Stan_Savljevic wrote:Quiet trip to Afghanistan
http://telegraphindia.com/1100116/jsp/f ... 991150.jsp
Lt Gen. Loomba’s visit to Afghanistan was a month after the chief of the US Pacific Command, Adm. Robert Willard, visited New Delhi for discussions on security assessments in South Asia. He had said India has to decide if it wanted to expand its role in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan: Multiple news services reported today’s bold Afghan Taliban attacks in Kabul. The coordinated multiple attacks killed at least 15 and injured 62, as reported in this Watch. Four militants also were killed, including two suicide bombers who detonated their explosives, and Afghan forces were searching several other areas in the city for more attackers, a government spokesman said.
It was the biggest attack in the capital since 28 October when gunmen with automatic weapons and suicide vests stormed a guest house used by U.N. staff, killing at least 11 people including three U.N. staff.
The attack coincided with the investiture of those Cabinet members in the Karzai government who had been confirmed by the Parliament. A majority of his choices have been rejected twice.
Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told The Associated Press that 20 armed militants, including some with suicide vests, had entered Kabul to target the presidential palace and other government buildings in the center of the capital.
The Taleban spokesman, Zabihollah Mojahed, called today's ongoing attacks in Kabul a message for foreign forces and the Afghan government. He told the Afghan Islamic Press, "Today's attacks are a strong message from the Taliban to foreign forces and the government. We showed them that the Taliban cannot be purchased or crushed by increasing the number of foreign forces."
Comment: Today’s action in the context of the statement represents the clearest Taliban response to the plans for a surge in US troops and for Afghan government outreach to Taliban commanders. The Haqqani syndicate has been responsible for the most effective attacks in Kabul during the past few years.
The Haqqani organization obviously has penetrated government and Coalition security and has inside help moving men and vehicles to targets. More importantly, the Haqqanis understand that the end game requires the capture of Kabul.
Internal instability is always centripetal, unless it leads to fragmentation. The direction of combat always must point to the centers of authority, in the district, the province and the nation, unless the aim of combat is to fragment the state. The Pashtun Taliban want to govern Afghanistan, not to form a secessionist Pashtun state.
Attacks of this kind discredit the government and its allies by showing they cannot protect themselves, much less the people of Afghanistan. It is a false thesis, but it resonates with shopkeepers, investors and residents because of the random nature of the violence. The government did not fall and the Haqqanis lost 20 suicide bombers who achieved little more than past less strenuous exertions.
In other words, the Haqqanis understand the end game. They are trying to collapse the non-military props of the regime. They cannot beat the NATO forces in combat, but they can erode home front support by embarrassing them. They may be expected to continue to try to assassinate Karzai or someone of comparable stature, such as the US ambassador or a NATO general.
durgesh wrote:Defining ‘strategic depth’
And how does it help us? We are engaged in the Great Game in Afghanistan, we are told, because ‘strategic depth’ is vital for Pakistan due to the fact that our country is very narrow at its middle and could well be cut into half by an Indian attack in force.
Strategic depth, we are further informed, will give respite to our armed forces which could withdraw into Afghanistan to then regroup and mount counter-attacks on Indian forces in Pakistan. I ask you!
I ask you for several reasons. Let us presume that the Indians are foolish enough to get distracted from educating their people, some of whom go to some of the best centres of learning in the world. Let us assume that they are idiotic enough to opt for war instead of industrialising themselves and meeting their economic growth targets which are among the highest in the world.
Let us imagine that they are cretinous enough to go to war with a nuclear-armed Pakistan and effectively put an immediate and complete end to their multi-million dollar tourism industry. Let us suppose that they lose all sense, all reason, and actually attack Pakistan and cut our country into half.
Will our army pack its bags and escape into Afghanistan? How will it disengage itself from the fighting? What route will it use, through which mountain passes? Will the Peshawar Corps gun its tanks and troop carriers and trucks and towed artillery and head into the Khyber Pass, and on to Jalalabad? Will the Karachi and Quetta Corps do likewise through the Bolan and Khojak passes?
And what happens to the Lahore and Sialkot and Multan and Gujranwala and Bahawalpur and other garrisons? What about the air force? Far more than anything else, what about the by now 180 million people of the country? What ‘strategic depth’ do our Rommels and Guderians talk about, please? What poppycock is this?
More importantly, how can Afghanistan be our ‘strategic depth’ when most Afghans hate our guts, not only the northerners, but even those who call themselves Pakhtuns?
Case in point: the absolute and repeated refusal of even the Taliban government when it was misruling Afghanistan, to accept the Durand Line as the international border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, despite the fact that it was a surrogate of Pakistan — propped into power; paid for; and helped militarily, diplomatically and politically by the Pakistani government and its ‘agencies’.
Indeed, it even refused the Commando’s interior minister, the loudmouth Gen Moinuddin Haider when he went to Kabul to ask for the extradition of Pakistani criminals being sheltered by the Taliban. We must remember that the Commando, as chief executive of the country, was pressing the Foreign Office till just a few days before 9/11 to use every effort to have the Taliban regime’ recognised by more countries!
This poppycock of ‘strategic depth’ can only be explained by our great military thinkers and strategists and geniuses: it is not for mortals like yours truly to make sense of any of it.Particularly because this nonsense can only happen after the Americans depart from Afghanistan. And what, pray, is the guarantee that they will leave when they say they will?
Why this subject at this time, you might well ask. Well I have just been reading David Sanger’s The Inheritance in which he meticulously lays out the reasons why he believes the Pakistani “dual policy” towards the Taliban exists.
On page 247 he states that when Michael McConnell, the then chief of US National Intelligence went to Pakistan in late May 2008 (three months after the elections that trounced Musharraf and his King’s Party, mark) he heard Pakistani officers make the case for the Pakistani need for having a friendly government in Kabul after the Americans departed.
When he got back to Washington McConnell “ordered up a full assessment” of the situation. ‘It did not take long … Musharraf’s record of duplicity was well known. While Kayani was a favourite of the White House, he had also been overheard — presumably on telephone intercepts — referring to one of the most brutal of the Taliban leaders, Maulvi Jalaluddin Haqqani, as a “strategic asset”. Interesting, for Kayani’s former boss, Musharraf is quoted thus in Der Spiegel:
Spiegel: “Let us talk about the role of the ISI. A short time ago, US newspapers reported that ISI has systematically supported Taliban groups. Is that true?”
Musharraf: “Intelligence always has access to other networks — this is what Americans did with KGB, this is what ISI also does. You should understand that the army is on board to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I have always been against the Taliban. Don’t try to lecture us about how we should handle this tactically. I will give you an example: Siraj Haqqani ...”
Spiegel: “... a powerful Taliban commander who is allegedly secretly allied with the ISI.”
Musharraf: “He is the man who has influence over Baitullah Mehsud, a dangerous terrorist, the fiercest commander in South Waziristan and the murderer of Benazir Bhutto as we know today. Mehsud kidnapped our ambassador in Kabul and our intelligence used Haqqani’s influence to get him released. Now, that does not mean that Haqqani is supported by us. The intelligence service is using certain enemies against other enemies. And it is better to tackle them one by one than making them all enemies.”
Well, there they go again!
But back to ‘strategic depth’. Will the likes of Sirajuddin Haqqani, son of Jalaluddin Haqqani, help Pakistan gain this ‘depth’ in Afghanistan? Are we that gone that we need these backward yahoos to save our army?
PS By the way what about our nuclear weapons? Are they not enough to stop the Indians in their tracks? What poppycock is this ‘strategic depth’?!
As things stand, unless the Baloch nationalists are able to get their act together and set aside their petty differences in pursuit of ‘achievable nationhood’ within Pakistan or without, it will be only a matter of time before this latest upsurge in Balochistan will be brutally crushed. Given the demographics of the area which are loaded against the ethnic Baloch, and the growing attraction as also inclination of sections of Baloch youth towards radical Islamic groups like Jundullah, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Deobandi Jihadi groups, not to mention the active encouragement to such groups by Pakistani military and intelligence establishment, there might never be another uprising for attainment of Baloch national rights. From wanting to become a nation, the Baloch will almost certainly end up being reduced to being a minority ethnic group in their own land – a South Asian version of the Red Indians.
In a new opinion poll, Afghans have rated India as the most favourable foreign country in Afghanistan and have rejected a role for Pakistan in their country.
The opinion poll, commissioned by by BBC, ABC and German TV ARD, also shows a sharp decline in support for the Taliban.
According to the findings, 71 percent of more than 1,500 Afghans questioned endorsed India’s multifarious role in the reconstruction of the strife-torn country.
India was followed by Germany (59 percent), the US (51 percent), Iran (50 percent) and Britain (39 percent). Pakistan was found to be the least popular country, with only two percent of Afghans viewing its role favourably.{Pukistan as usual at the bottom of the list}
DAWN link wrote:However, an Indian researcher based at the National Institute of Immuno-haemotology in Mumbai will now spend time at a leading Israeli institute, Technion to study the findings of her research. Shahnaz Ali collected the blood-samples from members of the Pashtun Afridi tribe living near Lucknow, India. Previous research in a similar area failed to determine a link either way.
According to the report, 10 of the original 12 tribes of Israel were pushed into exile 2,730 years ago when the Assyrians conquered the kingdom of Israel. Modern-day Jews belong to the two remaining tribes of Benjamin and Judah, according to Jewish history. Ever since, speculation has centered on the exact whereabouts of the lost tribes. Claims of their traces in China, Burma, Nigeria and Central Asia have been offered in the past. It is believed that the tribes settled in areas around latter-day Northern Iraq and Afghanistan therefore making the Pashtun link the most compelling.
Navraas Aafreedi, an academic at Lucknow University said, “Pathans, or Pashtuns, are the only people in the world whose probable descent from the lost tribes of Israel finds mention in a number of texts from the 10th century to the present day, written by Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars alike, both religious as well as secularists.”
Code: Select all
As summarized in 2009 by Gerald J. Schmitz, Principal Analyst, International Affairs, at the Parliamentary Information and Research Service in Ottawa, Canada:
"The historical record plainly shows that Afghan efforts to build a modern liberal democracy were resisted and later fatally undermined by great power and then Cold War political 'games', not that these efforts never took place or only did so in a intrinsically inhospitable societal environment. Of course they were championed by urban elites . But the key point is that for decades the principle external actors did more to hurt than to help secular democratic aspirations in Afghanistan. No wonder they never lasted. They were never given much of a chance.
The international community has one last chance in Afghanistan. But without a better, a more complete, and honest set of assumptions about the secular democratic aspirations of Afghanistan's people, there is little chance that any The poll indicates Afghans are normal people, though with a lot of problems. Look at the large proportion of "somewhat good' / "somewhat bad" responses, and the lack of worry about foreign influence. They deserve our understanding, support and help.shaardula wrote:The BBC survey from which that article above was written.
See pages 21-25
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/p ... anpoll.pdf
Q39. Now I’m going to ask what you think about some people and groups. Is your opinion of …… very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable?
[Very favourable,Somewhat favourable,somewhat unfavorable,very unfavorable, no opinion]
Taliban
[3,7,13,75,1] --> 88% unfavourable
Alqaeda
[2,4,13,77,3] --> 90% unfavourable
TSP
[2,13,32,49,3] --> 81% unfavourable
TSP, the great self proclaimed inheritors of mughal glory, trailing the barbarians who chopped children's hands, burnt schools and assaulted women, amongst other atrocities, by a mere 9 statistical percentage points!!!!
Q40. Overall, please say if you think each of these countries is playing a positive, neutral, or negative role in Afghanistan now?
[positive, neutral, negative, no opinion]
TSP
[9,13,73,5] --> 73% outright negative, atleast 86% cant bring themselves to say TSP is a good positive influence on Afghanistan, a country that has been in tatters, eager for help and looking to build relationships. 86% of people from such a country cant say a good word about its neighbor!!!
That is some strategic depth tsp has right there.
This is gold. The link needs to be archived, preferably added to the top of every Afghanistan/Af-Pak thread.James B wrote:X-post
Afghan poll shows India most favoured, Pakistan unpopular
In a new opinion poll, Afghans have rated India as the most favourable foreign country in Afghanistan and have rejected a role for Pakistan in their country.
The opinion poll, commissioned by by BBC, ABC and German TV ARD, also shows a sharp decline in support for the Taliban.
Haven't heard the term "AfPak" coming from senior administration officials lately? There's a good reason for that. The Obama team has jettisoned the term due to Pakistani ire, according to special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke.
"We can't use it anymore because it does not please people in Pakistan, for understandable reasons," Holbrooke told the Women's Foreign Policy Group Jan. 8.
The Af-Pak terminology is disliked and has received strong criticism across Pakistan," the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs wrote in a recent report on Pakistan. "The Pakistani intelligentsia is not pleased with a de-hyphenation of the Indo-Pak equation and the hyphenation of the Pak-Afghan calculus. The issue is not only one of national pride; there is a genuine concern among the strategic enclave that the permanence of the threat from India has not eroded. ... There is objectively no interest for Pakistan to be fully involved in what is happening outside its borders, namely in Afghanistan."
Holbrooke was in India Tuesday as part of his whirlwind tour of South Asia, where he said that Indian participation is crucial to the success of the region. The Indians have made clear that they don't want Holbrooke to have India in his portfolio, so don't expect the term ‘Af-Ind' to surface anytime soon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/world ... diplo.htmlWASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s ambitious civilian push in Pakistan and Afghanistan will keep thousands of Americans in those countries for years — rebuilding Afghan agriculture, rooting out corruption and using the local media to counter anti-American sentiment.
Everyone pays lip service to the fact that the civilian strategy is important, but then no one pays attention to it,” said Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who is scheduled to testify on Thursday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.In the report, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said, “Our civilian engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan will endure long after our combat troops come home.” The United States has already tripled the number of civilians in Afghanistan, from 320 early last year to nearly 1,000 now. It plans to add 200 to 300 this year, putting many of those people outside Kabul, the capital, in agricultural projects or in government ministries, where they will serve as advisers.
Afghanistan: For the record. The Afghan government announced its goals for expanding its security forces in the next three to five years. The plan calls for security force levels to reach 400,000, including 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 national police, the Associated Press reported today.
At present Afghanistan claims to have 94,000 police officers and 97,000 soldiers. A British Colonel who is a member of the planning team for the security forces said that the team would be asked to approve a goal of 134,000 soldiers and 109,000 police by the end of this year. That would increase to 172,000 soldiers and 134,000 police by the end of next year.
The numbers are mainly on paper. The purpose of this entry is to update readers about the official numbers.
The literacy rate and level of familiarity with technology are so low that the goal of adding 40,000 soldiers this year is not credible and can only be a paper drill. In the past 8 years, the annual average increase has been just over 11,700 soldiers and more than half desert. What would make anyone think an increase of 40,000 soldiers, regardless of their lack of capability, was achievable this year? Moreover, while Afghanistan needs more police, it urgently needs paramilitary police.
Boss truth and what the Afghans want/feel won't sway these retards. Its US national interests that will dominate. And if this dictates that TSP must be kept happy, then so be it. The frustrating thing is that "Indian influence is detrimental to regional peace", "Indian presence in Afganisthan pissed off TSP" has assumed sinister connotations in western parlance that it is never questioned. Its like saying that X has a ligitimate grouse because X's neighbor, Y's wife is sexier, and this results in tension between X & Y. I fault the Indian govt and Indian elites and media to have let this nonsense assume a life of its own.Rudradev wrote: Afghan poll shows India most favoured, Pakistan unpopular
Now whenever a Barbara Crossette, Milt Bearden, Michael Scheuer or Zbignew Brzezinski start making noise about "Indian influence in Afghanistan is upsetting our ally Pakistan and disrupting the war on terror"... this data, from a Western source, can be used to stuff their pie-holes.
WSJ LINK wrote:Pakistan has been pursuing a military campaign in South Waziristan, a tribal region bordering North Waziristan that was also a safe haven for al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. Already, Mr. Haqqani is beginning to feel the pressure in his rear flank in North Waziristan, say tribal elders and militants in the region.
Residents of Miran Shah, the main city in North Waziristan, say that a number of Islamic seminaries used by the Haqqanis have been largely abandoned in the past two weeks, except for a skeleton staff of guards. The Haqqani loyalists moved out partly because they feared retaliatory U.S. strikes following the CIA attack, said Gul Khan, the tribal elder.
But "they see that there are soldiers in South Waziristan and everywhere else," he said, referring to the most recent offensive against the Pakistan Taliban, which is taking place on Mr. Haqqani's doorstep. "They're all underground now. It's a very dangerous time."
Pakistan's army has said it will launch no new offensives on militants in 2010, as the US defence secretary arrived for talks on combating Taliban fighters.
An idea that has received little media attention in Britain, but is giving Foreign Office diplomats sleepless nights, is David Miliband’s push for a "regional stabilisation council" involving Pakistan, India and Afghanistan, to be unveiled at the international conference scheduled for January 28. The idea is seen as an innovate way to bring the three countries together, while at the same time allowing the Foreign Secretary, who will formally host the conference, to show leadership and initiative. The pretender to the post-election Labour throne needs something to get rid of his “Banana Boy” epithet.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/lauraroze ... ml?showallIndia, however, is in no mood to budge. Senior Indian officials say the killing of 58 people in a suicide bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, last year, was intended by Pakistan’s military establishment as a warning to New Delhi not to deepen involvement in Afghanistan. A "regional stabilisation council" is not going to solve these problems, but it may provide a useful platform to discuss a range of issues, or even simply provide greater transparency about (some of) the work that Indian and Pakistan undertake in Afghanistan. Even such modest progress could reap substantial benefits in its relations with both countries.
he State Department released a 39-page report detailing its civilian strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan today.
"While our combat mission in Afghanistan is not open-ended, we will remain politically, diplomatically, and economically engaged in Afghanistan and Pakistan for the long-term to protect our enduring interests in the region," the report, prepared by Special Representative Richard Holbrooke and his staff and signed by Hillary Clinton, said.
The New York Times' Mark Landler, who previewed the report overnight, noted that while "it's the most detailed blueprint yet for the civilian part of the administration’s strategy in the region," it "leaves important questions unanswered, including whether Congress will approve the financing to support such a high level of engagement over the long term, and what role the United States will play in Afghan efforts to draw people away from the Taliban."
Taliban Overhaul Image to Win Allies
Published: January 20, 2010
KABUL, Afghanistan — The Taliban have embarked on a sophisticated information war, using modern media tools as well as some old-fashioned ones, to soften their image and win favor with local Afghans as they try to counter the Americans’ new campaign to win Afghan hearts and minds.
The Taliban’s spiritual leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, issued a lengthy directive late last spring outlining a new code of conduct for the Taliban. The dictates include bans on suicide bombings against civilians, burning down schools, or cutting off ears, lips and tongues.
The code, which has been spottily enforced, does not necessarily mean a gentler insurgency. Although the Taliban warned some civilians away before the assault on the heart of Kabul on Monday, they were still responsible for three-quarters of civilian casualties last year, according to the United Nations.
Taliban Changing?Afghan villagers and some NATO officials added that the code had begun to change the way some midlevel Taliban commanders and their followers behaved on the ground. A couple of the most brutal commanders have even been removed by Mullah Omar.
eh.. an attempt to make ak-pak a love triange.. kinda ap-pak-ind!'World should take lessons from India's work in Afghan'
India's [ Images ] development efforts in Afghanistan provide "more bang per buck" and the international community should take some lessons from it, British High Commissioner Richard Stagg said in New Delhi [ Images ] on Friday.
His remarks come ahead of the London [ Images ] Conference, convened by Afghanistan, the UK and the United Nations on January 28, to coordinate global reconstruction efforts in the strife-torn country.
"India's reconstruction programme in Afghanistan has more impact per dollar than other international efforts. This is probably what we can learn from India," Stagg said.
He noted that the Indian efforts were more focussed on the civilian sector while international thrust was more on the military side.
Stagg said the European Union had plans to spend $ 1.3 billion on development programmes in Afghanistan this year.
However, he said that Indian efforts were "very underknown and undervalued", and expected External Affairs Minister S M Krishna [ Images ] to tell the London Conference what India was doing in Afghanistan.
"It is an opportunity for minister Krishna to tell what India is doing, why it matters and some of his perspectives on why the Indian approach is the one we must think about adopting ourselves," Stagg said.
Asked whether Britain had made any request to India to train the Afghan National Army, he said no such request was made.
Stagg said India could play an important role in any regional framework to stabilise Afghanistan.
At the same time, he said Britain believed that Russia [ Images ], Iran, China need to be involved in supporting a settlement in Afghanistan.
"They all have the capacity to make a resolution for Afghanistan... We need to be sure that they are part of a regional framework," the high commissioner said.
He said Afghan President Hamid Karzai's [ Images ] "credible and coherent" view for Afghanistan needs to be backed by the international community.
Ministers from more than 60 countries are expected to attend the London conference on January 28 and announce fresh commitments for reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Stagg noted that US President Barack Obama [ Images ] had in December announced a major surge of more than 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan in a bid to defeat the Taliban [ Images ] and the Al Qaeda
Nato's top commander in Afghanistan has said increased troop levels could bring a negotiated peace with the Taliban.
US Gen Stanley McChrystal told the UK's Financial Times newspaper that there had been "enough fighting".
He said a political solution in all conflicts was "inevitable". His remarks came as the top UN envoy in Kabul said it was time to talk to the militants.
Afghan and Pakistani leaders are in Turkey to discuss tackling the Taliban-led insurgency in their countries.
This is the fourth such meeting initiated by Turkey, which has offered to broker talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban.
Both Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his Pakistani counterpart, Asif Ali Zardari, will attend an international conference on Afghanistan in London on Thursday.
A Russian official told Turtle Bay today that his government will not remove Taliban militants from a U.N. list of individuals once suspected of engaging in terrorist activities, thwarting U.S. and U.N. aims to entice so-called moderate Taliban to make peace or switch sides in the Afghan war and support the Western-backed government of Hamid Karzai.
The United States ambassador in Kabul warned his superiors here in November that President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan “is not an adequate strategic partner” and “continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden,” according to a classified cable that offers a much bleaker accounting of the risks of sending additional American troops to Afghanistan than was previously known.
They show that Mr. Eikenberry, a retired Army lieutenant general who once was the top American commander in Afghanistan, repeatedly cautioned that deploying sizable American reinforcements would result in “astronomical costs” — tens of billions of dollars — and would only deepen the dependence of the Afghan government on the United States.
“Sending additional forces will delay the day when Afghans will take over, and make it difficult, if not impossible, to bring our people home on a reasonable timetable,” he wrote Nov. 6. “An increased U.S. and foreign role in security and governance will increase Afghan dependence, at least in the short-term.”
On Nov. 6, Mr. Eikenberry wrote: “President Karzai is not an adequate strategic partner. The proposed counterinsurgency strategy assumes an Afghan political leadership that is both able to take responsibility and to exert sovereignty in the furtherance of our goal — a secure, peaceful, minimally self-sufficient Afghanistan hardened against transnational terrorist groups.
“Yet Karzai continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden, whether defense, governance or development. He and much of his circle do not want the U.S. to leave and are only too happy to see us invest further,” Mr. Eikenberry wrote. “They assume we covet their territory for a never-ending ‘war on terror’ and for military bases to use against surrounding powers.”
He continued, “Beyond Karzai himself, there is no political ruling class that provides an overarching national identity that transcends local affiliations and provides reliable partnership.”
In a second cable, dated Nov. 9, he expressed new concerns: “In a PBS interview on November 7, Karzai sounded bizarrely cautionary notes about his willingness to address governance and corruption. This tracks with his record of inaction or grudging compliance in this area.”
He also noted worries that the success of Mr. Obama’s Afghanistan policy hinged on Pakistani forces’ eliminating militants’ havens in the mountainous region near the Afghan border.
“Pakistan will remain the single greatest source of Afghan instability so long as the border sanctuaries remain,” he wrote. “Until this sanctuary problem is fully addressed, the gains from sending additional forces may be fleeting.”
“As we contemplate greatly expanding our presence in Afghanistan, the better answer to our difficulties could well be to further ratchet up our engagement in Pakistan,” he wrote without elaboration.
Six Italian soldiers have been killed in a bomb attack on a military convoy in the Afghan capital, Kabul.
Two military vehicles were reported to have been hit by a suicide car bomb. At least 10 civilians were also killed and dozens injured, officials said.
The Taliban have claimed responsibility for the attack in the city centre.
LONDON: Ministers and military experts from around the world are set to gather in the British capital Thursday for a day's meeting on Afghanistan marked by an unprecedented bid to persuade India to undertake a more high-profile role in the embattled country.
"I believe that the neighbours of Afghanistan should come together to help sustain an infant democracy like Afghanistan. India has a big role to play," British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Monday amid speculation over proposals for a regional stabilisation council' involving Afghanistan, India and Pakistan.
Although details of the proposals are being kept under wraps, and Islamabad has already opposed involving New Delhi, commentators and strategic experts said NATO powers were looking increasingly at India for fresh ideas to resolve the Afghan crisis.
"The road to success for NATO's strategy runs through India," wrote a commentator in The Spectator, a respected British magazine that supports the Conservative Party, currently in opposition.
Check comments.However, experts said New Delhi will reject the proposal if it felt that would open up backdoor attempts to discuss Kashmir.
