Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

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.
Bhurishravas
BRFite
Posts: 680
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 18:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Bhurishravas » 09 Mar 2017 05:36

Pakistan has turned the good cop, bad cop into good terrorist-bad terrorist game infinitely.

Everyone knows ISIS and Taliban are one and the same. But, Taliban is once again the good terrorists, fighting evil and bad ISIS, to be co-opted by Russia if not the Amreekis. Russians are buying this shit too. Amazing.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22772
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby SSridhar » 09 Mar 2017 07:38

Bring Taliban to the table to nip Islamic State: Afghan NSA Hanif Atmar - Indrani Bagchi, ToI
The so-called Islamic State terror group (or Daesh) and the Taliban in Afghanistan are not opposed to each other. They have "a symbiotic relationship". "People who are now saying that Daesh is the enemy of Taliban and Taliban will fight Daesh are wrong," said Hanif Atmar, national security adviser of Afghanistan.

In an exclusive chat with TOI, Atmar said, "This idea that Taliban and Daesh are opposed to each other is wrong. No Daesh has come from Syria or Iraq, it's actually the morphing and mutating of Taliban, TTP (Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan) and IMU into Daesh. They are the same people, but there is a lot of re-branding here." They might be fighting in Nangarhar, but they are collaborating against the Ashraf Ghani government in north-eastern Afghanistan.

The next round of meetings in a few weeks with Russia, India, the US and other players, Atmar added, would work out what he said would be "regional and global strategies" to tackle the growing instability in Afghanistan.

Having given four attack helicopters to Afghan forces, what is Afghanistan's "wishlist" from India? "Rather than going into details of our defence cooperation I would say the most important objective here is strengthening of the ANSF (Afghan National Security Forces). We have demonstrated our will and capability to fight. The enemy we are fighting is three times bigger than the enemy we were fighting in 2009-14. Then we had 1,50,000 international soldiers. There are much less now. They need tools and resources. For this, we invite India as one of our most strategic partners, the US, Nato. But we will keep the details of this away from public conversation."


The security situation in 2017 is far worse than it was in 2009-10. "It's no longer about lone wolves or one specific terrorist organisation. It's about the evil axis of three actors - violent extremism, criminal economics and state sponsorship of terrorists. These three have come together to ...challenge the state... turn it into a sanctuary for international terrorism, expand the criminalised economy, specially with narcotics, and use its proceeds to finance terrorism."

Taliban, supported by Pakistan, now provide sanctuary to groups like LeT and JeM that threaten India, and ETIM (East Turkestan Islamic Movement) that threaten China, among others, Atmar said.

Therefore, the "peace and reconciliation" project, now being bandied about by Russia and China cannot actually happen in the way they want it to be, which is essentially using Taliban against Daesh.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22772
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby SSridhar » 09 Mar 2017 07:59

As far as Afghanistan goes, the Afghan NSA is correct at the moment when he says that the ISIS & Taliban have a symbiotic relationship. The ISIS in Nangarhar are actually defectors from the then tenuously monolithic TTP which fragmented in c. 2014 once Fazlullah was hoisted as the Emir after the killing of Hakeemullah Mehsud. The hardcore fighters of ISIS in Levant have *NOT* relocated to Afghanistan (or Khorasan). Who are the players in Khorasan currently? They are the Taliban, AQ, ISI, fragmented TTP, LeT, JeM, IMU, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Ismael Khan, Dostum and the Northern Alliance of the Sher-e-Panjshir. It is the same players who have aligned one way or another.

The Khorasan Unit of the IS & Taliban may not be fighting each other at present (but there were bloody clashes earlier) and may be concentrating on removing Ghani and democracy in order to establish a Shariah-based Emirate. Thet does not mean they are aligned. They are simply avoiding internecine war for the present. It may not even be by design. In the absence of any information to the contrary, one has to assume that the Afghan Taliban and the AQ are still joined at the hip. That is what the ISI would also want. However, on a global scale, the IS & AQ are certainly opposed to each other and have been so from the beginning. The January tirade by Zawahiri against the ISIS is a proof. They will fall apart at some point of time within Afghanistan also.

Bhurishravas
BRFite
Posts: 680
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 18:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Bhurishravas » 10 Mar 2017 20:17

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr ... 91f5c956d2
Pakistan's Economic Pressure Against NATO And Afghanistan Must Stop

Pakistan claims that it closed the border due to terrorist attacks emanating from Afghanistan. But given that terrorists can use small clandestine trails known as ratlines through the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and bribe Pakistani border guards along the way, Pakistan’s reasoning rings false. The reality is that Pakistan’s border is porous to terrorists, but not to containerized cargo. So Pakistan is not closing the border to stop terrorism, but rather to put economic pressure on Afghanistan through trade sanctions by another name


Pakistan is using the death of its civilians to block NATO and afghan trade containers. Everyone knows that terrorists dont use passports and travel docs to travel from Pak to Afghanistan, there are hundreds of places where they can cross without such drama.

Bhurishravas
BRFite
Posts: 680
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 18:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Bhurishravas » 10 Mar 2017 20:26

The entire ISIS narrative fits nicely into a pattern.
Russia says it is encouraging Taliban and has links with it to counter ISIS.
Pakistan tells US that if it does not sort out the Afghan problem, Russia will.

Pakistani strategic genius generals are losing sleep over the loss of their clout in Afghanistan. They are increasingly devising tricks to play one power against the other. As they have been doing for ages.
The ISIS ideology is no different from the Taliban ideology. Even if there is any infighting it is only between two different terrorist factions. Didnt Taliban harbour Uzbek jihadis?
The ISIS bogey is being used by Pak to milk Russia and portray Taliban as the good terrorists once again. IMHO, we shouldnt be surprised if we learn later that the entire iSIS thing was a plan of Paki ISI from the very beginning.

venug
BRFite
Posts: 141
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 21:39

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby venug » 10 Mar 2017 20:44

In all these moves, counter moves and gambits, one essential thing missing is: no one is setting STFUP's arse on fire(at the least). So they have time, and means to scheme up to make US and Russia go at each other while they wait for field to be cleared for them to step in when the dust settles in Afg. You attack TSP and make them eat grass literally, Afg will be at peace...whole region will be at peace.

We should make plans to seriously retake PoK and free up Baluchistan, enough to stop TSP and their schemes to unravel. These are very doable, can be played not in Afg where too many players are already in the field, but from our turf, the way we want.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22772
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby SSridhar » 12 Mar 2017 08:42

Russia’s Policy Shift towards Taliban and Pakistan - Manabhanjan Meher, IDSA
For the second time in the last few months, Russia hosted a Conference on Afghanistan in Moscow on February 15, 2017, this time with an expanded representation of six countries – Russia itself, Iran, China, India, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Interestingly, a key player, the United States, which still maintains 9,800 troops to support the Afghan government’s counter-insurgency efforts against the Taliban, has been kept out of the meeting. But for its part, the US appears to be contemplating an increase in its military commitment, with its commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson, advocating to the Senate Armed Services Committee recently that “a few thousand" more NATO trainers are needed to break the stalemate against the Taliban.1India welcomed the Moscow meeting which brought together countries that have stakes in Afghanistan’s peace and security. However, raising concerns on the Russia-led efforts for talks with the Taliban, External Affairs Ministry Spokesman Vikas Swarup noted that “We underlined that it is up to the government of Afghanistan to decide whom to engage in direct talks.”2

The two regional meetings (the first was held in December 2016) represent Russia’s first post-Soviet attempt to replay the Afghan game and that too in a big way. However, in contrast to the Soviet motivation of propping up the communist government of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) against a growing insurgency in December 1979, the Russian interest in Afghanistan now is the prevention of the growth and influence of the Islamic State (IS), which, in turn, may have a negative fallout on the security of Central Asia. A further Russian motive in Afghanistan appears to be aimed at keeping the US out of the region.

This major shift in Russia’s Afghanistan policy came immediately after it expressed concerns about the possibility of Afghanistan turning into a safe sanctuary for the Islamic State militants fleeing from Iraq and Syria.3 Speaking at the ‘Heart of Asia’ conference held in Amritsar on December 5, 2016, Russia’s special envoy to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, described the Islamic State as being more dangerous than the Taliban. And three days later, on December 8, 2016, the Russian Ambassador to Afghanistan stated that “Our concern is that Daesh not only threatens Afghanistan, but it is also a potent threat to Central Asia, Pakistan, China, Iran, India and even Russia. We have ties with the Taliban to ensure the security of our political offices, consulates and the security of central Asia.”4

Incontrast, Ahmad Murid Partaw, former Afghan National Representativeto US CENTCOM, asserted that the presence of the IS in Afghanistan has been overemphasized by Russia, China and Iran as a pretext not only to intervene in the country's affairs but also to counter the growing influence of the US in the region {This is the most accurate assessment}. He further stated that “the Af-Pak region is not a suitable ground for proliferation of such rejectionist beliefs enforced by IS and its supporters. This region has been influenced by the Deobandi school of Islam rather than Takfiri version.”5

During the latter half of the 1990s, Russia accused the Taliban of training Chechen rebels and fomenting Central Asian radical Islamic networks. As a result, Russia, in collaboration with Iran and India, supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban regime. Today, Russia no longer views the Taliban as a major threat to its security and interests. There is even a suspicion among Afghan political leaders and officials that Russia is militarily helping the Taliban, with parliamentarians alleging in the upper house that Russia is supplying arms to the Taliban. However, Russian officials have dismissed such Afghan claims and suspicions. They have said that “We have never ever provided any kind of assistance to Taliban. Instead, Russia is assisting the Afghan government and has provided some light weapons on grant basis to its forces and is running programs to train Afghan police and military personnel in Russian institutions.”6

For its part, the Taliban has begun to respond favourably to Moscow’s outreach. Syed Muhammad Akbar Agha, a former Taliban commander who lives in Kabul and still espouses Islamic rule in Afghanistan, said in an interview toKomsomolskaya Pravda that “We are ready to shake hands with Russia in order to rid ourselves of the scourge of America.” He further noted that “history has proven that we are closer to Russia and the former Soviet republics than to the West.”7

It seems clear that Russia and the Taliban share common concerns about both the Islamic State and the continued US presence in Afghanistan. Such thinking is also shared by China and Iran and consequently Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran are pursuing a policy towards Afghanistan that is very different from that of India.

Meanwhile the Afghan government continues to face a host of security challenges posed by the Taliban forces. As recently as January 10, 2017, the Taliban claimed responsibility for a suicide attack in Kabul that killed more than 30 people and wounded some 70 others including the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to Afghanistan and the governor of Kandahar province. One analyst even asserts that “the Taliban isn’t interested in peace and security. The jihadist group wants to win the Afghan war and it is using negotiations with regional and international powers to improve its standing.”8

Therefore, to expect that the Taliban would give up its terrorist activities is highly unlikely, which means that Russia will not be able to bring about a reconciliation between Kabul and the Taliban. In addition, Russia also has to contend with the view of the Afghan government, which was articulated by its representative Mohammad Ashraf Haidari at the February 15 meeting in Moscow. Haidari emphasized that the National Unity Government (NUG) is the only legitimate government representing all Afghans. And as for the role of the Taliban in the peace process, he stated that “Taliban lack the national and moral legitimacy to represent the Afghan people, who reject terrorism perpetrated by the Taliban and their foreign terrorist allied networks in the name of Islam—a religion of peace, tolerance, and co-existence.”9

Russia is not only taking a relatively benign view of the Taliban but it is also cosying up to Pakistan, the Taliban’s sponsor. Russia’s decision to send troops to Pakistan for a joint military exercise in September 2016 demonstrated this, especially as it came in the wake of the terrorist attack in Uri carried out by the Pakistan-based and-backed jihadi group Jaish-e-Mohammed. Russia justified its military overture to Pakistan by saying that military cooperation was aimed at fighting against the Islamic State. Kabulov argued that “We understand all concerns of India about your western neighbour…But we cannot combat (terrorism) efficiently and productively and eliminate (it) without the cooperation of Pakistan. We need their cooperation and they should realise their importance and responsibility.”10

Clearly, Moscow’s decision to side with the Taliban and Islamabad has fundamentally changed the peace building efforts in Afghanistan. New Delhi and Kabul, on the other hand, still consider the Taliban and its Pakistani sponsor as the main threats to peace and stability in Afghanistan. India is also against the incorporation of the Taliban into the Afghan government so long as it does not renounce terrorism. For their part, Afghan analysts and lawmakers suggest that the regional countries, particularly Pakistan, have never been honest in fighting terrorism.11 In addition, they allege that the International Community has never pressed Pakistan to wipe terrorists out from its soil.12

Given all this, there is little or no prospect of Russia becoming a successful anchor of peace in Afghanistan. Further, the memory of the Soviet invasion is still fresh in the Afghan mind. And Russia has little chance of succeeding so long as the United States maintains troops in Afghanistan. Russia needs to be mindful of the fact that the rise of the Islamic State in Afghanistan can be countered only through close cooperation with Afghanistan’s National Unity Government and the Afghan National Security Forces. Its efforts to differentiate between the Islamic State and Taliban are also a mistake given that both groups share a similar ideology, albeitwith slight variations. Engaging the Taliban for the sake of fighting the Islamic State is likely to further alienate Afghanistan’s National Unity Government as well as other stake holders in the Afghan peace process. That, in turn, would only aggravate the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20825
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Prem » 24 Mar 2017 00:16

India eyes deal to repair Afghan aircraft, deepening military ties
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1363488/in ... tary-ties/

KABUL: Afghanistan has repeatedly asked India to increase military assistance, as it struggles to fight Afghan Taliban insurgents who have taken swathes of territory since most foreign troops left the country in late 2014.New Delhi’s readiness to provide more military help, while limited, underlines its desire to help Kabul as other regional powers including Russia and China look to increase their influence in Afghanistan.“We have been looking at the scale of the challenge the ANSF (Afghan National Security Forces) faces, particularly in one segment, close air support,” Ambassador Manpreet Vohra said in an interview in Kabul this week.“We are trying to see how we can help. They have a large number of attack helicopters and transport aircraft grounded for want of spares, for expiry of certification,” he said.India will decide whether to approve the proposal after final costing is done within a few months.Most of Afghanistan’s small air force dates from the Soviet era, but sanctions against Russia mean Western donors that fund the military cannot pay to get grounded aircraft flying again. India is not bound by such restrictions, but aside from the transfer in 2015 to Afghanistan of four attack helicopters, New Delhi has been reluctant to commit direct military support, saying it does not have the resources and prefers to help Kabul with development aid.Under the agreement with Afghanistan, India would pay for the transportation of the aircraft to Russia or other former Soviet states where the planes were manufactured and must be fixed according to licencing agreements, as well as for new parts and repairs, Vohra said.The ambassador is due to meet the Afghan air chief in the next few weeks.

Bhurishravas
BRFite
Posts: 680
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 18:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Bhurishravas » 24 Mar 2017 20:32

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/worl ... .html?_r=0
Taliban Take an Afghan District, Sangin, That Many Marines Died to Keep

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — The Taliban captured the strategic district of Sangin in the southern province of Helmand on Thursday, according to local officials. It was the culmination of a yearslong offensive that took the lives of more combatants than any other fight for territory in Afghanistan.
While spokesmen for the central government denied claims by the Taliban that the district had fallen to them, some conceded that the insurgents had overrun the district center and government facilities. But local Afghan government and military officials said there was no doubt Sangin had finally fallen to their enemy.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22772
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby SSridhar » 25 Mar 2017 17:29

Russia denies NATO’s Taliban claim - AFP
Russia on Friday denied allegations by the commander of NATO that Moscow may be assisting the Taliban as the insurgents fight U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

“These claims are absolutely false,” Zamir Kabulov, head of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s department responsible for Afghanistan and the Kremlin’s special envoy in the country, told RIA Novosti state news agency.

Justifying failure

“These fabrications are designed, as we have repeatedly underlined, to justify the failure of the U.S. military and politicians in the Afghan campaign. There is no other explanation.”

NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, U.S. General Curtis Scaparrotti, who also heads the U.S. military’s European Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington that Moscow was “perhaps” supplying the Taliban.

In February General John Nicholson, the US commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, testified that Russia is encouraging the Taliban and providing them with diplomatic cover in a bid to undermine US influence and defeat NATO.

Bhurishravas
BRFite
Posts: 680
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 18:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Bhurishravas » 27 Mar 2017 00:17

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/p ... 48483.html
Pakistan starts building fence along Afghanistan border
Fencing starts along Pakistan's disputed border with Afghanistan in bid to stop fighters' movement.


Difficult to buy this. Al Jazeera of late has turned quite biased in promoting Qatari/Turki/paki interests.

Bhurishravas
BRFite
Posts: 680
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 18:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Bhurishravas » 27 Mar 2017 00:28

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03 ... ghanistan/
Taliban poised to seize key cities in Afghanistan.

"There is an emerging Taliban Axis comprising of Pakistan, China, Russia, and Iran. They are united in two things: evicting US from Afghanistan and combating Daesh," Dr Dawood Moradian, director for Afghan institute for strategic studies in Kabul, said on Friday.

Bhurishravas
BRFite
Posts: 680
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 18:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Bhurishravas » 31 Mar 2017 04:10

Singha wrote:map released by pakiban. the red and black are the owned or contested areas. green is the govt. 3/4 of the country is owned or contested by the talibs

Image


good here.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10459
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby A_Gupta » 01 Apr 2017 19:46

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... port-tali/
"U.S. Gen. Votel: Russia providing weapons, support to Taliban in Afghanistan"

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10459
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby A_Gupta » 01 Apr 2017 19:47

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ign-troops
Russia Backs Afghan Taliban Demand to Withdraw Foreign Troops
Russia said it supports the Taliban’s demand for foreign troops to leave Afghanistan as it criticized agreements that allow U.S. and NATO forces to remain for the long term in the war-torn country.

“Of course it’s justified” for the Taliban to oppose the foreign military presence, President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy for Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, said in an interview in Moscow. “Who’s in favor? Name me one neighboring state that supports it.”

Russia and the U.S. are increasingly at odds over Afghanistan. Officials in Moscow disclosed at the end of last year that they’ve been having contacts with the fundamentalist Islamic movement that ruled the country from 1996 to 2001, when it was overthrown in a U.S.-led invasion to destroy terrorist training camps run by Osama Bin Laden. U.S. generals say Russia may be supplying weapons to the Taliban, which is waging an expanding insurgency against the pro-Western Afghan government. Moscow denies the allegation.


What a fabulous name for an envoy to Afghanistan: Kabulov!

Anyway, Russian support for the Taliban, however minor, is not in India's interests.

Bhurishravas
BRFite
Posts: 680
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 18:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Bhurishravas » 01 Apr 2017 23:21

^^^
So, according to Kabulov and Russia, it is the neighbours who are to decide whether foreign troops stay in Afghanistan or not.
According to the same logic, it must be Turkey and Israel who should decide whether Russian bases in Syria should stay or not.
Russian and Chinese support to Taliban will have long term consequences.
Kabulov is unlikley to be able to calculate that with his islamic background. But considering his influence, one must assume that his is the direction Moscow is taking now.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20825
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Prem » 03 Apr 2017 08:35

https://jamestown.org/program/afghan-fo ... ah-akhter/
Afghan Forces’ Unexpected Win: The Killing of Qari Saifullah Akhter
Akhter, 58 and widely respected in the jihadist circles of Pakistan and Afghanistan as a veteran of 40-years of jihad, was killed by Afghan security forces in the Birmil district of Paktika province in January (Newsline, February 20). He was reportedly fighting alongside the Afghan Taliban, apparently having recently relocated to the country.As well as a setback for the Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Islamist terrorist groups, his death in rural Afghanistan comes as something of a surprise since, according to earlier reports, he had been enjoying a comfortable retirement in Pakistan, where he ran a madrasa near Islamabad. [1]
Apart from his strong jihadist credentials in Pakistan, Akhter was one of only a small number of militants to develop an early rapport with the Afghan Taliban. During the Taliban’s rule of Afghanistan, between 1996 and 2001, he became an advisor to Mullah Omar and served as a judge in Kabul. His HuJI organization even supplemented Afghan Taliban forces with a contingent of Pakistani foot soldiers to aid the group’s conquest of northern Afghanistan.Akhter used his Taliban influence to help develop al-Qaeda-Taliban relations. When al-Qaeda provided fighters from its non-Afghan Brigade 055 to aid Taliban forces in fighting against Northern Alliance forces, it was on Akhter’s advice.After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, the HuJI leader was seen fleeing with Mullah Omar on his motorcycle in the suburb of Kandahar. [4] Despite reports he was killed fleeing Afghanistan, he later resurfaced in Pakistan but remained aloof from public gatherings and talks.Afghan officials created confusion and generated further speculations about Akhter’s presence in Afghanistan because they first announced his death in a clash with Afghan military in Birmil district of Paktika province, but five weeks later claimed he was killed in a raid in Nawa district of Ghazni province (Nation, January 10; Geo News, January 10).Since Akhter served as a go-between for al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban while Afghanistan was under Taliban rule, it is possible he was in the country to reconcile the two Islamist militant forces as part of a broader strategy before the start of spring and the beginning of a new fighting season. The recent divisions in the Afghan Taliban, following the death of former leader Mullah Mansoor Akhter in 2016, could have prompted the group to call on him. Afghanistan’s Taliban-led insurgency is not monolithic and its leadership’s promises that the Afghan government will soon fall increasingly appear overblown to its supporters. It may be the Taliban hoped to capitalize on Akhter’s veteran status since — at the age of 58, it is unlikely he was there to fight.
Akhter may have hoped that the emergence of Islamic State’s Khurasan chapter in Afghanistan, which has been unsettling for both the Taliban and al-Qaeda, could improve ties damaged in the wake of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and more tightly knit the two together.The development also comes amid a recent shift in Afghan politics that has seen a peace agreement between the government and the veteran Hizb-e-Islami militia leader Gulbaden Hekmatyar. Hekmatyar’s move to join the political establishment was a blow to the Taliban. Bringing in Akhter was perhaps a move by the Taliban to show the group can still claim broad support from the jihadist community.Afghanistan is likely to see an increase in violence as the spring fighting season begins, with the 2017 fighting season set to test the Afghan government and security forces. In that context, Akhter and his HuJI could have been a boon to the Taliban and his death may prove something of a pre-emptive victory of Afghan security forces, albeit an unexpected on.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21761
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Austin » 03 Apr 2017 10:28

Bhurishravas wrote:^^
Agreed. Americans are big hypocrites. In fact they tried every trick in the book to try to engineer a good Taliban and bring it to the table. And now they are crying over Russians trying to do the same.
Shouldnt the same harsh words be reserved for Russia for following the same policies that we reserve for US. Suddenly Taliban has become good. And moatorium on arms sale to Pakistan is lifted. And Russian generals are visiting Waziristan.
Or perhaps Russia can do no wrong.

And US troops in Afghanistan is fine by me as long as they ensure Taliban does not have a free hand to give refuge to hijacked Indian planes.


^^ The Russian didnt supply the Pakistani with billions of $$$ each year nor did they supply with Arms , US knew very well the source of Arms and Funding for Afghanistan is Pakistan in past 15 years but it still turned a blind eye to it , If any things else they keep repeatedly supporting Paksitan with more money and arms.

The Karzai guy was on his knees pleading the US to stop the Pakistan government to fund terrorism but in the end he was kicked out.

The US has no one but to blame itself for the defeat in Afghanistan , All it managed to do in the end is find OBL inside Pakistan and pakistan did pay any price for sheltering him and US left them scott free. See the Hipocracy ?

If the US is getting kicked out of Afghanistan then its good for Afghan people and US military personal the bulk of which are cannon fodder for the Taliban well supported by US money and arms via Pakistan.

If Russia/China are gaming US withdrawl and it some what expedites it all the more welcome , The Afghans need UN troops there not NATO one which has lost the plot and the game , They have mercilessly killed so many civilians in Drone Strikes and brought untold misery on the Afghan people

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21761
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Austin » 03 Apr 2017 10:29

US Afghan casualty till October 2016
As of October 18th, 2016, there have been 2,386 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. 1,834 of these deaths have been the result of hostile action. 20,049 American servicemembers have also been wounded in action during the war. In addition, there were 1,173 U.S. civilian contractor fatalities.

Since October, 12 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan and five Americans are currently being held hostage there.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017 ... ttack.html

The strategic district of Sangin in Helmand province was the deadliest battlefield for UK forces in Afghanistan and 104 British troops died in the effort to keep it out of the Taliban’s hands.



^^ The Net Winner in this battle is PA/ISI , They get to keep the money and arms in more than $ 16 billion dollars , They get to fund the Taliban , They have embroiled the US forces in a never ending war and death by thousand cuts ... They get to keep strategic depth in Afghanistan ,what more ISI can ask for.

Bhurishravas
BRFite
Posts: 680
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 18:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Bhurishravas » 03 Apr 2017 16:29

Are UN forces willing and ready to replace NATO/ISAAF troops?!
The withdrawal of American troops will lead to the fall of Govt in Kabul.
The US people will decide whether US soldiers are cannon fodder or not. And Afghanistan govt will decide whether they need foreign troops or not. And whether if `untold` miseries are being inflicted on the people of Afghanistan. The drone attacks are quite precise and take out Jihadis quite effectively it seems. Suddenly Russia and Roos lovers have found love for Jihadis.
The Russians are willing to sell weapons to Pakistan and probably ready to give money too, except that Russia does not have money to give. They are giving what they can. Diplomatic support till now.
According to Russia and roos lovers, a Taliban victory in Afghanistan is better than having Americans troops stationed there.
Going by the same logic, American support to jihadis to topple Assad can also be reasoned. Right?

India does not want a return of Taliban govt in Afghanistan. Can Russia prevent the takeover of Kabul by Taliban if the US forces leave tomorrow? If not, Russian interests in supporting Taliban and removal of foreign troops is counter to Indian interests.

Bhurishravas
BRFite
Posts: 680
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 18:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Bhurishravas » 03 Apr 2017 16:31

America is giving money and weapons to PA/ISI, so it is wrong. Instead, it must be Russia which should give money and weapons to PA/ISI.
Hmmmm.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby TSJones » 03 Apr 2017 23:13

the trumpster is withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan?

geez, this is news to me.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19356
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Philip » 04 Apr 2017 20:51

My worry is that we are being left out in the joint Russia-China-Pak talks on Afghanistan.Not too long ago we were funding Russian arms for the Afghan govt.! What has happened? Are we backing a loser in Ghani? If the US/West withdraw completely from Af-Pak,and that would open up a huge vacuum for the Taliban to seize with alacrity, we will be looking at a catastrophe which will have direct impact upon Pak's plans to grab J&K. India has to engage with Russia and demand that it be included in these talks.

If we are excluded from talks aimed at cementing a peace in Afghanistan,then we must wage a massive covert campaign to destabilise Pak in every which way and dismember it as we did in "71. The destruction of Pakistan is the only way in which we can save a massive invasion of jihadis from the Talibs,Al Q and ISIS,apart from Paki jihadis,assisted by the Chinese. The Chinese will support such a campaign to keep us off balance as they further make inroads into the IOR,esp. in the maritime sphere.The Saudis and Chinese are to invest a massive amt. together in the Maldives,billions,which will further cement the hold by the PRC of such a strategic region in our very own backyard.

Therefore,there can only be a single-point programme to save IJ&K and thereby India,the utter destruction of Pak from within,by assisting every sectarian entity in that dog-forsaken land,and create such mayhem that its Afghan project runs out of steam and the dream of the Chinese to build their silk road all the way to the Gulf comes to nowt.


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21761
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Austin » 05 Apr 2017 12:09

Cost of Afghanistan War: Timeline, Economic Impact

https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-afgh ... ct-4122493

The Afghanistan War was a military conflict that lasted 14 years (2001 - 2014) and cost $1.07 trillion. The Bush Administration launched it in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks by al-Qaida. The United States attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan for hiding al-Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden. It was the kick-off to the War on Terror.

The war's $1.07 trillion cost had three main components. First is the $773 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funds specifically dedicated to the Afghanistan War.

Second is the increase of $243 billion to the Department of Defense base budget. Third is the increase of $54.2 billion to the Veterans Administration budget. Some of these costs are also attributable to the War in Iraq. But the true cost of the Afghanistan War should include the addition to these departments, even if some of the funds went toward both wars. For more on how to determine the actual cost of defense, see the U.S. Military Budget.
Timeline of Afghanistan War Costs

Here's a timeline of what happened each year. A table that summarizes these costs is below.

FY 2001 - $37.3 billion: Osama bin Laden authorized 9/11 attacks. President Bush demanded that the Afghanistan Taliban deliver bin Laden or risk U.S. attack. Congress appropriated $22.9 billion in emergency funding. On October 7, U.S. jets bombed Taliban forces. On December 7, the Taliban abandon Kabul, the capital. Hamid Karzai became interim administration head.

That same month, ground troops pursued bin Laden into the Afghan foothills. He escaped to Pakistan on December 16, 2001.

FY 2002 - $65.1 billion: In March, the U.S. military launched Operation Anaconda against Taliban fighters. Bush promised to reconstruct Afghanistan, but only provided $38 billion between 2001 and 2009.

Bush turned attention to Iraq War.


FY 2003
- $56.7 billion: In May, the Bush Administration announced that major combat ended in Afghanistan. NATO took over control of the peacekeeping mission. NATO added 65,000 troops from 42 countries.

FY 2004 - $29.6 billion: On January 9, Afghanistan created a new Constitution. On October 9, the U.S. military protected Afghans from Taliban attacks for their first free election. On October 29, bin Laden threatened another terrorist attack.

FY 2005
- $47.4 billion: On May 23, Bush and Karzai signed an agreement allowing U.S. military access to Afghan military facilities in return for training and equipment. Six million Afghans voted for national and local councils. Three million voters were women.

FY 2006 - $29.9 billion: The new Afghanistan government struggled to provide basic services, including police protection. Violence increases. The United States criticized NATO for not providing more soldiers.

FY 2007 - $57.3 billion: Allies assassinated a Taliban commander, Mullah Dadullah.

FY 2008
- $87.7 billion: Violence escalated in Afghanistan after U.S. troops accidentally killed civilians.

FY 2009
- $100 billion: President Obama took office. He sent 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan in April.

He promised to send another 30,000 in December. He named Lt. General McChrystal as the new commander. Obama's strategy focused on attacking resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida forces on the Pakistan border. That added $59.5 billion to Bush's FY 2009 budget. He promised to withdraw all troops by 2011. Voters reelected Karzai amidst accusations of fraud.

FY 2010 - $112.7 billion: NATO sent surge forces to fight the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. NATO agreed to turn over all defense to Afghan forces by 2014. Obama replaced McChrystal with General Petraeus. Afghanistan held parliamentary elections amidst charges of fraud.

FY 2011 - $110.4 billion: Special Forces took out Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011. Obama announced he would withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year and 23,000 by the end of 2012. The United States held preliminary peace talks with Taliban leaders. (Source: Amy Belasco, "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," Table A1. Congressional Research Service, March 29, 2014.)

FY 2012 - $105.1 billion: Obama announced the withdrawal of another 23,000 troops from Afghanistan in the summer, leaving 70,000 troops remaining. Both sides agreed to hasten U.S. troop withdrawal to 2013. Their presence had become unwelcome. The Taliban canceled U.S. peace talks.

FY 2013
- $53.3 billion: U.S. forces shifted to a training and support role. The Taliban reignited peace negotiations with the United States, causing Karzai to suspend his U.S. negotiations.

FY 2014
- $80.2 billion: Obama announced final U.S. troop withdrawal, with only 9,800 remaining at the end of the year. (Source: "Afghanistan War," Council on Foreign Relations. "Major Events in the Afghanistan War," The New York Times.)

FY 2015
- $60.9 billion: Troops trained Afghan forces. (Source: DoD 2015 OCO Amendment)

FY 2016 - $30.8 billion: The DoD requested funds for training efforts in Afghanistan as well as training and equipment for Syrian opposition forces. It also included support for NATO and responses to terrorist threats. (Source: DoD 2016 OCO Amendment)

FY 2017 - $5.7 billion: The DoD requested $58.8 billion for Operation Freedom Sentinel in Afghanistan, Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and the Levant, increased European support and counterterrorism. (Source: DoD 2017 OCO Amendment.)

[RP1]I agree it’s okay not to spell this out.

Image

*Boots on Ground is the number of troops in Iraq. From 2001 through 2013, it's as of December of that year. 2014 - 2017 is as of May. (Source: "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," Table A-1. Amy Belasco, Congressional Research Service, March 29, 2014.) Boots on Ground for 2015 is for the fourth quarter and 2016 is from the second quarter. (Source: Heidi M. Peters, "Department of Defense Contractor and Troop Levels in Iraq and Afghanistan: 2007-2016," Table 3. Congressional Research Service, August 15, 2016. "Historical Tables," OMB.)

Cost of the Afghanistan War to Veterans

The real cost of the Afghanistan War is more than the $1.06 trillion added to the debt. First, and most important, is the cost borne by the 2,350 U.S. troops who died, the 20,092 who suffered injuries, and their families. (Source: "Total Deaths KIA," Department of Defense, January 13, 2017.) For details on these casualties, see iCasualties.org.

Improvements in battlefield medicine meant that more than 90 percent of soldiers wounded in Afghanistan survived. That's better than the Vietnam War's 86.5 percent track record. Unfortunately, that also means these veterans and their families now must live with the effects of permanent and grave damage. More than 320,000 of soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq have Traumatic Brain Injury that causes disorientation and confusion. Of those, 8,237 suffered severe or invasive brain injury. In addition, 1,645 soldiers lost all or part of a limb. More than 138,000 have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. They experience flashbacks, hypervigilance and difficulty sleeping.

On average, 20 veterans commit suicide each day according to a 2016 VA study.​ The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) found that 47 percent of its members knew of someone who had attempted suicide after returning from active duty. The group considers veteran suicide to be its number one issue. (Source: "A Guide to U.S. Military Casualty Statistics: Operation New Dawn, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom," Congressional Research Service, Hannah Fischer, February 19, 2014. "Veterans Group to Launch Suicide Prevention Campaign," Washington Post, March 24, 2014.)

The cost of veterans’ medical and disability payments over the next 40 years will be more than $1 trillion. That's according to Linda Bilmes, a senior lecturer in public finance at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “The cost of caring for war veterans typically peaks 30 to 40 years or more after a conflict,” Bilmes said. (Source: "Costs of War," Watson Institute at Brown University, September 2016. "Iraq War Lives on as Second-Costliest U.S. Conflict Fuels U.S. Debt," BusinessWeek, January 3, 2012. "Final U.S. Troops Leave Iraq," Bloomberg, March 19, 2013).

Cost to Economy


The Afghanistan War cost more than the $738 billion inflation-adjusted dollars spent on the Vietnam War. It's second only to the $4.1 trillion inflation-adjusted dollars spent during World War II.

Unlike earlier wars, most American families did not feel impacted by the Afghanistan War. Unlike the Vietnam War and World War II, there was no draft. There was no tax imposed to pay for the war.

As a result, those who served and their families bore the brunt. It will cost them at least $300 billion over the next several decades to pay for their injured family members. That doesn't include lost income from jobs they quit to care for their relative.

Future generations will also pay for the addition to the debt. Researcher Ryan Edwards estimated that the United States incurred an extra $453 billion in interest on the debt to pay for the wars in the Middle East. Over the next 40 years, these costs will add $7.9 trillion to the debt. (Source: "Costs of War," Watson Institute, September 2016.)

Companies, particularly small businesses, were disrupted by National Guard and Reserve call-ups. The economy has also been deprived of the productive contributions of the service members killed, wounded or psychologically traumatized.

There's also the opportunity cost in terms of job creation. Every $1 billion spent on defense creates 8,555 jobs and adds $565 million to the economy. That same $1 billion in tax cuts stimulate enough demand to create 10,779 jobs and puts $505 million into the economy as retail sales. The same $1 billion in spent on education adds $1.3 billion to the economy and creates 17,687 jobs.

Causes

Why did the United States start a war in Afghanistan? The Bush administration wanted to eliminate the terrorist threat of al-Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden. It also wanted to remove the Taliban from power since they provided refuge for bin Laden.

Al-Qaida had been in Afghanistan since the Taliban came to power in 1996. Before that, al-Qaida had operated in Pakistan's mountainous western border. It returned to Pakistan when the United States ousted the Taliban in 2001. (Source: "Al-Qaida Backgrounder," Council on Foreign Relations, June 6, 2012.)

The Taliban grew out of Muslim opposition to the 1979-1989 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. They came from the thousands of mujahedeen (holy warriors) that arrived from all over the world to fight the Soviets. Ironically, the United States supplied anti-aircraft missiles to the mujahedeen to stop the spread of communism in the Middle East. (Source: "The Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan," PBS Newshour, October 10, 2006.)

When the war ended, these mujahedeen battled each other for control of the country. An Afghan contingent joined with Pashtun tribesmen to create the Taliban. They practiced a fundamentalist version of Islam called Wahhabism. The Taliban (which means student) had attended schools funded by Saudi Arabia.

The Taliban promised peace and stability. They controlled 90 percent of the country by 2001. They also imposed strict sharia law, such as requiring women to wear burqas. The United Nations Security Council issued resolutions urging the Taliban to end oppressive treatment of women. (Source: "The Taliban in Afghanistan," Council on Foreign Relations, July 4, 2014.)

Al-Qaida shared a similar fundamentalist Sunni Muslim ideology. The Sunnis believe that Shiites want to revive Persian rule over the Middle East. This Sunni-Shiite split is the driving force of tensions in the area. It is also an economic battle. Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran both want to control the Straits of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's oil passes.

The Taliban's support of al-Qaida came at a cost. It caused the UN Security Council to issue sanctions against Afghanistan. These sanctions, along with the Afghanistan War, led to the Taliban's downfall from power.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21761
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Austin » 10 Apr 2017 17:53

Moscow has information about the external support of the Afghan terrorist plans to destabilize the situation in Central Asia - Russian Foreign Ministry
04.10.2017 15:00:19
Moscow. April 10th. Interfax-AVN - The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed support for external terrorists in northern Afghanistan to destabilize the situation in Central Asia.

"Of course, the divergent interests and forces in the region are many, but the total mass flow of information, there is evidence of provided externally, directly or indirectly, support terrorism, particularly in the Afghan north, and their plans to destabilize the situation in Central Asia. These interests and forces should not be underestimated, "- he said in an interview to" Interfax "the director of the Department on new challenges and threats of the Russian Federation Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ilya Rogachev.

"We are closely watching the processes taking place in Central Asia with the republics in the region have historically linked the allied and strategic relations, where our compatriots live close peoples of Russia and, of course, we know very well what is happening in neighboring Afghanistan that. there are do's and don'ts that could be done, but so far not taken in the fight against terrorism and nourish his criminal events, starting with drug trafficking ", - he said.

"Therefore, as corny as it may sound, we repeat that the other way, but to continue to strengthen counter-terrorism cooperation with our Central Asian partners, we have not. Required to develop information exchange, improve cooperation mechanisms, develop scenarios of joint action. And, of course, be prepared for power, the joint, based on a legitimate collective decisions and mechanisms of reactions It is, of course, the scope of reference of the competent authorities ", -. said the director of the Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

"The task of the foreign service in the plan is to build the necessary political atmosphere, the international legal framework, in the development and timely offer the right solutions We regularly work on its implementation in our common formats. CSTO, SCO and CIS", - concluded he.


http://militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=447688

Tuan
BRFite
Posts: 204
Joined: 16 Oct 2008 01:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Tuan » 13 Apr 2017 23:00

Braking News: Most powerful non-nuclear US bombs dropped against ISIS targets in Afghanistan, according to CNN, the first battlefield use for the "mother of all bombs".
Last edited by Tuan on 13 Apr 2017 23:02, edited 1 time in total.

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9469
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Falijee » 13 Apr 2017 23:02

Message To ISIS or Message To ISI

First on CNN: US drops largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan

Washington (CNN)The US military has dropped an enormous bomb in Afghanistan, according to four US military officials with direct knowledge of the mission.A GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb, nicknamed MOAB, was dropped at 7 p.m. local time Thursday, the sources said.The MOAB is also known as the "mother of all bombs." A MOAB is a 21,600-pound, GPS-guided munition that is America's most powerful non-nuclear bomb.The bomb was dropped by an MC-130 aircraft, operated by Air Force Special Operations Command, according to the military sources.
They said the target was an ISIS tunnel and cave complex as well as personnel in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province.The military is currently assessing the damage. Gen. John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, signed off on the use of the bomb, according to the sources. Authority had to be sought from Gen. Joseph Votel, commander of US Central Command.This is the first time a MOAB has been used in the battlefield, according to the US officials. This munition was developed during the Iraq War. Is there panic in Isloo yet :D

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Bheeshma » 13 Apr 2017 23:04

Does India have anything like the MOAB or FOAB?

GShankar
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 20:20

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby GShankar » 13 Apr 2017 23:11

why such a big stick right after a carrot (didn't they recently give pukis some money)? Seems like another deal making in play. Makes sense that if massa is serious about iran, they need to be in afghanistan. And if they are getting into cpec, then they might as well have a base in gwadar.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20825
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Prem » 13 Apr 2017 23:40


ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1125
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby ArjunPandit » 13 Apr 2017 23:49

Bheeshma wrote:Does India have anything like the MOAB or FOAB?

These are big boys toys. You make it, not for sale.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1125
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby ArjunPandit » 13 Apr 2017 23:53

Tuan wrote:Braking News: Most powerful non-nuclear US bombs dropped against ISIS targets in Afghanistan, according to CNN, the first battlefield use for the "mother of all bombs".

> Wouldnt be surprised if the bomb was nearing expiry.
>Again US propaganda. Someone needs to remind these people that there is a FOAB with russia. Look forward to that being used in Syria on ISIS.
> Speaking of ISIS, is there actually ISIS or ISIs in Afghanistan or was it some "bad taliban" refferred henceforth by ISIS?

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6846
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Mort Walker » 13 Apr 2017 23:58

It was in Achin district at Pak border. I wonder if it was Pak troops crossing back and forth?

Image

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1837
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby AdityaM » 14 Apr 2017 00:32

Wasn't Daisy Cutter the moab till some years ago?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2566
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby kit » 14 Apr 2017 01:45

Quite possibly the MOAB was a test case for North Korean operation .. so to kill 2 birds with one stone ..why not take out a few talibs in the process :mrgreen:

rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3277
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby rsingh » 14 Apr 2017 02:50

yep. That was first thing I told to SHQ after hearing the news. IIRC there was no news of IS making marry in tora-bora caves.Now BR has to predict next course of action.
-Noko conducting another test Nuke test or Missile test and China showing its inability to influence the NoKo.
China will start making noise for peaceful resolution from tomorrow. It may send high level delegation to NoKo.Me think Trump gave earful to komlade XI and and message was conveyed. Tomahawk to take high level individual targets and big bomb to be used in carpet bombing (one wave ) to take out all artillery pieces that target seoul. Clearest indication will be some evacuation drill planned for seoul. Attack has to be carried out on weekends or on some public holiday when Seoul is half empty. Biggest proof that Syrian attack was a practice drill is that all of the missiles were slightly off the target. Following objectives were archived:
-Trump in no Russian pal.....ward off CIA,FBI investigation into reported Russian intervention.
-To assure deep state that it is still a relevant entity.
-To solve NoKo problem and Trump makes history
-To rein in China
I think US is quite sure about NoKo's Nuke stock pile. Japan is not quite sure about NoKo's Biological weapons. Any news of japan distributing hazard suit in Northern japan will be an indication of imminent US attack on NoKo. Westward wind pattern over Korean territories will be another indication of attack window. I presume It has to be before UN GA in Sept and before change in Chinese leadership (due in Sept or Oct).

Russia: I think Russia in onboard. it was decided that UK (toothless clown)will make noise at UNSC and thats it. They agreed Syrian regime. Any unusual activity at Komchatka will be one more indicator.

India: Devol's visit to US and his strange silence on major security issues (kashmir and Chinese drama over Arunachal ) is indicator that something big has to come. Even Modi ji has taken to mondharan.
Could anybody calculate change in US forces in South-East Asia?
More to come

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3120
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Rudradev » 14 Apr 2017 04:22

Wait wait wait.

We have no idea who "ISIS" really means in Afghanistan.

All parties have realized that "ISIS" is a buzzword these days, a shorthand for "really, really BAD terrorist, in my opinion".

For example Pakistanis have started referring to all the splinter groups of TTP, who did not come back into Islamabad's fold following the Zarb-e-Azb operation, as "ISIS".

Are these groups any worse from an objective point of view than the Quetta Shura or Haqqani Network... the Taliban factions which remain loyal to Islamabad's agenda? Of course not.

But by calling these groups "ISIS", Pakistan can evoke sympathy and assistance from other countries who take Islamabad's word for who is a good terrorist vs. who is a bad terrorist.

Today there are militant groups who are essentially fighting for Pashtun freedom south of the Durand Line, with Kabul's support. Pakistan has been screaming to everyone in the international community that these groups are actually "ISIS-Khorasan", when in fact they are no such thing. China has been lending its weight to bolster the credibility of Pakistan's claim that these groups are, in fact, ISIS.

That is what the China-Russia-Pak talks are about. Thanks to Islampasand scumbags like Zamir Kabulov, Russia has been roped in to support the pro-Islamabad Taliban factions in Afghanistan, because the pro-Islamabad Taliban factions are fighting the NATO-supported Kabul regime as well as the so-called "ISIS" factions (who are actually anti-Islamabad Pashtun freedom fighters).

So who exactly got a MOAB dropped on them?

Given Trump's willingness to believe the US deep state on Assad having a hand in the chemical weapons attack last month, it is clear that the US deep state is now dictating the terms of who is a "good terrorist" vs. who is a "bad terrorist" in Washington.

Given the new-found bonhomie between Washington and China, it is virtually guaranteed that China's version of who is "ISIS" in Afghanistan is being fed directly to Trump. This is exactly equal to the Paki version.

So most likely, Pashtun freedom fighters who were supported by Kabul, and fighting against Pakistan's illegal occupation of FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkwa, got bombed by the Americans in Tora Bora. Altogether a net negative for Indian interests.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5197
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby ShauryaT » 14 Apr 2017 06:20

India must deploy troops

Policy objectives
India’s policy objectives in Afghanistan are in consonance with the strategic partnership agreement. Besides a stable and preferably neutral government, India’s political objectives include the following: ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a base and safe haven for terro­rists and radical extremists; counter Pakistan’s quest for strategic depth, acquire access to Afghanistan and through it to the CARs; establish broad-based engagement with all political groups; support Afghan-led reconciliation efforts, as vis­ualised by the Afghan High Peace Council; assist Afghanistan to train its administrative and judicial staff to improve governance and delivery of justice; and, further enhance people-to-people contacts.

India’s national security objectives comprise: supporting the capacity building efforts of ANSF by ensuring implementation of the Strategic Partnership Agreement, including the supply of war-like stores; ensuring the safety and protection of Indian assets and infrastructure in Afghanistan; and, cooperating to share intelligence.

India’s economic policy objectives are to increase trade with Afghanistan and through it with the CARs; enhance Indian business investment in Afghanistan; assist Afghanistan to develop its natural resources; further increase India’s reconstruction and capacity building programme; enhance India’s energy security; for example, through the commissioning of the TAPI (Turkmenistan–Afg­hanistan–Pakistan–India) pipeline; assist Afghanistan to replace narcotics-based agriculture with regular agriculture; and, work towards the implementation of Safta (South Asian Free Trade Area).

Finally, unless the security environment improves substantially, governance and development will continue to take a back seat. The P-5 (UN permanent members: China, France, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, and the United States) need to be persuaded to supplement the ANSF with a United Nations or a regional peacekeeping force to eliminate the Taliban.

Though there is no support in India for sending troops to Afghanistan, there is realisation that the fight against the Taliban and the al Qaeda has long-term security implications for the country as peace and stability in Afghanistan are vital national interests. Along with other neighbours, New Delhi should be willing to deploy up to one division (15,000 troops) to join such a force provided Pakistan’s sensibilities about Indian military presence in Afghanistan can be assuaged.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50020
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby ramana » 14 Apr 2017 06:42

Gurmeet Kanwal?

If so I asked him 'whats the policy' and not to get ahead of that.
He liked the tweet :(

And his numbers wont work as too few to make a difference.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Katare and 16 guests