World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


The Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
William Galston in the WSJ says outright for the first time in the WSJ that the years from the last term of Clinton, through the Bush, and Obama administrations were an outright failure for the American people. He documents the losses- 5.7 million job losses in 2000-2010 as Clinton opened China's entry into the World Trade Organization without any precautions taken to prevent abuse of world trading rules after the experience with Japan. Worse no help to the displaced workers which fed into the resentment of workers. Sex scandals weakened the presidency and acted as the major distraction during the last years of Bill Clinton. Over the administrations of Bush and Obama almost the entire US manufacturing base was dismantled and shipped to China. Pharmaceutical companies were allowed to charge recklessly when Bush disallowed Medicare to negotiate prices for pharmacueticals placing additional burdens on the American people. Bush started long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that cost the US dearly in lives and resources wasted with no vital US interests at stake as in Europe. This distracted attention from problems simmering at home. Obama continued these wars preferring to focus on reelection. The migration crisis, the neglect of infrastructure worsened during this period. The Bush deregulation of banks led to the 2009 world banking crisis that led to large layoffs worsening a bad situation from outshoring and creating a class of unemployed, and shrinking household wealth and savings. The Biden administration, the first Trump administration and now the second have started the process of revival of the US. And yet Biden, DJT are relative outsiders who came to the presidency and were not favored in the established order of the 1990-2016 period. One can say about Blair, Cameron, Boris Johnson in Britain, about Clinton, Bush, Obama in the US, and Schroeder, Merkel in Germany that the leadership was mediocre and failed the people of Europe and the people of America.     ...
POLITICO Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
In May 2023 Germany's Scholz overruled Habeck to let sale of 24.9% of Hamburg port to COSCO go through. Here is how over 2000-2016 China build its world class network of containerized shipping ports while the second Bush added the war in Afghanistan to the wars in Iraq started by Reagan/Bush. Without defense costs China built this world ports network. Piraeus in Greece, south of Athens, a port concession acquired in 2004 Antwerp in Belgium (Austrian Netherlands), a minority stake in a container port acquired in 2008. In 2013 with sale of Terminal Link ports in a Cosco 49% stake deal by CMA of France CMA holding 51%, China has stakes in Zeerbrugge and Antwerp, Busan South Korea, and Le Havre, Montoir and Fos in France, Xiamen in China, Miami and Houston in US. Rotterdam, Netherlands- Cosco acquired in 2016 a 35% stake in Euromax Terminal in Rotterdam from Hong Kong's Hutchison's Holdings for $125 million. Valencia and Bilbao majority  51% stake for $270 million, when JP Morgan paid as much as $950 million to ACS of Spain for these ports after the 2009 crisis led to Spanish divestments. Today measured in TEU shipping containers China sends goods to Europe 10 times what it takes in through Spanish ports. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Defense spending under the new Obama 2012-2013 budget for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1, 2012, is $525 billion, and an additional $88 billion for Afghanistan. This is $6 billon below the $531 billion budget for the 2011-2012 budget of $531 billion approved by Congress, $22 billion less than the Obama administration's proposed budget. An additional $115.1 billion was for Afghanistan. In a move to bring financial discipline to additional appropriations for foreign conflicts, the Obama administration is proposing in the 2012-2013 budget proposal a limit to "overseas contingency operations" appropriations. The total proposed is $450 billion for fiscal 2013 to 2021.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The current number of American soldiers in Afghanistan of 32,000 in May 2014 will be reduced to about 9,800 after 2014, which would be cut to about 5000 in 2015, an leave only a small force of specially trained forces to protect the embassy and for additional security. Residual forces will include trainers and Special Operations forces to keep a check on Quaeda loyalists in remote parts of Afghanistan and in the mountains. The drones have accomplished much of the work done in earlier phases of the war by ground troops. The Afghan war has also been all about Pakistan. The completion of a full term in office of a democratically elected government for the first time, and the election of the Sharif government, including the participation of tribal and other Muslim extremists in elections, have been the hidden face of the war changing its face in other ways. The beginning of a focus on development in Pakistan and India, and the election of a new government in Aghanistan, the peace talks with the Taliban, are other parts of the shift to winding down America's presence coming from changes in the region itself- by changing the very nature of the conflict itself and isolating the most extremist elements....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The talks for a peace settlement with the Taliban hosted in London in Feb. 2013 by Britain's prime minister, David Cameron. The talks were between Cameron, Pakistan's president Asif Zardari, and Afghanistan president Karzai. The effort is designed to prevent a civil war after the NATO and U.S. withdrawal in 2013-2014.
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Making some territorial concessions appears to be the only way for peace talks to succeed. For a long time there was insistence on territorial sovereignty of Ukraine by EU and NATO leaders. This appears to have prolonged the war- with needless loss of life on both sides, and costly damage to Ukraine infrastructure, a population that had to face additional winters and hardship in war ravaged areas. NATO's Stoltenberg from Norway, leaders of northern Nordic and Baltic countries, the UK, could take that position without having to face the hardship of the war. NATO had to be re-formed under a new name and new structure  following the collapse of the Soviet Union, with wariness about the possibility of centuries old since 1700 UK and Nordic historical adversarial relationship with Russia casting a shadow over that organization, and embroiling the US in conflicts not of its own choice or of wise leadership. This is the root cause of the Ukraine war. It would have been best to completely restructure NATO and give it a new name without Northern European nations leading it. Principles matter once soviet communism was no longer there NATO formed for its expansionism in 1950's had served it's purpose. Rasmussen from Denmark and Stoltenberg from Norway led the organization for the last decade and half from 2009-2014 and 2014 to 2025, with backing from Obama/Merkel for most of the period of the war in Ukraine. Also most of the period NATO expanded to Russian borders happened under Northern European leaders from Spain, Britain and Nordics (Solana, Robertson, Scheffer, Rasmussen and Stoltenberg) and the organization NATO getting the northern European slant based on historical adversarial relationship of Britain and Russia since 1700- for no other reason than the British wanting to protect its large Empire and commerce in India which in the 18th and 19th century included most of Asia. Under Robertson the UK Defense Secretary much of this transformation into turning NATO into something anti-Russian happened which was primarily because of British and Nordic perceptions of Russia as an adversary. Robertson added the following countries at the Prague Summit in 2002 to NATO- the Baltics, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Russia faced internal upheaval in those years and Yeltsin in resigned in 1999, Putin was elected in 2000. It is clear that Russia had suffered severe economic hardship in that period and Putin's first goal in 2002 was to stabilize the economy.  It could be said that this turning NATO over to UK and Nordics was a huge mistake considering that Russia was still the largest nuclear power after the US, and British policy was now determining US policy. And Britain's Robertson/NATO should not have involved itself in the Afghanistan war using Article 5, as the US could have handled this alone and limited that engagement. It got US involved in another conflict, conflict with Russia that was to come in Ukraine on the side of the Baltics and Ukraine, without US clearly understanding what the roots of that war was about and implied confrontation with Russia 20 years after the Prague Summit in 2002 under George Bush junior. The incompetence of Bush and Obama/Merkel laid the seeds of the Ukraine war in 2022 following Robertson, Rasmussen, Stoltenberg, small Nordic nations and Britain creating a conflict that did not need to happen, with loss of hundreds of thousands of lives of Russian speaking fraternal peoples of both Russia and Ukraine. The Republican sentiment under DJT of the tragedy of such huge losses of young people, and desire to end this loss of life, can nowhere be seen in bellicose talk in northern European nations, that take the US for granted to fight their wars.  The wisdom of Washington, Lincoln and TR/FDR clearly caution in getting involved in European centuries old animosities. For the US it meant in practical terms that it could no longer carry out the Monroe Doctrine essential for peace and good governance in the western hemisphere as only a Russia desperate to make its views known about NATO would interfere in the western hemisphere against US assertion of the Monroe Doctrine with the US Navy. Instead drug trafficking gangs took over Latin American countries and created a flow of fentanyl and millions of people through migrant traffickers across the US southern border. As America has expressed its concern for loss of Russian and Ukrainian men in the war for the first time under DJT Russia has distanced itself from Venezuela, Mexico and Latin America. The loss of hundreds of thousands of young Americans to fentanyl is a shared tragedy with the loss of hundreds of thousands of young Russians and Ukrainians in the last decade. How reliable are Northern European countries when it comes to protecting the eastern seaboard of the US with the acquisition of Greenland? It is a policy pursued by presidents since the Alaska Acquisition from Russia. By Seward, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and DJT. Denmark the land where NATO secretary general Rasmussen was from followed by Stoltenberg from Norway  (for 15 of the years of the war in Ukraine 2010-2025) the US efforts to protect its eastern seaboard are rebuffed by both Denmark and Norway, and the US presented in a negative light as an imperialist power in the face of Danish East India Company's  colonial attitude since 1700 clearly imitating the colonial British East India company.  It shows Northern European nations looking out for themselves not for the US, and embroiling the US in their wars at the cost of the entire western hemisphere being destabilized. The population of UK, Denmark and Norway, Baltics is far less than the Mumbai, Shanghai, Sao Paulo , Berlin and Tokyo regions. Should the views of a small population in northern Europe of 2% of the total determine the future of US, Europe, China, India, Brazil, and other parts of the world with 5 billion people the 98%, when issues of war and nuclear conflict, nuclear buildup, the western hemisphere destabilized with drug trafficking gangs running rampant in countries, divide the world in opposing blocs, when the wellbeing of most of the world's people in Asia and Latin America, Africa is at stake by establishing a essential degree of cooperation by all sides. The US under DJT has chosen a wise policy of cooperation over conflict -with China, with Russia, with all the major powers, and with smaller powers. Reading the wisdom contained in the writings of Washington, Lincoln, TR/FDR confirms it is clearly the wise choice. ...
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Maggie Haberman has covered Donald Trump from the period before he ran for president in 2016. Here she looks back at this period and reflects on the trial in New York with Judge Merchan, the campaign trail, and reflects on what it all means today to the people of the 51 states. She says it shows a former president who sees his best days in the 1980's when the Trump Tower was built, the connections with the New York elites who at once ignored and embraced this new view of the world and a place for greed in this world. It is also a period that began with Reagan Bush and the start of the Iran Iraq wars, the Bush war in Afghanistan, the Clinton embrace of economics that led to decline in US manufacturing, the 2009 financial crisis and Obama's continued war in Afghanistan- a period of decline in standard of living of the American people and failure to invest in essential infrastructure to improve quality of living.

The Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The US envoy to Belarus responds to overtures from Belarus's leader Lukashenko for improved relations, release of hundreds of political prisoners including the husband of a opposition leader who is thought to have won the last Belarus open elections in 2020. Today it is not realized that politicians with lack of vision or foresight - Bush, Obama, Merkel, failed to grasp that in 2020 two events happened that were linked- the Belarus electons bringing another pro-EU government on Russia's border which was squashed before it could take office and the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong also squashed in 2020 by China PRC. Crimea was made part of Russia in 2014 when Ukrainian protesters in Kviv and Lviv near Poland ousted the government of pro Russia leader Yanukovych in the Maidan revolution. Russia under Putin responded 2014-2020 with a simmering effort to take parts of eastern Ukraine that were close to and sympathetic to Russia. This was an effort to counter NATO or pro-EU countries coming to Russia's borders in the way JFK opposed pro-Russian regime in Cuba. Obama and Merkel never understood or grasped this or were too involved in the eurozone, migration crises (Merkel) or war in Afghanistan (Obama). The result was that in 2020 Russia helped squash the election results in Belarus with another pro-EU government impending. Within 2 years Russia under Putin with tacit Chinese support invaded Ukraine in Feb 2022. Belarus shares a border with Russia and it is closely allied with Russia in the Eurasian Economic Zone that includes former Soviet Bloc countries such as Kazakhstan. Gradually following the recovery of the Russian economy by 2010 the emphasis shifted to create something similar to the Soviet Union, a bloc of countries in central Asia and in Eastern Europe that are part of a Russian sphere of influence. For much of the period of the Obama/ Merkel administrations in US and Germany this was ignored as most of the politicians never gave Russia the importance it sought, not accepting that the economic power was not measured only in GDP- also in science and technology, nuclear technologies, space, in energy resources, and Russia's position in Northern/Central Europe and Central Asia since 1700.  It is this situation that the DJT administration faced with US challenges of the Mexican and Venezuelan drug and people trafficking in the western hemisphere has responded with the Monroe Doctrine to reassert American influence in Latin America by respecting Russia's effort to have some measure of influence on its borders, that the US seeks on it's borders. Without Russian or Chinese intervention in Latin America and with the the Monroe Doctrine in place America can protect the interests of the American people and the people of Latin America for free and good government. What Bush, Obama, Merkel lost sight of is that by each power having some strong measure of influence in their regions, and the tendencies for benevolent influence put in place, there is significantly more room for respecting the hopes and aspirations of people in their regions through democratic or other people oriented forms of government than by the situation in which economically the US was dominant after the fall of the Berlin Wall but other influences would lead to US decline- open but not free trade with China, and the recovery of the Russian economy, drug and people trafficking by gangs in Latin America where the Monroe Doctrine for US leadership had prevailed till the 1960's. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A New York Times/CBS poll shows 69% of Americans polled between March 21-25, 2012, feel the U.S. should not be involved in a war in Afghanistan. This is up from 53%, in a poll only 4 months before this poll.
Washington Post Original article ›
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....
The Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
DJT appeared on Oz's health show in 2016 as a presidential candidate, and sees OZ as a fellow tv show host, a kindred spirit with a passion for what he is doing. As head of Medicare and Medicaid after afailed effort for a Senate seat from Pennsylvania, Oz is still someone whit a keen sense for the politics as well as what is good for the healthcare of Americans. He shares apassion for good health as a goal for America that was held up by JFK, and his nephew Robert Kennedy Jr who now leads the Make America Health Again movement. Oz fervently believes the time for healthy America is now after many wasted years under Clinton/Bush/Obama when national interests were neglected for places like Bosnia in a historical conflict of Turks and Serbia that goes back centuries (Clinton), in the deserts of Iraq (older Bush), in the mountains of Afghanistan that claimed Brezhnev as a victim the younger Bush followed, two wars prolonged by Obama and closed by DJT and Biden. Something as basic as health and pharmaceutical prices was allowed to get as bad as it is in 2026 with prices through the roof. DJT's plan is to get the pharmaceutical companies to commit to certain prices, to the lowest price they sell the same medicine in Europe. This is what Dr Oz wants to see not just for the next 3 years but put into established practice for the future years.  Oz says about presenting the DJT plan on healthcare to Congress and the Nation- “We didn’t demand that they do it. We said, ‘This is something that is very popular and highly achievable.’ ” Healthcare costs, gas and automobile costs, energy costs, housing costs are all part of the 4-5 costs that are the key elements in the cost of living crisis or affordability crisis that is uppermost on the minds of Americans. Already the Medicare payments to insurers are going to be flat for 2026 compared to 2025, as part of policy to get costs down, push pharmaceutical costs down. ...
New York Times Original article ›
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.
The Guardian Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Biden calls ending the war in Afghnistan a "wise decision" for the American people. He says in his foreign policy speech that "it is about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries." A Pew Research poll shows 54% of American adults support the decision.  In a sense the decision had already been made. Biden cited the Doha agreement president Trump signed a year ago with Taliban that called for the release of 5000 Taliban prisoners which included most of the top commanders, and no agreement on the future of Afghanistan. The decision had come much earlier than that when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the period of George Bush were rejected by the American people for the cost and lack of purpose during the presidential election of 2016. That period marked the rejection of policies set under Reagan, Bush and Obama for starting American involvement in the Iraq-Iran conflict first on one side and then on the other side. All the time precious resources that were needed for infrastructure and services in education and healthcare were diverted to these wars, impoverishing America and also Europe. Looking beyond the words thrown around for political advantage both Trump and Biden and the American people, had decided to put these wars behind them 5-10 years earlier. Biden said assertively that America had made a tragic wrong turn, that was all he could say about Reagan, Bush, Obama policy. In the meantime he stated something else was happening- the US was losing its position in the world by wasting its resources in these wars that do not serve the interests of America. "There is nothing China and Russia would want more in this competition than the US to be bogged down for another ten years in these wars."  Biden was saying that he had the courage and tenacity to make a decision that was the right one and a wise one for America against all the transient opinion of people who lacked a grasp of what was happening to the American people- the increasing impoverishing of America in both rural and urban areas. And a similar situation in Europe. It was time to take a new turn, close this chapter, and write a new one in American history, brighter and with new sense of hope. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Gates experience one rainy night in March, at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, welcoming 4 dead soldiers who lost their lives to a roadside bomb on a rutted road near Jalalabad, Afghanistan, provides an insight into what he sees as important for the US military. One is to address the realities of the war that is facing the US in the now, not some theoretical conventional war as the Pentagon is overly focused on. This war is fought in insurgencies in Iraq and in the Pakistan-Afghanistan area. And even the takeover of nuclear weapons by Taliban, is not ruled out with the collapse of the government in Pakistan. So he sees reason for doing things quickly. At Dover that night, Gates expressed his anger to his staff, "find out why they had'nt gotten their goddamn MRAP's yet (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles). Gates went into the 747 carrying the draped coffins, and knelt alone and prayed for 5 minutes. Gates was President of Texas A&M University, before he took the assignment at Defense during the last 2 years of the Bush administration. He knows the ways of the bureaucracy, and is a persistent and effective when faced with lack of cooperation and delays. When the field commanders in Afghanistan said they needed 40 Predator combat air patrols instead of the 12 they had, Gates went around the bureaucratic delays and had his task force set up and and doing problem solving down to details. They went about getting more flying time, and pilots, and control stations in the air force to support this. He keeps presentations limited to 45 minutes, and inists all slides be turned in the day before, for him to look over carefully. And he is decisive in making changes. The Army Secretary was asked to come to Washington immediately, and fired on the spot, not Gates says for the appalling conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital, but for not acknowledging that problems existed and taking quick action to fix them. And Gates is using the 2010 Defense budget to steer away from large scale conventional weapons programs, and get more money for the immediate needs of the field commanders in the wars being fought today. He makes it clear in talking with lawmakers, that "listening to our troops and commanders, unvarnished and unscripted, has from the moment I took the job been the greatest single source of ideas on what the department needs to do." In doing this he has to face up to the bureaucracy and set ways of doing things at the Defense Department, things that were never questioned under his predecessor Rumsfeld. In 2008 the generals who run the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps formally "non-concurred" with the classified version of Gates's National Defense Strategy, which said it was necessary "to take additional acceptable risk" in the area of conventional war so that the military could improve its ability to fight irregular wars. Gates met with all the defense chiefs to listen to their objections, and decided to draw his own conclusion after thinking it over, that the reasons given "were non-compelling," considering the grave dangers that the military was facing in existing wars. Gates is convinced that its his job to give the troops in the field the equipment and resources they need, and he is not letting the military brass or officials block the way. He does not let the criticism affect him. Gates is very quiet when he listens to arguments presented on the other side that he does not share, responding in a thoughtful and controlled manner. Last week, Jaffe of the WPost says, Gates flew to Afghnistan to ask for the resignation of Gen McKiernan the field commander there, a man he had chosen 11 months earlier, but now felt was the wrong man for the job. During this trip he visited a new base being built in southern Afghanistan, and met four marines whose MRAP vehicle took the blast from a roadside bomb, all survived with minor scratches and injuries, and one broken arm. Gates was mightily pleased. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
How to build a global port network with less cash- China's state owned Cosco and it's European ports network is an example of savy buying during financial crises, and when companies in Europe and the US were keen to make sales of ports. China simply integrated it into a vast exports network, using containerized terminal expansion modernization to build its manufacturing for export model. This was an extension of its domestic network where it added new port infrastructure to newly built rail and road connections.  India today is learning from this example. By 2000 the Chinese global export model was entrenched. It was also the year when the junior Bush president extended the wars of Reagan/Bush in Iraq of the 1980's to Afghanistan. China had a clear road ahead to build state of the art infrastructure of ports, logistics and exports over the next 10-15 years without any defense costs.  Piraeus in Greece south of Athens, a port concession acquired in 2004 Antwerp in Belgium (Austrian Netherlands), a minority stake in a container port acquired in 2008. In 2013 with sale of Terminal Link ports in a 49% stake deal by CMA of France holding 51%, China has stakes in Zeerbrugge and Antwerp, Busan South Korea, and Le Havre, Montoir and Fos in France, Xiamen in China, Miami and Houston in US. Rotterdam, Netherlands- Cosco acquired in 20126 a 35% stake in Euromax Terminal in Rotterdam from Hong Kong's Hutchison's Holdings for $125 million. Valencia and Bilbao majority  51% stake for $270 million, when JP Morgan paid as much as $950 million to ACS of Spain for these ports after the 2009 crisis led to Spanish divestments. Today in TEU's shipping containers China sends goods to Europe 10 times what it takes in through Spanish ports. Hamburg-In May 2023 Germany's Scholz overruled Habeck to let sale of 24.9% of Hamburg port to COSCO go through ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Inherent conflicts between views of Reidel, Biden and other policy advisors such Richard Holbrooke, all wary of Hamid Karzai's government in Afghanistan and General McChrystal -whose experience in tactical strategy was his strong point, not an overall perspective that took into account factors outside US control such as the people, their history, recent history, the terrain, lack of viable government, neighboring Pakistan- spill out into the open. Holbrooke, the special ambassador to the South Asian region has serious differences over Karzai with ambassador to Kabul, Eikenberrry, and with Jones, National Security Advisor. Eikenberry has his own differences with Karzai. See the group "Eikenberry Cables," which provides his cable reports from Afghanistan which talk about Karzai, the Afghan military, and the prospects there, in bleak terms. The same Eikenberry is shown here telling Jones that Holbrooke's chilled relations with Karzai are not helping, and Jones assuring Eikenberry that Holbrooke is on the way out. Followed by Secretary of State Clinton supporting Hilbrooke by talking to Obama. See also the group "April 2010 Biannual Defense Departmet Report on Afghanistan," which shows that of 92 districts surveyed none supported the Karzai government, somethig that must cause policy team members to pause and think....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The prospects for direct U.S. talks with the Taliban after the planned opening of a Taliban office in Qatar. The preliminary efforts were started by U.S. special envoy for S. Asia, Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke died in 2010, and his successor, Marc Grossman, a former ambassador to Turkey, has continued the efforts as senior representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Grossman now has a team of officials from the Defense Department, the State Department and Intelligence agencies working with him. After a decade of war, a shift in public opinion in the U.S. to domestic issues, and a withdrawal date by the international forces set for 2014, the time appears right for the negotiations that would end this war. Grossman has the backing of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in this push for a negotiated settlement with the Taliban. The recent deterioration of U.S. relations in Pakistan to a breaking point, the complex relationship between the Taliban and the Pakistan military, the growing unpopularity of the U.S. in Pakistan, the meaningless struggle with a Taliban with intrinsic links in the Pakistan military, and the fragility of the elected government in the country are other factors that may be leading the U.S. government to look at the bigger picture and grasp any opportunities towards a negotiated settlement. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah sign a powersharing agreement brokered by the U.S Secretary of State Kerry and president Karzai after Afghanistan elections in 2014. The question is whether the two can set aside their differences and make it work, and can they negotiate some form of peace agreement with the Taliban to give Afghanistan and the region years of peace after so much conflict. Pakistan and India's elites and military need to step up to the plate to set aside differences by looking to the long term future of the region and the aspirations of the people for better infrastructure, services, education and healthcare, so long denied to the region. The Kashmir floods, and the floods in Pakistan before that, recent elections in India and Pakistan showing the clear aspirations for development of the people, are a reminder of so much that remains to be done and so much that was never done.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Recruiting in the Afghan army from predominantly Pastun areas in the south and southeast is way down, almost nonexistent. For Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Zabul, Paktika, and Ghazni provinves with largely Pashtun people, the numbers show they make up 17% of the population and contributed only 1.5% of new recruits to the army since 2009. Kandahar and Helmand with 2 millon people contributed about 1200 recruits, or less 1% of 173,000 new recrutis since 2009. The northern provinces make up a large number of the new recruits, with Kunduz having a population of 900,000 and contributing 16,500 recruits. There are about 42% Pastuns in the population and a similiar number of Pastuns in the Afghan army, but most are from the northern or northeastern provinces where the insurgency has been weaker. One third are from one northeastern province- Nangarhar. The reason for this is fear of the Taliban finding out that that a young man has enlisted in the south and retaliation against the enlistee or his family. The lack of a southern Pastun presence in the army makes the army more of a northern institution. With withdrawal of American and NATO forces by 2014, this leaves Afghanistan deeply divided between the northern and southern regions. The southern region Pastuns have a significant presence across the border in the northern part of Pakistan, and the southern Pastuns draw support and resources from this region. Removing the foreign presence shifts the balance towards the southern Pastuns and Pakistani Pastuns in the largely mountainous country of this region. This is why the project in Afghanistan requires the support of all factions and ethnic communities in the South Asian region to succeed, setting aside differences and animosities of the past. D. Mahmood Khan, a member of parliament in Kandahar says ordinary Afghans in Kandahar see the Afghan government of Karzai collapsing in a week or two without foreign support and sense a much stronger Taliban....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Kevin Maurer looks back at 15 years of covering Afghanistan since 2004, and asks was it worth it.  The conflict has cost 145,000 lives for the U.S. period of the war alone. Not counting the war in which the Russians were involved in the decade before the U.S. involvement. In fact the Russian involvement in Afghanistan was costly enough to hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union and bring Gorbachev to power to unwind the war and make the changes that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall.  2400 U.S. servicemen dead and 20,000 Americans wounded. The cost to the U.S. is $737 billion for this war, according to a report in 2018 from Brown University's Costs of War Project. Just as the Soviet Union showed the damage from this war the U.S. has seen the cost of this war and foreign entanglement in another war that started accidentally with international interventions in the Iran-Iraq region as a cost that was borne with consequences. This includes the neglect of infrastructure and the damage to the middle class prosperity built up in the 1950's and 1960's after the Second World War. The U.S. got into this war with 9/11 attacks on New York City. By 2010 what began as a war fought by a few Special Operations teams turned into a war with troop levels reaching 100,000. Presidents Bush and Obama both failed to end the war by winning it. In 2014 finally combat operations stopped and American troops mainly conducted anti-terrorism operations and trained Afghan forces. In recent years the war has gradually disappeared from the national discussion in the U.S. and is barely talked about. President Trump wants to end the war even if it means talking to the Taliban and negotiations directly with the Taliban are ongoing.  One result of this war is the aversion to costly international entanglements and the highly unpopular nature of the conflicts. There are serious costs of the conflict in terms of neglected domestic priorities including infrastructure, loss of U.S. technological edge in key industries, and the competition from China, an the investments in health, education, services that were not made, the increase in inequalities and the diminishing of the middle class. The global financial crisis of 2008, the result of faulty banking, added an economic dimension through the loss of middle class savings in the U.S., worsening the financial situation of the middle class in the U.S.    ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
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....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Landers and Gale of the WSJ show how undersupplied conscript soldiers, high inflation and industrial breakdowns during wartime have led to major upheavals in Russia. Three conflicts led to such changes in Russia's domestic situation. The Russo-Japanese war in 1905 led to Russia seeing one fourth of 340,000 Russian troops killed in a battle near the Chinese city of Shenyang, and loss of most of its Baltic fleet in a Japanese attack on Port Arthur. The war ended with a peace treaty arranged by president Theodore Roosevelt of the United States. The Russian czar gave up most of his absolute powers in 1905.  In 1914 Ukraine was involved in regime change as the Germans fought to take Ukraine. The czar wanted to keep Russia's expansive sphere of influence. Without Ukraine's agriculture and industry and its population Russia would not be a great power, says an expert on Czarist Russia. At the time the Russian military was ill prepared in motorized vehicles and communications equipment, and industry lacked the ability to resupply the military. Inflation jumped leading to unrest and protests. Fighting in the First World War led to millions of refugees. In 2022 experts see the same old problem of seeking spheres of influence leading to wars, and the lack of sufficient ability to cope with prolonged wars when short wars were expected by the regimes in power in Russia. Dissent inside Russia and protests led to the abdication of Czar Nicholas in March 2017, and Bolsheviks led by Lenin seizing power in November of 2017. By 1979 Ukrainian leader Leonid Brezhnev was leader of the Soviet Union as Russia's economy could not keep up with modernization. Seeking spheres of influence Brezhnev pushed into a long war in Afghanistan in the mistaken idea that a quick strike on Kabul with a change in government would achieve Soviet goals in central Asia. By 1989 the Russian army withdrew from Afghanistan and in 1990 the protests led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union and emergence of Russia as a separate country. Landers and Gale of the WSJ see these events in Russian history showing how wars have led to domestic changes and upheavals in Russia when leaders projected power beyond Russia's capacity to handle the results of conflict. Russia's economy is about the size of Italy or Britain say experts and its industry much smaller than the European Union economies and the US, Japan combined.  ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
An inherent division between the two sides about the merits of a large scale involvement- as advocated by a tactical military man McChrystal and the limited involvement advocated by Vice President Biden considering the lack of a reliable Afghan partner - have now spilled out into the open after a compromise was patched together about a year ago. That compromise involved sending more troops but with a deadline for withdrawal set for July 2011. Now as the war reaches a stalemate -as a war of this type in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan, and as ordinary Afghans see no particular interest in either side in this war, was largely expected to turn out into- the frustration has spilled out into the open. General McChrystal, in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine this Spring, made comments with disdain for Vice President Biden, and an aide to McChrystal called National Security Advisor James Jones , a clown.
DW.COM Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Children's aid UNICEF shows a photograph of a young girl on top of a garbage heap taken by Arez Ghaderi, as the photograph of the year for 2016. It was taken in Iran at the border with Afghanistan, for Balochi tribe, with a bullet riddled school in the background. The second prize went for a picture of faces of children at a Greek refugee camp as they wait for a a film showing at a makeshift cinema. In both pictures the children seem happy and smiling, the opposite of the picture around them.

Obama's war

Economist Original article ›
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?...

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us