Zardari Fears Obama Administration Collapse

WASHINGTON news update: The Obama administration is seriously worried about the fast weakening grip of President Asif Zardari in Pakistan and on Monday two top US newspapers predicted, in powerful reports by seven leading writers and correspondents, that the Zardari regime seemed to be near collapse.
The New York Times in a report filed by five correspondents said: “The problems in Afghanistan have only been compounded by the fragility of Mr. Obama’s partner in Pakistan, President Asif Ali Zardari, who is so weak that his government seems near collapse.”

The Washington Post in a report by two correspondents said: “Zardari’s political weakness is an additional hazard for a new bilateral relationship…The administration expects Zardari’s position to continue to weaken, leaving him as a largely ceremonial president even if he manages to survive in office.”

Both the newspapers recalled the surrender of the authority over the National Command Council by President Zardari to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani as a major event which had weakened Zardari and raised serious doubts about his survival as a powerful president.

The Post said President Obama has offered Pakistan an expanded strategic partnership, including additional military and economic cooperation, while warning with unusual bluntness that its use of insurgent groups to pursue policy goals “cannot continue.”

The offer, including an effort to help reduce tensions between Pakistan and India, was contained in a two-page letter delivered to President Asif Ali Zardari this month by Obama national security adviser James L. Jones. It was accompanied by assurances from Jones that the United States will increase its military and civilian efforts in Afghanistan and that it plans no early withdrawal.

Obama’s speech Tuesday night at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., will address primarily the Afghanistan aspects of the strategy. But despite the public and political attention focused on the number of new troops, Pakistan has been the hot core of the months-long strategy review. The long-term consequences of failure there, the review concluded, far outweigh those in Afghanistan.

“We can’t succeed without Pakistan,” a senior administration official involved in the White House review said. “You have to differentiate between public statements and reality. There is nobody who is under any illusions about this.”

This official and others, all of whom spoke about the closely held details of the new strategy on the condition of anonymity, emphasized that without “changing the nature of U.S.-Pakistan relations in a new direction, you’re not going to win in Afghanistan,” as one put it. “And if you don’t win in Afghanistan, then Pakistan will automatically be imperiled, and that will make Afghanistan look like child’s play,” the Post added.

The report in The New York Times was filed by journalists Peter Baker, Eric Schmitt, David E Sanger, Elisabeth Bumiller and Sabrina Tavernise from Islamabad, Washington and New York while in the Washington Post Karen DeYoung from Washington and Pamela Constable from Islamabad contributed to its report. Both newspapers referred to President Zardari’s increasing weakness in the context of the new Afghan policy being prepared by President Obama, which will be announced on Dec 1.

The Post in its report said: “The Pakistan strategy is complicated by a number of factors, including the fact that any indication of increased U.S. involvement there generates broad mistrust. Zardari’s political weakness is an additional hazard for a new bilateral relationship. He is disliked by the military and is challenged by the political opposition and his own prime minister; he also remains under a cloud of long-standing corruption charges. Less than a third of Pakistan’s population voices approval for him in polls. Obama is even less popular there, with approval ratings in the low double digits.

It said: “Many of the broad powers that Zardari assumed from his predecessor, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 military coup and was forced to resign last year, are being whittled away. On Friday, Zardari turned over control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, who is held in much higher favor by the military. Zardari’s Musharraf-era powers to fire the elected government and appoint top military officials are also under challenge, and a law protecting government officials from corruption prosecution expired Saturday. On Sunday, the leading political opposition group called for him to give up the additional powers, and Zardari, who had pledged to do so, said he will act “soon.” The administration expects Zardari’s position to continue to weaken, leaving him as a largely ceremonial president even if he manages to survive in office.”

The NYT also reported almost in the same vein. Its report said: “The problems in Afghanistan have only been compounded by the fragility of Mr. Obama’s partner in Pakistan, President Asif Ali Zardari, who is so weak that his government seems near collapse. On Friday, Mr. Zardari relinquished his position in Pakistan’s nuclear command structure, turning it over to the prime minister, in what appeared to be an effort to avoid impeachment or prosecution, and retain at least a figurehead post.

“On Sunday, one of the Obama administration’s staunchest allies, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain, joined in the campaign to press Pakistan to step up attacks on Al Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan’s unruly tribal areas and other militant groups there. “People are going to ask why, eight years after 2001, Osama bin Laden has never been near to being caught,” Mr. Brown told Sky News, “and what can the Pakistan authorities do that is far more effective.”

“White House officials have said relatively little about the Pakistan side of the administration’s evolving war strategy, in part because they have so few options and so little leverage. They cannot send troops into Pakistan, and they cannot talk publicly about one of their most effective measures, the Central Intelligence Agency’s Predator drone strikes in the country.

“Everyone understands this is a complex, nuanced, critical relationship,” said a senior American official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because Mr. Obama’s review had not been announced. “Everyone has their eyes open, and there are genuine concerns. But one focus now is on trying to expand cooperation. The Pakistanis are doing some positive things in the tribal areas. That presents opportunities on which to build.”
“Mr. Obama’s advisers previously signaled that the president wanted to outline, as he had before, expectations for the Afghan government. This time, they said, the goals would be more explicit and demanding, aimed at improving governance and curbing corruption.

“But the advisers have been debating whether to put deadlines on those benchmarks, like the pace of training Afghan security forces to defend their country.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top NATO and American commander in Afghanistan, is expected to testify about Mr. Obama’s new strategy on Dec. 8 to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees in Washington, the official said. His appearance is expected to follow Congressional testimony later this week by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The administration has sought to build consensus among crucial allies to reach this point. In the last two weeks, Mr. Obama dispatched two top aides to Pakistan to deliver the same message: Keep the pressure on.

In separate visits to Islamabad, the capital, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, and the president’s national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, told Pakistani officials that no matter how many more troops the president sent to Afghanistan, the effort would fail unless Pakistan increased strikes against Al Qaeda’s leadership and Mullah Muhammad Omar and the leadership of the Afghan Taliban in the southern Pakistani city of Quetta, and the Haqqani network, militants operating out of North Waziristan who have attacked Afghan and NATO targets in eastern Afghanistan and Kabul, the Afghan capital.

“We agree that no matter how many troops you send, if the safe haven in Pakistan isn’t cracked, the whole mission is compromised,” said one official who has participated in the debate over the strategy. “But if you make too many demands on the Pakistanis in public, it can backfire.”

The NYT added that President Obama plans to lay out a time frame for winding down the American involvement in the war in Afghanistan when he announces his decision this week to send more forces, senior administration officials said Sunday.

Although the speech was still in draft form, the officials said the president wanted to use the address at the United States Military Academy at West Point on Tuesday night not only to announce the immediate order to deploy roughly 30,000 more troops, but also to convey how he intends to turn the fight over to the Kabul government.

“It’s accurate to say that he will be more explicit about both goals and time frame than has been the case before and than has been part of the public discussion,” said a senior official, who requested anonymity to discuss the speech before it is delivered. “He wants to give a clear sense of both the time frame for action and how the war will eventually wind down.”

The officials would not disclose the time frame. But they said it would not be tied to particular conditions on the ground nor would it be as firm as the current schedule for withdrawing troops in Iraq, where Mr. Obama has committed to withdrawing most combat units by August and all forces by the end of 2011.

Obama’s Push For Small Business Loans

WASHINGTON: Banks should return the favour they received in their recent taxpayer-financed bailout by lending more money to small businesses, President Barack Obama said Friday.

In his weekly radio and internet address, Obama said too many small business owners remain unable to get credit despite administration steps to jump-start lending, which was virtually frozen when the financial crisis took hold last year.

“These are the very taxpayers who stood by America’s banks in a crisis, and now it’s time for our banks to stand by creditworthy small businesses and make the loans they need to open their doors, grow their operations and create new jobs,” Obama said.

“It’s time for those banks to fulfill their responsibility to help ensure a wider recovery, a more secure system and more broadly shared prosperity,” said Obama.

The president said the administration will “take every appropriate step to encourage them to meet those responsibilities”. He did not specify what those steps might be.

The president’s words were the latest instance of the populist tone he has employed to pressure the financial industry.

Last week Obama criticised the banking and fin-ance industries for working through Congress to try to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Agency he has proposed.

He accused them of “using every bit of influence they have to maintain the status quo that has maximised their profits at the expense of American consumers, despite the fact that recently those same American consumers bailed them out as a consequence of the bad decisions that they made.”

The bailout package cost $700 billion (Dh2.56 trillion). In his address Friday, Obama said small businesses have created nearly two-thirds of the nation’s new jobs over the past decade and a half. “They must be at the forefront of our recovery,” he said.

This year’s $787 economic stimulus package made $5 billion in tax breaks available to small business and cut the costs of Small Business Administration loans, Obama said.

Tea Party Washington Dc

What are the demographics of today’s Protesters Against Obama Care rallying in the Nation’s Capitol? The Wall Street Journal offers a hint from two of their embedded reporters. They road with a group of Tea Partiers all the way from Florida. From Michael M. Phillips and Naftali Bendavid of the WSJ:

The 54 riders on the Tallahassee bus provide a window into the new conservative energy. On the road, they listened to reminiscences of President Ronald Reagan’s life, including his battle against Soviet-style communism. It is a fight they say must now be waged at home, against an administration and Congress that is inserting government deeply in banking, car-making and, perhaps, health care.

“I can’t figure out to save me what [Mr. Obama and the Democrats] are trying to accomplish, unless they want socialism,” said 73-year-old Joseph Wright, a retired paper-mill worker.

Forty-four of the riders identified themselves as Republicans, with eight independents and two Libertarians. The average age was 56 years old. Fifty-one said they voted for Republican John McCain in his White House bid last year, though several said they did so to support his running mate, then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. The remaining three riders said they voted for Libertarian Bob Barr.

The article goes on to characterize the unifying beliefs of the protesters:
“The Obama administration and congressional Democrats are spending too much money on programs that insert government too far into people’s lives.”

Mary Mangell, described in the piece as owning a baby-sitting company was quoted:  “There really should be a smaller role for the federal government… Keep it simple. Keep it constitutional.”