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.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4226
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Rudradev »

sanjaykumar wrote:American bases in Pakistan are not for Afghanistan but to keep the Pakistanis in line.
You mean like they kept the Pakistanis in line through the decade and a half that they were operating out of bases in Jacobabad, Dalbandin and Pasni?
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6088
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by sanjaykumar »

And how did they keep the taliban in line with those bases. Or do you mean they were play acting, putting on show, shadow boxing until the taliban won as they have.

Indeed threat was effective use of $1.5 trillion.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4226
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Rudradev »

You said the Americans want a base in Pakistan not for Afghanistan, but to keep the Pakistanis in line.

My question is, how will one base enable the Americans to keep the Pakistanis in line when they weren't able to do it with (at least) three?

Those bases were used to conduct airstrikes and drone attacks against certain Pathan warbands in the NWFP and FATA, but it was the ISI that supplied the intel on which warbands to target (and by omission, which ones to spare). Pakistan threw some warlords and clans under the bus while ensuring that others-- the groups best aligned with Islamabad's intentions-- lived to fight another day, and eventually to win in Afghanistan. All the while, the Pakistanis bilked the US and NATO for millions of $ in aid and coalition support funds.
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6088
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by sanjaykumar »

The US, India and Israel all have contingency plans to introduce a playtime-is-over regime in Pakistan.

Pakistan has made its paranoia clear by only very rarely invoking this fear in public.

Here is a credible source with significant details of the US approach to 'securing' nuclear weapons in Pakistan.

https://www.nti.org/gsn/article/the-pen ... r-arsenal/

Pakistanis tend to believe that the United States seeks to seize their country’s nuclear weapons preemptively, simply because the U.S. doesn’t like their country, or because of an ideological commitment to keep Muslim countries nuclear-free. This paranoia is not completely irrational, of course; it’s wise for the U.S. to try to design a plan for seizing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in a low-risk manner. “The U.S. tried to prevent Pakistan from becoming a nuclear-weapons state,” said Harvard’s Graham Allison. “It is not delusional for Pakistan to fear that America is interested in de‑nuking them. It is prudent paranoia.”

And


From time to time, U.S. officials have hinted publicly that concrete plans are in place in the event of a Pakistani nuclear emergency. For instance, during Senate hearings for her confirmation as secretary of State in 2005, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was asked by Sen. John Kerry what would happen to Pakistan’s nukes in the event of an Islamic coup in Islamabad. “We have noted this problem, and we are prepared to try to deal with it,” Rice said.

Those preparations have been extensive. According to military and intelligence sources, any answer to a Pakistani nuclear crisis would involve something along the following lines: If a single weapon or a small amount of nuclear material were to go missing, the response would be contained -- Abbottabad redux, although with a higher potential for U.S. casualties. The United States Joint Special Operations Command maintains rotating deployments of specially trained units in the region, most of them Navy SEALs and Army explosive-ordnance-disposal specialists, who are trained to deal with nuclear weapons that have fallen into the wrong hands. Their area of operation includes the former Soviet states, where there is a large amount of loose fissile material, and, of course, Pakistan. JSOC “has units and aircraft and parachutes on alert in the region for nuclear issues, and regularly inserts units and equipment for prep,” says a military official who was involved in supporting these technicians.

Further


JSOC would take the lead, however, accompanied by civilian experts. It has been preparing for such an operation for years. JSOC forces are trained to breach the inner perimeters of nuclear installations and then to find, secure, evacuate -- or, if that’s not possible, to “render safe” -- any live weapons. At the Nevada National Security Site, northwest of Las Vegas, Delta Force and SEAL Team Six squadrons practice “Deep Underground Shelter” penetrations, using extremely sensitive radiological detection devices that can pick up trace amounts of nuclear material and help Special Operations locate the precise spot where the fissile material is stored. JSOC has also built mock Pashtun villages, complete with hidden mock nuclear-storage depots, at a training facility on the East Coast, so SEALs and Delta Force operatives can practice there.

At the same time, U.S. military and intelligence forces have been quietly pre-positioning the necessary equipment in the region. In the event of a coup, U.S. forces would rush into the country, crossing borders, rappelling down from helicopters, and parachuting out of airplanes, so they can secure known or suspected nuclear-storage sites. According to the former senior Special Operations planner, JSOC units’ first tasks might be to disable tactical nuclear weapons -- because those are more easily mated, and easier to move around, than long-range missiles.
RajaRudra
BRFite
Posts: 344
Joined: 17 Sep 2019 14:13

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by RajaRudra »

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 765373.cms

NEW DELHI: Even as a special envoy from Qatar revealed that Indian officials had "quietly" met Taliban representatives in Doha, Indian sources indicated that there had been in the recent past.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Manish_P »

sanjaykumar wrote:...

Those preparations have been extensive. According to military and intelligence sources, any answer to a Pakistani nuclear crisis would involve something along the following lines: If a single weapon or a small amount of nuclear material were to go missing, the response would be contained -- Abbottabad redux, although with a higher potential for U.S. casualties. The United States Joint Special Operations Command maintains rotating deployments of specially trained units in the region, most of them Navy SEALs and Army explosive-ordnance-disposal specialists, who are trained to deal with nuclear weapons that have fallen into the wrong hands

...
Really? And how would they know that a nuke or nuclear material has gone missing / fallen into the wrong hands? Do they mean to say that they know and are keeping a track of every single nuke and nuke material in Jihadistan :roll:
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6088
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by sanjaykumar »

I’ll take a tour of Pakistan weapons sites, consult with the US authorities and report back.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Manish_P »

No offense intended or directed at you, Sanjay ji

I was just asking a simple question and it was directed at a specific passage in the article quoted by you.

Forgive me if i don't really take their assertions with more than a pinch of Tata salt.. this is after all from the same guys who took a decade+ to find a old, bearded dude, are still looking for others... and who have coined the term the bad taliban (who attack US and the west) and the good taliban (who attack everyone else)
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://news.yahoo.com/almost-soon-us-m ... 03677.html
Almost as soon as the US military left its biggest air base in Afghanistan, looters rolled in
John Haltiwanger, Fri, July 2, 2021

*Bagram, the biggest air base in Afghanistan, was ransacked within hours of the US's withdrawal.
*Afghan officials said the US didn't coordinate the withdrawal with them. The US military denies this.
*Looters stole laptops and gas canisters. It's not a good sign for the future of Afghanistan.
Within hours of the US withdrawal from Bagram - the largest air base in Afghanistan and the longtime hub of America's longest war - looters rolled in.
The looters stole laptops and gas canisters from the base, said Darwaish Raufi, a district administrator for Bagram, The New York Times reported.
Raufi said the US withdrawal from the base was done overnight and not in coordination with local officials.
"Unfortunately the Americans left without any coordination with Bagram district officials or the governor's office," Raufi said, the Associated Press reported. "Right now our Afghan security forces are in control both inside and outside of the base."
The looters were "stopped and some have been arrested and the rest have been cleared from the base," Raufi said. A local said the looters also stole materials such as metal and plastic that could be sold as scrap, Stars and Stripes correspondent J.p. Lawrence reported.
Typically, bases are turned over between military forces when the new troops are able to, at a minimum, secure the perimeter. That the base was so easily ransacked following the US pullout doesn't bode well for Afghanistan's future.
Col. Sonny Leggett, a spokesperson for the US-led coalition in Afghanistan, pushed back against the notion that the US wasn't in contact with local officials about the withdrawal. Leggett told The Times the pullout was "closely coordinated."
Control of Bagram has been handed over to the Afghan military.
The US withdrawal from Bagram came almost three months after President Joe Biden announced an end to the "forever war" in Afghanistan.
Biden pledged to withdraw all troops by September 11, though about 650 are expected to remain to protect the US Embassy in Kabul.
.....
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.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... to-taliban
Hundreds of Afghan security forces flee as districts fall to Taliban
Militants’ advance continues as Britain nears end of its two-decade deployment to country
Emma Graham-Harrison in Kabul and Dan Sabbagh, 4 Jul 2021

The Taliban’s rapid advance through northern Afghanistan continued on Sunday with more than a dozen districts falling to the militants, as Britain entered the final days of its two-decade deployment to Afghanistan.
More than 300 members of the Afghan security forces fled across the border into Tajikistan to escape the militants, and Badakhshan and Takhar provinces are now largely under Taliban control, beyond the respective regional capitals.
There have been no public announcements about when the last British troops will fly out. Senior sources had recently said the US and British missions would end on 4 July, but after Joe Biden backed away from that date at a weekend press conference, London appeared to follow suit.
On Friday the US handed over Bagram airbase, the heart of its campaign in Afghanistan, meaning it can no longer carry out significant operations in the country. The few hundred soldiers left are in effect on guard duty for the embassy.
But at a press conference soon afterwards, Biden brushed off questions about the end of the US deployment, saying it was a holiday weekend and “I want to talk about happy things, man”. Since then his press secretary, Jen Psaki, has reset expectations, saying the last troops would probably be out by the end of August.
On Sunday Britain’s Ministry of Defence said a few British troops remained in Afghanistan, blaming a fast-changing situation and “mixed messaging” for earlier reports of a 4 July departure.
Britain’s plans are expected to become clearer when Boris Johnson makes a statement to parliament early this week, most likely on Tuesday, after a meeting of the national security council (NSC) that will determine the shape of the UK’s future diplomatic and any residual military presence in Afghanistan. But one defence source cautioned that the NSC meeting had been postponed before and it could happen again.
Most of Britain’s 750-strong contribution to what is officially a “train and assist” stabilisation mission in Afghanistan has already left. The NSC meeting is expected to discuss whether any SAS or other special forces will remain in the country – although that decision will not be made public – and whether some troops might be required to guard the British embassy in Kabul, currently protected by contractors. Defence sources said the current arrangement was likely to be continued.
.....
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-ci ... 368f907be9
Afghan pullout has US spies reorienting in terrorism fight
NOMAAN MERCHANT, July 2, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — The two-decade war in Afghanistan has given U.S. spies a perch for keeping tabs on terrorist groups that might once again use the beleaguered nation to plan attacks against the U.S. homeland. But that will end soon.
The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan is leaving intelligence agencies scrambling for other ways to monitor and stop terrorists. They’ll have to depend more on technology and their allies in the Afghan government — even as it faces an increasingly uncertain future once U.S. and NATO forces depart.
“You may not be blind, but you’re going to be legally blind,” said Rep. Mike Waltz, a Florida Republican and Green Beret who served in Afghanistan. Waltz said in an interview that while he believed American forces would still be able to detect threats, they would have to respond with lesser intelligence and more complex operations from bases outside the country.
The Afghanistan withdrawal was ordered by President Joe Biden. He has said it’s time to end America’s longest war after two decades of a conflict that killed 2,200 U.S. troops and 38,000 Afghan civilians, with a cost as much as $1 trillion.
But that withdrawal comes with many uncertainties as a resurgent Taliban captures ground and fears mount that the country could soon fall into civil war. The U.S. is still working on agreements to base counterterrorism forces in the region and evacuate thousands of interpreters and other Afghans who helped the American war effort.
CIA Director William Burns testified in April that fighters from al-Qaida and the Islamic State group are still operating in Afghanistan and “remain intent on recovering the ability to attack U.S. targets.”
“When the time comes for the U.S. military to withdraw, the U.S. government’s ability to collect and act on threats will diminish. That’s simply a fact,” Burns said. He added that the CIA and other U.S. agencies “retain a suite of capabilities” to monitor and stop threats.
Burns made a secret visit to Afghanistan in April and reassured Afghan officials that the U.S. would remain engaged in counterterrorism efforts, according to two officials familiar with the visit.
The CIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment for this story.
.......
Gautam
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Pratyush »

Najib lasted for years after the USSR withdrawal. But it seems that the modern Afghanistan state build by the khan's is is so weak that they will be wiped out even before the last of the Americas leave.

I am seriously worried about the future of Indian diplomatic and non diplomatic staff in the country post 9/11/2021.
Arima
BRFite
Posts: 155
Joined: 05 Apr 2018 14:45

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Arima »

20 years of training for Police and armed forces should show resilience from meltdown during crisis. else nothing has changed from 2001.
Afgan govt and US should have tried to de-weaponise Afgan mangoman. even this is not achieved. this is a lesson which we need to learn from British who systematically eliminated weapons from Indians. today as per law, having a machete used in agri activities (arival in Tamil) is crime.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by rsingh »

India has to back moderated Talibanis. India has no problem if the bunnies do not commit atrocities when in power, then India has no problem in backing them and bring them back in democratic setup. Afghans have tasted some sort of freedom. It will be not that easy for bunnies to control the society. JMT
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Cyrano »

Moderate Taliban - thats an oxymoron. Talibunnies adopting modern comforts and spending ill gotten money has no impact on their regressive ideology which will flower like a sea of poppies in the vacuum left by Amreeka's exit. Already they are imposing restrictions like women cannot go outside alone etc.
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://news.yahoo.com/talibanned-kite- ... 00336.html
'Talibanned': From kite-running to breakdancing, Afghan pastimes again under threat
The Taliban banned Beauty parlours alongside other activities and professions, and Afghans fear these will be prohibited again if the group regains
Jay DESHMUKH, and AFP's Afghanistan team, July 4, 2021

The Taliban outlawed dozens of seemingly innocuous activities and pastimes in Afghanistan during their 1996-2001 rule -- including kite flying, TV soap operas, pigeon racing, fancy haircuts, and even playing music.
These have made a comeback in the years since, but fears are growing they will be banned again if the hardline Islamists return to power.
The insurgents have made enormous military and territorial gains since US troops began their final withdrawal in May, and their leaders say they want Afghanistan to return to being an Islamic emirate ruled by religious elders.
AFP looks at some of the activities the Taliban banned, and the fears of those now taking part in them.
- The musician -
Sayed Mohammad makes a living as a professional musician playing the japani, a traditional Central Asian stringed instrument he first picked up as a boy.
He still remembers the evening two decades ago when the Taliban broke into a house where he and his friends were playing music and singing songs.
According to the Taliban's strict interpretation of Islam, only the human voice should produce music -- and only in praise of God.
"I was young, so I was beaten less than my friends," said Mohammad, now 40 and a resident of the former insurgent bastion of Kandahar.
"I was still unable to stand for three days," he added
He was lucky, he said, describing how on another occasion the Taliban cut off the fingers of one of his friends for playing the japani.
When the insurgents were ousted, Mohammad celebrated by attending a concert.
"When the music played, I felt a tremor passing through my body out of sheer joy," he said.
"Joy that our country was free and that people were now free to start a new life."
Since then, many Afghans like Mohammad have become professional musicians and singers.
"There is no pleasure in life if we live in fear," the father of eight told AFP.
He is determined to pursue his passion -- even if the Taliban return to power.
"It's like an addiction. Even if they cut our fingers we will still play music."
.....
Gautam
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by rsingh »

Cyrano wrote:Moderate Taliban - thats an oxymoron. Talibunnies adopting modern comforts and spending ill gotten money has no impact on their regressive ideology which will flower like a sea of poppies in the vacuum left by Amreeka's exit. Already they are imposing restrictions like women cannot go outside alone etc.
Yes they are But in real world we have to protect our investments. We will have to talk . Indian can not be seen as backing some terrorist group.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by rsingh »

Who are big players among talibans? Which faction is least harami? We have to look at such people.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Vips »

India has to keep all the channels of communication Open in Afghanistan.

India has to help Afghanistan in alleviating the water problem and build a dam on the Kabul river, absence of which is causing all the water to flow into Pakistan. India also has to help Afghanistan solve the Durand line issue and incorporate Peshawar and NWFP into Afghanistan.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3800
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Paul »

Till 1739 (Nadir Shahs invasion) Afghanistan: Ghazni, Kabul etc. were part of the Indian subcontinent. Ahmed Shah who was Nadir Shahs general saw the opportunity to break away Afghanistan as a separate country ruled by his Durrani clan. This region is always dependent on India economically whether as a separate country or with India. Better have them in the tent than outside

This region is our buffer state. They need to be part of India once the Radcliffe line goes away.

Added later: We had a discussion on this about 15 years ago.
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://news.yahoo.com/taliban-prevaile ... 1gHI0iPOcK
Taliban has won the war in Afghanistan, says Lord Dannatt as UK and US troops pull out
Danielle Sheridan, July 1, 2021

The Taliban has “prevailed” in its battle with the West in Afghanistan, the former head of the British Army has said, as it emerged all UK and US troops will be withdrawn on Sunday.
Writing in The Telegraph, General Lord Dannatt said the mission had been intended to give the Afghan people the choice of a more “moderate and peaceful” life.
“Ultimately, Taliban force of arms has prevailed, and the people of that country have been denied the chance to choose a better way of life,” Lord Dannatt said. “Tragically, a descent into the chaos of civil war seems highly likely.”
During the 20-year conflict, 454 British military personnel were killed while serving in Afghanistan. Taliban forces are now making sweeping gains across rural areas, declaring victory over Nato and its allies.
Lord Dannatt has called for a Chilcot-like “audit” of the campaign to take place, after The Telegraph revealed that the Union flag has been lowered in Kabul, ending 20 years of British presence in the country.
The Telegraph can now also reveal that a source close to General Sir Nick Carter, the chief of the defence staff, confirmed that the remaining British and US forces would be withdrawn from Afghanistan on Independence Day.
The source said: “We will all be out on July 4th. The main British mission will also be concluded by July 4th.”
The full withdrawal was initially planned to be completed on September 11, on what will be the 20th anniversary of the Twin Towers attack.
The thinking was that there was no point in having a slow extraction and running the risk of having more casualties,” the source added. It is understood that there will still be a presence of international troops around the embassy in Kabul.
As the drawdown of Nato troops throughout the country has commenced, the country has seen a surge in violence, with district after district falling to the Taliban in recent days.
Lord Dannatt added: “The Afghan National Army has seemingly lost the will to fight and many soldiers are abandoning their posts, no longer supported by substantial international air power.”
He warned that “tragically, a descent into the chaos of civil war seems highly likely”.
A senior UK military source told The Telegraph: “There are a lot of us who have served in Afghanistan and inevitably we’ve got a deep attachment to the Afghan security forces that we served alongside.”
He said there remained “admiration” for the forces’ professionalism, along with “a healthy respect for the Taliban”, that has been built up since UK troops entered the conflict in October 2001.
The source added: “We left a lot of people behind. It’s not a secret that we would have preferred to have stayed to continue to see this through and see the security of the country feel more assured.”
Meanwhile, commanders with the militant movement currently making rapid advances against Ashraf Ghani's government forces likened the withdrawal to the departure of Soviet forces in 1989 and have cheered the moment as one of the main goals of their long-running insurgency.
The Taliban have yet to capture any significant town or city, but the toppling of rural district centres has spread alarm in Kabul and Washington that the momentum may build into a cascade of larger victories.
.....
Gautam
rsangram
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Sep 2016 17:54

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by rsangram »

Paul wrote:Till 1739 (Nadir Shahs invasion) Afghanistan: Ghazni, Kabul etc. were part of the Indian subcontinent. Ahmed Shah who was Nadir Shahs general saw the opportunity to break away Afghanistan as a separate country ruled by his Durrani clan. This region is always dependent on India economically whether as a separate country or with India. Better have them in the tent than outside

This region is our buffer state. They need to be part of India once the Radcliffe line goes away.

Added later: We had a discussion on this about 15 years ago.
All this is grandiose hallucination, no more. Afghanistan was Hindu, true, but is no longer a buffer state for India. That buffer state possibility ended in 1947 with partition of India. Not only is Pakistan geographically in between India and Afghanistan, it literally is, in every other way too.

Make no mistake,. At least 50% of Afghans, most of them Pushtoons, are hardcore Islamists. Taliban doesnt operate in the vacuum and without a solid inflection point of under the radar support. Of the remaining 50%, while they talk a good game when it comes to India, that is only to gain leverage in their internecine intra-islamic conflict with Pakistan. Afghan's problem with Pakistan is not that they are Islamists. Afghan problem with Pakistan is that despite being fellow muslims, Pakistan has this greed for territory and strategic depth, a greed from which they do not even spare fellow Islamic or should I say, Islamist Afghanistan.

We in India can pretend to be Chankiyan and too clever by half, by thinking that we can play Afghans against the Pakis, somehow. Afghans have proven over the years, that they will sell their mother to the highest bidder, and send their sisters to whoever holds that balance of power on any given day. They will play us, rather than us ever being able to play them successfully. The Afghans can and have played everyone in the world, including the Americans and the Russians.

Afghans also know fully well, though, that the two entities that they cannot play are The Pakis and the Chinese. That is because the Chinese and the Pakis do not play. They are the only two entities who are bigger ******** than the Afghans.

For those who will dhoti shiver at the usage of my words, just think for a minute, before issuing a ban. Usage of any alternate words or phrases would not have conveyed what is truly meant to be conveyed. Words like "********" are given to us by God for a reason. While most of the time, they are misapplied, and therefore, are profanities, but sometimes, they do apply perfectly, and when they do, they are not profanities, but apt descriptions.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3800
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Paul »

Suggest you go through the following thread....viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4177


We need to play the Great Game....if not it will play us.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by rsingh »

Great game et all is a myth. US wanted to play great game. They left Afghanistan after spending more than 100 billions and lost solders. In the end what was achieved? They left afganistan bases that are well secured and modern. India spend 2 billion on public projects and are more respected than Americans. Our policy is good and definitely will some fruits.i have gone through the great game or chess game of world powers. May be it was true during cold War time. Every nation take good decision and great game theory is just an illusion. Any country that is under Chinese debt, can stop paying back. What China will do? Let take Bakistan . What stops it from throwing out Chinese? And China will not find sympathetic ears anywhere. That much for great Chinese game.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3800
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Paul »

The larger question is...how to secure India's northern borders.

Hence pls see my reply in Great Game thread.....this was discussed with great enthusiasm in 2008.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Aditya_V »

I suspect the West never wanted to defeat the Taliban- cause most of them are Pak pasand- they even rescued them from Kunduz when the Northern Alliance surrounded them, our chance is limited to arming anti Taliban forces through Tajikistan and hope we can get them and Pashtuns to to keep hitting the Pak jabis.

If the West really hated the Taliban- Baluchistan would have been granted its well deserved freedom- That would cut off most of the Games Iran and Pakis play.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10388
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Yagnasri »

Western armies in Afghanistan were/are led by politicos in the pockets of arms dealers. There is no looting of native land to off set the cost of war as Trump suggested in respect of Iraq. So when the cost of money and lives is no longer affordable they are leaving. Be it here or in Iraq, they do not have guts to stay back and loot mineral wealth of the countries. In other words a EIC like entity would have ruled the countries as long as it could loot. These are not such entities. So they are leaving.

There is no one defeated or won. One bunch of warlords replacing another bunch. Only thing against this bunch is they are more anti Bharat then the one before. That is all.
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1714
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Lisa »

IMHO, This was a numbers and money game that could quite easily have been won. I clearly remember the Russian withdrawal and them leaving behind firebases. These worked extremely well and so much so, from memory not ONE was lost to a direct taliban assault. What did cause their collapse was money. Local commanders were bribed to change sides and this is where the Saudi's and Emiratis came in.

If the west was to win this game, it was easy as they had the money to bribe the taliban into compliance and if not to hire more then them and field them instead of deploying their own forces. How much did it cost to deploy a single American solider and for that money they could have hired 20+ local Afghans.

One they would have had more boots on the ground and two because they have more money they would have deprived the taliban from being able to recruit enough as they did not process as much money. I spoke with a British commander some years ago and asked why this solution was not being given space and he was unable to articulate an opinion.

Just for arguments sake, $100,000 per American solider vs $2000 per Afghan. American deployment at peak of well over 50,000 and even half were substituted for Afghans they could have paid off near or about the entire Afghan male population to work for them. My argument is obviously flawed. Help!
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10388
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Yagnasri »

Lisa wrote: Just for arguments sake, $100,000 per American solider vs $2000 per Afghan. American deployment at peak of well over 50,000 and even half were substituted for Afghans they could have paid off near or about the entire Afghan male population to work for them. My argument is obviously flawed. Help!
It is not flowed. Add money spent of pakis from 9/11 to the cost of this war. As per one estimate it is nea 2T$ in total and 2400 deaths and many times more injured US men and women. It is cheap to buy the Taliban now. Hell allow them to grow weed and look the other way when they ship it to khanland. Then there is no cost. CIA is doing that anyway in respect of other nations for decades even now. Nothing new there.

The only thing we do not realize is a huge amount of "welfare" type expenditure went to US based "NGO"s. Add the cost of private contractors engaged to that. There is also arms sales etc by US companies. Add all these + many unknown payments like that. So 20 years of deployment enriched many in US itself.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by rsingh »

I think there were leK about how pentagon was bleeded by contractors. They imported German water bottles at 30 USD per bottles. Bismillah.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Cyrano »

The Taliban have attacked killed 16 people and taken control of the Salma dam in Herat, funded and built by India at a cost of 275 Million $. See the WION report below.

Note the "Taliban negotiator" - how much his words are binding on all of Taliban is anyone's guess. He is a perfect example of "Taquiyya" - obfuscate, fudge, lie and double cross - all means are "jaayiz" to advance the holy jihad. Getting entangled with them is, aptly described by the Telugu saying, "like scratching one head with a burning stick".

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.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021 ... he-taliban
Why did India open a backchannel to the Taliban
Recent developments in the region forced India to rethink its approach to the armed group.
Abdul Basit, 7 Jul 2021

In a crucial policy shift, India recently acknowledged that it entered into backchannel communications with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
In early June, the Indian media reported that New Delhi has started talking to certain factions and leaders of the armed group against the backdrop of the withdrawal of the United States forces from Afghanistan. A few days later, India’s Ministry of External Affairs all but confirmed these reports, stating that “we are in touch with various stakeholders … in pursuance of our long-term commitment towards development and reconstruction of Afghanistan”. The Taliban’s Quetta based leadership and Qatari officials have also confirmed these back channel meetings.
Until recently, India has been reluctant to openly communicate with the Taliban because it feared that such a move could damage its relations with the Afghan government and its powerful regional and global backers. While Indian intelligence officials have occasionally connected with Taliban fighters to protect India’s interests over the years, most notably in 2011 to secure the release of kidnapped Indian engineers and personnel working in Afghanistan, New Delhi always refrained from establishing a permanent communication channel with the group.
It viewed the Taliban as nothing but a proxy for its main regional rival, Pakistan, and believed that it had little to gain from directly engaging the group. Moreover, New Delhi did not want to compromise its official policy of not talking to any “militant groups” by entering into a dialogue with the Taliban, as it believed that doing so would put it under increased pressure to start talking to Kashmiri rebel groups as well.
But much has changed in the past few years. In 2015, Iran and Russia started to support the Taliban to stop another armed group, the Islamic State of Khorasan (ISK), from expanding its influence over Afghanistan. Knowing the limitations of Afghan security forces and the Taliban’s operational strength, they opted to form a working relationship with the Taliban to contain the ISK.
Since then, the Taliban further established itself as a legitimate stakeholder in Afghanistan by gradually strengthening its diplomatic relations with the international community, scoring significant territorial gains against the Afghan government, and clinching a historic peace deal with the US in February 2020. It is now widely accepted that the Taliban will continue to have a significant influence over Afghanistan after the US completes its withdrawal from the country in September 2021.
All this put India in a difficult position and forced it to rethink its approach to the armed group. In the end, it decided to form back channel communications with relatively friendly factions of the Taliban to avoid losing strategic space to its regional rivals, especially Pakistan, after the US’s withdrawal from Afghanistan.
In September 2020, India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar signalled his country’s interest in entering into a dialogue with the Taliban for the first time by participating in the intra Afghan peace talks taking place in Doha via video link. A senior Indian delegation also attended the talks. This was the first time that high-ranking Indian officials attended an event in their official capacity alongside the representatives of the Taliban. Since then, Indian security officials started opening channels of communication with several Taliban factions that are perceived as being “nationalist” or outside the sphere of influence of Pakistan and Iran.
.....
Gautam
Tuan
BRFite
Posts: 440
Joined: 16 Oct 2008 01:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Tuan »

The US-Led NATO And Its Allies Need Dominance In Afghanistan Over Global Powers, Not Over Their Proxy Taliban
As US-led NATO forces prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan, General Scott Miller — the United States’ longest-serving military commander in the area — told the BBC that the priority of NATO troops is “the risks to our forces” and “the risks to the future of Afghanistan.” General Miller’s comments come before September 11, 2021, which marks the 20th anniversary of the so-called “war on terror.” He underscored his prediction that Taliban violence would worsen, but that history would have to write the story of Afghanistan.

Former Afghani president Hamid Karzai told BBC World News that the NATO deployment over the past 20 years delivered mixed results. Reconstructing the country’s infrastructure, facilitating education, and helping nation-building all produced positive outcomes for the country and are welcome. However, Karzai emphasized that NATO’s military strategy to fight extremism and terrorism has failed.

In turn, Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen responded that any US forces remaining in Afghanistan after September 11, 2021, would violate the Doha agreement and warned that the Taliban would “react” to any continuing international military presence. He called for a complete withdrawal of all international forces from the country.

So, what factors play into how Afghanistan’s history is written? And which players will be involved moving forward?

From a strategic and historical point of view, the war in Afghanistan is significant for many global powers. NATO forces were deployed in Afghanistan primarily to obliterate Al Qaeda which had carried out the 9/11 attacks. So the notion that NATO failed in this military mission is to some extent abhorrent. Although NATO forces had significant success in degrading Al Qaeda in the region and removing its “cephalothorax” in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), the remnants of their operatives have dispersed throughout the Arabian Peninsula, reorganizing to form the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

If present-day ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda, then Al Qaeda itself is an offshoot of the Afghan Mujahideen and the Taliban. Behind the scenes, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan played key roles in creating the Afghan Mujahideen and Taliban to fight the former Soviet Union. What happened in 9/11 and the subsequent global war on terror (GWOT) that began in Afghanistan, followed by the American invasion in Iraq and the conflict in Syria, are therefore interconnected by-products of protracted Cold War–era proxy wars instigated by major powers.

Today, a resurgent Russia competes for influence in Central Asia. On the one hand, it claims at the UN to be “ready to engage in cooperation with the People’s Republic of China (PRC)/China, USA, and other international partners, including through the meetings of Troika plus Pakistan to facilitate for the Afghan parties an ‘acceptable-to-all agreement’ that would establish a sustainable peace in the country.” On the other hand, Russian military intelligence is involved in “black-ops” to arm, train, and fund the Taliban to destabilize the US-led NATO presence in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, an increasingly aggressive Beijing cooperates with Moscow, Tehran, and Islamabad to reconnect and revitalize its relations in Afghanistan as well as its ties with the Taliban in particular. China sees the Taliban as an important ally to advance its multi-trillion-dollar mega projects: the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Without a stable Afghanistan, Beijing’s anticipated strategy to increase connectivity and trade between Central Asian and Eurasian nations will not become a reality.

But Ameya Pratap Singh argues that the PRC has a legitimate concern regarding the withdrawal since there is a strong possibility of the resurgent Taliban potentially linking up with the East Turkestan Movement and providing safe haven to Uighyur Muslims. Nilofar Sakhi notes that Beijing and Moscow are hoping to subvert Washington’s intentions in Afghanistan. Since “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” China and Russia are “now more aligned than they’ve been since the mid-1950s.”

Alternatively, Iran continues to provide crucial economic, military and political support to proxy militants — especially the Afghan Taliban — all in the name of regional stability and, to some extent, counterterrorism. Although Tehran does not want an ideologically Sunni Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in its backyard, it does recognize the Taliban in order to gain political leverage in the region and beyond. Tehran has just hosted a meeting between Afghan, Taliban, and Iranian Foreign Ministry officials. With this meeting in its capital, Iran has demonstrated its commitment to being a major power in Afghanistan.

Against this backdrop, the US-led NATO needs to strengthen partnerships with newfound regional allies such as India to have a sphere of influence over other regional rivals. Such an Indo-American partnership depends on India, Russia, and China: on India if it wishes to move into the American orbit, on Russia if it wishes to maintain its 50-year friendship, and on China if it plays a more proactive role in Afghanistan. In all likelihood, India will once again balance its relationships between the US and Russia but will work to counter China’s moves. Recently, India has found it difficult to gain influence in Afghanistan since the PRC provides massive foreign aid, development assistance, and political support to Kabul.

India has always believed that it is a vital military and economic power. The withdrawal of almost all US and NATO forces from Afghanistan will create a power vacuum that China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan will most certainly exploit. This Beijing–Moscow–Tehran–Islamabad axis would impact New Delhi, thus India must continue to engage the Taliban in Doha.

India has already deviated from its previous policy of disengagement with the “Taliban, and its security officials had discussions in Doha, Qatar, with Taliban factions and leaders that are perceived as being ‘nationalist’ or outside the sphere of influence of Pakistan and Iran.” Despite India’s lengthy involvement, it has never had a dedicated policy for Afghanistan. Most powers would not have considered an American and NATO withdrawal in 2021. Only now that it stands alone is India interested in speaking with the Taliban. Sameer Patil has told the authors that “India will make sure that it remains a player in the Afghan reconciliation process because that is the only way for it to neutralise the activities of other adversarial players like China and Pakistan and prevent both from joining hands with like-minded countries like Russia and Iran.” Both Russia and Iran provided support to non-Taliban factions whereas Turkey aligned more with the Taliban.

For Pakistan, Afghanistan has always served as strategic depth against India in both offensive and defensive postures. Offensively, Afghanistan is Pakistan’s staging ground, with established training and logistics bases just over the border. Defensively, Pakistan could retreat to Afghanistan if Indian ground forces successfully crossed the Indo-Pakistan border, also known as the Line of Control (LoC). As in 1989 when the Soviets left Afghanistan, India once again faces incursions over the LoC. Except this time, without US-led NATO forces in the neighbourhood. Pakistan’s foreign intelligence agency — Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) — will, for a second time, direct Taliban’s hardcore Islamist, trigger-happy leaders and factions towards Kashmir to infiltrate and attack Indian territory. This had been Pakistan’s primary element in its “make India bleed from a thousand cuts” policy, but since India’s counter-infiltration grid has been enhanced over the last decade, the primary element might be drones.

Despite the current military, political, and diplomatic stalemate, the United States, Russia, China, Iran, India, and Pakistan remain critical players in all negotiation settlements regarding the conflict in Afghanistan. Therefore, any significant change in this conflict will only be achieved when these sovereignties intervene solely on their legal and moral responsibility to protect, rather than advancing national interests, hegemonic culture, or selective bias.

As the departing lead power in Afghanistan, the US must involve other global powers in the Doha peace process so that they too can discuss their concerns with Afghan political factions. Only when all national stakeholders engage in fruitful dialogue can a serious attempt be made to facilitate a stable Afghan government working for its people. The US will need dominance over these “proxy-masters” instead of the proxy itself to attain peace in Afghanistan. And it will most certainly need its allies to do so.
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://news.yahoo.com/biden-knows-afgh ... 57473.html
LA Times
Column: Biden knows Afghanistan will get uglier. No wonder he'd rather not talk about it
Doyle McManus, Wed, July 7, 2021

Last week, when reporters asked President Biden whether he worried that Afghanistan’s government might collapse in the face of Taliban military advances, he responded with ill-concealed annoyance. “I want to talk about happy things,” he said.The president went on to answer — he said the regime could survive, but only if its members stop squabbling — but then called a halt. “I’m not going to answer any more quick questions on Afghanistan,” he said.It’s no mystery why: Subjects like job-creation reports or the U.S. recovery from the pandemic let Biden talk about successes. Afghanistan offers only a choice of failures.
The news is dire. The Taliban has seized much of the country’s territory; the Afghan government’s armed forces, which the United States spent more than $88 billion building, appear to be disintegrating. In the areas they conquer, the Taliban is reimposing Islamic fundamentalist rule, including oppressive treatment of women. If the government survives, the country could quickly descend into civil war.
“The devastation and the killings … President Biden is going to own these ugly images,” Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) warned this week.
That was a partisan jab but nonetheless true, and Biden knows it: Presidents get blamed for disasters that occur on their watch, whether they caused them or not.
Biden has seen that. He was vice president when President Obama withdrew U.S. forces from Iraq to general acclaim in 2011, only to come under fire when Islamic State rampaged across the country in 2014. So even if Biden would rather talk about “happy things,” he’ll have to remain engaged in Afghanistan — for political reasons as well as for national security and humanitarian ones. That means he’ll need to push for negotiations between the Taliban and the Kabul government in hopes of reaching a peace agreement, or at least preventing a bloodbath, which diplomats consider more achievable.
It means warning that the U.S. will use force against terrorists in areas under Taliban control, just as it does in other countries.
It means mounting an energetic effort to help more than 18,000 Afghans who worked for the U.S. military get out of the country with their families.
And it means updating contingency plans to evacuate the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, which still has about 4,000 employees, including 1,800 Americans, guarded by some 650 U.S. troops.
.....
Gautam
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Aditya_V »

The only way Afganistan can b kept from the Paki Taliban is Baluchistan is separated from Pakistan and the world funds and Indian protectorate state, where the state and pastuns can be given numerous small arms and weapons to take on the Pak jabi Army and take the fight to pak jabi heartland.
Maria
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 15 Aug 2020 13:50

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Maria »

Aditya_V wrote:The only way Afganistan can b kept from the Paki Taliban is Baluchistan is separated from Pakistan and the world funds and Indian protectorate state, where the state and pastuns can be given numerous small arms and weapons to take on the Pak jabi Army and take the fight to pak jabi heartland.
Agreed, actually that's one of the ways. However, even if the Baluchis are given open support/moral support with weapons, how long would it take for them to wrestle freedom from Pakjabi hands? can Baluchis match the Pakjabi manpower for pitched battles? Can they evict the PA from Quetta?

I bet at least a few decades before there are significant developments in Qalat.

Do we have the luxury to wait and watch while the PA smokes out the Baluchis in the interim with brutal military force? The Talibunnies will nevertheless march into Afg and destroy all that we built if we leave it in the hands others.

There are many here who say that the PLA poking us in Ladakh is due to India's posturing vis-a-vis POK however I say that it is more to do with the American exit from Afg.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10388
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Yagnasri »

Baluchis are also Tribal. So if significant payments are made, then there will be mobilisations with arms supply. Pakjabis will have to be managed, of course, but that may be hard if you try insurgency in FATA areas at the same time along with Sindh.
Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1850
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Kati »

Special Report: Afghan pilots assassinated by Taliban as U.S. withdraws

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 021-07-09/
ChanakyaM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 22 Feb 2018 05:39

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by ChanakyaM »

I think with Taliban in control and deal in place with chinees the silk road is viable again
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Pratyush »

Not without India. Afganistan in the absence of trade with India through the land route can simply be bypassed.

CARs are much more important than Afghanistan.
ChanakyaM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 22 Feb 2018 05:39

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by ChanakyaM »

Pratyush wrote:Not without India. Afganistan in the absence of trade with India through the land route can simply be bypassed.

CARs are much more important than Afghanistan.
Time to take back POK may be to shut it out (?)
Post Reply