Comments on: Obama takes Afghan war to Pakistan http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/03/27/obama-takes-afghan-war-to-pakistan/ Perspectives on Pakistan Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:31:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: rajeev http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/03/27/obama-takes-afghan-war-to-pakistan/comment-page-3/#comment-17283 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:49:21 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=2378#comment-17283 Guys:

DE Teodoru has interesting view of the situation–the larger picture. Worth discussing I think.

Thanks

]]>
By: rajeev http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/03/27/obama-takes-afghan-war-to-pakistan/comment-page-3/#comment-17280 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:38:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=2378#comment-17280 @Do you Indian-Pakistanis think you can lay aside your silly debates to discuss that on this site?
– Posted by DE Teodoru

–Interesting point on Shanghai Accord and ur views on large view of US war–true it is bigger game–not just women rights/prevention of flogging type nothings.

I saw ur views on India/Pak/China/Afghanistan/Tal—-To me your hypothesis is severely flawed in parts.

]]>
By: DE Teodoru http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/03/27/obama-takes-afghan-war-to-pakistan/comment-page-3/#comment-16960 Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:47:39 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=2378#comment-16960 Let me repeat: whoever has now nuclear arms will not reliquish them and we are in no position to take them away. Indeed, Iran, the only nation determinated to enter the nuclear state catagory is beyond our power to stop it. But, for better or worse, the Asian Region now has THE SHANGHAI ACCORD as a very sophisticated complex platform on which China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran and all the Central Asian states now share. It is a sort of secret society, so secret that we don’t understand who is a member and what that means. It is the ultimate sophisticated application of Hegel’s and Marx’s thesis+antithesis–>synthesis. Contradictions aboud and very clever adaptations are made to get around them. Unity is sweetened with the commercial side of the Accord. But really it is a sort of mutual security pact between antagonists. It is an ingenious idea (that morons in the Bush White house could never dream up) that depends on the whole soothing the anger ond insecurity of the individuals. That is why above I advocate that we leave Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Shanghai Accord to deal with. Holbrook is a bull in a China shop able only at covering up the mess he makes (I know him since Vietnam). Americans have proven to be self-serving (I mean really self, not country) shortsighted simpletons. Whatever their flaws and corruptions, the members of the Shanghai Accord have proven able to smooth over wrinkles in their inter-allies peace. If we pull out our troops and NATO too, offering to assist only in whatever the Accord UNANIMOUSLY decides, they will apply to the region a level of diplomatic sophistication that we have not seem since the Middle Ages when we Europeans were running around naked in rags throwind spears at eachother and they were great empires of rich cultures precticing sophisticated diplomacy. So let’s get out and let THE SHANGHAI ACCORD DEAL WITH AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN. Do you Indian-Pakistanis think you can lay aside your silly debates to discuss that on this site?

]]>
By: rajeev http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/03/27/obama-takes-afghan-war-to-pakistan/comment-page-2/#comment-16386 Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:43:21 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=2378#comment-16386 DE Teodoru, Thanks for the long posts.

It will be helpful to know where you come from to understand u better-Country, religion. I am an Indian, a Hindu.

Just specific points:

@Video of a girl held down and whipped in Taliban areas rightly outrages us. But how hypocritical are we when we call India– a land of outrageous “untouchables” casting and abuse of women– a “democracy”?

—I understand the hypocritical word is quite in fashion. Everyone uses against everyone. But can you need to cite the bloggers some example of each-explain why you said so. In India, in Hinduism, social reforms have been happening, to trash the undesirable practices. Social reforms happened in 19th century to get rid of certain age-old practices. At this point and since 1947 Indian independence, constitution addresses that very well. So the difference is: India– a land of outrageous “untouchables” casting and abuse of women– in Indian system both are unlawful and practiced. Outragaeous that you compare this with Taliban flogs a 17yr girl. India is moving forward.

@ For example, in NYC, of every welfare dollar only 17c went to the poor, the rest to a bloated “professional” (???) bureaucracy that had careers to preserve by trapping the poor in poverty. So it is in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India.
–Let it be clear that your money is not in India, just because it is next door to Af-Pak. Money is a complex circle. It is Chinese money perhaps what you are earning if you are in US.

@ Taliban’s shahids.
–What is “shahids” Martyr? Do u mean the usage? It is one thing to criticize West or for that matter any TDH but it is another thing to support the actions of the other—Do you mean what you say?

@ You can look to China for support, but I think you are better off solving your problems between you South Asians. Right now, you or members of your families have stolen billions $$$ US in aid and gave nothing to your people. The Taliban is holding you responsible. We can go home, but where will you go?

-I do not know whom was this addressed to. Are you also suffering from some syndrome that US was invited in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere. if US is not invited here, you have no right to say the above.

]]>
By: DE Teodoru http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/03/27/obama-takes-afghan-war-to-pakistan/comment-page-2/#comment-16279 Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:15:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=2378#comment-16279 It is admittedly very hard for me as a Westerner to enter the ethnocentric debates on this page. But I too come from an “Eastern” small place that was culturally swallowed up by the big guys to the West. That, after all, is history. What is most in doubt now is the utility of the “ethno” perspective, given the global character of our economies. Looking at the hate between Pakistanis and Indians and the violence that unleashed between them, one can understand why both groups dragged in the Afghans. The “Islam” link– a sacrilegious abuse of a faith that requires benevolent, judicious, pious detachment, not excuses for self enrichment– may seem to make sense, but what if it were applied to India, a nation so full of Muslims but just as full of Hindus?
The need now is for responsible leadership from the community to the national level that values every life that it is responsible for because it is granted leadership by it. There is a fatalistic Asian perspective that decrees that fate puts us each where we are so the task of each of us is to make the most of that position. Altruism and duty to thy neighbor are anathema in that Sinic perspective. This has led to primitive greatness but as human societies evolved it led to colonialism by newer Western societies. As a Western moral sense eventually rejected colonialism, independence has been a fraud. Video of a girl held down and whipped in Taliban areas rightly outrages us. But how hypocritical are we when we call India– a land of outrageous “untouchables” casting and abuse of women– a “democracy”?
America has nothing to moralize about. Its last leader, Bush, is a criminal deceptor of his fellow Americans, pretending that the robber barons he served were really the security interests of America; he got us so deep in a War on Islam shaped by Zionist interests that were not responsible Israeli leaders but American neoconservatives seeking to achieve “mensch-hood” by promoting war on the Arabs. To their despair, the pendulum the neocons forced from South Asia and Afghanistan onto Iraq has now shifted back to South Asia, where the situation is extremely desperate. But the Taliban-Pakistani conflict of today is quite different for the hunt for binLaden of 2001. For its part, Israel finds itself facing a nuclear-to-be Iran without an Iraqi to balance; so Israel is damning the very Zionazi neocons claiming to speak for Zionism because of the neocons’ reckless “World War IV” against the Arabs. Now the US can’t afford to serve Israeli domination of the Middle East any more while at the same time dealing with the possibility of Islamic chaos in Pakistan, a real nuclear power.
What seems little discussed is what we Americans learned about welfare as a solution to poverty in America: you can’t cure poverty by throwing money at it because it gets into the most crooked “Do-gooders” hands. For example, in NYC, of every welfare dollar only 17c went to the poor, the rest to a bloated “professional” (???) bureaucracy that had careers to preserve by trapping the poor in poverty. So it is in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. All money cements the culture of inequality, for those in power will steal the money and those without power will only be able to acquire their share through the barrel of a gun….or the BOOM of a bomb. The Taliban, like Hezbollah and HAMAS, may be Medieval in their social operations, but what the people see as well is that they are clean so that Sharia Law means far more than the democratic Afghan, Pakistani and Indian Constitutions. I would close by urging you young Westernized bourgeoisie of South Asia to look into yourselves for how much you live like parasites from the bloodstream of the poor. The poor may have been helpless to stop your blood sucking, but the Taliban has offered them a leveling of the field to where the host and the parasite are both brought under the rule of God. Clearly, the troops defending your privilege and your amoral sense of destiny are not as motivated as the Taliban’s shahids. Do not look to American drones and rockets or intel blind, language deaf and culture dumb forces to save you. You can’t draw sustenance from home, playing in America as do Arab leaders, for that will only get the shahids of Islam on your neck. So look for your own solution so we can go home and leave you to settle your own moral, cultural and social inequity. We are no longer imperial, in part, because we are broke and tired and, though most Americans suffer from the “ain’t my kid fighting in Afghanistan” disconnect syndrome, we are running out of kids who want to volunteer. You can look to China for support, but I think you are better off solving your problems between you South Asians. Right now, you or members of your families have stolen billions $$$ US in aid and gave nothing to your people. The Taliban is holding you responsible. We can go home, but where will you go?

]]>
By: Aamir Ali http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/03/27/obama-takes-afghan-war-to-pakistan/comment-page-2/#comment-16246 Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:59:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=2378#comment-16246 How did nukes get into the discussion ? The Indian posters really need to remain on topic and not turn everything into Pakistan-cussing and Islam-bashing.

]]>
By: Al Baloushi http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/03/27/obama-takes-afghan-war-to-pakistan/comment-page-2/#comment-16066 Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:26:24 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=2378#comment-16066 Obama takes war to Pakistan, haa, haa, very strange thought, after losing in every corner of the globe militarily and financially Americans still not learned any lesson. My advise to Sheikh Obama, please do some thing good for your people (USA)and to the world at large and do not allow your name to be appeared among great stupid of their time: BUSH,CHENNEY & RAMSFILD.

]]>
By: Patrick http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/03/27/obama-takes-afghan-war-to-pakistan/comment-page-2/#comment-16048 Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:48:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=2378#comment-16048 Wow. Reuters will not let me post a long comment. Anyhow, just go to the ‘About Us’ page for the site Daniel mentioned. Anarchists, editors for pot-smoking magazines, and radio pirates (whatever that means). A respectable line up of “journalists”…which happens to also have page called “Our Mission”. Hmmmmmmm……

Peace.

]]>
By: de teodoru http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/03/27/obama-takes-afghan-war-to-pakistan/comment-page-2/#comment-15930 Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:05:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=2378#comment-15930 http://www.ww4report.com/node/6943

A rather interesting analysis above raises the issue of the Bush Administration’s role in Central Asia. It was really a Bush Administration imperial crime on top of an imperial grab by the Clinton Administration. President Obama inherits a most shameful post Cold War Great Grab for oil and gas rich Central Asia. Our nation now is attempting to hold Afghanistan which is nothing but a cork to the Islamic spread throughout the South and Central Asian regions. Therein lays a severely sticky and high traction momentum for which Clinton and Bush must hold personal responsibility. The feebleness of Russia under Yeltsin permitted Western avarice to become paroxysmal. In particular, the American right-wing “wrecking crew” so well described in recent literature accelerated libertine expression of this corporate avarice to a point of utter recklessness.

Defensive reactions were inevitable. Firstly, alQaeda entered the negotiating realm with an Islamo-ideologic argument based on the role of Islamic religion to Soviet anti-ecclesiastic campaign. It can be factually argued that, not President Reagan, but the Muslims of the USSR defeated the Soviet Union. The CIA’s role was as a limitless supplier of arms and cash only. alQaeda had argued that the Islamic Revolution of Afghanistan must be advanced “Westward” as well as Southeastward into India. The Taliban bought into the transnational argument of binLaden. But we were fraudulently presented with the “westward” argument as defining attacking Europe and the US when in fact the target was Central and South Asia. At first, Saudi Arabia and Iran fully supported the anti-Soviet Afghan War. China– which has long been fighting the Uygur Muslim nationalists in Sinkiang Province, nevertheless, supported Muslim Pakistan as the bridgehead to dismembering of India, its main Asian enemy.

Since the 1980s we have witnessed a Sunni-Shia unity directed from Teheran that undermined the Egyptian and Saudi governments. These in turn supported Saddam Hussein as a transition to Islamism. Perceiving the Iranian Iean-to-Iraq collaboration to destroy the Western economic hold in the Middle East, the US worked a wedge war between Baghdad and Teheran. This drained American power out of South Asia (Afghanistan). The EU was well aware that the “western” target of the Muslims was limited to the ex-Soviet Republics of Central Asia and insisted on maintaining emphasis on diplomatic efforts in the Middle East on the promise of an Iraq-Iran switch from the perto$ to the Euro would enrich its European members. The Bush Administration, without any logical reason expected that as US troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan the European would be forced to fill the void. But just as they favored on-intervention in Iraq they felt no need to invade Afghanistan. Such expectation from NATO only exposes the utter illusion of dominion that the Bush Administration felt it had over Europe.

Bush Administration reckless bully diplomacy forced a Russo-Chinese collaboration, the Shanghai Accord, which on the surface pretends to be only a trade accord but is in fact a security pact created by Moscow in response to the Chinese panic over pre-9/11 US policy to surround China. Over the post 9/11 years, the Bush Administration was skillfully maneuvered, dissipating the credibility of its bully threats, so that now the Shanghai Accord extends to Central and Mainland Asia, including India, Pakistan, Iran and all the Central Asian states. Admittedly this construction is still amorphous and a work in progress suffering much internal contradictions. But it is a means to an end that is united on one point only: the US cannot be allowed to dominate Afghanistan. Despite their opposition to each other, the Shanghai Accord members have a common goal of keeping Afghanistan as a means of exasanguinating US power while never allowing a resolution by the US and US withdrawal. A sort of “1984” Russo-Asian Bloc is standing against the even weaker western US-EU Bloc that seeks domination of Afghanistan to cut off Asian influence over Central Asia, leaving a weak Russia alone as an easy Western barrier to Western corporate domination of Central Asia. Alas, the Shanghai Accord surrounds Afghanistan, the EU sees no reason to lose more wealth and lives there and the US is exasanguinating hopelessly alone because it cannot afford to invest the massive effort required to dominate that vast mountainous nation. The crux of the matter is that America is finding itself abandoned by NATO and alone in Central-South Asia and can only stay there if manipulated to Shanghai Accord interests because the American economy is dependent on its Shanghai Accord bankers. The range of options permitted the US because of the internal contradictions of the Shanghai Accord does not range to include any prospect of successful elimination of the Taliban.

It has been propagandized by right-wing Republicans that if the US withdraws it will betray the women of Afghanistan. Videos of a 13 y/o girl whipped for taking to a boy is used to make the case. But if one were to consider the violation of women’s rights in India, Pakistan and China–America’s illusory allies and bankers– the entire case seems utterly hypocritical. It seems utterly irresponsible for the United States– much like the late Roman Empire– to waste its volunteer army under incompetent command in areas where victory is beyond their abilities and the investment of resources required far beyond what the American people are willing to invest. It is true that, in the absence of conscription, most Americans care so little for the lives of the heroic soldiers in the field that staying in the fight will be supported when contraposed with defeat– a position would never have been accepted had we drawn the troops through universal draft. But the material costs will soon sour the US public to this incredibly poorly fought war, almost as bad as the Soviet effort. By then, this grossly mishandled “Bush’s War” will have become “Obama’s War,” leaving him to bear responsibility for the withdrawal in defeat that is inevitable. It will be like blaming an operation botched by a lead surgeon on the one who sutures the wound because the patient died while the latter was closing.

Nevertheless, Americans traditionally avoid learning from the past. Too many defeats have been wiped from analytic memory in shame and a desire to maintain the illusion of military omnipotence. Like the Israeli army, the American military pretends that the incompetence of its command is not the issue and that the growing competence of its opponents can never match its own.

So what would happen if the US withdrew from Afghanistan?

First and foremost, let us recall that the real concern of Americans is that the Islamic struggle would then pour out of Afghanistan to flood Pakistan. In retort, let us recall that a) Pakistan’s original involvement with the Taliban is because of the latter’s strategic importance in its endless war with India. India is attempting an end-run around Pakistan by exploiting economic relations with non-Taliban Afghan tribes. That forces Pakistan to stand with the Taliban at cost of the Taliban having created a Pakistani Islamist Taliban to overthrow the secular Pakistani government and establish the first nuclear Sharia. India’s hope is that in this way it convinces the US/EU alliance to dismember Pakistan and return it to Indian rule, as it had been under British colonialism. Seeking depth, Pakistan cannot afford to succumb to Western demands that it be engulfed by India while Pakistan serves as the staging base for a Western defeat of Afghanistan’s Pashtuns. This Indian scheme, however, would never be allowed by China because Pakistan is the most critical ally of China in Asia and the sole barrier between Western China– where Muslim resistance is a problem– and India. Pakistan is also China’s Southern port outlet and inlet for its Mideast oil. And, Pakistan is the best means China has of putting pressure on India in the economic-strategic competition between the two states. b) The bonds of the Shanghai Accord constitute a complex balance between all its members. That is why there is little formal organizational rigidity in it except for economic processes; that is why it is misread as an economic accord. That strategic flexible balance becomes far more stressed and at the same time far more necessary to all its members if the US withdraws from Central Asia so that no one wins and no one loses. And, as the region ceases to be a war zone resisting Western imperialism, these internal contradictions become increasingly prominent, causing these nations to resort to complex diplomacy rather than combat. Also, many of these contradictions can only be ameliorated by economic ties to the West as none of the members can really dominate nor satisfy the needs of each member.

American presence in the area will only polarize the locals as more and more non-combatant “collateral damage” results from defensive American/NATO action. NATO can destroy itself, overcome by its inadequacy in Afghanistan, as opposed to its orderly operation as a European Defense Structure only. The Shanghai Accord needs only operate as an opportunity to Central/South Asian states seeking a bypass of American power, as the above article seems to imply.

Obama has very little time to bite the bullet. As the Iraq War ends muddled and unresolved, his presidency cannot afford Afghanistan also ending as HIS failure. His only hope is to transfer the whole problem to the Shanghai Accord where it will forever be entangled in the Accord’s fluidity where no one loses, no one wins. It has been mendaciously put forward by VP Cheney, Rumsfeld (though now he dares no longer speak as recklessly as before), Rove and several FOXNEWS Republican propagandists that if we withdraw from Afghanistan we will again face a repeat of 9/11. What they fail to truthfully admit is that post-9/11 Bush mendaciously covered for the airline companies that had violated laws established during the 1970s when the US faced multiple skyjackings. It was decreed at the time that all airlines would be provided a locked impenetrable pilot’s cabin and two sky marshals would be put on every plane. But because of cheap fares competition all the airlines violated this law. As a result, Jihadi shahids looking for a way to try again to destroy the World Trade Center and to do damage to Wash DC government buildings, while riding First Class cross country, discovered that the pilot’s cabin is never locked. Thus, on 9/11, four aircrafts were completely taken over within ten minutes each. Unless we repeat this gross negligence, such conversion of airlines into missiles will never again occur. To say, therefore, that 9/11 happened, because Afghanistan was a “rogue” state controlled by the Taliban, we suffered 9/11 is a gross lie. It happened because security LAWS WERE DISOBEYED. I can only conclude that utterly irresponsible political opportunists are making the current Republican case. For had Afghanistan been so important, Bush would have held to his refusal to cannibalize the Afghan War in order to present Congress with a fait accompli in Iraq, as proposed by Rumsfeld, wherein US troops in battle could not be refused funding.

Americans as a people cannot pretend that the past does not exist and that they, therefore, do not have to face its consequences. The US had its chance to deal with the Islamic Jihad and totally failed. This fact cannot be erased with mechanized killing of Muslims using remote controlled drones guided by platoons on the ground. This nation is exsanguinating its young men and resources, manipulated by nations that have no match in force but are endowed far greater ability in diplomacy and “stratergerizing.” Obama cannot be a repeat of corrupt Bush II. He must courageously face the amputation required to avoid the systemic infection that the Soviet Union faced after its defeated veterans returned from Afghanistan. Those returned PTSD victims, the maimed and the families of the dead are Bush’s victims. Soon they will be Obama’s. His only hope is to dare to do the right thing now and not wait for some miraculous “Dayton Accord” illusion.

Daniel E. Teodoru

]]>
By: Global Watcher http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/03/27/obama-takes-afghan-war-to-pakistan/comment-page-2/#comment-15748 Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:58:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=2378#comment-15748 @Umair, Mauryan

Mauryan, thank you for being a sane voice of reason, rationality and logic.

Umair, as long as you quit hurling nuke and military bravado and blindly stated pro-islamic political promotion you will not get any so called bashing from me.

India has been peaceful and mature in its response and would actually like to progress economically.

There are some of those in Pakistan that would like to derail peace and derail India’s great economic success. That would be the ISI.

It is therefore important that all hateful statements against India be removed from all forms of literature from Pakistan. Peace starts with children from a very young age. Anti-hindu sentiment must stop. It is this negativity which Indians want to see stop for good.

There are many commonalities in the cultures of India and Pakistan and the U.S. and China has historically propped up Pakistan to keep India at bay.

India does not want to be seen as any threat to anybody and just wants its neighbours to be responsible.

There is no reason that India cannot do good things in Pakistan as it has done in Afghanistan. But first terrorism within Pakistan must be stopped by Pakistani’s and this must start with the ISI and Pak military, the purveyors of hate against India.

]]>