Here are the counter points for what is mentioned in the article
"There are serious misgivings in Europe that the secretive Anglo-American agenda is to trick the Euro-Atlantic community in a 'new Cold War' with Russia." -->The if the European countries already have misgivings, do you think they will allow the US to hijack it further. European public is today turning more and more against US policies and their politicians will have to listen.
"China too has begun expressing disquiet lately about the geopolitics of the Afghan war -- the US global strategy of 'taking control of the Eurasian continent and proceeding to take the helm of the entire globe' by establishing military presence on an 'unstable arc of instability from the Caucasus, Central and South Asia down to the Korean peninsula,' to quote the People's Daily." --> In an unstable region, foreign military presence inherently has to maintain an defensive posture. They cannot launch attacks on China, Iran from Afghanistan, without significant public support which does not exist and is never likely to develop. "As former Pakistani finance minister and World Bank Vice-President Shahid Javed Burki wrote recently, the spectre haunting the Pakistani economy is that out of sheer war fatigue, American troops may pack their bags and take leave of the Hindu Kush and head home." --> Not true, Pakistan received massive aid in the 90's even without the Afghan war. Then as later, Pakistan will continue to receive aid as a 'underdeveloped nation'. "Musharraf is already allowing US intelligence to stage covert operations against Iran from Pakistan's Baluchistan province. He is doing all he can in rallying the Sunni Muslim world." -->Covert operations are one thing, invading from that border is quite another since it effectively becomes an Pakistani invasion permanantly enstranging good Pak-Iran relationships. "Musharraf may have a greater role to play if the security of Saudi Arabia gets threatened in any armed conflagration in the Persian Gulf region, or if Iran gets seriously destabilised." -->Who the hell is going to threaten Saudi Arabia? Is it conceivable that Shia militants will threaten Saudi Arabia passing through the Sunni provinces like Anbar? Saudi Arabia is paying the Iraqi sunni's too much to keep the Shia militants bogged down. "From the US geo-strategic point of view, the Afghan war has managed to get an unwilling NATO to come and slouch in a region that is the soft underbelly of Russia and China (and India)." --> Why should the US care to go the unstable Afghanistan to threaten Russia when it has much more stable willing allies in the former soviet republics who are far closer to Russia geographically. As for China, why should the US attack the deserted north west China when it could attack the industrial heart of china in the south using Korea, Taiwan and Japan? "If tomorrow NATO becomes part of the US missile defence system, its occupation of the Afghan high plateau is a huge advantage -- overlooking four of the world's eight nuclear powers." --> The 10 anti-ballastic missile-missiles in the US can at best hit a couple of "dumb" ICBM's. Worse, even in ideal condition tests, it failed many times. An ABM defence "shield" remains as much a myth as Star wars was except in the tiny brain of Bush.
RE:Flawed article
by hello on Mar 03, 2007 06:12 AM Permalink
No matter what A,B,C,D,E... says, USA is the super power & they have superior technological edge. Their Anti-Missile System is very effective if implemented properly. Some secret of Anti-Ballastic Missile stragegy is not on how many missiles it tracked down. But for millitary secrecy point of view, I don't want to mention it here.
RE:Flawed article
by Tarun Bhardwaj on Mar 03, 2007 04:19 AM Permalink
I kind of agree. I believe its a fancy trail of the author taking wings. There are so many other points which can be brought about to prove this article's innaccuracy.
