Patience is not the ability to wait,

But the ability to keep a good attitude while waiting

میرا اُردو میں بلاگ ” میں کیا ہوں ۔ What Am I “پچھلے ساڑھے 7 سال سے معاشرے کے مختلف پہلوؤں پر تحاریر سے بھر پور چلا آ رہا ہے اور قاری سے صرف ایک کلِک کے فاصلہ پر ہے


313,000 Killed, $ 4 Trillion Spent

As the 12th year of the post-9/11 wars begins, the toll of war in human lives and US federal dollars continues to grow. When President Barack Obama withdrew uniformed American troops from Iraq last year and announced substantial troop withdrawals in Afghanistan, he concluded in a UN speech that “The tide of war is receding.” Hundreds of billions of dollars, however, will continue to be allocated for or because of the wars. So, too, will the human costs of these conflicts reverberate for years to come in the United States and the war zones. There is no turning the page on the wars, and there is even more need as a result to understand what those wars’ consequences are and will be.

What we do know, without debate, is that the wars begun eleven years ago have been tremendously painful for millions of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, and the United States, and economically costly as well. Each additional month and year of war will add to that toll. The goal of the Costs of War project has been to outline a broad understanding of the domestic and international costs and consequences of those wars. The Eisenhower Research Project based at Brown University assembled a team that includes economists, anthropologists, political scientists, legal experts, and a physician to do this analysis.

Cost of War in Iraq = $ 808,914,177,851

Cost of War in Afghanistan = $ 587,663,489,057

Total Cost of Wars Since 2001 = $ 1,396,577,666,909

Click here to see the latest costs

We asked:
What have been the wars’ costs in human and economic terms?
How have these wars changed the social and political landscape of the United States and the countries where the wars have been waged?
What will be the long term legacy of these conflicts for veterans?
What is the long term economic effect of these wars likely to be?
Were and are there alternative less costly and more effective ways to prevent further terror attacks?

Some of the project’s findings:
At least 181,362 civilians have died and more will die in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan as a result of the fighting at the hands of all parties to the conflict.
The armed conflict in Pakistan, which the US helps the Pakistani military fight by funding, equipping and training them, has taken even more lives than the conflict in neighboring Afghanistan. The conflict in Pakistan nonetheless receives less coverage in the US news.

The United States is at war in Yemen. During 2012, the Obama administration has quickened its pace of drone strikes in the country with more than 20 US airstrikes over a span of five months. An increasing number of drone strikes target individuals whom the administration suspects have links to terrorist groups but whom policymakers view as leaders of factions striving to gain territory in Yemen’s internal conflict. [1] According to a very conservative report by the Long War Journal, 56 civilians and 264 “militants” have been killed in 42 US drone strikes from 2002 through 3 July 2012. This means that at the very least, one fifth of those killed in drone strikes are civilians.

Putting together the conservative numbers of war dead, in uniform and out, brings the total to 286,006. A more realistic minimal estimate is 298,000.

Indirect deaths from the wars, including those related to malnutrition, damaged health infrastructure, and environmental degradation, may far outnumber deaths from combat. While these deaths are difficult to count due to factors such as lack of comparable baseline mortality figures, a 2008 survey by The Geneva Declaration Secretariat estimates that assuming a ratio of four indirect deaths to one direct death in contemporary conflicts would not be unreasonable. This would put the death toll at five times 181,000, or 905,000.

Millions of people have been displaced indefinitely and are living in grossly inadequate conditions. As of January 2012, the number of war refugees and displaced persons — 7,424,780 — is equivalent to all of the people of Connecticut and Oregon fleeing their homes.

The wars have been accompanied by erosions in civil liberties at home and human rights violations abroad.
The human and economic costs of these wars will continue for decades, some costs not peaking until mid-century. Many of the wars’ costs are invisible to Americans, buried in a variety of budgets, and so have not been counted or assessed. For example, while most people think the Pentagon war appropriations are equivalent to the wars’ budgetary costs, the true numbers are twice that, and the full economic cost of the wars much larger yet. Conservatively estimated, the war bills already paid and obligated to be paid as of June 2011 are $3.2 trillion in constant dollars. A more reasonable estimate puts the number at nearly $4 trillion.

As with former US wars, the costs of paying for veterans’ care into the future will be a sizable portion of the full costs of the war.

While we know how many US soldiers have died in the wars (over 6,500), what is startling is what we don’t know about the levels of injury and illness in those who have returned from the wars. New disability claims continue to pour into the VA, with over 675,000 disability claims registered with the VA as of September, 2011. [2] Many deaths and injuries among US contractors have not been identified.

Never . . .

Never make permanent decisions on temporary emotions.

Never make a decision
. . . . . when you are angry

Never make a promise
. . . . . when you are happy

میرا اُردو میں بلاگ ” میں کیا ہوں ۔ What Am I “پچھلے ساڑھے 7 سال سے معاشرے کے مختلف پہلوؤں پر تحاریر سے بھر پور چلا آ رہا ہے اور قاری سے صرف ایک کلِک کے فاصلہ پر ہے


Afghanistan, USA, Pakistan & Chinese Prototype

It is said when USSR attacked Afghanistan, Bacha Khan (a red-shirt leader) had said “If I meet Brezhnev, I will try to persuade him about the psychology of my nation (Afghans) that if you force us to go to Heaven we will refuse, but with love and sweet words we are ready to go to hell. So I am going to give Brezhnev only one piece of advice: The same amount you are spending on the Afghan war, if invested in construction of the same country, even the coming generations of Afghans, out of respect, will honour you like a master.” However, no such meeting took place, and the USSR continued to spend on the war, ending in the destruction of both Afghanistan and the USSR.

Afghanistan and the adjacent areas of Pakistan are not hosts to the ‘New Great Game,’ rather they may be called the playground of international Buzkashi. Buzkashi (Afghanistan’s national game) is more or less like football, with the exception that players of both teams compete while sitting on horses and use a headless goat carcass instead of a ball. Afghanistan and Pakistan’s border areas suffer the same fate in this international Buzkashi as the goat’s body does in the real game. In this Buzkashi there are several master players: Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, UK, Germany and Turkey etc. However, the captains of the two rival teams are the US and Pakistan. If these two captains gave ear to Bacha Khan’s advice, every player involved could benefit.

For instance, if the US adopts a policy based on Bacha Khan’s views, neither Afghanistan nor the US would have had to suffer such violence. If the US extends its defence expenditures to Afghanistan for welfare of the country, its objectives could be achieved in a shorter time. However, if the US insists on its present policy and tries to pressurise Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries, it will fail to achieve its objectives.

Since the past five decades there is an interesting but sad similarity between Pakistan’s policy towards Afghanistan and the US’ policy towards Pakistan. The largest chunk of financial aid for Pakistan comes from the US; they, however, insist on interfering in our internal affairs as well. The same is true for Pakistan; its sacrifices and efforts for Afghanistan are matchless, but Pakistan never refrains from interfering in Afghanistan’s internal affairs. Just as the US harvests nothing but popular disapproval in Pakistan, in the same way the majority of Afghans hate Pakistan.

The US heavily invested in rightist forces and the military in Pakistan but today faces the same groups as challengers. In Afghanistan each group that was once patronised by Pakistan is a cause of much grief for the country now.

There is one advice for Pakistan: In policy matters about Afghanistan, instead of the US model, follow the Chinese prototype. If we compare financial aid provided by China for Pakistan, it is far less from that given by the US. However, China follows a policy of non-intervention in Pakistan’s affairs and is not hypocritical in mutual transactions and dealings. No matter who is ruling Pakistan, China has kept its friendship on the same level with the people and government of Pakistan. The result is strong relations and a safe China. Pakistan has remained close to the US, but Pakistani land has never been used against China.

Pakistan has to follow China’s model, and let Afghans tackle their internal affairs themselves. It is up to the Afghans who they wish to see in the president house: Taliban, Hamid Karzai or anyone else. It is again their choice and decision whether they appeal to the US or Russia, or maintain relations with India or China. We have to concentrate on our own valid national interests and protect our borders. All we have to ensure is that there must not be any interference from Pakistan’s side into Afghanistan and from Afghanistan into Pakistan. This policy seems to be the last option left to us. We achieved nothing by following the US model and trying to protect our national interests through interventions during the last sixty years. What if we follow the Chinese model of non-interference to achieve our objectives?

By: Saleem Safi


The Horse Rider ?

If a statue in the park of a person on a horse has . . .

Both front legs in the air, the person died in battle.

If the horse has one front leg in the air the person died as a result of wounds received in battle.

If the horse has all four legs on the ground, the person died of natural causes.