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.
krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby krishna_krishna » 23 Aug 2019 05:25

Rudradev wrote:
krishna_krishna wrote:I believe then you have false impression on capabilities of US milistary, just look at Syria , ookraine and Afghanistan.

Also there are contractors on the ground since many years in Afghanistan, why they failed to deliver thus far in Afghanistan (and I also may add Syria ) ?


When you rely on one-line assertions based on preconceived notions rather than facts, it becomes difficult to respond to your arguments seriously.

The facts are as follows:

-"Contractors" can be there for many purposes, and indeed most of the contractors in Afghanistan right now are non-combatants. If the bulk of the fighting force is official US military, it does not matter if contractors are also present. US press coverage and domestic political pressure will still be focused on the war.

- On the other hand the US is involved in multiple conflicts around the world where the bulk of fighting forces are contractors (with only a few SF, drone operators, etc thrown in). These conflicts remain far away from public view for exactly that reason. US voters forget about what is not directly in their faces.

-If the US fighting force in Afghanistan can become primarily contractor-based instead of primarily-US-military based, it gets downgraded in the public consciousness because Americans will stop thinking about it. This will allow the US to essentially maintain a presence in Afghanistan for as long as it likes without domestic political backlash.

-Anyone who thinks the US military-industrial complex will run out of money (@ steady burn rate of ~$50B per year in Afghanistan since 2016), please do the maths. This is not even 10% of US' annual defence budget.

-Hence if the US replaces its official military fighting force in Afghanistan with a contractor-based fighting force, it will have neither financial nor domestic political constraints against remaining there indefinitely.

Conclusion #1: the US will not "win" in Afghanistan as long as it is dependent on Pakistan to supply its forces there. On the other hand neither will it "lose" in Afghanistan because nobody can push it out against its will.

Conclusion #2: the US can both save money and retain/extend influence in Afghanistan if
a) its contractor fighting-force is composed largely of non-US personnel, and cost is shared by other parties.
b) it does not have to rely on Pakistan to supply that force.

Therefore, it makes sense for the US to try and strike a deal with India.

They can offer India (i) full diplomatic and possibly intel support for a campaign to retake all of J&K (ii) a diplomatic blank cheque to dismember Pakistan as we like (iii) full support against Chini aggression if necessary (iv) opportunity to extend our influence into Afghanistan and control a land route from India-Balwaristan-Afghanistan-Central Asia.

[Note that the above also serve US interests directly as they basically make mincemeat of CPEC and offer the US an inroad to create alternatives for OBOR].

In return they will ask for deployment of Indian troops, possibly as "contractors", to replace some/all of the US military personnel in Afghanistan. And to allow Indian territory, including liberated J&K/GB, to be used as the logistical conduit for the US/Indian presence in Afghanistan.

Now I, personally, do NOT think this would be a good option for India.
Afghanistan, that Taliban are on the verge of sweeping into Kabul and then rushing into J&K for Ghazwa-e-Hind, ok... don't let me stop you.


Rdevji, My whole effort in continuing this discussion is not to get into slug fest but honest and fact based analysis , please read my posts in that spirit no offense intended. I believe this is very important to future of Bharat and whatever happens to the world especially changes in J&K. I believe this churning will help and get ideas and thoughts refined. New point of views will help clear fog and help us better analyze that situation. And "don't let me stop you", well you are not and you cannot even if you want to. Having said that let me answer you point by point.

My one liner are because you are basing all your assumptions/hypothesis that these legendary/mythical fighting contractors force (or I should say mercenary as appropriate term used by someone above) will be able to dominate and defeat tali bunnies and will have umrica have peaceful life in Afghanistan like rest of the overseas based across the world.

If we do fact based analysis all of these even to be sustainable or feasible they need to have assured and safe supply lines. Now you yourself admitted that their supply lines dependent on Pakistan where this will lead to.

Here is one more fact on the contractors to keep their profit margins fat, military contractors tend to subcontract on cheap labor from poor nations, a practice that’s led to “forced labor, slavery, and sexual exploitation,”. In a trip to Iraq in 2009, us commissioners learned about the mostly African and South American guards hired by companies like Triple Canopy, SABRE, and EODT to provide security on big US bases. Among their discoveries: Guards were often ill-equipped, worked unusually long tours with 12-hour shifts, were denied their one-month vacations, and weren’t paid until their contracts were finished, essentially forcing them to endure their assignments to the end. The government paid SABRE $1,700 per guard; in turn, SABRE paid its Ugandan recruits $700 a month and pocketed the difference. So all in all these multinationals will continue to mint money and you tell me what would be effectivity of such force ?

I agree with you when you say that it would be in us interest to strike a deal with India, but will they ? They already made it clear what they have in mind when they announced intention to be a mediatory in cashmere,promising goodies to cricketer ityadi. And we know where it will lead them to.

And I also agree with you that India troops even as a contractors for Afghanistan will be not be good for India. What we need is continue to build up and getting Gilgit baltistan and areas of PoK Slowly under our control , bit by bit taking our land back and get the land route secured to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Then Hari singh nalwa or kanishka will rise again to put the border of Afghanistan to perisa (as YamaR suggested).

Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Shanmukh » 23 Aug 2019 06:43

krishna_krishna wrote:My one liner are because you are basing all your assumptions/hypothesis that these legendary/mythical fighting contractors force (or I should say mercenary as appropriate term used by someone above) will be able to dominate and defeat tali bunnies and will have umrica have peaceful life in Afghanistan like rest of the overseas based across the world.


Ehh - where did that come from? All Rudradev-acharya is saying, if I understood him right, is that by replacing the regular troops with mercenaries, the US will have rid itself of the pressure to end the war. They can keep it up as long as they need to. They may not [and most likely, will not] win, but they will never lose and cannot be pushed out by the Telebunnies no matter what. And they won't be under a time constraint to end the war, as they are now. And that will turn the heat up on the Telebunnies because they will be under pressure to show some movement. What is the point if they blow up a few contractors and they are just replaced by the others?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3841
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 23 Aug 2019 07:31

KLNMurthy wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:So long as they pay for the expense and weapons. Personally I don't think this would be a bad idea for the following reasons:
1. Access to POK and Central Asia
2. Pivotal role in controlling and routes to and from there to Arabian sea
3. Ability to fight terror away from home
4. Making TSPs life impossible
5. Making Atlanticist/wilsonian agenda moves very difficult
6. India will become the defacto power player in the region and thereby extend sphere of influence in important areas.

If all this talk of would power etc. Is serious, India needs to show muscle power.


Problem is massa is not a wise or reliable choice to take the lead.

Fair enough. Which is why if such a deal is to be struck, it should be in terms that favor totally independent operational authority to India. Appropriately sweetened with $ incentives as well. US in turn gets to walk away clean and with assurance that terror doesn't continue to foment there and threaten their interests. Of course this assumes that this is really what they want and offer such a deal in good faith. BIG if of course.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3841
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 23 Aug 2019 07:35

As an aside, here is an interesting angle on engaging with the bunnies. There really might be something going on behind the scenes that isolates the tsp, allows Indian entry into AFG and US exit from there.

https://youtu.be/izeuaxcOsrw

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1277
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby chanakyaa » 23 Aug 2019 18:40

Rudradev wrote:...
They can offer India (i) full diplomatic and possibly intel support for a campaign to retake all of J&K (ii) a diplomatic blank cheque to dismember Pakistan as we like (iii) full support against Chini aggression if necessary (iv) opportunity to extend our influence into Afghanistan and control a land route from India-Balwaristan-Afghanistan-Central Asia.
...

Appears to be a win-win, but the challenge seems to be with misalignment of clear and observable deliverables for both parties; thus, very high chance of triggering a waar and potential to drag this forever without results.

1. For example, if such an agreement takes place, India's actions would be clear, observable, and definitive, i.e. India send a public/private army of 1000, 5000 etc. troops for afg. What does uncle provide in return? Expectation from uncle may not be fully clear, observable, and definitive. Clearly, going out to press saying that Pok is an integral part of India is not enough. Taking nookes away for a commitment of 10,000 troops, just as an example, is that a good trade under the agreement? What if only only 90% or 95% of nookes are deactivated or taken away, is that good enough? Of course, India needs to work on it to get desired results, but the room for shenanigans from uncle is huge, while appearing to be fully compliant with the agreement.
2. Uncle's desire to use bakis to contain Yindoos has been discuss here on BR since the beginning of time. Why a sudden change of heart from uncle?
3. Knowing the significance of this for India, is uncle (and its MNCs) ready to take additional panga (beyond trade war) with the Chinese to help India, why? If Chinese officially moved large number of troops to PoK, what would India do?
4. Ruskies are wild card here...not sure how it gets played

banrjeer
BRFite
Posts: 229
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 14:39

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby banrjeer » 24 Aug 2019 02:37

India has to show some interest in any Afghan deal whatever the actual out come and level of engagement.

Trump mentions the following candidates:

Pork: more of the same
Iran: a non starter
turkey-Pork: more of the same ok ... there may be something to this Turkey is part of Nato at least
Russia: really ? doubt Trump wants to lose elections by getting back to square one on Russia + Afghanistan....after all these decades of US money lives not to mention 9/11 undoing Reagan's legacy etc..

He never mentioned cheen because well there's too much other stuff going on on that front already.

Bharat assurances on support in return of Gilgit(Not the useless UN kind of support) in return for security of Kunar and NE Afghanistan

Cheen needs to be kept pacified thru all this.

any back deals need to happen NOW.
Trump wont give a shit on any deals if he is reelected and if its a different admin then all bets are off.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3879
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby KLNMurthy » 24 Aug 2019 07:46

krishna_krishna wrote:
KLNMurthy wrote:[quote="krishna_krishna

I believe the situation is called a stalemate. Bunnies can't push out unkil and unkil can't wipe out bunnies. It is quite normal to negotiate when there is a stalemate.

I am surprised you think negotiation always implies admission of defeat.


No I never always think negotiations imply admission of defeat. But in same way believe it implies defeat in the case of US campaign in afghanistan.

You have worlds biggest defense budget , best technologically advanced army not just of massa but entire NATO with support of contractors and national birds of porkistan ( armed drone strike) thrown at these people but still zilch after 18 years.And who defeated them : nameless,adressless natives.

Regarding wiping out bunnies it is their home ,they are not outsiders. Even after 18 years of struggle you are begging and not asking for honorable exist it is not just a defeat but worst defeats of the century,worst then Vietnam. Sugarcoat as much as you want.

In military study “concede” and “ compromise” hold unique place , any strong military commander worth its salt will tell you that he may concede to an enemy but never compromise.


So if I understand correctly, if the US were to be a weaker power like India, then negotiations could mean a stalemate , but because it is powerful, it could only mean defeat.

Sounds to me more moralistic / bunny-boosting than lo or objective. From bunny pov they fought superpower to a draw, so they feel like they won. I don't see why non-bunnies should care.

banrjeer
BRFite
Posts: 229
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 14:39

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby banrjeer » 24 Aug 2019 13:09

It’s the porks who are to blame for less than stellar results. Unlike the gulf or Serbia there are no convenient bases.

Also here I agree with trump (whatever his motives in saying) that India is not projecting power in a neighboring region whereas US is doing it from far.

Even the Chinese are and they are not that close by either

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby krishna_krishna » 24 Aug 2019 16:26

From NPR, withdrawal deal with bunnies where US will withdraw completely almost nearing agreement :

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/19/75231294 ... fghanistan

"Nearly two decades into the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. suddenly appears to be nearing an agreement with the Taliban that could bring the remaining 14,000 U.S. troops home."

“We’ve been there [in Afghanistan] for 18 years, it’s ridiculous,” US President Donald Trump told reporters on Tuesday. “We are negotiating with the government and we are negotiating with the Taliban. We have good talks going and we will see what happens.”

"Trump faces a tough decision. He consistently says he wants to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan — one of the few points of agreement with most Democratic presidential candidates.

But the president is getting pushback from the military and other parts of the national security establishment. They are warning that a U.S. pullout could lead to an unraveling of Afghanistan."

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby krishna_krishna » 26 Aug 2019 09:56

Excellent analysis on Afghanistan's future, ( includes discussion why putting any "Indian" boots on ground is bad choice and trumps "Residual force" approach). Please see comments by Maj Gen D. C Kathoch :

1) Isis in Afghanistan are nothing but fraction of Pakistani Taliban,created and supported by Pakistani military to check tali bunnies in case discussion of uprooting American do not go in the manner which they want.
2) The reason why USSR and USA both lost in Afghanistan is they could not isolate the battle field from help received from sanctuaries in Pakistan.
3) The solution to Afghanistan lies in isolating the battlefield in Afghanistan from across the border help from Pakistan, till that happens there will be failures on whoever tries to fight bunnies be it US/NATO or contractors
4) The "residual" force that trump is planning to keep is not sustainable as it will be "LOGISTICAL NIGHTMARE".
5) In all probability Taliban and its fractions appear to be coming to power and one of the conditions for settlement would be massa leaving this land in totality.
6) Like Iraq and other places massa lost and same thing is going to bite them in the back where after many years of blood and money they will get failure
7) The aim of ISIS and Talibunnies at this point is same.
8) Talibunnies are more interested in controlling Afghanistan then implementing sharia there.
9) Once the government falls and bunnies takes it place all the goodwill India created with funding will vaporize through air. Only way to get influence is to be in touch and conversation with all.
10) Afghan forces can sustain if "monetary" help extended regularly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxg4F75Ygtk

banrjeer
BRFite
Posts: 229
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 14:39

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby banrjeer » 26 Aug 2019 10:39

The key to Afghan peace lies in Porkistan and Bharat is the only country that can tie them down and eventually neutralize.

The only reason Porkis could project power in Afghanistan was because of resources and stable environment guaranteed by Unkil, Saudis and Cheen. They had Unkil by the balls. This has eroded now to some extent.

When the Soviets withdrew Bharat was a sitting duck. This time If there is any Taliban revival we need to preemptively hit the Poks hard. enough to make them forget about their western front.

The Balochi and Desis need to engineer disruption such that becomes a permanent dependable fixture.Frequentt Naval tension to make Gwadar more dysfunctional. That coupled with some border deals with Cheen and they will start rethinking their relationship with the Porks.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1978
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Manish_P » 26 Aug 2019 11:37

krishna_krishna wrote:Excellent analysis on Afghanistan's future, ( includes discussion why putting any "Indian" boots on ground is bad choice and trumps "Residual force" approach). Please see comments by Maj Gen D. C Kathoch :
..
9) Once the government falls and bunnies takes it place all the goodwill India created with funding will vaporize through air. Only way to get influence is to be in touch and conversation with all.
10) Afghan forces can sustain if "monetary" help extended regularly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxg4F75Ygtk


9) The helicopters will get added to the Taliban air force (or even find their way to the PAF) along with the other military hardware gifted by us.

10) basically Jizya from Dhimmis.. with the talibs working as the franchise model of the Pakis.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12424
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby pankajs » 26 Aug 2019 11:42

The path to peace in Afghanistan runs through Islamabad and not bypassing them.

Americans tried co-opting them. Did not work.
We must try dissuading them when the time finally arrives. We still are years away from that eventuality.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12424
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby pankajs » 29 Aug 2019 23:42

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1167073497555902464
AFP news agency @AFP

#BREAKING President Trump: US to keep 8,600 troops in Afghanistan after deal with Taliban

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12424
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby pankajs » 01 Sep 2019 19:52

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 310513.ece
How India secretly armed Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance
India must not commit the error of placing Indian troops on Afghan soil, says the diplomat who coordinated New Delhi’s secret military assistance to Ahmad Shah Massoud, the military commander of the Northern Alliance, who fought the Taliban and U.S. forces till his assassination in 2001.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11602
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby A_Gupta » 01 Sep 2019 20:15

Taliban style of negotiation
https://www.dailysabah.com/asia/2019/09 ... deal-close
The Taliban attacked a second Afghan city in as many days on Sunday and killed several members of security forces, officials said, even as Washington's peace envoy said the U.S. and the militant group are "at the threshold of an agreement" to end America's longest war.


Puli Khumri & Kunduz.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23756
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby SSridhar » 01 Sep 2019 21:01

A_Gupta wrote:Taliban style of negotiation
https://www.dailysabah.com/asia/2019/09 ... deal-close
The Taliban attacked a second Afghan city in as many days on Sunday and killed several members of security forces, officials said, even as Washington's peace envoy said the U.S. and the militant group are "at the threshold of an agreement" to end America's longest war.


Puli Khumri & Kunduz.

They have consistently employed the same technique.

In the meanwhile, this is not the 'Aghan-led, Afghan-owned peace process' as the US and allies touted it to be.

khan
BRFite
Posts: 554
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby khan » 02 Sep 2019 20:38

banrjeer wrote:The key to Afghan peace lies in Porkistan and Bharat is the only country that can tie them down and eventually neutralize.

The only reason Porkis could project power in Afghanistan was because of resources and stable environment guaranteed by Unkil, Saudis and Cheen. They had Unkil by the balls. This has eroded now to some extent.

When the Soviets withdrew Bharat was a sitting duck. This time If there is any Taliban revival we need to preemptively hit the Poks hard. enough to make them forget about their western front.

The Balochi and Desis need to engineer disruption such that becomes a permanent dependable fixture.Frequentt Naval tension to make Gwadar more dysfunctional. That coupled with some border deals with Cheen and they will start rethinking their relationship with the Porks.

Heat up the LOC IB :mrgreen: & turn it into a killing field. Sign a mutual defense agreement with Afghanistan & use it to attack Taliban in Pakistan from the air. May a 1000 Balakot’s bloom.

Raise the cost of TSP adventurism in Afghanistan just like is being done for attacks in India.

India needs to learn from the Pakistani’s, just like in 1971, the defense of the East lay in the West, so the defense of Afghanistan’s East Border lies on India’s West.

There already are UN resolutions declaring open season on Taliban that are still in force. Literally anyone can go into Pakistan & bomb them at will.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12424
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby pankajs » 05 Sep 2019 18:12

https://time.com/5668034/pompeo-afghanistan-peace-deal/
Exclusive: Secretary of State Pompeo Declines to Sign Risky Afghan Peace Deal
But the deal doesn’t ensure several crucial things, those familiar with the discussions tell TIME. It doesn’t guarantee the continued presence of U.S. counterterrorism forces to battle al Qaeda, the survival of the pro-U.S. government in Kabul, or even an end to the fighting in Afghanistan. “No one speaks with certainty. None,” said an Afghan official taking part in briefings on the deal with Khalilzad. “It is all based on hope. There is no trust. There is no history of trust. There is no evidence of honesty and sincerity from the Taliban,” and intercepted communications “show that they think they have fooled the U.S. while the U.S. believes that should the Taliban cheat, they will pay a hefty price.

That may explain why Pompeo declined to put his name on the deal. The Taliban asked for Pompeo to sign an agreement with the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the official name of the government founded by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 1996, four U.S., Afghan and European officials familiar with the discussions tell TIME. Having the Secretary of State sign such a document would amount to de facto recognition of the Taliban as a legitimate political entity, and he declined to do so, the Afghan officials say.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12424
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby pankajs » 05 Sep 2019 18:14

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
I was ambassador to Afghanistan. This deal is a surrender. -- Ryan Crocker is diplomat in residence at Princeton University and a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait and Lebanon.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3841
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Sep 2019 20:39

I don't see how it works in India's favor to talk with the bunnies? Really? All indications are that as soon as the bunnies consolidate in Afghanistan, all attention will turn to Hindustan. The tsp and isi will have a free hand. Kashmir will feel the heat.

Rather take the fight far from home and tighten the noose around TSP. the other benefit of doing this is that it will bleed the pakistani establishment literally and financially. It will also take away the nuke option because ultimately, there is no threat to their mainland across the IB.

However, a deal needs to be struck with the US that ensures GB lands up with India, the financial burden is borne partially by Uncle Sam and weapons plus Intel assets should be made available as needed. It will be Indian boots on the ground and won't be pretty but this would be better than aarpaar ki ladhai and almost totally take away the heat from j&k what to speak of Indian mainland.

Thing is, as another poster pointed out, if there is any real desire for akhand Bharat and what not, don't expect for it to just be offered on a platter. Countries with half the weight don't hesitate to punch above their weight. Just look at the Turks in Syria or Arabs in Yemen. Even Iranians in the ME. But pawam yindoo wants to dream big and hesitates to even feint a jab.

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 378
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Rsatchi » 05 Sep 2019 20:59

pankajs wrote:https://time.com/5668034/pompeo-afghanistan-peace-deal/
Exclusive: Secretary of State Pompeo Declines to Sign Risky Afghan Peace Deal
But the deal doesn’t ensure several crucial things, those familiar with the discussions tell TIME. It doesn’t guarantee the continued presence of U.S. counterterrorism forces to battle al Qaeda, the survival of the pro-U.S. government in Kabul, or even an end to the fighting in Afghanistan. “No one speaks with certainty. None,” said an Afghan official taking part in briefings on the deal with Khalilzad. “It is all based on hope. There is no trust. There is no history of trust. There is no evidence of honesty and sincerity from the Taliban,” and intercepted communications “show that they think they have fooled the U.S. while the U.S. believes that should the Taliban cheat, they will pay a hefty price.

That may explain why Pompeo declined to put his name on the deal. The Taliban asked for Pompeo to sign an agreement with the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the official name of the government founded by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 1996, four U.S., Afghan and European officials familiar with the discussions tell TIME. Having the Secretary of State sign such a document would amount to de facto recognition of the Taliban as a legitimate political entity, and he declined to do so, the Afghan officials say.

I suppose the Americans are slowly understanding the concept of 'El-Taqiyyah' :lol:

Gautam_2
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 04 Mar 2019 17:32

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Gautam_2 » 05 Sep 2019 21:12

Cain Marko wrote:Rather take the fight far from home and tighten the noose around TSP. the other benefit of doing this is that it will bleed the pakistani establishment literally and financially. It will also take away the nuke option because ultimately, there is no threat to their mainland across the IB.

However, a deal needs to be struck with the US that ensures GB lands up with India, the financial burden is borne partially by Uncle Sam and weapons plus Intel assets should be made available as needed. It will be Indian boots on the ground and won't be pretty but this would be better than aarpaar ki ladhai and almost totally take away the heat from j&k what to speak of Indian mainland.


No need for any more boots on the ground. This is now a sub-conventional war and MAD will punch according to their weight no doubt. Life is not easy for terrorists these days.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3879
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby KLNMurthy » 05 Sep 2019 23:16

Can some guru explain why the Afghan Defence Forces seem to be so inept and ineffective?

Their effectiveness seems to me to be the missing piece of the puzzle.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby NRao » 08 Sep 2019 05:59

Afghanistan War: Trump cancels peace deal with Taliban

Trump saying has no meaning, but ..........

US President Donald Trump says he has cancelled a peace deal with the Taliban.

In a series of tweets, Mr Trump said he had been set to meet senior Taliban leaders at Camp David on Sunday.

However he cancelled the meeting and called off negotiations after the group admitted to an attack in Kabul that killed a US soldier.

US negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad had announced a peace deal "in principle" with the Taliban on Monday.

As part of the proposed deal, the US would withdraw 5,400 troops from Afghanistan within 20 weeks. However Mr Khalilzad said final approval still rested with Mr Trump.

The US currently has about 14,000 troops in the country.

On Thursday, a Kabul car bomb, claimed by the Taliban killed 12 people, President Trump said, including a US soldier.

A Romanian soldier serving with the Nato-led mission in the country was also killed.

The attack highlights fears that US negotiations with the Taliban won't end the daily violence in Afghanistan and its toll on civilians.

The militants now control more territory than at any time since the 2001 US invasion and have so far refused to talk to the Afghan government, whom they deride as American puppets.

There have already been nine rounds of peace talks between the US and Taliban representatives, held in the Gulf state of Qatar.

In exchange for the US troop withdrawal, the Taliban would ensure that Afghanistan would never again be used as a base for militant groups seeking to attack the US and its allies.

Some in Afghanistan fear that a deal could see hard-won rights and freedoms eroded. The militants enforced strict religious laws and treated women brutally during their rule from 1996 to 2001.

Nearly 3,500 members of the international coalition forces have died in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion, more than 2,300 of them American.

The figures for Afghan civilians, militants and government forces are more difficult to quantify. In a February 2019 report, the UN said that more than 32,000 civilians had died. The Watson Institute at Brown University says 58,000 security personnel and 42,000 opposition combatants have been killed.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12424
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby pankajs » 08 Sep 2019 12:08

Trump will turn on a dime. One needs to be cautious about his declarations.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20149
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Philip » 08 Sep 2019 21:20

Now that Trump has realised- at least for the moment the duplicitous Taliban/ ISI's machinations in Afg., he should also realise that the only wsy to defeat the Taliban is to defeat Pak first.The land-locked Taliban surrounded by hostile neighbours get all their sustenance only from Pak. Screwing Pak reelentlesy is the way to go.The US can also resume their air attacks on the Taliban using cruise missiles, drones and heavy hitters like B- 52s and B-1s from DG.

Any mischief from Pak in support of the Taliban could be finessed by the USN imposing a blockade, inspecting all merchant ships attempting to dock at Paki ports- they've done it in the past elsewhere, and seize whatever they suspect could be sent to the Taliban.Chem. warfare against the Talib poppyfields another option. Remember how agent orange was used in Vietnam?! There is no global love for the Talibs except from the Pakis and Wahaabi Sunnis in Soothi Arabia and pockets in the ME. Destroying ISI HQs since they are the godfathers of the Talibs is the way to go as well. The US needs to understand- as if it does not know, that the Paki swamp must be draiined first for lasting peace in the region.

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby krishna_krishna » 09 Sep 2019 07:50

Please see the link below why america wants to keep its base in Afghanistan for next 50 years :

From 20:00 onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91wz5sy ... e=youtu.be

Bart S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2038
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Bart S » 10 Sep 2019 17:48

Important data point to bust the oft-repeated Paki propaganda that the Taliban controls 70% of Afghanistan and Ghani is the 'mayor of Kabul' etc

https://mobile.twitter.com/FDD/status/1 ... 6035520512

FDD
@FDD
·
14h
"The #Taliban controls 66 of the country’s 397 districts, most of them in rural, lightly populated areas in the east and south, while the Kabul government controls 138, according to an analysis for @FDD
, a Washington think tank that tracks the conflict."

Bart S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2038
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Bart S » 10 Sep 2019 20:40

Excellent article by Hussain Haqqani
https://theprint.in/opinion/trump-has-a ... an/289341/

The Taliban would now have to end or substantially reduce violence for talks to resume though it is clear that the Taliban representatives in Doha control the actions of the Taliban’s military command. Moving forward, the US negotiators would have to give greater weightage to the Afghan government than ambassador Khalilzad has done so far.

The Taliban have talked peace while continuing to wage war and the Doha talks have only strengthened their narrative that their victory is imminent. They would have to reconsider this approach, now that Trump has signaled that he is not ready for the ‘peace at any price’ strategy, which has been pursued so far.

The fact that the Taliban came to the negotiating table should put to rest the myth that they control most, or even significant parts, of Afghanistan. The Taliban would not have joined peace talks so readily if stories about their extensive control of territory were true. They want to win the peace because they know that they are not about to win the war. A stalemate is a stalemate for both sides, not just for the Americans.

As a violent group that does not even have the support of 10-15 per cent of Afghans, the Taliban are given disproportionate weightage because of their disruptive capabilities. While they are far from being defeated, they are not on the verge of victory either.

Afghanistan’s military, raised only after 2002, is also not as toothless as portrayed in the media. The Afghans have borne the brunt of fighting for quite some time. It is just that an army takes time to develop esprit de corps and it takes at least 30 years for a second lieutenant to rise to the stature of a general.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23756
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby SSridhar » 10 Sep 2019 21:05

krishna_krishna wrote:Please see the link below why america wants to keep its base in Afghanistan for next 50 years :

From 20:00 onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91wz5sy ... e=youtu.be

Worth watching.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3028
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby ArjunPandit » 10 Sep 2019 23:29

pankajs wrote:Trump will turn on a dime. One needs to be cautious about his declarations.

this indeed turned out to be a prophetic statement on BRF

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby krishna_krishna » 11 Sep 2019 03:35

Departure of John bolton clearly indicates rift was present in massa strategy machine, Deep state with Khalilzad and Mike wanted agreement with tali bunnies where as John did not. Now once again deep state overpowered to have opposition removed.

This clearly shows where things will move in future. I am also sure deep state has something up its sleeve to pull strings as and when they want even in top decision making.they have some dirt on president for sure.

sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1079
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby sooraj » 11 Sep 2019 04:32

So John Bolton is out and how this going to affect Israel, now Trump will make deals with Iran.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3879
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby KLNMurthy » 11 Sep 2019 06:06

Props to @Rudradev for calling it right on US surrender to Taliban.

VikramA
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 29 Aug 2018 15:41

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby VikramA » 11 Sep 2019 07:00

Bolton departure might have nothing to do with afg but a deal with iran might be on the cards now

Parasu
BRFite
Posts: 287
Joined: 04 Dec 2017 14:18

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby Parasu » 11 Sep 2019 12:01

KLNMurthy wrote:Can some guru explain why the Afghan Defence Forces seem to be so inept and ineffective?

Their effectiveness seems to me to be the missing piece of the puzzle.


Motivation. Afghans will fight for their ethnicity. Pashtoons are fighting for the Taliban.
Tajiks will fight for Tajiks, Hazaras for hazaras etc. Noone believes in Afghanistan so noone wants to fight for it.

Actually, we need to do the same in India. Indian armed forces perform sub-optimally because noone belives in the regiment thingy. its an artificial identity. So no motivation.

ryogi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 26 May 2017 16:48

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby ryogi » 11 Sep 2019 15:51

Parasu wrote:
Actually, we need to do the same in India. Indian armed forces perform sub-optimally because noone belives in the regiment thingy. its an artificial identity. So no motivation.


Are you aware of what you are saying, even????

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7226
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby nachiket » 12 Sep 2019 02:59

Parasu wrote:Actually, we need to do the same in India. Indian armed forces perform sub-optimally because noone belives in the regiment thingy. its an artificial identity. So no motivation.

Poor attempt at trolling. You have been warned for it.

Others, do not respond to this comment.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11602
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Postby A_Gupta » 12 Sep 2019 17:02

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... an/597820/

Under the proposed agreement with the Taliban, the U.S. would have immediately begun to reduce coalition-troop numbers to 8,600 and withdrawn completely by the end of 2020, closed five U.S. military bases, released thousands of Taliban prisoners in Afghan-government custody, and left the governance of Afghanistan to future negotiations among Afghans. The country’s name would have reverted to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which it had been termed under Taliban rule. Afghans would have perceived this reversion as the U.S. surrendering their country into Taliban hands, and they would have been correct in that perception.

It’s astonishing how little the Trump administration was willing to accept in exchange for an end to the conflict. The agreement didn’t even require the Taliban to commit to a cease-fire—all it had to do was promise not to allow Afghan territory to be used as a base for terrorist operations against the U.S. It merits emphasizing the “against the U.S.” part of the equation, because what that would have blared to America’s allies all over the world was that the U.S. is willing to separate its interests from those of Afghans and of countries that have been fighting alongside the U.S. in Afghanistan these 18 years. “America first” really does mean sacrificing the interests of others.

From the Taliban’s perspective, this was a terrific deal—America accepting defeat, striking a bargain with it that excluded the elected government of Afghanistan. The U.S. would have abandoned the prospects for a democratic Afghanistan, as well as progress in education and women’s rights, and consigned the country to Taliban rule, because the reductions in military support would almost certainly have led to that outcome. The Taliban would have had to recognize Ashraf Ghani’s government, but it could have afforded to do that because it would soon, no doubt, have overthrown it.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kumarn, sanjayc and 17 guests