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.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7101
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by shyamd »

TSPA are not onboard with US withdrawal conditions despite Khalilzad suggesting otherwise to interlocutors. Biden admin likely to delay withdrawal from Afg which is a good thing for GOI.

--------------------------------
Keep an eye on Cheng Guoping who manages all aspects of the Af-Pak - China relations including security elements of SCO and BRI particularly. He is a former intel officer who served in Moscow.
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.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/jo ... r-BB1fBXtn
The Telegraph
Joe Biden to 'withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11'
Josie Ensor, April 13, 2021

The Biden administration plans to withdraw the last US troops from Afghanistan by the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks later this year, ending American involvement in its longest war.
President Joe Biden is expected on Wednesday to announce that he will keep thousands of forces beyond the May 1 deadline that was negotiated last year with the Taliban, but will promise to be out by September 11, according to several reports.
The US invaded the country shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings, marking the start of a decades-long “war on terror”.
His predecessor, Donald Trump, had promised a swift drawdown but was urged by military advisers not to withdraw too quickly from the messy and intractable conflict.
Officially, there are 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan, although the number fluctuates and is currently around 3,500.
“We have long known that there is no military solution to the problems plaguing Afghanistan,” a senior administration official said on Tuesday ahead of the announcement, adding that the drawdown would come "no later than 9/11 but potentially a meaningful amount of time before then.”
The official said a small number would remain beyond that date, but in the capacity of protecting the US embassy. The move will be done in coordination with Western allies, the official added.
.....
Gautam
ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4053
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by ArjunPandit »

https://www.wsj.com/articles/taliban-ba ... _lead_pos3

wheels are moving on the afghan front ...lets see if biden actually does bye then...if he does that would be an interesting play back for China pak, iran and the powers...wonder what happens to our investments..the thing in short term is to not let the weapons fall in paxi hand..
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Philip »

The sheer incompetence and waste of human lives and 2 Trillion spent, thanks to western intervention in Afg.,with the US and its NATO camp followers now
beating the retreat in indecent haste.
The true failure of the West's Afg. intervention has been its abject failure to strike hard at the root of the Afg. problem....Pakistan!
[/b] Pak harboured and gave succour,plus intel and military assistance to its b*****d child the Taliban. Whenever the going was hot,the Talibs simply crossed into Pak.In fact the now well-known CIA aided escape of hundreds of ISI cadre from Afg. who were trapped awaiting annhilation upon desperate please from 'Pindi, and the " finding" of one OB Laden in a Paki cantonement town indicates the duplicity and hypocrisy of the West's Afg. policy.
Good riddance to pure sh*t! Let the Afghans battle it out themselves.Like the famous statement made about the Balkans,"Afghanistan isn't worth the life if a single Indian jawan".

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... tan-terror
Xcpts:
What did 20 years of western intervention in Afghanistan achieve? Ruination
Simon Jenkins

Britain’s justifications for invading were having influence and deterring terror. They are just neo-imperialist platitudes

Poppy growing in Helmand, 22 March 2021.
‘Tony Blair sent Clare Short to eliminate the poppy crop. Whatever she did, it increased production from six provinces to 28.’ Poppy growing in Helmand, 22 March 2021. Photograph: Ghulamullah Habibi/EPA
Fri 16 Apr 2021

The longest, most pointless and unsuccessful war that Britain has fought in the past 70 years – its intervention in Afghanistan – is to end in September. I doubt anyone will notice. Nations celebrate victories, not defeats.

Twenty years ago the United States decided to relieve its 9/11 agony not just by blasting Osama bin Laden’s base in the Afghan mountains, but by toppling the entire Afghan regime. This was despite young Taliban moderates declaring Bin Laden an “unwelcome guest” and the regime demanding he leave. The US then decided not just to blast Kabul but invited Nato to launder its action as a matter of global security. Britain had no dog in this fight and only joined because Tony Blair liked George W Bush.

American and British troops roamed the country, signing up warlords or setting up new governors. Visiting Kabul at the time, I was told of Nato’s ambition to wipe out terror, build a new democracy, liberate women and create a “friend in the region”. I had an eerie sense of Britain in 1839 embarking on the First Afghan War.

Most Americans at the time wanted to get out, and concentrate on nation-building in Iraq. It was the British who were eager to stay. Blair even sent a minister, Clare Short, to eliminate the poppy crop. Whatever she did, it increased production from six provinces to 28, and raised poppy revenue to a record $2.3bn (£1.7bn).

Biden announces all US and Nato troops to leave Afghanistan by September 11

Spin forward to 2005, and the British army was in full imperial mode, itching to march south with 3,400 troops and conquer Pashtun Helmand.
The British commander, General David Richards, was adamant that it would be just a matter of winning hearts and minds in friendly “inkspot” towns. His defence secretary, John Reid, hoped this would be achieved “without firing one shot”. They had fun giving their operations names such as Achilles, Pickaxe-Handle, Sledgehammer Hit, Eagle’s Eye, Red Dagger and Blue Sword.

Everything in Helmand went wrong. The expedition had to be salvaged by 10,000 American marines. Four hundred and fifty-four Britons died.


The Russians, who had been forced out of Afghanistan a decade before, were privately amazed at the ineptitude of the western operations – and publicly delighted. Gordon Brown, by then prime minister, was forced implausibly to explain in 2009 that British troops were dying in Helmand to make Britain’s streets safe.

Since then, most of Nato has retreated, hoping against hope that diplomacy would rescue the Kabul government and the west from abject humiliation. Three US presidents have pledged various forms of “surge and depart”, but lacked the political nerve to go through with them. Even Joe Biden has extended a May deadline to September. Each has done just enough to keep the puppet regime in Kabul safe without returning to full-scale imperial rule.

America’s 2,300 troops and their air support will now leave, as will Britain’s 750 (as one senior UK defence source told the Guardian: “If they [the US] go, we’ll all have to go,”). For the US, the cost has been high: 2,216 dead and more than $2tn spent. Billions in “aid” are said to have left Afghanistan, much of it to the Dubai property market. The cost to Afghan civilians has been appalling, put at between 50,000 and 100,000 deaths over the two decades, all in retaliation for “hosting” the 9/11 attackers. Is that what we call western values?

As a senior US official said this week, when President Biden fixed his new deadline: “The threat against the homeland from Afghanistan is at a level we can address.” That has surely been the case for years in Britain as in America, yet we are still there.

The latest peace talks in Qatar are going nowhere. The reason is obvious: that the Taliban need only to wait for September, when they can do as they choose. The current regime may hold Kabul for a while, but if it can barely govern with American help, it can hardly do so alone.


Left alone back in 2001, the Taliban leadership – with which US intelligence was already liaising – would have dealt with Bin Laden. It would have been held in check by its local warlords and by the Pakistani army. Instead, the Pashtun have been left to rampage for two decades, financed by western heroin users. The worst it has suffered is the decimation of its senior figures by US drones, to absolutely no effect. Afghanistan will need these people to contain another product of Nato intervention: the country is now a focus of Islamic State activity.

What has the US and UK intervention achieved? The military theorist Gen Sir Rupert Smith, in his book The Utility of Force, has pointed out that modern armies are almost useless in counter-insurgency wars. They have roamed the Middle East from Afghanistan to Libya, “creating one ruined nation after another”. Britain’s sole justification is the hoary Foreign Office cliche about having influence, deterring terror and standing tall in the world. They are neo-imperialist vacuities. In a world of apologies, some mighty big ones are due in September.

Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Aditya_V »

The article is pure propoganda, right from the Kunduz airlift US has goals and in that Somewhere an unstable Afganistan with the Afganistan Baluchistan suppression by Pakjabis is clearly part of the plan.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Philip »

What I've said ! The US ,mainly CIA allowed " ally" Pak to get off scot free because they, ISI and the CIA were allegedlcontrolling the international heroin trade being looked after by the Taliban.
Pak is the problem.If the Pakis are taught a military lesson,the Taliban won't have refuge whenever they want when the "temperature" rises. The left hand not knowing what the right does! Years ago Pak was threatened with attack by the US over OBL and Al Q if they didn't conform to US diktat. Pak meekly capitulated. The drug money,profits in the billions ,is a major reason why the Talib have survived with the backing of Paki and US intel.
srikandan
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 20 Nov 2020 02:51

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by srikandan »

This is the "it was not malice, it was incompetence" move that the neo-imperial white nazis make whenever they screw something up bad by being too clever by half, such as "balancing" pakis with India by winking and exagerrating pakistan's capabilities so they could play the "nukular flashpoint" broken record to please the paki army.

They deliberately destroyed India's investment in training afghan police, and investing in afghan infrastrucute, and removed India-friendly Afghan leaders like Karzai who dared to follow what they thought was right for afghanisthan, replacing him with US cronies like Ghani, and pushing the pakistani taliban terrorists for decades.

Now, after being proved as evil scumbags who achieved nothing after wasting many trillions of dollars, and getting humiliated by a rag tag bunch of yahoos, history is being rewritten as "bad policy that failed to recognize pakis playing foil" when The US/EU knew damn well the "great game" they were playing with their paki army slaves and destroying peace and prosperity long after the cold war was over, in the name of "fighting terror".

US mentality is no different than "face saving" chinese or pakis -- they just do it differently it seems.
KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by KLNMurthy »

Indranil Banerjie | US Afghan exit a pyrrhic victory for Pak generals?
Strategic experts in India are worried. And for good reason too. The last time the Taliban had taken over Afghanistan, some 26 years ago, India’s historical presence in Afghanistan was forced to abruptly end. Almost overnight, Indian diplomats and others had to flee in specially chartered flights, leaving behind a grand embassy building that was later to be converted to an ammunition dump by the victorious Taliban forces.
Pakistan’s generals might continue to dream of turning Afghanistan into a vassal state but they might not have realised that as a vassal themselves, the real power in Afghanistan will be China. Beijing will decide what kind of regime it wants in Afghanistan and from all indications it is clear they have no desire to witness the free run of the highly radicalised Islamists in that country.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4226
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Rudradev »

How to "Leave Afghanistan" without actually "leaving"...

Biden's Expensive New Problem in Afghanistan
When troops leave, that doesn’t mean America can ignore the country. The next steps will be expensive and complex.

By ASFANDYAR MIR and COLIN P. CLARKE

04/15/2021 04:26 PM EDT


https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... ide-482054
Critics haven’t been shy about pointing out that a U.S. withdrawal will leave the Taliban in a powerful position, and could even give al Qaeda room to grow again. To keep the country from once again becoming a haven for terrorist operations, Biden will need to shift quickly from a “boots on the ground” strategy to something more remote: an offshore counterterror approach. :roll:


...Afghanistan represents a new challenge, and it won’t be simple—or cheap—to build the kind of remote counterterror operation the pullout will require. It’s a landlocked country in a neighborhood dominated by America’s adversaries, and although the U.S. still has allies inside Afghanistan, such as its armed forces, those allies are constrained in operating without significant U.S. assistance. For any offshore strategy to be viable, Biden must be prepared to make major adjustments to overall U.S. counterterrorism policy, as well as its South Asia policy, :roll: to ensure that Afghanistan doesn’t once again deteriorate into a safe haven for jihadists seeking to plan attacks on the West.

Any effective offshore counterterrorism strategy will have two primary components, one focused on Afghanistan itself and the other focused on basing a significant new American presence in the region, outside Afghanistan.

...

Outside Afghanistan, the troop pullout means Biden will have to find new basing options for U.S. counterterrorism operations. Putting eyes and ears—as well as targeting capabilities—near the country will require a physical base from which to launch unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles and also serve as a logistics hub for short-notice strikes against terrorists. Such bases are essential for monitoring and degrading any transnational terror threats before they metastasize.

Again, there are several complicating factors. Any base needs to be geographically close to Afghanistan. The farther U.S. bases are from Afghanistan, the harder it is to maintain sustained surveillance, and the longer it takes to hit any target. Even if the U.S. chooses to operate from its existing bases in the Middle East, it will need access in the form of air lines of communication to regularly cross the air space into landlocked Afghanistan—which it may not have over, for instance, Iran due to persistent tensions over Tehran’s nuclear program. hmmm.... I wonder whom the authors might be pimping for here...?

Among the realistic options for such basing and access purely from a geographic point of view, the first major option is Pakistan. :D Notionally a U.S. ally, Pakistan has long been friendly to the Taliban, and its mercurial security and intelligence services have often worked at cross-purposes to U.S. objectives in the region. Would it be a viable option? The answer is complicated. On the one hand, history tells us Pakistan wants to keep the U.S. engaged through basing, even in exceedingly difficult geopolitical and domestic contexts. In the 1960s, the U.S. government retained bases for surveillance and spying into the Soviet Union. In the 1980s, the U.S. government worked with Pakistan’s spy agency to support the mujahideen resistance against the Soviets from bases in northwest Pakistan. In the 1990s, the U.S. nearly brokered a secret targeting capability to take out al Qaeda’s leadership, but was ultimately thwarted by Pakistan’s 1999 military coup. Significantly, in the post-9/11 era, the U.S. government secretly cooperated with Pakistani intelligence in rounding up scores of al Qaeda leaders in the country’s mainland and the high-tempo drone war in the tribal areas, waged partially from bases inside Pakistan, to eliminate high-ranking al Qaeda leaders.

On the other hand, Pakistan remains firmly allied with the Taliban, which it has long viewed as an important strategic counterweight to its archrival India’s influence in Afghanistan. Indeed, Pakistan’s willingness to provide sanctuary for the Taliban is one of the central reasons the U.S. lost in Afghanistan. Washington was never able to figure out a way to get Islamabad to break from the Taliban, and doesn’t fully trust it even against other extremist groups; when the U.S. located Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan, it mounted the targeting killing operation unilaterally. So there are clearly limits on the kind of operations Pakistan might agree to. Pakistani domestic politics has a strong strand of anti-American sentiment, which is subdued for now. Any cooperation with the Pakistanis might also elicit a negative reaction from Afghan actors who might be willing to work with the U.S., but who see Pakistan as an adversary due to its alliance with the Taliban.

The Pakistan challenge is further complicated by the country’s deepening alliance with China. Over the past decade, China has launched a range of infrastructure projects in Pakistan as part of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative. China and Pakistan’s military cooperation is also ramping up. It is plausible that the Chinese might have a veto on U.S. basing in Pakistan.

There is no coercive option to force Pakistan into providing territory and air space for counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan. Sanctioning Pakistan to transform its strategic objectives on the timetable required is wishful thinking at best, naive at worst, perhaps best indicated by the failure of the Iran maximum pressure campaign. Any Pakistan option would require genuine Pakistani buy-in—not improbable given the U.S.’ relative success in obtaining Pakistani cooperation against al Qaeda and its allied Pakistani insurgents, but requiring delicate and sustained negotiations, perhaps behind the scenes with the powerful Pakistani army. The Biden administration might also have to loop in—and concede some influence to—China. If so, that will bring stress on the U.S.’ current effort to build a counter-China alliance in Asia.
srikandan
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 20 Nov 2020 02:51

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by srikandan »

Any effective offshore counterterrorism strategy will have two primary components, one focused on Afghanistan itself and the other focused on basing a significant new American presence in the region, outside Afghanistan.

Even if the U.S. chooses to operate from its existing bases in the Middle East, it will need access in the form of air lines of communication to regularly cross the air space into landlocked Afghanistan—which it may not have over, for instance, Iran due to persistent tensions over Tehran’s nuclear program.
The US/EU push for a "nuclear deal" with Iran would solve these problems, if Iran played along. No chance of that short of a "regime change" in Iran.

If these US/EU countries wanted to stabilize afghanisthan since 2001, and Pakistan was their choice for achieving this -- they must have some terribly stupid people in Charge in their state dept., or stabilizing afghanisthan is not the real intention. Just goes to show that having money and military power is useless if clueless people are in charge.

My wager is that destabilizing Afghanisthan is the larger intent here, as it keeps that region unusable for economic activity for countries like India and China.
Vivasvat
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 11 May 2005 08:03

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Vivasvat »

https://www.stripes.com/news/middle-eas ... n-1.659040
Troop levels are down, but US says over 18,000 contractors remain in Afghanistan
The Pentagon employs more than seven contractors for every service member in Afghanistan, figures from U.S. Central Command show.

More than 18,000 contractors remain in Afghanistan, a Defense Department report released this week said, after the Pentagon announced Friday it had reduced its troop total in the country to 2,500.
About 4,700 of the contractors are Afghans hired locally, but nearly three-quarters come from outside the country, including about a third who are U.S. citizens, the data in this week’s report show. Many of the rest are from developing countries such as Uganda and Nepal.

Slightly less than half work in logistics, maintenance or base support, with 16% working as security contractors, the report said. Only 1,575, mostly Americans and other foreigners, are armed security personnel.
Vivasvat
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 11 May 2005 08:03

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Vivasvat »

Biden Is NOT ENDING Afghan War After All
Over 18,000 Pentagon contractors remain in Afghanistan, while official troops number 2,500.

Joe Biden will withdraw this smaller group of soldiers while leaving behind US Special Forces, mercenaries and intelligence operatives - privatizing and downscaling the war, but not ending it.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Philip »

The truth is out! For over 3 years the US and Taliban (read ISI) had a secret agreement in which the Taliban would protect US bases against other jihadi elements like ISIS,etc. but let them go after the Afghan forces all the while pretending to be fully behind the Kabul regime,its staunch supporter.

Truly did the native American India say that the " white man speaks with a forked tonuge". It also explains as I havd said from the last century,why the US will NEVER give up its lust for its Paki catamite.They are in bed so debauchedly,lasciviously,promiscously and perversely,that India should never trust this sh*thole of a nation when it comes to protecting our own sovereignty and interests. As it has done repeatedly in the past,it will shaft its so-called strategic partners and allies. Kabul now knows that the sharp pain in its backside is the Yanqui bayonet.Let India protect its own rear from the duplicitous, hypocrisy of a democracy, the US of A.
S_Madhukar
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 27 Mar 2019 18:15

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by S_Madhukar »

Doesn’t this ultimately have to do with controlling or profiteering from the drug trade in Afpak. Plus Bakis are pliable guards unlike India ; who knows when it will turn nonaligned etc. From Unkil point of view less risky option. They keep their stake. It’s not that they really want to fix things. Also it keeps them close to Central Asia to keep tabs on Russia
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.khaama.com/apportioning-res ... ce-987987/
Apportioning responsibility in Afghanistan: The case for continuing US assistance
By Jalal Shams / in Afghanistan, Opinions, 11 May 2021

When the Soviet Union withdrew its troops from Afghanistan in 1989, the then government of Afghanistan crumbled. Now, the same is being speculated in case of the American withdrawal, that if the US withdraws its troop completely from Afghanistan, the current government of Afghanistan will collapse. If we review the years between 1988 -1992, it is clear that neither Dr. Najib’s regime was toppled after the Soviet Union’s troop withdrawal nor the current government would collapse with the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.
It was argued that following the Soviet troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, Dr. Najib’s regime would collapse in few days, but the government continued to rule the country for three straight years. There were a couple of reasons why Dr. Najib’s regime did not collapse immediately: one of the main reasons was the Soviet Union’s continued cooperation with the then-Afghan government.
From early 1989 – late 1991, every month, Soviet Union provided $300 million to Dr. Najib’s regime. This assistance helped the Afghan government to fight against the Mujahideen for a couple of years. But, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the country collapsed, and post-Soviet Russia stopped to assistance to the then Afghan government. On the other hand, US stopped providing assistance to the Mujahideen. This made Dr. Najib resign and seek asylum at the UN office in Kabul. With the resignation of Dr. Najib, the Mujahideen took the power followed by a civil war started.
The Soviet Union had entered Afghanistan without any agreement of the then government of Afghanistan, but the US has entered Afghanistan based on an agreement of the UN to fight terrorism; therefore, the US would like to responsibly withdraw its troops from Afghanistan.
The US will never repeat the mistake the then Soviet Union made by withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. It is only after the withdrawal of its assistance to Dr. Najib’s regime Afghanistan became a den of terrorist groups particularly Al Qaeda. Now, if the US leaves Afghanistan as Russians did in the 1990s, we can say that more terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, Daesh and others will start operating in Afghanistan and could pose serious threats to the region and world.
.....
Gautam
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Cain Marko »

This is why I was suggesting boots on the ground in Afg. If India doesn't manage its own backyard, others will. Look at the cajones on the Turks...
https://news.yahoo.com/turkey-offers-ru ... 28651.html
Turkey has offered to guard and run Kabul's airport after the United States and other NATO forces withdraw from Afghanistan, but U.S. officials say Ankara is imposing conditions which need to be resolved as their leaders prepare to meet next week.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Manish_P »

The islamist turks will probably do deals with their fellow islamists talibs (mediated by the islamist Pakis). When the deals go sour (as is the won't between islamists) and a few turks get butchered the Turks will get out of there or make a new deal (with Pakis trying to jack up the prices).

For us boots-on-the-ground makes more sense when we have direct land connectivity with Afghanistan with secure transit routes
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Cain Marko »

Manish_P wrote:The islamist turks will probably do deals with their fellow islamists talibs (mediated by the islamist Pakis). When the deals go sour (as is the won't between islamists) and a few turks get butchered the Turks will get out of there or make a new deal (with Pakis trying to jack up the prices).

For us boots-on-the-ground makes more sense when we have direct land connectivity with Afghanistan with secure transit routes
Doubtful. The turks will probably become the new talibs. Once they get in, they won't get out. If the turks can make deals to reach across half a continent to make it work, India can't do it in its own backyard? It should be the other way round.

And people are dreaming of super pawa and what not. Right.
Haresh
BRFite
Posts: 1491
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 17:27

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Haresh »

‘They decided to kill all of them’

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-09/ ... n/13362000
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by rsingh »

Foreign troops do this. They have no attachment to local culture, population, tradition, religion or history. Most of western countries have this problem. We are dealing with Nasals in a soft way to minimise collateral damage. But there were foreign troops........They will burn the forest. That is what happening where ever there is deployment by western countries.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Manish_P »

Cain Marko wrote: Doubtful. The turks will probably become the new talibs. Once they get in, they won't get out. If the turks can make deals to reach across half a continent to make it work, India can't do it in its own backyard? It should be the other way round.

Seems unlikely.. the talibs are basically Pakis, Pakis from just across the border. Turkey doesn't share any border with A'stan. And the Sultan of Turkey would rather just pay the pimp (the Pakis) to ensure there is no trouble at the bordello.

Then of course there is Iran.. Iran which doesn't particularly likes the Turks, and which does share a border with both Turkey and A'stan.
Cain Marko wrote: And people are dreaming of super pawa and what not. Right.
Two super pawas quit A'stan after getting bloodied, despite all their efforts and teknology. It would be worth studying why..
RKumar

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by RKumar »

Are we as Dharmic people, ready to do what needs to be done? We haven't learned to kill innocent and culprits alike. We will hesitate for a second before shooting but others will not. That is the reason - India's borders have shrunk so much and peaceful can mock n challenge us openly even when they are not controlling power. We have forgotten what they have done when they were in power. But so is the memory, we can only shout but not bite :|

In short, stay away from AFG as long as possible. Do not get into someone else's fight. Let China/Turkey/NaPak control the land - they are a perfect match and made for each other.
Ambar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3173
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 09:56
Location: Weak meek unkil Sam!

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Ambar »

Don't know if it is related to Afghanistan or something else but in a highly unusual move for the 2nd time in a week EAM S JaiShankar is in Doha to meet with his Qatari counterpart. On his way to Doha he also had an informal talk with the Jordanian and Palestinian foreign ministers. Strange development considering how close India has been to UAE and KSA in the last couple of years. While India has always had a good relationship with Qatar, we have not agreed much when it comes to the Qatari policy on Afghanistan.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Cain Marko »

Manish_P wrote:Two super pawas quit A'stan after getting bloodied, despite all their efforts and teknology. It would be worth studying why..
Manishji, India can do it differently. There is enough goodwill to have an Indian base in Afg. Providing protection to critical infrastructure. Maintained at least partly by NATO, AFg govt.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Manish_P »

Cain sir, with all due respect, one base (maybe Kabul?) is just not going to cut it. Not when 95 % of the rest of the country is going to be under Talib rule (with their strings in the hands of Pakistan).

Even if you have multiple bases, what about the logistical supply routes and more importantly the ingress/egress routes for our forces should when the brown matter hits the non-electrical fan?

Pls. consider the time and resources we have had to spend (and continue to spend) in J&K in the past couple of decades..
RajaRudra
BRFite
Posts: 344
Joined: 17 Sep 2019 14:13

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by RajaRudra »

There may be suggestion, west/nato will pay us for having our boots there. They may pay for the first year, but there is no guarantee even for that.
Even if we have our boots there, what is the use of that? unless we have the napaks broken and have full and unhindered logistic supply route, we will not be able to protect government there sustainably.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Cyrano »

Once you agree to do paid services for other countries while donning the army uniform, you're no better than a mercenary or worse. Lets leave that to our worthy neighbour. UN Peace Keeping missions are a different thing.
West/Nato can send their own boys to do this dirty work.
RajaRudra
BRFite
Posts: 344
Joined: 17 Sep 2019 14:13

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by RajaRudra »

My reason is not to do the dirty work but to protect a friendly govt. The will and power to both protect and punish the countries need to be show cased once in a while among neighboring countries to gain the standing and respect. Else, smaller countries will play us over the others to milk.

Specifically here in Afghanistan, Having the boots on ground there will make the western neighbor to divide the resources in to its two sectors, But, to be self sustainable in Afghanistan we need the route in our control (its a loop to go nowhere).

We may not like it, but the truth is once the Amrikies get out, this govt even if survive will not extend couple of Kilo meters from the presidential office. In my view, we should better strike a deal with talibans and make sure the left overs there not going to come kashmir for their 72 hoors vacation.(else we should keep the pot always boiling by providing the necessary tools to various groups to keep the taliban busy for few decades there it self).

In short, if Taliban's are inevitable in afghan setup, then we should be ready to have a form of communication open with them.
RajaRudra
BRFite
Posts: 344
Joined: 17 Sep 2019 14:13

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by RajaRudra »

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 574201.cms

"Met with Indian FM @DrSJaishankar in Doha yesterday. We discussed the priority both our countries attach to an in independent, sovereign, and unified #Afghanistan at peace with itself and the world," tweeted Khalilzad

"Met with @US4AfghanPeace Zalmay Khalilzad in Doha. Continued our exchange of perspectives on Afghanistan and the region," tweeted Jaishankar on Tuesday.

FM traveling on a pandemic to meet the interlocuter.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Cyrano »

if Taliban's are inevitable in afghan setup, then we should be ready to have a form of communication open with them.
Lets not forget that Taliban is itself a monstrous creation of Pak Army and ISI. They have more hold on Taliban than anyone else. But how effective that hold is today when Pak itself is on a path to implode - one can't really be sure. How many of Taliban are real afghans and how many are Pakistani elements is also quite opaque. The best we can hope for is a rift between these two types of people leading to mutual annihilation at best or the Paki elements returning to Pak fold at the worst.

Pak will of course think of repurposing them against India. But with the current Govt and Indian public's sentiment at large, there will be little tolerance for any such moves. The GoI and Armed Forces are more than able and willing to deal with such attempts using overwhelming force, and strike at the heart of Pak Establishment. One may even say its the perfect excuse MAD are waiting for.

After years of putting thousands of soldiers and pouring billions of dollars, the US is pulling out of the dead end situation in Afghanistan. There is little that India can achieve there, neither for Afghan people or for itself by putting boots on the ground.

To their great misfortune, a land locked, semi desertic, resource starved Afghanistan has little to offer the world, besides illegal opium. Its location on the map, with degenerate neighbours all around, is another natural injustice. India can put some balm on their wounds and support any legitimate govt of the day and hope that "normal" afghanis put aside their ethnic differences get some control of their country. Which is what we have been doing so far, but beyond that I'm afraid we can't do much. Cruel as it sounds.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Cain Marko »

Manish_P wrote:Cain sir, with all due respect, one base (maybe Kabul?) is just not going to cut it. Not when 95 % of the rest of the country is going to be under Talib rule (with their strings in the hands of Pakistan).

Even if you have multiple bases, what about the logistical supply routes and more importantly the ingress/egress routes for our forces should when the brown matter hits the non-electrical fan?

Pls. consider the time and resources we have had to spend (and continue to spend) in J&K in the past couple of decades..
Sir yourself, Manish saar :) The point is to cover the crucial nodes in the country and cities (actually only Kabul and possibly, Jalalabad but preferably Mazar-e-Sharif). The Talibs can be engaged via backdoor - perhaps with free pass in certain areas - southward around Qandahar ( promise of a mini-Pashtunistan perhaps?). Perhaps even co-opt the bunnies and leverage their rift with TSP. An air corridor should be opened and secured + maintained by Afg/NATO and possibly an overland route via GB.

India maintains a largish base and provides the protection for the city and infra. (And) checks Chinese ambitions in the region along with reducing TSP's influence/strategic depth. Maintaining a sqd of Tejas+MKI and choppers with a battery or two of Akash, shouldn't be an impossible task. 5000-15000 troops.

Time and resources are being spent in any case. Think of how much has been spent in Kashmir over the years. I'd rather the same amount be spent fighting a battle away from the mainland.

Anyway, these are some thoughts/options. perhaps they amount to nothing, but I think its worth a decent discussion.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Manish_P »

Cain Marko wrote:The point is to cover the crucial nodes in the country and cities (actually only Kabul and possibly, Jalalabad but preferably Mazar-e-Sharif).
That would be the start. The minimum but not the sufficient condition. And IMVHO this is exactly why the super pawas have failed. Because they just couldn't control the entire land. Partly due to it's challenging geography. But more because of usage of asymmetric warfare (again aided by geography) by the opponents.
Cain Marko wrote:The Talibs can be engaged via backdoor - perhaps with free pass in certain areas - southward around Qandahar ( promise of a mini-Pashtunistan perhaps?).
There is no option. The Talibs 'must' be engaged paid jiziya, for providing free pass to the us, the 'outsiders'.
Cain Marko wrote:Perhaps even co-opt the bunnies and leverage their rift with TSP.
Only issue is that the tap generating the never ending supplies of bunnies is controlled by TSP. The can produce new bunnies faster than you can co-opt old bunnies.. And to keep paying the known thieves in town and hoping that they will control the thieves in other areas from harming your interests doesn't seem like a winning strategy.
Cain Marko wrote:An air corridor should be opened and secured + maintained by Afg/NATO and possibly an overland route via GB. India maintains a largish base and provides the protection for the city and infra. (And) checks Chinese ambitions in the region along with reducing TSP's influence/strategic depth. Maintaining a sqd of Tejas+MKI and choppers with a battery or two of Akash, shouldn't be an impossible task. 5000-15000 troops.
:) Exactly. THIS is the minimum primary requirement which needs to be in place before you even consider to move in... although IMHO no NATO/Agh force can be trusted to quickly exit in the future when things get hot. Only assured way is having our own forces controlling & securing the entire corridor (for which POK must cease to exist).

Not sure a few sqd of Tejas/MKI/Choppers are enough for sealing the porous Agh-Pak border 24/7. But i will defer to your better knowledge of mil-ops and the geography/terrain and the operational challenges therein. Just that I was reminded of US supplied stingers for use against Soviet Hinds and extrapolated it to usage of Paki repainted (china made) MANPADs being supplied to bad bunnies.
Cain Marko wrote:Time and resources are being spent in any case. Think of how much has been spent in Kashmir over the years. I'd rather the same amount be spent fighting a battle away from the mainland.


That's the point sir. Despite being connected to the mainland we had to spend a lot of money and have sacrificed a lot of people over 3 decades to have control & some semblance of normalcy in J&K. To expect to spend the same amount, in a foreign place, one which is not directly connected to our land and which doesn't have our own people is going to be much much more challenging, time consuming and costly. In some ways think of it as the opposite of the advantages we had in making east pakistan into bangladesh.
Cain Marko wrote: Anyway, these are some thoughts/options. perhaps they amount to nothing, but I think its worth a decent discussion.
Hence the discussion, sir.

I do completely agree with you that we need to have a bigger role in Afghanistan.

My only point is that you get into a battle with a goal (which we basically agree on), a known endgame (which IMHO needs to be more detailed out, considering the multiple players and their conflicting interests) and a well-defined plan to win after all the elements are well in place (which is what i am trying to understand).

Thanks for indulging a noob like me :)
RajaRudra
BRFite
Posts: 344
Joined: 17 Sep 2019 14:13

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by RajaRudra »

Cyrano wrote:
if Taliban's are inevitable in afghan setup, then we should be ready to have a form of communication open with them.
The best we can hope for is a rift between these two types of people leading to mutual annihilation at best or the Paki elements returning to Pak fold at the worst.
Exactly, just keeping the communication line open will create the much needed rift. There are many , many factions in the taliban and now ok with each other. But when they get into govt tomorrow(yes, it is bound to happen) , then rift will naturally happen.

At any point of time, we are just a vote away from this govt(its democracy, we must be prepared for kichdi govt also). Everyone including the faakis know that. They are just hibernating and waiting for the much warmer political climate with Digvijay Singh as Defense Minister and Manishankar Aiyar as Foreign Minister. I am not advocating the Boots on the ground , but we should not throw that away and make some mileage out of that by negotiating some positive points for us from Taliban.

Ability and willingness to supply all the required tools at massive quantity to the warring groups (later) and govt(now) will be the only way to get leverage out of Taliban(much to the sulking of paakistan).
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Manish_P »

^ +1

Even now the Congoons are talking of revoking 370 if voted back in power, so what if the Congoons MOU with the Chinese gets an addendum clause about no interference in A'stan... or at a future date sharm-el-shake they waive off A'stan to the pakis as a CBM..
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Cain Marko »

Manish_P wrote:
Only issue is that the tap generating the never ending supplies of bunnies is controlled by TSP. The can produce new bunnies faster than you can co-opt old bunnies.. And to keep paying the known thieves in town and hoping that they will control the thieves in other areas from harming your interests doesn't seem like a winning strategy.
Bunny production is indiscriminate, which can be used by discriminative agents to create fitna between "good" and "bad" talibs. Good talibs will provide the buffer needed to manage bad talibs who can be engaged by the former with adequate support from Indian assets. One way or the other, India will have to engage the local thug - either pay some "hafta" as you say and have them manage the baddies or be ready to face pressure in places closer to home.
Only assured way is having our own forces controlling & securing the entire corridor (for which POK must cease to exist).
If you are referring to POK/GB, I won't make this a precondition - it is more like an outcome, an eventuality. If NATO and occasional Indian assets can move around freely in GB/PoK, it undermines TSP ability to foment trouble esp. in Kashmir, which is a major advantage of such a venture. In time such movement will result in TSP losing control over GB, and the ripe fruit will automatically fall in the hands of its rightful owner.
Cain Marko wrote:Time and resources are being spent in any case. Think of how much has been spent in Kashmir over the years. I'd rather the same amount be spent fighting a battle away from the mainland.

That's the point sir. Despite being connected to the mainland we had to spend a lot of money and have sacrificed a lot of people over 3 decades to have control & some semblance of normalcy in J&K. To expect to spend the same amount, in a foreign place, one which is not directly connected to our land and which doesn't have our own people is going to be much much more challenging, time consuming and costly. In some ways think of it as the opposite of the advantages we had in making east pakistan into bangladesh.
There is ONE major difference when one considers costs, and this would be a precondition for any such engagement in Afg - the costs of peace and stability in Afg are to be borne by NATO (and some by Afg), and minimally by India. India puts its soldiers on the line, but India doesn't pay material costs. In terms of comparisons to India's efforts in both J&K and Bangladesh or even SL, these were entirely borne by the Indian taxpayer. In case of Afg, this should be subsidized to a large extent - that is a precondition.

My only point is that you get into a battle with a goal (which we basically agree on), a known endgame (which IMHO needs to be more detailed out, considering the multiple players and their conflicting interests) and a well-defined plan to win after all the elements are well in place (which is what i am trying to understand).

Thanks for indulging a noob like me :)
Let me try to crystallize goals and preconditions as best I can atm.
Objective 1: Gain greater leverage in terms of geopolitical and military position vs. mainly TSP, and to some extent China, and finally, C.Asia.
OBjective 2: Keep TSP engaged in Afg and NWFP. Do not give it the opportunity/room to think about its eastern border. Their strategic depth should be visibly threatened. Indian access to Afg and regions that border it such as Baluchistan are added bonuses. That way J&K gets some relief and proper attention can be given to China.
Objective 3: Minimize and Chinese/TSP influence in the region. BRI should not be possible without Indian blessing
Objective 4: Stabilize Afghanistan, by creating a partition if necessary. Isolate the talibs by giving them a rump state of sorts. Let those who want to prosper, get the opportunity.
Objective 5: Have US/NATO pressurize its munna enough so that it forgets dreams of J&K.
Objective 6: Keep out unnecessary influences like Turks, Iranians et al. And the West as well. This is India's backyard and it should be handled by Afghans and Indians.
The above are not in order of preference or anything - just some thoughts.

Preconditions:

1. Get US/NATO/OIC to agree to a sum that covers most of the costs. Its worthwhile to them because it keeps entire ME and CAsia stable. Dangle the carrot of increased engagement with QUAD and hardware purchases as necessary.
2. Indian forces to be entirely commanded by Indian leadership at all levels. With assurances that higher level decisions will be made in consultation with other stakeholders. Force levels to be agreed upon entirely based on Indian judgement.
3. Complete clarity on India's mandate, which imo should be protection of key infra, political and otherwise.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Manish_P »

Cain Marko wrote: Bunny production is indiscriminate, which can be used by discriminative agents to create fitna between "good" and "bad" talibs. Good talibs will provide the buffer needed to manage bad talibs who can be engaged by the former with adequate support from Indian assets. One way or the other, India will have to engage the local thug - either pay some "hafta" as you say and have them manage the baddies or be ready to face pressure in places closer to home.
There is a precedence with something of this sort being done by us (the northern alliance), pre WoT. Without us even being there..
Cain Marko wrote: If you are referring to POK/GB, I won't make this a precondition - it is more like an outcome, an eventuality. If NATO and occasional Indian assets can move around freely in GB/PoK, it undermines TSP ability to foment trouble esp. in Kashmir, which is a major advantage of such a venture. In time such movement will result in TSP losing control over GB, and the ripe fruit will automatically fall in the hands of its rightful owner.


What about the people of PoK? Especially after the demographic changes of the past decades. What's the plan here to remove the non-original Kashmiris and not have a local festering palestine..
Cain Marko wrote: There is ONE major difference when one considers costs, and this would be a precondition for any such engagement in Afg - the costs of peace and stability in Afg are to be borne by NATO (and some by Afg), and minimally by India. India puts its soldiers on the line, but India doesn't pay material costs. In terms of comparisons to India's efforts in both J&K and Bangladesh or even SL, these were entirely borne by the Indian taxpayer. In case of Afg, this should be subsidized to a large extent - that is a precondition.
That's quite close to being seen as mercenaries. And mercenaries are paid to do what the client want's.. not the other way round. The US has precisely done that with the Pakis. And they prefers Pakis because of geopolitical (keep India in check) & geographical reasons. They have been quiet content paying hafta to the Don (Pak Mil) to keep his minions in check, despite knowing that the Don has back-stabbed them in the past & then milked them.

If the focus of the US is now changing to contain china and hence they will support/pay India then they will need to prove the intent first, in various fields (Political - think permanent membership of UN security council, Military - think F35 in lieu of hawaii chappals :D , Industrial - move all their biggies manufacturing to desh).
Cain Marko wrote: Let me try to crystallize goals and preconditions as best I can atm.
Objective 1: Gain greater leverage in terms of geopolitical and military position vs. mainly TSP, and to some extent China, and finally, C.Asia.
OBjective 2: Keep TSP engaged in Afg and NWFP. Do not give it the opportunity/room to think about its eastern border. Their strategic depth should be visibly threatened. Indian access to Afg and regions that border it such as Baluchistan are added bonuses. That way J&K gets some relief and proper attention can be given to China.
Objective 3: Minimize and Chinese/TSP influence in the region. BRI should not be possible without Indian blessing
Agreed
Cain Marko wrote: Objective 4: Stabilize Afghanistan, by creating a partition if necessary. Isolate the talibs by giving them a rump state of sorts. Let those who want to prosper, get the opportunity.


Is there a movement in Afghanistan for partition? Do we want to be seen as the invaders who broke up the country? And what if (when) the talib state then simply merges with it's neighbour, Jihadistan? Future generations of Afghanis will see you as the evil back-stabber who reduced their land
Cain Marko wrote: Objective 5: Have US/NATO pressurize its munna enough so that it forgets dreams of J&K.

? Not clear how this works out. Unless you are implying that the price asked by us to stabilise A'stan is that US asks it's munna to give up J&K.. Given a choice i rather we ask for the Political-Mil-Industrial concessions first. But that price will not be affordable nor acceptable to king khan.
Cain Marko wrote: Objective 6: Keep out unnecessary influences like Turks, Iranians et al. And the West as well. This is India's backyard and it should be handled by Afghans and Indians.
Turks, Iranians - You can expect them to create trouble. So you will need to factor in costs for these as well (can be countered by the Saudis/Israelis). The west - aren't they the ones who are paying?
But you have left out the Dlagon, who is very interested in A'stan...
Cain Marko wrote:
Preconditions:

1. Get US/NATO/OIC to agree to a sum that covers most of the costs. Its worthwhile to them because it keeps entire ME and CAsia stable. Dangle the carrot of increased engagement with QUAD and hardware purchases as necessary.
I like this. Reminds me of an episode of Yes, Minister. We take money from them and use that money to buy their arms :D
Cain Marko wrote: 2. Indian forces to be entirely commanded by Indian leadership at all levels. With assurances that higher level decisions will be made in consultation with other stakeholders. Force levels to be agreed upon entirely based on Indian judgement.
Not clear about the higher level decisions part. Please elaborate.
Cain Marko wrote: 3. Complete clarity on India's mandate, which imo should be protection of key infra, political and otherwise.
Protection of key infra is clear. Please elaborate on the 'political and otherwise'
Maria
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 15 Aug 2020 13:50

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Maria »

Cyrano wrote:
if Taliban's are inevitable in afghan setup, then we should be ready to have a form of communication open with them.
Lets not forget that Taliban is itself a monstrous creation of Pak Army and ISI. They have more hold on Taliban than anyone else. But how effective that hold is today when Pak itself is on a path to implode - one can't really be sure. How many of Taliban are real afghans and how many are Pakistani elements is also quite opaque. The best we can hope for is a rift between these two types of people leading to mutual annihilation at best or the Paki elements returning to Pak fold at the worst.

Pak will of course think of repurposing them against India. But with the current Govt and Indian public's sentiment at large, there will be little tolerance for any such moves. The GoI and Armed Forces are more than able and willing to deal with such attempts using overwhelming force, and strike at the heart of Pak Establishment. One may even say its the perfect excuse MAD are waiting for.

After years of putting thousands of soldiers and pouring billions of dollars, the US is pulling out of the dead end situation in Afghanistan. There is little that India can achieve there, neither for Afghan people or for itself by putting boots on the ground.

To their great misfortune, a land locked, semi desertic, resource starved Afghanistan has little to offer the world, besides illegal opium. Its location on the map, with degenerate neighbours all around, is another natural injustice. India can put some balm on their wounds and support any legitimate govt of the day and hope that "normal" afghanis put aside their ethnic differences get some control of their country. Which is what we have been doing so far, but beyond that I'm afraid we can't do much. Cruel as it sounds.
Geopolitics be damned. That is our lands which is suffering under the yolk of an alien desert cult. Watch this space for 5 years, there will be boots going towards the west and bulldozing whatever stands in our way.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4226
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by Rudradev »

America doesn't want Indian boots on the ground in Afghanistan. They stopped entertaining any hint of that notion at least 10 years ago. They know the institutional obstacles (including policy inertia) in New Delhi against any such possibility are simply insurmountable.

Today the Americans are more comfortable asking the Pakis for basing rights (despite all the backstabbing & hypocrisy of the past two decades), than even considering the possibility of Indian boots on the ground in Afghanistan.

Every other player in the Afghan conflict has been dead set against that possibility from the start. Maybe a few in the present Afghan government dream about it. But the American decision to withdraw has revealed that whatever the present Afghan government may want is of zero consequence.

It's quite simply never, ever going to happen.
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6088
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by sanjaykumar »

American bases in Pakistan are not for Afghanistan but to keep the Pakistanis in line.
RajaRudra
BRFite
Posts: 344
Joined: 17 Sep 2019 14:13

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Post by RajaRudra »

https://www.dawn.com/news/1630797/talib ... cle-kunduz

(Harami link - As expected talibs are clearing the remains of govt one district after another. I thought this will start with pak side of the border, but happening from the tajik side)


KABUL: Taliban fighters took control of a key district in Afghanistan’s northern Kunduz province on Monday and encircled the provincial capital, police said, as the insurgent group added to its string of recent victories on the battlefield.

Fighting around Imam Sahib district began late on Sunday and by mid-day the Taliban had overrun the district headquarters and were in control of police headquarters, Inamuddin Rahmani, provincial police spokesman, said.

Taliban militants were within a kilometre of Kunduz, the provincial capital but had not entered into the city, he said, although there were reports of small bands of Taliban near the outskirts and residents trying to leave for Kabul.

Dozens of districts have fallen to the Taliban since May 1, when US and Nato troops began their final departure from Afghanistan. Like Imam Sahib district in northern Kunduz, their significance often lies in their proximity to roads and major cities.
Post Reply