White House adjusts strategy on Republicans

NEWS
White House adjusts strategy on Republicans
By Peter Nicholas
February 21, 2010

The Obama administration aims to put members of the GOP on the spot, forcing them to compromise on issues or be portrayed as obstructionists.

Reporting from Washington – As voters lose patience with political gridlock, the Obama administration is embarking on a strategy aimed at putting Republicans on the spot: Either participate in bipartisan exchanges initiated by the president, or be portrayed as the party of obstruction.

The new approach is part of a series of adjustments the White House is making as it deals with the aftermath of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, which cost Democrats their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Right now, it’s not clear voters blame one party more than the other for paralysis in Washington. A recent poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal showed that voters are as apt to blame congressional Republicans as Democrats for the standoff. Virtually everyone surveyed agreed there is too much infighting in the capital.

In a flurry of recent public appearances, President Obama has sent a message that he is prepared to embrace GOP ideas. But he is also signaling that if Republicans balk at compromise, he’ll exact a political price.

Republicans, said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, “have a role to play in solving problems in this country, or be accountable to the electorate for choosing not to.”

Republicans don’t see Obama’s overtures as sincere. They view with particular suspicion Obama’s invitation to hash out differences on healthcare at a televised meeting Thursday. Republicans who boycott the gathering risk looking obstinate. But showing up isn’t a winning strategy either, some Republicans caution. They fear the format is one that guarantees the president will appear the statesman.

“When you’re the president, you have the loudest microphone and clearest TV camera,” said Mark Corallo, a Republican strategist. “You get to stand up and look reasonable, bipartisan and leader-like. And anyone else ends up . . . looking like a petty partisan who is just interested in saying no. There’s no upside for the Republicans in even attending the healthcare summit.”

Obama has been busy on other fronts positioning himself as the seeker of bipartisan solutions to the nation’s problems. Last week he named GOP former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming as co-chairman of a commission that will look for ways to curb the trillion-dollar deficit. He also announced billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees promoting nuclear power, an energy source that many Republicans see as a solution to the country’s electricity needs.

In a recent news conference, Obama said he was open to giving ground in exchange for GOP support for his energy plan, which is foundering in the Senate.

“I’m willing to move off some of the preferences of my party in order to meet them halfway,” the president said. “But there’s got to be some give from their side as well.”

An administration official said that in coming months, the White House would be quicker to point out instances of what he described as Republican intransigence. Though the White House has long believed that Republicans were committed to derailing Obama’s agenda, officials will be more aggressive in making the case.

“The Massachusetts election obliterated the argument that we could [govern] all on our own,” said the administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “What we’re doing now is actively reaching out and demonstrating our interest in bipartisanship — but not passively standing by if Republicans are not willing to meet us halfway.”

The White House will be relying on a wider network of people to drive home its message. As part of its retooled communications strategy, more Cabinet secretaries will be in front of the cameras to defend the administration’s record.

The plan is already on display. Cabinet members fanned out across the country on the anniversary of the $787-billion stimulus package being signed into law, touting projects now underway and countering GOP criticism that the bill was a waste of money that did little to curb unemployment.

Last year, by contrast, Obama often carried the administration’s message alone. “There was a reluctance to hand off the ball,” said the White House official.

© 2010 The Los Angeles Times

[Via http://dominicstoughton.wordpress.com]

Tax avoidance Texas-style

Hmm…bass guitar seems easy enough…maybe I should take up piano…

The case of Joseph Stack is a bizarre one.

Man is disgruntled with the state of his nation – in particular the tax authorities – man snaps, man flies plane into Internal Revenue Services building, man dies in crash, injuring two people with one other ‘unaccounted for’.

Another pointless death or two in Usania.

Stack left a rambling 6 page suicide ‘note’ :

Stack complained that anyone who stood up for the principal of “no taxation without representation” was now labelled a “crackpot.” He accused corporate leaders of being “thugs and plunderers” guilty of “gluttony and overwhelming stupidity” and politicians were “thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags.”

He said the US health system was a “joke” and accused drug companies of “murdering tens of thousands of people a year” but his strongest words were reserved for the tax system.

Stack said: “Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand.

“The law requires a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing. If that’s not duress then what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.”

Stack claimed his attempts to get to grips with the tax system had cost him more than $40,000 (£24,000) and 10 years of his life.

He said: “It made me realise for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie.” Stack claimed tax legislation in the 1980s had made him a “criminal and non-citizen slave.” Stack then spent $5,000 (£3,000) and 1,000 hours of his time writing to politicians about tax.

Much of which I find hard to disagree with, particularly the first paragraph above. So, whilst I can’t approve of the way in which he expressed his anger and frustration I can understand why he felt that way if not why he chose such a drastic method to express it.

However, in a surreal moment he also states:

“Here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle.”

A piano?

However, it’s the little piece of coding that places ‘related’ adverts after news stories in the Telegraph which must surely have the last ironic word on the subject:

You really can’t make this shit up.

[Via http://steveshark.wordpress.com]

Nevada discontent is pinned on Obama

NEWS
Nevada discontent is pinned on Obama
By Mark Z. Barabak
February 18, 2010 | 3:07 p.m. PST

Economic woes have only gotten worse since voters elected the president, who is visiting the state on Friday.

Reporting from Sparks, Nev. – In November 2008, Alex Gevedon cast his presidential ballot for Barack Obama, joining thousands of independents who helped deliver an unexpectedly huge win for the Democrat here in Nevada.

But ask his feelings about the president today and Gevedon lets out a long burst of air, as though he — and not just his view of Obama — was rapidly deflating. He sighs once. Twice.

“Honestly? I didn’t think the country would stay that bad this long,” Gevedon finally says. He is 23 and works part-time doing cleanup work at a surgery center. He would like to apply his biology degree toward a full-time job, perhaps doing research back home in Kentucky. His advice to Obama: “Forget about healthcare. . . . Get back to stuff that is a little more reasonable and feasible than what we’re focusing on right now.”

When the president visits Las Vegas on Friday he will find that Nevada is no longer the economic basket case he came to know during his frequent campaign stops.

It’s gotten worse.

Unemployment was 8% on election day. It was 13% in December, after a year in which nearly 81,000 jobs disappeared. More than 60% of homeowners owe more on their mortgage than their properties are worth. The state, a perennial leader in population growth — attracting 5,000 people a month to the Las Vegas area alone — is losing residents for the first time since the mid-1940s.

When the economy swooned and nearly collapsed in the fall of 2008, Obama was the political beneficiary. He won Nevada, a conservative-leaning state, by a startling 12 percentage points over Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona. More than 60% of voters surveyed said the economy was their uppermost concern and 3 in 5 of them voted for Obama.

Now, fairly or not, many people blame the president for the bad times. State polls show his favorability and job performance ratings hovering below 50%. (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, though, is the one in more immediate trouble. The Democrat trails a batch of less-than-top-shelf GOP candidates as he fights for reelection in November.)

The president certainly has his defenders. “I think Obama got left with a mess, so he’s got to clean it up, and it’s not going to take one year to do it,” said Democrat Sue Dorsey, 60, huffing as she circled Sparks Marina, a man-made lake on the edge of a spanking new — and lightly trafficked — shopping mall.

But the overriding sentiment expressed in two days of conversation with voters around Washoe County was disappointment, even disillusionment, laced with more than a bit of impatience. If people had unrealistic expectations for their young president, they still seem to blame Obama for dashing those hopes — even if some think he is not entirely responsible.

“I just think the feeling in the country is overall a feeling of dejection, or depression,” said Gevedon, as he headed into a video shop with a friend. “People aren’t happy like we were in the ’90s.”

Obama, who plans a town hall meeting in Henderson and a speech to business leaders in Las Vegas, points out that his predecessor, George W. Bush, ran an enormous deficit and began a series of government bailouts in rescuing the financial industry.

“But all of those issues are attaching themselves to Obama,” said Eric Herzik, who heads the political science department at the University of Nevada in Reno. Big government and expensive Washington programs have never been popular in Nevada, a state with a broad libertarian streak and an abiding grudge toward its distant landlord. (About 90% of the land is controlled by the federal government.)

The strong sense, Herzik said, is that Obama’s efforts “have helped Wall Street . . . but they’re not doing a lot for [Reno's] Virginia Street.”

Reno and Sparks sit side by side, in a bowl just over the mountain from Lake Tahoe, sharing lovely views of the Sierra Nevada and a service economy ravaged by steep declines in gambling and tourism. Together, they form the urban core of Washoe County, which has traditionally been Nevada’s political battleground.

Democrats typically win big in Las Vegas and the surrounding area and lose rural Nevada to Republicans. So the Obama campaign focused heavily on Reno and Sparks, erasing the GOP’s long-standing registration advantage and even gaining a slight edge on election day. The result was a blowout: Obama prevailed 55% to 43% and became the first Democrat to carry Washoe County since 1964. (The statewide outcome was identical.)

But feelings have changed in the last 15 or so months.

John Ainsworth, a Democrat, is frustrated the president has not done more to overcome Republican resistance. “I think it’s past time to pull out a bigger stick,” said Ainsworth, 57, who runs a struggling apprenticeship program for union carpenters. He has not had a pay raise in two years, which makes his financial squeeze even tighter with two adult children and a granddaughter living at home.

“Past presidents have got their way by edict,” Ainsworth said. “Maybe it’s time for a little more strength on his part to make it happen.”

Joey Jobe agrees that Obama should have accomplished more by now, given the enthusiasm that swept him into office.

“He really could have used it kind of like FDR, who said, ‘Look, this is what we’re going to do and we’re going to do it this way,’ ” said Jobe, 28, a Democrat who lives with her parents and holds a temporary job preparing tax forms while seeking full-time work. “I think he kind of squandered that momentum.”

Even some who didn’t vote for the president feel let down.

Gevedon’s companion, Nate Perry, backed McCain. But he was excited when Obama — “a young face, someone our generation could relate to” — took office. “Everyone was really optimistic, and now there’s not the same optimism,” said Perry, 23, an international studies student who lost jobs cooking and bartending in the last year. “It was a shot in the arm briefly and then a whole bunch of inaction and compromises took away the good feelings.”

Asked who he blames for the hard times, Perry said the question was irrelevant. “It’s been going on so long,” he said, “that people need to stop blaming everyone and start working to fix it.”

For Obama, the good news is he won’t face Nevada voters again until 2012, if he seeks reelection. Things may have improved by then, but maybe not. Economic forecasters say Nevada will lose an additional 89,000 jobs this year and next.

© 2010 The Los Angeles Times

[Via http://dominicstoughton.wordpress.com]

If Today Was Your Last Day And Tomorrow Was Too Late

Skulle egentlig bare være så random å fortelle at i forbindelse med at jeg skal til USA som utvekslingsstudent neste skolesemester, så skjer det ….. Ingenting! Det står altså helt stille. Prosessen har stoppet opp i USA, så jeg venter fremdeles på at de skal godkjenne søknaden min. Noe som forresten har tatt en evighet!

Ellers så skal jeg ut å reise på lørdag. Da drar jeg først til Oslo, hvor jeg skal være frem til jeg tar turen videre til London mandags kveld. Superspent!!

Og ja, jeg skriver en artikkel i norsken om idrett og doping, så dersom noen har noen inspill de føler er viktig å få med så tar jeg veldig mottakelig for det!

[Via http://martinatorrissen.wordpress.com]

Threats To Pakistan’s Strategic Nuclear Assets

Shahid R. Siddiqi

Indian explosion of its nuclear device in 1974 drew only a customary “show of concern” from the Western powers. But Pakistan’s nuclear program, initiated in response to the Indian acquisition of nuclear weapons, evoked immediate and “serious concern” from the same quarters. Ever since, Pakistan has been under immense pressure to scrap its program while the Indians remain uncensored.

That Western discriminatory attitude can also be seen by the religious color it gave to Pakistan’s bomb by calling it an ‘Islamic bomb’. One has never heard of the Israeli bomb being called a ‘Jewish Bomb’, or the Indian bomb a ‘Hindu Bomb’, or the American and British bomb a ‘Christian Bomb’ or the Soviet bomb a ‘Communist’ (or an ‘Atheist) Bomb’. The West simply used Pakistan’s bomb to make Islam synonymous with aggression and make its nuclear program a legitimate target, knowing full well that it merely served a defensive purpose and was not even remotely associated with Islam.

With India going nuclear soon after playing a crucial role in dismembering Pakistan in 1971 and enjoying an overwhelming conventional military superiority over Pakistan in the ratio of 4:1, a resource strapped Pakistan was pushed to the wall. Left with no other choice but to develop a nuclear deterrent to ward off future Indian threats, Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto declared: “Pakistanis will eat grass but make a nuclear bomb”. And sure enough, they did it. Soon, however, both he and the nuclear program were to become non-grata. Amid intense pressure, sanctions and vilification campaign, Henry Kissinger personally delivered to a defiant Bhutto the American threat: “give up your nuclear program or else we will make a horrible example of you’.

And a horrible example was made of Bhutto for his defiance. But he had enabled Pakistan to become the 7th nuclear power in the world. This served Pakistan well. India was kept at bay despite temptations for military adventurism. Although there has never been real peace in South Asia, at least there has been no war since 1971.

Ignoring its security perspective, Pakistan’s Western ‘friends’ refused to admit it to their exclusive nuclear club, though expediency made them ignore its ‘crime’ when it suited their purpose. But driven by identical geo-strategic interests in their respective regions and seeing Pakistan as an obstacle to their designs, Israel and India missed no opportunity to malign or subvert Pakistan’s program.

Due to its defiance of Indian diktat, Pakistan is for India an obstruction in its quest for domination of South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. Israel’s apprehension of Pakistan’s military prowess is rooted in the strength Pakistan indirectly provides to Arab states with whom Israel has remained in a state of conflict. Conscious that several Arab states look up to Pakistan for military support in the event of threat to their security from Israel, it is unsettling for Israel to see a nuclear armed Pakistan.

Israel can also not overlook the fact that Pakistan’s military is a match to its own. The PAF pilots surprised Israeli Air Force, when flying mostly Russian aircraft they shot down several relatively superior Israeli aircraft in air combat in the 1973 Arab Israel war, shattering the invincibility myth of Israeli pilots who believed themselves to be too superior in skill and technology. The Pakistanis happened to be assigned to Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces on training missions when the war broke out and, unknown to the Israelis then, they incognito undertook combat missions.

After successfully destroying Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, Israelis planned a similar attack on Pakistan’s nuclear facilities at Kahuta in collusion with India in the 1980s. Using satellite pictures and intelligence information, Israel reportedly built a full-scale mock-up of Kahuta facility in the Negev Desert where pilots of F-16 and F-15 squadrons practiced mock attacks.

According to ‘The Asian Age’, London, journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark stated in their book ‘Deception: Pakistan, the US and the Global Weapons Conspiracy’, that Israeli Air Force was to launch air attack on Kahuta in mid 1980s from Jamnagar airfield in Gujarat (India). The book claims that “in March 1984, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi signed off (on) the Israeli-led operation bringing India, Pakistan and Israel to within a hairs breadth of a nuclear conflagration”.

Another report claims that Israel also planned an air strike directly out of Israel. After midway and midair refueling, Israeli warplanes planned to shoot down a commercial airline’s flight over Indian Ocean that flew into Islamabad early morning, fly in a tight formation to appear as one large aircraft on radar screens preventing detection, use the drowned airliner’s call sign to enter Islamabad’s air space, knock out Kahuta and fly out to Jammu to refuel and exit.

According to reliable reports in mid 1980s this mission was actually launched one night. But the Israelis were in for a big surprise. They discovered that Pakistan Air Force had already sounded an alert and had taken to the skies in anticipation of this attack. The mission had to be hurriedly aborted.

Pakistan reminded the Israelis that Pakistan was no Iraq and that PAF was no Iraqi Air Force. Pakistan is reported to have conveyed that an attack on Kahuta would force Pakistan to lay waste to Dimona, Israel’s nuclear reactor in the Negev Desert. India was also warned that Islamabad would attack Trombay if Kahuta facilities were hit.

The above quoted book claims that “Prime Minister Indira Gandhi eventually aborted the operation despite protests from military planners in New Delhi and Jerusalem.”

McNair’s paper #41 published by USAF Air University (India Thwarts Israeli Destruction of Pakistan’s “Islamic Bomb”) also confirmed this plan. It said, “Israeli interest in destroying Pakistan’s Kahuta reactor to scuttle the “Islamic bomb” was blocked by India’s refusal to grant landing and refueling rights to Israeli warplanes in 1982.” Clearly India wanted to see Kahuta gone but did not want to face retaliation at the hands of the PAF. Israel, on its part wanted this to be a joint Indo-Israeli strike to avoid being solely held responsible.

The Reagan administration also hesitated to support the plan because Pakistan’s distraction at that juncture would have hurt American interests in Afghanistan, when Pakistan was steering the Afghan resistance against the Soviets.

Although plans to hit Kahuta were shelved, the diatribe against Pakistan’s nuclear program continued unabated. Israel used its control over the American political establishment and western media to create hysteria. India worked extensively to promote paranoia, branding Pakistan’s program as unsafe, insecure and a threat to peace. The fact is otherwise. It is technically sounder, safer and more secure than that of India and has ensured absence of war in the region.

The US invasion of Afghanistan provided another opening for Indo-Israeli nexus to target Pakistan’s strategic assets. This time the strategy was to present Pakistan as an unstable state, incapable of defending itself against religious extremist insurgents, creating the specter of Islamabad and its nuclear assets falling in their hands. Suggestions are being floated that Pakistan being at risk of succumbing to extremists, its nuclear assets should be disabled, seized or forcibly taken out by the US. Alternatively, an international agency should take them over for safe keeping.

Pakistan has determinedly thwarted the terrorist threat and foiled this grand conspiracy. The terrorists have either been eliminated or are on the run. Pakistan has made it clear that it would act decisively against any attempt by any quarter to harm its nuclear assets. But if the game is taken to the next level, the consequences would be disastrous for the region.

The Indo-Israeli nexus is losing initiative. But as long as the American umbrella is available Afghanistan will remain a playground for mischief mongers. It is now up to the US to walk its talk and prove its claim that it wants to see a secure and stable Pakistan. It must pull the plug on conspiracies to destabilize Pakistan.

[Via http://siyasipakistan.wordpress.com]

The Wolfman (2010)

Director: Joe Johnston

Genre: Horror

Summary: Lawrence Talbot must return to his childhood home, Blackmoor, following the mysterious death of his brother. After meeting his brother’s fiance, Gwen, Lawrence vows to uncover the mystery of his brother’s death but soon suffers an unfortunate and deadly injury.

Impressions: Benecio del Toro’s Wolfman is a fast, tight, action film with tons of fighting, heavy CGI, and all of the classic monster scares you’re used to. It rids itself of overdrawn narratives and explanations in exchange for character development, plot twists and clever, freaky dream sequences. The editing is top-notch with these sequences in a way that will keep you jumping, wondering where dreams end and reality begins again.

My one problem with this film is that I could hear del Toro holding back his accent. I’m not saying that it’s proper for a Spanish guy to be the son of an English nobleman when you’re going for realism, but I kept expecting to hear his voice from Sin City or Snatch, and was sorely disappointed.

Wolfman is a good horror film with a running time of only 100 minutes, that will keep you jumping and squirming until the very end.

4 out of 5

[Via http://nickshogun.wordpress.com]

Battle for Marjeh: The Taliban strong hold

Maulana Jalaluddin Roomi’s prediction indeed has come true: “The Giants come forward from Afghanistan and influence the world.”

A “massive build-up” is afoot for the battle of Marjeh, which is the strong-hold of Taliban in the Helmand province of Afghanistan. About fifteen thousand ground troops, reinforced by twenty thousand Afghan Army and police force will launch the offensive, supported by the entire US-NATO air power in Afghanistan. The objective is “to inflict a crushing defeat” on the Taliban, at Marjeh, which is considered “a bastion of Taliban power,” and set the momentum for their defeat in other areas, thus restoring government control over the territories of Afghanistan. Indeed, it is a very ambitious plan against the Taliban, who control thirty provinces, out of thirty four and rule the country-side. The surge of 30,000 American troops to be completed by August this year is expected to accomplish the task of restoring government control over Afghanistan.

The Google picture of Marjeh and the surrounding areas, gives a better explanation of the impending battle: Marjeh which lies about 15 KM west of Lashkargah – the provincial capital of Helmand is a plain sandy area with scattered mud huts, and a green belt to the south and the west, fed by the Helmand River. The green belt is sparsely populated with about 6-7000 people. The area is open, not at all suited for positional defence, nor for hit and run operations of the Taliban. In the vast open areas, the coalition air power and the mobile armoured troops would be able to drastically limit Taliban movement and their operational effectiveness. What kind of resistance, therefore the coalition forces are expecting for which the “massive build-up”, is taking place?

Taliban are well-versed in this game of fighting in the desert regions of South and the rugged mountains, for the last thirty years. They are the die-hard freedom fighters, motivated, self-assured and confident of victory against the occupation forces. Time is on their side. Their strategy for the battle of Marjeh therefore can be easily envisaged: They would rather hold Marjeh lightly, with a maximum of 2-3000 die-hard fighters, who would fight to the last man, killing as many of coalition forces, as possible. The use of strong and dispersed defenses, reinforced by IEDs ‘Omar Bombs’ and booby traps, would cause attrition on the attacking troops. Under-ground defensive net-work, on the pattern of Hezbollah’s defenses against Israelis in the 2006 war, would add to the strength of the resistance.

The bulk of the Taliban fighting force in Helmand area is estimated at 10-12000, which is likely to operate around the combat zone of Marjeh, to carryout interdiction of supply lines, logistics, support bases and may engage the coalition forces from several directions. While the battle of Marjeh rages, which will be long and bloody, the Taliban operating in other provinces, under their control will intensify their activities against the occupation forces, causing dispersion and greater attrition. The story of total defeat of the British Army of 1898, will not be repeated because, the air power of the coalition forces will save the day. A stalemate will occur. The result of this battle as well as the war in Afghanistan is the real contest between two opposing will. The coalition forces are demoralized and defeated, fighting a war which has no ideal and no moral justification. Whereas the Taliban are fighting for the freedom of their homeland, with faith in themselves and belief in the Divine Intervention, which has helped them defeat the mightiest of the mighty, during the last thirty years. In fact, the Asymmetric Warfare, waged by the Shadow Army of Taliban has determined the contours of the emerging global order, by putting limits to the expanding menace of global hegemony, primacy and pre-eminence. Maulana Jalaluddin Roomi’s prediction indeed has come true: “The Giants come forward from Afghanistan and influence the world.”

In May 2003, when Afghanistan was occupied by the coalition forces, Jalaluddin Haqqani declared: “We have decided to fight, till we are free. We will never submit to the demands of the occupation forces, because our national ethos and traditions do not allow that. Freedom is our goal and our destiny. Win we will, Insha Allah.” A common friend, who has just returned from Afghanistan, told me: “I found them, so much at ease with themselves. So cool, calm, perceptive and committed to their cause and total surrender to the will of Allah – They say the time is on their side, whereas, it is running-out for the oppressors in Afghanistan.”

It is obvious that the outcome of the battle of Marjeh would be a stalemate and the heavy casualties, the coalition forces are likely to suffer. In no way it would help the peace process in Afghanistan. Sagacity demands that the USA and their coalition partners show greater sincerity of purpose for peace and give up the idea of use of force for gains, at this belated stage, when the Taliban enjoy clear ascendancy over the occupation forces, and with each passing day, more and more tribals are joining them. Attempts are being made to separate the Al-Qaeda from the Taliban who would not abandon them. If they could, they would have handed-over Osama to the Americans nine years back and saved themselves from the ravages of war. There are no good and bad Taliban either. They are all the same, and follow Mullah Omar. No amount of money can buy-them-of either, because they are not a saleable commodity. Let us therefore accept the reality and initiate the peace process in real unrest.

Special modalities, therefore, are needed for bringing peace in Afghanistan and to ensure an honourable way out, for USA and its allies, and a smooth transition to the civil order, “without triggering bigger chaotic conditions.” There are “terrifying prospects of defeat in Afghanistan” hence the need for “a comprehensive strategy and an exit strategy,” which is the only viable option, to be supported by an aggressive political and diplomatic policy for peace in Afghanistan. The steps, therefore, that needs to be taken are:

The occupation forces must give “a time-frame for withdrawal and declare a cease-fire.” Start dialogue with the Taliban and Northern Alliance, to form the Loe Jirga, to decide the main issues, such as the formation of the Interim government, for a period of three years, which will be responsible for holding the Census to determine who is who, for the impending elections; framing of a new Constitution; rebuilding of Institutions; massive reconstruction of the infrastructure and re-creating ethnic balance, which remains disturbed since the Bonn Conference of 2001 and holding of general elections in the year 2013 and finally transfer power to the elected government.

The centres of power – Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban – must be taken into cognizance, as the main arbiters of peace and the immediate neighbours – Iran and China must also be on board. ~ Gen Mirza Aslam Beg

[Via http://thepeopleofpakistan.wordpress.com]