Palash Biswas On Unique Identity No1.mpg

Unique Identity No2

Please send the LINK to your Addresslist and send me every update, event, development,documents and FEEDBACK . just mail to palashbiswaskl@gmail.com

Website templates

Zia clarifies his timing of declaration of independence

What Mujib Said

Jyoti basu is DEAD

Jyoti Basu: The pragmatist

Dr.B.R. Ambedkar

Memories of Another Day

Memories of Another Day
While my Parents Pulin Babu and basanti Devi were living

"The Day India Burned"--A Documentary On Partition Part-1/9

Partition

Partition of India - refugees displaced by the partition

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Fwd: [bangla-vision] Worse Than a Nightmare by Bob Herbert. "Dr Awatar Singh Sekhon (Machaki) Comments"



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: DR AWATAR SINGH SEKHON <assekhon@shaw.ca>
Date: 2010/6/30
Subject: [bangla-vision] Worse Than a Nightmare by Bob Herbert. "Dr Awatar Singh Sekhon (Machaki) Comments"
To: worldmedia2000@yahoogroups.com, pakistanpost@yahoogroups.com, pakistanaffairs@yahoogroups.com
Cc: bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com, 1984genocide@yahoogroups.com, sikh@yahoogroups.com, isyf@yahoogroups.com


 

President Janab Usman Khalid ji

President
London Institute of South Asia
Secretary General
Rifah Party: Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Dear President Khalid ji,

Aslaam O Alaikum!

This is in response to your comments on Bob Herbert's article "Worse Than a Nightmare", appeared in the New York Times of 27th June, 2010.

Please accept my profound thanks for your comments, which reflects your superb knowledge on the political happenings on South Asia. The knowledge which the political scientists will feel shy or are shallow in their expertise. Not only that, they would not dare to displease the deceitful, devious, divisive and apartheid practicing 'Brahmins-Hindus' alleged Indian democracy.

I would like to add further that regardless the United States and its NATO allies invite the alleged Indian democracy to Afghanistan, to look after the Afghans, following their 'exist'; the exit which takes place after all. Indeed, the 'Brahmins-Hindus' would love to jump in the vacuum created by the only super power. The 'Brahmins-Hindus' Manmohan Sinh whom I understand President Barak Obama call him 'grandpa' in affection. However, President Obama forgets that this 'joe boy' of the 'Brahmins-Hindus' is 'not' an elected member of the Lok Sabha alias Indian parliament, from any electoral constituency of the alleged Indian democracy.

I cannot agree with you more than what you have said that the 'Brahmins-Hindus' will get lost in the mountains of Afghanistan. You are damn correct. Further, we should not forget that this is the opportunity Afghans have been waiting, despite Hamid Karzai's cordial relations with the 'Brahmins-Hindus'; to show these rascals (The Economist 15th July, 1995) about their dearms of the 'Akhand Bharat' that these dreamers had been 'subservient' of the Afghans, well before the Mughal, Sikh, British and Portuguese periods.

Regarding the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the 'Brahmins-Hindus' cannot face them, despite their being a 'pseudo-nuclear' power. If they take this step, it will be suicidal for the 'Brahmins-Hindus'. Let them take this step, then there would go the Internationally Disputed Areas of the Jammu and Kashmir under their occupation, since 15th August, 1947. Additionally, the Landless Sikh Nation, PUNJAB, Assam and its 7-sister, Tamil, Maharashtra (greater Marathi Sovereign nation) and the greater Gujarat, where the 'genocide' of Muslims was carried out in 2002-2003, will get out from the clutches of the alleged 'Brahmins-Hindus' democracy/autocracy.

Under the above circumstances, it is simply the matter of time when the map of South Asia changes. It is, as you have said, hopeless to hope anything from the administration of 'immature' politicians of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, but the professions who have been looking after the political borders of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan should remain far more vigilant to look after not only the integrity of Pakistan, but to meet the changing consequences, right from north to south and east to west of the 'Brahmins-Hindus' democracy/autocracy. I am using the word 'autocracy' in accordance with Sir VT Rajshekar's figures of the elite caste and Hindus, which is only 14% combined, since the 'Brahmins-Hindus' received political power on the platter, from the British Empire. - Dr Awatar Singh Sekhon (Machaki).    
*****

 

Worse Than a Nightmare

BOB HERBERT in New York Times June 27, 2010



(If the USSR could not occupy a contiguous Afghanistan after being its sole provider from 1949 to 1979, there is no hope for the USA to succeed. Against the Soviet Union, the Afghans had support of the USA, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and much of the Muslim world. Against the US the Afghans have no foreign support. Yet, more than 70 % of the territory is not under the control of Kabul. The first thing the USA has to realise is that there is no prospect of a military victory in Afghanistan - surge or no surge. The second is that the earlier they stop killing Afghans inside Pakistan and Afghanistan, the better the prospects for a deal. The third is that the Afghans, like Americans, believe in deals; deals (not Islam) are their ideology.  A 'deal' is not just possible, it is the only exit strategy.  The Americans wanted to make a deal with Afghans after the exit of USSR. They did not know, who with and on what terms. Pakistan was unhelpful because it did not know either; it had a Sindhi Prime Minister and a fauji President who was already unpopular.

 

America of today has been described as an "out of work couple who have adopted a baby with special needs". Actually two babies - Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both have corrupt and inept government who do not have effective control. But Pakistan does have an effective judiciary and armed forces. The Americans know it and are dealing with the military. One can only guess what the Pakistani military are telling them. But if I was the one talking to them I will tell them of the three facts outlined in paragraph above. Then I will say that the Afghans and the neighbours of Afghanistan have one supreme interest that the USA shares with them. They want to keep Russia as far away from their soil as possible. It is because they want to stay free and sovereign and are afraid that Russia may re-occupy those countries if America lost interest or resolve. 

 

If that is understood, the rest is easy. US need not choose friends; it should accept all and any who talk to them and are in control of a significant territory. Stop military operations and start a draw down of forces ASAPThen talk. They will see that money talks much more eloquently than the military.  Finally, keep India out unless the Americans want that the only remaining empire in the world - the Indian empire - should also perish in the mountains of Afghanistan.

+Usman Khalid + Secretary General Rifah Party of Pakistan)

 

President Obama can be applauded for his decisiveness in dispatching the chronically insubordinate Stanley McChrystal, but we are still left with a disaster of a war in Afghanistan that cannot be won and that the country as a whole will not support.

No one in official Washington is leveling with the public about what is really going on. We hear a lot about counterinsurgency, the latest hot cocktail-hour topic among the BlackBerry-thumbing crowd. But there is no evidence at all that counterinsurgency will work in Afghanistan. It s not working now. And even if we managed to put all the proper pieces together, the fiercest counterinsurgency advocates in the military will tell you that something on the order of 10 to 15 years of hard effort would be required for this strategy to bear significant fruit.

We ve been in Afghanistan for nearly a decade already. It s one of the most corrupt places on the planet and the epicenter of global opium production. Our ostensible ally, President Hamid Karzai, is convinced that the U.S. cannot prevail in the war and is in hot pursuit of his own deal with the enemy Taliban. The American public gave up on the war long ago, and it is not at all clear that President Obama s heart is really in it.

For us to even consider several more years of fighting and dying in Afghanistan at a cost of heaven knows how many more billions of American taxpayer dollars is demented.

Those who are so fascinated with counterinsurgency, from its chief advocate, Gen. David Petraeus, all the way down to the cocktail-hour kibitzers inside the Beltway, seem to have lost sight of a fundamental aspect of warfare: You don t go to war half-stepping. You go to war to crush the enemy. You do this ferociously and as quickly as possible. If you don t want to do it, if you have qualms about it, or don t know how to do it, don t go to war.

The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy weren t trying to win the hearts and minds of anyone.

In Afghanistan, we are playing a dangerous, half-hearted game in which President Obama tells the America people that this is a war of necessity and that he will do whatever is necessary to succeed. Then, with the very next breath, he soothingly assures us that the withdrawal of U.S. troops will begin on schedule, like a Greyhound leaving the terminal, a year from now.

Both cannot be true.

What is true is that we aren t even fighting as hard as we can right now. The counterinsurgency crowd doesn t want to whack the enemy too hard because of an understandable fear that too many civilian casualties will undermine the hearts and minds and nation-building components of the strategy. Among the downsides of this battlefield caution is a disturbing unwillingness to give our own combat troops the supportive airstrikes and artillery cover that they feel is needed.

In an article this week, The Times quoted a U.S. Army sergeant in southern Afghanistan who was unhappy with the real-world effects of counterinsurgency. I wish we had generals who remembered what it was like when they were down in a platoon, he said. Either they never have been in real fighting, or they forgot what it s like.

In the Rolling Stone article that led to General McChrystal s ouster, reporter Michael Hastings wrote about the backlash that counterinsurgency restraints had provoked among the general s own troops. Many feel that being told to hold their fire increases their vulnerability. A former Special Forces operator, a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, said of General McChrystal, according to Mr. Hastings, His rules of engagement put soldiers lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing.

We are sinking more and more deeply into the fetid quagmire of Afghanistan and neither the president nor General Petraeus nor anyone else has the slightest clue about how to get out. The counterinsurgency zealots in the military want more troops sent to Afghanistan, and they want the president to completely scrap his already shaky July 2011 timetable for the beginning of a withdrawal.

We re like a compulsive gambler plunging ever more deeply into debt in order to wager on a rigged game. There is no victory to be had in Afghanistan, only grief. We re bulldozing Detroit while at the same time trying to establish model metropolises in Kabul and Kandahar. We re spending endless billions on this wretched war but can t extend the unemployment benefits of Americans suffering from the wretched economy here at home.

The difference between this and a nightmare is that when you wake up from a nightmare it s over. This is all too tragically real.

 



--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/

No comments:

Post a Comment