LyrArc Article Gist
A UN Report shows that opium poopy cultivation is growing in Afghanistan and an enormous crop close to last year's record harvest is expected this year. 90% of the world's opium is grown in Afghanistan but it gets so little media attention compared to daily reports of injuries in the war such as on CBC for Canadian soldiers in the war zones and in other reports in American media. Of this about 52% of Afghan opium is grown in Helmand province which is largely controlled by the Taliban who finance their war with tax revenues from the opium farmers. The UN report also shows that most of the increased cultivation is happening in the south and west of the country worst hit by the insurgents. Areas where there is poor security or where there is not much help with seeds irrigation and other help for farming, are the ones that are mostly engaged in increased opium cultivation and areas where there is security and help with seeds and irrigation are the ones that don't cultivate opium. Looking at this state of affairs one would think that Western Europe and the USA which the UN report says must brace themselves for huge influx of this stuff, would rather than families and schools dealing with the problem at home in very difficult circumstances with high teenage use, would find it easier to finance seeds, fertilizer and irrigation and building of infrastructure in the country. However this shift to other farming would be possible if there is security and this requires a new policy in South Asia which reverses decades of policy that aggravated tensions in the region by not having a clear unambiguous direction of supporting peaceful economic development in the region which includes Pakistan and India and Afghanistan and Iran. Policy changed somewhat but a definite steering moving decisively in that direction needed to take place as first British policy in the pre1947 era and then American and British policy in the post 1947 period supported increased tensions in the area. Afghanistan thus ceased to exist as a country devoted to its own economic development but a place where the western powers engaged the soviet union, and then a place where Pakistan's military's policy of strategic depth against India led to the creation and support of the Taliban. By reversing this policy decisively and with direction as clear as daylight the western countries would instead of fighting these insurgents have Indians and Pakistanis work together alongside western country economic experts and agricultural experts to bring the infrastructure, electricity, irrigation, seeds, and fertilizer to these farmers across the whole of Afghanistan. Security would be mainly the responsibility of Indians, Pakistanis and Afghanis, and local leaders and people from the villages as westerners are easy targets of hostile action in a country used to fighting foreigners especially Europeans. That this may ventually happen but is slow to happen today can be attributed to how slow the process of sensible change is, how most people accept the way things are, which itself is a result of earlier policies which are themselves a result of still earlier policies. Thus pre-1947 British policy for Hindu and Muslim areas, is followed by America's Dulles policies turning India and Pakistan into aspects of the Cold War, followed by Reagan policy turning Afghanistan into aspects of the Cold War in reaction to Brezhnev's soviet policy in Kabuli affairs as a tit for tat, and this followed by the Bush policy reacting to the emergence of Saudi discontented volunteers in the Reagan supported Afghan war after Bin Laden's 9/11 attack in New York City. In the background a series of Indian leaders and Pakistan military leaders gave up any sensible steering in the direction of economic development by falling into the Cold war between 2 western factions or into a religious Hindu-Muslim strife war legacy from the earlier periods. What it means is that its hard in the human world we live in to to do anything but react, or be caught in a trap of thinking just the way we have been taught to think, or have accepted things as they are without thinking, with its resultant misery and ignorance and for south asia entrenched poverty. Its only with some grace and the right conditions and after a great deal of suffering which is true for Afghanistan war ruined countryside, Pakistan's poor economic conditions, and India's huge number of poor and economically depressed majority of the population and true also for westerners facing failed policy and failure of vision as economic conditions deteriorate at home....

LyrArc Article Gist
Russian ambassador to Kabul Mr Kabulov talks about his experience in the Russian Afghan war when was the top KGB person in Kabul. He describes what he learned from the war, which he is telling Americans there and Nato forces leaders there. He makes a couple of important points. First, he says the Soviet record is largely unknown or unpresented, when it comes to helping modernize Afghan society in the cities like Kabul. This modernizing mission led to billions of rubles being spent on education, advancing the role of women, and building roads, dams and an industrial infrastructure. Of the mistakes Americans are making, he lists them one by one. "Because we deployed very easily into the major cities, we did'nt give much thought to what was happening in the countryside." He says there is an "irritative allergy" in the countryside, which is hard to control in a vast mountainous region, has historical basis which the British experienced, and is easy to stir up by sending large number of troops from European or Western powers. When these troops have to take retailatory steps such as destroying villages where insurgents are found along with the civilians there. That is why he thinks increasing American troop levels to double troop strength from current Nato levels of 65,000, can only stir up this"irritative allergy." The Soviets had 140,000 troops and this did not help. What he thinks would have beeen better was to let the Afghan army do the job, and for the Russians to say goodbye. America may be about to do just that, but in the meantime there may be an effort to create a respected Afghan government and army which inspires confidence and support in the meantime. What is clearly different here is that America is not fighting a proxy war with a superpower, and it is fighting awar for the soul of Pakistan now, so that at some point the wholehearted support of the people of Pakistan may be marshalled, especially if the Taliban alienate moderate Islamic Pakistanis and America can wean away Afghan Islamic moderates and get rural support from tribes and other sources....

LyrArc Article Gist
Lt. Gen John Allen will succeed Gen Petraeus in leading the war effort in Afghanistan. Allen was the deputy commander in Anbar province, Iraq, from 2006-2008. He backed Colonel Sean MacFarland's efforts to get Sunni tribal leaders to join the U.S. against Al Quaeda militants- which came to be called the Sunni Awakening. Allen is close to Gen. Petraeus and has the skills and diplomacy that Petraeus is known for. He is described as someone who understands that the war in Afghanistan involves policy, politics, perceptions and diplomacy.

LyrArc Article Gist
Pakistan has moved ahead in developing its nuclear arsenal. The production of uranium and plutonium for bombs and developing new weapons to deliver them has actually been accelerated during the recent period of unrest in Pakistan. Four years ago Pakistan had an estimated 30 to 60 weapons. Hans Kristensen, is the director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists and author of the annual global nuclear weapons inventory published by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Kristensen says it is not unreasonable to say that Pakistan has produced at least 100 weapons. Simon Gregory, Director of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at Britain's University of Bradford, puts the number at between 100 and 110. India is estimated to have 60 to 100 nuclear weapons. A 2008 agreement that lets India purchase nuclear fuel for civilian purposes was a motivation for accelerating nuclear weapons development in Pakistan. In December 2008, Peter Lavoie, the US intelligence officer for South Asia, told NATO officials that despite impending economic catastrophe, Pakistan is producing nuclear weapons at a faster rate than any other country in the world," according to classified State Department cables released late last year by the Intenet site WikiLeaks. This leak angered the Pakistan army chief Gen. Kayani who said "the real aim of US war strategy is to denuclearize Pakistan."...

LyrArc Article Gist
Michelle Obama and the "Let Girls Learn" Initiative in 2015 for the 62 million girls not in school.

LyrArc Article Gist
Defense Secretary Gates does not see Russia as the threat it was in the Cold War, first because Russia's conventional forces are a "shadow" of what they were during the Cold War, and Russia has adverse demographic trends that will diminish Russia's ability in conventional forces. He sees the Georgian war in the context of Russia's seeking to exorcize, as he puts it, past humiliations. And Gates sees opportunities in the relationship with Russia. Such things as Russia's willingness to work with the US on Afghanistan. Evidence of this is Russia supporting the renwal of the UN resolution on Afghanistan. Another indication is that Russia he says is very worried about the drugs coming out of Afghanistan, and has been supportive to provide alternative routes for Europeans to get equipment and supplies into Afghanistan. These views come across in an interview on December 17, with Charlie Rose, a five time elected Congressman, for the PBS Charlie Rose show. They are also reflected in an article in Foreign Affairs journal's current issue. Gates was a CIA analyst and has some insightful observations. Gates told Charlie Rose that he does not see the Islamic radicals and violent Islamic extremists as a threat in the same way as the threat in the Cold War years. This threat is not as big as the threat to freedom during the Cold War. He says the failure in strategic communications was huge as agencies of the US government engaged in activities in other countries, like the Agency for International Development and the US Information Agency, were neglected starting in the in the 1990's. Communications in other countries of what the US represented and stands for was left to the Pentagon, a role the Pentagon was ill-suited for. He sees the Islamic terrorism as more of an ideological conflict. Speaking at a town hall meeting at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, in December, Gates pointed to these communications failures as a real challenge for the new administration. But he now sees a huge opportunity in this past failure, and ways of addressing it creatively, in addition to commiting resources and people to this effort. Walter Pincus wrote this article, and its part of the fineprint analysis effort at the Washington Post in which speeches, reports, and other documents are examined by people like Pincus, to catch the really important things, uncovering the fine print that really makes the headlines. Another aspect of this fineprint effort is that there are a huge number of reports, and speeches and documents that had a tone reminiscent of the Cold War during the Georgia war and yet they do not correctly reflect the real situation about Russia, as Gates sees it from his analysis of what is actually happening. Gates has used Foreign Affairs, the Dec 17 Charlie Rose Show on PBS in which he was interviewed, and the speech at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, to communicate his views and analysis. They are important to underline and emphasize precisely because they show that all that cold war hysteria reporting and speeches may be misleading and lead to improper conclusions and mistakes in policy, wasted effort, wasted resources, and lost lives. And just as the US strategic communications was starved of resources and effort, so also this necessary work to retrieve and give emphasis to the important things is neglected. One additional link to this is the speech, discussion, and QA session in Washington DC at the time of the G20 summit in which President Medvedev and the new administration's elder statesman and diplomat Marilyn Albright, former secretary of state, expressed their hopes and plans for a new era in Russian-American relations. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Interesting and quite useful from a sociological and psychological point of view, that people believe what they want to believe. Even today writes Slackman, the Arabs and Muslims from Dubai malls to people one meets in a park in Algiers, cafes in Riyadh, and in shops and places all over Cairo, say the USA organized 9/11 so that they could attack 2 Muslim states, Iraq and Afghanistan. If we changed it a bit and said Rumsfeld and Cheney got the perfect excuse to attack Afghanistan's Taliban government from 9/11. It created the kind of fears in the US public about terrorists, individual, or state sponsored terrorism like Iraq's against the Marsh Shiites after the Kuwait war (which was a personal affront to both Rumsfeld and Cheney as they let it happen right under their eyes), then one can extend that to say Rumsfeld and Cheney felt they now had the opportunity to get Saddam out. So once you have the US even for good moral reason eager to intervene, this eagerness may not require too much of a stretch to be seen as the US administration engineering this atmosphere by organizing 9/11, or by letting it happen. This is true for an Arab public that feels humiliated and sees a loss of respect from all the setbacks they have suffered, including in Egypt where a President has maintained himself in power for thirty long years and has American support. And most of these people haven't left their surroundings, so they haven't seen the world outside. What they beleieve is only what is possible from what they can see possible from their immediate surroundings. From a -sociological and psychological perspective this is certainly possible and even realistic. When Friedman in the New York Times says its shameless that the 2 Republican candidates can speak of being change agents when Republicans have been in power for 8 years, and still the Republican faithful and some independents believe this, they have not lost their wits but may see this in terms of their gut feel and in terms of their own personal experiences and surroundings. Even when Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal sees little hope from either candidate when it comes to lobbyists influencing them and proof of this from lobbyists for Fannie and Freddie as their senior advisors. Then its still possible for Republican faithful, however weird it may appear to an informed observer,to see McCain and Palin as agents of change. Same is true for Obama. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Lt. Gen Zahir ul-Islam takes over as director general of the ISI, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, a key part of Pakstan's Army. The role of Army chief Kayani and ul-Islam now become critical in forging a U.S. peace settlement in Afghanistan.

LyrArc Article Gist
Problems with the rural development and agriculture projects conducted by USAID in Afghanistan include overspending in 2009, followed by sharp cutbacks in 2010 and 2011 as budget cuts were made. In 2009 USAID made a grant of $300 million to Arlington based International Relief and Development (IRD) to help farmers in Kandahar and Helmand improve productivity over just one year, at the insistence of Richard Holbrooke. The focus was on paying for day labor jobs to clean canals, offer subsidized seeds to encourage switching from opium poppies, distributing tractors, and building gravel roads. Because many districts of the two provinces were considered unsafe for work, much of the money was concentrated on a few districts and in one year. As a result farmers in Kandahar got more seed than they needed and they in turn sold tons of seed and tractors in Pakistan for cash. A senior program official at IRD says it wasn't realistic to pour so much money in one year. But USAID officials say overspending and poor oversight made the program seriously flawed. There was also a difference in the views of the military and USAID on the value of day jobs. The U.S. military sees this as away of protecting its efforts, of literally protecting its flanks, as this keeps unemployed youth from joining the Taliban. At the same time senior USAID officials wanted to see multiple companies bid for the next $350 millon on a follow-on project. When the USAID team of specialists again awarded it to IRD, senior offficials at USAID decided to cancel the program. The program was then redesigned in the expectation that other companies would bid for it. In the meantime USAID gave IRD 3 quarterly extensions, the last expiring June 30, 2011. The US military sees the day labor program as crucial for its military efforts, so there is kind of an impasse with USAID reluctantly giving in. IRD meantime is shutting down activites in Helmand and will do this also in Kandahar probably by the end of May, as its contract has not been renewed because of problems with the program. USAID has a high staff turnover rate of 85% a year in Kabul which complicates things with the shifting priorities of different officials. Some programs are being scaled back- a job retraining program seen as requiring $125 million over 18 months is being scaled back to $40 million. Others such as a USAID project for coordinating disparate rural rehabilitation projects for $140 million is held back because of lack of agreement with the Afghan government about how it should proceed. In parts of Kandahar USAID had found several contractors doing the same work. See the groups on Dexter Filkins, and on Commander Adams, which touch on serious development issues and the war....

LyrArc Article Gist
Bruce Reidel, Obama administration advisor on the war in Afghanistan, conducted a policy review in 2009. He says a policy of engagement he advised in 2009 now needs reshaping. He points to recent events that show the Pakistani ISI and the military who run Pakistan are in direct conflict with U.S. policy in the region. Especially after the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Kabul and the killing of a former Afghan president who was expected to lead peace talks. Reidel says this requires a reshaping of U.S. policy and a policy of containment which would reduce military assistance to Pakistan, and at the same time shape policies that would help the people of Pakistan, such as reducing tariffs on textiles.

LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman on the $110 billion to fight wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan that does little to advance American interests and values. Especially today when the peoples of the Middle East are struggling to be free of the corrupt military regimes that have ruled their countries, and are trying to setup democratic processes in their countries. The pressing needs at home which are better attended to with these funds. The need to redirect some of this to help young people in the Muslim world bring new hope, development and democratic processes to their countries.