Obama Af-Terror Plan: Why more Troops for Afghan withdrawal?

                                  -Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal  

                                        ONE

As days pass by, US President Obama, who seems to be more preoccupied in domestic affairs than resolving foreign problems, already feels the pinch right in his armed chair, surrounded by old Bushdom companions, precisely because he still refuses to follow the Bushdom rules in toto and avoid frictions, but he is also unable to make a better, firm decision either, with varying strategists trying to cram his brain. President Obama unveiled on 30 Nov his new Afghan policy at the US Military Academy at West Point. Obama promised, in addition to an immediate surge in troop numbers, that America would begin bringing soldiers home in 2011. He expressed confidence that Afghan forces would be able to begin taking responsibility for security in the country by that time.  Already his state secretary Mrs. Clinton, a pro-state terrorism Democrat, has said  that the 2011 is not a definite date and hinted that all anti-Islamic nations need not get panicky about letting Muslims live in peace.

The new Afghan strategic speech seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught. Obama’s strategy which came out after months of deliberations has created ripples among Democrats as they see it against the ideology of their liberal base and funding of this war would not be an easy arrangement for Obama’s administration, whereas the Republicans fuel the crisis and are skeptical about the exit strategy as they see the eventual pull out from Afghanistan as “weakness” which would encourage the insurgents in the country. Neocon extremist hawks expect US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress all anti-Islamic and pro-Zionist fanatics and hawks in America.

The Nobel War Prize laureate in 2009 spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He promised that responsibility for the country's security would soon be transferred to the government of puppet President Hamid Karzai -- a government which he said was "corrupt." He said the Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars. It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro, although partial troop withdrawal from Iraq did not pose any anticipated threat to USA and no "terrorists" followed the US troops to Washington barracks. Never before has President Obama spoken as falsely as on America's new strategy for Afghanistan inside Eisenhower Hall the terror soldiers' reception was cool. Obama repeats his rhetoric: Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, adding that it is one of the "world's great religions." This counter-poses the European discovery of Islam as the violent political platform and not a religion unlike Chrestianity and Judaism or Hinduism.

European leaders have welcomed Obama's Afghanistan strategy, which includes sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to join the fight against Afghan citizens fighting for sovereignty. NATO Terror Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he expected U.S. allies to provide at least 5,000 extra troops and probably a few thousand more -- still short of the 10,000 troops and trainers Pentagon officials had sought. Britain, which has the second largest troop contingent in the war zone, plans to boost its commitment by 500 to 10,000, UK’s Gordon Brown said that the UK would send an additional 500 troops with Poland likely to up its contribution to 2,600 from 2,000. One does not know if terror India, tryng to fish in troubled Afghan waters,  has also committed for Afghanistan its terror troops well-trained in Jammu Kashmir in murdering Kashmiri Muslims. Pakistani assistance is taken for granted by the USA.

Italy would send around 1,000 additional soldiers to Afghanistan, raising its total force to around 3,700. Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said his country would send more as well, but avoided a concrete pledge, saying only that Rome would "do a lot." and NATO officials said others that have announced plans to send more troops were Georgia (900), Poland (600) and Slovakia (250). Portugal is keeping its pledge made earlier this year to send 150 troops from its "rapid deployment" force to join 100 military trainers in Afghanistan. Albania said it would send its first 35 combat troops, as well as 50 trainers and other military personnel to join 250 already in Afghanistan. 

However, the Netherlands and Canada plan to withdraw combat forces of 2,100 and 2,800 in 2010 and 2011 respectively. Germany and France only emphasized the training aspect of NATO's mission in Afghanistan. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that Paris would "look at its contribution to international strategy, giving priority to the training of Afghan security forces." The US government is looking for up to 7,000 additional troops for Afghanistan from its NATO allies from all partners combined. But few countries in Europe are rushing to fill the void. Germany and France want to wait until the Afghanistan conference in London at the end of January. For months, pressure had been growing on US President Barack Obama to reveal just what his oft-mentioned, revamped Afghanistan strategy would be. Indeed, the only countries which immediately offered to up their troop contingent were Britain, Poland and Italy.

                                        TWO

In order to give a new, credible looking orientation to the ongoing illegal terror war in Afghanistan, the Pentagon-CIA-SIS combine still talks about Osama uncle, an individual more powerful that the super power USA. USA claims Osama is still hiding inside Pakistan along with WMD, but Pakistani premier Yousuf Gilani told his British counterpart Gordon Brown that Osama bin Laden is not in Pakistan and that his country had not received any credible intelligence on the whereabouts of the private terror network leaders. The Downing Street meeting came two days after President Obama announced that an extra 30,000 troops are to be sent to Afghanistan in a dramatic escalation of the battle against the Taliban. Brown praised Gilani for his leadership in taking the fight to al-Qaeda both in the Swat Valley and in South Waziristan, destabilizing Islamization and killing Muslims there, claiming the lives of more than 2,000 civilians. The two prime ministers agreed on a shared agenda and increased collaboration in tackling Muslims who seek to Islamize their society. Their broad resolve to eliminate Muslims who seek Sharia’ implementation in Pakistan is has been stressed.  

Although both USA and its newly developed strategic partner India have refuted, there’s a growing suspicion in Pakistan against India’s increasing involvement in Afghanistan. India’s increasing role in Afghanistan poses a threat to Pakistan’s security. Pakistan has always been strategically, actively and crucially involved in Afghanistan. Like Kashmir and Pakistan, the two countries share common Pakhtun and a geographical proximity. India would definitely like to use its stronghold in Afghanistan for sabotaging Pakistan which is going through one of the most crucial times of its history. After all USA is doing the Indian job in Pakistan on payment basis as part of Nuclearism agreement. The Pakistani government has got proofs of India’s involvement in the ongoing disturbance in Balochistan.

Obama plan must not ignore its impact on neighboring Pakistan – the actual stakeholder that played key role in this eight-year old proxy war aimed at genocides of Muslims. Reports indicate, Obama consulted puppet Presidents Zardari and Hamid Karzai while finalizing his strategy for dealing with the situation in Afghanistan.  Pakistan fears that the increase in troops in Afghanistan would push an expected influx of refugees into Pakistan which would further burden its already fragile economy. The weak Pakistani regime, military and civilian leaderships and core media hawks think, rather funnily, as long as the terror war is carried forward, Americans and Europeans would pump in money to Pakistan to be shared by all stake holders there. The US must critically look at the situation as it would not only disturb the balance of power in the already troubled region but would also harm its war on terror in Afghanistan.

After US misadventure in Vietnam Americans have underestimated the Afghans now and miscalculated the power of Islamic world.After the Soviet illegal occupation, US-led NATO has taken their chance to control the region and therefore do not want to run away in shame as the Soviets before. Taliban fighters check the onward terror mach of NATO terrorists and to push U.S. forces back on their heels, but they are less privileged than the foreign state terrorists with plenty of armours. U.S. and NATO criminal networks are facing the Afghans have converted home of peaceful Afghans into haven for terror wars and made Afghanistan the third-poorest country in the world, and corruption pays handsomely. Cash stolen from American foreign aid or made from the opium trade creates illicit wealth that fuels the insurgency and encourages government officials to play on both sides. The Pashtun, an ethnic group who dominate the south and east where most of the war has been fought, are tough because they live as they have for centuries and don’t support the illegal western rogue invaders in democracy fancy suits.

USA has a nasty character, or its values, of abandoning the nations that help it advancing its global interests to its advantage, once its goal is achieved and it has happened in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Soviet occupation was lifted and foundations for a free world were laid by the Taliban. Former Pakistani president Musharraf said in USA that the answer to Afghan crisis is a positive political surge and reconciliation. After decades of civil war and anarchy, the Taliban established control over 95% of Afghanistan in 1996. Unfortunately, the Taliban imposed their strict interpretation of Islam on the country annoying Arab world as well as anti-Islamic world.

The USA said it had put forward its views on what it believed other countries were capable of providing, either militarily or financially. In response to Obama's clear withdrawal timetable, Extremist Fogh Rasmussen was at pains to emphasize that the mission was not coming to an abrupt end any time soon. "We will stay as long as it takes to finish our job," he said.

                                       THREE   (An Observation)

There are 44  NATO allies who contribute troops to the coalition, but only a handful of countries - such as Holland, the UK, Australia, Poland and Canada  - actually allow their troops in direct combat. These NATO led terror western terror troops are in Afghanistan not on holidays and their main job is to kill Muslims and more the troops, more the number of deaths. That is the logical of today’s US-led NATO unilateral terror policies. The more troops entering the fight, the more air support they need. Increased air strikes - despite Herculean efforts to avoid it - often cause civilian casualties. The additional deployment is expected to cost $30 billion a year and comes amid high unemployment as the US economy emerges from a recession. Whether Obama’s new policy on Afghanistan would yield the desired results or not, he must not ignore the fact that the public opinion of the war in many of its allies is even more negative than it is in his own country.

USA has shown it remains the super power of the world and none on the earth can challenge its supremacy in any manner, let alone terror-attack the Americans. NATO terrorists have been killing Afghans in their own country and over a million Muslims have been slaughtered by the Western Axis terrorists, but all powers- essentially anti-Islamic- have supported the genocides in all possible ways. Many semi-Islamic nations, both Arab and non-Arab world are aiding the western fascists in Afghanistan, for their own stud reasons, but against Islam.

President Obama is optimistic about gaining the support of his allies in war on terror for his new Afghan policy but so far the latter have not yet promised him any surge in their troops since his address. NATO rogues expect the Taliban strategy is poised for a victory and they want to drag out the war until U.S. public opinion turns, as it has in recent polls, and then watch the Americans flee like the Soviets did in 1989. Soviets dragged the Nazifascists until the opportune time arrived and drove them way. Bush Jr. as the American president didn't need any opponents as he entered the office the second time. 

A US leader is seen by global citizens through the prism of his achievements in international arena and certainly fascist Israel- Palestine is one of the most important testing ground for Obama practical diplomacy. The political charmer Obama has missed out his first opportunity on Mideast. Obama was able to successfully capture the imaginations of millions of people both Muslims and others. After the collapse of his "freeze" demand from the Zionist regime, many have concluded that Obama's magic no longer works. The allure of his words has grown weaker. Obama has to reinvigorate his status by actions.

Since most of Americans don’t support the terror war causing dangerous financial crises, and climate disorders, they want their government to get out from Afghanistan which seems a quagmire for the US economy. Washington's NATO allies face pressure to commit more troops and money to the war in Afghanistan, supplementing President Obama's announcement of an increase in U.S. troops. The Obama Af-Plan adding more terror trained troops for Afghan withdrawal would not work better than if the withdrawal scheme is implemented without adding more troops.

Only time will tell how successful Obama’s new strategy will be in solving the Afghan tangle.  USA has to recognize the Taliban regime as the choice of Afghans and let it resume the administration, past mistakes can help them reset policies in a step by step manner for transforming them from within. The additional troops requested by NATO Gen. Terrorist Stanley McChrystal, if Obama decides to dispatch adding more burden on American strained economy, would only complicate the state terrorists’ position.  Old time Afghan structure is needed again to bring peace and harmony. Quitting is certainly the only credible option. But Pakistan regime does not criticize the Americans for the Taliban crisis because it does to want to irritate Washington bosses to bounce back as aid cuts. In fact world should wage war with USA and NATO terrorists for all ill-doings around the world to showcase their military terror prowess and unipolarity.

Finally, the decision of Obama to withdraw the terror troops from Afghanistan in 2011 is a positive sign but he should advance it to 2010 – and if possible, begin the good job right now in installments- and let the Afghans decide their nations peacefully in their own ways without terror intervention from western rogue states on fictitious pretexts. Perhaps, just 18 months after the troops withdrawal, later, just then in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the NATO horror of terror war is to end and the draw down will begin. And stopping blood shed in Afghanistan- as well as Pakistan and Iraq.

The anti-Islamic terror plus war criminals have to be caged before it is too late and the doves of peace should be let free!

   -----------------------

Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

Specialist on State Terrorism

Independent Columnist in International Affairs, Research Scholar (JNU) & the only Indian to have gone through entire India, a fraud and terror nation in South Asia.