आइसिस के विरुद्ध ओबामा चारों खाने चित

एक दो दिवस पूर्व ओबामा ने आइसिस के विरुद्ध अपनी रणनीति का खुलासा किया था आज ऐसी खबर आई है की लग रहा है की ओबामा को आइसिस ने शय और मात दे दी है. 

ओबामा तथा हिलरी के प्रिय फ्री सिरियन आर्मी के कई घटक दलों ने आइसिस के साथ शांति समझौता कर लिया है . इन सब मे CIA द्वारा समर्थित और अमरीकी सरकार द्वारा पसंद किए जाने वाली सिरियन रेवोल्यूशनरी फ्रंट भी शामिल है. अल-नुसरा नामक एक भयानक और खूनी दल ने इस समझौते को रूप दिया है. इसके अनूसार सभी दलों ने एक दूसरे पेर आक्रमण ना करने का निर्णय लिया है . तथा सब मिलकर राष्ट्रपति असद के खिलाफ लड़ने का भी मन बना चुके है.

सीआईए समर्थित जो एसआरएफ कमांडर है उसने साफ रूप से कहा की वो किसी भी समूह के साथ मिलकर लड़ने के लिए तैयार है जो  नुस्सायरी शासन के विरुद्ध युध के लिए उत्सुक हो . यह अमेरिकी सरकार और सीआईए के साथ घनिष्ठ संबंध वाला इंसान हैं .

दूसरी ओर श्री ओबामा ने निर्णय लिया है की वह वास्तविक षड्यंत्रकारी सऊदी अरब की मदद से इन्ही लोगों को प्रशिक्षित करेगा. उधर जर्मनी आईएसआईएस के इन सहयोगी दलों को हथियार भेज रहा है.

खबर यह भी है की सऊदी  अरब पाकिस्तान से मिलकर एक नया आतंकी संघटन का निर्माण कर रहा है जो शियाओं का मूल विनाश करेगी. 

अब असद के लिए मुसीबतें बढ़ रही हैं. संभवतया राष्ट्रपति की फ़ौजो को कई दिशाओं से बहुआयामी हमलों का सामना करना होगा. मुझे नही लगता की वह ऐसे ख़तरे का सामना कर पाएँगे. अगर राष्ट्रपति की सत्ता गिर गयी तो मान लीजिए शीया लोगों का भयानक नरसंहार होना निश्चित है.

ओबामा और उनकी सरकार अमेरिकी मतदाताओं द्वारा की गई सबसे बड़ी गलती साबित हो रही है .

CNN publishes most amateurish commentary on Iraq

Here is another example of people writing an article without having the slightest idea about the situation, only mantra is write anything to attack the Government. Came across this master piece on CNN website.
She gives a 4 point resolution master plan for Iraq.

Obama can fight ISIS without bombs

Pro-military hawks must be pleased with President Obama's speech on Wednesday night about attacking ISIS. We're sure to hear many of them -- the same voices that have been hounding the President to take military action in the first place -- call for more extensive strikes and even American troops on the ground.

Let us discuss what Sally Kohn's 4 point formula is:

1) Cut access to guns and money.
Madam how does Obama cut access to gun and money when borders are controlled by nations with various interests and groups within those nations with different ideologies(some love ISIS, some hate them). Only way to seal borders is to use military. If you remember, outsourcing border duties to Pakistan came back to haunt the Americans later.

She mentions "US allies", which one is she talking about Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey......? Most of the so-called allies are instrumental in setting up this organisation and propping it up to break the Shia arc.

Turkey has opened its borders for ISIS to operate freely and helps in transportation of fighters from Syria to Iraq.

2) Fix Iraq's political rifts.
How does a foreign power fix the internal politics of a country. This is exactly what got Americans into trouble. They tried to fix Saddam Hussein and invaded Iraq. Unless political parties and different parts of the society in a country is willing to change, how can a foreigner do it. Remember Mr Paul Bremer's and Rumsefield understanding of Iraqi internal situation. Asking a country to play politics in another country smacks not only of  foolishness at best but a superiority complex at worst.

Iraqi society does not comprise of just whites, blacks and Hispanics with majority Christians(all variety).  Had that been the case, yes a simple nudge or a summit at camp David would have sufficed. Unfortunately as we have seen Iraq is a melting pot of different factions and they must have a secure environment with safety guaranteed to at least start thinking about unity. At the present moment due to the utter chaos, it is every man for himself.

3) Provide humanitarian assistance.
Please be kind enough to explain how do you send "humanitarian" assistance to Irbil or Mount Sinjar or Allepo when it is surrounded by heavily armed barbaric militia. What do you do airdrop food from the air, we all know that kind of strategy only works on a large area where accuracy is not important. Next is use helicopters to do the same for better distribution, but what about the mad mullah with a RPG sitting on a mountain top.

Even in an area as Kashmir, air-force had to scale down its operation after its helicopter's were stoned(not RPG). Same was the issue with Naxal affected areas, unless the ground troops could provide a sanitized area it was impossible for the choppers to operate. 

How many UN peacekeepers are needed to distribute supplies in Africa?

Therefore madam your assertion about "Humanitarian" assistance without proper military force and air-cover is not only pipe dream but a sure way to hand over billions of dollars of supplies to ISIS.

4)Lead a truly international response.
Another point which shows that the author is truly unaware of the situation. How do you get UN members to agree to fight for America. As she herself mentions that the  mess was created by the Americans and Obama in particular, thus going to UN would mean asking Russia and China to help clean America's mess. Good luck with that.

• Relations with Russia at the present moment are touchy to say the least and after the Serbian treachery it is very hard for the Russians to believe anything USA says.
• China has a stout policy of no interference.
• Saudi is a sunni country and there troops in Iraq means  Shias would be up in arms.
• Reports are that Saudi's are pumping in millions of dollar in a new Sunni outfit called Jais-E-Islam with the hep of Pakistan.
• UAE is the hub of fundraising for Al-Nusra and the likes.
• Turkey will not lift a finger to help the Kurds.
• Qatar and Saudi will try their best to use ISIS against Shias, plus destabilize Assad and Iran, thus there are no chances of them playing fair.
• Direct Iranian involvement would mean handing ammo to Sunnis for sectarian conflict.
• European countries are struggling with economy and some would shy away after the the original Iraqi blunder.

Does the author seriously believe that countries like Indonesia, Burma, Thailand, Japan, Australia, France, Egypt etc would commit troops/material for another US led misadventure?
Firstly getting a resolution for action passed in the security council is bleak possibility, secondly sending NATO troops is not really an international coalition is it?

So madam, please write a follow up explaining to us, how is your 4 point formula different from the Rumsefield era power point presentations.

With ISIS on ground and being a cohesive military unit, it is impossible for Iraq and Syria to stabilize and unless Obama gives up his favored "Get Assad" policy, resolution of any kind is bleak.

On the other hand recent tactical withdrawal by ISIS under air attack and ground offensive shows the limitation of its capabilities and a pointer towards the way forward.

Netanyahu Speech Will He Take On Obama

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses Congress on Tuesday, many will be watching to see whether he escalates a war of words with the White House over how to make peace in the Middle East.

Netanyahu has a mostly sympathetic ear in Congress, where few lawmakers in either party speak up for the Palestinians, hewing to decades of close U.S.-Israeli ties








Read Full Article

Pakistani Obsession With India A Mistake: Obama

Pakistan's obsession with India that makes it look at its neighbour as an "existential threat" is a mistake and it would do well to shed this contest mentality, US President Barack Obama has said.

Speaking to BBC on the eve of his visit to Britain, Obama said both he and British Prime Minister David Cameron understood that Pakistan had been "very obsessed" with India.

He said the US wants Pakistan to realise that the biggest threat to it does not come from outside but is "home-grown".

He said: "They see that as their existential threat. I think that's a mistake. I think that peace between India and Pakistan would serve Pakistan very well".

He said Pakistan needs to shed its orientation of looking at every issue through the India lens to be able to make full economic progress.

"It would free up resources and capacity for them to engage in trade and commerce, and make enormous strides that you're seeing India make. But that's their orientation".

Obama added: "It's been that orientation for a long time. And so they look at issues like Afghanistan. Or the border region in the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) through the lens of what does this mean for our contest with India".

Obama said the US is currently trying to bring about a reorientation in Pakistan's attitude towards India and make it recognise that the main threat is from terrorists operating from Pakistan soil.

He said: "Well, part of what we're trying to do is to talk to them about how they can reorient their strategy so that they understand that the biggest threat to Pakistan and its stability is homegrown".

Obama added: "And that if we don't go after these networks that are willing to blow up police stations, blow up crowds of people assassinate Pakistani elected officials with impunity - if they don't get a handle on that then they're gonna see a significant destabilisation of the country".