LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Defense Secretary Panetta says the U.S. will hand over provinces to Afghan government forces and complete the transition to a training role in 2013. This is part of the withdrawal of NATO forces and comes after France's president Sarkozy proposed reducing France's committment in Afghanistan. Panetta said he would tell NATO partners- "We all went in together and we will go out together." This also fits in with the changing picture in the region, poor relations with Pakistan, sentiment in the U.S. and Europe focussed on the economic crisis, and direct talks with the Taliban for a post-NATO settlement of the conflict.

LyrArc Article Gist
President Obama ordered the surge in 2010 for 30,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. There are now 150,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan. Of these two thirds are Americans. The goal of the surge was set by President Obama as " disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Quaeda and its extremist allies" in Afghanistan. Yet the fact remains that official estimates on the coallition side are for only about 100 or so al Quaeda militants operating in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan is being fought with Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan who also live in the mountainous region that comprises Pakistan and Afghanistan, and has some form of clandestine support from sections of the Pakistani military and intelligence services- the Pakistani military having played a critical role in the formation of the Taliban from its inception to act as Pakistan's proxy in that region. With the democracy protests in the Arab world in 2011, al Quaeda does not fit into the existing mood in the Middle East and the Muslim world. Considering these facts- and the mood favoring American disengagement on the part of America's allies in the Afghan government and Pakistan's military, and the American public mood favoring disengagement, the Taliban seeing their conflict as purely domestic and little to do with al Quaeda- the situation is likely to move in the direction of phased American withdrawal. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial calls the ISI and Pakistan army's playing both sides of the game- acting as an ally of the U.S. and supporting the Taliban- unacceptable. The editorial points to the Taliban and its leader Mullah Omar running the operations out of Quetta, in Baluchistan. And the Taliban faction loyal to Jalaluddin Haqqani having sanctuaries in North Waziristan and the tribal regions of Pakistan. Al Quaeda's No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri, it says, could very well be in Pakistan in some compound in the manner of bin Laden.

LyrArc Article Gist
A U.S. drone strike kills Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan leader Hakimullah Mehsud in the North Waziristan tribal area near the Afghan border on Nov. 2, 2013. It also takes out several of his closest aides. This follows the arrest in Afghanistan of his deputy chief, Latif Mehsud leaving a power vacuum in the TTP. The government of Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan opposes drone strikes publicly because of the unpopularity of the strikes in Pakistan. Yet this week Pakistan interior minister speaking in parliament disclosed that only about 67 civilians had died in drone strikes that killed 2160 militants. Because Mehsud was an extremely violent leader in the TTP and remained a threat to the government and army in Pakistan, this may be seen inside the government and army with relief so that a new chapter can be turned for Pakistan that focuses on development efforts, something that Pakistan prime minister Nawas Sharif was elected to accomplish in his term in office. This may also be a positive step for a peaceful transition in the region following U.S. withdrawal, and for peace talks mediated by Britain's prime minister Cameron between Pakistan and Afghanistan....

LyrArc Article Gist
Reports from Afghanistan say that at a high level meeting took place in Kabul on April 16, 2011, between the top leaders of Pakistan and the government of Afghanistan. At that meeting Prime Minister Yousaf Gilani of Pakistan is said to have suggested that Afghanistan distance itself from the U.S. and work more closely with Pakistan and China. The story was first reported in the Wall Street Journal.

LyrArc Article Gist
Troops who served in Konar province near the Pakistan border saw some of the heaviest fighting in Afghanistan. Here they give their account of what they saw and why there is a big gap in what they saw and what military officers and President Obama are telling Americans. Fort Campbell is spread out over 100,000 acres on the Kentucky-Tennessee border. Tweny thousand troops from this base served in Afghanistan. Brigades of the 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell fought some of the toughest battles in the eastern part of Afghanistan even while the surge concentrated troops in the southern part near populated centers. What the troops remember is battles fought in remote valleys where troops came out of nowhere like "ghosts," in areas which were held only for a few months and abandoned with no idea what they had accomplished. This description also fits with the reality of the Taliban being both Pakistani and Afghan in the sense that the borders were defined by the British during colonial times, but the tribes of the Pashtun region are on both sides, in Pakistan and Afghanistan. To subdue the region would be to subdue the Pakistani side and the support they enjoy in large parts of Pakistan, with the large and mountainous terrain making movement difficult. Which is why these troops talk about "ghosts" turning up from nowhere and find the fighting to have lost meaning in terms of purposes it is supposed to accomplish and how this is to be done. The reality of the valleys and hills over a vast mountainous terrain of Afghanistan and Pakistan and the people and fighting there does not fit the speeches made by President Obama on Afghanistan, and say soldiers this gap is widening every day....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist points out (in this cover issue on India-Pakistan relations) several fundamental facts. The first is that the current state of relations betweeen India and Pakistan hurts Pakistan the most. It makes a much smaller country and smaller economy bear the burden of defense against a large neighbor- defense takes up much needed allocation of funds for infrastructure and development, education and healthcare. It also weakens democratic institutions and their development by an overdependence on the military for governance. Poor India-Pakistan relations have significant adverse effects on the U.S. In fighting the Taliban U.S. forces are fighting a force that Pakistan's military helped create and support from its early beginnings as a way to counter Indian influence. With an Indian-Pakistani peace settlement of issues in Kashmir and other outstanding issues the U.S. would be in a significantly better position to disengage from the region, especially when the entire Middle East is moving in a new direction in 2011. Consider the difficulties in establishing peace in Northern Ireland, and between Turkey and Greece, and the difficulties of establishing peace between India and Pakistan cannot be considered even more difficult. Pakistan and India muddle along- neither side is doing much to take the initiative. For the U.S. disengagement from South Asia can be best achieved by pushing for a settlement between the two countries. Pakistan and India have much to gain from a settlement. Considering the progress made in Ireland, such places as Yugoslavia, and in Turkish-Greek relations, there is a lot more that can be done and should be done to bring India and Pakistan together. In Ireland diplomatic efforts were made by U.S. envoy George Mitchell, and in Yugoslavia U.S. envoy Holbrooke made diplomatic efforts towards the Dayton accords. Greek-Turkish relations have advanced to the point where Erdogan and Papandreou, the Greek and Turkish prime ministers, discuss solutions to the Greek debt crisis. This includes options to reduce Greece's defense expenditures in the light of Turkey's new foreign policies. The lack of such efforts to break the deadlock between India and Pakistan by the U.S,. the U.K. and other countries involved in the NATO mission in Afghanistan, the emphasis on a military solution supported first by Gen. McChrystal, and then by by Gen. Petraeus, all show a lack of understanding of the real issues that need to be tackled- issues relating to a peace settlement between India and Pakistan....

LyrArc Article Gist
Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. and Britain, has edited a collection of essays in a new book titled- Pakistan: Beyond the "Crisis State." It tries to form a new construct to move the debate on Pakistan into a future in which Pakistan can exist as a "normal country" free of a paranoia about India that affects its outlook, and free from the military connections that have shifted the focus from development that a friendly neighborly coexistence with India would provide. Intriguing essays include one by Saadat Hasa Manto who goes back to 1951, when the Cold War was at its peak and the U.S. formed a relationship with Pakistan based on military assistance, with only small fraction of aid going into development programs. Syed Rifaat Hussain, professor of strategic studies at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad puts it directly: Pakistan needs to become a normal state and the only way to to do this is for the rivalry and obsession with India to be resolved and put behind it. As it now stands the U.S., India and Pakistan all stand to gain tremendously in such an outcome- the U.S. disengagement from Afghanistan and the Taliban because at its core the Taliban issue goes back to the Pakistan rivalry with India, Pakistan and India because it puts the focus on development, infrastructure building, and economic gains....

LyrArc Article Gist
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman's view of Afghnistan differs significantly from New York Times correspondent Filkins understanding from years of reporting going back about a decade. Filkins sees the complexities of Pastun country inside Afghnistan and Pakistan and the military and ISI's involvement, and other correspondents have pointed to the narcotics trade and corruption. Kerry's simplistic view is that the Taliban do not enjoy much support, when actually Americans are seen on the ground as foreign occupiers. These correspondents in the field point to this as an everpresent danger, which would tilt support to those fighting foreigners, with nationalist and Muslim sentiment prevailing over everything else. And Kerry appears to be too willing to dismiss allegations of narcotics involvement of the Karzai administration with the "show me" comment. For critics of the Bush administration this is simply astounding, when so much is at stake. Does patient mean digging in one's heels slowly? But that is how the Vietnam intervention ran into trouble, without public sentiment in support of the plans....

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
Chandrasekeran looks back on the troop surge ordered by President Obama on the advice of General Petraeus and General McChrystal in Afghanistan, and the results in Afghanistan as the U.S. withdraws troops in 2012-2013.

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
Michael Getler describes the missed opportunity under President Obama for using one of America's most talented diplomats to engineer a peace agreement between the warring factions in Afghanistan- the U.S., the Pakistan army, the ISI and its support in the army, the Taliban, and the other parties such as the Haqqani faction and the Afghan government of Karzai. Holbrooke had used his experience for another President, with the same force of his larger than life personality, when he helped bring about the Dayton Accords in a similiar area of stubborn ethnic strife. Could Obama have tapped Holbrooke's skills and set aside the distractions of his personality as coming from an American with unique gifts, talent and achievement, is the question Getler asks. And is this a comment on the nature of the Obama Presidency and America's poorly invested hopes.