U.S. NATO and UN Intervention in Libya and Middle East

February 28, 2011

By Padmini Arhant

The press conference held a little while ago by the White House preceded with the UN Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice briefing on the meeting between President Barack Obama and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon on date – February 28, 2011 at approximately 3.30P.M. EST.

UN humanitarian aid to Libya is quintessential and would be welcome by the local population.

However the United Nations volunteering political support to Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and throughout Middle East would be considered interference with programmed nominees otherwise appointing puppet regimes to take over the leadership position as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq rendering the pro-democracy martyrs’ sacrifices futile.

It would be history repeating itself contradictory to the natives’ desirable political transformation for republic rule constituting real democracy.

Therefore it would be honorable for the U.S., NATO and United Nations to allow the respective population in these nations to choose their leader within civil society to represent the democratic transition.

Furthermore there are capable leaders, scholars and constitutional law experts in every nation deserving opportunity to lead their country without foreign powers intrusion contributing to the dictatorial government establishment spanning over decades.

U.S. and allies along with UN recognition of the intellectual talent and respecting the republic will in the Middle East and elsewhere would enormously benefit the credibility factor that has been lost in the political crises management thus far.

The White House press conference and the UN ambassador accounts did not rule out U.S. and NATO military action against Libya.

It is imperative for the U.S. and NATO to abandon any air strike plans or preparation to move troops into Libya since that would categorically qualify as invasion through military aggression exacerbating the civilian plight.

Notwithstanding such decisions fomenting anti-western sentiments due to the intention in semblance with Iraq and Afghanistan – i.e. occupation and perpetual warfare.

Besides democratic nations would be expected to pursue peaceful strategies and avoid military confrontation at all costs – similar to western society aspiration upon political event reversal.

In fact based on the warm relations between Muammar Gaddafi and the western leaderships until now – it should be a no brainer to demand the embattled dictator to step down and prevent bloodshed rather than positioning to a combat situation unequivocally resulting in more casualties generating the perception as a peace opponent.

Given the Libyan dictator’s profile as a paranoid shriveling easily debilitated character exemplified in nuclear ambition renouncement and Lockerbie settlement, the panic-stricken leadership is on the brink of collapse.

The popular uprising is quite capable of deposing the despotic clan and the obstruction in this regard is predominantly attributed to deliberation on introducing ‘NO FLY ZONE’ and facilitating the artillery confiscation by the revolution.

Hence the U.S. NATO and UN services limited to humanitarian relief and non-militaristic assistance would be greatly appreciated and expedite the dictator’s departure.

Meanwhile the defected security and army personnel are urged to join the peaceful demonstrators to oust the rattled Gaddafi and associates.

Please remember that Tunisia and Egypt succeeded and so can you.

Do not relent and heed to violence or political circumvention.

Reiterating the warning to Gaddafi and mercenaries – unleashing terror against unarmed civilians would lead to devastating consequences.

Surrender or exile as time is running out with no hope for miracles.

Gaddafi rule is nearing end and the factions behind hostility sharing synonymous fate.

Libyan revolution will triumph over repression. So claim your long overdue victory.

Good Luck! To Libyan Liberation by peaceful and non-violent dissent.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

U.S. NATO, UNSC and UN Clarifications Required on Libya

February 22, 2011

By Padmini Arhant

U.S. NATO & U.N PLAN OF ACTION ON LIBYA

Is NATO Preparing to Invade Libya?

What is UNSC action on ‘No Fly Zone’ proposal by Libyan victims dying from artillery shelling?

Does Libya matter to U.S. in the same manner as Iraq did in 2003?

United States positioned as the leader of the free world and the United Nations as the umbrella organization for the international community including Libya and,

NATO representing the U.S. and European Union dependent on Libyan oil for the economy are yet to offer legitimate explanation on all of the above questions related to Libya.

Additionally the U.S. has not clarified the bizarre stance for not having directly condemned the brutal dictator Muammar Gaddafi and his sons Saif al-Islam Gaddafi as well as Mutassim Gaddafi implicated with evidence on hiring henchmen to murder Libyan civilians.

The press conference and daily briefing by the U.S. State Department today i.e. February 22, 2011 was disappointing for it did not address the key issues on Libya and the response was evasive.

Please watch the featured video on the U.S. State Department briefing.

Following questions are from the conference transcript made available by the U.S. State Department. – Thank you.

Please view the featured video for the complete version of the briefing.

QUESTION: All right. And then more broadly, what did you make of Qadhafi’s speech?

MR. CROWLEY: I actually haven’t received a debrief on his speech.

QUESTION: Well, surely you saw some of it.

MR. CROWLEY: I did see some of it.

QUESTION: Enough – what did you think of him vowing to stay and to die a martyr and never to give up?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, this is ultimately and fundamentally an issue between the Libyan Government, its leader, and the Libyan people.

They, like others, are standing up and demanding a greater say in the events of their country.

As the Secretary indicated yesterday in her statement, we have grave concerns about the Libyan response to these protestors.

We continue to be guided by our fundamental principles; we don’t want to see any further violence.

And she called directly on the Libyan Government to cease the – its response that has led to significant bloodshed in Libya.

We want to see universal rights respected and we want to see the government respond to the aspirations of its people.

QUESTION: P.J., this is essentially a bloodbath that’s going on there, and it seems when you were talking about this that it’s a very calm approach. I mean, many people are saying that something has to be done right now to help the people who are being attacked by airplanes, air attack. So what is the United States doing? Is there a sense of urgency?

MR. CROWLEY: Of course, there’s a sense of urgency. Our first focus is on the security of American citizens in Libya. But I mean, our response has been joined by many others in the international community.

There was a Security Council meeting this morning. There will be another Security Council meeting this afternoon, and I expect that the international community will speak with one voice in expressing its ongoing alarm at events as they unfold in Libya.

QUESTION: Thank you. What is the Secretary doing specifically on this?

MR. CROWLEY: We have had a number of conversations as a Department over the weekend. The Secretary has engaged with many regional and European leaders.

Our Assistant Secretary Jeff Feltman had multiple conversations over the weekend with Libyan officials, including Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa.

We have been in touch with also other leaders in the region, and there is a united view here. We view the situation in Libya with grave concern.

QUESTION: Just one more. Just one more. Their ambassador to the Arab League calls this genocide, and in cases of genocide, there might be a consideration of taking some type of united action to rescue people. Is there any consideration for that?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, Jill, I would just simply say that right now our challenge – just as your challenge is to fully understand what is going on in the country.

Just as you have had difficulty in getting your reporters into Libya, we have a relatively small post, and we’ve had difficulty in verifying some of the horrible reports that are emanating from Libya.

I’m not minimizing our level of concern here, but it’s going to take some time to evaluate and understand exactly what is happening, what has transpired already.

We are focused right now on trying to do everything that we can working with others who are in touch with the Libyan Government and Libyan leaders directly to stop this bloodshed.

We have great concern about this, but we are still trying to fully understand exactly what’s happening in a very complex, very difficult environment where we do not necessarily, as we have in other countries, have as many eyes on the ground.

QUESTION: Has the U.S. Government contacted Qadhafi directly? Have you – has an effort been made either from this building or from the White House?

MR. CROWLEY: We are aware that others have contacted him directly, I think, over the weekend. The Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had a direct conversation with him. We have not.

QUESTION: — would not ask him step down.

MR. CROWLEY: Just as we have said quite carefully in each of these cases, it’s not for the United States to choose the leader of Libya or the leader of any other country.

It is for the people of Libya who are standing up and protesting the policies and actions of their government. Ultimately, they will be the judge of what is happening in Libya.

We are expressing our grave concern and alarm, as the Secretary’s statement said yesterday. And certainly, we can see that there is a contrast between the decisions made by Egyptian security forces in response to these protests, and the contrast is very stark between the response of the Libyan Government.

QUESTION: P.J., I just want to make sure —

QUESTION: The National Security Advisor Mutassim Qadhafi, one of his sons was here two years ago meeting with the Secretary. Has anyone spoken to him? Has anyone spoken to anyone else who still claims to work for the Qadhafi government directly? Or is Ban Ki-moon acting as the interlocutor here?

MR. CROWLEY: I just – no, no, no, no. I just said that Assistant Secretary Jeff Feltman has had multiple conversations with Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa and others.

We’ve expressed our concern directly. We’ve explained to the Libyan Government exactly what we’re doing in terms of the ordered departure.

We’ll work with the Libyan Government as we move our families and our diplomats and American citizens out of Libya. So we are – we have been in, more or less, daily contact with the Libyan Government through this last few days.

QUESTION: Do you support a no-fly zone over Libya?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Do you support a no-fly zone over Libya?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, we are meeting as an international community. We are trying to gather facts on what is happening. And I’m not going to forecast what steps might be taken.

QUESTION: Because during Qadhafi’s hour-and-a-half long speech, he indicated that he wasn’t listening to what the U.S. or what the Europeans wanted, that he would be willing to die until the last drop of blood, and that he would then go house to house to try to put down this rebellion.

That’s – how effective is the U.S. conversation then with Libya if he can go on television and say these things and make these threats against his own people?

QUESTION: — the problem is that here you’ve been talking about how this has to solved within – resolved through an internal debate in Libya; you want to see the government engage the protesters.

And the problem with that is that the debate so far has been anti-aircraft guns and bullets and fighter jets bombing the people. That’s the government’s side of the debate.

MR. CROWLEY: I understand that.

QUESTION: They have shown no willingness to engage.

MR. CROWLEY: I understand —

QUESTION: And Qadhafi’s speech, which you didn’t watch —

MR. CROWLEY: I watched. I didn’t —

QUESTION: — said exactly —

MR. CROWLEY: I watched some of it.

QUESTION: — said that they’re not going to engage and that he’s going to go – that the people who are protesting deserve the death penalty —

MR. CROWLEY: Right.

QUESTION: — and they’re going to crack down on them. So I don’t —

MR. CROWLEY: And Matt —

QUESTION: So there’s no indication that they’re listening to your message.

And by saying that you don’t know, you’re waiting to find out the facts on the ground, you can’t confirm any of these atrocities that have been reported, you’ve put yourself squarely in the camp of your favorite Western Hemisphere dictator Fidel Castro, who wrote exactly the same thing and said that no one – people shouldn’t be blaming Qadhafi yet. I mean, you haven’t come out and condemned Qadhafi himself for doing any of this.

And he — the other thing that Castro said was that – I think this is along the lines of the no-fly zone –

Is that NATO was preparing to invade Libya?

So, setting Castro aside for a moment —

MR. CROWLEY: Again, which is why I said earlier that ultimately this is an issue between the Libyan Government and the Libyan people.

QUESTION: P.J., how can you frame the debate as it’s internal things between the Libyan people and the government when some reports talks about thousands of people dead, and one of – part of the Qadhafi’s speech – I don’t know if you heard it or not –

He was talking about the violence has not been used yet against the demonstrators. Isn’t surely the responsibility of the United States to stand up against the thousands of people being killed?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, and the Secretary of State said very clearly and very compellingly in her statement yesterday that the bloodshed needs to stop. We condemned the violence that’s occurring. I don’t know that we can be any more clear.

QUESTION: But how many people have to die? I mean, we’re already hearing of hundreds of people.?
——————————————————————————————-
Gaddafis’ Western Relations – By Padmini Arhant

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi known in the affluent circle for his close relations with Prince Andrew, Lord Peter Mandelson, 4th Baron Jacob Rothschild along with heir Nat Rothschild at Waddesdon Manor of Buckinghamshire.

Saif al-Islam having been hosted at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle is also believed to be a frequent royal guest at Rothschild manor on Corfu.

It is further established that Saif al-Islam was the favorite nominee to lead Libya among the Western oligarchy.

Powerful entities without lucrative economic deals would be indeed oxymoron.

It clearly explains the western powers’ deafening silence in the face of massacre by their autocratic ally.

The political establishment behind dictatorships in the Middle East and elsewhere bear responsibility for the ongoing civilian deaths in every uprising prompting worldwide citizens protest to the systemic abuse of power for purely economic and strategic interests.

People in the democratic society across the globe need to rise against the shadow world government wreaking havoc on the planet with innocent men, women and children indiscriminately killed through their puppet regimes,

The declining global status quo is a sharp indication for democracies to reject the pervasive dominance by selective powers operating under one organization – the New World Order.

These leaderships do not espouse democratic values and alarmingly exerting authority in semblance to fascism – a pre-world war II environment.

If the average citizens do not challenge the unscrupulous powers despite the ominous situation then it could lead to no point of return.

It is the duty of every human being to oppose the conglomerate powers’ complicity and demand for their immediate action in the removal of the totalitarian governments engaged in native population genocide.

Universal revolution is the only effective strategy to rein in the apex power governing the political apparatus around the world.

Complacency could no longer be the option for it would expedite the possible apocalypse.

The poignant questions pertaining to Libya including any NATO plan on Libyan invasion during the U.S. state department briefing was evaded and,

It is a great concern for the global society considering the western powers’ increasingly discreet policy on international matter.

Real democracies would be transparent and subject to accountability rather than remaining exclusive with decisions or the lack thereof on humanitarian issues.

The oppressed victims of aerial bombings in Libya are justified in their request for a ‘No Fly Zone’ – essentially a no brainer compared with similar imposition on Iraq by the U.S and allies during their mission to oust Saddam Hussein sharing same legacy as Muammar Gaddafi.

United Nations Security Council hesitation in this context is simply unacceptable and reasons provided thus far claiming that it would be hard for the members to gain consensus on humanitarian grounds reveals the disingenuous reaction particularly after the United States veto of Arab resolution on Jewish settlements obstructing Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

It is extremely important for NATO and United States to present the precise agenda on Libya with unequivocal clarification on the alleged NATO plan to invade Libya.

On the question regarding Egypt – the State Department Assistant Secretary P.J. Crowley only highlighted in broadening the economic prospects with no mention on the political transfer of power to civilian rule.

Again the United States commitment to Egypt in this respect is quintessential based on U.S. military aid and consequently Egypt’s military caretaker government direct reporting to U.S. military high command including the defense secretary.

These developments marred with tremendous uncertainties attributed to U.S. and European Union failure to depose Muammar Gaddafi and reserved successors.

The characterization of Libyan political crisis as an ‘internal affair’ at the state department briefing is disturbing to say the least not to mention the impact on U.S. image as a reliable crusader.

Political transformation in the Middle East and across the globe is predetermined and non-negotiable.

The decadent powers under the global empire are on the brink of collapse epitomizing the conclusion of the Dark Age.

Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Palestinians from Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem in the Middle East and,

China, Tibet, Burma, North Korea, Thailand, Philippines, Sri Lankan Tamils, Pakistan, Afghanistan…in Asia

Ivory Coast, Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo…in Africa

Honduras, Haiti, Cuba…in the Western Hemisphere

All others across the globe are urged to seek political rights, social equality and fair economic opportunity only possible with people power in a democracy.

Life is a gift and born to be free. Hence rise like a phoenix against the falcon for a new beginning on the horizon.

Good Luck! To the Universal Revolution for resounding success in the liberation.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal in 2014

November 27, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

Afghanistan troop withdrawal was discussed during the NATO press conference last week i.e. 11/20/10 indicating the timeline in 2014.

Again, this topic has been extensively covered under various articles on this site.

The military decision was presented as the evaluation on the ground defining the persistent threat from Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, preparing the Afghan security personnel and armed forces and ensuring political stability across the nation…in semblance to Iraq.

With respect to Al-Qaeda – the CIA accounted for a meager 100 militants in Afghanistan and the northwestern Pakistan combined together against over 120,000 formidable U.S. and NATO coalition.

As for the Taliban containment, the Pakistan ISI and military intervention to prevent peace talks between Afghan Taliban and the Afghan government is common knowledge.

Even the U.S. leading press reported the Pakistan intelligence having misused the U.S. agents in tracking down the Afghan Taliban chief only to foster the Taliban and Afghan government standoff by holding the captive in a secret location unbeknown to U.S. intelligence.

Amid such activities, the foreign power still maintains Pakistan – an ally in the war on terror providing $2 billion military funding rather than channeling the aid towards desperately required social and economic development.

Pakistan ISI and military have long profited from the militancy within and across the borders with Afghanistan and India predominantly due to the U.S. military aid further distributed in lucrative arms sales to Al-Qaeda and militants including the Afghanistan and Pakistan based Taliban.

The carefully configured operation has contributed to cyclical violence in armed conflict, suicide bombings in Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as terrorism against India and Iran.

Today on November 26, 2010 the Mumbai terror victims’ families mourn their relatives’ deaths from the brutal attack in public square two years ago.

The perpetrators like David Headley from the U.S. and terror masterminds in Pakistan are granted impunity despite evidence confirming the charges.

The Pakistani military, intelligence and the political establishment’s evasion to bring the Mumbai terrorists to justice is no different from U.S. and NATO avoiding questions about Osama Bin Laden in the 9/11 terrorism.

Afghanistan was invaded to eliminate Al-Qaeda and capture Osama Bin Laden dead or alive.

Now a decade later, the most sophisticated military might – the U.S. and NATO are still in Afghanistan with the war spilled over to Pakistan and Yemen.

Al-Qaeda and Taliban continue to be the reason for the prolonged occupation in Afghanistan.

U.S and NATO ambiguous timetable for troop withdrawal set in 2014 is suggestive of two possibilities.

It is ambiguous because of the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen underscoring the statement that the withdrawal commitment will not be “calendar driven.” Otherwise it could be beyond 2014 and not any sooner.

Per U.S. and NATO accounts – Given the inferior ammunition and significantly lower combatants Al-Qaeda and Taliban are essentially winning the war on terror in Afghanistan depriving the nation the long overdue political stability which in turn is contradictory to the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s position that:

“U.S. policy in Afghanistan is working” implying that NATO and U.S. choice of political leadership – President Hamid Karzai has the situation under control through efficient governance.

Then why is the troop withdrawal scheduled for 2014 and not 2011?

Alternatively ‘truth’ being the first casualty in war and politics, the U.S. and NATO leadership with the U.N. chief are not being forthright to the people in Afghanistan, the U.S. and ally taxpayers notwithstanding the increasingly frustrated press as the voice for democracy.

Afghanistan political woes persist with the central power challenging the latest election results while the Afghan President Hamid Karzai publicly acknowledged the cash flow from Iranian regime and U.S. officials to his administration.

It is imperative to highlight the Iranian influence in two war zones – Afghanistan and Iraq.

Iran alliance with the U.S. appointees – Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki is not without a reason.

Afghanistan and Iraq being the strategic location for military strike against Iran – the impending U.S. war policy with an unequivocal worldwide catastrophe is being maneuvered by Iran through financial assistance to Afghanistan and political ties with Iraq.

U.S. overtures to Afghanistan and Iraqi leaders in spite of their performance track record and against respective population dissent is the bedrock for insurgency, militancy and incessant warfare in both nations.

The Taliban is emboldened with the local population forced to accept the corrupt and inefficient political system or become a recruit for the militant group.

Afghan population plight exacerbated with the deteriorating social, economic and political conditions. The report on Afghan women self-immolation attributed to atrocities and social injustice towards them is a major credibility factor for the U.S. backed Afghan administration.

Besides President Hamid Karzai as the U.S. and NATO appointee is complacent to foreign occupation whereas resisted by Taliban.

To a large extent the Afghan population find themselves between the rock and a hard place.

Hence raising the relevant questions:

What is the real purpose behind the ten year old Afghan war?

With Osama Bin Laden being no longer the intended target and skeletal Al-Qaeda operatives relocated to Somalia,

Why is the troop withdrawal set in 2014 instead of 2011?

Why the pullout in 2014 is explicitly stated as not ‘calendar driven’?

What is the precise strategy to reverse Afghanistan status quo in particular with women, children and youth population?

With the existing corruption scandals, what transformation has transpired under the present Afghan administration?

If the U.S. policy is working in Afghanistan as claimed by the U.S. Secretary of State, then,

What is the explanation for the social crimes against women?

When will Afghanistan be truly independent and recognized as a sovereign nation?

Finally, what is so auspicious about 2014 that cannot be carried out sooner to save life?

Peace to the grieving families in Mumbai, India and distressed Afghan society.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Tragic Events

May 22, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

Heartfelt condolences to the victims’ families of the following events:

India – Air India plane crash in Mangalore, India on May 21, 2010 with more than 160 lives reported to have been lost and the few survivors seriously injured.

Afghanistan – Plane wreckage north of Kabul, from an Afghan commercial airliner with 44 people claimed to have succumbed to the fatal crash.

Insurgents attacks against NATO base in Afghanistan reportedly wounding coalition troops and civilian staff in the repeat assault on a major military installation.

Iraq – A Car bomb had killed 23 shoppers and wounded 50 in a crowded market in a Shiite town near Baghdad.

The loss of life from plane crash and the violent attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq are deeply regrettable.
Time is the best healer in overcoming grief and the victims memories remain as their legacy.

We pray for the departed souls to rest in peace and the injured for speedy recovery.

Afghan War after Troops Increase

April 1, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

The latest on Afghan war after adding more troops to the nine-year-old battle, a contentious debate that was dominant last year.

Associated Press – Sunday, March 28, 2010.

By Sebastian Abbot – Thank you.

“Troop deaths rise in Afghanistan – Numbers soaring as U.S. adds soldiers

Kabul – The number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan has roughly doubled in the first three months of 2010 compared to the same period last year as Washington has added tens of thousands of additional soldiers to reverse the Taliban’s momentum.

Those deaths have been accompanied by a dramatic spike in the number of wounded, with injuries more than tripling in the first two months of the year and trending in the same direction based on the latest available data for March.

U.S. officials have warned that casualties are likely to rise further as the Pentagon completes its deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and sets its sight on the Taliban’s home base of Kandahar province, where a major operation is expected in the coming months.

“We must steel ourselves, no matter how successful we are on any given day, for harder days yet to come,” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a briefing last month.

In total, 57 U.S. soldiers were killed here during the first two months of 2010 compared with 28 in January and February of last year, an increase of more than 100 percent, according to Pentagon figures compiled by the Associated Press.

At least 20 American service members have been killed so far in March.

The steady rise in combat deaths has generated less public reaction in the United States than the spike in casualties in the summer and fall, which undermined public support in the United States for the mission here.

Fighting typically tapers off in Afghanistan during the winter but peaks in the summer.”

————————————————————————————————–

War Strategy Assessment – By Padmini Arhant

The troops increase to Afghanistan was a national debate last year with mixed reaction from all sources.

It’s important to emphasize that there wasn’t an overwhelming public support to the additional troops deployment in Afghanistan.

There were many reasons for the lack luster response.

Among them, the most relevant ones being:

The U.S. and allies’ nomination of President Hamid Karzai as the head of the government for second term defied the Afghan people’s will.

Notwithstanding, the international outrage on the fraudulent general election that led to the opponent, DR. Abdullah Abdullah’s withdrawal from the election.

Another factor is the U.S. occupancy in Afghanistan approaching a decade and the constantly changing ‘purpose’ behind the mission remains intriguing until now.

After much deliberation, President Barack Obama decided to approve the request from the defense high command and argued, “It’s not an easy decision to do so.”

Indeed, pledging the troops’ lives to succeed in the targeted goals is never a simple action.

However, a prolonged war provides enough evidence to consider winding up the operation or at least minimize the troop level by supplementing with diplomacy and peaceful negotiations.

Peace and diplomacy could have prevailed with a democratically elected government. It was thwarted by the U.S. endorsement of an unpopular candidate.

Further, the explanation for more troops involved the U.S and NATO efforts to restore political stability in Afghanistan and terminate the Taliban/Al-Qaida activities.

The irony is, the Afghanistan political situation under the U.S. backed Karzai government shows no improvement in governance, despite the incumbent Afghan President being the U.S. foreign policy designates’ choice.

Similarly, the shift in the U.S. and Afghan government’s strategy towards Taliban insurgents appears to be a new approach to win the militants on their side with cash payments and abandoning the poppy fields eradication – the main source of income for the Taliban forces.

An action that is widely criticized by the human rights groups against narcotics in Afghanistan.

As predicted, the tension between the Karzai government and the U.S. administration has surfaced confirming the mistrust in the relationship.

While the political stalemate between the authorities in Kabul and Washington persists, the mounting U.S. casualties in the Afghan war cannot be ignored.

Troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq is no longer a choice but an immediate requirement to end the procrastinated occupation in foreign lands.

Divestment from wars to social and economic development in these regions must begin to reflect the sincere commitment to bring hope and opportunity in a society deprived of normal existence for decades.

Substituting the combat troops with Peace Corps eliminates the tragic loss of lives on all sides.

In addition, the peaceful atmosphere would deter terror recruitment and foster an environment for the youth as well as others to build their nations towards a positive direction.

Now is the time for the U.S. authorities in the White House, Pentagon and the State department to relinquish failed policies that is proved a liability claiming precious lives and contributing to the rising deficit.

War leads to grief, revenge and destruction.

Whereas, peace is an eternal bliss.

I convey my condolences to the families of the fallen heroes and pray for the early recovery of the wounded brave hearts.

Your sacrifice makes freedom possible for all.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Checks and Balances – Afghan War Strategy

December 1, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

In my earlier post, World Peace – Part 1, I mentioned about the military might prevalent in the economic and political aspects governing the domestic and the international societies. Although, it’s not a revelation that the military industrial complex (MIC) authority spreads beyond the realm of providing national security, it’s imperative to study the extent of the institutional power.

Besides the limited constitutional role by the military to defend the nation upon real and potential attack, the unconstitutional engagements are expansive and encroaching on the general society.

Often, it’s the “potential” more than the ‘real’ threats or attacks that are the premise for the prolonged military operation proved extremely lucrative in the prolific conventional and nuclear arms race.

Among them, the prominent activities are:

The appointments of foreign heads of the government usually the undesirable choices that are unanimously rejected by the global citizens, not part of the exclusive membership. In this context, the deliberate selection of such candidates aka the ‘puppets’ facilitates the anticipated political instability stunting economic growth and declining social progress.

It’s a perfect ambiance for creating a generation, a partly weak and submissive otherwise resigning to the state of no return and the other, resisting the status quo which becomes the recruits for the forces challenging the dominance of the superior.

The end-result being the terrorists rejecting the foreign occupation and/or the anti-government rebels vs. the military industrial complex ‘supposedly’ representing the democracy.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s nomination along with the pre-meditated military coup and the subsequent army backed undemocratic election in Honduras are the recent demonstrations by the external forces, ironically entrusted with the diplomatic responsibility.

Another interesting yet unconvincing factor is the Pentagon being the most sophisticated military institution on the face of the earth with the capability to intercept the rogue spy satellite in 2008 and many other phenomenal challenges up until now,

Claimed to have been taken to task by the overzealous fundamentalists, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda insurgents in possession of inferior artillery and resources by any means for the past eight years.

Source: http://gizmodo.com/359031/video-of-spy-satellite-getting-shot-down

“Lockheed Martin’s Aegis missile launches and successfully destroys the rogue spy satellite. This is a huge success for the Pentagon and the anti-missiles system.

The mission was simple. At 10:26PM EST, a standard missile 3 carrying a kinetic warhead was launched northwest of Hawaii from the USS Lake Eire, a Ticonderoga Class missile defense cruiser. 24 minutes later, at 10:50, the Joint Space Operations Center at the Vandenberg Air Force base confirmed the breakup of the satellite at 153 nautical miles above the Earth from a direct hit.

The video, however, shows that the direct kinetic hit has completely obliterated its target. Now the world can rest at peace. Until A542B, that asteroid ten times bigger than Texas, finally arrives.”

American taxpayers are currently funding two simultaneous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last nine and six years respectively. With no end in sight and mounting casualties on all sides, the combined U.S. and NATO combat and support troop level serving in Afghanistan is nearly 150,000 compared to the former Soviet Union occupied level at 120,000.

Further, it’s reportedly more than double the number since the former President George W. Bush left office. Ref: U.S. force in Afghanistan swells with support troops – Washington Post October 13, 2009.

In that perspective, the military industrial complex, the President of the United States and the legislators supporting the massive contingency owe a legitimate explanation to the following questions:

Considering the nine-year war in Afghanistan, why is the mission not accomplished?

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee statement on the eve of the Presidential speech regarding the troops commitment confirmed that the U.S. defense headed by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the commander at that time Gen. Tommy Franks failed to execute an order to apprehend the terror mastermind Osama Bin Laden within the armed forces’ grasp at Tora Bora in 2001.

What was the real motive behind abandoning the apprehension of the terror leader Osama Bin Laden that could have not only prevented subsequent attacks in Bali, Indonesia, Riyadh, Jordan and several other locations but also debilitated the terror organizations around the globe?

Is it because Osama Bin Laden remaining at large was convenient for all concerned parties i.e.the military industrial complex, Pakistan receiving over $10 billion in U.S. aid for the “war on terror” that is unaccounted until date notwithstanding the re-emergence of Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan for the war games to persist?

What were the strategies at the beginning i.e. 2001 and What are they now?

If the war was unwinnable in the past nine years, what is the basis for the present victory speculation?

How do the legislators propose funding the war amid the heavily contested health care reform and the soaring unemployment?

While demanding drastic spending cuts on health care and economic stimulus,

Are the fiscal conservatives on the right and the left comfortable with the military spending $1 million per soldier per year to satisfy the Army Generals’ elaborate military plan in Afghanistan, not to mention the expense in Iraq as well?

If the war tax is being introduced to finance the MIC mission, who is picking up the tab and where are the anti-tax advocates and the small government proponents?

The Defense department being part of the federal government, the sprawling budget allocated for military expenditure comes right out of the American taxpayers wallet.

Aren’t the conservatives bothered by the ballooning national deficit and the burden on the next generations from the unmitigated Pentagon military extravaganza? When in fact, the illegal adventure in Iraq initiated the precipitous decline of the economy.

Is it going to be the top 10 percent absorbing the costs since the rest at the bottom already hit rock bottom given the economic woes ranging from the heath care and education costs exacerbated by the rising unemployment in the stagnant economy?

Any thoughts on the deteriorating morale and the escalating social crises detailed in the preceding article such as the suicides, the divorces and the systemic collapse of the family structure among the armed personnel. Is it even a matter of concern for those touting support from the comfort zones of the executive and legislative authority?

It’s well known that truth is the primary casualty during war and election.

Afghanistan’s corrupt government is an alibi now to quell the pervasive dissent in the United States and particularly Afghanistan. The fact of the matter is the Karzai government was the preferred choice for the MIC, the U.S. Secretary State and the Defense department.

The reason being, the beleaguered leader was conciliatory to the permanent occupation of the foreign troops all along and the details were published on this website under the article titled – Afghanistan war, troops request and election analysis.

Hence, it should come as no surprise when President Karzai’s appointment is falsely propagated as a ‘re-election’ in the absence of any election following the earlier fraudulent election results that was overwhelmingly rejected by the international community.

If the kingmakers in the Afghan deal were sincere, they would have moved heaven and earth to ensure free and fair elections yielding the desirable outcome i.e. the removal of the Karzai government riddled with corruption charges from the onset for the Afghan population.

Instead, the powerhouse decided to nominate (never re-elected) the worst possible choice for the oppressed Afghan people, in order to sustain the perpetual carnage, chaos and catastrophe for the Afghans and the U.S. as well as the NATO armed personnel.

There were even photo-ops with the U.S. Secretary of State as the ‘Foreign Policy expert,’ enthusiastically blessing the second term of the Karzai government during the recent inauguration, striking a resemblance to the former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld cordially greeted by the dictator Saddam Hussein during the official visit to Baghdad.

Similar scenario was carried out with the Honduran election. Orchestrating military coup, appointment of corrupt leaders with complete knowledge and recognition of despots as the heads of the government later transform into the mortal enemies for the United States and allies to justify the implementation of war.

When evaluating the credibility and the real purpose behind the alarmingly high troops presence i.e.. the existing U.S. troops 71,000 plus the new proposal 30,000 – 35,000 combined with the NATO alliance equals nearly 150,000 to contain the approximately 25,000 Taliban and Al-Qaeda insurgents beckons reasoning with clear and honest submission of facts from the high command in the military industrial complex.

It’s rather hypocritical of the powerful entities constantly fearing self-mortality despite extraordinary security to treat other human lives as easily dispensable.

Troops withdrawal and not additional deployment is required to resolve the nearly decade old conflict.

Finally, It’s about time the military industrial complex confine to national defense and refrain from regional dominance.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Afghanistan – The Military Industrial Complex (MIC) Indefinite Mission

December 1, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The White House and the Congress members are back at work after a refreshing break from the ‘Thanksgiving’ holiday that allows the average and the privileged citizens to celebrate the family moments together. Not all are able to participate in the long held tradition due to the ceaseless demands of the high commanders, the real authority in the system disguised as democracy.

Military Industrial Complex (MIC) troops expansion policy is having a nuclear impact on the nucleus of the Army, the brave men and women in harm’s way as evidenced in the following reports:

Thanksgiving for the soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan is a moment to pause and express gratitude to one another for providing the family like atmosphere through solidarity.

1. Associated Press, November 27, 2009 – By Denis D. Gray

‘Another day, another mission’ for U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan

Most of all, they give thanks for surviving a year of combat

From 1st Sgt. Gonzalo Lassally said of soldiers from Able Troop, 3-71 Cavalry Squadron:

“They become your family and being able to eat together like this, to break bread together is a highlight.”

“We’re thankful for all still being here. We’ve been lucky, on the lower spectrum when it comes to casualties.”

“Just another day, another mission,” several soldiers said as the first patrol prepared for a six-mile slog to aid village schools without windows, desks and other necessities.

From Padmini Arhant: For the kind attention of,

President Barack Obama, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Diane Feinstein and the united Republican members of Congress endorsing the enormous troop buildup,

Would you, perhaps consider either matching or exceeding the incredible sacrifice by the honorable Sgt. Gonzalo Lassally in the following manner?

As per the above report, “1st Sgt. Gonzalo Lassally, a father of three from Deltona, Fla., has spent four ‘Thanksgivings, three Christmases and “quite a few birthdays” away from home.”

———————————————————————————-

2. Associated Press – By Pauline Jelinek, November 28, 2009.

Divorce rate edges up among military families

It’s climbed since troops were first sent to Afghanistan

The toll for a nation long at war is evident in military homes: The divorce rate in the armed forces edged up again in the past year despite many programs to help struggling couples, and the rate now is a full percentage point higher than around the time of the attacks of September 11, 2001.

There were an estimated 27,312 divorces among roughly 765,000 married members of the active-duty Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps in the budget year that ended Sept. 30, the Pentagon said Friday.

That’s a divorce rate of about 3.6 percent for fiscal year 2009, compared with 3.4 percent a year earlier, according to figures from the Defense Manpower Data Center. Marriages among reservists failed at a rate of 2.8 percent compared with 2.7 percent the previous year.

Friday’s reported 3.6 percent rate is a full percentage point above the 2.6 percent reported in late 2001, when the U.S. began sending troops to Afghanistan in response to the September terrorist attacks.

As in previous years, women in uniform suffered much higher divorce rates than their male counterparts – 7.7 percent in 2009, compared with 3 percent for men.

————————————————————————————————-
3. Associated Press, Washington, November 18, 2009:

Suicides in Army likely to increase:

“Army Vice Chief of Staff General Peter Chiarelli said that as of Monday, 140 active duty soldiers were believed to have died of self-inflicted wounds so far in 2009. That’s the same as were confirmed for all of 2008. We are almost certainly going to end the year higher than last year … this is horrible, and I do not want to downplay the significance of these numbers in any way.”

————————————————————————————————–

It’s essential to highlight other news related to the Afghanistan war, NATO involvement and the Karzai government credentials or the lack thereof.

4. As for NATO alliances in the war on terror:

Germany’s top military official resigns:

New York Times – By Nicholas Kulish, November 27, 2009

Berlin – Germany’s defense minister, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, told Parliament that the chief of staff, Gen. Wolfgang Schneiderhan, as well as a senior official in the Defense Ministry, State Secretary Peter Wichert, had tendered their resignations after a German news report that information on civilian casualties had been withheld from the public and from prosecutors.”

————————————————————————————–

5. Pakistan warns of influx of militants

More U.S. troops could push Taliban from Afghanistan

By Kim Gamel – Associated Press, November 21, 2009.

Islamabad – Pakistan expressed fear Friday that a large increase in foreign troops in Afghanistan could push militants across the border into its territory and called on the U.S. to factor in that concern as part of its new war strategy.”

—————————————————————————————–

6. Washington Post – By Joshua Partlow, November 18, 2009.

Afghan official accused of taking bribe

Contract allegedly goes to Chinese firm after $30 million payout

Kabul – The Afghan minister of mines accepted a roughly $30 million bribe to award the country’s largest development project to a Chinese mining firm, according to a U.S. official who is familiar with military intelligence reports.

Karzai is coming under intense international pressure to clear his Cabinet of ministers who have reaped huge profits through bribery and kickback schemes. Although he announced a new anti-corruption unit this week, the president has been reluctant to fire scandal-tainted ministers in the past and it is unclear whether he is ready to do so now.

Meanwhile, Afghans’ perceptions that they are ruled by a thieving class have weakened support for the government, and bolstered sympathy for the Taliban insurgency.”
——————————————————————————————–

Notation – By Padmini Arhant:

Obviously, the prolonged occupation and the extended service by the armed personnel are crippling the integral unit of the society, the American families of these silent patriots.

Accordingly, the checks and balances are appropriate to determine the validity of the additional troops request.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Afghan Election Malady – The Resumption of the Puppet Government

November 2, 2009

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

New Afghan Strategy

October 26, 2009

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

October 22, 2009

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

« Previous PageNext Page »

PadminiArhant.com