The NY Times reports today:
"With protesters raging outside, NATO leaders on Saturday gave a tepid troop commitment to President Obama’s escalating campaign in Afghanistan, mostly committing soldiers only to a temporary security duty.
To a global audience concerned with an exit strategy, Mr. Obama used his most explicit language yet in detailing a narrowed war mission: emphasizing intense action against Al Qaeda even above instilling Western democracy and rights sensibilities.
“We want to do everything we can to encourage and promote rule of law, human rights, the education of women and girls in Afghanistan, economic development, infrastructure development,” he said. “But I also want people to understand that the first reason we are there is to root out Al Qaeda, so that they cannot attack members of the alliance.”
Obama, and the US, may be pleased with NATO's response, but wiser heads question where the US is headed in Afghanistan and with Pakistan. For instance, Stephen Walt - Professor in International Relations at Harvard - writing on his blog, says:
"President Obama's approach to Central Asia still strikes me as misguided. The administration isn't naïve about the scope of the task and the potential risks, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's warnings about the futility of trying to create "some sort of Central Asian Valhalla" suggests that they have more realistic expectations about what the United States can accomplish. But as our prior interventions in the Balkans, Somalia, and Iraq remind us, it's easier to walk into a quagmire than it is to walk out, and the new emphasis on "exit strategies" and "benchmarks" won't be of much help if Pakistan's internal politics remain chaotic (a safe bet) and if training more Afghan soldiers isn't the magic bullet that keeps the Taliban at bay and allows the United States to withdraw in a timely fashion. And it's clear that we won't get much additional help from our NATO allies."
Juan Cole also has a trenchant analysis - in which he gives what he describes as the "Top Ten Ways the US is Turning Afghanistan into Iraq" - here.
"With protesters raging outside, NATO leaders on Saturday gave a tepid troop commitment to President Obama’s escalating campaign in Afghanistan, mostly committing soldiers only to a temporary security duty.
To a global audience concerned with an exit strategy, Mr. Obama used his most explicit language yet in detailing a narrowed war mission: emphasizing intense action against Al Qaeda even above instilling Western democracy and rights sensibilities.
“We want to do everything we can to encourage and promote rule of law, human rights, the education of women and girls in Afghanistan, economic development, infrastructure development,” he said. “But I also want people to understand that the first reason we are there is to root out Al Qaeda, so that they cannot attack members of the alliance.”
Obama, and the US, may be pleased with NATO's response, but wiser heads question where the US is headed in Afghanistan and with Pakistan. For instance, Stephen Walt - Professor in International Relations at Harvard - writing on his blog, says:
"President Obama's approach to Central Asia still strikes me as misguided. The administration isn't naïve about the scope of the task and the potential risks, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's warnings about the futility of trying to create "some sort of Central Asian Valhalla" suggests that they have more realistic expectations about what the United States can accomplish. But as our prior interventions in the Balkans, Somalia, and Iraq remind us, it's easier to walk into a quagmire than it is to walk out, and the new emphasis on "exit strategies" and "benchmarks" won't be of much help if Pakistan's internal politics remain chaotic (a safe bet) and if training more Afghan soldiers isn't the magic bullet that keeps the Taliban at bay and allows the United States to withdraw in a timely fashion. And it's clear that we won't get much additional help from our NATO allies."
Juan Cole also has a trenchant analysis - in which he gives what he describes as the "Top Ten Ways the US is Turning Afghanistan into Iraq" - here.
Comments
Once again it will be agonising to listen to right wing Mullahs and their following in general public who still think that this is the reaction for America"s war in Afghanistan. Please wake up from your deep slumber and at least say that this is bad. If Pakistan needs something today very badly, that is the consensus on what we are faced with. This consensus has eluded us so far but with any luck there will come a point where the "thakedars" of Islam will take notice of the mounting piles of dead and say that what is happening to our country is wrong.
I believe that this is the main problem with the Pakistani counter terror activities that many of the own countrymen believe that this is not our war. I know that India’s RAW is paying these so called Jihadists to wreak havoc in Pakistan and to support such people who are in the payroll of our enemies is a crime in itself.
I would like to ask the readers of this site to comment on this issue today. When will the general public and some of our politician say that this is our war and we have to fight it?
http://real-politique.blogspot.com
By Sikander Hayat