What's new

IRAN PAKISTAN CHINA ALLIES?

fd24

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 23, 2011
5,864
0
10,168
U.S., Afghanistan Close to Deal Keeping U.S. Forces There Through 2024
Written by Michael Tennant
Monday, 22 August 2011 14:45
Although the Obama administration has made much of the fact that U.S. forces are scheduled to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014, it clearly has no intention of leaving that war-ravaged country to its own devices. In fact, plans are afoot to keep as many as 25,000 American troops in Afghanistan for at least a decade longer than the official deadline, according to the Daily Telegraph.

“America and Afghanistan are close to signing a strategic pact which would allow thousands of United States troops to remain in the country until at least 2024,” the London newspaper reports. “The agreement would allow not only military trainers to stay to build up the Afghan army and police, but also American special forces soldiers and air power to remain.” Both sides hope to seal the deal by December.

Some observers have commented that, in short, the American empire is not about to relinquish control over one of its satrapies. As former Indian diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar observed, “The ‘hidden agenda’ of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan can no longer be disowned. Quite obviously, the U.S. intends to plunge into the ‘great game’ in Central Asia.”

It is being helped in this process by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a former CIA asset installed by Washington who knows that he doesn’t stand a chance of retaining power — and, quite possibly, his own life — if the Americans go home. “Now that the U.S. drawdown has begun,” Bhadrakumar notes, “Karzai comes face to face with the stark reality that the Afghan forces are a macabre joke and cannot assume responsibilities for security even for one month.” He adds that despite the new more-or-less-official deadline of 2024 for U.S. withdrawal,

effectively, Karzai has conceded foreign occupation of his country on a permanent basis. Karzai is capitulating after beating war drums against the foreign presence for the past few years. He is left with no option and increasingly looks like a wounded hero from a Greek tragedy.

Acceding to American demands, however, poses its own dangers to the Karzai regime. For one thing, says the Telegraph, it “risks being rejected by the Taliban and derailing any attempt to coax them to the negotiating table, according to one senior member of Hamid Karzai’s peace council.” The Russian Ambassador to Kabul, Andrey Avetisyan, echoed these sentiments, telling the newspaper that “a complete withdrawal of foreign troops has been a precondition for any Taliban negotiations with Mr. Karzai’s government and the deal would wreck the currently distant prospect of a negotiated peace.”

External threats are also a concern. “The prospect of such a deal,” the Telegraph states, “has already been met with anger among Afghanistan’s neighbors including, publicly, Iran and, privately, Pakistan.” Bhadrakumar notes that China, too, has expressed its opposition to the arrangement. All of this is entirely understandable, especially given that, according to the paper, “many analysts also believe the American military would like to retain a presence close to Pakistan, Iran and China.” Some observers wonder if Americans would be comfortable with, say, Chinese troops stationed in Mexico, especially if China were routinely threatening the United States. U.S. officials, after all, are not shy about threatening military action against Iran, China, and Pakistan; and in Pakistan the U.S. military is already quite active, with or without the cooperation of Islamabad, as the raid that killed Osama bin Laden demonstrates.

American and Afghan officials are, as usual, relying on the now-standard bogeyman of terrorism to sell the deal to their respective populations and the world at large. Rangin Dadfar Spanta, Karzai’s top security adviser, told the Telegraph that “a longer-term [American] presence was crucial not only to build Afghan forces, but also to fight terrorism.” “We know we will be confronted with international terrorists,” Spanta observed, adding that “2014 is not the end of international terrorist networks and we have a common commitment to fight them. For this purpose also, the U.S. needs facilities.”

Avetisyan, whose government — the successor to that of the Soviet Union — might just know a thing or two about trying to tame Afghanistan, countered:

Afghanistan needs many other things apart from the permanent military presence of some countries. It needs economic help and it needs peace. Military bases are not a tool for peace.

I don’t understand why such bases are needed. If the job is done, if terrorism is defeated and peace and stability is [sic] brought back, then why would you need bases?

If the job is not done, then several thousand troops, even special forces, will not be able to do the job that 150,000 troops couldn’t do. It is not possible.

Indeed, if one were to follow Spanta’s line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, the United States would have to maintain a military presence in every country in the world in perpetuity, because every nation will always face — however remotely — the threat of international terrorism. That simply is not possible, either logistically or financially.

One might, in fact, argue that the existence of U.S. troops in foreign countries actually increases the likelihood of terrorism against America and the countries where its troops are stationed. Certainly that is the opinion of Bhadrakumar, who averred: “Peace will continue to elude Afghanistan and Pakistan will continue to boil as long as U.S. troops remain in the region.”

The Karzai regime isn’t the only government with much to lose by signing an agreement keeping American forces in Afghanistan until 2024. The administration of President Barack Obama, which assumed office under the assurance that it would be less imperialist than its predecessor, faces growing discontent at home over its foreign policy as well as its domestic policy. Press TV reports that the latest Rasmussen Reports poll found that “59 percent [of Americans] want troops to come home [from Afghanistan] immediately or within a year,” while a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll “showed that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting.” With numbers such as these, coupled with dismal approval ratings, analysts note that Obama surely faces an uphill battle for reelection next year if he proceeds with the Afghan deal

I would love to see china pakistan and iran draw closer to each other
 
Dont see why China want to ally with Iran and Pakistan at all, when they are both not as powerful and strong economy like China.

China is Pakistan ally to contain India and Iran ally because of natural resources, muslims brothers are getting to excited over China, when its China financing western nations economy and not Iran or Pakistan.
 
I don’t understand why such bases are needed. If the job is done, if terrorism is defeated and peace and stability is [sic] brought back, then why would you need bases?


ENEMY SEEKING and ENEMY MAKING is not limited to the radical islamists.
 
Dont see why China want to ally with Iran and Pakistan at all, when they are both not as powerful and strong economy like China.

China is Pakistan ally to contain India and Iran ally because of natural resources, muslims brothers are getting to excited over China, when its China financing western nations economy and not Iran or Pakistan.

read the article mate it will answer the questions that you pose
 
Look for Chinese input with regard to the US "new Silk Route" and the implications of the US Afghan Security agreement and the upcoming conferences in the near future, in two separate capitals, designed to endorse both these "ambitious" projects - both of which dsigned to side line China and her allies.



Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Pakistan, China relations are unique: Khar

* Foreign minister says both countries invested immensely for enhancement of friendship

BEIJING: Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said on Tuesday that Pakistan and China enjoyed unique relations and holding of dialogue was the ongoing process between the two countries.

Talking to media persons on arrival at the Beijing Capital International Airport, she said that leadership of both countries had invested immensely for enhancement of existing strong bonds of friendship.

She said Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had laid the foundation of these bilateral relations and now President Asif Ali Zardari was carrying forward these ties to new heights by frequently visiting China.

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani also paid several visits, she added. She pointed out that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to Pakistan in December last year was also an historic one as it helped in further enhancing the bilateral relations.

The foreign minister said the visit of Premier Wen played an important role in further deepening the depth of existing strong relationship.

She said, “This relationship strongly exists among peoples and governments of two countries and now we want to commensurate these ties with trade, economic and investment cooperation.” The foreign minister said that China was one of the countries with which Pakistan had signed Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and both the sides could get benefits from FTA. She arrived late on Tuesday evening on a two-day visit on the invitation of her Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi.

She said that Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi extended invitation to visit China during her meeting at Bali.

She pointed out that existing strong bonds of friendship between Pakistan and China were multi-faceted and covered all areas including defence, economic and trade ties. “We have strategic and robust relations with China,” she said, adding that one cannot bracket these ties with other countries.

At the Beijing Capital International Airport Khar was warmly greeted by Ambassador Masood Khan, senior diplomats from Pakistan Embassy and officials from Chinese Foreign Ministry. Earlier, Ambassador Masood Khan said, “This is a very important visit coming at a time when Pakistan and China enjoy enviable solidarity in all areas.” Khan pointed out that “the foreign minister’s visit will help us consolidate our strong ties and steer them towards even deeper strategic and political engagement and more productive economic cooperation”.

“It will be a meeting between time-tested and trusted friends and partners,” Khan said and added,” Naturally, regional and international situation will be reviewed by the two sides”.

Symbolically too, Ambassador Khan said, the visit is important because this will be Pakistan foreign minister’s first visit to China after assuming her office.

“The two sides will exchange views on consolidating and deepening the strategic cooperative partnership between China and Pakistan and on other regional and international issues that are of concern to both,” the Xinhua news agency quoted the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu while making the announcement of Khan’s visit
. app
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom