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.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by kit »

Tuan wrote:U.S., Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan to form quad group to enhance regional connectivity - The Hindu

Uncle Sam had then formed a "Quad" with India to counter China, Uncle Sam has now formed a "Quad" with Pakistan to counter Russia :lol:

Since the announcement of the withdrawal of U.S. forces by August 31, violence has been rising and efforts to broker a peace settlement between the Afghan government and insurgent Taliban have slowed.
This Quad business only reinforces the idea of uncles decline as numero uno on world stage.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by ramana »

Kit, Paul Kennedy explains "Balance of Power" strategy is an emerging or declining power strategy in his great book. A great power acts.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by ramana »

Cyrano wrote:
gunfire shots rang out as cries of "Allahu Akhbar" are heard.
I saw the CNN report with the video in which this happens. Those cries seemed like they knew what they were doing was horrible and were desperately seeking to be absolved by the very god in whose name they were killing those men who were surrendering. There is no peace to be found within or without when such an ideology has screwed with your brain. So terrible !
Those guys were claiming to be doing it for their Allah. No white wash please.
Tuan
BRFite
Posts: 440
Joined: 16 Oct 2008 01:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Tuan »

China asks Taliban to make ‘clean break’ from all terrorist forces - The Hindu
Taliban should realise the responsibilities it bears for the nation, make a “clean break” with all terrorist forces and return to the mainstream of Afghan politics, says Wang Yi

In a significant policy statement on the Taliban which is making big gains in its offensive in Afghanistan, China has asked it to make a “clean break” from all terrorist forces, especially the al-Qaeda-backed Uyghur Muslim militant group ETIM fighting for the volatile Xinjiang Province’s independence.

In his media briefing at Dushanbe, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stressed that further spread of the war in Afghanistan, especially an all-out civil war, should be avoided and pitched for restarting of intra-Afghan negotiations to realise political reconciliation and prevention of all kinds of terrorist forces from gaining ground in Afghanistan.

The Taliban, as a major military force in Afghanistan, should realise the responsibilities it bears for the nation, make a “clean break” with all terrorist forces and return to the mainstream of Afghan politics, Mr. Wang said on July 13.

He also praised the Afghanistan government — which often accuses Beijing’s “all-weather ally” Pakistan of harbouring the Taliban militants — saying that the government headed by President Ashraf Ghani has done a lot of work for national unity, social stability and improvement of people’s livelihood, which should be justly evaluated.

Mr. Wang made the remarks during a joint press conference with Tajik Foreign Minister Sirojiddin Muhriddin following their talks in Dushanbe, official media in Beijing reported on July 14.

His comments came ahead of the Foreign Ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting in Dushanbe to be attended by Mr. Wang besides External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar and Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi.

Significantly, Afghanistan Foreign Minister Mohammad Hanif Atmar has been invited to take part in the SCO contact group which will meet soon after the Foreign Ministers meeting.

The eight member SCO grouping consists of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, India and Pakistan. Afghanistan is an observer of the SCO group.

Mr. Wang said that post the U.S. troop withdrawal, China expects Afghanistan to establish a broadly inclusive political arrangement, pursue a solid Muslim policy, resolutely combat all terrorism and extremist ideologies, and be committed to friendly relations with all neighbouring countries.

Observers say Mr. Wang’s comments on the Taliban indicate that China is not buying the Taliban’s recent overtures stating that it considers Beijing as a “friend”.

China is concerned that hundreds of East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) fighters, reportedly grouping in Afghanistan, mostly Badakhshan Province sharing a 90-km long border with Xinjiang through the narrow Wakhan corridor, will sneak into Xinjiang or through the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK) and the Central Asia states.

The ETIM is trying to carry out an insurgency in Uyghur Muslim dominated Xinjiang Province. Xinjiang also shares borders with PoK and Tajikistan.

China’s massive crackdown in Xinjiang, observers say, has exasperated the resentment among native Uyghur Muslims in the province and prompted the U.S., the EU and international human rights organisations to accuse Beijing of committing genocide.

Also, the 12th report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team of the United Nations last month confirmed the presence of ETIM militants in Afghanistan.

“The ETIM consists of several hundred members, located primarily in Badakhshan and neighbouring Afghan provinces,” the report submitted to the U.N. Security Council said.

Amidst the Taliban gains, China evacuated 210 of its nationals from Afghanistan last week.

Playing down China’s concerns, Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen said his group sees China as a “friend” of Afghanistan and is hoping to talk to Beijing about investing in reconstruction work “as soon as possible”.

Mr. Shaheen also said that the Taliban would no longer allow China’s Uyghur separatist fighters from Xinjiang, some of whom had previously sought refuge in Afghanistan, to enter the country.

The Taliban would also prevent al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group from operating there, he said.

“We have been to China many times and we have good relations with them,” Mr. Shaheen told Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post on July 10, recalling the meetings hosted by China in the past.

“China is a friendly country that we welcome for reconstruction and developing Afghanistan,” he said, adding that “If [the Chinese] have investments, of course, we ensure their safety”.

Commenting on the Taliban’s overtures to Beijing, Andrew Small, a senior transatlantic fellow with the German Marsh Fund said: “whatever benign language the Taliban use, China remains highly concerned about the security situation there.” He said that China’s biggest concern in its dealings with the Taliban had always been whether it was sheltering Uyghur separatists and whatever benign language the Taliban use, China remains highly concerned about the security situation there.

In his media briefing at Dushanbe, Mr. Wang stressed that further spread of the war in Afghanistan, especially an all-out civil war, should be avoided and pitched for restarting of intra-Afghan negotiations to realise political reconciliation and prevention of all kinds of terrorist forces from gaining ground in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is an independent and sovereign country and history shows that any coercive intervention in Afghanistan is bound to fail, he said, indicating China’s unwillingness to commit its military to the war-torn country to fill in the void left by the U.S. and NATO troops.

Considering the security risks, China is goading Pakistan, which shares close ties with the Taliban, to help stabilise Afghanistan amidst the Taliban offensive.

It is yet to be seen how Mr. Wang’s praise of the Afghan government for doing good work will be received in Pakistan as it shares frosty ties with the Mr. Ashraf Ghani government over its allegation of harbouring the Taliban militants.

Early this month, Mr. Wang who has stepped up trilateral diplomacy with Pakistan and Afghanistan persuading them to resolve their differences, asked Islamabad to step up cooperation to contain security risks in Afghanistan in the light of the latest offensive by the Taliban following the withdrawal of the U.S.

“[China and Pakistan] need to defend regional peace together. Problems in Afghanistan are practical challenges that China and Pakistan both face,” especially the expansion of both international and regional terrorism, Mr. Wang said on July 8 while addressing a meeting of the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Pakistan here.
Tuan
BRFite
Posts: 440
Joined: 16 Oct 2008 01:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Tuan »

ramana wrote:Kit, Paul Kennedy explains "Balance of Power" strategy is an emerging or declining power strategy in his great book. A great power acts.
The Grand Alliance: a three-way shotgun marriage - Does the history repeat itself?
In desperate times, the enemy of your enemy becomes your friend. During World War II, the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union would never have been three-way allies had they not shared a mortal enemy in Adolf Hitler. The Americans were isolationists, the Brits were imperialists and the Soviets were Communists—the unlikeliest of political bedfellows.

But once Germany made its plans for world domination painfully clear, the leaders of the “Big Three” nations—Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin—understood that the only way to defeat Nazism was to put their significant political and personal differences aside in the name of global security. The only question was, how much was each leader willing to sacrifice to make the uneasy alliance work?

As WWII broke out in 1939, FDR was on the verge of being elected to a historic third term as a popular and progressive president. The U.S. Congress and the American people were hoping to sit WWII out. America felt it had already sacrificed more than enough young lives in WWI and didn’t want to be pulled into another blood-soaked European conflict.

After Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, in direct defiance of British and French demands, FDR refused to enter the fray, instead declaring the U.S. neutral. Even when the Nazis steamrolled into Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg the following spring, prompting Churchill to call for strong American support, FDR and Congress refused to do anything more than provide financial assistance and some military equipment for the Allied cause.

The relationship between FDR and Churchill echoed the strained alliance between the two greatest Western democracies. Socially, the two men were a perfect match—both gregarious and aristocratic, with a flair for conversation. But Churchill, a decorated soldier and officer, was a passionate defender of the British Empire, which still controlled vast territories from Africa to India to the Far East. FDR, on the other hand, was a harsh critic of what he saw as the evils of imperialism.

There was no such easy social rapport between FDR and Stalin, a Communist dictator who actively purged all political opposition, even if it meant killing or imprisoning people in the highest ranks of the Soviet government and military. Yet Roosevelt recognized early the political benefits of a positive relationship between the U.S, and the USSR, particularly as a buffer against the Japanese. In fact, in his first year as president, FDR took action to recognize the existence of the Soviet Union and normalize diplomatic relationships with the Kremlin.

Through 1940 and most of 1941, the U.S. remained neutral even as German bombers pummeled British cities in nightly “blitz” attacks against both military and civilian targets. During that same period, Hitler reneged on his non-aggression pact with Stalin and invaded the USSR on June 22, 1941, rekindling war between the Nazi and Communist nations. FDR’s primary response in both cases was to extend lend-lease agreements to Churchill and Stalin for U.S.-built weapons and supplies.

Then, on December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, forcing the U.S. to declare war on Japan. Germany and Italy, the two other Axis powers, declared war on America on December 11. The U.S. had entered WWII, like it or not.

On January 1, 1942, less than a month after Pearl Harbor, the U.S,, Great Britain and the USSR signed the “Declaration by United Nations,” a legally non-binding document that nevertheless yoked the Big Three in a grand alliance for their mutual survival. None of the three great powers could defeat Hitler on their own, but together they plotted to divide and weaken the seemingly unstoppable German forces.

Churchill deeply distrusted Stalin, and Stalin, famously paranoid, didn’t trust anyone. From the start, FDR found himself in the middle, assuaging Churchill’s fears of a Communist takeover of Europe while feeding Stalin’s aspirations for the Soviet Union’s entry into the upper echelons of political and economic power.

In a private message to Churchill at the beginning of the tense three-way marriage, FDR recognized the British prime minister’s apprehensions, while making a case for bringing the Soviet Union into the circle of “civilized nations.”

“We are all in agreement...as to the necessity of having the USSR as a fully accepted and equal member of an association of the great powers formed for the purpose of preventing international war,” FDR wrote to Churchill in 1944, “It should be possible to accomplish this by adjusting our differences through compromise by all the parties concerned and this ought to tide things over for a few years until the child learns to toddle.”

FDR, Churchill and Stalin met together for the first time in November of 1943 during the historic Tehran Conference. From the moment the Americans entered the war, Stalin had been pushing for a joint British-American invasion of Western Europe to draw German soldiers from the Eastern front, where the Soviets were sustaining massive losses. In Tehran, the Americans and Brits committed to a massive 1944 invasion of coastal France (“Operation Overlord”) in return for Stalin’s promise to join the fight against Japan.

In Tehran, Roosevelt also met privately with Stalin to discuss the Soviet Union’s central role in a post-war United Nations. Roosevelt shared his vision with Stalin of a peaceful world governed by the “four policemen” of the United States—Britain, China and the Soviet Union—and showed “Uncle Joe” that America was willing to negotiate directly with the USSR to serve their mutual interests.

“What Stalin wanted to do was to revive Russia as a great world power,” says Susan Butler, author of Roosevelt and Stalin: Portrait of a Partnership. “Stalin was perfectly happy to do what FDR wanted. Roosevelt was extending his hand—if you behave, you can be my equal.”

“In my personal view, I think that Roosevelt was the only person that Stalin did trust,” adds Butler. “I think that they had an understanding of the world. It has nothing to do with the fact that Stalin was a paranoid nut. If Stalin trusted anyone, he trusted Roosevelt, because Stalin fared very well at the hands of FDR.”

The second and final time the three great leaders met was at the Yalta Conference in February of 1945. This meeting was very different from Tehran, with FDR visibly ill and an Allied victory over Germany in plain sight.

“At that point, FDR, Churchill and Stalin were more concerned about stopping World War Three,” says Butler. “They thought there was a great possibility that Germany was going to try once more to rule the world. [The post-war formation of] the United Nations was the primary concern of FDR, which is why he called for the conference at Yalta.”

At Yalta, the three men assumed that the War with Japan would rage on long after Hitler surrendered. In order to secure continued Soviet military support against the Japanese, and win Stalin’s full cooperation in the United Nations, FDR and Churchill agreed to a number of concessions with historic consequences. After the war, the Soviets would retain control over part of Germany and the USSR would also have free reign to influence the governments of its Eastern European and Asian neighbors.

There were bright hopes that the cooperative spirit of the Grand Alliance would persist after WWII, but with FDR’s death only two months after Yalta, the political dynamics changed dramatically. The U.S., now under the command of hardliner Harry Truman, reneged on FDR’s promise to loan money to the Soviets for rebuilding their damaged economy. Coupled with America and Britain’s fears over the spread of communism in Eastern Europe and Asia, the stage was set for the Cold War.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5462
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Cyrano »

Ramana garu, no whitewashing at all. Just another example of how twisted Islam is and the extent of mind ****ing it does to its followers.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by ramana »

I think time to revive the Af-Pak->Fak-Ap thread...
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10388
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Yagnasri »

As we all know, going forward bunnies/Pakis will have two roles under their new paymaster IX. One to secure the Afghanistan ensure that there is no further safe heaven for "unapproved" terror outfits and allow plunder of the mineral wealth of Afghanistan by China. Approved terror outfits of course will have safe heaven and will be used against Bharat.

Terrorists will be now strategic tools for China. A major upgrade.
g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4382
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by g.sarkar »

https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll ... ek/2124266
Afghan Army Chief Gen Ahmadzai expected to visit India next week
New Delhi, Jul 20 (PTI) Afghan Army Chief Gen Wali Mohammad Ahmadzai is expected to pay a three-day crucial visit to India from July 27 to explore boosting bilateral military ties in the face of the Taliban making sweeping offensive across Afghanistan following the withdrawal of foreign forces, people familiar with the development said on Tuesday.
Gen Ahmadzai is scheduled to hold wide-ranging talks with the top Indian military brass including his counterpart Gen MM Naravane and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, they said.
"The Afghan Army Chief is scheduled to arrive in India on July 27 for a three-day visit. He is scheduled to return in the first half of July 30. Strengthening defence cooperation will be the focus of the visit," said one of the persons.
Afghanistan has been reaching out to its key allies in seeking support to strengthen its security forces in the backdrop of the Taliban resorting to widespread violence to expand its influence across the country after the US began withdrawing troops from May 1.
In the last few years, India has provided at least five military helicopters to the war-ravaged country which has been trying to strengthen its air power.
Afghanistan has also been seeking India''s assistance in making functional Soviet-era helicopters and transport aircraft that were not in flying condition.
The country has been struggling to get spare parts for aircraft and helicopters due to Western sanctions against Moscow.
.....
Gautam
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Manish_P »

A pity. We could have helped them (as much for themselves, as well as for our own benefit) effectively if we were not ham-strung by altered geography and lack of our own Mil-Ind base.
Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3512
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Rony »

It could also be that India does not want to give more lethal weaponry because they could fall into Taliban hands later.
anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9203
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by anupmisra »

Shiv has this topographical relief map of Aryavarta (Indian Subcontinent) on his teetar page which I find very interesting. Note the unimpeded access to the northern plains of India from Afghanistan and Sindh. Only Pakjab stood in the way.

Image
g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4382
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by g.sarkar »

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/15/worl ... istan.html
China Criticized the Afghan War. Now It Worries About the Withdrawal.
An explosion that killed Chinese workers in Pakistan has stirred fears in Beijing of regional instability.
Steven Lee Myers, July 15, 2021

The Chinese government rarely passes up a chance to accuse the United States of military adventurism and hegemony. In the case of Afghanistan, though, it has changed its tone, warning that Washington now bears the responsibility for the hasty end to its two-decade war there.
“The United States, which created the Afghan issue in the first place, should act responsibly to ensure a smooth transition in Afghanistan,” China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, said this month at a forum in Beijing. “It should not simply shift the burden onto others and withdraw from the country with the mess left behind unattended.”
While China has not called on President Biden to reverse the military withdrawal he ordered, statements by senior officials made it clear that they would blame the United States for any insecurity that spreads in the region.
China’s leader, Xi Jinping, and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia — neither of them close friends of the American president — raised concerns about the withdrawal in a call the two leaders had in late June, citing “the increasingly complicated and severe security situation,” according to the state news agency Xinhua.
An explosion and vehicle crash that killed nine Chinese workers in Pakistan on Wednesday has punctuated China’s fears of regional instability in the wake of the final American military withdrawal from Afghanistan and the chaos that is now spreading across the country.
China was quick to describe the explosion as an act of terrorism. Pakistan later described it as an accident, but the details remain murky, and China has previously found itself the target of threats from those opposed to its growing economic and diplomatic influence in the region.
Pakistan’s information minister, Fawad Chaudhry, said on Thursday that investigators had found traces of explosives, presumably on the bus carrying the Chinese workers. “Terrorism cannot be ruled out,” he wrote on Twitter.
“They’re certainly feeling nervous,” said Barnett R. Rubin, a former State Department official and United Nations adviser on Afghanistan who is a senior fellow at New York University’s Center on International Cooperation.
With only a residual military contingent left to protect the American Embassy in Kabul, the Taliban have been steadily expanding their political control as Afghan government forces crumble or retreat. This month, Taliban forces seized Badakhshan, the province that reaches the mountainous Chinese border through the Wakhan Corridor.
While that narrow territory poses little direct security threat, China fears that the breakdown of order in Afghanistan could spill out of the country to other neighbors, including Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Pakistan.
Mr. Wang is traveling through Central Asia this week with the Afghan situation high on the agenda.
“We don’t want to see a turbulent country around us that becomes such a soil for terrorist activities,” said Li Wei, an analyst at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, a research organization in Beijing affiliated with the Ministry of State Security.
The Taliban, when they governed Afghanistan before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, gave haven to some Uyghur fighters resisting Chinese rule in Xinjiang, the predominantly Muslim province in western China that the fighters call East Turkestan.
.....
Gautam
Atulya P
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Atulya P »

Taliban says will not let ISIS become active in Afghanistan
"We assure you that we will not let ISIS to become active in the country, in the areas under our control..... There are no terrorists from Central Asia or China in the country. We assure you that we will prevent them from entering the country,"
Everyone's in a happy place, having covered all their bases. For how long is yet to be seen.
viveks
BRFite
Posts: 341
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 06:01

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by viveks »

It has been 19 years since the US first stepped into Afghanistan. It is sad that they could not bring peace and prosperity and eradicate the Taliban. I think they did a far better job in Iraq than here. Afghanistan ..I think will continue to struggle for peace and prosperity in the coming years and more.
g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4382
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by g.sarkar »

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u-s-c ... 1626981692
U.S. conducts airstrikes against Taliban in support of Afghan government forces
Associated Press,July 22, 2021

‘In the last several days we have acted, through airstrikes, to support the ANDSF,’ says Pentagon spokesman
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military launched several airstrikes this week in support of Afghan government forces fighting Taliban insurgents, including in the strategically important province of Kandahar, officials said Thursday.
The strikes demonstrate U.S. intentions to continue supporting Afghan forces with combat aircraft based outside the country, at least until the scheduled conclusion of the U.S. military withdrawal on Aug. 31. The Biden administration has not said whether it will continue that support after the pullout is complete.
The U.S. has a variety of combat aircraft based in the Middle East within range of Afghanistan, including warplanes aboard an aircraft carrier in the region and fighters and bombers in the Persian Gulf area.
Asked by a reporter about news reports of a Navy FA-18 airstrike in the Kandahar area, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby did not confirm specifics, including the type of aircraft or location, but said, “In the last several days we have acted, through airstrikes, to support the ANDSF,” using an acronym for the Afghan national defense and security forces. “But I won’t get into technical details of those strikes.”
These are the first known U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan since Gen. Scott Miller, who had been the top U.S. commander in the country, relinquished his command and left the country last week. The authority to launch airstrikes against the Taliban has since been in the hands of Gen. Frank McKenzie, the commander of U.S. Central Command, who oversees U.S. military involvement in the greater Middle East.
Following Kirby’s comments, another defense official said that on Wednesday and Thursday, the United States conducted a total of more than four airstrikes in support of Afghan forces. At least two of the strikes were to destroy military equipment, including an artillery piece and a vehicle, that the Taliban had taken from Afghan forces, the official said. The Afghans requested those strikes, as well as those targeting Taliban fighting positions, including at least one strike in the southern province of Kandahar.
U.S. officials have urged the Afghans to make use of their own combat aircraft, as well as their U.S.-trained ground forces. In recent months the Afghan forces have ceded a significant amount of territory to the Taliban, raising questions about their ability to hold out after the U.S. completes its withdrawal.
.....
Gautam
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Aditya_V »

viveks wrote:It has been 19 years since the US first stepped into Afghanistan. It is sad that they could not bring peace and prosperity and eradicate the Taliban. I think they did a far better job in Iraq than here. Afghanistan ..I think will continue to struggle for peace and prosperity in the coming years and more.
Taliban are Pakistan - Americans know to get Afganistan to reasonable society you have to destroy Pakistan and they are not willing to do that. They all think Pakistan is only India's problem and the Americans, Arabs, Europeans and Chinese have given it various Tax exemptions, supplied Pakis with free weapons, Nukes, allowed the Paki elite to immigrate, Paki access to women, kept the country intact, everything and still 75 years later here we are. They made a wrong choice in 2001.

Pakis have eradicated Hindus and Sikhs from their lands in a genocide, destroyed 45000 Hindu temples , done abominable Terror crimes against India yet the Left- INC ecosystem controlled from abroad in India, EU, USA, China all love them. Only when each of these people face their Karma for supporting such Evil will they realise what they have done.
viveks
BRFite
Posts: 341
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 06:01

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by viveks »

Basically, these guys look to places like the Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen...for greater preachings and inspiration....it is naturally cultivated to look in that direction. While the Shakes and the Abdullahs bathe in their belief system, the people in these other countries continue to live a criippled and a life of raw violence with dearth of prosperity and liberalism.
viveks
BRFite
Posts: 341
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 06:01

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by viveks »

When they feel they should have their own identity and build wealth with their whole strength...only the will there be good prosperity. You should see the movie "Life stinks" staring mel brooks to learn good facts.
g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4382
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by g.sarkar »

https://swarajyamag.com/news-brief/paki ... on-twitter
Pakistani Ministers Troll Afghan VP Saleh After He Posted Historic Image Of 1971 Pakistan Army Surrender On Twitter
by Swarajya Staff - Jul 24, 2021

Several Pakistani ministers trolled Afghanistan Vice President Amurllah Saleh for posting a 'Historic' picture of the Pakistan Army's surrender to the Indian Army in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. Sharing the image on Twitter on Wednesday (21 July), Saleh had said that Afghanistan does not have such a picture in its history and asserted that it wouldn't have one in the future.
Responding to Saleh's tweet, Pakistan's Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Minister Fawad Hussain called the Afghan VP a "hyena". He further said that Saleh, who was the former head of Afghan Intelligence Agency National Directorate of Security (NDS), had "little interest in Afhanistan" or the region. "You are just a scavenger will fly to safe heavens when the time ll be up (sic)," Hussain said in the tweet.
Fawad's junior minister Farrukh Habib went a step further and called Saleh an "Indian stooge" and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's "daily wager".
Another Pakistani federal minister Zartaj Gul said that Saleh is a "small and bitter man" with a troll's mindset, adding that he is a "misfit" in Afghanistan. Shireen Mazari, the Pakistani Federal Minister for Human Rights, also responded to Saleh's tweet by calling him a "delusional man" and asked the Afghan VP to "direct his RAW venom introspection".
It should be noted that Saleh, in his tweet on Wednesday (21 July), had attached an image of the Pakistani Army surrendering to the Indian Army in 1971.The famous picture was taken while Pakistan Army's Lieutenant General A A K Niazi signed the Instrument of Surrender in Dhaka on 16 December 1971.
......
Gautam
g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4382
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by g.sarkar »

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/middle ... 58050.html
US escalates airstrikes on Taliban, officials say, as Afghan military loses ground
by Alex Horton, Dan Lamothe and Susannah George
• The Washington Post • July 23, 2021

KABUL, Afghanistan — The United States has launched several airstrikes in support of embattled Afghan forces in recent days, U.S. officials said Friday, an escalation in U.S. involvement in Afghanistan as the Taliban seizes more territory from government forces.
At least four of the strikes were carried out on Wednesday and Thursday, including some in Kandahar, which is the birthplace of the Taliban and increasingly under pressure by Taliban forces, said one U.S. official, who, like another U.S. official, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation.
The airstrikes were conducted at the request of Afghan forces under attack by the Taliban or to destroy equipment stolen by the militants, including artillery and vehicles, according to the two U.S. officials.
An Afghan military official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the situation, said the escalation of U.S. strikes has been “significant” compared to recent months, concentrated in the northern province of Kunduz and in Kandahar.
The Taliban has made rapid territorial gains, including border crossings vital for trade, as the U.S. drawdown nears completion. Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday that militants had seized about half of the country’s 419 district centers. He told lawmakers last month the Taliban held just 81 district centers.
“Strategic momentum appears to be sort of with the Taliban,” Milley said.
For weeks, the Afghan military has bitterly fought to maintain control of provincial capitals after losing huge swaths of the country’s rural territory, often with little or no resistance. Militants have besieged the capitals by seizing districts nearby, choking off key roads in a bid to deny Afghan troops freedom of movement.
No provincial capitals have fallen, but Milley said the Taliban’s strategy has forced Afghan security forces to abandon some districts and reconsolidate to defend populated cities.
The U.S. withdrawal is about 95 percent complete, the Pentagon said this week. About 650 U.S. service members will remain in the country to defend the U.S. Embassy and international airport in Kabul.
.......
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/middle ... 72249.html
In a city besieged by the Taliban, Afghan military advances disappear with forces stretched thin
by Susannah George
• The Washington Post • July 24, 2021

KUNDUZ, Afghanistan — The argument between Afghan security forces erupted two miles inside Taliban-controlled territory, piercing the near-complete silence and threatening to unravel a night of modest gains in a city under siege.
Around 3 a.m., a small team of elite special forces were halfway through an operation to retake a sliver of territory along the city’s northern edge when a police unit that was ordered to establish checkpoints along the way refused to advance.
“Who are you from Kabul to give us orders?” a police commander said to a special forces officer. “This is your territory, your city, if you don’t protect it who will?” the officer replied. A compromise was eventually brokered: The operation would go no further, but the police unit would establish an outpost at the stopping point to hold the gains.
Hours later, the police fled, abandoning their checkpoint and ceding the territory back to the Taliban.
For weeks, the Afghan military has struggled to hold provincial capitals such as Kunduz after losing huge swaths of the country’s rural territory in a surge of Taliban attacks that came as U.S. forces withdrew and U.S. air support dropped. The Afghan air force can only provide a fraction of the coverage American warplanes once gave, so Afghan ground forces are used to fill the void.
But the capabilities of those ground forces are uneven, resulting in government advances that often rapidly evaporate. Experienced and motivated elite units are leading the battle to retake territory, but the troops called up to secure those gains - the army, police and irregular fighters - have intermediate to no training and inconsistent support, and they are generally less inclined to fight.
The elite special forces unit, known as the KKA or Afghan Special Unit, that leads many of the clearing operations in Kunduz includes some of the country’s most capable and motivated soldiers. The United States and NATO trained the unit to conduct important, dangerous missions: night raids against specific targets such as suspected Taliban commanders, weapons depots or supply chains.
These are the fighters that most closely reflect President Joe Biden’s characterization of the country’s military, equipped with “all the tools, training and equipment of any modern military.” Yet Afghanistan’s special forces represent less than a fifth of the country’s security forces.
Before the dispute put a stop to their advance, the Afghan special forces’ operation earlier this month moved quickly and with precision.
.......
Gautam
g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4382
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by g.sarkar »

https://thediplomat.com/2021/07/what-do ... outh-asia/
What Does a Taliban Government Mean for the Rest of South Asia?
Countries like Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka could see intensified terrorism thanks to links with the Taliban.
Aditya Gowdara Shivamurthy, July 23, 2021

For decades, India has had a security policy that is preoccupied with its north (China) and west (Pakistan). Facilitating this preoccupation is the fact that, in a decade or so, India has had no major terrorist and internal security challenge from its neighbors to the east and south. However, there is an emerging strategic change, that now seems to challenge India’s security from these directions.
With the Taliban making sweeping gains and capturing new territories in Afghanistan, transnational threats such as radicalization and terrorism pose an increasing threat to the region. This has become more and more clear as several reports indicate that the Taliban are sheltering several affiliates and commanders of al-Qaida, including the al-Qaida Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) branch, which has cadres and operational bases across the subcontinent.
Although there has been much discussion of how the Taliban would impact India, Pakistan and China, less thought has been given to how the Taliban could impact other smaller South Asian states, and thereby India.
With the ascendency of the Taliban, Bangladesh faces increased risks. Bangladesh is already in the midst of a re-emergence of fundamentalist Islamic nationalism, which began in the early 2010s with the Awami League government’s execution of Jamaat-e-Islami’s Islamist leaders. These executions have created a huge backlash from Islamist organizations which perceive Islam to be in danger, threatened by secular and democratic forces. Consequently, umbrella organizations such as Hefajat-e-Islam have been at the forefront of fighting against this secular nationalism, and have also received popular support from others, due to their increasing dissatisfaction with Sheikh Hasina’s governance. This has created fertile ground for the terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and ISIS to target secular voices, radicalize young Bangladeshis, and also re-strengthen their networks with other local organizations such as Jund al-Tawheed Khalifa, AQIS, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HuJI-B), and Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB).
These local organizations have a history of interactions with the Taliban and al-Qaida from the late 1980s, ‘90s, and even early 2000s. Now the Taliban’s increasing strength will breathe new energy into these organizations. Back in the years when the Taliban were governing Afghanistan and lending shelter to al-Qaida, they had sent their veteran Bengali fighters to train and radicalize the Bengali youth and also develop close relations with local groups such as HuJI-B and JMB. They had also exported arms, ammunition, explosives, and hundreds of radicalized fighters to Bangladesh, alongside radicalizing the refuge-seeking Rohingyas, in coordination with Lashkar-e-Taiba. This was an attempt to silence the secular and democratic voices of Bangladesh, in addition to waging a holy war against India and Myanmar.
Today, a similar but even graver threat seems to confront Bangladesh and its neighbors, India and Myanmar. The likelihood of Taliban control in Afghanistan is increasing alongside the demand for Islamic ideology and nationalism in Bangladesh, even while millions of Rohingya refugees continuing to live in desperate situations within Bangladesh’s borders.
A similar challenge will appear to confront the Maldives. The introduction of Salafi Wahabism into the Maldives since the 1990s, accompanied by economic difficulties caused by the 2004 tsunami, and fundamentalist propaganda propagated by authoritative rulers Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and Abdulla Yameen have created ripe ground for fundamentalist and anti-democratic sentiments in the Maldives. The recent terrorist attack against former President Mohamed Nasheed is further evidence of the thriving fundamentalism in the country.
......
Gautam
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5462
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Cyrano »

India is under renewed threat of islamic terrorism as well. All our neighbours Népal, BD, Myanmar, SL, Maldives and of course Pakis have active terrorist groups or sleeper cells. On our own territory the less said the better with rampant illegal migrants in every corner of the country adding to the desi terror elements.
Y. Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 926
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Y. Kanan »

m_saini wrote:I wish India was behaving like Israel of South Asia
Keep dreaming. More like the Canada of South Asia.
Rampy
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 25 Mar 2003 12:31

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Rampy »

Y. Kanan wrote:
m_saini wrote:I wish India was behaving like Israel of South Asia
Keep dreaming. More like the Canada of South Asia.
Why should India behave like Israel? What good has it done to them in the last 5 decades besides war and backstabbing? Even they are choosing reconciliation mode with all big Arab counties.
sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3018
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by sudarshan »

Rampy wrote:
Y. Kanan wrote:
Keep dreaming. More like the Canada of South Asia.
Why should India behave like Israel? What good has it done to them in the last 5 decades besides war and backstabbing? Even they are choosing reconciliation mode with all big Arab counties.
Are we prolonging a discussion based on one single line from the last page, which also is being read totally out of context? It was (so far as I can see) a pithy rejoinder to something from an earlier post, not even meant seriously (not to speak for m_saini).

These comparisons with Israel are silly.
with all big Arab counties (sic).
Doesn't that tell you something? Israel is seeking reconciliation because the Arab countries are (much) big(ger). By "behaving like Israel," Israel has basically barely managed to stay in the game for this long, against much larger neighbors. Whereas if a country of India's size were to behave that way, it would be game over - for India's neighbors, and they would be the ones screaming for reconciliation.

Just to make clear, in case the above garners more inane and unnecessary replies: I'm not advocating for India to behave that way. I'm just saying that those of India's neighbors (like the original quoted guy from a neighboring country, who was talking to Bhadrakumar, and which is really what this is all about) who feel that India is "behaving like Israel," should do some introspection on what would happen if that were really the case.

So please direct replies to Bhadrakumar and co, rather than jumping on forumites here.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by m_saini »

Rampy wrote:Why should India behave like Israel? What good has it done to them in the last 5 decades besides war and backstabbing? Even they are choosing reconciliation mode with all big Arab counties.
It was just supposed to be a funny quip (not so funny in hindsight) rather than anything serious. And it was in response to the Bhadrakumar guy saying that India already does (behave like Israel.)

Sudarshan saar put it extremely well. Couldn't have explained it better.
Last edited by m_saini on 27 Jul 2021 01:47, edited 1 time in total.
g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4382
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by g.sarkar »

https://www.rediff.com/news/report/tali ... 210726.htm
Afghan Army chief cancels India visit due to Taliban offensive
Utkarsh Mishra, July 26, 2021

A planned visit by Afghan Army Chief General Wali Mohammad Ahmadzai to India this week has been cancelled amid increased Taliban offensive in Afghanistan, according to senior Afghan officials on Monday.
Gen Ahmadzai was scheduled to arrive in New Delhi on Tuesday on a three-day visit to explore ways to deepen bilateral military ties in the backdrop of the Taliban carrying out offensive operations across Afghanistan following the withdrawal of foreign forces.
"The visit by our Army Chief has been postponed due to intensity of war and Taliban's increased assault and offensive," the Afghan embassy official said.
......
Gautam
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by fanne »

are the news of USAF bombing Taliban true? Have the afg forces stemmed the advances?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by ramana »

Yes. Quite a few died.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Vips »

Some Pakjabis have died in the recent fight and there was :(( :(( in paki fart show about it. They were saying 'ab Afghanistan se laashe aane lagi hai'. Meaning dead bodies of pakis have started coming back.

Seams like a repeat of the scene two decades back when pakistani's fighting for the Taliban were roasted in Containers by the Afghanistan forces and Northern Alliance..
g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4382
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by g.sarkar »

Slightly older article. The current situation in Salma Dam is not being covered in Indian media:
https://thelevantnews.com/en/2021/07/ta ... dship-dam/
Taliban fires dozens of mortars on the Salma Dam, the Afghan-India Friendship Dam
July 19, 2021

The We For News reported Taliban have fired dozens of mortars on the Salma Dam, a major source of electricity and irrigation in the Chesht district of Herat province in Afghanistan. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had jointly inaugurated the Afghan-India Friendship Dam (Salma Dam) with Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani at Chist-e-Sharif in Herat province in Western Afghanistan in June 2016.
According to the We For News, the Afghan National Water Authority has said that the agency had warned of catastrophic fallouts of the continued Taliban attacks. Afghanistan Times reported “Salma Dam will be destroyed if the militants continue to fire rockets,” adding that some of the rockets had landed near the dam. It said that a large number of Afghan citizens would suffer losses if the Salma Dam is damaged as the lives and livelihoods of many in eight districts of Herat province depend on the water reservoir of Salma Dam. It has called on the Taliban to stop its rocket attacks on Salma Dam, which is a “national asset and should not be damaged in the war”.
Citing Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, the We For News reported however, has denied any involvement, saying, “We did not shoot at Salma Dam at all.”
......
Gautam
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by ramana »

These are the Pakiban hiding among the Taliban.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by rsingh »

Hindustan times posts a picture of Talibani representative with Chinese FM. Chinese game is clear. How low will China go down.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Manish_P »

So as expected the chinese are trying alternatives to cut off the middlemen pakis... or at the very least are sending a message to the Paki GHQ
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32226
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by chetak »

rsingh wrote:Hindustan times posts a picture of Talibani representative with Chinese FM. Chinese game is clear. How low will China go down.
what exactly is "low" about this. This is how africa and latin amrika were destroyed

everyone and his uncle is jockeying for position and advantage with the taliban hoping to move into afghanistan. the pakis fight more with money (used for bribery) than with guns and mortars

the britshits, amerikis, russkis, saudis, eyrani, turki and even India, judt to name a few, have been doing the same for eons

cheaper than bringing home bodybags
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by rsingh »

Bakistan and China will recognise Taliban Govt. China thinks it is good for long term. But terrorists are terrorists. Talibani raj suits Bakistanis. So China, Bakistan and Taliban.........what an explosive and implosive mix. Masterstroke.
Me think we forget Afganistan and pay attention to Lakshyadeep instead.
g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4382
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by g.sarkar »

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news ... nt-deepens
Xi Jinping’s Af-Pak predicament deepens
Madhav Nalapat, July 24, 2021

The PLA will increasingly have to bear the burden of ensuring the survival of the Durand Line, and of assisting the military in Pakistan and the Taliban in Afghanistan to maintain control and in the latter case, be assisted in controlling the entire country.
New Delhi: Consequences that are unexpected are not rare in situations where decisive action is taken by a state to enforce its own view of interests on others who may be unwilling to go along with such an exclusivist and usually expansionist view. In 1979, the United States under President Carter began the (eventually successful) process of turning its occupation of Afghanistan into quicksand for the Soviet Union. The 39th President of the United States chose a brilliant strategic mind rather than a denizen of the Washington establishment as his National Security Advisor. The NSA, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was focused on weakening the Soviet Union, and in such a task, had the backing of his boss. The only problem was that in his hurry to secure quick results, rather than launch the process using the “frog in hot water” method, whereby the target takes time to understand the deadly impact of the change in circumstances deliberately (if covertly) created by the rival power, the NSA went in for what he believed (together with the Pentagon and the CIA) would be a quick fix. This was to outsource the operational aspects of the process to the Pakistan military, which was in the process of being converted into a Wahhabi force by Chief Martial Law Administrator of Pakistan, Zia-ul-Haq. The army thereafter empowered not the overwhelming majority of Pashtuns, who were fiercely nationalist, but the extremist fringe, which placed the dissemination and practice of the Wahhabi variant of an overall moderate and modernising faith as a higher priority than nationalism per se. This was to the liking of Army Headquarters at Rawalpindi, as there was a constant apprehension in them that any boost to Pashtun nationalism may result in the Pashtuns within Pakistan seeking to unify with their kin across the border to create a separate and independent Pashtunistan. This had been the dream of several Pashtun leaders in the past, including Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, who during much of his long life (1890-1988) was known as the Frontier Gandhi for his long association with Mahatma Gandhi. Perhaps as a panic reaction to the seizure of power by Imam Khomeini in Iran and the storming of the Mecca mosque by radicals in 1979, the Wahhabi variant everywhere was put on steroids by the backing of the US and its European allies. What needed. to be done was to double down on strengthening the mosern and moderate strain that is at the heart of Islam, rather than the reverse. This “historical blunder” has had severe global consequences. Across the Middle East and elsewhere, including in the Indian subcontinent, the Wahabi variant was generously funded and supported, resulting in the aborting of efforts at ensuring that the Muslim Ummah (or global community) be encouraged to evolve in a modern and moderate manner rather than be sought to get plunged into exclusivism and religious intolerance, neither of which was ever part of the message of the Quran. These teachins were ignored, and new and misleading Wahabi-Khomeinist interpretations were popularised, with effects far beyond Afghanistan. In Pakistan, the Wahabi variant found its champion in Zia-ul-Haq, who as a consequence of his intervention in Afghanistan was forgiven for deposing in 1977. Zia subsequently hanged the elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, Z.A. Bhutto, in 1979. to silence from West Europe and North America, the presumed bastions of human freedoms.
BIDEN PIVOTS BACK TO EUROPE
Not that the fast-tracking of the Wahhabi variant was the only policy followed by the US that subsequently proved unwise. The US had (especially since the Atlantic Charter was signed by President Roosevelt and a less enthusiastic Prime Minister Churchill in 1941) been welcomed by freedom fighters in Asia as being different from those countries in Europe that had for centuries oppressed countries across the world to enrich themselves. Roosevelt believed in this process, and saw the Charter as a beacon of freedom across the world, while Churchill (determined to hold onto the British Empire after the war with Germany and Japan) regarded the freedoms listed in the document as being valid only for those of European extraction. On the death of Roosevelt in 1945, his successor Harry S. Truman reverted to the policy of standing by the European colonial powers rather than with those fighting for freedom from their colonial oppressors, who had held on to most of their colonies even after the war had ended in victory for the Allies. The impact of this on US goodwill in the colonised countries was immense, and gave an advantage to the Soviet Union (with its ironical championing of the very freedoms that were being denied to Soviet satellites in East Europe) across Asia, Africa and South America. Among the disasters that ensued from backing a colonial power (in this case, France) against a liberation movement in Vietnam, the US entered the Vietnam war on the wrong side, immeasurably strengthening the communist rather than the ideology of democracy within the Vietnamese people, who saw the US as stepping into the shoes of the French in 1955 and therefore needing to be defeated. This finally happened in 1975 at immense human cost. Old habits die hard, and when US President George H.W. Bush invaded Iraq in 1990 and his son followed suit in 2003, both made sure to ensure that Britain was prominent in the allied coalition. The incongruity of claiming to fight for freedom for the Iraqis while having the armed forces of the former colonial power as the primary partner did not strike either father or son, so deeply was the Atlanticist logic of the primacy of European interests over other comers embedded in the strategic culture of the US, something which began to substantively change only during the “pivot to Asia” from Europe of President Barack Obama, especially during his second term. The Europeanist line is witnessing a revival under President Joe Biden, who seems to have forgotten several of the lessons he ought to have picked up during the latter period of the Obama presidency, including on Cuba and Iran.
XI’S GRANDIOSE AMBITION
Unlike Biden, who remains fixated on Europe (excluding the Russian part) rather than on the entirety of the Eurasian landmass, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping is aware that it is the Indo-Pacific and the corresponding Eurasian landmass that will be crucial in determining the outcome of the battle of systems between the US and the PRC. Following in the path of Mao, who saw the PLA as by far the most important instrument of control by the CCP on China, Xi has placed the military at the heart of his drive to achieve pre-eminence within the Indo-Pacific, and the corollary (together with Putin) of achieving the same result within the entire Eurasian landmass. The hostility of the UK, France and Germany in particular to integrating the Russian Federation into the comity of US allies (because of the severe dilution of their primacy that this would result in) has ensured that repeated efforts, first by Gorbachev and later Yeltsin, for Russia to break into the US-led alliance alongside Europe have failed.
......
Gautam
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5462
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Cyrano »

Don’t whitewash details of photojournalist Danish Siddiqui’s murder
On July 16, Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist Danish Siddiqui, the chief photographer for Reuters in India, was killed in Afghanistan.

His death made headline news around the world. "He was embedded with a convoy of Afghan forces that was ambushed by Taliban militants near a key border post with Pakistan," the BBC reported. He "was killed while covering a clash between Afghan security forces and the Taliban," the New York Times wrote. He "was killed in what was described as Taliban crossfire," the Washington Post explained. Reuters itself gave a bare-bones account and said, "We are urgently seeking more information [and] working with authorities in the region." The State Department, meanwhile, said, "We are deeply saddened to hear that Reuters photojournalist Danish Siddiqui was killed while covering fighting in Afghanistan."

The circumstances of Siddiqui’s death are now clear. He was not simply killed in a crossfire, nor was he simply collateral damage; rather, he was brutally murdered by the Taliban.

Local Afghan authorities say that Siddiqui traveled with an Afghan National Army team to the Spin Boldak region to cover fighting between Afghan forces and the Taliban to control the lucrative border crossing with Pakistan. When they got to within one-third of a mile of the customs post, a Taliban attack split the team, with the commander and a few men separated from Siddiqui, who remained with three other Afghan troops.

During this assault, shrapnel hit Siddiqui, and so he and his team went to a local mosque where he received first aid. As word spread, however, that a journalist was in the mosque, the Taliban attacked. The local investigation suggests the Taliban attacked the mosque only because of Siddiqui’s presence there.

Siddiqui was alive when the Taliban captured him. The Taliban verified Siddiqui’s identity and then executed him, as well as those with him. The commander and the remainder of his team died as they tried to rescue him.

While a widely circulated public photograph shows Siddiqui’s face recognizable, I reviewed other photographs and a video of Siddiqui’s body provided to me by a source in the Indian government that show the Taliban beat Siddiqui around the head and then riddled his body with bullets.

The question then becomes motives for each of the parties involved.

Siddiqui, of course, was doing his job: documenting newsworthy events. It was a risky job, but he took normal precautions that, across countries and battlefields, generally suffice to protect journalists. As for the Afghan National Army: It gave Siddiqui permission to cover the fighting near Spin Boldak because Afghan forces believed they would win. Documenting a victory could provide a much-needed morale boost.

The Taliban’s decision to hunt down, execute Siddiqui, and then mutilate his corpse shows that they do not respect the rules of war or conventions that govern the behavior of the global community. There are many parallels between the Khmer Rouge and the Taliban. Both infused radical ideology with racist animus. The Taliban are always brutal but likely took their cruelty to a new level because Siddiqui was Indian. They also want to signal that Western journalists are not welcome in any Afghanistan they control and that they expect Taliban propaganda to be accepted as truth. In effect, Siddiqui’s murder appears to show that the Taliban have concluded that their pre-9/11 mistake was not that they were cruel and autocratic but rather that they were not violent or totalitarian enough.

The real question for journalists is why the State Department continues to pretend that Siddiqui’s death was just a tragic accident.

The Biden administration’s decision to uphold the Feb. 29, 2020, U.S.-Taliban agreement even though the Taliban have not, and to withdraw completely, is condemning Afghanistan to a bloodbath. It threatens to destabilize the broader region. But rather than confront reality, the Biden administration appears intent to whitewash Taliban crimes. To acknowledge the fact that the Taliban executed Siddiqui and that the photographer’s death was not a tragic accident would contradict White House spin.

If only successive administrations focused more on defeating the Taliban rather than absolving them or projecting sincerity onto them, the situation might never have become so dire.

Michael Rubin (@Mrubin1971) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential. He is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Washington Examiner is showing some spine.

Many in India are also wilfully ignoring the fact that this act demonstrates that Taliban is rabidly anti-Indian, and will brutally kill a "fellow muslim", even if he is a non combatant, injured, taking refuge in a mosque and poses no threat. As per other reports, they also drove vehicles over his dead body to mutilate it, just for fun. The Afghan troops who sheltered in the mosque with him were presumably killed for associating with an Indian.

GoI seems to feel good and important because its now talking to Taliban and others involved in Afghanistan. If we start believing that something can be achieved there with the Taliban, we're deluding ourselves. If we want to give peace a chance in Afghanistan, Taliban must be totally annihilated first. There is no way around it. If we don't have the stomach for it, its OK to completely stay away. But going half way in like we are doing now is a waste and will lead to nothing good.
Post Reply