SPEAKING on December 1 this year at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, President Obama announced the new U.S. strategy for the war in Afghanistan. "As Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan," the President said, bringing the total U.S. commitment to 100,000. "After 18 months," he continued, "our troops will begin to come home." Obama used part of his speech to remind Americans why we had gone into Afghanistan in the first place. "On Sept. 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people...as we know, these men belonged to al-Qaida," who were then based in Afghanistan and given shelter by the country's Taliban government. After initial success in Afghanistan in 2001, the U.S.-led international effort seriously deteriorated, with al Qaeda having found shelter in neighboring Pakistan, and their Taliban allies using the illegal narcotics trade to fund an increasingly effective insurgency back in Afghanistan. While the President acknowledged that "there is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown," he said "the Taliban has gained momentum. ... The status quo is not sustainable."

After quickly toppling Afghanistan's Taliban government in 2001, President Bush promised significant reconstruction aid to the country, but the aid never materialized at the promised levels. A recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee report faulted the Bush administration for failing to capture or kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden when he was cornered at Tora Bora, near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, in December 2001. U.S. military resources and attention soon turned to the planned invasion of Iraq, which Bush administration officials like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld felt would serve as a more effective demonstration of American military power. In September, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the U.S. had "very badly under-resourced Afghanistan for the better part of five years." An international aid worker told the New York Times that "the tragedy" is that "the $70 billion that would have given you enough police and army to stabilize [Afghanistan] all went to Iraq."

Though many have compared the Afghanistan escalation to the Iraq surge, there is an important difference: The troop surge that took place in Iraq in 2007 was a "one-time deployment of additional troops," after which those troops return home and troop levels decrease. What Obama announced last night is a sustained escalation, in which troops will be replaced after they complete their tours in order to maintain troop numbers at the new, higher level. The President also stressed that he had "asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies," noting that "some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead." According to Center for American Progress national security analyst Caroline Wadhams, securing a greater international commitment to Afghanistan is important. "We should not be asked to bear the burden alone especially in the midst of our own economic crisis," Wadhams said, adding, "Security interests in Afghanistan don't just affect us but threaten the globe." Speaking of the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai, Obama said that it must work to battle corruption and take advantage of the greater security provided by the new U.S. strategy. "This effort must be based on performance," Obama said. "The days of providing a blank check are over."

Obama said that he would like to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans themselves and begin bringing U.S. forces home by the middle of 2011. According to administration officials, Obama is calculating "that the explicit promise of a drawdown will impress upon the Afghan government that his commitment is not open-ended." Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) quickly sent out a press release attacking the President's timeline. "A withdrawal date only emboldens Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, while dispiriting our Afghan partner," he declared. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that setting a drawdown date "is a mistake, and it sends a mixed message to both our friends and our enemies regarding our long-term commitment to success." But CAP national security experts argue that such a timeline is necessary. CAP senior fellow Lawrence Korb said "You can make it flexible but you need to have goals. ... If we do not do that, we're going to be seen like the British and the Soviets as occupiers." In his speech, the President took care to distinguish the U.S. effort in Afghanistan from past interventions there. "[U]nlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination," the President said. "Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations."

In announcing his 18-month escalation strategy for Afghanistan, President Obama underscored his view that "Islamist extremism in the region remains an enduring threat to the security of Americans." Obama revealed, "In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) offered a cautious response to President Obama's speech last night, saying in a statement that "Congress will now have an opportunity to fully examine this strategy." Offering no explicit praise for Obama's proposal, Pelosi noted that Obama "inherited a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan because the Bush Administration did not have a plan to get the job done."

In a written statement, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged "all our allies to unite behind President Obama's strategy." "Britain will continue to play its full part in persuading other countries to offer troops to the Afghanistan campaign," said Brown. "A vital next stage is the London conference on Afghanistan on 28 January, to which all 43 coalition nations will be invited."

Democrats are "divided" on how to fund the new Afghanistan strategy, which will cost at least $30 billion more. "Key leaders rejected a proposal from liberal members to impose a 'war tax,'" but "they offered no plan of their own."

BACK

Badal & his generous men!

PUNJAB is nearly broke. Its governance is in a shambles. The family rule by Akali stalwart Parkash Singh Badal gives new twists to development strategy each passing day. As farmers groan under heavy debt, Rs 30,397 crore last year, the empty coffers steer the government, but there is no stoppage to the royal style profligacy. Is Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal distributing discretionary grants or grants that divide people?

Crores of rupees of discretionary grants are doled out by the Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal and his council of ministers put the lofty ideals of Indian democracy to shame. Information gathered under the Right to Information Act reveals that while discretionary grants have been given by these politicians primarily for their own constituencies. These have also been given for purposes clearly prohibited by the Constitution. At top in the past few years, Badal has shown no hesitation in distributing grants for the construction of “separate” cremation grounds for the Scheduled castes and general category population in same village.

Experts like RTI activist and lawyer H.C. Arora asserts, “Distribution of such grants fly in the face of constitutional provisions that no citizen shall, on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth, be subjected to any disability, liability and restriction with regard to the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of state funds or dedicated to the use of general public.” He gathered information on the use of discretionary grants under the Right to Information Act.

One Badal makes laws and rules; the other Badal violates these with impunity. Grants have been given to private clubs, private educational institutions and individuals on the flimsiest of grounds and, in most cases, in violation of the guidelines laid down for giving these grants. What is worse is that the Chief Minister has been giving out separate grants for the construction of community places for Harijans and non-Harijans in the same village.

The Chief Minister and the ministers, who are supposed to represent the entire state, obviously cannot look beyond their constituency’s electorate. Parkash Singh Badal spent Rs 34.50 crore in three years out of funds available with the Planning Department. “Out of this, the lion’s share of Rs 13.60 crore went to his home district, Muktsar. Finance Minister Manpreet Singh Badal disbursed grants worth Rs 10 crore during 2008-2009 from funds available with the Planning Department out of which Rs 8.13 crore went to his Giddarbaha constituency alone.

Mr. Arora said, “The Chief Minister, ministers and the chief parliamentary secretaries are entitled to untied grants disbursed through the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats. During 2008-2009, the Chief Minister’s quota of these grants was Rs 3 crore that of the Deputy Chief Minister was Rs 2.5 crore, and Rs 1.50 crore were allocated to each minister and Rs 1 crore to each chief parliamentary secretary. The CM and FM had an additional quota of Rs 8 crore and Rs 2 crore from funds released by the Planning Department.

From the grants available from the Panchayat Department, the various ministers disbursed grants mainly in their own areas. Manoranjan Kalia gave Rs 1.29 crore to Jalandhar, Ranjit Singh Brahampura spent Rs 1.25 crore on Tarantaran, Tikshan Sood gave Rs 1.05 crore to Hoshiarpur, Parminder Singh Dhindsa spent Rs 76.54 lakh on Sangrur, Swarana Ram doled out Rs 78.08 crore on Kapurthala while Sucha Singh Langah spent Rs 45.60 lakh on Gurdaspur and Rs 38.75 lakh on Tarantaran. Nthing beyond their nose as the saying goes.

The story of expenditure of these grants by the other ministers is also similar. Janmeja Singh Sekhon (Rs 74.22 lakh on Ferozepur); Hira Singh Gabria (Rs 1.07 crore on Ludhiana); Bijramjit S. Majithia (Rs 74.42 lakh on Amritsar); Sukhbir Singh Badal (Rs one crore on Bathinda and Rs 91.50 lakh on Amritsar); Upinderjit Kaur (Rs 1.19 crore on Kapurthala); Adarsh Partap Singh Kairon (Rs 57.85); Lakshmi Kanta Chawla (Rs 76.10 on Amritsar); Ajit Singh Kohar (Rs 1.16 crore on Jalandhar); Master Mohan Lal (Rs 68.76 lakh on Gurdaspur) and Gulzar Singh Ranike (Rs 61 lakh on Amritsar and Rs 35.60 lakh on Jalandhar).

The disbursement of grants by chief parliamentary secretaries also follows the same pattern. They spent 68 per cent of the grants on their own districts and constituencies.

In Sakona, Dadehra, Dughaat, Kalyan, Rauni, Bihipur, Dabhlan, Troran Kalan, Sadarpura, Lalouchi Bhedpura villages - all in Samana constituency - grants were given for the construction of outer walls of cremation grounds being used by the SC community. However, in some of these villages, he released the grants, the same day, for the construction of boundary walls of cremation grounds being used by higher caste families.

It’s clear that one carries the tag of one’s caste even after the death and the least a Chief Minister of a state can do is to discourage it. Here, he is encouraging it by doling out grants in such a manner. Similarly, the Chief Minister has disbursed grants separately to various communities for construction of dharmshalas for members of the SC community and the Ravidas community.

Grants have been given for purposes specifically prohibited by the government. The “untied grants” - drawn from the department of rural development and panchayats - are to be allocated for completing public service projects. There is specific prohibition against using these grants for commercial organisations, private institutions, and voluntary organisations, religious institutions such as clubs, trusts, registered societies and co-operative institutions. But who cares for the rules and norms , intriguingly set by these leaders themselves.

Manoranjan Kalia, Local Bodies Minister, gave 90 per cent of his grants to Dasehra and Ram Leela committees, private educational institutions, sports clubs, youth welfare clubs, the Bharat Vikas Parishad, mahila mandals for purchasing utensils, religious trusts, kabaddi or hockey associations, jagran committees, newspaper distributors association, etc.

Tikshan Sood distributed grants to a large number of city welfare councils, the Mahila Mandals and even the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, and to the Katha Committee in Amritsar. Parminder Singh Dhindsa released grants to more than 200 sports clubs, youth clubs and other organisations. He also distributed grants to private societies and trusts.

These grants are not subject to any government audit, nor can their end-use be effectively verified. Most organisations getting the lion’s share are cooperative societies, clubs, private educational institutions, whose functioning is not open to public watch.

BACK