LyrArc Article Gist
Graham Allison of the Kennedy school of Government at Harvard and John Deutsch former head of the CIA under Clinton and now a Professor at MIT, say it would be adesirable thing that Afghanistan develop into a prosperous, poppy-free and democratic country, but it is not vital for American interests. They say lets face it, one cannot push Afghistan into modernity overnight, just because we wish it. It would be atragic mistake to do so, and take a huge and ultimately failing effort to do this, with a vast expenditure of American blood and money, to do this. One can expect for Afghanistan after we exit to revert to conditions that exist in other countries at the same level of development, like Bangladesh, Sudan, Somalia. Allison sees a vital interest at stake in Pakistan because of nuclear weapons.

LyrArc Article Gist
US differences with Pakistan are based on two different perspectves that are not reconcilable. Recent events and the relationship between the US and Pakistan's army chief have confirmed that this is not going to change. US sees militants and Taliban inside Pakistan as havens for the short term as the US disengages from Afghanistan, whereas Pakistan's army sees them as useful elements in Pakistan's security interests in relation to India for the long term. Whe Kayani met with Obama in Washington, he handed Obama a 13 page document showing Pakistan's strategic perspective and emphasizing the gap between short term US interests and Pakistan's long term interests. The Wikileaks cables show Kayani discussing with US officials a possible removal of President Zardari and his preferred replacement. This made Kayani, normally reticent, to rant for hours on the irreconciliable differences between the US and Pakistan with a group of Pakistani journalists. He described Pakistan as the US's "most bullied ally," and said the frames of reference of the US and Pakistan regarding regional ssecurity "can never be the same," according to news accounts. And added that "the real aim of US strategy is to de-nuclearize Pakistan." Holbrooke and Admiral Mullen had hoped to reverse "a trust deficit" between the two sides. But this has not happened. General Petraeus is taking a tougher attitude and patience is thin on both sides. According to a Kayani friend, air marshal Chaudhry, Kayani is always asking Petraeus what the strategic objectives are in Afghanistan. US officials say they have given up on changing Kayani's thinking and that Kayani has told them: "I don't trust you." Kayani's position makes sense when one looks at the strongly anti-American public in Pakistan. Pakistani military and intelligence officials say a campaign against militants inside Pakistan incites domestic terrorism and uproots local communities. And by following Pakistan's own interests and frames of reference Kayani sends signals that win esteem among the Pakistani public. Opinion polls now show the military held in higher esteem than the Zardari administration. This puts the US in a no-win situation in Afghanistan with no clear objectives for the long term. This leaves the US in a time of tight budgets stretched thin to meet the needs in other defence areas that need attention, such as modernization of forces, trouble spots such as Korea, Iran and elsewhere, and resources needed for modernization of US infrastructure and supporting new technologies and industries. The lasting solutions that will take time, careful thought and preparation would be to integrate South Asia as a whole into an economic zone, extensive infrastructure building, and bring India and Pakistan closer through diplomacy and negotiations. See the articles by Richard Haas and others on the need to redirect resources. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
An overwhelming number of readers who commented on this article by October 27, 2009, were opposed to sending 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Looking at all comments in detail one finds that of the 64 readers commenting only a handful, about 8-9 supported sending these troops. Ninety percent of the comments to this editorial asking Obama to fight this war with conviction seriously questioned the wisdom of doing this. Many readers asked why aren't the Europeans putting thier lives at stake, and two asked how the Economist could with astraight face say that Britain's 500 troop increase was a welcome gesture. Readers questioned the assumptions and statements made by the Economist such as" letting the region "slip into amaelstrom of conflict," or "permanent cross-border instability," and "a terrible betrayal of the Afghan people, " in many of the comments. Readers seem conscious of the fact that its not a precipitate withdrawal that is being discussed, its a war for the long haul that it inevitably becomes as the US forces get deeper into the conflict in the mountains of Afghanistan. The discussion is not about the next 6 months but of next year and the year after that and the year after that. That is also what General Colin Powell advised President Obama. He asked Obama to think clearly about the clear goals of this mission. See the link to Powell. The question arises is whether the Economist sensitive to its readers thoughts on this subject, and it is how does it account for such an absolute majority of sensible readers having serious questions, doubts, and outright opposition to a deeper conflict in Afghanistan?...

LyrArc Article Gist
The view from Qureshi, Foreign Minister ofr Pakistan at the Journal's offices in New York of a sudden withdrawal when the Pakistani Taliban are threatening Pakistan and so close to Islamabad. He fears "more misery, more suicide bombings, and adramatic loss of confidence in the economy as investors fear that an emboldened Taliban , no longer pressed by coalition forces in Afghanistan, would soon turn its sights on Islamabad. Pakistan faced with a withdrawal would lessen cooperation against AlQuaeda and the intelligence that made drone attacks so precise in targeting Taliban leaders may be withdrawn. Pakistan may then strike adeal with the jihadists.

LyrArc Article Gist
Putin's visit to India is intended to continue India Russia dialogue. One of the topics is trade. New trade deals are planned to take pre-pandemic trade from $11 billion to $30 billion by 2025. Trade would go beyond energy to include education, cybersecurity, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, railways, clean energy. By comparison US India trade for the same time period is $146 billion.

Afghanistan is a source of concern for both Russia and India and this will be part of the talks. Russia also participates in several forums with India including BRICS. 

LyrArc Article Gist
The Biden administration has limited the conflict in the Middle East through maintaining relations with the government in Tehran. Now more than ever there is a need for the kind of stable well thought out policy in the long term interests of all nations including the US, Europe, China and India for a peaceful solution to conflicts- this is being pursued by the Biden administration. It is possible because president Biden has focused on economic growth for all and extracted America from the entanglements in the Middle East in Iraq and Afghanistan that have undone previous presidents and US development.