Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 20 Mar 2011 12:21

Awesome work there Gagan. Much appreciated.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 20 Mar 2011 12:27

ramana wrote:No I am saying a short skirmish that allows them to not act in wana/fata under US pressure. This will keep US longer in Afghania and that is its own QE.

Likelihood of GoI giving even unofficial approval is very low, especially given that Wikileaks cable dump has thrown the entire machinery out of gear. We have to wait till SG appoints another interim PM, stabilizing UPA boat in the process. IMO, it was the impending fear of what would come out of the closet via Chindu that prompted GoI to abstain on the Libya NFZ resolution at UN.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Mar 2011 23:18

Link

One of those experts was Richard C. Holbrooke, the United States special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Shortly before his death last year, he was asked if heroin was the top source of funds for the Taliban. The answer was no. “It’s the gulf,” he said, meaning cash from sources in Saudi Arabia and another American ally, Kuwait.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 24 Mar 2011 04:51

India in Afghanistan: C Christine Fair
http://www.twq.com/11spring/index.cfm?id=437

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 24 Mar 2011 07:46

A_Gupta wrote:India in Afghanistan: C Christine Fair
http://www.twq.com/11spring/index.cfm?id=437

Same old argument ... suggests with zero evidence that India is up to nefarious activities in Afghanistan, and says that Cashmere has to be resolved.

What Fair pointedly does not say is that Afghans must be allowed to decide what relationship they do or do not want with India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Mar 2011 19:46

In case we forgot!

Nightwatch 3/23/2011

Afghanistan: Almost 5,000 Taliban insurgents laid down their weapons or are moving toward doing so, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan General Petraeus said on 23 March. About 700 former Taliban have officially completed the steps to reintegrate into society, Petraeus said. He said another 2,000 insurgents are taking steps toward reintegration and others have laid down their weapons entirely.

Comment: The statistic is interesting because only a fraction of the anti-government fighters have reconciled to the government, based on the daily number of clashes and engagements. Most have been in northern districts where logistics support from Pakistan is barely sustainable. Petraeus also did specify the time frame for his data.

NightWatch data in November 2010 and January 2011 show the number of ralliers increased, but the number of clashes increased at a much greater rate. Several developments can explain the data. First, the anti-government forces appear to be replacing losses at a rate much faster than the rate of rallies. That can only happen if the populace supports the recruitment effort and that means the fight in Afghanistan is a Pashtun tribal uprising, not an insurgency. Second, the ralliers do not remain reconciled, but rejoin the fighting after a period of rest. The spring anti-government offensive should provide insight into the rate of recidivism. Third, the numbers are spread over such a long period as to be meaningless in evaluating the success or failure of the Coalition efforts. And there are others.

Without more context, the statement about ralliers looks like cheer leading.

So how many anti-government fighters are there, considering that more 5,000 have rallied over some indeterminate period and thousands have been killed and detained annually, but the level of fighting continues to increase? Conservatively, NightWatch estimates, based on the fighting data, there are more than 35,000 part time fighters. For key events, they can swell their number to more than 50,000.

And I add they are less prevalent in Northern Afghanistan Pahstun enclaves.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Mar 2011 20:10

Losing the plot

Remaining in denial, Washington-based Pakistan experts are contributing to its failure, says Ramtanu Maitra.

Losing the Plot

Washington, 25 March 2011:
With the handover of $2 million-plus in "blood money" to Pakistani
relatives of his shootout victims, the controversial Raymond Davis is
back in the United States.

While Davis's release has enraged vast numbers of Pakistanis, it has
pleased others, including US state department officials and the Pakistan
"experts" in Washington.

Think-tank based Pakistan experts are particularly relieved by the Davis settlement, because the unsavory event had put them in a dilemma about who to support and who to condemn.

These pundits that are tied to one or another faction of the American
political spectrum find it difficult to keep the party line going
vis-a-vis the US-Pakistan relationship: namely, that it is mutually
beneficial, substantive, vital, and deep-rooted.

As a result, they focus on extraneous matters, and contrive to insert
Jammu and Kashmir into the debate, to somehow justify the rabid
anti-Americanism within Pakistan.

They would like to blame Islamabad for it but the Afghan crisis prevents them.

Meanwhile, the contradictions proliferate and play out. Droning the "bad
guys" in Pakistan's tribal areas warring against US and NATO forces
finds complete acceptance in the US.

But hitting the Pakistani "terrorists" attacking Jammu and Kashmir does not.

You could categorize this as "talking-heads' license." But more often
than not, commentators on US-Pakistan relations mistake the wood for the
trees, fixing on one or another aspect of the relationship as if it
were the Rosetta Stone.

For example, last November, prior to president Barack Obama's visit to
India and other Asian nations, Moeed Yusuf, South Asia adviser at the US
Institute of Peace's Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention
advanced a disingenuous argument.

Yusuf argued that the Kashmir issue was not only central to improving
India-Pakistan relations but US resolution of the J and K dispute would
grow America-Pakistan ties.

"While the situation in Afghanistan and the threat emanating from
Pakistani Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) has preoccupied the
international community in recent years, long-term stability in South
Asia cannot be achieved unless Indo-Pak normalization becomes reality.
Kashmir remains the single most important outstanding issue," Yusuf
proclaimed.

"The objective reality in terms of Pakistan's state policy vis-a-vis
terrorism in India is difficult to decipher," Yusuf went on in a paper
on "U.S.-Pakistan- India". "Pakistan pledges incapacity to eliminate all
anti-India groups completely in the short run. This is valid. However,
whether incapacity is complemented by lack of will -- as India contends
-- is not clear."

"Regardless, what is clear is that Kashmir remains intrinsically linked
to acts of terrorism -- it is the outstanding nature of this dispute
that allows militant groups in Pakistan to rally and continue operating
with a certain amount of legitimacy," Yusuf concluded.

In other words, the US-Pakistan relationship also includes the deal that
Washington must impose a resolution of the Kashmir issue on India.

Missing the wood...

In late January, the US Institute for Peace (USIP) held a one-day
programme, "The Future of Pakistan," that featured many of the most
prominent experts.

Speaking in it, Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution warned that
the US must not squander the symbolic value of Pakistani president Asif
Ali Zardari's expected visit to Washington, and be careful not to
bad-mouth him ahead of the trip.

Riedel suggested that Zardari ought to be asked to address a joint
session of Congress to make the case for Pakistan. "He can fight for
what Pakistan needs," Riedel said.

He also held that Obama's pledge to visit Pakistan was rich with
substantive and symbolic value. Riedel said Obama should get out of
Islamabad to meet as many Pakistanis as he can.

"This is an enormously important visit," added Riedel. "He needs to connect with the Pakistani people."

It is another matter that the Davis dispute and its prickly resolution have put Obama's visit to Pakistan on long-term "hold".

Another USIP academic, Andrew Wilder, pointed out that money may not be the all-encompassing solution. Since 2001, the US has given Pakistan
some $15 billion in American aid, but the US-Pakistani relationship
remains weak, at best.

Georgetown University's Christine Fair (a former USIP senior research
associate) noted that "It really is important that we think about a new
"big idea" for Pakistan."

Fair said that the US and Pakistan actually don't share strategic interests but can build a long-term alliance anyway.

For example, Islamabad does not believe that the US accepts Pakistan as a
nuclear state. But if Washington conferred legitimacy on Pakistan's
nuclear programme, it could change the dynamic, she argued.

"Putting that out on the table," Fair argued, "creates an enormous space
for us to talk about what you, Pakistan, can do to deal with these
strategic issues over which we disagree so much."

On the other hand, Brookings Institution' s Stephen Cohen focused on
Kashmir. "The United States must have its own views on Kashmir. I think
we should speak up and talk about this," he said.

Another view is that the Kashmiris themselves must count for more. "For too long the Pakistanis and the Indians have been talking as if the
Kashmiris don't exist," says the Atlantic Council's Shuja Nawaz. "I see
Kashmir as a great opportunity. "

Needed: Plain talking

One can begin to get an idea of what these experts are evading from an
article by Arnold Zeitlin, "How Pakistan Is Seen by the Washington Think
Tanks," that appeared in the Pakistani daily, The News, in February.

Zeitlin served as the first AP bureau chief in Islamabad in 1969 and was
a close friend of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Zeitlin pungently wrote, "If
Pakistan and the US were a married couple instead of being strategic
players (if not partners), counselors would recommend at least a long,
trial separation, if not total divorce."

Though not part of the Washington punditocracy, Zeitlin attended the
USIP's discussion. He thought it "might have been more realistic to
adopt the title used by the Heritage Foundation, which called a
conference on Pakistan and the US "Deadly Embrace."

"Washington, " observed Zeitlin, "hosts what appears to be an endless
fascination that borders on fantasy about the Pakistan-US
relationship. ..Much of the DC hand-wringing about Pakistan often focuses
on what the US must do to save its relationship with that benighted
country."

"I suspect the nervousness over saving Pakistan is rooted more than 60
years ago when the notorious China lobby of Henry Luce and others
branded those Mao-influenced diplomats in the State Department as
traitors for losing Chiang Kai-shek's China to Mao Ze-Dong. None now
wants the distinction of losing Pakistan, even if Pakistanis are doing a
good job of it themselves."

Ramtanu Maitra is South Asia analyst for the Executive Intelligence Review in Washington DC.

whats clear is that US 'experts' think the TSP will crack down on its terrorists(whose presence allows it to bargain with US) and move its troops towards FATA/WANA badlands if TSP obtains Kashmir.

This approach is flawed because the TSP will not give up its strength(terrorists) which gives it the clout it has to keep the US engaged(pay up more blood money). Secondly once its Kashmir it will some other thing. This will be like Munich. Making India pay for Paki greed.

In other words US thinking is in same mode as Great Britain's terminal mode before WWII.

Also note many of the US experts are Pakis advising them to pressure India to give up Kashmir. And none of them can stand for any office in TSP and get elected.

Again points to above terminal phase. "When small men cas big shadows, time for sunset!"

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Mar 2011 22:20

ramana wrote: whats clear is that US 'experts' think the TSP will crack down on its terrorists(whose presence allows it to bargain with US) and move its troops towards FATA/WANA badlands if TSP obtains Kashmir.

This approach is flawed because the TSP will not give up its strength(terrorists) which gives it the clout it has to keep the US engaged(pay up more blood money). Secondly once its Kashmir it will some other thing. This will be like Munich. Making India pay for Paki greed.

In other words US thinking is in same mode as Great Britain's terminal mode before WWII.

Also note many of the US experts are Pakis advising them to pressure India to give up Kashmir. And none of them can stand for any office in TSP and get elected.

Again points to above terminal phase. "When small men cas big shadows, time for sunset!"

It is more of a racial /ethnic issue than anything else.

All the lobby is making sure that the interest of Pakistan is taken care of and all issue for Pakistan is resolved.
They are making sure that Pakistan is a legitimate state with a legitimate interest.

It is not about merit of the issue or the larger problem of instable Pakistan society, military and jihad based chaos.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 26 Mar 2011 22:57

ramana:

There is some truth in US thinking at least short term. You are absolutely right that from India's POV, TSP wll never give up pigLeTs until their green crescent flies over the red fort, but from US POV, India matters diddly squat, TSP will indeed GUBO if US delivers them Kashmir. I mean TSP's desparation for Kashmir is so acute that in the short term they wll do whatever US wants if US can deliver Kashmir. Its up to India to stand up and fight this diabolical game plan.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Mar 2011 06:18

CRamS wrote:ramana:

There is some truth in US thinking at least short term. You are absolutely right that from India's POV, TSP wll never give up pigLeTs until their green crescent flies over the red fort, but from US POV, India matters diddly squat, TSP will indeed GUBO if US delivers them Kashmir. I mean TSP's desparation for Kashmir is so acute that in the short term they wll do whatever US wants if US can deliver Kashmir. Its up to India to stand up and fight this diabolical game plan.

I think this wrong understanding. TSP has Islamist mind over an Indian ethos. Its bazaar tactics to see what you can get for free and then see what else. In this bazaar the West is the seller and TSP the buyer. The West wants to throw in Kashmir(from India) thinking the sale will close. It wont for they will ask for other things.

The reason they think they can throw in Kashmir from India is two major Indian faults: the first is India under Nehru and Gandhi family accepting CFL and then LOC as the marker. This induces them to think the can get more. PVNR was first INC leader to say all Kashmir is Indian and passed the Lok Sabha resolution in 1992. The second is the MMS fixation on economic growth at any cost which again reinforces the US thinking that it can be traded. Add to the mix Omar Abdullah's incompetent handling of the fake intifada. All these give them hope that India can be made to pay the price.

But knowing TSP psyche they will look at what else US has among its wares and keep adding them to the mix.

All those US based Paki experts(interlocutors) are to read TSP mind as to what price they will settle! And make US add more to the pot as sweetener. Like throw in car mats to close the car sale. Its besides the point the car mats are someone elses.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 27 Mar 2011 08:27

ramana wrote:
The second is the MMS fixation on economic growth at any cost which again reinforces the US thinking that it can be traded.

Saar, you are giving way too much a benign interpretation to MMS's worldview. Anybody who can so casually forget 26/11, surrender, kiss up, watch kirket with all smiles and kabab with the very perpetrators does not have India's interests in mind, economic or otherwise. He has a "higher" calling.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Mar 2011 09:31

CRS in my sentence all that is covered!

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 27 Mar 2011 10:01

India should recognise Durand Line as disputed: G Parthasarathy

There have been 17 terrorist attacks on Indian nationals, diplomatic missions and economic projects by the Taliban, with ISI support, in Afghanistan, since 2003. India has no military presence there, but has won enormous goodwill of the Afghan people by its involvement across Afghanistan in development projects in hydroelectricity, power transmission lines, road construction, telecommunications, information and broadcasting, agriculture and industry, education and health. Pakistan has two primary aims in Afghanistan.

Firstly, it fears an independent and economically prosperous Afghanistan will be strong enough to revert to voicing its territorial claims across the Durand Line — a 2,640-km-long border imposed by the Colonial British, which no Afghan government has recognised. This, in turn, will revive Pashtun nationalism and demands for a “Pashtunistan” within Pakistan’s Pakhtunkhwa Province bordering Afghanistan. Secondly, the Pakistan army’s obsession with “strategic depth” motivates it to control Afghanistan through the Taliban, for promoting terrorism against India.

While the Pakistan military has a consistent strategy to “bleed” India, our response lacks clarity and resolve. While Jammu and Kashmir, Junagadh in Gujarat and Hyderabad in the peninsula are still claimed to be “disputed” territories in Pakistan, India endorses Pakistani claims on the disputed Durand Line, imposed by the British on the hapless Pashtuns in 1893, as Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. The least India should do, is immediately show, in its official maps, the entire area between Attock, at the Indus River and the Durand Line, as disputed. Further, in our diplomacy with our western neighbours, we should show sympathy and understanding for Pashtun national aspirations. Afghanistan had, after all, opposed Pakistan’s admission into the United Nations because of the disputed border, in 1947.

As Taliban terrorists freely cross into Afghanistan, ignoring the sanctity of the Durand Line as an International border, there is little reason for India, or the international community, to recognise Durand Line as an International border, especially in view of uncontrolled cross-border terrorism across it. Indian diplomacy has to be more proactive on this score. Dialogue, sans relentless pressure, will not persuade Pakistan to behave responsibly.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Mar 2011 10:40

Airavat, What was the saying saanp be mara, lathi be toota nahi?

If I jumbled my apologies but this hits TSP with out breaking a sweat!

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 27 Mar 2011 11:46

ramana wrote:Airavat, What was the saying saanp be mara, lathi be toota nahi?

If I jumbled my apologies but this hits TSP with out breaking a sweat!

Saar, it is "Saanp be mara aur lathi be naa toote!" Your intent came through clearly, that is more than enough. As they say, feelings can be expressed even without words or language.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 28 Mar 2011 08:31

Mullah Omar gets a Russian visitor ---- M K Bhadrakumar

The fact that Medvedev has established a new post of presidential special representative for Afghanistan underscores Moscow's assessment that a "hands-on" approach is called for over and above the normal diplomatic tools and instruments already available. Someone who can put it all together - the big picture and the brush strokes and keep working on the canvas without being hamstrung by the hurlyburly of day-to-day preoccupations over bread and butter.

The executive order makes the customary reference to the new appointee's worthy credentials as "an experienced diplomat and Orientalist". And then, out of the blue, it adds that Kabulov "repeatedly held talks on the release of Russian pilots with the leadership of the Taliban in Kandahar, including [Taliban leader] Mohammed Omar". There was no real need to have said that. It almost seems jarring to single out one mission in a distinguished diplomat's checkered career. But it said all that needed to be said.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Mar 2011 10:14

nightwatch, 25 March 2011 reports on re-emergence of OBL!!!

Troubling End Note: Asia Times Online on 24 March published an article by Syed Saleem Shahzad, who is an insightful commentator on South Asian affairs, as well as the publication's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He has studied al Qaida a long time. He wrote that US intelligence has actionable information that Osama bin Laden has been "criss-crossing" the Pakistan - Afghanistan border region in northwestern Pakistan during the past few weeks.

{Were they waiting for permission from Allah to drone him or were they guiding him to meet the good Taliban?}

Shahzad wrote that US officials are "stunned" by bin Laden's visibility and the frequency of his movements. Bin Laden's purposes are not known. Terrorist analysts reportedly think the new level of activity means bin Laden is planning another large attack, though the 9/11 planning was actually not done by bin Laden. The South Asia analysts think he is meeting with friendly Afghan warlords to bring the Afghan War to a favorable conclusion for the Taliban.

{So he still works for US!}

What is disturbing is how little mainstream media attention this article has received. Readers are encouraged to read it.

sum · Post by **sum** » 28 Mar 2011 15:40

Big ISI seems to have been thwarted:
Cricket diplomacy or Manmohan's malady?

On the evening of March 23, the day Pakistan celebrates its National Day and just a couple of days before Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh [ Images ] decided to invite his Pakistani counterpart to watch the India-Pakistan cricket World Cup semi-final match in Mohali, Indian security agencies got specific information about an imminent attack on the Indian ambassador and the Indian mission in Kabul.

Needless to say, the fingerprints of the Inter Services Intelligence were found all over the attack plan. Not only did the Indian intelligence have names of Pakistani officers who planned the attacks, they had all the information of how the attacks would be carried out. Without wasting any time on diplomatic niceties, the Pakistanis were immediately warned of 'severe consequences' if the attack was carried out. Caught with their pants down, the Pakistanis were forced to call off the attack.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Mar 2011 09:04

Am mixing up metaphors here.
When Amritraj went and threatened to bomb TSP into the stone age if they didnt cooperate in GOAT(global offensive against terrorism) it looked like it was curtains for the Paki game of running with the hounds(Taliban type terrorists) and hunting with the hares(US and play on Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland).
By coaxing the US to allow the Kunduz airlift the TSP saved the hardcore elements of the Taliban from certain death in Dostum's hands. These hardcore elements they nurtured and let loose against the US in Afghanistan all the while professing to be Gungadins to the new massa. What this did was to keep the US engaged in Afghanistan all the while since Dec 2001 at the cost of lot of lives, funds and bogged them down. In a way to use Brer Rabbit(Southern folktales) analogy Af-Pak became the tar baby for US Brer Fox and they got entangled further as they tried to get away.*

We havent seen the end yet but it still is long way to get untangled.

*My thoughts were triggered by watching Bing West, the author, pointing to a TSP fort on the Durand Line which was a supply outpost for the Taliban and the author and his friend hoping to attract fire from the fort so they could destroy it in self defense, but in return got friendly waves!

Paarkalam!

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 29 Mar 2011 17:53

^^^^
Several months ago, I wrote that Pak is actually winning the AF-Pak war. But members here dismissed by showing the degradation of the Pak society. I still say that Pak is winning as it is not a country of people or for people. It is a rentier state and the population is coleteral.

Purush · Post by **Purush** » 29 Mar 2011 22:50

Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans, American Abu Ghraib ishtyle.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... print=true

To provide perimeter security, the soldiers parked the Strykers at the outskirts of the settlement, which was nothing more than a warren of mud-and-straw compounds. Then they set out on foot. Local villagers were suspected of supporting the Taliban, providing a safe haven for strikes against U.S. troops. But as the soldiers of 3rd Platoon walked through the alleys of La Mohammad Kalay, they saw no armed fighters, no evidence of enemy positions. Instead, they were greeted by a frustratingly familiar sight: destitute Afghan farmers living without electricity or running water; bearded men with poor teeth in tattered traditional clothes; young kids eager for candy and money. It was impossible to tell which, if any, of the villagers were sympathetic to the Taliban. The insurgents, for their part, preferred to stay hidden from American troops, striking from a distance with IEDs.

While the officers of 3rd Platoon peeled off to talk to a village elder inside a compound, two soldiers walked away from the unit until they reached the far edge of the village. There, in a nearby poppy field, they began looking for someone to kill. "The general consensus was, if we are going to do something that ****** crazy, no one wanted anybody around to witness it," one of the men later told Army investigators.

The poppy plants were still low to the ground at that time of year. The two soldiers, Cpl. Jeremy Morlock and Pfc. Andrew Holmes, saw a young farmer who was working by himself among the spiky shoots. Off in the distance, a few other soldiers stood sentry. But the farmer was the only Afghan in sight. With no one around to witness, the timing was right. And just like that, they picked him for execution.

He was a smooth-faced kid, about 15 years old. Not much younger than they were: Morlock was 21, Holmes was 19. His name, they would later learn, was Gul Mudin, a common name in Afghanistan. He was wearing a little cap and a Western-style green jacket. He held nothing in his hand that could be interpreted as a weapon, not even a shovel. The expression on his face was welcoming. "He was not a threat," Morlock later confessed.
--
Morlock and Holmes called to him in Pashto as he walked toward them, ordering him to stop. The boy did as he was told. He stood still.

The soldiers knelt down behind a mud-brick wall. Then Morlock tossed a grenade toward Mudin, using the wall as cover. As the grenade exploded, he and Holmes opened fire, shooting the boy repeatedly at close range with an M4 carbine and a machine gun.

Mudin buckled, went down face first onto the ground. His cap toppled off. A pool of blood congealed by his head.]

Read the rest of the article. Very long, but worth the read.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 30 Mar 2011 02:34

Airavat wrote:India should recognise Durand Line as disputed: G Parthasarathy

There have been 17 terrorist attacks on Indian nationals, diplomatic missions and economic projects by the Taliban, with ISI support, in Afghanistan, since 2003. India has no military presence there, but has won enormous goodwill of the Afghan people by its involvement across Afghanistan in development projects in hydroelectricity, power transmission lines, road construction, telecommunications, information and broadcasting, agriculture and industry, education and health. Pakistan has two primary aims in Afghanistan.

Firstly, it fears an independent and economically prosperous Afghanistan will be strong enough to revert to voicing its territorial claims across the Durand Line — a 2,640-km-long border imposed by the Colonial British, which no Afghan government has recognised. This, in turn, will revive Pashtun nationalism and demands for a “Pashtunistan” within Pakistan’s Pakhtunkhwa Province bordering Afghanistan. Secondly, the Pakistan army’s obsession with “strategic depth” motivates it to control Afghanistan through the Taliban, for promoting terrorism against India.

While the Pakistan military has a consistent strategy to “bleed” India, our response lacks clarity and resolve. While Jammu and Kashmir, Junagadh in Gujarat and Hyderabad in the peninsula are still claimed to be “disputed” territories in Pakistan, India endorses Pakistani claims on the disputed Durand Line, imposed by the British on the hapless Pashtuns in 1893, as Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. The least India should do, is immediately show, in its official maps, the entire area between Attock, at the Indus River and the Durand Line, as disputed. Further, in our diplomacy with our western neighbours, we should show sympathy and understanding for Pashtun national aspirations. Afghanistan had, after all, opposed Pakistan’s admission into the United Nations because of the disputed border, in 1947.

As Taliban terrorists freely cross into Afghanistan, ignoring the sanctity of the Durand Line as an International border, there is little reason for India, or the international community, to recognise Durand Line as an International border, especially in view of uncontrolled cross-border terrorism across it. Indian diplomacy has to be more proactive on this score. Dialogue, sans relentless pressure, will not persuade Pakistan to behave responsibly.

The same line was used by Shyam Saran in an article on how not to exit afghanisthan- had posted in TSP dhaaga in sept 15 2010 -
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 52#p941352
How not to exit afghanistan

India, therefore, should really be crafting a strategy to retain a strong presence in Afghanistan and even augment it, irrespective of what other actors decide to do. This is dictated by the need to prevent the country from once again degenerating into a base for jihadi terrorism against India. It is also an useful platform for India’s engagement with Central Asia. India does have convergent interests with some of the stakeholders, both within Afghanistan and including some of its neighbours like Iran and Russia. At the very least, there are those who, like India, cannot accept a fundamentalist Sunni-dominated regime in Kabul. We need to help coalesce them together in the pursuit of our shared interests.

We must be mindful of the tendency among some of our western friends to offer concessions at the expense of India in a dubious attempt to buy Pakistan’s support of their “exit strategy”, however this may be defined. A British participant at the conference wondered whether it would not be wise for India to close its consulates in Afghanistan and retain only its embassy in Kabul, in order to “get Pakistan off your (India’s) back”. This is more like getting India off Pakistan’s back! We should dispel the notion, widely held among the western strategic community, that India’s presence and involvement in Afghanistan has been made possible thanks to the International Security Assistance Force’s (ISAF’s) security cover and, therefore, it should not be allowed a “free ride” at the expense of western interests. These includes assuaging Pakistani security concerns vis-a-vis India, however paranoid they may be. The reality is that we have been able to sustain a significant presence in Afghanistan and earn considerable goodwill, including in Pushtun areas, precisely because we have been careful not to be associated with ISAF activities, but operate strictly on a bilateral basis with the Afghan government.

India should also revisit its position on the Durand Line. It may be worthwhile for us to signal that we do not necessarily recognise the Durand Line as a legitimate frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Aligning India with long-standing Pakhtoon aspirations may be a potentially potent lever to use as the new version of the Great Game unfolds in our neighbourhood.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Mar 2011 03:50

When are we going to be raising an Afghan Regiment within the Indian Army, something on the lines of Royal Gurkha Rifles in the British Army?

For that the British doesn't need a major physical presence in Nepal!

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 30 Mar 2011 08:04

RajeshA wrote:When are we going to be raising an Afghan Regiment within the Indian Army, something on the lines of Royal Gurkha Rifles in the British Army?

For that the British doesn't need a major physical presence in Nepal!

RajeshAji,

Just my small nitpick for your plan....in place of Afghan Regmt...lets have separate
Tajik,Pustun and Uzbek regmt...isn't it they will be more useful for our cause...

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Mar 2011 08:29

No Joke,
For years,BRF have been discussing allocating small portion of Indian Defence Budget to the Afghan Army as a sister organization. INSA Allah, day is not fare when India will be able to afford couple of Billions annualy for our Afghan Cousins . Then they will never have to tolerate Paki occupying their land in Attock.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Mar 2011 17:08

Samudragupta wrote:
RajeshA wrote:When are we going to be raising an Afghan Regiment within the Indian Army, something on the lines of Royal Gurkha Rifles in the British Army?

For that the British doesn't need a major physical presence in Nepal!

RajeshAji,

Just my small nitpick for your plan....in place of Afghan Regmt...lets have separate
Tajik,Pustun and Uzbek regmt...isn't it they will be more useful for our cause...

Samudragupta ji,

I understand the ambitious nature of your sentiments!

"Afghan" is actually a collective term, and can cater to Tajiks, Pushtun, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Hazaras, and many others. I'd go for "Afghan Regiment" for following reasons:

Afghan has come to mean anti-Pak! So it gives the Pakis the creeps, especially because of the Durand Line issue.
Since Afghan is a collective term, we are sending out the signal, that we believe in unity of the region, and do not intend to play divide and rule politics, even if that may or may not be the truth.
It does not seem intimidating to the other Central Asian Republics, and we retain our image of a benign power.
It helps us mask, how many of which ethnicities are really in active duty in the Afghan Regiment.
We can even have CAR citizens in the Afghan Regiment.
It would be good if we get even this off the ground. Chances for getting all three - Pushtun, Tajik, Uzbek, are less.

Prem ji,
Insha'h Allah!

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 30 Mar 2011 18:40

Prem wrote:No Joke,
For years,BRF have been discussing allocating small portion of Indian Defence Budget to the Afghan Army as a sister organization. INSA Allah, day is not fare when India will be able to afford couple of Billions annualy for our Afghan Cousins . Then they will never have to tolerate Paki occupying their land in Attock.

Isn't it the case that the plains area was all originally Punjabi land (including Peshawar and Charsadda). I believe the local language is Hindko, which is basically a variant of Punjabi. It seems the Pushtuns are migrants from the hilly regions.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Mar 2011 20:57

Two streams of thought in the surrendered Taliban:

1) Adherent motivated by Islam in danger. These are motivated by the local mullahs exhorting them to fight the infidels(foreign troops) and their supporters(Karzai govt).

The adherent gets demotivated when they are ordered to shoot other Afghans ie fellow Muslims. They begin questioning the mullahs exhortation.

2) Adherent motivated by Pahstunawali code of honor. They get motivated when the see reports of foreign troops occupying the Afghan lands. Search and destroy missions in remote villages by GOAT troops feed this anxiety.

They get demotivated when they find ISI hand/support to existing Taliban to weaken Afghanistan.

Money and jobs are nice but the real program has to address these two root causes.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Apr 2011 01:52

British role in the ouster of King Amanullah:

Tariq Ali's recounting of Lawrence Of Arabia

.....
Colonel T.E. Lawrence, complete with Valentino-style headgear, had just spent a gruelling few weeks in Afghanistan destabilising the radical,modernising and anti-British regime of King Amanullah. Disguised as 'Karam Shah', a visiting Arab cleric, he had organised a black propaganda campaign designed to stoke the religious fervour of the more reactionary tribes and thus provoke a civil war. His mission accomplished, he left for Lahore.
......
Three months later, in January 1929, Amanullah was toppled and replaced by a pro-British ruler.

On 12 January, Kipling's old newspaper in Lahore, the imperialist Civil and Military Gazette, published comparative profiles of Lawrence and 'Karam Shah' to reinforce the impression that they were two different people. Several weeks later, the Calcutta newspaper Liberty reported that 'Karam Shah' was indeed the 'British spy Lawrence' and gave a detailed account of his activities in Waziristan on the Afghan frontier.

Lawrence was becoming a liability and the authorities told him to return to Britain. 'Karam Shah' was never seen again.....

The fall of King Amanullah led to a more Islamist ruler in Afghanistan and directly led to the current mess.

So we have a british spy posing as an Arab shiekh with a fake name Karam Shah! and engineering an overthrow in Afghanistan.

The Afghans never wondered how an Arab Sheikh has Shah (Persian origin) in his name?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Apr 2011 01:57

SSS says India and Pak are trying to win favour among Taliban ranks per SSS twitter post.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Apr 2011 02:03

SSS=kaun? The Asia Times propanganduist?

More on Pir Karam Shah's escapade from Chandigarh Tribune!

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20021129/mailbag.htm

Is it true?

A well-known Pakistani weekly Friday Times (Oct 4-10, 2002, comment page) published the following piece under the heading “Pir Karam Shah was Lawrence of Arabia”.

“According to Khabrain magazine, one Pir Karam Shah active in India in 1927 was actually T.E. Lawrence or Lawrence of Arabia sent to India on a secret mission. He lived for two years in NWFP. He was sent again in 1935 to operate in a number of places in India. He was a graduate of Al Azhar and knew his Arabic. This was the year when the British government told the world that Lawrence had died in an accident in England. In Srinagar, Lawrence started giving sermons in the Hazratbal mosque as Pir Karam Shah. There, a new convert to Islam (after falling in love with a Muslim Gujjar woman), Henry Nedou fell under his charm in a mosque and married his daughter to him. This Nedou was the owner of the Nedous Hotel where the Avari Hotel of today is standing in Lahore. Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi of Deoband was privy to the secret identity of Lawrence and warned his Deobandi disciples not to fall prey to Lawrence’s expertise in Islamic fiqht. One disciple had actually become the follower of Lawrence as Pir Karam Shah.

He exposed him by provoking him. He said Shakespeare was actually an Iranian Pir called Sheikh Pir. On this, Pir Karam Shah lost his temper and started haranguing him in English. Henry Nedou had a brilliant daughter named Akbar Jehan who stood first in the Senior Cambridge exam. After shifting from Amritsar to Lahore with his new wife Pir Karam Shah or Lawrence of Arabia started disappearing for half the month and drinking French wine. On this Akbar Jehan became alarmed and informed her father about the real identity of Pir Karam Shah. {She is the orginal Mata Hari!} Henry Nedou called wrestlers Gama Pehlwan and his brother Imam Bakhsh Pehlwan from Amritsar. They overpowered Lawrence of Arabia and forced him to write a Muslim talaq to Akbar Jehan. Later Akbar Jehan became the wife of the great Kashmiri leader Sheikh Abdullah. Lawrence was recalled to England and actually died in 1941 during the Second World War in London. He did not die in 1935 as had been announced earlier. One son was born from the marriage of Akbar Jehan and Lawrence of Arabia. She was to be the mother of Farooq Abdullah, the present (sic) Chief Minister of Held Kashmir.”

Since this is an interesting piece of information (if true), I request the readers to shed any light they can on this story.

Dr K.N. PANDITA, Jammu

FWIW!!!!

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Apr 2011 02:07

SSS = Syed Saleem Shazhad. I know he writes a lot about Talebs AQ etc. Is he reliable source of info? Sounds like West takes him quite seriously.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Apr 2011 02:10

He is ISI mouthpiece. Some people think its the other end.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Apr 2011 02:17

k thanks. Check mail. There is something fishy about B-istan goin on.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 05 Apr 2011 02:41

Sheikh Abdullah's antecendenats and Farooq's antecendants have been questioned before. I remember reading somewhere that Sheikh Abdullah was married to an austrian woman.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Apr 2011 02:51

Yeah this above post talks about that. He was married to Akbar Jahan who was daughter of Henry Nedou and a Kashmiri lady.

Welcome back.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Apr 2011 02:15

ramana wrote:nightwatch, 25 March 2011 reports on re-emergence of OBL!!!

Troubling End Note: Asia Times Online on 24 March published an article by Syed Saleem Shahzad, who is an insightful commentator on South Asian affairs, as well as the publication's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He has studied al Qaida a long time. He wrote that US intelligence has actionable information that Osama bin Laden has been "criss-crossing" the Pakistan - Afghanistan border region in northwestern Pakistan during the past few weeks.

{Were they waiting for permission from Allah to drone him or were they guiding him to meet the good Taliban?}

Shahzad wrote that US officials are "stunned" by bin Laden's visibility and the frequency of his movements. Bin Laden's purposes are not known. Terrorist analysts reportedly think the new level of activity means bin Laden is planning another large attack, though the 9/11 planning was actually not done by bin Laden. The South Asia analysts think he is meeting with friendly Afghan warlords to bring the Afghan War to a favorable conclusion for the Taliban.

{So he still works for US!}

What is disturbing is how little mainstream media attention this article has received. Readers are encouraged to read it.

Ramana, You get my drift with my west asia post and the links with the article? Can you see the jigsaw puzzle slowly piecing together?

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 07 Apr 2011 04:31

Mangal Bagh Afridi, the notorious commander of Lashkar-e-Islam (LeI) militant group, sought help from the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan in his fight against his rivals. This comes a day after a group of Afghan Taliban threatened to join Bagh’s rivals to avenge the beheading of Maulana Muhammad Hashim, a respected cleric from Zakhakhel clan of the Afridi tribe. Hundreds of thousands of Zakhakehl tribesmen, the erstwhile allies of LeI, turned on Bagh following Maulana Hashim’s abduction and subsequent execution by LeI fighters last month.

Lashkar’s arch-rival Ansarul Islam (AI), headed by Mehboobul Haq, has also sided with the Zakhakhels and launched attacks on Bagh’s fighters holed up in Tirah Valley. AI fighters stopped Taliban insurgents from raising their emblem in an area, which is under the control of Zakhakhel tribesmen, by hurling a grenade. Five Taliban were killed and 10 wounded in the attack.

The Zakhakhels are demanding that the LeI hand over three persons, including dissident commander Ghuncha Gul and commander Khan, who is blamed for the beheading of Maulana Hashim. Meanwhile, official sources said that Pakistan Army was not conducting any operation in Khyber Agency. “The army has nothing to do with the infighting of tribesmen,” a source told The Express Tribune by phone from Rawalpindi. “It’s purely a war between two rival groups.”

Express tribune: read comments

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Apr 2011 19:50

Nightwatch Updates

4/6/2011

Afghanistan: Citing US officials, the Wall Street Journal published a report on 6 April that al Qaida has returned to valleys and areas in Afghanistan after the departure of US soldiers, during the six to eight months. According to the report, al Qaida has built training camps, hideouts and operations bases in Konar, Nuristan and remote regions of Nangarhar Provinces, which border or are near the tribal areas of Pakistan., citing an unidentified senior US military officer and other officials. Al Qaida found a safe haven in Afghanistan to establish a base and train operatives and suicide attackers, the US officer said.

Comment:This news report contradicts the semi-annual report to Congress on Afghanistan released on 5 April. The document reported progress in narrowing al Qaida's safe haven in Pakistan, but criticized Pakistan for not doing more to control the Taliban, without distinguishing between the Afghan and the Pakistan Taliban.

It is not clear from open source materials whether al Qaida or Pashtun Taliban are doing the fighting in these regions, but fighting has increased significantly since last October. In January 2011, Konar Province experienced more security incidents than in any previous month in the NightWatch six-year, open source data base. It was the fourth most violent province that month, after Helmand, Kandahar and Khost, in that order. Security incidents in Nangarhar also have increased significantly. It was fifth most violent province in January.

As for Nuristan Province, there were only four incidents in January 2011 and three in November 2010. However, it is not clear whether the low level of violence is the result of improved security or a return of al Qaida without opposition.

The report of al Qaida's return will give the Pakistan leadership powerful grounds for countering US allegations of deficiencies in Pakistan's counterinsurgency performance.

Al Qaida's return to Afghanistan -- after the publicity about new tactics, new leadership and a surge in US forces -- would represent a setback at every level. Tactically, those who thought a US withdrawal would remove a cause of local hostility and eliminate an incentive to support the Taliban and thus result in greater local security would have been proven wrong.

Also, it would signify that tribal elders were unwilling or unable to prevent the return of the al Qaida cadres. Alternatively, they might have just lied to the Afghan government or coalition representatives in order to rid their valleys of foreign soldiers.

Operationally, it would mean that those who advocated that Afghan security forces and tribal militias could replace US forces in these regions as mainstays of provincial security also were wrong.

Finally, it would be a strategic setback. Those who argued that the Pech and other remote valleys had no strategic significance would be proven short-sighted.

The latest report to Congress showcases quotations from President Obama that the Afghanistan campaign is about al Qaida. One of two primary mission objectives is to deny it a safe haven in Afghanistan. If the Wall Street Journal is accurate - and it tends to corroborate and expand on an earlier report in Asia Times on Line - the operation would appear to be failing in one of the President's primary mission objectives.

Note: This comment makes or implies no policy recommendations. It is about understanding how al Qaida and the Taliban operate against modern, well equipped soldiers. In 2001, both insisted they would wait out the foreigners. They are doing precisely what they said they would do.

Af-Pak ->Fak-Ap

Also the big problem is US thinks its fighting Al Qaida. The Forces think they are fighting Taliban. Then there are Pashtuns who dont support Karzai.. If they concetrate on one, the others grow in strength.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 09 Apr 2011 01:24

Dear Adminullah, please Highlight etc as you see fit.
Peace gets a new chance in Afghanistan

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

ISLAMABAD - All major anti-Taliban operations have been suspended in the southwestern Afghan provinces of Kandahar, Zabul, Helmand and Uruzgan, the Taliban's spiritual heartland, as an international reconciliation process gathers pace, an Asia Times Online investigation has found.

This was confirmed to ATol by multiple sources, including the Afghan Ministry of Interior and Taliban commanders in Kandahar.

A senior Talib also confirmed to ATol by telephone from Kandahar that under the same initiative, several senior Taliban in the custody of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) were released on Wednesday, including Mullah Mansoor Dadullah, a commander of the Taliban in southwestern Afghanistan.

When contacted by ATol, an ISI spokesperson would not verify the release of the Taliban commanders.

All concerned international and regional players have agreed that Turkey should host the next round of talks with the Taliban, possibly as early as next month. Unlike previous rounds, though, that primarily involved a few Muslim states including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, all major players including the United States, the United Kingdom and India are very much onboard for this latest reconciliation process.

A senior Afghan official confirmed to ATol on the condition of anonymity on Wednesday that plans were in place to hand over the security of Afghanistan to Afghans by the middle of this year and that foreign troops would only operate in the six north and northeastern provinces, besides still using unmanned drones for strikes against insurgents.

A change of heart
"I cannot confirm whether the Taliban's top leaders have agreed for talks or not, but yes, I have observed a visible change on the ground," a senior Taliban commander told ATol on the condition of anonymity on telephone from Kandahar when asked for confirmation of the Taliban's participation in the reconciliation process.

"As a field commander, I can confirm three prominent things. Every year before April, NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] carries out a grand operation in Kandahar, Helmand, Urzgan and Zabul against Taliban sanctuaries. They aim to clear the Taliban's presence from around major highways and also intervene to disperse the Taliban. This year, NATO carried out no such operation, which surprised me," the Taliban commander said.

"Secondly, only a few months ago there was considerable congestion on the Kandahar-Chaman highway because [of a steady stream of] NATO supplies, including fuel tankers, tanks and other war machines. In the last two months, there has been no activity on such a scale as it looks that NATO has stopped its shipments to Kandahar airfield."

The commander continued, "I cannot confirm, but I have learnt from sources that Pakistan has also released eight top commanders of the Taliban, including Mansoor Dadullah [brother of slain Mullah Dadullah]. I don't know what the Taliban high command is thinking, but certainly the enemy is desperately looking for a truce with the Taliban."

The situation unfolding indicates that Western capitals have finally agreed to follow a roadmap that was first talked about between the Taliban and Western forces in 2009 to start a reconciliation process. (See Seven steps to peace in Afghanistan Asia Times Online, August 22, 2009.)

Confirming the new reconciliation process with the Taliban, a senior Afghan official told ATol that in general there was a consensus on a roadmap for dealing with the insurgency.

"Earlier, the Afghan government had lots of reservations about allowing the Taliban to operate with an office in Turkey, but the High Peace Council [Afghan body responsible for seeking peace talks with the Taliban] intervened and Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani, the head of the mission, said there should some place from where a credible peace process could be initiated, and now everybody in the Afghan government has agreed that the Taliban should be allowed to come to the surface and operate an office in Turkey," the official said.

"Then, security will be handed over to the Afghan army and police in the southern parts of the country in the middle of this year. This is again a demand of the Taliban that Western troops should leave their areas. However, NATO forces will operate bases in six provinces - Pansher, Bamiyan, Kabul, Laghman, Kunduz and Mazar Sharif. Hi-tech, such as drones, will be applied against insurgents in the border provinces with Pakistan," the Afghan official said.

India jumps into the fray
In an apparent softening of its attitude against India, Pakistan has withdrawn its opposition to New Delhi's participation in a preparatory conclave on the security and reconstruction of Afghanistan to be held in Ankara next month, the Indian newspaper the Hindu reported.

"We appreciate the Taliban as the future force in the Afghan government and therefore we want to open a channel of communication with the Taliban so that Afghanistan is not used against India in the future, like happened in the past," a senior Indian security official told ATol in February.

In this vein, as early as 2009 the Indian government mobilized its cadre in Afghanistan to open lines of communication with the Taliban.

India turned to influential figures for assistance, even though they had no direct access to Taliban commanders. These were former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, and former Afghan foreign minister Moulvi Abdul Wakeel Muttawakil. The results were positive.

"They [Taliban] did not support anyone against India. Afghanistan is weak, Afghanistan has to be neutral, India and Pakistan are no different for us... ," Zaeef told Indian media outlet CNN-IBN in March 2010.

The comments by Zaeef, who lives under restriction in Kabul, upset some Taliban cadre in southwestern Afghanistan. Despite Pakistan's support for the US war in Afghanistan, they still consider Pakistan as a natural ally as it is a Muslim-majority state. This correspondent was subsequently invited in March 2010 to contradict Zaeef's statement and announce that he had nothing to do with the Taliban. (See War and peace: A Taliban view, Mar 26, 2010.)

However, given Zaeef's rapport with the Taliban in the southeastern parts of Afghanistan, the Indians succeeded in getting approval of Zaeef's statement in favor of India.

Official Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in a media release on March 30, 2010:
"It's possible for the Taliban and India to reconcile with each other," he [Zaeef] told his interviewer. [Our] complaint is that India backed the [anti-Taliban Northern Alliance] and is now supporting the [President Hamid] Karzai government. He'd like you to believe that it's all a misunderstanding because "unlike the [Pakistan militant group] Lashkar which is focused on Jammu and Kashmir, the Afghan Taliban concentrate on Afghanistan. [Taliban] have never taken part in any attack in India, nor do we attack anyone at Pakistan's behest".
A senior Indian official told ATol, "We don't have any intentions to compete with Pakistan by opening a channel of communication with the Taliban, but we simply want to isolate anti-India groups operating in Afghanistan like Ilyas Kashmiri and his associate LeT [Pakistan-based Lashkar-i-Taiba] commanders."

Since 2008, the reconciliation process has hit many snags because there has never been total consensus among the players on how to deal with the Taliban. This has now changed, although al-Qaeda's response remains crucial.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief and author of upcoming book Inside al-Qaeda and the Taliban, beyond 9/11 published by Pluto Press, UK. He can be reached at [email protected]

We were lucky we didn't go into Af-Pak, otherwise we would be in a very tough situation given the current geopolitical situation. Apparently NATO isn't serious at all, they dont have the balls, nor do they have any ability to withstand any serious casualties apart from the bare minimum.