BAMCEF UNIFICATION CONFERENCE 7

Published on 10 Mar 2013 ALL INDIA BAMCEF UNIFICATION CONFERENCE HELD AT Dr.B. R. AMBEDKAR BHAVAN,DADAR,MUMBAI ON 2ND AND 3RD MARCH 2013. Mr.PALASH BISWAS (JOURNALIST -KOLKATA) DELIVERING HER SPEECH. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLL-n6MrcoM http://youtu.be/oLL-n6MrcoM

Welcome

Website counter
website hit counter
website hit counters

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Equation Changed in South Asia with OBAMA Announcement to DRAWBACK US Army from AFGANISTAN. Government of LPG Mafia Brahaminical Hegemony aligned with Corporate Unipolar Zionsit Galaxy Imperilaism may not be Expected to take any Stance on this develo



Equation Changed in South Asia with OBAMA Announcement to DRAWBACK US Army from AFGANISTAN. Government of LPG Mafia Brahaminical Hegemony aligned with Corporate Unipolar Zionsit Galaxy Imperilaism may not be Expected to take any Stance on this development which wouold Change US AFPAK Policy redically and would have IMPACT on Indo Pak Relations! Meanwhile,BBC reports that One  top US military officer has said President Barack Obama's plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan is "more aggressive" than he had advised.On the other hand,Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan began their discussions on all issues of interest for both countries with specific focus on peace and security on Thursday with a "great sense of confidence, optimism and determination" and remained engaged for over five hours.ISLAMOPHOBIA and Blind Brahaminical Nuclear Zionist Nationalism Hyped by Brahaminical Media BLINDS us and INDULGES in INTENSE MUSLIM PAK Hatred, thus we do fail to address the Security scenerio of the Geopolitical UNIT, which has been CONVERTED into Bleeding Battlefield by the Global Weapon Industry. Even Marxists and Maoists do FAIL. We did oppose Soviet Intervention In Afganistan long Before while Indian Communists supported the Soviet Block blindly. The Ruling Hegemony was also Banking on Indo USSR Friendship as they now BOUND by Strategic Realliance in US ISRAEL lead. It is NOT concerned with PATRIOTISM or Nationalism at all! Nothing Changed since 1980. As India is RULED by the Same Brahaminical Hegemony!We the people, the EXCLUDED Masses across the political borders are DESTNED to suffer from Continued Holocaust!


Troubled Galaxy Destroyed Dreams, Chapter 594

Palash Biswas

http://indianholocaustmyfatherslifeandtime.blogspot.com/



http://basantipurtimes.blogspot.com/

...Secretary William Hague, who is visiting Afghanistan, told BBC Radio 4 there had been in contact with the Taliban as part of efforts at "political reconciliation", and Britain was "connected to that and supportive of that".
more by William Hague - 21 hours ago - BBC News(2 occurrences)

Current Cricket Matches

Cricket logo
Ind 246/10 | WI 173/10 | Ind 252/10 | WI 262/10 
Ind won by 63 runs. Man of the Match: Rahul Dravid - scorecard 
SL 184/10 | Eng 377/8(dec) | SL 334/5 
Match drawn. Man of the Match: Chris Tremlett - scorecard 

CWC to meet tomorrow, to discuss Lokpal issue 

IBNLive.com - ‎2 hours ago‎
PTI | 09:06 PM,Jun 23,2011 A senior Congress leader, who declined to be identified, said that tomorrow's deliberations could see the party taking a tough line against the attitude of the civil society representatives of "my way or the highway".
Equation Changed in South Asia with OBAMA Announcement to DRAWBACK US Army from AFGANISTAN. Government of LPG Mafia Brahaminical Hegemony aligned with Corporate Unipolar Zionsit Galaxy Imperilaism may not be Expected to take any Stance on this development which wouold Change US AFPAK Policy redically and would have IMPACT on Indo Pak Relations! Meanwhile,BBC reports that One  top US military officer has said President Barack Obama's plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan is "more aggressive" than he had advised.On the other hand,Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan began their discussions on all issues of interest for both countries with specific focus on peace and security on Thursday with a "great sense of confidence, optimism and determination" and remained engaged for over five hours.ISLAMOPHOBIA and Blind Brahaminical Nuclear Zionist Nationalism Hyped by Brahaminical Media BLINDS us and INDULGES in INTENSE MUSLIM PAK Hatred, thus we do fail to address the Security scenerio of the Geopolitical UNIT, which has been CONVERTED into Bleeding Battlefield by the Global Weapon Industry. Even Marxists and Maoists do FAIL. We did oppose Soviet Intervention In Afganistan long Before while Indian Communists supported the Soviet Block blindly. The Ruling Hegemony was also Banking on Indo USSR Friendship as they now BOUND by Strategic Realliance in US ISRAEL lead. It is NOT concerned with PATRIOTISM or Nationalism at all! Nothing Changed since 1980. As India is RULED by the Same Brahaminical Hegemony!We the people, the EXCLUDED Masses across the political borders are DESTNED to suffer from Continued Holocaust!

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says considerable progress has been made in Afghanistan through the increased presence of U.S. military, civilian and diplomatic personnel.

Clinton testified before a Senate panel Thursday, one day after U.S. President Barack Obama announced plans to withdraw 33,000 American troops from Afghanistan in about a year. Those troops were sent to Afghanistan as part of a surge announced in December 2009.

Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the military surge has increased pressure on al-Qaida and Taliban insurgents, while the governments, economies and civil societies of Afghanistan and Pakistan have benefited from the presence of more U.S. civilian personnel. She said a diplomatic surge is supporting Afghan-led efforts to reach a political solution that will chart a more secure future.

Clinton said the U.S. believes a political solution is possible, acknowledging what she described as "very preliminary outreach" from the United States to members of the Taliban. She said this is "not a pleasant business, but a necessary one" as part of efforts to end the insurgency.

The top Republican on the panel, Senator Richard Lugar, said troop withdrawals are necessary at this stage in Afghanistan, but that the U.S. policy is in need of more than pullouts on what he called a "political timetable."

U.S. opinion polls indicate that the nearly decade-old Afghan war is increasingly unpopular with the American public.

June 23, 2011

Obama Tells VOA US Will Not Abandon Afghanistan Despite Troop Cuts

André de Nesnera | The White House

  • Email
  • Print
  • Comments
Photo: White House
President Barack Obama during an interview with Voice of America in the Map Room of the White House June 22, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

President Barack Obama has discussed the current situation in Afghanistan in an interview with the Voice of America. 

The president says his decision to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan does not mean the U.S. is abandoning that country. 

"Keep in mind that we're talking about 10,000 troops by the end of this year, an additional 23,000 by the end of next summer - and we'll still have 68,000 troops there, in addition to the coalition partner troops," President Obama said. "So there is still going to be a substantial presence.  But what it does signal is that Afghans are slowly taking more and more responsibility." 



Phased transition


The president says his decision is consistent with what he called a phased transition process.

"Already there are Afghans out there every day who are fighting the fight, Afghans who are dying on behalf of their country, and their freedom, and their dignity," he noted.  "And what we want to make sure of is that we continue to be a good partner with that process, but also want to send a signal to the Afghan people: this is your country ultimately and you are going to have responsibilities."

Common ground

In recent months, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been critical of the United States.  But President Obama says overall, he shares the same goals. 

"Obviously, there are going to be tensions in a difficult environment where we have a large number of foreign troops inside a country," Obama said.  "It is true that there have been times where the tactics on the ground, day to day, result in tensions.  But overall, his interest in making sure that Afghanistan is not a safe haven for terrorists, that there is an adherence to the Afghan constitution.  Those commitments that he's made are the ones that are entirely consistent with what I see as U.S. interests."

Peace prospects 

President Obama emphasized that there has to be a political settlement to bring about genuine peace in the region.

"But the terms of that political settlement are important, and we've been very clear in our criteria," he stressed.  "We will encourage the Afghans, and we ourselves will talk to anybody.  But they are going to have to break ties with al-Qaida, they are going to have to pledge to abide by the Afghan constitution and they will have to cease violence as a means of bringing about political power.  If they take those steps, then I think there is a strong possibility of creating the kind of political settlement that would finally give Afghans relief from 30 years of war."

Pakistan 

As for relations between the United States and Pakistan, Obama says that relationship has become more honest over time.

"That raises some differences that are real," the president said. "Obviously, the operation to take out Osama bin Laden created additional tensions, but I had always been very clear to Pakistan that if we ever found him [bin Laden] and had a shot, that we would take it."

President Obama says "Pakistan not only has a responsibility but also a deep interest in dealing with terrorist elements that are still in their territory."

Brookings analyst Michael O'Hanlon's reaction to President Obama's speech:

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Obama-Focuses-on-Afghanistan-During-VOA-Interview-124416269.html

June 22, 2011

Obama Orders Cuts in 'Surge' Troops in Afghanistan

VOA News

  • Email
  • Print
  • Comments
President Barack Obama
Photo: AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, Pool
President Barack Obama delivers a televised address from the White House in Washington on his plan to drawdown U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Wednesday, June 22, 2011.

U.S. President Barack Obama announced he is withdrawing 10,000 US troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year and will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by the middle of next year.

In a nationally televised address, the president said is he able to make the withdrawals because the United States and its allies are meeting their goals in Afghanistan.

He said the withdrawal will begin in July.

He said that by 2014, the process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.

VOA News Analysts Comment on President Obama's Afghan Speech

In 2009, Mr. Obama announced a surge of 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan.  He described the surge as one of the most difficult decisions he has made as president.

President Obama says al-Qaida is under more pressure than at any time since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

In his speech, Mr. Obama calls Osama bin Laden's death a victory for all who have served since the attacks.  He says information recovered from the al-Qaida leader's compound show the terror group under "enormous strain" and on a "path to defeat."

Images from the War in Afghanistan

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Obama-to-Announce-First-Phase-of-Troop-Withdrawal-in-Afghanistan-124338379.html


World

US to pull 33,000 troops out of Afghanistan

CNN-IBN
Updated Jun 23, 2011 at 10:58am IST

New Delhi: US President Barack Obama has announced the withdrawal of 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year. He also announced that 33,000 troops to be withdrawn by the summer of 2012. Thus, fulfilling the commitment he made in 2009 as he announced the surge.

This comes as outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Pentagon have been pushing for additional time to roll back Taliban gains in the country before starting any significant withdrawal. Gates, along with Afghan war commander General David Petraeus, had pushed for an initial draw-down of just 3,000 to 5,000 troops this year.

Troops will be withdrawn at a steady pace after that, Obama said, as the United States, struggling to repair its global image and fix its weak domestic economy, looks to end a decade of military ventures prompted by the September 11 attacks in 2001.

"Huge challenges remain. This is the beginning - but not the end of our effort to wind down this war," Obama said. "America, it is time to focus on nation building at home."

US and NATO troops have been in are engaged in establishing stability in Afghanistan for the past 10 years. But Obama cited the costs of war and said that the US is coming from a position of strength, having taken out Osama Bin Laden.

US troop withdrawal is underway in Iraq - 100,000 troops are already back home.

"After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan Security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security," he said.

The US President said America was starting the draw-down from a position of strength, asserting that al Qaeda was under 'more pressure' than at any time since 9/11.

"Together with the Pakistanis, we have taken out more than half of al Qaeda's leadership. And thanks to our intelligence professionals and Special Forces, we killed Osama bin Laden, the only leader that al Qaeda had ever known," he said.

Nearly 10 years after the 9/111 attacks that triggered the war, US and NATO forces have been unable to deal a decisive blow to the insurgent Taliban. The Afghan government remains weak and notoriously corrupt and billions of dollars in foreign aid efforts have yielded meagre results.

Obama's announcement comes the week after General David Petraeus, the outgoing commander of US and NATO troops in Afghanistan, presented several options for drawing down some of the 100,000 US soldiers there starting in July.

But Obama's move was a more aggressive approach that went beyond the options offered by Petraeus.

The US President's decision appears to reflect the competing pressures he faces as he seeks to rein in government spending and halt American casualties without endangering the gains his commanders say they have made across southern Afghanistan.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he supported Obama's decision, but the plan is unlikely to sit well with the Pentagon's top brass who worry insurgents could regain lost territory and that fighting along Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan will intensify.

Jeffrey Dressler, a military analyst at the Institute for the Study of War in Washington, said the Pentagon would have favoured a much smaller initial withdrawal.

"But the fact is that the conditions on the ground don't merit any sort of withdrawal - it's not time to be pulling out a substantive amount of troops," he said. "There's a lot that has to be done in the east and you're not out of the woods in the south yet."

Yet Obama also faces mounting demands from some quarters of the US Congress, impatient with a war that now costs more than $ 110 billion a year, for a larger initial draw-down.

Even after the withdrawal of the 33,00 US troops, about 70,000 will remain in Afghanistan by the autumn of 2012, more than were there when Obama took office.

With Additional Inputs from Agencies

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/us-to-pull-33000-troops-out-of-afghanistan/161812-2.html


June 23, 2011

Pakistan Eyes US Drawdown in Afghanistan

Phil Ittner | Islamabad

  • Email
  • Print
Soldiers watch a rebroadcast of President Barack Obama's speech on a proposed troop withdrawal at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, June 23, 2011
Photo: AP
Soldiers watch a rebroadcast of President Barack Obama's speech on a proposed troop withdrawal at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, June 23, 2011

US President Barack Obama Wednesday announced a drawdown of U.S. forces from Afghanistan next month, with a grim warning to Pakistan: terrorist safe havens will not be tolerated.

In a nationally televised speech Wednesday, President Obama said the U.S. will withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year and another 23,000 over the next 14 months with security to be handed over entirely to Afghan forces by 2014. 

He also gave credit to Pakistan's government, saying it has worked with the United States to eliminate over half the leadership of al-Qaida.

But Obama also said that the U.S. must address the problem of terrorist safe-havens in Pakistan, and to work with its government to root out what he called "the cancer of violent extremism."  The U.S., he said, will insist that Pakistan's government "keep its commitments."

Pakistani analyst Professor Hassan Askari of Punjab University says that President Obama's message of both praise and warning did not go unnoticed.

"There is a recognition that with the cooperation of Pakistan, al-Qaida has been weakened in the past," said Askari.  "So there is an appreciation. But along with the appreciation there is a word of caution for Pakistan that there are safe havens in Pakistan and the U.S. would press Pakistan for action and they would be working with Pakistan to make sure that these safe havens are no longer there."

What many Pakistanis were most encouraged by is President Obama's plan for a political solution that includes negotiations with the Afghan Taliban.

In a joint press conference with visiting British Foreign Minister William Hague in Islamabad, Pakistan's acting Foreign Minister Hanna Rabbani Khar said that what happens in Afghanistan will have a significant impact on Pakistan.

"Afghanistan is a country which is a sovereign country and an independent country," said Khar.  "And as neighbors, as important neighbors, as a neighbor who is going to be affected by both peace and stability and lack thereof in Afghanistan, Pakistan will stand by on any of these issues by whatever is an Afghan-owned solution, and whatever is an Afghan-led solution."

The Taliban have been pushed out of some areas of Afghanistan's southern heartland. But the insurgency has intensified along Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan, which was one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban-led government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.

The withdrawal of the U.S.-led NATO force from Afghanistan has regional implications, with some in the neighborhood, above all India, fearing that the influence of its neighbor and rival Pakistan could grow if the Taliban is able to regain power in Afghanistan. Pakistan, for its part, is unhappy over the degree to which India has gained influence in Afghanistan since the Taliban's ouster in 2001. 

The leaders of India and Afghanistan have sought to play down these fears. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said during a visit to Afghanistan in May that his country supports the Afghan government's efforts to negotiate with the Taliban to bring an end to the almost 10-year-old war. 

Earlier this month, Afghan President Hamid Karzai visited Pakistan and announced new measures aimed at improving security and ending the war in his country, including the creation of a joint Afghan-Pakistani Commission for Reconciliation and Peace in Afghanistan to negotiate with elements of the Afghan Taliban. 

Pakistan's leadership, for its part, has indicated that ending the war next door will go a long way towards reducing instability in the region and perhaps help repair the damaged relationship between Islamabad and Washington.

Related Articles


The US will be relying on Afghanistan's help to tackle threats emerging from Pakistan , said the New York Times following President Barack Obama's announement on troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. 

A news analysis in the New York Times said that though the president could not say so directly, "one of the constraints on America's retreat from a hard and bloody decade is the recognition that, more than ever, the United States will be relying on Afghanistan's help to deal with the threats emerging from Pakistan". 

It added that Pakistan's angry reaction to the raid against Osama bin Laden "makes it more urgent than ever that the United States maintain sites outside the country to launch drone and commando raids against the militant networks that remain in Pakistan, and to make sure that Pakistan's fast-growing nuclear arsenal never falls into the wrong hands". 

There are reasons as to why the American planners hope to negotiate with Hamid Karzai government to keep upward of 25,000 American forces in Afghanistan, even after the 30,000 "surge" troops are withdrawn over the next 14 months. 

"Their first is to assure that Afghanistan never again becomes a base for attacks on the United States. But the more urgent reason is Pakistan." 

"Pakistan has already made it clear, however, that it will never allow American forces to be based there." 

Administration officials see Pakistan's harbouring of terrorist groups as the more urgent problem. 

The Times went on to say that over the last 10 years, the Afghans have heard many promises from Washington. 

Obama in 2009 spoke of a surge of "agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers" who would train Afghans how to create a modern country. The results have been limited. 

An official said the administration's primary focus now was "a much larger, and more dangerous, presence of insurgents remaining in Pakistan".


ISLAMABAD: India and Pakistan have to work together to eliminate terrorism and there cannot be a "segmented approach" in dealing with the scourge, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said here today.

Emerging from the first day of talks with her Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir at the Foreign Office here, Rao said, "Terrorism is related to peace and security in the region... We both have to work together to eliminate terrorism. There can be no segmented approach (in dealing with the problem)".

The two sides had been discussing measures to tackle terrorism in talks between their Home and Interior Secretaries, she told a small group of reporters.

Bashir said terrorism was as important an issue for Pakistan as "it could be to any other country".

Describing terrorism as a regional and global issue, he contended that the Lahore Declaration and a memorandum of understanding signed by the two countries in 1999 were very important as it contained a "shared vision for peace and security".

The MoU was "an ideal and important for moving forward", he said.

"The implementation of the MoU is the solution to issues pertaining to peace and security," Bashir added.

Both Foreign Secretaries expressed satisfaction with the first round of their discussions, which focused on peace and security, including confidence-building measures.

Rao described the talks as "constructive" and said she and Bashir had exchanged ideas in a "focused and professional manner".

WASHINGTON: A high-level India-US economic dialogue here next week will seek to tap vast opportunities offered by one of the fastest-growing economies in the world as the two countries have agreed to fast track technical negotiations for an early conclusion of a bilateral investment agreement. 

Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee and US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will lead the high-level economic dialogue. 

The second annual meeting of the US-India Economic and Financial Partnership will focus on infrastructure development, capital markets reforms, cooperation on the Group of 20 efforts to reduce trade imbalances, and efforts to combat money laundering, a senior US Treasury official said Wednesday. 

The US official said removal of trade barriers to investment in India, closer economic cooperation and greater market access would help make it one of top-10 US trading partners. 

"Our partnership seeks to unlock an enormous untapped potential in our relationship," he said. 

"Given the relative size of our two economies, we still have major opportunities to expand our trade and investment linkages to the benefit of both countries," said the official in a background briefing. 

Besides rampant corruption, which was "an impediment to investors looking to commit substantial sums of money", one of the key challenges is encouraging India to foster a more certain and established regulatory and legal structure that won't leave investors guessing, the official said. 

Also on the agenda would be tackling terror-financing and trying to better align economic policies in the context of the Group of 20 nations talks, he said. 

One area for discussion will be ways to open India's "relatively closed" capital markets and banking sector to foreign investment, the treasury official said. 

"It's an issue for India as it seeks to maximise its growth potential. It's clearly important for India to develop long-term capital markets to provide adequate financing for infrastructure, which is a major constraint to India's growth," he said. 

The biggest opportunity for US companies is India's massive need for infrastructure development, where firms can provide expertise in engineering, financing and the capital equipment needed for the ports, expressways, airports, railways and power grid that India needs to improve the efficiency of its economy, the official said. 

Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Mary Schapiro and Commodity Futures Trading Commission chairman Gary Gensler will also participate in the talks with Indian officials, he said. 

The two countries have also agreed to reinvigorate the Trade Policy Forum "to make it more robust and effective in resolving bilateral commercial ties", Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma told reporters Wednesday after a "very productive" meeting with US Trade Representative Ron Kirk. 

There would be two rounds of negotiations on the bilateral treaty before the next meeting of the ministerial level Trade Policy Forum expected to be held in India in October, he said. 

Noting that the bilateral trade in goods and services had exceeded $85 billion, Sharma said the talks focused on "what India's growth story stands for and what needs to be done to nurture US-India ties" as he apprised Kirk of various policy approaches being taken by India to sustain its high growth rate. 

As he highlighted the opportunities offered by India's growth for the US businesses to develop partnerships with Indian private sector, the minister said he had also raised issues of concern for the Indian industry in their business operations in India. 

Kirk, according to a USTR release, acknowledged that "the booming bilateral trade and investment flows between the United States and India support tens of thousands of critical jobs in both countries, and we know that will only grow significantly in the coming years". 

"However, to continue and grow our successes both India and the United States must take concrete steps to resolve long-standing market access and investment concerns," he said. 

On the World Trade Organisation Doha Round, Sharma and Kirk "recognised the challenges that remain in ongoing discussions but expressed their commitment to exploring options for productive next steps," USTR said.

Obama retreats so he can reclaim American Dream

Simon Mann
June 24, 2011

Ads by Google

Natural Diabetes Formula

www.AyurFocus.com/Curb_Sugar_Level

Herbal Aid to Curb Sugar Level. Buy Online @ Affordable Rates. Hurry!

Withdrawal ... Barack Obama takes the first step toward ending a decade-long war that is increasingly unpopular in the United States.

Withdrawal ... Barack Obama takes the first step toward ending a decade-long war that is increasingly unpopular in the United States. Photo: Reuters

BARACK OBAMA has opted for deeper and faster troop reductions in Afghanistan than those proposed by his top military advisers, bowing to domestic political pressures: specifically, mounting concern over the US's faltering economic recovery.

In authorising the withdrawal of 33,000 troops by the end of the next northern summer - and 10,000 by December this year - Mr Obama makes good on his promise to wind back America's costly involvement in a conflict that could never be ended in conventional style, with generals seated at a desk inking their surrender. The cover for retreat has been provided by the assassination last month of Osama bin Laden and the apparent dismantling of al-Qaeda's command structure, developments Mr Obama claimed had allowed the US to begin the withdrawal from ''a position of strength''.

In revealing his timetable in a televised address from the White House on Wednesday evening, the president acknowledged that risks endured. ''Of course, huge challenges remain. This is the beginning - but not the end - of our effort to wind down this war,'' he said.

Advertisement: Story continues below

With the bill for America's decade-long involvement nearing $US1trillion ($943 billion), and now running at $US120billion a year, Mr Obama said it was time for the US ''to focus on nation building here at home''.

War weary, and despairing at the slow pace of the recovery, Americans' support for the conflict has ebbed steadily, and Mr Obama's speech sought both to soothe their deep wounds and renew their hopes, while enhancing his re-election prospects.

The US had learnt anew the profound cost of war, he said, with more than 6000 American lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many thousands more permanently scarred.

''Let us finish the work at hand. Let us responsibly end these wars, and reclaim the American Dream that is at

the centre of our story,'' he said.

That Mr Obama rejected more conservative withdrawal plans tendered by retiring Defence Secretary Robert Gates and General David Petraeus, the commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, squares with his promise first made as a presidential candidate in 2008 to extract America from both conflicts. He repeated this 18 months ago when he authorised the so-called ''surge'' of troops in Afghanistan. That concession to his generals had been contingent on withdrawals starting from next month and, as unpalatable as they may be for the Pentagon, political necessity underscored Mr Obama's purpose.

His timetable means the equivalent of the ''surge'' numbers will be out by September 2012, with the pace of withdrawals of the remaining 67,000-plus troops dependent upon the transfer of command to Afghan security forces throughout 2014, as America's mission shifts ''from combat to support''.

It also signals an end to counter-insurgency as America's primary doctrine in the so-called war on terror, with its champion, General Petraeus, destined to take the reins of the CIA within weeks.

Lasting peace will always be contingent upon a parallel political settlement (coalition and Taliban representatives have held talks), Mr Obama said.

''Our position on these talks is clear: they must be led by the Afghan government, and those who want to be a part of a peaceful Afghanistan must break from al-Qaeda, abandon violence, and abide by the Afghan Constitution.''

Even so, there is growing expectation that America's military commitment to Afghanistan will extend well beyond 2014, with as many as 25,000 US troops predicted to remain. Though facing a din of protest from both sides of politics, from those who claim the pace of the troop withdrawals is either too slow or too fast, Mr Obama's drawdown recognises Americans' waning appetite for continuing to foot the bill - in blood and treasure - for conflicts half a world away.

He would have been reassured by this week's Pew Research Centre poll that found that 57 per cent of Americans believe the US was right to wage war in Afghanistan, but that a similar majority now wanted the troops home ''as soon as possible''.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/obama-retreats-so-he-can-reclaim-american-dream-20110623-1ghlc.html#ixzz1Q7zagGdy


Meanwhile,Twenty-eight countries have agreed to release 60 million barrels of crude oil to the market to offset disruptions prompted by Libya's war, the International Energy Agency announced today.

The Paris-based agency warned that the tight oil market "threatens to undermine the fragile global economic recovery."

It said it made the move because the normal increase in demand over the summer "will exacerbate the shortfall further" and that pledges by some oil producers to boost ouput will take a while to have an effect.

The 28 members of the IEA, mainly oil-importing countries in Europe, will make 2 million barrels a day available from their emergency stocks over an initial period of 30 days.

Months of fighting in Libya have removed 132 million barrels of light, sweet crude oil from the market by the end of last month, the agency estimated.

Prices have been at high levels in recent months. They eased back down this week, to below $ 93 a barrel today, due to concerns that US economic growth and crude demand will weaken. Demand growth in China, the world's second-largest oil consumer, has also slipped slightly recently but remains robust.

The fear is that tight supply will cause a new spike in oil prices, hurting economic growth. Only last month, strong demand from emerging markets helped crude rise to almost $ 115 early.

India opposition: Taliban threat to global peace
WASHINGTON: The drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan should not allow room for the Taliban to grow stronger as the militants could threaten regional security and global peace, an Indian opposition leader said Thursday. 

Upper house opposition leader Arun Jaitley said that India has a stake in stabilizing Afghanistan, and the phased withdrawal of American troops should ensure peace and development and not leave any space for the Taliban to increase its activities. 

His comments came the morning after President Barack Obama announced plans to bring 33,000 U.S. troops home by next summer in the opening phases of a withdrawal that is to be completed by 2014. There are currently about 100,000 U.S. troops in the country. 

Jaitely, a prominent figure in India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, said that gains made in Afghanistan over the past decade should be consilidated. He told a news conference in Washington that the Taliban ``is capable of not only destabilizing the region but is a threat to global peace itself.'' 

India is concerned over archrival Pakistan's alleged support of militants. For its part, Pakistan is suspicious of India's increasing assistance to Afghanistan, which it sees as an attempt to undermine Pakistan's strategic interests. 

Jaitley is visiting the U.S. for talks with lawmakers and government officials. Despite his party's Hindu nationalist base, it was during its time in government that India began an on-and-off peace process with Pakistan seven years ago. 

Jaitley said if Pakistan took action against terrorism, and severed links between state security agencies and Islamist groups including the Afghan Taliban and the Lashkar-e-Taiba group blamed for the 2008 attacks on Mumbai, it could lead to a more positive environment for the dialogue. 

He said so far Pakistan has not shown willing, and its conduct since the killing of Osama bin Laden on its soil made him doubtful ``whether the establishment in Pakistan is willing to move away from its conventional policy of using terrorism as an instrument of state policy.'' 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that Pakistan's militant links remain problematic for India but the U.S. is encouraged at the recent resumption of peace talks. Senior diplomats of the two countries are meeting in Islamabad this week to discuss long-running disputes including control of the divided Kashmir region. 

``India looks at Pakistan and believes their continuing support for elements of insurgencies against India in Kashmir and across the border in India proper makes it very difficult to know what path to choose,'' Clinton told a congressional hearing Thursday. ``We have encouraged both sides to go as far they could to build confidence and to have an atmosphere of greater cooperation.''

America's top military commander has distanced himself from President's Barack Obama's plan to withdraw 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by next September, branding it as hastier and creating more risk than he had advised.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen appears before the US House Armed Services Committee Photo: EPA
Toby Harnden

By Toby Harnden, Washington

7:19PM BST 23 Jun 2011

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, used prepared testimony before the House Armed Services Committee to reveal a significant breach between Mr Obama and the senior officers he charged with defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The remarks came as General David Petraeus, Nato commander in Afghanistan, was preparing to testify before a Senate committee after it was confirmed that he opposed Mr Obama's plan, which drew heavily on advice from Joe Biden, the vice president.

"The president's decisions are more aggressive and incur more risk than I was originally prepared to accept," Adml Mullen told a House of Representatives committee hearing.

"More force for more time is, without doubt, the safer course. But that does not necessarily make it the best course. Only the President, in the end, can really determine the acceptable level of risk we must take."

Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, said: "Petraeus loses, Biden wins. And I respect the vice president, but I think that we have undercut a strategy that was working. I think the 10,000 troops leaving year is going to make this more difficult."

In his speech, Mr Obama, who did not mention Gen Petraeus, told Americans that "the tide of war is receding" and that after a decade of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan "these long wars will come to a responsible end".

Now that "the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance" in Afghanistan, it was "time to focus on nation building here at home".

Adml Mullen's comments were carefully phrased but clearly calculated to express a rare public disagreement between Mr Obama and his top brass.

A rift with Gen Petraeus, who commanded the successful Iraq surge, is revered by many members of Congress and has been floated as a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2016, could have serious political ramifications for Mr Obama.

The Pentagon fought a rearguard action to prevent the surge force ordered into Afghanistan by Mr Obama in December 2009 from being pulled out by early spring next year but the withdrawal plan announced by Mr Obama, which had initially been tabled as a "compromise" by Robert Gates, the defence secretary, was not supported by Gen Petraeus.

There were reports of heated discussions during the month before Mr Obama's prime-time speech on Wednesday night.

White House officials, aware of the soaring costs of the war and its questionable progress could be a political liability in the 2012 election, are said to have clashed with Gen Petraeus, who argued that with more time he could repeat his success in Iraq.

Mr Obama rejected the Petraeus proposal to shift thousands of troops to from southern Afghanistan, which has been largely pacified, to the east in order to build a counter-insurgency campaign there. He also refused to bow to Gen Petraeus's request to keep some of the 33,000 troops in Afghanistan until 2013.

Two military officers with close ties to Petraeus told "National Journal" that Gen Petraeus disagreed with Mr Gates's compromise proposal and had not endorsed Mr Obama's drawdown plan.

A third officer said: "No one is talking about succeeding or winning ... the phrase [used on Wednesday night] was bringing this war to a 'responsible' conclusion. I'm not really sure what that means."

Seeking to avoid an ugly public row, Mr Gates confirmed that Gen Petraeus had wanted a slower drawdown by added that he was "not aware of a single general ever in history that did not want more troops and more time". A spokesman for Gen Petraeus declined to comment.

Nearly 70,000 American troops will remain in Afghanistan even after the reductions announced by Mr Obama. This is twice the number when he took office in January 2009.

Michele Flournoy, Undersecretary of Defense, told members of Congress: "Clearly, this is not a 'rush to the exits' that will jeopardise our security gains."

Mr Obama's speech was warmly welcomed by America's Nato allies. Speaking in Afghanistan, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said: "We welcome President Obama's announcement and it is in line with our own thinking. There is clearly progress being made in Afghanistan and I've seen that for myself on this visit."

Mr Hague confirmed that there were talks with the Taliban. Contacts do take place," he said. "The United Kingdom will assist in that when it can."

Speaking to senators in Washington, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, described the contacts as "very preliminary outreach to members of the Taliban", adding that "this is not a pleasant business" but an essential element of ending the insurgency.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France announced a pullout "in a proportional manner and in a calendar comparable to the withdrawal of American reinforcements" while Guido Westerwelle, Germany's Defence Minister, said that his country hoped "to be able to reduce our own troop contingent for the first time" by the end of 2011.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8595201/Admiral-Mike-Mullen-says-withdrawal-plan-is-a-risk.html

American mess
June 23, 2011   9:26:16 PM

US can't leave others holding the can

Ten very long years ago when US troops first landed in Afghanistan to launch what was then known as Operation Enduring Freedom, they had two stated goals: First, to rid the nation of the ruling Taliban and destroy its sister organisation the Al Qaeda and second, to establish democratic rule in Afghanistan. On Wednesday when US President Barack Obama shared his plans for a phased withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan where his country is still fighting its longest war yet, his announcement marked the beginning of the end of that war. There is much debate going on about Mr Obama's plans — 33,000 troops over a period of 15 months — and whether it as "deliberate" as the outgoing US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates would like it to be or if it significantly more than the "token amount" Vice President Joe Biden had warned against. But strangely, no one seems to ask the most important question: Has the US achieved either of its stated goals? Clearly, not. The Taliban is still very much around and there is the distinct possibility that as soon as the Americans leave, they will take back control and together with Pakistan, happily plan terrorist attacks against India; that is, of course, when they are not stoning women to death for sport. Years of targeted bombing and drone attacks has done little to weaken the Taliban who successfully regrouped in recent years. In 2009, Mr Obama even sent additional troops to fight a resurgent Taliban. At the time, he had promised that the surge would "disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat Al-Qaeda, break the momentum of the Taliban and stabilise Afghanistan" — just like he had promised that they would be out of Libya in a matter of days. 

To be fair to Mr Obama, he did get the one 'bad guy' the civilised world had been gunning for: Osama bin Laden; but the death of the Al Qaeda chief is only a minor setback to the network. Perhaps, the only goal that the Americans have achieved, partially that too, is the establishment of democracy in Afghanistan. But then again, President Hamid Karzai's influence extends little beyond his presidential palace making the lawless country a regional liability. That the Americans are now negotiating with the Taliban — the very same people they went to war to destroy — is a telling comment. And then of course, there is Pakistan: The global exporter of terror that is also a US ally in the war on terror. What a mess! And now, they may not leave without cleaning it up. Sure, there is pressure on Mr Obama to 'bring back the boys' and and spend those war dollars at home where the economy is crumbling. Given that the 2012 Presidential elections are around the corner, he has good reason to give into those demands too but he must keep in mind what Admiral Mike Mullen said: "The job is not done". 
Waning US support weighed on Afghan move: Gates

By Dan De Luce (AFP) – 47 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — Flagging American public support for the war was a key factor in deciding to bring all 33,000 US surge troops home from Afghanistan by next summer, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told AFP Thursday.

The outgoing Pentagon chief acknowledged that the US commander on the ground, General David Petraeus, favored a slower withdrawal that would have kept more troops in place to consolidate fragile gains against the Taliban.

The "advantages and disadvantages" of a range of options were debated in White House deliberations, including "not only the situation on the ground in Afghanistan but also political sustainability here at home," Gates said.

Speaking a day after US President Barack Obama announced his plan to pull out the 33,000 reinforcements by the end of September 2012, Gates said he was "comfortable" with the result and the discussions that preceded it.

"He (Obama) had a range of options that began next July with the drawdown," Gates told AFP in an interview in his office at the Pentagon. "Obviously he had preferred options that gave more time."

While he acknowledged that the military had a preference for a more modest drawdown, Gates said this wasn't surprising as top commanders always want to have more forces deployed.

"I would just say, both from my experience in this job and as a historian, I'm not aware of a single general ever in history that did not want more troops and more time," he said.

Petraeus, the four-star general who is set to step down soon to take over as CIA director, attended at least two of the three White House meetings on the drawdown decision, and had his chance to present his views, Gates said.

"He was in the meetings, at least the last two, and participated vigorously," he said.

In a televised speech on Wednesday, Obama did not specify precisely when the troops would depart.

Gates said all 33,000 reinforcements, who were ordered to Afghanistan in December 2009 to turn the tide in the war, will be withdrawn by "the end of September."

Some lawmakers and commentators on the right have accused Obama of jeopardizing gains against insurgents for purely political considerations ahead of 2012 presidential elections.

But Gates, a well-respected 67-year-old Washington veteran who is retiring at the end of the month, defended Obama's decision, saying it reflected both progress on the battlefield as well the political climate at home.

"I think these things are arbitrary to a certain extent, including the military timelines," he said.

"Nobody can scientifically prove that any of these dates that something specific will have occurred by that time. They are a best estimate.

"They're a best estimate in terms of the military commanders, and they're a best estimate in terms of the president's desire for success in our mission in Afghanistan, which also requires political sustainability here at home."

Gates pointed out that while former president George W. Bush withdrew his surge force in Iraq after a year, Obama will have kept reinforcements in place in Afghanistan for about two years.

Echoing Obama's remarks on Wednesday, he said the reduced US presence would not alter what he called Washington's "limited" goals in the war, reflecting a greater sense of "realism" after a strategy review in 2009.

Those goals are: to reverse the insurgents' momentum; deny them control of populated areas; degrade their capabilities; and to bolster Afghan security forces to a point where they can prevent the overthrow of the Kabul government and the reestablishment of safe-havens for Al-Qaeda or other extremists. "That's it," he said.

Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved. More »


Defence Technology
Military robots sparking a revolution, both on and off the battlefield

India 246 & 252

West Indies 173 & 262 (68.2 ov)

India won by 63 runs

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...