American elites talk a lot about peace. But what they really love are wars. The media elites covering President Trump’s recent speech on Afghanistan were praiseworthy of Trump’s sober tone even though, in reality, the speech heralded open-ended war. No troop levels were announced. No timeline was provided.

No one knows the cost in blood and treasure. But that did not stop the pursuit of a quixotic idea that the U.S. will kill its way out of the problem of terrorism in Afghanistan.

The Cost of Wars Project at Brown University estimates that since 9-11, America’s war efforts in Afghanistan total $2 trillion. Adding war spending in Iraq and Pakistan to the equation puts the total at $5 trillion, nearly 25 percent of U.S. GDP in 2016. The total death toll in Afghanistan is estimated at over 111,000. More than 2,300 American soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice.

While more than 42,000 Taliban and other militants have been killed, over 35,000 Taliban fighters still remain in action. By some estimates, there are more Taliban militants today than at the start of the U.S. war efforts about 16 years ago. And, despite years of heavy American footprint in Afghanistan, the Taliban today control 37 percent of the country.

So, Trump’s logic is what could not be achieved with over 100,000 U.S. troops, can now be achieved with a few thousand more troops beyond the 8,500 still stationed there?

In his speech, the Commander-in-Chief said, “We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists.” What about the more than 40,000 we killed so far? Why did that not end terrorism? He went on to assert that his new approach will be, “the integration of all instruments of American power—diplomatic, economic, and military—toward a successful outcome.”

Did the previous two presidents not try something similar? In fact, many points of Trump’s speech closely resembled Obama’s 2009 speech on Afghanistan.

Besides the fact that 12 million fewer people watched Trump’s speech compared to that of Obama’s speech eight years ago, perhaps the biggest departure was Trump’s strident language about Pakistan. Trump correctly diagnosed that a large number of terrorist organizations are active in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He called it, “the highest concentration in any region anywhere in the world.”

Why then does his Muslim-ban (euphemistically called the travel-ban) not include Pakistan and Afghanistan?

Pakistan’s long history of flirting with terrorist organizations is indeed a problem but U.S. troops also use Pakistan as an entry point into Afghanistan. Without Pakistan’s cooperation, the “new” Afghanistan strategy will be just as successful as the past ones, which is to say not very. Asking Pakistan to, “demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order and to peace,” may get a few applause lines across the border in India but will not make the people of Pakistan endear to American efforts.

It is noteworthy that Pakistanis have sacrificed their lives standing up to Taliban and the myriad of other extremists that have tormented their region.

Pakistan’s love-hate relationship with extremists is rooted in its own regional struggle with neighboring India. Previous administrations have always tried to be nuanced about this delicate power struggle between two nuclear armed nations. Abandoning this strategic patience seems like a dangerous turn towards more militarism in an already volatile region.

Moreover, how can Trump bring diplomatic pressure to bear while at the same time leaving key positions in the State Department unfilled and cutting State Department budget at the same time?

The Trump speech has left many unanswered questions. Trump vowed that, “from now on, victory will have a clear definition.” But he never defined what victory will actually look like. As long as America’s war efforts remain shouldered by a disproportionately small group of volunteers and as long as politicians keep selling that we can fight our existential war without asking American’s for any sacrifice in treasure (taxes), militarism will continue to drain our blood and treasure without bringing us closer to any meaningful resolution.

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/altmuslim/2017/08/trumps-speech-afghanistan-pakistan-signals-unending-war/

The numbers are sobering. Nearly 1 in 8 Pakistanis are homeless as a result of an epic flood. Besides the staggering human cost of the tragedy the geo-political importance of Pakistan to US security interests cannot be overemphasized. With over 100,000 U.S. troops stationed in nearby Afghanistan and American drones routinely dropping bombs on suspected terrorist hideouts in Pakistan, both American security and American moral authority is at stake.

And yet according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, “Twenty-two U.S. aid groups have raised a total of $10.6-million to assist the estimated 20 million people affected by the floods; two-and-a-half weeks after the Haiti earthquake, 40 aid groups had brought in a total of $560-million.”

While 3 million people were affected in Haiti the number affected in Pakistan is 7 times as much and climbing. As the flood waters recede, human misery is escalating.

Official U.S. contribution to the relief efforts stands at nearly $170 million accounting for nearly 1 in every 5 dollars pledged. The European Commission is next with nearly $95 million in assistance while Saudi Arabia comes third at $75 million. Impressive, but not nearly enough, given the scale of the disaster. Donations from China, which calls Pakistan its closest ally, is a paltry $18 million and neighboring India, which stands a lot to benefit from winning the hearts and minds of Pakistanis, have only $25 million in “uncommitted” pledges.

In contrast, total official relief to Haiti is over $3 billion in funded aid and another $1.15 billion in “uncommitted” pledges. Pakistan facing a much larger catastrophe has received just over $1 billion in total aid. The biggest difference makers — while official U.S. aid to Haiti is over $1.16 billion that to Pakistan is only about a tenth at $170 million. Also, private individuals and non-governmental organizations pledged over $1.23 billion for Haiti but for Pakistan the number is only $95 million. According to the Pakistan’s High Commissioner to Britain, the cost of rebuilding Pakistan is estimated at $10 to $15 billion and will take nearly 5 years.

Several reasons have been offered as possible explanation for the lethargic response to the Pakistan floods. Donor fatigue, concerns about corruption in Pakistan and weariness about Pakistan’s lackadaisical effort countering radicals and terrorists are most cited. The reasons may be legitimate but this is no time to let the people of Pakistan down. Doing so will not only further destabilize an already wobbly nuclear power but it will also give radicals another pretext to continue their mindless violence. A proper tone must be set at the highest levels.

President Obama needs to articulate a sense of urgency if not for humanitarian reasons then at least as a national security imperative. His ability to cook dal may tickle Pakistanis but what will endear him is aid that will allow the 20 million displaced Pakistanis to cook dal, a staple diet in South Asia. Former Presidents Clinton and Bush (both W. and H.W.) have in the past teamed-up to raise funds for Indonesia and Haiti. They can do the same for Pakistan. This could be President Bush’s moment of redemption for getting Pakistan so wrong.

The list of people who can help Pakistanis at their moment of crisis is not limited to U.S. Presidents. Hollywood can do its part. Angelina Jolie in her role as the UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador donated $100,000 and is urging that more be done. A quick way for ordinary citizens to follow her lead will be to text the word SWAT to 50555 for a $10 donation. But to raise the kind of money needed will take more creative efforts from Jolie’s Hollywood compatriots. Sean Penn has set a great example in Haiti. Who will do the same for Pakistan?

Bollywood with its propensity to copy Hollywood can certainly take the lead in helping its neighbors in Pakistan much like Hollywood stars have thrown their support behind rebuilding neighboring Haiti. Hosting benefit concerts or telethons should not be too much to ask. Bollywood stars have as much following among Pakistanis as they have among Indians. Is it not time that they transcend the caustic India-Pakistan border politics and make a humanitarian gesture that may very well be the first salvo for lasting peace in the region?

The Pakistani Diaspora in the US, Europe and Middle East can also do more. In the US they should lobby members of Congress to increase US humanitarian aid to Pakistan perhaps by reallocating military spending towards humanitarian aid. They should also hold benefit events appealing to a broad cross-section of the society to participate. The Pakistani and Indian Diaspora in the US can also set a good example by working together to raise funds. Such gestures will not only accomplish the immediate funding need but also could very well become the seed for long run peace in the region. Failing to revive Pakistan will only make it more vulnerable to radicalization. If not for the humanitarian reasons then at least for national security reasons we must do more and inspire others to do more.

To see a list of how governments and private donors are helping relief efforts in Haiti and Pakistan and other ongoing humanitarian tragedies visit: ReliefWeb.

How can you help Pakistan? Click here to find out.