NATO losing to Taliban: Zardari

[razgriz19]

i swear if i had a choice then i would just evacuate the civilians from NWFP and would NUKE it!

 

[no_name]

^^^ I think Taliban will move out faster than civilians. btw why not ID tag every citizen, take finger prints and photographs? I have to do it during a recent transit through San Francisco int. airport

 

[MZUBAIR]

I feel Zardari will change his words.

 

[karan.1970]

Business Recorder [Pakistan's First Financial Daily]

EDITORIAL (August 06 2010): The White House has dismissed President Zardari's perception that the US-backed coalition is losing out to the Afghan Taliban. "I don't think the president (Barack Obama) would agree with President Zardari's conclusion that war is lost," said the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

In his interview with Le Monde, President Zardari had expressed his opinion that the "international community, which Pakistan belongs to, is in the process of losing the war against Taliban...And that is, above all, because we have lost the battle for hearts and minds."

The White House was intrigued as to what had prompted the Pakistani leader to come to this conclusion. But even more intriguing should be the prompt US reaction in that the White House spokesman should just blow off his palm, without offering a rationale, the Pakistani perspective.

Clearly then the two principal allies in the so-called war against terrorism are moving in different directions. President Zardari seems to be rejecting the argument that the coalition should offer negotiations to the Taliban only after tilting the balance of war against them. To him, "reinforcements are only a small part of the response".

"To win the support of the Afghan population, you must bring economic development and prove you cannot only change their lives but improve them." But the coalition appears to be now sharpening its focus on a battlefield victory, particularly with the change of command in the wake of General McChrystal's dismissal.

The growing mismatch stems from the fact that Pakistan is not sold out to a military solution of the Afghan imbroglio; it is for multi-faceted approach with reconciliation among various segments of Afghan society as its main strand.

Nine years on, the war in Afghanistan has lost its rationale; the al Qaeda has been almost eliminated from Afghanistan and the Taliban are now in the war more as nationalists than a Jihadi force. Even the Americans tend to reject the military-exclusive approach of the Obama administration in Afghanistan, as amply reflected from the recent USA Today/Gallup poll which says that President Obama's handling (read troops' surge) of the Afghan conflict has lost much of public support.

Of course it is the immense human cost of the war, also confirmed by the WikiLeaks Afghan war logs, that is now under sharper international focus. Huge collateral damage, relentless drone bombings and frequent 'friendly fires' mainly directed at Afghan soldiers have denuded the Afghan war of any justification, if it had any.

It's a pure and simple campaign to establish military preponderance of US-led Nato forces in a third world country which aside from its strategic location, has the world's largest deposit of lithium, that can turn it into "Saudi Arabia of lithium" in experts opinion. Some may even think the strategic importance of this resource, and not 'al Qaeda' was what prompted the war.

Much more than anyone else it's the Afghans who want an early end to this bloody conflict. And what's wrong if President Zardari thinks that Afghans want to bring to an early end the war by creating an ambience conducive to grand national reconciliation.

That President Zardari hurt the ego of history's most powerful war machine by suggesting that it was losing out to ragtag Taliban militia one wouldn't deny. But that has happened before; France lost to National Liberation Front in Algeria, Britain to Kenya's Mau Mau guerrillas and the American legions to poorly equipped Viet Cong.

Taliban are sons of the soil and are fighting for country and, as he said, the time is on their side. As against them the coalition is beset with increasing unpopularity in its home countries, astronomical financial costs of war and mounting casualties. How else you would describe the state of war in Afghanistan? And who can be better informed on it than the President of Pakistan, which is not only the frontline state in this conflict but also the main collector of its collateral damage?

 

[karan.1970]

White House disagrees with Zardari on Afghan war | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

The United States says Pakistan started to take more direct action against terrorist safe havens in its territory after extremists tried to move on to its capital, but unquestionably Pakistan needs to do more.
"If you look at the progress that we have made with Pakistan on safe havens, on confronting terrorists, I think that is a record that they and we can be proud of," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday.
"Does more have to be done? Unquestionable," he said when asked if President Barack Obama now believes that the Pakistani military, intelligence and civilian government will support the US from now on.
"We have tough work ahead in Pakistan and in Afghanistan. And together with our partners, we'll make progress," Gibbs said refuting a reported suggestion by Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari that the Afghanistan war is lost.
"I don't think the President (Obama) would agree with President Zardari's conclusion that the war is lost," he said referring to Zardari's reported remarks to French newspaper Le Monde.
Zardari was quoted as telling Le Monde that "the international community to which Pakistan belongs is losing the war against the Taliban. Above all, it is because we've lost the battle for hearts and minds."
"I don't know why he's come to that conclusion," Gibbs said. "But I think it is safe to say that the actions and the efforts that the coalition, international forces and American forces, have taken over the last several months have very much the hearts and minds of the Afghan people at the forefront.
"The Afghan people know of the brutality of the Taliban, just as the Pakistani people, on the actions that their extremist counterparts were taking in Pakistan last year to move on the capital of Pakistan is why the country of Pakistan started to take more direct action against safe havens," he said.
"So I think that the hearts and minds of those in Afghanistan and Pakistan are obviously a key part of our strategy, as well as what is in the hearts and the minds of the extremists that seek to do Afghans or Pakistanis harm, Gibbs said.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

The USA has been in Afghanstan about 9 years lost about 1000 soldiers which is an average of about 110 a year. Some of it was due to accidents and suicide. Really you would have thought even a bunch of barbaric savages with a 30 million population with bows and arrows could do more damage then that.

But those poor poor Taliban, they are so misunderstood, and heres the future of Afghanstan and most likley Pakistan if we leave

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007238,00.html TIME Magazine

Cover: What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan - Aug. 9, 2010 - Afghanistan - Taliban - Women - War[/url]

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The USA has been in Afghanstan about 9 years lost about 1000 soldiers which is an average of about 110 a year. Some of it was due to accidents and suicide. Really you would have thought even a bunch of barbaric savages with a 30 million population with bows and arrows could do more damage then that.

But those poor poor Taliban, they are so misunderstood, and heres the future of Afghanstan and most likley Pakistan if we leave

Afghan Women Fear Their Fate Amid Taliban Negotiations - TIME TIME Magazine

Cover: What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan - Aug. 9, 2010 - Afghanistan - Taliban - Women - War[/url]

As unfortunate as it is, such acts have occurred and continue to occur in South Asian societies without the label of 'Taliban'. This is a cultural issue, it existed before the Taliban and will continue to exist after the Taliban.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"To win the support of the Afghan population, you must bring economic development and prove you cannot only change their lives but improve them." But the coalition appears to be now sharpening its focus on a battlefield victory, particularly with the change of command in the wake of General McChrystal's dismissal.

28 civilians reported killed in airstrikes today and the Afghans claim close to 300 killed in airstrikes a week or so ago. NATO has only admitted to 50+ civilians dead. Regardless of the discrepancy over the numbers, it is a significant amount, and is hopefully not representative of this 'emphasis on battlefield victory', since I cannot see how increasing civilian casualties will 'win hearts and minds'.

BTW, Zardari has a legitimate point, which the US Admin likely would concede in private.

 

[karan.1970]

As unfortunate as it is, such acts have occurred and continue to occur in South Asian societies without the label of 'Taliban'. This is a cultural issue, it existed before the Taliban and will continue to exist after the Taliban.

You are right about the cultural issues and the Taliban Label. Taliban however have become the face of religious extremism and giving in to them will appear as giving in to the extremism.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You are right about the cultural issues and the Taliban Label. Taliban however have become the face of religious extremism and giving in to them will appear as giving in to the extremism.

I am merely pointing out that it is disingenuous to try and argue that the Taliban are solely responsible for such acts occurring. Women and girls are sold off like chattel, they are mutilated, they are ostracized over trivial issues all the time in South Asia.

The treatment (gang rape on the instructions of a village Punchayat) of Mukhtar Mai in Pakistan did not occur in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and it did not occur at the hands of the Taliban. Defeating the Taliban is not going to end these social ills, hence my point that the article makes a disingenuous connection and promise.

 

[karan.1970]

I am merely pointing out that it is disingenuous to try and argue that the Taliban are solely responsible for such acts occurring. Women and girls are sold off like chattel, they are mutilated, they are ostracized over trivial issues all the time in South Asia.

The treatment (gang rape on the instructions of a village Punchayat) of Mukhtar Mai in Pakistan did not occur in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and it did not occur at the hands of the Taliban. Defeating the Taliban is not going to end these social ills, hence my point that the article makes a disingenuous connection and promise.

No disagreement there..

Its a bit of a lose lose situation with Taliban. Defeating them will not rid us of the cultural issues, however not defeating them will make it worse...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No disagreement there..

Its a bit of a lose lose situation with Taliban. Defeating them will not rid us of the cultural issues, however not defeating them will make it worse...

I am not contesting the need to contest the backward ideology of the Taliban, but in a way it is a disservice to the larger cause that deep rooted social ills are attached to a tag (Taliban in this case) and projected as if solving the Taliban issue will fix things for good. The Taliban advocate a medieval society - that needs to be highlighted - but the social ills that plague South Asia should be highlighted in the proper cultural and social context, so that the issue is not shoved under the carpet if and when the Taliban are defeated.

Lets not spare the other culprits out of expediency in terms of garnering public support for a war.

 

[Chiru]

I just saw Zardari in BBC news. He looks very happy smiling.

He introduced his son billal with British pm Cameron

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

As unfortunate as it is, such acts have occurred and continue to occur in South Asian societies without the label of 'Taliban'. This is a cultural issue, it existed before the Taliban and will continue to exist after the Taliban.

A very sick culture as about a billion people are seeing as the go to the stores for the next week and see Time Magazine. I have daughters, and I have grand daughers that age.

According to the findings, "Pakistani Muslims overwhelmingly welcome Islamic influence over their country's politics. Nearly nine-in-ten (88 percent) of those who see Islam playing a large role say that is a good thing." Moreover, many Muslims in Pakistan say there is a struggle between groups that want to modernize their country and Islamic fundamentalists (44 percent), and of those who see a struggle, most identify with the modernizers (61 percent). At the same time though, a solid majority of Pakistanis polled said they would favor making gender segregation in the workplace a law in the country (85 percent), as well as punishments like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery (82 percent), and stoning people who commit adultery (82 percent).
Pakistan in polling vs. Pakistan in practice
By Kalsoom Lakhani, July 30, 2010

Problems With Pew's New Pakistan Poll - By Kalsoom Lakhani | The AfPak Channel

and

http://pewglobal.org/2010/07/29/concern-about-extremist-threat-slips-in-pakistan/

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

One of the comments in the article above is " When many Pakistanis think of "modernizing" their country, they think primarily in terms of economic development and technology -- both of which can comfortably coexist alongside conservative religious attitudes."

In my opinion thats impossible. What do you think