Showing posts with label foreign aid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign aid. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Post No. 116a: Article of Interest: U.S. Sends Emergency Aid to Pakistan
We just came across an article indicating that the United States is about to send emergency aid to Pakistan. Several questions:
1. Should the U.S. send aid to Pakistan during the current economic slowdown?
2. Should the U.S. have sent aid to Pakistan one year ago, before the economic slowdown became apparent?
3. Without performing the research to determine the answer, where do you believe the U.S. stands in rank (in terms of percentage of GDP) in providing foreign aid?
4. Do you believe that it is ever appropriate to provide foreign aid to other countries if there are hard working, law abiding, tax paying U.S. citizens giving it their all, who are having difficulty making financial ends meet?
5. Should the U.S. have anticipated the current unrest in Pakistan when the U.S. encouraged the former "President" and military leader to step down, and return control to civilians in order to allow democracy to work?
Monday, August 25, 2008
Post No. 36e: Article of Interest from New York Times.com
The following article appeared in the Wednesday, August 20, 2008 electronic edition of the New York Times. With all of the chatter last week about the Olympics, missing little girls, the tail end of the John Edwards infidelity story, the conflict between the Russian Federation and the State of Georgia, and the selection vice-presidential running mates, how did we manage to miss this one?
August 20, 2008
By CARLOTTA GALL and SANGAR RAHIMI
BAMIYAN, Afghanistan — Taliban insurgents mounted their most serious attacks in six years of fighting in Afghanistan over the last two days, including a coordinated assault by at least 10 suicide bombers against one of the largest American military bases in the country, and another by about 100 insurgents who killed 10 elite French paratroopers.
The attack on the French, in a district near Kabul, added to the sense of siege around the capital and was the deadliest single loss for foreign troops in a ground battle since the United States-led invasion chased the Taliban from power in 2001.
Taken together, the attacks were part of a sharp escalation in fighting as insurgents have seized a window of opportunity to press their campaign this summer — taking advantage of a wavering NATO commitment, an outgoing American administration, a flailing Afghan government and a Pakistani government in deep disarray that has given the militants freer rein across the border.
As a result, this year is on pace to be the deadliest in the Afghan war so far, as the insurgent attacks show rising zeal and sophistication. The insurgents are employing not only a growing number of suicide and roadside bombs, but are also waging increasingly well-organized and complex operations using multiple attackers with different types of weapons, NATO officials say.
NATO and American military officials place blame for much of the increased insurgent activity on the greater freedom of movement the militants have in Pakistan’s tribal areas on the Afghan border. The turmoil in the Pakistani government, with the resignation of President Pervez Musharraf on Monday, has added to the sense of a vacuum of authority there.
But at least as important, the officials say, is the fact that Pakistan’s military has agreed to a series of peace deals with the militants under which it stopped large-scale operations in the tribal areas in February, allowing the insurgents greater freedom to train, recruit and carry out attacks into Afghanistan.
More foreign fighters are entering Afghanistan this summer than in previous years, NATO officials say, an indication that Al Qaeda and allied groups have been able to gather more foreigners in their tribal redoubts.
The push by the insurgents has taken a rising toll. Before the attack on Monday, 173 foreign soldiers had been killed in Afghanistan this year, including 99 Americans. In all of 2007, 232 foreign troops were killed, the highest number since the war began in 2001.
The attack with multiple suicide bombers, which struck Camp Salerno in the eastern province of Khost, wounded three American soldiers and six members of the Afghan Special Forces, Afghan officials said. It was one of the most complex attacks yet in Afghanistan, and included a backup fighting force that tried to breach defenses to the airport at the base.
The assault followed a suicide car bombing at the outer entrance to the same base on Monday morning, which killed 12 Afghan workers lining up to enter the base, and another attempted bombing that was thwarted later.
A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahed, reached by telephone at an unknown location, said the attack was carried out by 15 suicide bombers, each equipped with machine guns and explosives vests, and backed by 30 more militants.
He also claimed that some of the bombers had breached the walls of the base and had killed a number of American soldiers and destroyed equipment and helicopters. This last claim was denied by Gen. Zaher Azimi of the Afghan military.
The insurgents began attacking with rockets and mortars at 11 p.m. Monday, and a group of militants began to move toward the airport side of the base, the Afghan military said. An Afghan commando unit encircled them, killing 13 militants, including 10 who were wearing suicide vests, General Azimi said.
A fierce battle raged through much of the night, until 7 a.m. Tuesday, said Arsala Jamal, the governor of Khost. American helicopter strikes against the militants, who were moving through a cornfield around the base, also struck a house in a village, killing two children and wounding two women and two men, the provincial police chief, Abdul Qayum Baqizoy, said.
The attack on the French also began late Monday and continued into Tuesday, after they were ambushed by an unusually large insurgent force while on a joint reconnaissance mission with the Afghan Army in the district of Sarobi, 30 miles east of Kabul, according to a NATO statement.
The French soldiers, part of an elite paratrooper unit, had only recently taken over from American forces in the area as part of the expanded French deployment in Afghanistan under President Nicolas Sarkozy.
In addition to the 10 French soldiers killed, 21 were wounded, the NATO statement said. It was the deadliest attack on French troops since a 1983 assault in Beirut killed 58 French paratroopers serving in a United Nations force.
The latest casualties bring to 24 the number of French troops killed in Afghanistan since they were first sent there in 2002.
The Taliban have seemingly made it part of their strategy to attack newly arriving forces, as well as those of NATO countries whose commitment to the war has appeared to waver, in an effort to influence public opinion in Europe. NATO countries have been under increasing pressure from the United States to increase their troop commitments to Afghanistan, which many have been hesitant to do.
The Taliban’s surge in attacks also comes at a delicate moment in American political life, as the departing Bush administration will have to hand over control of the war to a new president, whose administration will need time to get up to speed.
But Mr. Sarkozy, who has been a strong supporter of the United States, made it clear that the French would be undeterred.
“In its struggle against terrorism, France has just been hard hit,” Mr. Sarkozy said in a statement. He arrived in Kabul on Wednesday, according to Reuters, a trip he made to reassure French troops that “France is at their side.”
But Mr. Sarkozy said France would not be deterred from its Afghan mission, where 3,000 troops are serving in a NATO force of more than 40,000 soldiers from nearly 40 nations.
“My determination is intact,” he said. “France is committed to pursuing the struggle against terrorism, for democracy and for freedom. This is a just cause; it is an honor for France and for its army to defend it.”
The Sarobi District has been the scene of a growing number of insurgent attacks in recent months, most thought to be instigated by fighters loyal to the renegade mujahedeen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who is allied with the Taliban but not formally part of the movement.
Mr. Hekmatyar, who NATO officials say is based in Pakistan, has increased his militant activity in northeast Afghanistan and around Kabul, while the Taliban, foreign fighters and Al Qaeda have accelerated their attacks in the east, southeast and south.
The increase in insurgent activity northeast of Kabul is part of an attempt by the insurgents to encircle the capital and put pressure on the Afghan government and the foreign forces, some NATO and Afghan officials say.
Insurgent activity has also increased sharply in recent months in Logar and Wardak Provinces, south of the capital, sometimes making the main roads impassable.
The deployment of elite French troops to the area was intended to reinforce the Afghan Army and help keep the insurgent threat to the capital at bay. General Azimi, the Afghan military spokesman, said two companies of Afghan Army soldiers were sent in at dawn to assist the French.
In all, about 27 Taliban were believed to have been killed in the clash in the Sarobi District, around Uzbin, he said. Thirteen insurgents were later found dead on the battlefield, including a Pakistani fighter, he said.
Carlotta Gall reported from Bamiyan, and Sangar Rahimi from Kabul, Afghanistan. Steven Erlanger contributed reporting from Paris.
August 20, 2008
Taliban Escalate Fighting With Assault on U.S. Base
By CARLOTTA GALL and SANGAR RAHIMI
BAMIYAN, Afghanistan — Taliban insurgents mounted their most serious attacks in six years of fighting in Afghanistan over the last two days, including a coordinated assault by at least 10 suicide bombers against one of the largest American military bases in the country, and another by about 100 insurgents who killed 10 elite French paratroopers.
The attack on the French, in a district near Kabul, added to the sense of siege around the capital and was the deadliest single loss for foreign troops in a ground battle since the United States-led invasion chased the Taliban from power in 2001.
Taken together, the attacks were part of a sharp escalation in fighting as insurgents have seized a window of opportunity to press their campaign this summer — taking advantage of a wavering NATO commitment, an outgoing American administration, a flailing Afghan government and a Pakistani government in deep disarray that has given the militants freer rein across the border.
As a result, this year is on pace to be the deadliest in the Afghan war so far, as the insurgent attacks show rising zeal and sophistication. The insurgents are employing not only a growing number of suicide and roadside bombs, but are also waging increasingly well-organized and complex operations using multiple attackers with different types of weapons, NATO officials say.
NATO and American military officials place blame for much of the increased insurgent activity on the greater freedom of movement the militants have in Pakistan’s tribal areas on the Afghan border. The turmoil in the Pakistani government, with the resignation of President Pervez Musharraf on Monday, has added to the sense of a vacuum of authority there.
But at least as important, the officials say, is the fact that Pakistan’s military has agreed to a series of peace deals with the militants under which it stopped large-scale operations in the tribal areas in February, allowing the insurgents greater freedom to train, recruit and carry out attacks into Afghanistan.
More foreign fighters are entering Afghanistan this summer than in previous years, NATO officials say, an indication that Al Qaeda and allied groups have been able to gather more foreigners in their tribal redoubts.
The push by the insurgents has taken a rising toll. Before the attack on Monday, 173 foreign soldiers had been killed in Afghanistan this year, including 99 Americans. In all of 2007, 232 foreign troops were killed, the highest number since the war began in 2001.
The attack with multiple suicide bombers, which struck Camp Salerno in the eastern province of Khost, wounded three American soldiers and six members of the Afghan Special Forces, Afghan officials said. It was one of the most complex attacks yet in Afghanistan, and included a backup fighting force that tried to breach defenses to the airport at the base.
The assault followed a suicide car bombing at the outer entrance to the same base on Monday morning, which killed 12 Afghan workers lining up to enter the base, and another attempted bombing that was thwarted later.
A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahed, reached by telephone at an unknown location, said the attack was carried out by 15 suicide bombers, each equipped with machine guns and explosives vests, and backed by 30 more militants.
He also claimed that some of the bombers had breached the walls of the base and had killed a number of American soldiers and destroyed equipment and helicopters. This last claim was denied by Gen. Zaher Azimi of the Afghan military.
The insurgents began attacking with rockets and mortars at 11 p.m. Monday, and a group of militants began to move toward the airport side of the base, the Afghan military said. An Afghan commando unit encircled them, killing 13 militants, including 10 who were wearing suicide vests, General Azimi said.
A fierce battle raged through much of the night, until 7 a.m. Tuesday, said Arsala Jamal, the governor of Khost. American helicopter strikes against the militants, who were moving through a cornfield around the base, also struck a house in a village, killing two children and wounding two women and two men, the provincial police chief, Abdul Qayum Baqizoy, said.
The attack on the French also began late Monday and continued into Tuesday, after they were ambushed by an unusually large insurgent force while on a joint reconnaissance mission with the Afghan Army in the district of Sarobi, 30 miles east of Kabul, according to a NATO statement.
The French soldiers, part of an elite paratrooper unit, had only recently taken over from American forces in the area as part of the expanded French deployment in Afghanistan under President Nicolas Sarkozy.
In addition to the 10 French soldiers killed, 21 were wounded, the NATO statement said. It was the deadliest attack on French troops since a 1983 assault in Beirut killed 58 French paratroopers serving in a United Nations force.
The latest casualties bring to 24 the number of French troops killed in Afghanistan since they were first sent there in 2002.
The Taliban have seemingly made it part of their strategy to attack newly arriving forces, as well as those of NATO countries whose commitment to the war has appeared to waver, in an effort to influence public opinion in Europe. NATO countries have been under increasing pressure from the United States to increase their troop commitments to Afghanistan, which many have been hesitant to do.
The Taliban’s surge in attacks also comes at a delicate moment in American political life, as the departing Bush administration will have to hand over control of the war to a new president, whose administration will need time to get up to speed.
But Mr. Sarkozy, who has been a strong supporter of the United States, made it clear that the French would be undeterred.
“In its struggle against terrorism, France has just been hard hit,” Mr. Sarkozy said in a statement. He arrived in Kabul on Wednesday, according to Reuters, a trip he made to reassure French troops that “France is at their side.”
But Mr. Sarkozy said France would not be deterred from its Afghan mission, where 3,000 troops are serving in a NATO force of more than 40,000 soldiers from nearly 40 nations.
“My determination is intact,” he said. “France is committed to pursuing the struggle against terrorism, for democracy and for freedom. This is a just cause; it is an honor for France and for its army to defend it.”
The Sarobi District has been the scene of a growing number of insurgent attacks in recent months, most thought to be instigated by fighters loyal to the renegade mujahedeen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who is allied with the Taliban but not formally part of the movement.
Mr. Hekmatyar, who NATO officials say is based in Pakistan, has increased his militant activity in northeast Afghanistan and around Kabul, while the Taliban, foreign fighters and Al Qaeda have accelerated their attacks in the east, southeast and south.
The increase in insurgent activity northeast of Kabul is part of an attempt by the insurgents to encircle the capital and put pressure on the Afghan government and the foreign forces, some NATO and Afghan officials say.
Insurgent activity has also increased sharply in recent months in Logar and Wardak Provinces, south of the capital, sometimes making the main roads impassable.
The deployment of elite French troops to the area was intended to reinforce the Afghan Army and help keep the insurgent threat to the capital at bay. General Azimi, the Afghan military spokesman, said two companies of Afghan Army soldiers were sent in at dawn to assist the French.
In all, about 27 Taliban were believed to have been killed in the clash in the Sarobi District, around Uzbin, he said. Thirteen insurgents were later found dead on the battlefield, including a Pakistani fighter, he said.
Carlotta Gall reported from Bamiyan, and Sangar Rahimi from Kabul, Afghanistan. Steven Erlanger contributed reporting from Paris.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Post No. 24: What Constitutes American Interests Abroad?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
For years, all of us have heard discussions about protecting American interests abroad. We spend a significant amount of our tax dollars in foreign aid, and in connection with various military operations. Earlier this week, we learned that we are supplying North Korea with fuel oil as part of an agreement in connection with its relinquishment of certain aspects of its nuclear program. It also appears that we have been providing North Korea with food for some time now.
We obviously had some concerns about its potential use of nuclear power, and the possible sale of nuclear weapons or enriched plutonium to others. However, have you ever really taken the time to think about what constitutes American interests? Can those interests be generically described as anything that keeps America strong and safe, and perpetuates our position as the dominant superpower? What limits exist, if any, on the exercise of our power in terms of our involvement with other countries?
This is not the kind of stuff about which the average citizen speaks during the course of an ordinary week. However, this analysis is being conducted on a more frequent basis by the common person in light of the state of international terrorism, and some of our recent ventures. Despite the cries of many, it has never been quite clear to me that we have been motivated by oil alone, although a plausible argument to that effect might be advanced. During the first Gulf War, over 82% of the American public supported our response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Did the American public feel that it was primarily about oil, or was it about a bully taking advantage of an ally of the United States?
Author Michael Scheuer appeared on a number of media outlets during the past week to promote his book. Scheuer served in the Central Intelligence Agency for over twenty years. He was the Chief of the Osama bin Laden unit from 1996 until 1999, and he also served as a special advisor to the unit for a three year period following 9/11. Last weekend, he appeared on C-Span2 Book TV (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9227&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No) to discuss his most recent work, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq (http://books.google.com/books?id=qjWdGAAACAAJ&dq=%22marching+toward+hell%22&ei=VcJtSLO2IIHAigHO3sGPBg).
During his discussion, Scheuer suggested that the current Administration, and its supporters, have characterized or framed the underlying motivation of radical Islamic extremists, our rather amorphous enemy, as trying to destroy our “Western way of life.” Having studied the messages communicated by this element over many years, particularly Osama bin Laden, Scheuer disputes this theory. He suggests that the real underlying motivation is that they find American intrusion into their society, and presence in their lands, as offensive, and they simply want us out. He claims that they could care less about our music, and freedom, and our ability to wear short skirts in a free society. (He further suggests that if we were to ratchet up the use of force, and actually function like a superpower, we would be better off.)
Be that as it may, what was most intriguing about Scheuer’s discussion was his analysis of whether the United States really has any significant interests in various locations. In a number of instances, he noted that if one removed oil from the picture, the United States would not have any interests worth the sacrifice of the lives of our soldiers. This naturally led us to consider whether there are other interests of the United States, other than those energy or economically related, which we might justifiably seek to protect abroad. In this regard, we pose the following questions:
1. Are there interests that the United States has in Haiti, Zimbabwe, and Darfur?
2. What are those interests?
3. Should the United States do anything more than what it is currently doing in those regions of the world?
4. If so, would you support sending U.S. troops, whether unilaterally, or in conjunction with other nations, to any of those countries to assist the people in addressing their issues?
5. Do you think that the United States should continue to support Israel, and if so, for how long without some progress on the peace front?
We’d be interested in your thoughts. After all, this is your country, and you have an interest in what it does, where it goes, and how it spends your tax dollars. Don’t you?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
For years, all of us have heard discussions about protecting American interests abroad. We spend a significant amount of our tax dollars in foreign aid, and in connection with various military operations. Earlier this week, we learned that we are supplying North Korea with fuel oil as part of an agreement in connection with its relinquishment of certain aspects of its nuclear program. It also appears that we have been providing North Korea with food for some time now.
We obviously had some concerns about its potential use of nuclear power, and the possible sale of nuclear weapons or enriched plutonium to others. However, have you ever really taken the time to think about what constitutes American interests? Can those interests be generically described as anything that keeps America strong and safe, and perpetuates our position as the dominant superpower? What limits exist, if any, on the exercise of our power in terms of our involvement with other countries?
This is not the kind of stuff about which the average citizen speaks during the course of an ordinary week. However, this analysis is being conducted on a more frequent basis by the common person in light of the state of international terrorism, and some of our recent ventures. Despite the cries of many, it has never been quite clear to me that we have been motivated by oil alone, although a plausible argument to that effect might be advanced. During the first Gulf War, over 82% of the American public supported our response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Did the American public feel that it was primarily about oil, or was it about a bully taking advantage of an ally of the United States?
Author Michael Scheuer appeared on a number of media outlets during the past week to promote his book. Scheuer served in the Central Intelligence Agency for over twenty years. He was the Chief of the Osama bin Laden unit from 1996 until 1999, and he also served as a special advisor to the unit for a three year period following 9/11. Last weekend, he appeared on C-Span2 Book TV (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9227&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No) to discuss his most recent work, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq (http://books.google.com/books?id=qjWdGAAACAAJ&dq=%22marching+toward+hell%22&ei=VcJtSLO2IIHAigHO3sGPBg).
During his discussion, Scheuer suggested that the current Administration, and its supporters, have characterized or framed the underlying motivation of radical Islamic extremists, our rather amorphous enemy, as trying to destroy our “Western way of life.” Having studied the messages communicated by this element over many years, particularly Osama bin Laden, Scheuer disputes this theory. He suggests that the real underlying motivation is that they find American intrusion into their society, and presence in their lands, as offensive, and they simply want us out. He claims that they could care less about our music, and freedom, and our ability to wear short skirts in a free society. (He further suggests that if we were to ratchet up the use of force, and actually function like a superpower, we would be better off.)
Be that as it may, what was most intriguing about Scheuer’s discussion was his analysis of whether the United States really has any significant interests in various locations. In a number of instances, he noted that if one removed oil from the picture, the United States would not have any interests worth the sacrifice of the lives of our soldiers. This naturally led us to consider whether there are other interests of the United States, other than those energy or economically related, which we might justifiably seek to protect abroad. In this regard, we pose the following questions:
1. Are there interests that the United States has in Haiti, Zimbabwe, and Darfur?
2. What are those interests?
3. Should the United States do anything more than what it is currently doing in those regions of the world?
4. If so, would you support sending U.S. troops, whether unilaterally, or in conjunction with other nations, to any of those countries to assist the people in addressing their issues?
5. Do you think that the United States should continue to support Israel, and if so, for how long without some progress on the peace front?
We’d be interested in your thoughts. After all, this is your country, and you have an interest in what it does, where it goes, and how it spends your tax dollars. Don’t you?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)