ISIS – Always-Always Claims Responsibility!

ISIS – Always-Always Claims Responsibility!

Whenever a terrorist attack hits somewhere in Europe or the world, wait a few hours and the police or media report ISIS / ISIL / Daesh claims responsibility. To enhance credibility, they usually say it was confirmed by ISIS news agency Amaq. As soon as this little piece of info is out, the upset populace takes a deep breath and falls at ease. It’s the usual culprits. It’s them, not us. We are fine. We can go back to business as usual.


This in Europe alone has happened more than 40 times since May 2014 – that’s as many ‘Muslim-induced terror attacks’ Western Europe has endured; from Paris to Nice, Brussels, London, Berlin, Munich, Würzburg, Copenhagen, Zvornik (Bosnia & Herzegovina), Moscow, Istanbul, and many more. And almost without fail, the alleged perpetrator(s) were killed, though most of them were not armed and could have been apprehended by police, questioned and brought to justice. Dead men don’t talk. That’s more convenient.

The latest Barcelona terror Amuck-run on the Rambla is not different. It is a case in point and a typical case for confusion. There were several chief-perpetrators suspected and killed. Many names circulated – and, of course, a passport, leading to a Spanish enclave in Morocco was found. The owner of the passport, immediately reported it to the police as stolen, with a solid alibi. But then, suitably his 17-year-old brother stole the passport and left it in the white van, when he fled on foot, injured from an explosion the night before, in a residency some 230 km south of Barcelona – or was that really him? – and several hours after the Rambla assault, he was caught by police in Cambrils, 120 km south of Barcelona in another attempted pedestrian run – and killed among one of five terrorists who happened to be squeezed into the same Audi. Ever wondered, why so many terrorists in one car? – Or was he really one of those killed?

By now, the people are really-really confused. Nobody knows up from down in this chaos. Better leave it to the authorities. They know best to handle the situation. Let us go back to normal – until the next terror attack hits – Allahu Akbar – very likely next in a theatre near you, somewhere in this old, purposefully and increasingly militarized police state, called Europe.

What happened to the real and innocent owner of the passport? – Does anybody know? Or can we ask ten ‘official’ sources and get ten different answers?

How come special police throughout Europe apply the same philosophy – kill to shut them up? Isn’t there a police ethics code – shoot only in self-defense? Most cases were no self-defense, as the ‘terrorists’ were visibly not armed. Have European secret and special police forces been receiving collective, well-focused training: no Muslim-Terrorist Survivors!

Why not? – That would also explain why never anybody questions the ISIS claim to murder and mayhem. Why would ISIS / ISIL / Daesh want to hurt those who fund them, train them, arm them, feed them? – It’s not even secret any more. Hillary said so already years ago, We created them, now we have to deal with them. Former CIA officials admitted that they recruited, funded, trained and armed them – later the ISIL / Daesh reign was expanded with additional financial backing by the Saudis, other Gulf States and Turkey – and, of course, all the holy western allies. – So, why would ISIS want to hurt the cow whose milk they drink? Strange – isn’t it?

Maybe what meets the eye is not reality. Could it be that ISIS / ISIL / Daesh, out of sheer gratitude to its benevolent sponsors have agreed to take the blame whenever a western orchestrated terror attack strikes somewhere in Europe or the world? Can’t be excluded, can it? It’s not even blackmail. After all, lending a helping hand to the Big Brothers, NATO, France, Germany, UK, US of A and many more lesser contributors, but contributors all the same – who keep you alive, would not be out of the world. – Right? – This is all done in connivance with massive support of European secret services, led by the usual villains, CIA, MI6, Mossad.

Is it therefore far-fetched to conclude that European governments are utterly complicit in instigating and executing these ‘false flag’ terror attacks, sacrificing the lives of hundreds of their citizens, just so they can pursue their goal of totally militarizing the Continent?  – That they are as faithful vassals following the pattern of their trans-Atlantic partners – aiming at Full Spectrum Dominance – World Hegemony, a New World Order under a One World Order governed by Washington and its Deep Dark handlers? – Barcelona, Paris, Berlin are mere little pebbles in the Big Picture mosaic of world dominion. And the people, the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, children who are killed – they are just menial collateral damage. After all, slaves – what is their value?

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media (China), TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Peter Koenig, Global Research, 2017

 

Russia Fears New U.S. Bomb Ups Risk of Nuclear Strike



File Photo:B61-11 "Bunker Buster" bomb

Russia Fears New U.S. Bomb Ups Risk of Nuclear Strike
News Week- 30-08-20917

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs fears updated, high-precision U.S. models of nuclear bombs will lower inhibitions to use nuclear weapons in combat, Russian state news agency Itar-Tass reported on Tuesday.

The B-61 model 12 is a weapon that the U.S. has worked on for some time, testing a mock-up of it in 2015. The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration announced on Tuesday that it had carried out another non-nuclear test of the model 12 and would continue doing so in the next three years, hoping to clear it for service. The weapon is meant to be the first precision-guided atomic bomb, and Russia does not like the sound of it.

“The advantage of the new modification of the B61-12, according to U.S. military experts themselves lies in the fact that it will be, as they put it, ‘more ethical’ and ‘more usable’,” Mikhail Ulyanov, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Nonproliferation and Weapons Control Department told Tass.
Referring to comments made by former undersecretary of defense James Miller and ex-President Barack Obama’s key nuclear strategist General James E. Cartwright, Ulyanov expressed fears the U.S. may develop a more laissez-faire view of nuclear arms’ use, knowing they “cause less catastrophic consequences for the civilian population.

“From this we can conclude that the clearing of such bombs for service could objectively lead to lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear arms,” Ulyanov said. “This, we can imagine, is the main negative impact of the ongoing modernization.”

The upgrade is, in the eyes of some U.S. defense experts, a needed replacement of an integral part of U.S. nuclear capabilities whose design dates back to the 1960s. Former U.S. General Cartwright defended the program in 2016, noting that increasing precision and shrinking the size of the arms means fewer will be needed to act as a deterrent in the first place.

Ulyanov, however, felt the U.S. and any of its NATO allies that may benefit from the upgrade sought the B-61 model 12’s potential clearing in response to what they perceive as Russian nuclear posturing. Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have issued a handful of verbal reminders that Russia’s own nuclear capabilities exist to back up its foreign policy if needed.
North Korea’s current nuclear missile program has topped the list of concerns for the U.S. of late, with a missile test flying over Japan taking place on Tuesday morning. Though Russia formally opposes the North’s nuclear program, Moscow chose to once again condemn the U.S. for provoking the test by carrying out its annual defense drill with regional ally South Korea.

Mandaithivu boat tragedy

Mandaithivu boat tragedy Bodies of six youth handed over to families

By 2017-08-30

 

BY Mirudhula Thambiah

The bodies of the six Advanced Level students, who died when their boat capsized at sea, off Mandaithivu, Jaffna on Monday (28), were handed over to their families following an autopsy yesterday (29).

The incident occurred around 1.30 p.m. when seven students travelled to Mandaithivu for a boat ride to celebrate one of their birthdays.

Initially five out of seven students died due to drowning, one went missing and the other was rescued, Police said.

However, the body of the missing youth was also recovered from the Mandaithivu seas.

The deceased students were identified as Nanthan Rajeevan (18) Nagasilogan Sinnathamby (17)and Jayasanth Thinesh (17) from Urumpirai, Thanurathan (20) from Kokkuvil, Praveen (20) from Nallur and Thanushan (18) Sandilippay.

Preliminary Police investigations revealed the boat was not fit to be put to sea. Police also believe that the students had been under the influence of liquor.

However, Jaffna Teaching Hospital Director T. Sathiyalingam told the media that certain body samples of the deceased were sent to Colombo for further medico-legal examinations, which would reveal whether the students had been under the influence of liquor.

Altogether, 18 students had travelled to Mandaithivu to celebrate the birthday, however the boat in which seven of them travelled separately had capsized.

Meanwhile, another five students, of the 18, including the one who was rescued from the sea, were arrested by policeand later released following investigations and severe warnings.

Hayleys Group buys Sri Lanka Shipping for Rs. 4.9 billion

---

Tuesday, 29 August 2017 00:40

Hayleys Advantis, the transportation and logistics arm of Hayleys Plc, has acquired 94.8% stake in the Sri Lanka Shipping Company Ltd. for Rs. 4.9 billion.

The company, a subsidiary of conglomerate Hayleys Plc, in a disclosure to the Colombo Stock Exchange said the acquisition is in line with the group’s strategy on expanding its maritime operations and paving the way for the establishment of the largest marine and shipping company in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka Shipping has enjoyed an excellent and respected position in the local shipping industry and is headquartered in its own building named after its founder Chairman Robert Senanayake.

The group of the company offers the local and international shipping community the full range of maritime services such as a liner and tramp ship agency, joint venture investment in ship agency companies, stevedoring, Customs house agents, clearing and forwarding, heavy lift haulage, towage and salvage, bagging of bulk fertiliser, warehousing and warehouse management and tea blending and other related services to the export of tea.

Its Board of Directors were Capt. Lester Paul Weinman (Chairman), Mrs. Sonia Weinman, Mohamed Reza (Managing Director) and Feroza Delpechitrea.

=================

Note:

Hayleys  is one of Sri Lanka’s largest multinational business conglomerates* with a history spanning 135 years. We drive a globally competitive business portfolio encompassing 12
defined sectors of enterprise cutting across manufacturing, agriculture and services. Commencing commercial operations in 1878 as Chas. P. Hayley and Company, we were
incorporated as Hayleys Limited 61 years ago. The Group accounts for 3.17% of Sri Lanka’s export income, and 4.5% of tea and 2.2% of rubber production.
(* Often, a conglomerate is a multi-industry company.)

About Us

Commencing commercial operations in 1878 as Chas. P. Hayley and Company, we were incorporated as Hayleys Limited 61 years ago. Embracing innovation and entrepreneurship,
we’ve added value for people and businesses across the country and beyond. It is this spirit that has characterised our growth and the building of a strong and successful enterprise
that is active in local and global markets. In addition to Sri Lanka, Hayleys today has manufacturing facilities in Indonesia and Thailand, and marketing operations in Australia, India,
Bangladesh, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, UK and USA. The Group accounts for 3.17% of Sri Lanka’s export income, and 4.5% of tea and 2.2% of rubber production.

பிணம் புதைக்க நிலம் இல்லா ஈழம்!

Source:Tamilnet Poster ENB

https://youtu.be/CkJIldM5Oas

David Petraeus: Allies will be in Afghanistan for decades

 

David Petraeus: Allies will be in Afghanistan for decades

 

Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor | Michael Evans

August 28 2017, 12:01am,

The Times UK

 

David Petraeus



American forces are likely to stay in Afghanistan for decades after an increase in troop numbers, a former commander of US and Nato troops in the country has indicated.

 

General David Petraeus, a former director of the CIA who is credited with quelling the insurgency in Iraq that came after the US-led invasion, pointed to the presence of US forces in South Korea ever since the Korean war and in Europe during the Cold War.

 

“The analogy with Afghanistan isn’t perfect, given that is a true shooting war, but when we have had significant national interests at stake we have sustained efforts, and I think that is why a sustained commitment is important here but also why that has to be sustainable,” he told The Times.

 

He “wouldn’t hazard a prediction” on how long Nato forces would be in Afghanistan, but indicated that the 16-year war, America’s longest, was set to last. “This is not the fight of a decade, much less a few years,” he said. “We are engaged in a generational struggle. That is why we need sustained commitments that are sustainable. I believe that this is a sustainable sustained commitment.”

 

General Petraeus, 64, a former candidate for secretary of state, declined to say whether President Trump or members of the administration, including Lieutenant-General HR McMaster, the national security adviser, who he knows well, had sought his opinion in devising their strategy for Afghanistan and the rest of south Asia, announced last week.

 

The Times UK Graphic Afghan 2017

However, he was supportive of the policy, which is expected to mean that an additional 3,900 American forces — taking the number of US troops to 12,300 — would be sent.

 

A second former US military chief said that the increase would be “helpful but not decisive”. General Jack Keane, who for family reasons turned down the chance to serve as secretary of defence, said that tens of thousands of troops were required to defeat the Taliban but realised that there was no longer support in Congress for action on such a scale.

 

Mr Trump’s goals in Afghanistan appear to be less ambitious that those of his predecessors, General Keane said. The president aims to stop the Taliban from overthrowing the Afghan government, not to defeat them. In time it is hoped that political reconciliation could be achieved with the insurgents.
 

There are already more than 12,000 Nato-led troops, more than half of them American, in Afghanistan helping to train and advise the Afghan security forces. A separate counterterrorism mission of up to 2,000 US special forces as well as elite British and other troops is focused on al-Qaeda, Islamic State and the Taliban.

 

General Petraeus welcomed the absence of an “artificial deadline” for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. He directed veiled criticism towards the Obama administration for constraining commanders by setting exit timelines. “I applaud the commitment to conditions-based decision-making,” he said.

 

The boost in numbers will enable Nato-led forces to reassert their presence lower down the Afghan chain of command, with officers offering more training and advice to counterparts who are closer to the frontline rather than focusing their efforts at the corps and divisional level. It could also mean more aircraft providing surveillance and reconnaissance as well as a greater capacity to launch airstrikes. Having Nato personnel closer to the front line will enable Afghan forces to take greater advantage of US jets and drones.

 

General Petraeus said he was confident that Britain and other Nato allies involved in Operation Resolute Support train and advise mission would follow the US lead by increasing troops. The required increase is thought to be up to 2,500 personnel. He would not be drawn on whether a British plan to add 85 troops, including special forces, on top of its 500-strong presence was adequate. “I think at the end of the day we will see Nato countries come through,” he said.

 

When judging the utility of continuing the campaign, which has cost the lives of more than 2,400 US military personnel, the former commander said that it had prevented al-Qaeda from launching another September 11-style attack from the country. “That remains a national security priority,” he said.
 

The US presence in Afghanistan also secures a launchpad for counterterrorism operations across the region, such as the raid into Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, he said.

 

General Petraeus said that the security situation in Afghanistan was “as a Brit would say, fraught” less than three years after Nato declared an end to combat operations. On Saturday the funeral took place of the latest American serviceman killed in Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Aaron Butler, a member of the Green Beret special forces, died in an explosion in Nangarhar province.

 

Yesterday at least 13 people were killed in a car bomb attack in Helmand.

 

General Petraeus attributed a rise in attacks and increase in Taliban-held territory to a number of factors, including the requirement, supported by Barack Obama and David Cameron when they were in power, for the withdrawal of combat troops.

 

A relaxing last year of the rules of engagement for airstrikes, taking away limitations on striking Taliban forces, would help the renewed push to support the Afghan government, according to the former general, now a partner at a private equity firm. He resigned as director of the CIA in 2012 after an extramarital affair was revealed but remains a highly regarded figure because of his military record.

 

Source:The Times UK-Subscription Article


பேரறிவாளன்: 26 ஆண்டு சிறைவாசத்துக்குப் பின் ஒரு மாத 'சிறைவாச நல்லொழுக்க விடுமுறை`!

ENB Editorial Poster PerarivaaLan

முன்னாள் பிரதமர் ராஜீவ் காந்தி கொலை வழக்கில் தண்டிக்கப்பட்டு 25 ஆண்டுகளுக்கும் மேலாக சிறையில் இருக்கும் பேரறிவாளன் முதல் முறையாக வியாழக்கிழமை சிறை விடுப்பில் (பரோலில்)* வெளியே வந்தார்.

தமிழக அரசு அவருக்கு 30 நாட்கள் சிறைவிடுப்பு அளித்து உத்தரவிட்டதைத் தொடர்ந்து அவர் வெளியே வந்துள்ளார்.

ராஜீவ் காந்தி கொல்லப்பட்ட வழக்கில் தற்போது 7 பேர் சிறையில் அடைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளனர். இவர்களில் பேரறிவாளனின் உடல்நிலையைக் கருத்தில் கொண்டும் உடல்நலமின்றி அவதிப்படும் அவரது தந்தையாரைப் பார்ப்பதற்காகவும் சில நாட்களாகவது சிறைவிடுப்பு அளிக்க வேண்டுமென அவரது தாயார் அற்புதமம்மாள் கோரிவந்தார்.

ஆனால் இந்தக் கோரிக்கையை பேரறிவாளன் அடைக்கப்பட்டுள்ள வேலூர் சிறையின் கண்காணிப்பாளர் நிராகரித்தார்.

இதையடுத்து, இந்த விவகாரம் குறித்து தமிழக அட்வகேட் ஜெனரலின் கருத்தை மாநில அரசு கேட்டது. பேரறிவாளன் மத்திய அரசுச் சட்டத்தின் கீழ் தண்டிக்கப்பட்டிருந்தாலும் அவர் தன் தண்டனைக் காலம் முழுவதையும் அனுபவித்துவிட்டதால், மாநில அரசில் உள்ள பொருத்தமான அதிகாரிகள் அவருக்கான சிறைவிடுப்பு குறித்து முடிவு செய்யலாம் என அட்வகேட் ஜெனரல் தன் கருத்தை அளித்தார்.

இந்நிலையில், அவருக்கு ஒரு மாத காலம் சிறைவிடுப்பு அளிப்பதாக தமிழக அரசு அறிவித்துள்ளது.
இது தொடர்பாக தமிழக அரசின் கூடுதல் தலைமைச் செயலர் நிரஞ்சன் மார்டி வெளியிட்டுள்ள உத்தரவில், "1982-ஆம் ஆண்டின் சிறை தண்டனை நிறுத்திவைப்பு விதிமுறைகள் - விதி 19-ன் படி பேரறிவாளனுக்கு 30 நாட்கள் சிறை விடுப்பு அளிக்கலாம்.

அவர் சிறை விடுப்பில் இருக்கும் காலகட்டத்தில் அவருக்கு கடுமையான போலீஸ் பாதுகாவல் அளிக்க வேண்டும்" என்று குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளார்.

கடந்த 1991-ஆம் ஆண்டு ஜூன் மாதம் கைது செய்யப்பட்ட பேரறிவாளன், 26 ஆண்டுகள் கழித்து சிறை விடுப்பு கிடைத்துள்ளது.

இந்த வழக்கில் தண்டனை அனுபவித்துவரும் சிலர் இதற்கு முன்பாக சிறைவிடுப்பு பெற்றுள்ளனர் என்றாலும் அவர்களுக்கு சில நாட்கள் மட்டுமே அவ்விடுப்பு கிடைத்தது. முதல்முறையாக இவ்வழக்கின் தண்டனைக் கைதி ஒருவருக்கு ஒரு மாதகால விடுப்பு கிடைத்துள்ளது.

ராஜீவ் காந்தி கொலைவழக்கில் சாந்தன், முருகன், பேரறிவாளன் ஆகியோருக்கு விதிக்கப்பட்ட தூக்கு தண்டனையை ஆயுள் தண்டனையாக உச்சநீதிமன்றம் குறைத்தது.

இந்த வழக்கில் தண்டிக்கப்பட்ட 7 பேரையும் குற்றவியல் நடைமுறைச் சட்டம் 435ன் கீழ் விடுவிக்கப்போவதாக 2014ஆம் ஆண்டில் அப்போதைய முதல்வர் ஜெயலலிதா அறிவித்தார்.

மத்திய அரசின் ஒப்புதலோடுதான் இந்தச் சட்டப்பிரிவைப் பயன்படுத்தி அவர்களை விடுவிக்க முடியும் என்று உச்சநீதிமன்றம் தீர்ப்பளித்துள்ளதாலும், மத்திய அரசு ஒப்புதல் அளிக்க மறுத்ததாலும் ஏழு பேரையும் விடுதலை செய்யும் விவகாரம் கிடப்பில் உள்ளது.
======================
* parole

pəˈrəʊl/

noun

noun: parole

the temporary or permanent release of a prisoner before the expiry of a sentence, on the promise of good behaviour

==================================================

சமரன்: 2017 - நக்சல்பாரி தியாகிகள் நினைவு நீடுழி வாழ்க!

சமரன்: 2017 - நக்சல்பாரி தியாகிகள் நினைவு நீடுழி வாழ்க!: செப்டம்பர்-12-தியாகிகள் நினைவு நாள்! தோழர் பாலன் நினைவு நீடூழி வாழ்க!  * பன்னாட்டு, உள்நாட்டுக் கார்ப்பரேட்டுகளுக்கு சேவைசெய்யும் புத...

Trump's Afghanistan policy a chance to India increase influence in South Asia



ENB Editorial Poster

***************************************************************************

Sreemoy Talukdar

Donald Trump's Afghanistan policy presents India a chance to increase sphere of influence in South AsiaSreemoy Talukdar
Senior Editor at Firstpost.com



 

At one level, Donald Trump's policy on Afghanistan and South Asia isn't really that different from Barack Obama's. As a candidate, Trump promised to pull out American troops at the earliest and end its longest and "unwinnable" war. But as he said from Fort Myer, Virginia, on Monday, things look very different from behind the Oval Office desk. So instead of a pullout, which he admitted was his original instinct, he has decided that more US soldiers will descend on Afghan soil.

But the similarity doesn't end here. Trump's grand strategy is to stabilise Afghanistan so as to prevent it from becoming another Iraq — which sounds awfully like what Obama and George W Bush before him intended to do, and he plans to do so by eventually bringing Taliban to the negotiation table.

"Military power alone will not bring peace to Afghanistan or stop the terrorist threat arising in that country. But strategically-applied force aims to create the conditions for a political process to achieve a lasting peace," said Trump.

He wants to achieve a goal that is political through a route that is military, by "killing all terrorists". And has decided that threatening Pakistan against nurturing a bread basket of jihadists and urging India to increase its capacity-building role in Kabul would be the key tenets of this strategy.
Again, not much different from what administrations before him had tried to do. American's clear tilt towards India as a strategic hedge in a troubled South Asia started with Bush and it was taken forward by Obama. Wariness about Pakistan's duplicity had permeated successive US administrations, even if they had been unable to stop Islamabad's various rent-seeking practices.

For instance, during a joint news conference in 2011 with Pakistan's then foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar, then secretary of state Hillary Clinton had said that Pakistan can't expect to rear snakes in its backyard and hope that it only bites its neighbours.

The broad strokes indicate that Trump's Afghanistan strategy is not nearly as "dramatically different" as he touted it to be.

And yet at the macro level, Trump's approach is indeed radically different than Obama or Bush's before him. And it is here that India has been presented with an unprecedented opportunity to increase its sphere of influence in South Asia.

Before we get to that, let's look at the point of departures. Trump's address clearly brought out the essential difference between him and Obama. Whereas Obama — a politician, statesman and an intellectual — subscribed to America's role as a global security provider and 'democracy evangelist', Trump — a tycoon who runs an intercontinental business empire through laser focus on balance sheets — sees efforts to "use American military might to construct democracies in faraway lands or try to rebuild other countries in our own image" as a complete waste of time, energy, money and "American lives".

What this means is that despite his grand strategy of strengthening Afghanistan, Trump has redefined 'victory' and set for himself much smaller goals, and consequently has more chance of achieving those goals than Obama or Bush administrations before him. He has also shifted some of the responsibilities that the US had traditionally set or itself, to others.

Trump is clear that Afghanistan people will have to "take ownership of their future", "govern their society" and "carry their share of military, political and economic burden" to "achieve an everlasting peace" because the US is "not nation building again" and will limit its role only to "killing terrorists."
The dissonance that arises is that what constitutes a "strong Afghanistan" that won't fall prey to forces of instability? And if that happens, will America's greater purpose of not letting Afghanistan become another Iraq, be served? Trump claimed to have an answer.

For him, "victory will have a clear definition — attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al-Qaida, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge. We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy, with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own. We are confident they will."

So the key point that emerges is that while Trump wants a stable Afghanistan, he won't (at least doesn't plan to) go beyond the self-set parameters. At the heart of this 'new' policy is Trumpian realism, which manifests itself in his comments that "we must address the reality of the world as it exists right now". By accepting the reality and eschewing grand notions of American exceptionalism, Trump hopes to live up to his billing as a "problem solver."

Why is this an opportunity for India?

Trump's policy is guided by a nativist impulse that wants to cut losses in a 'bad deal'. This tunnel vision forces Washington to seek greater help from "NATO allies and global partners". This is not a bad approach. But there is a problem. India, a key player in South Asia and a force for stability, is not a treaty ally of the US. It's not a coincidence that Trump heaps oodles of praise on India, calling it the linchpin of US South Asia strategy.

"Another critical part of the South Asia strategy for America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India, the world's largest democracy and a key security and economic partner of the United States."

This is classic Trumpian transactionalism. By elevating India's bilateral status to a non-declared ally (at least a strategic partner), Trump hopes to bind India with a moral responsibility for sharing its burden in Afghanistan. Just to press the point — in comments that once again reflect his barter approach — he reminds India that it makes "billions of dollars in trade with the US" while urging it to "do more" in the "area of economic assistance and development."

Trump is at fault here. India's relationship with Afghanistan goes deep and is not incumbent on what the US president wants it to do. New Delhi's relationship with Afghanistan (long before Pakistan became a buffer state) is underwritten by social, cultural, economic and security ties.

As Afghanistan’s Ambassador to India Shaida Abdali pointed out during a recent Brookings India lecture on India-Afghanistan Strategic Relations, India "is the biggest regional donor to Afghanistan and fifth largest donor globally with over $3 billion in assistance". And these cover a wide network of infrastructure development areas. New Delhi has built "over 200 public and private schools", sponsors "over a 1000 scholarships", hosts over "16,000 Afghan students", and has assisted in the construction of critical infrastructure including roadways, highways, dams, electricity lines and even the Afghan Parliament building. It also trains Afghan military officers.

Even so, allowing for Trump's limited understanding of the traditional and dynamic imports of India-Afghanistan relationship, New Delhi can still make a virtue out of necessity.

India can increase its foreign aid and commit more in capacity-building efforts. A transactional US president can sell it to his electoral base by claiming that he has "forced India to do so". This may make Trump amenable for a greater Indian role in South Asia and limit Pakistan's subversive influence. This quid-pro-quo also carries a lot of intangible benefits.

Already, New Delhi is being seen for all purposes as a strategic US partner. True, this is likely to increase Pakistan's anxiety, but little that India does will not induce Pakistan's 'strategic anxiety' — a chronic condition that its generals have sold well to the world so far.

Trump's policy on terror carries no equivocation on Pakistan and is a clear reinforcement of India's argument. His focus on more action and less diplomacy is also good news for India because it reduces the chance of Indo-Pakistan hyphenation.

Pakistan has been firmly cubbyhole into a problematic corner. Trump has not only put Islamabad on notice for running with the hare and hunting with the hound, a senior official has indicated to US media that sanctions may be imposed on Pakistani officials with ties to terrorists. Clearly, this US president is willing to walk the talk, unlike earlier ones.

India is now being recognised as a clear force for the good, a sponsor of democratic values and stability. This isn't a tacit endorsement, but a loud one that has huge implications for India in South Asia where it jostles for influence with a mercantile China. The Narendra Modi government must play its cards well.

Published Date: Aug 23, 2017 Source: First Post.com
The views are of the author

World reacts to Trump's new strategy on Afghan war

World reacts to Trump's new strategy on Afghan war

India, UK and NATO express support for US president's policy, but Pakistan, China and Russia offer little enthusiasm.

Politicians from across the world have reacted to US President Donald Trump's new strategy for the war in Afghanistan.

Trump vows to keep US troops in Afghanistan

A Pakistani army spokesman dismissed Trump's remarks, saying Pakistan had taken action against armed groups on its soil.

"There are no terrorist hideouts in Pakistan," spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor said.

Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khwaja Muhammad Asif met US ambassador David Hale and reiterated the country's "desire for peace and stability in Afghanistan", a statement by the foreign ministry said.
He "underlined Pakistan's continued desire to work with the International Community to eliminate the menace of terrorism," the statement said.

NATO

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed Trump's "conditions-based approach" and said the US-led alliance was committed to increasing its presence in Afghanistan.

He said: "Our aim remains to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists who would attack our own countries."

More than 12,000 troops from NATO and partner countries have been helping to "train, advise and assist" Afghan security forces since January 2015, after the alliance wound down combat operations there.infographic number of us troops Afghanistan

India

India has welcomed Trump's demand that Pakistan stops offering safe havens to armed groups and reaffirmed its policy of extending reconstruction aid to Afghanistan.

India's Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement that it welcomed Trump's "determination to enhance efforts to overcome the challenges faced by Afghanistan and in confronting issues of safe havens and other forms of cross-border support enjoyed by terrorists".

Without naming its rival Pakistan, the ministry said: "India shares these concerns and objectives."
India has provided a total of $2bn to Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban.

United Kingdom

The UK welcomed Trump's commitment to step up the military campaign against the Taliban, saying the US and its allies must "stay the course in Afghanistan" to reduce threats to the West.
"The US commitment is very welcome," British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said in a statement.

"It's in all our interests that Afghanistan becomes more prosperous and safer: that's why we ‎announced our own troop increase back in June," he said.

China

China defended its ally Pakistan after Trump's sharp rebuke, saying the country was on the front line in the struggle against "terrorism" and had made "great sacrifices" and "important contributions" in the fight.

"We believe that the international community should fully recognise Pakistan's anti-terrorism," Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for China's foreign ministry, told a daily news briefing.

China hoped "the relevant US policies can help promote the security, stability and development of Afghanistan and the region," she said.

Russia

Russia does not believe Trump's new strategy will lead to any significant positive changes in Afghanistan, the Interfax news agency cited an unnamed Russian foreign ministry source as saying on Tuesday.

Source: Al Jazeera and news agencies