Americans won’t back long Afghan war

[BATMAN]

Americans won’t back long Afghan war, says Gates

* US official says troops must gain ground by next summer

WASHINGTON: US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said US-led forces must gain ground against insurgents in Afghanistan by the next summer to avoid a public perception the war was un-winnable, the Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday.

While noting that the Taliban would not be defeated within a year, Gates told the newspaper that it was critical that the US military and its allies showed they were making progress.

“After the Iraq (war) experience, nobody is prepared to have a long slog where it is not apparent we are making headway,” Gates said in an interview.

Tiredness: “The troops are tired. The American people are pretty tired,” he said.

The US public’s souring attitude towards the war in Iraq, where more than 4,300 US troops have been killed since 2003, cut popular support for former President George W Bush and is cited by some as a factor for his party’s huge losses in the 2008 election.

The Obama administration has shifted its strategy to make the battle in Afghanistan a higher priority.

Washington is sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan in a bid to counter the Taliban, who now control a large swath of territory, and it has named a new commander to lead the NATO-backed effort.

“This is where we are really getting back into the fight,” said Gates, who is overseeing the new strategy. The additional US troops will reinforce roughly 70,000 international troops already in Afghanistan. NATO leaders also have agreed to boost troop levels by 3,000 to provide security ahead of an August presidential election.

US and British troops recently launched an operation across southern Afghanistan to try to recapture territory from the Taliban and improve security, but have suffered heavy losses in the offensive, largely because the militants are using powerful roadside bombs to deadly effect. reuters

 

[Watani]

Well, this was expected. If this invading hadn't started, millions of Muslim lives wouldn't have been lost and the world wouldn't have been financially corrupted. I am just afraid that if they leave, the war between the Warlords and the Taliban will reach 'the mountains' and possibly at least one more million lives will be lost.

 

[BATMAN]

IMO, All the foreign troops are fighting a ghost war. They have enemy within.
Those who have been patronizing the drug trade are the real culprits.
Stop the drug money comming comming back to Afghnaistan.. I cannot say stop the drugs goin gout of Afghanistan because its been too late and by now tons of heroin had been sent out to Europe and US, which can easily fund the insurgency forcing US to keep the potrons of drug trade un moved.
IMO, All those involved in drug trade must be sacked irrespective of their influnce and positions.
Fair elections must be conducted immediately and Afghan govt. must be handed over to fairly elected.
flights comming in to afghanistan must be thorougly inspected for possible illegal arms.
UN troops must be called in to guard the Pak-Af border.

 

[BATMAN]

Well, this was expected. If this invading hadn't started, millions of Muslim lives wouldn't have been lost and the world wouldn't have been financially corrupted. I am just afraid that if they leave, the war between the Warlords and the Taliban will reach 'the mountains' and possibly at least one more million lives will be lost.

Answer is UN troops... to begin with.
Why is UN reluctant to send peace keepers?
Warlords are presently ruling Afghanistan and all foreign aid is going into their hands.
They are buying weopans with this money and are preparing for any future war.. just like you mentioned.
their should be one Afghan national army and all personal militias of warlords must be unarmed.

 

[muse]

Editorial: Fight against terror and India

The interior minister, Mr Rehman Malik, addressed a press conference jointly with his Afghan counterpart in Kabul on Friday and pledged better cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan in the fight against the Taliban insurgency. He admitted that “mistakes have been made by both sides in the past”. Mr Malik characteristically warned the terrorists: “Stop it! We’ve decided to take you on, we’ve decided to flush you out...you’ve killed so many people...throw down your arms and ask for mercy from God”.

The joint press conference sounded like any that has happened in the past between the dignitaries of the two countries. Kabul is always polite and courteous, unwilling to express differences in the open; and Pakistan has likewise responded with niceties. But if you look at what the two say about each other at home, one comes across divergences and antagonisms that may take long years to overcome. Is there, however, a difference of tone detectable in the latest statements from the interior ministers?

One clear difference is that Pakistan is now less confused about what to do with its own Taliban than ever in the past. It has decided to take on the warlords of its Tribal Areas, and the world clearly sees that it is fighting them in real earnest, killing the terrorists and losing its own soldiers in the process. Has Kabul, too, undergone a change of heart? Is there a hopeful change of policy there too? Unfortunately, there is a big area of discussion where the two will not speak openly and their positions may still be far apart.

Kabul has looked at Pakistan as the nursery of Talibanisation and is bothered by “invasions” from inside Pakistan led by Taliban commanders and containing Pakistani Taliban, confirming Kabul’s claim that all Taliban are under a joint command. It has accused Pakistan of giving shelter to the Afghan Taliban in Balochistan and has been pointing the finger at Quetta as their stronghold. Pakistan has consistently denied this and it is a matter of record that Islamabad has asked the Americans to inform it of what they mean by the Quetta Shura. Nothing substantive has been given to Pakistan except more allegations and newspaper reports about Taliban presence in and around Quetta! On the other hand the presence of some Baloch secessionist leaders in Kabul is now an established fact.

Kabul also reads its own messages in the presence of India in Afghanistan. Apart from the considerable reconstruction and development work being carried out by India there, it is also seen as a strategic make-weight against the potential dominance of Pakistan. In this thinking, Kabul is not alone. The Americans see India as a “useful partner” in the task of Afghanistan’s reconstruction. They may also see the Indian presence as a permanent solution to Pakistan’s policy of interference and dominance in Afghanistan, though the more discerning analysts realise that such a policy is doomed by the constraints of geography. Kabul is strengthened further by the support India enjoys from Iran as both try to limit Pakistan’s leverage over Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s “unofficial” view is that Kabul is being run by a puppet government put up by the Americans, and it sees India as a part of the American plan not only to prevent Pakistan from asserting its legitimate influence over Afghanistan, but also to set it up as the hegemon of South Asia. Pakistan is yet to clearly define the role of Iran, just as it was unable to reconcile its decision to construct an Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline with its permanent strategy to challenge India in the region.

India, on the other hand, doesn’t give Pakistan the role the world wants to give it as the fighter against terrorism. It actually thinks it is a part of the problem, but no one listens to it. America thinks Pakistan is crucial in the fight against terrorism and is reacting positively to Islamabad’s change of policy towards the Taliban. But, just when the US Congress passes laws to reward Pakistan for its new policy, India wants Pakistan punished instead. This is where New Delhi, pushed by its domestic politics, is isolating itself. Its interference inside Pakistan, so far ignored by the world, could thus become an international worry.

If India relents, Pakistan will be happier changing its view of India and move forward and normalise its relations with India. It has to mix its old “realist” strategy of maintaining stability through power-balance with a new “liberal” approach of achieving stability through economic interdependence. Till that happens, however, the various state postures in the region will remain ambiguous and contradictory, with possibilities of covert wars being fought by non-state actors through infusion of funds and weapons[/I].

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Editorial: Fight against terror and India

The interior minister, Mr Rehman Malik, addressed a press conference jointly with his Afghan counterpart in Kabul on Friday and pledged better cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan in the fight against the Taliban insurgency. He admitted that “mistakes have been made by both sides in the past”. Mr Malik characteristically warned the terrorists: “Stop it! We’ve decided to take you on, we’ve decided to flush you out...you’ve killed so many people...throw down your arms and ask for mercy from God”.

The joint press conference sounded like any that has happened in the past between the dignitaries of the two countries. Kabul is always polite and courteous, unwilling to express differences in the open; and Pakistan has likewise responded with niceties. But if you look at what the two say about each other at home, one comes across divergences and antagonisms that may take long years to overcome. Is there, however, a difference of tone detectable in the latest statements from the interior ministers?

One clear difference is that Pakistan is now less confused about what to do with its own Taliban than ever in the past. It has decided to take on the warlords of its Tribal Areas, and the world clearly sees that it is fighting them in real earnest, killing the terrorists and losing its own soldiers in the process. Has Kabul, too, undergone a change of heart? Is there a hopeful change of policy there too? Unfortunately, there is a big area of discussion where the two will not speak openly and their positions may still be far apart.

Kabul has looked at Pakistan as the nursery of Talibanisation and is bothered by “invasions” from inside Pakistan led by Taliban commanders and containing Pakistani Taliban, confirming Kabul’s claim that all Taliban are under a joint command. It has accused Pakistan of giving shelter to the Afghan Taliban in Balochistan and has been pointing the finger at Quetta as their stronghold. Pakistan has consistently denied this and it is a matter of record that Islamabad has asked the Americans to inform it of what they mean by the Quetta Shura. Nothing substantive has been given to Pakistan except more allegations and newspaper reports about Taliban presence in and around Quetta! On the other hand the presence of some Baloch secessionist leaders in Kabul is now an established fact.

Kabul also reads its own messages in the presence of India in Afghanistan. Apart from the considerable reconstruction and development work being carried out by India there, it is also seen as a strategic make-weight against the potential dominance of Pakistan. In this thinking, Kabul is not alone. The Americans see India as a “useful partner” in the task of Afghanistan’s reconstruction. They may also see the Indian presence as a permanent solution to Pakistan’s policy of interference and dominance in Afghanistan, though the more discerning analysts realise that such a policy is doomed by the constraints of geography. Kabul is strengthened further by the support India enjoys from Iran as both try to limit Pakistan’s leverage over Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s “unofficial” view is that Kabul is being run by a puppet government put up by the Americans, and it sees India as a part of the American plan not only to prevent Pakistan from asserting its legitimate influence over Afghanistan, but also to set it up as the hegemon of South Asia. Pakistan is yet to clearly define the role of Iran, just as it was unable to reconcile its decision to construct an Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline with its permanent strategy to challenge India in the region.

India, on the other hand, doesn’t give Pakistan the role the world wants to give it as the fighter against terrorism. It actually thinks it is a part of the problem, but no one listens to it. America thinks Pakistan is crucial in the fight against terrorism and is reacting positively to Islamabad’s change of policy towards the Taliban. But, just when the US Congress passes laws to reward Pakistan for its new policy, India wants Pakistan punished instead. This is where New Delhi, pushed by its domestic politics, is isolating itself. Its interference inside Pakistan, so far ignored by the world, could thus become an international worry.

If India relents, Pakistan will be happier changing its view of India and move forward and normalise its relations with India. It has to mix its old “realist” strategy of maintaining stability through power-balance with a new “liberal” approach of achieving stability through economic interdependence. Till that happens, however, the various state postures in the region will remain ambiguous and contradictory, with possibilities of covert wars being fought by non-state actors through infusion of funds and weapons[/I].

Very well said

 

[Thomas]

Americans won’t back long Afghan war, says Gates

* US official says troops must gain ground by next summer

WASHINGTON: US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said US-led forces must gain ground against insurgents in Afghanistan by the next summer to avoid a public perception the war was un-winnable, the Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday.

While noting that the Taliban would not be defeated within a year, Gates told the newspaper that it was critical that the US military and its allies showed they were making progress.

“After the Iraq (war) experience, nobody is prepared to have a long slog where it is not apparent we are making headway,” Gates said in an interview.

Tiredness: “The troops are tired. The American people are pretty tired,” he said.

The US public’s souring attitude towards the war in Iraq, where more than 4,300 US troops have been killed since 2003, cut popular support for former President George W Bush and is cited by some as a factor for his party’s huge losses in the 2008 election.

The Obama administration has shifted its strategy to make the battle in Afghanistan a higher priority.

Washington is sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan in a bid to counter the Taliban, who now control a large swath of territory, and it has named a new commander to lead the NATO-backed effort.

“This is where we are really getting back into the fight,” said Gates, who is overseeing the new strategy. The additional US troops will reinforce roughly 70,000 international troops already in Afghanistan. NATO leaders also have agreed to boost troop levels by 3,000 to provide security ahead of an August presidential election.

US and British troops recently launched an operation across southern Afghanistan to try to recapture territory from the Taliban and improve security, but have suffered heavy losses in the offensive, largely because the militants are using powerful roadside bombs to deadly effect. reuters

Because Gates may have said that does not make it so. It is simply his perception. No different then when Rumsfeld was Secretary. of defense and was wrong in some of his beliefs. 80% of everyone I know are willing to stay the course in Afghanistan. I think as the U.S. draws down it's forces in Iraq and switches more attention to Afghanistan you will see some headway made. Especially in concert with Pakistan working together to eliminate the Taliban. Though I do not believe the Taliban will ever be totally eliminated since there will always be some fanatics who never give up on their hatred of anyone that does not believe what they do. They can be severely crippled though and made more of a nuisance.

I think some fundamental policy changes need to take place with how things are handled in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Allies need to reach out more to the Afghan people and maintain a presence throughout the countryside rather then stay in the population centers. coupled with major infrastructure building projects. Pakistan needs to maintain severe pressure in going after Taliban in the tribal regions. And give what ever support is needed to the tribal elders that want nothing to do with the Taliban. They also need to purge their intelligence service of those responsible for bringing the Taliban to power in Afghanistan and still maintain ties to and help them.

The world leaders then need to put pressure on India and Pakistan to actually sit down and work out their differences. Can you imagine the borders of India and Pakistan having no need of a massive military presence? this can only happen though if each side will be willing to compromise with each other to bring about peace and prosperity.

 

[muslim282]

warlords making millions through drugs, they have their own little armies and stockpiles of weapons which they will turn on the afghan goverment and the US at the first sign of any attack on their drug business.
A goverment which only has control and decission making over the capital kabul. Seggregation being rife over cultural, political and religous views.
The great USA having gone into the war with no specific strategy, remember the taliban and al-qaida are not just armed people but an ideology, ideologies cannot be defeated by war but simply strenghthens their resolve, look at communism and vietnaam.
The americans want to take control of the areas where the taliban operate from but can,t police them and hence place the afghan army their who want a wage but don,t want to fight the taliban and hence the taliban are straight back in again.
Effectively the situation in Afghanistan is one big sh..t sandwich created by the US but now they don,t want to take a bite.