Musharraf's Interview On CNN From Last Night

[fatman17]

Quit looking to me to build what should be done by and for yourself.

Simple.

Lack money? Cut your army as opposed to allowing your citizens to live in pepetual poverty and despair. Start there. Once you've done so, look THEN to others for assistance.

Not my problem and I could care less if you choose to use a country to sustain an army as some useless source of overweening but misplaced pride. Lot of good it's done you. The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is not yours nor shall that change, it now appears, once Rah-e-Nijat is concluded...

...just a neo-colonial punative expedition to put those mehsud tribals in their place and find a few new chiefs a bit more pliant to the whims and diktats from Rawalpindi! Don't believe me? Go ask PAFAce. Not your JOB to "hold, build, and develop" he says.

REALLY?

Says it all. It really, really does and America will be damned fools to assist more of the same. May you choke on your nukes and the rest of your vaunted military machine for all the good they'll ever do you. Those soldiers of yours that die in the west deserve better. Much better and it's not for me to provide what you've already got in plenty sitting uselessly elsewhere...

Thanks.

S-2,

may i be permitted to answer your many posts above. in the first place you are wasting your time because this debate/discourse is not based on reality but on emotions and that is a molotov cocktail that is not going to get you anywhere - someone recommended that you "AVOID THEM" - take the advice.!

secondly, the US is at a "cross-roads" on its strategy for afghanistan. there is a international dimension (read af/pakistan) and a domestic dimension (read congressional elections) - nearly half-of the congress is up for re-election in 2010 and your president is aware of this - if the republicans re-take the house, obama becomes a one-term president (and your wish is granted) - 59% of the citizens of the US dont want to send more troops in harm's way even though 62% also say that afghanistan is a "problem" but handle it differently(this puts you in a minority) - therefore this "lengthened" debate to "send or not to send" - anyway just for the record, between 08 and 09 (interim between bush/obama) the US deployment in afghanistan was raised by 400%!!!.... from a base of 26k...and the results are in front of you - your COIN strategy is not working as your local partner (read afghan govt and its army) is not doing its part, infact their performance has been down-right dismal - the army is de-moralised, de-motivated, dis-organised, lazy & corrupt (and their history is replete with such), the govt's writ only holds over kabul (barely) not to mention the corruption of karzai's partners - the Northern Alliance (your and your country's favourite horse). the US fights, clears and holds.....and the afghans cant rebuild, rehab, reconstruct and the COIN fails. the taliban have recently takenover Nuristan province (BTW cleared by US forces but could not hold... 72% of the country is not in control of the karzai govt - wow!!!)

my inner feeling is that the US realises that the afghans cannot play their part and therefore to succeed in the COIN strategy, send in more troops to defeat,deter, hold and rebuild - i dont see it any other way and this means long-term committment (10 yrs or longer) and this is not going to cut it with the american people - they dont want to see any more "body bags" - 807 and counting, brave souls is enough!!!

sending more troops for a campaign which has a undeterminable end - big question mark!

now lets come to your deceitful ally/friend (as you put it (sadly)). we may be decietful, our army is not expert in COIN, is not technologically superior to the US/ISAF/NATO forces across the border but guess what - we are learning COIN (and by the way thanks for sending the 40 odd trainers - great idea) and are IMPLEMENTING it (case in point Swat) - we r clearing, holding, repatriating, rebuiding etc (contrary to popular belief held by many esp my dear friends across the eastern front!) - we are building a cantonment (take a few years) but the brave men and women are willing to live in tents and in their pickets for the long haul (and oh yes...thanks for those drones man - another great idea) - hey man guess what the op is being used as a test-case in military schools around the world!!! - how to COIN (and listen great manual that US COIN manual - cost me 900 bhat in BKK - sent a copy to by cousin a major in the front lines).

.....and now Waziristan - 4 months of deep study and planning - ensuring that all flanks are covered - ensuring that all the FOBs/Logistics are in place (and hey, thanks for the US200m in the pipeline - great timing, needed those spares, 20mm chain gun ammo, PGBs, LR cameras, NVGs, BP jackets - great idea this CISFund) - using our air assets JIT, LR artillery - all actions deliberate - the army is motivated, the people are behind it, even as they face suicide bombers in our cities, the vermins are on the run to wherever (oh yeah man, better man those vacated border posts with US troopers cuz they r coming your way - dont say i didnt warn ya - see i am not being decietful).

so here it is then........take your pick - deceitful ally/friend or a demoralised, demotivated, corrupt invisible afghan army!!!

ps; i agree what u said about my civilian govt but i want the army to do what it is being paid to do - fight the enemy within and without under full authority of the govt (however weak and corrupt it may be)

nuff said!!! lousy football weekend as the niners lose and the damn yankees are in the world series for the 40th time - makes u sick!!!

cheers mate!

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

That is a great post Fatman17. It took the american 5 plus years to look through the bruhaha and realize that they are in afghanistan and not in post ww2 germany or japan. They are now learing that there is a big big difference in the approach and mentality of the afghans as compared to the other two nations.

They have not learnt yet that for an afghan, there is no such thing as laying down their arms under current conditions---he maybe ploughing his field one minute and the next he may have his AK---taking pot shots at the enemy. Are they bothered by death---absolutely not---they bury their dead and then go about the business of war with a new vengeance.

For them---it is a war of independence---the americans had their war of independence against the british---they can read their history books and learn how they acted against the murdering red coats---what is different now----it is the americans who are the red coats now and the afghans who have taken the place of the americans.

The americans still are not accepting their ignorance of putting a man from a 8---10 % minority population, making him incharge of the army and letting him induct an army from his people---.

One of my peeves is that pakistani generals didnot see it coming---even though the writing was bright as the sun---they should have taken it upon themselves to take out Bin Laden and co by any means possible to have kept america out of afghanistan.

 

[fatman17]

One of my peeves is that pakistani generals didnot see it coming---even though the writing was bright as the sun---they should have taken it upon themselves to take out Bin Laden and co by any means possible to have kept america out of afghanistan.

on hind-sight u r correct but the dynamics were different then - the talibs were assets and al qaeda was in afghanistan and it was expected that they will stay there!

 

[SSGPA1]

nuff said!!! lousy football weekend as the niners lose and the damn yankees are in the world series for the 40th time - makes u sick!!!

Excellent response Fatman17!!

As far as the football weekend is concerned ... Texans are finally showing their true worth and I hope they win against the Bills too.

Phillies are going to win in 6 games, they are the champions of come from the behind wins - 43 this season.

 

[S-2]

Great to see you roll up your sleeves and REALLY weigh in. LONG overdue and heartfelt so it's DEEPLY appreciated.

"...the US is at a "cross-roads" on its strategy for afghanistan"

Regardless of the partisan politics surrounding the debate, we've been at a cross-roads, IMHO, since last August when Kiyani reported aboard the USS Abe Lincoln. Thirteen months, three deployment surges, and a couple of systemic false-starts later, the only items of import to take from all of this is the accurately noted increase in forces, a recognition at nearly all levels of our government of the depth of Afghan governmental and military failure/collapse, and the beginnings of a tentative response by Pakistan to its own internal issues by saving yourselves from yourselves in SWAT and Buner.

As near as I can tell, operations beginning thirteen months ago in Bajaur still continue. I presume that you've regular forces that are still involved in SWAT to some extent. I further presume that they'll continue to be there for some time to come.

The American public, I believe, is more resilient than most here surmise. The market is up about 20% from its low and that's paramount on most of our minds. Correct or not, Obama will reap that benefit come mid-term elections. We've sustained far worse casualties than what we've experienced to date in Afghanistan-as recent as Iraq.

The issue with Afghanistan is painfully simple-we've no host partner and our allies, all of them (including Pakistan), are less than fully in for a variety of differing reasons and bring their own sets of problems. It is emotionally draining to me (and I suspect our public) to face a reprise of the Thieu/Ky regime's corruption writ large (yup, I think it's WORSE than SVN).

I don't buy into the extent of taliban control that others and you here do. The ICOS maps make clear the difference between control and contested. Further, they make clear what denominates contested. One-fifth of Afghanistan is controlled by ISAF/America. Nothing seems controlled by the taliban. The moment ISAF shows up and asserts itself in battle, the taliban do what they do-melt into the woodwork and practice shabnamah.

Taliban penetration north of HAZARAville is tenuous and tactical-not unlike your terror bombings of late, a distractor and unsustainable but for finding fellow-travellers (tajik and uzbek criminals/dopers/smugglers that have an incentive to maintain instability). Outside of Pashtunville, though, the ideological appeal is small.

Polls I've seen, further, indicate that where afghan pashtus have better alternatives, they gravitate that way and NOT towards the taliban. Pashtu fellow-travellers include those with personal revenge on their minds, professional criminals, and those with pashtu nationalist sentiments. Most of our commanders believe that we face about 20% of insurgent forces as committed afghan taliban. I'd tend to agree.

Issues boil down to the following- 1.) What's Obama going to do? 2.) Can an afghan gov't gain any degree of legitimacy? How? And, if so, can it be maintained and expanded? 3.) Will ISAF partners recognize the gaps in their performance and will their publics allow them to address those gaps? If not what can we do to fill that? And 4.) What can Pakistan do to help ISAF and, in so doing, how does that help Pakistan? What can we do that helps Pakistan and, if so, how does doing so help us?

Karzai and Abdullah- one of those two will lead. I don't know enough, REALLY, about either. Abdullah is absolutely correct to consider boycotting the election without a decisive change in the Afghan electoral commission. As important as these elections are, more of the same seems certain without a functional change to those overseeing such. Why it's not managed and policed by the U.N. is beyond me? Perhaps you know but there's no reason to believe that even without malevolent intent, that the requisite resources and skill exists internally to conduct such.

Beyond the election, though, I strongly doubt that you'll find an aware American who'd call the N.A. "our boys". Nobody in America of whom I'm aware has EVER wished to deny a plurality (NOT a majority, btw-one of the many myths peddled here) their rightful place. Nobody, either, in America is looking to see ethnic minorities, singly, or ethnic coaliton bare majorities at constant war with the Pashtus.

Pakistan plays a role there and, to date, it hasn't been very constructive in my view. Your realpolitik views of pashtu-tajik/uzbek/hazara/turkomen relations have impeded efforts to build national consensus and not made contributions toward such. Those, btw, are TWO separate actions requiring TWO separate decisions.

West flank- Malik and others aside, I remain unconvinced of Indian duplicity in Afghanistan and I've stated my reasons as lucidly as possible for those who've actually cared to read. Their diplomatic presence in Afghanistan is no greater than Pakistan's. That took about ONE YEAR here to get Asim and others to even acknowledge that much...and I'm unsure that they did. That the afghan government makes that choice, equally, seems beyond the comprehension (much less concurrence) of those here also seems impedingly clear. That the GoA would naturally welcome such considerable aid regardless of the GoA's ethnic composition nor historical ties seems logical. Why not? Help is help from any quarter for those in need.

India stands to lose far more than it has to gain from such capriciousness. By blaming TTP resistance in Pakistan upon Indian, Israeli (WOW is THAT hard to accept!), and America, it conveniently ignores the most obvious reasons for such-resentment of the treatment meted out by the GoP to the tribes and the infective effect of holding high heros of the anti-American afghan taliban resistance who've nestled into your lands quite comfortably.

Who do I think might be engaged in assisting the TTP? Saleh. He's the means to some extent and fcukin' HATES you. He's damned good reasons too, IMV, but that doesn't mean that two wrongs make a right. NOTE: TWO wrongs, meaning a sanctuary protected, externally-directed afghan insurgency. That's been a fact of life for the GoA/ISAF/America since 2002. That some within the GoA might see reprisal as appropriate is obvious and, therefore, quite likely.

All of my thoughts in this regard, of course, are purely speculative. I don't see the intel nor do I believe that any of you do either. Certainly not India's, ISAF's , the GoA's, nor ours.

Your government is as disappointing and agenda-ridden as the GoA's. Both, however, hold the strands of legitimacy only by virtue of elections that were considered reasonably fair at one point. Whether the subsequent results have been as fair to their constituents is clear but that's nobody's fault but afghans and Pakistanis. Until both learn how to elevate their best for nomination and then honor and support the results, your alternatives will be more of the same, tribal/ethnic chaos, or military rule.

Kidwaibhai (God bless him) provided an interesting poll on Pakistani attitudes that included the most (and very) recent installment. It was fascinating. Absolutely. There were contradictions galore but it deserves real reading by all here. So too the ABC/BBC/ARD polls for Afghanistan. Naturally, the afghan polls have been dismissed out-of-hand by most here-without cause, it seems as the proportional data is appropriate for the population disparities between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If one is to be believed, I'd think so too the other.

I'd encourage all to read and consider. If they did, there'd be more congruity of thought, I suspect, among us.

I've written enough for now nor will I even LOOK at it. Unedited and unreviewed for my plain sentiments...

Baseball? It saddens me that if this thing goes seven they'll be painting the ball red and playing in snowmobile suits. All of it should have been over two weeks ago. Whatever happened to Sunday double-headers?

Huge, massive, epic, BIGGEST regular season game I can think of this Sunday- 6-1 Vikings and FAVRE travel to Lambeau to play the 4-2 Packers. It will be a war of epic and colossal proportions and a true heartbreaker for all Packer fans to see. The two uniforms that man could never wear were BEAR and VIKING unis. He RAN for the VIKINGS and I expect pure hate to pour down on him.

S-2 out.

Thanks.

 

[fatman17]

Naturally, the afghan polls have been dismissed out-of-hand by most here-without cause,

read what the former UN deputy head afghan mission, peter galbreath has to say about the elections and the role played by the corrupt (according to him) UN head Kie Edye. massive fraud by karzai's election commission supported by the UN

 

[S-2]

Wrong poll.

I was referring to the problems I've had here with this poll-

ABC/BBC/ARD Survey-February 2009

 

[fatman17]

Wrong poll.

I was referring to the problems I've had here with this poll-

ABC/BBC/ARD Survey-February 2009

ive seen these - i have my own issues with them - they dont jive with reality on the ground - which cross-section of the populace they have polled i dont know.

 

[MastanKhan]

One of my peeves is that pakistani generals didnot see it coming---even though the writing was bright as the sun---they should have taken it upon themselves to take out Bin Laden and co by any means possible to have kept america out of afghanistan.

on hind-sight u r correct but the dynamics were different then - the talibs were assets and al qaeda was in afghanistan and it was expected that they will stay there!

Hi,

Fortunes of the nation are built when men of excellence, make extra ordinary decisions and analyze the situation way beyond the comprehension of ordinary men---those men are known as visionaries---people call them leaders---fathers of the nation.

Musharraf---when he opted to side with the u s---made an exceptional choice---he was on the right track---but after that, he became ordinary---maybe he didnot have full support of his people---maybe he didnot have a go to guy who really really understood the position and would say---Mr president---today is the day---we need to take our nation to a different direction---we need to leave a legacy behind for our children---we need to change our priorities---.

In punjabi they say---100 littar ( police leather strap )bhee khaey aur 100 wasal ( onions ) bhee khaey---now that is where we are---(can someone translate it for our buddy S2)---.

So---anyway---pakistan still continues to make ordinary decisions---people say that america has also made ordinary decisions as well---the answer to that is---who has suffered more---what is the price we are paying of our negligence.

Do people ever think that in the past, the rulers, or kings, why would they crush any insurgency in an extremely fast and brutal manner---because theyu knew, if the insurgency got its roots deep in the system---all will be lost---nip the crime in the bud---remove the cancerous growth before it is out of control.

So---the day that the u s wanted to go for al qaeda's and taliban's hide, that was the day to realize that they were asset no more---but a liability.

 

[fatman17]

Afghan, Pakistan carnage raises heat on Obama

by Stephen Collinson.

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Carnage in Pakistan and America's bloodiest month in Afghanistan are sharpening President Barack Obama's dilemma on troop deployments while stoking political demands for swifter action.

"We watch this situation continue to deteriorate while this long protracted process of decision making goes on," Republican Senator John McCain told CBS on Wednesday.

"We are not operating in a vacuum. The president of the United States needs to make this decision and soon. Our allies are nervous and our military leadership is becoming frustrated."

The White House counters that Obama's soul searching is justified by the gravity of his choice on whether to plunge tens of thousands of people into the worsening war.

"I don't think the American people agree with Senator McCain on that," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

"I think it's important to hear and to get this right."

Already fragile US public opinion on the war is being tested by a rush of recent casualties in Afghanistan, with October the bloodiest month for American troops of the eight-year conflict so far.

Vicious bombings in Pakistan -- the latest killing 92 people in a Peshawar market Wednesday -- are meanwhile stirring new fears of instability and concern for the US-allied government in Islamabad.

The Peshawar bombing erupted hours after the start of a visit to Pakistan by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who vowed the United States would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with Pakistan's people in the anti-terror struggle.

But the fraud-tainted Afghan election, political maneuvering over the run-off, and a brazen Taliban attack on a UN compound in Kabul which killed eight people will hardly stem skepticism of the US Afghan mission.

Republicans see the turmoil of recent days as a sign Obama must honor war commander General Stanley McChrystal's request for 40,000 more troops.

But Democratic Senator Russ Feingold spoke for many war opponents when he said he wanted success in Afghanistan but not at any price.

"The national security and the individual security to the American people is the most important issue to me," Feingold told MSNBC.

Outwardly, Obama, who prides himself on thriving under pressure, appears unphased by the quickening crisis, scheduling the next meeting of his exhaustive policy review with US military chiefs on Friday.

On Tuesday, he told servicemen and women in Florida he would not "rush" a decision on which lives depend.

Aides say no one takes the duty of ordering troops to war more seriously than Obama, as he must sign condolence letters to families of the fallen.

But time is running short to quell domestic political demands and meet the practical requirement of issuing deployment orders in time for any new troops to be in place by the next Afghan spring.

Expectations are mounting that Obama could reveal his response to war commander Stanley McChrystal's request for 40,000 more combat troops for Afghanistan before he leaves for an eight-day trip to Asia on November 11.

Gibbs said Tuesday that Obama was nearing the end of his review, and in another apparent sign that a decision may be near, senior officials anonymously floated a plan to protect Afghan population centers in the New York Times.

The resignation of a State Department Afghan expert, Matthew Hoh, who warned the US presence is making the insurgency worse, is meanwhile giving ammunition to those who question the rationale of the mission.

Obama is maneuvering on fragile political ground as he makes a decision shaped largely by national security and military considerations.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll this week showed that 47 percent of Americans back increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, compared to last month when 51 percent opposed the increase.

But only 43 percent wanted to send as many as 40,000 more troops as McChrystal has requested.

A Quinnipiac University survey last month found 65 percent of people willing to have US troops fight and possibly die in the war to ward off future terror attacks emanating from the region.

But only 38 percent wanted to see more troops sent to that fight.

"Obviously, increasing numbers of casualties among American soldiers are likely to have some affect on these numbers," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac polling institute on Wednesday.

One Quinnipiac finding gave Obama some temporary comfort: only a third thought America was heading for a new Vietnam-style quagmire.

"When that number starts to rise, then President Obama has got a political problem," said Brown.

certainly turning into a domestic politics issue!

 

[fatman17]

New US strategy to protect 10 Afghan cities

* Obama will meet joint chiefs of staff on Friday to hear input on future ****** policy
* Will head off on 8-day trip to Asia on Nov 11

WASHINGTON: US officials are settling on a new-look Afghan strategy to secure 10 major population centres, a media report said on Wednesday, as President Barack Obama neared a decision on whether to hurl thousands more troops into the fray.

Obama’s advisers, after weeks of in-depth meetings, are coalescing around a strategy aimed at protecting about 10 top population centres in Afghanistan, The New York Times said.

The strategy would fall short of a full counter-insurgency strategy against the Taliban and other elements but still seek to foster stability, the newspaper said, quoting unnamed senior officials.

Stressing the president had yet to make a decision, the newspaper said the debate was not about whether to send more troops but how many more would be needed to safeguard most vital parts of the country.

Meeting: Obama will meet the joint chiefs of staff on Friday, to hear input on future Afghan and Pakistan policy from all branches of the armed services, as he edges towards a fateful decision on whether to deploy thousands more troops. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters on Air Force One that

Obama’s meeting with the joint chiefs was a sign the president was “getting, certainly, toward the end” of the policy review.

Speculation is rife in Washington over whether Obama will reveal his hand before heading off on an eight-day trip to Asia on November 11. The US capital was also buzzing after the resignation of a diplomat who publicly criticised the Afghan war.

Visit: A week after saying it would be “common sense” for Obama to put his decision on hold until after the Afghan election, Senator John Kerry said he would be “surprised” if Obama did not announce his decision before leaving for Asia on an eight-trip on November 11.

afp

 

[fatman17]

New US defence bill will ‘pay’ Taliban to switch sides

WASHINGTON: The defence bill US President Barack Obama will sign into law today (Wednesday) contains a new provision that would pay Taliban who renounce the insurgency, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said on Tuesday. The provision establishes a programme in Afghanistan, similar to one used in Iraq where former fighters were re-integrated into Iraqi society, Levin said. Obama plans to sign the bill authorising Pentagon operations for the current fiscal year on Wednesday, the White House said. Reaching out to moderate Taliban is part of the US’ plan to turn around the war in Afghanistan. Levin has also advocated trying to convince the Taliban to change sides by luring them with jobs and amnesty. Under the legislation, Afghan fighters who renounce the insurgency would be paid for “mainly protection of their towns and villages”, Levin said.

reuters

naw!!!!

 

[S-2]

"they dont jive with reality on the ground..."

I see. What reality is that again? Your preferred reality to match your preferred perspective? Who

Now I'M disappointed. Read the background data and figure it out for yourself. Until you can produce reason to doubt or something better, you can guess my thoughts.

 

[fatman17]

"they dont jive with reality on the ground..."

I see. What reality is that again? Your preferred reality to match your preferred perspective? Who

Now I'M disappointed. Read the background data and figure it out for yourself. Until you can produce reason to doubt or something better, you can guess my thoughts.

there is a change since feb-2009 and now - in between this time period a lot has happened - i dont want to repeat that because its all here on the forum!!!

want to live in the past - be my guest - you r good at sticking to your guns and i appreciate that but the situation is changing rapidly - let them do the survey now and lets see the change in perceptions - as far as i go, you know my position very well.

i meet a lot of people in my travels up and down the country, rural esp - farmers, conservative, strong faith in Islam - everyone is against the taliban or the jihadists (except those who are and we run into them too) - all they want is for the govt. to provide the basic necessities of life so they can run their lives normally - their life is their village, its their world - they dont want change forced on them - many dont even know what 911 was all about and have no ill-will towards anybody- so if a majority of these people are polled and asked questions they probably dont fully understand - it happens to us all the time - we conduct agriculture related surveys and a lot of the data comes out "skewed" and we have to go back to find out what they really meant - now i am not aware if these surveys also encounter such problems or not but i will be very surprised if they didnt!!! - my point is - these surveys in under-developed, under-educated populations have to be taken with a grain of salt!

 

[fatman17]

‘Obama eyes smaller Afghan troop option’

* Officials say US president not yet decided on any option

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama is considering sending large numbers of additional US forces to Afghanistan next year, but fewer than his war commander Gen Stanley McChrystal prefers, US officials said.

Such a narrowed military mission would escalate US forces to accomplish the commander’s broadest goals, protecting Afghan cities and key infrastructure. But the option’s scaled-down troop numbers likely would cut back on McChrystal’s ambitious objectives, amounting to what one official described as “McChrystal Light”. Under the pared-down option, McChrystal would be given fewer forces than the 40,000 additional troops he had asked for on top of the current US force of 68,000, officials told The Associated Press.

Senior White House officials stressed, however, that the president had not settled on any new troop numbers and continues to debate other strategic approaches to the Afghanistan war. The officials said Obama had not yet firmly settled on the narrowed option or any other as his final choice for how to overhaul the war effort. Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because Obama has not announced his decision, said the troop numbers under the narrowed scenario probably would be lower than McChrystal’s preference, at least at the outset. The officials did not reveal the exact numbers.

The stripped-down version of McChrystal’s plan still would adopt the commander’s overall goals for a counterinsurgency strategy aimed at turning the corner against the Taliban next spring. But that pared-down approach would reflect a shift in thinking about what parts of the war mission are most important and the intense political domestic debate over the Afghan policy. A majority of Americans either oppose the war or question whether it is worth continuing to wage, according to public opinion polls dating to when Obama shook up the war’s management and began a lengthy reconsideration of US objectives earlier this year.

ap