Obama's Foreign Policy : Afghan Security Treaty
May 03, 2012 11:19 AM UTC
views: 0
|
1 person recommends this
|
comments: 13
The eagle has landed
in Central Asia
The signing of the US-Afghan strategic pact by presidents Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai is undoubtedly a landmark event in regional security. A long-term American military presence in the region has become a compelling reality for all countries neighboring Afghanistan. Obama has scattered all skepticism about the US's resolve to remain committed ... - M K Bhadrakumar - Indian Punchline  The signing of the US-Afghan strategic pact by presidents Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai is undoubtedly a landmark event in regional security. A long-term American military presence in the region has become a compelling reality for all countries neighboring Afghanistan. Obama has scattered all skepticism about the US’ resolve to remain committed in the region’s security. The shadow of the US presence will fall on the Central Asian steppes and may well thwart Vladimir Putin’s Eurasia Union project. China has to contend with thousands of American troops on the borders of Xinjiang. The White House fact sheet on the pact confirms an “enduring US presence in Afghanistan†and maintains that there will be no “permanent [US] military basesâ€. But it is a matter of semantics, since Kabul is “committed to provide US personnel access to and use of Afghan facilities through 2014 and beyondâ€. We all would know that the Afghans have hardly any control over the bases where the US troops and war equipment are located.  The fact sheet confirms in essence that US combat troops and special forces, etc. will remain in Afghanistan. A Bilateral Security Agreement ( read status of forces agreement) will be concluded in an year’s time. Interestingly, the US will regard Afghanistan as a ‘Major Non-NATO Ally’ so that it becomes a relationship based on a “long-term framework of security and defence cooperation.â€Â The US has done well to sign the pact swiftly within a week or so of its initialing by the negotiators. The risk was always there of a miss between the cup and the lip, as the Iraq experience would tell. The Afghan situation is volatile, Karzai is a mercurial personality and there are regional powers who would do their damnest to scuttle the pact. ....  The big question is about Pakistan’s attitude. Technically, this is a matter between the US and Pakistan, which are sovereign countries. But Pakistan has to factor in extraneous considerations — Taliban’s visceral opposition (at least, in public) to the US presence; domestic opinion within Pakistan; long-term US intentions toward Pakistan; limits to Pakistan’s influence over the power structure in Kabul, etc. But to my mind, Pakistan will learn to live with the long-term military presence in Afghanistan, and may even seek to turn it to its advantage. The military leadership in Rawalpindi will certainly know the futility of a confrontation with the US and would extract advantages out of the US’ long-term heavy dependence on transit routes through Pakistan.  ...  In sum, Pakistan will bend with the wind — and the wind is blowing in favor of Obama. Read my article in Asia Times titled ‘Obama has an Afghan game plan’.  >>>> Â
1 person recommends this post
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
|
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 13
My eyebrows are raised. I just don't think that any other recent President would have crossed that border and taken out Bin Laden. With the exception of Carter. But after his Iran screw up? lol. The one that cost him his reelection...Obama waded right in where even angels fear to tread. Almost as if he had good sense.
I intend (at least at this point) to vote Republican this fall. Based on the moral issues. Not upon foreign policy. My hope is that Obama won't be standing like a deer in the headlights (Carter) wanting to shovel his policy advisors into a hole in the back yard.
Perhaps a powerful group in Pakistan was told. What makes me doubt is the division in our own people's understanding of AFPAK since 2001 - and their evident infighting among themselves, in both Kabul and DC.
Your observations are astute, I think. I don't see a resemblance to TR as leader however. Obama may well be idealistic as you suggest , which is uncommon . I tend to think it so. What has concerned me , aside from a number of disappointing mistakes he has made , is his overconfidence and a habit of not doing diligent research , a mental laziness that he showed when he was teaching law that his academic colleagues noted.
Clark, it just suddenly came to me. I DID hear (before his election) where (within international ranks) Obama was getting his advice and policy. It truly surprized me. Problem is, I can not remember the name at this moment.
william,
His advisors are mostly serving the system. What American history shows is that powerful private interests can and will make a President do what they want or else. Fast forward to 1895, when J P Morgan and the banks took control of US debt ( for profit) in return for saving the US dollar which a British cartel was using gold to engineer a panic and make a quick for profit . Since then the banks and tycoons have made most Presidents do what they want. They consolidated their control over US debt under Woodrow Wilson and made him join the war. FDR was the most successful in not going along with some of what they wanted. Every President knows he will be destroyed if opposes them. He may be able to do things he wishes, too;but he has to satisfy them to do anything. An example, was LBJ, one of the most skilled legislators in our history. He was ordered to expand the war in Vietnam: by the banks, oil corporations (who had been lobbying for our military involvement in DC for years, because Vietnam had oil - and the US had military in Vietnam since 1945 without a break ) and the military complex. He could not refuse. When he wished to get out, he frankly admitted he couldn't : "My friends are making so much money." He knew he would lose his Presidency if he did. He was not being cynical but pragmatic. He would not have been able to accomplish other things he wanted to do.
Obama was not experienced and he was "burned" by some of his advisors, who let him talk and advocate policies . Then they just went ahead doing what they wanted and ignored him. They had the power, he didn't. That is a lesson every President learns in office if he didn't know it before. His personal staff who had supported his election , were called "the Kids" in DC by insiders like Kissinger. If a President hopes to get some policies accepted, he may be able to get popular support to counter the power of powerful groups. But those private interests own politicians, the media etc. And they can get rid of a President through black ops. The CIA , FBI, organized crime etc all have groups who serve at the bidding of powerful interests.
The diversion of U.S. classified technology began during the Reagan administration after it allowed a $10 billion reactor sale to China. Japan protested that sensitive technology was being sold to a potential nuclear adversary. The Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations permitted sensitive technology. Both the Japanese and US governments have sytematically lied for over a generation ...
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981300289
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981314860
"WAR,MONEY and MORAL HAZARD"
Our war economy is self-perpetuating and mutually enriching for defense contractors, arms manufacturers, and the politicians who collude with the Pentagon to keep the war machine fully stoked.