US Strategy In Afganistan

 

 

 

U.S. President Barack Obama has ordered 30,000 more American troops to Afghanistan to defeat Taliban and al-Qaida extremists and restore stability to the war-torn country.
In an address outlining his new war strategy 1 December, President Obama said while Afghanistan is not lost, it has been moving backwards for several years. He warned that the U.S. and the common security of the world was at stake.
Mr. Obama told cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York that additional forces will help accelerate the transfer of responsibility to Afghan forces and allow U.S. troops to begin leaving the country by July 2011. 

 

 

read more...

USA States

USA States (Two-Letter Abbreviations)

Alabama (AL)
Alaska (AK)
Arizona (AZ)
Arkansas (AR)
California (CA)
Colorado (CO)
Connecticut (CT)
Delaware (DE)
Florida (FL)
Georgia (GA)
Hawaii (HI)
Idaho (ID)
Illinois (IL)
Indiana (IN)
Iowa (IA)
Kansas (KS)
Kentucky (KY)
Louisiana (LA)
Maine (ME)
Maryland (MD)
Massachusetts (MA)
Michigan (MI)
Minnesota (MN)
Mississippi (MS)
Missouri (MO)
Montana (MT)
Nebraska (NE)
Nevada (NV)
New Hampshire (NH)
New Jersey (NJ)
New Mexico (NM)
New York (NY)
North Carolina (NC)
North Dakota (ND)
Ohio (OH)
Oklahoma (OK)
Oregon (OR)
Pennsylvania (PA)
Rhode Island (RI)
South Carolina (SC)
South Dakota (SD)
Tennessee (TN)
Texas (TX)
Utah (UT)
Vermont (VT)
Virginia (VA)
Washington (WA)
West Virginia (WV)
Wisconsin (WI)
Wyoming (WY) 



 

 

read more...

US success in Afghanistan 'will not be quick'

A top US general has warned that military success in Afghanistan is likely to be slower than in Iraq after the troop surge there.

Testifying before the US Congress, Gen David Petraeus said, as in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan was "likely to get harder before it gets easier".
Gen Petraeus was speaking a week after President Barack Obama ordered 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
The general said he supported the announced increase in forces.
Gen Petraeus, who oversaw the troop surge in Iraq in 2007, said Afghanistan was in no worse condition now than Iraq was then.
He said success in Afghanistan was attainable, but warned that "achieving progress... will be hard and the progress there likely will be slower in developing than was the progress achieved in Iraq".

read more...

Air Force One

Air Force One is the official air traffic control call sign of any United States Air Force aircraft carrying the President of the United States. Since 1990, the presidential fleet has consisted of two specifically configured, highly customized Boeing 747-200B series aircraft – tail codes Special Air Mission (SAM) "28000" and SAM "29000" – with Air Force designation "VC-25A". While these aircraft have the call sign "Air Force One" only while the president is on board, the term is colloquially used to describe either of the two aircraft normally used and maintained by the U.S. Air Force solely for the president, as well as any additional Air Force aircraft used by the president.
Air Force One is a prominent symbol of the American presidency and its power. The aircraft are among the most famous and most photographed in the world.

                             
            

Boeing 707s

Main articles: VC-137C SAM 26000 and VC-137C SAM 27000

Boeing 707 (SAM 26000) served Presidents Kennedy to Clinton.

In October 1962, the John F. Kennedy administration purchased a C-137 Stratoliner, a modified long-range 707—Special Air Mission (SAM) 26000, although he had used the Eisenhower-era jets for trips to Canada, France, Austria and the United Kingdom.
The Air Force had attempted a special presidential livery of their own design: a scheme in red and metallic gold, with the nation's name in block letters. Kennedy felt the aircraft appeared too regal, and, on advice from his wife, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, he contacted the French-born American industrial designer Raymond Loewy for help in designing a new livery and interiors for the VC-137 jet.^[3] Loewy met with the president, and his earliest research on the project took him to the National Archives, where he looked at the first printed copy of the United States Declaration of Independence, and saw the country's name set widely spaced and in upper case in a typeface called Caslon. He chose to expose the polished aluminum fuselage on the bottom side, and used two blues; a slate-blue associated with the early republic and the presidency, and a more contemporary cyan to represent the present and future. The presidential seal was added to both sides of the fuselage near the nose, a large American flag was painted on the tail, and the sides of the aircraft read "United States of America" in all capital letters. Loewy's work won immediate praise from the president and the press. The VC-137 markings were adapted for the larger VC-25 when it entered service in 1990

Boeing 747s

See also: Boeing VC-25

President Barack Obama meets with staff in the conference room, April 3, 2009.

Though Ronald Reagan's two terms as president saw no major changes to Air Force One, the manufacture of the current 747s began during his presidency. Reagan ordered two identical Boeing 747s to replace the aging 707 that he used for transport.^[11] The interior designs were drawn up by First Lady Nancy Reagan, who used designs reminiscent of the American Southwest.^[11] The first aircraft was delivered in 1990, during the administration of George H. W. Bush. Delays were experienced to allow for additional work to protect the aircraft from electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effects.
The VC-25 is equipped with both secure and unsecure phone and computer communications systems, enabling the president to perform duties while in the air in the event of an attack on the United States.
When President Bush came to the end of his second term, a VC-25 was used to transport him to Texas – for this purpose, the craft was called Special Air Mission 28000, as the aircraft did not carry the President of the United States.

Other presidential aircraft

United Airlines was the only commercial airline to have operated Executive One, the designation given to a civilian flight on which the U.S. President is aboard. On December 26, 1973, then-President Richard Nixon flew as a passenger aboard a Washington Dulles to Los Angeles International flight. It was explained by his staff that this was done in order to conserve fuel by not having to fly the usual Boeing 707 Air Force aircraft.^[19]
On March 8, 2000, President Bill Clinton flew to Pakistan aboard an unmarked Gulfstream III while another aircraft with the call sign "Air Force One" flew on the same route a few minutes later.^[20][21][22] This diversion was reported by several U.S. press outlets.
Other heads of state also have special aircraft assigned. See Air transports of heads of state and government for further details

read more...

Clinton expressed skepticism

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed skepticism of any talks with the top Taliban leadership as there was no indication from the militants group that it was interested in renouncing violence and abide by the Afghan constitution.

.

The upper levels of the Taliban have to renounce al Qaeda, renounce violence. They have to be willing to abide by the constitution of Afghanistan and live peacefully, Clinton told the ABC news in an interview.    She said that the US has no firm information whether any of those leaders would be at all interested in following that kind of a path. In fact, I'm highly skeptical that any of them would, Clinton said.    Referring to the speech made by President Barack Obama last week on Afghanistan, Clinton said there are two different approaches. One is what could be called reintegration. That is really looking at the lower-level members of the Taliban, who are there through intimidation and coercion, or, frankly, because it's a better living than they can make anywhere else, she said.    We think there's a real opportunity for a number of those to be persuaded to leave the battlefield. Now, the problem, of course, once they leave they'll get killed if they're not protected. And that's one of the reasons why we're trying to get these secure zones, she said, adding that the US needs to secure the population there. So, we're going to be consulting with our Afghan partners. It's going to be a multiply-run operation to see who might come off of the battlefield and who might possibly give up their allegiance to the Taliban, Clinton said. She was also highly skeptical of the possibility of any high level negotiations with the Taliban.    We don't know yet. And again, I think that  we asked Mullah Omar to give up bin Laden before we went into Afghanistan after 9/11; he wouldn't do it. I don't know why we think he would have changed by now, she said.    However, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates was of the view that they would come on the negotiation table only when they do not have any other option left. I think that the likelihood of the leadership of the Taliban, or seniors leaders, being willing to accept the conditions Secretary Clinton just talked about depends, in the first instance, on reversing their momentum right now, and putting them in a position where they suddenly begin to realise that they're likely to lose, Gates said. The Secretary of State said the US is in Afghanistan primarily because of its national security interests and not to build the country. We have a commitment to trying to protect our national security. That's why we're there. We do want to assist the people of Afghanistan and to try to improve the capacity of the Afghan government, she said.

read more...

India not worried about US honouring N-deal: PM

Ahead of his meeting with President Barack Obama , Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said India has no worries about US honouring the Indo-US nuclear deal, but would like to get a "positive reaffirmation" of the present administration to carry forward the process.

      Singh, who is on his way to Washington from Geneva, said India would like to operationalise the "watershed" agreement and ensure that the objectives for the nuclear deal are realised in full merit.
"We have no worries, but we would like a positive reaffirmation of this administration to carry forward the process," Singh said in an interview to Newsweek magazine, full transcript of which was released by the Ministry of External Affairs on its website.
He was asked whether he was concerned about the US honouring the consent agreement.
Singh said the partnership with US was for sustained and sustainable development of India and the new global world order which is in search of a new equilibrium.
"India and the United States could be partners in refocusing our attention on an equitable, balanced, global order," Singh, who will meet Obama on Tuesday, said.
Asked whether India is worried about the Test Ban Treaty which President Obama seems very intent on pushing through the senate, Singh said "Why should we be worried?. We are not worried at all."
The prime minister said India has a unilateral moratorium on testing imposed voluntarily and that it stands by that.
"We would like to work with President Obama to promote the cause of global nuclear disarmament, a world free of nuclear weapons," Singh said.
"I think that is a world which has been the dream of our leaders from Jawaharlal Nehru [ Images ] to Rajiv Gandhi [ Images ]. We would like to work with all like-minded countries to achieve that goal," he said.
Singh also hoped that the US will be "more liberal" in transferring technologies to India and clear the way for implementing the landmark agreement on nuclear cooperation.
"We had a watershed and a landmark agreement with the US on nuclear cooperation. We would like to operationalise it and ensure that the objectives for the nuclear deal are realised in full merit," he said.
Singh said the restrictions on technology transfers to India "make no sense" since the country has an impeccable record of non-proliferation.
Top Indian and US officials are holding hectic parleys to conclude a deal on reprocessing of spent fuel before the Singh-Obama meeting.

read more...

N-deal with Russia may provide firm fuel supply guarantees

An agreement on India-Russia civil nuclear cooperation that goes beyond the "123 pact" with US in offering India much firmer fuelsupply guarantees even in the event of the bilateral arrangement being called off is likely to be a highlight of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Moscow.

There is a keen sense of anticipation that a 123-like agreement with Russia, which has been in the works for a while, will be sealed during Singh's annual summit with President Dmitri Medvedev and talks with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. The suggestion that there will be strong fuel supply guarantees indicates that the contracts will remain valid even in the event of an Indian nuclear test.

Sources speaking on background said the language of the pact with Russia was expected to be "forward-looking" and it would set a new benchmark in India's nuclear cooperation agreements. It will be wide-ranging, covering India's rights to reprocessing and high-end technology associated with nuclear trade.

The other big takeaway is expected to be a finalisation of the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier deal that has been defying Indian and Russian negotiators for a while now. There were indications that a price that both nations are "comfortable" with had been arrived at which could be between $2.2 billion and $2.9 billion. "There has been tremendous work on this score and a middle ground is now in sight," said sources.

The 123-like agreement may see India's nuclear trade gather momentum even as its discussions with US on a reprocessing facility remain caught up in nitty-gritty. The much firmer fuel supply agreements India is looking forward to will help contain the fear that India's strategic options are sharply curtailed after its nuclear deal with US. The US pact makes it amply clear that all cooperation would be off in case India tested and this also meant return of equipment.

While the authors of the India-US agreement expect that deepening economic engagement will make it much harder for Washington to abruptly call off nuclear cooperation, there is little doubt on what American law specifies. A test is bound to see even Russia act in keeping with the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a body that was set up after Pokhran-I to contain exports to non-P5 nations.

The fuel supply guarantees will help India drive better bargains in nuclear trade with other nations and perhaps help speed up the detail of agreements pending with US. There is now a real possibility of US firms, who had ardently pushed for the nuclear deal, falling behind in the race for multi-billion contracts as India shops for nuclear reactors and dual-use technology that had been denied to it for long. The pact with Russia will replace the older 1988 agreement under which Russia is supplying two reactors at Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu.

read more...