US policy: Bush wine in Obama bottle

[waraich66]

US ****** policy: Bush wine in Obama bottle
March 30, 2009 18:04 IST
Email
thisSave to
My PageAsk
UsersWrite a
CommentUS President Barack Obama's [ Images ] new comprehensive ****** strategy unveiled on March 27, to deal with a mix of problems might impress and enthuse the new Internet generation with which Obama feels comfortable, but not Indian professionals in terrorism with their feet firmly on the ground in this region. These problems arise from the continuing old Islamic insurgency of the 1980s vintage in Afghanistan, the new post-Lal Masjid raid Islamic insurgency in Pakistan, the continuing jihadi terrorism with many faces -- anti- West, anti-Indian, anti-Afghan, anti-Israeli, anti-Russian, anti-Chinese, anti-infidels and anti-apostates -- from sanctuaries and breeding grounds in Pakistan and the continuing spread of radical ideas justifying the use of terrorism from the madrasas of Pakistan

Former President George Bush [ Images ] left for Obama a bleeding stalemate with no end in sight. As a descriptive analysis of the kind of situation in the ****** region inherited by him from Bush, Obama's new strategic broth to which many cooks have contributed, has shown a clear understanding of the problems confronting him in this region. Bush and his advisers were not as articulate as Obama and his advisers are and not as word-smart, but they too had come to a similar conclusion though not in as smart a language.

Their conclusion was: Pakistan is the source of the plethora of problems faced in the region and unless and until that source is tackled effectively the bleeding will continue.

Obama and his advisers suffer from the same prescriptive deficiency as their predecessors. This deficiency arises from their tendency to mix facts with illusions. The facts were as clear to Bush and his advisers as they are now to Obama and his advisers. These are the existence in the Pakistani territory of the sanctuaries of Al Qaeda [ Images ], the Pashtun Taliban [ Images ] and the Punjabi Taliban organisations with the Lashkar-e-Tayiba [ Images ] and the Jaish-e-Mohammad in the forefront and the role of the Pakistan army [ Images ] and its Inter-Services Intelligence in nursing them to serve what they perceive as Pakistan's strategic interests.

The prescriptive part of Obama's strategy is as full of illusions as the strategy of Bush was. There is a common root cause for the illusions of the two administrations. The root cause is their inability to understand that the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment has convinced itself that Pakistan, which had lost its strategic relevance in the immediate aftermath of the end of the cold war, has acquired a new strategic importance. This is thanks to the terrorists of various hues operating from its territory and its nuclear arsenal. The continued existence of these terrorists is in its interest. Action against terrorism when unavoidable, support for terrorism when possible. That is its policy.

It has been using its nuclear arsenal not only in an attempt to intimidate India [ Images ] and deter it from retaliating for terrorist strikes in Indian territory, but also to deter the US and the rest of the West from exercising too much pressure on it to deal with the terrorist sanctuaries in its territory.

Unless the mind of the Pakistani military and intelligence officers is disabused of this belief and they are made to co-operate with the international community in destroying the terrorist infrastructure in its territory, no strategy is going to work in ending jihadi terrorism bred in Pakistan. The major deficiency in the prescriptive analysis of Obama arises from his naive assumption that Pakistan can be made to co-operate more effectively against terrorism through a basket of incentives -- more military and economic assistance, more training, an emphasis on the continuing importance of Pakistan even after the war on terrorism is over etc.

Bush too hailed Pakistan as a frontline ally in the war against terrorism and provided it with various lollipops -- over $10 billion in military and economic aid since 9/11, dual-use weapons and equipment which could be used against the terrorists as well as against India and a willingness to close the eyes to Pakistan's sins of commission and omission against India so long as it acted against terrorism directed at the US. These lollipops failed to make the regime of Pervez Musharraf [ Images ] co-operate sincerely against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. These incentives could not prevent the Neo Taliban of Afghanistan from staging a spectacular come-back from sanctuaries in Pakistan and Al Qaeda and its associates from organising acts of terrorism in different parts of the world.

The lessons from the failure of the strategy of Bush were: Firstly, a policy based only on incentives will not work in the case of an insincere state such as Pakistan. Secondly, a policy which makes a distinction between terrorism directed against the US and terrorism directed against India and the rest of the world will be ineffective.

Thirdly, the fear of exercising too much pressure on Pakistan lest the state collapse and its nuclear arsenal fall into jihadi hands is exploited by Pakistan to prevent the ultimate success of the war against terrorism.

One was hoping -- on the basis of the statements by him during his election campaign -- that Obama would have factored these lessons into the formulation of his new strategy. Surprisingly, he has not. The same old policy of incentives and nothing but incentives is sought to be pursued under the garb of a so-called new strategy. The only new feature is the emphasis on the benchmarks of implementation which will determine the continued availability of the incentives to Pakistan at every stage. The only disincentive with which Pakistan has been confronted is the risk of the incentives drying up if it is seen as dragging its feet in its co-operation in the fight against terrorism.

Obama's strategy -- like the one of his predecessor -- is marked by a fear of punishing Pakistan if it does not change its policy of using terrorists to advance its own strategic agenda. The reluctance to punish Pakistan if it continues to be insincere in dealing with terrorism originating from its territory arises from the fear that too much pressure on Pakistan and a policy of punitive measures might push Pakistan into the arms of the jihadis or might result in a collapse of the Pakistani state with unpredictable consequences. The US must rid itself of this fear and make it clear to Pakistan that, if the worst comes to the worst, the world is prepared to face the eventuality of a failed Pakistan. A failed Pakistan may be a disaster for the people of Pakistan, but not necessarily for the rest of the world.

It is important to constitute a contact group to work out alternative strategies with incentives as well as disincentives, with rewards as well as punishments. Such a contact group must be only of the victims of terrorism. A contact group, which seeks to bring together the victims of terrorism as well as the perpetrator, will be a non-starter.

Obama's strategy has three components -- a counter-insurgency component for Afghanistan, a counter- terrorism component for use in Pakistan and a counter-radicalisation component for use in the entire ****** region. It is a mix of military and political measures. While the military measures will be largely implemented by the US and other NATO powers plus Australia [ Images ], the regional role of countries such as India, China and Iran is sought to be restricted to the political component. They will have no say in the way the military measures are implemented.

The US expectations that the international community will co-operate in implementing the unilaterally worked out US strategy can be belied because the strategy offers no end in sight to the wave of terrorism of Pakistani origin faced by them. This is particularly true of India. Even though the strategy projects Al Qaeda and its associates operating from sanctuaries in Pakistan as posing a threat to the world as a whole, its objective is limited to preventing another 9/11 in US territory mounted from this region. It does not pay equal attention to the concerns of India and other countries. The strategy is, therefore, unlikely to excite professionals in India.

 

[Y2A]

Its really amazing how US and NATO are masking their defeat in Afghanistan as "strategic fallback", "The end Game " is evident and as usual its Pakistan and Pakistanis who are paying and cleaning up for US's failures in kabul.

 

[waraich66]

After eight years US realised the importance of Pakistan but now its too late, they to quit with two years.

But Kaliya tera kya bane Ga (India)??????

 

[deathfromabove]

Soviet lessons from Afghanistan

Previously secret transcripts of Politburo meetings and diary entries recently released by the Washington-based National Security Archive – detailing the difficulties faced by the Soviets make sobering reading for British and American leaders, as they decide whether to double-up or cut their losses in Afghanistan.

They knew things were not going well, but from their leader there was a whiff of panic.

“We just need to be sure that the final result does not look like a humiliating defeat: to have lost so many men and now abandoned it all… in short, we have to get out of there.”

Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev – the speaker of those words – was understandably alarmed.

It was June 1986, almost a year since he had taken the decision to start withdrawing Soviet troops from Afghanistan and hand over more responsibility to the government there.

But Soviet losses, already above 10,000, kept mounting.

With conflicting signals this week about the direction of Western policy in Afghanistan, there is a hint of the same kind of panic and indecision.

Soviet exit strategy

US President Barack Obama is still deciding whether to send in thousands of US reinforcements.

Yet the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown – facing ever-greater opposition to the Afghan war – has been highlighting possibilities for UK troops to pull back in some areas next year.

It is less than two weeks since he was saying: “We cannot, must not and will not walk away.”

But as Mr Gorbachev found, getting out is at least as difficult as staying in.

It took almost four years to pull out entirely – because of a combination of dithering over strategy and last-ditch efforts by Moscow to prop up its client government in Kabul in the hope of maintaining some pride and influence.

The former Soviet leader’s difficulties are detailed in previously secret transcripts of Politburo meetings and diary entries recently released by the Washington-based National Security Archive.

They make sobering reading for British and American leaders, as they decide whether to double-up or cut their losses in Afghanistan.

There are certainly differences – not least America’s determination to make the Soviet withdrawal as costly as possible in blood and treasure.

Lost battle

But there are echoes too of the difficulties the US and its allies face now.

By the late 1980s, Moscow’s exit strategy was basically the same as Nato’s today – to build up an allied government in Kabul with sufficient trained army and police forces to defend itself, thereby allowing foreign troops to leave.

But even with the backing of a 100,000-strong Soviet army and billions of rubles in aid, the Afghan government struggled to establish its legitimacy and authority much beyond the capital – much like President Hamid Karzai’s Western-backed administration today.

This bleak assessment of the situation in late 1986 by the Soviet armed forces commander, Marshal Sergei Akhromeev, sounds eerily familiar.

“Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old,” Mr Akhromeev told Mr Gorbachev at a November 1986 Politburo session.

“There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels.

“The whole problem is that military results are not followed up by political actions. At the centre there is authority; in the provinces there is not.

“We control Kabul and the provincial centres, but on occupied territory we cannot establish authority. We have lost the battle for the Afghan people”.

Familiar problems

By that point, Soviet trainers had created an Afghan army 160,000-strong – double the size of the force Nato has trained so far – together with thousands of much-feared secret policemen.

Yet once Soviet forces had left, they could do little more than defend Kabul and a few other cities.

Only massive military aid, coupled with incompetence and in-fighting among the US-backed mujahideen opposition, allowed the Afghan government Moscow left behind to cling on in Kabul for a few more years before finally collapsing.

There were familiar problems too with the financial assistance Moscow gave.

It hoped the funds would bolster the capacity of the Afghan government and pay for projects that would benefit people, winning hearts and minds.

However corruption rendered much of its useless.

As the Politburo discussed a new aid request from Kabul in January 1987, Marshal Sergei Sokolov said: “In 1981, we gave them 100m roubles of free assistance. And all of that went to the elite. And there was nothing in the hamlets – no kerosene, no matches.”

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Soviet lessons from Afghanistan

 

[Seadog1]

Its really amazing how US and NATO are masking their defeat in Afghanistan as "strategic fallback", "The end Game " is evident and as usual its Pakistan and Pakistanis who are paying and cleaning up for US's failures in kabul.

Lets say the USA and NATO are defeated,,,what do you see happening in Pakistan.....also I doubt if Muslims will ever again see a President of the USA that is as sympathic and understands Muslems as well as Obama...

Can you imagine what would happen to Pakistan if they were seen as allies of the Taliban....no aid,, little trade,,,,no remittances,,,no visas...

 

[waraich66]

Lets say the USA and NATO are defeated,,,what do you see happening in Pakistan.....also I doubt if Muslims will ever again see a President of the USA that is as sympathic and understands Muslems as well as Obama...

Can you imagine what would happen to Pakistan if they were seen as allies of the Taliban....no aid,, little trade,,,,no remittances,,,no visas...

Afghan Talaban are freedom fighter , Pakistan was their friend and remain , keep your visa and grant with you , better US should provide medical facilities to more than 50 million poor Americans cant afford expensive medical treatment.

America is now in great financial crisis and there is possibility of disintegration of US and food crisis in near future, if American need help we can provide them food for cherity

Only Punjab can feed 1 billion population have best irrigation land and world best irrigation system.

 

[Y2A]

Lets say the USA and NATO are defeated,,,what do you see happening in Pakistan.....also I doubt if Muslims will ever again see a President of the USA that is as sympathic and understands Muslems as well as Obama...

Can you imagine what would happen to Pakistan if they were seen as allies of the Taliban....no aid,, little trade,,,,no remittances,,,no visas...

Well then lets pray for US's victory...shall we ? i don't think so..

Dear Friend, lets not jump to the conclusion on the basis of Hussain Haqqani's version of elaboration.

what exactly "aid" based mindset has accomplished over the years ? we are getting it for 60 years, has it changed any think? again, i don't think so.

your point about Obama being "Muslim friendly" is little on the higher side of the optimism, American policy makers take decisions for bigger picture and set thier targets for longer period of time based on current situation and on its speculations, their policies do not shuffle a great deal in short span of time, neither one should expect any significant policy review after each presidential election, there is always a roam for little fine tuning in accordance to the American National interest but one can witness that there was no major change of guards in past neither it will be any in future.

 

[Awesome]

Lets say the USA and NATO are defeated,,,what do you see happening in Pakistan.....also I doubt if Muslims will ever again see a President of the USA that is as sympathic and understands Muslems as well as Obama...

Can you imagine what would happen to Pakistan if they were seen as allies of the Taliban....no aid,, little trade,,,,no remittances,,,no visas...

Spoken like a true leader of Pakistan for the past 60 years or so

Two very wrong things about how you view things.

1. If we don't support the Americans, we support the Taliban

That's absurd. There's a neutral policy. There's a consolidation policy. We need to set our own house in order before we go off fighting America's wars.

2. We must depend on American aid

Break the beggars bowl. We'll eat less but we'll live till the point where we can sustain ourselves on our own. If Americans want to TRADE then that's another thing, but we should have been rejecting their aid 10 years ago.

The only reason I feel we SHOULD help the Americans is that the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan would spill into Pakistan, not for their money. Although the Americans are either unable or unwilling to curb the expanding growth of India's influence in Afghanistan, which is spilling militancy into Pakistan anyway. Hence we need to find a two fold solution, that would rid us of the Indian Afghanistan and the Talibani Afghanistan.

Perspective, perspective, perspective. Lets not over-simplify things just because it gives us a headache to think about the big picture.

 

[FireFighter]

Lets say the USA and NATO are defeated,,,what do you see happening in Pakistan.....also I doubt if Muslims will ever again see a President of the USA that is as sympathic and understands Muslems as well as Obama...

Sympathetic and understanding of muslims? oh please spare us from your disillusions

Just because a US president speaks a few sweet words doesn't make him a peaceful president. Obama is a war president. He's continuing with both the Afghan and Iraq wars but with the mask of different strategies

Theres been three major independent surveys done on Obama and Bush's presidencies and foreign policy objectives and , and ALL have affirmed the same that they share the same ideologies and objectives when it comes to foreign wars.

 

[Seadog1]

Pakistan is already a failed state. It does not have control of their territory or it’s inhabitants. 1800 Terrorist attack by the Taliban and Pakistan thinks there can be peace if we just accomdate them a little more,..We should have recognized that fact over the years since 9/11when it became obvious that the government was unwilling or unable to stop their Western territories from being used as safe havens for insurgents fighting in the Afghan conflict. It should have been clear after AQ Khan, father of the Pakistani nuclear program, was caught selling turnkey systems for uranium enrichment to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. He might not have been acting with the full support of the Pakistani government, but therei n lies the problem: he was acting at his own will just as the Taliban.....

This is a conflict between people that want to live in the past,,and people that want to live in the future,,,,there is no middle ground.

Did any one see the HBO Special Documentaries Terror in Mumbai, something is very very evil there somewhere,,,,,

 

[waraich66]

Pakistan is already a failed state. It does not have control of their territory or it’s inhabitants. 1800 Terrorist attack by the Taliban and Pakistan thinks there can be peace if we just accomdate them a little more,..We should have recognized that fact over the years since 9/11when it became obvious that the government was unwilling or unable to stop their Western territories from being used as safe havens for insurgents fighting in the Afghan conflict. It should have been clear after AQ Khan, father of the Pakistani nuclear program, was caught selling turnkey systems for uranium enrichment to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. He might not have been acting with the full support of the Pakistani government, but therei n lies the problem: he was acting at his own will just as the Taliban.....

This is a conflict between people that want to live in the past,,and people that want to live in the future,,,,there is no middle ground.

Did any one see the HBO Special Documentaries Terror in Mumbai, something is very very evil there somewhere,,,,,

Evil is hidding inside America , which is responsible for wars in Iraq,Afghanistan and Pakistan.

9/11,UK and Bombay attacks have single agenda and target also planned by single evil force having roots in USA.

 

[bigmoneymaker]

it is the interests groups behind the scene rules the reign, the president has to take care of their lustful demand and rule by nominal only, so there wont be big policy change for the usa as the upper ruling class still acts as the interests group which are benefitted from the usa national interests...the president elected by people doent real matter as the power of president is much diversified, am i right??

 

[Seadog1]

Evil is hidding inside America , which is responsible for wars in Iraq,Afghanistan and Pakistan.

9/11,UK and Bombay attacks have single agenda and target also planned by single evil force having roots in USA.

I think you have to place the blame else where because if you look at your true self you would puke.

 

[waraich66]

I think you have to place the blame else where because if you look at your true self you would puke.

Our nation is victom is US aggression , but remember in the end Americans will suffur and pay the price of damages and casualties.

 

[Seadog1]

Our nation is victom is US aggression , but remember in the end Americans will suffur and pay the price of damages and casualties.

and the pay backs will be hell,,,I would rather see the world destroyed then live in your hell.

According to Newsweek
Pakistan: Controlling 'Evil'
By RON MOREAU, SAMI YOUSAFZAI AND ZAHID HUSSAIN IN PESHAWAR | NEWSWEEK

For the past 40 years, 50-year-old Shaukat Khan has made a modest income singing and dancing at weddings, family celebrations and private gala parties. Now he is being run out of show business along with hundreds of other entertainers in Pakistan's North-West Frontier province. They are among the first casualties of the aggressive, "anti-obscenity" crackdown on the performing arts being orchestrated by the Islamist United Action Council, or MMA in its Urdu acronym. "The mullahs hate us," says Khan. "They only want us to study the holy Qur'an." In its zealous drive to Islamicize the strategic province, the pro-Taliban coalition of six conservative religious parties, which swept last November's NWFP provincial election, has ordered police to tear down suggestive advertising, remove CDs from store windows, seize "obscene" material and even arrest store owners. Under the MMA's watch, police have held public bonfires of confiscated videos, CDs, posters and cosmetics. "Sadly, we are witnessing the Talibanization of NWFP," says Afrasiab Khattak, chairman of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan's Peshawar chapter. But the MMA says it is doing exactly what it campaigned to do. The coalition rode to victory in NWFP on a campaign that was virulently anti-U.S. and that promised to uphold Islamic values. "Gradually, we will banish all such evil things," vows 80-year-old Maulana Mujahid Khan Al Husaini, an MMA provincial assembly member. The next "evils" the MMA seeks to eliminate? Cable TV, movie theaters and coeducation.

Hope you have to live this way some day.