is an ideal one and I'll wholeheartedly support it but I'm not very optimistic about the viability of this project.

Option 5: Subcontracting the War

This option envisaged using local proxies both in Afghanistan and Pakistan to address the threat from non-state actors. Advantages of this approach include cost effectiveness and keeping U.S. hands clean. The cost of one U.S. soldier deployed in Afghanistan is about $76,000 per year. An Afghan or Pakistani soldier or a militia member can do the same job for less than $2000 per year. From time immemorial this approach has been used in the region by both native and foreign powers to serve their security interests. Local players have also played this game very well to serve their own interests.

The case of Mullah Abdul Salam is a good example of how these byzantine intrigues are played on the killing fields of Afghanistan. In 1980s and early 90s, Salam fought as a commander under Helmand's Mafioso Akhundzada clan. Rise of Taliban power prompted him to join Taliban and fought against his former boss. He was rewarded with governorship of Oruzgan province during Taliban rule. After the overthrow of Taliban he had no role in the new set up. After cooling his heels for a while, he returned to Musa Qala district of southern Helmand province setting up a compact group and started to attack foreign and Afghan forces. In early 2007, NATO lost control of the town when they cut a deal with local tribal elders and later Taliban simply walked in the town. Musa Qala became an embarrassment which needed to be corrected. This meant that the market rate for switching sides went through the roof. Salaam got the best deal and switched sides with 300 fighters. He was allowed to run the district and at one time U.S. ambassador William Wood went to his fiefdom to meet him. If the winds change, he may again switch sides but a new angle to the plot is the fact that after his defection, Taliban attacked his home in Helmand killing his son. This may prove to be an end of the road for Salam.

Everyone will object to such approach but this policy is already in place to some extent in Afghanistan. ISAF is paying local militias and warlords to protect its soldiers. In one case a militia controlled by Colonel Matiullah Khan in Southern Afghanistan receives about $4.1 million dollars annually for getting two convoys from Kandahar to Tarin Kowt safely each month. (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49056) Another warlord and now governor of Nangahar province Gul Agha Sherzoi has net worth of about $300 million, thanks to lucrative deals with ISAF. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012502594.html) In fact, distribution of reconstruction resources is increasing intra-tribal tensions is some cases. Tribes and clans left out of the hand out attack foreign and Afghan forces to extract their share although they may have nothing in common with Taliban.

Trying to do everything by own hand costs a lot to U.S. taxpayers. Major benefit of this approach is to drastically reduce the human and economic cost to U.S. in the next 2-4 years. In addition, all dirty work of the war is done by others thus insulating U.S. from criticism. U.S. can have adequate intelligence sources among various groups to keep an eye on the demons who want to attack U.S. Serious threats can be dealt in the manner now being done in other hot spots such as Somalia or Yemen and there is no need for a heavy foot print. Negative side of this approach is rapid escalation of violence; both horizontally and vertically with unpredictable consequences. However, this approach will be fully implemented only if U.S. decides to completely disengage from the region, therefore there is no direct cost to U.S. The news of violence from Afghanistan in the absence of U.S. troops will be treated as news from similar episodes in Rwanda or Somalia. Another downside is trying to get accustomed to a certain degree of instability in the region until local players find their own equilibrium and balance of power. Civil societies of both Pakistan and Afghanistan will pay a heavy price for this callous adventure and in my view is a very bad choice. I'll veto this option.

There is a desperate need for mirror in the room both in Washington and in Kabul. In Washington, decisions should be based on ground realities and not an 'alternate reality' created by a host of players. Plain fact is that no one in the world is buying our argument of bringing democracy and economic improvement through the barrel of our M-16 to their homelands. We have a very narrow and specific security interest of not to be hurt again from non-state actors. Tools needed to achieve this objective are quite different. If we insist on pursuing the war logic, then it is imperative that we understand the nature of war. War is neither a video game to be watched on our television screen nor it is sanitary. There is an old saying that 'everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die'. War is a business of killing and getting killed. We are perfectly fine with the first part but don't want anything with the second part, however we don't have that luxury. Like previous generations in civil war, First and Second World wars, Korean and Vietnam wars, if we think our national security interest is at stake and the conflict in Afghanistan is necessary, then we as a nation should be prepared for the sacrifice. Sending only eighteen years old kids to carry the burden of the nation in far off lands while we enjoy 'American Idol' in our living rooms is not going to work. In Kabul, Afghans need to come out of their make believe world of blaming others for all their ills. In the last thirty years, most barbaric atrocities were committed by Afghans against fellow Afghans. It was Afghans who willingly played the role of pawns for their selfish interests and in the process destroyed their homeland. Now if they want to turn the page, they should use the present narrow window of opportunity to take the historic step in the right direction. It will be naïve on their part to think that half of their compatriots take money from America to build schools and clinics and another half take money from everybody else to bomb these places and this can go on forever. Patience has never been an American virtue and the sooner Afghans put their own house in order the better for them.

Battle lines are already drawn in Afghanistan and Pakistan and they will decide what kind of society they want to live in. It is preferable that we extricate ourselves from the frontlines and let them do it in their own way. They will make mistakes and they will have their small victories. Let them celebrate the victories and learn from their mistakes. Now that after much hesitation, Pakistan army is moving in the right direction, let us not come in their way. Counterinsurgency guru General David Petraeus's famous quote is 'The host nation doing something tolerably is normally better than us doing it well'. (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/841519.html) This is actually borrowed from T.E. Lawrence who had enlightened his countrymen a century ago stating that 'Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them.' (http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_27_Articles_of_T.E._Lawrence)

What Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at Council on Foreign Relations said about Iraq war during review of Iraq policy equally applies to Afghanistan. He said, "There are no bonbons on the menu for Iraq. It's just which brand of castor oil you want to take." (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/03/MNGBVMNLT51.DTL#ixzz0VjVsPCML) Civilian and military officials need to communicate clearly to the nation the objectives of Afghanistan project. They should also explain commitment and cost involved with each solution. There is no perfect solution to complex problems such as Afghanistan and each solution will have its own set of benefits and risks. Current discussion should include a realistic 'end game' plan. Role of political leadership is to clearly articulate what is the nature of the project and what kind of resources will be needed to accomplish the goal. Military leaders should candidly express their professional opinion about what is needed to accomplish the task assigned to them by political leadership. Whatever course is adopted in Washington, if it brings some normalcy in Afghanistan it will be worth it. In my view, fate of Afghanistan will be decided by Afghans. If a reasonable policy is pursued by Washington and Afghans wish to continue on the path of peace and prosperity that will be victory for everyone. If Washington keeps stumbling from crisis to crisis and Afghans decide to stick to their historical script then foreigners will leave them one day to decide among themselves and in that case usually the man with the longest knife rules the lesser mortals.

'One who excels in warfare doesn't await the deployment of forces.' Tai Kung's advice to King Wu, 11^th Century B.C.

Note: Author thanks many for their valuable input, however all errors are solely mine.

Hamid Hussain

November 02, 2009

--
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --
Albert Einstein !!!

Sunday, November 29, 2009

DEBATE ABOUT CREATION OF PAKISTAN--http://www.chowk.com/ilogs/75146/47736

SIMLA 1935

LINKS OF THE FAMILY WITH RAWALPINDI DIVISION HAVE BEEN HISTORICAL.

STARTING FROM 5TH AND 8TH BENGAL LIGHT CAVALRY IN PUNJAB AFTER 1849 AND WITH GREAT GRAND FATHER AGHA FAIZ BAKSH AS AN INSPECTOR AT CHAUNTRA AND JAATLI AND AT GUJJAR KHAN.

NOTABLE FRIENDS OF MATERNAL AND PATERNAL GRAND FATHER WERE RAJA KHUDADAD FATHER OF GENERALS JAMAL AND KAMAL AND SARDAR AZEEM OF JHELUM AND OFF COURSE BRIGADIER GULZAR OF JHELUM.

AN UNCLE AND NASIR NAWAZ JANJUA WERE CLASS FELLOWS AT SAINT MARYS MURREE ROAD AND BOTH JOINED FIRST ENTRY OF CADET COLLEGE HASSAN ABDAL WITH BOTH BECOMING CADET CAPTAINS OF FIRST ENTRY.NASIR NAWAZ ROSE TO BRIGADIERS RANK.

SULTAN KHAN IN THE CENTRE WHEN HE HAD NOT BECOME A TABLIGHI.AS DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER AMERICAN WAR PURCHASES NEW ELHI 1946

MOHAMMAD SULTAN KHAN A SHINWARI FROM SIKANDARA RAO.HE WAS A CONTEMPORARY AND CLOSE FRIEND OF SARDAR AZIM FROM JHELUM.HIS OTHER CONTEMPORARIES WERE MAJOR GENERAL HAQ NAWAZ A DIE HARD TABLIGHI AS SULTAN KHAN BECAME AFTER 1960.A SAD ENDING TO AN INTERESTING MANS LIFE.

GRAND FATHER BORN AT DINGA WHILE HIS FATHER WAS IN CHARGE OF PART OF UPPER JHELUM CANAL DIGGING ,WITH CLOSE FRIEND AND ALIG BRIGADIER GULZAR AT GRAND FATHERS HOUSE DARYA GANJ RAWALPINDI EARLY 1950S.A REUNION OF MAO COLLEGE ALIGARH OLD BOYS.ALSO IN THE PICTURE ARE COLONEL SALAM.

GRAND FATHER WITH CLOSE FRIEND AND ALIG BRIGADIER GULZAR AT GRAND FATHERS HOUSE DARYA GANJ RAWALPINDI EARLY 1950S.A REUNION OF MAO COLLEGE ALIGARH OLD BOYS.ALSO IN THE PICTURE ARE COLONEL SALAM.

GRAND FATHER ON RETIREMENT AS ASSISTANT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE RAWALPINDI IN 1954.SEATED NEXT TO HIM IS HOWELL .STANDING SEVENTH FROM LEFT IS TARIQ AMIN CONTEMPORARY OF NASIR NAWAZ JANJUA AND LATER BATCH OF 1964 OF THE NOTORIOUS CSP.

===============================================================================================================

Debates about Creation of Pakistan

Posted: Nov 29, 2009 Sun 10:58 am Views: 12 Interacts: 0

Not only the Punjab landed class and the Sindh landed class feared congress but also the UP Muslims could not compete with Hindus in competitive examinations.Initially the main exponents of Muslim Separatism were UP Muslims.Later the Punjab feudals and the Sindh feudals embraced this idea.

This political theme is exhaustively proved by Francis Robinson in his brilliant book Muslim Separatism in UP.

Interestingly no Nawab of real standing migrated from UP to Pakistan.Only Nawabzadas i.e the younger sons migrated to Pakistan because thry did not inherit land because of law of primogeniture.

The Congress also did not want a very large Muslim minority in India and Nehru and Patel pursued this as a strategy.

Jaswant Singh has repeated many old themes just in order to gain political mileage.After all the Muslim vote counts in a very large number of constituencies in India.

the fact is that the British were supporting Muslims with quotas.Out of 87 Muslims who joined ICS till 1940 or so only 27 passed the exam while some 58 were nominees or best failures.

The UP Muslims favoured separatism because they could not compete with the Hindus.This was the basis.The Bombay Muslims favoured Pakistan and Adamjee supported Muslim LEAGUE because they could not compete with Hindu business.

It has become fashionable to idolise creation of Pakistan.

While idealism played a role most idealists were dead after 1857.Killed in battles with British.

Social and material factors played a great role.This theme has been examined in great detail by Francis Robinson in his book Muslim Separatism in UP printed by OUP India.

Riaz Haq , you need to read amore about the history of partition.

My grandfather was member of students union MAO College Aligarh in 1918 alongwith Zakir Hussain later president India.His brothers were also at MAO College Aligarh along with Ghulam Mohammad later Governor General,Liaquat Ali Khan and Malik Umar Hayat .Grandfathers brother retired as an SP of Police before partition.

The UP Muslims favoured separatism because they could not compete with the Hindus.This was the basis.The Bombay Muslims favoured Pakistan and Adamjee supported Muslim LEAGUE because they could not compete with Hindu business.

I am glad to say that my family owed nothing to Pakistan .My maternal grandfather was a Deputy Secretray Ministry of Finance many years before partition and paternal grand father was assistant secretary ministry of defence in 1940s .

The house of paternal grand father built on Faiz Road Delhi while he was Assistant Secretary of Defence in 1940s on Faiz Road named after his father in Delhis Qaaraul Bagh is , as Indians know an expensive property today.

Grandfathers youngest brother was a doctor with King Nadir Shah and Zahir Shah from 1929 to 1943 and a major in the Indian Army Medical Corps in 1945.

Two uncles were in top 3 in CSP Examination in 1950s and 1960s on Punjab quota which demands far more competition.

Another relative was the first Muslim to become an Irrigation secretary in Punjab,the first Muslim before partition.The land that the family had in 1898 in Lyallpur was less than what we had in 1947. His portrait still hangs in Punjab Civil Secretariat.

This is not to negate Pakistan which is a reality .This is just to merely state that social factors play a major role in politics

--
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --
Albert Einstein !!!

Friday, November 27, 2009

ANY SAUDI SPONSORED US AFGHANISTAN SOLUTION WILL BE USA's GREATEST STRATEGIC FAILURE

Afghanistans Tajiks Uzbeks Turkmen Baloch Hazaras and all anti Taliban Pashuns and all Shias are not stray dogs or sub humans who can be left at The mercy of the so called Good Taliban.If USA and NATO carry out a cowardly Withdrawal with dirty Saudi Support Iran,Russia and other Regional countries will intervene to support Afghanistans people.This time when the Russians come they will be welcomed with open arms and USA and NATO will be remembered as the worst scoundrels and cowards in Afghanistans history.

A.H Amin

--
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --
Albert Einstein !!!

PHOTOGRAPHS

Thursday, December 3, 2009