It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will Pres. Obama's NEW Policy Towards Afghan and Pakistan Work?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
The NEW American policy is 1) to DENY refuge or safe haven to al Qaeda and to SOME of the Taliban. 2) To ferret out the last remnants of al Qaeda and to destabilize the more radical Taliban. Then it’s home for us! And a job well done!

How deeply conflicted are we? This AM I was listening to CSpan when a rare event occurred. An articulate, non-ideological journalist from the Washington Times! That’s like having an honest commentator on FOX News. Unheard of. Thank you Rupert Murdoch. No thanks, Dr. Moon.

The journalist is going back to Afghanistan in 2 weeks, he said. He is assigned to a US military unit near the Pakistan border. He says the unit is scheduled to be rotated back to the US and he wants to be there when the newly “tasked” unit replaced the earlier “tasked” unit. The “tasking” has changed dramatically. He wants to see if the new approach will work better than the old one.

He also lamented the “weakness” of Pres. Karzai of Afghanistan. (And he could have added Pakistan’s Pres. Zardari, and the PA President Abbas). As usual corruption was the primary complaint. Holy Smoke! Has this journalist not heard of Halliburton and VP Cheney? And Cheney’s $70 million severance package in 2000? Why do we ask of foreign countries what we cannot achieve here? Hubris! There is no other explanation. Well, ignorance is a possibility, too.

We constantly harp on “leaders” around the world who are not strong enough to get done the job we have assigned to them. We totally ignore that 41 Senate Republicans have blocked many of the initiatives of President Obama and it is barely 67 days into his first term. We totally ignore that the Minnesota senatorial election is NOT yet resolved. From November 4, to March 28, is 144 days. And we want to tell others how to hold elections? Hubris?

Has it not occurred to our observers that the hesitancy of those foreign presidents is the very essence of democracy!? That those men (and women) are doing a balancing act? That it is the effort at reconciling conflicting interests of various groups that delays the implementing of some policy or another. But NO, we want a strong man in Afghanistan and a strong man in Pakistan but not here in America? Are we just immature or lazy? I think it is clear we are not ready to be the world’s policeman. We are much better at consumerism. Instant gratification is our name! Addiction is our game! E N D


PS.
On Minnesota counting by the days
26 in Nov
31 in Dec
31 in Jan
28 in Feb
28 in Mar
Total, 144 Days! Suggestion: In states where more than 1 million people vote, why could we not just hold a re-run anytime an election is closer than 5,000 votes? Automatically, and hold it 14 days after the first election. And re-do that one until we get a 5,000 vote majority.


[edit on 3/28/2009 by donwhite]




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan can be stabilized. Never the less it would pay to remember that success has a thousand fathers and that failure is an orphan . The main things can go wrong from this point is that the US allies including New Zealand will have simply had enough and will look at using the deployed resources in Afghanistan closer to home . If NCOs and officers aren't embedded in the Afghan army there will be no way of getting rid of the dead wood . It wouldn't hurt if the same concept was adopted concerning the Afghan police and maybe even civil service .

Additional US troops should allow for more Search and Cordon missions which will result in the disruption or even better the destruction of enemy infrastructure . Finally a buffer area in region of the Afghan/Pakistan where Pakistan , Afghanistan , US and other forces can all operate should also help to some pressure on the enemy .



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
The US will not attempt to destroy this taliban. Why would they remove the grease that oils their machiavellian machinations of imperialism in southern asia , the taliban are their ostensible raison d'etre , their essential nemesis . They will never allow them to perish.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by Gun Totin Gerbil]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Balochistan is the ultimate prize





www.atimes.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil
 




Stressing an atrocious, provincial literacy rate of only 16% ("It's government policy to keep Balochistan backward"), they resented the fact that most people still lacked drinking water. They claimed support from at least 70% of the Baloch population ("Whenever the BLA fires a rocket, it's the talk of the bazaars"). They also claimed to be united, and in coordination with Iranian Balochis. And they insisted that "Pakistan had turned Balochistan into a US cantonment, which affected a lot the relationship between the Afghan and Baloch peoples".

As a whole, not only BLA sympathizers but the Balochis in general are adamant: although prepared to remain within a Pakistani confederation, they want infinitely more autonomy.



I do mean to reply to this very interesting post, but as you can see, it is long and complicated. I'll be back shortly.




top topics
 
1

log in

join