In sustaining the U.S troops, he did the right and sensible thing. Obama White House examined the risk of (1) and the outcomes looked ugly. (2) would have been unwise. Significant scaling up would also have been unwise. That is the lesson from the (3) (in the number of U.S troops earlier). We could not have fundamentally changed the balance of power without a large number of forces there for ever. No timeline is a wise strategy. Increased pressure is likely to push Pakistan into a corner, unlikely to deliver results in terms of cooperation on critical security issues, and it will make Pakistan feel (4) and cornered. I don’t have high hopes, though I give them credit for the rhetorical clarity. I am also not sure that if Pakistan did most or all what we want them to do, in terms of (5) safe havens of the Haqqani network, facilitating talks with the Taliban, that it would make a meaningful change in the balance in Afghanistan. The (6) in Afghanistan is organic, largely organically funded. The safe havens help the Taliban, but I don’t think, they are vital to the Taliban. So even if, unexpectedly the pressure on Pakistan produces results, I don’t think its impact on the situation in Afghanistan will be significant.
- a) drawdown
- a) pullout
- a) surge
- a) proneable
- a) disengage
- a) insurgence
Perhaps the most well (11) feedback comes from melting snow and ice in the Northern Hemisphere. Warming temperatures are already (12) a growing percentage of Arctic sea ice, exposing dark ocean water during the (13) sunlight of summer. Snow cover on land is also (14) in many areas. In the (15) of snow and ice, these areas go from having bright, sunlight-reflecting surfaces that cool the planet to having dark, sunlight-absorbing surfaces that (16) more energy into the Earth system and cause more warming.
|GovernmentAdda Recommends Oliveboard Mock Test Series 2018|