New US Strategy Needed in Afghanistan and Pakistan

AA

Iraq, Oil, China, protecting American geo-political interests (ie hegemony)that was always their first and last priority. Why on earth would they be involved in a country with no natural resources to exploit except for the convenience of providing air bases and launching pads.

Pavo,

What's w_t p______s ????

why don't you ask the military officers what they think should be done about the insurgency?

they'll tell you they're chomping at the bit to go into pakiland in a major campaign...no chickenshit drones whacking a small number of people...

agha,
This belongs to the other board but I thought what the heck, I can post it here.

You are right about the current ANP. It is more or less the PPP of the NWFP. Both ANP and PPP in my opinion are centrist parties, whereas NS and his league is to the right of center!

"Afghanistan and even Pakistan may be compared to a sort of West Germany and South Korea for USA."

........... this was the funniest line i have read in a long time ! ........ i am sure gutenberg, martin luther, leibniz, kant, beethoven, nietzsche and von braun are rollig around in their graves, not to mention the korean guy who invented kimchee !!!!!!!!

....damn, pavo ! ..... you are good !

This is a well-written and informative piece.

It is now generally agreed in the USA (if not officially acknowledged) that venturing into Iraq created a serious distraction from the more important task of rebuilding Afghanistan and addressing the concerns of its population. I believe that most US policymakers had this idea that the Afghans only wanted to be “liberated” from the Taliban and after that will take things in their own hands, so did not consider addressing the strong systemic factors which caused the Taliban to take root and spread in the first place.

There has always been a divergence of views on policy options for Afghanistan between the Defense and State Departments.

At present, it is highly unlikely that ANY US president will commit to a long-term stay in Afghanistan - certainly not a two decade stay. That would be considered a bit like throwing good money after money which has gone bad.

Can you provide some clippings from the Washington Post coverage of this issue in 2005 that you refer to?

Agha Amin: I read the first para. and found a very serious shortcoming in your thinking. You see - the US and NATO isnt in Afghanistan to win hearts and minds. They are there to protect themselves from future taliban making Afghanistan a safe haven for terrorists.

If you are confused on such a basic point, do you really think you have the ability to propose any grand strategies? (training from World Famous Kakul University notwithstanding).

Re: # 5

Hamidm sahib,

This is something that would never happen though. The muslim leaders are very good at enflaming the situation and trying to raise anti-absolutely anything sentiments amonsgst their flock; what we have seen in Iraq. In Iraq its muslims killing muslims but the arguments are always turned around and the "occupation" blamed for the "insurgency"; what insurgency! These are crackpots, misguided by their own brands of Zeemaxes, who incidently, despite knowing the "fast track" to the virgins in the afterlife, WILL NEVER put their own necks where their mouths are! Pity they can always find someone more deserving of the honour!

In one of your previous interacts you mentioned something along the lines of "leasing" Pakistan over to the americans for a few years/decades. It has the potential to go down the same route as Iraq though; something that has already started by the looks of things.

In order to be another West Germany, and there is nothing wrong with the idea, ther has to be some level of pre-existing enlightenment in a society. All we have is rhetoricians like Iqbal, whose whole effort was spent in simply re-affirming his faith for the Ummah by combining the 'god of the philosophers with the god of islam'; a concept far too common amongst the so-called philosophers/thinkers of the Muslim world.

And if one does come up with something new, he is branded a "Kafir/murtid" and dealt with appropriately and efficiently.

There is something very inherently peculiar about the muslim world; it is this firm adherence to a cult mentality combined with tribalistic barbarism that defines our faith; without that image, it means nothing to the garden variety muslim.

Re: # 5

Hamidm Sahib:

NY Times reported 4 FBI personal were injured in Islamabad blast.

This is a watershed event that turns the U.S. and West's policy toward Pakistan. How can perpetrators are not traitors to Pakistan, their action can destabilize Pakistan?

What Kissinger called "ambiguity" of Pakistan to locations of terrorists, will be dealt very differently than it had been so far.

I also do not know how democratic government can alone deal with urban terrorism? Pakistan is dragged into targeted urban terrorism. This is result of ambiguity due to present infestation of cancer cells in the present Pakistani institutions, whatever they are in pre-cursor to evolution of democratic institution. There is a lot of destroyed before construction can follow. This in Hindus trinity means, Pakistan needs Shiva - the destroyer, then Brahma - the creator, and followed by Vishnu - preserver. It seem there are many ready to be Vishnu from grass root elections.

Others may choose to focus on Kissinger's other diplomatic words of non-involvement, but the "amibuity" really spells new rules of engagement with and in Pakistan.

How far were you building your retirement home from this site of attack?

Re: # 5

Hamidm Sahib:

"...i am sure gutenberg, martin luther, leibniz, kant, beethoven, nietzsche and von braun are rollig around in their graves, not to mention the korean guy who invented kimchee !!!!!!!!..."

And Panini too. Although, his ashes must be mixed in the local soil which probably cannot turn, but burn.

Now please do not ask me who is Panini. I already told you who he was. You researched and told me that he was born not too far from your own birth place.

You indeed have a very bad tendency to forget, what may be great and Pakistani too. Before, something went wrong, greatness, and great people were born and lived there too.

"Koi beete hue din wapas nahin lautayega, Hamidm Sahib. Koi bhi nahin."

The difference between Pavo and the hamidms/ akcheemas of the world is the same as between men and mice.

Cheema sahib,

Islamists have never ruled Iraq or Pakistan. So how are the "Zeemax types" to blame for the mess in Iraq and A'stan?

Regards

Agha Sahib:

I have recently stayed away from Pak-related boards because my eyes start to hurt after staring a while at the computer (any desi totaka to avoid that?) and because anything you read on Pakistan in the morning is obsolete by the evening. But I read yours because you write more in strategic terms. I was somewhat disappointed as the article lacked the depth of your earlier articles.

I think that it is well acknowledged that Bush foolishly left Afghanistan too early to Karzai and Co. for his misadventure in Iraq. I don't think that focussing on infrastructure was a mistake. The mistake was to ignore the governance aspect, especially developing an efficient police and army. I recall that they were at one time using Indians to train their police, a worse trainer perhaps could not be found anywhere in the world.

It now looks certain that Pak politicians will now have to deal with US; this bodes ill in my opinion, especially since Nawaz Sharif seems to have agreed to be a part of the government. Since any govt. will have to cooperate willy-nilly with the US WOT, they will all get egg in their faces from the people who may not have a choice but to tilt towards islamist parties. I hope I am wrong but this is what I think might happen.

Maybe Mush will leave and Nawaz will sit in opposition; in that case people can turn to him if the government is discredited for doing the US dirty work.

“no substantial class of stakeholders which had a vested interest in success of US policy inside Afghanistan was created.”

After hamid’s post, it is hard to take this article seriously.

By not creating stakeholders within the afghan society, the US has set up its mission to be a failure! But the question is whether the US was looking to develop an economically viable and socially progressive country out of the tribal Afghanistan in the first Place?

Tahmed #7 does not believe so and he is right in that regard. The US never had any interest in helping Afghanistan come out of its thousands of years old misery. The solution that the US had was military and like in Iraq, the US never planned for anything that might develop Afghanistan economically.

However, at the run up to the war the US media and the US government did talk about the human rights issues and the Women’s right issues.

At least in the US, media made lots of noises about the women’s situation Afghanistan and what the US needs to do to help the women in Afghanistan. Women’s liberation does not happen in isolation. It can only happen through sustained economic activity.
Cleary, all the talk about the poor afghan women was just talk!

The mission that the US had was to rid Afghanistan of the terrorism and the terrorist. The US has failed in that mission too. The first job was to get OBL dead or alive but he was suspiciously let go and then the US President ludicrously told the media that OBL does not matter.

“The US has invested billions in Afghanistan.”

Is that right? Yes, there are more shops in Kabul, more banks and more hotels but interestingly most of them are within a confined area where the US army is prominently present. Roads have improved in some areas and there are lots of contractors everywhere from every part of the world! Travel from Peshawar to Kabul by road is pretty safe as that route is used by the Pakistan importers or re-importer or smugglers, who own shops in Peshawar.

One thing Agha misses completely is that US cannot create ambitious new businessmen in a vacuum! The Afghans are used to their traditional businesses and they are not going to start owning the industrial houses just because the US would like to them to do that.

I think Afghanistan is destined to remain a wretched country that it was in the 70s and the 30 years of civil war has perhaps emotionally drained people to an extent that they would probably be shy of accepting new people and new ideas for a long time.

The US still needs to complete its first mission that Tahmed mentioned and since there appears to be no urgency in the US attitude towards Afghanistan, we can safely assume that the US will stay in Afghanistan indefinitely and mostly with the help of the US army.

I doubt that there will ever be any attempt to win the hearts and minds of the people. That was never intended and the occupation now is just a military presence to intimidate other afghan neighbors in the south and the north! I will not even mention the east!

Re: # 7
"They are there to protect themselves from future taliban making Afghanistan a safe haven for terrorists."

While you accuse Mr. Agha, don't YOU know what this war (occupation then destruction) by one country on the rest is all about? How can you NOT point the finger at the horrible U.S. strategic interests (plundering of others' natural wealth)!

Sleep well...

Re: # 8

Muslim starts with a capital letter (not 'muslim').

Correct formatting is very important my dear doctor Watson, in case you lost the magnifier!

Peace.