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
Lt. Gen Trainor and Michael Gordon describe the situation during the last months of U.S. presence in Iraq. President Obama is ambivalent about the size of the military presence he would like to leave, settling for 3000 troops and a few F-16's from a inital figure of 10,000. Obama sees the presidential election approaching and sets an objective of keeping it minimal. The military cooperation treaty with Iraq has to be approved by a Iraqi parliament with different factions in parliament not likely to approve it. Prime Minister Malliki decides not to move ahead. In the end no military cooperation treaty is signed after 8 years of war and a date is set for a complete withdrawal. Iraqi airspace is used by Iran to ship supplies to Syria's Assad regime, and the U.S. has less leverage in the region as the Arab world goes through a transition to popular government and elections. The Obama administration shifts most of its attention to Afghanistan where the U.S. has no vital stake in the long run compared to the Middle East region, with its large population, growing economies, move towards democracy and meeting the aspirations of hundreds of millions of young people. One Middle Eastern leader says the U.S. had no long term policy under the Obama administration for Iraq, and this applies also to the rest of the Middle East region, and mostly reacted to events as they happened. The Obama administration's committment to the war in Afghanistan, just as it focussed on winding down the war in Iraq, responded to the American public's waning support for the war in Iraq. It did not reduce the total cost of the conflicts because of the initial escalation of the war in Afghanistan and later slow progress towards a negoiated settlement to that conflict. A negotiated settlement is the best the U.S. could achieve, and the best desired objective considering the limited interests in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan most of the dynamics would be determined in the long run by the situation in Pakistan, and India-Pakistan relations, which the U.S. could influence constructively only through dialogue, promoting cooperation between the two countries, and economic relations....

LyrArc Article Gist
Over 50% of Israelis support Iran war, only 30% oppose. As Israelis see it Iran under religious clerics is the only real threat to Israel in 2025 because of Iran's policy of proxies for attacking Israel in Lebanon and in Gaza, and because of it's development of nuclear weapons and openly threatening Israel. The US involvement in Iranian politics dates from the Dulles and Eisenhower era with the CIA's involvement in the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian prime minister Mossadegh in 1953. Working with British intelligence and for British oil interests, US oil interests, the US made a serious mistake as seen from today's perspective. The moral is British or French colonial policy stay from it America- George Washington himself would advise. Israel is paying the price and is asked to correct what was done by the British in Iran since 1850's- to bring back a peaceful democracy with the kind of struggles even Greece experienced. The unelected wholly unrepresentative government of the Shah who was put in the place of a democratically elected government was a serious mistake. The British and French colonialism and oil interests of Britain plus American oil companies have led to US getting on the wrong side of the Vietnamese people in the war in Vietnam against the French that ended at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. It had repercussions in the Vietnam war under Kennedy and Johnson. This has happened in the case of Iran where the US has gained so little and lost so much in lives and resources sunk in the ensuing was in Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Yemen. The European Union suffered from the huge migrant flow from Syria with splits in its ranks. The distractions of these 30 years through Reagan and Rumsfeld who supported Hussein in Iraq against Iran in a balancing act is now foolishness, of elder Bush as he diverted attention to a long desert war in Kuwait, of Bush and then Obama in Afghanistan, who wasted enormous resources and impoverished the American people. Leaving legacy wars for Trump and Biden to handle. After Vietnam another failed chapter of Iran in the US for the American people by incompetent leaders who were taken in by French and British colonial and oil interests in wrong directions.   ...

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. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Issue of reinstating the judges of Pakistan's Supreme court and High Courts dismissed by Musharaf comes to an head as Sharif is banned from reelection by judges appointed by Musharaf at the High Court of Lahore. Its making democracy in Pakistan difficult as the Sindh based Zardari, Mrs. Bhutto's husband, wants to keep these Musharaf appointed judges expecting the dismissed judges to rule against him in corruption charges. Its also complicating the military situation as the political situation shows noone in charge and the military of Pakistan negotiating a separate truce with border militant organizations that are making attacks in Afghanistan complicating life for Karzai, President of Afghanistan and NATO's mission there.

LyrArc Article Gist
Critics of the Obama administration's so-called "light footprint strategy" for the Middle East say it is more about keeping distance from problems in that region. This is a reaction to the extensive involvement of the U.S. in two wars in that region and intuitively makes sense, as well as being in line with American public opinion to focus on problems at home. The shift or pivot to Asia of president Obama also comes in that context. The problem with this approach is that this ignores the fact that most of the momentum and effort for the freedom struggles throughout the Middle East from Tunisia first, then Libya, Egypt, and now Syria, comes from within. The lead role is now being taken by France and Britain, with German public opinion also lined up in support. The U.S. in forfeiting its role as a facilitator with strategies such as "no-fly-zones" is losing the opportunity to gain the goodwill in the Middle East with cost that is negligible in comparison to the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, and comes after the huge U.S. effort to remove one dictator in Iraq. A minor followup effort is all that is required from an administration that pushed for the "surge" in Afghanistan. When history is written the investment of the Obama administration in Afghanistan may show little results, if what is considered by the media and experts as an unpopular and undemocratic government of Karzai falls in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. There is little doubt in public opinion in the U.S. and worldwide that the movement for freedom and democracy in the Middle East and democratically elected governments will become a lasting facet of the new Middle East. It also provides huge opportunties for trade and investment as is shown by the gains made by Turkey in just 2 years. This is why the Obama adminstration policies in the Middle East show a lack of grasp of the facts showing the Middle East as opportunity more than threat for the next decade, especially in its overreaction to the Bush era policies. This happens as there is a demographic explosion of young people in the Middle East. An administration that was keen to sense the demographic changes in North America, has failed to grasp this fact and why the struggle in the Middle East flashes daily on television screens young people carrying on the struggle. A pivot to Asia means a pivot to the Far East more than Asia because India is part of the South Asian-Middle Eastern region, which presents another paradox because as China is slowing the entire South Asian-Middle Eastern region of Asia is where future growth is expected to accelerate in the next decade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman says he hopes Hillary Clinton will take a mediating role to bring all the Iraqi political factions and ethnic communities to work together in a democratic framework, and not go their separate ways into sectarian conflict once more. With the US out of Iraq by June 30, 2009, this is critical. Friedman says Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan are not separate wars, but part of the same war, and the same struggle to win credibility for democracy and reconciliation, education, women's rights and modenization for the Muslim world as a way forward. Its the only alternative to looking backward. He says he has never bought into the idea of Iraq as the bad war, Pakistan as the necessary war and Afghanistan as the good war. In fact he says experts point out that very little will spread out of Afghanistan when the US leaves. But Baghdad has been acentre of culture, education and influence in the Middle East for centuries, so getting it right there after so much American effort and sacrifice has been invested there, is crucial for the Muslim world to move forward in the right direction....

LyrArc Article Gist
Osam Bin Laden is killed in a U.S. special forces attack on a compound 40 miles from Islamabad. The area known as Abbottabad is also the location of a Pakistani military academy. One Pakistani helicopter and 2 American helicopters were involved in the attack. Experts say this changes the dynamic of the war, with the U.S. keen on a disengagement in Afghanistan, and Pakistani concerns about the expanded U.S. footprint in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region working in the same direction. This also comes at a time when the Middle East is no longer what it looked like a decade ago. Democracy protests have changed the way ordinary Arabs look at the world. In recent months Pakistan's relationship with the U.S. has grown tense. Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that top civilian and military leaders of Pakistan met with the Afghan government leaders in Kabul recently. At the meeting Pakistan's leaders suggested that it would be better for Afghanistan to move closer to Pakistan and China, and distance itself from the U.S. The Pakistani leadership must be aware of domestic politics in the U.S., the changes in the Arab world, the desire of Americans and the U.S. government to wind down America's military involvement, and decided that the removal of Osama would give give America less reason to continue its military presence....

LyrArc Article Gist
What is behind Pew Research Report finding showing an unacceptable concentration of wealth that endangers democracy. Higher income groups making $244,000 a year in 2024 gained 19 percentage points of the total US Household Income moving from 29% in 1970 to 48% in 2024. About 50% of the nation's income going to 20% of its people and most of that to 2%-5% of the people of the US. The gains meant loss of 17 of these percentage points for middle income households making $106,000 a year that went from 62% in 1970 to 43% in 2024. Another 2 percentage points was suffered by vulnerable Lower Income groups making $35,000 a year who owned 10% of US wealth in 1970 went down to 8%.  The problems of divisiveness in the Nation come from three distinct areas. First money for state financed education for all being put into wars in the Middle East from Reagan through Obama and Trump and some wasted through capital misallocation to low priority investment by faulty capital market allocation. Second the high cost of pharmaceuticals and healthcare putting a heavy burden on low income and middle income households making $35,000 or 106,000 a year. Third the neglect of manufacturing that cutoff the opportunities for middle and lower income households and their one chance to move up the ladder. And the parallel shift of resources to technology and financial sectors that created opportunities for a smaller group of immigrant and higher middle income households with these skills.  These are the sources of America's distress and each problem is being attacked at its source by president Biden- exit from Afghanistan, canceling student loans that are egregious and prevent the investment in education America needs, large sustained investment in manufacturing and new supply chains, antitrust action on tech monopolistic behaviour, redrawing the shape of America's pharmaceutical sector to provide access to medicine to all parts of the population.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
From all accounts the lawyers against Musharraf, the opposing factions of Bhutto and Sharif and the Islamist parties alliance distancing itself from Musharraf's campaign against insurgents in the tribal areas and Waziristan, and the army's failure to do much against the militant islamist in the border areas with Afghnaistan present a picture of Pakistan coming apart. The army as a national institution is losing credibility even as the US needs the Pakistani military to continue the fight in the border areas while it is fighting with other Nato forces in Afghaistan's southern provinces. Actually whole areas in the British assigned areas of southern Afghaistan have been given up to militants or provincial leaders with their own forces. In this situation even as the people seem genuninely keen on a new direction their is no unified leadership or organization to hold it together which commands the confidence of large parts of the country and people. And so the US even under pressure to support democracy would simply put its interests in Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan before the interests of the people of Pakistan in finding some genuine solution to the problems. that would give Pakistan a chance to set a new longterm direction different from its past. ...

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
Greece's New Democracy party and Mr. Mitsotakis wins about 41% of the vote in Greece's elections. Syriza come is second with 21% and Pasok left party at 12%. Mitsotakis has increased Greece's growth to twice the eurozone rate, and cut migrants by 90% in line with EU policy. New Democracy party gets 145 seats in a 300 member parliament. The first round was conducted under proportional representation, only 60% of voters cast their vote. Mitsotakis will go for another election by July because in a second round the winner gets additional seats and this could let it form its own government. It sees this as needed to maintain policies of economic growth that have led to GDP growth at twice the rate of the eurozone. A surveillance scandal appears not to have affected the election results as Greeks opted for stability and growth. Mitsokatis himself put it this way- "This is not the time for experiments that lead nowhere." Greece was almost out of the eurozone when Syriza conducted referendums on the debt repayment that led to a chaotic situation, and then moved in the opposite direction in callous implementation when the Eurozone held firm. Mitsotakis said Greece needs to achieve an investment grade rating to lower borrowing costs. Worldwide the policy of delivering on growth is key to success in elections in democracies and in countries that are catching up after the colonialist phase. This is true for delivery of infrastructure and public services such as water and electricity, modern rail in India. It is true also for winning enough public support in countries like China that run parliamentary representation under one party the CCP. Strict immigration controls since 2015 reflect a similar policy pursued recently by Italy. Migrants have dropped by 90%. This is popular among Greeks. Looking back Merkel made a serious error in letting in migrants coming in from Hungary and Austria at the beginning of the migration inflows into the EU in 2015. Merkel came from former East Germany, the communist led GDR, and had no understanding of how harmful this would be for the European Union. In just one year by 2016 the misguided open migration policies of Merkel had led to her CDU party getting less votes than an anti immigration AfD party in her home state of Meckenburg. It led to anti-immigration movements in Europe that were used by parties in a self-serving way including in Britain that led to exit of Britain from the EU. It also led to a decade of austerity and a lost decade for the European Union as it permanently sidelined parties to the left such as Social Democrats that unknowingly or unwittingly ended up with the blame for the public's discomfort with lack of borders and migrants upsetting borders. In balance the right way to tackle this was to build stronger economies that supported workers and families in the EU, that then invested significantly in developing countries of Africa and Asia to help them catch up with modernization. Another failure in policy was the Bush-Obama Merkel policies in failed states such as Iraq and Afghanistan. There it was fundamentally important not to get involved in any way that committed US or EU's precious resources.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How Petraeus won support in Congress and with public opinion, while at the same time changing the nature of the effort in Iraq. His struggles with General Fallon even though he reported directly to President Bush, who wished to disengage too quickly to make adifference in the failing effort to bring security. The first effort was to bring security with the surge in troops, then to build the Iraqi forces. To keep public opinion informed about tangible achievements of modest goals such as security for ordinary Iraqis, and fewer American casualties, rather than some beacon of democracy goal for the Middle East. A detailed account by the Washington Post of how this played out in the words of key players like Petraeus, Fallon, Ambassador Crocker and others, and what it may tell one about the lessons for another very different effort in a rural mountainous backward country like Afghanistan. One that emerges is to set modest goals like security, try new approaches but with a clear eye on the field, put in younger leaders who can bing flexibility and imagination and intellect, but disengage on favorable terms that achieves these modest objectives....

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
The Democracy argument restated, there are risks, but there are oportunities and promising results, for example in Afghanistan, and in Iraqi elections. The Journal points out that here are no better ideas for policy in the Middle East, even though there may be some setbacks such as the emergence of Hamas.

LyrArc Article Gist
Pierre Razoux, a French historian provides this account of the Iran-Iraq war that lasted from 1980 to 1988, at a cost of 680,000 people killed and $1.1 trillion in war destruction and money diverted from the economy. In 1980 Saddam Hussein of Iraq launched the war by attacking Iran which had just come under the Ayatollah Khomeini with the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979. The war dragged on for 8 years with Khomeini persisting in the war. With U.S. and Saudi policy to increase production bringing the price of oil down from $30 to $10 designed to bring Iran and Iraq to the peace talks, as well as the Soviet Union to withdraw from Afghanistan, all three being major oil producers. The dollar also weakened by 37% during this period. The diplomatic isolation of the Khomeini regime made it more difficult for Iran to buy arms on credit than Iraq could, leading to the war ending with Iran finding it no longer possible to continue the human losses. The Carter administration, particularly with National Security Advisor Brzezinski, tilted towards Iraq to oppose Soviets in Afghanistan, and the Saudis also supported Iraq during the early period. Under president Reagan the U.S. began covert and direct assistance to Iraq to prevent an Iraqi defeat early in the war. Rumsfeld visited Baghdad in December 1983 and March 1984 to organize the U.S. effort to oppose Iran. This may have laid the seeds for future conflicts that lasted through the administrations of the elder and junior Bush. As Razoux points out the Revolutionary Guards became entrenched from this period in Iran's history, making it difficult for election process to work or elected governments to operate. 23 months following the end of that war in 1988 Saddam Hussein launched a war on Kuwait, leading to the U.S. led Gulf war and the entry of the U.S. into a ground combat role, which was followed by the invasion of Iraq under George Bush after 9/11 attacks. The twin wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are estimated to have cost the U.S. over 1 trillion dollars. The result today is largely the division on the ground into Shia regions under the Revolutionary Guards and the Shiite government in Baghdad, and Sunni regions led by Islamic State and autonomous Iraqi Sunni tribes, ignoring the Iran-Iraq boundaries set in the colonial period by the French and the British. In all the amount spent in the Khomeini-Saddam war of $ 1 trillion being about $2 trillion in today's money, and the $1 trillion spent by the U.S., means about $3 trillion has gone into the wars in this region. This comes at a time of deficits in government budgets in the U.S. and a deep recession in the U.S. and Europe. It also explains why the U.S. public is reluctant to take even the minor action such as giving a standoff "no-fly zone" protection to the rebels in Syria, and supported the Obama administration in its reluctance to keep even the basic military force in place to protect its diplomatic mission in Libya, where the cost would be small relative to earlier enlarged military missions under the two elder and junior Bush administrations. The result is that refugees are pouring into Europe from Syria and Libya, through Turkey. Turkey itself is host to millions of refugees in camps along its border. The vacuum and the withdrawal of the Obama administration from the region has led to the rise of Islamic State with covert assistance from Sunni regimes in the region to counteract the growing influence of Shiite Iran. It also may explain the Iranian people's support for the nuclear weapons effort through years of sanctions, leading finally to an agreement with the Obama administration that relaxes sanctions in exchange for a future possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons. Lost in the conflict is the Arab Spring of 2012-2013, with the Tunisian democracy the only surviving result of that movement for democracy and awakening among Arab peoples. The Reagan administration in its aggressive anti-Soviet position made large errors- including ignoring human rights abuses and use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, by supporting Iraq and reversing position after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, having a disastrous effect on the entire region decades later. Much of the Obama administration's reluctance for any action may stem from the U.S. role in this period and its consequences of protracted conflict. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The first six years since 2001 were years of short term quick fix solutions for Afghanistan, and policy since then has not been much better. And considering the tribal nature, hostility to outsiders and history of this vast mountainous country, it is not clear what would have worked and what the realistic goals should be.

LyrArc Article Gist
Dexter Filkins of the NYT says not only is democracy a fragile thing, but there are fundamental questions about the wisdom and the direction of the American led project here. But he does'nt go onto take this further, better to let the readers decide for themselves from the statement of the Chairman of the Independent Election Commission that the result will be the same. Then is the whole thing a charade? Abdullah was foreign minister in Karzai's government. What are the choices in this election, when the government of which he was a part of commands little support and is widely perceived as corrupt and ineffective, and which doesn't control much beyond Kabul, if he Abdullah now becomes part of it? This is why Filkins sees this as merely a project and amisconceived and badly executed one, if not an unmanageable one to begin with.

LyrArc Article Gist
The last thing we want to do is to bring back the images of the 1953 American sponsored coup, which ousted Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh and returned Shah Pahlavi to power, says Senator John Kerry in an op-ed article in the NYT. He cautions America getting involved in Iran, letting Iranians decide on their own, as the CIA supported coup that overthrew Mossadegh's elected government and put a king in his place because he would be more friendly to American oil and other interests in the region, may arouse bitter memories of America's influence in avery negative way in an earlier period. Most Americans may not remember the American sponsored coup. Mossadegh was a socialist during the Cold War and wnated to nationalize the oil industry run by foreign companies in the country. During those days the interests of American oil companies, the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and British-French colonial era interests in the Middle and Africa and Asia, were all intertwined. The Korean war had just ended, Suez crisis of 1956 with the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egypt, was a few years away, the French were fighting to keep their colonial empire in Vietnam, and America was supporting Pakistan with Sabre fighter jets bringing a version of the cold war to the Indian subcontinent even though India was the largest democracy in Asia. Partly because its leader Jawaharlal Nehru, was an independent minded socialist, who avoided joining the cold war with his non-alignment policies. Adlai Stevenson, Democratic candidate for President against Eisenhower was very enthusiastic about Nehru in his speeches, but Republican Secretary of State Dulles saw things differently, just as today there are huge differences between the way a Rumsfeld and an Obama see the world. Many of the problems today in places like Pakistan Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq had their beginning during this period....

LyrArc Article Gist
Freeman contrasts the speeches given by Obama and Trump, one in Cairo after becoming president, and the other in Riyadh. Freeman says Obama did not give enough credit to American leadership and progress on women's rights, and was not critical of Iran during a period in which sectarian strife has led to the situation in Syria and Iraq. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Dexter Filkins says corruption in the Afghan government may prove more dangerous than the Taliban. Western officials may say is alright and have low expectations, but this may not be true for the ordinary Afghan people. Filkins points to this as a reason for the people turning to the Taliban.

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
An argument for more troops, as Max Boot of the Council of Foreign Relations vists Afghanistan at the request of General Petraeus. This is a local account, what is the larger picture. And can the problems of a failed Afghan government and the way American boots are seen as foreign occupiers be wished away? See the link to Kristof who says even the Punjabis in the Pakistan army are not welcomed in Pashtun land on both sides of the border, and there are 40 million Pashtuns.