With this English project just about over because of finals, I wanted to reflect a little on the work I did.

What were some of the pros and cons of my work on this project?

Pros:

I was glad I used a blog to cover South Asia because of my passion for this specific publishing media and my interest in America’s involvement in Afghanistan. This was a topic that I was genuinely interested in and so I was able to use the project not just as a way to get a grade in English class, but as a way to learn more about world affairs and became a more well-rounded student.

Another thing I did well this project was that I went into a lot of depth on the blog posts I wrote. When I did a blog post, I really wrote a lot. I got into the details while still keeping in mind the big picture.

Also, I feel like I made a step in the right direction towards “letting my writing stand on its own” and “pushing the analysis further.” In essays I struggle at strong analysis, and I wanted to be able to have my own opinion on America’s involvement in Afghanistan. Although I still struggle with formulating my own view on Afghanistan I feel like I added a lot of good personal analysis in my blog posts.

Cons:

My biggest regret was that I was never able to do a short, casual blog post. Blogs are meant to allow a more casual writing style, and this would mean I could write out blog posts quickly without spending a whole lot of time on them. But I always tackled long and dense newspaper or online articles that made banging out blog posts in 45 minutes or less unrealistic. I had to read the article, critically think and annotate, write the article, add pictures and videos and format. That whole process was immensely time consuming.

In the future I think I will amass all of my information from what I have seen on tv, read on the internet in my free time or read in the newspaper. This way I will eliminate a lot of time and likely will do more analytical posts.

This blog post was inspired by one of my favorite sections of the newspaper. Just like most Sundays, I woke up late and enjoyed a lengthy breakfast while I methodically went through the Sunday edition of the New York Times, sports sections and the comics. I especially like the section “Week in Review” and there were good articles about how the ethnic group Pashtuns will influence the success of the troop surge in Afghanistan and why Pakistan is so obsessed with India.

I also wanted to do a less formal blog post where I would be able to talk a little bit about a couple of countries. Instead of zeroing in one one country I would focus on countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan because they are connected.

I will also be able to explore a little bit more of the culture and history of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Understanding the background of these countries helps explain current issues.

Hammer-and-Anvil: The US will work together with Pakistan to clear the borders of Taliban.

Just to be clear, Pashtunistan is not an officially recognized name. It is not the name of a country, region or province. The name is a slang word that comes from Pashtuns who yearn for their own homeland. While Pashtunistan is not recognized as an official area, it is very much a real place.

And it is in Pashtunistan where all the enemies of the United States reside.

The Pashtuns are an ethnic group that occupy much of southern and eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan. They are fiercely independent and have their own culture.  There are 12 million Pashtuns in Afghanistan and 27 million in Pakistan. Pashtuns have their own language, Pashto, and their own code of legal and moral conduct called Pashtunwali.

The millions of Pashtuns in both Afghanistan and Pakistan mean mean this is an all-encompassing region that transcends political borders.

As mentioned earlier, borders do not mean much to the locals. “They don’t recognize the borders. They never have. They never will,” said the director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council.

And it is in Pashtunistan where all the enemies of the United States reside.

This is extremely beneficial for terrorist groups and other insurgents. Al Qaeda, one of the world’s most dangerous terrorist groups, can scheme a plot in Pakistan, and then carry it out in Afghanistan. Their fighters can also flee back across the border to Pakistan where they will be safe.

On the other hand, this border-crossing is not permitted for the US soldiers. The US has to respect the borders between Afghanistan and Pakistan and cannot cross with impunity, taking away the option of fighting in both Afghanistan and Pakistan simultaneously.

It can also be frustrating for American soldiers who have seen Taliban members gloating and brandishing their weapons from across the border in Pakistan, with the US unable to open fire.

“Our rules said we couldn’t follow them and we couldn’t shoot at them unless they shot at us. The only ones who recognized the border were us, with our G.P.S.” said a military officer who served from 2003-4.

A Predator drone aircraft

What the Americans can do in Pakistan though is increase the number of drone aircraft missile strikes. Drones are unmanned planes that are piloted by someone on the ground far from the action. These drones  provide “precise” missile strikes on dangerous insurgent hotspots, but innocent civilians are often killed in these attacks.

President Obama said in his speech about Afghanistan that the US would increase its amount of drone strikes in Pakistan to supplement the troop surge.

America wants to target Baluchistan, a region in Pakistan on the eastern border of Pakistan where the city of Quetta is located. Quetta is close to the border and Afghan Taliban leaders plot missions there, safe from attack, and then execute them in Afghanistan. As of now, Pakistan hasn’t allowed America to bomb Baluchistan.

American war strategists have long talked about a “hammer and anvil” type strategy to get rid of the Taliban. This strategy would have the American and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) forces acting as the hammer and the Pakistani military would be the anvil, a solid backbone to confine and eliminate the insurgents.

“We finally have an opportunity to do a real hammer-and-anvil strategy on the border.” We’ve never done it before because we’ve had insufficient strength on both sides of the border or insufficient political will on the Pakistani side,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior at the Brookings Institution, which closely follows the Afghan war.

Before the Pakistani military had been reluctant to engage in a full-fledged fight against the Taliban, but a recent attack in the Swat Valley in northeastern Pakistan, and recent attacks in North and South Waziristan in western Pakistan, have shown that Pakistan is finally committed to the fight.

The Americans will focus on controlling Helmand, Kandahar and the eastern Afghan city Khost to sandwich the Taliban in a no-man’s land between American and Pakistani forces.

In a region where the Pashtuns have so much influence it is crucial that the Americans and the Afghan and Pakistani governments appear victors to the Pashtuns.

Before Pakistan had a history of nurturing extremists to fight against Pakistan’s arch rival India, but recently these extremists have turned against the country, causing the government to rethink that habit.

The Pakistani Taliban have assassinated former president Benazir Bhutto, attacked army headquarters and on Friday killed 36 worshippers at a mosque.

Coming back to the Pashtuns, these indigenous people have historically offered their support to what they see as the winning side, and in a region where the Pashtuns have so much influence it is crucial that the Americans and the Afghan and Pakistani governments appear victors to the Pashtuns. Otherwise they would lose the support of an already increasingly disengaged public against the Taliban.

In the article “The Demons that Haunt the Pakistanis,” Sabrina Tavernise talked to a Pakistani psychiatrist about why anti-American feelings run so deep in Pakistan.

Obviously Pakistan dislikes the US’s missile program. Who would like another country, hated by most civilians, using missiles to attack people that Pakistanis don’t even really see as the enemy and that have killed many a civilian?

Pakistan sees US as being a part of Indian and Jewish cultural group that they so vehemently dislike.

The partition between India and Pakistan left many dead and homeless in Pakistan.

Pakistan gained its independence from India in 1947 in a bloody war that killed hundreds of thousands. While India ended its feudal system and worked on improving their economy, Pakistan remained entrenched in their way of feudal privileges and experienced numerous political upheavals. In short, India has progressed while Pakistan has stayed the same.

The US has grown increasingly frustrated with Pakistan because the US thinks that Pakistan is being silly by devoting so much of their time and resources towards skirmishes near the border of Kashmir with India instead of Afghanistan on the western border.

But it is understandable that Pakistan remains focused on India because Afghanistan has traditionally been a country that Pakistan can influence, Pakistan and India have fought many wars and India keeps many troops on the border.

The national media also plays a role in the public’s general dislike of America. Conspiracy theories abound everywhere and there is a high level of paranoia in the Pakistan government.

In conclusion, we can learn that the locals, both Pashtuns and the Pakistani public alike play a large part in war efforts. Whether or not the Pashtuns help the American, NATO and Afghan military forces could play a role in the war against the Taliban. Also, Pakistan’s opinion towards the United States is slowly warming and President Obama needs cooperation from the Pakistan government and their military to help surround the Taliban on Pakistan’s western border.

The Top 5 Points from Barack’s Speech

On Tuesday night in front of a national tv audience President Barack Obama announced his decision on the number of new troops that would be sent to Afghanistan and the United States’ revamped military plan in general. In his speech Obama said that 30,000 troops would be sent to Afghanistan, but in eighteen months, or the middle of 2011, he would start withdrawing the US forces. The troops would be sent to southern and eastern Afghanistan, where the Taliban plague the American forces and the Afghan people. Obama outlined a strategy that would attempt to break the Taliban’s power thus making the country safer for its civilians, give the Afghan government and military time to improve and limit Al Qaeda’s power.

In watching parts of the speech and reading news articles (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the LA Times and CNN) I came up with a list of the five most important points.

1. Obama’s most important foreign policy decision

President Obama took three months to come to a decision about Afghanistan. The war, which started with an American invasion in 2001, has been deteriorating and the Taliban have gained strong footholds in south and east Afghanistan. Obama is losing support from the American people over this war because they see it as unnecessary and would rather he focus on fixing up the economy. Obviously if he deliberated  for three months he realized the importance of his decision that essentially made Afghanistan his war, just like Iraq was Bush’s war.

President Barack Obama delivers a speech about Afghanistan from West Point Tuesday night.

2. Nothing new here

While Obama’s speech Tuesday night was important, the plan he outlined was not a new strategy, but a greater commitment to the strategy that he put in place earlier this year. The 30,000 American forces that will be added will fight the Taliban’s growing strength while training local militias and the Afghan police and military force. The Americans will push Afghanistan’s corrupt government to clean itself up and will aid their economy. The American’s are fighting, but just as importantly they are working to set up a functional infrastructure so that when we pull out Afghanistan will be able to survive on its own.

3. Withdrawal date = unexpected/harming

President Obama said in his speech that troops would start coming home by 2011. He had never mentioned before a date when American troops would start coming home, and has for the most part supported the war in Afghanistan, so such a firm withdrawal date was surprising. This decision illustrates how America does not want to get too involved in Afghanistan while putting the pressure on President Hamid Karzai and the Afghan government.

But some see setting a withdrawal date as counterproductive to the American counterinsurgency. “A withdrawal date only emboldens Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, while dispiriting our Afghan partners and making it less likely that they will risk their lives to take our side in this fight,” said Arizona senator and presidential candidate runner-up John McCain. If Al Qaeda and the Taliban know exactly when Americans will start pulling out they  will take advantage of it and the already inadequate Afghanistan national police force might be tempted to save their own skins.

President Hamid Karzai and the Afghanistan government are known for corruption.

4. It’s ultimately on Karzai

Despite all the talk and 30,000 new American troops soon coming to help out, America can only do so much. The US troops will be pulling out in a year and a half, so it will be up to Hamid Karzai and the Afghanistan government, accused as being one of the most corrupt governments in the world. Obama threw down the challenge, but in the end Karzai’s actions will determine the outlook of the country. “The days of providing a blank check are over,” Obama said about the Afghan government.

5. Compromise

Obama’s decision of 30,000 troops and a withdrawal date shows his compromise over committing to chief Afghanistan general Stanley McChrystal’s plan of 40,000 plus new troops and fighting until success and a more limited engagement in Afghanistan. He pleased and angered both Democrats and Republicans alike with his announcement.

It will be a few months before all 30,000 troops will be deployed to Afghanistan so we shouldn’t be too quick to draw conclusions. But it is important that we continue to follow the effects of the troop surge and strategy in the coming weeks.

American troop deaths in Afghanistan

The following article (and image) is a summary of an article in the Wednesday edition of the Wall Street Journal, infused with a little bit of my own analysis. The original article can be found here.

The new American troops that will be deployed to Afghanistan, expected to be around 30,000, will focus on securing the south and especially the city of Kandahar. Kandahar has been overrun by the Taliban, the violent Islamic extremist political organization that the United States has been trying to rid Afghanistan of since the US invaded in 2001.

President Obama is expected to formally announce the new military strategy and the number of new troops next Tuesday.

The US Afghanistan general, Stanley McChrystal, will have his plan of refocusing troop efforts from the expansive rural areas to the urban areas in the south put to the test. Before, the existing 68,000 American troops had been spread thin throughout the rural territory that dominates most of Afghanistan. Now there will be more troops in a smaller area.

Relating McChrystal’s plan to Kandahar, the Taliban’s main power base, will entail pulling troops scattered about southern Afghanistan into a tight rope around the outskirts of the city. By concentrating the troops in specific cities, commanders hope to avoid less important fights.

The number of troops in Kandahar is expected to increase by 50% and the area they are supposed to control has been reduced by 90%.

One may ask, “how did the Taliban get to be so powerful in Kandahar?” and “why has America allowed this to happen?” The reality is that the US military shares a little bit of the blame, but some aspects are out of their hands. For one, the Taliban’s Islamic movement got started in Kandahar, so that matter is out of the US’s control. The southern region of Afghanistan has always been infested with Taliban influence because its roots are in this area.

But, despite America’s knowledge of its already daunting task, it was negligent. Even though about 30,000 American troops are stationed in the south and there is a large allied base at the airfield just outside Kandahar, little attention was paid to the city itself. This allowed the Taliban to be able to leak back into the city.

This new strategy acknowledges that the summertime plan of a few thousand Americans and Canadians stationed outside Kandahar failed to prevent the Taliban from gaining a foothold in the city.

Besides protecting citizens of Kandahar from death by Taliban, another goal will be to secure the major highways passing through Kandahar that lead to neighboring country Pakistan and southern Afghanistan. Currently Taliban insurgents set up illegal checkpoints along these highways that force people to pay some sort of tribute. The lack of safety along these roads hurts an already faltering economy and the credibility of the Afghan government. The Afghan government is especially vulnerable right now because of the disputed presidential elections that resulted in Hamid Karzai being reelected.

It is also important that the highways connecting Kandahar and Pakistan, which is to the west, are secure. Pakistan is also an incredibly dangerous country, too, with a lot of Taliban influence in its mountains. Illegal insurgent trade between Pakistan and Kandahar via these highways would be detrimental.

The new military strategy will also have more troops protecting a province right next to Kandahar in the south called the Helmand province. Going with the idea of emphasizing troops in urban cities, the Helmand and Kandahar areas make up about 2 of the 3 million people living in southern Afghanistan.

The US also plans to boost Kandahar’s economy and create new jobs to convince people that the Afghan government running the country is a better option than the Taliban running the country. The US will spend about $20 million on farm and jobs and electrical projects while Canada will shell out roughly $50 million on an irrigation system.

The following is purely factual and is based off an article from The Wall Street Journal. The original article can be found here.

On Sunday Iran started an air-defense military exercise that will last five days. This military exercise is in defiance of the West, which has been pressuring Iran about its nuclear program. Iran also warned Israel that any attacks would be answered with military strikes of its own.

Brigadier General Ahmad Mighani, the head of Iran’s air defense, confirmed the exercise Sunday and said it was to protect Iran’s nuclear program from attack.

When asked on Sunday about possible attacks from Israel on Iran’s nuclear program senior Revolutionary guard officer Mojtaba Zolnour said “If the enemy tries its luck and fires a missile into Iran, our ballistic missiles would zero in on Tel Aviv before the dust settles on the attack.” Clearly Iran is intent on protecting its nuclear infrastructure facilities.

Just last month Israel conducted its own air-defense military exercise with US troops.

The air-defense exercise was in the face of increasing pressure from the United States, France, Russia and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to negotiate a peaceful nuclear energy project for Iran. The proposed deal that Iran has not accepted would have had Iran send out its uranium for enrichment to Russia, which would then be returned to be used in a medical research reactor.

Last week Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchechr Mottaki said that Iran would not have its uranium be enriched by Russia, but that it would still be open to talks about its nuclear program. Tehran, Iran’s capital, insists that its nuclear program is peaceful and is not for the construction of nuclear weapons.

Western powers, who fear that Iran is secretly trying to build weapons of mass destruction, saw the military exercise as yet another sign that they are rejecting the proposed nuclear exchange deal. President Obama reiterated that the US would put tough economic sanctions on Iran if signs continue to point towards nuclear weapons and not a peaceful nuclear program.

The Community Defense Initiative is a risky and ambitious plan to slow down the Taliban, which has seen the most military success since the Americans invaded Afghanistan back in 2001.

The militias also have the potential to revitalize an increasingly demoralized population because of the Taliban’s resurgence and unite the people.

If the militias are successful it could mean that President Barack Obama wouldn’t have to send over as many troops to Afghanistan and it would give the Afghan government a buffer period to train a dependable police force .

The main risk with all these militias is that they could turn on each other and the American military and Afghan government. If the militias went rogue they could basically become warlords and destabilize an already volatile country in the process.

The first phase would be for the American Special Forces soldiers to support the militias in areas with populations of upwards of 1 million people.

Right now the Americans and Afghanis have different ideas with where this plan is going. The American Special Forces are training small scale militias to defend their villages. The Afghan government is in support of larger scale militias, but this strategy backfired in the city of Kunduz. The militias, made up of Uzbeks and Pashtuns drove the Taliban out of the city, but then established themselves as the power and started collecting taxes from the people. This behavior is ultimately destabilizing the country and proves no better than the Taliban.

Tens of thousands of hospitals, schools, bridges, water treatment plants and electricity stations have been built since the US invasion in 2003. American officials fear that Iraq won’t be able to maintain these facilities and waste a lot of American money.

This issue is important because there are upcoming elections in January and reconstruction is seen to be as critical as national security on Iraq’s political agenda.

There are many reasons why the reconstruction program is failing. One reason is there is a lack of trained workers, especially at hospitals. Many newly built hospitals are only half or a third staffed because people can’t work the high tech equipment. Hundreds of thousands of skilled Iraqi workers have either been killed or fled the country during the war.

Another reason is that the Iraqi government doesn’t have the money to maintain American funded facilities and build new facilities. The Iraqi government faces a budget deficit and revenues from oil are not as strong because the prices are decreasing. It is unclear where the $400 billion the Iraqi government needs for reconstruction will come from.

While the government struggles with its own reconstruction plan the Americans continue to leave the country as the Obama administration works to pull out troops. These people take away money, equipment and expertise, all of which the Iraqis lack in their reconstruction program.