Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

[nvishal]

@Rudradev: Excellent synopsis on pakjabis and pashtuns

[ramana]

X-Post.....

Nightwatch comments 17 May 2011:


Nightwatch 5/17/2011

Al Qaida: In a recent meeting, presumably in Pakistan, al Qaida's council elected Saifal Adel (Abu Saif), one of the early members of al-Qaida, as chief of the party Command of Control for the time being, sources told the Pakistani news service, The News. However, Muhammad Mustafa Yamni is likely to be made al-Qaida chief after a grand consultation. Yamni is currently residing in an African country.

Saifal Adel is an Egyptian and has served at key posts in Egypt terrorist groups. He worked with Ayman al-Zawahiri in the al-Jihad group of Egypt. Zawahiri was bin Laden's number two. The News reported that Zawahiri would continue holding his posts of al-Qaida patron, and the chief of the al-Qaida Militant Command. Zawahiri also will monitor the international contacts, a task that had been done by Saifal Adel.

The News' sources reported that Adnan al-Kashri had been placed in charge of general information affairs. Muhammad Nasir al-Washi (Abu Nasir) is now in charge of al-Qaida Africa affairs and Muhammad Adam Khan Afghani was appointed to direct Afghanistan-Waziristan affairs. Fahad al-Qava had been appointed as the Urgent Operational Commander.

{Can someone draw up an org chart based on this info and blog it?}

Comment: The day after bin Laden's death, an Asia Times on Line analyst reported that the Saudi (bin Laden) faction and the Egyptian (Zawahiri) faction had had a falling out over leadership and policy direction. The full details of the policy split are not known, but what is known is that Zawahiri publicly supported the Pakistan Taliban in their moves to try to overthrow the government of Pakistan, under Musharraf and under the elected civilians. This included the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

Bin Laden never associated himself with that policy. Bin Laden seems to have favored sensational attacks against Western targets over consolidating a base in Pakistan by taking over the government.

The Egyptians marginalized bin Laden. The lack of security and staff at Abbottabad - a single body guard - indicates bin Laden was a figurehead and a symbol, more than a hands-on commander. The computer disks and thumb drives, in this theory, call to mind Hitler with his war maps in the bunker in Berlin.

According to the Asia Times report, the Egyptian faction delivered the identity and movements of bin Laden's trusted courier to US intelligence and the courier was aware that he was being tracked so that he could lead US intelligence to the Abbottabad house. The courier was a key actor in an al Qaida intelligence operation to eliminate the Saudi faction and permit the Egyptians to take control.

The operation appears to have worked. The leadership selections, reported by The News, support the hypothesis of betrayal by the Egyptians. No Saudis are in senior leadership positions. Until the promotion of Abu Saif and other non-Saudis to leadership positions, the Asia Times report was just one hypothesis.

Based on statements by Zawahiri, al Qaida may be expected to help the Pakistani Taliban to try to seize control in Pakistan. For them, Pakistan is the objective, not Afghanistan.

So goal of born again Al Qeeda is to take over TSP and not Afghanistan.

[shyamd]

^^ They met in Yemen. KSA GSS who is now heading anti AQAP intel ops got a tip off that senior leaders met up in Aden. In the meeting they decided that Said Al Shehri (Saudi) and this Wahishi (Yemeni) guy are the two most leading lights of AQAP. They also decided to respond to OBL killing on US interests in the GUlf.

[ManuT]

At least 35 construction workers have been shot dead and 20 injured by Taliban insurgents in eastern Afghanistan, an official says.

Eight insurgents were also killed as guards returned fire during Wednesday night's ambush, a Paktika provincial spokesman told the BBC.

The attack took place in a mountainous district on the highway linking Paktia and Khost provinces.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12859952


Likely they are from BRO (as this is from breaking news). This is what Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan is.

[kasthuri]

US to reduce Pak dependence for Afghan supplies

Washington: The US is working to reduce its dependence on the Pakistani route for taking supplies for its soldiers stationed in Afghanistan, given the volatile nature of that way, a top Pentagon official told US lawmakers.

Given the unpredictable nature of Pakistan, the Pentagon is also working to maintaining weeks of reserve of its resources in Afghanistan so as to handle any kind of contingencies or disruption in the supply route.

Testifying before a Congressional Committee, Lt Gen Mitchell Stevenson, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, revealed for the first time that as much as 60 per cent of American supply to Afghanistan is already going through the north and the Pakistani route was being used for 40 per cent of the supplies.

The target though is to take 75 per cent of the supplies into Afghanistan from the north through the Central Asian countries.

"Currently, it's about 40 per cent of the total supplies shipped into Afghanistan on the surface, that don't fly in, come through Pakistan, the other 60 per cent from the north," Stevenson said in response to a question from Senator Kelly A Ayotte.

Explaining that the US is taking a number of steps to deal with potential problems, Stevenson said disruptions of supply line were not uncommon and informed that a sit-down strike was on currently outside the port, that US trucks are not able to get through.

"It's going to probably last a couple of days not uncommon. We've dealt with this before, but as you point out, this is problematic for us. The goal is to get to 75 per cent from the north. We're not there yet," he said, adding that was a goal established by the TRANSCOM commander to his staff.

Given the volatile nature of the Pakistani supply route, the Pentagon general said the US is taking a lot of precautions in sending its supplies through that road.

"We're sending nothing that is what we consider sensitive on the ground, no ammunition flows on the ground, no high-tech military gear flows, we even flew the MATVs (mine resistant ambush protected vehicles) in the theatre rather than send them and potentially subject them to pilferage," he said.

In addition to these steps, Pentagon is also experimenting with sending things surface to a friendly country and then flying it to Afghanistan.

"We're in an open hearing, so I'd rather not get into the details but a friendly country in the Mideast and then just flying over from there using C-17s. It takes advantage of the inexpensiveness of surface movement but avoids that entire trip into Pakistan," he said. Pakistan had last year blocked a major NATO supply line into Afghanistan in retaliation for a cross-border helicopter attack, and opened it only after the US tendered an official apology.

"We have created what we call theatre-provided equipment. It's a pool of equipment that just stays in Afghanistan so that we don't as a unit rotates out each year, it doesn't have to drag out its equipment and the new unit has to bring in its own. We just keep the equipment there," Stevenson said.

He said this strategy necessitates refurbishing of the equipment every two or three years, but the idea is to "keep things off that ground lock".

He said avoiding the land route in Pakistan would be cheaper in the long run as it would avoid pilferage and other problems.

"We've just done that with two BCTs that have flown in and flowed out. We're happy with it. It's a bit more expensive but in the long run, we think that it will be cheaper in the long run because we avoid all the pilferage and problems with that," Stevenson said.

Also Pentagon has upped the fuel stockage that they have on the ground to 45 days of supply in Afghanistan. "So we have got 45 days of fuel on the ground to withstand these kinds of disruptions. We've increased the amount of material we fly. We have increased our air drop, which is already pretty high. We try to flow more in from the north than we are today," he said.

"It is longer and more expensive, so there's some downside to using that route. I honestly believe we'd overcome it. I don't think it would stop our operations in Afghanistan, but it would certainly be a challenge," Stevenson said.

[Lalmohan]

^^^

am impressed that its already 60% via the north

however, this is a great opportunity for the US to do some local development and start encouraging agriculture, meat packing, water and tinned food processing industries in afghanistan - has to be money well spent!

[Agnimitra]

X-post

http://the-diplomat.com/indian-decade/2 ... an-choice/

Second, India must collaborate with countries including Iran and Russia, which along with India have previously propped up the Northern Alliance. If India is to tackle a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan, the now-defunct Northern Alliance will have to be revived. Even the Central Asian countries could be a part of such an initiative because of their opposition to the Taliban.

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from TIRP Thread

In what way the Taliban and / or AQ harmed or intended to harm India--I do not recall any Taliban good or bad-- threat to India. Similarly If my memory serves me right OBL was never interested in K or any other Indian issue or threatened India.
If that is the case why should we not build bridges with Taliban and if they want to rule Afghan or Pak --let them. The enemies of Pak Army/ISI or USA need not be our enemies.
A religious group ruling Pakistan is better than current thugs of PA/ISI
May be I am not getting it right?

With regard to the Taliban, India should pursue a 3. point program:

1. Northern Afghanistan is hardened, so that the Taliban have no chance whatsoever in extending their domination there.
2. In Southern and Eastern Afghanistan, the American forces should retreat, so that the Taliban have no excuse to continue the war.
3. All efforts are taken to wean away the Pushtuns, especially the Taliban, from the control of Pakistan.

We could open a Taliban liaison office in Qandahar or Jalalabad, primarily to talk about humanitarian issues with Taliban, how we can support the medical infrastructure in areas under their control, how we can provide critical surgery for those who need it, etc. All transactions from this office should take place only with Taliban area commanders. If the Taliban wish, they should also be allowed to open an office in New Delhi. Of course, we have to be aware that the Pakistanis would try to give Indians a bad name, perhaps by tampering with the medicines.

We need to open channels of communication with the Taliban.

[RajeshA]

A New Political Framework for Pushtunistan

Afghanistan as it is would remain a playground for Pakistanis, for they would always try to impose some Islamist Pushtun proxy over the whole of Afghanistan spreading the instability over the whole country and beyond. In the current Afghanistan, it would not be difficult for Pakistan to find such proxies.

It is important that the Pushtuns, whether as Taliban or Imperial, understand and accept that their rule cannot extend beyond a certain area to the North and West. Right now the Taliban simply considers themselves as representative of Pushtun aspirations and based on historical imperial legacy, they try to impose their will on the others. For this reason it is prudent to think of dividing the country between the Pushtuns in the South and East and the others in North and West. Because of ethnic mixing and enclaves it would be difficult to impose a hard border, but it would help to demarcate a boundary, but to keep the two entities together perhaps in some sort of confederation.

What we don't necessarily want is that Taliban come to power even in Southern and Eastern Afghanistan. So India should here take the lead and propose a new political system for Pushtuni Afghanistan, based on tribal jirgas but elected in a more modern and transparent way.

Tribal cultures like to think in terms of their tribes and subtribes and not in terms of the area some individual resides in. As such we should introduce a political system in the region which better corresponds to the way of thinking of the Pushtuns. Such a system would be far more stable in the area, and prevent the Taliban from taking over.

Every Pushtun Sub-tribe should get a specific number of seats in the Pushtun Loya-Jirga. Every Sub-tribe would elect its representatives at national election time and send them to the Jirga. The voting would NOT be on the basis of geographical areas but rather on the basis of tribes and sub-tribes. In any election for the sub-tribe seats those x candidates who get the highest number of votes get the x designated seats.

Every Pushtun gets an Id card with his tribe and subtribe written on it or at least on the chip in the card. When he votes in the election, regardless of where it is in Afghanistan, he gets to see only the candidates relevant for his subtribe. In urban areas where there is a mixture of tribes and subtribes sharing the same geographical space, it would be best if the voting is done electronically, whereas in villages and outlying areas, where a single subtribe dominates, paper ballots can be used.

Right now whenever some Taliban kills some legislator, the people are somewhat shocked but do not agitate all too much because they consider it an attack on the state, and Taliban are simply a political aspirant. However if some legislator in the proposed system gets killed or otherwise bumped off by the Taliban, then that would be considered an attack on a particular subtribe, and the the passion being strong w.r.t. subtribes, the Taliban would have to pay.

It is with such suggestions that India should approach the Afghan Pushtuns and the international community. Should India play initiator role in this, the future Pushtunistan may owe India something. Moreover India can help the Afghans on technical matters regarding identity cards and holding of elections.

[Ardeshir]

Speaking of the Northern Alliance, anyone here remember Ahmad Shah Masood? And his prophetic words about Osama Bin Laden's plans.
Incidentally, he was assassinated on 9 September 2001.

[ramana]

Nice comment in Economist mag by sanman:


Economist Comments section

In 1839, the British Empire sought to expand the borders of its colony of British India, by launching a war of conquest against the neighboring Pashtuns. The Pashtuns, as a fiercely independent tribal warrior people, resisted ferociously, so that the British conquest of them was not successful. The British were only able to conquer part of the Pashtun territory, and even that remained in constant rebellion against them. Meanwhile, the remaining unconquered portion of Pashtun territory became the nucleus for the formation of Afghanistan. In 1893, the British imposed a ceasefire line on the Afghans called the Durand Line, which separated British-controlled territory from Afghan territory. The local people on the ground however never recognized this line, which merely existed on a map, and not on the ground.

In 1947, when the colony of British India achieved independence and was simultaneously partitioned into Pakistan and India, the Pakistanis wanted the conquered Pashtun territory to go to them, since the Pashtuns were Muslims. Given that the Pashtuns never recognized British authority over them to begin with, the Pakistanis had tenuous relations with the Pashtuns and were consumed by fears of Pashtun secession.

When Pakistan applied to join the UN in 1947, there was only one country which voted against it. No, it wasn't India - it was Pashtun-ruled Afghanistan which voted against Pakistan's admission, on the grounds that Pakistan was in illegal occupation of Pashtun lands stolen by the British. Their vote was cast on September 30, 1947 and is a fact.

In 1948, in the nearby state of Kashmir, its Hindu princely ruler and Muslim political leader joined hands in deciding to make Kashmir an independent country rather than joining either Pakistan or India. Pakistan's leadership were immediately terrified of this precedent, fearing that the Pashtuns would soon follow suit and also declare their own ethnically independent state. In order to pre-empt that and prevent it from happening, Pakistan's founder and leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah quickly decided to raise the cry of "Hindu treachery against the Muslims" and despatched hordes of armed Pashtun tribesmen to attack Kashmir. This was his way of distracting the Pashtuns from their own ethnic nationalism by diverting them into war against Kashmir "to save Islam". These are the same Pashtun tribesman whose descendants are today's Taliban. Fleeing the unprovoked invasion of their homeland, Kashmir's Hindu prince and Muslim political leader went to India, pledging to merge with it if India would help repel the invasion. India agreed, and sent its army to repel the Pashtun invasion. Pakistan then sent its army to clash with Indian forces, and the result was Indo-Pakistani conflict, which has lasted for decades.

Pakistan's fear of Pashtun nationalism and separatism, which it fears can break up Pakistan, is thus the root of the Indo-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir and also the root of Pak conflict with Afghanistan, not any alleged Indian takeover of Kabul. This is all due to the legacy of 1839, which happened long before Pakistan was even created.

When a communist revolution happened in Kabul in the late 70s, Pakistan's fear of potential spillover effects on Pashtun nationalism caused Pakistan to embark on fomenting a guerrilla war against Kabul that led to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Aligned with with the USA, Pakistan then proceeded to arm the Pashtuns while indoctrinating them with Islamic fanaticism. The USA was not allowed any ground role, and was told it could only supply arms and funds to Pakistan, which would take care of the rest. Pakistan then simultaneously embarked on destabilization of India by fomenting insurgency there.

After the Soviets withdrew, Pakistan again feared that the well-armed Pashtuns would turn on it and pursue secession. So Pakistan then created the Taliban as a new umbrella movement for the fractious factional guerrilla groups under an ultra-fundamentalist ideology. Bin Laden's AlQaeda then became cosy with Taliban, and the result was 9-11.

When the 9-11 attacks occurred, the cornered Pakistanis then did a 180 and promised to help the US defeat the Taliban and bring the terrorists to justice. Meanwhile they were racking their brains hoping to come up with a way to undermine the War on Terror from within. Now that they have succeeded in doing that, and in bleeding US/NATO forces, they hope to jump horses by kicking the US out and aligning with China.

Because of Pakistan's attempts to illegitimately hang onto Pashtun land, it has brought itself into conflicts with so many countries - first against its neighbors and then against more distant larger powers. This is the reason why Pakistan is an irredentist state and can never be an ally against Islamic extremism, because Pakistan depends on this very Islamism as a national glue to hold itself together, and keep nationalistic ethnic groups like the Pashtuns from breaking Pakistan apart.

[ramana]

sanman comments contd:

At the same time, Pakistanis don't dare own upto the Pashtun national question at any level, nor its effect on their national policies, because any attempt to do so would open up the legitimacy of their claim to Pashtun land.

Sovereignty is a 2-way street, entailing not just rights but obligations. Pakistan only wishes to assert rights owing to it from sovereignty, and wishes to completely duck the issue of any sovereign obligations to apprehend terrorists on what it claims as its own territory. This is because the fundamental reality is that the Pashtun territory is not really theirs, is not really under their control, and the Pashtuns don't really recognize Pakistani central authority over them.

Pakistan uses Islamic fundamentalism to submerge traditional Pashtun ethnic identity in a desperate attempt to suppress Pashtun ethnic nationalism, and to stave off the disintegration of Pakistan. The Pashtuns are a numerically large enough ethnic group possessing the strength of arms to be able to secede from Pakistan at any moment, should they decide upon it.

The answer is to let the separatists have their way and achieve their independent ethnic states, breaking up Pakistan. It's better to allow Pakistan to naturally break up into 3 or 4 benign ethnic states, than for it to keep promoting Islamic fundamentalist extremism in a doomed attempt to hold itself together. Pakistan is a failing state, and it's better to let it fail and fall apart. This will help to end all conflict in the region and the trans-national terrorist problem. An independent ethnic Pashtun state will be dominated by Pashtun ethnic identity instead of fundamentalist Islam, and thus AlQaeda will no longer be able to find sanctuary there. Conventional ethnic identity is far more natural and benign than trans-nationalist Islamism with its inherent collectivist political bent. Supporting the re-emergence of 4 natural ethnic states - Pashtunistan, Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab - would be far better than continuing to support a dangerous and dysfunctional failed state like Pakistan which continues to spew toxic Islamist extremist ideology in a doomed attempt to hold itself together.

Following the failure of the Vietnam War, many Americans later recognized that war was really a war of ethnic reunification by the Vietnamese people. It wasn't a case of one foreign country attempting to conquer another foreign country - indeed, the north and south Vietnamese were not strangers or aliens to one another - they were 2 halves of a common whole. The question was whether they would reunify under communist socialism or under free democracy, but because a blinkered American leadership refused to recognize the Vietnamese grassroots affinity for one another and their desire to reunify, it pretty much ensured that Vietnamese reunification would take place under communist socialism.

Likewise, the Pashtun people live on both sides of an artificial Durand Line (Afghan-Pak "border") which they themselves have never accepted or recognized. It's a question of whether they will politically reunify under close-minded theocratic Islamism or under a more secular and tolerant society. Because today's blinkered American leadership is again blindly defending another artificial line on a map, and refusing to recognize the oneness of the people living on both sides of that artificial line, America is again shutting itself out of the reunification process, guaranteeing that Pashtun reunification will occur under fanatical fundamentalist Islamism as prescribed by Pakistan (much as Hanoi's Soviet backers prescribed reunification under communist socialism.) It's only later on, much after America's defeat, that some Americans will realize too late that they should have seen that the Pashtuns on both sides of the artificial line were actually one people. Pakistan knows it all too well, because they've been living with the guilt and fear of it ever since Pakistan's creation - but that's why they're hell-bent on herding the Pashtuns down the path of Islamist fanaticism, using Islamist glue to keep the Pashtuns as a whole hugged to Pakistan's bosom.

If only the preachers at the Economist could shed their blinkers and really understand what's going on, then they might have a chance to shape events more effectively, and to their favor. Pakistan is rapidly building up its nuclear arsenal, as it moves to surpass Britain to become the world's 5th-largest nuclear state.The Pakistanis are racing to build up as much hard-power as possible to back up the soft-power they feel Islamist hate-ideology gives them.

The world needs to compel the Pakistanis to let the Pashtuns go, and allow them to have their own independent national existence, along with the Baluchis and Sindhis. Humoring Pakistan and allowing it to continue using Islamist hatred to rally the people towards unity to counter slow disintegration is not the way to achieve stability in the region, or security for the world.

Somebody invite this guy here! Takes nerve to preach to Economist instead of just dissing them from far away.

SSridhar and Shyamd, Can you guys recast this message onto a power point so we can spread the message thru slideshare and talking points?

[RajeshA]

Next time the Pakistanis tell India, Kashmir is the core issue, we should tell them that the Pushtun question is the core issue!

[shyamd]

Must read!
Pak attack, cover for ops in Afghanistan?

May 24, 2011 by Vicky Nanjappa

The attack in Pakistan has India worried. Official sources travelling with the Prime Minister said at Addis Ababa that the attack looks very coordinated and it appears that it was done to provide a cover for something bigger at Afghanistan. We are monitoring the situation and obviously concerned with the developments over there.
Although this attack does not indicate a higher level threat to us, we are still concerned and the bigger worry is the risk that the Pakistani nuclear establishments. The attack in Pakistan is a sophisticated one and heavy machinery has been used. The attack has been on very major instalments and it looks like a highly sophisticated and planned attack. It appears that it has been carried out to provide cover for some elements in Afghanistan and this phenomenon has been seen in the past as well.
We are definitely concerned about the nuclear programme of Pakistan and the recent developments have only put the threat perception at a high. For India the nuclear weapons are not fighting weapons and we will continue to have the policy of no first use. However any nuclear on us will be retaliate strongly, the source also added.
India will sit and analyse the events in Pakistan and we need to see what lessons we need to learn and draw from this attack.
Considering that this was an attack on the naval base in Pakistan, it once again brings back memories of the 26/11 attack which was a maritime attack at first. The source said that we have improved a great deal over the past couple of years in terms of coastal security. It would not correct to say that we are satisfied since it dangerous to be content. However in terms of coastal security we have done a great deal and as of today we are in a much better position when compared to what we were last year. The coast guard has done its bit to enhance security. This issue has a lot to do with the individual state governments too and some of them are yet to set up coastal police stations to ensure that coastal security is intact.
On India’s position in Afghanistan, the source said that it is not right for anyone to tell what another country ought to do. There are certain power tussles and issues in Afghanistan and they are being sorted out. Afghanistan has changed a lot since the year 2000 and currently there is a whole new generation over there. It for the Afghans to chose who they would like to work with.
On the claims of the United States of America about a pull out from Afghanistan post Osama Bin Laden, the source said that the US may not pull out completely. There will be a draw down of forces and the search team of 30000 will be drawn down for the moment. The US sure wants a change of role in Afghanistan and in the months to come the policing by US forces on the streets of Afghanistan is likely to stop. They do not want to be protecting the streets and the nature of what they will be doing in Afghanistan will change. A clear picture will emerge once Hamid Karzai visits the United States of America probably next month.
On doing business in Africa, the official said that India has a smaller presence when compared to China. The nature of the business being done by us is different when compared to China. For us Africa is an opportunity and there is enough space for us to do what we are good at over here. Although the Chinese have a larger presence here, we cannot say that they have outdone us. It is in our interest to be in Africa. We need to understand the African sensitivities and we as Indians need to be sensitive. We have done well here in the past two years and the time has now come to accelerate.
However we in the Government will not be in a position to tell the businessmen what is to be done. It is their decision and what we could do is provide advisories and also give able assistance. We cannot take a call as what we want the businessmen to be doing.

[RajeshA]

A New Political Framework for Pushtunistan

We have seen how the Taliban moved with a vengeance against tribal leaders. They bombed the jirgas. They assassinated the tribal leaders. There is a good reason for this. The tribal leaders represented the definition of Pushtun society through their sub-tribes, their tribes and through their tribal affiliations, their identification with the Pushtun nation itself. For the Taliban, it was important to make the Pushtuns rootless, in order to embrace them into Taliban organization.

The Pushtuns are being converted from their tribe-based consciousness to Pak-controlled Jihadism.

The only way to stop this Pakistani project in its tracks is to counter this process and help institutionalize the tribal nature of the Pushtun society.

We saw how the "religious" tribalism in India, i.e. the caste system, helped in the hardening of people's allegiance to their religion, indirectly through their caste, during the centuries of Islamic rule in India despite a huge state-sponsored program to convert the people to Islam. We have also seen that once certain divisions are institutionalized, they take a life of their own and cannot be easily done away with, one prime example being that of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes.

Similarly if one can institutionalize the tribal structure by creating electorates based on tribes and subtribes amongst the Pushtuns, one can be sure that the Taliban will not be able to supersede those structures using Islam or Talibanism.

India should take the initiative and create a UN group of like minded countries and start inviting Pushtun tribal elders from Afghanistan for consultations on how to go about creating the political structures, etc. The Afghan Loya Jirga would not be able to hold itself up against Pakistan-sponsored Taliban once the Americans leave Afghanistan.

While the international community is committed to Afghanistan, it would be the right time to take the initiative. Perhaps India can try this with the help of countries like Germany, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, etc.

[ramana]

Nightwatch 24 May 2011

Pakistan: A "massive" suicide bombing on 25 May flattened a police station in Peshawar in northwestern Pakistan. "Two police were killed and 19 people wounded," said Liaqat Ali Khan, chief of police in Peshawar. A senior police source said the bomber drove his explosives-laden car into the Criminal Investigation Department police station in the Peshawar Cantonment area.

Comment: This is the third major bombing of government buildings since 2 May. Every one appears to have had inside support. This is beginning to look like an organized Pakistani Taliban offensive against the government. Pakistani media have begun sharply criticizing the security lapses by Pakistani forces.

Pakistan-China: "We have asked our Chinese brothers to please build a naval base at Gwadar," Chaudhary Ahmed Mukhtar, Pakistan's Defence Minister, told the Times.

However, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said that China is unaware of the proposal by Pakistan to build a naval port at the deep-water port of Gwadar. The issue was not discussed during Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani's visit to China last week, the spokesman said.

Comment: Defence Minister Mukhtar did not say when Pakistan asked the Chinese to build a base at Gwadar. In fact, construction of a naval facility has been part of the plans for Gwadar since the early 1990's.

Forty years ago, Gwadar, on the coast of Baluchistan Province and 47 miles east of the Iranian border, was a fishing village with a small port in a sheltered, deep water natural harbor with two bays. In the 1971 War, Pakistan Navy surface ships deployed from Karachi to Gwadar to avoid destruction by the Indian Navy.

Since 1993 Pakistani governments have worked to develop Gwadar as a planned, modern, deep water port and city, as well as a "sensitive defense zone." The primary investors in the port, adjacent road and rail infrastructure and planned city of Gwadar have been China and the government of Pakistan. Construction on the highway link to Karachi and on the port began in 2002. The port was inaugurated officially in 2007 by General Musharraf. It received its first maritime ship, carrying a cargo of wheat from Canada, in 2008. The Port of Singapore Authority has the administration contract.

The 50-year master plan calls for Gwadar to develop into a major economic hub in the Arabian Sea for energy, oil tankers and deep-draft container shipping and ship building and to be the location of a main naval base for the Pakistan Navy. For China, Gwadar port will be one of three in the Indian Ocean that will have overland links to western or southwestern China that will enable it to avoid relying on the Straits of Malacca and Singapore for shipment of strategic raw materials. The other two are Chahbahar, Iran, and Kyauk Phyu, Burma.

In an interview broadcast on 24 May about the Karachi terrorist attack, Pakistan Chief of Naval Staff Admiral N. Bashir explained, "When the navy created the Karsaz Establishment in the Karsaz area, it was outside the city (Karachi). Now it has become a part of the city center. Similarly, when this base was established, the Faisal Town built up on the backside did not exist. I have been trying for the past three years to relocate from the area. The government has supported us on this. Our major naval base is under construction, far from Karachi…. We are aiming to minimize our presence in Karachi."

The Admiral was referring to Gwadar. The Chinese are the primary builders of the port, so it is almost certain that they are building the naval base, though security considerations would prevent them from admitting it in public.


News reports over the weekend suggested that the Chinese were building a base for the Chinese navy. Those mischaracterized this long time project. Chinese naval ships will call at Gwadar when the base is complete, as they do at Karachi. However, the base will be a Pakistan Navy base.

Chinese involvement at Gwadar is not news, but it is part of a sophisticated, long term strategic plan.

Pakistan-US: For the record. Pakistan has returned the US helicopter destroyed during the raid by US special operations forces that killed al Qaida leader Usama bin Laden, a Pentagon official said. The Pentagon spokesman said the helicopter was returned over the weekend and is now back in the United States.

[ramana]

X-Posting for reference....

Some stray thoughts on the recent raid on PNS Mehran

1. The acknowledgement by the Chinese government that there were hostages of Chinese origin indicates that the firefight did not end as it seems like....with security forces clearing them off....but with some kind of quid pro quo such as safe passage to remaining raiders. There is a possibility that Chinese were taken as shields till they reached their exit destination. Possible and probable.

2. The target was the PC3 Orion...indicates that there was a clear objective in mind for the raiders. The presence of Chinese "of a certain enterprise" lends credence to the hypothesis of ramana here. Not sure yet of the technical aspects of the nuke angle or anti-Arihant angle. Because I do not know much about it.

3. Who did this? Was is a mixed operation by covert forces of another nation state along with disaffected local forces or mercenaries ( a la La Affaire Sand Line)? Was it TTP as they claimed? There are motives for at least three neighbouring states to have done this...Iran, Afghanistan, India and a couple of regional states/powers in Israel and the US.

4. The lack of attention, response of any kind by the USG indicates that they were aware of the Chinese Enterprise staff and what was happening there. Either they chose to keep quiet as the efforts there were directed only against India or they were in it together with the Chinese is an intriguing question.

5. The GOI is concerned. While they have kept a low profile, the kind of news briefings that senior folks inside GOI have been doing on conditions of annonymity are indications enough. The BJP has raised the issue of safety of nuclear weapons and the need to denuclearise pakistan. It is quite possible that this is being done with a tacit nod from official GOI. On matters such as this, despite differences, in the past, both INC and BJP have taken positions for the GOI when in opposition.

6. The descent of Pakistan is gaining momentum. The USG is trying to ensure that it does not disintegrate as a state but is defanged completely as a base for anti-US and anti-West activities. It is walking a tight rope here. The Chinese too would want to arrest the descent. Both of them want Pakistan to exist for different reasons. Time is running out for Pakistan and the sponsors are asking the elite there to mend fences with India in order to survive.

7. India can expect the following:
(i) A spectacular assault on Indian installations of economic importance
(ii) Increased pressure on GOI to throw Pakistani establishment a life line by doing at least some kind of positive deal....at least a deal on issues like Water sharing or Sir Creek and talks on Kashmir
(iii) An "Aman Ki Asha" type initiative in India will be launched to make a case for helping Pakistan in the hour of crisis....Pakistan will be portrayed as a family member who fought and went but is now having trouble and he is still family and India is morally obliged to look after family member ..even recalcitrant ones

These are just stray thoughts that comes to mind at the present. Hopefully some of these can be validated once we get more insights on this raid.

[shyamd]

India's full military co-operation with Afghanistan on hold over US 'sensitivities'

Submitted by Vijay Sharma on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 15:09

One of the most recent US diplomatic cables released to be released by Wikileaks has pointed to India's deep ambitions in Afghanistan. The cable, written as a 'scene-setter' for the visit of influential US Senator John Kerry in February last year noted that Indians were restrained in their military co-operation with Afghanistan only because of the US.

The cable pointed out that India was very interested in forging deep military ties with Afghanistan to counter-act possible Pakistani military manoeuvres and alliances in the region. The cable shows that the US too seemed to think that India was trying to forge an alliance with Afghanistan to resist a similar military alliance between Pakistan and China, both India's neighbours on either side.

"The Ministry of External Affairs [of India] told us after the [President Obama's] West Point speech that the Government of India wishes to do more to help develop Afghan capacity, especially with regard to the police and military, but is also cognizant of USG "sensitivities" about such assistance," the cable, meant for Kerry, pointed out.

It noted that Pakistan's efforts at check-mating India in Afghanistan and preventing it from forging the alliance are unlikely to be successful, calling them unrealistic. It pointed out that India was kept out of the Istanbul regional conference on Afghanistan (based on a Pakistani veto) and was isolated at the London Conference over reintegration of Afghanistan.

"India, with the exception of the Taliban era, has always had strong ties to Afghanistan since Partition; conversely, Islamabad with the exception of the Taliban period, has had strained ties with Kabul. Pakistan's expectation that the government in Afghanistan will be pro-Pakistan and anti-Indian is unrealistic, particularly given Karzai's own long-standing ties to India and the goodwill that India's assistance and other elements of India's soft power have created in Afghanistan," the New Delhi embassy noted.

India gives both infrastructure and humanitarian help to Afghanistan, including providing training to its professionals. It recently increased its total committed aid to $2 billion and has built a 218km road in Helmand province. It also provides daily food aid to 2 million Afghan school children.

Civilian aid is channeled into three main areas: infrastructure development (centerpiece is a); capacity building (scholarships and civil service training in India); and humanitarian assistance (). Virtually all GOI aid is administered through the Afghan government or NGOs.

India has offered its Advanced Light Helicopter to Afghanistan as well as pilot training to the new Afghan air force. It has also provided cars and trucks to the Afghan military.

[shyamd]

245077 1/23/2010 12:21 10RIYADH101 Embassy Riyadh SECRET//NOFORN 09RIYADH1639|10RIYADH8 “VZCZCXRO5980

OO RUEHBC RUEHKUK RUEHTRO

DE RUEHRH #0101/01 0231221

ZNY SSSSS ZZH

O 231221Z JAN 10

FM AMEMBASSY RIYADH

TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2350

INFO RUCNIRA/IRAN COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE

RUEHAD/AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI IMMEDIATE 0005

RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD IMMEDIATE 4825

RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL IMMEDIATE 0317

RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON IMMEDIATE 2953

RUSBPW/AMCONSUL PESHAWAR IMMEDIATE 0196

RUEHLH/AMCONSUL LAHORE IMMEDIATE 0056″ “S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 RIYADH 000101



NOFORN

SIPDIS



E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/11/2020

TAGS: PREL, PGOV, PK, AF, SA

SUBJECT: SPECIAL ADVISOR TO SRAP WITH SAUDI INTEL: WHAT TO

DO ABOUT THE TALIBAN?



REF: A. 09 RIYADH 1639

B. RIYADH 8



RIYADH 00000101 001.2 OF 002





Classified By: Ambassador James B. Smith for

reasons 1.4 (B) and (D)



SUMMARY:

——–



1. (C) During a meeting with General Masudi, General Director

of Internal Affairs for the General Intelligence Presidency

(GIP), Barnett R. Rubin, the Special Advisor to the Special

Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, sought Masudi,s

views regarding the Taliban, Saudi plans to deal with them

politically, and the objectives of Pakistan. Masudi

discussed the GIP view of the Taliban and mentioned concerns

about keeping Pakistan a part of the process. He also

discussed the growing Iranian role in Pakistan’s instability,

Taliban financing in Saudi Arabia and a possible positive

outcome for Afghans being held in Saudi Arabia. End Summary.



2. (S//NF) Barnett R. Rubin, the Special Advisor to the

Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Chief

GRPO met with General Masudi, the General Director of

Internal Affairs for the GIP, on January 11 to discuss policy

regarding the Taliban and the potential for cooperation with

the SAG in Afghanistan and Pakistan.



THE SAG VIEW OF THE MATTER

————————–



3. (C) Masudi gave an overview of SAG thinking about the

Afghan Taliban. The SAG viewed the Afghan Taliban as largely

under the control of Pakistan, Masudi said. Many members of

the Taliban were born in Pakistan as refugees, had lived

there and had family there. However, there were some members

of the Afghan Taliban who were opposed to such a strong

Pakistani influence. They wished to pursue their own

objectives without outside influence. Unfortunately, this

group was weak. These members of the Afghan Taliban needed

support to be able to become more independent of Pakistan.





AFGHAN FIGHTERS EXPLOITED BY IRAN AND PAKISTAN

——————————————— -



4. (C) Most of the Afghan Taliban were Afghan citizens,

Masudi continued, but they did not have a clear vision of

what they wanted for Afghanistan. The vast majority of the

Afghan fighters were being exploited by outside powers and

simply used as “”fuel for the battle.”" Outside powers, like

Iran and Pakistan, had influenced the uneducated Afghans to

believe that the U.S. and the SAG were working against the

Afghan people. We have to convey the truth to this group,

Masudi urged, because they were ignorant and simply didn’t

know.





DON’T FORGET PAKISTAN

———————



5. (C) In order for any of this to work, Masudi cautioned,

it was vital to consider Pakistan’s concerns regarding

Afghanistan. Pakistan was very concerned about losing

influence in Afghanistan to India and Iran. It was important

that the SAG and the U.S. reassure Pakistan that any

activities conducted wouldn’t harm its interests, otherwise

there might be a backlash. Furthermore, the Pakistani

government insisted that it played a big part in the defeat

of the Soviets. Islamabad lost much in the war, and had to

take in millions of Afghan refugees. The Pakistanis felt

that they deserved to have a big part in Afghanistan, Masudi

said. They wanted to be “”the closest friend”" and were

offended when they thought Iran or India were taking this

role.



6. (C) The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan was also a

major concern to Pakistan, Masudi said, even if the

Pakistanis didn’t say it. This single issue was a very

important factor in the 1980′s when Pakistan was deciding

which mujahidin groups to support. (Note: At that time

Masudi worked on Afghanistan for GIP chief Prince Turki

al-Faisal. End note.) Pakistan would support only those

leaders who promised to recognize the Durand Line as an



RIYADH 00000101 002.2 OF 002





international border. This was why Pakistan did not support

Ahmad Shah Massoud.





THE TALIBAN IN PAKISTAN; A WHOLE DIFFERENT MATTER

——————————————— —-



7. (C) Masudi made a big distinction between the Taliban in

Afghanistan and in Pakistan. In Pakistan, he said, Al Qaeda

had much more of an influence over the Taliban. Negotiating

with the Taliban in Pakistan wouldn’t work because they

didn’t have a political cause to negotiate.





IRAN AND AL QAEDA

—————–



8. (C) Masudi said that the GIP had information that

demonstrated new links between Iran and Al Qaeda. Some Al

Qaeda prisoners that were held in Iran had been released and

gone to fight in Waziristan. Masudi gave the example of

Yasin Bargush, a Syrian member of Al Qaeda’s leadership who

was arrested and detained in Iran. Masudi said that Bargush

was released by Iran to strengthen the link between Al Qaeda

and Iran.





TALIBAN FINANCING

—————–



9. (C) Rubin outlined the USG’s concern about members of the

Taliban fundraising in the KSA. Even if Taliban leaders

traveled to the KSA for talks, he explained, it was key that

they were not allowed to raise funds while they were in the

Kingdom. Masudi agreed and assured Rubin that guests of the

GIP in Saudi Arabia were not raising money. Masudi suggested

that his office meet with the MOI and give them an overview

of these discussions so that they could coordinate some of

their efforts. “”We need to be clear with all of the

government that raising money is not permitted.”"





AFGHANS ARRESTED IN KSA COULD BE HELPFUL

—————————————-



10. (C) Masudi also mentioned that the SAG held a number of

Afghans in prison on charges of fundraising for the Taliban.

Perhaps these prisoners could be used as bargaining chips in

political talks, Masudi speculated. This could strengthen

the hand of those engaged in political discussions and

demonstrate to members of the Taliban that such efforts could

produce positive results. Masudi suggested that this was

another area where the GIP could coordinate with the MOI.





ALL THE REST

————



11. (C) Summarizing his views on the Haqqani Network and

Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, Masudi said they all wanted power

but they would join the political process eventually. “”When

they are convinced that a military solution won’t work, they

will join to have a piece of the cake.”"



12. (U) Special Advisor to the Special Representative for

Afghanistan and Pakistan, Barnett R. Rubin, has cleared this

message.

All round interesting view from KSA. This is a must read.

[shravan]

North Afghanistan police chief killed in suicide bombing

KUNDUZ: A suicide bombing at the governor’s office in Takhar province killed four people, including the chief of police for northern Afghanistan General Mohammed Daoud Daoud, on Saturday.

Daoud was the operational commander for eight provinces in Afghanistan and was an aide to Ahmed Shah Massoud.

The Hizb-e-Islami claimed responsibility for the attack.

[Altair]

North Afghanistan police chief killed in suicide bombing

KUNDUZ: A suicide bombing at the governor’s office in Takhar province killed four people, including the chief of police for northern Afghanistan General Mohammed Daoud Daoud, on Saturday.

Daoud was the operational commander for eight provinces in Afghanistan and was an aide to Ahmed Shah Massoud.

The Hizb-e-Islami claimed responsibility for the attack.

It was the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud which was a prelude to 9/11.

[Pranay]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13585242

The police commander for northern Afghanistan has been killed in a suicide bomb attack on Takhar province governor's office, officials say.

Gen Mohammad Daud Daud is one of at least seven people killed in the suicide bomb attack, police say.

Gen Daud was in charge of all interior ministry forces in northern Afghanistan and is the most senior figure to be killed so far in a Taliban "spring offensive", our correspondent adds.

Seven people were killed in the explosion, including three German troops, a spokesman for the governor's office told AFP news agency, but this has not been confirmed.

German troops are based in neighbouring Kunduz province, and have oversight of Takhar.

Shah Jahan Nuri, the provincial police chief, was among the victims, and the governor was injured, the spokesman added.

The Taliban has claimed it carried out the attack.

The top commander of foreign troops in north Afghanistan was in the compound at the time but survived the explosion, a Nato spokesman said.

General Daud was a former deputy interior minister for narcotics.

He had also served as the bodyguard to Ahmad Shah Massoud, who commanded the Northern Alliance.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

KABUL – A Taliban suicide bomber targeted a high-level international meeting at a provincial governor's palace on Saturday, in an attack that killed northern Afghanistan's police commander and members of the U.S.-led military coalition, according to Afghan and coalition officials.

[krisna]

Managing Afghanistan

Through back channels, the US is telling India that it is leaving Afghanistan. After the discovery of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, the United States no longer trusts Pakistan to "hand over" Afghanistan to it and its Taliban allies. America wants regional ownership of Afghanistan, meaning that India, Iran, Russia, the Central Asian republics, China and Pakistan must sit together to decide the best course for bringing peace and stability to the benighted country. The US has promised to remain involved. And it will not let its anti-Iran biases obstruct a regional peace solution for Afghanistan.

The trust with Pakistan is broken. The US national security establishment has evidence that Pakistan's ISI facilitated the Pakistani Taliban attack on a CIA base in eastern Afghanistan in December 2009 that killed eight American agents. The US is also convinced of an ISI hand in 26/11. Indeed, Pakistan hoped the US government would prevent the presentation of documentary evidence of the ISI role in 26/11 in the Tahawwur Rao trial in Chicago.

And previous to the Abbottabad raid that killed Bin Laden, strains in Pak-US relations came on the Raymond Davis affair. Davis who was a contract CIA operative in Pakistan killed two threatening ISI gunmen. While blood money was paid to return him to the US, the Obama administration made two other pledges to Pakistan for Davis' release. One was that about four dozen CIA undercover officers deployed in FATA and elsewhere against the Al-Qaeda and Taliban would be removed. The second was that the US would hand over the drone campaign to the Pakistanis.

Once Raymond Davis was back in the US, America signaled that the two deals were off. The CIA agents would not be pulled out. And the US would continue to manage drone warfare. Drone attacks significantly increased after Davis' return. And CIA undercover agents scored a big hit in tracing Osama Bin Laden to a secure compound in Abbottabad. When the ISI chief, Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, came to the US to press for the honouring of the Davis deal, he got a tongue-lashing from the CIA director, Leon Panetta, and left the meeting in a huff.

While the US position on Iran that it will not discourage its participation for an Afghan solution is welcome, trouble comes from China and Pakistan, and possibly, more from Pakistan than China. Following the Pakistan prime minister, Yousaf Reza Geelani's visit to China, it appears that China does not want to step into US shoes as a military aider of Pakistan. Nor it would seem is China keen to insert itself into Afghanistan in the present mess. Above all, it wants no damage in relations with the US

What's the solution for Afghanistan in which India can play a role? There is no "solution" in sight and it is going to be messy. India's best bet is to remain engaged with Afghanistan's peaceful development till conditions worsen. Then, cutting its losses, India has to return to the pre-9/11 position of backing a previously created Northern Alliance II.

In time, Pakistan will face the blowback of encouraging terrorism in Afghanistan (and India), and it would sink the Pakistan state. The only worry is Pakistani nukes. Opinion is already building worldwide for denuclearizing Pakistan. Once Pakistan disintegrates by itself, its state policy of terrorism will crumble, and consequently the region will gradually stabilize, including Afghanistan.

[ramana]

Columbia Uty Journal of International Affairs

special issues on Af-Pak:

http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/in-the-journal/54

[Patni]

Afghan police chief killed, NATO general wounded in attack

By the CNN Wire Staff
May 29, 2011 -- Updated 0710 GMT (1510 HKT)

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- A bombing in northern Afghanistan that killed a top Afghan official and wounded a German general Saturday came as tribal leaders warned that insurgent attacks were discouraging some civilians from cooperating with security efforts, officials said.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing at a high-level meeting of Afghan officials and NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, the latest in a series of attacks that have rocked Afghanistan following the killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
During meetings last week with senior Afghan ministers and ISAF officials in the volatile Zabul province, civilians "cautioned that insurgent intimidation has discouraged cooperation from some citizens," according to an ISAF statement released Saturday.
Provincial Gov. Mohammed Neseri warned residents to do their part to protect themselves.
"Insurgents cannot intimidate citizens if everyone is united in defending their homes and their villages," Neseri said, according to the statement.
The top coalition commander in Afghanistan has warned of a likely increase in high-profile attacks by insurgents looking to demonstrate their ability to strike. In a letter this month to ISAF forces, Army Gen. David Petraeus said the attacks may increase the risk of civilian casualties and put Afghan and ISAF forces in difficult situations.
The attack Saturday in the northern Takhar province town of Taloqan occurred at a high-level meeting of Afghan and coalition officials in a governor's office, a provincial spokesman said.
The officials were gathered to talk about security following a May 18 protest in front of a NATO compound where German soldiers opened fire on demonstrators, who they claim had become violent, German Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere told reporters.
The blast killed seven people, including Gen. Dawood Dawood -- a well-known Afghan regional police chief who was one of the country's lead point-persons in eradicating opium poppy fields, said Faiz Mohammad Tawhidi, a spokesman for Takhar provincial Gov. Abdul Jabar Taqwa.
Dawood was a veteran anti-Soviet and anti-Taliban resistance commander, he said.
Also killed were two German soldiers, a provincial police chief, the governor's secretary and two guards, according to Tawhidi and Qari Sadiqullah, secretary of the provincial council.
Among the eight wounded was Maj. Gen. Markus Kneip, a veteran German officer and the regional head of the ISAFacross nine provinces of northern Afghanistan, de Maiziere said.
The provincial governor was also wounded, Taqwa said.
In a phone call to CNN, Taliban spokesman Zabulliah Mojahed claimed responsibility for the attack.
Mojahed said Taliban fighters targeted the officials because they were making plans in the meeting to "launch an operation against the Taliban in the north."
"After our mujahedeen found (out) about this meeting, then it was targeted by our suicide bomber," he told CNN from an unknown location.
ISAF spokesman Rear Adm. Vic Beck condemned what he called "the senseless murder of these Afghans and coalition members who have fought so hard for the people of Afghanistan.
"ISAF will remain relentless in our support to our Afghan partners to find those responsible and bring them to justice," he said.
The attack came two days after eight U.S. troops died when two improvised explosive devices blew up in Shorabak District, about 100 kilometers (62 miles) south of Kandahar, according to ISAF.
That region -- on the opposite end of the country from where Saturday's attack occurred -- has been the site of a spate of recent violence after Taliban forces unleashed multiple attacks earlier this month in their so-called spring offensive.

Something serious seems to have been set rolling by TSPA to salvage its H&D! Can see a parallel to having Ahmad Shah Massoud been taken out of picture before 9/11 by ISI sponsored Talibunnies. Dawood dawood was strong erstwhile NA member and definitely got targeted to ensure post us withdrawal dominance of taliban aka isi in afghan. ties in with fridays suicide attack targeting local peace committee that stands up to taliban! It seems clear that end game phase has started with every player expecting rapid draw down of US/Nato from Afghan theater.

[g.sarkar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/world ... istan.html
"Insurgents Attack NATO Base in Afghanistan
By ROD NORDLAND
KABUL, Afghanistan — The Taliban launched a rare attack on targets in the western Afghan city of Herat on Monday, including a NATO base, killing at least four people and wounding at least 38.
Operating far from the insurgents’ usual areas and in a city considered among the safest in Afghanistan, the attackers set off a suicide car bomb in front of the Provincial Reconstruction Team headquarters, which is under Italian command, and nearly simultaneously detonated a second bomb elsewhere in the city, according to Col. Noor Khan Nekzad, spokesman for the Herat chief of police.
The attack was confirmed by a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, Maj. Tim James, who said that although there were wounded among the coalition forces, there were no fatalities so far. The Italian defense minister, Ignazio La Russa, said that five Italian soldiers had been wounded, one seriously, according to the ANSA news agency...."
Gautam

[Y. Kanan]

Karzai demands NATO stop using airstrikes

I'm not sure how much stock to put in this, Karzai's latest attempt at biting the hand that feeds him. But it does increasingly highlight the sad reality that the US is on its out way out of Afghanistan. I've been saying for a couple of years now the US will be leaving Afghanistan in defeat. Now, with the death of bin Laden, this withdrawal (which was inevitable anyway) is going to happen even sooner.

So, as myself and others have said we now face imminent Paki victory in Afghanistan. They're going to be taking over the place again, just as they did in the 90's. This will happen in a matter of just a few years if not sooner.

But lately I've been wondering, is it possible for India, Russia and the Central Asian SSR's to keep the Pakis from winning even after the US retreats? Can we at least keep half the country from falling into Paki hands? The Taliban are unpopular in much of Afghanistan; perhaps the country could be split into a Taliban south and relatively moderate north. With support from India\Russia\Uzbeck\Tajik\Turkmenistan this could be doable; even the Iranians might help.

Curious what you guys think of this scenario...

[chaanakya]

AF-PAK initiative has lost its relevance since the timely demise of Holebroke.
OSAMA could be finished only after Holbroke left the scene.

Now there should be open INSAF initiative.
INdia Supports AFghanistan.
Afghanistan needs justice.

[Airavat]

North Waziristan sword on Pakistan's neck:

The main difference in North Waziristan is that it is home to a wide assortment of militants from all over the world, not just homegrown Taliban militants who are more predictable. Attacking a group of al Qaeda fighters, for instance, could invite retaliation from a host of other militants, from Egyptians to Chechens. The Haqqani network, an Afghan insurgent faction seen as one of the United States’ most implacable foes across the border in Afghanistan, presents the Pakistani army with its most dangerous dilemma in North Waziristan. Antagonising the Haqqani network could backfire, turning thousands of seasoned fighters against a Pakistani state already facing determined Pakistani Taliban militants. Before launching operation in South Waziristan in 2009, the army made a pact with one of the most prominent militant commanders in North Waziristan, Hafiz Gul Bahadur.

Unlike the Pakistani Taliban, Bahadur and the Haqqani network have refrained from attacking targets inside Pakistan and have focused on fighting US-led NATO forces in Afghanistan. The nightmare scenario would be the Haqqanis, Bahadur, al Qaeda and other hardcore militant groups turning on the Pakistani army in retaliation for a North Waziristan operation. A major worry is a government offensive would incite a general uprising against the state by the Pashtun tribes who live in Waziristan and other areas along the border. Pakistan might worry that Afghanistan, which has long questioned Pakistani rule over the Pashtun lands, could cause trouble in the area.

[abhishek_sharma]

India and the U.S. moving closer on Afghanistan?

[ramana]

India and the U.S. moving closer on Afghanistan?

India and the U.S. moving closer on Afghanistan?

Teresita and Howard Schaffer


The U.S. and India are getting more interested in negotiations with the Afghan Taliban. Their evolving policies could benefit from closer U.S.-India consultations, and from backchannel India-Pakistan talks on Afghanistan.

In the weeks since the dramatic U.S. raid on Abbottabad that killed Osama bin Laden, the signs point to a subtle shift in the way both India and the United States are looking at Afghanistan' s future. The U.S. interest in negotiations that include the Afghan Taliban grows steadily stronger; India's willingness to work with an Afghanistan where Taliban share in power has also grown. The Afghan dance India has initiated cannot be completed without some additional Pakistan steps.

U.S. interest in negotiations with the Taliban has been taking shape for the past six months at least. The late Richard Holbrooke championed a “reintegration” programme to bring Taliban foot soldiers into the government's tent. He spoke of the U.S. preference for “Afghan-led reconciliation,” focussing on Taliban figures who were prepared to eschew violence and break with al-Qaeda. His successor, Marc Grossman, a less flamboyant but more systematic diplomat, has made creating a real negotiating option his priority. The first crisis of his tenure, the Ray Davis affair that convulsed U.S.-Pakistan relations from January through March 2011, nearly closed down communications between the United States and Pakistan. The U.S. administration has long believed that it cannot achieve a satisfactory outcome in Afghanistan without Pakistani cooperation. The poisonous relations between the U.S. and Pakistani security establishments over the Davis affair made
that goal much harder to achieve — but arguably more important.

The adjustments in India's policy toward Afghanistan were on public display when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Kabul on May 12-13. Two key points stood out. One struck a familiar note: his commitment to an additional $500 million in civilian aid, with a broad portfolio of humanitarian, infrastructure, and institutional development projects. He also renewed India's commitment to provide training for Afghanistan' s police, an important potential contribution to security.

The new feature of Manmohan Singh's visit to Kabul lay in his good wishes for Afghanistan' s “process of national reconciliation,” code for negotiations with the Taliban. He stressed India's commitment to seeing Afghanistan at peace with its neighbours. This is the most authoritative and explicit statement to date that India will accept a negotiating process in which Taliban participate. The Prime Minister's declaration that Osama's death created a “new situation” further evidenced India's interest in helping shape a peaceful future with Afghanistan.

The United States, trying to rescue a working relationship with Pakistan from the wreckage of the Davis and Osama episodes, received Manmohan Singh's Kabul message warmly. Washington has long supported India's economic contribution to Afghanistan. Now, Washington is looking more warmly on India's broader training offers — not just for new parliamentarians and the Afghan election commission, but also in the more sensitive area of policing. The U.S. is gingerly moving toward a greater consciousness of the regional dimension in shaping Afghanistan' s future.

But the most difficult piece of this regional puzzle is Pakistan. Like it or not, geography and history make it an essential participant in working out the future modus vivendi among the major Afghan players. Pakistan's goal is to freeze India out. India's new message treats Pakistan with more care and subtlety than the old one: Manmohan Singh's Kabul speeches referred repeatedly to the importance of peace with all Afghanistan' s neighbours, and the latest statements come against the background of some modest progress in economic talks between India and Pakistan. But the Pakistani press, especially its more nationalist members, zeroed in on Indian statements in Kabul that appeared to be code words for keeping Pakistan at arm's length.

India's Afghan dance has had a promising beginning, though there will be difficult passages ahead. Two moves could improve its chances of success over the long term. The first is a significant deepening of U.S.-Indian dialogue on Afghanistan, including not just economics but also politics and security. This is especially important at a time when the U.S. and Pakistan are trying to recalibrate their relationship, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's just-concluded visit to Islamabad.

The second would be to add Afghanistan to the agenda for backchannel talks with Pakistan, should that channel reopen. This is a tough assignment. Pakistanis, deeply suspicious about Indian activities in Afghanistan, question the value of such talks without a general improvement in Indo-Pakistan relations. They spurned the suggestion the Indian Foreign Secretary made earlier this year that the issue be added to the resumed India-Pakistan dialogue. But a back channel effort, out of public view, might in time strengthen prospects for peace among all three countries.

(Teresita and Howard Schaffer are former U.S. ambassadors, with long years of service in South Asia. They are co-founders of southasiahand. com. Howard Schaffer teaches at Georgetown University; Teresita Schaffer is a nonresident senior fellow at Brookings Institution. )

What a bunch of crock! These two were at forefront of beating up India during the 90s. Now they recommend India include TSP in back channel talks about Afghanistan and front channels with US!

Why should India talk to TSP about Afghanistan behind Afghanistan back? This kind of extra sensitivity for TSP honor and dignity is what makes their advice suspect.

How the mighty have fallen!

[NRao]

I feel this was quite predictable.

I still feel that TSP will dig a bigger grave for herself.

I do not know, but, I get the feeling that even China is beginning to treat her with those plastic glows that people use to prevent infections. Stand a 100 miles away and give her 50 fighters.....................

The Indo-US views have to converge - for another 25-30 years at least. Which is why I was never afraid of those issues related to the MMRCA purchases.

I strongly feel:

1) India needs to prepare to take over PoK. Prepare for the worse - with Chinese troops in the area,
2) To a lesser extent, prepare for the break up Pakistan - India need play NO role in this matter any longer. It should be for the larger good.

[NRao]

Is it getting better?

Capture Kashmiri, Mullah Omar by July: US warns Pak

July is nearly here!!!!

[shyamd]

AoA! Excelent news!
India to provide Afghanistan with arms!
http://www.dailypioneer.com/343167/Indi ... istan.html

Can someone plz post in full.

TIA

[ramana]

AoA! Excelent news!
India to provide Afghanistan with arms!
http://www.dailypioneer.com/343167/Indi ... istan.html

Can someone plz post in full.

TIA

India steals march on Pak, to arm Afghanistan
June 03, 2011 9:06:58 PM

Rahul Datta | New Delhi

In a significant move, India has decided to boost its strategic engagement with Afghanistan by resuming arms supply to the strife-torn nation to strengthen its strategic ties with Kabul and deny Pakistan a foothold there. The move comes in the backdrop of the commencement of the US-led coalition’s withdrawal from Afghanistan this year, which could give Islamabad a chance to regain control over the state of affairs there.

New Delhi is already engaged in massive reconstruction works worth over two billion dollars in war-torn Afghanistan for the last several years besides training its armed forces personnel and police. Given the likely void to be created once the US starts pulling out, India does not want to be on a weak wicket as Pakistan will try to enlarge its strategic depth and pose a threat to India’s security concerns.

While India has declared that it will not send its armed forces to Afghanistan, the security establishment had started the exercise of exploring ways to supply small arms needed by the Karzai-led Government nearly two months back, sources said here on Thursday.

The small arms package includes rifles, grenades, light machine guns and mortars, they said, adding the Afghan regime had discussed this issue when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Kabul last month, they said.

Afghanistan Defence Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak also gave indications here on Wednesday about arms supply from India during his ongoing three-day visit and said the issue of supply of military equipment will be discussed with the Indian political leadership.

Incidentally, India had supplied small arms to the Northern Alliance a decade back in its war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan though it was never acknowledged officially.

Pakistan aided and abetted the Taliban during its fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and continues to have relations with some factions of the Taliban thereby creating problems for the US-led coalition forces.

Meanwhile, India said after talks with Wardak it was committed to building the “capabilities of the Afghan security forces.” This was conveyed by Defence Minister AK Antony to the visiting Afghan leader.

During the hour-long delegation-level talks, Antony said as a longstanding friend of the Afghan people, India remains fully committed to supporting Afghanistan in its reconstruction and development efforts.

He conveyed New Delhi’s willingness to work with the Afghan Government in building the capabilities of the Afghan security forces in accordance with the priorities of the Afghan Government.

Both sides also noted that terrorism continues to pose a threat to all countries in the region and stressed the need to ensure cessation of support to such organisations in the interest of peace and development.

There have been periodic exchanges between the armed forces of the two countries since Wardak last visited India in April, 2008. The Afghan Chief of General Staff, General Sher Mohammad Karimi, visited India in October last year.

The story could do without refs to TSP.

India wants to stablize Afghanistan for its own interests and not to check TSP.

[shyamd]

^^ Exactly. I think here is what happening. Karzai is pro India and Iran (already on record that he receives bags of money from them).

Late last year, PRC met with Karzai and offered to train and arm the ANA/ANP (basically the TSP offer). PRC also offered to arm Hekmatyar who has signed a ceasefire agreement with NATO troops. This was Pak indirect proposal. Karzai kept mum about it.

Then Arab spring happens. KSA and US have a falling out. KSA needs to corner Iran and KSA/TSP reapproachment happens.

Abbottabad happens. ISI/TSPA forcing Karzai to join the PRC bandwagon in that meeting.

So whats gona happen next?

KSA/TSP/PRC alliance forming all for their own interests/needs.

A new alliance will form in response to this - Govt of Afghanistan/India/Iran/US-NATO/Maybe Russia if it wakes up.

Central asian countries are playing the double game - it will help KSA on IRan and will help Af/Ind/US (not Iran) alliance in Afghanistan.

PRC will arm Hekmatyar and ISI will urge him to break ceasefire - whether he does that is another matter. US has cornered Pak and asked for Haqqani and Mullah O. Pak's PRC move was coordinated with KSA I think, however PRC is not sure it want to be openly taking on US and PRC has backed off a little. So TSP is kind of in a tight spot - it has the KSA money but is risking killing its only assets to help them recover their strategic depth in Afghanistan. Afghan taleban/TTP are all anti TSPA at the moment, so Kiyani is pissed off. Now India chosing to arm ANP/ANA is going to really cause some fire in the Kiyani Musharraf! Sleepless nights in the GHQ (part 2).

So, if the US succeeds in smashing the taleb senior leadership and splitting the Afghan taleban, getting some of them to the parliament and smashing Haqqani network badly (remember the deadline to launch an operation in NWFP). Then this would be a good outcome for India.

KSA wants to corner Iran and having the taleban can put pressure on the eastern border of Iran.
PRC is scared that India will be allowed into Central asia and check mate them and TSP.

Russia - will be interesting because the Paki's have probably had a chat about the situation in the Kremlin. Nice point for KSA to buy those shiny Russian weapons to send a message to US, win Russia over on Iran/Afg. Nothing happens in central asia without Russia's nod. So Russia will be interesting - US needs Russia to continue the Northern Distribution network. So US will have to conceed some more - maybe drop ABMs in in eastern europe?

Iran has to be on India's side or it risks facing trouble on the easternborders if Talebs come back - unless they have had some reapproachment. I think TSP has guaranteed something to Iran in return for calming tension with KSA. Lots going on.

Zimple - the outcome depends on how effective US is in getting Mullah O and splitting Afghan Taleban, taking out Haqqani's - keeping Hekmatyar clean (he just wants money and there is a price for him).

Question:

1) Hekmatyar is based in South East AFghanistan right? Will PRC use the Northern territories to transfer weapons and provide military backing to Hekmatyar? Is this one of the aims behind PRC deployment into PoK as well?

[Vashishtha]

AOA !!! Been waiting for such a development since some time....... Whats next?

[shyamd]

Paki observer
India, Afghanistan to boost defence coop

Akhtar Jamal

Islamabad—India and Afghanistan have agreed to expand defence cooperation which may include deployment of Indian trainers in Afghanistan. According to reports reaching here from New Delhi India offered its “willingness to Afghanistan to help it build capabilities of its security forces in accordance with their priority.”

The commitment was reportedly conveyed by Indian Defence Minister A K Antony to his Afghan counterpart General Abdul Rahim Wardak when they met in New Delhi on Wednesday during a four day visit.

The two sides also discussed “security situation in the region” and possible joint cooperation against Afghan Taliban.

General Abdul Rahim Wardak heading a seven-member Afghan military delegation arrived in India two days earlier amid reports that a foreign power had given a tacit-approval for expanded Indo-Afghan military engagements.

Gen Wardak was quoted as saying: “We will welcome any cooperation (from India) in the field of training and helping of Afghan national security forces so that they are able to secure and defend the country.”

India and NATO-backed Afghan Government has held several military exchange since General Wardak last visited India in April, 2008 and Afghan Chief of General Staff, General Sher Mohammad Karimi visited India in October last year.

India to extend more training to Afghan armed forces

Print this articlePrint article | Send this article to a friend E-mail article | Post comment

Share |

New Delhi, June 3 (IANS) With Pakistan intensifying its efforts to influence the Afghan reconciliation process and the phased pullout of US forces from that country set to begin within a month, India Friday said it was willing to extend more training to Afghanistan's armed forces and government.

Defence Minister A.K. Antony said India wanted to help the Afghan people and government during their "difficulties and transition".

"India is a long-standing friend of Afghanistan. There has been thousands of years of friendship between the people of both India and Afghanistan and their governments...cultural relations, historical relations, and sentimental relations. So we want to help the people of Afghanistan in their difficulties," Antony told reporters here on the sidelines of a defence ministry event.

"We want a strong, democratic and pluralistic, peaceful Afghanistan. They are in transition, they are in difficulty. So as a friend, India is trying to help them...only in the area of development, reconstruction, education, health and humanitarian development. Along with that, we promised them India is willing to extend them more training facilities for their armed forces and also more support for the Afghan government," he added.

Noting that the Indian help would be dictated by Afghanistan's "requirements", the defence minister made it clear that it would be within the Afghan government's "comfort level."

"Whatever help India is extending to Afghanistan, it is not against any country. Our relations with Afghanistan is not against any country," he stressed, but the oblique reference was to Pakistan.

Afghan Defence Minister Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak was on a three-day visit to India that concluded Friday during which he had met Antony and other top Indian security brass.

Pointing out that India's relationship with Afghanistan was "unique", Antony said his discussions with his Afghan counterpart were "very useful and cordial".

"His recent visit has further strengthened relations," he added.

Antony said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Kabul last month was a "landmark" trip. "It is a historical visit. Our relations are on the whole always cordial and are strengthening," he added.

Manmohan Singh had announced additional development aid of $500 million to the Afghan government, over and above the $1.5 billion India has already pledged over the last decade.

India, Afghanistan to step up defence ties
TNN, Jun 2, 2011, 04.42am IST

NEW DELHI: With Afghanistan slated to handle its own security by 2014, Kabul and New Delhi on Wednesday resolved to step up their bilateral defence cooperation.

"We will welcome any cooperation (from India) in the field of training and helping of Afghan national security forces so that they are able to secure and defend the country," said visiting Afghanistan defence minister General Abdul Rahim Wardak.

Defence minister A K Antony, in turn, assured Wardak that India was "committed" to building "the capabilities" of Afghan security forces. "As a long standing friend of the Afghan people", he said, India remains fully committed to supporting the war-ravaged country in its reconstruction and developmental efforts.
Ads by Google

On whether the enhanced defence cooperation would lead to India supplying military equipment to Afghanistan, Wardak said, "We will be discussing it. There is a very genuine interest in strengthening our relations in all sectors including defence."

With India continuing with its policy to counter Pakistan's moves in the strategically-located Afghanistan, PM Manmohan Singh had visited Kabul last month to deepen the bilateral strategic partnership across the political, economic and security fronts.

India has been regularly training Afghan officers and other ranks at its military training institutions, ranging from the NDA and Indian Military Academy at Dehradun to the School of Artillery at Deolali, ever since the Karzai government came to office.

India has also posted some Army officers in the central Asian nation to teach basic military fieldcraft and English skills to the Afghan Army, apart from sending several military doctors to help at hospitals in Kandahar and elsewhere.

Afghanistan has, in fact, sought even more Indian help in "capacity-building" of its armed forces, which even includes training of its pilots and technicians in operating Russian-origin Mi-35 helicopter gunships, as well as sourcing supplies for its Soviet-era tanks and aircraft.

[Altair]

^^ Expect some big soosai bombs blowing up in Kabul. SOP of ISI.

[Vashishtha]

^^ Expect some big soosai bombs blowing up in Kabul. SOP of ISI.

isint the ITBP deployed there to protect the embassies from 'Aai-Ess-Aai'?