Clueless Clinton’s crafty Charm schemes flop in Pakistan

Asking Hillary Clinton to wage a “Charm Offensive” is like asking Dracula to smile. As soon as the vampire opens his mouth on can see his blood sucking teeth. Similarly Mrs. Clinton cannot help herself. She thinks herself as the paragon of all truth whereas the “little brown boys” are diabolical, mischievous, dirty, unscrupulous and lie all the time. Ask her any question and her paradigmic bias gets her into trouble. The two events that were supposed to ring her in touch with the Pakistani people were total fiascos. She might as well have stayed home. Rupee News actually wrote an article on this subject—if she was going to repeat her Anti-Pakistani rhetoric, she might as well as stay on the Potomac and not face the blowback from her klutzy comments.

Here is a Telegraph which correctly defines the situation.

Her visit was intended in part as a charm offensive in a country steeped in anti-American sentiment.

Pakistanis seem utterly uncertain whether the US is a friend or foe. Recognising the problem of "misperception", Mrs Clinton's visit has focused on trying to put the US message directly to the people of Pakistan, rather than the usual routine of meeting top officials.

But the PR blitz appeared to have little effect on entrenched public opinion that blames the US for Pakistan's extremist menace. By Saeed Shah in Islamabad, Published: 6:41PM GMT 30 Oct 2009. Hillary Clinton faces angry criticism of US in Pakistan

If the Secretary of State expected a group of stereotypical docile and suppressed women whom she could lecture away—then Mrs. Clinton surely she would have been surprised by the audience—she got an earful from angry Pakistani women.

An interview with several women who are prominent Pakistani television anchors, broadcast live, turned into a pointed, sometimes raucous back-and-forth…as they parried with Mrs. Clinton. They criticized American drone strikes in Pakistan, said the military presence was stirring unrest and expressed their doubts about whether the United States had a long-term commitment to Pakistan. New York Times. By MARK LANDLER and JACK HEALY. Published: October 30, 2009

Mrs. Clinton did not hold an open press conference where the Pakistani media could have rally asked her some questions. The harbinger of democracy shied away from the Pakistani press. The US press has given wide coverage to the Hillary interaction which was supposed to be stage managed and choreographed.

The UK Guardian reported the following questions.

One tribal leader who met her yesterday said afterwards he was impressed. But in a television interview later, one woman in the audience said the drones amounted to "executions without trial".

Another asked Clinton if she considered drone strikes to be an act of terrorism similar to the bombing that killed over 100 people in Peshawar on Wednesday. Declan Walsh in Islamabad.guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 October 2009 18.37 GMT. Hillary Clinton wraps up tough mission in Pakistan

The New York Times reported the following questions that were asked of the Secretary of State—who still holds to the wrong notions about Pakistan—fed to her by her incompetent generals who are looking for excuses for their colossal defeat in Afghanistan

• One of the women said that Pakistanis were experiencing “daily 9/11’s,” and an audience member asked Mrs. Clinton whether the drone strikes amounted to acts of terrorism.
• “Your presence in the region is not good for peace,” one of the men in attendance told Mrs. Clinton, according to The Associated Press, “because it gives rise to frustration and irritation among the people of this region.”
• Why did the United States abandon Pakistan after the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, they asked.
• Why did the Bush administration support the previous military government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf? What about reports in the Pakistani news media that American contractors illegally carried weapons in Islamabad? Even her fans have come armed with spears.
• A young woman, a medical student, thanked Mrs. Clinton for being an inspiration to women, then asked how the United States could justify ordering Predator strikes on targets in Pakistan without sharing intelligence with its military. New York Times. By MARK LANDLER and JACK HEALY. Published: October 30, 2009

Mrs Clinton was silent about the drone attacks

The CIA-operated drone strikes have been enthusiastically embraced by the Obama administration, which considers them a key tool in disabling al-Qaida's ability to plot attacks from its tribal safehaven.

The US has carried out over 80 strikes since 2006, half of them since the start of this year. One such strike last August killed the Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.

But the civilian casualties inflicted by the drone strikes, and the perceived infringement of sovereignty, enrages most Pakistanis. The attacks enjoy only 9% support, according to a Gallup poll taken last August.

The level of civilian casualties is hotly disputed. But one recent study by the New America Foundation estimated that US drones have killed between 750 around 1,000 people in Pakistan since 2006, about one third of them civilians.

The deep public hostility to drones feeds latent anti-Americanism and leaves the Pakistani government in a difficult position. The Guardian

The Daily Telegraph reported the following:

Mrs Clinton was again pushed on to the defensive. One tribesman told her: "Your presence in the region is not good for peace".

A day earlier, in a session with students in the eastern city of Lahore, America's top diplomat was told by a student: "The US has betrayed Pakistan. That's a fact."

However the comments of a journalist, Asma Shirazi, during an interview broadcast live on Friday typified the strength of criticism Mrs Clinton faced.

"We are fighting a war that is imposed on us. It's not our war. It is your war," said the journalist.

"You had one 9/11. We are having daily 9/11s in Pakistan."  By Saeed Shah in Islamabad, Published: 6:41PM GMT 30 Oct 2009. Hillary Clinton faces angry criticism of US in Pakistan

In a meeting with selected Pakistani journalists she went bonkers, way out in left field, when she said strange hallucinating stuff (perhaps a hangover from her hippy days in “Arkansaw”. Pig Soee (how they call the hogs in Arkansas—and also the University sports chant), but were are not in Kanasas anymore Toto. Her words about “if Pakistan wants to shrink her territory” will ring in the ears of the people of Pakistan for a long time. He silly comments about the Pakistani leadership knowing the whereabouts of the Al-Qaeda leaderships certainly didn’t sit well with the Pakistani government and Army. Reports say that these two issues were brought up during the meeting with Chief of Army Staff Kiyan and the ISI Chief Pasha.

ISLAMABAD – Addressing a roomful of Pakistani women Friday afternoon at the National Art Gallery here, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made every effort to connect with her audience. But after enduring multiple security checks and waiting over four hours for the secretary to arrive, most women left unimpressed.

“Frankly, it was a waste of my time,” said one assistant professor from the Fatima Jinnah Women’s University (FJWU) in Rawalpindi, who asked not to be named. “[Clinton] wasn’t interested in hearing the about the layman’s problems or the reality of our daily lives.”

That caused many, such as Shazia Marri, the information minister of the Sindh province, to leave the meeting frustrated that their concerns were not heard. “Emancipated women in Pakistan have a clear point of view that did not come across,” she said.

The local media has described Mrs. Clinton’s three-day visit to Pakistan as a “charm offensive.” Her town-hall meeting with female activists, lawyers, journalists, parliamentarians, and businesswomen from across the country was meant to conclude the trip on a high note, particularly in the wake of Wednesday’s car bomb attack on a Peshawar market that killed 117 – mostly women.

In her interactions with Pakistani women, Clinton tried to engage in personal-level diplomacy. Explaining how the US would support democracy in Pakistan, Clinton discussed the importance of “habits of the heart,” such as tolerance and compromise, which could be ingrained within families and by teachers in schools. Addressing concerns about aid delivery, she described how the US government organized a team of female Pakistani-American doctors to treat internally displaced women. And in a rare digression, she reminisced about an exchange of family photographs with the late former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

Clinton attempted a relaxed manner, with an aside about having a Pakistani roommate. But her jokes about visiting Pakistan and not discussing security for once failed to win over the crowd. Pakistani women – much like the country’s youth and professionals, whom Clinton met in similar meetings in Lahore on Thursday – seemed more keen on discussing security issues. The questions that met with most applause from the audience were on US drone attacks, alleged American designs on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, and whether the US intended to pressure India to settle the long-standing Kashmir conflict.

Several audience members said Clinton’s answers did little to allay their concerns or skepticism. “The responses were as expected,” added Ameena Saiyid, the managing director of Oxford University Press. Christian Science Monitor. In Pakistan, Clinton fails to charm professional women By Huma Yusuf | Correspondent 10.30.09

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to stage manage the message, and apparently it backfired. The blowback from arrogance and hubris can be significant. One only has to look at Tehran, next door. There was a time when the US Ambassador thought himself the Viceroy of Iran, and ran the country like his personal fiefdom. The Iranian Revolution was the obvious result of this sort of micromanagement. History shows that the “Uglay American” image led to the Cuban Revolution, the Chinese Communist takeover and the radicalization of the the Middle East and the October Revolution in Russia. Venezuela is also a prime example of a country sick and tired of being meddled in. Today Ms. Clinton heard first had what Pakistanis think. She should have been on a listening mode. She was on a lecturing mood. Pakistanis, as evidenced by the Christian Scient Monitor report are not in the mood to listen to lectures.

Many women, including Zainab Azmat, a resident of the South Waziristan tribal agency, currently lecturing at Peshawar’s Institute of Management Sciences (IMS), complained that Clinton’s answers were too “reserved.” Ms. Azmat added that the intention of the meeting was unclear. “Why were we here? What did they want us to ask? What did they want to convey to us?” she asked.

It didn’t help that many women objected to the format of the discussion, which was moderated by five female news anchors. Before Clinton arrived, one State Department representative explained that the format aimed to imitate the popular talk show, ‘The View.’

But it seems the women were not all convinced that the show is what the meeting most closely mirrored. “This meeting was as micromanaged as our country’s internal affairs,” quipped the FJWU professor. “[The Americans] were trying to retain the upper-hand in the conversation.”

Fariel Salahiddin, a financial consultant with Ministry of Information, still found the visit valuable, however. It is “admirable that Clinton is making this effort to reach out,” she said. Christian Science Monitor. In Pakistan, Clinton fails to charm professional women By Huma Yusuf | Correspondent 10.30.09

Here carefully crafted message of “love” fell apart when as soon as she opened her mouth.

"Al Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002," she told a group of Pakistani journalists Thursday. "I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to." She added, "Maybe they're not gettable. I don't know."  Hillary Clinton Talking to Pakistani journalists—also reported by CNN. Secretary of state urges openness between U.S., Pakistan. October 30, 2009 -- Updated 1600 GMT (0000 HKT)

This is exactly the kind of verbiage that ruffles Pakistani feathers and acts as a catalyst to increase Anti-Americanism in Pakistan. The use of the wording “safe havens” is a very unwise choice of words. It depicts connivance and complicity between Pakistani officials and the terrorists. Obviously the there is no such complicity—as evidenced by the assassination of the Education minister and the bloody attacks in Islamabad, Lahore and Peshawar. To suggest any sort of liason with the murderers and thgus is silly and counterproductive.

In the CNN interview Friday, Clinton said she was not suggesting that someone inside the government might be complicit with al Qaeda or might be failing to follow through in fighting the terrorist group.

"No, no," she said. "What I was responding to is what I have been really doing on this trip, which is there exists a trust deficit, certainly on the part of Pakistanis toward the United States, toward our intentions and our actions. And yet we have so much in common, we face a common threat. We certainly have a common enemy in extremism and terrorism, and so part of what I have been doing is answering every single charge, every question." Secretary of state urges openness between U.S., Pakistan. October 30, 2009 -- Updated 1600 GMT (0000 HKT)

Mrs. Clinton did seem to backtrack, after the bloodhounds of CNN cornered her. However instead of apologizing for the bad choice of words, she fell into the trap of justifying her comments and became very defensive. She forgot where she was—all in plain sight of the Pakistanis. She forgets that CNN is watched and heard in Islamabad also. Her message to her domestic constituency in America was seen as a horrible message in Pakistan.

Trust "is a two-way street," she added. While Pakistan's military operation has been "extremely courageous in both Swat and now in South Waziristan, success there is not sufficient," she said. "... I just want to keep putting on the table that we have some concerns as well. And I think ... that's the kind of relationship I'm looking to build here."

Asked whether she had underestimated the level of anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, Clinton said, "No, because I've been following the research and the polling that's gone on for a couple of years. I knew that we were inheriting a pretty negative situation that we were going to have to address." That's why she wanted three days in the country, "a long trip for a secretary of state," she said.

"I wanted to demonstrate that, look, we are not coming here claiming that everything we've done is perfect. I've admitted to mistakes by our country going back in time, but I've also reminded people that we've been partners and allies from the beginning of Pakistan's inception as a country. Pakistan has helped us on several important occasions, and we are very grateful for that. So let's begin to clear the air here."

The Obama Administration has to make some serious changes, if it wants the US point of view and the American message to reach the Pakistani people. Congressmen Charlie Wilson and Rohrabacker were able to get through a positive and helpful message. Congressman Findley is well respected in Pakistani circles. President Reagan’s son may conjure up positive images of an era which bode well for Pakistani-American relations. Pakistanis in general had great hopes for Mr. Obama’s message of change. They are dissappointd by the rise in drone attacks—which blowback as bombs on Pakistani civilians. Mr. Obama may still have some equity left—but time is running out. A Pakistani revolution would sweep up the complaint leaders, just like the Shah of Iran and make Islamabad as inhospitable for Americans Tehran is for the US right now.

Kerry only partially right: Rhetoric and Anti-Pakistan cliches obscure good message

John Kerry has tried to smooth relations with the government of Pakistan but he remains at odds with the Pakistani people because of the language he uses. “Existential threat”, “Al-Qaeda HQ in Pakistan” “Do more”, “Nukes safe?” and “Safe havens in Pakistan” are anathema to Pakistan and Pakistanis.

All these incorrect clichés  need to be purged from the American vocabulary. “Existential threat” is taken as a veiled threat and is not acceptable to any sovereign nation—specially a nuclear powered one.

• “Al-Quaida” (if it still exists) is not headquartered in Pakistan—Islamabad purged the ranks and 300 of the top leadership is in Guantanamo. No organization under the name Al-Qaeda is allowed in Pakistan. The leaders are on the run and hide in nooks, crannies and caves in many parts of the world, including, Germany, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia etc.
• Nothing rankles the feathers of Pakistan than the mention of the security of Pakistani nukes—and the total silence on the safety of Israeli and Indian nuclear weapons. Hamas and Hizbullah are a few miles from Israeli nukes. 40% of India is controlled by the Maoist Naxals. However no US leader mentions the security of Indian weapons. A plane load of US nukes was mistakenly sent to Taiwan—and broken arrows (lost nukes) wasn’t discovered for days. Pakistanis are appalled that the US has the gall to question the safety of Pakistani pride and honor.
• Pakistani areas may be “hideouts” but are not “safe havens” for any terrorist. The semantic difference may be a fine line, but “safe haven” show malfeasance and toleration for terrorists by Pakistan and “hideouts” show that the terrorists are being chased and are hiding.

When US politicians talk about duplicity, they forget the duplicity of America when it imposed a non-Pakhtun and Anti-representative government in Kabul. Whenever an American politicians uses the three clichés, the good message is lost. Whatever else the politician says is then thrown into the “Anti-Pakistan” waste paper basket.

WASHINGTON: The United States has enormous stakes in Pakistan’s stability and must assist the country economically and militarily to help it overcome serious challenges, and at the same time make it clear to the Pakistanis that Washington respects their sovereignty, Senator John Kerry advocated.

‘We need to make it clear that we respect their (Pakistanis) sovereignty,’ he stated at the Council on Foreign Relations while speaking about US policy toward the region in the light of his visit to Pakistan and Afghanistan last week.

Kerry, co-author of a $7.5 billion five-year economic aid measure and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Pakistan should be given vital breathing space to deal with its difficult problems. ‘These are serious challenges,’ he added.

The Democratic lawmaker appeared to favor a narrowly focused strategy for Afghanistan and warned against destabilising effect of any larger Afghan strategy on nuclear-armed Pakistan, which he praised for its massive ongoing anti-militant campaign in South Waziristan.

Arguing for sustained support for Pakistan, Senator Kerry also drew attention to the contrast in $30 to $1 ratio of what the US spends in Afghanistan and what it gives to Pakistan.

Senator Kerry ruled out any American combat troops on Pakistani soil, asserting that Islamabad can best overcome militant challenges through a homegrown approach.

‘We’re not going to send troops by any significant numbers of any kind to Pakistan. We may have some people training or helping if that’s something they (Pakistanis) decide they want,’ he said.

Kerry said the Obama administration is working to strengthen Islamabad’s ability to deliver on economic and security challenges.

‘The outcome is going to be determined by the Pakistanis themselves making a choice about whether or not they are going to stand up to the Taliban and assert their democratic values. I believe they will. I think they are,’ said Kerry in an interview with the Fox News channel.

‘And I think the White House is trying to figure out the best ways in which to empower them to do that. It can’t be an American-driven policy. It can’t have an American imprint or footprint. This really has to be homegrown, and that’s what we’re really working with the Pakistanis to achieve.’

‘If they (Pakistanis) are left in a place where their efforts are viewed as being our efforts, we’re all in trouble. We can’t tell them what to do. We can’t be viewed as orchestrating this in some way. This really has to be a plan that is based on our ability to assist them to do what they decide they want to do and need to do. And, yes, we have mutual interests.’

‘This is a country with a history and with an ability to be able to deliver – in some cases more rapidly than others. They now need to get coordinated. They have a new civilian government. They have had a military leader for the last eight years or so. They went to the polls. They elected this leader. He’s only had a short period of time under very difficult economic circumstances to really get things moving. Our hope is that they are now getting on the track and beginning to make the commitments necessary to win back their own country.’

He particularly highlighted the anti-militant resolve achieved at public level under the democratic Pakistani government.

‘The good news is that many Pakistanis recognize that they face an existential challenge within their border. The Pakistani military has demonstrated a firm resolve with its current offensive against Pakistani Taliban in Waziristan (border tribal area) and they deserve great credit for that.’

He also noted the Pakistani military is pushing back militants from the country’s northwestern areas they had infiltrated into.

‘We need to be doing as much as we can do and that involves Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to assist the Pakistani military as they go after domestic extremists,’ he added, underscoring the need for coordinated efforts against remnants of al-Qaeda.

‘We need to be doing a better job of explaining ourselves, we need to be much more sensitive to their sensibilities as to how we can proceed.’

He saw an opportunity in the current refugee exodus from Waziristan toward improving the image of the United States through humanitarian assistance.—APP

New York Times: Taliban types & Pakistanphobia

The New York Times in its latest story finally has been able to comprehend the basics of the raging battles in West Asia. However Souad Mekhennet is only partially right. He still doesn’t have the full picture. As explained in these columns The “Taliban” are a misnomer. The original Afghan “Taliban” are all decrepit old men---today’s “Taliban” are a conglomeration of 38 insurgent groups that carry varying degrees of loyalty to the local warlords.

Of course the US media long used to the “the-only-good-Muslim-is-a-dead-Muslim” paradigm is incapable of discerning the nuanced differences among the various groups—simply because it does not serve the vested interests to differentiate between the Uzbeks, the Tajiks, the Afghans, the Pakhtuns and the Hazaras.

Ms. Clinton: Want to stop Anti-Americanism in Pakistan–Halt Anti-Pakistan statements

LKB2-Military places more restrictions on Pakistan

Did Blackwater attack Islamic University? Students think so

Pakistan must take a U-turn–an emphatic no to Obama’s war

WASHINGTON — As it devises a new Afghanistan policy, the Obama administration confronts a complex geopolitical puzzle: two embattled governments, in Afghanistan and Pakistan; numerous militias aligned with overlapping Islamist factions; and hidden in the factions’ midst, the foe that brought the United States to the region eight years ago, Al Qaeda.

But at the core of the tangle are the two Taliban movements, Afghan and Pakistani. They share an ideology and a dominant Pashtun ethnicity, but they have such different histories, structures and goals that the common name may be more misleading than illuminating, some regional specialists say.

“The fact that they have the same name causes all kinds of confusion,” said Gilles Dorronsoro, a French scholar of South Asia currently at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

This week, Mr. Dorronsoro said, as the Pakistani Army began a major offensive against the Pakistani Taliban, many Americans thought incorrectly that the assault was against the Afghan Taliban, the force that is causing Washington to consider sending more troops to Afghanistan.

At stake is not just semantics. Grasping the differences between the two Taliban forces, and their shifting relationships with Al Qaeda, is crucial to understanding the debate under way in the White House situation room. Though both groups threaten American interests, the Afghan Taliban — the word Taliban means “religious students” — are the primary enemy, mounting attacks daily against the 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan. Washington’s biggest fear is that if the Afghan Taliban overrun the country, they could invite Al Qaeda’s leaders back from their Pakistani hide-out.

Alex Strick van Linschoten, a Dutch researcher who lives in Kandahar, in the heart of the Afghan Taliban’s power base, said that while leaders of the two Taliban groups might say that they share common interests, the two movements are quite separate.

“To be honest, the Taliban commanders and groups on the ground in Afghanistan couldn’t care less what’s happening to their Pakistani brothers across the border,” said Mr. Strick van Linschoten, who has interviewed many current and former members of the Afghan Taliban.

In fact, the recent attacks of the Pakistani Taliban against Pakistan’s government, military and police, in anticipation of the army’s current campaign into the Pakistani Taliban’s base in South Waziristan, may have strained relations with the Afghan Taliban, said Richard Barrett, a former British intelligence officer who tracks Al Qaeda and the Taliban for the United Nations.

The Objectivity of world class newspapers is tarnished when they focus on the reports of the defeated US general playing the blame game. Like Westmoreland in Vietnam, General Petraues and McChrystal are in constant search of the ghosts of the “Ho Chi Minh” trail (now called the Quetta Shura). The US politicians are unable to differentiate between the “Taliban” because they would then have to take ownership for the creation of the new Franken steins—the new “Khemer Rouge” (TTP). We have been writing for a decade about the spillover of the US war in Afghanistan. Reams have been written about the “Cambodiazation” of Pakistan. Today the Pakistani people are suffering because of the excesses of the worst terror organization in the world—the Indian sponsored and Delhi abetted TTP. India behind most terror attacks: Pakistani Interrior Minister Rehman Malik

The Afghan Taliban have always had a close relationship with Pakistani intelligence agencies, Mr. Barrett said recently. “They don’t like the way that the Pakistan Taliban has been fighting the Pakistan government and causing a whole load of problems there,” he said.

The Afghan Taliban, whose group is by far the older of the two forces, have been led by Mullah Muhammad Omar since he founded the movement in 1994. They seeks to regain the power they held over most of Afghanistan before being ousted by the American invasion of 2001.

In an interview this week, speaking on the condition of anonymity, an Afghan Taliban commander expressed sympathy for the Pakistani Taliban, but said, “There will not be any support from us.” He said the Afghan Taliban “don’t have any interest in fighting against other countries.”

“Our aim was, and is, to get the occupation forces out and not to get into a fight with a Muslim army,” the commander added.

Before 9/11, the Afghan Taliban hosted Osama bin Laden and the other leaders of Al Qaeda, but the groups are now separated geographically, their leaders under pressure from intensive manhunts. On jihadist Web sites, analysts have detected recent tensions between Al Qaeda, whose proclaimed goals are global, and the Afghan Taliban, which have recently claimed that their interests lie solely in Afghanistan.

Mr. Dorronsoro, the French scholar, said the Afghan Taliban were a “genuine national movement” incorporating not only a broad network of fighters, but also a shadow government-in-waiting in many provinces.

By comparison, he said, the Pakistani Taliban were a far looser coalition, united mainly by their enmity toward the Pakistani government. They emerged formally only in 2007 as a separate force led by Baitullah Mehsud under the name Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, or Students’ Movement of Pakistan.

After Mr. Mehsud was killed by an American missile in August, a fellow tribesman, Hakimullah Mehsud, took over after a period of jockeying for power in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Another complication for regional terminology: most leaders of the Afghan Taliban are based in Pakistan, directing their forces from hide-outs across the border. Mullah Omar and his top deputies are believed to be in or around the southern Pakistani city of Quetta. Two other major factions in the Afghan insurgency are led by veteran Afghan warlords, Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who are in Pakistan’s tribal areas, where the Pakistan Taliban is strongest.

Al Qaeda’s leaders, including Mr. bin Laden, are believed to be hiding in the same tribal areas of Pakistan. While it has been weakened by American missile strikes, the terrorist network nonetheless is believed to have provided support for the Pakistani Taliban’s strikes against the Pakistani government.

For the United States, regional experts say, the long-term challenge is to devise policies that peel away as many militants as possible from both Taliban forces, isolating Al Qaeda and other hard-liners and strengthening the Pakistani and Afghan governments. But for a non-Muslim superpower, widely resented in the region, that is a tall order.

“At the moment the ground isn’t very well prepared for splitting the militant groups,” said Stephen Biddle, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who spent a month last summer in Afghanistan. “The security trends are running in their favor.”

Of course, if the United States’ enemies in the region are complicated, so are its allies. In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai is seen as unwilling to take on corruption and tainted by fraud in the recent election, though he has now agreed to a runoff.

In Pakistan, with 172 million people, a population at least five times as large as that of Afghanistan, power is divided among the army, the intelligence service and two rival political parties — “four actors,” Mr. Biddle said, “each of which sees the threat from the others as bigger than the threat from the militants.”

Polls show that Americans, frustrated by the United States’ supposed allies and confused by the conflict, are losing their fervor for the fight. “The complexity of all this is hard enough for experts to understand,” said Paul R. Pillar, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst now at Georgetown University. “It’s not surprising if it baffles a lot of ordinary people.”  Insurgents Share a Name, but Pursue Different Goals By SCOTT SHANE. Published: October 22, 2009, Souad Mekhennet contributed reporting from Karachi, Pakistan. October 23, 2009

Sistan attack: Attempt to disrupt Iran-Pakistan ties

International Council of Security and Development (ISOC): Taliban control “virtually all” of Afghanistan

Perpetual Mimitic War: Strategy for continued Failure in Afghanistan Obama's Afghan 'Strategy' without an "Exit Plan" is a 'Straightjacket' named quagmire & defeat

Souad Mekhennet differentiates between the Taliban and the TTP. He however uses the opportunity to malign Pakistan and the intelligence forces. It is exactly this sort of Anti-Pakistanism in the US that mirrors itself as escalating Anti-Americanism in Pakistan. The US cannot win the war in Afghanistan without Pakistan.

Pakistan has repeatedly provided cheese for Western whines in Afghanistan. The perpetual complaints build a huge reservoir of “ingrate fever” which clearly manifests itself as Anti-Americanism. Silly comments by Ms. Clinton lecturing Pakistanis on who the enemy is the epitome of “Ugly Americanism”. When the US Ambassador behaves like the Viceroy of Pakistan, it is inevitable that Anti-Americanism grows. When veiled threats by General Petraeus are thrown at Islamabad with lines like “existential threats”, the Pakistanis don’t like it.

Pakistan: Why Ms. Clinton doesn’t get it Hillary Clinton admits to US support for Bin Laden & creation of Taliban

The rude US Ambassador Patterson in hot soup

Kerry Lugar Bill backlash: Pakistan rethinks Afghan policy & US alliance-Hit RAW hard in Afghanistan
We are running the risk of replicating the fate of the Soviets” Mr. Brzezinski Brzezinski: Don’t start new wars. Use diplomacy in Pakistan

Admiral Mullen is still wrong The crusty specious, Admiral is mistaken about Afghanistan