What's new

A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

RabzonKhan

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
3
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Read the White Paper of the Interagency Policy Group's Report on U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan (pdf)


A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

FRI, MARCH 27, 10:32 AM EST

"Good morning," began the President today. "Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce [Reidel], that I ordered as soon as I took office."

The President stressed the perilous position we find ourselves in there, and the threat that would arise should safe havens on Pakistan go unchallenged or should the government in Afghanistan fall to the Taliban again. He also noted that 2008 was the deadliest year to date in that war.

The President put forth the central question:

Many people in the United States -- and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much -- have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? And they deserve a straightforward answer.

And gave his answer:

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.

He described the need for a comprehensive strategy in the two countries, including a "standing, trilateral dialogue among the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan." The President expressed his profound respect for the Pakistani people and their history, and pledged that the United States would so all it could to help Pakistan fight against the terrorists who have so often attempted to destabilize the country, including with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

So too did he express his admiration for the people of Afghanistan, before going on to describe the shift coming on the ground there as well:

Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy. Our civilians have made great sacrifices. Our allies have borne a heavy burden. Afghans have suffered and sacrificed for their future. But for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq. Now, we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals.

I've already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that had been requested by General McKiernan for many months. These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan security forces and to go after insurgents along the border. This push will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential elections in Afghanistan in August.

At the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. That's how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our own troops home.

For three years, our commanders have been clear about the resources they need for training. And those resources have been denied because of the war in Iraq. Now, that will change. The additional troops that we deployed have already increased our training capacity. And later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan security forces. For the first time, this will truly resource our effort to train and support the Afghan army and police. Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner. We will accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011 -- and increases in Afghan forces may very well be needed as our plans to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans go forward.

This push must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort. Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people. The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encourages criminality and funds the insurgency. The people of Afghanistan seek the promise of a better future. Yet once again, we've seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and uncertainty.

So to advance security, opportunity and justice -- not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces -- we need agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers. That's how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs. And that's why I'm ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. That's also why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations -- an effort that Secretary Clinton will carry forward next week in The Hague.

At a time of economic crisis, it's tempting to believe that we can shortchange this civilian effort. But make no mistake: Our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future.

The President described a new regime of accountability in the execution of this war, beginning with contractors, and stretching to demanding clearly understood goals:

There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who've taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. And that's why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province. As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated. And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans -- including women and girls.

Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. We’ll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan security forces and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistan’s economy, and its illicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.
 
Obama, Mullen and assorted analysts in the media have been talking about a long term relationship and commitment to Pakistan.

What is it?
 
Prepared Text of the President-WSJ

Pass the Lugar-Kerry amendment and get the opportunity zones up. Condition military aid to performance and allocating monies to inspector general positions to watchdog aid expenditures for graft, corruption, and malpractice.

I dunno. I do know that we'll be around for awhile. 4,000 trainers in addition to the 17,000 already heading downrange. That still leaves 9,000 or so and I expect to eventually see them too.

We're building bases in Afghanistan like crazy. Long-term crazy big.

That's good because given how things are in the mountains it may take awhile.

Hate for Pakistan to lose heart and think we're leaving soon.:D
 
Pass the Lugar-Kerry amendment and get the opportunity zones up.
If I am not mistaken, Obama spoke of a five year commitment for aid - thats not a long term 'commitment' or 'relationship' - its Pakistan becoming a client for five years for what Krauthammer said worked out to be 9$ per Pakistani, 'enough for someone to by a left shoe with'.

The ROZ's, as originally envisioned, were to be for 15+ years, which in terms of time-frame is towards the minimum amount of time investors would likely want to see guaranteed access to the US market to justify substantial investments in what is likely to continue to be a violent and unstable region.

And what the final form of that particular piece of legislation will be only time will tell, as of now it has not passed.

So, again, what exactly is this 'long term relationship and commitment' with Pakistan?
 
What a cunning Yanks. This is how they always manage to buy corrupt, greedy and short-sighted stooges for their own malign purposes. They don't care about the people. This nickel and dime aid isn't worth peanuts. Pakistan shouldn't fall into the trap. The Cold War should serve as a stark reminder of the consequences of siding with the Americans. We need to fight this war on our own terms. We can win it. We don't need any outside dictation in our own matters. If the Yanks are really interested in helping Pakistan they should help us build a fence on the border with Afghanistan. They should invest in the tribal areas. They should provide all the necessary equipment to our army in order to fight the insurgents. We will do the fighting and if possible negotiate.
 
I loved it. Al Qaeda is our enemy.

Do you know how long we'll be at war with al Qaeda?

I think that we can calibrate this correctly once our economy is up. We'll be able to keep this on a slow simmer for AGES.

And as for the aid, there's little sense trying to improve the long-term prospects of a potential enemy. We'll know plenty in five years about that. In the interim, if the army doesn't head west, you'll receive military aid as long as we need Karachi to ship supplies. The day that stops being necessary, your army had best be busy lil' beavers or we'll pull the soldier plug.

There's always a point of diminishing returns and somebody is beginning to see that. Just need to get out from underneath that supply leverage and we'll have some freedom of action again.

He's really proving to be a bright guy.:):usflag:
 
This nickel and dime aid isn't worth peanuts.
The above is a quote from the international bestseller (self help section) "How begging CAN be Choosing"

For greater insight in to this novel idea, review the following for internal logic and coherency

We need to fight this war on our own terms

followed by :

they should provide all the necessary equipment to our army in order to fight the insurgents. We will do the fighting and if possible negotiate


:cheers:
 
You "get it". So few others do.

How refreshing!
 
And as for the aid, there's little sense trying to improve the long-term prospects of a potential enemy.
Kudos to you for realizing after one post that dissembling and distorting the actual implications of US policy towards Pakistan was not going to get very far.

There is no long term 'commitment or relationship' that has been articulated, at this point.

The conclusion I am drawing, and likely won't be the only one, is that the calculation by Pakistani policy makers that the US could not be trusted to maintain a long term commitment with Pakistan, and possibly the region, was absolutely correct.

From the above, and the explicit wooing of India as a strategic partner during the Bush years, one can extrapolate that Pakistan was to be 'thrown to the wolves' once the US achieved its objectives in Afghanistan, and the warlords, mass murderers and remnants of the Northern Alliance allied with India were left free to wreak havoc upon Pakistan.

There is some ambiguity, Obama's statement here, "That is why we must focus our military assistance on the tools, training and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists", if implying a separate commitment (from the 1.5 billion aid) to equipping the Pakistani Military, does make the US commitment to Pakistan slightly more concrete, but a final judgment will have to wait till details on that 'assistance' become clearer.
 
The above is a quote from the international bestseller (self help section) "How begging CAN be Choosing"

For greater insight in to this novel idea, review the following for internal logic and coherency

followed by :

:cheers:
Well, in terms of combating the insurgency on the Pakistani side BaburCM is absolutely correct, in fact Obama himself alluded to the type of assistance BCM was arguing about, as I pointed out in my last post:

"That is why we must focus our military assistance on the tools, training and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists"


The 1.5 billion annually will help, no question about it (as will the billion and a half the US owes Pakistan under reimbursements), but it is not crucial in terms of the military requirements for combating the insurgency.

Do the same constraints and arguments, against relocating significant military assets from the East to the Western theater, still not exist?

If they do, then either a lot of backroom diplomacy is taking place or might take place, or we are looking at a long term plan to expand the FC, or we are just looking at the 'throw Pakistan to the wolves' scenario, where redeployment of significant military assets to the West is demanded, in spite of the Indians threatening to launch strikes into Pakistan.
 
A.M.,

"There is no long term 'commitment or relationship' that has been articulated, at this point."

No. It is contingent. If you're smart, you'll do the right thing and actually may be better for it too. That will ensure still more aid but my government cannot commit to your's carte blanche. It's not been earned.

You've got a $7.5B commitment and likely all the help we can muster for you over the next five years from the IMF, World Band, and our allies. That will have to do and is more than you might deserve.

Obama's message to your military should be clear. It is to me. We are going to do everything we can to lift this leverage. We must prepare for the possibility that you'll pour gas on yourselves and light a match. As such, we've got to be able to sustain our efforts in Afghanistan without counting upon you at all. We also must be prepared to cease aid to an enemy of our efforts. That would be silly if we decide that you can't be moved west but can continue support for our enemies within your lands.

To that end, we are building BIG bases in Afghanistan. I tried to tell you but you're not listening.

EVERYBODY else might leave but we are doubling down and clearing the decks to do so. Five years from now, that'll be us in Helmand. Maybe the Brits but definitely us.

Al Qaeda is our blank cheque. We can chase those guys, real or fictious, till the cows come home if need be.
 
The above is a quote from the international bestseller (self help section) "How begging CAN be Choosing"

For greater insight in to this novel idea, review the following for internal logic and coherency



followed by :




:cheers:

Nice to see you're inching ever closer to the dark side.

Just waiting to see the stars and stripes on your location flags...
 
"Just waiting to see the stars and stripes on your location flags..."

Nothing like a lil' subtle cultural intimidation to keep the homeboys in line, stud.;)
 
"Just waiting to see the stars and stripes on your location flags..."

Nothing like a lil' subtle cultural intimidation to keep the homeboys in line, stud.;)

maybe not so subtle, after all :P
 
"...maybe not so subtle, after all " :D

True. If the yank figured it out, heck, anybody could.:agree::usflag:
 
Back
Top Bottom