Tag: Afghanistan

  • Obama, Romney Foreign Policy Approach.

    Foreign Policy perception of the US Presidential Candidates is being watched by The World.

    Israel.

    Both support Israel, as expected and assure that if Israel is attacked they will rush to its rescue.

    Iran.

    Both men say they would do whatever is necessary to keep Iran from a nuclear weapon, and both expressed support for the sort of crippling sanctions the president has already put in place.

    Syria.

    Both of them do not want to get involved in Syrian affairs(though they will after they come to power)

    Afghanistan.

    Both want to pull out from Afghanistan and Continue Drone Attacks.

    On US ‘Enemy’ priorities.

    For Obama’ it is Terrorism;for Romney it is Russia.

    On Defense Spending.

    Romney ‘desire is to build more Naval ships, like his desire to spend more on defense, is tied to a belief in the importance of a robust U.S. military presence around the world.

    Romney has vowed to mandate that military spending be set at 4 percent of gross domestic product..

    Obama wants the military to focus more on nontraditional threats like al Qaeda, and no longer wants the United States to serve as the world’s policeman. He noted on Monday that America spends more on the military than the next ten countries combined – which you only say if you think America is carrying too large a burden.

    That is a cut in Military spending, put it in an ambiguous way.

    Pakistan.

     Romney has been personally very forthcoming on the likely policies of his administration towards Pakistan in the context of the developments in Afghanistan. He has not left the articulation of his views to his senior aides as he seems to have done in the case of India.

    During a TV debate on November 11, 2011, Romney said: “The right way to deal with Pakistan is to recognise that Pakistan is not a country like other countries, with a strong political centre that you can go to and say, “Gee, can we come here? Will you take care of this problem?” This is, instead, a nation which is close to being a failed state. I hope it doesn’t reach that point, but it’s a very fragile nation. It really has four centres of power: the ISI, which is their intelligence services, the military, separate group. You have the political structure, and of course, the fundamentalists. And so we have to work with our friends in that country to get them to do some of the things we can’t do ourselves. Bringing our troops into Pakistan and announcing at a stage like this that, as President, we would throw American troops into Pakistan, could be highly incendiary in a setting like that. Right now, they’re comfortable with our using drones to go after the people that are — that are representing the greatest threat.”

    Romney further said in the same debate: “We have agreement with the people that we need to have agreement with to be able to use drones to strike at the people that represent a threat. And one of the things we have to do with our foreign aid commitments, the ongoing foreign aid commitments. You start everything at zero. But one of the things we have to do is have understanding with the various power bases within the country that they’re gonna have to allow us, or they themselves go after the Taliban  and Haqqani network to make sure they do not destabilise Afghanistan, particularly as we’re pulling our troops out.”

    During a national security debate on Afghanistan in the CNN on November 22, 2011, Romney said: “We spent about $450 billion so far.

    Obama shares the same view albeit in measured tones.

    India.

    India relations are always conditioned by US perception of Pakistan and China.

    Obama.

    /image_r/Boston/2011-2020/2012/10/23/BostonGlobe.com/ReceivedContent/Images/1024toon_wasserman.r.jpg
    Obama , Romney Foreign Policy.

    ‘Just days into President Barack Obama’s term, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and India’s External Affairs Minister agreed to “further strengthen the excellent bilateral relationship” between the two countries. Soon afterward, President Obama issued a statement asserting that, “Our rapidly growing and deepening friendship with India offers benefits to all the worlds citizens”, and that the people of India “should know they have no better friend and partner than the people of the United States.” As part of her confirmation hearing, Hillary Clinton told US senators she would work to fulfill President Obama’s commitment to “establish a true strategic partnership with India, increase our military cooperation, trade, and support democracies around the world.”

    Despite such top-level assurances from the new US Administration, during 2009 and into 2010, many in India became increasingly concerned that Washington was not focusing on the bilateral relationship with the same vigor as did the previous. Many concerns arose in New Delhi that the Obama Administration was overly focused on US relations with China in ways that would reduce India’s influence and visibility. In addition, the government of India was concerned that America was intent on deepening relations with India’s main rival, Pakistan, in ways that could be harmful to Indian security and perhaps lead to a more interventionist approach to the Kashmir problem, that a new US emphasis on nuclear nonproliferation and arms control would lead to pressure on India to join such multilateral initiatives as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty, and that the Administration might pursue (so-called) protectionist economic policies that could adversely affect bilateral commerce in goods and services.

    New Delhi has also long sought the removal of Indian companies and organizations from US export control lists, seeing these as discriminatory and outdated. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake contends that much progress has been made in this area, with less than one-half of one percent of all exports to India requiring any license.

    India also continued to seek explicit US support for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. However, the Obama Administration said it recognized a “need to reassess institutions of global governance”, and asserted that India’s rise “will certainly be a factor in any future consideration of reform” of that Council.

    Secretary of State Clinton was widely seen to have concluded a successful visit to India in July 2009, inking several agreements, making important symbolic points by staying at Mumbai’s Taj Mahal hotel (site of a major Islamist terrorist attack in 2008), and having a high-profile meeting with women’s groups. While in New Delhi, Clinton set forth five “key pillars” of the US-India engagement: (1) strategic cooperation, (2) energy and climate change, (3) economics, trade, and agriculture, (4) education and development, and (5) science, technology, and innovation.

    In November 2009, President Obama hosted an inaugural state visit with Prime Minister Singh at the White House. Despite its important symbolism, the resulting diplomacy was seen by many proponents of closer ties as disappointing (if not an outright failure) in its outcome, at least to the extent that no “breakthroughs” in the bilateral relationship were announced[citation needed]. Yet from other perspectives there were visible ideational gains: the relationship was shown to transcend the preferences of any single leader or government, the two leaders demonstrated that their mutual strategic goals were increasingly well-aligned, and plans were made to continue taking advantage of complementarities, with differences being well-managed. Perhaps most significantly, the visit itself contributed to ameliorating concerns in India that the Obama Administration was insufficiently attuned to India’s potential role as a US partner.

    President Obama’s May 2010 National Security Strategy noted that, “The United States and India are building a strategic partnership that is underpinned by our shared interests, our shared values as the world’s two largest democracies, and close connections among our people,” and

    “Working together through our Strategic Dialogue and high-level visits, we seek a broad-based relationship in which India contributes to global counterterrorism efforts, nonproliferation, and helps promote poverty reduction, education, health, and sustainable agriculture. We value India’s growing leadership on a wide array of global issues, through groups such as the G-20, and will seek to work with India to promote stability in South Asia and elsewhere in the world'(wiki)’
    Romney; Not very clear.Again this will be determined by Pakistani Perception.
    China.
    Romney is ambivalent, so is ambivalent in the sense that both will look after the US Business interest and make some noises now and then on Human Rights violations in China.

    Watch The Foreign Policy Issues in TV Debate at the Link below.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57539425/due-diligence-where-the-candidates-differ-on-foreign-policy/?tag=flyOutNavigation;flyouteditorspicks

    Romney Views on Pakistan.

    http://www.rediff.com/news/column/mitt-romney-s-ambivalence-on-india/20121007.htm

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • “Al Qaeda Taliban CIA Invented “Declassified Files. Pakistan. 2

    This is the second and Final part of the series of ‘Al Qaeda, Taliban invented by The US’

     

    Even if half of this is  true,Pakistan is to be pitied.

    Musharraf Cartoon in US.2007/11/26/luckovich1121_2.jpg.
    Musharraf Cartoon in US.2007/11/26/luckovich1121_2.jpg.

     

    “Mullah Omar’s call to arms in Singesar is only part of the story of the rise of the Taliban that emerged from weeks of traveling across Afghanistan and from scores of interviews with Afghans, diplomats and others who followed the movement from its earliest days in 1994. It is a story that is still unfolding, with the Taliban struggling to consolidate their hold on Kabul, the capital. The city fell three months ago to a Taliban force of a few thousand fighters, who entered the city with barely a shot fired. But the Taliban, despite their protestations of independence, did not score their successes alone. Pakistani leaders saw domestic political gains in supporting the movement, which draws most of support from the ethnic Pashtun who predominate along the Pakistan-Afghanista n border. Perhaps more important, Pakistan’s leaders, in funneling supplies of ammunition, fuel and food to the Taliban, hoped to advance an old Pakistani dream of linking their country, through Afghanistan, to an economic and political alliance with the Muslim states of Central Asia. At crucial moments during the two years of the Taliban’s rise to power, the United States stood aside. It did little to discourage support for the Afghan mullahs both from Pakistan and from another American ally, Saudi Arabia, which found its own reasons for supporting the Taliban in their conservative brand of Islam. American officials emphatically deny the assertion, widely believed among the Taliban’s opponents in Afghanistan, that the United States offered the movement covert support. American diplomats’ frequent visits to Kandahar, headquarters of the Taliban’s governing body, the officials insist, were mainly exploratory. In fact, American policy on the Taliban has seesawed back and forth. The Taliban have found favor with some American officials, who see in their implacable hostility toward Iran an important counterweight in the region. But other officials remain uncomfortable about the Taliban’s policies on women, which they say have created the most backward-looking and intolerant society anywhere in Islam. And they say that the Taliban, despite promises to the contrary, have done nothing to root out the narcotics traffickers and terrorists who have found a haven in Afghanistan under the mujahedeen.
    Documentary 2006 – Declassified: The Taliban (Part 1/5)

     

    In the Video one finds that USSR is using th Taliban!?

    Documentary 2006 – Declassified: The Taliban (Part 1/5)

     

    “In its most recent policy statement on Afghanistan, the State Department called on other nations to ”engage” with the Taliban in hopes of moderating their policies. But the statement came as the Taliban were tightening still further their Islamic social code, particularly the taboos that have banned women from working, closed girls’ schools, and required all women beyond puberty to cloak themselves head to toe in garments called burqas that are the traditional garb of Afghan village women…..

    The News in Pakistan, put it simply: ”The story of the Taliban is not one of outsiders imposing a solution, but of the Afghans themselves seeking deliverance from mujahedeen groups that had become cruel and inhuman.

     

    The Taliban invented

    But first stability had to be restored to Afghanistan. During the civil war fighting in 1995 the first substantial numbers of Taliban appeared, “invented” by the Pakistani ISI and perhaps funded by the CIA and Saudi Arabia. Unocal and its Saudi partner Delta Oil may have even played a major role in buying off local commanders. Security in Afghanistan was apparently their sole purpose. On 26 September 1996 the Taliban took Kabul. Michael Bearden, a CIA representative in Afghanistan during the war against the USSR and currently the CIA’s unofficial spokesman, recalls how US viewed the situation at the time: the Taliban were not considered the worst: they were young and hot-headed, but that was better than civil war. They controlled all the territory between Pakistan and Turkmenistan’s gas fields, which might be good as it would be possible to build a pipeline across Afghanistan and supply gas and energy to the new market. Everyone was happy (5). Unocal’s vice-president, Chris Taggart, barely bothered to pretend Unocal was not backing the Taliban; he described their advance as a positive development. Claiming that Taliban seizure of power was likely to help the gas pipeline project, he even envisaged US recognition of the Taliban (6). He was wrong, but no matter: this was the honeymoon between the US and the “theology students”. Anything goes where oil and gas are involved. In fact, in November 1997 Unocal invited a Taliban delegation to the US and, in early December, the company opened a training centre at the University of Omaha, Nebraska, to instruct 137 Afghans in pipeline construction technology. The political and military situation showed no improvement, leading some in Washington to consider support for the Taliban and the oil pipeline a political mistake. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott warned in 1997 that the region could become a centre for terrorists, a source of political and religious extremism and a theatre of war (7).

    In interviews, however, American intelligence officials and high-ranking military officers said that Pakistanis were indeed flown to safety, in a series of nighttime airlifts that were approved by the Bush Administration. The Americans also said that what was supposed to be a limited evacuation apparently slipped out of control, and, as an unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus. “Dirt got through the screen,” a senior intelligence official told me. Last week, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld did not respond to a request for comment. Musharraf won American support for the airlift by warning that the humiliation of losing hundreds—and perhaps thousands—of Pakistani Army men and intelligence operatives would jeopardize his political survival. “Clearly, there is a great willingness to help Musharraf,” an American intelligence official told me. A C.I.A. analyst said that it was his understanding that the decision to permit the airlift was made by the White House and was indeed driven by a desire to protect the Pakistani leader. The airlift “made sense at the time,” the C.I.A. analyst said. “Many of the people they spirited away were the Taliban leadership”—who Pakistan hoped could play a role in a postwar Afghan government. According to this person, “Musharraf wanted to have these people to put another card on the table” in future political negotiations. “We were supposed to have access to them,” he said, but “it didn’t happen,” and the rescued Taliban remain unavailable to American intelligence. According to a former high-level American defense official, the airlift was approved because of representations by the Pakistanis that “there were guys— intelligence agents and underground guys—who needed to get out.” REFERENCE: The Getaway Questions surround a secret Pakistani airlift. by Seymour M. Hersh January 28, 2002

    http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/01/28/020128fa_FACT

    From Left: United States Air Force; Robert Young Pelton; Mike Wintroath/Associated Press; Adam Berry/Bloomberg News – From left: Michael D. Furlong, the official who was said to have hired private contractors to track militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan; Robert Young Pelton, a contractor; Duane Clarridge, a former C.I.A. official; and Eason Jordan, a former television news executive. Contractors Tied to Effort to Track and Kill Militants – KABUL, Afghanistan — Under the cover of a benign government information-gathering program, a Defense Department official set up a network of private contractors in Afghanistan and Pakistan to help track and kill suspected militants, according to military officials and businessmen in Afghanistan and the United States. The official, Michael D. Furlong, hired contractors from private security companies that employed formerC.I.A. and Special Forces operatives. The contractors, in turn, gathered intelligence on the whereabouts of suspected militants and the location of insurgent camps, and the information was then sent to military units and intelligence officials for possible lethal action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said. While it has been widely reported that the C.I.A. and the military are attacking operatives of Al Qaeda and others through unmanned, remote-controlled drone strikes, some American officials say they became troubled that Mr. Furlong seemed to be running an off-the-books spy operation. The officials say they are not sure who condoned and supervised his work. REFERENCE: Contractors Tied to Effort to Track and Kill Militants By DEXTER FILKINS and MARK MAZZETTI Published: March 14, 2010 A version of this article appeared in print on March 15, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.

    http://chagataikhan.blogspot.in/2010/03/ronald-reagn-afghan-mujahideen-talibans.html

    Related:
  • “CIA Invented Taliban,Al Qaeda”Pak Intellignece Offiicial I

    Just when I was rejoicing that the saner elements in Pakistan has prevailed over the hardliners  in the form of youngsters rising against terrorism by calling for understanding of the Pakistanis(a Blogger started this-please read my blog) and the retort by a 13-year-old girl against Taliban attack in Pakistan , I came across a an article written by a Retired Officer of Intelligence Bureau, Government of Pakistan.,Research Analyst/Former Intelligence Officer of DIB, Pakistan..

    In an article he quotes extensively from sources from the US, including US Spies and US papers like New York Times, Washington Post and traces the History of the Taliban to the Times of Reagan and argues Mullah Omar was actually a Fighter against the Taliban.

    After going through this one gets confused.

    Is this true?

    Does any one have more information on this subject?

    Story:

    Jimmy Carter
    Cover of Jimmy Carter

    Steve Coll ends his important book on Afghanistan — Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to 10 September 2001–by quoting Afghan President Hamid Karzai: “What an unlucky country.” Americans might find this a convenient way to ignore what their government did in Afghanistan between 1979 and the present, but luck had nothing to do with it. Brutal, incompetent, secret operations of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, frequently manipulated by the military intelligence agencies of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, caused the catastrophic devastation of this poor country. On the evidence contained in Coll’s book Ghost Wars, neither the Americans nor their victims in numerous Muslim and Third World countries will ever know peace until the Central Intelligence Agency has been abolished. It should by now be generally accepted that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 was deliberately provoked by the United States. In his memoir published in 1996, the former CIA director Robert Gates made it clear that the American intelligence services began to aid the mujahidin guerrillas not after the Soviet invasion, but six months before it. In an interview two years later with Le Nouvel Observateur, President Carter‘s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski proudly confirmed Gates’s assertion. “According to the official version of history,” Brzezinski said, “CIA aid to the mujahidin began during 1980, that’s to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan. But the reality, kept secret until now, is completely different: on 3 July 1979 President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained that in my opinion this aid would lead to a Soviet military intervention.”….

    Asked whether he in any way regretted these actions,

    Brzezinski replied: Regret what? The secret operation was an excellent idea. It drew the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? On the day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, saying, in essence: ‘We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War.’

    Nouvel Observateur: “And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?”

    Brzezinski: “What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?

    The motives of the White House and the CIA were shaped by the Cold War: a determination to kill as many Soviet soldiers as possible and the desire to restore some aura of rugged machismo as well as credibility that U.S. leaders feared they had lost when the Shah of Iran was overthrown. The CIA had no intricate strategy for the war it was unleashing in Afghanistan. Howard Hart, the agency’s representative in the Pakistani capital, told Coll that he understood his orders as: “You’re a young man; here’s your bag of money, go raise hell. Don’t fuck it up, just go out there and kill Soviets.” These orders came from a most peculiar American. William Casey, the CIA’s director from January 1981 to January 1987, was a Catholic Knight of Malta educated by Jesuits.

    When neighbors came to Mullah Mohammed Omar in the spring of 1994, they had a story that was shocking even by the grim standards of Afghanistan’ s 18-year-old civil war. Two teen-age girls from the mullah’s village of Singesar had been abducted by one of the gangs of mujahedeen, or ”holy warriors,” who controlled much of the Afghan countryside. The girls’ heads had been shaved, they had been taken to a checkpoint outside the village and they had been repeatedly raped. At the time, Mullah Omar was an obscure figure, a former guerrilla commander against occupying Soviet forces who had returned home in disgust at the terror mujahedeen groups were inflicting on Afghanistan. He was living as a student, or talib, in a mud-walled religious school that centered on rote learning of the Koran. But the girls’ plight moved him to act. Gathering 30 former guerrilla fighters, who mustered between them 16 Kalashnikov rifles, he led an attack on the checkpoint, freed the girls and tied the checkpoint commander by a noose to the barrel of an old Soviet tank. As those around him shouted ”God is Great!” Mullah Omar ordered the tank barrel raised and left the dead man hanging as a grisly warning. The Singesar episode is now part of Afghan folklore. Barely 30 months after taking up his rifle, Mullah Omar is the supreme ruler of most of Afghanistan. The mullah, a heavyset 38-year old who lost his right eye in the war against the Russians, is known to his followers as Prince of All Believers. He leads an Islamic religious movement, the Taliban, that has conquered 20 of Afghanistan’ s 32 provinces..

    http://chagataikhan.blogspot.in/2010/03/ronald-reagn-afghan-mujahideen-talibans.html

    http://hnn.us/articles/8438.html

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Man Shoots from 1.5 Miles and Kills! World Record

     

    We have heard of Snipers.

    I have heard of this from thrillers like The day of the Jackal.

    thesniper1.jpg
    The Sniper

    Now  OMG has records that the record is 1.5 Miles.

     

    Craig Harrison is a Corporal of Horse in the Blues and Royals RHG/D of the British Army. He holds the record for the longest confirmed sniper kill in combat at 2,707 yards in 2009. The previous record was 2,657 yards by Rob Furlong in 2002. In November of 2009, Harrison killed two Taliban machine gunners consecutively south of Musa Qala, Afghanistan.

    He shot at 2,707 yards, 1.5 miles, with an L115A3 Long Range Rifle. The weather was perfect for a sniper shot, but the low altitude of the valley helped, too. The rifle’s manufacturers said that the rifle is still fairly accurate beyond 1,640 yards, but luck would be needed to make a 2,707 yard shot.

    Harrison did it twice in a row, though. I think he’s just that good. Environmental conditions play a major role in bullet flight. The L115A3 long range rifle should technically only shoot 1,693 yards at the altitude of Musa Qala.

    http://www.omg-facts.com/Other/The-longest-sniper-shot-confirmed-was-1/53514?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_content=second#F63us5uTwvEY9Az2.99