DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan U.S. Pakistan and Afghanistan Strategy for The Council on Foreign Relations sponsors Independent Task Forces to assess issues of current and critical importance to U.S. foreign policy and provide policymakers with con- crete judgments and recommendations. Diverse in backgrounds and perspectives, Task Force members aim to reach a meaningful consensus on policy through private and non- partisan deliberations. Once launched, Task Forces are independent of CFR and solely re- sponsible for the content of their reports. Task Force members are asked to join a consensus signifying that they endorse “the general policy thrust and judgments reached by the group, though not necessarily every finding and recommendation.” Each Task Force member also has the option of putting forward an additional or a dissenting view. Members’ affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply institutional endorsement. Task Force observers participate in discussions, but are not asked to join the consensus. Task Force Members Richard L. Armitage John M. Keane Armitage International L.C. SCP Partners Reza Aslan Michael Krepon University of California, Riverside Henry L. Stimson Center J. Brian Atwood Sloan C. Mann University of Minnesota Development Transformations David W. Barno Daniel S. Markey Center for a New American Security Council on Foreign Relations Samuel R. Berger John A. Nagl Albright Stonebridge Group Center for a New American Security Karan K. Bhatia John D. Negroponte Independent Task Force Report No. 65 General Electric Company McLarty Associates Marshall M. Bouton Charles S. Robb Chairs Chicago Council on Global Affairs George Mason University Richard L. Armitage and Samuel R. Berger, Steve Coll Teresita C. Schaffer Daniel S. Markey, Project Director New America Foundation Center for Strategic and Joseph J. Collins International Studies National War College Shirin R. Tahir-Kheli Independent Task Force Report No. 65 Report Force Task Independent James F. Dobbins Carnegie Corporation of New York RAND Corporation Ashley J. Tellis C. Christine Fair Carnegie Endowment U.S. Strategy Georgetown University for International Peace John A. Gastright John W. Warner DynCorp International Hogan Lovells Robert L. Grenier Andrew Wilder for Pakistan and ERG Partners United States Institute of Peace www.cfr.org Afghanistan 26085_AGS-Cover-R1.indd 1 10/29/10 2:30 PM U.S. Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan Independent Task Force Report No. 65 Richard L. Armitage and Samuel R. Berger, Chairs Daniel S. Markey, Project Director U.S. Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business execu- tives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries. Founded in 1921, CFR carries out its mission by maintaining a diverse membership, with special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders; con- vening meetings at its headquarters in New York and in Washington, DC, and other cities where senior government officials, members of Congress, global leaders, and prominent thinkers come together with CFR members to discuss and debate major international issues; supporting a Studies Program that fosters independent research, enabling CFR scholars to produce articles, reports, and books and hold roundtables that analyze foreign policy issues and make concrete policy recommendations; publishing Foreign Affairs, the preeminent journal on international affairs and U.S. foreign policy; sponsoring Independent Task Forces that produce reports with both findings and policy prescriptions on the most important foreign policy topics; and providing up-to-date information and analysis about world events and American foreign policy on its website, www.cfr.org. The Council on Foreign Relations takes no institutional positions on policy issues and has no affiliation with the U.S. government. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion contained in its publications are the sole responsibility of the author or authors. The Council on Foreign Relations sponsors Independent Task Forces to assess issues of current and critical importance to U.S. foreign policy and provide policymakers with concrete judgments and recommenda- tions. Diverse in backgrounds and perspectives, Task Force members aim to reach a meaningful consensus on policy through private and nonpartisan deliberations. Once launched, Task Forces are independent of CFR and solely responsible for the content of their reports. Task Force members are asked to join a consen- sus signifying that they endorse “the general policy thrust and judgments reached by the group, though not necessarily every finding and recommendation.” Each Task Force member also has the option of putting forward an additional or dissenting view. Members’ affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply institutional endorsement. Task Force observers participate in discussions, but are not asked to join the consensus. For further information about CFR or this Task Force, please write to the Council on Foreign Relations, 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10065, or call the Communications office at 212.434.9888. Visit CFR’s website at www.cfr.org. Copyright © 2010 by the Council on Foreign Relations®, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This report may not be reproduced in whole or in part, in any form beyond the reproduction permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law Act (17 U.S.C. Sections 107 and 108) and excerpts by reviewers for the public press, without express written permission from the Council on Foreign Relations. For information, write to the Publications Office, Council on Foreign Relations, 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10065. This report is printed on paper certified by SmartWood to the standards of the Forest Stewardship Council, which promotes environmentally responsible, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world’s forests. Task Force Members Task Force members are asked to join a consensus signifying that they endorse “the general policy thrust and judgments reached by the group, though not necessarily every finding and recommendation.” They par- ticipate in the Task Force in their individual, not institutional, capacities. Richard L. Armitage C. Christine Fair Armitage International L.C. Georgetown University Reza Aslan John A. Gastright University of California, Riverside DynCorp International J. Brian Atwood Robert L. Grenier University of Minnesota ERG Partners David W. Barno John M. Keane Center for a New American SCP Partners Security Michael Krepon Samuel R. Berger Henry L. Stimson Center Albright Stonebridge Group Sloan C. Mann Karan K. Bhatia Development Transformations General Electric Company Daniel S. Markey Marshall M. Bouton Council on Foreign Relations Chicago Council on Global Affairs John A. Nagl Steve Coll Center for a New American New America Foundation Security Joseph J. Collins John D. Negroponte National War College McLarty Associates James F. Dobbins Charles S. Robb RAND Corporation George Mason University v vi Task Force Members Teresita C. Schaffer John W. Warner Center for Strategic and Hogan Lovells International Studies Andrew Wilder Shirin R. Tahir-Kheli United States Institute of Peace Carnegie Corporation of New York Ashley J. Tellis Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Contents Foreword ix Acknowledgments xi Task Force Report 1 Introduction 3 The Threat 18 U.S. Strategic Objectives 29 An Assessment of U.S. Strategy and Policy 36 Policy Options and Recommendations: Pakistan 45 Policy Options and Recommendations: Afghanistan 56 Conclusion 65 Additional or Dissenting Views 68 Endnotes 72 Task Force Members 76 Task Force Observers 88 Foreword It is now nine years since the United States first went to war in Afghani- stan. The rationale for doing so in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks was clear. Now, however, the United States has embarked on a differ- ent and considerably more ambitious undertaking in Afghanistan that affects—and is affected by—the complex political currents of Pakistan and its border regions. It is not clear that U.S. interests warrant such an investment. Nor is it clear that the effort will succeed. In Pakistan, a weak civilian government is struggling to cope with a plethora of challenges exacerbated by this summer’s floods. The military has lost more than two thousand men in an ongoing battle with insur- gents in the country’s northwest. But the army does not fight all militants equally. Islamabad’s ongoing tolerance of—and even support for— extremist groups that target American interests in Afghanistan and glob- ally calls into question the basis of the U.S. relationship with Pakistan. In Afghanistan, the Taliban insurgency is more violent than at any point since the U.S. invasion after 9/11. NATO forces are paying a heavy toll. Afghan public enthusiasm for the government is waning after years of unmet expectations. The economy, devastated by more than thirty years of war, has not recovered sufficiently to provide for the people, while the government remains largely ineffective and riven by corruption. The Obama administration, about to embark on its
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AN ANALYSIS of POST-COLD WAR CONCEPTS in AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY: CONTINUITY OR CHANGE? by Ana Maria Venegas a Thesis Submitted
    AN ANALYSIS OF POST-COLD WAR CONCEPTS IN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY: CONTINUITY OR CHANGE? by Ana Maria Venegas A thesis submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Global Security Studies Baltimore, Maryland December 2014 © 2014 Ana Maria Venegas All Rights Reserved Abstract This thesis investigates post-Cold War concepts in US foreign policy. At the end of the Cold War, prominent political scientists and commentators argued, for various reasons, that the strategic environment was so dramatically different that the United States would no longer be able to engage the world as it had in the past. In an attempt to understand the ramifications of the evolution of the strategic environment, this thesis asked the question: Have the three post-Cold War presidents, William J. Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack H. Obama, continued to engage the world in ways consistent with previous administrations or have the broken from traditional concepts in American foreign policy? To answer this question, declaratory foreign policy as articulated in national security strategy documents and key foreign policy engagements were analyzed and compared to nine traditional concepts in American foreign policy identified by prominent historians and political scientists. The post-Cold War administrations continued to develop foreign policy consistent with the concepts identified by historians and political scientists suggesting a measure of consistency in the way the United States engages the world. Additionally, each president developed foreign policy that exhibited unique characteristics inconsistent with the traditional concepts. These policies were characterized by the importance placed on multilateral consensus; an emphasis on multilateral agreements and alliances to foster a stable international order; and the reliance on international organizations to address regional and global issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinton Presidential Records in Response to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests Listed in Attachment A
    VIA EMAIL (LM 2018-071) May 8, 2018 The Honorable Donald F. McGahn, II Counsel to the President The White House Washington, D.C. 20502 Dear Mr. McGahn: In accordance with the requirements of the Presidential Records Act (PRA), as amended, 44 U.S.C. §§2201-2209, this letter constitutes a formal notice from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to the incumbent President of our intent to open Clinton Presidential records in response to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests listed in Attachment A. These records, consisting of 46,173 pages, have been reviewed for all applicable FOIA exemptions, resulting in 1,741 pages restricted in whole or in part. NARA is proposing to open the remaining 44,432 pages. A copy of any records proposed for release under this notice will be provided to you upon your request. We are also concurrently informing former President Clinton’s representative, Bruce Lindsey, of our intent to release these records. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2208(a), NARA will release the records 60 working days from the date of this letter, which is August 2, 2018, unless the former or incumbent President requests a one-time extension of an additional 30 working days or asserts a constitutionally based privilege, in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 2208(b)-(d). Please let us know if you are able to complete your review before the expiration of the 60 working day period. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2208(a)(1)(B), we will make this notice available to the public on the NARA website.
    [Show full text]
  • America in the World: Forging a New Vision for Foreign Policy and International Security.”
    SPECIAL PRESENTATION “AMERICA IN THE WORLD: FORGING A NEW VISION FOR FOREIGN POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY.” CLOSING REMARKS: SAMUEL R. BERGER, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON 5:15 PM – 5:30 PM TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2007 TRANSCRIPT PROVIDED BY DC TRANSCRIPTION & MEDIA REPURPOSING MR. JOSEPH CIRINCIONE: We are now fortunate enough to have a closing speaker who has graciously agreed to help us make some sense of today’s proceedings, to sum this up for us, and to offer his own perspectives. Right before I introduce him, I want to remind everybody in the audience that we’re going to have transcripts of this discussion posted on the Center for American Progress website, americanprogress.org. We’re going to have video highlights of the conference posted. And you’ll be able to go online tonight and see some of the comments from some of the bloggers who have been here. We’ve had some of the best national security bloggers in the Untied States here, including some from the Nation, the Atlantic Monthly, the National Security Network, the American Prospect, and a half a dozen others. You may think that you already know everything you need know about our next speaker, Samuel R. Berger, the 19th national security advisor to the president of United States. You may know that Sandy Berger worked for the former mayor of New York City, John Lindsay, and for former Senator Harold Hughes, or that he was deputy director of the State Department’s Policy Planning staff. You may know that he headed the international trade group of
    [Show full text]
  • Living Under Drones Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan
    Fall 08 September 2012 Living Under Drones Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic Stanford Law School Global Justice Clinic http://livingunderdrones.org/ NYU School of Law Cover Photo: Roof of the home of Faheem Qureshi, a then 14-year old victim of a January 23, 2009 drone strike (the first during President Obama’s administration), in Zeraki, North Waziristan, Pakistan. Photo supplied by Faheem Qureshi to our research team. Suggested Citation: INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION CLINIC (STANFORD LAW SCHOOL) AND GLOBAL JUSTICE CLINIC (NYU SCHOOL OF LAW), LIVING UNDER DRONES: DEATH, INJURY, AND TRAUMA TO CIVILIANS FROM US DRONE PRACTICES IN PAKISTAN (September, 2012) TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I ABOUT THE AUTHORS III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS V INTRODUCTION 1 METHODOLOGY 2 CHALLENGES 4 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 7 DRONES: AN OVERVIEW 8 DRONES AND TARGETED KILLING AS A RESPONSE TO 9/11 10 PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ESCALATION OF THE DRONE PROGRAM 12 “PERSONALITY STRIKES” AND SO-CALLED “SIGNATURE STRIKES” 12 WHO MAKES THE CALL? 13 PAKISTAN’S DIVIDED ROLE 15 CONFLICT, ARMED NON-STATE GROUPS, AND MILITARY FORCES IN NORTHWEST PAKISTAN 17 UNDERSTANDING THE TARGET: FATA IN CONTEXT 20 PASHTUN CULTURE AND SOCIAL NORMS 22 GOVERNANCE 23 ECONOMY AND HOUSEHOLDS 25 ACCESSING FATA 26 CHAPTER 2: NUMBERS 29 TERMINOLOGY 30 UNDERREPORTING OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES BY US GOVERNMENT SOURCES 32 CONFLICTING MEDIA REPORTS 35 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
    [Show full text]
  • Improving the Total Force Using National Guard and Reserves
    IMPROVING THE TOTAL FORCE USING THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES A Report for the transition to the new administration by The Reserve Forces Policy Board RFPB Report FY17-01 This report, Report FY17-01, is a product of the Reserve Forces Policy Board. The Reserve Forces Policy Board is, by law, a federal advisory committee within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. As mandated by Congress, it serves as an independent adviser to provide advice and recommendations directly to the Secretary of Defense on strategies, policies, and practices designed to improve and enhance the capabilities, efficiency, and effectiveness of the reserve components. The content and recommendations contained herein do not necessarily represent the official position of the Department of Defense. As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, Title 5, and the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 41, Section 102-3 (Federal Advisory Committee Management), this report and its contents were deliberated and approved in several open, public sessions. IMPROVING THE TOTAL FORCE USING THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES A Report for the transition to the new administration by The Reserve Forces Policy Board RFPB Report FY17-01 4 5 6 Chairman Punaro introduces the Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Ashton B. Carter, during the June 9, 2015 Board Meeting. “The presence, skill and readiness of Citizen Warriors across the country give us the agility and flexibility to handle unexpected demands, both at home and abroad. It is an essential component of our total force, and a linchpin of our readiness.” 1 - Secretary of Defense Ash Carter 1 As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, Pentagon Auditorium, Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pulitzer Prizes 2020 Winne
    WINNERS AND FINALISTS 1917 TO PRESENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Excerpts from the Plan of Award ..............................................................2 PULITZER PRIZES IN JOURNALISM Public Service ...........................................................................................6 Reporting ...............................................................................................24 Local Reporting .....................................................................................27 Local Reporting, Edition Time ..............................................................32 Local General or Spot News Reporting ..................................................33 General News Reporting ........................................................................36 Spot News Reporting ............................................................................38 Breaking News Reporting .....................................................................39 Local Reporting, No Edition Time .......................................................45 Local Investigative or Specialized Reporting .........................................47 Investigative Reporting ..........................................................................50 Explanatory Journalism .........................................................................61 Explanatory Reporting ...........................................................................64 Specialized Reporting .............................................................................70
    [Show full text]
  • Old Habits, New Consequences Old Habits, New Khalid Homayun Consequences Nadiri Pakistan’S Posture Toward Afghanistan Since 2001
    Old Habits, New Consequences Old Habits, New Khalid Homayun Consequences Nadiri Pakistan’s Posture toward Afghanistan since 2001 Since the terrorist at- tacks of September 11, 2001, Pakistan has pursued a seemingly incongruous course of action in Afghanistan. It has participated in the U.S. and interna- tional intervention in Afghanistan both by allying itself with the military cam- paign against the Afghan Taliban and al-Qaida and by serving as the primary transit route for international military forces and matériel into Afghanistan.1 At the same time, the Pakistani security establishment has permitted much of the Afghan Taliban’s political leadership and many of its military command- ers to visit or reside in Pakistani urban centers. Why has Pakistan adopted this posture of Afghan Taliban accommodation despite its nominal participa- tion in the Afghanistan intervention and its public commitment to peace and stability in Afghanistan?2 This incongruence is all the more puzzling in light of the expansion of insurgent violence directed against Islamabad by the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a coalition of militant organizations that are independent of the Afghan Taliban but that nonetheless possess social and po- litical links with Afghan cadres of the Taliban movement. With violence against Pakistan growing increasingly indiscriminate and costly, it remains un- clear why Islamabad has opted to accommodate the Afghan Taliban through- out the post-2001 period. Despite a considerable body of academic and journalistic literature on Pakistan’s relationship with Afghanistan since 2001, the subject of Pakistani accommodation of the Afghan Taliban remains largely unaddressed. Much of the existing literature identiªes Pakistan’s security competition with India as the exclusive or predominant driver of Pakistani policy vis-à-vis the Afghan Khalid Homayun Nadiri is a Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Larger Ground Forces Stanley Foundation
    Bridging the Foreign Policy Divide The The Case for Larger Ground Forces Stanley Foundation By Frederick Kagan and Michael O’Hanlon April 2007 Frederick W. Kagan is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, specializing in defense transformation, the defense budget, and defense strategy and warfare. Previously he spent ten years as a professor of military history at the United States Military Academy (West Point). Kagan’s 2006 book, Finding the Target: The Transformation of American Military Policy (Encounter Books), exam- ines the post-Vietnam development of US armed forces, particularly in structure and fundamental approach. Kagan was coauthor of an influential January 2007 report, Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq, advocating an increased deployment. Michael O’Hanlon is senior fellow and Sydney Stein Jr. Chair in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, where he spe- cializes in U S defense strategy, the use of military force, and homeland security. O’Hanlon is coauthor most recently of Hard Power: the New Politics of National Security (Basic Books), a look at the sources of Democrats’ political vulnerability on national security in recent decades and an agenda to correct it. He previously was an analyst with the Congressional Budget Office. Brookings’ Iraq Index project, which he leads, is a regular feature on The New York Times Op-Ed page. e live at a time when wars not only rage national inspections. What will happen if the in nearly every region but threaten to US—or Israeli—government becomes convinced Werupt in many places where the current that Tehran is on the verge of fielding a nuclear relative calm is tenuous.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bush Revolution: the Remaking of America's Foreign Policy
    The Bush Revolution: The Remaking of America’s Foreign Policy Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay The Brookings Institution April 2003 George W. Bush campaigned for the presidency on the promise of a “humble” foreign policy that would avoid his predecessor’s mistake in “overcommitting our military around the world.”1 During his first seven months as president he focused his attention primarily on domestic affairs. That all changed over the succeeding twenty months. The United States waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. troops went to Georgia, the Philippines, and Yemen to help those governments defeat terrorist groups operating on their soil. Rather than cheering American humility, people and governments around the world denounced American arrogance. Critics complained that the motto of the United States had become oderint dum metuant—Let them hate as long as they fear. September 11 explains why foreign policy became the consuming passion of Bush’s presidency. Once commercial jetliners plowed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is unimaginable that foreign policy wouldn’t have become the overriding priority of any American president. Still, the terrorist attacks by themselves don’t explain why Bush chose to respond as he did. Few Americans and even fewer foreigners thought in the fall of 2001 that attacks organized by Islamic extremists seeking to restore the caliphate would culminate in a war to overthrow the secular tyrant Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Yet the path from the smoking ruins in New York City and Northern Virginia to the battle of Baghdad was not the case of a White House cynically manipulating a historic catastrophe to carry out a pre-planned agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright by Mohammad Raisur Rahman 2008
    Copyright by Mohammad Raisur Rahman 2008 The Dissertation Committee for Mohammad Raisur Rahman certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Islam, Modernity, and Educated Muslims: A History of Qasbahs in Colonial India Committee: _____________________________________ Gail Minault, Supervisor _____________________________________ Cynthia M. Talbot _____________________________________ Denise A. Spellberg _____________________________________ Michael H. Fisher _____________________________________ Syed Akbar Hyder Islam, Modernity, and Educated Muslims: A History of Qasbahs in Colonial India by Mohammad Raisur Rahman, B.A. Honors; M.A.; M.Phil. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2008 Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to the fond memories of my parents, Najma Bano and Azizur Rahman, and to Kulsum Acknowledgements Many people have assisted me in the completion of this project. This work could not have taken its current shape in the absence of their contributions. I thank them all. First and foremost, I owe my greatest debt of gratitude to my advisor Gail Minault for her guidance and assistance. I am grateful for her useful comments, sharp criticisms, and invaluable suggestions on the earlier drafts, and for her constant encouragement, support, and generous time throughout my doctoral work. I must add that it was her path breaking scholarship in South Asian Islam that inspired me to come to Austin, Texas all the way from New Delhi, India. While it brought me an opportunity to work under her supervision, I benefited myself further at the prospect of working with some of the finest scholars and excellent human beings I have ever known.
    [Show full text]
  • Afghanistan in Poetry, Literature, and Nonfiction Texts
    Afghanistan in Poetry, Literature, and Nonfiction Texts Elisabeth Raab School of the Future Overview Rationale Objectives Strategies Classroom Activities Annotated Bibliography/Resources Appendix A: PA State Standards for English Appendix B: List of Key Terms for Activity 1 Appendix C: Discussion Questions for Afghan Star Appendix D: Breakdown and Discussion Questions for The Forever War Overview This unit is intended for high school students, particularly 9th graders, to be implemented in English 1 class. It is meant to build reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills, the content being linked by a common subject: the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, its effects in Afghanistan itself, and the similarities and differences that exist between American and Afghan culture. The unit begins with some background building, using reference materials to illuminate basic facts about Afghanistan, its culture, and the history of the conflict there. Following are some classroom activities that will engage students in exploring the differences of perspective between Afghans and Americans. Students will participate in a screening of, Afghan Star, a very intriguing documentary about a popular American-Idol style television show in Afghanistan. Following the film, they will read poems by Afghan and American poets about Afghanistan, to build poetry reading skills and explore contrasting points of view. The last two activities in the unit relate to reading and understanding narrative texts about Afghanistan, both nonfiction and fiction. Students will read sections of the first chapter of Dexter Filkins’ book The Forever War and participate in activities related to Kite Runner, the bestselling 2003 novel by Khaled Hosseini. The Kite Runner activities can provide closure to the unit because they enable students to display the full body of knowledge they have acquired over the course of the unit.
    [Show full text]
  • The Other Battlefield Construction And
    THE OTHER BATTLEFIELD – CONSTRUCTION AND REPRESENTATION OF THE PAKISTANI MILITARY ‘SELF’ IN THE FIELD OF MILITARY AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL NARRATIVE PRODUCTION Inauguraldissertation an der Philosophisch-historischen Fakultät der Universität Bern zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde vorgelegt von Manuel Uebersax Promotionsdatum: 20.10.2017 eingereicht bei Prof. Dr. Reinhard Schulze, Institut für Islamwissenschaft der Universität Bern und Prof. Dr. Jamal Malik, Institut für Islamwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt Originaldokument gespeichert auf dem Webserver der Universitätsbibliothek Bern Dieses Werk ist unter einem Creative Commons Namensnennung-Keine kommerzielle Nutzung-Keine Bearbeitung 2.5 Schweiz Lizenzvertrag lizenziert. Um die Lizenz anzusehen, gehen Sie bitte zu http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ch/ oder schicken Sie einen Brief an Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94105, USA. 1 Urheberrechtlicher Hinweis Dieses Dokument steht unter einer Lizenz der Creative Commons Namensnennung-Keine kommerzielle Nutzung-Keine Bearbeitung 2.5 Schweiz. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ch/ Sie dürfen: dieses Werk vervielfältigen, verbreiten und öffentlich zugänglich machen Zu den folgenden Bedingungen: Namensnennung. Sie müssen den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen (wodurch aber nicht der Eindruck entstehen darf, Sie oder die Nutzung des Werkes durch Sie würden entlohnt). Keine kommerzielle Nutzung. Dieses Werk darf nicht für kommerzielle Zwecke verwendet werden. Keine Bearbeitung. Dieses Werk darf nicht bearbeitet oder in anderer Weise verändert werden. Im Falle einer Verbreitung müssen Sie anderen die Lizenzbedingungen, unter welche dieses Werk fällt, mitteilen. Jede der vorgenannten Bedingungen kann aufgehoben werden, sofern Sie die Einwilligung des Rechteinhabers dazu erhalten. Diese Lizenz lässt die Urheberpersönlichkeitsrechte nach Schweizer Recht unberührt.
    [Show full text]