Holbrooke’s Dayton II?

jaggu...it`s VIRGINS not GOATS Dude!!

Both Russia and America have been at the Afghan game since '50; previously in a suttle way but since 80's in a brutal manner.
None of the two has worked in a philantherapically or in a humane way. Both of these two are and were interested in the riches from Central Asian Republics.

Had they been interested in the betterment or amelioration of the Afghanis, the Americans should not have left them in the lurch after the TALIBANS+ALQAIDA finished the Russian might. No one is interested in DEMOCRACY, Education, Economic Development, Social Enhancement etc.

Shoud the American like to improve the lot of these people, they should bring in India in these discussions, so that all the outstanding disputes - Kashmir, Duran Line, Al-Qaida, Talibans, Terrorism etc are resolved by amicable give and take and peace restored in the area.

Would the U.S. be interested in this proposal? The answer is EMPHATIC - NO! America wants to keep its hedgemony in this area for its own ends.

Can the militants in Pakistan engage in anti national activities, if they have a say in Pakistan, and if they are not treated as outsiders? After all, there are some Taliban in Pakistan, who are Pakistani's. Cannot they be seen by themselves to have a voice in Pakistan, where their views are at least heard?

Entirely this deal between Government of Pakistan and peoples of Swat is long urge of implementation of Sharia law, that ultimately arise because of injustice, or so long, hard, unpaved way to get justice. This is basic thing that is ignored conciously or unconciously. It is important to make peace, welfare not only for peoples of Swat but also for Pakistan, Afghanistan and US also to probe deep, understand precisely so that reached a practiceable solution of this problem.

My guess is this is just the beginning.

Holbrooke will also involve, India, Iran, Uzbekistan and Russia as interested parties to find a multilateral solution to the Afghanistan-Pakistan(Taliban) problem that plagues the security of the world at large.

It will be interesting to see what role China plays.

i think nikos is correct to the core
there are people and people
afghans did not give into the red army which was coming from adjoining ussr
how will holbrook tame a revolution which has now been going on for 30 years since russian invasion in 80s
and my moral support is with the locals whatever you call them as it is their land and everyone else is an usurper and a criminal in international law too
mr holbrook is going to fid nothing to rock with in that place -it is kind of free spirited and brave -lolz

Michael Hirsh opinion is nothing more than the typical view of all those politically connected writers whose job is to present a rosy picture out of a failing U.S. foreign policy. Will Holbrook be "a bulldozer" and smooth out all opposition to the U.S. hegemonic control in that part of Central Asia where Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, and Attila the Hun could not? Certainly not.

Mr. Hirsh's comparison of Holbrook's success in Bosnia as a forecast to his expected success in Afghanistan and Pakistan is misplaced. Slobodan Milosevic could control the fighting Serbs in Bosnia, but there is nobody that control the Taliban who is ready to sit down and negotiate with the U.S. Holbrook, therefore, has no peace model to work in Central Asia, nor he understand the culture and history of the people in the region. And our history is that the U.S.
was mostly successful where it used the threat of intervention to achieve goals, rather than where intervened first, failed to win in the battlefield - except in the banana republics in the Caribbean- and continued in vain to threaten more military action to achieve at peace talks the same results it could not achieve militarily.

That is where the Holbrook mission is at this point. And the same process happened before in Vietnam and failed. The Vietnam War was at a stalemate - like Afghanistan today. Lyndon Johnson threaten that "if North Vietnam and the Viet Cong do not make peace with the U.S., they will be beaten in the battlefield," on quote. {By "peace" Johnson meant the
acceptance of the U.S. puppet regime in Saigon as legitimate]. Then Johnson sent additional U.S. troops to Vietnam [to bolster his threat], and dispatched his secretary of state to meet with North Vietnam's Le Duc Tho, hopelessly believing that his threats and bombing of Hanoi will scare Ho Chin Minh to "cry uncle." North Vietnam didn't budge.

Fast forward to Obama. He said the U.S cannot fail in Afghanistan [must win], threaten the deployment of 17.000 more troops there [like Johnson], and then dispatched Holbrook to accept the surrender of the Taliban. Does it look like a "deja vu" to Vietnam's failed policy? It certainly does. Will the Taliban get scared and "cry uncle" at Obama's threat? Like Ho Chin Minh, the Taliban won't budge.

Will Afghanistan become Holbrook's Dayton II? That sprinkle of euphemism may sound good metaphorically, but history will repeat itself in Afghanistan as it did in Vietnam - because those who do not know history are about to repeat the same mistakes their predecessors did in the past. Nikos Retsos, retired professor

Notwithstanding the fact thtat Mr. Hollbrooke is a seasoned diplomat with vast experience, the premise that his task in Afghnjstan has any , what to say many, similarities with his previous assignments, would be absolutely incorrect. Its not a dispute between Pakistan & Afghanistan , to start with.Its neither a dispute between US & Afghanistan or among the three of them,. This was not the case in the Bosnia. The war in Bosnia was indigi nous. Among the people of the area for local reasons & feudes. Waring forces were enemies for reasons which were historic, cultural and religeous, to some extent.

The scnario in Afghanistan is lot more complex . The war itself is not local. It has been imposed upon the waring factions.Non of them, the Afghanistan, Pakistan or the Taliban had any direct link to the cause of the conflict, the 9/11. But they have key roles to play. As host to the war, Afghanistan is the battle field or theater of the play. As a neigbour & front line ally Pakistan is the biggest stake holder in the war and the biggest gainer & the loser. Taliban are the lone or common enemy against whom all , NATO, US, Afghanistan & Pakistan are fighting an endless war.Remember, nevertheless, that Taliban are also not linked to the 9/11. They were host to the Al Qaeda and rulers of the country when the war started in 2001. Above all there was no Al Qaeda in Bosnia. That is to say, the ambassador has no previous experience what so ever, of dealing with Osama bin Laden and/ or his Al Qaeda. This can prove to be his biggest shortcoming in the days to come.

So it is abundently clear that the dynamics, chemistry & composition of the key factors of Bosnian war & the one in Afghanistan are distinctly different. So not only that we should not draw equations between the two, but also we should not expect miracles from Mr.Holbrooke. Dealing with Taliban and the Al Qaeda will however, irrespective of the results of his assignment in Afghanistan, will definitely boost his credentials... .

i think foreign policy is judged by whether it is sucessful or not -irrelevant of who makes it and the present one has shown itself to be dysfunctional and a failure -let petraeus and holbrooke and zardari try whathey can
it is widely proclaimed that there is a trinity of an unholy nature beween zardari -usa and karzai which led to the murder of miss benazir bhutto
only time will reveal the truth

Where the blazes was Hirsh with his new happy talk on al Qaeda when it was Bush in office? [Hirsh going only as far as to say that ''in the last six months'' high value ''al Qaeda targets''have been taken out,putting this squarely in Bushs' presidency without the need to blow a secret covert alliance between CIA and the Paks that was ruined by Sen.Feinstein [D-Ca] last week in her position on the Intel Committee].
Then too,Hirsh and Dickey utterly dismissed Annapolis because it was under a Bush administration. Its a new tune now,with lots of bells and whistles,but little substance. The US should not have HAD to drive in a ''Swat wedge''. It was due to the power of the jihadis in Pakistan that have allowed this condition to flourish.[the creation of the Swat autonomous ''region'' lay squarely within the confines of the Obama administration,and creates an odd paradox,since it was Hirsh who was bellyaching most loudly over a similar set-up in Iraq under the Sadrists when Bush was in office].
Holbrooke may be well intentioned,but is no magic bullet.

Unfortunately, this is a tired, trite story about the 'good guy' U.S. trying to coax its bought and puppet aalies to heel. It won't work 'cause the people of these countries don't really like the high-handed tactics of the u.S> and these allies. Hopefully our corporate media will get it one day! The peoples in these countries just want to support the families and live in peace and not have the U.S. settle scores with its enemies. These drone attack may have short turn successes, but indigenous movements usually prevail over time. So why cause so much misery for naught!!

I'm off the blogs for a while, but before i go, i want to share something. I worked for, donated to and voted for hillary in the primary and for barack in the general but today I can see someone else that could beat him in 2012. now a lot of things can and will occur between now and then and President Obama may have everything go his way and be un beatable. the guy i think can beat him is Governor Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota. This guy is great and has a hell of a chance to wind up as president. I would dearly love to see the choice come down to Barack and Tim. This would be the ultimate win/win situation. Sorry to comment off the article's subject but the blogs are limited.