Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59793
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by ramana »

One confusion is due to calling all armed opposition as Taliban to get US money. This causes a big cognitive dissonance.

The Pakiban in FATA/ WANA are Pashtuns but are driven by nationhood. The Kandahar Pashtuns are another lot and are the good Taliban. The Quetta Shura are the bad Taliban. Today's attack is from the fundoos of Bhawalpur ie the core of Islamist IEDeology and these are not Taliban but miscreants!

As my drafting book says of Nomenclature:

Calling things by the right name is the begining of wisdom!

--------------
OK Stratfor, if TSP is the new Cambodia who is the new Pol Pot? Kiyani?

Notice who quickly the cambodia anology is spreading among the like minded folks.

Stratfor is lifiafa for TSPA sympathisers.
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Jarita »

Meant to post here.
What is stopping Indians from penetratingTaliban?
Stratfor seems to be trumping Pakistans value - subsequent arguments will be "therefore to mollify them they need K"

And if Pakistan is Cambodia what is India -
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Johann »

Y I Patel wrote:Framing the 2011 deadline as part of some well thought out broader strategy is window dressing. The unpalatable truth is that most Americans no longer support an indefinite war in Afghanistan. If Obama had the courage of his convictions, and if he were honest to his base, he would have quit now. But he and his Democrats do not want to be branded as those who lost Afghanistan, hence the grand show of shock and awe that is about to commence. This 'surge' is no parallel to the ballsy gamble that Bush went for in Iraq. It is a slick talker's prelude to a slick exit.

This is what Nixon did by escalating the bombing, just as he started secret talks to abandon Vietnam. This is what Gorbachov did while he started talks to end Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. This is Obama shaping the environment by setting the benchmarks of victory so low that he can guarantee himself a 'victorious' exit before he fights the next elections. After all, how much would it take for an Afghan to declare that he is a 'good' Taliban?

This is not to say in any way that American involvement in the region will be over. The cold calculation is that a large and overt military footprint is unsustainable and counterproductive. Much better, the new reasoning goes, to recede into the background and manipulate the clients in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Keep them on edge by playing them off against each other; in Pakistan's case by playing on their fears of greater Indian influence over Afghanistan. The Great Game, my friends, has just commenced a new Act. And the Americans are going by the British playbook, chapter and verse. And the denouement will likely be the same - in previous versions of the Great Game, Afghanistan was like the 'ball' in a game of Buzkashi. Now, Pakistan will join it in that role.
Welcome back Yogi.

I do think there is a parallel between what Nixon and Obama are doing, but neither Nixon, nor Obama are planning an exit from Afghanistan. What Nixon changed was the American role in the Vietnam war.

I don't want to get in to a long discussion of the Vietnam War, but Nixon did not abandon South Vietnam. North Vietnam discovered that through the disaster of the Easter Offensive in 1972. By 1971 when Nixon shifted the burden of ground combat from US to Vietnamese forces. But ARVN depended on the US for logistics, airlift, maintenance and air support - over 50,000 US personnel. The same sort role they had under Kennedy, before LBJ over-extended the US role.

It was a Democratic controlled Congress that abandoned Vietnam in 1973, as punishment of Nixon's behaviour over Watergate. Ford who succeeded Nixon in 1974 chose not to fight Congress in order to heal the domestic wounds over the Nixon presidency.

The surge that *may* end in 18 months - depending on how things are going. The Obama administration is making it very clear that whether or not the US will draw down will depend on conditions on the ground.

The surge, and the change in the focus of military operations is supposed to take the initiative away from the Taliban, with whom it has rested for almost 3 years now, and give it to anti-Taliban Afghans.

My suspicion is that in Afghanistan the (local/regional) political strategy has not been as well thought out as the military strategy.

Even if we strip away the Pakistan question, the very fragmented nature of loyalty and patronage in Afghanistan means that Pashtuns will need to be convinced the Americans are sticking around, or they'll start flipping, and things will deteriorate. In other words, the Afghan situation will deteriorate *before* the 18 months are up unless the Americans demonstrate a long term commitment. While Obama may have to couch it as another 'short term' commitment (perhaps with a cosmetic troop reduction) in order to sell it within the US, that is what will be required.

Its no different from what Bush did in Iraq with the surge, and what Obama has continued to do in Iraq.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10039
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Mort Walker »

ramana wrote:One confusion is due to calling all armed opposition as Taliban to get US money. This causes a big cognitive dissonance.

The Pakiban in FATA/ WANA are Pashtuns but are driven by nationhood. The Kandahar Pashtuns are another lot and are the good Taliban. The Quetta Shura are the bad Taliban. Today's attack is from the fundoos of Bhawalpur ie the core of Islamist IEDeology and these are not Taliban but miscreants!

As my drafting book says of Nomenclature:

Calling things by the right name is the begining of wisdom!

--------------
OK Stratfor, if TSP is the new Cambodia who is the new Pol Pot? Kiyani?

Notice who quickly the cambodia anology is spreading among the like minded folks.

Stratfor is lifiafa for TSPA sympathisers.

Thanks for the link. Stratfor has been wrong on many an occasion, I can recall from POK-II and the attack on Parliament, and its credibility factor is probably a notch above DebkaFile.
The SE Asia analogy can only be taken so far. It applies to the president's actions. It is not wrong to compare BHO to Nixon in this regard.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by NRao »

Good set of questions:

US not leaving Afghanistan in 2011, says top adviser

"Draw down" seems to be a time when Afghans take over, more than withdrawal of US troops.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by abhishek_sharma »

US wants India to step up training of Afghan army

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 301319.cms
Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Y I Patel »

There has been general recognition among all quarters by now, that the problem of Pakistan cannot be solved by direct war. Not by America, not by India, not by the combined efforts of the two. And the British playbook certainly ensured that there was no power from the northwest was able to destabilize India for the couple of centuries that British power held sway. Given that the Afghan region is a black hole for western superpowers, it will be to Obama's credit if he can extricate America from the snake pit with credibility and power mostly intact. So let us swallow hard, and mentally steel ourselves to the idea that the Afghan region is going to see at least another decade of turmoil because yet another superpower tried and failed to bring order to this faultline where three civilizations collide.

But a sham is a sham, however necessary its conduct may be. And it is difficult to watch one being conducted so brazenly.

Many people have pointed out here on BRF and elsewhere, that whatever objectives Obama may have had would have been much better served had he not so explicitly announced a deadline. If his advisors had to go to town the very next hour to water his announcement down, why did the decision not involve an ambiguous declaraion by Obama followed by much more explicit signals from his cabinet instead of the other way around?

My thesis is that this deliberate decision is in keeping with Obama's revealed tendency to go for the Grand Gesture followed by the hollow follow through. He did that with Guantanamo, and with the interrogation documents and techniques. Even on his signature health care fight, he has left the heavy lifting to Pelosi and Reed. His only contributions have been back room deals with the Bad Taliban (Pharma Companies and Medical Device Makers) that have left his allies fuming and hamstrung. The health care bill will pass, but the victors will be Pelosi and Reed. And Afghanistan will be their pound of flesh.

How so? Let's begin with the money trail, and I do not mean the mess the economy is in. For our friends not familiar with American constitution - wars are declared and funded by Congress. Bush, of course, got a unanimous declaration of war against AQ and the Taliban after 9/11. But he also bullied away from Congress the power of purse strings by removing operational expenses for Iraq and Afghanistan as distinct line items from the defense budget. Instead, he inserted funding for the wars into other pieces of legislation like providing for armoured humvees etc for the forces, which no Congress member could reject without incurring the wrath of all and sundry. This practice drove Congress bat nuts, but was extremely effective in ensuring that the Surge got the resources it needed. Ah yes, the Surge. The real Surge, one that Bush believed in and supported in the teeth of opposition. The Surge, more than anything, was Bush's victory, and a true hallmark of leadership that will be recognized as such by history.

Now cut to Obama administration. Grand Gesture time. He declared that in his administration funding for Iraq and Afghanistan will be explicit line items in the defense budget, for Congress to formally approve. Or not. So congress, read Pelosi and Reid, had already been given back the power to dictate the scope of US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq, thankfully, was on its way to stability before Obama could do any damage to the American strategy over there. But Afghanistan was his war, the one he claimed was the war of necessity. The one he is supposed to take ownership of. So what does he do? Well, he will owe Pelosi and Reid big time for delivering on health care, so he surrenders Afghanistan to them by declaring a deadline.

Declaration of such a specific date will set off a dynamic that he will have no control of. Let's just talk petty local politics for now. Those opposed to the war (and there are many such, with pretty good reasons too) will start counting down days till July 2011. Others will keep count of number of Americans dead in Afghanistan between now and then. Budget deficits and big government are already fights he has picked up, for other causes such as stimulus and health care. Bean counters will keep a running tally of dollars he spends in Fak-Ap. Will he conserve political capital for his high priority fights, or squander it over Afghanistan? And what of Pelosi and Reed? By 2011, deficit will be what? 2 Gazillion dollars? Congressional leaders will already be thinking of 2012, even of 2013/2014 when health care reform spending will start to kick in. Unemployment will be still high. Dollar will be falling in value. And Pelosi, from her SF bleeding heart liberal bastion, will be in charge of funding for the Afghanistan war.

So this is why I think these statements of firm resolve by Gates et. al are all window dressing. The deadline is part of an exit strategy. The exit strategy is owned by Congress, because Mr. Grand Gesture has not demonstrated any ability to follow through.

More later, but a quick PS:
I do not know (yet) who Pol Pot is in this Cambodia, but I think we all have a fair idea about the identity Khmer Rouge. There is an important distinction between why I call Pak the Cambodia and why Stratfor does that. For Stratfor, Pak is like the unwilling conduit that got dragged into a conflict not of its making. As for me, I am thinking of Cambodia in the aftermath of American withdrawal. And specifically because of the Khmer Rouge parallel.

And like I said, it's not as if the thought of what is going to happen to Pakistan makes me unhappy. But I do feel sad about the coming diminution of American izzat in the world.
Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Karan Dixit »

A Taliban detainee in Pakistan told his captors he has information that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was seen alive in January or February this year, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/pakist ... -Laden.htm
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by NRao »

Perhaps I am missing something, but .......................

Dec 2, 2009 :: Congressional Hearings on Afghanistan
4:58 p.m. Over on the House side, it’s more of the same line of questioning. Here is Secretary Gates on the July, 2011 target date: “I have adamantly opposed deadlines. I opposed them in Iraq, and I oppose deadlines in Afghanistan. But what — president has announced is the beginning of a process, not the end of a process. And it is clear that there will — this will be a gradual process and, as he said last night, based on conditions on the ground. So there is no deadline for the withdrawal of American forces in Afghanistan.”
I am not sure why it is difficult to understand ............................. There are few more time this issue about "July 2011 target date" comes up. even that seems to be:
Mr. Gates: “I think the president, as commander in chief, always has the option to adjust his decisions.”
Mr. Mullen: “The president has choices, as the president.”
Mrs. Clinton: “It is the best assessment of our military experts — as evidenced by Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, General Petraeus, General McChrystal and others — that by July 2011, there can be the beginning of a responsible transition that will of course be based on conditions.”
Then:
11:00 a.m. Offering his personal view, Secretary Gates told senators that he hoped there would be a willingness to maintain a longterm presence — a noncombat presence — in Afghanistan, as a partner to help with training and other initiatives.
Generals in Afghanistan have stated that this project is about 5-10 years in length.

The result of the review:
Admiral Mullen said. (By law he is the president’s top military adviser.)

He called the goals in Afghanistan “narrowing, but attainable.”
So, what am I missing on this drawdown date issue?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by NRao »

Reuters :: Nov 27, 2009 :: U.S. will be out of Afghanistan by 2017: White House

McChrystal: 'A New Clarity of Mission' in Afghanistan
McChrystal indicated that while he supported the timeline he was keen to stress that it was far from absolute. "It's not an 18 months and everybody leaves. The president has expressed on numerous occasions a long-term strategic partnership with Afghanistan and that includes all manners of assistance. So the concept is as ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] capacity rises, the requirement for coalition military forces goes down."
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by NRao »

India has a role to play in stability in Af-Pak: Mullen
Voicing deep concern over "great synergy" among terror groups, top US military commander Mike Mullen has said that the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Tayiba [ Images ], which "fostered" Mumbai [ Images ] attacks, is associated with the Al Qaeda [ Images ] and the Taliban [ Images ], and asserted India [ Images ] has a role to play in bringing stability to the region.

"Probably the biggest concern I have is the collaboration going on amongst the terrorists, amongst the groups. A few years ago, they didn't even talk to each other. They didn't even like each other," Mullen, chairman of the joint chief of staff, told the popular Charlie Rose Show of the PBS.

"I see that in that border area, I see it in the Pakistan. I see associations of the LeT, which is the group that fostered the attacks on Mumbai in India from Pakistan. I see their association with the Al Qaeda. I see them operating out of the country, not just into India," Mullen said.

"These various Taliban groups are associating with the Al Qaeda in ways that just had not happened before," he said.

"There's the Taliban who are actually in Pakistan and threatening Pakistan -- this TTP (Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan) group. There's the Taliban who are also in Pakistan and threaten -- and this comes from mostly the Haqqani network -- that the focus on Afghanistan," he said.

But there "is great synergy and a much more symbiotic relationship between them and amongst all of them," including the Al Qaeda, Mullen said.

"And that's the centre. I had a senior administration official from India say what you don't understand is this (Pakistan) is the epicentre of terrorism in the world."

"My belief is also that we cannot take the chance to get this wrong. The people who are living in Afghanistan from the Al Qaeda -- the same group that killed 3,000 Americans (during 9/11 attacks) -- they're still planning, they're still training they're still financing those kinds of potential attacks in the future," Mullen said.

"Now, they're diminished from where they were a few years ago, but by no means have they gone away. So that's at the core of this entire strategy. We can't do it alone. We've got 42 other countries in Afghanistan who are supportive of this, and we need to do it with Pakistan as well," Mullen said.

He said India has a role to play in bringing stability in the region.

"In March, the strategy was a regional strategy. It was Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, in fact, the region's bigger than that, because I think India has a lot to do with stability in this part of the world -- as do other bordering states, bordering countries, if you will, to Afghanistan and Pakistan," he argued.

The ability to stabilise the region rests on the shoulders of a lot of players, certainly not just the US, Mullen said.

"It is that stable Afghanistan that I think gives an opportunity for Pakistan to change its behaviour, because its behaviour is focussed on what kind of Afghanistan is this going to be? Is it going to be a Taliban-led Afghanistan? Is it going to be a stable Afghanistan that I can depend on? And those answers aren't there yet, and I don't think they will be for a couple more years," he said.

Mullen said Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has taken risk by moving his troops from the border to the restive northwest to fight the Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

"The Pakistani people and the Pakistani military feel that India is an existential threat. You and I might disagree with that, but they get their view that it has been their threat, and it continues to be their threat," he said.

"So he (Kayani) has taken some risks because he has moved some forces and he's moved them west. He's trained them in counter-insurgency, which is what they've got. He's seen a lot of his citizens die. He's lost a lot of his soldiers in these fights. So he's taken all this very, very seriously," Mullen said.
AnimeshP
BRFite
Posts: 514
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 07:39

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by AnimeshP »

NRao wrote:India has a role to play in stability in Af-Pak: Mullen
He said India has a role to play in bringing stability in the region.

Mullen said Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has taken risk by moving his troops from the border to the restive northwest to fight the Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

"The Pakistani people and the Pakistani military feel that India is an existential threat. You and I might disagree with that, but they get their view that it has been their threat, and it continues to be their threat," he said.

"So he (Kayani) has taken some risks because he has moved some forces and he's moved them west. He's trained them in counter-insurgency, which is what they've got. He's seen a lot of his citizens die. He's lost a lot of his soldiers in these fights. So he's taken all this very, very seriously," Mullen said.
Looks like the Obama Administration going full steam ahead with "Operation Settle Kashmir" to justify the Nobel Prize .... :rotfl:
muraliravi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2819
Joined: 07 May 2009 16:49

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by muraliravi »

AnimeshP wrote:
Looks like the Obama Administration going full steam ahead with "Operation Settle Kashmir" to justify the Nobel Prize .... :rotfl:
In their dreams, they will keep dying in their trying to quench their kashmir dream, they wont get an inch, best case in fact they might lose POK. Obama himself is over in 2012.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by NRao »

Looks like the Obama Administration going full steam ahead with "Operation Settle Kashmir" to justify the Nobel Prize ....
:roll:

From what I have read, India and Mush (Pakistan) had come fairly close to an agreement!!!!!!!

MMS, et al, even today, state that talks can start IF terrorists have no place on Paki soil. Right? Or am I missing something?

IF ALL that is true, THEN i do see a convergence between Indo-US thinking - all terrorist groups should go and negotiations should start between India and Pakistan (which is what Pakistan wants). Just that the horse has to be put before the cart.

Granted ALL this is at 60,000 feet and there is plenty to be skeptical about. But, to me, as I post, it is doable. What it really means to "Kashmir" and the various resolutions passed within India remains to be seen.
muraliravi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2819
Joined: 07 May 2009 16:49

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by muraliravi »

NRao wrote:
Looks like the Obama Administration going full steam ahead with "Operation Settle Kashmir" to justify the Nobel Prize ....
:roll:

From what I have read, India and Mush (Pakistan) had come fairly close to an agreement!!!!!!!

MMS, et al, even today, state that talks can start IF terrorists have no place on Paki soil. Right? Or am I missing something?

IF ALL that is true, THEN i do see a convergence between Indo-US thinking - all terrorist groups should go and negotiations should start between India and Pakistan (which is what Pakistan wants). Just that the horse has to be put before the cart.

Granted ALL this is at 60,000 feet and there is plenty to be skeptical about. But, to me, as I post, it is doable. What it really means to "Kashmir" and the various resolutions passed within India remains to be seen.
The same MMS also said that borders cannot be redrawn.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by NRao »

Biden Lays out priorities

Near the end of the page:
DEFINING THE MISSION: Vice President Biden said Wednesday morning the White House's top goal for the war in Afghanistan is to defeat Al Qaeda and contain the threat from an unstable Pakistan, spelling out the administration's goals point by point.

"Number one priority: Al Qaeda. Number two: Pakistan. Number three: Keeping - giving the Karzai government a fighting chance to be able to sustain itself," Biden said on the CBS "Early Show."
Comments?

My feel is that the ISI is the crux of the problem. Nothing PA can do if ISI goes about doing just the opposite. A long term plan should be to ensure that ISI becomes an entity of her own and BOTH PA and ISI come under a civilian Paki government. "Long term".
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by NRao »

Fringe OT:
Sri wrote: India, Pakistan and the Battle for Afghanistan
Commodore Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation, a think-tank attached to the Indian navy, says the Pakistani military is still struggling to accept a strategic universe in which India is no longer its most dangerous enemy. "You get the sense that if [India] does not loom large as a threat, then the Pakistani military loses much of its raison d'etre as an institution," says Bhaskar.
Ananya
BRFite
Posts: 282
Joined: 27 Dec 2008 23:21

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Ananya »

ISI and pak fauj are hand in hand they canot be separated . they have always determined the course of events for any policy Internal or external.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Johann »

Yogi,

Congress backed the surge even after the Republicans lost their majority, despite Pelosi's vows.

That is because for national-security minded Democrats the surge was *not* seen as Bush's initiative, but the proposal of apolitical senior military national security professionals - Petraeus, Crocker and Gates in particular.

For example in 2007, 22 Democratic senators out of 51 voted to censure attacks on the integrity of Petraeus, which along with 47 out of 49 Republicans was more than enough.

The same Congressional majority of conservative Democrats and Republicans that backed the surge in Iraq are backing the surge in Afghanistan.

On the military front Obama defers to Gates, who defers to the commanders he has confidence in.

I would say the thing that is most likely to undermine Congressional support is the difference in opinion over the surge between Petraeus and McChrystal one one side, and Karl Eikenberry, the ambassador to Kabul (and former Afghan Coaltion operational commander) on the other continues.

As I said earlier, the big problem with the current surge plan is the lack of integration between the military and political big picture within the theatre.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by NRao »

Ananya wrote:ISI and pak fauj are hand in hand they canot be separated . they have always determined the course of events for any policy Internal or external.
THAT is the challenge India had and the US has.

The beauty of the situation is that when India called these yahoos "terrorists" (some 20 years ago), the US (because of pakistan?) called them "freedom fighters". Now that these "freedom fighters" have caused the US (and UK/France/Russia/etc) the same pain, they have all come around to calling them "terrorists". Very strange.
Ananya
BRFite
Posts: 282
Joined: 27 Dec 2008 23:21

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Ananya »

US have apparently/already realised this and the presentation/content of the speech was shawdy . WH could have handled the speech better.

what appears is atleast from the different interviews given by people apart from Obama are ( atleast what i could interpret).

1. Convert ops in PAK is the top priority and go after the shuras/freedom figherts/Talibs . the freedom fighters and Talibs are to be cleansed out from PAK itself.
2. India would be training the soilders and AFG army and police and share the burden of Cost of this as well.
3. Cleance the so called remaining Talibs in AFG by the 75k odd Soilders.

The speech was ment to adressed this but got carried by the usual OBAMA mania and in the end bungled this up by using diplomacy angles. others are covering this up

This has made TSP very reluctant and was apparent in the facial expression of Gilai and Brown as Brown has spelt the tasks very crealy and kayani has also been told what he need to do and the targets he need to go after. The issue is this if it comes out would come out ( as pak media is now asad ) would spell a lot of trouble for everybody

this is going to give MR PC and NSA sleepless nights indeed :!:
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10039
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Mort Walker »

NRao wrote:
Ananya wrote:ISI and pak fauj are hand in hand they canot be separated . they have always determined the course of events for any policy Internal or external.
THAT is the challenge India had and the US has.

The beauty of the situation is that when India called these yahoos "terrorists" (some 20 years ago), the US (because of pakistan?) called them "freedom fighters". Now that these "freedom fighters" have caused the US (and UK/France/Russia/etc) the same pain, they have all come around to calling them "terrorists". Very strange.
It isn't strange. It is the strategic policy put forth by the various think tanks and institutions associated with the US Govt. The intention was to bring India to its knees for being a non-communist country that was friendly with the USSR, who's strategic objectives were contrary to the US. The people associated with this policy are getting old and will be out of govt. by 2020. Those with the most influence, who were born in the 1940s are going out, and those who born in the 1950s are now in leadership positions.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by NRao »

MW,

I do not buy that. (The think-tanks will always have a "another camp" mentality - without a doubt.)

Today the US has named the "terrorist" groups. This naming has directly to do with the pain they have felt and threat they pose in the future.

"Very strange" refers to this "pain". When India felt the pain (and the US did not) they kept the "freedom fighter" label. Now that the US feels the (same) pain, the US has re-labeled them to "terrorists".

However, note that the US STILL has a stand-alone policy. The re-labeling has not yet recognized the value of a coordinated response. The fear of a coordinated response - of course - is "Pakistan". Not the government of Pakistan, but the armed forces and ISI in particular. Which is why I believe that this entire problem cannot be resolved - EVEN by the US/NATO - UNLESS ISI is put to bed.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by NRao »

MW,

Did it change AFTER the collapse of the USSR, when there was no camp for India to tag along with? I do not think so. Also, even today this re-labeling is not to align with Indian thinking. This is a very narrow minded US thinking that they are right and everyone else should fall in line.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59793
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by ramana »

After collapse of FSU, the policy didn't change because of the other imperative to not allow any regional hegemon to develop anywhere.
So even if the aims are changed the net policy didnt change.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by svinayak »

Mort Walker wrote: The intention was to bring India to its knees for being a non-communist country that was friendly with the USSR, who's strategic objectives were contrary to the US.
That was not the intention. The intention was larger and to change the entire demographics of the "south asia" region.
CONCEPT OF SOUTH ASIA AND THE STRATEGY OF SOUTH ASIA

The South Asia terminology started being used in the 90s as the globalization started with momentum in the Indian sub-continent. The state department in US and Foreign Office FO in Pakistan started using it frequently so that importance of India as the premier country in the sub-continent is devalued. Pakistan FO even commented on renaming the Indian Ocean as something else so that the name India is not associated to the ocean. The concept of south Asia started making rounds to describe any Indian abroad. The term south Asia make sure that the identity of the Indian civilization and Hindu religion does not arise at all and is not distinct at all. The whole idea is to make sure that the new generation of Indians born abroad mostly in US and UK do not get a separate distinct Indian/Hindu identity. The Indian identity is submerged under the south Asia concept and the distinct Indian civilization is negated after several generations.
The main aim is to reduce and ultimately negate the non-Muslim identity in the Indian sub-continent in the wider world in the long run. When will this happen. Some Pakistani commentators have told Indian MPs that the balance between India and Pakistan will happen when Muslim population will equal the Hindu population in the sub-continent. In 1947 the Indian sub-continent had 400 million population with 100 million Muslims. By 2000 the Muslims are already 400 million and Bengali Muslims being the largest non-arab ethnic Muslims in the world. This has strengthened the vision of the pan Islamists in the subcontinent to create a pan Islamic political center which will have the largest Islamic block outside the arab world.
Quote from Ikram Sehgal in Defense Journal from Pakistan : In South Asia there are three major Muslim communities, largest being in India, the second biggest in Bangladesh and the third biggest in Pakistan. A strong Pakistan and a strong Bangladesh is the security for the largest community of Muslims who live in India. It is unfortunate but that sense of security comes from the fact that we are there together and the people will understand that as long as the two strong nations are there that they will be secure.
G. Parthasarathy quotes: “At a recent meeting that I had with a group of prominent Pakistanis in a
South Asian capital, a close associate of General Musharraf bluntly remarked that if India believed that it could ignore differences with Pakistan and move ahead economically, his country would have no difficulty
in taking steps to retard Indian economic progress. A few years ago a former Director-General of the ISI remarked to me that >Pakistan would see to it that jihad in Kashmir would draw support from Muslims all across India. This was in response to an assertion by me that Muslims in India were proud of the secular ethos of their country. It is important to bear these factors in mind while assessing the challenge that Pakistani policies pose to India. Pakistani ideologues, especially in their Punjabi dominated armed forces establishment, believe that they are the true inheritors of the Mughal throne in Delhi.
The real meaning is that the Muslims of the entire south Asia will be able to equal and dominate the non-Muslims in terms of identity, perception and supremacy when the population equals or exceeds the non-Muslims now or sometime in future. It also means as long as Islamic political center exists inside the subcontinent Muslims are safe from the non-Muslims. Is this possible? By projecting the Pakistani ashrafs as the rightful leaders of all the Muslims in the sub-continent they are waiting for the right moment of ‘awakening’ when the Muslims of India will join and support the political center in Pakistan and Bangladesh to create one monolithic Muslim block to rival the non-Muslims.
Under the support of a hyper power with control over world media, resources and a world wide recognition of Islamic religion with no negative implications; the non-muslims of the south Asia could be totally sub-merged and negated over a period of time such as under a century. According to the Pakistani elite India is not monolithic but heterogeneous India.

The main worry for the Islamists and the pan Islamists in the sub-continent is that with India freed from concerns over the Muslims of South Asia, India could then turn its full attention to America’s rival, China. Neutralizing Pakistan’s threat to India is an outstanding achievement for any Indian government; as such an eventuality would be viewed as the beginning of an era of stability and prosperity for the Hindu State. Indeed, normalization of Indo-Pak relations would finally enable India to bring the Muslims of the entire region under its writ, a matter that the Hindus were not able to achieve even when Muslims were far weaker than today, over fifty years ago. They also admit that before Vajpayee took power, America overtly and covertly supported jihad in Kashmir and insisted upon the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions concerning Kashmir. This has helped the Islamists to wage a covert war against India.
The Islamists believe that the historical fact was Muslim rule that liberated the Hindu masses of the Subcontinent from oppression at the hands of their own Brahmin-led elite. Only under Muslim rule was the Subcontinent elevated to such global economic and material significance, that the British Empire valued this region above all others as its “Jewel in the Crown.” Indeed, after Muslim rule, the Subcontinent suffered steep economic decline at the hands of the British, reducing it to economic misery, a condition that the post-British leadership in India has been unable to reverse. Accepting the Hindu State as a regional leadership merely on the basis of Hindu majority is naive political thinking propagated by Pakistan’s rulers. Leadership is given to the one deserving of it.
The Islamists are of the view that without doubt Pakistan is fully capable of leading the entire region’s peoples. Khilafah will restore the leadership of the region to the Muslims, as well as providing justice and protection to all the inhabitants of the region, be they Hindu, Sikh or Christian. According to them reports of terrible atrocities against Muslim, Sikh and Christian minorities, as carried by India’s own media, are more than enough to convince any impartial observer that the Hindu elite is incapable of bestowing justice upon any people, leaving aside its treatment of its co-religionist, lower caste Hindus. Indeed, expecting justice from a nation whose own religious teachings openly sanction caste-based discrimination in society, depriving the majority of its own people their rights, is nothing but naivety.
By creating a strong political center in Pakistan the Kashmiris nationalism was inspired and nurtured to insurgency in 1989. In the next step Kashmir nationalism was subsumed under the Islamic political movement in the sub-continent by 1995. The statement from Islamists in 2003 is “The struggle of the Kashmiri people was not aimed at securing a piece of land but to ensure the triumph of belief and supremacy of Islam. The next stage is to create an all south Asia Islamic political movement which will create solidarity with Muslims of the sub-continent. When that happens this movement will be able to oppose the non-Muslims of the sub-continent when the Indian state becomes weak and create an alternative Muslim political center for the entire south Asia as a rival to Indian state.

Pakistan was creating for itself a larger role in the geo-political game.

From the book, "India & Pakistan in War and Peace" by J.N.Dixitis paraphrasing a speech given by the CEO to a forum on 23 June 2000:

* The idea of the integration of Kashmir with Pakistan may be given up if it is expedient to do so.
* Pakistan wishes to emerge as the leader of an Islamic bloc comprising Afghanistan, CAR countries, and
Iran with peripheral support from the Gulf States and Turkey.
* It claims this status by virtue of the fact that in this century, "the century of gas", no longer one of oil,
all gas supplies to India, South East Asia and further East, have to pass through Pakistan.

Amir of the Markaz Hafiz Muhammad Sayeed declares: ‘In fact, the Hindu is a mean enemy and the proper way to deal with him is the one adopted by our forefathers […] who crushed them by force. We need to do the same’. India is a special target for the Markaz’s mujahidin. According to the Amir of the Markaz, Hafiz Muhammad Sayeed, ‘The jihad is not about Kashmir only. It encompasses all of India’. Thus, the Markaz sees the jihad as going far beyond the borders of Kashmir and spreading through all of India. The final goal is to extend Muslim control over what is seen as having once been Muslim land, and, hence, to be brought back under Muslim domination, creating ‘the Greater Pakistan by dint of jihad’. Thus, at a mammoth congregation of Markaz supporters in November 1999, Hafiz Muhammad Sayeed declared, ‘Today I announce the break-up of India, Inshallah. We will not rest until the whole of India is dissolved into Pakistan’. On the same occasion, Amir Hamza, senior Markaz official and editor of its Urdu organ, ad-Da’waa, thundered: ‘We ought to disintegrate India and even wipe India out’. Those who take part in this anti-Indian jihad are promised that ‘Allah will save [them] from the pyre of hell’, and ‘huge palaces in paradise’ await those who are killed in fighting the ‘disbelieving enemies’.
This project for the disintegration of India, followed by its take-over by Pakistan and the establishing an Islamic state in the entire sub-continent, is sought to be justified by an elaborate set of arguments that use the rhetoric of liberation. Thus, instances of human-sacrifice, untouchability, infanticide, the oppression of the ‘low’ castes by the Brahmins and the suppression of women in Hinduism are described in great detail, and on this basis it is sought to be shown that such a religion as Hinduism should not ‘be allowed to flourish’. In Markaz literature, the mass slaughter of Muslims by Hindu chauvinist groups, often in league with the Indian state and its agencies, and the growing wave of attacks on other marginalized groups in India such as the ‘low’ caste Dalits, Shudras and Christians, are presented in stark colors, and the point forcefully made that such a country ‘where non-Hindus are not allowed to exist’ should break-up.
Retired Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, former head of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence directorate, tells ... that the only reason Pakistan does not dismember India is because "we never wanted to create problems with our Muslim population in India."
Also he says

" I am against the imperial streak in the Indian psyche. The 1947 riots had a deep impact on my mind...About 5% to 6% Brahmins dominate India." "India will give its land when it will be divided into many pieces. India will have to be break. If India does not give us our land we will go to war and divide India...believe me, India is so fragile. India has such weak joints that if we want we could strike these weak joints then India will dismember. But we don't want India to break....India is ridden with problems...There are many other weak joints. Indians have strong fissiparous tendencies, which is absent in Pakistan. One can easily exploit it politically." Jinnah was right when he invited Ambedkar to join Pakistan. About 5% to 6% Brahmins dominate India. Where are the lower classes? I am an Islamists. Islam is the final destiny of mankind. Islam is moderate, Islam is progressive. Islam is everything that man needs. It is not necessary to become a Muslim but it is necessary to adopt the principles of Islam. Naseem Azavi and Iqbal's writings have influenced my thinking.

There have been cases of ordinary Americans were surprised that Indians are actually Indians of East Asia and not really the American Indians/native Americans of north American continent. This is an example of vast groups of society in the western world can be ignorant of a large civilization and national identity. The identity of Indians/Hindus with a unique civilization and an Indian identity can be erased over time if a proper strategy of media, negation of culture, academic work and brainwashing is executed. This is happening as we speak.

Stability in South Asia from a Western point of view:

When the Cold War ended, India and Pakistan were often characterized by Western strategists as irresponsible—or dangerous—because of their apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons. Now, the motives that created these programs are becoming increasingly clear. While the major threats to South Asia are internal—low growth rates, inequitable distribution of wealth, and ethnic and religious conflicts exacerbated by an environmental crisis—these states do have legitimate external security concerns as well.
Pakistan, like Israel, is faced with a much larger adversary that barely recognizes its legitimacy. India, like the Austro-Hungarian empire, is a multinational entity with both strong (China and Pakistan) and weak (Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bangladesh) neighbors; it has significant differences with the former, but the very weaknesses of the latter pose a threat also.

Political Factors:

The U.S.–Soviet relationship was politically stable. There were strong institutional restraints on the leaders of both the United States and the Soviet Union, the stakes of the violent conflicts that did take place were relatively small (and were mostly fought by proxies), and there was generally low risk taking—except for the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Some of these political factors are present in South Asia, others are absent. There are strong institutional restraints on Indian decision makers, although at critical moments these restraints have broken down. This was the case in 1987 during the Brasstacks exercise, when routine administrative procedures were bypassed in favor of adventurism. Ironically, in 1962 during the India–China war, the institutions themselves pushed a reluctant senior leader, Jawaharlal Nehru, into a conflict he wanted to avoid. In Pakistan, time and again, institutional restraints have proven to be nonexistent, as a small group of leaders, usually from the army, decided on regional war and peace without much in the way of staffing, discussion, or public debate. Indeed, since it was usually felt that the smaller, more vulnerable Pakistan might have to move first and fast, there were strategic reasons why the circle of decision makers was kept smaller than it should have been.
Furthermore, South Asia differs from the Cold War in that the stakes for both sides are very high —as demonstrated by past wars. Pakistan was severed in half in 1971, and India fears that conflicts with Pakistan could lead to internal Hindu–Muslim strains that might again tear India apart. It was originally thought that the war with China might result in the loss of all of northeast India, and Nehru said as much in a desperate radio broadcast, virtually writing off the region. So, while the specific conflicts that engage the two countries are sometimes trivial—the Siachen dispute is the epitome of irrelevance—leaders on both sides are aware that even a trivial conflict might quickly escalate to something far more serious.
In the case of risk taking, it is evident that South Asian leaders oscillate between extreme caution and irresponsible gambling. For the most part, the Indian leadership has been ultra cautious, but the Brasstacks crisis revealed a propensity for risk taking that was not apparent in earlier conflicts. On the Pakistani side, there is a long record of speculative adventurism—or, to put it more charitably, of gross misestimates of the consequences that the use of force might have. Pakistan misjudged the consequences of supporting the raiders in 1947, the attack in Kashmir in 1965, and the crackdown on East Pakistan in 1970.

South Asia from Indian point of view:

India’s emergence as a regional power and a key global player depends largely on her image and standing in the South Asian neighborhood. If India cannot effectively generate and ensure her key status in South Asia, how can the world be convinced that it can carve influence farther field. India’s nuclear weapons, space programs missiles development and her overwhelming superiority in military strength are of no use, if the South Asian neighborhood takes India for granted and merrily tramples on India’s national interests and her image. India needs to introduce an element of ‘unilateralist’ in her state-craft in South Asia.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10039
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Mort Walker »

NRao,

I think we agree to disagree on the role of institutions associated with USG foreign policy. All I will say is that many people who are in leadership positions in such institutions are in and out of USG and they do wield considerable influence in shaping policy of both political parties in the US.

We can see in the Pak-Af situation that the US is losing soldiers now more frequently than in the past, US military personnel are disappointed with NATO forces in ISAF (I Saw Americans Fighting) and morale is not good. (Also listen to Gates testimony to the Senate panel). These US troops have conveyed their feelings to their commanders and family members and as such US public opinion is mixed, if not against, further deployment in Af-Pak. All media outlets and USG agencies will therefore use the "terrorist" label more appropriately now.

There is a long history of the US being close to the TSPA since the 1950s for completing USG strategic policy initiatives. The TSPA also knows the history of USG involvement in the region and its unspoken policy on both sides not to openly criticize each other at the leadership level. At this point in time any secret revelations of the past will cause embarrassment, but the USG has to come has to terms with it in order to put the spotlight of terrorism on TSPA. We saw evidence of this when French journalists revealed that up to 2004 the GWB administration looked the other way at LeT terrorism at India, but wanted it stop when directed at the west. Recently we also saw the USG propping up the TSPA by the BHO administration providing $1.1 billion last spring for securing their WMDs. So, I would contend that the USG, particularly this administration, is not committed to adequately addressing the Pak-Af policy by, as you most correctly state, "the ISI (TSPA) is put to bed." As YIP stated the start of withdrawal by 2012 is not by accident or simply political, but well thought out to complete the larger political objectives.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Sanjay M »

Jamal Dajani's "Mosaic Intelligence Report"

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10039
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Mort Walker »

NRao wrote:MW,

Did it change AFTER the collapse of the USSR, when there was no camp for India to tag along with? I do not think so. Also, even today this re-labeling is not to align with Indian thinking. This is a very narrow minded US thinking that they are right and everyone else should fall in line.
NRao,

Its was not a matter of which camp for India to pick after 1991, but the deeply ingrained policies of the USG which are really carried out by humans. These people have been conditioned and trained not to trust India over decades, so its not something that would disappear overnight. We'll just have to wait until these old codgers disappear from the scene.


Acharya,

You are correct that is the ultimate goal, but you can't openly say so.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by NRao »

MW,

That is fine. We are not on the same page.
AnimeshP
BRFite
Posts: 514
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 07:39

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by AnimeshP »

NRao wrote:
Looks like the Obama Administration going full steam ahead with "Operation Settle Kashmir" to justify the Nobel Prize ....
:roll:

From what I have read, India and Mush (Pakistan) had come fairly close to an agreement!!!!!!!

MMS, et al, even today, state that talks can start IF terrorists have no place on Paki soil. Right? Or am I missing something?

IF ALL that is true, THEN i do see a convergence between Indo-US thinking - all terrorist groups should go and negotiations should start between India and Pakistan (which is what Pakistan wants). Just that the horse has to be put before the cart.

Granted ALL this is at 60,000 feet and there is plenty to be skeptical about. But, to me, as I post, it is doable. What it really means to "Kashmir" and the various resolutions passed within India remains to be seen.
Please don't get me wrong ... I am not against a settlement of the Kashmir issue ... I just don't want India to be disadvantaged when the settlement happens .... and I get the feeling that US's intervention will complicate the position for India ....
Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Y I Patel »

My reading of the proposed strategy is based on these:
- ultimately, popular sentiment is the final arbiter of such big decisions. It takes rare political courage to buck popular opinion on any one issue; going against it on more than one issue almost guarantees political suicide. Obama may have political courage to push the envelope on one fight, but he is more likely to pick something like health care or global warming. The wars are simply too low on his list to merit him going out on the limb
- if a President finds it difficult to go against the flow, the House of Representatives is deliberately designed to be especially sensitive to public pressure. Just go back to October of 2008, when the House voted no to TARP in the first round even though pretty much all of them acknowledged that such a package was needed to avoid financial meltdown. I cannot expect this group of people to repeatedly go out on a limb for an increasingly unpopular war
- finally, there have been occasions when I have had come up with a good story, and pretty much every time my audience has seen through it. My instinct tells me that Obama's team has now been thrust into a situation where they have to come up with a story to justify an unavoidable decision. My indignation is not at the decision, but at the fact that they feel the need to come up with a story. I think the American public deserves a more honest discussion.

Be that as it may, I will allow that my indignation may cloud my judgment, so I will strive to keep an open mind. I certainly hope it works, because I do not want to see America lose izzat or worse.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5351
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by ShauryaT »

Johann wrote: As I said earlier, the big problem with the current surge plan is the lack of integration between the military and political big picture within the theatre.
I agree with this view. It is almost as if, the politicians are saying hey look, our military asked for these resources for a military plan and we gave it to them, if it fails, the politicians can blame the military. The good part here is the military devises a certain military plan to deal with military issues of using force, holding territory, etc and there will be good support and little interference in that plan. But, winning a "war" such as this, which at its core is not a military war is another issue. The civilians may deal with some economic or even social issues (at a much lower rate of available resources, compared to the military), but there are deeper issues of psyche, and ideology here, which no one wants to touch. To complicate matters, the partner the US in in bed with is 400% evil, as they themselves recognize, the next major geographic neighbor, they treat her like a divorcee to create a geo-political nightmare. IMO, the US has no clue at the political level, how to go about this. I have not seen anything to indicate, that they are willing to do what it really takes to transform this region.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by NRao »

Please don't get me wrong ... I am not against a settlement of the Kashmir issue ... I just don't want India to be disadvantaged when the settlement happens .... and I get the feeling that US's intervention will complicate the position for India ....
No problem at all.

However, the point I was trying to make (and perhaps did not do a good job) is that there has been discussions without the US in the picture. MMS also recently mentioned that such discussion are preferred by India. The problem with such discussions seems to be that the real power in TSP - the PA, seems to be out of the picture, since India does not deal with PA. Mush seems to have done it in the capacity of a President (who had control over the PA). Actually the PA may scuttle such efforts. And, if they do not, then Chicom is always there.

As far as the US I cannot see them doing anything more than getting a gmail address and sending emails with appropriate cc.

I have said this before, the US will have to move to the "Indian model" WRT A'stan. There is no option for them. The US may coat it with something else, but underneath it will be very close to what India plans.

My ultimate guess is that "Pakistan" will need to go into some sort of receivership. And, unlike Iran or NK or Syria - where the US does need some sort of international agreement, Pakistan can be handled without such agreements. JMT.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by NRao »

Yogi,

On most issues I would totally agree with your arguments. On this one (and the TARP one too) I would disagree.

On A'stan, the problem is that a US withdrawal without "securing" will result in a worse security situation. A'stan IMHO is perhaps the tip-of-the-ice-berg. (On TARP - just to close the loop - the "bad assets" are still out there on the books. The Congress did what they had to do - bow to public pressure - but they left the problem unsolved.) So, the Congress can vote to please the public, only to live in fear.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10039
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Mort Walker »

NRao,

Can you agree to the statement that BHO's Pak-Af policy can be judged successful if there are no significant terror strikes in India?
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Johann »

Shaurya,

One thing you can be sure about is that Obama has no desire to transform the region, only to muddle through.

The Obama-Biden view is that the Bush administration's fundamental problem in both in Afghanistan and Iraq was that their ambitions for transforming both the ME and Afghanistan far exceeded the available resources and guaranteed failure.

They see the first thing is to concentrate on achievable short and medium term goals in the region, and worry about the grand questions later, when they've got breathing room.

Goal 1 - take the initiative from the Taliban, and keep it out of their hands in Afghanistan
Goal 2 - gain more control over what goes on in Pakistan, both with the Pakiban and the PA

Yogi,

You're absolutely right, the Obama administration is engaging in a deception in America. The deception is that America is going to be able to hand over responsibility in the Anti-Taliban campaign to the Afghans in 18 months.

That's a bloody joke. For the anti-Taliban Afghan force to expand at that rate will mean one of two things;
- a virtually untrained mob in uniform where everything is sacrificed in order to build up numbers - the state of the new Iraqi Army during the first Fallujah campaign.
or
- A highly, highly factionalised system with regional and village militias with their own lines of patronage and/or loyalty that bypass Kabul. This might include local commanders who defect from the Taliban. Keeping them in line requires not just cash, but significant numbers of capable troops to act as a backstop to the militias.

It is much like Iraq - there are still 120,000 US troops in Iraq. While their numbers will reduce somewhat, the real change is in their role, from the main combat force to a supporting force.

The general US public barely notices that continued presence. Far more than the financial cost, the idea that bothers the public the most is idea of the army engaging in combat in a war that will never end. Its the idea that soldiers are being sent to die in conflicts they don't understand and cant win. Take that away, and you can still remain in numbers and play a role.

However, the US can not move in to a supporting role until the Taliban loses the initiative. Obama's big gamble is that this can be done within this 18 month, politically defined horizon. We'll see.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25093
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by SSridhar »

India has a role to play in Af-Pak: Mullen
"In March, the strategy was a regional strategy. It was Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, in fact, the region's bigger than that, because I think India has a lot to do with stability in this part of the world -- as do other bordering states, bordering countries, if you will, to Afghanistan and Pakistan," he argued.
Now, this is either an insidious attempt to create the Af-Pak-India equation that was the original US attempt until India snuffued it out or an attempt to involve India more genuinely.
"And that's the centre. I had a senior administration official from India say what you don't understand is this (Pakistan) is the epicentre of terrorism in the world."
It could not take even a dumb person to come to that conclusion. So, what's new Adm. Mullen ?
"It is that stable Afghanistan that I think gives an opportunity for Pakistan to change its behaviour, because its behaviour is focussed on what kind of Afghanistan is this going to be? Is it going to be a Taliban-led Afghanistan? Is it going to be a stable Afghanistan that I can depend on? And those answers aren't there yet, and I don't think they will be for a couple more years," he said.
This is where it becomes difficult to appreciate if Adm. Mullen really understands the problem. Truly, the Pakistanis have a problem with Afghanistan, especially if and when nationalists rule that country. But, the Afghan problem, which originally was independent of India, became part of the India obsession for the Pakistanis once Mirza Aslam Beg and co defined and declared a holistic approach to Pakistan's problem resolution with India. The Afghanistan issue got subsumed by the India issue and has remained so ever since. While it is true that the Pakistanis will be nervously watching the developing situation in Afghanistan, that nervousness stems from Pakistan's imaginary fears with respect to India. That nervousness is a facade put-on by Pakistan to get concessions from the US and restrict Indian sphere of natural influence. The only reason for all this is Pakistan fancies itself of inflicting a military defeat on India one day or another. If the Americans know it and feign ignorance then it is a different matter. If they really believe in what they say, then it is similar to treating a mouth ulcer from the rearside. I am not saying that the US must get involved as a broker in resolving the India-Pakistan dispute as India might never allow that. The US, OTOH, must try to change the Pakistani mindset. It has considerable leverage with that country, especially now, though it tries to pretend that its clout with Pakistan is very limited. Limited it may be, as it is with any other country, but the US is unwilling to exploit its full range of options.
jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 872
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by jrjrao »

Good article from MEMRI.

The New U.S. Policy in Afghanistan: Evading the Root Problem
by
Tufail Ahmad and Y. Carmon
The current situation in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region has been largely shaped by the Pakistani army's support of militant organizations over the past three decades. This ongoing support is rooted in the Pakistani identity and in Pakistan's perception of its role as an Islamic state ever since its creation in 1947.

The way the Pakistani leaders view their identity defines their domestic policies and foreign relations. The shaping of the Pakistani identity on the Islamic path has over the years turned Pakistan into an expansionist state, which has translated into the military's policy of "strategic depth." In practical terms, this policy meant a constant concerted effort by the military-led Pakistani establishment to go beyond its borders into India (not only in Kashmir but also the mainland India) and in Afghanistan through the use of militant groups.

This self-perception of Pakistan's role, responsibility and identity is a genie that has been out of the bottle for decades now, and there is no way to get it back in. It has become the most decisive factor in the region's history and politics...

The Pakistani military is bound to pursue a policy which broadly runs between a) playing a double game with the militant groups by on the one hand attacking them, on the other hand providing them with early warnings and escape routes during various security operations, and b) coddling the militant groups as it does with the favored militant commanders and the Sunni jihadist organizations in the Punjab province, whom the military refrains from attacking.
Link
Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9373
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Hari Seldon »

1 keeps hearing of how TSPA has become increasingly jihadized and bearded since the glorious days of the Zia revolution.

Then 1 heard of how all ranks in the TSPA upto that of Brigadeer (or perhaps Mayjer Jernail) are almost all beards now.

How long before the entire fauj becomes bearded only? Whom will the amrikhans deal with then? Entertaining or patting a beard maynot be as easy or convenient as patting Kiyani's shoulders for an Adm Mullen.

Already reports in the major US newspapers speak of retired US military types seething with rage against TSP perfidity in Afgn. Well, so long as the serving ones don't seethe, I don't see how or why TSP should care.
Post Reply