Facts and Myths in Afghanistan Surge Debate

President Barack Obama has announced plans to send another thirty thousand American soldiers to Afghanistan, bringing the total US troops strength to 100,000 there in the ninth year of the Afghan war, already the longest in US history. This troops surge is part of the latest U.S. attempt to improve the security situation in Afghanistan, defeat the Al Qaeda and the Taliban militants, and to transfer security responsibilities to an Afghan national force to be trained by the Americans by mid-2011. Are these goals achievable? To answer these questions, it is important to understand a few facts and myths about Afghanistan, Pakistan, Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Afghanistan Facts: 1. Afghans are fiercely independent. They have rarely been colonized in their entire history. The British occupied the country for brief periods of time but they could never maintain their rule. Unlike the neighboring states of India and Pakistan which became their colonies, the British did not build any western-style state institutions, or railroad systems, or road network, or electricity grid or telecommunications network or other similar systems in Afghanistan. 2. Although no foreign power has been able to gain and keep control of Afghanistan for any significant length of time, it has not stopped them from trying to increase their influence via proxies. During the British Raj in India, for example, both Britain and Russia fiercely competed for influence in the country. The last several decades have seen the India-Pakistan rivalries played out in the resource-rich landlocked nation. Others, including China, have an interest in Afghanistan, as demonstrated by the Chinese contract for a multi-billion dollar Aynak copper mining project. 3. Contrary to the impressions of many Americans or Europeans, Afghanistan is not comparable to either Iraq or Pakistan or any other nation in the region. The country is not a modern nation-state by any stretch of the imagination. It has almost no history of strong central government and working institutions such as functional bureaucracy, central government tax collection and revenue service, effective police or strong national army, capable of asserting national authority over the entire population. It has been ruled by a weak central authority dependent on the goodwill of the various local tribal chiefs, and warlords with their private militias. 4. During the Communist era starting in the 1970s, the army split into government-backed soldiers and Mujaheddin rebels. By 1991, the military of Afghanistan became dysfunctional, dissolving into portions controlled by different warlord factions when President Mohammad Najibullah was forced out of power and the mujaheddin rebel groups took control of the country. This was later followed by the Taliban take over, who established a military force on the basis of Islamic sharia law. 5. It is among the poorest, minimally urbanized, and least developed countries in the world with very low levels of human development. There is an extremely small middle class in the country. 6. It is a tribal society with its mostly rural population widely dispersed over a large area and extremely difficult terrain. 7. The last several decades have been devastating for Afghanistan because of constant warfare, first against the Russians in the 1980s, then amongst the multiple ethnic/tribal factions led by various warlords in the 1990s, then the Taliban rule characterized by relative peace through ruthless central control imposed by the Mullahs, and finally the American invasion and occupation since 2001. 8. Afghan public spending has historically relied on foreign assistance because of the consistently low level of domestic revenue collected by the central government. Revenue generation had always been a problem for the government. Between 1939 and 1972 revenue grew by only 26 percent after discounting for inflation. Although revenue grew much more quickly between 1978 and 1982, the 170-percent increase in revenue could not keep pace with the hike in spending. Afghanistan's ratio of total domestic revenues-both tax and nontax-to GDP (only $400 per capita--one of the lowest the world) was about 19 percent, considered by observers to be relatively low. Government revenues remained comparatively small because of the low level of taxation. The country's tax administration depended, as did that of all central governments, on a monetized tax base. In Afghanistan, however, much of national production was subsistence agriculture production largely beyond the reach of tax collectors. 

Afghan Ethnic Groups

  Al Qaeda Facts: 1. Al Qaeda was an organization with central leadership, command and control located in Afghanistan prior to 911. But that is no longer true. According to former State Department official Mathew Hoh who served in Afghanistan, al Qaeda is an elastic, amorphous entity, one based not on geography but ideology. “Al Qaeda is a collection of ideas, of independent, autonomous cells,” Hoh says. “They don’t need a lot of funding. They need an apartment with an Internet connection.” 2. Even the 911 hijackers were not all recruited and trained in any one country. They came from different nations and were educated and trained mostly in the United States and Western Europe. What they shared in common was an ideology rather than a geography. 3. Hundreds of al Qaeda members, including many top leaders, have been captured or killed by Pakistani and US military in the region since 911. 4. There have been multiple reports of al Qaeda popping up in several countries around the world, confirming Mathew Hoh's arguments that al Qaeda is not confined to a particular geography in central or south Asia. Pakistan Facts: 1. In spite of some regional radicalization promoted to fight the Soviet menace in the 1980s, Pakistan is a moderate Islamic state where the religious parties have had little public support in multiple elections organized since the nation's independence from Britain in 1947. 2. Although democracy has not thrived in Pakistan, the country does have a significant and growing middle class, an active civil society, vibrant mass media, an array of political parties, elected government and parliament, functioning bureaucracy, judiciary and police, and a powerful national military armed with nuclear weapons. 3. There were no religious militants or incidents of suicide bombings in Pakistan before the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. 4. There was practically no presence of the Taliban or al Qaeda in Pakistan prior to 911. But in recent years, thousands of Pakistani soldiers and civilians have died fighting, killing or capturing the militants who fled into Pakistan from Afghanistan. 5. There have been thousands of casualties from high-profile terrorist incidents in Pakistan. Both the government and people of Pakistan have greatly suffered as a major terrorist target in recent years after joining the US war on terror. 6. India-Pakistan rivalry continues to play itself out in Afghanistan, close to the Pakistani border, with each nation building alliances there to serve their interests. Since returning to Afghan after US invasion in 2001, India has done its own surge with thousands of diplomats, intelligence agents and workers into Afghanistan and pumped hundreds of millions of dollars to build its presence along the Pakistan border in Afghanistan. All of these Indian activities make Pakistanis justifiably suspicious, creating a sense of siege in Pakistan. Many Pakistanis see the rural-tribal Pashtun supporters of the Afghan Taliban as counterweight to India's growing influence threatening Pakistan's western borders. 

Afghan Taliban Facts: 1. According to Maximilian Forte, the Taliban expert Ahmad Rashid points out that the core and founding leadership of the current Taliban movement did indeed form part of the anti-Soviet mujahidin struggle. 2. The Taliban are all local Pashtuns with deep roots in Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan invited some of those who later became founders of the Taliban movement to the White House and hailed them as "moral equivalents of America's founding fathers". 3. None of the 911 hijackers were Afghans, or Pakistani, or the Taliban. They were all Arabs, who were educated in the West and trained to fly planes in the United States in preparation for their terror attacks. 4. The Taliban now control most of the territory in Afghanistan with the acquiescence of the Afghan population, afraid of the Taliban or disenchanted with the corruption and incompetence of the Karzai government, which is seen to be supported by the United States. 

Conclusion: Given the above facts, the chances of success of the Obama strategy of immediate surge with 30,000 troops followed by exit from Afghanistan beginning in 18 months appear to be remote. The best that US and NATO can hope for is to fight to a stalemate in Afghanistan. The goal of training a national Afghan army and transfer of security is almost impossible to achieve, as the Soviets learned more than twenty years ago, when they were defeated. The US surge in Afghanistan and expansion of drone attacks in Pakistan will simply increase fighting, causing more US and Afghan casualties and it will push more fighters into Pakistan. This strategy will result in higher death toll in Pakistan and further destabilization of the entire neighborhood, a far more dangerous prospect for the whole world that the current situation in Afghanistan. The biggest obstacles in the efforts to achieve peace in Afghanistan and security for the United States are the corrupt and incompetent Karzai government, the brutal and unscrupulous Afghan warlords, and the continuing India-Pakistan rivalry playing itself out in the region, and destabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan. 

Recommendation: The best course of action now open for the US is to use the 18 month transition period to reach a direct accommodation with the Afghan Taliban that guarantees that they will not permit any one to launch terrorist attacks against any nation from the Afghan soil. The US military withdrawal from the region should begin immediately after such a peace deal with the Taliban backed by regional guarantors, including Pakistan and China. Beyond Afghanistan, the global terrorist threat from al Qaeda needs to be met with a coordinated international effort that relies on carrots and sticks to give the insurgents a stake in maintaining world peace. 

 Related Links: FATA Faceoff Fears US, NATO Fighting to Stalemate in Afghanistan Interview with Mathew Hoh Why is US Losing in Afghanistan? Why We Should Leave Afghanistan Is Pakistan Too Big to Fail? China's Growing Role in Afghanistan Taliban or RAW-liban? Twentieth Anniversary of Soviet Defeat in Afghanistan Feudal Slavery in South Asia The State, Religion, Ethnic Politics: Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan

Obama's Retreat in Mid East and South Asia

"America is not - and never will be - at war with Islam," declared Barak Hussein Obama in a June, 2009 speech in Cairo that was billed as his administration's attempt to mend fences with the Muslim world. The speech was received enthusiastically by many Muslims, and it raised hopes of fundamental changes in US policies in the Middle East and South Asia.

Just a few months later, however, considerable doubts are growing in the Muslim world about President Obama's resolve to effectively and evenhandedly address the long-standing territorial disputes confronting the peoples of the Middle East and South Asia. The hopes for course correction in US policy on Kashmir and Palestine are fading fast with the Obama administration's dramatic retreat on both fronts.

After repeatedly emphasizing that Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan is inextricably linked to Afghanistan crisis, President Barack Obama backtracked on the need for resolving Kashmir when the issue was dropped from special envoy Richard Holbrooke's mandate under pressure from Indian lobby in Washington. According to Washington Post, India managed to "prune the portfolio of the Obama administration's top envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard C. Holbrooke -- basically eliminating the contested region of Kashmir from his job description".

In run-up to the last US presidential elections, it was widely known that Obama believes the situation in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. “The most important thing we’re going to have to do with respect to Afghanistan, is actually deal with Pakistan,” candidate Obama said in an interview on October 30, 2008 with MSNBC. “And we’ve got work with the newly elected government there in a coherent way that says, terrorism is now a threat to you. Extremism is a threat to you. We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants.”

Obama reiterated his emphasis on Kashmir in a December 7, 2008 interview on NBC's Meet The Press. He said, "...as I've said before, we can't continue to look at Afghanistan in isolation. We have to see it as a part of a regional problem that includes Pakistan, includes India, includes Kashmir, includes Iran. And part of the kind of foreign policy I want to shape is one in which we have tough, direct diplomacy combined with more effective military operations, focused on what is the number one threat against U.S. interests and U.S. lives. And that's al-Qaeda and, and, and their various affiliates, and we are going to go after them fiercely in the years to come."

The story of betrayal is not much different in the Middle East where the Obama administration first insisted on total freeze on Israeli settlements only to retreat after tremendous pressure from the powerful Israel lobby in Washington. In fact, Hillary Clinton not only gave in to the Israel lobby, but described as "unprecedented" Bibi Netanyahu's hollow assurance to "restrain" settlement growth. The immediate effect of this about-face in US policy has been the decision by President Mahmoud Abbas of Palestinian Authority to not seek re-election, a clear signal that the Mr. Abbas, considered a "reliable partner" for peace, feels betrayed by the Americans. This betrayal will only serve the strengthen the extremists on both sides of the Israel-Palestine divide.

Unfortunately, the domestic politics in Washington have trumped good, well-thought policies and plans by the well-meaning Obama team in both of the extremely dangerous regions of the world.

It is well known that the India caucus, consisting of pro-India members who receive campaign contributions from the Indian lobby, is one of the largest and most active in the US Congress. To ensure their loyalty, the Indian lobby is using both carrots and sticks. Following the Israel lobby's hardball methods, USINPAC helps raise funds for those who support pro-India policies, and threatens to unseat legislators such as Indiana Rep. Dan Burton who are sometimes critical of India. Since its inception, USINPAC has launched campaigns to neutralize Rep. Burton and others who do not do the bidding of the Indian lobby in US Congress. In 2005, USINPAC organized support in Congress to successfully prevent Rep. Burton from becoming the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee. In 2003, USINPAC organized a similar campaign to successfully prevent Rep. Burton from becoming the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee that had jurisdiction over India.

Pakistani Ambassador Hussain Haqqani recently told a US publication that the Indo-U.S. relationship is robust and multifaceted. He mentioned that 26 members of the Obama administration are Indian-Americans. Some of them, such as Sonal Shah, have had known ties with the extremist Hindu Sangh Parivar. An Indian-American Rajiv Shah has been named by Obama as the head of US Agency for International Development (US AID). When confirmed, Mr. Shah will be deeply involved in handling aid to Pakistan under Kerry-Lugar bill.

Taha Gaya of Pakistan's nascent Washington lobby PAL-C explained to the BBC recently that on some issues the Indian and Pakistani lobbies had sometimes cooperated. But the Mumbai attacks last year changed all that.

"When Mumbai happened," Gaya told the BBC, "we saw a resurgence of participation from the older generation of Indian-Americans - those who had grown up in India" - who, he claimed, reverted to what he described as "the old more negative dynamic".

There is inevitable conflict between the two lobbies. The recent Kerry-Lugar aid bill for Pakistan is a good example of this conflict. Pro-India groups lobbied hard for all sorts of conditions to be included in the bill.

Sanjay Puri of USINPAC, the India Lobby, was part of this campaign. This was not about supporting India's interests, he claims, and neither was it motivated by hostility towards Pakistan.

It's clear that Indian-Americans have taken a page from the successful Jewish-American playbook. Not only are they active in the executive branch and on Capitol Hill, they are also being increasingly seen in the powerful financial services sector, high profile US media, major US universities, Washington think-tanks and other places which shape US public opinion and policies. And they are exercising rising influence on South Asia policy in the same way that the Jewish-Americans have on the US position in the Middle East conflict. The rising Indian influence in Washington and close multi-faceted collaboration between India and US are seen as a big threat by Pakistanis.

Indian lobby is collaborating with the American corporate interests and the pro-Israel Jewish-American lobby to gain power in the United States, and influence policies and legislation in Washington. On US policies toward Pakistan, the Indian lobby has already proved its power twice recently: the passage of US-India nukes deal and Kerry-Lugar aid strings. And the Indian lobby's strength is only growing.

Given the growing strength of both Indian and Israeli lobbies in Washington, the lack of progress on Palestine and Kashmir is going to significantly hurt all three nations in the India-Israel-US axis. The Americans will not be able to play the role of an honest broker in either region, unless the Israelis and Indians themselves recognize the consequences of their misguided and self-destructive policies in the Middle East and South Asia. At the same time, the growing Mid-East like US pre-occupation with the major unresolved and festering issues in two regions of the world is going to hurt America's interests abroad, with China seizing the initiative in a rapidly changing world.

Related Links:

Haqqani on US-India Ties

Holbrook "AfPak" Mission

India Lobby's Success in Holbrook Mandate

Obama Ignores Sonal Shah's VHP Ties

Obama on Kashmir

India Washington Lobby Emulates AIPAC

China's Checkbook Diplomacy

Pakistanis See US as Biggest Threat

US-India Nuclear Deal

India-Israel-US Axis

Obama's Ramadan Message

Here's the full transcript of President Barack Hussein Obama's Ramadan Message

On behalf of the American people – including Muslim communities in all fifty states –I want to extend best wishes to Muslims in America and around the world. Ramadan Kareem.
Ramadan is the month in which Muslims believe the Koran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, beginning with a simple word – iqra. It is therefore a time when Muslims reflect upon the wisdom and guidance that comes with faith, and the responsibility that human beings have to one another, and to God.
Like many people of different faiths who have known Ramadan through our communities and families, I know this to be a festive time – a time when families gather, friends host iftars, and meals are shared. But I also know that Ramadan is a time of intense devotion and reflection – a time when Muslims fast during the day and perform tarawih prayers at night, reciting and listening to the entire Koran over the course of the month.
These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.
For instance, fasting is a concept shared by many faiths – including my own Christian faith – as a way to bring people closer to God, and to those among us who cannot take their next meal for granted. And the support that Muslims provide to others recalls our responsibility to advance opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere. For all of us must remember that the world we want to build – and the changes that we want to make – must begin in our own hearts, and our own communities.
This summer, people across America have served in their communities – educating children, caring for the sick, and extending a hand to those who have fallen on hard times. Faith-based organizations, including many Islamic organizations, have been at the forefront in participating in this summer of service. And in these challenging times, this is a spirit of responsibility that we must sustain in the months and years to come.
Beyond America’s borders, we are also committed to keeping our responsibility to build a world that is more peaceful and secure. That is why we are responsibly ending the war in Iraq. That is why we are isolating violent extremists while empowering the people in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we are unyielding in our support for a two-state solution that recognizes the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security. And that is why America will always stand for the universal rights of all people to speak their mind, practice their religion, contribute fully to society and have confidence in the rule of law.
All of these efforts are a part of America’s commitment to engage Muslims and Muslim-majority nations on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect. And at this time of renewal, I want to reiterate my commitment to a new beginning between America and Muslims around the world.
As I said in Cairo, this new beginning must be borne out in a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, and to seek common ground. I believe an important part of this is listening, and in the last two months, American embassies around the world have reached out not just to governments, but directly to people in Muslim-majority countries. From around the world, we have received an outpouring of feedback about how America can be a partner on behalf of peoples’ aspirations.
We have listened. We have heard you. And like you, we are focused on pursuing concrete actions that will make a difference over time – both in terms of the political and security issues that I have discussed, and in the areas that you have told us will make the most difference in peoples’ lives.
These consultations are helping us implement the partnerships that I called for in Cairo – to expand education exchange programs; to foster entrepreneurship and create jobs; and to increase collaboration on science and technology, while supporting literacy and vocational learning. We are also moving forward in partnering with the OIC and OIC member states to eradicate polio, while working closely with the international community to confront common health challenges like H1N1 – which I know is of particular to concern to many Muslims preparing for the upcoming hajj.
All of these efforts are aimed at advancing our common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. It will take time and patient effort. We cannot change things over night, but we can honestly resolve to do what must be done, while setting off in a new direction – toward the destination that we seek for ourselves, and for our children. That is the journey that we must travel together.
I look forward to continuing this critically important dialogue and turning it into action. And today, I want to join with the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world – and your families and friends – in welcoming the beginning of Ramadan, and wishing you a blessed month. May God’s peace be upon you.

Here's a video clip of Obama speaking to Muslims:



Related Links:

The Prophet I Know!

Is Ramadan Break from Work?

Obama on Urdu, Daal, Cricket, Keema

Obama Says Real Life Experience Trumps Rivals' Foreign Policy Credits

Barack Obama's Pakistan Connections

Obama Reaches Out to the Muslim World

Obama Ignores Sonal Shah's VHP Ties

The White House hasn't yet officially confirmed it, but Google.org's Sonal Shah has told her friends and colleagues that she has been chosen by President Barack Obama as director of social innovation and civic engagement, according to a report in San Jose Mercury.

After successfully using social networking and Web 2.0 interactive media during the presidential race, Obama has been talking about making the inner workings of the US government, and his own White House, more transparent and interactive. Shah will be part of a team, including a chief information officer and a chief technology officer, responsible for figuring out how to effectively integrate Web 2.0 tools into a government digital network hampered by slow-moving bureaucracy. With her work experience at Google and her Silicon Valley connections, Shah appears to be eminently qualified for the job.

Notwithstanding her unquestionable professional competence for the job, her appointment is controversial due to her ties to the right-wing Vishwa Hindu Parishad, which is accused of using charitable works in India as a cover for inciting hatred against Muslims, Christians and other minorities. The VHP has been condemned by the U.S. State Department and the non-profit Human Rights Watch for its role in the 2002 Muslim massacre in Gujarat, which resulted in the deaths of at least 2,000 people, most of whom were Muslims.

Sonal Shah issued a denunciation of VHP after coming under severe criticism in November, 2008, following her inclusion in the Obama transition team. Stung by sharp criticism on the issue, Shah lambasted the VHP of America for standing by silently "in the face of its Indian counterpart's complicity in the events of Gujarat in 2002." She also stated that at no time was she affiliated with the VHP of America, a claim that has since turned out to be false in an investigation done by Nextgov. Nextgov has uncovered email messages from May 1998 revealing Shah was not only an active member of the VHP of America, but considered one of the organization's next generation of leaders. Nextgov says the email messages show Shah offering advice to VHP leaders about how to improve public perception of the VHP and directly contradict her claims to have never been affiliated with the organization.

Nextgov is not alone in asserting Sonal Shah's VHP links. According to Vijay Prashad, the George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History at Trinity College, Hartford, CT, Sonal Shah has been actively involved with India's right-wing Hindu organizations accused of Gujarat massacre of thousands of Muslims in 2002.

Here's what Mr. Prashad says about Sonal Shah's past: But there is a less typical side to the Shah story. Born in Gujarat, India, Shah came to the United States as a two-year old. Her father, a chemical engineer, first worked in New York before moving to Houston, and then moving away from his education toward the stock market. The Shahs remain active in Houston’s Indian community, not only in the ecumenical Gujarati Samaj (a society for people from Gujarat), but also in the far more cruel organizations of the Hindu Right, such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), the Overseas Friends of the BJP (the main political party of the Hindu Right) and the Ekal Vidyalaya. Shah’s parents, Ramesh and Kokila, not only work as volunteers for these outfits, but they also held positions of authority in them. Their daughter was not far behind. She was an active member of the VHPA, the U. S. branch of the most virulently fascistic outfit within India. The VHP’s head, Ashok Singhal, believes that his organization should “inculcate a fear psychosis among [India’s] Muslim community.” This was Shah’s boss. Till 2001, Shah was the National Coordinator of the VHPA.

In 2004, the BJP government in Gujarat honored Sonal Shah with the Pride of Gujarat (Gujarat Garima) award. Sonal Shah could not attend, but her brother Anand was there, to get the award from Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in the presence of the "venomous" Narendra Modi, according to Prashad.

Indian Muslims have not been the only victims of violence perpetrated by RSS and VHP. Christians have suffered, too. According to All India Christian Council, the 2008 violence affected in 14 districts out of of 30 and 300 Villages in the Indian state of Orissa, 4,400 houses burnt, 50,000 homeless, 59 killed including at least 2 pastors, 10 priests/pastors/nuns injured, 18,000 men, women, children injured, 2 women gang-raped including a nun, 151 churches destroyed and 13 schools and colleges damaged. The violence targeted Christians in 310 villages, with 4,104 homes torched. More than 18,000 were injured and 50,000 displaced and homes continued to burn in many villages. Another report said that around 11,000 people are still living in refugee camps.

A White House spokesman has acknowledged that the administration is aware of the reports but declined to comment on Shah's VHP ties. Not only does it signal a callous disregard for the continued suffering of the tens of thousands of victims of Gujarat pogrom in 2002, Shah's appointment also shows how tone deaf the Obama administration is when it comes to legitimate concerns about the radical right-wing Hindutva Indian fanatics infiltrating the highest levels of the US government.

Here's a Tehelka.com video clip of Babu Bajrangi account and confession of killings of Gujarat Muslims in 2002:



Related Links:

Sonal Shah to Help Divide Obama's Victory Spoils

Gujarat Muslims Ignored By Indian Politicians

Violence Against Indian Christians

Obama's Campaign Success on Social Networks

Webchat on Obama's Regional Strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan

As part of President Barack Obama's new initiative for online outreach, I was invited this morning to participate in a US State department's webchat on Mr. Obama's new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Here's the full transcript of the event:

A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Gregory W. Sullivan, Director of Press and Public Diplomacy for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State
March 31, 2009

CO.NX Moderator (Mark): Welcome to today's webchat. The webchat will begin at 1200GMT.

In 1992, Mr. Sullivan joined the Foreign Service of the U.S. Department of State as an Economic Officer, and has served overseas postings in Bahrain, Egypt, and South Africa. He has also served in Washington on the Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Bahrain desks. From May 2000 through the summer of 2006, he served as Spokesman for the Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs in Washington, D.C., working extensively with domestic and international media. In September 2006, he joined the Department of South and Central Asian Affairs as the Director of Press and Public Diplomacy.

Mr. Sullivan received undergraduate degrees in Economics and Modern European History from Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island in 1988. He received a Master of Arts degree focusing on Middle East and Islamic Studies from the University of Virginia in 1990, and completed a year of Ph.D. study focusing on the Shi’a communities of the Arabian Gulf.

CO.NX Moderator (Mark): We are about to begin. There are many, many questions coming in. Please be patient as Mr. Sullivan works on answers. Also, please keep in mind that many of you are asking similar questions--please check to see if the answer to your question has already been posted!

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Welcome, everyone, to this webchat. I'm delighted to see so many people online and I promise I'll do my best to answer as many of your questions as possible.

ghulam ali murtaza: Counter-insurgency as proposed by David Petraeus is perceived by many across the border as an effort to control and change their culture that has been pretty much dominant in their society for many years. Why USA has been unable to draw distinction between the natives who are peaceful and those terrorist whose aim is inflict wreckage in world?

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Very good question, Mr. Murtaza. I often get this question from Afghans who ask "what happened to your smart bombs - why aren't they so smart?" First I want to say that we go to great lengths to avoid any civilian casualties in our operations, and operations are called off or postponed if there are indications that civilians could be affected. But, the problem is Al Qaeda and the Taliban who are working hard to bury themselves inside the local populations, using civilians as a shield. They do everything possible to make sure civilians will be impacted. At times, they've also used disinformation, suggesting that a civilian gathering, a wedding perhaps, is actually a high-level Taliban or Al Qaeda meeting - basically misleading us into attacking the wrong target. We need to have better information and a surge of personnel in Afghanistan will give us better information on the people and activities and help us avoid incidents that result in civilian casualties.

jamaldini: The core issue of all this mess is Durand line which should not be there, why don’t the US pressurize Pakistan to accept this fact? This way NWFP will be part of Afghanistan and there would be no border, which means no militants safe havens. The people in NWFP and Afghanistan speak same language and have the same culture.

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: While I can't support erasing the Durand line, I recognize what you're really calling for: an establishment of law, order, and a viable economic system in the Pakistani tribal areas. On those points, I'd say we're in pretty close agreement.

Our strategy is an attempt to help the Pakistani Government introduce government, basic services, the rule of law, and a viable economic system into an area that has been under tribal rule for centuries. Through the IMF, World Bank, and other international institutions - together with our additional $1.5 billion in foreign assistance - we hope to bring opportunity, infrastructure, jobs, and services to this region. And, in so doing, illustrate to the people of the tribal areas that the "social contract" between government and the people involves responsibilities and benefits on both sides - but a relationship that, in turn, makes both stronger and more prosperous.

Sarah Alam, Karachi (Spokesperson Pak-US Alumni Association Karachi, Lecturer Jinnah University for Women): First of all I would like to commend the honorable President for his newly proposed strategy. However I would like to put forward my concern over the growing acts of terrorism in Pakistan. By any means, the threat of terrorism exists and is growing day by day, and the conditions of Pakistan are becoming deplorable. How in the present scenario can we measure the effectiveness of this newly proposed strategy?

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Thank you, Ms. Alam for your question. Obviously, we, too, are concerned about the scale of terror attacks. The Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership has killed thousands of Pakistanis over the past year, and their growing threat is what drove this new strategy. On measuring the effectiveness, I will admit we still have some work to do to put them in place. President Obama has emphasized that the strategy must be flexible and easily changed to new conditions. We know we're going to review the strategy regularly. I can assure you this isn't the last time you've heard from us about the strategy and how it's going. I see many regular updates from the President and others on where we think the situation is going.

farid.areu.af: How corruption can be moved from the Afghan government? And how narcotic can be eradicated from Afghanistan?

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: You ask two excellent questions Farid, and I won’t lie by saying the solution is easy or quickly-implemented. As President Obama said, “we cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders.” We see in consistent polling of Afghans that corruption remains one of their top concerns – and in many cases their number one concern. It prevents the delivery of relief and development projects to ordinary Afghans and presents the Taliban with a significant recruitment opportunity. The durability of the Afghan state rests on the trust of its people and their ability to expect delivery of basic services.

But, how do you fix it? Well, I won’t claim that we have all the answers, but we have some ideas. First, we recognize that the previous Administration’s focus on Iraq prevented us from having the focus, resources, and personnel to adequately take on the corruption challenge. There are 396 districts in Afghanistan and not nearly enough of an international civilian presence to establish regular discussions, training, or monitoring of the developmental situations in all of them. Our developmental efforts have been hampered by a lack of consultation with local leaders and a lack of personnel to adequately oversee them. This helped create an environment where corruption could continue without ever being discovered – or its extent throughout the government effectively countered.

So, the first step is the “civilian surge” the President spoke of – to get enough talented people to work with local leaders, train them, monitor progress on developmental programs and effectively coordinate with their international counterparts.

Another idea is to expand the scope and size of our rule of law programs through education, enhanced enforcement, and the establishment of ongoing monitoring mechanisms within the Afghan Government – the “checks and balances” we often talk about in the West.

The President also stated that we will pursue a new understanding with the Afghan Government that cracks down on corrupt behavior and sets clear benchmarks for international assistance so that it provides for the needs of the Afghan people. On our end, we too, will enhance the role of the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction to ensure that money for U.S. contracts is spent in the way it was intended. We can’t expect universal change overnight, but we believe these steps will help create an environment where transparency and accountability can supplant corruption.

On Counter-Narcotics

Obviously, as we tackle corruption, we’re also going to have to tackle the illicit opium trade. We’re starting from the conclusion that previous counter-narcotics efforts have been ineffective largely because illicit drugs have become too central to the Afghan economy.

Reliance on eradication doesn’t work because it unfairly puts all the burden on the poor farmer trying to feed his family. The objective shouldn’t be to punish desperate people. Virtually all Afghans would agree that they’d rather grow legal crops, but with no roads to take product to market how could they sell them?

The solution to the narcotics trade needs to be rooted in sound economics and agricultural policy. We need to look at alternative crops and examine the entire set of infrastructural requirements--from cultivation, irrigation, preservation and transportation, to finding buyers for the product at market. This means working with farmers concerning their soil and what will grow, training people in the secondary markets of agricultural packaging and preservation to ensure the product can remain fresh on long trips by road, building roads to markets, and establishing mechanisms for sellers to find buyers both domestically and internationally. Hi-nutritional value wheat is one product we think would work as an alternative to poppy, and as we go forward we will be filling in the details of what else in the chain needs to be there, so farmers can stop growing poppy.

Naimat Ullah Khan, LC Karachi: Dear Mr. Sulivan, would you like to tell us the highlights of the change in policy towards Afghanistan & Pakistan

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Thanks, sure - the big highlights are the creation of a Trilateral Dialogue between the US, Pakistan, and Afghanistan that will focus not only on security matters but trade, energy, and development. There are significant new troop commitments for Afghanistan, a civilian surge that will enable us to reach far more of the 396 Afghan districts than we ever have, and a strong anti-corruption push through a Special Inspector General here and a new Afghan Anti-Corruption office. Also important is the US commitment to a reconciliation process with those who are not "hard-core" Taliban, and can be brought into the political process.

Riaz Haq: Why was Kashmir dropped from Ambassador Holbrooke's charter as US special envoy to the region? Do you think this decision will help or hurt the US efforts in the region?

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Ambassador Holbrooke's mandate is Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to be fair, we think that's probably a full-time job. Certainly, we are interested in the long-term improvement in Pakistani-Indian relations and continue to assist in any way we can. While Ambassador Holbrooke will not address Kashmir as part of his mandate, he will promote dialogue between India and Pakistan, recognizing the importance of solid regional cooperation as a foundation for his efforts.

I want to add to my answer for the Lincoln Center in Karachi this second part: On the Pakistan side, the highlights are an additional $1.5 billion in US assistance in infrastructure, education, and job-creation, and a clear set of benchmarks that will be developed and linked to this assistance. Obviously, the trilateral dialogue I mentioned earlier will assist Pakistan with its efforts as well. And working with the IMF, World Bank and others, we hope to get more resources for Pakistan to address its economic needs and extend its effective governmental control over the tribal areas. And when I say control, I don't mean just troops; we mean the provision of water, food, electricity, housing, schools, and all the things that a citizen should expect from its government.


Daud, Lincoln Center, Herat: can Afghanistan and Pakistan be good friends in the future?

Riaz Haq: Do you think Pakistan has a strategic interest in Afghanistan now and in the future when the US eventually leaves the region? If so, how do you see it? Do you think Pakistan’s interest in Afghanistan aligns with the US interests now and five or ten years from now?

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Both Daud at the LC Herat and Riaz Haq are asking similar questions about Afghan Pakistani relations. This is a really good question. I can tell, because you're really making me think hard here. Let me try to provide a thoughtful answer:

I think it would be fair to say that many in South Asia and around the world began to doubt the US strategic interest in Afghanistan following the war in Iraq. As the pace of development in Afghanistan stagnated and the US preoccupation with Iraq grew, it's likely that Pakistanis began to doubt the durability of the US commitment and the likelihood of a functional state emerging in Afghanistan. Under such circumstances, I could see many Pakistanis concluding that Pakistan had no "strategic interest" in Afghanistan--only a "strategic threat" that would have to be managed without the United States’ involvement.

But, as President Obama's speech conveyed, the US does, indeed, have a strategic interest in Afghanistan, and Pakistan should see one as well. Despite the problems in the international effort, Afghanistan has made great strides in healthcare, education, and economic growth. And, with a revitalized US commitment to Afghanistan, Pakistani leaders should feel empowered to see Afghanistan as a political, economic, and strategic asset for Pakistan.

The President spoke about the importance of addressing common issues of concern like trade, energy, and economic development through a standing trilateral dialogue. It is our hope that this forum may be the most visible means to illustrate that Afghanistan's success, its economic growth, and political maturation can yield important benefits to Pakistan in security, trade, export markets, and job creation.

So, in answer to your original question, "yes," Pakistan should see a strategic interest in Afghanistan and not see it as a long-term threat. And, through this Trilateral Commission we hope to underscore that opportunity.

Zubair. Lincoln Center Herat: Do you think if US helps Pakistan to be secure that will help to secure the region?

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Zubair, I think you're very right about the need for Pakistan to feel secure, and while the President was clear about the mixed results we've had in fighting terrorism is Pakistan, I think the real key to this new strategy is the fact we're trying to generate economic growth and new assistance that will make Pakistanis feel secure. We hope the $1.5 billion can be used to build infrastructure that attracts foreign investment and creates new jobs. We're also looking to provide training that creates a better workforce in Pakistan, and allows them to get higher salaries for their work. All of this should make Pakistan feel more economically secure. On the political side, we think the Trilateral Dialogue will help reduce tensions with Afghanistan, and our ongoing efforts to promote India-Pakistan discussions should also help.

I'd like to address the charge that has come up in several questions regarding the view that the US is waging war against Muslims or Islam. I know you've heard comments like those I'm about to make, but they need to be said until the point when they're no longer necessary.

The U.S. Government has no quarrel with Islam, one of the world's great religions. I know from my own experience in the Muslim world that Islam is a faith of peace and submission. There are extremists in any faith - Christianity included - that will take doctrine to the point where it misses the larger message of peace, love, and compassion. Those individuals - the ones using Islam as a pretext for attacks against others - are the ones we have problems with.

A professor of mine in graduate school talked openly about his desire to get back to a period under the Umayyad Caliphate when a flourishing dialogue existed between Christians, Jews, and Muslims that focused on the common problem of man's alienation from God. While some may take issue with his historical depiction, his point was that we can achieve far more by working together based on what joins us, than by fighting over what divides us.

The world gets smaller everyday while the population grows by several millions. The challenge of raising children in this age with enough to eat, a job waiting for them, and a solid moral grounding is filled with ethical and technological challenges even our own parents never dreamed of. Making enemies of several hundred million adherents to Islam isn't going to make that challenge any easier for Americans.

Riaz Haq: The demand on Pakistan to ''cut ties between parts of its government and the Taliban'' seems to be at odds with the desire to ''peel away up to three quarters of the Taliban’s rank and file in Afghanistan from the Taliban’s leadership''. Do you think that the ISI's links with the Taliban can serve a useful purpose in attempts to reconcile with a substantial percentage of the Taliban?

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Much has been written in the West about the ISI and its reported links to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. And, while we think it's fair to say that the institution is in need of reform and oversight, we think it would be unfair to characterize all members of the ISI as agents of terrorism. We have cooperated with the Government of Pakistan on important intelligence matters before, and see that as an important foundation for broader cooperation. Important to any intelligence structure, however, is submission to the nation's political leadership - who, in turn, are accountable to the people of Pakistan.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy: The discussions so far indicate that the US Government wants to increase international civilian (non-governmental organizations?) presence in Afghanistan, spend $1.5 billion in foreign aid, and to undertake programs such as encourage alternate crops. My question: Are these measures sufficient? The developing countries' experience with foreign aid has been that the impact of the funding and programs has always been negligible. How would the new administration CHANGE the way the funding and the overall program administration work?

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Mr. Muthusamy, great question, and it's something we're spending a lot of time on right now. First, I would agree with you. It's very tough to administer assistance through NGOs unless you have enough USG or international officials in place to watch that every dollar is going where it should. That's why the civilian surge is so important. We realize that part of the reason corruption and a lack of coordination has been such a problem in Afghanistan is because we simply didn't have enough civilians on the ground. We had a lot of personnel in Iraq and not enough in South Asia. It meant we did top-down management, and we weren't getting all the facts from "real people" on the ground. We're not going to make that mistake again. We're going to put hundreds of new officers on the ground all over Afghanistan - in as many of the 396 districts as we can, so we can see the projects, monitor the progress, respond to needs from local officials, and switch our tactics if needed.

Faria Khan: Where is the exit strategy? President Obama states there are clearly defined goal posts but that is playing hard and fast with the truth. You are getting yourselves into a quagmire. I am of Pakistani origin and my family are from the NWFP and Punjab and I can with a 100% guarantee tell you that the Taliban know they can outlast you. Mr. Obama, in the following weeks, please define more clearly a timeline for success (dates by which you want to attain certain targets). Because, if you start to withdraw down after a few years as not part of some advanced announced plan, then it will look like a defeat, regardless as to how you may spin it. The truth is the Pashtuns make up to 60% of the Afghan population and the neo-Taliban are a nationalist insurgency. You need to make deals with them, regardless as to how unpalatable it is to you. I fear that your real strategy is to go in and initiate a hard-hitting military plan for a while and cross your fingers that you will get the targets you want. Negotiate with the Taliban

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: The US exit strategy is fairly simple: we can begin to leave as Afghans and Pakistanis deal with their own security problems, including in the border regions; effective governance has reached an acceptable level; and corruption is under control. President Obama has emphasized that flexibility should be a key element of this strategy. And so, while it is certain that there will be clear benchmarks established, we're going to exercise discretion and flexibility in determining a timetable.

I think it's important to note that this is not the last discussion you've heard regarding the new strategy. There will be a series of regular discussions that evaluate where we are, where we're headed, and what needs to be done to stay on course. And those discussions will always begin with consultation with the people of the region.

Haroun Mir: President Obama has indicated in this new strategy the need for a civilian surge in Afghanistan. However, one of the problems in Afghanistan is lack of coordination among different donor countries. For instance, in major Afghan ministries we have advisors from different countries, who sometimes disagree among themselves on key policies. In addition, subcontracting development works to private companies in a country like Afghanistan, which are profit-seeking institutions, is one of the reasons behind slow progress and mismanagement of funds. Don't you think that a new strategy in Afghanistan would require a change in the way the US has worked in Afghanistan in the past seven years?

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Haroun, I agree with you 100% that a new strategy also requires a change in the way the US has worked in Afghanistan, and I think the new strategy gives us some important new tools to counter the corruption and lack of coordination that has disheartened so many Afghans. As I mentioned, we’re taking a harder line on corruption both by enhancing our own Special Inspector General position, but also by encouraging the Afghan Government to create its own position to root out corruption.

I mentioned earlier about how more civilian personnel will help reduce the opportunities for corruption, but they can also enhance coordination. Up until now, we’ve been hampered by the simple fact that we don’t have enough implementers on the ground. Our coordination has been top-down, when it should be from the bottom-up. A surge in the civilian presence could go a long way in creating that bottom-up dynamic in the 396 Afghan districts we’re trying to reach.

Haroun Mir: We Afghans have been telling for the past two decades that Afghanistan is a victim of Pakistan and Saudi's wrong policies in the region but the State Department has always ignored our plea. Today, there is a growing consensus in the US about Pakistan's support for the Taliban in Afghanistan. In fact there are two major countries in the Islamic world which directly support terrorism--Iran and Pakistan. The IRGC supports Hezbollah and Hamas, and the ISI supports the Taliban and Kashimiri Jihadist groups. However, Iran is punished and insolated while Pakistan is rewarded with billions of dollars of military and humanitarian assistance. How would you explain the US' double standard policy in the region?

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: I have to disagree that there is a double-standard since the situations with Iran and Pakistan are so vastly different. The Iranian Government articulates a policy of destabilization that it implements through a coherent governmental apparatus. While no one would disagree about the presence of violent extremists inside Pakistan, it is more a question of Pakistan's capability to challenge them effectively and the ability of its political leadership to bring under control those elements sympathetic to the extremists.

We have cooperated with Pakistan before on important security issues. Pakistan has shared information and intelligence that has saved US and British lives. In Pakistan, our challenge is to get beyond the "mixed results" we have seen. With Iran, I'd argue that we're much further away from calling the glass "half-full."

Myda: How optimistic are the US strategists regarding the new Pak-Afghan Strategy? What support are they expecting from Pakistani citizens to successfully implement this strategy?

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Myda, thanks for your question, and I guess I'd say we're cautiously optimistic. We think the strategy reflects new US leadership - a leadership I think a lot of nations felt was missing during the Iraq effort. In many ways, a lot of us who have worked South Asia the past few years feel as if we were not spending the time, resources, and money needed to address the problems. Personally, I feel very optimistic because it's clear South Asia is so central to the President's foreign policy objectives. And I think we're trying to go slowly and methodically in addressing tough problems.

On the second part, the Pakistani people can play a huge role. First, I want to say we recognize that the US commitment to democratic ideals has been questioned in Pakistan, and we're committed to actions that leave no doubt about that support. While we're firm on the need to confront Al Qaeda and Taliban, we hope our commitment to development, job-creation, and the rights of Pakistanis will help bring around the support of the Pakistani people.

gill: Drone Attacks must be stopped, ruining our economy, destabilizing the country, spreading hate between people of Pakistan (Punjabi , people of tribal areas)! USA must have a peace deal. Sitting 7 years in Afghanistan, they have not won the war. Now destabilizing Pakistan.

mani41: I say this: just stop the f***ing Drone attacks ASAP. If you want to take out targets, you need better recon; just bombing at will isn't going to solve the issue. What it will achieve is continued hate sentiment from the Pakistani population in general and more fanaticism from the militants and their tribes/race.

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: As I've said, the US wants to work with Pakistan in confronting the violent extremists there. But years of mixed results have allowed Al Qaeda to grow stronger within Pakistan. As we work towards a better strategy with the Government of Pakistan, it is our hope that such strikes will be unnecessary. For now, though, the threat is very real and we are aggressively going after high value targets engaged in planning future attacks.

Riaz Haq: Will the US covert war (via US drone attacks in Pakistan) continue after the unveiling of new strategy? Or will it be expanded and intensified?

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Let me start by saying clearly, the United States does not want to operate militarily in Pakistan. But, the threat that Al Qaeda and the Taliban present to us, to Pakistan, and to the world means SOMEONE must. It is by far our preference that Pakistanis eradicate the terrorist presence inside Pakistan.

The Al Qaeda leadership that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks currently reside in Pakistan. Since 9/11, they have vowed to strike again and have done so repeatedly: in London, Bali, Spain, Morocco, India, Kabul, and in Pakistan. They've killed far more Muslims than non-Muslims in their attacks. They've killed thousands of Pakistanis, including Benazir Bhutto. This is not an American problem; it is a threat to all nations of the world, and should be for Pakistan, too.

As President Obama said, we have great respect for the Pakistani people and their rich history. And, we recognize that Pakistanis want much the same as we do: freedom from violence and poverty, the rule of law and an opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their children.

But, having the world's most dangerous terrorist network in Pakistan's backyard will not get Pakistanis what they desire. Al Qaeda will lure Pakistanis with false promises of security, threaten those Pakistanis that don't share their Salafist views about what's permissible in an Islamic society, and provoke other nations with vicious attacks, then hide using the Pakistani people as a shield. They'll try to tell you that the West attacks Pakistan because we're waging war with Islam, when it's Al Qaeda that repeatedly attacks and hides behind a perverted banner of Islam. The Pakistani people and American people deserve the same thing: freedom from fear. And that is only possible once Al Qaeda ceases to call Pakistan home.

We know that Pakistan's ability to counter Al Qaeda is linked to its own strength and security, including its economic security. We'll continue to work with the IMF, World Bank and other international partners to help Pakistan create jobs and provide basic services for its people. We're contributing $1.5 billion of US funds in direct support to the Pakistani people to build roads, schools, and hospitals. We're even creating Economic Opportunity Zones in the border region to help develop the economy and create jobs. And, we're pledging now to stand behind Pakistan's democratic institutions in a way that leaves no doubt about our principles. We'd like to offer "hope" to the Pakistani people.

As you consider all this, I would ask you as well to consider what exactly the Al Qaeda extremists offer Pakistan: repression of women; extreme Salafist views that leave no room for dissent; poor educational standards; a lack of foreign investment; and fear. There can be -- and is -- a better future for Pakistan.

Zohra Munir: Diplomats can play good role but media is more powerful to build trust between people of Pakistan and Afghanistan. My question is this how you will build or gain trust in these countries, because an average person thinks America is enemy for all the world, so please first you have to think about this.

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Zohra - Another good question and yes, I agree--we have some work ahead of us to convince the Pakistani people. As I mentioned in the answer to Myda, we recognize that we need to have our deeds match our words--to defend democratic institutions in Pakistan that reflect the will of the people. Second, we also have to communicate better with the Pakistani people, and we're looking at ways right now that would expand significantly the exchanges we do--cultural exchanges, educational exchanges, and sports exchanges. We want to do more training: language training, job training, skills that can enhance the ability for Pakistanis to find work and compete in the global economy. Americans, as a people, are happiest when they feel they're doing something good in another nation. It's time we did more of that in Pakistan.

CO.NX Moderator (Mark): There are many of questions waiting for Mr. Sullivan, please be patient as he tries to answer as many as possible.

If you would like to submit a comment, please do so and we will post selected comments to the webchat.

gill: To make a good policy Americans must consult with Pakistan Army and People of Pakistan!

SaadZ: Gregg, one more thing. US $1.5billion/year are peanuts. You do know that right?

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Saad, I'm not sure I would agree. First, I would say that with the global economic downturn, $1.5 billion is actually a lot right now to the American people. We, too, are seeing home foreclosures and a record number of people out of jobs. So, contributing $1.5 billion right now in these economic circumstances is actually a big sign of how important Pakistan is to us. Second, a billion and a half dollars can accomplish a lot of development in South Asia. For example, we've found that we can provide language training for a South Asian for two years for as little as $2000. We can do a large number of power generation programs or irrigation projects, for that amount. In some sense, the economic downturn helps because with global prices down, $1.5 billion actually goes a lot further than it would have a year ago.

Farrukh: Mr. Sullivan, hiring or seeking assistance from young minds in Pakistan in seeking advice on issues, won’t it be better to seek their insight on issues so that it can be reflection of Pakistani perspectives from members of its own society? People selected should be young blood, literate and having the leadership capacity (like me) to make that difference in eradicating extremism once and for all.

Awais: Mr Obama in his campaign said he wants good relations with the people of Pakistan.

Rizwan: I do believe that all situation is in Pakistan because Pakistan stepped forward to play its role in the modern world and became part of USA and western countries in combating with War against Terrorism. Pakistan encountered unrecoverable losses to help its friends, NOW is the moral responsibility for all nations to help Pakistan in difficult time instead painting a wrong picture of Pakistan and its people around the world.

gill: Why American government is blaming ISI on links with Taliban? They must respect Pakistan GOVERMENT AND ITS AGENCIES?

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Thanks Gill because I did want to address the ISI briefly today. First, I'd say a lot has been written about the ISI and its reported links to Al Qaeda. The ISI is often singled out by think-tanks and newspapers around the world as the culprit behind the violence. For us, I think it's fair to say that the ISI needs reform and better oversight by the political leaders who report to the Pakistani people. But, it is unfair to characterize all individuals in the ISI as agents of terror. We have worked with Pakistan before very successfully. Intelligence from the ISI has saved American and British lives and foiled terrorist plots on international airliners. The President was careful to say we've had mixed results - and that means, we've had times of great cooperation and other times not so much. We want to see more consistency and making Pakistan feel more secure should help that process.

CO.NX Moderator (Mark): Do you know about our online community? CO.NX is the place for you to meet people from around the world and to share ideas. Join the conversation at http://co-nx.state.gov

You can write us at conx@state.gov for more information. All are welcome.

Kashif Malik: It’s good if USA considers Pakistan as valuable ally in WAR AGIANST TERROR but practically, Americans didn't do much to help Pakistan in return of Pakistan's support for USA cause.

khalid: The new AF-PAK policy is appreciable as it tries to catch up from where it was left by the U.S in the 1980's, however the expectations in the region are great and failure is not an option.

myda: Pakistan has a been a victim to violence since a couple of years now but why are these actions coming at such a later stage when the violence has become a full blown issue threatening not just Pakistan but generally the entire world? Local terrorists are provided training here and have largely penetrated themselves into the local terrorist bodies of Pakistan that actually are suspected for having supported the terrorists.

Khalid: Mark I think U.S package will better serve the region if helps institution building, police being a priority because of its role in maintaining peace.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy: Aren't these proposals coming top down from the State Department, rather than emerge by involving the participants of the people from the region? The course of action appears to come top-down, the scale of the funding comes top-down, even the details of allocation are decided top-down. As the US moves into the participative era, it would be better to be open about what needs to be done, take the local views and wisdom into account and perhaps arrive at what is needed and what could be effective by participation?

That was NOT a comment on the expertise of the State Department, just that local conditions are peculiar, local needs are peculiar, and more often than not, policies and programs shaped remotely do not fit into local conditions.

SaadZ: No country can survive without a strong judiciary and strong police. Please add great salaries for these two departments. If there is no justice on the streets, there can never be economic or social development

Well said, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. And yes, participatory method is the way to go

myda: I agree with you Mr. Saad: for a strategy to be effective it should have a bottom-up approach rather than a top-down approach.

CO.NX Moderator (Mark): We are approaching the end of the hour. We hope you will understand that there are many, many questions coming in. Mr. Sullivan is trying to answer as many as he can in this limited time period. Transcripts are available at http://co-nx.state.gov within 24 hours or by writing directly to us at conx@state.gov.

Naimat Ullah Khan, LC Karachi: Mr. Sullivan, don’t you think a grassroots level, people-to-people interaction is needed to effectively deal with our problems?

Gregg Sullivan, Spokesman: Mr. Khan - I agree with you 100%. The grassroots element has definitely been missing in our efforts. As I mentioned earlier, we didn't have the personnel on the ground to have reliable information in Afghanistan, and so development projects lagged, corruption grew, and coordination withered away. The civilian surge should help us establish those grassroots connections. I'm also directly involved in an effort to expand the exchange platforms we deploy -including jirgas that solicit the views of tribal and religious leaders on what they think we should be doing in development and security. On the Pakistani side, I think we can expand greatly our efforts to reach Pakistanis--more exchanges, more training, more opportunities for Pakistanis to learn what Americans are really like--and vice-versa.

Well, that hour just flew on by and I want to thank all of you for making this a very enjoyable experience for me. You've asked excellent questions and in so doing, you've also given me a better sense of what we need to do better to connect with South Asians. So, a sincere note of appreciation from me for taking the time for this. All the best, Gregg

SaadZ: Thank you Gregg, we should do this again sometime.

gill: BYE Allah Hafiz

SaadZ: GO-bama lol

CO.NX Moderator (Mark): Thank you everyone. The webchat is now closed. A transcript of today's webchat will be available within one business day at http://co-nx.state.gov and at http://www.america.gov/multimedia/askamerica.html


Related Links:

Obama's Afghan Exit Strategy

Obama's Interview with CBS 60 Minutes

Obama's New Regional Strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan

US Escalating Covert War in Pakistan?

Can India "Do a Lebanon in Pakistan?

20th Anniversary of Soviet Defeat in Afghanistan

Taming the ISI: Implications for Pakistan’s Stability and the War on Terrorism

Growing Insurgency in Swat

Afghan War and Collapse of the Soviet Union

US, NATO Fighting to Stalemate in Afghanistan?

FATA Faceoff Fears

FATA Raid Charades

Obama's Afghan Exit Strategy

A picture of US exit strategy from Afghanistan is beginning to emerge as the details of President Barack Obama's new regional strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan are scrutinized.

The first, most significant clue to the exit strategy is the narrowing of the focus to al Qaeda, leaving out any explicit mention of the Taliban. Here is how Mr. Obama put it: "I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just."

Again, in another part of the speech addressed to Pakistanis, Mr. Obama limited his target to Al Qaeda and those closely allied with it, leaving out any direct reference to the Taliban: "The terrorists within Pakistan’s borders are not simply enemies of America or Afghanistan – they are a grave and urgent danger to the people of Pakistan. Al Qaeda and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They have killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They have blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state. Make no mistake: al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within."

Explicitly talking to CBS 60 Minutes about exit a week before unveiling his strategy, Mr. Obama said, "So what we're looking for is a comprehensive strategy. And there's got to be an exit strategy. There's got to be a sense that this is not perpetual drift."

To justify additional aid to Pakistan, Mr. Obama further added: "It is important for the American people to understand that Pakistan needs our help in going after al Qaeda. This is no simple task. The tribal regions are vast, rugged, and often ungoverned. That is why we must focus our military assistance on the tools, training and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists. And after years of mixed results, we will not provide a blank check. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders. And we will insist that action be taken – one way or another – when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets."

Clearly, Pakistani and US interests are not in conflict in Afghanistan as both governments are eager to prevent the use of the region to launch attacks on Western targets.

This narrowing of the Obama focus to al Qaeda is a return to the earlier US-Pakistan strategy in former President George W. Bush's first term, when President Bush and President Musharraf both agreed to distinguish between Taliban and Al Qaida, seeing the former having local roots and no global jihadi agenda versus latter, who are foreigners and global jihadists. That was the right approach and it significantly reduced violence until the US reversed this policy and goaded Pakistan into attacking the Taliban in FATA. The ostensible reason was Bush's desire to establish Western style democracy in Afghanistan, a goal that Obama has decided against pursuing in favor of reconciliation with the vast majority of the Taliban.

I think the Obama policy offers an opening to fundamentally change the conflict for Pakistan to facilitate the US exit from the region and preserve Pakistan's strategic interests, if the Pakistani leadership plays its cards right by addressing a couple of critical differences between the US and Pakistan.

The first of these differences that must be bridged between the US and Pakistan is the US insistence that Pakistan's intelligence agencies cut all ties with the "extremists", again without any direct reference to the Taliban. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates urged Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency to cut contacts with extremists in Afghanistan who were “an existential threat” to Pakistan. The ISI has had links with extremists “for a long time, as a hedge against what might happen in Afghanistan if we were to walk away,” Gates said on “Fox News Sunday” today. “What we need to do is try and help the Pakistanis understand these groups are now an existential threat to them and we will be there as a steadfast ally for Pakistan,” Gates said. “They can count on us and they don’t need that hedge.” I see some flexibility here in terms of who is defined as "extremists" with whom Pakistan must cut ties.

The second area of significant disagreement is the continuing US drone attacks inside Pakistan. I think Pakistan can persuade the US to stop such attacks by refocusing its efforts on al Qaeda and away from the rank-and-file Taliban. Given the significantly depleted strength of al Qaeda in the region, I believe such a goal is achievable, and it will go a long way in reducing what Pakistan's foreign minister Qureshi describes as "trust deficit" between the two nations.

It's clear that the US presence in the region has become a lightning rod. It's encouraging Islamists to attack the US forces and target Pakistanis who are seen as serving the US interests. Notwithstanding additional US aid to Pakistan, any unilateral and impractical demands on Pakistanis by the Obama administration while continuing Predator strikes and dismissing the strategic interests of Pakistan in its neighborhood, will be an obstacle to US success on the ground in Afghanistan. The US must demonstrate its sincerity by listening to Pakistanis. In return, Pakistan must seize the opportunity to facilitate early US exit from the region by sincerely helping to reduce violence in the region. Just the expectation of US exit will help calm the insurgency in Pakistan as well.

Related Links:

Obama's Interview with CBS 60 Minutes

Obama's New Regional Strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan

US Escalating Covert War in Pakistan?

Can India "Do a Lebanon in Pakistan?

20th Anniversary of Soviet Defeat in Afghanistan

Taming the ISI: Implications for Pakistan’s Stability and the War on Terrorism

Growing Insurgency in Swat

Afghan War and Collapse of the Soviet Union

US, NATO Fighting to Stalemate in Afghanistan?

FATA Faceoff Fears

FATA Raid Charades

Obama's New Afghan-Pakistan Regional Strategy

Early details of the Obama administration's new plan and strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan reveal emphasis on peeling away up to three quarters of the Taliban’s rank and file in Afghanistan from their leadership, substantial additional funding of over $50 billion for military operations and reconstruction aid, imposition of strict new conditions and performance benchmarks on Afghans and Pakistanis, and 17,000 additional US troops and 4000 trainers on the ground in Afghanistan, according to media reports.

On Friday, March 27, President Obama plans to announce a "simple, clear, concise goal -- to disrupt, dismantle and eventually destroy al-Qaeda in Pakistan," said a US official, one of three authorized to anonymously discuss the strategy, according to Washington Post. It is noteworthy that there is no talk of destroying the Taliban in this statement. Mr. Obama will describe his plan in a White House speech to a group of selected military, diplomatic and development officials and nongovernmental aid groups.

The 4000 advisers and trainers will help with an effort by American commanders to double the size of the Afghan military by 2011.

The president's plan also is expected to call for hundreds more civilian experts to help build Afghanistan's economy, infrastructure and civil society. The idea there is to combat the Taliban insurgency by showing Afghans that the government can offer them a better life, according to NPR radio.

The plan is expected to include a recommendation to triple the amount of American aid to Pakistan to about $1.5 billion a year for at least five years. The aid would be contingent on Pakistan's willingness to cut ties with the Taliban and fight the insurgents on its own territory.

The goals that Mr. Obama has set may be elusive and, according to some critics, even naïve. Among other things, officials said he planned to recast the Afghan war as a regional issue involving not only Pakistan but also India, Russia, China, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Central Asian states.

The Obama plan envisions persuading Pakistan to stop focusing military resources on its regional rival, India, so it can concentrate more on fighting insurgents in its FATA region. This goal may be especially hard to achieve given the longstanding Kashmir dispute, the history of three wars in South Asia in more than a half century — and a nuclear arms race — between Pakistan and India.

In terms of new conditions for Afghans and Pakistanis, it is expected that there will be demands on Afghanistan to make more progress in fighting corruption, curbing the drug trade and sharing power with the regions, while Pakistan will be asked to do more to cut ties between parts of its government and the Taliban. Mr. Obama telephoned President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan Thursday to share the main elements of the strategic review.

The demand on Pakistan to "cut ties between parts of its government and the Taliban" seems to be at odds with the desire to "peel away up to three quarters of the Taliban’s rank and file in Afghanistan from the Taliban’s leadership". Instead of engaging in the anti-ISI campaign, the US should see Pakistan's ISI's Taliban links as assets in America's efforts to reconcile with the vast majority of the Taliban. The British already see the value of the ISI-Taliban ties. According to the New York Times, the British government has sent several dispatches to Islamabad in recent months asking that the ISI use its strategy meetings with the Taliban to persuade its commanders to scale back violence in Afghanistan before the August presidential election there. There are reports that the Taliban leaders based in Pakistan have closed ranks with their Afghan comrades to prepare for a new offensive in Afghanistan as the United States sends more troops there this year.

As to the US demand on Pakistan to stop focusing military resources on its ongoing rivalry with India, the failure to help resolve the long-standing Kashmir dispute and the recent Indian war rhetoric in the aftermath of Mumbai make such a demand practically unacceptable by Pakistanis, even if they agree on paper.

Notwithstanding additional US aid to Pakistan, the unilateral and impractical demands on Pakistanis by the Obama administration while continuing Predator strikes and dismissing the strategic interests of Pakistan in its neighborhood, do not add up to a serious and workable strategy. Such a strategy may look good on paper but it will not lead to US success on the ground in Afghanistan.

Related Links:

US Escalating Covert War in Pakistan?

Can India "Do a Lebanon in Pakistan?

20th Anniversary of Soviet Defeat in Afghanistan

Taming the ISI: Implications for Pakistan’s Stability and the War on Terrorism

Growing Insurgency in Swat

Afghan War and Collapse of the Soviet Union

US, NATO Fighting to Stalemate in Afghanistan?

FATA Faceoff Fears

FATA Raid Charades