Back Issues
-
December, 2009
-
November, 2009
-
October, 2009
-
September, 2009
-
August, 2009
-
April, 2009
-
March, 2009
-
February, 2009
-
January, 2009
-
December, 2008
|
 US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's recent comment that the US is Pakistan's partner and not patron, has come at a most opportune time. Mercifully, the White House has given a considered re-look to the war on terror situation and does not club Pakistan with Afghanistan anymore. It is, in fact, good to see ‘Af-Pak' consigned to the dustbin as a failed brand. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan have their own dynamics and herding both with the same stick was a gross miscalculation on the part of the US and its allies.
Following a long and deep policy review, President Barack Obama and his administration have evolved a new strategy for the region that recognizes Pakistan's undeniable role in making the war in Afghanistan successful. It is surmised that Hillary Clinton's recent visit to Pakistan and her meetings with the country's leadership as well as a wide cross-section of media and civil society, must have aided her in understanding and evaluating the general Pakistani perception from more close quarters. For a long time now, Pakistanis have felt that the United States utilizes Pakistan's services with reference to Afghanistan whenever it needs to do so and when the job is done, it leaves it on its own to fend with the resultant problems and issues.
Pakistan has always been a frontline state in the fight against terrorism and continues to suffer in so many different dimensions as a result of helping the world combat this evil. The high price it is paying includes the recent mind-boggling increase in suicide attacks besides growing sectarianism, a negative impact on the national economy and continuing political instability. To cap it all, there is also a marked increase in the infiltration of the Taliban into Pakistan through its porous border with Afghanistan.
|
|
Written by S.G. Jilanee
|
|
January, 2010 |
 Finding himself between a rock and a hard place, Obama has chosen the latter. President Obama was faced with opposition from Karl Eikenberry and many members of his own party to any troops surge in Afghanistan. A senior State Department officer, Timothy Hoh had even resigned over the kind of strategy being followed there.
Eikenberry is a retired lieutenant general who had served in Afghanistan twice since 2002. His last assignment was as commander of the combined forces. And since January 2009, he has been US ambassador to Afghanistan.
|
|
Written by Shafqat Mahmood
|
|
January, 2010 |
 US troop surge in Afghanistan and the new pressures this will bring on Pakistan.The troop surge announced by President Obama in Afghanistan does not threaten Pakistan. It may push across some Afghan Taliban, but not many. The real concern is the excuse for failure that this will provide to American generals.
|
|
Written by Mushahid Hussain Syed
|
|
January, 2010 |
 If Obama says he wants to help Pakistan, he should be taken at face value and his extended hand should be grasped, not spurned. Caught between competing constituencies, President Barack Obama has chosen the best of a bad bargain. Having inherited a weak hand, he is treading the middle ground between open-ended escalation and an immediate exit.
|
|
Written by SAO
|
|
January, 2010 |
|
Excerpts from Obama's speech made at West Point on December 01, 2009
"This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future."
|
|
Written by SAO
|
|
January, 2010 |
|
The United States is sending 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan. With this the total deployment would increase to over 100,000 in addition to about 45,000 NATO forces already there with another 5,000 promised.
Unveiling a new strategy on Afghanistan, President Obama, on the other hand, set an ambiguous timeframe for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. He said: "After 18 months our troops will begin to come home".
|
|
|
|