Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bottom line?
Most of these countries would be a lot less "threatening" if we stopped messing with them.
That includes with their governments, natural resources, land and people.
The US does not own the world.
Falling short on Afghanistan
Washington Post
By Editorial Board, Published: January 30
Falling short on Afghanistan - The Washington Post
PRESIDENT OBAMA returned in his State of the Union address to a familiar slogan: The war in Afghanistan is finally coming to an end. That, of course, is not true: As 29 million Afghans could testify, there is no end to the conflict in sight. Mr. Obama equates the end of the war with the end of U.S. combat operations. Together with our allies, he told Congress on Tuesday, we will complete our mission there by the end of this year.
Even that is not true at least, not according to the presidents announced plan. Mr. Obama reiterated his commitment to leave behind U.S. trainers and logistical support to assist the Afghan army, as well as a counterterrorism force to pursue any remnants of al-Qaeda which presumably would involve military action. Though the president didnt specify the size of the force, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., has reportedly recommended that it total 10,000 troops, complemented by several thousand more from NATO allies.
The continuing mission has overwhelming logic in its favor, both for Afghanistan and for the United States. Both have a vital interest in preserving the hard-won gains of the past dozen years from the construction of a fledgling democracy to the education of a generation of girls. Though al-Qaeda has been driven from Afghanistan, it would likely return to the country in company with Taliban allies in the absence of a U.S. deterrent. Without U.S. troops and bases in Afghanistan, the United States also would be ill-placed to mount operations against terrorist targets in Pakistan.
Not surprisingly, polls show that Afghans broadly support a continuing U.S. mission, as do most members of President Hamid Karzais cabinet, most of the U.S. national security establishment and almost all NATO governments. But the project is in serious danger because two crucial actors are falling short: Mr. Karzai and Mr. Obama.
Mr. Karzais counterproductive behavior has been getting the brunt of attention in Washington. His wild allegations about U.S. military misconduct are deeply offensive, but worse is his refusal to sign the bilateral security agreement he negotiated with the Obama administration and presented to a national assembly of notables for endorsement. Without the agreement, which sets the legal basis for a continued U.S. presence, the United States would be forced into a full withdrawal.
The administration has the option of sidestepping Mr. Karzai, who is due to be replaced in a presidential election scheduled for April. It could plan for a continued presence and even announce its dimensions with the expectation that the new president would sign on; virtually all of the candidates have expressed support. It could buy time with a brief extension of the existing military agreement. Instead, Mr. Obama has played into Mr. Karzais hands by setting deadlines for his signature and hinting that he will embrace a zero option if the matter is not soon settled.
The president is also communicating the wrong message to Americans with speeches proclaiming the end of Americas longest war. If a continued U.S. mission is to be supported by the public and funded by Congress which just slashed this years Afghanistan funding Mr. Obama must make the case why it is in the national interest for troops to remain. That he does virtually the opposite makes him complicit with Mr. Karzai in undermining a major national security interest.
The dangers in Pakistan, Afghanistan
Chicago Tribune.
Editorials February 3, 2014
President Barack Obama didn't dwell on Afghanistan or Pakistan in his State of the Union speech. No wonder. - chicagotribune.com
President Barack Obama barely touched on the Afghanistan war in his State of the Union address last week. He didn't even mention Pakistan, where Taliban terrorists are on the attack again.
We don't blame him:
Last November, a U.S. drone strike killed Hakimullah Mehsud, the brutal Pakistani Taliban leader who led a network blamed for the deaths of thousands of Pakistani civilians in suicide bombings. That devastating blow offered Pakistan's leaders a prime opportunity to roll up even more Taliban commanders, to take the offensive in a fight that has raged for years.
Instead, Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif suspended counterterrorist operations against Taliban militants and sought to negotiate a deal to end the insurgency. Sharif agreed to allow the new Taliban leader, Maulana Fazlullah, time to consolidate his leadership over several Taliban factions, in hopes that Fazlullah would come to the negotiation table with greater political clout.
Never mind that such truces have failed over and over in the past decade.
What happened? Exactly what you'd expect. Fazlullah exploited the government lull to regroup and rearm. In recent weeks he has launched a major new offensive in three major cities, killing scores of people. The Taliban have attacked the major southern port city of Karachi, a hub of Pakistan's economy. Among those killed: Karachi's top counterterrorism police officer.
Sharif took office last May. He ran a campaign "that deliberately ignored the Pakistani Taliban, and tacitly has sent the message that cooperation with the U.S. should be limited," Anthony Cordesman, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told The Wall Street Journal.
The results are depressingly familiar. Sharif has learned the same lesson as previous Pakistan leaders: The Taliban have no interest in negotiating or sharing power. They're terrorists who target civilians. They must be defeated.
The Taliban resurgence in Pakistan also looms as a threat to neighboring Afghanistan. Most U.S. troops are set to leave Afghanistan by the end of the year. In last week's speech, Obama repeated his pledge to deploy a robust residual U.S. force to mount counterterrorism operations and train Afghan security forces. All of that hinges on a security agreement negotiated last year by the U.S. and Afghanistan, but still unsigned by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Karzai says he won't sign unless he gets more concessions from the U.S. Obama says the deal's done, take it or leave it. The U.S. has recently raised again the prospect of a "zero option," yanking all troops. The prospects of breaking this stalemate before Karzai leaves office after elections, slated for April: Nil.
There's plenty of speculation about Karzai's mental state and motivation. Maybe he wants to cut a better deal. Maybe he just wants to leave office with a flourish, bragging to his fellow countrymen that he stood up to the U.S.
Either way, Karzai "has really gone from maddeningly unpredictable to dangerously erratic," White House adviser John Podesta told NPR late last year. The latest outrage: An Afghan-led prisoner review board recently ordered the release from detention of 37 insurgents, some of whom are accused of attacking U.S. troops. That was a direct thumb in the eye to Washington.
Astonishingly, Karzai now blames the U.S. for insurgent-style attacks to undermine his government, The Washington Post reports. He has compiled "a list of dozens of attacks that he believes the U.S. government may have been involved in," a palace official told the Post.
Whew. Dangerously erratic and a delusional conspiracy theorist.
The best U.S. option is, as much as possible, to ignore Karzai's ranting. He's a lame duck. There will be a new Afghan president soon. The major presidential candidates have indicated they would sign the agreement. There's still plenty of time to sign a deal and keep a robust force of Americans in Afghanistan. That's still vital for anti-terrorism operations.
If the U.S pulled all its forces from Afghanistan, drone bases in that country would likely have to be closed. That would cripple efforts to strike al-Qaida and Taliban targets across a wide swath of mountainous territory on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. It would let terrorists regroup and rearm with impunity.
That's why American forces must continue to target terror leaders and demolish safe havens in those countries. It's frustrating that the U.S. still can't depend on Pakistan or Afghanistan to be reliable partners.
Oh yes Pakistani is!Pakistan is not-
it's all the jihadists who hide out there...
How Pakistan secretly sponsors Al Qaeda & the Taliban
The BBC's Secret Pakistan videos.
Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross) - YouTube
After the successful French liberation of Mali, when they suggested - "Let the Frogs run the Afghanistan Mission, they can't be any worse than that muppet Hagel", I didn't think they meant me!
- said Kermit the Frog, speaking a Pentagon press conference where he accepted the Obamas' nomination to become the 2nd ever muppet to serve as Secretary of Defense
Bottom line?
Most of these countries would be a lot less "threatening" if we stopped messing with them.
That includes with their governments, natural resources, land and people.
The US does not own the world.
