How do the majority of profitable Forex traders truly profit in the FX market? One way… they trade the news!
Forex News Trader was developed to give traders the edge they need to learn how to trade based on economic news events from around the world. The same edge the institutions use to make hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars in profit each year.
Forex News Trading will provide you with the information you need to give you a true insider’s understanding of the Forex markets. You will feel confident in your trading, and never doubt your trades again.
Does this mean you will win every trade? No, of course not, but armed with the knowledge Forex News Trader will provide you, you will never be afraid to take that next trade – as the odds will now be tipped in your favor.
Each and every month there are a tremendous number of news releases for the Off Exchange Retail Foreign Currency Market (FOREX). Many of these events and announcements move the markets considerably. But how do you properly capitalize on these moves? Get it wrong and you could be wiped out. Get it right and you can be in a small group of trading elite, consistently pulling pips out of the market each and every week.
by shoaib ahmed
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
U.S., Pakistan clash over crackdown on militants
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With Islamabad resisting U.S. pressure to crack down on militants, Washington is in a quandary as it seeks to balance military goals in the region without causing trouble for Pakistan's pro-American president.
Pakistan's efforts to oust the Afghan Taliban in its northwestern border areas are critical to U.S. attempts to roll back the Taliban campaign in neighboring Afghanistan where Washington is sending in 30,000 additional troops.
But in recent meetings with U.S. officials, diplomats say Pakistan's military and political leaders have pushed back against U.S. pressure, saying they cannot move too fast without provoking a backlash against President Asif Ali Zardari.
"Pakistan is willing to work with the United States but there is a need to understand and to not press Pakistan to a level where it could destabilize the region further due to lack of popular support," said Imran Gardezi, the press minister at Pakistan's embassy in Washington.
"This can't be done in a hurry. There is no quick fix or short-term solution," Gardezi added.
Underlining tensions with Islamabad over the pace of its military actions, Vice President Joe Biden said this week Pakistan had a "long way to go," particularly when it came to dismantling a militant network led by veteran militant commander Jalaluddin Haqqani.
"Are they doing enough? No," Biden told MSNBC in an interview on Tuesday, adding that Washington wanted Pakistan to "move on our mutual interest, which includes the Haqqani network and includes the Taliban in Pakistan. But this is a hell of a process."
In a letter delivered by his national security adviser last month to Zardari, President Barack Obama made clear Washington had other options if Pakistan did not cooperate in fighting Afghan Taliban factions seeking refuge in the border areas.
These options include increased pilotless drone attacks, which are very unpopular with the Pakistani public, as well as so-called hot pursuit exercises in which U.S. forces could track extremists who crossed over into Pakistan.
Zardari responded to Obama's letter, promising Pakistan's help but also making clear his country's own security concerns must be met and Washington must offer more military assistance and equipment, said one source with knowledge of the response.
"There is a disconnect on where American and Pakistani authorities are right now," said former CIA analyst Bruce Riedel, now with the Brookings Institution, a Washington thinktank.
Riedel said the administration was aware its options could affect Zardari and was also weighing Pakistan's logistical importance as Washington increases its troops in Afghanistan.
"I think what (military officials) Petraeus and Mullen are trying to do is just keep pushing the Pakistanis in the right direction without overplaying their hand. But it is tricky," added Riedel, who led a review in March of the Obama administration's strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Pakistan on Wednesday, following a trip earlier in the week by General David Petraeus, the head of U.S. forces in the region, who reiterated Obama's call for more action.
In public, most U.S. officials are cautious about criticizing Pakistan, and Special Representative Richard Holbrooke tiptoed around the issue when asked whether Islamabad was doing enough to tackle Afghan Taliban factions.
"Is it enough? Well, obviously we want them to do as much as they will do, but I am not going to sit here and demand of a sovereign country what they have to do," said Holbrooke. "They know what they should do in terms of their own interest and ours," he told the Council on Foreign Relations.
Holbrooke said he understood Pakistan's concerns that additional U.S. troops being sent to Afghanistan would likely push over more militants into the southwestern region of Pakistan, as it did in the U.S. campaign in 2001 and 2002.
"While it is far from perfect -- it's very complicated because there's so many moving parts -- we have really moved the ball forward here in terms of close coordination (with Pakistan)," said Holbrooke.
by shoaib ahmed
Pakistan's efforts to oust the Afghan Taliban in its northwestern border areas are critical to U.S. attempts to roll back the Taliban campaign in neighboring Afghanistan where Washington is sending in 30,000 additional troops.
But in recent meetings with U.S. officials, diplomats say Pakistan's military and political leaders have pushed back against U.S. pressure, saying they cannot move too fast without provoking a backlash against President Asif Ali Zardari.
"Pakistan is willing to work with the United States but there is a need to understand and to not press Pakistan to a level where it could destabilize the region further due to lack of popular support," said Imran Gardezi, the press minister at Pakistan's embassy in Washington.
"This can't be done in a hurry. There is no quick fix or short-term solution," Gardezi added.
Underlining tensions with Islamabad over the pace of its military actions, Vice President Joe Biden said this week Pakistan had a "long way to go," particularly when it came to dismantling a militant network led by veteran militant commander Jalaluddin Haqqani.
"Are they doing enough? No," Biden told MSNBC in an interview on Tuesday, adding that Washington wanted Pakistan to "move on our mutual interest, which includes the Haqqani network and includes the Taliban in Pakistan. But this is a hell of a process."
In a letter delivered by his national security adviser last month to Zardari, President Barack Obama made clear Washington had other options if Pakistan did not cooperate in fighting Afghan Taliban factions seeking refuge in the border areas.
These options include increased pilotless drone attacks, which are very unpopular with the Pakistani public, as well as so-called hot pursuit exercises in which U.S. forces could track extremists who crossed over into Pakistan.
Zardari responded to Obama's letter, promising Pakistan's help but also making clear his country's own security concerns must be met and Washington must offer more military assistance and equipment, said one source with knowledge of the response.
"There is a disconnect on where American and Pakistani authorities are right now," said former CIA analyst Bruce Riedel, now with the Brookings Institution, a Washington thinktank.
Riedel said the administration was aware its options could affect Zardari and was also weighing Pakistan's logistical importance as Washington increases its troops in Afghanistan.
"I think what (military officials) Petraeus and Mullen are trying to do is just keep pushing the Pakistanis in the right direction without overplaying their hand. But it is tricky," added Riedel, who led a review in March of the Obama administration's strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Pakistan on Wednesday, following a trip earlier in the week by General David Petraeus, the head of U.S. forces in the region, who reiterated Obama's call for more action.
In public, most U.S. officials are cautious about criticizing Pakistan, and Special Representative Richard Holbrooke tiptoed around the issue when asked whether Islamabad was doing enough to tackle Afghan Taliban factions.
"Is it enough? Well, obviously we want them to do as much as they will do, but I am not going to sit here and demand of a sovereign country what they have to do," said Holbrooke. "They know what they should do in terms of their own interest and ours," he told the Council on Foreign Relations.
Holbrooke said he understood Pakistan's concerns that additional U.S. troops being sent to Afghanistan would likely push over more militants into the southwestern region of Pakistan, as it did in the U.S. campaign in 2001 and 2002.
"While it is far from perfect -- it's very complicated because there's so many moving parts -- we have really moved the ball forward here in terms of close coordination (with Pakistan)," said Holbrooke.
by shoaib ahmed
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Clean-thinking America prepares to fire the starting gun in its dash for gas
Carbon dioxide is dangerous, says Lisa Jackson, administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is dangerous, like the growling exhaust pipe of a 25-year-old Chevy Corvette or the sulphurous plume from a coal-fired power station. Overnight, America has decided: carbon-dioxide pollution is a public health hazard and emitters will be shunned like cigarette smokers.
The EPA’s decision on Monday to treat CO2 as if it were a noxious poison was craved and dreaded in equal measure by climate activists and industrialists. It is a bombshell, more than just a public relations ploy to make President Obama look cool at the Copenhagen summit. It unleashes one of the toughest US regulators and gives it a mandate to go after heavy industry with compliance orders and fines. Power generators, oil refiners, chemical manufacturers and cement makers have been warned: the bloodhounds of the EPA will hunt you down and curb your emissions.
This is politics, of course. A lot must happen before the EPA begins to slap fines on recalcitrant power companies. The agency needs to draw up regulations that work — a monumental task. It needs to decide which CO2 abatement technologies are effective and affordable — at present, there are no commercial carbon-capture technologies, only government-subsidised pilot projects.
But make no mistake: this is the beginning of America’s puritanical crackdown on carbon. If you are surprised that the atmospheric gas that feeds the roses in your garden is being labelled a dangerous poison, remember that America doesn’t regulate its citizens with the gentle persuading hand of the Queen; it does so with the passion of the religious convert. If the EPA is unchallenged, carbon will be hunted down, in the tailpipes of cars in Los Angeles and in the stacks of power plants in Virginia
America’s electricity industry has reacted with alarm to Ms Jackson’s decision. The US is mostly powered by coal, a fossil fuel that accounts for 80 per cent of America’s abundant greenhouse gas emissions. America has enormous coal reserves — indeed Warren Buffett has just made a big bet on the coal industry, buying a controlling interest in Burlington Northern Santa Fe, a railroad group that trucks coal from mines in Wyoming to Texas and southern California.
There is an alternative to the EPA’s bloodhounds: two climate change Bills making their way through the US Congress would create cap-and-trade systems to offer incentives to industry to curb emissions. The two Bills are similar and both give huge exemptions to power companies in the form of free emission allowances. The American legislation is, in microcosm, what a new Copenhagen climate treaty might look like: a hotchpotch of complex regulation, extravagant concessions, get-out clauses and bribes to politically sensitive groups.
On the one hand, America has the hydroelectric-powered Washington State, where Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell waves the climate-change hockey stick. At the other end of the country, you have coal-fuelled states, such as Georgia, where a federal tax on top of the monthly utility bill spells political death. So, inequality in the carbon burden means taxing Pacific Coast liberals in order to subsidise coalmining rednecks.
It begs the question whether a climate change Bill is possible. That is where the threat of the EPA looms. In a landmark case in 2007, the Supreme Court found that CO2 was an air pollutant within the meaning of the America’s Clean Air act, opening the door for Monday’s statement by Ms Jackson. Climate activists have been waiting for this moment, when the EPA would aim its guns at Big Oil and Big Coal.
Mr Obama is probably not keen to let the EPA do its job. It would be a blunt instrument and politically dangerous, for the important reason that the EPA would be “fair”. Unlike a congressional Bill, with its tweaks, trade-offs and bungs, the EPA would regulate carbon, everywhere. There would be no concessions: every tonne, whether emitted by car, cow or chemical plant, would have to be measured and fined.
The impact on US industry would be harsh and investment would flee from energy-intensive industries. Carbon leakage to Asia would become a flood and, quickly, a hue and cry would build for stringent US tariffs on Chinese goods.
There would be another important consequence of an EPA audit of US industry and that would be a huge rush to natural gas. Coal has secured a get-out for the time being in the congressional Bills. Without special treatment, however, the only quick lower-carbon solution available to US power utilities is huge investment in efficient gas-fired generation plant. Gas produces a third of the CO2 emissions of coal and, after new discoveries, gas in the US is extremely cheap. If Ms Jackson has her way, this could be America’s big dash for gas.
by shoaib ahmed
The EPA’s decision on Monday to treat CO2 as if it were a noxious poison was craved and dreaded in equal measure by climate activists and industrialists. It is a bombshell, more than just a public relations ploy to make President Obama look cool at the Copenhagen summit. It unleashes one of the toughest US regulators and gives it a mandate to go after heavy industry with compliance orders and fines. Power generators, oil refiners, chemical manufacturers and cement makers have been warned: the bloodhounds of the EPA will hunt you down and curb your emissions.
This is politics, of course. A lot must happen before the EPA begins to slap fines on recalcitrant power companies. The agency needs to draw up regulations that work — a monumental task. It needs to decide which CO2 abatement technologies are effective and affordable — at present, there are no commercial carbon-capture technologies, only government-subsidised pilot projects.
But make no mistake: this is the beginning of America’s puritanical crackdown on carbon. If you are surprised that the atmospheric gas that feeds the roses in your garden is being labelled a dangerous poison, remember that America doesn’t regulate its citizens with the gentle persuading hand of the Queen; it does so with the passion of the religious convert. If the EPA is unchallenged, carbon will be hunted down, in the tailpipes of cars in Los Angeles and in the stacks of power plants in Virginia
America’s electricity industry has reacted with alarm to Ms Jackson’s decision. The US is mostly powered by coal, a fossil fuel that accounts for 80 per cent of America’s abundant greenhouse gas emissions. America has enormous coal reserves — indeed Warren Buffett has just made a big bet on the coal industry, buying a controlling interest in Burlington Northern Santa Fe, a railroad group that trucks coal from mines in Wyoming to Texas and southern California.
There is an alternative to the EPA’s bloodhounds: two climate change Bills making their way through the US Congress would create cap-and-trade systems to offer incentives to industry to curb emissions. The two Bills are similar and both give huge exemptions to power companies in the form of free emission allowances. The American legislation is, in microcosm, what a new Copenhagen climate treaty might look like: a hotchpotch of complex regulation, extravagant concessions, get-out clauses and bribes to politically sensitive groups.
On the one hand, America has the hydroelectric-powered Washington State, where Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell waves the climate-change hockey stick. At the other end of the country, you have coal-fuelled states, such as Georgia, where a federal tax on top of the monthly utility bill spells political death. So, inequality in the carbon burden means taxing Pacific Coast liberals in order to subsidise coalmining rednecks.
It begs the question whether a climate change Bill is possible. That is where the threat of the EPA looms. In a landmark case in 2007, the Supreme Court found that CO2 was an air pollutant within the meaning of the America’s Clean Air act, opening the door for Monday’s statement by Ms Jackson. Climate activists have been waiting for this moment, when the EPA would aim its guns at Big Oil and Big Coal.
Mr Obama is probably not keen to let the EPA do its job. It would be a blunt instrument and politically dangerous, for the important reason that the EPA would be “fair”. Unlike a congressional Bill, with its tweaks, trade-offs and bungs, the EPA would regulate carbon, everywhere. There would be no concessions: every tonne, whether emitted by car, cow or chemical plant, would have to be measured and fined.
The impact on US industry would be harsh and investment would flee from energy-intensive industries. Carbon leakage to Asia would become a flood and, quickly, a hue and cry would build for stringent US tariffs on Chinese goods.
There would be another important consequence of an EPA audit of US industry and that would be a huge rush to natural gas. Coal has secured a get-out for the time being in the congressional Bills. Without special treatment, however, the only quick lower-carbon solution available to US power utilities is huge investment in efficient gas-fired generation plant. Gas produces a third of the CO2 emissions of coal and, after new discoveries, gas in the US is extremely cheap. If Ms Jackson has her way, this could be America’s big dash for gas.
by shoaib ahmed
COMMENT: The real threat is America —Mohammad Jamil
The most significant part of Obama’s speech was his acknowledgement that “success in Afghanistan was inextricably linked to Washington’s partnership with Pakistan”. Secondly, he has satisfied his Generals by ordering deployment of 30,000 additional troops and also appeased the American public by announcing the pullout to start from 2011
Contradictory and conflicting statements from members of the Obama administration and US Generals smack of their bewilderment due to their failure in achieving their objectives in Afghanistan. The fact remains that the US-led invaders had descended on Afghanistan vowing to take Osama bin Laden dead or alive, finish off his al Qaeda network, topple the Taliban and get their leaders Mullah Omar and his senior companions, but except toppling the Taliban they failed on every count. They seem to be utterly confused and tend to confuse others with a view to keep them guessing about their real intent. Some observers are of the opinion that there is lack of coordination between the various organs of the state and they are not on the same page. Talking to CBS News in ‘Face the Nation’, Defence Secretary Robert Gates said: “The US would not pursue Taliban leaders in Pakistan and it is up to Islamabad to address the threat posed by militants on its territory.”
His comments followed a report that the White House had granted authority to the CIA to expand a bombing campaign in Pakistan by unmanned aircraft to strike Taliban and al Qaeda figures. On the other hand, US National Security advisor James Jones referring to intelligence reports said that the al Qaeda chief is somewhere inside North Waziristan and would take him on whenever intelligence became available about his exact location. And nobody should have any confusion that in case the US knew about them, the US would have bombed, what they call, al Qaeda leaders’ ‘sanctuaries’ in Quetta. For some time rumours abound that indirect talks are being held between the US and the Taliban, courtesy Saudi Arabia. On November 5, 2009, US special envoy Richard Holbrooke had said that the Taliban could rejoin the social and political fabric of Afghanistan if they renounce al Qaeda.
A spokesman of the Taliban has more than once contradicted those reports, stating that there is no question of entering into negotiations with the occupiers. Despite denials from both sides, there are indications of indirect contacts between the US and Taliban leadership. If it is so, the move can be described as sensible, as whatever semblance of normality in Iraq one sees today is because the Shia majority has the chance to rule the country, and at the same time efforts were made to address the grievances of the Sunni minority. In Afghanistan, right from the beginning the ‘basics’ were wrong. Though President Hamid Karzai is Pashtun, most members of his cabinet and many governors are non-Pashtuns. In other words, the Pashtuns have been pushed against the wall and the minority from the Northern Alliance is ruling. That needs to be corrected; otherwise peace will remain an illusion. The Pashtuns have not been given the chance to join the police or the Afghan Army.
President Obama’s new policy has apparently been designed to bring this war to a successful conclusion, as he was under tremendous pressure from US Generals to send at least 40,000 troops to Afghanistan if the war was to be won. On the other hand, there was a lobby under Vice President Joe Biden opposing the surge, who wanted shifting of ‘base’ from Afghanistan to Pakistan to control the region from Afghanistan to the Central Asian Republics by placing more reliance on drones and missile attacks. Obama ordered deployment of an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and defied predictions that in his new strategy, India would be given a pivotal role in Afghanistan. One did not hear a single word about India during his speech; however, it could be a deliberate attempt to keep certain things under wraps on the pretext of addressing Pakistan’s concerns.
The most significant part of Obama’s speech was his acknowledgement that “success in Afghanistan was inextricably linked to Washington’s partnership with Pakistan”. Secondly, he has satisfied his Generals by ordering deployment of 30,000 additional troops and also appeased the American public by announcing the pullout to start from 2011.
Obama’s resolve to build a partnership with Pakistan on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect and mutual trust is appreciable, but in view of Pakistan’s past experience it is doubtful that his ideas would go beyond noble sentiments in the presence of conservatives and remnants of the Bush administration around him. At a time when Pakistan’s armed forces have successfully dismantled the terrorists’ infrastructure in Swat and Malakand Division, and in South Waziristan the military operation has entered the final phase, there are odious calls from Britain, India and the US.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had lashed out at Pakistan two days before Prime Minister Gilani’s visit to the UK, stating that British lives were at risk by harbouring Osama bin Laden. Speaking at the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad, he said the al Qaeda leader and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri are living in Pakistan and its security services must hunt them down. By giving this statement, he had tried to put Pakistan under pressure, especially when President Obama was preparing to announce the deployment of 30,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan. In a recently released US Senate report it has been admitted that Osama bin Laden escaped to Pakistan though he was within the grasp of US troops in 2001 at Tora Bora. But the problem was that the US did not have enough boots on ground at that time and there was fear of heavy casualties. It will not be an exaggeration to say that it was because of their cowardice that they let the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership slip over to Pakistan.
However, the American surge in troops is rattling many minds as to what indeed are America’s real intentions about Afghanistan. President Obama may not want the American forces to stay on in Afghanistan for long, but the situation on the ground will determine whether American forces stay there, have a graceful exit, or are forced to leave, as happened in Vietnam when American officers and soldiers were scampering to catch C-130 flights and helicopters. With the ignominious defeat in Vietnam in the 1970s and then the 9/11 events, the invincibility of present-day America was shredded. Instead of identifying the reasons why many people in the world hate America and addressing the grievances of other countries, former president George Bush had invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, inviting retaliation and hostilities.
The US has spent more than one trillion dollars on these two misadventures. The financial meltdown and recession has brought America to the brink. The mess owed its origins to the time when the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, and the US left it to the CIA to run affairs, which operated with the help of the Northern Alliance. Of course, there were civil war-like conditions, with various groups fighting to have control of the country. As the people of Afghanistan wanted peace, the Taliban used their contradictions and were able to take control of at least 90 percent of the country. Even now after eight years of the US and its allies’ presence, the Taliban control at least 60 percent of Afghanistan. If history is any guide, nobody should make long term plans to stay in Afghanistan. If the US is looking for an honourable exit, it should facilitate the Northern Alliance and Pashtuns to agree on a working relationship to avoid civil war.
Syndicated columnist George Will in his recent column quoted military historian Max Hastings: “Kabul controls only about a third of the country — control is an elastic concept — and Afghans may prove no more viable than were the Vietnamese, the Saigon regime.” It is well known that Afghanistan never had a strong central government; it does not have industry to provide jobs to the unemployed. Secondly, its entire economy is based on illegal production of poppy, which the US and NATO forces have failed to stop. To make things worse, corruption has eaten into the vitals of the state organs. There is a general perception in the US and elsewhere that President Karzai has failed to rein in the warlords, drug producers and drug-traffickers. So far as Pakistan is concerned, it does not have a palpable threat from extremists and terrorists, as the Pakistan army has successfully taken them on. However, the real threat is from the US, because the Jewish lobby and the Indian lobby have not been able to stomach Pakistan’s nuclear capability.
by shoaib ahmed
Contradictory and conflicting statements from members of the Obama administration and US Generals smack of their bewilderment due to their failure in achieving their objectives in Afghanistan. The fact remains that the US-led invaders had descended on Afghanistan vowing to take Osama bin Laden dead or alive, finish off his al Qaeda network, topple the Taliban and get their leaders Mullah Omar and his senior companions, but except toppling the Taliban they failed on every count. They seem to be utterly confused and tend to confuse others with a view to keep them guessing about their real intent. Some observers are of the opinion that there is lack of coordination between the various organs of the state and they are not on the same page. Talking to CBS News in ‘Face the Nation’, Defence Secretary Robert Gates said: “The US would not pursue Taliban leaders in Pakistan and it is up to Islamabad to address the threat posed by militants on its territory.”
His comments followed a report that the White House had granted authority to the CIA to expand a bombing campaign in Pakistan by unmanned aircraft to strike Taliban and al Qaeda figures. On the other hand, US National Security advisor James Jones referring to intelligence reports said that the al Qaeda chief is somewhere inside North Waziristan and would take him on whenever intelligence became available about his exact location. And nobody should have any confusion that in case the US knew about them, the US would have bombed, what they call, al Qaeda leaders’ ‘sanctuaries’ in Quetta. For some time rumours abound that indirect talks are being held between the US and the Taliban, courtesy Saudi Arabia. On November 5, 2009, US special envoy Richard Holbrooke had said that the Taliban could rejoin the social and political fabric of Afghanistan if they renounce al Qaeda.
A spokesman of the Taliban has more than once contradicted those reports, stating that there is no question of entering into negotiations with the occupiers. Despite denials from both sides, there are indications of indirect contacts between the US and Taliban leadership. If it is so, the move can be described as sensible, as whatever semblance of normality in Iraq one sees today is because the Shia majority has the chance to rule the country, and at the same time efforts were made to address the grievances of the Sunni minority. In Afghanistan, right from the beginning the ‘basics’ were wrong. Though President Hamid Karzai is Pashtun, most members of his cabinet and many governors are non-Pashtuns. In other words, the Pashtuns have been pushed against the wall and the minority from the Northern Alliance is ruling. That needs to be corrected; otherwise peace will remain an illusion. The Pashtuns have not been given the chance to join the police or the Afghan Army.
President Obama’s new policy has apparently been designed to bring this war to a successful conclusion, as he was under tremendous pressure from US Generals to send at least 40,000 troops to Afghanistan if the war was to be won. On the other hand, there was a lobby under Vice President Joe Biden opposing the surge, who wanted shifting of ‘base’ from Afghanistan to Pakistan to control the region from Afghanistan to the Central Asian Republics by placing more reliance on drones and missile attacks. Obama ordered deployment of an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and defied predictions that in his new strategy, India would be given a pivotal role in Afghanistan. One did not hear a single word about India during his speech; however, it could be a deliberate attempt to keep certain things under wraps on the pretext of addressing Pakistan’s concerns.
The most significant part of Obama’s speech was his acknowledgement that “success in Afghanistan was inextricably linked to Washington’s partnership with Pakistan”. Secondly, he has satisfied his Generals by ordering deployment of 30,000 additional troops and also appeased the American public by announcing the pullout to start from 2011.
Obama’s resolve to build a partnership with Pakistan on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect and mutual trust is appreciable, but in view of Pakistan’s past experience it is doubtful that his ideas would go beyond noble sentiments in the presence of conservatives and remnants of the Bush administration around him. At a time when Pakistan’s armed forces have successfully dismantled the terrorists’ infrastructure in Swat and Malakand Division, and in South Waziristan the military operation has entered the final phase, there are odious calls from Britain, India and the US.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had lashed out at Pakistan two days before Prime Minister Gilani’s visit to the UK, stating that British lives were at risk by harbouring Osama bin Laden. Speaking at the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad, he said the al Qaeda leader and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri are living in Pakistan and its security services must hunt them down. By giving this statement, he had tried to put Pakistan under pressure, especially when President Obama was preparing to announce the deployment of 30,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan. In a recently released US Senate report it has been admitted that Osama bin Laden escaped to Pakistan though he was within the grasp of US troops in 2001 at Tora Bora. But the problem was that the US did not have enough boots on ground at that time and there was fear of heavy casualties. It will not be an exaggeration to say that it was because of their cowardice that they let the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership slip over to Pakistan.
However, the American surge in troops is rattling many minds as to what indeed are America’s real intentions about Afghanistan. President Obama may not want the American forces to stay on in Afghanistan for long, but the situation on the ground will determine whether American forces stay there, have a graceful exit, or are forced to leave, as happened in Vietnam when American officers and soldiers were scampering to catch C-130 flights and helicopters. With the ignominious defeat in Vietnam in the 1970s and then the 9/11 events, the invincibility of present-day America was shredded. Instead of identifying the reasons why many people in the world hate America and addressing the grievances of other countries, former president George Bush had invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, inviting retaliation and hostilities.
The US has spent more than one trillion dollars on these two misadventures. The financial meltdown and recession has brought America to the brink. The mess owed its origins to the time when the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, and the US left it to the CIA to run affairs, which operated with the help of the Northern Alliance. Of course, there were civil war-like conditions, with various groups fighting to have control of the country. As the people of Afghanistan wanted peace, the Taliban used their contradictions and were able to take control of at least 90 percent of the country. Even now after eight years of the US and its allies’ presence, the Taliban control at least 60 percent of Afghanistan. If history is any guide, nobody should make long term plans to stay in Afghanistan. If the US is looking for an honourable exit, it should facilitate the Northern Alliance and Pashtuns to agree on a working relationship to avoid civil war.
Syndicated columnist George Will in his recent column quoted military historian Max Hastings: “Kabul controls only about a third of the country — control is an elastic concept — and Afghans may prove no more viable than were the Vietnamese, the Saigon regime.” It is well known that Afghanistan never had a strong central government; it does not have industry to provide jobs to the unemployed. Secondly, its entire economy is based on illegal production of poppy, which the US and NATO forces have failed to stop. To make things worse, corruption has eaten into the vitals of the state organs. There is a general perception in the US and elsewhere that President Karzai has failed to rein in the warlords, drug producers and drug-traffickers. So far as Pakistan is concerned, it does not have a palpable threat from extremists and terrorists, as the Pakistan army has successfully taken them on. However, the real threat is from the US, because the Jewish lobby and the Indian lobby have not been able to stomach Pakistan’s nuclear capability.
by shoaib ahmed
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Pantropical Spotted Dolphin
The Pantropical Spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata, is a small, toothed whale that has a long, beaklike snout, a sickle-shaped dorsal fin, and sharp teeth. It is also known as the Spotted Dolphin, the White-Spotted Dolphin, the Brindled Dolphin, the Spotter, the Spotted Porpoise, and the Slender-beaked Dolphin. This cetacean is found worldwide in tropical seas, especially around islands.
by shoaib ahmed
Dolphins breathe air through a single blowhole. They grow to be at most 8 feet (2.4 m) long and weigh from 200 to 255 pounds (90-115 kg). Spotted Dolphins live in groups called pods.
Swimming: Like other whales, dolphins swim by moving their tail (the flukes) up and down. Fish swim by moving their tail left and right.
Diet: Spotted dolphins are hunters who find their prey at the surface of the water, eating mostly fish and squi . They sometimes eat crustaceans
Echolocation: Like other toothed whale , dolphins use echolocation, a way of sensing in which they emit high-pitched clicks and sense them as they bounce back off objects (like prey).
Predators of Dolphins: Some sharks (including tiger sharks dusky sharks, and bull sharks and orcas will prey upon dolphins. Dolphins are also often trapped in people's fishing nets. The Spotted Dolphin is an endangered species
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
