Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Dec 2009 23:32

I used to get apoplectic about Kunduz Airlift and why India didn't do soemthing about it instead of just complain. In retrospect it was a good thing and hows there is a god looking after India.

All those dregs have taken the jihad into TSP and are self destroying it. Af-Pak wouldnt be a Fak-Ap if it werent for Kunduz and Tora Bora escapes.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 03 Dec 2009 00:07

Acharya,
Can you provide a historical context pls? I am aware of Ranjit Singhs rule, but how does that play into present day conflict in Afghanistan

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Dec 2009 00:09

Jarita wrote:Acharya,
Can you provide a historical context pls? I am aware of Ranjit Singhs rule, but how does that play into present day conflict in Afghanistan

That is for our generation to figure this out. The historical templete is there to study and understand. The historical capital has been created by the Sikh kingdoms.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 03 Dec 2009 00:10

Acharya wrote:
ramana wrote:
TSP reaction is the minor issue in this Af-Pak strategy. If all else fails they can get the NDA back in govt.
Hear this

Who? What? Where? Not comprehending.
I guess I need chai

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 Dec 2009 00:16

Acharya wrote:
Jarita wrote:Acharya,
Can you provide a historical context pls? I am aware of Ranjit Singhs rule, but how does that play into present day conflict in Afghanistan
That is for our generation to figure this out. The historical templete is there to study and understand. The historical capital has been created by the Sikh kingdoms.

We are the righful owners of the land and people there . Sikh Kingdom was able to take it back for us but lost again when MRS died and Sikh power diminshed . Its for new generation of Indians to take it rightfully back by using all possible Civilized means at hand.

gandharva · Post by **gandharva** » 03 Dec 2009 01:07

Gen. McChrystal Praises Obama's Afghanistan Decision

KABUL, Afghanistan (Dec. 2) - The statement of General Stanley McChrystal,
Commander NATO International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces
Afghanistan regarding the address by The President of the United States:

"The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.

"The NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) objective is equally clear: We will work toward improved security for Afghanistan and the transfer of responsibility to Afghan security forces as rapidly as conditions allow. In the meantime, our Afghan partners need the support of Coalition forces while we grow and develop the capacity of the Afghan army and police. That will be the main focus of our campaign in the months ahead.

"The 42 other nations of the Coalition will benefit from a strengthened U.S. commitment, as success in Afghanistan must be an international, integrated civil-military effort – from our security and training capacity to the governance and economic development assistance that sustains long-term stability. The concerted commitment of the international community will prevail in bringing real change to Afghanistan -- a secure and stable environment that allows for effective governance, improved economic opportunity and the freedom of every Afghan to choose how they live.

"We face many challenges in Afghanistan, but our efforts are sustained by one unassailable reality: neither the Afghan people nor the international community want Afghanistan to remain a sanctuary for terror and violence. The coalition is encouraged by President Obama's commitment and we remain resolute to empowering the Afghan people to reject the insurgency and build their own future."

http://www.isaf.nato.int/en/article/new ... ystal.html

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 03 Dec 2009 02:04

ramana wrote:I used to get apoplectic about Kunduz Airlift and why India didn't do soemthing about it instead of just complain. In retrospect it was a good thing and hows there is a god looking after India.
.

Yes. The Kunduz Airlift was like TSP accepting a blood transfusion from an HIV-positive Izzlamic birather

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Dec 2009 02:27

Sanku wrote:
ramana wrote:No kudos to me for getting the speech right?

An I even posted the logic of how I got there.
Ramana, sorry about this, but I guessed I missed the post you are talking about. Could you please point me to the post link.

TIA

No problem. You have to start with this post dated Nov 6th in this thread and work your way down.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 01#p768001

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Dec 2009 03:22

Thought I owned this thread, so I could change Af-Pak to Pak-Af ....................... could not edit it!!!!!!

But here goes:

CNN :: Pakistan a key factor in U.S. Afghan policy

Pakis!!!!!!!! A problem within a problem to the power of ......................

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Dec 2009 05:06

You should see the complete interview with Sec Gates on the Afghan policy. I think it clears a lot of issues (based on what I saw on ABC just now):

Interview with Sec Gates (17 minutes long)

* Key is the raising of ANA. Plan calls for 170,000 troops by July of 2011 - thus the date for drawdown. One trainer said he is "cautiously optimistic". His face betrayed his words
* Obama to have a hard review in Dec 2010 (to see if current policy is working). That should tell us something
* Afghans have promised a quota for each month - towards recruiting for ANA

McChrystal: 'A New Clarity of Mission' in Afghanistan

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 03 Dec 2009 05:47

CNN was so unprepared for the Taliban discussion yesterday after Ombaba's speech, that they didn't even have Quetta marked on their map, when they were discussing the Taliban.

The dorks that these guys are, made me laugh and cry at their superficialness and idiocy.

amdavadi · Post by **amdavadi** » 03 Dec 2009 05:55

Michael Ware Is a moron. He was talking about how afghanistan is about solving India-paki problem. I dont
know how this people qualify to make comments,and able to get a job.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Dec 2009 07:09

He was talking about how afghanistan is about solving India-paki problem. I dont
know how this people qualify to make comments,and able to get a job.

There were reports that during the Mush years the two came fairly close on matters of mutual concern/s.

There is another scenario where it is possible: IF Pakistan can bring her armed forces under A civilian government. The assumption being that such a civilian entity will have more authority as a national entity and none of the restrictions that the armed forces have.

Let us see.

here is a data point:

Chidambaram favours 'quite talks' to resolve Kashmir problem

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Dec 2009 08:53

Bay Area PBS syndicates a program worldfocus.org

Its quite objective in coverage of Af-Pak.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Dec 2009 09:23

NRao wrote:Thought I owned this thread, so I could change Af-Pak to Pak-Af ....................... could not edit it!!!!!!

But here goes:

CNN :: Pakistan a key factor in U.S. Afghan policy

Pakis!!!!!!!! A problem within a problem to the power of ......................

Do you like the title or need it to be changed?

ramana

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Dec 2009 09:39

ramana wrote:
Do you like the title or need it to be changed?

ramana

Also add - Fak-up Watch

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Dec 2009 09:43

Looks good to me.

Just reflects the current situation.

Up to Pakis now.

Thanks.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Dec 2009 09:53

Acharya wrote:
ramana wrote:
Do you like the title or need it to be changed?

ramana
Also add - Fak-up Watch

This will be later once the Pakis do their normal thing.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 Dec 2009 10:00

Is this another one of Uncle 's Amritraj moment with Pak asking With us or Else?

Hope Indians are aready when moment comes. (Watch the commercial)

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 Dec 2009 10:02

Clinton, Gates and Mullen on Pak-Af policy (2 hours 46 minutes video)

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/ ... ategy.aspx

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 Dec 2009 11:39

ramana wrote:
No problem. You have to start with this post dated Nov 6th in this thread and work your way down.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 01#p768001

Got it thanks, and certainly Kudo's are in order for getting what US would do right.

But do you think this would still work? As others have already pointed out, the US stress is time bound, so what happens the stress lifts? Thats when the whole picture of "whats next" has to be played out again (with various scenario's already proposed on BRF)

Having got this one right, what would be your take on "what's next"?

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 03 Dec 2009 12:15

A Pakistani Perspective - definitely a must read for the close followers -

Obama's Afghanistan mis-speech Mosharraf Zaidi, The News, Thursday, December 03, 2009

Even at the risk of selective quoting -

The Kandahari Taliban represent an even more complex creature, and I deliberately categorise them separately from the FATA-based terrorists that are killing American soldiers. Many within the Kandahari Taliban are ready to embrace their Poppalzai brother in Kabul, and snub both the hardcore elements within their ranks, as well as the Dostum and Masood proxies that have had an uncontested run of Afghanistan's spoils since 2001-2002. Pragmatists in the Karzai camp, as well as among both US military and diplomatic circles, know that the end-game in Kabul will require accommodation with such Taliban.

Pakistan will not abandon the Kandahari Taliban or any other proxies of Pakistani power that will be useful in Kabul. The regional imbalances that drive existential fears in Pakistan don't make Pakistan less committed to having influence in Kabul; they make Pakistan more committed to it.

Continued reliance on the Northern Alliance to provide good governance, on the US military and NATO to hold territory, and on Pakistan to take on the Kandahari Taliban are all delusions. President Obama's refusal to recognise the immobility of America's position in his speech is his greatest failure to date.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 03 Dec 2009 12:22

Prem wrote:Af-Pak needs Punjabi domination but of the right kind. Now i understand why Ba...d British made sure to finish the blood line of Maharaja Ranjit Singh .

I have slightly different take on this.. Although I agree with the basic template that Punjab should be the base from where NWFP and Gaandhaar should be controlled. Taxila (Islamabad) is ideal place to project the wresting control over NWFP and central Asia. Attock and Taxila are truly the "Gateways of India". The boundary of Bhaarat should at least be till this door.

However, Punjab in turn must be under tight control of Heartland central powers. It is ironic to note that, except Harshavardhan of Thanesar, there was no Punjabi king in history of Bhaarat who wrested control over gangetic plains. Even MRS did not come for Gangetic plains (just because he was preoccupied with NWFP and it is impossible to control everything in one generation). The biggest misfortune of Sikhs was that they could not encash the ideology (of Panth) to propagate a new and sustainable race of leaders who will continue the good work of MRS. Thus, MRS comes as a pleasant exception instead of an evident rule. There should have been 3-4 more rulers like MRS in succession. This also shows one more thing. When Indian heartland and peninsula is consolidated under one power and that power is hell-bent on conquest of Punjab and NWFP, there is nothing Punjab (Or for that matter any other province) can do to stop it. During Harsha's time, the gangetic plains were dispersed; whereas during MRS's time, it was almost totally consolidated (after 1818, British were de-facto the rulers of India). Republic of India should do with Pakistan what British-Indian Empire did with Sikh Empire after death of MRS.

I believe that if Madhavrao-1 Peshwa had lived for 20-30 years more, there would have been a stable Sikh lineage in Punjab (Marathas would never have ventured again in Punjab; once was enough) and there would have been no British OR French. The early death of this excellent prince was the biggest misfortune of Bhaarat. India was moving towards a stable 2 OR 3 Indic state structure. There would have been 2-3 stable Indic nations within Bhaarat, instead of today's scenario of 7 out of which 2 are rabidly non-Indic and anti-Indic and other 4 are not completely within the writ of central power.

Whenever Punjab in its entirety is controlled by gangetic plains, there are never any problems from NWFP. When Punjab is completely independent but totally amicable and allied with central Indian power, there are no problems from NWFP. however a partitioned Punjab ruled by asswholes who are bickering with central Indian power for no reason, is sure invitation for a bamboo from NWFP and central asia to do Amritraj.The Gangetic plains are the real "Strategic depth" of Punjab. As long as this strategic depth is secured and sympathetic, NWFP and Central Asia is not a problem but an opportunity to earn tremendous profits. Which is what traders of Shikarpur did (for instance).

By nature, Punjabis are more of merchants, than administrators of a stable kingdom.. The ability to do business comes naturally to Punjabis owing to their natural access to Central Asian trading routes. Even untill last year, most of the money lenders in Swat valley were Hindu-Sikh Punjabis before they were driven out by Taliban. This was the case before partition as well. Due to their efficiency in business, there requires a stronger forces from heartland which ensures stability and tranquillity.

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 03 Dec 2009 12:43

Taking up the piece by Mosharraf Zaidi, his point on the interests of paki fauj in Kandahari Taliban is understandable.

But I am not able to connect why they should be obliged to the fauj? Of course they will take help to fight the NA and link up with the Kabuli Taliban, but after they do so, they need not become servile to the Pakjabi fauj?

Further there is the question of Peshawari taliban (I refer to the piece from YI Patel above).

Personally I can reconcile the YI Patel post above and the paki insight post of Mosharraf Zaidi. I cannot see how pakistan cannot end up in a no-win situation, eventually!

Impact on India is an entirely different matter - OT for this thread!

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Dec 2009 20:46

NRao wrote:You should see the complete interview with Sec Gates on the Afghan policy. I think it clears a lot of issues (based on what I saw on ABC just now):

Interview with Sec Gates (17 minutes long)

* Key is the raising of ANA. Plan calls for 170,000 troops by July of 2011 - thus the date for drawdown. One trainer said he is "cautiously optimistic". His face betrayed his words
* Obama to have a hard review in Dec 2010 (to see if current policy is working). That should tell us something
* Afghans have promised a quota for each month - towards recruiting for ANA

McChrystal: 'A New Clarity of Mission' in Afghanistan

i just beginning to understand atleast Af part in Af-pak. Crux of that is based on

Joe Biden had a question. During a long Sunday meeting with President Obama and top national-security advisers on Sept. 13, the VP interjected, "Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?" Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. "And how much will we spend on Pakistan?" Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. "Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?" The White House Situation Room fell silent. But the questions had their desired effect: those gathered began putting more thought into Pakistan as the key theater in the region.

Thinking is to make the ANA to do their bidding post 2011 while they give support in terms of leadership and general guidance. So that most of the resources could be called back. Only time will tell how this will works out.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Dec 2009 21:17

But the questions had their desired effect: those gathered began putting more thought into Pakistan as the key theater in the region.

When did this very same argument crop up? About 10 years or so ago? Was it Kargil or post 911?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Dec 2009 21:46

Thanks sanku. Will do so as its our duty to study the outcomes.

BTW, I heard the Afghan Interior Minister on Worldfocus tv. What he was talking about was to bolster the existing police force of ~93000 to have better training and better numbers. The ANA has similar strength and will have similar build up. This was my fourth point.

The big question is it costs $3.5B to maintain such a force and Afghan resources are 1/3 of that. Hence the need to pump in money from outside.

An aside. I think disenchanted Western reporters are joining in Al Jazzera. Earlier they used to join Commie Media outlets.

The ANA/Police build up is a "Vietnamization" strategy with a twist. In this instance US controls TSP unlike in earlier case. So has better chances of success. I would add a 'deputization" plan to rope in the good Pashtuns, who Zaidi identifies, into para militaries to cut down the cost of armed forces. Until then an Intl aid conf has to be called. I think David Brown is calling for one in january 2010.

MMS grand strategy is to have the US control TSP's Punjab and leverage Indian economy as an incentive for US to do so. That is the AF-Pak connection to Indian rise. You have to fight with what you got.

BTW,I love his daughter's book. She truly deserves the Infosys prize.

vijayk · Post by **vijayk** » 03 Dec 2009 22:11

Malayappan wrote:A Pakistani Perspective - definitely a must read for the close followers -

Obama's Afghanistan mis-speech Mosharraf Zaidi, The News, Thursday, December 03, 2009

Pakistani public opinion is decidedly against extremist groups and extremism -- but even a cursory look at the data and the news would disabuse anyone of the notion that Pakistan and the United States face a common enemy.

But the terrorists that operate in Afghanistan (from FATA), seeking to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan do not pose a threat to Pakistan. At least, that is what the calculus of Pakistani decision makers has been, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Constant efforts to buy, coerce or cajole Pakistan's military and political elite into doing things that they consider suicidal simply has not worked. Pakistan's government will take the money, but it will not deliver the product.

It did not work for eight years under the Bush and Mush tag team.

Of course, Pakistan enjoys no moral authority whatsoever in Afghanistan. But it does enjoy being the only other country that Pakhtuns call home. It does enjoy an extremely long border with Afghanistan. It does enjoy clandestine services that have 30 years of experience in cultivating and leveraging assets in Afghanistan that have a demonstrated record of strategic success. Ethnically, geopolitically and in terms of intelligence, Pakistan has an insurmountable advantage in Afghanistan.

If NATO does not understand that in order to reduce the threat, the only viable option is the destruction of Pokristan, then NATO is a waste. The terrorists land will never stop its dalliance with rogues and terrorists.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Dec 2009 22:24

It did not work for eight years under the Bush and Mush tag team.

It behooves us to check out what the Obama team has to say on such matters. Please take a minute to do so.

Obama has proposed NOT to route funds through the central government organizations. The mechanism is totally different. everything seems to be totally different.

It does not mean that the Obama effort will work, but if it fails it will NOT be for the same reason as the Bush-Mush tag team.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 03 Dec 2009 22:34

Sorry if already posted here:

A Senate Foreign Relations Committee report confirms that George W. Bush had the chance to take out Osama bin Laden a few months after the attacks of 9/11

When criticized...for not zeroing in on bin Laden, administration officials, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, responded that the al Qaeda leader's location was uncertain. "But the review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants underlying this report removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora," the report said. ...The report called bin Laden's escape "a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism, leaving the American people more vulnerable to terrorism, laying the foundation for today's protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan.

.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/29/ ... index.html
.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 03 Dec 2009 22:50

Apologies if posted earlier ...

Obama administration backtracks on Afghanistan withdrawal date

The July 2011 date for beginning a withdrawal of US forces in Afghanistan, announced by President Obama in his speech to West Point military cadets Tuesday night, is neither irreversible nor even a deadline, top US national security officials said Wednesday.

During the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday morning, every Republican senator and most Democrats voiced support for the escalation of the war, but several of the Republicans pressed the trio of witnesses on Obama’s one-sentence reference to July 2011 as the beginning of a drawdown of US forces.

In response, Gates, Clinton and Mullen each made statements effectively declaring the July 2011 deadline meaningless, and emphasizing that the Obama administration was committed to a long-term military presence in Central Asia.

Admiral Mullen went on to state that what would begin in July 2011 was a transfer of secured districts from US to Afghan government control. “The July 2011 date is a day we start transitioning—transferring responsibility and transitioning,” he said. “It’s not a date that we’re leaving. And the president also said that…will be based on conditions on the ground

Graham: The question is, have we locked ourselves into leaving, Secretary Clinton, in July 2011?

Clinton: Well, Senator Graham, I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving.

Looks like Unkil is going to be in Af-Pak for a long time ...

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 03 Dec 2009 23:00

Obama's perilous Pakistan strategy - Ilyas Khan, BBC Ishloo

Many in the political establishment also express fears publicly that an intensified campaign of drone strikes in Pakistani areas may stoke the fires of anti-Americanism and strengthen the extremists.

But in private conversations they also express hope that increased US pressure on Pakistan to squeeze the space for militant groups will weaken the army's resolve to continue to support and protect them.

.....

A credible source in Islamabad told the BBC News website that if the Pakistanis were found to be dragging their feet on the issue of militant groups, the Americans might consider drone strikes on some important strategic targets deep inside Pakistan to hasten the process.

The source said a message to this effect had already been conveyed to the Pakistani leadership.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Dec 2009 23:09

From Nightwatch:
LinK:
http://nightwatch.afcea.org/NightWatch_20091202.htm

Reaction to Obama's speech:

Reactions to the President’s speech:

Pakistan-Afghanistan: Sirajuddin Haqqani, a Pakistan-based Afghan Taliban clan leader, said the coming surge of troops into Afghanistan will not prevent an eventual Western defeat, DPA reported 2 December. Haqqani, son of former mujahideen commander Jalaluddin Haqqani, also told Geo television that the United States was sending secret messages to the Taliban to request talks.

Afghanistan Taliban: “Many more troops the enemy sends against our Afghan mujahedin, they are committed to increasing the number of mujahedin and strengthen their resistance,” the Taliban said in a statement e-mailed to media.

Around the world: In Europe the reaction to the speech was roundly favorable. All the Scandinavian states plus Poland, Macedonia, South Korea supported the US President. France and Germany were more reserved.

Even Russia appears supportive, especially in anticipation of increased American use of Russian rails and airspace for supplying the reinforcements. “The measures relative to the new American strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan set out by US President Barack Obama are all welcomed positively in Moscow," a Foreign Ministry statement said.

The response from China that Xinhua published 3 December is that the new US strategy faces hurdles. Pakistan has been supportive but India has been skeptical.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Dec 2009 23:38

wow!.. the pak-fakis must be really packing and joining the main stream.. 80K strong troupe with enough khan electronic watch and fcrs sure enough to have a daamij cuntrol plan emanating from the mullahworld!.

a real thread name would Pak-aph when they pack off lock-stock-barrel to native hide outs.

Osamites and their musharraffs may be starting to fire more brick kilns.. I hope the M1 abrahams are not needed for this mission that is to be rotating on 18 months basis.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Dec 2009 23:48

Chinese, leaders into the Kali Yuga, did not read this I guess:

Pakistan must do better job: Clinton

..............................

Q+A: Can Obama secure more Pakistani help on Afghanistan?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Dec 2009 00:15

Related in an odd way to Af-Pak

http://www.dailypioneer.com/220214/Perc ... ality.html

Perception of reality

Sunanda K Datta-Ray

BBC radio suddenly broadcast a programme on Vande Mataram the other morning. If that was surprising, the angle the BBC chose was even more so. The theme was why Indian Muslims find Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay’s patriotic song objectionable, encouraging a speaker to complain that Muslims have suffered discrimination in India ever since independence.

That sense of victimisation extended this week to the placid pastures of Switzerland where mosques can no longer flaunt minarets. US President Barack Obama’s promise to send another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan will undoubtedly aggravate Muslim grievances. Operation Enduring Freedom was supposed to be the civilised world’s united effort to stamp out terrorism. Instead, it seems to be turning into a war between Muslims and the rest. One had only to be in the small English town of Luton this week to get a taste of the passion with which some seemingly ordinary British Muslims identify with the Taliban.

Baroness Sayeeda Warsi of Dewsbury, a personable young woman of 38 who is regarded as the most prominent Muslim in the British establishment (she is the Conservative shadow minister of community cohesion), felt the brunt of their hate. Luton Muslims jeered at her as she walked down a road and spattered her with eggs. Initially, the Yorkshire-born daughter of Pakistani immigrants, a criminal defence lawyer by training, tried to ignore the “extremists”, as she called them. But as they became more raucous and violent, she fled into a sari shop.

The protesters probably belonged to the Al Muhajiroun organisation which wants Christian Britain (the monarch is supreme governor of the Church of England) to introduce sharia’h law. They accuse Baroness Warsi of being anti-sharia’h. They also complain that by supporting the war in Afghanistan, she is helping to kill Muslims.

That’s what it is all about. Afghanistan is becoming the touchstone on which believers judge non-believers. No wonder America’s West Asian allies dare not send troops to join Operation Enduring Freedom. The ruling elites in these countries hate and despise Al Qaeda and forces like the Taliban as much as the US does. But many ordinary Arabs look on fundamentalists as defenders of their faith. That also explains US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s belief that only the Army in Pakistan is fighting the terrorists. Also British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s demand — sharply made to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari whom he telephoned and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani whom he met yesterday — that Pakistani leaders back their promises with action. Militant Muslims might choose to see his bluntness in urging them to catch Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as colonial bullying.

Current revelations about the other Western-Muslim war, the one in Iraq, are making it easier to criticise Operation Enduring Freedom. Two British parliamentary inquiries and two specialised investigations had already established that Saddam Hussain was not making weapons of mass destruction, as claimed. Now, senior mandarins testifying at the high-powered inquiry ordered by Mr Brown confirm that President George W Bush was raring to destroy the Iraqi leader from the moment he was elected, and that Mr Tony Blair promised him military support at their tête-à-tête at the Crawford ranch. Neither needed evidence of Saddam’s wrongdoing.

Not that such evidence would have made any difference to Luton folk. When 200 men of the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Anglia Regiment, paraded through the town after a stint in Iraq, they were greeted with catcalls, “Butchers of Basra” placards and accusations of murdering Muslim women and babies. The reported horrors of the Abu Ghraib detention centre reinforced the conviction that any war where the adversary is Muslim is unjust. The return to Britain of an ethnic Somali (also Muslim) prisoner from Guantanamo Bay with tales of torture at the hands of American and Pakistani investigators, the latter acting under US orders is further fuel to the jihadi fire.

The 2001 Census listed 1.6 million Muslims in Britain, accounting for three per cent of the population. They have been in a demanding mood for some years, taking full advantage of Britain’s social welfare services while sympathising — sometimes secretly, sometimes openly — with the British state’s enemies. The authorities tread with caution. When Mr David Cameron, the Conservative leader, accused the Government (mistakenly as it happened) of funding extremist Muslim schools, thereby prompting the screaming newspaper headline “£113,000 aid to fanatics who want to kill us”, one of Mr Brown’s Ministers warned against making “false accusations which smear every Muslim with the same extremist brush”. The damage had been done by the time Mr Cameron apologised.

As the Swiss referendum showed, the dichotomy extends far beyond Britain. Switzerland’s 400,000 Muslims (four per cent of population) are mostly Bosnians and entirely European in looks and lifestyle. Switzerland has only four mosques with minarets. Nevertheless, the populist Swiss People’s Party pressed for the referendum to ban minarets, its Mr Ulrich Schluer citing the European Union court’s proscription of crucifixes in Italian schools to argue that Muslims should not display totems of their faith either. SPP posters of a veiled Muslim woman against a background of missile-shaped minarets recalled Turkey’s Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan referring to minarets as the bayonets of Islam.

With European intolerance and Muslim bigotry feeding on each other, 57.5 per cent of respondents supported the SPP. Though the ban must be framed into law, it does not really hit out at Islam. For, as Mr Taj Hargay, chairman of Oxford’s Muslim Educational Centre and imam of the Summertown Islamic Congregation, points out, minarets are “not integral to contemporary mosque design.” Thanks to today’s sophisticated communications technology, muezzins no longer need lung power to summon the faithful to prayer. Minarets are no more than a form of ornamentation like pointed arches. In any case, Swiss laws on noise pollution rather defeat the minaret’s original purpose.

But tradition makes prisoners of men, and no one will admit that customs and practices that were desirable in the boundless sands of 15th century Arabia are not so in a busy 21st century European city. The real damage is psychological. As the president of the Zurich-based Federation of Islamic Organizations, Mr Taner Hatipoglu, warns, the ban will have a negative impact on Muslim relations with and “social integration” in mainstream society.

As with Vande Mataram, it’s the perception that matters more than the substance.

-- [email protected]

So all the more reason for US to be successful in Af-Pak.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 04 Dec 2009 00:17

See the comments under the Melissa ROddy article

The Taliban is a Pakistani paramilitary organization created by ISI to suppress Pashtun nationalists and to destabilize Afghanistan - Melissa

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-r ... 76673.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Dec 2009 00:55

Some data points from FT print edition:

Summer 2010: Additional 30,000 US troops expected to be deployed
Oct 2010: NATO aims to have ANA force strength at 134,000, up from current figure of 95,000
July, 2001: Obama predicts first drawdown of US troops
Dec 2013: US aims to have 240,000 ANA soldiers AND 160,000 police fully trained

2014: UK says it will be in a position to withdraw British forces from Helmand as Afghans take over security in the province

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 04 Dec 2009 01:11

x-posting from the TSP thread ...

I still have doubts about the US ability to eliminate all safe havens in Pakistan for the taliban. The troop surge is mainly because they don't have the capacity today to confront taliban all along the Af-Pak border. They won't take the fight to Pakistan to eliminate all sanctuaries there.

Nothing prevents the pakis from lying low in NWFA. Stop all attacks or keep it to a bare minimum. Give a false sense of security that the surge has succeeded and allow the Americans to declare victory and go home. They can then have the field to themselves. I really doubt whether Obama would want the troops to stay close to the next election date. At the minimum, at least half the troops would be gone by then

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 04 Dec 2009 01:38

Congress worries over Obama's Pakistan plan

...
"What happens in Pakistan ... will do more to determine the outcome in Afghanistan than any increase in troops or shift in strategy," said Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
...
...
Opening a hearing on Afghan strategy, Kerry, a Democrat, said that it is the "presence of al-Qaida in Pakistan, its direct ties to and support from the Taliban in Afghanistan and the perils of an unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan that drive our mission,"

Sen. Richard Lugar, the committee's top Republican, chimed in, saying the president and his administration "must justify their plan not only on the basis of how it will affect Afghanistan, but also on how it will impact our efforts to promote a much stronger alliance with Pakistan."
...
...
Mullen used his opening remarks to assure Kerry and Lugar that the administration's strategy takes Pakistan into account. "The linkage between Pakistan and Afghanistan is almost an absolute," Mullen said.

"A stable, supportive Afghanistan will make a big difference on how Pakistan sees its future," he said.

...
Gates said he considered the dangers to be greater than they were 18 months ago because al-Qaida has become "deeply involved" with Taliban forces operating inside Pakistan that are trying to destabilize the government there.
...
...
One particular problem is Pakistan, he added.

"They don't seem to want a strategic relationship. They want the money. They want the equipment. But at the end of the day, they don't want a relationship that costs them too much," Menendez said.
...
...
Many Western officials and analysts believe Pakistan is playing off both sides — accepting U.S. funds to crack down on Pakistani militants while tolerating the Afghan Taliban in the expectation that the radical Islamic movement will take power in Afghanistan once the Americans withdraw.
...
...