When Pak President says that Swat deal for the enforcement of Nizam-e-Adl, was aimed for the provision of speedy justice, to some he is bemusing himself as Sufi Mohammed had no doubt at all that he has been given ‘carte blanche’ in Swat and thus he roared like a lion after the announcement declaring all infidels who are working under constitution other than Sharia. At the time of ordinance, in a rushed strategy rather than using this opportunity by extending political parties Act to FATA, Swat and other regions and bringing them all under one flag of constitution and jurisdiction of superior courts as was chartered in their 3D strategy in parliament, a new one sided ultra constitution court system was agreed.

A system where a judge’s quality was to be measured from the length of his beard than his intellect a mental capacity to administer justice. And hence some who do not wish peace in the region and has the capacity to call shots, pushed those disillusioned to advance on Buner and Dir district portraying a fear that soon Islamabad will be under those thugs, and questions on security of Atomic weaponry. To me they achieved desired results as in fear both a ‘half hearted pact’ and ‘ prospect of peace’ blown away. I will say, its haste, and poor negotiations on all fronts.

Army operation in any part of current Pakistan must be used as a last resort, due to variety of international vested interests in the region. It is open secret that no one can work at that length and breadth against Pakistan on its soil unless foreign money, weapons and money is involved. In Swat and other districts Pakistan army is not facing common criminals, the enemy has paid personnel alien to the concept of sympathy for locals, have heavy guns, latest wireless systems, intel and locations of pak forces and foreign currency. Pakistan is being cornered to a weaker kneeling position to barter. Any negotiated settlement which could bring calm to the area is not acceptable to those who matters, if it is made without their ‘nod’ people will start seeing videos of ‘whip lashing’, open court decisions shooting on site punishments and media avalanche against the myth.

As long as US forces are working in Afghanistan it is unthinkable that peace may return in the region unless a solution is achieved. When Mr. Zardari says, Pakistan Army was a “big institution and does have influence in the affairs of the country’ and that, the Army had now realised that its job was to defend the frontiers of the country and keep away from politics’ I think he still lives in Cukoo’s land. The whole idea is to sabotage that control and influence which hinders the greater goal and either finish it or coercively manipulate it for its own advantage. This Govt failed to eliminate, control or decrease that influence single handedly or by joint collaboration amongst political forces, though it tried to woo its main intelligence agency. West is now working on the second option which ha a history. Pakistan is facing a greater menace of a calculated and targeted campaign to keep its forces busy in those terrains.

It is ironic that groups like Bait Ullah Masud are working freely inside Pakistan and have the highly sensitive intel and appliances to create havoc, and are untouchables. As long as West does not realise that Pakistan needs to be aided militarily and otherwise to bring normality in that part of the land and that border security must be the prime concern for NATO with heavy walls, and mining the Durand line with security cameras and check post and army is provided watchdog heli’s and night goggles to combat to and from infiltration effectively to halve the attacks on each other’s forces. Army must be provided equipments to fight this war with intelligence sharing and joint collaboration without compromising each other’s jurisdiction and sovereignty and if both fight this war with mind rather than pride of might, there is a possibility to come close to a solution. We must not forget that wars are often fought on tables, going to battlefield is but to achieve that consulted and calculated target. The way it is fought now, is a way wire strategy. On top of it, Pakistan’s one sided hugs and kisses for India under pressure are embarrassing when the response to their zealous courtship wishes are returned by capturing its water with demands of the returns of the culprits of ‘bombay attacks’.

If Pakistan carrying on this adhoc policy of running the state of affairs on day to day basis , I am afraid its running short of time and fuel, however a concerted effort to keep federating unit intact with due consultation may be the ultimate solution to bring about peace and stability in Pakistan, in return in Afghanistan and the region. Pakistan is a small but a nasty piece of this big jig saw puzzle having the capacity, and geo strategic location. It can only safeguard its territorial integrity if it survives as winning is not on card, and survival is not possible if civil and military do not work together. As long as they can be divided, they can be ruled.

NATO and Pakistan must realise that ‘trust deficit’ between each other will cost both. This region, in particular Afghanistan has become a pivotal point for international experiments. China, Russia, Iran, India, and USA along with KSA have vested interests in the region due to close proximity or future scene of the globe. At present, world needs to focus on the 1.5 million refugees coming to cities of Pakistan from Swat. Pakistan is not new to this mass people movement. It could never return the same amount who came from Afghanistan during Russian invasion, with courtesy of USA who told Muslims how to do ‘jihad’ against infidels. Millions are marching again leaving their homes and what will happen to them if operation continues is any body’s guess, and again thanks to USA for being there to tell Pakistan that its their war, and extremism is a threat to them.

Swat operation is opening a window of international experiments in Pakistan and intl forces are frightening the country to come and do the job, unless they do it themselves. They want Pakistan to ruin itself first, so that they can aid later on receipt of disbursements, and as beggars can not be choosy so aid is not replaced with the slogan of trade. If army achieves the objective under civil, its fine, otherwise, people must be ready for a long haul as we are trying to crush a ‘myth’ not a visible enemy. A little weaker, Pakistan is used to the change of the chain of command in the middle of the battlefield

ISLAMABAD: NATO will today begin two days of joint naval exercises with Pakistan as part of an effort to enhance cooperation in counterterrorism and anti-piracy measures.

According to information from Karachi, five NATO vessels, carrying about 800 crew in total, will take part along with four ships and air units from the Pakistan Navy. “It’s a diplomatic trip,” Lt. Cmdr. Alexandre Santos Fernandes said in Karachi yesterday.

“NATO is willing to establish contact with countries that cooperate in the international effort to counter terrorism, piracy and other organized crime issues,” he said. NATO and the United States look to Pakistan for support in defeating Al-Qaeda and stabilizing neighboring Afghanistan.
Courtesy: Arab News

With a set of old glories neatly arranged in the background, flanked by his Secretaries of State and Defense, President Barack Obama announced a comprehensive strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan (or Af-Pak Strategy). President announced,

“So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”

Apparently, the strategy was more of an escalation of Bush policy than a policy shift. However, foreign policy experts like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski remain skeptical of the goals set for, what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called, “long slog” war.

Not long before President’s announcement, Secretary Gates was lowering nation’s expectations for winning the war. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he cautioned against setting unrealistic goals, “This is going to be a long slog, and frankly, my view is that we need to be very careful about the nature of the goals we set for ourselves in Afghanistan”. He warned, “If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money”. Considering, no power has ever been able to hold Afghanistan for too long, his warning was right on the money.

Despite bipartisan approval of Obama Af-Pak Strategy, experts believe the policy is fraught with unrealistic optimism, unattainable goals and erroneous calculations. Even worst, it fails to meet the tenets of the Powell Doctrine. Many analysts hail the doctrine to be the Holy Grail of modern warfare. According to the Doctrine, before America takes a military action its tenets would have to be answered affirmatively:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7. Is the action supported by the American people?

8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

Coincidently, with the exception of the first tenet, Obama policy falls short of affirming every other tenet. However, before glancing over the negations, a retrospective accounting of genesis of the Af-Pak crisis might assist in understanding the crisis.

Roots of the current mess can be traced back to the political and administrative vacuum left by the CIA, when it suddenly left Afghanistan without even saying bye to its wartime partners, Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Mujahideen – who used to frequent White House as state guests. Its premature departure was resented by the abandoned, which gave birth to equally cold-hearted phenomenon of Talibanization. They controlled over 80% of Afghanistan; hence, they became its default government. In exchange for financial support, the cash-strapped Taliban provided safe heavens to terrorist organizations, like Al Qaeda.

At least initially, Al Qaeda’s core was made up of the CIA funded and trained Mujahideen; who should been rehabbed after the Soviets withdrawal. Unsupervised and forsaken by Americans and their native countries, these fighters who knew no other trait but guerrilla warfare searched for new causes. When none found, they invented their own.

Similarly, Pakistanis also found themselves deserted and heavily sanctioned by their allies. On its Eastern borders India was still as hostile as ever. Pakistanis decided to defend themselves by creating a buffer through a proxy. Pakistanis diverted thousands of idle guerrilla fighters from Afghanistan to Kashmiri. The buffer kept India engaged in an asymmetrical warfare.

After the 9/11 attacks, instead of seeking assistance of the patrons of Taliban and its time tested partner ISI, America aligned itself with a pro Indo-Iran-Russian mercenaries, the Northern-Alliance (NA). Soon after the American lead invasion, the Taliban dispersed into the civilian population. By placing an ethnic minority NA government (Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks) in Kabul, the allies further alienated the Pushtoon majority.

If things weren’t already complicated enough, Bush team made the worst possible mistake; it allowed a massive Indian influx into Afghanistan. Indians who were itching to settle scores with Pakistan wasted no time in opening at least 11 consulates on the western borders of Pakistan. Pakistanis viewed these consulates as launch pads for the subversive elements tasked to destabilize Pakistan. The Pakistanis felt entrapped by what they interpreted as a hostile Indian encirclement. They countered the move by reassembling the Taliban proxy.

That is when an Afghanistan, which was apparently turning to normalcy, took a turn for the worst. It became the shooting gallery for many; including the NATO, India, Iran, Pakistan, and non-state elements like Al Qaeda, Pakistan Sponsored Taliban (PST) and RAW/CIA Sponsored Taliban (RCST). The RCST were primarily tasked to infiltrate PST and to conduct subversive activities inside Pakistan. Additionally, it was meant to erode public support for the PST and to generate anti-Taliban sentiments among the global community. The risky strategy runs a too realistic danger of destabilizing nuclear armed Pakistan to a point of no return. Pakistan may end up fracturing into multiple unmanageable pieces, each with its own share of extremists. Clearly the strategy violates tenets 2 and 3 of the Powell Doctrine.

While analyzing President Obama’s European (G20) trip with Charlie Rose, both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski offered their criticism of Af-Pak review. Henry Kissinger warned of an unmanageable mess, if something is not done soon to stabilize deteriorating conditions in Pakistan. He called Af-Pak policy a “fluid military strategy.” Mr. Brzezinski was more specific with his criticism. He asked, “how do we really get Pakistan to help us?” Then he answered, “Pakistanis are convinced they are under threat from India.” But Af-Pak policy does exactly the opposite. It recommends a greater role of India in Afghanistan, which only adds to Pakistan’s fears and goes against the prevailing wisdom of stabilizing Pakistan. A contradiction of the 3rd tenet.

President’s special representative, Richard Holbrooke announced Af-Pak exit strategy,

“The exit strategy includes governance, corruption, but above all, and this is the single most difficult aspect of what we are talking about today, it requires dealing with Western Pakistan.”

The unattainable and ambiguous exit strategy stood in stark contrast of the 5th tenet of the Powell Doctrine. He explained,

“If the current situation in Western Pakistan continued, the instability in Afghanistan will continue.” Meaning, success in Afghanistan is tied to the threats in the ‘Western Pakistan’.

An interdependent strategy gives birth to a range of new complexities: either, the US will have to depend on Pakistan’s resolve and capacity to deal with the extremists, or it will have to root them out itself.

America has already voiced its mistrust of Pakistan’s resolve to fight the extremists. If Pakistan cannot be trusted then US will have to do it itself. It will have to: either divert the resources from Afghanistan, or send additional troops to Western Pakistan. But the resources from Afghanistan cannot be diverted, until Afghan National Security Forces are first brought up to a level where they could function independently; an ambitious goal, considering Afghan president still can’t leave his Kabul palace without the protection provided by the US Navy SEALS. The other option is equally impractical, because it will require pumping-in additional American troops – paralleling the numbers deployed during the ‘Gulf War’.

Since American allies are already fatigued from the long drawn Afghan war, they want to leave Afghanistan altogether. Allies, like Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup (head of Britain’s armed forces), also expressed their reservations over the practicality of the American strategy. He advised, “Just as in Afghanistan, that kind of insurgency cannot be defeated by conventional military means. It can only be dealt with, in the long term, through politics.” An obvious negation of tenet 8 of Powell Doctrine.

US will have to dip into its own pool to exercise the second option, because no amount of covert/shoot & scoot missions can stem the militancy. No Pakistani government will be able to ignore populous’ demands to fight the invaders. It will be compelled to fight with any or all means at its disposal. Naturally, a Pakistani reaction cannot be calculated, without invoking the forbidden phrase of ‘nuclear exchange’. Much to be desired to affirm the 6th tenet.

Reportedly, even Vice President Joseph Biden argued against the troop surge in Afghanistan. Moreover, American public is not in mood to embark on another never-ending war. Besides, neither the US nor its allies’ economies are hardly in a shape to be able to afford yet another trillion dollar war. Cardinal sins, per 7th and 8th tenets.

Despite thumbs up from the Afghan and Pakistani presidents, the public remains extremely suspicious and resentful of the American policy. Reportedly, between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, 60 UAV hits in Pakistan killed 14 Al Qaeda men, 687 innocent civilians, including women and children. Fairly or unfairly, an ordinary Afghan or a Pakistani believes, West is in there to destroy their faith, their country and the Muslim world altogether. If the war is to be won, then Obama’s team will have to reevaluate and reform its strategy.

The emphasis should be on winning hearts and minds of Afghans and Pakistanis. Before exercising the military option, a really heavy dose of diplomacy, political and financial support will have to be thrown in the mix. Above all, US will have to win back the trust and goodwill of their Pakistani counterparts. Suspension of UAV attacks and phenomenal reduction of Indian presence in Afghanistan would be good starting points in generating goodwill and normalcy in the region.

Secretary Gates was prophetic when he said, “If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of central Asian Valhalla [in Afghanistan], we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money”. Listen to him!

LONDON: The US-led War in Afghanistan, plagued by unclear goals and unintended consequences, must change course, according to Tariq Ali. Condemning the conduct of the conflict, the influential London-based Pakistani historian, journalist, and editor of the New Left Review also touched on the regrouping of the Taliban and the geopolitical motivations for NATO’s presence in the region.

Ali also presented what he believed would be a successful exit strategy from the now eight year long war. The event was sponsored by Unbound, Harvard’s journal of leftist legal thought.

After an introduction by Tor Krever ‘11, spokesman for Unbound, and by Prof. Duncan Kennedy, Ali praised recent developments in Pakistan, calling the reinstatement of the country’s Chief Justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry dismissed after standing up the country’s ruling elites a rare bit of good news for the region.

He also lauded the country’s lawyers’ movement, which had helped to place Chaudhry back on the bench and wondered why there was not a similar movement against breaches of the rule of law in the US.

Turning to Afghanistan, Ali speculated that the war had been primarily motivated by revenge. He highlighted the Taliban’s initial offer to turn over members of Al-Qaeda if the US produced evidence of their role in the September 11th attacks a request, he lamented, never taken seriously.

He also hinted at darker motives for NATO’s role in the conflict, pointing to statements by the organization’s Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Schaffer, that Western armies’ ongoing role in the region is meant to “contain China”.

Ali also said that the US initial goals to kill or capture Osama bin Laden or the Taliban’s former leader, Mullah Omar had become a driving obsession, interfering with attempts to make a positive impact on the country. If NATO had gone into Afghanistan with the stated goal of reconstruction and development, Ali reasoned, its conduct would not have alienated as many Afghans.

Instead, he claimed, their raids into the countryside have increased support for a resurgent Taliban and sent many Afghans streaming to shelter on the outskirts of the capital, Kabul. There, they live in shanties within direct sight of the comparatively luxurious lifestyles of aid groups and Western militaries.

In the face of an occupation force that ignores the social realities of the Afghan state, Ali said, and an Afghan government that barely retains control of Kandahar and Kabul, the Taliban has not only expanded its territorial scope and military strength, but its membership.

Ali asserts these new recruits have changed the character of the organization. Citing formal Taliban press conferences in which members of the group wore suits, he went on to describe their offer to cleanse the region of Al-Qaeda if NATO forces were to leave the region, entirely.

While not explicitly exhorting NATO to take up their offer, Ali did suggest that the organization aim to fulfill Afghans’ social and political needs rather than continue to concentrate on Al-Qaeda, which he said had become a wildly overstated threat.

Doing so, Ali said, would allow Afghanistan to recover from a state which was “worse than under the Taliban,” worse even, NGOs now report, for women. Noting that rapes had increased significantly, he said that Afghans now looked to Iran as a model society.

Echoing the alleged Obama administration plans to engage that country to seek a regional solution for Afghanistan, Ali said that Pakistan, Russia, and China should all be involved as well. Still, Ali did not believe the war could continue to be prosecuted as a fruitless assault on Al-Qaeda, a campaign promise which Pres. Barack Obama ‘91 could only possibly deliver at Afghanistan’s continuing expense.-SANA

KABUL: The top US diplomat in Kabul warned ­ that Pakistan posed a bigger security challenge to America and the world than Afghanistan, as Islamabad grappled with the latest terrorist attack on its soil and the escalating Taliban on its north-western border.

Christopher Dell, who currently runs the US embassy in Kabul, was speaking in the aftermath of the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore and the news that Pakistani Taliban groups had formed a common front to attack NATO troops in Afghanistan, in what is widely expected to be a bloody and possibly ­decisive summer this year.

“From where I sit [Pakistan] sure looks like it’s going to be a bigger problem,” Dell said in an interview in the heavily fortified US embassy in Kabul. “It is certainly one of those nuclear armed countries the instability of which is a bigger problem for the globe.

“Pakistan is a bigger place, has a larger population, its nuclear-armed. It has certainly made radical Islam a part of its political life, and it now seems to be a deeply ingrained element of its political culture. It makes things there very hard.”

Fears over Pakistan’s ability to cope with the rise of violent religious extremism were intensified by claims yesterday that police in Lahore had abandoned the Sri Lankan cricketers whom they were supposed to be protecting when gunmen opened fire on Tuesday. Surveillance ­footage showed three of the attackers walking down the middle of a street, apparently under no pressure. But Pakistani officials pointed out that six police officers died in the attack.

Senior officials in the Foreign Office and the Obama administration have privately expressed concern that Pakistan could prove to be more of a danger to global peace and security in the long run than Afghanistan, because of its nuclear ­weapons and its highly politicised and Islamicised secret service, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI).

Barack Obama is particularly alarmed at the decline in Pakistan’s stability, and appointed a special envoy, Richard ­Holbrooke, to Afghanistan and Pakistan to coordinate diplomatic efforts. In a ­reflection of rising anxiety in Washington, Dell expressed those concerns openly.

Dell, who is serving as the US chargé d’affaires in Kabul after a similarly outspoken stint as ambassador in Zimbabwe, said there were signs the rate of infiltration of insurgents across the frontier from Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal areas had increased in recent days. He said it was possible the increase was a result of ceasefire deals agreed by militants and the Pakistani government.

“Every time the Pakistanis have signed a peace deal, two things happen,” Dell said. “There is an uptick in the fighting on this [the Afghan] side, and the peace deals have fallen apart quickly. We think we’ve already seen an increase of fighters crossing the border.”

The epicentre of the problem is Pakistan’s Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) which have become a ­stronghold for an array of jihadist groups including al-Qaida and various splinters of the Taliban. “Everybody says: ‘We’ll go into the Fata and clean out those nests’. Well, you know you could do that in theory. But you’d only create another problem with the backlash against the presence of American or other foreign soldiers,” Dell said.

“There are no easy solutions in Pakistan. There is no silver bullet out there that we’re going to discover one day that will make the problem go away. I think for all those reasons it’s a deep challenge, and yeah, probably harder than Afghanistan.”

The Guardian reported on Tuesday that three warlords in Fata had settled their differences, formed a group calling itself Shura Ittihad-ul Mujahideen, or Council of United Holy Warriors, and had agreed to focus their efforts on launching attacks in Afghanistan.

Major General John MacDonald, the new deputy commander of US forces in Afghanistan, told the Guardian the insurgents were “most dangerous when they begin to collaborate with one another”. “We think we have already seen an increase in the number of fighters coming across the border particularly in the Kunar area right opposite Bajaur,” he added. He predicted that the coming surge in the number of coalition troops in Afghanistan would lead to an increase in fighting.

About 17,000 more US troops are due to arrive in the country in the next few months, and between three and five thousand are expected to reinforce British forces in Helmand province. General MacDonald said those troops would be used to push into places hitherto considered no-go areas for Nato troops. “So yes, this summer you will see more violence,” he said. “We’re just about to kick a beehive.”-SANA

LAHORE: Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) Amir Qazi Hussain Ahmed said that due to Musharraf’s unpopular and pro-American policies the country plunged into deep crisis. In his interview, he said,

“Law and order situation is worse; our army is fighting against our own people. This was in fact a deep-rooted conspiracy of America to create a void between army and the masses”.

He said that under the patronage of NATO forces, India had setup its consulates near Pak-Afghan border. There are no Indian nationals living in these border areas and in fact it is a conspiracy against Pakistan, he added. “Law and order situation is the main reason of economic meltdown in the country. I am sure once the law and order situation is restored in the country, all the problems will be settled” Qazi said.

Regarding war on terror, he said, “UN has so for failed to define this hypothetic idea of “War on Terror”, the member countries are confused as how to explain it and there is absolutely no idea”.

When asked about MMA role regarding 17th amendment, he said, “We had supported the 17th amendment with a view that Musharraf will quit and then we will do away with this amendment through parliament. But later he deceived us….and today, the people, who came to power through a deal, lay blame on us, but why don’t they dispose off the 17th amendment now. Why do they not move a resolution in the parliament?”

To a question, JI Amir said MMA had greatly helped to curb the sectarian violence in the country besides creating a congenial atmosphere based on trust and reconciliation. “We wanted to keep this alliance in tact as it was in the best interest of the country” Qazi said.

Criticizing the current government, he said that there was no change; however, faces have definitely changed. “We have same policies as it were during the Musharraf government; innocent people are ruthlessly being killed in tribal areas and Swat valley” he stated. On Indo-Pak relations, Qazi stated that for a durable peace and prosperity in the entire region settlement of all disputes particularly the resolution of Kashmir dispute is inevitable.-SANA

MOSCOW: Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said that Russia was considering to offer military aircraft to help supply NATO soldiers in Afghanistan, in an overture to a new US administration. The Kremlin has said that it was looking for a fresh start in relations under new US President Barack Hussain Obama and would be seeking concessions from him over missile defence plans which the Kremlin thought a threat to its security.

When asked about ways to improve ties with the United States, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia was ready for close cooperation on Afghanistan. The United States wanted Russia to provide it with transit routes to re-supply NATO-led forces fighting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, particularly after militants attacked truck convoys on a supply route through Pakistan.

”Non-military transit has already been granted as part of our agreements with NATO and the United States very recently received our agreement for delivery of their cargoes for the needs of the international forces and additional steps are also possible,”

Lavrov said.

US Vice President Joe Biden, in a speech at a security conference in Munich this month, said it was time ”to press the reset button” on relations with Moscow. His comments were welcomed by Russian officials. ”Vice President Biden spoke about this in Munich as a process which would help normalize our relations and take them to the level of a constructive partnership,” Lavrov said.

”There are many problems in the world which we need to resolve together, there are too many threats that are common for both Russia and the United States and Europe and other states.” The Kremlin has identified Afghanistan as an area where it has common interests with Washington. Russians still have fresh memories of the failed Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and see the Taliban as a threat to their security.-SANA

WASHINGTON: A US lawmaker, currently on a visit to Afghanistan said that to win the war on terror, it is essential to have stability in the region. “Great challenges remain in Afghanistan, but long-term stability in the region is key for victory in the War on Terror overall,” said Congressman, John Boehner.

The delegation had earlier visited Iraq. The delegation’s visit comes as renewed attention is focused on Afghanistan and the additional American troops expected to be deployed there in the coming months.

Observing that American troops fighting the War on Terror in Afghanistan and around the world have the support and gratitude of House Republicans, Boehner said “Our men and women serving in Afghanistan face increasingly daunting challenges as we seek to uproot terrorism where it is bred and stabilize a war-torn country that has known brutality for far too long.”

He said “Now is not the time to back away from these challenges, as some Democrats have suggested. Our visit to Afghanistan gave us an on-the-ground perspective of the obstacles and opportunities facing this important part of the world.” Other members of the Republican delegation are Whip Eric Cantor, Armed Services Committee Ranking Republican John McHugh, Intelligence Committee Ranking Republican Pete Hoekstra, and Reps. Tom Latham and Jo Bonner.

During the two-day visit, the delegation was briefed by US Ambassador William Wood and General David McKiernan, the head of both US Forces in the country and NATO’s International Security Assistance Force, the coalition of 39 nations with a presence in Afghanistan.-SANA

ISLAMABAD: The US troubleshooter on Afghanistan and Pakistan pledged to forge a new strategy and urge allies to do more in the war against Islamist insurgents on a maiden visit Monday to the war-torn region.

Richard Holbrooke, considered a hard-hitting diplomat and the architect of peace in Bosnia, has been tasked with implementing an integrated US strategy toward Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. US President Barack Obama has called Afghanistan the main front in the “war on terror” and plans to send a further 30,000 troops, doubling the US military contingent fighting a Taleban-led insurgency alongside 50,000 NATO troops.

Holbrooke will hold top-level talks before “reporting back” to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama. “I am here to listen and learn the ground realities of this critically important country,” Holbrooke was quoted as saying in a US Embassy statement upon arrival in Islamabad last evening.

“The United States looks forward to reviewing our policies and renewing our commitment and friendship with the people of Pakistan,” he added. Holbrooke flew into strained ties between Islamabad and Washington, marked by US missile strikes within Pakistan and US criticism that Pakistan is not doing enough to eradicate Islamist “safe havens” on its territory.

Pakistan, reeling from attacks that have killed more than 1,500 people in 20 months and whose weak civilian government is deeply concerned about a worsening domestic backlash over missile strikes, has welcomed a policy review. “It is Pakistan’s endeavor to develop a fresh perspective on issues of peace, security, stability and the development of the region and in particular address the issues of militancy, terrorism and extremism effectively, by adopting a comprehensive and holistic strategy,” the Foreign Ministry said.

Holbrooke’s mission will be further complicated by escalating tensions between India and Pakistan over the Mumbai attacks, which New Delhi has blamed on Pakistan-based militants. He will meet President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, Foreign Minister Mahmoud Qureshi and senior military commanders before leaving on Thursday.

In a sad incident assailants have destroyed ten containers in Tehsil Landi Kotal area of Khyber Agency on Wednesday. The containers were full of supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan. No causality was reported in the incident. Militants also attacked in Landi Kotal cantonment area last night in which an official of Frontier Constabulary (FC) sustained injuries. This is not first and singular example of attacks on NATO convoys delivering goods to troops.

Previously NATO’s vital supply link through the Northwest Frontier Province has been shut down as the Pakistani military launched an operation to clear the Taliban from the area. The move comes as Taliban attacks have increasingly targeted NATO columns and shipping terminals in Khyber and Peshawar. More than 300 NATO vehicles and containers have been destroyed in a series of attacks on shipping terminals in Peshawar as well as attacks on convoys moving through the region.

The NATO logistical chain through Pakistan stretches from the port city of Karachi to Peshawar, through the Khyber Pass to Kabul. More than 70 percent of NATO supplies move through Peshawar.

Options of Alternative routs:
It has been enormously difficult task of supplying troops in landlocked, mountainous and with few good roads, Afghanistan. For Washington Post it is Achilles’ heel of foreign armies here, most recently the Soviets. U.S. officials are seeking alternatives routes, including the prospect of beginning deliveries by a tortuous overland journey from Europe, Iran or Russia.

Kyrgyzstan has Closed a route
However recently Kyrgyz government is planning to close a strategically important U.S. military base that Washington uses as a route for troops and supplies heading into Afghanistan on its territory after Russia offered $2bn of emergency aid to the impoverished central Asian country, Russian media reported Tuesday. The base, located at Manas outside Bishkek, the Kyrgyz capital, was established with Russia’s support in 2001 to support US coalition forces’ campaign to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev said at a news conference in Moscow that “all due procedures” were being initiated to close Manas Air Base, the Russian news agency RIA-Novosti reported.

U.S. President Barack Obama has made it clear that fight against militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan is more important than in Iraq. War on terror has become his top priority. His administration is expected to send as many as 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in the coming months as Commanders in the field, led by U.S. Gen. David McKiernan has demanded more troops. Obama’s administration is also hoping that other NATO members, which were repeatedly pressed by the Bush administration for more support, will provide more troops – for both combat and accelerated training of Afghan forces. More troops more worrisome for U.S. when movement of Sensitive military goods, such as weapons and ammunition is considered; Torkhum is shortest and easiest route.

Iran as an Option
According to other news NATO would not oppose individual member nations who are interested in making deals with Iran to supply their forces in Afghanistan as an alternative to using increasingly risky routes from Pakistan, the alliance’s top military commander Gen. John Craddock’s commented.

“NATO is looking at flexible, alternate routing. I think that is healthy, Options are a good thing, choices are a good thing, flexibility in military operations is essential, what nations will do is upto them”

Craddock said, when he was inquired about the possibility of the nations with good relations with Iran such as France, Germany and Italy may try to set up an alternate supply route to western Afghanistan via Char Bahar, a port in southeastern Iran.

Iran has a long history of opposing Taliban rule; however for U.S. its role in Afghan war is deemed suspicious. U.S. analytics have been criticizing Iran for supporting militants in Afghanistan such criticism has been muted recently as President Barack Obama’s administration tries to set a new tone in relations with Iran. Bush administration has been claiming that elements in Iran was involved in supplying advanced roadside bombs, other munitions and training to insurgents in Iraq. Even Bush Administration declared Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps or its Qods Force a terrorist organization in Iran. Furthermore Iran has similar elements that can create enormous trouble for the supply chains via Iran.

Air Transport System
Air transport systems are considered best to elude supply route problems because air transportation is certainly difficult to attack; however non-combat goods is prohibitively expensive and also logistically difficult.

Why alternative route is required:
In past one year Pakistan has become increasingly dangerous as militants attack convoys that supply the foreign troops in Afghanistan, recent attack is a clear example. Several times these routs have been closed or operations and militants have been reportedly been killed but seepage remain continued from Pak-Afghan Boarders so it becomes difficult for U.S. to provide troops with necessary things from bullets and bombs to fuel to lettuce.

War on terror is on its end:
Since all the options are diminishing for U.S. for delivering goods to troops in Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan would shut its military base that was established with Russian support; even if they do not that route is difficult and expensive. Since Russia and U.S. have not been in very friendly relationships. Ideological dichotomous history along with an era of cold war spreading over years; compel world to assume that Russia would not easily keep its support on for U.S.

U.S. new administration though changing its tone towards Iran but still extremist elements exist in Iran who certainly can be troublesome for transporting convoys. There are other antagonistic factors that has agonized segments in Iran; such as rising demands of closing its uranium enrichment activities; a strong attempt to stop Iran from seeking atomic power for peaceful purposes. It is deemed U.S. would seldom consider going to Afghanistan from Iran.

The war in Afghanistan has its ramifications in Pakistan too. Pakistan is a strongest alley in war on Terror with U.S but it is expected from a democratic government not to support U.S. in its war in manner that harms its national Interest. Drone attacks in tribal areas of Pakistan are aggravating situation and the influence of local Taliban is increasing among tribesmen. However it becomes difficult to measure who is behind these attacks however these can not be localities who would ultimately harm civil population of Pakistan. Taliban have a very clear mandate behind these attacks to pressurize government of Pakistan to stop its assistance to U.S. After attacking the major bridge; an eminent supply line to NATO forces has been disrupted and reconstruction of this line calls for ten days work. This has certainly effected the supply to allied forces. Thus Increased number of attacks on convoys have left U.S. with no options other than to discontinue its war on terror in Afghanistan.

can be effected.