Afghan Election Malady – The Resumption of the Puppet Government

By Padmini Arhant

“More of the same,” – the campaign slogan used in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election against the Republican candidate John McCain is adapted by the current U.S. administration in the endorsement of the corrupt Karzai government.

The incumbent President Hamid Karzai subsequent to being found guilty of massive voter fraud amid intense violence against the Afghani population during the first round of election on August 20, 2009, now hailed the victor following the challenger DR. Abdullah Abdullah’s withdrawal from the highly skeptical runoff election scheduled for November 7, 2009.

Afghan election chairman Azizullah Lodin, a staunch supporter of President Hamid Karzai, arrived at a decision against the will of the Afghan people enduring medieval era economic and social injustice under the Karzai governance since 2001.

The White House declared the election ‘historic’ and extended congratulatory message to their nominee, President Hamid Karzai, along with the ally Britain and the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. The irony is, the glorified election had no ‘democratic’ element whatsoever in the previous round or in the repeat election planned on November 7, 2009.

Moreover, the bizarre outcome proclaiming the extremely controversial and the most unpopular President Hamid Karzai – the winner, has the U.S. administration blessings to further destabilize Afghanistan for another four years.

DR. Abdullah’s action by dropping out of the runoff charade is appropriate. The contender’s concerns were legitimate and justified due to the Afghan election commission chairman’s overt bias to President Karzai and the lack of evidence or enthusiasm from the U.S. and allies to ensure free and fair elections.

The United States and the allies’ pre-disposition on this issue signifies their sworn allegiance to the military industrial complex agenda –

Continuation of Afghanistan’s carnage and destruction through Karzai government and the prolonged war on terror.

It is worth shedding light on the U.S and Western backed puppet government, President Hamid Karzai’s policies condemned by the humanitarians across the globe.

1. First, the fraudulent election on August 20, 2009 and refusal to comply with the request for the implicated election commission chairman, Azizullah Lodin’s replacement in the scheduled runoff event.

2. Legislation of the ‘non-consensual’ consummation against Afghan women – Appear to be “normal” for the U.S. administration, Britain and the United Nations’Authority in the overwhelming acknowledgment and legitimizing of the Karzai government to rule Afghanistan for an extended term.

3. Appointment of the cabinet members and judiciary committee vehemently opposed to women’s rights and other socio-economic progress.

4. Economic policy focused on narcotic trade to boost national GDP concocted with nepotism through the appointment of the family member (President Hamid Karzai’s Brother Ahmad Wali Karzai – New York Times Article titled “employee on CIA payroll”), for opium mass production.

5. Facilitating Taliban resurgence and conciliatory to the atrocities against the local population particularly the female children deprived of education through acid pouring and burning down girls schools – Again, the endorsers seemingly have no objection in this context as well.

6. Last but not the least and the poignant matter being –President Hamid Karzai’s absolute coherence and approval to the permanent military occupation in Afghanistan. For comprehensive details please refer to the blogpost titled “Afghan War, The Additional Troops request and the Election Analysis,” published on this website on September 29, 2009.

As per the recent development, the White House decision to pronounce the Afghan election debacle ‘historic’ and ‘lawful’ is reminiscent of the Bush-Cheney policy stating the Iraq war as “Mission Accomplished.”

The Global village was promised a newly enlightened U.S. foreign policy dedicated to immediate troops withdrawal, peace and diplomacy, honest brokering and recognition of human rights. Otherwise, a departure from the Bush-Cheney doctrine or Senator John McCain’s pledge to wage war for over hundred years.

Honoring the dishonorable characteristics of an Afghan government dismissed as the miserable failure by the people is the renewal of the U.S. foreign policy held responsible for the contemporary global terrorism threatening international peace and security.

United States pursuing the course of action for the purpose other than the humanitarian cause in Afghanistan and other Islamic regions is authenticating the political hypocrisy reflected in the U.S. foreign policy regardless of the administrations in the White House.

The Red States and the Blue States came together as the United States to vote for the believable and the realistic “Hope and Change” at home and around the world.

Hope cannot be a reality unless promises are delivered and Change is not possible without sincere commitment.

Democracy is meaningful when the government is credible and Afghanistan deserves better than the status quo forced upon them by the domineering political forces demonstrating humongous hubris with an inevitable downfall.

I urge the people of Afghanistan to validate the leadership that can guarantee political stability, economic opportunities, national security, social progress beginning with basic human rights and above all, freedom from the foreign occupation of Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, President Hamid Karzai’s government has been unsuccessful in every aspect and lost the vote of confidence among the Afghan people during the first term and now after the first round of elections. Similar sentiments are shared by the genuinely caring ‘A-political’ groups of the international community.

The people of Afghanistan can achieve their dreams provided they are discerning in the political fate written on their behalf by the foreign powers.

I wish the people of Afghanistan courage and wisdom to do what is best for them and their long occupied nation.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Mutiny in Pakistan

By Padmini Arhant

The terror networks scattered around Pakistan have joined forces with Al-Qaida and Pakistani Talibans to challenge the fragile central power in Islamabad. October has been the bloodiest month with a spate of suicide bombings and explosions in different cities including the audacious attacks against the military headquarters heightened by a hostage crisis.

Major cities like Lahore, Rawalpindi, Peshawar and Islamabad have been the fair game for the militants seeking vengeance towards the Pakistani military operation against the domiciled Talibans in the South Waziristan, the lawless region controlled by the terror groups.

When the country’s military and the intelligence that is constitutionally limited to national defense expand their role in civilian affairs through military coups, aiding and abetting in the assassinations of Political candidates, orchestrating terrorist activities in foreign nations, the backlash is accordingly serious and consequential. Naturally, the monsters raised by the Pakistani ISI and the ‘esteemed’ military are now giving them the run for the money.

In a newly awakened moment, the Pakistani military is grappling to contain the pre-meditated and the impromptu domestic terrorisms originally nurtured by the institutions with the central government turning a blind eye to the flames that has evolved into an inferno at the present time.

The conspiracy base for a significant terror attacks suffered and averted around the world by most democracies are unequivocally linked to the Pakistani networks. In fact, the recent hostage situation at the Pakistani military compound reportedly (Source- Pakistani media) had three defense personnel full-fledged involvement in the hostile takeover.

Unfortunately, the innocent civilians endure the human and economic losses from the senseless violence regardless of the sources being either home-grown or external. The widespread terror activities across the nuclear nation are symbolic of the notorious organizations’ objective to undermine the government that is historically replaced by the military coups in Pakistan.

It’s rather intriguing that the Pakistani intelligence, noted as the reliable agency within the country’s political hierarchy, has sharply declined in the entrusted intelligence services to protect the nation and prevent any harm to the neighbors in Iran, Afghanistan, India or the farther away United States.

On the other hand, although the latest Pakistani aggressive military action in the Swat Valley against the local tribal forces representing the Pakistani Talibans claimed to be effective, the mass population has been displaced with a unique ‘refugee’ status in their homeland. The populace frustrations are justified with comments such as “when the American dollar trickles in, the Pakistani military stunt is displayed to charm the foreign donor.”

Any drastic measures viz. the drone attacks and continuous shelling pursued by the local and the foreign governments against the terror networks producing immense civilian casualties…alternatively, the chaos from the lack of humanitarian provisions is likely to facilitate a fertile ground for terror recruitments of the desolate victims.

Likewise, the Saudi Arabia financed ‘Madrassas,’ the schools attended by the children of the poorer segment have been highly controversial especially in Pakistan due to the dominance in the form of Deobandi, Wahhabi and Salafi Islamic elements.

Madrassas, – A generic Arabic/Urdu term for ‘schools’ in the Islamic nations around the world have maintained the reputation of a ‘regular’ school, teaching educational and vocational skills to the disadvantaged as well as the secular minorities in the society.

Nevertheless, the madrassas run by the extreme religious authorities mainly in Pakistan has become the bone of contention after September 11, 2001.

The reports indicate that since independence in 1947, the madrassas in Pakistan have risen from 200 to over an estimated 40,000, with the unofficial madrassas in the country anywhere between 10,000 and 13,000 comprising approximately 2.0 million students.

Further, in the 1980’s – the Pakistani government deployed militants in Kashmir and Afghanistan believed to have attended the madrassas inculcating fundamentalism in the curriculum. A sizeable proportion of students in these institutions were the neglected local and refugee population from the Soviet era Afghanistan and neighboring Baluchistan.

On a broader aspect, the madrassas appear to be serving the deserving population with the required basic education and religious/cultural appreciation. Appropriately, the Zardari-Gilani administration could establish uniformity in the madrassas resembling the national public/private educational system.

What is the reason behind Pakistan’s mutiny?

Two sources are predominantly responsible for the political instability in Pakistan. They are the Western intervention in Pakistan’s political system and the joint opposition to the Western intrusion by the Pakistani military and the intelligence alike. As a result, the real stakeholders, the people in the society are subject to systemic abuse of power in the inherently fractured political gamut.

The Western powers admire and search for the political candidates in awe with western ideology. Hence, they cherry pick those individuals as the preferred heads of the government in these regions, in spite of their nominees’ past failures, political scandals and most relevantly the paradoxical personal background revealing them as the Western proxies in the nation with an overwhelming majority in abject poverty, inadequate literacy and illiteracy.

Moreover, the Western selection criteria based on their candidates’ foreign affiliations viz. a U.S. or Western educated, failing that a longtime resident with Western work experience etc. for political successions in the diametrically different cultures is perceived by the locals as the dismissal or invalidation of their society.

On the flipside – the Pakistani military, the ISI and the local political factions in abhorrence to the Western choices constantly attempt to sabotage the ‘so-called’ democratic elections. If the Western appointed political candidates survive the electoral processes, then the listed oppositions ensure the limited life span of such governments not barring the restricted authority on foreign policy and nuclear site management.

The people in Pakistan clearly understand that the elections in their country are a mere charade with an inevitable political casualty resulting from the western backed candidates’ insincere declaration to reform the fundamentally corrupt political structure.

It’s important to highlight that the moral and ethical degradation are not necessarily exclusive to Kabul, Islamabad, Middle East, Africa…the contemporary world politics is plagued by corruption, cronyism and power clenching with an utter disregard for the people’s plight that is conspicuous in the policy decisions at the state, national and international level.

Politics is a game where the key players i.e. the people are used and abused for political gains. When it’s not convenient, they are considered to be a threat to the political status and financial security by some elected officials in their unconstitutional and unconscionable commitment to derail progress.

The United States health care fiasco serves as a good example in this context.

Pakistan’s current mayhem is self-inflicted precisely from the military and the intelligence reigning control over the U.S and other Western democracy backed puppet governments. When the national intelligence in cohort with the various terror networks are implicated for terror activities in foreign soil and the authorities ‘supposedly’ in power grant immunity to every imaginable terror group, criminal elements, terror masterminds, then the outcome is bound to backfire.

The matter worsened when the supreme court justices were fired by the former President Parvez Musharraf clarifying the above point that, the political figures do not hesitate to violate the constitution in order to remain in power. Under the same presidency, the world’s most wanted Osama Bin Laden was provided the medical treatment while the nuclear arsenal dealer A.Q.Khan, revered as the ‘Father of the Nuclear Pakistan,’ sheltered in a ‘Royal comfort’ to satisfy the minimal legality for a monumental criminal activity.

United States in return rewarded the Musharraf government with billions of dollars in aid and greeted the President as the strongest ‘ally’ in the newly invented ‘war on terror.’ When the ally, for most part chose to remain oblivious in the grand mission to capture the 9/11 terror chief or eradicate the terror movements around the country as they were not obligatory to account for the ten billion dollars and more in financial compensation by the American tax payers.

That raises the question against the U.S. intelligence and their ingenuity in the contentious issue of global terrorism when the American public was repeatedly alerted with the various terrifying color codes during the Bush-Cheney administration that stood by and let the dwarf develop into a giant. Meanwhile, the pleasantries and medal of honor bestowed upon each other in Washington for masquerading the facts as fiction.

Recently, the Congress approved 1.5 billion dollars each year over the next five years in financial aid to curb terrorism in Pakistan created a pandemonium in the Pakistani political circuit expressing the stipulations in the bill as an insult to Pakistani sovereignty.

Interestingly, the political forces’ objection was anchored on the meaningful requirement to alienate the military operation from the ‘democratically’ elected government role essentially strengthening the sovereignty and empowering the people in the nation governance.

The heated debates and the subsequent Pakistani dignitaries’ visit to Washington to discuss against the legitimate legislative conditions confirm the reality on the Pakistan military dominance in the government. Furthermore, the recipients’ demand to make the substantial donations with no strings attached has been a dangerous precedence in the terror related policy between the U.S and Pakistan.

Pakistan’s relations with the neighbors all around have been extremely volatile, tensions have escalated along the borders with Iran, and Afghanistan compared to the relatively calmer Kashmir front. Not surprisingly, the critics were swift in their finger pointing at the arch nemesis India and the benefactor United States, held responsible for Pakistan’s status quo when the people of both nations have been the victims of brutal terror attacks and continuous plotting against the respective national interests.

Is there hope for Pakistan to emerge from the present quagmire?

Absolutely. It’s only achievable through the active participation of the ‘moderates’ in the society that is prevalent in the economic activities…however, not visible in the political or social reform. Pakistan has tremendous intellectual talent and leadership skills at its disposal. The reason for its obscurity is the deprivation of equal opportunities to people across the diverse socio-economic spectrum, due to the western influence and military interference in the frail democratic system.

Pakistan’s salvage rests in the hands of the far sighted and reasonable minds seeking harmony and not acrimony with its neighbors and the international community. The peaceful convergence of the moderate thinkers and the youth population brimming with ideas can be an indomitable force in dealing with the humongous problems facing the nation and lead the country towards a credible democracy.

The leadership in Pakistan can ease the burden on the society by softening the rhetoric towards nations eternally viewed as ‘political rivals,’ particularly India, a strategy created by the vengeful ‘British Raj’ (British rule) as a token gift to the Indian sub-continent upon being ousted from the region.

Pakistan and India would not be independent if not for the iron will of the single entity, Mahatma Gandhi to free the region from the burgeoning colonial occupation and relentless effort to unite the sparring Hindu and Muslim factions that ultimately ended in the leader sacrificing his life for the cause.

Sadly, the terror attacks launched against civilians around the globe yielded fatalities among people of Islamic faith as well. India being the second largest Muslim nation in the world, the impact is even greater when one Muslim vows to destroy the life of another across the border.

After gaining independence on August 14, 1947, Is Pakistan really a free nation today?

A country mired with incessant violence and political turmoil needs to pause and reflect on the course of actions that has led to the regrettable carnage and devastation with no end in sight thus far.

Therefore, it’s poignant for the Pakistani society at the crossroads to disavow divisiveness and embrace solidarity within and around itself.

The only beneficiaries from Pakistan’s disintegration threatening the national and global security are the despots of the terror organizations and the profit oriented military industry complex.

Pakistan can rise and shine again with the solemn oath to pursue peace and resurrect the due progress it is entitled to in the twenty first century.

I convey my best wishes to the people of Pakistan and pray for their peaceful existence.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

New Afghan Strategy

By Padmini Arhant

In the past weeks, the additional troops request from the U.S. Commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the 10,000 to 80,000 range and then reportedly cut back to the median 40,000 troop level is attention worthy due to the flurry of comments, rhetoric and insinuations from the quarters responsible for the status quo.

The U.S. troops presence including the recently approved contingency expected to arrive in December 2009 stands at 68,000 along with the participation of 28 nations in the form of NATO alliance further boosting the military representation in one nation – Afghanistan, to deal with the combined insurgency from the Afghan Talibans and the Al-Qaida in the northern regions.

Interestingly, the argument is steered towards the strategy to win the war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the relevant questions raised by the concerned citizens and the representatives in the Congress regarding the military role, operational term and the costs are evaded through partisan politics and the suppression of facts.

The U.S. led war against Afghanistan began in October 2001 under the Bush-Cheney administration. It has been more than eight years for the U.S. and NATO occupancy in that region with substantial troops surge up until now. Although, the initial military attack on the ground enhanced with the deployment of sophisticated artilleries and technological devices presumably yielded the desired outcome i.e. the temporary expulsion of Talibans from the regional shelters, it also produced massive casualties on all sides with the Afghan civilians enduring the sizeable proportion.

As a result, the opposition to the foreign troops occupation is widespread in Afghanistan and around the world particularly with the U.S./NATO aggressive pursuit of the militants in the absence of specificity such as the occupancy duration, clear objectives and success formulas inflicting considerable damages to the civilian existence rather than containing the pervasive crisis.

In fact, the high command’s inefficiency in the implementation of the traditional military policy to win at all costs subsequently contributed to the Taliban re-emergence facilitating easy recruitment of local and foreign militants as the formidable insurgents in the prolonged military intervention.

Like stated earlier in the blogpost titled “Afghan War, the Additional Troops Request and the Election Analysis,” dated September 29, 2009 published under International Politics on this website www.padminiarhant.com ,

The cost-benefit ratio in the invasion and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq neither accurately evaluated nor presented to the American public financing the two wars since 2001. Amidst intense propaganda and misinformation, the proponents of the indefinite military aggression continue to demand for the increase in troops supply against the will of the local population in Afghanistan and the United States, despite the strategic failures of the overwhelming military engagement.

Again, the scenario is similar to the various economic stimulus packages and the controversial bailouts in trillions of dollars passed since 2008 with a significant portion held in reserve, instead of the entire investments in the allocated areas to derive the comprehensive economic impact. It’s been followed by a strong recommendation for additional stimulus funds prior to achieving the targeted goals.

The interests payable on the bailout borrowings is greater than the interest or dividends earned from the bailout beneficiaries, the financial institutions. Further, the bailout recipients are yet to comply with the legislative stipulations in terms of stimulating the economy through liquidity flow, affordable financial charges specifically the credit card interest rates worsened to an abominable APR 29.99% in defiance of the stimulus requirement.

However, there is still a distinction between the vast troops deployment and an isolated stimulus investment of $787 billion approved earlier this year with the latter providing the gradual economic revival and salvation of the global economic collapse, in spite of the meager investment of the legislated amount.

The Pentagon has not considered the importance of checks and balances in the ethical and economic aspects in their haphazard missions in Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention the numerous U.S. military bases in various parts of the world.

Ironically, the myopic view of the ‘Nay’ Sayers in the contentious health care reform against the disproportionate defense budget attributing to the enlarged national deficit is fanning the fire to the cauldron.

The ‘so-called’ fiscal conservatives from both sides of the political aisles, appear to be comfortable with the unaccounted military spending yielding economic losses and human fatalities while remaining vehemently opposed to the costs and life saving health care legislation.

With respect to the commotion on the military expansion in Afghanistan, the U.S. defense should justify the urgency on the troops dispense of the great magnitude (current 68,000 + possible 40,000 to 80,000), considering the enormous U.S./NATO consolidated military existence and the negative ramifications overriding the opportunities to prevail in the ‘apparent’ war on terror.

The factions favoring the military industrial complex demand are uninhibited in their criticisms of the deliberations sought in the life and death matter and the self-proclamation as the savior of the young men and women in harm’s way when their proposal could precisely escalate the death toll.

In the backdrop of severe local oppositions, economic liabilities, irreplaceable loss of human lives, political instability awaiting reconciliation on Afghan governance, the unrealistic troop requisition from the highest military command confirms the protracted war on terror waged for militaristic purpose than the humanitarian cause.

Those who argue on the national security basis must realize that terrorism cannot be eliminated unless and until the fundamental issues such as freedom, basic human rights, economic and social development are addressed through viable and credible political establishments in the regions infiltrated by the terror networks and organizations.

Whenever there is a conspicuous political fragmentation, the society is vulnerable to the military coups like in Pakistan and Latin America or a chosen destination for the anti-progress radical elements viz. the Al-Qaida and the Taliban forces.

Therefore, it is imperative for the political contenders in Afghanistan to prioritize the national interest and security over their personal aspirations by forming a coalition government to enforce the desperately needed law and order in the state.

It’s extremely disappointing to witness the incumbent President Hamid Karzai’s unrepentant conduct in light of the recent fraudulent election mired with violence, fictitious ballots…ignored for the sake of retaining power that has essentially weakened Afghanistan and emboldened the Taliban insurgency threatening to disrupt the democratic electoral process once again.

The Afghan and the worldwide opinion of the Karzai administration in the past five years is conclusively one that has miserably failed to restore normalcy leave alone democracy that is perceived to be a tall order in the overtly corrupt bureaucracy.

Hence, it is appropriate for the President Hamid Karzai to step down gracefully and acknowledge the reality at home by allowing his opponent DR. Abdullah Abdullah to assume office as the 13th President of Afghanistan in the immediate future as the runoff election is unlikely to deliver any positive solutions.

If the religious belief among the two political contenders are intact then it is for them to know that “Man proposes and God disposes,” otherwise “Wahi Hoga Jo Manzoorén Khudah Hoga.”

Finally, the Afghan war without an exit strategy is a replica of the Iraq war experiencing the relentless insurgency through explosions and suicide bombings irrespective of the definitive U.S. timeline for troop withdrawal. The military should be preparing for the troop contraction and not a permanent occupation in Afghanistan as detailed in the cited reports on the blogpost mentioned above. If the intention is to occupy under the pretext of the war on terror, then the United States agenda is no different from the former Soviet rule forced out with the 120,000 troops on land.

Violence only begets violence and war is the classic example that the end does not justify the means.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Afghan Election Quagmire

By Padmini Arhant

As detailed in the blogpost titled

‘U.S. Dilemma on Afghanistan’ published on the website

www.padminiarhant.com, September 1, 2009 – in the ‘International Politics’ category,

The flawed Afghan election results in favor of the current President Hamid Karzai appropriately rejected by the U.N. backed investigators with the runoff election scheduled for November 7, 2009.

Afghanistan heading for yet another election within two weeks is a tall order given the recent turmoil in the electoral process that led to the annulment of the results. Modern democracy is not devoid of voter fraud, corruption and unscrupulous tactics by the respective campaigns representing the political candidates.

However, the Afghan election is complex due to the extremism ranging from physical threats, ballots stuffing, violence that mars the democratic protocol and worsened now with the August election declared ‘flawed,’ by the United Nations panel and the other international authorities.

Again as suggested earlier in the cited blogposts –

Source: www.padminiarhant.com – International Politics

U.S. Dilemma on Afghanistan under the heading – ‘Political stalemate in the national election’ – September 1, 2009

Afghanistan War and Election – August 21, 2009

“In light of the above perspective, Afghanistan would be better off with a coalition government of the two contenders – President Hamid Karzai and DR. Abdullah Abdullah exchanging ideas, sharing the intellect and experience in a concerted effort to move the war torn nation forward to the twenty first century. In addition, the fractured society would benefit from the collective talent and experience of the consolidated government, besides maintaining checks and balances on the activities hindering the democratic functions.”

The prudent option for the incumbent President Hamid Karzai and the opponent DR. Abdullah Abdullah is to prioritize the national crisis demanding political stability, economic and social development, law and order…that would eventually steer the war ravaged Afghanistan towards a plausible democracy.

Considering the contentious political battle during the August election, both leaders share the burden of responsibility to alleviate the Afghan population suffering until now through a strong coalition. Moreover, the combined effort in addressing the great many challenges would expedite the birth of progressive and peaceful Afghanistan.

It’s absolutely important for both leaders with international stature to acknowledge the enormous anomalies in every aspect contributing to the status quo, not to mention the Afghanistan’s future dependent upon a solemn and a unified political structure dedicated to nation governance.

Needless to state that after a bitter political scuffle, it might be hard to swallow the pride and forge an alliance for a coalition government. Nevertheless, any leadership’s shining moment ascends when the common cause is recognized and the national interest upheld in sheer solidarity.

Afghanistan’s resources are scare at present and the runoff election is an additional economic and a political liability without a definite positive outcome. Further, the voter turnout is highly arbitrary and expected to be exacerbated by the approaching winter, Taliban interference and the prevalent U.S./NATO operations against the Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces along the borders. In addition, it’s also a huge drain on the international resources that could be made available in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

Although, power sharing is never an easy option, the two leaders and their able representatives should abandon the political sentiments while embracing the deep sense of patriotism to rebuild the nation yearning for a breath of fresh air in the form of harmony, hard work and honest government.

DR. Abdullah Abdullah, having held the cabinet position as the Foreign Minister under President Karzai’s administration, is not a stranger to this recommended union. Whatever issues there are or might be, it’s best to resolve through direct dialogue and forthright communication without compromising diplomacy.

Both leaders possess the relevant experience and knowledge to execute the power sharing vital for enforcing the desperate national security.

President Hamid Karzai has held the office since December 7, 2004.

Therefore, in a democratic setting it would be appropriate for –

DR. Abdullah Abdullah to assume the title as the 13th President of Afghanistan,

With the incumbent President Karzai overseeing the administrative affairs as a Senior Aide and a Political Liaison in the new administration.

Worldwide, there are many opportunities available to serve the nation and humanity. One can make a difference in any capacity provided there is an earnest desire to promote goodness, peace and unity.

Often, selfless leaders without an official post in politics such as Mahatma Gandhi, DR. Martin Luther King Jr., in recent memory have left an indelible mark in their incredible service to mankind.

The people of Afghanistan deserve a break from the perpetual unrest, chaos and catastrophe. It entirely rests in the hands of the two leaders President Hamid Karzai and DR. Abdullah Abdullah to reconcile their differences, identify the commonalities essential to relieve the exhausted population and let democracy prevail from now onwards.

On that note, Best Wishes to the leaderships of DR. Abdullah Abdullah as the new President of Afghanistan alongside the leader Hamid Karzai for a successful democratic government and a peaceful, prosperous Afghanistan.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Peace and Freedom to Tibet

From: PADMINI ARHANT
WWW.padminiarhant.com

Attention: Mr. Richard Gere
Chairman of the Board of Directors
International Campaign for Tibet

Dear Mr. Richard Gere,

I acknowledge your kind invitation to join you and millions of voices around the world in the Freedom Campaign for Tibet. I admire the passion, determination and zeal exhibited by the supporters towards the noble cause.

I share your concerns and views regarding the human rights abuse, violation and suppression of democracy in Tibet. Having been a resident of New Delhi, India, I’m all too familiar with the plight of the Tibetan population fleeing their homeland from persecution and unspeakable crime against humanity.

In fact, my website www.padminiarhant.com dedicated exclusively to bring about the real “Change” comprising peace, liberty and civil rights… long overdue not just in Tibet but the entire world.

Perhaps, a tall order!, I’m genuinely optimistic and committed in Dharma, Truth and Justice prevailing over the contrary. Even though, his holiness Dalai Lama in honor of the peaceful Buddhist religion is conciliatory to autonomy as a concession to liberate his people from the burgeoning tyranny worsening by the hour, my mission is to join forces with campaign such as yours and deliver complete freedom and independence for Tibet.

It doesn’t fall short of ensuring the safe return of his holiness Dalai Lama to his free and liberated homeland in the immediate future, that I believe to be his holiness’ silent prayer.

Rest assured, Peace and Freedom to Tibet is no longer a dream but an inevitable reality.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Padmini Arhant

2010 Elections – Response to President Bill Clinton

From: PADMINI ARHANT
WWW.padminiarhant.com

Hon. President Bill Clinton.
New York

Dear Mr. President,

Thank you for your letter. It’s truly an honor to receive your request.

I share your thoughts and concerns about the 2010 elections outcome. Needless to say, that you have experience with the opposition majority during your presidency and the challenges you faced in the legislative process with the “Government Shut Down” led by the former speaker Newt Gingrich and the republican allies.

Although, I agree that the Senators competing for their first term or re-election require the grassroots/base support, the general public perception from the health care debate is – the conservative and the moderate democrats forget their promise to the electorate that initially support them to get where they are now.

Instead, they follow the special interests’ policy in the legislative matter evidenced in the ‘Senate Finance Committee’ health care reform bill rejecting the public option.

As a veteran political figure, I’m sure you acknowledge the voter frustration in this regard that often leads to abstinence enabling the opposition gain majority by default. It’s typical of every democracy.

It’s hard to rally the people even within the party when the promises are broken and ‘Special Interests’ agenda prioritized over the public interest. This is in reference to the ‘Blue Dogs’ and the moderate Democrats’ failure in their commitment to the health care reform, the environment policy and the energy bill.

Despite their claim that their unique position attributed to the demography i.e. the conservative Southern States and the relatively lower population in the remote country regions not adequately provided for through social programs might be legitimate. However, their sworn allegiance to the special interests against the constituents in key issues do not bode well during the election campaigns.

The burden is on the elected officials to honor the pledge made on the campaign trails and not become habitual of post-election betrayal during their term in the office. The conventional political trend that maintains a campaign policy and then adapt to the elected term policy to appease all except the ‘average’ electorate has to change to energize the voter turnout.

I couldn’t agree more with you on the mid-term election vulnerability. It’s possible to strengthen the political majority in the House and the Senate through solidarity among the democrats on all issues concerning every American. Unfortunately, in this respect, the Democrats are severely lagging behind their opposition that remains unified regardless of the ideology.

Therefore, the status quo with the sixty Democrats constituting an ‘absolute’ majority is still an uphill battle for the crucial bills to pass in the Senate without the Republican vote. Such gridlock is unnecessary and counterproductive.

Obviously, the present democrats have to reach a consensus to cooperate in the legislative matter affecting not only their constituents but also the entire nation in the rare opportunity to make progress.

Since, the sole purpose of my involvement in politics against the preferred spiritualism and humanitarian field is to ensure the national and global achievements in every aspect; I will do my best to help the nation reach the milestones by supporting the deserving i.e. the people’s candidates elected or re-elected to the office.

Again, I emphasize that the major responsibility for the positive electoral results, rests on the incumbent and the prospective Senators / Representatives in their role as the lawmakers making important decisions affecting the people and the nation, demanding a dynamic shift from the self interest funded by the ‘special interests.’

I take the opportunity to congratulate you on the ‘Clinton Global Initiatives’ success and immensely appreciate the significant contribution to humanity.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Padmini Arhant

Misplaced Diplomacy – His Holiness Dalai Lama’s Visit to Washington

By Padmini Arhant

His Holiness Dalai Lama is one of the favorite guests for the people around the world. The spiritual leader is a personification of peace, joy and immense hope for the people of Tibet and an overwhelming majority in the international community.

His Holiness’ visit has been anything except controversial in any part of the world, despite the authority in China politicizing the spiritual leader’s visit to deflect the horrendous humanitarian crime against the peaceful Tibetan population not barring the suppression of democracy in the Mainland and ethnic provinces of China.

According to the news reports, Washington has differed the meeting with his holiness as a precautionary measure due to the impending visit by the President of the United States to China and the possible ramifications on the Chinese leadership cooperation or the lack thereof in the economic and environment policy, notwithstanding the contentious Iranian nuclear negotiations.

All the more reason for the urgent expansion of the United Nations Security Council that holds the globally persecuted population hostage to camouflage the atrocities against humanity.

The White House elected option in this context is extremely disappointing considering the democratic status and the tradition followed with respect to receiving guests from diverse backgrounds to promote diplomacy unless the entity is a threat to national or international security…

There appears to be a mistaken identity. The regime in China should realize that the guest denied honorable reception to appease them is not Osama, but instead the diametrically opposite being, the Dalai Lama and Beijing’s implied deliberations on the important global matter suggests the implicit spread of the world’s most fearsome ‘Communist’ rule by proxy against even the firmly democratic United States and other nations.

Interestingly, China’s neighbor and the obvious thorn on their side, Taiwan was threatened by the Communist regime stating the protocol as provocative during the holiness recent visit to the island nation. However, the Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou let diplomacy override the political shenanigan from Beijing.

As detailed earlier in the blogpost on this website –” People’s Republic of China – The Deadly Dragon” published on 08/13/2009, letting the Communist regime dictate terms and conditions to the nations regardless of stature is a dangerous precedence and inflates the hubris of the authority responsible for the most genocides worldwide.

The irony is, the repressive regime reining in on the economic power through tactical investment in U.S. Treasury notes while dumping goods on the U.S. consumers thereby enslaving the ‘Superpower’ to the point of no return. Meanwhile, the Communist nation engaged in worst humanitarian crimes in history remains a mere spectacle dissipating into a fading memory.

The International Court of Justice as the UN judiciary has diligently held trials against the perpetrators of human atrocities until date. Similarly, the International criminal court, a permanent tribunal potentially has global jurisdiction on war crimes to genocides and other massacres. Yet, the two most internationally dependent judicial systems are oblivious to the regime’s historical brutality towards humans across the globe.

The heinous crimes among them are – the systemic abuse of the Tibetan population and desecration of the holy shrines including the enriched Tibetan culture.

Subsequently, the Tiananmen massacre in worldview, Darfur genocide, Sri Lankan Government ethnic cleansing and now the mass killings of the people of Guinea, West Africa by the military dictator has Beijing’s footprints i.e. trademarks as the chief supplier of the conventional deadly arsenals to these impoverished regions.

North Korea, Pakistan and Iran are in the MFN (Most Favored Nation) category for the Communist nation in the prolific arms race.

Notably in Darfur, the authoritarian rule violating the self sanctioned UN arms embargo as the permanent member of the UN Security council is the absolute defiance for the international rule of law by the regime, essentially delivering the present P5 UN Security Council irrelevant, if not a laughing stock to say the least.

In light of the continuous denouncement by Beijing towards his holiness’ visit to any nations for a spiritual and educational purpose or otherwise, it’s imperative for the UN General assembly to condemn the dictatorial regime and act vigorously by demanding the dissolution of the UN Security Council with members violating their resolutions for political and economic gains.

The present UN Security Council has emboldened the rogue nations with the leadership of China as the Chieftain successfully enabling the holocausts around the world particularly the oppressed Tibet in the Himalayan foothills.

China had no business to invade Tibet before and has no reason to occupy the region now. Therefore, it’s in the best interest of the Chinese regime to heed to the prophetic warning and prepare for Tibet’s inevitable independence and not the autonomy as pleaded by the spiritual leader, Dalai Lama.

The Tibetan population deserves freedom and democracy through self-governance and not be subject to a diabolical rule in the twenty first century. This is not the Genghis Khan or Kublai Khan era for annexations and the international authorities cannot ignore the extreme human suffering under the past and the present Communist dictatorship.

Lack of action to bring the Chinese leadership to justice is complicity to the human annihilation in the worst order leaving a violent legacy for the future world.

As for China, holding the U.S. trillion dollar debt and defying the climate issue will be self-detrimental. Any willful harm to the world’s largest consumer base, the U.S. economy is an economic disaster for the global warehouse, China interdependent on the U.S. performance to sustain the presumptuous ‘emerging economic’ position in the global market. Even if China threatens to discard the U.S. currency, it would be fatal for the Chinese economic prospects given the volatility in the other international currency such as Euro resisting the precipitous rise, taking toll on the export nations like Germany.

Non-compliance to the environmental requirement is an invitation to the calamities continually experienced in several parts of China ranging from the earthquake, floods and typhoons that no longer constitutes a natural act.

With respect to the Iranian nuclear negotiations, it should be clear from the horrific evidence in Sudan (Darfur), North Korea and Burma that Beijing’s commitment to world peace and order is to be taken with a grain of salt because of the back alley trading and cohesion to the belligerent leaderships in these regions, conforming with the belief,

Birds of a feather flock together.

Besides, the present UN Security Council will be unable to deter Beijing from trading with Iran. China’s huge investments in the oil refineries, the hindering factor for Iran from becoming the leading crude oil exporter is in the elimination process through Beijing’s extensive involvement with Iran to satisfy the oil quest from the economic growth.

The only alternative to contain the recalcitrant Beijing is to expand the UN Security Council from P5 to P11 and introduce credibility to the UN authority governing the global crisis.

Throughout history, the communist leadership in China has demonstrated a disturbing and an untrustworthy relationship with its neighbors and other economies to achieve the long desired ‘Superpower’ goal. The mounting betrayal to humanity is a tip of the iceberg.

The U.S. subservience to China is a regrettable trend reflected in Beijing’s unethical demands to the American investors e.g. Google barred from competing in China on bizarre accounts and the mandatory regulation for technology sector to market PCs with built-in filters to curb free speech… are a few of the unscrupulous practices in the Far-Eastern ethos. Free and fairness is oxymoron to the regime.

The White House obliging to Beijing’s unnecessary intervention in diplomatic course with individuals and nations warrants a serious threat to the U.S sovereignty previously undermined by the espionage charges against Beijing’s agents and the recent alleged spying via telecommunication cables.

It’s time for the world population to come together and reject the totalitarian regime in China wreaking havoc not only in its own soil but also for the entire humanity. Since the democratically elected governments are reluctant to challenge the regime, pursuing peaceful and non-violent dissent against injustice is symbolic and a guaranteed success for liberation proven in the twentieth century.

Another effective strategy for the world population is to invest in other economies deserving equal opportunity to economic freedom.

The White House misplaced diplomacy against the spiritual leader might be an interim false victory for Beijing. Nevertheless, the ancient wisdom confirms that the end is near when the mind is unclear revealed through Beijing’s double-crossing in the domestic and international affairs.

Tibet was once a free spiritual sanctuary and destined to be so in the immediate future. Only time will prove the certain outcome for the pious and peace-loving Tibetan population.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Greece Legislative Election – 2009

By Padmini Arhant

On October 4, 2009, the people of the Hellenic Republic went to the polls and unanimously elected the Panhellenic Socialist Movement leader, George Papandreou as the next Prime Minister for a four-year term office.

The Prime Minister-elect initially disregarded as a non-viable candidate in the electoral race, despite the candidate’s strong political lineage. Nevertheless, the republic decided to offer the Socialist Party an overwhelming victory against the center-right political party – New Democracy, represented by the incumbent Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis in the recent election.

Greece is no exception to the political and economic woes of the contemporary world. The electoral mandate is clearly a rejection of the common elements dominant in every national system i.e. corruption, lack of trust and accountability, incompetence contributing to the rising unemployment, stagnant economy and the last but not the least,

The persisting political tensions on the Cyprus dispute involving the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots is yet another unresolved political dilemma for the United Nations Security Council.

With the dynamic shift in the legislative power moving from the center-right to the center-left, the newly elected Socialist government resolve would be subject to scrutiny by the Greek electorate as well as the center-right EU leadership.

As a member of the European Union, OECD and NATO, the contribution by Greece is significant and the new government policy could possibly expedite the positive outcome on many global issues ranging from the economy, energy, environment and the contentious war in Afghanistan.

Congratulations! to the Prime Minister-elect George Papandreou and the people of the culturally enriched Greece on their investment towards more progressive, democratic and prosperous future.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Afghan War, the Additional Troops Request and the Election – Analysis

Analysis: By Padmini Arhant

From the earlier data, it is conclusive that since the inception of the Afghan war, the constant flow of funding and the troops surge has remained the routine build up in the ill-conceived ‘so-called’ war on terror. The long fought war in the past eight years and previously against the Soviets should provide the U.S. defense a concise idea about the Afghan terrains, terrorists’ hideouts and other relevant operational tactics by the Talibans and the Al-Qaida forces.

Considering the earlier Taliban generation were trained as the Mujahedeens by the CIA against the Soviets and instrumental in driving the Soviet Army from the Afghan land, it’s reasonable to ask the question,

When success was then possible with the limited financial and military contingency, why is it not feasible now with the exceptional assets at the defense forces disposal?

The Congressional approval of excess funding via discretionary channel to circumvent the constitutional limitations and the increasing troop deployment at the highest military hierarchy behest with no accountability for the monetary or combat forces investment in the evolved operation raises a serious credibility issue leading to an appropriate investigation.

Oddly, the Afghan situation possesses an uncanny resemblance to the financial sector bailout in the absence of checks and balances against the oligarchs responsible for the world economic crisis.

The irony is, the U.S. and NATO resources are superfluous against the insurgents’ outdated and conventional stockpiles purchased from the tribal warlords in control of the narcotic industry. Despite the United States extensive prior knowledge of the mountainous regions and enhanced weaponry including the state of the art technology, the U.S. and NATO command continue to claim the insurgency by the Taliban and Al-Qaida operatives as ‘uncontainable.’ Somehow, it doesn’t fit in with the rationality.

Then the trio forces represented by Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States declare the combatants, ‘a force to reckon with,’ when Pakistan and Afghanistan must be familiar with the respective demography in the northwestern Pakistan, the eastern Afghanistan apart from the southern provinces of the Kandahar district. Again, the status acknowledged by the U.S. and NATO highest command in a statement that “Talibans are emboldened more than ever and dangerously widespread making Afghanistan a possible failed state.”

Is it a real concern or a proposition for a permanent military base evidenced in the topic’s prequel?

Another poignant matter is Pakistan’s role in aiding and abetting the Talibans following the U.S abandonment and the Soviet departure. During the Bush administration, the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf received substantial financial aid and arms supply as an “important” ally of the apparent war on terror.

Evidently, the disclosed $10 billion dollars and more was not spent for the desired purpose, instead Pakistan ventured into replenishing stocks targeting the eternal rival and neighbor India.

In spite of the U.S. royal treatment of the former military regime under President Musharraf, the nuclear technology trader A.Q. Khan was protected and the U.S. intelligence forces were denied access to the entity by the regime. Today’s nuclear proliferation among North Korea and Iran stem from A.Q. Khan’s illicit dealings in trading WMD secret programs.

The trend continues with the financial aid being tripled combined with more arsenal supply ‘supposedly’ to extinguish the fire set by the Pakistani ISI and the military in cohort with the Talibans and the Al-Qaida elements in Waziristan and other parts of the north western region up until recently. It’s not a concocted theory when the independent Pakistani and other international journalists reported that the world’s most wanted terror leader Osama Bin Laden received medical treatment in Pakistan during the Musharraf Presidency.

The military agents actively promote the Kashmir issue between the two nuclear neighbors to see the snoring lion turn into a roaring beast. Meanwhile, distracting the world from the compounded problems within Pakistan – the people of Pakistan deprived of the genuine freedom and democracy not to mention the chaos and mayhem caused with frequent suicide bombings and explosions.

In fact, the situation in the two Islamic nations has been perpetually meddled with excessive foreign policy interventions doing more harm than any good until date. The constant turmoil and warfare has crippled the economies leaving the populations at the mercy of the oil rich Saudi Arabia and the Western control.

The bright and the educated middle class to the poorest of the Pakistani population are subject to the dynasty rule disguised as democracy with the Pakistani military having an upper hand in the major governance.

Diverting attention homeward;

The legitimate question for the American taxpayers engaged in the health care battle of the century is –
How do the so-called fiscal conservatives from both sides of the aisle justify the enrage at the hypothetical costs of providing universal health care, while seemingly comfortable with the Fiscal Year 2009, defense spending amount to 4.7% of GDP?

The military industrial complex dominance with strong hawkish representations in the Defense and the State Departments in the current administration is conspicuous with the irrational winning streak calculations in the misguided missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The tragic truth revealed in the casualties endured by the families of the U.S. military and the ally forces along with the scores of civilian deaths callously dismissed as the ‘collateral’ damages in the warfare.

Regarding the permanent military base in Afghanistan, the published reports confirm the former Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s complicity to the occupation of his homeland by foreign forces, questioning the President’s loyalty to the nation, he is expected to govern.

Then the subsequent crowning of the controversial ex-President Hamid Karzai amidst election fraud and widely exposed scandals by the secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton and other NATO diplomats clearly indicates the entities following specific directions of the military industrial complex defining the role for the executive members in the sprawling scheme.

Since when the Secretary of State and other NATO foreign ministers overtly assigned the duty to select the head of the foreign government smeared with corruption charges and voter fraud allegations, against the will of the population yearning for real democracy?

Isn’t the role of the U.S. military and NATO in Afghanistan restricted to eliminating terror, and refrain from any intervention in the electoral decisions?

When the U.S and NATO forces indulge in the appointments of the heads of the foreign governments, they not only threaten the democratic opportunities for the subject nations but also undermine the democracy they represent.

The Defense Forces’ high commands testify to the elected representatives in a democracy, the Congress, by repeatedly urging that “the troops and discretionary funding requirement is essential to succeed in the escalating war on terror” with the reality being otherwise.

But not anymore. This time, it’s incumbent on the Pentagon to face the nation and lay the facts as the permanent military base in Afghanistan or elsewhere is an act of treason against the nation, not barring the crime against humanity with the notion to enslave the innocent population trusting the organization to protect and liberate them from the tyranny and oppression.

When the defense budget funds are misappropriated for destructive reasons of the never ending warfare, illegal arms race i.e. both conventional and nuclear arsenal in the open markets, then the military institution loses the trust and respect of the national population. It’s equivalent to the betrayal of the parents declining to protect the children and instead endanger their lives.

If the military institutions confine to the honorable duty to defend the sovereignty of the nation, safeguard the pledge of allegiance to the flag and regard the life of another like their own, then the battle grounds would no longer be the killing fields.

Those who engage in invasion, occupation, pillage, ruin of other nations have engulfed in the self ignited flames, while others eventually come to the realization that in the laws of nature, there is no state of permanence. History witnessed the emperors like Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great and the likes succumb to the crumbling of their greatness, regarding themselves once as invincible.

The wisdom serves that mortals brought nothing into the world and hence take nothing back with them and no one is a permanent resident on the planet irrespective of status. Life is a journey and travelers leave when their travel ends with their activities evaluated and judged accordingly.

Wars can’t go on forever and must eventually ceasefire.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Afghanistan War, the Additional Troops Request and the Election

By Padmini Arhant

There has been additional troops request from the U.S. and NATO Commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal accompanied by the endorsements of the other highest commands. The request made with a sense of urgency within the military ranks based on variable assessments and conflicting reports from different sources that if the troops request delayed or denied; “it could perhaps lead to the mission failure” in the prolonged war that had continued to deploy troops on that strategy.

According to reputable news sources, the U.S. force in Afghanistan estimated to reach 68,000 by the year’s end. Now, the fact remains to be carefully examined on the U.S. and NATO defense policy implemented in the Afghanistan war prompting the current administration to inflate the defense budget disproportionately to $651.2 billion excluding the various non-itemized expenditures by the other departments in the nucleus.

The following materials are extremely important in ascertaining the real purpose of the persistent war nearing almost a decade with incessant violence, lawlessness and horrendous loss of lives on all sides that could have been contained considering the interjection of enormous resources in terms of funding and troops supply possibly restoring a democratic rule in Afghanistan conforming with the metaphor –

“Where there is a will, there is a way.”

The sequel with a detailed analysis will follow in due course of time.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant
————————————————————————————————–
Advisers split over Afghan troop request:

Military divided over force levels required for plan

By Peter Baker and Elisabeth Bumiller – New York Times

Provided through The San Jose Mercury News, Sunday September 27, 2009 – Thank you.

“Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s troop request, which was submitted to the Pentagon on Friday, has reignited a longstanding debate within the military about the virtues of the counterinsurgency strategy popularized by Gen. David H. Petraeus in Iraq and embraced by McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.

McChrystal is expected to ask for as many as 40,000 additional troops for the eight-year old war, a number that has generated concern among top officers like Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, who worry about the capacity to provide more soldiers at a time of stress on the force, officials said.

While Obama is hearing from more hawkish voices, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, the secretary of state, and Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, some outside advisers relied on by Obama have voiced doubts.

But other officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and say they admire McChrystal nonetheless have privately expressed doubt that additional troops will make a difference.
“If a request for more forces comes to the Army, we’ll have to assess what that will do in terms of stress on the force,” said a senior Army officer, who asked not to be identified speaking before McChrystal’s troop request became public.”

Casey, whose institutional role as Army chief is to protect his force, has a stated goal by 2012 to increase a soldier’s time at home from the current one year for every year of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan to two years at home for every year served.”

——————————————————————————————

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States – Thank you.

U.S. Defense Budget for the Fiscal Year 2009:

For the 2009 fiscal year, the base budget rose to $515.4 billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending brings the sum to $651.2 billion. Not included in the DoD budget is $23.4 billion to be spent by the Department of Energy to develop and maintain nuclear warheads.

NON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE RELATED EXPENDITURES

This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production (about $16.4 billion, which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs (about $53.0 billion), defense spending by the Department of Homeland Security (about $41.4 billion),

Interest on debt incurred in past wars, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (about $83.4 billion in 2009, funded through extra-budgetary supplemental bills), or State Department financing of foreign arms sales (about $5.3 billion) and militarily-related development assistance.

The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2008 for about 21% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures. Including spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Homeland Security, and Veteran’s Affairs, defense spending was approximately $800 billion, or 32% of 2008 tax receipts of $2.5 trillion.[5]

Because of constitutional limitations, military funding is appropriated in a discretionary spending account. (Such accounts permit government planners to have more flexibility to change spending each year, as opposed to mandatory spending accounts that mandate spending on programs outside of the budgetary process.) In recent years, discretionary spending as a whole has amounted to about one-third of total federal outlays. Military funding’s share of discretionary funding was 50.5% in 2003, and has risen steadily ever since.

The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world’s defense spending combined and is over eight times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world’s military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority). In 2007, US military spending was above 1/4 of combined industrial and agricultural production in the USA.

————————————————————————————————–
Focus on the Afghanistan war and the Operational Deficiency:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

TOTAL CASUALTIES FOR THE YEAR:

By January 2009, the Taliban claimed that they had killed 5,220 foreign troops, downed 31 aircraft, destroyed 2,818 NATO and Afghan vehicles and killed 7,552 Afghan soldiers and police in 2008 alone. The Associated Press estimated that a total of 286 foreign military personnel were killed in Afghanistan in 2008.[130] Icasualties puts the total number of coalition soldiers killed in 2008 at 294.

——————————————————————————————
2009: U.S. Surge :

Main article: Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2009

JOINT INTELLIGENCE CENTER –

The Khyber Border Coordination Center between the U.S., Pakistan, and Afghanistan, at Torkham on the Afghan side of the Khyber Pass, has been in operation for nine months. But U.S. officials at the Khyber Center say language barriers, border disputes between Pakistani and Afghan field officers, and longstanding mistrust among all three militaries have impeded progress.

In January, about 3,000 U.S. soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division moved into the provinces of Logar and Wardak. The troops were the first wave of an expected surge of reinforcements originally ordered by George W. Bush and increased by Barack Obama.

In mid-February, it was announced that 17,000 additional troops would be deployed to the country in two brigades and additional support troops; the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade of about 3,500 from the 7,000 Marines, and the 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, a Stryker Brigade with about 4,000 of the 7,000 US Army soldiers. The U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General McKiernan, had called for as many as 30,000 additional troops, effectively doubling the number of troops currently in the country.

—————————————————————————————–
TALIBAN’S GAINS

On August 10, 2009, Stanley McChrystal, the newly appointed U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said that the Taliban has presently gained the upper hand and that the ISAF is not winning in the 8 year-old war.
————————————————————————————————
Possible long-term U.S. role & military presence:

Many of the thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan are positioned in what experts say are large, permanent bases.

In February 2005, U.S. Senator John McCain called for the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases in Afghanistan, saying such bases would be “for the good of the American people, because of the long-term security interests we have in the region”.

He made the remarks while visiting Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul as part of a five-member, bi-partisan Senate delegation travelling through the region for talks on security issues.

The same delegation also included then-Senator Hillary Clinton, now U.S. Secretary of State.

In mid-March, 2005, U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Richard Myers told reporters in Kabul that the U.S. Defense Department was studying the feasibility of such permanent military bases. At the end of March, the U.S. military announced that it was spending $83-million on its two main air bases in Afghanistan, Bagram Air Base north of Kabul and Kandahar Air Field in the south of the country.

A few weeks after this series of U.S. statements, in April 2005, during a surprise visit to Kabul by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Afghan President Hamid Karzai hinted at a possible permanent U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, saying he had also discussed the matter with President Bush. Rumsfeld refused to say whether or not the U.S. wanted permanent American military bases in Afghanistan, saying the final decision would come from the White House.

As of July 2008, hundreds of millions of dollars were being spent on permanent infrastructure for foreign military bases in Afghanistan, including a budget of $780-million to further develop the infrastructure at just the Kandahar Air Field base, described as “a walled, multicultural military city that houses some 13,000 troops from 17 different countries – the kind of place where you can eat at a Dutch chain restaurant alongside soldiers from the Royal Netherlands Army.” The Bagram Air Base, run by the U.S. military, was also expanding according to military officials, with the U.S military buying land from Afghan locals in different places for further expansion of the base.

As of January 2009, the U.S. had begun work on $1.6 billion of new, permanent military installations at Kandahar.

In February 2009, The Times reported that the U.S. will build two huge new military bases in southern Afghanistan. One will be built in Kandahar province near the Helmand border, at Maiwand – a place famous as the site of the destruction of a British army during the Second Anglo-Afghan War. The other new U.S. military base will be built in Zabul, a province now largely controlled by the Taliban and criminal gangs.
————————————————————————————————–
AFGHAN RESISTANCE TO PERMANENT U.S. MILITARY BASES

The idea of permanent U.S. military bases vexes many people in Afghanistan, which has a long history of resisting foreign invaders.

In May 2005, riots and protests that had started over a false report in Newsweek of U.S. interrogators desecrating the Koran and turned into the biggest anti-U.S. protests in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion included demands that the Kabul government reject U.S. intentions to create a permanent military presence in Afghanistan.
——————————————————————————————–
Public opinion

Main article: International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan

Although the war was supported by most Americans, most people in the world oppose the war.
In a 47-nation June 2007 survey of global public opinion, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found considerable opposition to war.

In 41 of the 47 countries, pluralities want U.S. and NATO troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. In 32 out of 47 countries, clear majorities want this war over as soon as possible.

Majorities in 7 out of 12 NATO member countries say troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible.

————————————————————————————————–
Afghan Election:

After Karzai’s alleged win of 54 per cent, which would prevent a run off with his rival, Abdullah Abdullah, over 400,000 votes had to be discounted for Karzai, and many more with hundreds of thousands of votes and polling ballots being accused of fraud.

Making the real turnout of the elections much lower than the official numbers, many nations criticizing the elections as Free but not fair.

Coalition in Afghanistan backs Karzai’s Strategy:

By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post , provided by San Jose Mercury News, Monday September 28, 2009.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other NATO foreign ministers, meeting Friday in New York with their Afghan counterpart, reached “consensus” that Karzai would probably “continue to be president,” whether through a runoff or as the legitimate winner of more than 50 percent of votes cast in disputed Aug.20 elections, an Obama administration official said.”

————————————————————————————————–

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Copyright ©2008-2025 PadminiArhant.com