i'm not sure folk have noticed some of the strange doings in the world beyond the lint-storm around sarah palin...over the past few days the americans have been staging raids into pakistan, right in the middle of the transition in government. today, there's two new elements, both covered in this article:
Quote:
Bush urges Pakistan to 'take responsibility' for extremists
President announces withdrawal of 8,000 Iraq troops and shifts military focus to fight Taliban in Afghanistan
George Bush today described Pakistan as a central battleground in the so-called war on terror, alongside Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a barbed message for the new Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari, Bush said Pakistan had a "responsibility" to fight extremists "because every nation has an obligation to govern its own territory and make certain that it does not become a safe haven for terror."
The remarks are not likely to go down well in Pakistan, which has been in uproar after a raid by US ground troops on Pakistani territory – the first foray of its kind since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
Zardari, who was today sworn-in as Pakistan's new president, is an outspoken advocate of tough action against extremists in Pakistan, despite broad public dislike of US foreign policy in the region.
Bush's comments came in a speech to the US National Defence University in Washington, where he announced the withdrawal of 8,000 combat troops from Iraq by next February.
But there will be little respite for an overstretched US military as Bush also announced a troop rise in Afghanistan, currently home to 31,000 US soldiers. He said he was sending roughly 4,500 more troops to face a resurgent Taliban.
More than half of Bush's address was devoted to Afghanistan, which the US president described as "the front where this struggle first began".
Bush highlighted decisions to vastly increase the size of the Afghan national army, which will grow from its current size of 60,000 troops to 120,000, instead of 80,000.
"Afghanistan's success is critical to the security of America and our partners in the free world," he said. "And for all the good work we have done in that country, it is clear we must do even more."
Bush said a marine battalion scheduled to go to Iraq in November would instead be sent to Afghanistan. One army combat brigade will follow.
The Iraq troop cut will probably be Bush's last major decision in a highly unpopular war that has seen his ratings plummet. He hinted that more troops could return to the US in the first half of 2009 if conditions improve.
"Here is the bottom line: while the enemy in Iraq is still dangerous, we have seized the offensive, and Iraqi forces are becomingly increasingly capable of leading and winning the fight," Bush said.
US commanders have been divided on the rate of troop cuts in Iraq and today's plan is a compromise. General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, had argued in favour of maintaining current levels until next June.
Others, including Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, believed a faster withdrawal from Iraq represented a small risk compared with the gain that could be made by sending reinforcements to Afghanistan.
Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said the plan reflected the concern of US commanders that a rush to reduce US forces could lead to instability at a crucial moment in Iraq.
"This plan does, however, mean continuing stress on both the active and reserve forces," said Cordesman.
Democrats today criticised the slow pace of withdrawal from Iraq as the troop cut will still leave about 140,000 combat troops - about the same level as before last year's troop surge.
The party's presidential nominee, Barack Obama, said Bush's decision to divert resources to Afghanistan was slow, insufficient and "comes up short".
"It is not enough troops, and not enough resources, with not enough urgency," Obama said, adding that he believed Bush did not understand that Afghanistan and Pakistan were the central front in the "war on terror", not Iraq.
Obama has advocated pulling all combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office. John McCain, his Republican rival, has said he would rely on the advice of US military commanders to determine the timing and pace of troop reductions. Both agree on the need for more troops for Afghanistan, amid growing concern that Nato is losing ground to Taliban insurgents.
|
Bush urges Pakistan to 'take responsibility' for extremists | World news | guardian.co.uk
the only up side of this i can see is that it may represent a de facto abandonment of the bush people's iran aspirations--but that is not obvious.
either way, this appears to me to be another example of self-defeating american action--nato action---by which i mean the continued american presence in afghanistan has enabled the taliban to regroup by providing it with an enemy around which to rally. the fact of occupation generates it's own momentum--machiavelli knew this in the 16th century.
now, if you accept the idea that afghanistan was a legitimate target in this "war on terror" nonsense--which i have never accepted---then (a) iraq was obviously a bad idea because it hobbled this other campaign and in so doing opened up the space for this regrouping of the taliban. but that's not the curious thing.
the problem here is pakistan. over the past few days, reports have surfaced of at least two american raids into pakistan, each resulting in civilian casualties. this directly after cheney was in georgia chastizing russia for moving into another sovereign nation. this while the american press is entirely distracted by the lint-storm generated by the palin nomination.
[[i took out a couple sentences later because i thought i had already taken them out...]]
this paper gives an interesting and detailed overview of the spiral into which the americans have found themselves getting drawn--it presents far more complex a picture than this post does, but the main line of interpretation is consistent:
The Rise of Afghanistan's Insurgency: State Failure and Jihad - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
and here is a link to an extensive list of articles about this overall situation, which effectively stops in 2007:
Afghanistan Watch
what do you think is going on here?
what do you think the options are facing the bush people? the next president?
how do you think mccain or obama would handle this?