Pakistan in 2012: A year in review

The year 2012 was no less tumultuous for Pakistan than any other year. Starting from the Supreme Court and former premier Gilani at loggerheads to the return of Tahirul Qadri’s (untimely) arrival on the political scene, Pakistan has seen a healthy share of ups and downs this year. NATO supply routes were resumed, terrorism continued, Metro Bus project was initiated – it is difficult to remember when one event ended and the other began. For the purpose of simplification and to refresh the previous year, Spearhead Research put together a year in review, a compilation of all important news Pakistan saw.

Read more…

Meeting dark clouds

By Aima Khosa
ZoneAsia-Pk

Alternatives to combat change world leaders do not seem to want to look at

Doha talks on climate change finally came to an end after a 2 week deadlock over the extension of the Koyoto protocol. Nearly 200 delegates from various countries came to an agreement to cut greenhouse emissions in the next eight years. At the same time, US refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol, Russia had objections to it, India and China were excluded from it.

They called it a ‘modest but essential’ step forward. Any person with the faintest notion of the gravity of the situation would tell you that this is no step in any direction. President Barack Obama in his re-election speech seemed to have finally taken a stand on the growing fears of climate change. Less than a month later, not only did his administration fail to submit a decisive treaty to curb carbon emissions, but also refused to increase funding to help developing countries reduce theirs. This is not to say that the United States has not played its role in reducing its carbon emissions at all. According to the International Energy Agency, US emissions have dropped 7.7 percent since 2006 – “the largest reduction of all countries or regions.” But this was countered with China’s increase in greenhouse emissions by 9.3 percent and India’s 8.7 percent. China is the world’s biggest polluter and India ranks as number four.

Read more…

Time to exit

ZoneAsia-Pk

Far-called our navies melt away


On dune and headland sinks the fire


Lo, all our pomp of yesterday


Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!

[ Rudyard Kipling Recessional ]

War is waged to achieve political objectives, not to kill enemies. In this sense, the United States has lost the 10-year Afghan conflict, its longest war. Afghanistan remains the “graveyard of empires.”

The US has failed to install an obedient regime in Kabul that controls Afghanistan. It has made foes of the Pashtun majority, and, in pursuing this war, gravely undermined Pakistan. Claims that US forces were in Afghanistan to hunt the late Osama bin Laden were widely disbelieved.

Last Wednesday, President Barack Obama bowed to public opinion, approaching elections, military reality and financial woes by announcing he would withdraw a third of the 100,000 US troops from Afghanistan by the end of next summer. Pentagon brass growled open opposition.

US allies France and Germany announced similar troops reductions. All foreign troops are supposed to quit Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

Washington currently spends at least $10 billion monthly on the Afghan war, not counting “black” payments, CIA and NSA operations. The US has poured $18.8 billion in development aid into Afghanistan since 2001 with nothing to show for the effort. Pakistan has been given $20 billion to support the Afghan War. The US deficit is heading over $1.4 trillion. The national debt, when unfunded pensions and benefits are added, is likely $100 trillion, according to the chief of PIMCO, the world’s largest bond trader.

Forty-four million Americans now receive food stamps; the national infrastructure of roads, airports, bridges and schools is crumbling from neglect. Unemployment, officially at 9.5 per cent, is probably closer to 20 per cent.

The cry is being heard: “Rebuild America, not Afghanistan.”

In spite of intense pro-war propaganda, over half of Americans now oppose the Afghan War. Even US-installed Afghan president Hamid Karzai calls it, “ineffective, apart from causing civilian casualties.”

So will the US really pull out of Afghanistan? That remains to be seen. There are contradictory signs.

Mid-level talks between the US and Taleban are under way. The US will probably keep some of its remaining 66,000 soldiers in Afghanistan after 2014, rebranding them training troops. The huge US bases at Kandahar and Bagram will be retained.

Billions more will be spent on the Afghan government army and police. They have so far proved ineffective because most are composed of Tajik and Uzbek mercenaries who are hated and distrusted by the Pashtun.

A similar process is underway in Iraq where “withdrawal” means keeping renamed US combat brigades in Iraq, thousands of mercenaries, and US combat forces in neighbouring Kuwait and the Gulf. New US embassies in Baghdad and Kabul – huge, fortified complexes with their own mercenary combat forces – will be the world’s biggest. Kabul will have a staff of 1,000 US personnel. Bin Laden called them “crusader fortresses.”

In addition, the US will still arm and finance allied Tajik and Uzbek militias in Afghanistan. Financing Pakistan’s US-backed regime and Uzbekistan must also continue at around $3 billion yearly. The US appears to be going and staying at the same time. By contrast, Taleban’s position is clear and simple: it will continue fighting until all foreign troops are withdrawn. US Special Forces, drones and hit squads have been unable to assassinate enough Taleban commanders to make the mujahidin stop fighting.

Americans never study history, not even their own. They don’t recall founding father, the great Benjamin Franklin, who said, “there is no good war, and no bad peace.” Or that the Pashtun Taleban and its allies are fierce, dedicated, undefeated warriors. I’ve been in combat with them and remain in awe of their courage and love of combat. The Pashtun mujahidin will keep fighting as always, as long as their ammunition lasts.

America, for all its B-1 heavy bombers, strike fighters, missiles, helicopter gunships and drones, armour, super electronics, spies in the sky and all the other high tech weapons of modern war has failed to defeat some 30,000 tribal fighters with nothing more than small arms and legendary valour.

The US has lost the all important military initiative in Afghanistan. It may linger there, but it cannot win.

US report urges duty-free access for Pakistan

ZoneAsia-Pk

The United States should offer duty-free access to its markets for Pakistani exports, a new report says, declaring that trade might succeed where aid has not in developing a vibrant economy and stable partner.

The report by a study group convened by the Center for Global Development, an independent think tank, was sharply critical of Washington’s attempts to stabilize Pakistan with billions in economic aid, saying they were not delivering the desired results.

“The United States is way off course in Pakistan,” said Nancy Birdsall, the center’s president and report’s lead author.

US officials and lawmakers are reviewing ties with Pakistan after the discovery of Osama bin Laden in a town about 50 km (30 miles) from the capital raised fresh doubts about Pakistan’s reliability as an ally against militancy.

But the report said US assistance to Pakistan should be mended instead of ended, with duty-free trade benefits added for at least five years to create a boost for Pakistan with “very little harm to workers in the United States.”

The proposal is a politically dicey one, however. Less sweeping proposals for increasing Pakistan’s access to US markets have foundered in Congress in the recent past.

A bill sought by President Barack Obama to offer trade advantages in border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan stalled in the last session of Congress amid concerns about labor provisions and the impact on the US textile industry. Textile and apparel industries account for much of Pakistan’s economy.

“The American textile lobby is a very powerful special interest,” said Sallie James, a trade analyst at the Cato Institute. “There is good reason to believe that the textile lobby would launch a strong lobbying campaign to keep this (duty-free access for Pakistani goods) from going through.”

Robert Mosbacher Jr., former president of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and a member of the group that produced the report, said Obama’s leadership is needed.

“There’s no question in my mind that they (the administration) know how important this is to Pakistan.

Pakistanis have been asking us to help them with this for years,” Mosbacher told Reuters.

Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat who co-sponsored the previous bill on trade advantages for border areas of Pakistan, told Reuters he intended to try again with new legislation in Congress but the timing was uncertain.

“I’m very open to expanding the products as well as the territory” of Pakistan that would be granted duty-free status under the legislation, Van Hollen said. But the administration would probably need to work with the US textile industry to “get everyone on board.”

Problems with the US Aid Program

In 2009 Congress passed and Obama signed a law authorizing a tripling of nonmilitary assistance to Pakistan, to a total of $7.5 billion over five years. The president said economic aid to the hard-pressed country was important because extremism could not be fought “with bullets or bombs alone”.

The aid program was named after its sponsors, Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar, and Representative Howard Berman.

But administration of the program has been neither coherent nor transparent, the report found. It was hard to find out how money had been spent, and no one person seemed in charge.

“No one is sure what the United States is trying to accomplish. Because of a debilitating lack of transparency in the aid program, no one is even sure what the United States is doing,” it said.

An official at the US Agency for International Development said Washington had given Pakistan $1.7 billion in civilian aid since the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill was passed.

This included a program that helped save the winter wheat crop, “averting a food crisis for millions of Pakistanis after the devastating floods of 2010,” the official told Reuters, responding to the report’s criticisms.

The official said USAID had avoided a “rush to spend” in Pakistan, to assure programs are monitored. The report warned against disbursing civilian aid in a hurry.

Analyst Edward Gresser of the GlobalWorks Foundation said Congress should consider fully opening US markets to Pakistan’s exports, because current US trade policy is at odds with its aid policy.

With $350 million a year in US tariffs levied on imports from Pakistan, “Pakistan is taking it on the chin,” he said.

Guantanamo Bay: Afghan prisoner ‘kills himself’

An Afghan prisoner at Guantanamo Bay has died in what the US authorities called an apparent suicide.

The prisoner, named only as Inayatullah, had been held at prison on Cuba since September 2007 on suspicion of being a member of al-Qaeda.

He is the eighth prisoner to die at Guantanamo Bay since the US began using the military base as a detention centre in January 2002.

Five of the previous deaths were declared suicides.

The other two were attributed to natural causes.

Confirming the latest death, the US military said in a statement that guards found the detainee “unresponsive and not breathing”.

“After extensive lifesaving measures had been exhausted, the detainee was pronounced dead by a physician.”

President Barack Obama pledged to close the camp as one of his first actions after taking office in 2009, but has so far failed to reach a deal.

Threat remains after bin Laden killed by U.S. forces

President Barack Obama warned Americans on Sunday night to remain vigilant even after the killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and while there are no known credible threats, the risk of attacks remains.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the FBI have not issued any warning of a credible or imminent threat in the wake of news that bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, but security will likely be ramped up to guard against possible retaliation.

“There is no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must and we will remain vigilant at home and abroad,” Obama said in a late-night televised statement announcing that U.S. forces had killed bin Laden.

DHS and FBI officials had no immediate comment about the risk of attacks or any new threats.

While bin Laden was seen as the leader of al Qaeda, because he was in hiding from U.S. forces he was reduced more to a figurehead, experts said. Meanwhile affiliates of his militant group have taken the lead in launching attacks.

Most attacks against U.S. interests have been by a Yemeni affiliate, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The group has claimed responsibility for trying in October to send bombs packed in toner cartridges aboard cargo planes bound for the United States. They were intercepted and failed to detonate.

AQAP also backed an attempt on Christmas Day 2009 by a Nigerian man who tried but failed to detonate a bomb hidden in his underwear while aboard a U.S. commercial flight as it approached Detroit from Amsterdam.

“This doesn’t end the terrorist threat to the United States, but it’s the end of a key chapter to the War of Terror,” said Juan Zarate, who served as deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism during George W. Bush’s presidency.

“There may be a spike of threats initially, and there are other elements of the al Qaeda network who remain dangerous,” said Zarate, now a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

WikiLeaks suspect moving to Kansas base

The Army private suspected of giving classified data to WikiLeaks is being moved to a base in the Midwest state of Kansas in the wake of international criticism about his treatment during his detention at a Marine Corps base near Washington.

Bradley Manning’s detention has been the focus of repeated protests from human rights groups and international leaders.

His move to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, which was announced on Wednesday at the Pentagon, could put him in a new facility that houses inmates with short prison terms or those awaiting trial.

“Given the length of time he’s been in pretrial confinement at Quantico … and given what the likely period of pretrial confinement in the future … we reached the judgment this would be the right facility for him,” Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s general counsel, told reporters in a hastily announced briefing.

Officials declined to say when the transfer would take place but suggested it would be soon.

Manning faces nearly two dozen charges, including aiding the enemy, a crime that can bring the death penalty or life in prison.

Manning’s move to a new detention center comes about a week after a UN torture investigator complained that he was denied being able to make an unmonitored visit to Manning.

Pentagon officials said he could meet with Manning, but it is customary to give only the detainee’s lawyer confidential visits. But Juan Mendez said that a monitored conversation would be counter to the practice of his UN mandate.

Two days later, a committee of Germany’s parliament protested about Manning’s treatment to the White House. And Amnesty International has said Manning’s treatment may violate his human rights.

Manning is being held in maximum security in a single-occupancy cell at the Marine base, and he is allowed to wear only a suicide-proof smock to bed each night.

President Barack Obama and senior military officials have repeatedly contended that Manning is being held under appropriate conditions given the seriousness of the charges against him.

A former intelligence analyst, Manning is accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of documents to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, including Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, confidential State Department cables, and a classified military video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack in Iraq that killed a Reuters news photographer and his driver.

Army prosecutors, however, have told Manning’s lawyers that they will not recommend the death penalty.

There are currently three detention facilities at Fort Leavenworth, including the military’s largest maximum security prison.

The new 464-bed facility, which opened last September, is a regional prison that combined the operations of several military prisons around the country.

Talks intensify as possible US government shutdown looms

With time growing short, President Barack Obama said Wednesday night that he remains confident that a government shutdown can be avoided this weekend if negotiators can build on constructive talks held at the White House.

Differences remain despite the progress, but Obama announced that talks would continue through the night in hopes of avoiding a government shutdown this weekend.

“It’s going to require a sufficient sense of urgency,” Obama said, “to complete a deal and get it passed and avert a shutdown.”

Obama emerged before reporters to declare his differences with the House Republicans were narrowing but that both sides were still stuck in an impasse.

“I thought the meetings were frank, they were constructive, and what they did was narrow the issues and clarify the issues that are still outstanding,” Obama said. “I remain confident that if we’re serious about getting something done, we should be able to complete a deal and get it passed and avert a shutdown. But it’s going to require a sufficient sense of urgency from all parties involved.””

After the White House session, Boehner said, “We did have a productive conversation this evening. We do have some honest differences, but I do think we made some progress. But I want to reiterate: There is no agreement on a number and there’s no agreement on the policy matters. But there’s an attempt on both sides to continue to work together to try to resolve this.”

The pressure built Wednesday as Boehner announced House Republicans would approve a stopgap spending bill blending $12 billion in new domestic spending cuts with the full-year Pentagon budget as the price for keeping the government open for another week.

Boehner’s move appeared aimed at shifting political blame if a shutdown occurs, but it angered Democrats who felt that talks were progressing.

“I think this is the responsible thing to do for the U.S. Congress, and I would hope the Senate can pass it and the president can sign it into law,” Boehner said.

He also criticized Obama, though saying he likes the commander in chief personally. “The president isn’t leading,” Boehner said. “He didn’t lead on last year’s budget, and he’s not leading on this year’s budget.”

Obama has already ruled out the weeklong measure Republicans intend to push through the House, and Senate Democrats have labeled it a non-starter. Republican officials said the details of the bill could yet change. But passage of any interim measure is designed to place the onus on the Democratic-controlled Senate to act if a shutdown is to be avoided.

The White House used its unmatched megaphone to emphasize the stakes involved in the negotiations, arranging a briefing for the presidential press corps on the ramifications of a partial government shutdown.

The officials who spoke did so on condition of anonymity, under rules set by White House aides eager to apply pressure to congressional negotiators.

The officials said that military personnel at home and abroad would receive one week’s pay instead of two in their next checks. Among those affected would be troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and the region around Libya.

Tax audits would be suspended – welcome news to some, no doubt – but there were unhappy tidings for others. Income tax returns filed on paper would pile up at the IRS, and refunds would be delayed as a result.

National parks would close, as would the Smithsonian Institution and its world-class collection of museums clustered along the National Mall within sight of the Capitol. Officials were less clear about the Cherry Blossom Festival, scheduled for this weekend in Washington.

NASA spokesman Bob Jacobs said he was unable to predict what the impact would be on preparations for the shuttle Endeavour’s flight on April 29, or Atlantis’ trip into space on June 28.

As for the broader talks, it appeared progress had been made both on spending cuts demanded by Republicans and on a series of unrelated provisions they attached to legislation that was approved almost six weeks ago.

A House-passed measure called for $61 billion in cuts, and until recently, the two sides had been working on a framework for $33 billion. Boehner pronounced that insufficient on Tuesday, and floated a $40 billion figure instead.

Democrats disputed any suggestion that they had acceded to that, but some, speaking privately, conceded they were willing to go higher than $33 billion, based on the make-up of the cuts included.

“I think we’ve made some progress. But we’re not finished, not by a long shot,” Boehner told reporters after a closed-door meeting with the Republican rank and file, the second of the week he has called as he maneuvers his way through the first significant test for a rambunctious new majority determined to cut spending.

Reid offered no details in an early morning speech that jabbed Boehner.

The House Budget Committee, meanwhile, approved on a party-line vote a $3.5 trillion GOP budget for 2012 that culls deep savings from domestic programs while reducing, but not eliminating, the deficit over the next decade.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, second-ranking in the Democratic leadership structure, hinted at movement in the talks. “There’s been a direct negotiation – things put on the table that had not been discussed before – and I think we’re moving” toward’ agreement.

Apart from the spending cuts, Republicans are demanding Democrats and the White House accept at least some of the conservative policy provisions included in the earlier legislation.

Democrats have already ruled out agreeing to stop funding the year-old health care overhaul or to deny Planned Parenthood all federal money. And Reid has said he will not agree to any of the curbs Republicans want to place on the Environmental Protection Agency.

While the political wheels turned, hundreds of demonstrators rallied outside the Capitol calling for budget cuts and a shutdown if necessary to get them.

“Shut the sucker down,” one yelled, and the crowd repeatedly chanted, “Shut it down.”

OUR DIPLOMAT IN PAKISTAN

By Ahsan Waheed
ZoneAsia-Pk“

Our diplomat in Pakistan’ was how President Obama described Raymond Davis now uncovered as a member of a covert CIA team operating under cover inside Pakistan. The disclosure came after his cover was blown by British media and a gag order on US media that was to have facilitated Davis’ extradition under diplomatic immunity was lifted because it no longer served any purpose.

The United States Department of State issues a Diplomatic Identity Card to all diplomats accredited to the US. This is what the card says front and back:

Read Complete Article Here: http://www.zoneasia-pk.com/ZoneAsia-Pk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3673:our-diplomat-in-pakistan&catid=70:free-talk&Itemid=84

Court to decide Davis’ immunity: Gilani

Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said Wednesday that the courts would decide whether a US official who shot dead two Pakistanis was protected by diplomatic immunity, state media said.

Raymond Davis has insisted he acted in self-defence when he shot the two men in Lahore on January 27. A third Pakistani died when he was struck by a US diplomatic vehicle that came to Davis’ assistance.

“Davis also has a lawyer, he will present his case and then the court will decide whether he has immunity or not,” the Associated Press of Pakistan quoted Gilani as telling a convention of religious scholars.

Gilani urged the religious scholars to find a solution to the sensitive issue in accordance with Islamic law, under which a victim’s family can pardon a killer in return for compensation.

“Ulema (Islamic scholars) should tell the solution. Either the heirs should give a pardon or ask about ‘Qisas’ (compensation) or the court should decide. We don’t have any role,” APP quoted him as saying.

Gilani said that the government was caught between a public backlash and international anger. “We are facing difficult decisions. There is a political price,” Gilani said.

“We are just caught between the devil and the deep sea. This needs wisdom. We will do whatever is in the interest of the country and the nation,” he said.

Gilani said that the government had not bowed to US pressure even after President Barack Obama asked for immunity to Davis.

Pakistan’s fragile ties with the United States have been plunged into crisis since Davis was taken into custody and admitted to shooting dead two men on a busy street in Lahore.

US senator John Kerry arrived late Tuesday in the eastern city to hold talks with Pakistani leaders to help resolve the bitter diplomatic row over the man’s fate. He voiced deep regret over the killings.

Obama to keep aid flowing to Pakistan

By: Andrew Quinn

President Barack Obama on Monday proposed spending almost $110 billion on Afghanistan, signaling little let-up in the U.S. war drive despite demands for tougher spending controls at home.

Obama, in his budget for the 2012 fiscal year, proposed spending just $16 billion in Iraq — a significant decrease as U.S. diplomats take over from combat troops under a security agreement between the two countries.

Obama had put total U.S. war costs in both countries at about $160 billion in budget requests for both 2010 and 2011.

Obama’s 2012 budget request for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was $47 billion, up one percent from 2010 levels.

Republicans, who took control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November elections, have called for a tough new look at non-military overseas spending amid widespread calls to control the ballooning U.S. federal deficit.

The fiscal 2012 budget request focuses on money for some of Obama’s priorities including global health and food security initiatives, while cutting direct aid to several countries and regional organizations.

Obama’s budget calls for $107 billion in military spending in Afghanistan, where he has pledged to begin withdrawing the first of about 100,000 U.S. troops fighting Taliban insurgents by the middle of this year.

The State Department, mounting its own civilian “surge” aimed at stabilizing the country, would spend an additional $2.2 billion there as it seeks to increase aid and assistance programs.

Obama also proposes maintaining significant aid to Pakistan to arm, train and equip its military to fight extremists with about $1.1 billion earmarked for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, roughly the same level as last year.

The peak for U.S. war funding in recent years was fiscal year 2008, the last year in office of Obama’s Republican predecessor George W. Bush’s last year in office, when spending on war operations hit $185 billion.

White House Afghan review divorced from war’s brutal reality

Michael Hughes

President Barack Obama today unveiled a self-fulfilling Afghanistan war assessment devoid of any substantial feedback from native Afghans and one wholly disconnected from the objective reality of retrogressing conditions on the ground.

President Obama is flanked by VP Biden and Sec of State Clinton while discussing the White House AfPak annual review Dec 16, 2010.

Driven by the ambiguous objective of “dismantling” Al Qaeda, the review fell short of adequately addressing two key reasons U.S. efforts will likely fail – the corruption and illegitimacy of President Hamid Karzai’s government and insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan. In addition, physical security has been deteriorating throughout the country despite the administration’s claims to the contrary.

Obama underlined in the diagnostic, summarized on the White House website, that the overarching goal remains defeating Al Qaeda and preventing the region from threatening U.S. security interests in the future.

However, it is widely-held that Al Qaeda has a limited presence in the area and is much more of a threat in countries like Yemen, thus if that is truly the war’s premise it might be fair to conclude: AfPak mission accomplished!

But to most Afghans it seems like our obvious goal is defeating the Taliban – not Al Qaeda – and according to a recent poll a majority of Afghans in the South perceive the war to be an onslaught against Pashtuns while some even believe it’s an attack on Islam.

Matthew Hoh, former State department civilian officer and Director of the Afghanistan Study Group, recently explained why Obama’s rationale for war defies commonsense. Hoh described Al Qaeda as a virtual network of individuals spread out across the globe – a terrorist franchise lacking any of the characteristics common to a formal military organization that could be vanquished via conventional means.

The previous 10-year history of Al Qaeda’s attacks, such as the recent parcel bombs FedExed from Yemen, illustrate the terrorist group’s small-cell, decentralized and individualistic orientation.

Hence, Al Qaeda will not be “disrupted, dismantled and defeated” or affected in the least by the presence of brigade combat teams occupying Southern Afghanistan. It’s illogical to defend against an enemy scattered across dozens of countries by bogging down most of our military resources in one.

Hoh argued that 9 years ago 19 men hijacked four airplanes, yet here we futilely sit in Afghanistan 109 months later with 100,000 troops spending over $100 billion a year in a misguided effort against a movement that is fighting an occupation – not one with designs on transnational jihad.

Obama alleged troop withdrawal will begin in July with the dubious caveat that the scale of said extraction will be contingent upon “conditions on the ground”; meaning one might see a mass troop exodus or the U.S. could potentially be quagmired in Afghanistan until the end times.

Not to mention, at the recent Lisbon conference at the end of November the U.S. outlined a plan to keep forces in Afghanistan until 2014, clearly exposing the obfuscating pretense of a July, 2011 target as nothing more than a laughable political ruse.

The document also unconvincingly claimed that the regime of President Hamid Karzai was committed to increasing transparency, reducing corruption and improving “national and sub-national governance” while the U.S. “supported and focused investments in infrastructure that would give the Afghan government and people the tools to build and sustain a future of stability.”

Yet there is little evidence the Karzai administration has the will or capacity to change its praetorian ways, as the Afghan President continually abuses power and interferes in the prosecution of reprobate government officials while still being perceived by the population as a U.S. puppet who has seized and retains power through patent electoral chicanery.

Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali, with his stranglehold on Kandahar, a province that is the birthplace and spiritual cradle of the Taliban and one he runs like a mob boss, is single-handedly fueling the insurgency according to countless credible tribal sources.

WikiLeaks cables revealed that U.S. officials in Afghanistan and individuals within Karzai’s own cabinet have characterized the leader as paranoid, erratic and corrupt. Juan Cole, another member of the Afghanistan Study Group, rightly wondered why soldiers in the Afghanistan National Army would be willing to risk their lives for such an untrustworthy figure.

It should ignite the outrage of all Americans that our troops are sacrificing themselves in a self-defeating effort on behalf of a government that is a destabilizing force and is the leading factor for the growth of the Taliban movement especially in the last five years.

As written in a New World Strategies Coalition white paper, if it is true, as French army officer and counterinsurgency theorist Roger Trinquier put it, that “the sine qua non of victory in modern warfare is the unconditional support of a population”, and if the U.S. wholeheartedly believes in the most basic precepts of COIN strategy – then Karzai’s very existence as head of state is irreconcilable with capturing Afghan hearts and minds.

Not only is NATO struggling militarily but it’s losing on the development and humanitarian aid fronts as well, due to billions being misspent on wasteful projects, according to Patrick Cockburn, as dollars invested have simply fed a corrupt patronage system while relief workers are getting killed at a record clip.

The recently deceased U.S. envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, once pointed out that “our [U.S.] presence is the corrupting force” in Afghanistan as contractors paid by the US government have been paying off the Taliban.

According to Bob Woodward, Holbrooke said that Obama’s 30,000 troop surge in December 2009 would not work. Per The Washington Post, Holbrooke’s last words to his Pakistani doctor were: “You’ve got to stop this war in Afghanistan.”

The review also indicated that the U.S. and Pakistan have “strengthened their relationship” but that strengthening has not led Pakistan to do a thing about militant safe havens in places like North Waziristan and Quetta that inflict havoc upon U.S. operations on the Afghan side of the border.

WikiLeaks reports revealed that U.S. officials believe, supported by U.S. intelligence reports, that no amount of aid will incentivize Pakistan to shift its obsessive focus from India.

And intel assessments have also validated that Pakistan’s intelligence services have continued its covert support for the Afghan Taliban in defiance of U.S. demands and despite Pakistan being the recipient of billions in U.S. aid earmarked for rooting out these insurgents.

General David Petraeus, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and war supporters like Peter Mansoor and Max Boot have been adamantly proclaiming military “progress” has been made against the insurgency and have personally witnessed how the population has been made more secure, which makes one wonder what color the sky is in their world.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), an organization which has an up-close-and-personal view of casualties on a daily basis and rarely makes public statements, reported that levels of violence are at the highest they’ve been in 30 years.

2010 alone has been the bloodiest year of the war with nearly 700 foreign troops being killed. Yet civilians have borne the brunt of the casualties. According to the UN, 1,271 civilians were killed in the first six months of this year, a 21% increase versus the same period in 2009.

The ICRC has also reported a spike in the number of wounded patients admitted to the main hospital in southern Kandahar which has attended to more than 2,650 patients with weapons-related injuries in 2010 compared to 2,110 in 2009.

Where is the evidence of this so-called progress and what data exists that would lead any rational individual to conclude that Afghanistan is any more secure than it was since the overthrow of the Taliban?

Until something is done about the Karzai government and militant safe havens in Pakistan “conditions on the ground” shall never likely meet U.S. standards to justify a withdrawal of any material proportion.

Furthur, Obama’s report was based on data collated by Petraeus and company with close to zero indigenous input, accounting for its delusional outlook.

Obama advisors are correct in their assertion that the review was not “prescriptive” in nature, but then again how could such an assessment ever produce any meaningful recommendations considering it was derived from skewed perspectives and fantasy?

No analysis on earth akin to the White House’s rubberstamp of Petraeus’s policies will ever lead to coherent solutions, especially one oblivious to certain particulars called facts – regardless the level of inconvenience they might pose to U.S. chimerical aspirations.

Nuking the White House

By MAUREEN DOWD

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

You know you’re in trouble when you need Henry Kissinger to vouch for you.

But there was the one formerly known as “The One” sitting at a table with a bunch of old, white, Republican dudes, choosing the most abstruse issue on the agenda for his moment to Man Up.

With Republicans treating the president like a dirt sandwich and Democrats begging the president to throw a knuckle sandwich, Obama drew his line in the sand on telemetry.

The Start arms treaty used to be a chance for American presidents to stare down the Russians. Now it’s a chance for a Democratic president, albeit belatedly, to stare down the Republicans.

The administration dilly-dallied for months on New Start, which should have been a no-brainer, even after it was clear that Senator Jon Kyl was a problem and needed to be cultivated, and even after it was clear that Republicans were on track to grab some power back.

But faced with the treaty’s unraveling, with possible deleterious consequences for sanctions on Iran and supply lines for our troops in Afghanistan, Obama had no choice. Even if the treaty doesn’t much affect our strategic security, it affects the relationship with Russia and our standing in the world. And resetting the relationship with Russia, with his buddy Dmitri, is the president’s only significant foreign policy accomplishment.

Besides, a man who won the Nobel Peace Prize on layaway doesn’t want to be responsible for any loose Russian nukes ending up in the crazy ‘Stans.

As Richard Wolffe notes in his new book, “Revival: The Struggle for Survival Inside the Obama White House,” the president drove Rahm Emanuel crazy by spending his first months in office toiling on the details of Start when the chief of staff was trying to get him to focus on the economy and his domestic agenda.

Nuclear arms control, Wolffe writes, was one of Obama’s first interests as a student at Columbia University. And his head is still in those wonky clouds.

“Most people don’t really give a pig’s patootie about a nuclear arms deal with Russia,” James Carville told reporters last week. But he agreed that the president needed to get out of his spineless spiral, even repeating his put-down from the Democratic primaries, that if Hillary gave Barry one of her spheres of testicular fortitude, “they’d both have two.”

Just as Bill Clinton once snatched welfare reform from the Republicans, now President Obama is playing W.’s national security card against the Republicans.

It would have been nice if Obama had made his tough stand earlier, on tax cuts or “don’t ask, don’t tell.” And since he doesn’t have the votes yet, he risks losing and taking a second shellacking. Popeye pulling out the spinach too late.

Still, if the president calls the Republicans’ bluff and makes them vote against ratification, they look petty. Is it worth risking the obliteration of the world to obliterate Obama’s second term?

In The Washington Post recently, Robert Kagan advised his fellow conservatives to show maturity and readiness to govern: “Blocking the treaty will produce three unfortunate results: It will strengthen Vladimir Putin, let the Obama administration off the hook when Russia misbehaves and set up Republicans as the fall guy if and when U.S.-Russian relations go south.”

Senator Richard Lugar, the only Republican so far willing to vote with the president, was blunt in warning Kyl of the danger of playing politics with nukes. His message underscored the hypocrisy of Republicans who shriek at the Iranians building a nuclear bomb while shrugging at the thousands of nukes that the Russians have floating around.

“One of those warheads – and there were 13,300 originally – one of them could demolish my city of Indianapolis,” Lugar told Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC.

The president and his advisers have been moping since the election. Richard Wolffe says the fourth-quarter player in the Oval, who has struggled to figure out whether he’s an insider or an outsider, aims to position himself as a statesman. He wants to come across as the grown-up in the room, disciplining puerile Republicans who would “mess with nuclear weapons and screw up alliances.”

The Republicans may help Obama if they act so vindictive, entitled and puffed up that they turn off the voters who just anointed them.

Sarah Palin’s fans have hijacked what is supposed to be a fun talent contest, “Dancing With the Stars,” and turned it into an annoying straw vote for the Palin family. And on Friday, as Americans were rebelling against groping airport pat-downs, the soon-to-be speaker of the House, who was supposed to travel like real Americans, put himself above the madding crowd.

The Times’s Jeff Zeleny was on the scene and reported that John Boehner did not wait in line or go through security: he “was escorted around the metal detectors and body scanners, and taken directly to the gate.”

So much for Reagan’s trust but verify. Now we’ve got distrust and vilify.

What next for Barack Obama?

Shibil Siddiqi

The Democrats took a drubbing in the US midterm elections on November 2, losing the majority they had held in the House of Representatives for the past four years. Voter anger was fuelled by persistently high unemployment rates leading many analysts to conclude that Obama will spend more energy focussing on domestic affairs. This is a dangerous assumption.

A Republican dominated Congress can scuttle any domestic initiatives Obama undertakes. Frustrating his legislative agenda could further deplete his standing for the 2012 presidential elections. This is within the Republicans’ prerogative, since American constitutional structures give Congress final say in setting domestic policy. However, foreign policy is almost solely controlled by the president. Blocked off from making progress in the domestic arena, Obama might turn his mind forcefully to the world stage. There are historical precedents for this. After facing reversals in midterm elections, Ronald Reagan massively ramped up military competition with the Soviet Union and invaded Grenada, Bill Clinton bombed Bosnia, and George W Bush ‘surged’ in Iraq.

Obama has embarked on a high-profile tour to Asia less than three days after the elections. An overseas trip at a time of domestic weakness is partly an attempt to signal decisiveness and authority, focussing attention on Obama-the-statesman. It also points to an emerging security architecture in Asia, geared towards hemming in China. In the coming weeks Obama has, in theory, a number of foreign policy issues where he can seek to make a mark. He could heighten the currency war with China or bring money laundering and drug trafficking charges against Hugo Chavez’s regime in Venezuela. Already Republican law-makers have called on Obama to ‘destroy’ Iran. Though unlikely, a dangerous confrontation with Iran cannot be fully discounted. There could be implications for Pakistan as well. Military efforts in Afghanistan could be intensified, particularly in light of Nato’s current charm-offensive to keep allied troops in the country till at least 2014, and the impending White House strategy review due in December. The tempo of cross-border attacks and raids on Pakistani territory could also be increased, coupled with diplomatic pressure.

But Obama faces a growing constraint that his predecessors did not: the relative decline of American global power. The US possesses massive social, economic and demographic resources to ensure that it will remain a highly developed country and a force to be reckoned with in international affairs. But power is a relational concept. As BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and other developing nations surge forward at a faster pace, the US will be less able to act as an empire dictating terms to the rest of the world. Perhaps it is this haemorrhaging of ‘superpower’ that has also rankled American voters. According to pollsters, a majority have felt since President Bush’s second term that their country is “headed in the wrong direction.” Thus, when Tea-Partiers declare that they wish to “take the country back,” one almost senses they wish to take it back in time to when American hegemony seemed assured well into the 21st century.

Yet no empire in history has given up its spoils peaceably. The two world wars of the 20th century are a nightmarish testament to the violence unleashed by European empires jockeying about the imperial pecking order. The world is different now and one hopes that it will act differently too. But Obama might well turn out not to be a lame duck but a wounded bear.

The writer is a Fellow with the Centre for the Study of Global Power and Politics at Trent University, Canada shibil.siddiqi@tribune.com.pk

Delhi shouldn’t hold its breath on UNSC seat

• India in UNSC: Pakistan says it is “incomprehensible” given New Delhi’s policies toward the disputed Kashmir region.
• U.N. Security Council, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley poured cold water on any expectation of New Delhi’s elevation anytime soon.
• China has not publicly backed India’s claim – and it will certainly be encouraged to do so by its long-standing ally, Pakistan, which cites what it says are India’s continued violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions over Kashmir as grounds for exclusion.
• Everybody supports reforming the Security Council to expand the P5, but agreeing on a list of new veto wielders will take many years – and a lot of big-ticket horse-trading

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan’s government criticized American support for India’s attempts to get a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, saying Wednesday it was “incomprehensible” given New Delhi’s policies toward the disputed Kashmir region.

Pakistan and India are regional rivals who have fought three wars since 1947, two over Kashmir. Relations between the two nuclear-armed nations continue to be marked by distrust. Neither likes anything that increases the standing and power of the other.

President Barack Obama said Monday that America would support Security Council reforms that would include a permanent seat for India. He made the remarks at the end of a three-day visit to India that confirmed its status as a rising global power – a sharp contrast to Pakistan’s reputation as an unstable, militancy-wracked nation.

Pakistan’s government expressed “strong disappointment” at Obama’s support in a statement released after a Cabinet meeting.

“It is incomprehensible that the U.S. has sought to support India, whose credentials with respect to observing U.N. Charter principles and international law are at best checkered,” it said, alleging India was carrying out human rights violations in Kashmir and had ignored earlier U.N. resolutions on the region.

U.S. support for New Delhi does not mean it will join the five permanent Security Council members anytime soon.

For India to join, the council would have be radically reformed, something that could take years. Pakistan criticizes US support for Indian UN seat. The Associated Press. Wednesday, November 10, 2010; 10:13 AM

Time Magazine says it succinctly and prolifically.

U.N. Security Council, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley poured cold water on any expectation of New Delhi’s elevation anytime soon. “we have to recognize … this is a process that has been going on for some time, and it is a process through which we must consult with others within the U.N. and within the Security Council.” In other words, India, don’t hold your breath.

The five permanent members, or P5, of the Security Council – the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France – not only get to stay on when the other 10 members are rotated out every two years for replacements elected from their region, they hold the coveted veto power that allows them to nix any decisions on questions of war, peace and security that are not to their liking. That veto power has certainly helped sustain the illusion of superpower relevance for Britain and France, which have long since fallen by the wayside by measure of military strength – indeed, they had better hope nobody noticed their agreement last week to pool much of their defense capability, lest it be suggested that their two permanent Security Council seats be consolidated into one. It has also proven useful to a country like Israel, on whose behalf the U.S. has regularly intervened to block critical U.N. resolutions. Given the power that attaches to a permanent seat on the Security Council, then, it’s not hard to see why some of the incumbents are not exactly enthusiastic about sharing their status with anyone but their closest allies.

The P5 attained their status at the U.N.’s creation a half-century ago, on the basis of having been ostensibly the five key nations allied against the Axis powers in World War II. But Britain and France were drastically diminished colonial powers holding desperately to the last remnants of empire in Africa and Asia. Still, within two decades, each of the permanent five had all burnished their veto power in the real world by building nuclear weapons, becoming the original nuclear club years before India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea followed suit.

It’s plain to see, though, that the makeup of the permanent five no longer accurately reflects the global balance of power, and the 21st century distribution of responsibility for keeping the peace – which, after all, is the primary function of the U.N. Countries such as India, Brazil and Turkey are emerging as major economic powerhouses with the capacity to play a far larger strategic role in their regions than some of those currently in the P5, while Germany and Japan have long claimed the same status. It has also long been suggested that one of Africa’s more powerful countries, such as Nigeria or South Africa, will do the same on the mother continent. So talk of enlarging the P5 has been around for years.

President Obama’s nomination of India underscores precisely why Security Council reform may be years away. Washington is making no secret of the fact that it is promoting a greater strategic role for India, a democratic ally, in response to China’s growing regional ambitions. China may beg to differ – it is the only permanent member that has not publicly backed India’s claim – and it will certainly be encouraged to do so by its long-standing ally, Pakistan, which cites what it says are India’s continued violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions over Kashmir as grounds for exclusion. China has also opposed any move to elevate its old enemy, Japan, into permanent membership. Although Brazil’s efforts to join the permanent five were thought to have suffered in the U.S. and France as a result of its opposition, along with Turkey’s, to sanctions against Iran, Britain on Tuesday reiterated its support for Brazilian membership, expressly talking of strengthening its own ties with Latin America. And France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, for similar reasons, is pressing for an African seat.

Those powers currently holding permanent seats certainly want help in policing the world, but each will be looking to safeguard their own strategic interests in the course of any expansion of the P5. And in a world where geopolitical rivalry is intensifying, that’s a recipe for deadlock. Everybody supports reforming the Security Council to expand the P5, but agreeing on a list of new veto wielders will take many years – and a lot of big-ticket horse-trading. Time Magazine. – With reporting by Rania Abouzeid / Islamabad, Hannah Beech / Shanghai and Andrew Downie / Brazil