Obviously the American administrations of the future will bank on wars to create tensions in the Muslim world with the intention to alleviate the Americans of the suspicion that America may have failed in its warmongering policies.

The world knows that terror – if the West insist on calling it this way – or the Mujahideen movement of Islam if we are to be politically correct towards the Muslims will not end with more troops or bigger bombs. It will not be defeated by the new Rome which is the US today.

It will only be defeated if the corruption and the oppression which elementary in Muslim countries ends. This will only end if nations like the US or the Western powers stops supporting undemocratic regimes and regimes that twist democracy to remain afloat for ages. In both ways, democracy does not win always in the Muslim world hence the UN and the Western crusaders must allow the Muslims to invent their own democratic principles, their own ‘Islamic’ democratic system.

However, to make him look very good in the eyes of the American public – a public which is demanding and want wars to go on in some other parts of the world it seems – Obama has cracked his whip: the United States must broaden its foreign policy focus beyond Iraq as he pledged to end the war there and focus on fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda militants hiding in the mountains in Pakistan, he said.

“As president, I would pursue a new strategy and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan,” Obama said in a foreign policy push this week. “We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering, and more non-military assistance to accomplish the mission there.”

Nevetheless, Wahid Mujda, an Afghan political analyst, warned, however, that Obama’s planned increase in US troops by about 10,000 would make the situation worse.
“Increasing troops show that the US emphasis is on war,” Mujda said. “It means the US wants to solve Afghanistan’s problems through military forces, which is not a sound strategy.”
“More troops shows that war will continue,” he added. “It means more people will be killed. It means both parties who are involved in the war would have more casualties.”
People on the streets of Kabul also worried about a continuing conflict although they admitted they knew little about Obama or his strategy for their country.
“I don’t know who Obama is,” admitted shopkeeper Saleh Mohammed, 27. “I just want the person who becomes president of the United States to feel sympathy for Afghanistan and bring peace for us.”
Other Kabul residents expressed hope that the next US president would address threats coming from neighbouring Pakistan, whose mountains militants have been using as a refuge and a launch pad for attacks in Afghanistan that have killed Afghan soldiers, international forces and Afghan civilians.

Obama’s expected visit to Afghanistan was coming at a time of increasing tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, skyrocketing civilian casualties from airstrikes by the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force and rising attacks from insurgents.
The Taliban has launched a major offensive in recent weeks, including a rash of suicide bombings that have left scores of people dead. More than three dozen people died in the July 7 bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul.
At least 71 Afghan civilians have died in three airstrikes by international forces this month in Afghanistan, bringing the civilian toll in the overall conflict this year to around 700, according to a recent UN survey.
US casualties were also rising. The Taliban attacked a remote US military outpost near the border with Pakistan on Sunday, killing nine American soldiers in the deadliest attack on US forces in Afghanistan in three years.
The US casualty rate in Afghanistan has began to equal or even exceed the rate in Iraq as President George W Bush’s troop surge has largely succeeding in sharply bringing down violence in the country.
“We won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in
Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq,” Obama wrote this week in an article published by The New York Times.

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

" catch 22 "
written by mimag, July 20, 2008

“As president, I would pursue a new strategy......" Obama said..... “We need more troops, more helicopters....to accomplish the mission there.”

Obama,

Wise declaration ! ....keep the MICs" happy with their cash register ringing...!!

Hope you dont repeat past missteps of the Late Kennedy Brothers.

Erh.. after elections, what about a referendum.. to untangle a " catch 22..??"

Selamat sore...

.........

...
written by Sin, November 19, 2008

lets send the al-Qaeda militants to hell!!

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment