LyrArc Article Gist
The Pakistan army and its anti India mindset is at the root of the problem Pakistan faces. The army has factions that support the Taliban. Its intelligence agency, the ISI, helped create the Taliban as a way to get strategic depth (as they called it) in Afghanistan, for it sees as a necessary perpetual conflict with India. And the failure in Pakistan, the crisis of Pakistan, lies in the failure of elected politicians, the failure of the army, to provide responsible government and peaceful relations with India and with Afghanistan. By pursuing a Hindu-Muslim conflict agenda, and a anti-foreigner agenda for Afghanistan, Pakistan has ended up undermining its own government, institutions, and sovereignty over tribal areas and the North West Frontier Province. The US by getting involved in the Hindu-Muslim conflict agenda, and the anti-foreigner agenda during the Cold War, by supplying weapons and aid for this to successive Pakistani military governments, now finds itself as the foreigner in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Pakistan army's anti-foreigner agenda, now that the Americans are the foreigners, is not something that even the army or the civilian governments can control. The only thing the army knows, and its raison-de-etre, is the protection of the state of Pakistan and an antiIndian, Hindu-Muslim conflict agenda. After 60 years of doing this since its founding the Pakistan army knows no other way. Failure to do what it is doing would remove it from its critical role as the most important institution in Pakistan, and relegate its officers and the army to a smaller role, with smaller committments of resources, a smaller army, and the loss of its privileged role in Pakistani society. This is the answer to Holbrooke's question to Pakistani businessmen, and civilian leaders, in Lahore recently, what is the crisis of Pakistan? And these businessmen and civilian leaders also touched on the army's role. For America as it sees the need to build a new economic partnership with Asia that would help revive economic growth, there is the need for deep soul searching. The Pakistan military sucks up resources that are so badly needed elsewhere, for the kind of construction the Obama administration sees for America, of roads, bridges, schools, new energy infrastructure. How can what is good and planned for America not be whats good for South Asia, for India, Pakistan, SriLanka and the entire region? The resources that are sucked up by the Pakistan military and its actions to foster aconflict atmosphere merely adds to the way resources are sucked for the military in India, when they are badly needed for development, economic growth, and the same kind of infrastructure building and education that the Obama administration plans for the US. Without correcting this flaw in its policies in South Asia the Obama administration cannot create a partnership with Asian countries that could play a critical role in America's own economic growth....

LyrArc Article Gist
Thomas Friedman sees the WikiLeaks information showing America paying the Pakistan army and intelligence services to be two-faced, to both fight with the Americans and at the same time support the insurgents fighting the Americans. He sees America being made the sucker in this game. And without the resources to change the region and transform it, America needs a better approach that does not waste its resources and energies.

LyrArc Article Gist
When asked what projects they wanted to see in Helmand province, ordinary Afghans said they wanted the repair of the main sluice gates that lead to the irrigation canals off the Helmand River. These were built with American aid in the 1950's, and its been 30 years since anyone did any work on that canal. See the link to India and irrigation, only 50% of the land is estimated by experts to be irrigated in India. WIthout irrigation, as the uncertain monsoon rains this year showed, India's agricultural heartland in the Punjab and Haryana would collapse. When other Afghans were asked they mentioned security, they did not want to see the Americans in tents, but in some sort of permanent presence. BUt considering the vast and undeveloped landscape of Afghanistan, one sees several differences from Iraq's insurgent dominated priovince near Baghdad. It has mountainous terrain, with no electricity, no roads, no water, totally desolate in most parts of Helmand and other provinces, and it is a vast country with illiterate people tired of war. Would America's 40,000 troops be enough, or would you need more and more. If McChrystal's strategy shown here is to occupy civilan areas and fight the Taliban, and the Taliban with the help of Pakistan's ISI dissident elements are getting more and more sophisticated with roadside bombs, there will be growing casualties. The Americans could hold their own if there was no outpouring of support because of unpopularity of the Afghan government, but throw that into the equation- something McChrystal has not thought through according to Dexter Filkins of the NYT- and things get muddied. And from his training as a Special Operations commander this is a problem McChrystal is not as well prepared to understand or tackle. Consider the implications if Afghanistan is not Iraq- where Shiites and Aytollah Sistani their spiritual leader formed a core of support that the US always had on its side once it supported a democratically elected government- and no core of support here in Afghanistan except an unpopular government. McChrystal may also not have factored in a key factor of the "allergy" of Afghans to foreign boots on the ground. With a largely illiterate police recruits and army recruits, would the idea of transferring the job become delayed and the American boots end up in an untenable position? See the link to Commander Adams and Khost province, where Adams points out its all about visible evidence of progress. For his 250 paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne this meant delivering on roads built in Khost province, and a spring water system for 12,000 villagers. Here Filkins starts with Afghan villagers asking for the repair of the canal leading to the Helmand river which has not been repaired since the 1950's. McChrystal could only say "it takes time." But the US has been in Afghistan for 8 years and as commader Adams says only fighting "one year wars." The other point Adams says is that an effort in Afghanistan only works by befriending the tribes, because its the tribes who will see that IED's are reported and any insurgents in the area are reported, and only they have the capabilities to do it, which no number of American troops can do. These are serious questions that need answers. See the groups for- Commander Adams, and for Dexter Filkins (the article on McChrystal's Long War), which touch on similiar development issues....

LyrArc Article Gist
During the election campaign Obama talked about sending at least 2 more combat brigades to Afghanistan. The Defense Department is already planning to send 20,000 additional troops in response to a request of General David McKiernan, top commander in Afghanistan,including 4 combat brigades and an aviation brigade with helicopters, increasing the American troop levels to 58,000, with an additional 30,000 NATO troops already there from other countries. The timeline for this is 12-18 months but with the escalating insurgent attacks in Afghanistan this will probably be done more quickly. Obama and some Democrats talked about Afghanistan as somehow being the good war and he vowed to defeat the Taliban and militants in Afghanistan. But Afghanistan is a different place and most military experts are suggesting that a good strategy will be needed, for example winning over the tribals and some of the militants, and not trying to win militarily. However with the deteriorating situation there the only way to win over tribals and militants may be to get the situation to where the NATO and US forces are in a strong situation. The two big handicaps in this are first history, where the terrain and rural distribution of the people make it difficult to exercize any control over the vast region of mountains and deserts. So throughout history no one has controlled this region and there is no history of centralized government, with different tribes controlling their regions. The other is the problem created by the corruption and lack of any popular support for the Karzai government, which is made worse by the involvement of its officials in the opium trade with opium growing booming in the southern part of Afghanistan. How does the US and NATO create an effective Afghan army and police under a state that does not enjoy any popular support. And yet the strategy that Gates. Petraeus and McKiernan are pursuing involves preparing the Afghan army and police for the task of controlling the vast mountainous region against a rural insurgency that knows its way in the mountains enjoys rural support because of the independent spirit of the Afghan people who find it easy to see the NATO forces as white foreigners in their country. The Afghan army is small for such a vast mountainous region, only 70,000 in a nation of 32 million people, and the police forces of 80,000 mostly corrupt and ineffectual. The present plan is to build the Afgan army to 134,000 still small for such a large region. The other problems stem from the Pushtun population in Pakistan that supports the rural insurgency in Afghanistan and the support of tribal people in the border areas of Pakistan. The picture tells the story, a small number of NATO soldiers in a remote ridge in Afghanistan. And the problems actually are across the whole of the far northern region of what was once British India, of Afghanistan and Pakistan, as the Pakistan government is quite fragile, having an army that operates as a power center of its own with little accountability to the central government. And years of war during the previous military government of Pakistan under Zia Ul Haq, in which Zia with the support of the Reagan administration supported another rural insurgency in Afghanistan that drove the soviets out of Afghanistan, and the subsequent sponsorship of the Taliban movement by the Pakistan military in Afghanistan, has created a situation in Pakistan where militants now operate freely and with impunity in Pakistan itself, disregarding both the Pakistan military and the Pakistan elected government's power structures....

LyrArc Article Gist
Pakistan on the day after the Bhutto bombings.

LyrArc Article Gist
Pakistan prime minister Nawas Sharif's friendly overtures to India. The need for improved trade and economic relations with India to improve Pakistan's economy and fears that the military and intelligence services or extremist groups could torpedo these efforts.

LyrArc Article Gist
Karen Elliott House, a former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, who won a Pulitzer prize for reporting on the Middle East, is now researching Saudi society. She now writes this scathing report from Saudi Arabia. She says that just as in Egypt, an old corrupt leadership continues in power for several decades, an old corrupt leadership in the form of 7000 princes in a vast royal family. King Abdullah is in his eighties and the ruling princes have an average age of 83, and have illnesses for which they are under medical treatment. They continue to lead a nation where 60% of the people are young people under the age of 18! Itself an astounding fact. Karen House points out that the internet and social media have also made the young very knowledgeable about the conditions in the country- where 40% of Saudis live in poverty and 70% cannot afford a home. Bad managemet by the princes has affected basic services including the sewage and drainage problems in Jeddah after the floods. It is astounding that far less wealthy Gulf sheikdoms are doing a better job of providing education, jobs and health care. Thirty years of visiting Saudi Arabia, and the last four years of intensive reporting, has persuaded Karen House that this situation is at an impasse that might end up resolving itself through some sort of upheaval. To Karen House this looks like the last days of the aging leadership under Brezhnev before the Soviet Union collapsed....

LyrArc Article Gist
Changes that are ocurring in Pakistan that are different from what was seen in the past. Pakistan's elite appears to have lost touch with ordinary Pakistanis. The country is becoming more Islamic in its thinking. America is now cited as the biggest threat for Pakistan in Pew Research and Gallup surveys by close to 60% of those surveyed. India is seen as much less of a threat, less than 20% see India as a threat. Over 10% see the Pakistan Taliban as a threat. Pakistan may be looking more inward now than in the past. In the past India dominated the military's thinking. Now it is concerned about too large of an American footprint in Pakistan, and may be encouraging the perception that America is a threat to Pakistan's having nuclear weapons. Pakistan's failure to invest in education, a budget for the military that takes a disproportionate share of resources, lack of investments in infrastructure continue to affect Pakistan. Female literacy is low, at about 40%. Support for democracy is not strong because of poor governance. Democracy in Pakistan is distorted by the large landowning families dominating Parliament. And the two main parties are dominated by the Bhutto and Sharif families. Only 42% of those surveyed said democracy was the best form of government in the Pew poll. Both the military and civilian governments have failed to make wise decisions that would bring opportunities to ordinary Pakistanis. Too much of the nation's resources were wasted in costly conflicts with India, and involvement in Afghanistan, which have not done much for Pakistan. In this situation Pakistan and Pakistanis continue to struggle along with no clear direction, but somehow make things work. A pullback from conflicts in neighboring states and focus on improving the lives of ordinary Pakistanis requires some far-sighted leadership....

LyrArc Article Gist
The firing of John Bolton as National Security Adviser opens up the possibility of a meeting of Trump with President Rouhani of Iran. There is a need for both sides to begin talks on a nuclear deal that would replace the one Iran signed with president Obama to address issues raised by Mr. Trump and Republicans. Iran and countries that buy oil from Iran such as India, China and Japan have an interest in relief from sanctions imposed by the Trump administration on imports of Iranian oil. The European Union is keen to preserve aspects of the nuclear deal. Relief from sanctions is critical for Iran to develop its economy. The last two decades have seen Iran struggle to develop its economy with the sanctions imposed by  different U.S. administrations.   President Trump expressed flexibility on sanctions saying "we will see what happens. I think Iran has potential. They are incredible people." President Rouhani urged Mr. Trump "to put warmongers aside." Mr. Trump told reporters that he had resisted Mr. Bolton's opinions on issues and realized he had moderate views when compared to someone like Bolton.  Trump told Iran "We are not looking for regime change. We hope we can make a deal and if we can't make a deal thats fine too. But I think they have to make a deal." Helping the U.S. and Iran come to talks is president Macron of France who hopes to setup a meeting at the UN General Assembly which meets next week following his efforts at the G-7 meeting in France last month. In the past when tensions were high in the Straits of Hormuz President Trump refrained from aggravating this by saying actions that are "disproportionate" should not be taken and respected Iranian intentions. The tone of the conversation between the two sides has moderated to the point where both sides realize the need for coming to some compromise. This is in sharp contrast to the period a few months ago with rising tensions in the Straits of Hormuz and the seizure of an Iranian ship. Bolton's opinions were not the only issue for president Trump. He was also seen as the source of leaks including one that said Mike Pence, the Vice President, had opposed Mr. Trump's plan to bring the Taliban to Camp David. Also contributing to the new climate for talks is Mike Pompeo the Secretary of State, who has promoted the idea of talks with Iran. He told the media about such a meeting at the UN General Assembly in New York- "Sure. The president has made it very clear that he is prepared to meet with no pre-conditions." The willingness to try new ideas even contrary ones to policy pursued only a short while ago as long as the desired goal is reached is a feature of this presidency and key advisers. From the beginning of the Trump administration there is a firm sense of the need to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. and reduce foreign entanglements that have dragged on wasting resources and destroying priorities. With a willingness to try all sorts of approaches even ones that appear to be contradictory always keeping the end goal in sight. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, points to the need to reallocate the resources that are tied down in Afghanistan, to other needs in the area of national security. This especially true he says, considering the limited US interests in Afghanistan and the other threats in national security that the US needs to address around the world. He points to the grave threat to national security arising from the US deficit and the country's finances, with the $125 billion allocated to Afghanistan being a significant contributor to this. Savings in Afghanistan can be used to strengthen defense needs in other areas such as North Korea and Iran , modernization, and for reducing the deficit. He sees the resources spent in Afghnistan being a strategic distraction when other threats are building with nuclear developments in Iran and N. Korea. He cites the intelligence findings that the situation in Afghanistan will not improve with the Taliban connections in Pakistan, and the lack of a good partner in the government there. As for Pakistan, Haas says that the situation there is not to be understood through Afghanistan. The threats there are not external, they come from deep divisions within Pakistani society, and poor governance for most of the period since independence in 1947. The US should scale down to counter terrorism operations with a smaller force closer to the troops before the surge of 30,000, and not engage in the state-building that it is currently doing. On the efforts by Gen. Petraeus to get more resources, Haas says Petraeus is looking at the situation from the area of operations in Afghanistan, whereas the President has a different role. The President has to address all the challenges the US is facing now and will face in the near and medium term future, and he has to do this with the limited resources available for national security....

LyrArc Article Gist
A poll done by the International Republican Institute, a nonprofit affiliated with the Republican party, of 3500 people across Pakistan found a couple of important things. The Republican Institute's goal is to promote democracy in the developing world. 1. Popularity of President Zardari at 9% and Nawas Sharif's at 55%. The US resumed contacts with Sharif, and Sharif is seen as able to bring the Islamic moderates to the American side. 2. Economic issues are what concerns Pakistanis most. Refugees are approaching the 1 million number according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. 3. 81% said the country was going in the wrong direction, Zardari was never elected and is incompetent and this could be the reason. But military is still unpopular, 77% want democratic rule, possibly with Sharif or some sort of combination of Sharif, lawyers movement, and Islamic moderates in charge. 4. From alow of 9% in January 2008, now 37% are willing to work with the USA against extremism. Could Obama's election and US support of Pakistan's effort to heal itself be apart of this change of heart? 5. 45% support fighting extremists in the tribal areas and the Northwest Frontier Province. And 69% say having the Taliban and Al Quaeda operate in Pakistan is a serious problem. If these poll results accurately reflect shifting feeling in Pakistan, American help to help Pakistan pull itself up by its bootstraps economically and unify the country under a democratic administration of Islamic moderates and people from other areas like the lawyers movement, could work. It also improves the prospects of pulling out of Afghanistan after the situation improves, and setting up an administration that comprises Islamic moderates and tribal representatives that keeps out Al Quaeda, and works to rebuild Afghanistan after seemingly endless years of war. These efforts would require cooperation of Iran, India, Pakistan and the US, and assistance of countries like Turkey, in creating an atmosphere that promotes peaceful development in the entire region. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
As the US gets serious about defeating the Taliban and Al Quaeda militants in Afghanistan and in Pakistan's border areas in Waziristan and the Northwest Frontier Province, and as Pakistan's army and government are at loggerheads and are also each in its own way unable or unwilling to take action against these militants operating out of or near the border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan, it appears that the situation will result in the US having to make some tough decisions including going ahead anyway regardless of agreement with Pakistan. At the same time Defense Secretary Gates is saying that he wnats to see the Afghan army numbers to be doubled from the present 65,000 to be able to spread out across the country and not just be stuck in the urban areas. Any success the US and NATO see in Afghanistan would stem from some of these tough decisions including some tough decisions of a different nature that deal with Afghan government provincial officials tacit involvement in the opium growing areas. Like Iraq this will be a tough one for the US and the Europeans to sort out and make take a lot of patience and effort and some disappointments on the road before serious and lasting results that do not compromise basic American and European goals and intentions. With these goals and intentions the American and the Europeans seek to leave behind a peaceful modernizing state keeping its own faith and traditions with tolerance for others, at the same time that it respects women and economic development and modern education in science and technology that would make this development possible. And these goals would have to be applied as the vital test for the whole region Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India and for the basis of all policy towards the region, foreign policy, economc policy, development policy and regional issue policy like that of Kashmir. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The MQM of Altaf Hussain, represents the ethnic Mohajirs who are a large part of the population in Karachi and Hyderabad, Pakistan. Through street gangs in Mohajir neighborhoods and party politics MQM dominates political life in Karachi, with most of the parliamentary seats.