Democracy American Style and the Iran, Pakistan Afghanistan Tangle

Why a rethink of US objectives and policy is needed

from JoeUser Forums

The elections in Iraq have produced a result that the US had not anticipated. Allawi, a former Prime Minister has emerged as a front runner. In Afghnistan the US and its surrogate Hamid Karzai are openly squabbling and the US has even threatened to "withdraw" the invitation extended to Karzai to visit the White House. I think the only major power that has a policy of "uninviting" a head of state is the USA. Karzai has served US interests well by providing a pashtun face for what is essentially an army of occupation that even the US is now beginning to weary. The failure of the Iraqi elections to throw a clear winner only strengthens the hands of US arch rival for supremacy in the region, Iran. Iranian interests are even being protected by Pakistan the other major US surrogate in the region. The Iranians even managed to divert a plane flying to Dubai carrying the man responsible for carrying out a bombing against a shia leader in Western Pakistan to land in Iranian territory and they arrested the terorist, and ofcourse, no one will ever ask questions. This shows that Iranian secret service is getting as efficient as the MOSSAD which left its fingerprints all over in the botched assasination in Dubhai.

The real test will come only after July 2011 when the US troops wuould have left Iraq. In Afghanistan, the elections that were held were not all that fraudelent as the Wester Media says it was, but the US have suddenly found Abdullah- Abdullah, the defeated candidate very attractive. Forgotten is thae faxct that just over a decade back this man was allied with one of the most ruthless warlords of Afghanistan. The fact that the US policy is personality driven and not driven by self-interest undermines US strategic interests in the region. At this point in time NATO is clearly on the backfoot as far as Afghainstan is concerned. The US and Great Britain and their invasion has not resulted in any major geopolitical gain for the West. The real winner is Iran whioch has emerged the stongest power in the region and all major powers will have to come top terms with the reality of Iranian hegemony.

Nation-building and national interests are two mutually exclusive concepts. Unfortunately the US always mixes up the two. If US wants peace in the region and contain the Taliban and at the same time maintain stability in the region it must throw its weight behind a Pashtun state carved out of the Northwest Frontier Provinces of Pakistan and the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan.

Iran is clearly the dominant political and miltary power and counties like India which clearly are held within the grip of western interests have missed the reality of the situation.

af-pak obama india
3,555 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

The elections in Iraq have produced a result that the US had not anticipated. Allawi, a former Prime Minister has emerged as a front runner. [...] The failure of the Iraqi elections to throw a clear winner only strengthens the hands of US arch rival for supremacy in the region, Iran.

End of quote

Allawi is the most pro-American Arab politician in Iraq. Together with the Kurdish parties he has a clear majority. I guess the western media just couldn't find anything bad to report so they made up this story about the missing clear winner.

Maliki's former Iraqi government already fought Iranian-backed militias while pretending to be on friendly terms with both Iran and the US. Now Iraqis have voted for someone much more pro-American than Maliki.

The Iraqi elections were an unprecedented success for the US. Who would have thought, after years and years of misinformation by the western media, that a majority of Iraqis would finally vote for the very person who called on the Americans to invade Iraq and who was after the invasion appointed by the Americans to be Iraq's first prime minister?

Well, I always thought this would happen. But who among the critics of the invasion was not shocked when yet again reality disagreed with their views?

 

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

The fact that the US policy is personality driven and not driven by self-interest undermines US strategic interests in the region. At this point in time NATO is clearly on the backfoot as far as Afghainstan is concerned. The US and Great Britain and their invasion has not resulted in any major geopolitical gain for the West. The real winner is Iran whioch has emerged the stongest power in the region and all major powers will have to come top terms with the reality of Iranian hegemony.
End of quote

You make a common mistake among foreigners about US Policy.  You equate the President with the policy.  In some ways that is correct, but then it does belie the generalization.  THIS president is as you say.  The former one was careful not to be the issue where it counted (he would always be where it did not - among the mentally minor minions that the current president caters to).

However, the NATO issue and your charge that it is all GB and the USA (mostly true) evades the issue that something had to be done.  That they cannot get concrete support is more a reflection of the ostrich syndrome of most of the west, and not bad policy. If Afghanistan had decided to murder its citizens and not stray outside its borders, there would have been no need to do something about them.  That they could not even tame their own country before deciding to "Stan-icize" the rest of the world meant they had to be stopped and apparently the only ones with the cajones to do it are GB and the USA.

The laughable part is that anyone thought France would be a factor.  After all, there is no solid organization for them to surrender to, so they were never a serious factor.

SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Karzai's problem is that he desperately wants to be "liked". He wants the US and NATO to like him, he wants the Afghan people to like him (most don't), and he wants the Taliban to like him (perhaps so they don't assassinate him). The issue with this is that, he cannot please everyone. The election was questionable, the corruption is rampant and Karzai is not up to the task. What he fails to understand is that if NATO leaves, he will be dead in 48 hours. He needs to get with the plan, because right now he is getting to be a hindrance.

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

If Afghanistan had decided to murder its citizens and not stray outside its borders, there would have been no need to do something about them. That they could not even tame their own country before deciding to "Stan-icize" the rest of the world meant they had to be stopped and apparently the only ones with the cajones to do it are GB and the USA
End of quote

President Obama has a peculiar phrase for a foreign policy that aims at making citizens of a bunch of tribals: AF_-PAK policy. In Iraq, Iran is breathing down and in the region abutting Afghanistan, Iran has again become amjor force. Peace in the region is now possible only with the cooperation of Iran. Unfortunately, President Obama and Hillary Clinton seem so enamoured of Geelani and Karzai that they do not seem to understand that by the end of the tyear neither of them will be in a position to help US.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Bahu, reply 4
President Obama has a peculiar phrase for a foreign policy that aims at making citizens of a bunch of tribals: AF_-PAK policy. In Iraq, Iran is breathing down and in the region abutting Afghanistan, Iran has again become amjor force. Peace in the region is now possible only with the cooperation of Iran. Unfortunately, President Obama and Hillary Clinton seem so enamoured of Geelani and Karzai that they do not seem to understand that by the end of the tyear neither of them will be in a position to help US.
End of Bahu's quote

You got one thing right - "Obama and Hillary Clinton.....do not seem to understand".

That says it all.  And you are close with Iran - they want to be the regional power.  But while they are not as stupid as the Taliban was, they are not as smart as you think either.  They are striving for dominance, but they are still only a big fish in a small pond.  If they do become a threat, watch how fast Russia and China decide to unilaterally take care of their OWN national interests.

Bush was astute to put Iran in the Axis of Evil with North Korea.  Both are going to be bigger problems to China than they are to the US.  And China is not the poor handmaiden of the last century.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

watch how fast Russia and China decide to unilaterally take care of their OWN national interests

End of quote

"unilaterally" - you mean without asking France?

 

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 6


watch how fast Russia and China decide to unilaterally take care of their OWN national interests



"unilaterally" - you mean without asking France?
End of Leauki's quote

Asking France would be "une"-laterally.