Special Dispatch | 2889 | April 4, 2010Urdu-Pashtu Media Project | |
Editorials in Pakistani Newspapers on President Obama's Afghanistan Visit |
On the night of March 28, 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama landed at Bagram airbase in Kabul, Afghanistan for his first visit to Afghanistan. The unannounced visit, which lasted six hours, was conducted under cover of darkness due to security threats.
The Taliban described the visit as an indication of the U.S.'s failure in Afghanistan, noting: "The American president was scared of visiting Afghanistan during the day. Therefore, he entered Kabul like a thief… The unannounced six-hour visit of President Obama shows that the U.S.['s Afghanistan] strategy and propaganda has failed."[1]
The visit was closely watched in Pakistan; almost all the major Pakistani newspapers wrote editorials about it.
Obama's visit provided an opportunity for the Pakistani newspapers to reassess the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan from a primarily Pakistani viewpoint. While some editorials suggested that the visit was merely symbolic, and aimed at maintaining the Afghan war theater for long-term U.S. interests, others warned that a hasty U.S. exit from Afghanistan could push Pakistan down a path of further instability.
The following editorials from the Pakistani newspapers discuss various aspects of the Afghan situation and the significance of President Obama's flying visit to Kabul.
"The U.S. is Less Than Delighted With [Afghan President Karzai]... He Has Supported and Brokered Talks with the Taliban That Are Considered 'Too Soon' By the Americans"
In an editorial titled "Sticks and Carrots," the leading Pakistani daily The News noted that President Obama had conveyed a message of "do more" – a phrase frequently used by the U.S. against Pakistan in recent years – to improve governance, eliminate corruption, and crack down on narcotics production. It said:[2] "It has been widely reported that the U.S. is less than delighted with the way [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai has been running the show of late. He has supported and brokered talks with the Taliban that are considered 'too soon' by the Americans, and his government is stuffed with massively corrupt officials who have connived at the creation of the world's first narco-state [i.e. Afghanistan]. He has also presided over an election last year that saw him re-elected – but at the cost of what was left of his credibility as a man worthy of the role.
"Whilst we cannot know exactly what passed between the two men and the members of the Afghan cabinet who were also present, it is reasonable to assume that President Obama delivered a 'do more' message. Do more to counter corruption in both federal and provincial governments, do more to cut the narcotics trade, [which is the source of] much of the money fueling the Taliban, and do more to interdict the border with ourselves, which is not so much porous as simply open for much of its length.
"It makes a refreshing change to hear the 'do more' mantra being spoken to a state other than Pakistan, and it will not have escaped the notice of President Karzai that President Obama was fulsome in his praise for our own [Pakistan's] efforts against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Nor will it have escaped the notice of India, which will be viewing the prospect of an American withdrawal with a degree of anxiety – the more so as Pakistan appears to be increasingly ebullient and confident after what all sides seem to agree was a successful meeting in the U.S. last week [i.e. the March 24-25 Pakistan-U.S. Strategic Dialogue in Washington DC]. President Obama came in the darkness and left in the darkness, but he shone a powerful light on President Karzai, a man who has to do more, much more, if the efforts of the Americans and a host of other nations, ourselves included, are not to have been in vain."
"Obama Could Not Stay in His 'Conquered' Country, Afghanistan, For More Than Six Hours"
In an editorial titled "God Forbid," the Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Ummat noted that President Obama has taken up his predecessor George W. Bush's task "to defeat the ambitions of the Afghan nationals at any cost," and added, "America had envisaged conquering a country within one night, but even eight years later, its president does not dare to visit this country in broad daylight." The editorial stated:[3]
"America has been fighting an unsuccessful war in Afghanistan for eight years. Being the lone superpower and having the maximum war resources, it thought that it would gain victory within one night by attacking this weak country; but despite all the support from its allies and NATO countries, America could not gain physical, moral and mental victory over Afghan nationals, who in comparison had very limited resources and none to support [it].
"Former U.S. president George Bush, after serving for eight years as the U.S. president, left the post with a longing to defeat the ambitions of the Afghan nationals at any cost; now the new president, Barack Obama, has taken up this task. Surpassing his predecessor President Bush, he vowed to concentrate fully on Afghanistan by withdrawing American and allied troops from Iraq, and recently he announced that he will send 30,000 more American troops to Afghanistan to inflict defeat on Al-Qaeda and the Taliban there. Irrespective of the presence and importance of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, in fact, America wants to keep its occupation on this country, so that it can fully utilize the resources of this country, and can keep an eye on the neighboring countries, especially China.
"America had envisaged conquering a country within one night, but even eight years later, its president does not dare to visit this country in broad daylight and according to any declared program. After coming to power, U.S. President Barack Obama arrived in Afghanistan for the first time on Sunday, and that too in the dark of the night and in the utmost secrecy. His host Hamid Karzai was informed about Obama's visit only one hour in advance, and the media members accompanying him were asked to pledge to maintain secrecy.
"U.S. President Barack Obama could not stay in his 'conquered' country Afghanistan for more than six hours, and left immediately to return to his country..."
"America… Occupied Afghanistan [On the Pretext of] Holding the Taliban Responsible for Attacks on Two of Its Cities – But Today All the Evidence Proves That [9/11] Was America's Own Game Plan – In Which the CIA and American Jews Played a Crucial Role"
"Who can make U.S. President Barack Obama understand that whatever the Afghan people's opinion of the Taliban, they don't want to see an American or any foreign power's presence in their country? In the past eight years they have already seen what America and its allied forces have made of their peaceful country. In comparison to the peaceful atmosphere of the Taliban's five-and-a–half-year reign – which was also acknowledged by the foreign media – the present situation in Afghanistan is a scene of havoc and destruction. Afghan nationals know what the U.S. ambitions in their country are, and that is why they are protesting the American and the allied troops, even after eight years have passed.
"On his secret Afghanistan visit, President Barack Obama, while addressing the U.S. and allied forces, himself accepted that an Afghanistan war is vital for the security of America. He also said that success on both the sides of Pak-Afghan border is imperative. These words of President Barack Obama should be noted: 'If it occurred for a minute in my mind that America's important interests are not being fulfilled here, I would have asked you (American troops) to march back to your homes instantly.'
"America launched brutal attacks and occupied Afghanistan [on the pretext of] holding the Taliban responsible for attacks on two of its cities – but today all the evidence proves that this [i.e. 9/11] was America's own game plan, in which the CIA and American Jews played a crucial role. In any case, America wanted to come to South Asia and take control of Pakistan's nuclear installations and the region's resources – otherwise there is no connection at all between America's security and its interest in the Afghan war."
Obama "Has Made His Evil Intentions about Pakistan Clear"
"At present, the world does not need war, it needs peace and security. But America, the standard-bearer for global peace and security, is diligently busy with 'fulfilling its important interests' by coming thousands of kilometers from home and killing, wounding, and crippling innocent citizens and driving them out of their homes. By expressing his wishes for victory on both the sides of border, U.S. President Barack Obama has made his evil intentions about Pakistan clear as well.
"Unfortunately, corruption and bad governance is found in both these countries, and God forbid this might become the reason for American success."
"Although the Recent Elections in Iraq have Indicated Some Success of the U.S. Strategy of Supporting Local Militias, This Strategy cannot Be Replicated in Afghanistan... Because It Runs the Risk of Promoting Warlordism"
In an editorial against President Obama's attempts at a hasty withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, the Lahore-based liberal newspaper Daily Times warned that it was just such a policy at the end of the Cold War that gave birth to the current instability in Pakistan.
The editorial, titled "Obama's Afghan visit," observed: "An unstable Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal means more trouble, because Pakistan cannot remain untouched by what is happening on its western border." It also stressed that the U.S.'s exit from Afghanistan would "be successful only if it leaves behind a government that is credible and able to stand on its own."
The editorial stated: [4]: "U.S. President Barack Obama seems set on winding up the shop of U.S. direct involvement in Afghanistan. After Iraq, it was Obama's second stopover in a conflict zone, where the U.S. forces are fighting local resistance forces.
"The timing of President Obama's surprise visit to the country is significant, because it comes on the heels of the just-concluded strategic dialogue between the U.S. and Pakistan. Without Pakistan's cooperation and input, the situation in Afghanistan cannot be dealt with effectively, where the U.S. wants an exit sooner rather than later. Informed by Pakistan's take on the situation, Obama focused on improving the governance of the Karzai regime during this visit. Corruption, cronyism and inability to deliver have marred that regime since its formation in 2002. Nor has it been able to develop a consolidated security structure that could establish the writ of the government in remote hinterlands. The Afghan government has been heavily dependent on foreign troops for its very survival and its writ barely went beyond Kabul.
"Understandably, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan can be successful only if it leaves behind a government that is credible and able to stand on its own. If initiatives to bring the Taliban to the negotiation table fail, there are good chances that they would occupy the space vacated by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and intensify efforts to overthrow the Afghan government. Although the U.S. president reiterated that his country would not leave Afghanistan in the lurch, it requires great deftness on his part to satisfy the home front – which is increasingly viewing the U.S. involvement in the Iraq and Afghan wars with impatience – as well as to find a satisfactory solution to the Afghan problem. A semblance of some progress on this issue is essential for success in elections for the U.S. Congress later this year.
"The unenviable legacy President Obama received from his predecessor involved concluding two unpopular wars initiated by the Bush administration, which have severely damaged the credibility of the U.S. Barely two years after the Afghan invasion, the U.S. attacked Iraq, bypassing the UN, on the self-created excuse of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq proved to be more difficult than the Bush administration had expected, even after the hanging of Saddam Hussein that, in effect, obliterated the Ba'ath party. Although the recently held elections in Iraq have indicated some success of the U.S. strategy of supporting local militias, this strategy cannot be replicated in Afghanistan for obvious reasons, because it runs the risk of promoting warlordism, which has been the bane of Afghanistan for the last two decades. The Afghan situation demands a different approach.
"It would be pertinent to mention that a complete U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is a history best not repeated, because today's problems have their roots in the time when, after defeating the USSR in a proxy war, the U.S. left Afghanistan and Pakistan to fend for themselves. In this context, the prospective U.S. withdrawal should mean ceasing of direct involvement with insurgents and exit of the bulk of the U.S. troops, but a training, rehabilitation and reconstruction mission should remain behind to support the Afghan government.
"An unstable Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal means more trouble, because Pakistan cannot remain untouched by what is happening on its western border. Therefore, capacity building of the Afghan police and military to the extent that they are capable of holding their own against the insurgents is crucial."
"Will Upbraiding Mr. Karzai Do the Trick Though? That is Unlikely... Americans Are Working on a Timeline That Has Little to Do with the Situation in Afghanistan"
Dawn, another liberal Pakistani newspaper, noted that the U.S.'s plan for exiting Afghanistan does not match the situation in Afghanistan, where the task of building a modern state will take a long time. The editorial, titled "Obama's Kabul Visit," observed that "'[f]ixing' Afghanistan isn't a question of months or even a couple of years; building a centralized state where there hasn't been one is a matter of many, many years, perhaps even decades." It wrote:[5]
"Newly freed from the bruising domestic battle over healthcare reform, U.S. President Obama was expected to turn his attention to other important things on his agenda. Afghanistan would certainly be at the top of the list of those other priorities, and over the weekend Mr. Obama demonstrated this by flying into Afghanistan for the briefest of visits.
"The U.S. president delivered what appears to be a stern message to the Afghan government led by President Karzai to cut corruption, improve governance, step up the fight against the drug trade, overhaul the judicial system, and make the Afghan government more representative of the various ethnic and geographical regions in the country. If the laundry list of complaints/demands sounds familiar, it is. Americans have long been unhappy with the administration of Mr. Karzai, which they accuse of following a self-serving agenda that is making it even more difficult to create a semblance of a modern state in Afghanistan.
"However, those longstanding complaints have taken on a new urgency under the Obama administration, which has made a risky political commitment to step up the war against militancy in Afghanistan. Ultimately, for the counterinsurgency to succeed in Afghanistan, it has to have local ownership, not just of the military component but also of the civilian component. But the Americans have been alarmed that whatever gains the military 'surge' may yield over the next year may be wasted if the Afghan government cannot show itself to be a viable alternative to what the Taliban have to offer. Remember that the Taliban focused on eliminating corruption, drugs and crime and delivering speedy justice during their stint in charge [before 9/11] — and won the appreciation of ordinary Afghans for doing so.
"The Americans are afraid, and rightly so, that unless Mr. Karzai and his government get their act together and start demonstrating that they have the ability to deliver basic public goods and services, the Afghan government will never establish itself as a desirable alternative to the Taliban insurgency.
"Will upbraiding Mr. Karzai do the trick though? That is unlikely for two reasons. One, the Americans are working on a timeline that has little to do with the situation in Afghanistan. 'Fixing' Afghanistan isn't a question of months or even a couple of years; building a centralized state where there hasn't been one is a matter of many, many years, perhaps even decades. Two, Mr. Karzai is a wily operator who knows how to cling to power through wheeling and dealing with Afghanistan's various power brokers. Becoming a born-again democrat focused on good governance may be a stretch too far for someone so deep in the muck of Afghan politics."
"Obama Suddenly Arrived in Afghanistan and Announced That the War Could Not Be Won Without Success on Both Sides of the Border [i.e. in Afghanistan and Pakistan]"
The Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Jasarat, a leading newspaper of the right-wing Jamaat-e-Islami party, noted in an editorial, titled "Obama's Secret Visit to Afghanistan," that the motive behind Obama's visit to Kabul could not be merely "to encourage the U.S. troops who are engaged in a worthless and aimless war in Afghanistan." It also accused the U.S. State Department of "legally justifying" the U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan's tribal areas. The editorial said:[6]
"At the moment when the Karzai government in Afghanistan is holding talks with Hizb-e-Islami, and the Taliban are also being invited to join in, U.S. President Barack Obama suddenly arrived in Afghanistan and announced that the war could not be won without success on both sides of the border.
"Earlier, the news was pouring in continuously that the U.S. itself was engaged in talks with the Afghan Taliban at different levels. A series of similar kinds of talks had taken place in a third country. The negotiations with Hizb-e-Islami had gone so far that even the UN representatives in Afghanistan had also held talks with the representatives of Hizb-e-Islami. This was the first talk between the European and Hizb-e-Islami representatives.
"The arrest of Mullah Baradar [the deputy leader of the Taliban in Pakistan] came after he returned from talks held in a third country, and a sheet of secrecy is spread over whether the arrest was made in accordance with U.S. [wishes] or whether it sent any message regarding it.
"However, Obama's undeclared visit to Kabul has certainly conveyed some message. He kept his visit secret for the sake of his security, and President Hamid Karzai was informed that Obama was arriving at Bagram airbase only one hour in advance. Apparently, the motive of this visit was to encourage the U.S. troops [there], who are engaged in a worthless and aimless war in Afghanistan, but this [visit] could not have been taken merely for the purpose of encouraging the U.S. troops. Those who fight a war for any purpose, and risk their lives, need no encouragement; their aim and their truthfulness boost their ambitions.
"But this is clearly not the situation in Afghanistan, and most Americans, and Brits, consider this a pointless war in which their troops are being killed unnecessarily. On the contrary, there is an obvious objective of achieving freedom from foreign occupation on the part of the Afghan nationals and mujahideen – for their religion demands the same, while the UN charter also allows it."
The U.S. State Department Advisor "Has Given New Meaning to the American Aggression, and is Of the View that U.S. Drone Attacks Against the Extremists are Legally Justified... This Interpretation Encourages Israel – But If the Palestinians Throw Even a Single Stone…"
"But U.S. State Department advisor Mr. Harold Koh has given new meaning to the American aggression, and is of the view that U.S. drone attacks against the extremists are legally justified, and that it is America's legal right according to international law, and that these attacks should not be termed extra-legal killings.
"The fact is that there are a thousand excuses for the wicked. Those who have power make their own laws or extrapolate the meaning of international law as they choose. This interpretation encourages Israel – but if the Palestinians throw even a single stone, they are held guilty...
"Now, if one considers the U.S. to be extremist – which it is – then one must also consider its actions justified. What America has done, from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq, is the extreme of extremism, and 9/11 is irrelevant. Even today, America cannot prove that it faced any threat to its existence from the Vietnamese...
"Similarly, no Afghan was involved in the accident of 9/11. A big lie was hatched in order to attack Iraq. Was it justified, and was it an American right to do so under international law? Had the global conscience awakened, there would be ongoing prosecution in a court of law against the U.S. for its war crimes. There is protest in Britain against the government over its blind support for Bush. The British government is being asked to stop being servile to the Americans."
"How Did the Occupation of Afghanistan, and the Destruction and Killing of Innumerable People Become Necessary for America's Security? Did the Afghans Attack America – Or Do the Taliban Possess Weapons of Mass Destruction?"
"Addressing the allied forces at Bagram airbase, U.S. President Barack Obama said that their mission was to break the backbone of Al-Qaeda and its allies, as Al-Qaeda and Taliban are a nthreat to the whole world, including the U.S. and Afghanistan, and that is why this war is a global war and cannot be won without success on both the sides of the border.
"This is the situation of the commander-in-chief of this 'world war,' – he landed secretly on his country's military base – and it is this man, so concerned for his security, who has come to encourage his troops. The U.S. president said that success on both the sides of border is essential. Clearly, the 'other side' refers to Pakistan, where the Pakistani army is trying hard for American success.
"In this regard, Pakistani Foreign Minister [Shah Mehmood Qureshi]'s claim that America is no longer demanding [that Pakistan] 'do more' is ridiculous. It is no longer necessary [for America to make this demand] because everything is happening without any demand. Mr. Obama might not have informed Pakistan as well about his Afghan visit, but he has said that there is a need for Pakistani assistance against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
"Obama has reiterated that the Afghan war is extremely important for American security. The Pakistan government is also making efforts beyond its capacity for America's security. But how did the occupation of Afghanistan and the destruction and killing of innumerable people become necessary for America's security? Did the Afghans attack America – or do the Taliban possess weapons of mass destruction?"
"The U.S. and Its Christian Allies Can Give Nothing to the Afghans – Except the Devastation of Their Country"
"Obama says that he would ask his troops to come home if he thought for one moment that their aims and objectives were not being fulfilled. Can Obama say what important objectives have been fulfilled by the U.S.'s attacking Afghanistan in October 2001, turning the whole country into a Tora Bora [Afghan region bombed following 9/11] and calling on all its Christian allies to help maintain the occupation of a backward country? The U.S. and its Christian allies can give nothing to the Afghan nationals – except the devastation of their country.
"There is no denying that there was peace in Afghanistan during the Taliban reign. But the U.S. is still frightening people [by telling them] that Afghanistan will become even more backward if Taliban regain power. Please tell us how far Afghanistan has progressed during the past nine years.
"There is a reign of terror and fear all around, and American-created terrorism has spread into Pakistan also. The U.S. State Department advisor says that every country of the world has the right to use all its power and weapons of mass destructions in self defense. True – and so the Afghan Taliban have a right to defend themselves. Though they don't have the lethal weapons and military power of the U.S., they have the power of their faith and the truth of their objectives.
"America has even declared drone attacks on Pakistan legally justified. Now, the Pakistan government keeps licking its parliamentary resolution [demanding that the U.S. immediately stop its drone attacks] or apologizing to the U.S. for condemning its legally justified actions."
"America's Obsessive Interest Now is to Get Out Of the Hell of Afghanistan; Pakistan Has Told the Americans That It is In the Best Position to Help Facilitate This Exit... [It] Negotiated with the 'Good Taliban' on America's Behalf"
The Post, which is based in Peshawar, the capital of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, noted in an editorial titled "Obama in Kabul" that President Obama had made it clear to President Karzai that the U.S. wants an end to "direct involvement in the fight against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda extremists." The reference was to President Karzai's direct talks unmediated by the U.S. with Taliban leaders in Afghanistan. The paper went on to note that Pakistan is in the best position to help the U.S. withdraw from Afghanistan. It stated:[7]
"During his sudden visit to Afghanistan, President Obama demanded accountability from Afghan leaders, [as well as] greater vigilance against corruption and better governance. Obama said that the U.S. would not leave Afghanistan, but made it clear that he's looking for an end to direct involvement in the fight against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda extremists. He drove that point home in meetings with President Karzai and his cabinet in Kabul, and in a speech before 2,500 troops and civilians at Bagram airfield.
"'The U.S. is a partner, but our intent is to make sure that the Afghans have the capacity to provide for their own security – that is core to our mission,' Obama said. He stated that he would never send Americans abroad to fight unless there was a compelling threat. He said that a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan would put more Americans in danger. Obama asked Pakistan to cooperate with Washington to root out the Taliban from the region. Obama said that the terrorists were on the run because of Pakistani government-led action against them. 'Plots against our homeland, plots against our allies, plots against the Afghan and Pakistani people are taking place as we speak right here,' he added.
"U.S. presidents have a history of making unpublicized visits to various parts of the world where security is an issue. In 2003, President Bush visited Iraq to meet U.S. troops, and served them Thanksgiving dinner. Obama also visited Camp Victory in Iraq just three months after he was sworn in. Obama's latest visit to Afghanistan came against a backdrop of tension between Karzai and the Americans, that has not substantially abated since Karzai was declared the winner of a fraud-tainted election. President Obama made this, his first-ever visit to Afghanistan, for talks with President Karzai and to express his thanks to U.S. troops.
"The U.S. and NATO troop offensive in Helmand is an important piece of Obama's plan to use his troop surge to seize insurgent-held areas and to shift control to local authorities before the U.S. begins to bring its troops out of Afghanistan. The U.S. plans to pull troops out of Afghanistan by July 2011…"
"During this Afghanistan visit, Obama pressed Karzai to make greater strides toward improving the rule of law and fighting corruption within the Afghan government. At the London conference [of January 28], corruption was a major cause of concern. Recently, Karzai has strengthened the anti-corruption commission. Corruption remains pervasive, however, and Karzai has not used his position to change the culture.
"President Obama sought Pakistan's help to eliminate the Taliban from the region. He expressed appreciation for Pakistan's operation against terrorists in Swat, Waziristan, and other tribal areas. America's obsessive interest now is to get out of the hell of Afghanistan. Pakistan has told the Americans that it is in the best position to help facilitate this exit. It has launched military operations against recalcitrant Taliban elements and negotiated with the 'good Taliban' on America's behalf.
"Pakistan is the most important stakeholder in Afghanistan. No peace can be achieved without Islamabad's active participation. In the recent talks in Washington and dialogue between Karzai and [Pakistani President Asif] Zardari in Turkey, Pakistan successfully convinced the U.S. that the path to a successful American withdrawal from Afghanistan goes through Islamabad."
"[T]he Superpower in Today's Unipolar World is Serious About Maintaining the Eight-Year-Old War Theater at the Threshold of China, Iran, and Possibly Russia, With Or Without Its Love-Hate Relationship with the Recharged Taliban Militants"
The Statesman, published from Peshawar, wrote in an editorial titled "Obama's Kabul Visit" that Obama's six-hour visit was "a symbolic gesture," and added that the U.S. seeks to maintain the Afghan war theater in order to further its geostrategic objectives. It added that the visit was aimed at showing regional powers such as Iran, Russia, and China that the U.S. wants to stay in the region. It stated:[8]
"Even if seen as a symbolic gesture, U.S. President Barack Obama's unannounced visit, his first as president, to the Afghan capital for a few hours in the darkness of Sunday night was aimed at showing, just as in the case of Iraq some time back, to the neighboring powers in the region that the superpower in today's unipolar world is serious about maintaining the eight-year-old war theater at the threshold of China, Iran and possibly Russia, [either] with or without its love-hate relationship with the recharged Taliban militants…
"His get-together with the war-weary American soldiers, and his 'morale-boosting' harangue before them in casual dress, were apparently a boisterous event, but these could not conceal Obama's impatience with Karzai over the issues of good governance, especially with regard to curbing corruption and controlling the spread of narcotics which were giving rise to the emergence of unmanageable warlords and providing liberal funding both to the good and bad Taliban.
"Accompanying the U.S. president was National Security Adviser General James L. Jones, who said that Karzai must understand that in his second term there are certain things which have not been paid attention to since day one."
"Least Concerned with America's Domestic Achievements, the Violence-Struck Masses in Afghanistan and Pakistan… Want Peace and Prosperity… Which are Possible Only When the U.S. and NATO Forces Find an Honorable Exit Out of the War Zone"
"Obama's visit came just moments after a high-level Pakistan delegation returned from Washington after extensive talks about U.S. assigning Islamabad a key role in the future political dispensation in Kabul.
"Obama's visit capped a high-profile week for him; domestically, he achieved a singular victory, first by signing health care legislation and later by reaching an arms control agreement with Russia that calls for the two countries to cut down on their nuclear arsenal to the lowest level in half a century.
"Least concerned with America's domestic achievements, the violence-struck masses in Afghanistan and Pakistan, however, want peace and prosperity in their region, which are possible only when the U.S. and NATO forces find an honorable exit out of the war zone."
[1] www.dailyausaf.com, UK, April 1, 2010.
[2] The News, Pakistan, March 30, 2010. The English has been lightly edited for clarity.
[3] Roznama Ummat, Pakistan, March 30, 2010.
[4] Daily Times, Pakistan, March 30, 2010.
[5] Dawn, Pakistan, March 30, 2010.
[6] Roznama Jasarat, Pakistan, March 30, 2010.
[7] The Post, Pakistan, March 30, 2010. The English has been lightly edited for clarity.
[8] The Statesman, Pakistan, March 30, 2010. The English has been lightly edited for clarity.
Posts
