Afghanistan News & Discussion

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 24 Jun 2010 08:36

Now the full article from Rolling Stone. Six pages long.
The Runaway General

Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Jun 2010 08:39

KABUL: The sacking of NATO commander General Stanley McChrystal was greeted with dismay in Kabul where Afghan officials and foreign diplomats praised his bold efforts to change the course of the war.McChrystal's counter-insurgency strategy, which brought sweeping changes aimed at cutting civilian casualties and winning over the population, was widely credited with bringing some order to a chaotic and spriralling conflict.Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government had publicly urged the White House not to remove McChrystal over disparaging remarks he made about officials in US President Barack Obama's administration in a magazine profile.
A spokesman for Karzai -- whose relations with the White House have been troubled -- praised McChrystal as a “trusted partner of the Afghan people” and said his removal would “not be helpful” at this critical juncture

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... king-hh-01

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 24 Jun 2010 09:06

Fareed is ga-ga over Petraeus:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/23/z ... index.html

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 24 Jun 2010 09:19

pgbhat wrote:^ x2 to that. McChrystal was close to Karzai, Petraeus is chummy with Kayani.

Well, Karzai was reduced to an Afghani equivalent of the Kaangress. Election-rigging, bribery, kleptocracy. That's all grist for the jihadi mill. The last good leader that country had was hanged from a lamp-post by the Taliban. Even Masood was a bit of a naive ideologue.

Even if Petraeus is chummy with Kayani, will he be able to deliver gains on the ground?

With McChrystal's departure, there's one less fall guy around - one less layer of protection for the men at the top.

Obama's plan through McChrystal was to supposedly go in hot pursuit of AlQaeda in the hinterland of Pak Balochistan - but that hasn't happened.
Instead, McChrystal was stuck executing the remaining half of the plan, which was to get as many boots on the ground to accomplish a surge in Afghanistan. But Afghanistan is too big and too hostile for a surge to work - especially when the Taliban have a free hand to operate out of Pak territory.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 24 Jun 2010 09:23

If you read the Rolling Stone article in its entirety, you will see that it is a Hit Piece. Not unlike the kind of contrived character-assassinations that Tehelka has pulled off in the past, sending in an ostensibly innocent reporter whose mission is actually to defame rather than illuminate.

Rolling Stone is a hippie rock'n'roll dishrag... a far-left mouthpiece which ran extremist Obamaphile stories throughout the 2008 election campaign. Its political bent is firmly under the control of the Obamistas.

The purpose of this article was to dig out off-the-record jibes by McChrystal and his staff towards the Obama administration... opinions that probably a lot of military men would essay about their civilian masters in private. And then to publish those opinions in the clear light of day, portraying McChrystal as some sort of insubordinate loose-cannon Rambo unfit to lead the US war in Afghanistan.

To my mind, the entire thing was planned by Axelrod, Emmanuel and others in the Obama White House to provide a pretext for the sacking of McChrystal. Why?

Well, if you notice, the one voice in favour of retaining McChrystal in Afghanistan has been that of Defense Secy Robert Gates... a professional and a hold-over from the Bush administration. The opposition to McChrystal appears to have come from the hardcore Obamistas, and from the State Department.

Is it coincidence that, upto now, the management of Afghan policy had largely become the domain of the Pentagon? That, despite the vapid blatherings of Holbrooke and the vague indecisiveness of Obama, ultimately the war on the ground (and all ancillary diplomacy) was being conducted by Gates and his generals?

What better way for the State Dept and the White House to re-assert control over the Af-Pak situation than by discrediting and removing the Pentagon's point man, who had been largely responsible for supplying the building-blocks and rationale for the Pentagon's Afghan policy?

I am no fan of McChrystal. His memo to the effect that India's involvement in Afghanistan was "not helpful" shows that he was no particular friend of India. But still, the Karzai government trusted him to some extent. And he was apparently serious about nation-building and counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, and committed to the long haul, as opposed to the smug easy-way-out prescriptions of Joe Biden and other Paki-philes.

It is a bad thing for Karzai, for Afghanistan, and separately for India, that McChrystal has been replaced with the Paki-phile General David Petraeus :

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... -060-hh-08

Pakistan's image on Capitol Hill received a much-needed boost on Thursday. Gen David Petraeus, head of the US Central Command, told a congressional hearing that he did not fully accept the findings of a recent study which alleges that Pakistani intelligence is providing operational support to the Afghan Taliban.

Although he maintained that Pakistan’s decades-old ties with Afghan insurgents “continue in various forms”, Gen Petraeus also pointed out that such links actually help intelligence-gathering. “[Y]ou have to have contact with bad guys to get intelligence on bad guys,” is how he summed it up. No one without blinkers on can deny that organs of the Pakistani state provided logistical and material support to the Taliban movement in the ’90s. But anyone who claims, as the London School of Economics ‘study’ did, that Pakistani intelligence is overseeing the ongoing Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is clearly out of touch with the current reality. True, there may be individual Taliban sympathisers in the ranks of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies and it is incumbent upon our security apparatus to weed them out. But concerted institutional support to the extent claimed in the report? Hardly likely. Here it should be noted that the LSE study depends heavily on the views of Afghan intelligence which is dominated by former Northern Alliance members who have their own axe to grind when it comes to Pakistan.

Gen Petraeus’s frank assessment should take off some of the pressure on Pakistan’s security agencies whose commitment to the wider fight against militancy has long been questioned in Washington. The views he has expressed in recent days perhaps also show that those who are physically prosecuting the war in Afghanistan are more in touch with ground realities than the politicians sitting in Washington. Or maybe the White House has to play to multiple galleries and hence the carrot-and-stick policy of the Obama administration. In any case, Centcom appears to have realised that leaning heavily on Pakistan and its armed forces can only be counterproductive. Total cooperation will not be forthcoming that way and the loss will be America’s and Afghanistan’s. Pakistan is doing all it can with its limited resources and should not be expected to do more.

Betray-us is a 400% apologist for the TSPA/ISI. Combined with the sacking of Amrullah Saleh and other Karzai cabinet members who were actually realistic about Pakistan, the removal of McChrystal and appointment of Petraeus are a sure sign that the Paki-philes in the Obama administration (who want to pay Pakistan, give up Kabul to the "Good Taliban" and get out by 2011) are behind all of this.

A sign of panic by the Obama administration, no doubt, as I referenced in my earlier post.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 69#p893069
They apparently decided they MUST cut and run from AfPak if they are to have any hope of re-election in 2012; and the slow, deliberate COIN policy of McChrystal wasn't going to get them there in time. So McChrystal had to be portrayed as a "cultish zealot" and removed at all costs.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 Jun 2010 11:00

The general in his labyrinth

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... _labyrinth

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 Jun 2010 11:56

McChrystal: Gone and Soon Forgotten

http://www.slate.com/id/2257956/

Still, canning McChrystal doesn't end the dysfunctional disunity that has plagued the war effort for many months. The U.S. ambassador, Gen. Karl Eikenberry, is on record as stating that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is an unsuitable partner for a counterinsurgency campaign. He may be right—he almost certainly is right—but, since counterinsurgency cannot succeed without a suitable partner heading the national government, Eikenberry is in essence disagreeing with the policy. His relations with McChrystal were exacerbated by the fact that the two men are longtime rivals; but those personal animosities clouded a professional tension that is probably untenable. If U.S. policy isn't going to change, Eikenberry, too, should go.

Richard Holbrooke should be sent packing, as well. He's the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but after he screamed at Karzai at one of their meetings, he's no longer welcome at the palace in Kabul. (It took a trip by Sen. John Kerry and 300 cups of tea to settle the Afghan president down.) Holbrooke would have been canned a while ago, were it not for special pleading by his immediate boss and longtime friend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But, as Obama said today, "War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president." He should expand the list to include "a special envoy."

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 Jun 2010 12:05

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/special ... ste-crisis

So McChrystal should not be the only one to go. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and “AfPak” czar Richard Holbrooke should likewise either submit their resignations or be fired by President Obama. Vice President Biden and his surrogates should be told to sit down and be quiet, to stop fighting policy battles in the press. The administration's "team of rivals" approach is producing only rivalry.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jun 2010 14:50

If every one from the GoTU who has worked in Afganistan has to resign on the issue, probably the problem is coming from the point where all there reporting chains meet.

Will Barak Hussein Obama have the courage to fire the real failure

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 24 Jun 2010 15:46

The best way to equip the local police and army. The British should not loose any more soldier there. It is a waste of lives without any proper objectives. They better focus on building a few oil well and share the wealth with the locals in this way. US too should consider withdrawing soon but with some stationed in important areas as support army rather than loosing through offensives. Pakistan supplies arms. It is better to provide threat to Pakistan and its isi to stop supporting Taliban in their North and stop supplying and training them. Also Ask Pakistan to fight against their own internal enemies there. All the supply of arms to these areas should be stopped including Chinese and other international arm suppliers who do this for money. If Afganistan is not working out her own terror. then divide it into small nations which will not be threat to neighbour nor to any others nearby. The same fate should be considered for Pakistan too if they are not able to contain their terrorism this will have to be the result.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Jun 2010 17:21

Gen.Big (mouth) Mac has been sacked and another Gen.Stone-Ass (Petraeus) has replaced him.This war is beginning to resemble the change of guard during WW1!"One staff officer jumped over another staff officer,s back....they were only playing leapfrog",the WW1 song immortalised in Attenboorough,s film,"Oh what a lovely war".This war is now longer than WW2 and Vietnam and the US,White House and military men are clueless,barring the sacked Gen.Big Mac.as to what the real situ is.

America is in a foreign land as invaders,does not understand the people there,their religion,culture and the nature of the terrain where the British twice during colnial times and now back again for another painful experience,plus the Russians and Pakis through their proxy,the Taliban could never conquer or hold.So the jokers and "clowns" as Gen.Big Mac put it in the White House ,will continue to send more of America,s youth to die on Afghan,s dusty soil.Another invader and the same result will happen in the end.Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.Obama will wear Afghanistan around his neck like a noose when history tells the tale.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 25 Jun 2010 07:50

The tick-tock: How President Obama took command of the McChrystal situation

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38962.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 25 Jun 2010 09:58

As Generals Change, Afghan Debate Narrows to 2 Powerful Voices

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/world ... raeus.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 25 Jun 2010 10:49

A 'do over' in Afghanistan?

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... fghanistan

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 25 Jun 2010 22:27

Major offensive in serious trouble

Hastings also paints a grim picture of the major U.S. offensive in Kandahar. "I think it's in trouble, in serious trouble," he says. "The fighting is really, really heavy and they've postponed the heaviest fighting till the fall. But it's going to be nasty."

On Khandhar offensive:

I think it's in trouble, in serious trouble. The fighting is really, really heavy and they've postponed the heaviest fighting till the fall. But it's going to be nasty. This June has been the deadliest month of the war. You have this problem where we told our Afghan partners, if you don't want it , then we don't have to do it, and they said no and we said, well, we're doing it anyway. Now we're in situation where we are eventually going to do it and we don't have the popular support of the locals.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 26 Jun 2010 08:54

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... or_the_day

So here's my question: Are there good historical examples where a great power withdrew because a foreign military
intervention wasn't going well, and where hindsight shows that the decision to withdraw was a terrible blunder? If there are plenty of examples where states fought too long and got out too late, are there clear-cut cases where states got out too early?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 26 Jun 2010 09:44

SwamyG wrote:Major offensive in serious trouble
Hastings also paints a grim picture of the major U.S. offensive in Kandahar. "I think it's in trouble, in serious trouble," he says. "The fighting is really, really heavy and they've postponed the heaviest fighting till the fall. But it's going to be nasty."
On Khandhar offensive:
I think it's in trouble, in serious trouble. The fighting is really, really heavy and they've postponed the heaviest fighting till the fall. But it's going to be nasty. This June has been the deadliest month of the war. You have this problem where we told our Afghan partners, if you don't want it , then we don't have to do it, and they said no and we said, well, we're doing it anyway. Now we're in situation where we are eventually going to do it and we don't have the popular support of the locals.

The whole strategy is wrong IMHO. If the US has any intention of winning this war, the goal should be to pick off the leaders of the bad guys one by one, using intelligence from the population. Making sure everybody has access to mobile phone service would be useful. What is required is mostly police + intelligence + occasional precision air-strikes. Also, inside TSP, use drones against core ISI assets like the Haqqanis.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 26 Jun 2010 10:04

Petraeus May Relax Rules of Engagement

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 26 Jun 2010 11:11

Sanjay M wrote:Petraeus May Relax Rules of Engagement

I was listening to NPR and was marveling the manner in which the so called "free press" can skillfully and casually tom tom official policy when it comes to national interests. They reported that US troops were unhappy with McChrystal becase of the rules of engagement he set to limit civilian casualties. This, the reporter said meant that US troops were forced to fight with one hand tied to their backs. Now if you look at the thrust, it was that McChrystal is to blame. The bit about civilian casualties is mentioned in so innocuous a manner that for the average Joe-six-pack; its jee, McChrystal is a jerk, he is not allowing our guys to fight. Now, I am no big fan of this maacho McChrystal; just pointing out the nationalist character of the US media. Imagine the same mofos were reporting about Indian army in J&K. There, every objective nuance that they learnt in journalism 101 will be on play. The only emphasis will be on Indian army causing civilian casualties; not the fact that the local scum in J&K are giving cover to TSP LET, not the fact that Indian army is fighting with their hands tied behind their backs etc. Propaganda at its vintage best.

Vashishtha · Post by **Vashishtha** » 26 Jun 2010 14:49

i dont know if this has clicked here before but isint pakistan sponsoring education to afghani children??....
If so then they are gonna get radicalized too right??

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 26 Jun 2010 18:03

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... dency.html

Obama will run for re-election with far more troops in Afghanistan than Bush ever had

Obama's pledge to start withdrawing troops in 2011 is now kaput. It won't happen. I doubt it will happen in a second term either

Kiya-nahi and company must be choking on their sh.t..

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 26 Jun 2010 18:08

American headlines can be really funny, give TSP a run for money...here it goes in Washington Post -

In Afghanistan, Petraeus will have difficulty replicating his Iraq success

So they are calling Iraq a success....a huge one, like 1971 was for TSP...

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 26 Jun 2010 18:11

Pranav wrote:
The whole strategy is wrong IMHO. If the US has any intention of winning this war, the goal should be to pick off the leaders of the bad guys one by one, using intelligence from the population. Making sure everybody has access to mobile phone service would be useful. What is required is mostly police + intelligence + occasional precision air-strikes. Also, inside TSP, use drones against core ISI assets like the Haqqanis.

This is exactly the sort of thing required to defeat the Talibs:

Taliban commander, disguised as woman, shot dead
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiap ... .violence/

Authorities identified the man as Ghulam Sakhi, the senior Taliban commander in northern Logar province.

ISAF said intelligence sources tracked Sakhi to a compound near the village of Qal-eh Saber in Pul-e 'Alam district.

After Afghan troops called for women and children to leave a building, Sakhi came out with the group, disguised in women's attire.

ISAF said he pulled out a pistol and a grenade and fired at troops. Afghan and coalition forces shot him and he dropped the grenade, which detonated and wounded a woman and two children.

Authorities say Sakhi was involved in improvised explosive device attacks, ambushes and indirect fire attacks. He also kidnapped and killed a National Directorate of Security chief in Logar province.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 26 Jun 2010 18:13

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 72498.html

Interesting...Petraeus registered as Republican in NH, appears on conservative think-tanks and may challenge Obama in 2012....are the liberal wimps sending him to Afghan hoping to see him fade away?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 26 Jun 2010 19:22

The US is really being subjected to significant pain in Afghanistan. Casualty rate has shot up.

Bodies found beheaded in Afghanistan; 4 troops die
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD9GINMN00
(AP) – 10 hours ago

KABUL, Afghanistan — Four American troops were reported killed and the bodies of 11 Afghan men, some beheaded, were found in rising violence across Afghanistan.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 26 Jun 2010 19:54

Suppiah wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 72498.html

Interesting...Petraeus registered as Republican in NH, appears on conservative think-tanks and may challenge Obama in 2012....are the liberal wimps sending him to Afghan hoping to see him fade away?

Those are Republican dreams because they are groping in the dark looking for a candidate with a national profile who can challenge Obama. It's not going to happen. Interestingly enough McChrystal had voted for Obama.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 26 Jun 2010 22:18

Suppiah wrote:American headlines can be really funny, give TSP a run for money...here it goes in Washington Post -

In Afghanistan, Petraeus will have difficulty replicating his Iraq success

So they are calling Iraq a success....a huge one, like 1971 was for TSP...

I was listening to some anal-yst this morning on what it is that DP will bring to the table given his "roaring success" in Iraq. First of all, DP better be careful; he is conferred a demi God status by all & sundry. Anyway, I was waiting for the anal-yst to give me some real information. Instaed all I got was heaps of vacuous praises of DP; DP is 167 star general, he convinced the American people we can "win" in Iraq, bla bla. I thought to myself, ass hole give me some substance for all the huge moolah your are doled out. And what did he come up with? DP has the "extraordinary" ability to reach out, even to adversaries, and thats the skill he apparently brings. WTF this means, and why is this different from SMcH, I don't know.

Another uber anal-yst cracked me up. He cited yesterday's NYT's artcile on TSP getting a foot-hold in Afganisthan through the Haqqani scum. He said US should not impeded TSP's efforts. He added, TSP is the front-line state and should take the lead in bringing piss to Afganisthan and US should do all it can to help TSP.

Guys: the more desparation I see in US to get out of AfPak, the more I sense that they will look for any dog bone to declare victory. And in this atmosphere, India pressing its interests in Afganisthan sending TSP into a tizzy, will meet with furious resistamce from US. My gut tells me that MMS is begging TSP to allow India the toothless dog bone to stay in Afganisthan, do some dirty work so it can get some PR value, while TSPA rules the roost. Thats the end game. Remember, TSP RAPE have no problem as long as they lord over SDREs. After all, Moghul TFTAs ruled over SDREs for 100s of years onlee. And that will be the model for J&K, at least POK & the valley: TSP rules the roost, while India builds roads, hospitals, schools etc. And the west will declare how their efforts in AfPak brought piss between India & TSP.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 27 Jun 2010 02:12

Non-Pashtun Afghans Fearful of Karzai's Overtures to Taliban

Who does Karzai actually speak for, again? If Taliban speaks for most Pashtuns, then how does the Pashtun Karzai speak for anybody else?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 Jun 2010 07:27

^^ From the article posted above:

“Karzai is giving Afghanistan back to the Taliban, and he is opening up the old schisms,” said Rehman Oghly, an Uzbek member of Parliament and once a member of an anti-Taliban militia. “If he wants to bring in the Taliban, and they begin to use force, then we will go back to civil war and Afghanistan will be split.”

There are growing indications of ethnic fissures inside the army. President Karzai recently decided to remove Bismullah Khan, the chief of staff of the Afghan Army, and make him the interior minister instead. Mr. Khan is an ethnic Tajik, and a former senior leader of the Northern Alliance, the force that fought the Taliban in the years before Sept. 11. Whom Mr. Karzai decides to put in Mr. Khan’s place will be closely watched.

One recent source of tension was the resignation of Armullah Saleh, the head of Afghan intelligence service and an ethnic Tajik. Mr. Saleh, widely regarded as one of the most competent aides, resigned after Mr. Karzai said he no longer had faith that he could do the job.

Other prominent Afghans have begun to organize along mostly ethnic lines. Abdullah Abdullah, the former foreign minister and presidential candidate, has been hosting gatherings at his farm outside Kabul. In an interview, he said he was preparing to announce the formation of what would amount to an opposition party. Mr. Abdullah, who is of Pashtun and Tajik heritage, said his movement would include Afghans from all the major communities. But his source of power has historically been Afghanistan’s Tajik community.

But no one here doubts that any of these groups, with their bloody histories of fighting the Taliban, could arm themselves quickly if they wished.

“Karzai has begun the ethnic war,” said Mohammed Mohaqeq, a Hazara leader and a former ally of the president. “The future is very dark.”

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 27 Jun 2010 07:52

CRamS: Your point is very valid about NPR. When rubber meets the road, the system activates all its limbs into a fighting machine. I paraphrase what I heard on radio...A Russian immigrant had called in to radio talk show host. He opined the difference between US and Russian citizens are that the Russians know their government has an agenda and propaganda whereas the Americans do not know that about their government. The American system is that good.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 27 Jun 2010 09:03

abhishek_sharma,

So you understand then that the non-Pashtun ethnic groups of Afghanistan, who themselves make up 55% of the population, will not be hand-delivered by Karzai into the arms of Pakistani domination.

Karzai is a fool if he thinks he can get away with this. He will only end up in exile (at least he will be spared the lamp-post), wondering stupidly where his govt went.

Karzai will spend the remainder of his floundering tenure trying to shift non-Pashtuns out of sensitive positions, before they openly revolt against him. India then needs to spend this time building up roads and infrastructure for the Northern half of Afghanistan, since the Pashtun South will be under Pak control. That way the North will be better-positioned to make a clean break from the South, and it will likewise have better warfighting capabilities against the Taliban-dominated South. Unfortunately, all Pashtuns will have to be ethnically cleansed from the North, in order to keep them from acting like the 5th Columnists they are (even Karzai himself is proof of that).

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 27 Jun 2010 10:04

Karzai Nominates New Ministers

KABUL—Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Saturday submitted to parliamentarians a list of several new ministers, naming Army Chief of Staff Gen. Bismullah Khan to the key post of minister of interior, lawmakers and diplomats said.

The previous minister of interior, Hanif Atmar, and the country's intelligence chief, Amrullah Saleh, were pushed out by Mr. Karzai last month, in a surprise decision that disheartened Western diplomats and coalition commanders. Both officials had voiced reservations about Mr. Karzai's planned outreach to the Taliban.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 27 Jun 2010 10:06

Sanjay M wrote:Unfortunately, all Pashtuns will have to be ethnically cleansed from the North, in order to keep them from acting like the 5th Columnists they are (even Karzai himself is proof of that).

We need to help Northerners defend themselves but don't write off the Pashtuns - there are plenty of them that hate the Taliban. Furthermore, there are plenty of Talibs that hate the Paks. Karzai is trying to save his own ass.

“Pakistan is so famous for treachery that it is said that they can get milk from a bull… They have two tongues in one mouth, and two faces in one head, so they can speak everybody’s language; they use everybody, deceive everybody. They deceive the Arabs under the guise of Islamic nuclear power, they milk America and Europe in the alliance against terrorism, and they have been deceiving Pakistani and other Muslims around the world in the name of Kashmiri jihad.”

Mullah Abdul Zaeef, former Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... 58/394158/

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Jun 2010 14:35

Sanjay M wrote:Karzai will spend the remainder of his floundering tenure trying to shift non-Pashtuns out of sensitive positions, before they openly revolt against him. India then needs to spend this time building up roads and infrastructure for the Northern half of Afghanistan, since the Pashtun South will be under Pak control. That way the North will be better-positioned to make a clean break from the South, and it will likewise have better warfighting capabilities against the Taliban-dominated South. Unfortunately, all Pashtuns will have to be ethnically cleansed from the North, in order to keep them from acting like the 5th Columnists they are (even Karzai himself is proof of that).

Let's not be too hasty in putting all our eggs in one basket. We should support the Northern Alliance in their goals of achieving security and moderately good living standards for the region.

But we should also extend our hand to whatever Pushtun dispensation rises in Southern Afghanistan. If it is the Taliban, then let it be the Taliban.

Hospitals, power generation and power distribution, and roads connecting Southern Afghanistan to the North and Iran are areas where we can help them. The Pakistanis cannot do all that. They don't know how to build. Their only experience with the Pushtuns is to encourage destruction in Afghanistan and their own political influence. The Afghans know the nature of Pakistanis and ISI. Right now, they are in alliance with the Pakistanis, because nobody else would be willing to support them.

Let's cut down on our own ideological leanings and extend support to the Taliban as well. May be someday, they will be more than willing to show the ISI the middle finger.

As long as they don't have a country, they have no responsibilities and hardly any motivation to have infrastructure there, but once they get their country, they have all the more reason to look for cooperation from others. Beating women with sticks goes only so far, religion too must take a 5 minute break.

We don't need to have puppets of our own in Southern Afghanistan, only to be able to neutralize Pakistan's influence there and keep their respect for the Durand Line at a minimum.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 27 Jun 2010 15:40

I agree that we should support Taliban on mutually beneficial terms, particularly if they agree to purify Tsp and leave us alone. However, in practical terms that would be difficult if there is a violent conflict between NA and Talibs in a sort of rewind of history. Then NA would desert us as well and TSP+ME barbarians animal kingdoms would support Taliban so they don't need us much.

So we have to wait for / create situation where Talibs are in some sort of deal with NA/non-Pashtuns. This is possible because by now Talibs have hopefully come to understand the limits of their own reach, both within and outside the Pashtun community. They also know the cost of being a pariah regime and more importantly the cost of being held to ransom by Pakbarian animals..

The other possibility is of course, a complete breakup of Afghan into ethnic countries like in Yugo or Czech etc.. In such case, supporting both, Taliban in particular becomes a viable solution, particularly because that would be a rump state closer to us, and more importantly with an ability to do a == with Pashtun areas of TSP.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 27 Jun 2010 15:49

RajeshA wrote: We don't need to have puppets of our own in Southern Afghanistan, only to be able to neutralize Pakistan's influence there and keep their respect for the Durand Line at a minimum.

For all the talk of bunnies being Pakbarian puppets, they never agreed to this Durand line or border with Tsp in their years in power

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 Jun 2010 16:13

Gen McChrystal downbeat on Afghan war before sacking: Report

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 098105.cms

The Independent on Sunday said leaked military documents showed McChrystal had briefed defence ministers from the countries involved in the war earlier this month and warned them to expect no progress in the next six months.

But the newspaper suggested the article was only one reason why the general quit, saying his candour about the reality of the situation in Afghanistan was an obstacle to plans for an early US withdrawal.

"Stan argued for time, and would not compromise. Rolling Stone provided an excuse for Obama to fire the opposition to his plan without having to win an intellectual argument," it quoted an unnamed senior military source as saying.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Jun 2010 16:41

Suppiah wrote:
RajeshA wrote: We don't need to have puppets of our own in Southern Afghanistan, only to be able to neutralize Pakistan's influence there and keep their respect for the Durand Line at a minimum.
For all the talk of bunnies being Pakbarian puppets, they never agreed to this Durand line or border with Tsp in their years in power

ISI would go back to their program of encouraging the Taliban/Pushtun to take over the whole of Afghanistan, i.e. to push into Northern Afghanistan into the Tajik, Hazara, Turkomen, regions.

India's efforts should be to work with the international community to make Afghanistan an ethnic federation with pockets of mixed control, places like Kabul and Herat. If India can get a stable arrangement in Afghanistan, then the Taliban war effort would be directed rather southwards into FATA, Pakhtunkhwa Khyber and Northern Baluchistan through TTP, etc., bringing them in conflict with TSPA and Pakjabis.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 27 Jun 2010 18:04

Pranav wrote:“Pakistan is so famous for treachery that it is said that they can get milk from a bull… ”
Mullah Abdul Zaeef, former Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan.

LOL!

milk from a bull

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 27 Jun 2010 21:11

The facts that you're all pointing out mean that Pak has to resort to fanatical jihadism once again, because otherwise Pak has no way to seize the northern part of Afghanistan. It doesn't have the money to buy everybody, it doesn't have the conventional capability to directly invade, a la East Timor. All it has is the ability to propagate jihadism, to re-establish its control northwards of the Durand Line. Even this will cost it a lot of money, munitions and military personnel, but that's the only path available to Pak. The thing is then that Pak can't exercise enough control over the loosely-bound jihadi forces to prevent AlQaeda and other pan-Islamist militants from nestling there. Even as things currently stand right now, there is already plenty of "leakage" of the various jihadi groups into each other. In a return to full war, Pak simply won't have enough leverage to exercise full control over the nutcases to keep AlQaeda out of the picture. Instead, Pak would simply rely on its usual gun-to-its-own-head pleading and whining to the US to show some "understanding and tolerance", and ultimately pleading that it's upto Taliban to decide who it wants to associate with.

In the meantime - and more importantly for us - Pak would definitely go all-out to reactivate militancy in J&K, and possibly even the rest of India. We would be hit with maximum terrorism by Pak, in its attempt to keep India on the back foot while it goes for its power grab in Afghanistan.

While India and Kaangress are reeling from the attacks, the US in similar Pak-style will be pleading and whining to India to show more "understanding and tolerance". The West will have to offer a combination of maximum bribes to Kaangress and also maximum propaganda on "Hindu extremism and chauvinism", in order to keep BJP and other nationalists on the back foot and unable to pressure the Kaangress govt. Or, if the Americans are really ambitious, they'll bribe BJP leaders directly, to ensure that they are AWOL during any crisis/aftermath, thus taking the heat off Kaangress.

These would be the standard mechanics to maintain the Indian One-Party State.