Surge in troops for Pakistan, not Afghanistan!
Monday, December 7, 2009
It is not possible for President Obama to declare a surge against Pakistan. After all, we are allies, and we are not supposed to be fighting on their soil. Why did it take so long to finally endorse the troops requested by General McChrystal?
The excuse came in the form of waiting for Afghan election results, despite the fact that the US knew well in advance that Karzai had no serious competitor. And, as reported earlier, the only possible man who could have had a chance at winning was pressured by the US to withdraw. See U.S. pressured Abdullah Abdullah to withdraw from presidential race.
This afternoon, we heard Richard Holbrooke say: 'no country is more important to our success than Pakistan', during an interview with Fareed Zakaria. He also spoke of the hostility faced by Secretary of State Clinton during her recent visit to Pakistan. We wondered about the same animus in our report: Pakistan: 'Kerry-Lugar bill is unacceptable' - who is the real enemy?
According to all indications, al-Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan. And the number of 'dangerous' Taliban has been reduced to less than one hundred men. The question has already been posed: do we need another 30,000 men to take out 100 men?
Labels: US Pakistan Relations, War on Terror
posted @ 7:58 PM,
0 Comments:
Post a Comment