| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
086169
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
My question is about Afghanistan. You described the challenges and some of the responses, but I would like you to go into more detail about what you expect other nations to contribute in military terms. Since I am a European, what would you expect European partners and allies of the United States to be contributing? More generally, what would you consider to be the appropriate balance, the appropriate policy mix, between the military surge on the one hand, and the political and economic efforts in Afghanistan and in the region on the other hand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
102022
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
FOR THE LAST FEW DAYS following the "Rolling Stones" interview by Gen. McChrystal and President Obama's decision to replace him with Gen. Petraeus there has been a great deal of attention paid to the current situation in Afghanistan and what the change in command will portend for the strategy that Gen McChrystal had devised to achieve President Obama's goal of disrupting, dismantling and defeating the Al-Qaeda network and ensuring that Afghanistan did not again become a safe haven for terrorists intent on attacking the United States and its allies. By and large, the comments have welcomed the Petraeus appointment as the best option available but they also suggest whatever Gen. McChrystal's faults the military at least had unity of command while the U.S. civilian team was not working together smoothly, that little progress had been made in improving the quality of governance in Afghanistan and therefore that the United States is losing the war in Afghanistan. More and more these reports and commentaries suggest that the American will to continue in Afghanistan is wilting partly because public opinion is no longer willing to support it and partly because the leaders too believe that this has become an unwinnable war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
113598
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
128711
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
127873
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
134170
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In 1989 the Soviet Union withdrew its forces from Afghanistan leaving the embattled Afghan Communist government of President Mohammad Najibullah to fight against an emboldened mujahideen insurgency. Most experts expected a quick mujahideen victory once the Soviets were no longer directly involved in counterinsurgency operations in support of the Afghan government. But in the spring of 1989 the Afghan Communists beat the odds and defeated a mujahideen rebel offensive designed to capture the eastern city of Jalalabad. This proved to be a turning point, and for the next three years the Najibullah regime held out against the mujahideen 'freedom fighters'. In fact the Afghan Communist regime actually outlasted its sponsor the Soviet Union. The reasons for this remarkable achievement can be traced, in part, to ethnic-tribal divisions among the quarreling mujahideen parties and the Afghan government's ability to exploit them. This largely untold story has obvious implications for understanding the future of post-Karzai Afghanistan, tribalism, ethnicity, and foreign sponsorship in post-US Afghanistan. This article will explore the reasons for the resilience of the Najibullah Communist government and then assess possible implications for a post-2014 Afghan government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
119087
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As the 2014 transition of the U.S. out of Afghanistan approaches, progress has been made in weakening the Taliban insurgency and strengthening Afghan forces' capacity. But the Taliban still remains entrenched, negotiations have not taken off, the Afghan government suffers from a profound legitimacy crisis, and Afghanistan's economic future seems fraught with instability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
104260
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
091987
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Call it a comedy as some have demonstration elections or a tool of public relations, the fact is that peace in the world hangs by a thin thread, and that thread is a stable,democratic Afghanistan (or at least this is what the US and the West will have us believe).This explains the kind of interest the 20 August 2009 presidential elections engendered in most of the world capitals. However, instead of creating confidence at a global level, the elections have ignited a stream of controversies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
103109
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
110066
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
103238
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
113600
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
119295
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
132445
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
112817
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
THE LAW ALLOWING the U.S. President to severely limit Iran's oil exports has sparked a flurry of comments and a strong reaction from Iran. But then the anti-Iranian rhetoric abated and conciliatory notes were heard on both sides. This of course does not change the essence of the matter, nor does it remove the main question from the global agenda: Will the U.S. go to war with Iran and if so, when?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
093378
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
108368
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
113500
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
116088
|
|
|