How about a New Way Out.

"How about a New Way Out." YES
You nailed it. (I wish I'd thought of it.)
Unfortunately the zombies in the US government always think more is better, when less is called for.

Did an earlier post get erased?

I've already said that I was impressed with Matthew Hoh, and now it's Darcy Burner. I not only am taken with her name and the fact she's from Carnation, Washington, but more importantly with her efforts as a congressional candidate to fight for the right things, including getting out of Iraq.

But I do think that, despite the political thrust to stay in, we do need to get out of Afghanistan and not try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

SC: "...for what is soon to be America's longest war."

If Afghanistan is not already our longest war, which other war was
longer? The only way Vietnam was longer is if you datestamp the
injection of a few advisers as the onset. And of course, technically,
the Korean war is still going. But I cannot otherwise identify a
longer war.

Anyway, I think it's important to ask a question unrelated to
Afghanistan per se, and perhaps you will: What are we doing
fighting a 10-, 11-, 12-year war? Did anyone lay out in their
reductive powerpoint case for the initial invasion "We anticipate
accelerating optempo and increased troop counts in year 10 of the
conflict"? Probably not, eh?

Drew,

I don't have a direct answer to that interesting question
(and you didn't ask me...).

However, since the war in Afghanistan was seen as part of
the GWOT, perhaps they did? According to Woodward (in
one of his three books about the Bush admin. - can't
remember which right now), the Pentagon assumed that
the GWOT may take twenty, thirty years, or more. I think
several officials, Cheney included, said the same (a
generation or more...). So you could say that we are 1/3
into the Afghanistan war...

On the other hand, there was an atmosphere of unfounded
optimism with regard to "nation building" at the same time
- especially related to the invasion of Iraq, but also to
Afghanistan. And a lot of hubris as to what the almighty
US military power could achieve around the world.

Most importantly however, referring to Afghanistan, I
guess Rumsfeld's experimental implementation of his
concept of a modernized, lighter, more mobile force may
have distracted the attention from such crucial questions
as well. Rumsfeld + neocon nation building + focus
diverted to Iraq = Afghan quagmire.

And as to the 30 years of GWOT, initially this probably
included attacks on Syria, Iran, Sudan and a handful of
other nations who "harbored terrorists" as well - until
trouble started in Iraq.

A secular war on terror is distinct from an invasion plan, and
soldiers don't recommend 30 year wars.

The decapitation of the Taliban government was one of the more
extraordinary tactical achievements in the history of war, as the
CIA, 100 noncoms, and several brief cases filled with $100 bills
wiped out the government in a matter of weeks.

What the neocons apparently did not ask themselves with
enough rigor, was the Petraeus question during the weeks-long
invasion and defeat of Saddam's Iraq: "Tell me how this ends?"
The neocons, optimistic in regard to human nature, sincerely
believed that humanity, set free, will elevate itself in character
and self-organize in democratic fashion. (One reason they think
this is that it has happened in places like the Philippines and S.
Korea -- and South Vietnam, until we abandoned them and our
treaty obligations.)

The current situation in Afghanistan doesn't seem like a
quagmire to me. The problem is that the USA has no desire to
acquire colonies, and there is little evidence now that the
Afghans will self-organize into anything other than a loose
confederation of rural peoples, bonded to a totalitarian, narco-
state core. In other words, somebody needs to rule the place,
and it won't be us. Once the USA proves it can run a post office
effectively, I'll be fine with the whole nationbuilding thing on the
other side of the world with a people that is 70% illiterate. But
unless you see quixotic nation-building as synonymous with
"quagmire", it's not a quagmire. The taliban and al qaeda do not
challenge the US military; the challenge is the vacuum that is the
national political culture. There is none.

Steve, not trying to offer an editorial comment on the panel....just curious, is there anyone on the panel who simply proposes we get out, as fast as possible, and in any event, within 6 months, out of Afghanistan? Or, within a year?

jonst,

I don't know what they will say today -- but I think that Paul Pillar
reflects that view -- and Stephen Walt, who is speaking at an event
I am organizing tonight, has that view essentially. Others in the
group felt that way -- but not everyone, and the report doesn't
reflect any person's view entirely...

I'd love to see one of these deep thinkers define "forward" without reaching into the grab-bag of bullshit that provides the rationale for us to be there.

Thank you Steve.....on another, if you are up to it, could give us a brief update on the health of your dog's health?

I realize Steve has to make a buck, but all this advertising is strangling the site for those of us on dial-up.

Not only for those on dial-up.

Earlier today, I got one of these nasty lottery ticket windows on
top of the TWN site every time I clicked on this blog - and no
matter what I did, it didn't go away.

Also no Afghans or Pakistanis on the panel. I guess the US father knows best.

Pepe Escobar on Asia Times:
"As much as Washington may entertain the illusion that it's in command, it's actually Hamid Karzai, the wily Afghan president, who is playing an attacking game in this latest installment of the New Great Game in Eurasia. And, as usual, there's never a mention anywhere of the key Pipelineistan game.

and then there's Pakistan, the US "partner" which probably supports the Taliban which is killing US troops, according to General McChrystal's assessment a year ago.

Pepe again:
"For Islamabad it's still - and will always be - about "strategic depth", the doctrine that rules Afghanistan as a privileged Pakistani-controlled backyard (that's exactly what it was between 1992, at the start of the intra-mujahideen wars, till the end of the Taliban "government" in 2001).

"Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani - a darling of the Pentagon - has been granted a three-year extension to his mandate. Karzai took no time to duly note the obvious: Kiani will continue to pull all stops to be the top dog in Kabul. So he must be accommodated."
http://tinyurl.com/2b46qwt

And then there's that preacher in Florida who intends to morph Patriot Day into Burn A Koran Day, which might change everything.

Technical Issues. Have still image of speaker, but no streaming video; no sound.

I have sound and (frozen) image of speaker.

Where is Prof Cole? And why is Darcy Burner there?

Keep wondering about how any Taliban member that surrenders now how we treat them. Will never forget when Amy Goodman was the only media outlet here in the states that aired the Irish documentary "Afghan Massacre; The Convoy of Death" on her program back in late 2001. No one touched that massacre of surrendered Taliban who were allowed to perish in truck convoys. Just swept under the rug by the U.S. military and our media. MSNBC etc sure never reported about that massacre.

How are any Taliban members who surrendered treated now? Sure would make one hesitate to surrender when Americans allowed or participated in this slaughter and then silently swept it under the rug. "moving forward, next chapter" etc

go to u stream for a better connection

Wonder if they will go near international drug cartel operations in Afghanistan? Increase in heroin use in Afghanistan due to more anxiety over ongoing war etc?

too bad they do not have any of the Fulbright scholars who are studying here in the states from Afghanistan on that panel.

Does anyone think that the Obama administration consults with these Fulbright scholars studying here in the states from Afghanistan?

What are we spending in Afghanistan a week? Is 2 billion a week correct? Heard that on Joe Scarborough this morning. Arianna Huffington, Governor Rendell etc discussing this issue this morning

Sure took the U.S. a long long time to attempt to bring the Taliban to the table. Those slaughtered Taliban members in 2001 may have slowed down any other Taliban members willingness to negotiate or surrendered to occupying forces. Uh just a little

Marcy "clear telling of what is going on in Afghanistan"

"the american public is shielded" I would say!

Hell our military our government our media has not even counted the dead, injured and displace in Iraq. And the American people seem to like it that way. Frightening

What did our military learn from Vietnam. Don't show the American people the pictures, the video clips etc

Afghan Visions

If you are the average native of Afghanistan--your life has a
very messy ending. In fact, your life is out of control. You are
staring downward, and into the dark abyss of death. You will not
live to age 45. You have little bodily ease or pleasure. You are
sick, malnourished, hungry, uneducated—without hope.
Emotionally, there is nothing to help you say goodbye.

Until…you ask your corrupt government for the one act that
may save you. You volunteer to give up narcotics production in
return for one last chance for a more normal life. Your narcotics
farmers will ask the Americans to teach you to plant alternative
crops, nutritious food crops for yourself and your animals. You
ask the Americans to purchase your crops in advance, and for
the same farm-door price you received for illegal cultivations.
You ask for this support for 10 years, so that you can look to the
future with a tool against Taliban intimidation. You now have a
cause fellow farmers and farm workers can rally around. You
promise to abide by your agreement with the Americans. To
back this up, you get a new biometric iris-scan ID card, so that
Taliban or others cannot take eligible farmer’s money, or any
part of it. (Farm income is $1 billon dollars.)

For your government, you ask the Americans to provide an
additional $4 billion dollars for each ot the next ten years. The
total is now $5 billion yearly. $2.8 billion of that is to make up
for the GDP lost from giving up drug production. This cumulative
$4 billion extra helps Afghan’s to pay for clean water, healthcare,
education, and good rule-of-law governance.

But how? Your government hasn’t cared about you up till now.
Even if the Americans agree, how will you tell your own leaders?
How will you even know about this hope-filled vision, as only
28% of you can read? And will you spread the demand for this by
word-of-mouth, in your mosque, your village, your family? And
what do the Americans have to gain by listening to your pleas?

First of all, Americans save approximately $20 billion that their
society loses yearly from Afghan originated drugs. Next, they cut
off many troop costs. (Each of 100,000 soldiers costs almost $1
million per year to maintain in the field,) Let’s say they could
save $20 billion more here each year. The Americans also cut
their enemies income, as the Taliban receive $400 million each
year from drugs to conduct terror. Americans save an additional
$4-5 million per year for each soldier not killed by the Taliban.
They save more from persons not injured, including Afghan
civilians.

It looks like a terrific 1en-to-one gain (profit) for the
Americans, a life with a brighter future for Afghans. It’s up to
Afghans to speak out, and for Americans to listen. Which of these
Afghan visions presents a better tomorrow than a yesterday?

waltoncook@yahoo.com

my questions
what happens to surrendered Taliban now?

Why is it that the U.s. media never reported about the deaths (slaughter) of surrendered Taliban back in 2001?

And how did this tragedy effect the possibility of more Taliban being willing to work with occupying forces?

And how much does our military pay families when they shoot/kill innocent people in Afghanistan via drones, night time raids etc?

How many innocent people in Afghanistan have U.S. forces killed?

is Heroin use going up in American forces serving in Afghanistan

Go Ray McGovern bringing up why there have been no National intelligence estimates last year or this year on Afghanistan.

Pillar dismisses McGovern's question by saying that would not be the correct instrument to determine what is going on in Afghanistan.

Then Pillar gives absolutely no example of a viable way to determine what is going on in Afghanistan.

Pillar was very dismissive of McGovern's question.

Why is Pillar clearly down on National Intelligence Estimates. Hmm. That was odd

The US has like only a thousand intelligence agencies and half a million people working in them -- how can they possibly work on Afghanistan when they're totally occupied monitoring Americans, the real enemy?

But Don, how can you say such things? The unemployment rate would rise 0.5% if all the redundant intelligence "assets" were laid off! And think of all the sweetheart corporate deals that would evaporate without bloated intelligence "services." Erik Prince would never have the opportunity to become a billionaire, like his daddy.

Your heart must be made of stone!

According to Dept. of Labor (BLS) reports:
There is no data for 2009* but from 2000 to 2008 the whole federal government grew by over 90,000 full-time employees. This doesn't count the myriad of private contractors that are now doing much of the federal government's work, particularly in intelligence. Obviously foreign outsourcing hasn't hit government employees like it has corporate employees.

* BLS: "Data for the 2009 Federal Government are not available at this time."
I smell a problem. If the federal government in September doesn't know how many employees it had last December then matters are even worse than we imagined. Maybe they all quit (who would notice). Perhaps we could get a national intelligence estimate on the government?

This "New Way Forward" report, mild as it is, and filled with nods to the GWOT, still will have difficulty gaining traction since it explicitly undercuts the 'perpetual war','clash of civilizations' crowd. It frames the conflict as primarily a civil war. It, and several panelists identified cessation of hostilities by coalition forces as the single most needed path forward, from the macro economic considerations all the way to addressing womens' rights. Specifically it endorses the view that the current approach and non-policy of the administration works on the side of extremism and resistance in Afghanistan.

The panelists emphasized how counter productive, unsustainable, outsized and inappropriate is the US footprint in Afghanistan.

One particularly telling data point is the increased presence of US troops, particularly in Pashtun areas, and escalation of suicide attacks.

The emphasis of any possible definable 'progress' in Afghanistan is hinged, according to all, on selective political and economic reform and emphasis, not out of the 'barrel of a gun'.

Throwing money and materiale and manpower at this particular problem -- it's not a war in the sense of an absence of an American strategic interest -- maybe the recipe de jour for the MI complex, but it is obscenely out of step with the needs of an America facing major crises internally. And, per the panel, it's not working; it's backfiring.

Afghanistan, Iran, and Israel/Palestine... these issues are
discussed non stop here at TWN and elsewhere - usually as
separate issues.

To get a fresh perspective, I would suggest that we make an
attempt to connect the dots between these issues - by seeing the
direct talks between Israel and Abbas as the central tactical
element (in the eyes of the Obama administration) connecting
the other ones: US policies vis a vis Iran, and the war in
Afghanistan.

Yes, make no mistake: these are talks "between Israel and
Abbas"; not between Israel and the Palestinians. But maybe this
matters less than we think, in the larger picture.

Secondly: I believe that Obama wants to find a way out of
Afghanistan. I doubt that he still needs to be convinced that a
continuation is a waste of lives and resources.

Anyhow, here is my take on the "direct talks" between Israel and
Abbas, and how they are related to the war in Afghanistan, and
the conflict with Iran:

1) Israel unilaterally attacking Iran in the coming months is
clearly a nightmare scenario for the Obama administration.
America runs the risk of being dragged into an unpredictable war
with a huge risk of escalation, while being bogged down both in
Iraq and Afghanistan.

2) Obama may have some hope of getting somewhere with the
Israeli-Palestinian direct talks - i.e. some sort of two state
solution. Who knows? But his main objective may not be direct
results, but making sure that Abbas and Israel are sitting around
a table, occupied with "direct talks". And the more THEY get
bogged down in arguing about petty details, the better. As long
as they are talking, the risk that Israel will attack Iran is
significantly reduced.

3) Just like the "direct talks" is an attempt to buy time, so are the
sanctions against Iran. If time shows that sanctions don't work,
and Israel becomes impatient, Obama must make sure that
Netanyahu is occupied with the direct talks until the US has got
more room for maneuvering .

4) Obama has promised to start withdrawing troops from
Afghanistan next summer. That's also when the direct talks are
supposed to end. If he can distract the Israelis away from
attacking Iran by insisting on direct talks with Abbas for one year
(the longer these talks last, regardless of a direct outcome, the
better) - then he'll buy some valuable time to get more troops
out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This will give America more room
for maneuvering if all this, one way or another, goes towards a
clash with Iran.

So yes, Obama may or may not be naive with regard to the
outcome of the direct talks. Perhaps he has resigned and is
hoping for the best possible outcome: a Bantustan arrangement
for the Palestinians. Perhaps he even doesn't believe in ANY
positive outcome of these talks.

But if he finds a way to keep these talks going (and there are
literally thousands of petty, but tricky details designed to keep
Netanyahu and Abbas distracted and arguing back and forth for
decades), this may help him achieve a more urgent objective:
avoiding a military confrontation with Iran due to Israeli
impatience while the US army is bogged down on two other
fronts.

If this is correct, his and Hillary Clinton's main challenge is to
keep the talk going on, and on, and on...until his hands are less
tied. And Mitchell is, due to his background in the Irish-British
conflict, the right man for a job requiring patience and an
appetite for perpetual talks.

"No one touched that massacre of surrendered Taliban who were allowed to perish in truck convoys"

And, of course, there were the Afgani prisoners that asphyxiated in sweltering heat, locked in metal storage containers.

Or the Iraqis that used radioactive drums looted from Tuwaitha, (that we failed to secure or protect) to store water that was bathed in, used for laundry, cooked with, and drank.

There is too much to list about stories that have "disappeared", along with the myriad of United States' governmental criminals that have escaped accountability for their actions in these two fields of battle.

Gosh, Wiggie kinda dissappeared since that jock strap fell out of her/his/it's laundry. Poor thing, he/she/it must be terribly embarrassed.

Well, Paul, I wish I could share your optimism.

However, let's not forget about the recent experience when Olmert was in serious talks with Syria, mediated by Turkey. Erdogan thought they were getting close to a deal when Olmert decided to conduct his pogrom against Gaza and sabotage any deal. He didn't even bother to give Erdogan a heads up.

Moral of the story: just because Israel is busy talking, doesn't mean they're too preoccupied to plan and execute something dastardly, like attacking Iran. Obama would be stupid not to realize this, since it happened just as he was taking office.

Also, Obama may wish to get out of Afghanistan, but the positive is that the brass and the contractors are not getting restless in the barracks. They have something to do, something that will keep them occupied for years, given the futility of the situation. And until they've proven that they can succeed there, why should Obama give them anything else to do?

So, Obama may think it's better having them busy doing something, rather than constantly agitating to do something, foreign or domestic, to use their new toys, advance their careers, and enrich their contractors.

Frankly, I see little relationship among Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel. Iraq is about controlling Persian Gulf oil. Afghanistan is about controlling a geopolitical pivot point--the land bridge between Central Asia and South Asia. And Israel is just about domestic politics.

"Wiggie kinda dissappeared." Nadine, too.

Probably awaiting instructions from Tel Aviv.

Sorry, Paul, but Obama's supposed wants, hopes and promises carry no weight anymore. The Dems are going down in November without much of a whimper from a formerly popular president who has not even taken the trouble to help his party by laying out a post-election agenda. He has given Dems and Independents no reason to vote for Dem candidates, and when Dems lose the Congress Obama will have trouble getting the band to strike up Hail To The Chief.

Hillary Clinton recently gave a speech to the CFR with the old meme that American leadership will save the world, but the facts are somewhat different. Power is more diffused now, and it's some of America's least friendly countries that have gained power. It is Iran, Israel, Turkey, China, Pakistan and Russia that now determine matters in US hotspots -- Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan. The US military has been proven to be ineffective.

Specifically, Israel (Netanyahu) is queeny-the-lead-dog in I/P, controlling Jerusalem and settlement expansion and leaving Abbas a Hobson's choice between accepting whatever Israel proclaims or leaving the talks. For all its talk of leadership, these are talks that the US is holding at arms length for that very reason -- the US is not about to force Israel to do anything, or to delay its agenda. The US is "helping and "facilitating' the talks, and won't even attend many of them.

There'll be a vacuum (Hoover?) in Washington and I'll look for Hillary Clinton to fill it. She's got that Mona Lisa smile. Clinton v. Petraeus in 2012. Sorry, O-man. You had your chance. Exit stage left.

The only ray of hope for the I/P talks is if Israel has finally had an epiphany and realized that they really are at a dead end with the current strategy. Admittedly, this possibility is a long shot, but they are not in as commanding a position as their arrogant behavior would suggest.

The Zionist narrative has run out of positive spin. Now the best they can do is defensive--constantly citing their right to self defense. They lost the moral high ground a long time ago.

At the same time, there are plenty of negatives. The only realistic outcomes are continued and deepening apartheid, expulsion, or genocide. Of these, apartheid is the least bad from a PR perspective, but a long term headache.

Also, if Israel feels obliged to demonstrate its "deterrence," by launching another pogrom, its neighbors can return the favor. Even Hamas says it now has a rocket that can reach Tel Aviv. Bid good-bye to Israel's best and brightest.

The good old days are gone. Israel can no longer position itself as a "light unto humanity" nor can they stride across the neighborhood with impunity like jack boot thugs.

So maybe, just maybe, Bibi and Abu Mazen will keep talking for as long as it takes for Bibi to wiggle free of his predicament. Expect Bibi to demand the moon, because the conventional wisdom says that he holds all the trump cards. But given Israel's dead end--if in fact they realize their predicament--Abu Mazen would do well to meet Bibi's bluff and hold out for a better deal than anyone now imagines.

High stakes stuff here. But at this point Abu Mazen and the Palestinians don't have a whole lot to lose. Israel has already taken everything, but the Palestinians' ongoing presence represents a long term nightmare for their oppressor, one with significant costs.

And Obama? He's just there to help Bibi get the best deal he can.

Politicians don't care about the long term, among other things.

Don Bacon, I'm not so sure about the dynamics of a Hillary challenge in '12. It looks to much like stabbing in the back. But, then again, a Clinton is a Clinton.

As for O-man, does a day pass when he doesn't do the wrong thing? At least on average? Never misses an opportunity to pander to the right only to have the right attack him harder. I take him at face value when he says he was never on the left; his moves sure seem to validate that, though as an attack line, it seems to work for repubs, teabaggers and assorted nutcases. The whole opposition to Iraq may have been a convenient anomaly.

The Republican could nominate a gerbil in '12, and probably will given the state of that party, and still have an odds on chance of winning due to multiple backlash and continuing economic misery. One would expect the economy to be trending up by then under normal conditions, but Obama seems to miss every chance for bold moves to address it. Except to preserve the financial stake off the rich.

One could argue that no President could survive a twin crisis of presiding over a tanking economy and having multiple wars. But Obama is making it look inevitable. And, though he has proved himself an easy mark for the military escalation crowd, it's done him little good. In normal times, again, the opposition would be calling for an end to war. Now, despite the seeming endless war, their hardly nuanced cry will be for more war.

what difference does it make, Clinton or Obama? Both triangulation Dems. Both proponents of unfair trade, American exceptionalism, Israeli Settlements Plus, consideration of military attacks on Iran, and unlimited support, when and where it really matters, for the gangsters that 'manage' our economy.

Important over at Mondoweiss

There Are No Civilians In Wartime’: Rachel Corrie’s family confronts the Israeli military in courts (unable to link)

"Among the most disturbing aspects of Corrie’s case is the abuse of her body by Israeli authorities after she was killed. Craig Corrie recalled to me a panicked phone conversation he had with Will Hewitt, a friend and former classmate of Rachel Corrie who had just witnessed her killing.

“It’s getting dark over here and there are no refrigeration units for her body in Gaza,” Hewitt told Craig Corrie.

“Just leave it until tomorrow,” Craig replied. “We don’t want you or anyone else to get killed.”

“But her body is starting to smell,” Hewitt pleaded.

Somehow Hewitt and his fellow activists from the International Solidarity Movement were able to get Rachel Corrie’s body out of Gaza. But first Hewitt was ordered by Israeli troops to remove the body from the casket and carry it across a border checkpoint. Only Hewitt was allowed to escort Corrie’s body in the ambulance; the rest of the activists who witnessed her death were forced to hitchhike home in the desert. Finally, Corrie’s body was transported to the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute in Tel Aviv where the notorious Dr. Yehuda Hiss autopsied her.

Who is Dr. Hiss? The chief pathologist of Israel for a decade and a half, Hiss was implicated by a 2001 investigation by the Israeli Health Ministry of stealing body parts ranging from legs to testicles to ovaries from bodies without permission from family members then selling them to research institutes. Bodies plundered by Hiss included those of Palestinians and Israeli soldiers. He was finally removed from his post in 2004 when the body of a teenage boy killed in a traffic accident was discovered to have been thoroughly gnawed on by a rat in Hiss’s laboratory. In an interview with researcher Nancy Schepper-Hughes, Hiss admitted that he harvested organs if he was confident relatives would not discover that they were missing. He added that he often used glue to close eyelids to hide missing corneas."

Over at Mondoweiss

"In the immediate wake of Corrie’s killing, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, then the chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, instructed Corrie’s parents to demand a “thorough, fair and transparent investigation” from the Israeli government. Since then, the Israelis have stonewalled them, refusing to provide key details of their investigation, which was corrupted from the start by the investigators’ apparent attempts to find evidence that a bulldozer did not in fact kill Rachel.

A 2003 bill introduced in the House International Relations Committee calling for a thorough Israeli investigation in Corrie’s killing and for American efforts to prevent such killings from happening again garnered 78 signatures in support (Rahm Emanuel was the only Jewish signer). However, Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, one of the Israel lobby’s closest allies in Congress, prevented the bill from getting out of the committee. President George W. Bush could have pressed for a full floor vote on the bill but he did nothing. The bill died as a result."

REP ROS LEHTINEN SHOULD BE CALLED OUT ON THE CARPET FOR THIS. Hope folks call her and shit on her the way she shit on the Corrie family by blocking this legislation.

What a slime bucket

I didn't realize there was a strong Jewish connection with 'Ros-Lehtinen' -- they really do have the foreign relations committee[s] stitched up!

-- "...Like Berman Ros-Lehtinen is of Jewish decent. Ros-Lehtinen’s grandparents were Sephardic Jews from Turkey who had been active in Cuba’s Jewish community . She is a Cuban born American politician and former teacher. Since 1989, she has been a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Florida’s 18th congressional district..."

http://www.yalibnan.com/2010/08/28/us-lawmaker-warns-france-not-to-arm-lebanon-army/

"...Hillary Clinton recently gave a speech to the CFR with the old meme that American leadership will save the world, but the facts are somewhat different..."

I saw her presentation over @ Laura Rozen's blog:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0910/HRC__CFR.html?showall

She looks dreadful ... dead tired and totally disinterested. I wonder if she truly believes what's she saying or this is what a 'paid soul' is made to say?

Sand What she did to the Corrie family by opposing this legislation and for the Israeli government is criminal. Immoral.
Ros Lehtinen led the way blocking the Goldstone Report, has led the way on legislation to isolate Hamas and punish Palestinians. Ros Lehtinen has led the way on more aggressive, inflammatory legislation against Iran mostly based on false claims.

She seems to be working for the Israeli government not for U.S. National Security.

She should be required sign up under the FARA (foreign agents registration Act) as an agent of influence.

HC at CFR: "And I thank you for referencing what has been the most difficult balancing act of my time as secretary of State, pulling off my daughter's wedding, which I kept telling people, as I traveled around the world to all of the hot spots, was much more stressful than anything else on my plate."

A two million dollar wedding is not just a piece of cake and throwing a garter. It's stressful and I feel her pain.

Wanna see something bizzarre? Check out this slobbering bit of pathetic adoration written by Taylor Marsh over at her website.....

http://www.taylormarsh.com/2010/09/08/obamas-kissinger-as-baker-was-to-bush-41/

WTF???? Is she talking about the same Hillary that has delivered NOTHING as far as standing up to Netanyahu, and who has make a farce out of "engaging" the Iranians, ("We'll talk, but it won't do any good, and we will need to impose stringent sanctions. Fuck you very much.")
Thats "diplomacy"??? And never mind how this damned embarrassment read the Israeli script, straight outta the AIPAC website, on Iran.

And you gotta love how Hillary ignores it when these piece of shit fascists in Israel shoot American citizens in the head, doncha? Oh, but she's got a crocodile tear or two for Neda.

Amazing that Marsh penned this sacharin bit of drool considering that she seems to "get" what an empty suited rubber spined political Gumbi this ass Obama is. She gets it on Obama, but not on Clinton??? Shit, Clinton is as bad, or worse, than Obama is. Left to her druthers, Netanyahu would be serving little Palestinian kiddie toes and fingers as hors de ouvres at the next AIPAC convention.

It's a gal thing with Taylor Marsh.
I particularly like this response to her diary:
"Zzzzzzzz. How’s that for a response."

Here's Hill's "Kissinger-like" record as Secretary of State, where the motto is "Diplomacy in Action"
(h/t Google)
Clinton criticizes Russia for occupying Georgia
Clinton criticises Israel's plans
Clinton Criticizes Brazil's Iran Diplomacy
Clinton Criticizes Burma
Clinton Criticizes Afghan Womens' Rights Law
Clinton Criticises China over Internet Censorship
Clinton Criticizes Netanyahu's Economic 'Peace Plan'
Clinton criticizes Israel plan to raze Palestinian homes
Clinton criticizes Ethiopia's government
Clinton criticizes Iran and Syria at American Jewish Conference
Clinton criticises Canada over Arctic talks
Clinton Criticizes "Organized Religion"
Clinton Criticizes Controversial Afghan Women
Clinton criticises Israeli breach of 'road map'
Clinton criticizes North Korean activities
Clinton Criticizes New Armenian Media Law
Clinton criticises Russia over Georgia bases
Clinton Criticizes Vietnam on Rights Issues
Clinton Criticizes Planned Quran Burning
Clinton criticizes former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan
Clinton criticizes China for defending 'big liar' N Korea
Clinton Criticizes Religious Defamation Laws
Clinton Criticizes Blasphemy Law Efforts
Clinton criticizes Turkey for shrinking Christian population
Clinton Criticizes Aid Worker Killings
Clinton criticizes Egypt's democracy
Clinton criticizes Kenya's violence

On the plus side, there's this: ______________
______________________________________________.

Hey Don, you forgot..

"Clinton criticizes Goldstone Report".

"Seriously flawed", the witch said. Didn't tell us how, or why, though. Just "seriously flawed".

Uuuuhm, anyone wanna outline for us what bacon, exactly, Clinton has brought home as SOS????

I had an insider tell me, (someone that should know), that they don't comment on or critique Clinton because they don't have time to "watch their back". It pretty much substantiated my take on Clinton. She's got waaaaay too much power in Washington, and she ain't afraid to step on the neck of anyone that crosses her. My bet??? She's actively engaged behind the scenes to fuck Obama out of a second term. (Not that he needs help.) If she thinks she can slither into the Oval Office, she'll cut his balls off in an instant. (Yeah, well, that is if he HAD balls. Truth is, you'd have a better chance finding a pair on Hillary than you would on Obama)

And I'd love to be a fly on the wall when she's talking one on one with Netanyahu. Somehow I doubt she's wiping the arrogant smirk off his face.

Hellooooo?????

Hellooooooooooooo??????

Its OK, Wiggie. It doesn't matter that you've been lying to us all this time. You can still come out and play.

POA,
There's no reason to blame Hillary for Obama's epic failure of leadership; however, I have to say that her tenure as SoS leaves little doubt that she shouldn't be President. The only question is whether she or Obama would be worse, and that's moot, because she won't run in 2012, and she won't win the nomination if she does.

Honestly, I don't follow I/P news much anymore. I don't see any good faith actors, and no one is advocating for my view, which is that the US should stop its aid to Israel.
What really turned me against Hillary are her recent remarks on Mexico, in which she said that the drug war in Mexico is reaching the level of insurgency (insurrection?).
Excuse me, but if it weren't for our criminal drug foreign policy, Mexico would have not have this problem.
Drug legalization/decriminalization is the only answer; if not that step, then Mexico should simply refuse to act against "drug lords", daring the US to invade (Unfortunately, I could see Obama authorizing drone strikes in Mexico).

Hillary has no successes as SoS, only a record of bellicose and unhelpful statements.

"No one touched that massacre of surrendered Taliban who were allowed to perish in truck convoys"

I'm still haunted by the face of the man in the background in the photo of the American Taliban (John Walker Lind) being arrested.

Don't forget that our new ally Dostrum the drug runner (find some Michael Ruppert articles on Afghanistan and drugs) was known for killing people.

Gee, I think I'm going to hide under my bed today. It terrifies me that this wackjob preacher is gonna torch a bunch of Muslim instruction manuals and incite those heathen brown savages in the middle eastern desert regions.

We have crossed a line, by God. We shoulda just stuck to illegal invasions, carpet bombings, mass murder, illegal detentions, renditions, and torture. Have we no decency?

Oh Wiggie, stop pouting, darn it. We don't mind guessing about where your lies end and the truth begins.

I'll even be the first to make it easier on you, by remembering not to ask you how the weather is in Florida.

The "minister" is a psy-ops created nut if you ask me.

Let's not ask other questions to rightly outrage the public

http://theintelhub.com/2010/09/09/corporate-news-runs-911-truth-ae-911-truth-conference-presents-explosive-evidence/
Corporate News Runs 9/11 Truth, AE 911Truth Conference Presents Explosive Evidence
September 9, 2010

Alex Thomas
The Intel Hub
Today, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth presented key evidence at The National Press Club, evidence that indicated, without a shadow of doubt, that the official story is a complete lie.
In what can be described as a miracle, multiple mainstream or semi mainstream news agencies have reported the event, using PR Newswire as their source. These agencies include Yahoo, Forbes, The Sun Herald, and BreitBart.

AE911Truth

President Obama is currently holding a press conference, with live blogging on another site. Here's a response by "Hugh":
"Obama is saying nothing new on anything. That’s probably the take home here. Two months before the election, the economy sliding south, Afghanistan going to hell, his big initiative healthcare disliked roundly by everybody, Obama has got nothing. His Administration is running on fumes. It looks like he will stay the corporatist course to the bitter end."

I have a news flash for Hugh, the CEOs who supported Obama have buyer's remorse too.

There is a thought-provoking article on Obama by Dinesh D'Souza in Forbes. D'Souza's thesis is what makes Obama tick is not liberalism or socialism, but anti-colonialism; that anti-colonialism is the true dream he received from his father.

It's an interesting idea, and does explain why Obama cannot keep himself from addressing any issues that touch Muslims in America, which from a political point of view, he must know that he should keep quiet about. There is no advantage for a politician to leap into the 30% side of a 30/70 issue when he doesn't need to. It's even more strikingly self-destructive than Obama's flattery and bowing to the Islamic world.

How Obama Thinks
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html

Give Obama credit for standing up for what's right. And contrast this with Netanyahu! He can't even muster the courage to criticize a rabbi who condones killing Gentiles.
http://www.alternet.org/story/148016/how_to_kill_goyim_and_influence_people_israeli_rabbis_defend_books_shocking_religious_defense_of_killing_nonjews

We should all be worried about Israel's nukes getting into the wrong hands, like Netanyahu and Lieberman's.

"Give Obama credit for standing up for what's right"

1)Wet your finger.

2)Stick it up in the air.

3)Determine which side cools with the wind.

4)Head in that direction.

Joshua Foust (registan.net) eviscerates the Afghanistan Study Group report :

"I finally finished reviewing the Afghanistan Study Group report. It wasn’t easy—the group itself mysteriously neglected to include any experts on Afghanistan or the military—and is riddled with questionable interpretations of history, logical fallacies, and inconsistency of argument. I often joke that the three words that most reliably strike fear into the hearts of government analysts or pundits is, “what’s your evidence?” This report does not survive such a basic, simple question."

http://www.registan.net/index.php/2010/09/11/the-afghanistan-study-group-report-an-exercise-in-determined-ignorance/comment-page-1/

brutal

Plan O for Out

"A New Way Forward" includes a complicated and time-consuming process involving the Afghan parliament, District councils, a national council and broadening the composition of the Afghan Army. The plan de-emphasizes Karzai's conceived "peace jirga" in favor of an effort by tribal and village leaders. These are all efforts devised by Americans to be accomplished by Afghans at the local level, an approach which unacceptably undermines the Afghanistan central government.

A new Afghanistan policy is certainly needed. The current NATO effort in Afghanistan, primarily military, has failed after nine years of effort and a tripling of foreign military and civilian personnel. Unarmed government employees can no longer travel safely in 30 percent of the country’s 368 districts, according to published United Nations estimates, and there are districts deemed too dangerous to visit in all but one of the country’s 34 provinces. US leaders agree that there will be no military solution in Afghanistan.

Anatol Lieven: "Thus the desire to bring democracy, freedom, “good governance” and an improvement in the status of women to Afghanistan were laudable goals in themselves, but the result has been a ghastly masquerade, involving descriptions of the present Afghan government and political system not one of which corresponds to reality. Meanwhile the equally laudable desire to bring development to Afghanistan has ensnared us in calculations of “progress” which are virtually Soviet in their misrepresentation of the facts and the experience of ordinary Afghans."

The current US political strategy is ‘reconciliation and reintegration’ of the Taliban. Decoded, this amounts to little more than amnesty and surrender. It hasn't been effective. A recent $250 million program to lure low-level Taliban fighters away from the insurgency has stalled, with Afghans bickering over who should run it, and international donors slow to put up the money they had promised. The flow of Taliban fighters seeking to reintegrate has slowed to a trickle — by the most optimistic estimates, a few hundred in the last six months.

What is needed instead is a new US policy of genuine accommodation with the Taliban to include understanding and addressing their positions and grievances with the goal of forming a power-sharing Afghan government. Recent reports suggest that most Afghans, tired of the all-pervasive insecurity, want negotiations with the Taliban.

Other factions would also have to be accommodated. Afghanistan's three largest ethnic minorities oppose Karzai's outreach to the Taliban, which they said could pave the way for the fundamentalist group's return to power and reignite the civil war.

There are signs that because of a lack of progress such a policy is currently under consideration in Washington. The Guardian has reported that "feelers had been put out to the Taliban. Negotiations would be conducted largely in secret, through a web of contacts, possibly involving Pakistan and Saudi Arabia or organisations with back-channel links to the Taliban."

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, possibly the next British Prime Minister, has urged the Afghanistan government to consider bringing Taliban supporters into its political system. “Afghanistan will never achieve a sustainable peace unless many more Afghans are inside the political system, and the neighbors [nearby countries] are onside with the political settlement,” said Miliband,

President Karzai has not needed urging to talk to the Taliban. Karzai hosted a June peace conference where he called insurgents "brothers" and "dear Talibs," He asked the United Nations to remove Taliban leaders from the international sanctions black list and ordering the freeing of Taliban suspects from government custody. Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, told reporters in Washington on July 14 that the Obama administration has agreed only to delist Taliban and al-Qaeda on “case-by-case basis.”

A recent report indicates that the US has already initiated talks with the Taliban. According to the Asia Times report, the Pakistan military and Saudi Arabia are acting as go-betweens to facilitate the negotiation process. The initial talks have covered two main areas - the issue of about 60 Pakistanis in the US's Guantanamo detention facility, and al-Qaeda. Another element touched on in the talks is the American demand that it maintain a military presence in northern Afghanistan, while agreeing to give control of the south to the Taliban. The Taliban do not agree with this - they want a complete US withdrawal. This remains a point of major disagreement.

The problem is that in the most recent Jirga, President Karzai informed the delegates at the outset; “There is no mention of a key Taliban demand that NATO troops leave Afghanistan,” when in fact that was one of the Taliban’s key demands. NATO is currently conducting a military offensive against the Taliban in Kandahar province.

The NATO military presence must be removed for there to be any chance of peace in Afghanistan. The Taliban leadership’s one non-negotiable demand is the complete withdrawal of Western forces. They say that this must take place before they will negotiate any settlement with the government in Kabul, but there might be some room for compromise.

The oft-repeated objection to any Taliban control in Afghanistan is that the Taliban would establish "safe havens" for al Qaeda. Paul Pillar, deputy CIA chief of the counterterrorist center under President Clinton: "The US and other Western governments say we are in Afghanistan in order to deny terror groups like Al Qaeda a safe haven from which to plan new attacks. But that is no longer a valid assumption. Terrorists don't need a sanctuary to plan attacks from. We are investing enormously in an operation that is based on a flawed assumption. The reality is that the terror threat to the West would not significantly increase if we were to leave Afghanistan."

Would any concessions to the Taliban result in the Taliban taking total control of Afghanistan? Pillar again: "This is another assumption that is rarely questioned. But prior to the U.S. intervention in 2001, the Taliban did not have uncontested control of Afghanistan. They had the upper hand in a civil war against the Northern Alliance; they had the backing of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia while the Northern Alliance had the backing of Iran, Russia, and India. The U.S. essentially threw its weight behind the Northern Alliance to drive out the Taliban."

While the Taliban is integrated somehow into the Afghan government, which is a matter for the Afghans to decide, there needs to be support for the Afghan effort in the form of a regional effort toward diplomacy and peace. President Obama needs to implement his promise of a new strategy on March 27, 2009: ". . .together with the United Nations, we will forge a new Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan that brings together all who should have a stake in the security of the region -- our NATO allies and other partners, but also the Central Asian states, the Gulf nations and Iran; Russia, India and China."

The main issues concern Pakistan and India, including the dispute over Kashmir and Pakistan's concern about a growing influence of India in Afghanistan, which should be limited. Pakistan should be included in a regional forum of ‘Friends of Afghanistan’ made up of Iran, Pakistan, India, China, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Russia: these countries would be asked to make pledges of non-interference and recognise Afghanistan as a non-aligned state with no foreign bases.

Miliband again: "The political settlement needs to be external as well as internal, involving all of Afghanistan's neighbours as well as those parts of the insurgency willing permanently to sever ties with al-Qaeda, give up their armed struggle and live within the Afghan constitutional framework."

Perhaps the US can succeed at reconciliation in Afghanistan although it has failed in Iraq. That was the main purpose of the surge, remember, but it didn't happen. Now we've had another surge in Afghanistan but this time with a president (Karzai) who is actually in favor of reconciliation. We need to make it work. The alternative is more hundreds of billions of dollars and many lives wasted. Who wants to be the last to die for a lack of trying to end this nine-year war? President Obama has promised another reappraisal of Afghanistan war policy in December -- it's time.

General Petraeus, Aug 25, 2010: "We sat down across the table in Iraq from individuals who had our blood on their hands. That's what was done in northern Ireland. It's what's done in just about any insurgency as you get to the end stages of it."

The US needs to negotiate a return of Afghanistan back to the Afghans.

An Indian POV:

THE TIMES OF INDIA

Exit Is A Smarter Strategy

KANTI BAJPAI, Sep 13, 2010, 12.00am IST

The Indian strategic community thinks that the US must stay in Afghanistan for as long as it takes to wear out the Taliban and ensure stability in that deeply troubled country. It would probably be better for the US to withdraw as quickly as possible and turn its attention to its internal problems, its role in East Asia, and much larger global challenges.

Ten years on, the US should consider pulling out of Afghanistan. While it cannot lose against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, it also cannot win outright. If so, Islamic extremism around the world will prosper. Extremists in Pakistan will celebrate the US quagmire in Afghanistan and the radicalisation of Pakistani opinion. The US's presence may be a bulwark against radicalisation, but it is an equal bet that the longer the US stays, the more radical Pakistan will become. When the US finally pulls out, as it must, Pakistan might collapse into civil war if not extremism. Better then for the US to go when the moderates still have a chance.

Taliban rule in Afghanistan may be more palatable this time round. Mullah Omar is likely to be far more circumspect about extremism and terrorism. The US must, of course, continue to monitor, disrupt, and destroy the workings of al-Qaeda and to bolster homeland defence. Washington can use its air power, particularly the drones, to target Afghan extremists and al-Qaeda if the Taliban continues to support terrorism. The threat of US intervention from the air might well deter the Taliban, which in its new incarnation seems keen to rebuild Afghanistan economically rather than reinstall a pitiless Islamic regime.

For the US, this is a more affordable, efficient way of combating terror than fighting in distant lands. A US pullout from Afghanistan will not be a strategic defeat. It may mark the high point of Islamic extremism which might well recede with the US's departure from Iraq and Afghanistan just as global communism peaked after the US's exit from Vietnam.

The problem with the present US course is that the workings of the US political and economic system, its role in East Asia and issues of the global commons are being neglected. The US political system is now in a logjam, fatally divided between right extremism and a moderate centrism. The economy is heavily in debt (due in part to the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), is growing very slowly, and could be heading towards double-dip recession. No one in the US knows whether the country should spend its way out of trouble or curb the role of the state and stimulate market forces.

Washington has been obsessed with Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iraq might yet turn out to be moderately stable and governable. The future of Afghanistan and Pakistan is much darker. Yet what is the worst that could happen a Taliban-led Afghanistan and a radical Pakistan? This could be a formidable combination, but just as likely is that Afghan/Pashtun nationalism and Pakistani/Punjabi nationalism will clash, leaving the two countries in unending contention rather than collusion. Nobody has mastered Afghanistan in the past, and the idea that Pakistan will do so in the years to come is a historical wager that the Pakistani army is likely to lose.

With so much invested in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Americans are not paying enough attention to East Asia and the global commons. China is steadily on the rise. This is not altogether bad: a better balance of power is stabilising for the international system. But the key is balance. In Asia, the balance will be hard to preserve given China's enormous size and potential. The US could wake up very soon to find that Beijing is the hegemon of Asia. Before Washington reacts, the Chinese, who are driving deep into Africa, will also be ensconced in Latin America.

Finally, the US is ignoring the global commons. Global trade and finance, climate change, resource scarcities, and epidemics and disease jeopardise life on the planet far more insidiously and dangerously than Islamic terrorism. The US is the world's most indispensable power, to use Madeleine Albright's boast, in terms of global collective action. It must find its way back to these grand strategic challenges and not lose the woods for the trees.

A US pullout will not be a cataclysm for India. For one thing, the US will no longer be so helpless before Pakistan, and its military aid might reduce significantly. Further, New Delhi has dealt with Af-Pak before, from 1989 to 2001. It could team up with Iran, Russia and perhaps even Pakistan to play a positive role. Islamabad might cooperate to ensure New Delhi does not destabilise Afghanistan, exploit Afghan-Pakistan differences in the future (which are almost inevitable), and draw even closer to the US.

A rampant America, after the Cold War, was not always a progressive force, but at least it provided global leadership. Today, the world faces the possibility of an America riven politically, battered economically and shaken militarily, its forces rattled by the experience of asymmetric warfare. An unconfident America, with a waning sense of power and purpose, fighting an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, is not in India's or the world's interest.

The writer is professor of international politics, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

"The Indian strategic community thinks that the US must stay in Afghanistan for as long as it takes to wear out the Taliban and ensure stability in that deeply troubled country."

recent news report:
India, seizing on Afghanistan’s travails, has pumped in over a billion dollars toward improving Afghanistan’s economic and social infrastructure. On the face of it, this magnanimity should be considered a praiseworthy gesture. But the Pakistani ruling circles and especially its Armed Forces are alarmed at India’s burgeoning influence in Afghanistan. India’s economic largesse coupled with the opening of its consulates in Afghan provinces close to Pakistan’s border, have rung alarm bells in Islamabad.//(end of news report)

Increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is what fuels Pakistan's support for the Taliban (which was recently highlighted in wikileaks). Couple this with Obama's deciding to "partner" with Pakistan and we have an unacceptable situation. The US president partnering with a country that supports the killing of US troops? That's treasonous.

Indian support for extending the current war, for its own benefit with the concomitant, countering, continuing Pakistan support for the Taliban is but one more reason why the US should negotiate soon to end this thing.

Don Bacon,

Indian influence in Afghanistan relative Pakistan is virtually inevitable. For instance, Karzai studied in India; and many future Afghan students will likely study in India - it is relatively inexpensive, and the quality is better than that available in Pakistan. Similarly, the market for Afghan goods is deeper and broader in India than Pakistan.

The Pashtun situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan will continue to be like that of the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq - the possible national aspirations of the Pashtuns will be destabilizing. There is no cure for that either without a massive redrawing of borders.

At this point, the US should do what is good for itself and for Afghanistan, for which it bears a responsibility, and not consider Pakistani paranoia too seriously.

Arun,

I think we niave Americans are caught in an intra Afghan tribal war and a proxy war between India and Pakistan.

We are banging our heads against the proverbial brick wall, trying to ameliorate the impossible.

We Americans need to get the hell out, and bequeath Afghanistan to its neighbors, who, because of propinquity, must perforce deal with those people. Good luck.

John,

Not so naive. Careless - the Afghan situation could have been settled by a determined effort in 2002-2003, instead of bungling into Iraq.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB325/index.htm

A second Indian POV, presented in full:

A second Indian POV, reproduced in full:

How not to exit Afghanistan

Aligning India with long-standing Pakhtoon aspirations may be a potentially potent lever

Shyam Saran / New Delhi September 15, 2010, 0:54 IST

At the recently concluded annual conference of the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in Geneva (September 10-12, 2010), Henry Kissinger had a telling comment on the “exit strategy” being pursued by the US and its allies in Afghanistan. He said that the focus appeared to be more on exit and less on strategy. His strategy for a viable solution? A regional compact among key stakeholders that effectively sanitised Afghanistan from regional and great power competition. This would effectively give the country a neutral status, guaranteed by the international community and respected by the country’s neighbours.

This sounds attractive but, in the present context, is not viable. It is important to recognise this because then for India the challenge will not be how to become part of some such exit strategy but rather how not to exit Afghanistan under different scenarios. Let us see why the Kissingerian strategy is unlikely to succeed.

One, the stakeholders in this proposed compact must, at the minimum, include Afghanistan’s close neighbours such as Iran, Pakistan, Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, India and, of course, the US as the dominant occupying power. Whoever takes the lead on this, the US will have to at least acquiesce in a major Iranian role, precisely at a time when it is leading an international sanctions regime against that country over its nuclear programme. I consider this unlikely.

Two, the Chinese position is problematical. There is a belief in some quarters that China may be positively inclined towards this proposal because of its fear over a spillover of Islamic irredentism into the adjoining Chinese province of Xinjiang. Chinese concerns are being exaggerated. China had no reservations in dealing with the previous Taliban regime in Kabul. It may also consider a Pakistani-dominated Taliban regime a better insurance for the pursuit of its interests in the country than a neutral dispensation. After all, Pakistan has always been extraordinarily sensitive to Chinese interests.

Three, US calculations are not entirely clear. The recent western projection of the Afghan Taliban, or elements of it, as possibly obscurantist but nevertheless nationalistic and hence acceptable as part of governance structures in Kabul, is one strand in American thinking. Another is the possibility of conceding de facto control of southern Afghanistan to the Taliban, while retaining a strong, deterrent presence in the rest of the country. This would suggest a somewhat more circumscribed “exit strategy” than is often assumed. The US may have objectives that go beyond the defeat of Al Qaeda. It may wish to retain a strong and enduring presence in non-Pushtun areas which enable it to counter Iran, Russia as well as China in Central Asia. Neutrality or even non-alignment for Afghanistan would go against such calculations.

Finally, it is doubtful that Pakistan would play ball. The enduring fear in Pakistan has been the possible erasure of the Durand Line as the frontier between Pakistan and Afghanistan with the resurgence of a cross-border Pakhtoon movement, encompassing southern Afghanistan, the erstwhile North West Frontier Province (now renamed Khyber-Pakhtoonkwa) as well as Pathan-dominated areas of Balochistan. Despite its reliance on Pakistani goodwill and support, the Taliban regime of Mullah Omar did not accept the Durand Line. The nervous reaction in Pakistan to Ambassador Blackwill’s advocacy of a de facto partition of Afghanistan between a southern Pushtun and possibly Taliban-ruled entity and a non-Pushtun remainder, derives from this anxiety about an irresistible tide of Pakhtoon nationalism, especially at a time when central control over an ethnically diverse and now economically ravaged country is becoming increasingly tenuous. Pakistan may well demand, as its price, an Afghan and international recognition and guarantee of the Durand Line. No Afghan government is likely to concede that.

India, therefore, should really be crafting a strategy to retain a strong presence in Afghanistan and even augment it, irrespective of what other actors decide to do. This is dictated by the need to prevent the country from once again degenerating into a base for jihadi terrorism against India. It is also an useful platform for India’s engagement with Central Asia. India does have convergent interests with some of the stakeholders, both within Afghanistan and including some of its neighbours like Iran and Russia. At the very least, there are those who, like India, cannot accept a fundamentalist Sunni-dominated regime in Kabul. We need to help coalesce them together in the pursuit of our shared interests.

We must be mindful of the tendency among some of our western friends to offer concessions at the expense of India in a dubious attempt to buy Pakistan’s support of their “exit strategy”, however this may be defined. A British participant at the conference wondered whether it would not be wise for India to close its consulates in Afghanistan and retain only its embassy in Kabul, in order to “get Pakistan off your (India’s) back”. This is more like getting India off Pakistan’s back! We should dispel the notion, widely held among the western strategic community, that India’s presence and involvement in Afghanistan has been made possible thanks to the International Security Assistance Force’s (ISAF’s) security cover and, therefore, it should not be allowed a “free ride” at the expense of western interests. These includes assuaging Pakistani security concerns vis-a-vis India, however paranoid they may be. The reality is that we have been able to sustain a significant presence in Afghanistan and earn considerable goodwill, including in Pushtun areas, precisely because we have been careful not to be associated with ISAF activities, but operate strictly on a bilateral basis with the Afghan government.

India should also revisit its position on the Durand Line. It may be worthwhile for us to signal that we do not necessarily recognise the Durand Line as a legitimate frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Aligning India with long-standing Pakhtoon aspirations may be a potentially potent lever to use as the new version of the Great Game unfolds in our neighbourhood.

The author is a former foreign secretary and currently senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research

I have finished reading the Afghan Study Report. It is robust common sense.