Mr Obama's War: Today Proves Pakistan is Number One

Related Post: Two-Step Analysis of Mr Obama’s War Plan: Step Two in Afghanistan
Related Post: Two-Step Analysis of Mr Obama’s War Plan: Step One in Pakistan

The Obama Administration's long-awaited plan to solve/save Afghanistan and Pakistan is revealed today, but officials have now leaked two headline plans.

First, they have trumpeted the despatch of 4000 troops, along with civilian specialists, to train and assist Afghan police and security forces. This is more token than significant: it is a sop to the military, which got "only" 20,000+ of the 30,000 additional troops it wanted for this year, and it props up the Administration's spin that it is going to make the Afghans self-sufficient in providing their security.

Second, "the president...will call on Congress to pass a bill that triples U.S. aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year over five years". The aid is not new: after 9-11, Pakistan has received up to $1 billion a year for being a "good" ally in the War on Terror.

The symbolism, however, is very new, far from token, and far from insignificant. Pakistan is going "bad", so this is aid not to reward it but to rescue it. Specifically, it is the payment to the Pakistani Government as the US tries to take out the "safe havens" in the northwest of the country.

Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is now the immediate American priority. The economic aid will be accompanied by more airstrikes and Wild West-style rewards for turning in bad guys like Baitullah Mehsud.

Only one tiny problem: there is no sign --- none --- of Washington strategy for the fundamental problem in Pakistan: how is the country's political stability to be assured?

More through the day....

Breaking News: Iran to Attend US-Led Talks on Afghanistan

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has confirmed reports from Dutch sources, which emerged last night but were missed by the US media, that Tehran representatives will attend next week's talks on Afghanistan in The Hague.

Iran has not confirmed the level of the officials who will be sent to the discussions, where the US will be represented by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. However, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said yesterday during a trip to Brazil, ""We believe that a regional solution should be found for the Afghanistan crisis. Iran's goal in the region is to help peace, stability and calm which is necessary for the region's progress."

Engaging Iran: Khatami in Australia, Calls for New Approach on Afghanistan

Geographically (but not politically) far away from the main arenas of US-Iranian relations, former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami (pictured) is touring Australia.

Speaking on Tuesday, Khatami's initial focus was the promotion of "global dialogue", the concept that he launched more than a decade ago in response to the notion of a "clash of civilizations". (Irfan Yusuf offers an interesting account.) He offered a general connection with the recent development in US-Iran relations, ""Let us not be worried about the big number of elusive politicians who are not yet prepared for dialogue. In an atmosphere of dialogue, neither side considers themselves as being in a position of power and would not speak from an upper position.

Khatami did address more specific matters, notably military intervention in Afghanistan.

Suggesting that Iran was pursuing a constructive approach to its neighbour through non-military programmes, he then urged Australia and other countries to withdraw their forces, as they were hindering rather than helping any solution:

A man who was very ugly, or a woman, I don't know, anyway someone, male or female, who was very ugly, cuddled a baby. Though he was cuddling the baby and saying nice things to the baby but the baby was more and more getting furious and crying. Someone came and told him, 'just leave the baby alone and he will be quiet. Your face is the real cause of this'.

So we see that some troops are coming all the way from the other side of the world there, in order to establish peace and security there. We tell them to just leave them alone, they would not cry any more.

Khatami faced challenging questions from the audience on human rights and Iran's position on Israel. The ABC News account cryptically notes, "Each question was handled delicately and with a determination not to inflame tensions," but a Brisbane newspaper provides Khatami's response: ""The ... Iranian nation has always looked forward to co-existing with different nations around the world."

Khatami also took on the nuclear question with a general reference to Iran and Israel, telling The Age:

If there is a real concern about proliferation, we have to tackle the problem of these countries right now having nuclear arms in the region, not putting pressure on a country that doesn't have such intention and there is no strategy of having nuclear weapons.

(Hat tip to Jinjirrie for the leads on this story.)

Afghanistan: Former Taliban Ready for Talks with US

Related Post: Waiting for the US Strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan

As we noted earlier today, we're still trying to assess how significant talks with former enemies, such as the Taliban, will be in the Obama Administration's strategy on Afghanistan-Pakistan. So this article from Global Post, based on the interviews of Jean Mackenzie with two former high-ranking members of the Taliban, takes on added significance. in the Mullah Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil (pictured), who was foreign minister during the Taliban regime, is of special interest: in October 2001 he tried to reach a deal with the United States , via Pakistan, in which Osama bin Laden would be handed over for trial.

EXCLUSIVE: FORMER TALIBAN SEE OPENING FOR TALKS
Jean MacKenzie

KABUL — Talking to the Taliban is all the rage.

Whether for or against, upbeat or down, everyone seems to be weighing in on the wisdom or folly of negotiating with the black-turbaned crowd.

President Barack Obama has even suggested that his administration may reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban.

GlobalPost has gained unique access here in Kabul to two former high-ranking officials of the now-deposed Taliban government to hear their view of the possibility of an opening for dialogue.

Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, who was the Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan, and Mullah Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil, who served as foreign minister during the Taliban regime, confirmed in separate interviews that such talks were feasible, but that they would need to begin with a fundamental understanding that the view of this conflict looks very different from an Afghan-Taliban perspective.

Both emphasized they do not represent Mullah Omar and the Taliban’s active militant insurgency, but offered valuable insight into the likely debate within the Taliban’s inner circle about the various overtures from Washington to open talks.

Before any serious discussions can take place, they say, the warring parties at least have to agree on what they are fighting about. To date, that fairly obvious goal has been shrouded by rhetoric and misunderstanding.

Read the full article....

Mr Obama's War? Waiting for the US Strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan

Related Post: Afghanistan - Former Taliban Ready for Talks with US

So what is the Obama Administration's new approach to American intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Really. What is it?

Administration officials had set up the media this week for a dramatic re-launch of the US strategy, based on a series of reports for the President. The latest study, headed by Obama campaign advisor and former CIA officer Bruce Riedel, was on Obama's desk on Monday. US envoy Richard Holbrooke was holding forth for the media and briefing NATO members; less publicly, CIA Director Leon Panetta was visiting Pakistan. The President was telling 60 Minutes on Sunday night, "What we're looking for is a comprehensive strategy. And there's gotta be an exit strategy."

This spinning, however, does not add up to a new approach. For Afghanistan, there is still no detail on US troop levels, American non-military programmes, the contributions from Washington's allies. And for Pakistan, which Obama's people are now putting as Number One Crisis, there is no sense of how the expansion of missile strikes and covert operations matches up to a political approach, either towards the "sanctuaries" in the Northwest Frontier Provinces or towards the central Government in Islamabad.

What we have gotten instead from the US is vacuous cheerleading posing as "analysis". Jim Hoagland on The Washington Post wrote a love letter to "Gen. David Petraeus and diplomat Richard Holbrooke [who] are as smart as they come". Even worse, commentators like Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post and David Brooks of The New York Times have been treated to a Grand Tour of US bases in Afghanistan so they can parrot the words of American military commanders, "Over time this will work -- it has worked over and over again through history" (Diehl) and "When you put more boots on the ground, you not only augment your army’s firing power, you give it the capacity to experiment". (Brooks)

This puffery should be set aside for the leaked ideas coming out in British newspapers. The outgoing US ambassador in Afghanistan, William Wood, tells The Observer that "America would be prepared to discuss the establishment of a political party, or even election candidates representing the Taliban, as part of a political strategy that would sit alongside reinforced military efforts". The Times writes of an American approach linking economic aid, a build-up of Afghan security forces and police, and a crack-down on heroin production.

Most striking, sources tell The Guardian, "The US and its European allies are ­preparing to plant a high-profile figure in the heart of the Kabul government in a direct challenge to the Afghan president." Expecting that President Hamid Karzai will win re-election in August, despite its best efforts to build up a rival candidate, the US will insist on a "Chief Executive" or "Prime Minister".

The US strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan --- really, what is it?