<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Washington Hotlist &#187; Taliban</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/category/taliban/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com</link>
	<description>Politics 2.0</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:26:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s India Policy &amp; The China Factor</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/obamas-india-policy-the-china-factor/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/obamas-india-policy-the-china-factor/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:38:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Webster Brooks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/?p=1096</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>As the worldâ€™s largest democracy, economic behemoth and nuclear power, Indiaâ€™s continued emergence as a bulwark of stability in Southeast Asia is pivotal to Barak Obamaâ€™s foreign policy portfolio. Since George Bush brokered the U.S.-India nuclear agreement in 2006, the U.S has decisively tilted toward an expanded strategic relationship with New Delhi over Pakistan. Vital [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As the worldâ€™s largest democracy, economic behemoth and nuclear power, Indiaâ€™s continued emergence as a bulwark of stability in Southeast Asia is pivotal to Barak Obamaâ€™s foreign policy portfolio. Since George Bush brokered the U.S.-India nuclear agreement in 2006, the U.S has decisively tilted toward an expanded strategic relationship with New Delhi over Pakistan. Vital to Americaâ€™s containment strategy of China and serving as an integrating force for Asia&#8217;s bulging regional economies, Indiaâ€™s stability is paramount to the U.S. and the west. When Barak Obama takes the Oval Office, ratcheting down the long arc of tension between India and Pakistan and preventing any destabilizing chaos caused by insurgencies, civil war and terrorism emanating from Afghanistan, Nepal and Bengladesh will be core to his strategy of maintaining Indiaâ€™s viability as a major power. </p>
<p>Indiaâ€™s challenges as an emerging global power are formidable and complex. With one billion people speaking 22 official languages in 1,656 dialects, Indiaâ€™s democracy is rent with tension between its Hindu majority and numerous ethnic groups. Indiaâ€™s 130 million Muslims constitutes the second largest Muslim population of any country in the world and makes India an inviting target for Muslim extremists and Salafists. In 2007, over 1000 deaths were attributed to terrorists attacks as India has the 4 th highest terrorist related death rate internationally. </p>
<p><span id="more-1096"></span></p>
<p>The siege of Mumbai by extremists with Pakistani ties nearly provoked an Indo-Pakistani confrontation and caused outrage among the Indian people at its governmentâ€™s failure to prevent the attack. The attacks underscored how Indiaâ€™s combustible domestic and regional issues can lead to dangerous confrontations with its volatile neighbors. Add to the equation an internal Naxalbite insurgency in 13 provinces, a civil war in neighboring Sri Lanka that has inflamed its Indiaâ€™s own Tamil population for three decades and sporadic Sikh breakaway movements  that have prompted deadly violence in Northwest India and Afghanistan, and you have a recipe for domestic turmoil.  </p>
<p>As a reliable U.S. ally in a region where America has few friends, Obamaâ€™s relationship with India will begin with a strong foundation. India voted for U.N. sanctions against Iranâ€™s nuclear program at the risk of jeopardizing its pending 25 year multi-billon dollar proposal to secure oil from Tehran. India also launched an Israeli over-watch satellite to monitor Iranian nuclear development activities. New Delhi has contributed more peacekeeping troops to international hotspots than any other nation, and grants American access to its naval ports that are critical to patrolling strategic waterways in the Indian Ocean . In 2005, India and the U.S. signed a 10-year defense agreement  that exÂ­panded joint military exercises, increased defense-related trade and established a defense procurement group. The U.S. and India have conducted more than 50 military exerÂ­cises since 2002, demonstrating how far the miliÂ­tary partnership has progressed in a relatively short period. </p>
<p>Ironically, if not tragically Indiaâ€™s 911 moment in Mumbai could be the most important development since the 2006 nuclear agreement that will cement U.S.-Indian relations. When pressed on Indiaâ€™s right to strike Pakistan after Mumbai, Obama said â€œevery sovereign nation has a right to defend itself.â€ Fortunately, India â€™s decision not to seek retribution against Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks marked a major step forward in its ascendency as a responsible power. An attack on Pakistan may have satisfied domestic calls for revenge but almost certainly would have led to armed clashes with Islamabad and possibly dragged other nations and non-state actors like al Queda into a regional conflagration. </p>
<p>However, India is stepping up its profile in Afghanistan and its virtual proxy war with Pakistan. Increasingly both countries view Afghanistan as part of its own security perimeter and India is determined to prevent a full blown Taliban resurgence. Indian embassies are up and running in Afghanistan. India is also creating stronger alliances with Kharzi and Northern Alliance forces and stirring the waters of Baluchistan resistance against Islamabad. On January 13, Khazi and Prime Minister Singh signed a joint letter urging Pakistan to stop its support of terrorist groups. India must tread carefully in Afghanistan, as many in Pakistan already subscribe to the notion that the U.S. and India are conspiring to encircle Pakistan and carve it up into small principalities.  </p>
<p>Obama has expressed his clear support for strengthening Americaâ€™s relationship with India. He has stated without reservation that Pakistanâ€™s main threat is not India; but the growing Taliban/al Queda axis spreading in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Kashmiri terrorists.  In his September 23 letter to Indian Prime Minister Singh, then Presidential candidate Obama voiced strong support for the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal and called for redoubling U.S.-Indian military, intelligence and law enforcement cooperation. But Obama has also made some initial missteps with India.  </p>
<p>Although India shares strategic interests with the United States, the Obama administration must recognize that India has its own universe of national security considerations.  Kashmir is a case in point. Obamaâ€™s suggestion that he would appoint a special envoy to help resolve the Kashmir border dispute with Pakistan was well intentioned, but not well received in New Delhi. Indiaâ€™s government balked at the notion of an special envoy, saying Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. On November 15, Obama dispatched the new Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry to New Delhi to acknowledge that Obama had no intention of interfering in the Kashmir issue. India is open to a political settlements but is not ready to give up territory in Kashmir or surrender its independence of action. India was also alarmed at statements Obama made during his campaign that America outsourced too many jobs to India. After the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, Obama and Prime Singhâ€™s telephone conversation seems to have eased some of New Delhiâ€™s  apprehension.  </p>
<p>Similarly, although India voted for sanctions against Iranâ€™s nuclear program, the Bush administration attempted to bully New Delhi to revoke its oil deal with Tehran. But strongarming India didnâ€™t prevent the Chinese from underbidding India for global oil contracts, and the U.S. isnâ€™t providing oil to heat homes in Bangalore and New Delhi. Obama will have to be prepared to accept similar tradeoffs with India, especially concerning its relationship with China.  </p>
<p>Despite its four wars and nuclear standoffs with Pakistan since the 1947 partition, it is Indiaâ€™s contentious relationship with China that has enormous global implications. China is Pakistanâ€™s most  powerful ally, and sponsored its drive to go nuclear. The two countries with worldâ€™s largest populations are engaged in a heated rivalry for energy resources, economic markets in Southeast Asia, and military advantage across continental Asia. India and America are both peacefully engaged with China, but both countries are troubled by China growing military strength. Neither India nor America wants Asia to be dominated by a single country. Indeed itâ€™s hard to imagine a peaceful Asia in which there is not cooperation between India, the United States and China.   </p>
<p>Indiaâ€™s $40 billion trade packages with China is a promising sign of cooperation between the two economic titans, but the list of explosive issues between Beijing and New Delhi is long. Movement toward a settlement of its 1,300 mile border dispute with China has slowed to a crawl. In the meantime Chinaâ€™s military has breeched the border of the Indian states of Sikkim and Arunchal Pradesh on several occasions. China has also been busy developing strategic naval and trade port facilities in Sittwe, Burma; Chittatong, Bangladesh; Hambantota, Sri Lanka and its new port in Gwadar, Pakistan. Connect the dots and Chinaâ€™s aggressive agenda has the look and feel of a military encirclement campaign, rather than protecting sea lanes and ensuring the delivery of energy supplies as China contends.   </p>
<p>For Barack Obama, monitoring developments between India and China will be important. The U.S. must avoid putting New Delhi in any awkward situation in which it appears that India is being pitted against China for the benefit of the United States strategic interest. The U.S. must find creative ways to support India, not intervene on its behalf. India will balk at such moves and China will react with hostility. The more India and China broaden their ongoing diplomatic talks and the U.S. engages Beijing, the greater the chances that flashpoints of conflict can be peacefully resolved.    </p>
<p>By continuing to help India integrate its economy with Australia, Japan, South Korea, and the smaller Southeast Asian nations, the United States can greatly assist in promoting stability in the Pacific Rim. With the development of Indiaâ€™s civil nuclear power program and working jointly on environmental issues, America and India can build a very special relationship between the largest democracies in the Western and Eastern hemispheres. Indiaâ€™s road ahead will be filled with twist and turns, and the avoidance of open conflict between Pakistan or China is indispensible to Indiaâ€™s ascent. The fact that India has come so far in building democracy in the worldâ€™s most diverse society is part of the new story of the 21 st Century. A smart, nimble and patient American foreign policy toward India under the Obama Administration can truly help change the face of the Asian continent.    </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/obamas-india-policy-the-china-factor/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Military Spending Reflects Our Flawed Policies</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/military-spending-reflects-our-flawed-policies/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/military-spending-reflects-our-flawed-policies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:44:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joshua Rosenstock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[9/11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Axis of Evil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/?p=927</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>
President Bush on Monday signed legislation to pay for the war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of his presidency and beyond&#8230;The legislation will bring to more than $650 billion the amount Congress has provided for the Iraq war since it began more than five years ago. For operations in Afghanistan, the total [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><br />
<blockquote>President Bush on Monday <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25457283/">signed legislation</a> to pay for the war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of his presidency and beyond&#8230;The legislation will bring to <strong>more than $650 billion the amount Congress has provided for the Iraq war since it began more than five years ago. For operations in Afghanistan, the total is nearly $200 billion</strong>, according to congressional officials.</p></blockquote>
<p></em></p>
<p>Our taxpayer dollars have been grossly misused and abused in the name of fighting an ambiguous War On Terror.  Can Bush or any of his supporters explain why we have spent so much more on a war against a nation that never attacked us than on one whose former government supported those that did?  </p>
<p>Amount of money spent on fighting the homeland of fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers (Saudi Arabia) &#8211; $0.  </p>
<p>Amount of money we give the Saudis every day in oil and gas payments &#8211; billions.  </p>
<p>The Bush Administration &#8211; misappropriating your money since 2001.</p>
<p><img src="http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/ap/74c11679-dfb1-45af-8b29-1429c72afbac.hmedium.jpg" alt="" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/military-spending-reflects-our-flawed-policies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stopping The Taliban Should Be Bush&#8217;s Focus</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/stopping-the-taliban-should-be-bushs-focus/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/stopping-the-taliban-should-be-bushs-focus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:16:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joshua Rosenstock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2008]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[9/11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/stopping-the-taliban-should-be-bushs-focus/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Even now, over six years after 9/11, the President still can not correctly prioritize his foreign policy. After a brief but successful military campaign in Afghanistan, the administration quickly shifted the focus to Iraq and more recently, has attempted to broker a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.  </p>
<p>But, the real threat continues [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even now, over six years after 9/11, the President still can not correctly prioritize his foreign policy. After a brief but successful military campaign in Afghanistan, the administration quickly shifted the focus to Iraq and more recently, has attempted to broker a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.  </p>
<p>But, the real threat continues to remain Al Qaeda and its supporters in the Taliban.  After <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080114/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan_4;_ylt=AmF8.8f.HNNA2oVLvbjptGcE1vAI">another attack</a> in Kabul, will the President and his team get the message about where we should be pouring our tax dollars and soldiers?  The recent announcement that approximately 7,500 additional troops will be sent to the region sounds eerily reminiscent of another &#8220;surge,&#8221; an admission that war on the cheap is impossible and requires a shared national sacrifice.  It once meant something to Americans when we sent young men and women across the world to fight for us.  Now, pandering to a political base and increasing profits for campaign contributors are the real American ideals.  </p>
<p>Will our next President implement a more effective strategy to protect us from Al Qaeda?</p>
<p><img src="http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20080114/capt.sge.sng11.140108142441.photo00.photo.default-512x349.jpg?x=400&#038;y=272&#038;sig=wtV8Ja.oT0SCJtjsK4scgg--" alt="" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/stopping-the-taliban-should-be-bushs-focus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Al Qaeda Is Stronger Than Ever</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/al-qaeda-is-stronger-than-ever/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/al-qaeda-is-stronger-than-ever/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:18:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joshua Rosenstock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[9/11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benazir Bhutto]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Torture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/al-qaeda-is-stronger-than-ever/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;We have the evidence that al-Qaida and Taliban were behind the suicide attack on Benazir Bhutto,&#8221; Pakistan&#8217;s Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz said. </p>
<p>Six years ago, the United States had a chance to completely dismantle the Al Qaeda terror network and its supporters within the Afghan Taliban government behind a worldwide coalition sympathetic for the 2,754 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;<em><strong>We have <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Pakistan-Transcript.html">the evidence</a> that al-Qaida and Taliban were behind the suicide attack on Benazir Bhutto</strong></em>,&#8221; Pakistan&#8217;s Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz said. </p>
<p>Six years ago, the United States had a chance to completely dismantle the Al Qaeda terror network and its supporters within the Afghan Taliban government behind a worldwide coalition sympathetic for the 2,754 Americans that were murdered on 9/11.  Instead, we chose to attack a completely unrelated nation and took our eye off the ball.  Now, we have only thousands of more dead Americans, hundreds of billions of dollars lost and an Iraqi civil war to show for it. </p>
<p>Bhutto&#8217;s death is a direct result of the Bush administration&#8217;s incompetence in foreign policy.  In case you are keeping score at home, the terrorists are winning and if you think we have managed to thwart additional attacks here in the United States because of our federal government&#8217;s policies, you are mistaken.  Waterboarding, warrantless surveillance and the entire Department of Homeland Security have done absolutely nothing to increase our safety.</p>
<p>Al Qaeda has regrouped, they are as powerful as they were before 9/11 and have used our seemingly endless presence in Iraq as their most effective recruiting tool.  For those that seek to kill us, their mission is truly accomplished.  The only thing left for these nuts to do is to send the White House a Thank You card for doing their job for them.  This is not fear mongering, this is reality.</p>
<p><img src="http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20071228/capt.d0a4e2828e9249058d3417fb99b50b96.aptopix_pakistan_bhutto_funeral_lar105.jpg?x=400&#038;y=274&#038;sig=3s7lI57bSQrhoLLBb9y5Dw--" alt="" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/al-qaeda-is-stronger-than-ever/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bhutto&#8217;s Murder Could Be The World&#8217;s Gain</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/bhuttos-murder-could-be-the-worlds-gain/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/bhuttos-murder-could-be-the-worlds-gain/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joshua Rosenstock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benazir Bhutto]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pervez Musharraf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/bhuttos-murder-could-be-the-worlds-gain/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Today&#8217;s tragic events shine light on the resurgent terrorist movement in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.  While the death of Ms. Bhutto is a blow to those that support democracy in the region, it is no surprise to those that have been following the events the past few months.  The world should react to this [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today&#8217;s <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22406555/">tragic events</a> shine light on the resurgent terrorist movement in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.  While the death of Ms. Bhutto is a blow to those that support democracy in the region, it is no surprise to those that have been following the events the past few months.  The world should react to this tragedy by concentrating their efforts on defeating the Taliban once and for all.  </p>
<p>While we foolishly diverted our attention and resources to Iraq, the Taliban have quietly been regrouping, waiting for the right moment to strike and today was their day of triumph.  However, we are the ones that can gain from today by remembering who attacked the United States six years ago.  Ms. Bhutto&#8217;s death can be a unifying event that can bring together a real coalition, not the flimsy group that was assembled to remove Saddam Hussein.  The war against Al Qaeda is not over and we need to put our eyes back on the prize.  </p>
<p>Let Iraq have their civil war.  We need to permanently stop an organization that has repeatedly demonstrated that it is capable of carrying out successful attacks both there and here.  President Bush, do what is right and shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan.  It is obvious that Musharraf is not the leader we thought he was.  Instead of talking tough, let us take substantive measures that will force him to face the Taliban and beat them with his own army and resources with additional assistance from a U.S.-led battalion.  The world can gain from Ms. Bhutto&#8217;s death.  Let&#8217;s continue the movement that she started and defeat these thugs.</p>
<p><img src="http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/071227/071227-bhutto-hmed-6a.standard.jpg" alt="" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/bhuttos-murder-could-be-the-worlds-gain/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

