The New Nation - Internet Edition

Dr.Abdul Ruff

It looks funny that the most powerful country on the globe, USA is awfully frightened by small-scale "terrorists" and keeps inventing newer threat perceptions to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq and keep killing the Muslims in these countries as much as else where. Such vague threat perceptions do come handy for the anti-Islamic nations, particularly USA, Israel and India, to torture Muslims and to advance their global agenda. What is shocking is the fact that the country with most sophisticated remote equipment could not locate the video-tape specialist Osama Bin Laden and the world is wondering as to how save itself from US terror wars.

President George W. Bush remains down in the polls. In an opinion poll conducted earlier this month, only 34 percent of those surveyed said they approve of the job Bush is doing. That's low for a president and about where Bush has been since the fall 2006. Yet the State of the Union always commands some public attention, maybe more so now because of the widespread economic concerns. It is perhaps Bush's last good chance to frame the debate. In the East Wing of the White House, he is going through practice runs of his speech in the family theater. Attention is fleeting. Within a matter of weeks, Republican Party voters will likely choose a new face for their party, preferably McCain. Even those who pay modest attention to politics are interested in whom the next president will be. Bush, therefore, does not project himself as the failed president, but his through his firmness he warns against "Islamic terrorism" - an emotionally charged, though funny, call that even the opposition Democrats support.

President Bush's strategy reflects what he is up against: little time left in office, confrontational relations with a Democratic Congress and a diminishing role on the national stage. Bush asked Congress to make permanent the tax cuts that are set to expire in 2010. He will prod Congress to extend a law allowing surveillance on suspected terrorists, renew his education law and approve free-trade pacts with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. He is also likely to recycle ideas on alternative energy, affordable health care and housing reform.

Once USSR and China were "deadly threats" to USA, then Afghanistan became a threat and fear complexes were extended to include Iraq and Iran. The list could be enlarged further as time passes on. USA unwittingly states that Iran now remains the key threat to US security but the fact remains that any country that does not support US interests in the region becomes an enemy and hence threat to USA. USA keeps adding troupes to Islamic world. The vast majority of deployed U.S. troops are still in Iraq, although the force of nearly 160,000 is set on a downward trend. In recent weeks U.S. officials have spoken of Iraq as moving toward stability, with al-Qaeda-affiliated fighters weakened and possibly forced to make a last stand. The number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan has grown over the past two years from about 20,000 to the current total of 28,000. That is the highest number of the war, which began in October 2001. The total is to jump by 3,200 this spring with a new influx of Marine reinforcements, including 2,200 combat troops who will bolster a NATO-led counterinsurgency force in the south.

The alarming situation in Iraq and Afghanistan makes the US-led forces to keep shifting their resources from one country to the other. But there is no wholesale shift of U.S. military firepower from Iraq to Afghanistan. Gates recently rejected a Marine Corps proposal to move the 20,000-plus Marine contingent in Iraq to Afghanistan, reflecting a worry that Iraq's progress is still fragile. There is growing recognition that the United States risks further setbacks, if not deepening conflict or even defeat, in Afghanistan, and that success in that country hinges on stopping Pakistan from descending into disorder. It is apparent that as security conditions in Iraq seemingly improve, the administration is looking closer at what needs to be done in Afghanistan to counter recent gains by the Taliban. The Taliban ruled the country in the late 1990s and provided support for the video tape specialist Osama bin Laden as his global "terrorist network" laid the groundwork from Afghanistan for the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the USA. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that the war in Afghanistan is a secondary priority. "In Afghanistan we do what we can. In Iraq we do what we must," he said.

The Bush administration is attempting to re-energize its terror war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the original target of a post-Sept. 11 offensive. The U.S. also is refocusing on Pakistan, where a regenerating al-Qaeda is posing fresh threats. Now some senior U.S. military commanders say Pakistan's tribal areas are at the center of the fight against the so-called "Islamic extremism"; more so than Iraq, or even Afghanistan. These areas border on eastern Afghanistan and provide "haven" for al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters to regroup, rearm and reorganize. This view may explain, at least in part, the administration's increasingly public expressions of concern.

The Pentagon says it has fewer than 100 troops in Pakistan, including personnel who are training Pakistan's paramilitary Frontier Corps in the western tribal region along the Afghanistan border. The U.S. military has used other means, including aerial surveillance by drones, to hunt Osama bin Laden and other senior al-Qaeda leaders believed to be hiding near the Afghan border. Ground troops on the Afghan side sometimes fire artillery across the border at known Taliban or al-Qaeda targets, and U.S. officials have said special operations forces are poised to strike across the border under certain circumstances. In recent days, administration officials have said they would send more U.S. forces, including small numbers of combat troops, if the Pakistani government decided it wanted to collaborate more closely.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is leading a NATO effort to produce a statement of goals for Afghanistan that spells out clearly what is at stake. The purpose is to bolster NATO governments' efforts to convince their publics that fighting and dying in Afghanistan is an investment worth making. The statement is supposed to be ready for adoption by President Bush and other NATO leaders at a summit meeting in April.

Gates said that while the U.S. respects the Pakistani government's right to decide what actions are needed to defeat extremists on its soil, there are reasons to worry that al-Qaeda poses more than an internal threat to Pakistan. "I think we are all concerned about the re-establishment of al-Qaeda safe havens in the border area," Gates said. "I think it would be unrealistic to assume that all of the planning that they're doing is focused strictly on Pakistan. So I think that that is a continuing threat to Europe as well as to us." But he has refused to admit that USA has already become the most serious threat to Pakistan, its long-time ally.

Although hard-pressed, President Bush is no fan of looking back. His mission is to chart a course for what's left and remind people that he's still here and engaged. He was written off as a lame duck last year but then used his veto authority with great success, staying relevant and forcing changes in legislation. Inside the White House, Bush's advisers know the obstacles. And despite a sudden interest in cooperation on the economic boost, Bush and the Democratic Congress are at odds on most matters. "I predict that after hearing the president's speech, Americans will be more convinced than ever that it's time for a change," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. In foreign affairs, Bush promotes the U.S.-backed Middle East peace effort and his administration's efforts to fight disease and hunger. On Iraq, Bush is expected to tout security improvements and restate that more U.S. troops will come home only as conditions merit. Given the military progress there and the Democrats' inability to force a change in strategy in 2007, he is in a different position this time around. "A year ago, he was in a very precarious situation when he announced the surge of U.S. troops.

President Bush only pursues the US policies vehemently and he is quite conscious of that. Hence nothing seems to stop Bush from going ahead with his war strategy, recommended by his Neo-cons, notwithstanding even the opposition from Gulf leaders. For this purpose, irrespective of the color of ruling dispensation, USA would always keep the "threat perceptions" alive. And, thus, the other political party, the Democratic Party also plays double game with people by supporting the Republican Bush plans for the world. The global game plan of the United States, it seems, would go on for ever.