London
(Reuters) - Bringing the Taliban into reconciliation talks with the U.S.
-backed Afghan government would strain the insurgents' ties to al Qaeda and lift Western hopes of denying Osama bin Laden the refuge his hosts provide.
Any pressure on al Qaeda's link to its Pashtun protectors could also spur bin Laden's group to expand ties to militants in other Muslim nations out of self-preservation as much as ideology.
The Afghan government on Thursday invited the Taliban
to a peace council, expected early this year, raising the prospect that attempts at political deal-making could eventually move to the forefront of efforts to end the war in Afghanistan.
Analysts said the Afghan Taliban headed by Mullah Omar did not have much incentive yet to join any talks following a year of territorial gains, and its link to al Qaeda remained intact.
But its more nationalist long-term goals differed from those of al Qaeda, whose militant ideology makes violent jihad an obligation for all Muslims, and an eventual rift was possible.
That reality, combined with regular missile attacks by U.S. drones on its hideouts in the mountainous Afghanistan-pakistan
border area, meant al Qaeda was facing multiple pressures.
"Al Qaeda faces a big threat," Edwin Bakker, a senior research fellow at the Clingendael Institute in The Hague: "The Taliban is a local group able to strike local deals and that's a worry for al Qaeda."
A Western intelligence source said the prospect of such talks would put "a great deal of pressure on al Qaeda
Source:/in.reuters.com/
Showing posts with label Obama orders 34. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama orders 34. Show all posts
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
U.S. policy confusion on Pakistan and India
What is the U.S. policy towards Pakistan and India, and in particular over how to deal with their rivalry over Afghanistan which complicates U.S. efforts to bring stability there? I’ve been trying to find an answer for weeks now amid a raft of contradictory signals and statements coming from different U.S. officials.
First we had the leaked report by General Stanley McChrystal in September suggesting the issue should be handled with caution given Pakistani sensitivities about a big rise in India’s presence in Afghanistan following the fall of the Pakistani-backed Taliban in 2001.
“Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment,” it said. “In addition the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani counter-measures in Afghanistan or India.”
Then we had a series of reports, most recently here, suggesting Washington might welcome a bigger role for India in Afghanistan – precisely the kind of development that would exacerbate tensions with Pakistan given the current sour mood between New Delhi and Islamabad.
U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke toured the region saying President Barack Obama’s administration would welcome better relations between India and Pakistan. But then he was followed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates who, if anything, actually worsened tensions between the two by saying that India might retaliate in the event of a another big attack like the Nov. 2008 assault on Mumbai.
Gates made a similar comment towards the end of last year, when he said al Qaeda and its Islamist allies might try to use an attack to provoke a conflict between Pakistan and India. The problem this time around was the context. Saying this in Washington is one thing; saying it in India is quite different. Pakistan had already been jumpy about Indian intentions after its army chief said the military should be prepared to fight a two-front war against both China and Pakistan. Indian analysts describe those remarks, made at a closed-door seminar, as an aspirational view of the need for military preparedness, rather than any kind of immediate threat; but they went down badly in Pakistan and therefore coloured the way Gates’ remarks were interpreted.
You have to wonder whether Gates had been properly briefed about the context when he talked about Indian losing patience in the event of another big attack, or indeed why someone with such long experience of the region would make what appeared to be a diplomatic gaffe shortly before flying into Pakistan to try to win support there. Did he, to borrow a word from the now U.S. Secretary of State, ”misspoke”?
Juan Cole, who has generally been supportive of the Obama administration, was unforgiving, writing on his blog Informed Comment that its policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan were in disarray:
“Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates’s trip to Pakistan this weekend has in many ways been public relations disaster, and I think it is fair to say that he came away empty-handed with regard to his chief policy goals in Islamabad. Getting Pakistan right is key to President Barack Obama’s policy of escalating the Afghanistan War, and judging by Gates’s visit to Islamabad, Obama is in worse shape on the AfPak front than he is even in Massachusetts. Since he has bet so heavily on Afghanistan and Pakistan, this rocky road could be momentous for his presidency.”
Meanwhile Britain is hosting a conference on Afghanistan this week aiming to flesh out the timetable set by Obama for drawing down troops by 2011 and to convince regional players to cooperate rather than compete over a country which has long been a battleground for proxy wars. But as I wrote in this analysis, anything that might now be achieved in terms of easing tensions between India and Pakistan is likely to come too little, too late to deliver policy results in time for the 2011 deadline.
According to Steve Coll at the New America Foundation, who I quoted in the analysis, Washington’s need to achieve results in Afghanistan by 2011 is at odds with the longer-term clock followed by India and Pakistan. ”My sense is that the administration feels stymied by India’s continued insistence that it does not want any outside help and the frustratingly slow pace by which India and Pakistan are trying (to find a way back to negotiations),” he said. ”The U.S. doesn’t seem to be able to construct a breakthrough.”
The tensions between India and Pakistan complicate the current situation by undermining U.S. efforts to convince the Pakistan Army to turn on Afghan Taliban militants which it may eventually need to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan in the event of a U.S. withdrawal. Pakistan has also kept the bulk of its forces on the Indian border, limiting its capacity to mobilise troops to fight militants on the Afghan border. In the short to medium term, India and Pakistan are at odds over how far Taliban fighters should be brought into a process of reconciliation in Afghanistan. And in the long term, both could end up backing opposite sides in any renewed civil war between a weak government in Kabul and Taliban militants active in parts of the countryside. Then of course, both countries have nuclear weapons, so even without Afghanistan, it’s not a place where you would ever want tensions to escalate out of control.
So you would think that after a year in office, the U.S. administration would have a policy on how to deal with relations between India and Pakistan and their roles in Afghanistan. But I’m still looking for it.
Source:blogs.reuters.com/
First we had the leaked report by General Stanley McChrystal in September suggesting the issue should be handled with caution given Pakistani sensitivities about a big rise in India’s presence in Afghanistan following the fall of the Pakistani-backed Taliban in 2001.
“Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment,” it said. “In addition the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani counter-measures in Afghanistan or India.”
Then we had a series of reports, most recently here, suggesting Washington might welcome a bigger role for India in Afghanistan – precisely the kind of development that would exacerbate tensions with Pakistan given the current sour mood between New Delhi and Islamabad.
U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke toured the region saying President Barack Obama’s administration would welcome better relations between India and Pakistan. But then he was followed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates who, if anything, actually worsened tensions between the two by saying that India might retaliate in the event of a another big attack like the Nov. 2008 assault on Mumbai.
Gates made a similar comment towards the end of last year, when he said al Qaeda and its Islamist allies might try to use an attack to provoke a conflict between Pakistan and India. The problem this time around was the context. Saying this in Washington is one thing; saying it in India is quite different. Pakistan had already been jumpy about Indian intentions after its army chief said the military should be prepared to fight a two-front war against both China and Pakistan. Indian analysts describe those remarks, made at a closed-door seminar, as an aspirational view of the need for military preparedness, rather than any kind of immediate threat; but they went down badly in Pakistan and therefore coloured the way Gates’ remarks were interpreted.
You have to wonder whether Gates had been properly briefed about the context when he talked about Indian losing patience in the event of another big attack, or indeed why someone with such long experience of the region would make what appeared to be a diplomatic gaffe shortly before flying into Pakistan to try to win support there. Did he, to borrow a word from the now U.S. Secretary of State, ”misspoke”?
Juan Cole, who has generally been supportive of the Obama administration, was unforgiving, writing on his blog Informed Comment that its policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan were in disarray:
“Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates’s trip to Pakistan this weekend has in many ways been public relations disaster, and I think it is fair to say that he came away empty-handed with regard to his chief policy goals in Islamabad. Getting Pakistan right is key to President Barack Obama’s policy of escalating the Afghanistan War, and judging by Gates’s visit to Islamabad, Obama is in worse shape on the AfPak front than he is even in Massachusetts. Since he has bet so heavily on Afghanistan and Pakistan, this rocky road could be momentous for his presidency.”
Meanwhile Britain is hosting a conference on Afghanistan this week aiming to flesh out the timetable set by Obama for drawing down troops by 2011 and to convince regional players to cooperate rather than compete over a country which has long been a battleground for proxy wars. But as I wrote in this analysis, anything that might now be achieved in terms of easing tensions between India and Pakistan is likely to come too little, too late to deliver policy results in time for the 2011 deadline.
According to Steve Coll at the New America Foundation, who I quoted in the analysis, Washington’s need to achieve results in Afghanistan by 2011 is at odds with the longer-term clock followed by India and Pakistan. ”My sense is that the administration feels stymied by India’s continued insistence that it does not want any outside help and the frustratingly slow pace by which India and Pakistan are trying (to find a way back to negotiations),” he said. ”The U.S. doesn’t seem to be able to construct a breakthrough.”
The tensions between India and Pakistan complicate the current situation by undermining U.S. efforts to convince the Pakistan Army to turn on Afghan Taliban militants which it may eventually need to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan in the event of a U.S. withdrawal. Pakistan has also kept the bulk of its forces on the Indian border, limiting its capacity to mobilise troops to fight militants on the Afghan border. In the short to medium term, India and Pakistan are at odds over how far Taliban fighters should be brought into a process of reconciliation in Afghanistan. And in the long term, both could end up backing opposite sides in any renewed civil war between a weak government in Kabul and Taliban militants active in parts of the countryside. Then of course, both countries have nuclear weapons, so even without Afghanistan, it’s not a place where you would ever want tensions to escalate out of control.
So you would think that after a year in office, the U.S. administration would have a policy on how to deal with relations between India and Pakistan and their roles in Afghanistan. But I’m still looking for it.
Source:blogs.reuters.com/
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Chicago soldier dies in Afghanistan
CHICAGO - A 27-year-old U.S. Army infantryman from Chicago has been killed in an explosion in Afghanistan.
Albert Ware's father called his late son "a hero." Ware was killed by an improvised explosive device on Friday and had been on his second tour of duty. Ware had three children and also is survived by his wife, mother and sister.
Ware was born in Liberia and came to Chicago at age 12. He served in the National Guard before joining the Army and had hoped to become a U.S. Army Ranger.
Ware was from Chicago's Pullman neighborhood.
Source:chicagotribune.com/
Military police dismiss allegations of abuse by Canadian troops in Afghanistan
OTTAWA — Military police have dismissed three more claims alleging abuse of detainees by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.
In a year-end report released today, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service says three allegations of detainee abuse filed in 2009 were unfounded.
The report says investigators determined that soldiers acted appropriately toward the detainees.
The investigation is completely separate from the recent political furor over the abuse of detainees by Afghan authorities and why Canada continued to hand over detainees in 2006-07 despite reports of torture.
Since 2006, the military police have looked into a dozen claims of abuse by Canadian soldiers and found all but one were unfounded.
A single allegation, filed last year, is still being investigated.
Source:http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jpSphhIDuRKy1OhSBRm2VYw7X2qg
In a year-end report released today, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service says three allegations of detainee abuse filed in 2009 were unfounded.
The report says investigators determined that soldiers acted appropriately toward the detainees.
The investigation is completely separate from the recent political furor over the abuse of detainees by Afghan authorities and why Canada continued to hand over detainees in 2006-07 despite reports of torture.
Since 2006, the military police have looked into a dozen claims of abuse by Canadian soldiers and found all but one were unfounded.
A single allegation, filed last year, is still being investigated.
Source:http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jpSphhIDuRKy1OhSBRm2VYw7X2qg
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Obama orders 34,000-strong Afghan surge
US President Barack Obama has issued orders to his US military commanders as he prepares to announce up to 34,000 additional US troops for Afghanistan in a revitalised war strategy against the Taliban. After months of deliberation, Mr Obama will announce today a US "exit strategy" that many in his own Democratic Party fear will mire the nation deeper in the eight-year conflict.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed yesterday the US President had "issued the orders" as commander-in-chief.
Today's announcement during a nationally televised broadcast will take US forces in Afghanistan to more than 100,000 -- the largest number since former president George W. Bush sent troops into the country after the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11, 2001. There are now 68,000 US troops committed to the Afghan war after Mr Obama deployed 21,000 extra soldiers earlier this year.
Mr Obama's decision follows a specially commissioned review of military operations by the US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Today's military deployment is expected to go close to the main recommendation of General McChrystal that the US send a further 40,000 troops.
For months, the US President has wrestled with the conundrum of fighting what he calls a "necessary war" to stop Afghanistan again becoming a haven for al-Qa'ida terrorists harboured by the Taliban. His deliberations have been made difficult as US voters have increasingly turned against the war.
A majority no longer backs the war effort and questions the purpose of fighting. Much of Mr Obama's message today will be to persuade Americans that the US effort is needed to prevent a further terrorist attack, and that the President intends the renewed war effort as part of an "end game" that would result in the withdrawal of US forces.
Mr Gibbs yesterday said during a White House briefing: "This is not an open-ended commitment."
The troop boost has been made necessary by a serious deterioration in the US and allied military position over the past 12 months as the Taliban has regained control in many areas of the country. The US has also lost faith in its Afghan government partner, which has failed to train local forces.
Mr Obama has said he wants to hand his successor a clean slate in Afghanistan that would mean no further US military involvement and a transfer of authority to
the elected Afghan government.
Coinciding with the US troops boost, the President is also seeking at least 5000 additional troops from NATO forces.
In a meeting with Kevin Rudd yesterday, Mr Obama accepted that Australia's commitment of 1550 troops was sufficient after a further 450 was offered in April.
Britain would send an extra 500 troops to Afghanistan this month, tipping its deployment there over the 10,000 mark, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said yesterday.
Mr Brown said Britain's extra troops would be accompanied by new forces from at least eight other NATO allies.
"I can confirm that we will now move to a force level of 9500," Mr Brown told the House of Commons, adding that the total number of personnel in the area would be "in excess of 10,000 troops".
Reports yesterday said the US had asked France to provide a further 1500 troops.
Source:theaustralian.com.au
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed yesterday the US President had "issued the orders" as commander-in-chief.
Today's announcement during a nationally televised broadcast will take US forces in Afghanistan to more than 100,000 -- the largest number since former president George W. Bush sent troops into the country after the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11, 2001. There are now 68,000 US troops committed to the Afghan war after Mr Obama deployed 21,000 extra soldiers earlier this year.
Mr Obama's decision follows a specially commissioned review of military operations by the US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Today's military deployment is expected to go close to the main recommendation of General McChrystal that the US send a further 40,000 troops.
For months, the US President has wrestled with the conundrum of fighting what he calls a "necessary war" to stop Afghanistan again becoming a haven for al-Qa'ida terrorists harboured by the Taliban. His deliberations have been made difficult as US voters have increasingly turned against the war.
A majority no longer backs the war effort and questions the purpose of fighting. Much of Mr Obama's message today will be to persuade Americans that the US effort is needed to prevent a further terrorist attack, and that the President intends the renewed war effort as part of an "end game" that would result in the withdrawal of US forces.
Mr Gibbs yesterday said during a White House briefing: "This is not an open-ended commitment."
The troop boost has been made necessary by a serious deterioration in the US and allied military position over the past 12 months as the Taliban has regained control in many areas of the country. The US has also lost faith in its Afghan government partner, which has failed to train local forces.
Mr Obama has said he wants to hand his successor a clean slate in Afghanistan that would mean no further US military involvement and a transfer of authority to
the elected Afghan government.
Coinciding with the US troops boost, the President is also seeking at least 5000 additional troops from NATO forces.
In a meeting with Kevin Rudd yesterday, Mr Obama accepted that Australia's commitment of 1550 troops was sufficient after a further 450 was offered in April.
Britain would send an extra 500 troops to Afghanistan this month, tipping its deployment there over the 10,000 mark, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said yesterday.
Mr Brown said Britain's extra troops would be accompanied by new forces from at least eight other NATO allies.
"I can confirm that we will now move to a force level of 9500," Mr Brown told the House of Commons, adding that the total number of personnel in the area would be "in excess of 10,000 troops".
Reports yesterday said the US had asked France to provide a further 1500 troops.
Source:theaustralian.com.au
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)