India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

[RayC]

if Indian troops are deployed in Afghanistan, there is every possibility that it will activate Pakistan into organising greater mayhem in Kashmir and more terrorist attacks in hinterland India.

Not just a possibility but a guarantee that it will be their most likely course of action. Our actions and plan should factor for this.

This type of action by Pakistan would surely mean war.

That depends on India's planning, response and other pressure points, India has created. The capability of our nation's offensive posture against TSP have to be used to further Indian interests and control our periphery or we will forever be on the defensive.

And since Pakistan would be cornered from both sides and given the 'responsible' military and govt they have, they will in all probability use their nukes as this will be a do or die situation for them.

A counter view.

- TSP does not have an army, the army has a state!
- As long as this state exists and a bulk of the capacities of this army exists, it is unlikely the leadership of the army, will jeopardize its interests (the control of a state) and push the nuclear button
- The defense of Islam is used as the rationale to hold this state and its peoples as ransom
- The Taliban is the creation of TSP as an expansion of the ambitions of the Pakistan army
- They have been able to achieve this through the exploitations and perpetuation of a set of dismal circumstances in Afghanistan. These circumstances included decades of war and continued instability.
- These circumstances can be reversed, through the institutions of a state, and the attraction to the Taliban minimized, especially if known that it is a way for TSP to exercise control of Afghanistan and keep the Pashtuns divided.
- If the Pashtuns decide to revolt against TSP, with Indian help, it will be a setback to the ambitions of the Pakistani army but they will still have their moth eaten state
- The Punjabis and the Sindhis along with the Mohajirs can form a viable state and continue to keep a bulk of their military, economic strength and populations.

There are other actions, India will have to take in that eventuality. But, but, we are jumping 5-10 years ahead, at least. The situation can take many dimensions but none of this will be a possibility, if India does not get a stake in the security of Afghanistan, today.

If India does not act now, almost a virtual guarantee that eventually TSP will be able to control Afghanistan and continue to use that land and its peoples, for its machinations.

There can be only one type of result of these machinations. Negative for India. Here is a hypothesis.

The more unstable TSP gets the more stable India will be and vice versa, until such a point, where the external factors that prop up TSP can be eliminated.

If Indian troops go into Western Afghanistan and are not in combative contact with the Pakistani troops or their sponsored Taliban, then terrorism in Kashmir and hinterland India will see s surge.

What can be factored to offset this? As it is, there are troops and paramilitary in Kashmir and then if we have 1,20,000 troops in Afghanistan, how will these troops get rotated? The strength of the Army is finite. I am sure the necessity of rotating troops from war to peace requires no explanation to the learned posters.

If the Indian Army is deployed against the Pakistanis and there are clashes and it leads to war, and then a nuclear war, which will happen since Pakistan would be near extinction with India on either side squeezing them and that too with ISAF alongside, how is the Indian interest served? After the Chinese aggression, there was a surge in recruitment in the Armed Forces and women gave away their gold, and yet after the Mumbai carnage, while there was national revulsion over caste, community and religious divides, has the recruitment in the Armed Forces seen a surge? A minister found it a ‘small incident that happens all the time’, while a Chief Minister found that ‘dogs would not visit’! Mindsets have changed – few are ready to put their money where their mouth is!

The counter view presented takes too much as assured. If the Pakistan Army overrun parts of India and knocking at the gates of Delhi, will someone not press the nuclear button? So, why should we feel that the Pakistani Generals will sit smug if their nation is being sent to Kingdom Come!!

I totally agree that Balkanisation of Pakistan is the answer and currently, given the contradictions that is Pakistan, it is a ripe apple that is about to fall!

[Ameet]

Pentagon Study: US should pare Afghanistan Goals

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090203/ap_ ... fghanistan

WASHINGTON – A classified Pentagon report urges President Barack Obama to shift U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan, de-emphasizing democracy-building and concentrating more on targeting Taliban and al-Qaida sanctuaries inside Pakistan with the aid of Pakistani military forces.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has seen the report prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but it has not yet been presented to the White House, officials said Tuesday. The recommendations are one element of a broad policy reassessment under way along with recommendations to be considered by the White House from the commander of the U.S. Central Command, Gen. David Petraeus, and other military leaders.

A senior defense official said Tuesday that it will likely take several weeks before the Obama administration rolls out its long-term strategy for Afghanistan.

The Joint Chiefs' plan reflects growing worries that the U.S. military was taking on more than it could handle in Afghanistan by pursuing the Bush administration's broad goal of nurturing a thriving democratic government.

Instead, the plan calls for a more narrowly focused effort to root out militant strongholds along the Pakistani border and inside the neighboring country, according to officials who confirmed the essence of the report. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the plan publicly.

The recommendations are broadly cast and provide limited detail, meant to help develop the overarching strategy for the Afghanistan-Pakistan region rather than propose a detailed military action plan.

During a press conference Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs noted ongoing reviews of Afghan policy, but did not say when they would be made public. Obama intends, he said, to "evaluate the current direction of our policy and make some corrections as he goes forward."

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman would not comment Tuesday on the details of the Joint Chiefs' report, but acknowledged that the U.S. relationship with Pakistan is a critical component for success in Afghanistan.

"When you talk about Afghanistan, you can't help but also recognize the fact that the border region with Pakistan is obviously a contributing factor to the stability and security of Afghanistan, and the work that Pakistan is doing to try to reduce and eliminate those safe havens, and the ability for people to move across that border that are engaged in hostile intentions," Whitman said.

Part of the recommended approach is to search for ways to work more intensively and effectively with the Pakistanis to root out extremist elements in the border area, the senior defense official said.

The heightened emphasis on Pakistan reflects a realization that the root of the problem lies in the militant havens inside its border — a concern outlined last week to Congress in grim testimony by Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.

But the report does not imply more incursions by U.S. combat forces inside Pakistan or accelerating other forms of U.S. military involvement, the senior defense official emphasized. Pakistani officials have repeatedly raised alarms after a surge of U.S. Hellfire missile strikes from drone predators in recent months, and renewed those complaints after a new strike killed 19 people inside Pakistan days after Obama took office.

"The bottom line is we have to look at what the art of the possible is there," said a U.S. military official who has operated in Afghanistan. The official, who has not seen the Joint Chiefs' report, said the challenge is to craft a strategy that achieves U.S. goals of stabilizing the region and constraining al-Qaida, but also takes into account the powerful tribes that resist a strong central government and the ties among ethnic Pashtuns on either side of the Afghan-Pakistan border.

The Joint Chiefs' report advises a greater emphasis on U.S. military training of Pakistani forces for counter-terror work.

Pakistan's government is well aware of growing U.S. interest in collaborating to improve its military's muscle against al-Qaida and Taliban elements in the border areas. The topic has been broached repeatedly by senior U.S. officials, including Mullen.

The training efforts also would expand and develop the Afghan army and police force, while at the same time work to improve Afghan governance.

The report also stresses that Afghan strategy must be driven by what the Afghans want, and that the U.S. cannot impose its own goals on the Afghanistan government.

During discussions about a new Afghanistan strategy, military leaders expressed worries that the U.S. ambitions in Afghanistan — to stabilize the country and begin to build a democracy there — were beyond its ability.

And as they tried to balance military demands in both Iraq and Afghanistan, some increasingly questioned why the U.S. continued to maintain a war-fighting force in Iraq, even though the mission there has shifted to a more support role. Those fighting forces, they argued, were needed more urgently in Afghanistan.

Military leaders have been signaling for weeks that the focus of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan would change.

Gates told armed services committees in Congress last week that the U.S. should keep its sights on one thing: preventing Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorists and extremists who would harm the U.S. or its allies. He bluntly added that the military could not root out terrorists while also propping up Afghanistan's fledgling democracy.

"Afghanistan is the fourth or fifth poorest country in the world, and if we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose," Gates said, a mythology reference to heaven.

Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Tuesday that he was briefed last week on the military's proposed new Afghan strategy, which he called evolving but headed in the right direction.

"There will be no Anbar awakening," McCain, R-Ariz., told The Associated Press, referring to the tribal uprising against al-Qaida in Iraq's Anbar province that triggered a turnaround in that conflict. "It will be long, hard and difficult."

The Join Chiefs report's overall conclusions were first reported Saturday by The Associated Press. Politico reported additional details of the report Tuesday.

The U.S. is considering doubling its troop presence in Afghanistan this year to roughly 60,000, in response to growing strength by the Islamic militant Taliban, fed by safe havens they and al-Qaida have developed in an increasingly unstable Pakistan.

Obama is expected to announce soon his decision on a request for additional forces from the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. David McKiernan. Several officials said they believe the president will approve sending three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, totaling roughly 14,000 troops.

[Airavat]

If stability is the name of the game, a far better option will be for Greater Afghanistan, after dissolution of the Durand line to incorporate the TSP portion of Baluchistan. It will make up for the weaknesses of Baluchistan as a separate entity and provide Afghanistan with access to the Sea.

Ultimately the people of Baluchistan will decide their own future. And if history is any guide they will never accept rule by outsiders....they've spent the last 60 years fighting Punjabis. There is no party or group in Baluchistan that wants to be part of "Greater Afghanistan". Afghanistan can get access to the sea via a free Baluchistan.

NATO disappointment for Obama

President Barack Obama has made clear he is counting on America’s NATO allies for greater military contributions in Afghanistan. He may be in for a disappointment. Most European leaders have either ruled out sending more troops to buttress the fight against a resurgent Taliban, or talked about increases that number only in the hundreds.

NATO’s contributions to the Afghan effort will be spotlighted in a series of international meetings, starting later this week at the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy.

The current ratio of U.S.-to-European forces in Afghanistan, about 1 to 1, will grow to 2 to 1. And because some NATO members, such as Germany, won’t allow their troops to be deployed in areas where combat is most intense, the U.S. will carry the military burden to an even greater degree than the numbers indicate.

One way NATO countries could contribute would be to send civilian specialists in economic development, governance and drug control. Yet another would be to help meet the estimated $17 billion cost of expanding Afghan security forces.

[abhik]

Don't know if this has been posted already, but looks like the noose is tightening around the Americans.
Kyrgyzstan to close U.S. base used to supply Afghanistan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090 ... hy/3159738

[NRao]

CNN :: Reports: Kyrgyzstan to close key U.S. base

Story Highlights
# Kyrgyz government plans to close U.S. military base, says Russian media
# Washington uses Manas Air Base to route troops and supplies into Afghanistan
# Announcement made after reports of an aid package from Russia to Kyrgyzstan

[NRao]

WSJ :: Plans Emerge for New Troop Deployments to Afghanistan

By CHIP CUMMINS in Dubai, ROSHANAK TAGHAVI in Tehran and JAY SOLOMON in Washington
FEBRUARY 4, 2009, 6:11 A.M. ET

WASHINGTON -- Senior U.S. commanders are finalizing plans to send tens of thousands of reinforcements to Afghanistan's main opium-producing region and its porous border with Pakistan, moves that will form the core of President Barack Obama's emerging Afghan war strategy.

Mr. Obama is likely to formally approve additional deployments this week, and Pentagon officials hope the full complement of 20,000 to 30,000 new troops will be on the ground by the end of the summer, pushing the U.S. military presence to its highest level since the start of the war in 2001.

U.S. commanders said the moves are part of a push to beat back the resurgent Taliban and secure regions of Afghanistan that are beyond the reach of the weak central government in Kabul. Unlike Iraq, where violence has typically been concentrated in cities, the war in Afghanistan is being increasingly waged in isolated villages and towns.

Virtually none of the new troops heading to Afghanistan will go to Kabul or other major Afghan cities. By contrast, when the Bush administration dispatched 30,000 new troops to Iraq as part of the so-called surge, the bulk of the new forces went to Baghdad.

Pentagon officials said troops will be deployed along the Helmand River Valley, which produces the bulk of the world's opium; along the two main highways of southern Afghanistan that have been hit by growing numbers of roadside bombs; in two provinces outside Kabul believed to serve as staging grounds for the insurgents planning attacks in the capital; and along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

"We'll array our troops to secure the population," Brig. Gen. John M. Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in southern Afghanistan, said in an interview. "We're going to go out to where the people are."

The deployments, part of a planned doubling of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, are almost certain to spark heavier casualties and push the war squarely onto the public agenda. "I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be [more U.S. casualties]," Vice President Joe Biden said on CBS Sunday. "There will be an uptick."

The Military Toll in Afghanistan


The planned deployments also highlight the changing nature of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. After years of focusing on bolstering the country's central government, the U.S. is ramping up efforts to crack down on drug eradication and border infiltration from Pakistan.

Afghanistan's security situation has continued to deteriorate. Militants are entering from bases in Pakistan and carrying out attacks that are destabilizing both countries. The Taliban have strongholds throughout southern Afghanistan and are using drug money to buy weapons and hire new fighters.

Last year was the bloodiest to date for American and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces and 24 Western troops have been killed in Afghanistan in 2009.

Afghanistan's violence has historically tapered off in the winter, but this year is shaping up differently. On Tuesday, militants destroyed a bridge in northwest Pakistan that is part of the main supply route for U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, temporarily halting the shipments of food, gas and military equipment into the country. On Monday, a suicide bomber killed 21 Afghan police officers in one of Afghanistan's deadliest attacks in months.



NATO statistics show that 19 of the 20 areas with the highest numbers of attacks in Afghanistan are rural. The most dangerous city is the southern metropolis of Kandahar at No. 13; Kabul is No. 42.

The vast majority of the new troops will be deployed to southern Afghanistan, a Taliban stronghold that houses many of the shadow local governments run by the armed group. The Taliban are also profiting from the south's skyrocketing opium production, which allows the militants to continually replenish their supplies of weapons and fighters.

Some of the new forces are deploying to the border province of Kunar, a main transit route for the militants who cross into the country from Pakistan to carry out attacks on U.S., NATO and Afghan targets.

"We'll thicken our lines in Kunar," Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Schloesser, the top U.S. commander in eastern Afghanistan, said in a recent interview. "We'll be able to get out into some villages we haven't been in before."

In a potential complication to the U.S.-led war effort, the Kyrgyz government renewed its threat to close an American base that is a main transit point for troops deploying to Afghanistan. But U.S. officials dismissed the threat as political posturing designed to improve Kyrgyzstan's relationship with Russia.

Write to Chip Cummins at chip.cummins@wsj.com, Roshanak Taghavi at Roshanak.Taghavi@dowjones.com and Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com

[Johann]

Hullo, been gone awhile

The Russians have agreed in principle to allow American supplies to Afghanistan through.

This has been under negotiation for months, ever since the Georgian crisis cooled. As I said earlier there are two competing views in the Kremlin - one that says US/NATO access to Afghanistan should come at a high price (i.e. acknowledgement of an exclusive Russian sphere of influence, giving the Russians a veto on a range of issues, etc), and others who said that was separate from the common interest of preventing the Taliban from regaining Kabul, Kandahar, etc.

Several factors at work here - but the Russian economic crisis, the desire to start off on the right foot with Obama have all led to the pragmatic faction within the Kremlin winning out, again. They had won earlier this year, but of course the Georgian war disrupted consensus, and with oil prices peaking there seemed no reason to compromise. Those factors have changed.

[NRao]

The American thinking seems to be crystallising. Where could (IF AT ALL) 120,000 troops fit in THIS picture?

I for one cannot come around to think that the Taliban have a life without any outside help. TSPA has to be reorganised, or this problem - in perhaps another form - will continue to menace the world.

Also, where are the Taliban getting all this aid from - $ and arms?

[RajeshA]

The question of Indian deployment in Afghanistan would arise at a later date. American and NATO involvement in Afghanistan will go through several stages of evolution and enlightenment.

A new Administration has just come in the US. This Administration would have to first go through its Plan A for the resolution of the conflict there. India does not figure in that Plan A. The Americans are still stuck at "Pakistan is part of the solution". The Administration would have to earn its frustration and then enlightenment the hard way, through trial and error.

In 18 months time, when the problem would have just escalated further because of Pakistani obduracy, then and only then will Obama ask around for new solutions.

o In 18 months time, I expect the Taliban to be in control of most of FATA, NWFP and South Afghanistan.
o I expect the Pakistani Army to be even more demoralized and beaten up.
o I expect Zardari and Nawaz having a real rooster-fight.
o I expect the TSPA to be pissed off at Obama for not giving much military aid, usable against India.
o I expect Pakistani economy and law and order to be scraping a new bottom.
o I expect Pakistani nukes to be a lot more in the news.
o I expect the liberal Western media to change its tune on Pakistan, taking a nod from Obama's frustrated team.
o I expect a Tory to be sitting in 10 Downing Street.
o I expect a new Government in New Delhi.

So I expect there to be more movement on the question of Indian deployment in 18 months time, in the next reassessment cycle.

[ShauryaT]

If Indian troops go into Western Afghanistan and are not in combative contact with the Pakistani troops or their sponsored Taliban, then terrorism in Kashmir and hinterland India will see s surge.

What can be factored to offset this?

A whole host of other things that can be done, some examples:

- Increased funding and discretion to RAW to gather intelligence and disrupt activities of Jehadi groups in TSP through direct or indirect means

- Increased capabilities of SF and enable cross border raids in plausible deniability mode

- Increase contact and support for dissatisfied groups in NA, Baluchistan, NWFP and Sindh

- Increased funding for Afghanistan with boots on the ground

- Stop all people to people and political contact with TSP, until such time that terror apparatus has been dismantled

- Increased funding and training for internal security

- Increase funding for defense from 2.7% to 4% of GDP for 20 years (can be done without raising taxes, if waste is arrested also can be done with a partial arrest of waste and a healthy economic growth rate)

- Adopt a string of pearls strategy to build pressure against China with assets in Taiwan, Vietnam and Mongolia – pressures China to back off from the region

- Pressure through the US, that an attack on TSP, will damage their own goals, until such time they do not care about the TSP

None of the above cross any imaginary red lines.

As it is, there are troops and paramilitary in Kashmir and then if we have 1,20,000 troops in Afghanistan, how will these troops get rotated?

I should have clarified. I meant in my post a total of 100-120,000 outside troops for Afghanistan (also, the title of this thread has been picked by the evil Doctor, IMO the misleading thread title has served a great psy-ops purpose, maybe time now to get it to a more meaningful thread title), which includes US, ISAF and Indian troops.

The current ISAF strength is at 55,000, which includes 17,000 US troops. The US has an additional 15,000 troops outside of NATO command. There is a likelihood of an additional 30,000 US troops to be inducted. This brings the total number of “outside” troops to about 100,000. India can start there with as low as 20,000 troops. This can help the surge strategy, to secure Afghanistan. It is unlikely that outside of the US, other NATO nations will infuse any significant number of troops. Although under NATO (US) command, the NATO troops do have to follow their country’s rules of engagement and schedules for rotation and the result is they are unwilling or unfit to execute many of the tasks needed to enable security. The verdict is NATO troops have been trained for battle in the fields of Germany with armor and organized enemies and not CI operations. The Indian troops can also act as a hedge for the possible reduction of NATO troops, quantitatively and qualitatively. It is anyone’s guess, how large the Indian force in Afghanistan will eventually be.

The current Afghan National Army (ANA) is estimated to be around 70,000, to go upto 125,000. (I will write more separately about the composition of these forces). I feel this force should and can go up to a minimum of 150,000 and should be around 200,000. In the eventual end game (Greater Afghanistan), we need an Afghan force of around 250-300,000.

On rotation, the US troops deploy for about 15 months, the Canadians deploy for 6 (you see the problem). The Rashtriya Rifles deploy for two years. The longer the deployment, the better. I am no expert in the matter, on for how long can Indian troops deploy for, given our multiple commitments.

We seem to be doing a better job over the years of transferring more and more responsibilities to the para-military forces for internal security and disturbances, especially in the perennial trouble zones.

But, all said and done, is a deployment of about 40,000-80,000 troops feasible, especially if there is additional financial support?

If the Indian Army is deployed against the Pakistanis and there are clashes and it leads to war, and then a nuclear war, which will happen since Pakistan would be near extinction with India on either side squeezing them and that too with ISAF alongside, how is the Indian interest served?

First, it will be a mistake to presume that the nuclear button will be pressed on the first threat scenario that the TSP generals face. There is an escalation ladder. The trick is not to assume the worst or the best scenario but understand the number of steps in the escalation ladder that gets closer to the button.

The idea here is not to fight with TSP from two sides but to stop TSP from using Afghanistan and the Pashtuns as assets or force multipliers, against India. The idea is to tell the Afghan people that the regional giant is willing to put a stake in the game, in its own interests. The idea here is to tell the western forces that their short term help and correspondingly their short term focus can be matched with a long term commitment and a commitment to the Afghani people and the state, to strengthen state institutions, which the Americans have been unable to do. The ultimate idea here is to give ideas to the Pashtuns in TSP that the TSP is not their friend and is in their way of accomplishing their political goals by dividing its peoples.

The Indian interest is first served, by restricting TSP from use of Afghanistan for their machinations, by creating turbulence within the NWFP, by convincing the US of possibilities that will allow them to devalue TSP’s Geo-Strategic value for access to CA and that there can be viable alternatives.

After the Chinese aggression, there was a surge in recruitment in the Armed Forces and women gave away their gold, and yet after the Mumbai carnage, while there was national revulsion over caste, community and religious divides, has the recruitment in the Armed Forces seen a surge?

I do not know, if there was a surge after 1971, I was a baby then  but do know, what happened after Kargil. Mumbai was seen as an internal security failure, a failure of our model of governance and its leaders. The demand is for better governance and internal security. Anyways, as far as I know, the key challenge in recruitment is not for the Jawans but the officer cadre, which have issues you are well aware of.

A minister found it a ‘small incident that happens all the time’, while a Chief Minister found that ‘dogs would not visit’! Mindsets have changed – few are ready to put their money where their mouth is!

The right people are. The NDA government did increase military budgets, year after year in real terms and even created a roll over fund for 25,000 crores for capital acquisitions, which the UPA did not continue. Choosing the right leaders can, does and has made a difference.

My personal view is the defense budget can be increased substantially, if waste from the budget is controlled.

The counter view presented takes too much as assured. If the Pakistan Army overrun parts of India and knocking at the gates of Delhi, will someone not press the nuclear button? So, why should we feel that the Pakistani Generals will sit smug if their nation is being sent to Kingdom Come!!

My entire argument rests on the premise that running to Rawalpindi, is not an option. Destruction of TSP army is not an option. For, both of these will trigger the nuclear button from TSP and hence other options to limit TSP’s geo-strategic value have to thought of. A strategic presence in Afghanistan is one such viable option.

I totally agree that Balkanisation of Pakistan is the answer and currently, given the contradictions that is Pakistan, it is a ripe apple that is about to fall!

I disagree, that it is about to fall. Here are some plain facts.

- Over 60% of the population of TSP are comprised of Punjabis
- Over 80% of the army are Punjabis
- Over 95% of the officer cadre are Punjabis
- Nearly 70% of the revenue is generated by Punjab
- In Sindh, the Sindhis are a minority (although the largest group)
- Sindh and Punjab for all their issues, are well integrated at a people-people level
- NWFP and Baluchistan do not have viable socio-economic indices, measured by literacy or GDP or any other such socio-economic factors
- The NA is the least populated area under control of TSP
- There is no province in TSP that has the wherewithal to stand as a viable state by itself
- TSP continues to milk its geo-strategic value to the west

So, we may wish balkanization but it is not happening. The only way it can happen is, if one or more of these provinces, gets out of the Punjab dominated state and becomes part of another state, able to withstand the remaining parts of TSP. Looking at the realities around, even a greater Afghanistan has any chance at this, only and only if, they have long term external support. India is the only country with such an interest and capability to help make such a result a reality.

[ShauryaT]

Ultimately the people of Baluchistan will decide their own future. And if history is any guide they will never accept rule by outsiders....they've spent the last 60 years fighting Punjabis. There is no party or group in Baluchistan that wants to be part of "Greater Afghanistan". Afghanistan can get access to the sea via a free Baluchistan.

As much as I would like the brave people of Baluchistan to live in a free state of their own, their ability to withstand 3 relatively large states around them, with an eye on their territory will make the realization of a free Baluchistan difficult. There is a reason why, they are not able the get anywhere against the TSP, after 60 years.

[NRao]

There is an interview with Sarah Chayes on Fresh Air (NPR). Very interesting comments. She (rightly) states the problem is governance - a great contributing part of the problem she says is US policies in A'stan. She goes on to say that the "surge" should help, that the US Army is learning fast how to cope and that talks with the Taliban is useless (mainly what I have been saying - that the Taliban are a reconstituted force that actually represent the Pakistani Army and ISI, and negotiating with TSPA + ISI cannot be a policy).

As a FYI:

American In Afghanistan: Troops, Training Needed
In Afghanistan, 'New Spirit' To Confront The Taliban

Both have an audio link.

[NRao]

So, we may wish balkanization but it is not happening. The only way it can happen is, if one or more of these provinces, gets out of the Punjab dominated state and becomes part of another state, able to withstand the remaining parts of TSP.

I think, today, it has more to do with the US. The US does not want a split and therefore it is not happening. Else Pakistan will split without any outside help.

As much as I would like the brave people of Baluchistan to live in a free state of their own, their ability to withstand 3 relatively large states around them, with an eye on their territory will make the realization of a free Baluchistan difficult. There is a reason why, they are not able the get anywhere against the TSP, after 60 years.

Very true.

But that is true of TSPA too - they get funds from outside to keep them alive.

[ramana]

ShauryaT, Good summation of the thread. Can you get rid of the quotes etc and make it an op-ed and send to the editor SRR?

[RajeshA]

ShauryaT,

good opinion piece.

I would just like to add a few things:

I really think that an enlarged Afghanistan, which includes Northern Afghanistan, Afghanistan's Pushtun Areas, Pakistan's Pushtun Areas, and Baluchistan, is a bad idea.

The Pushtuns are already a majority in Afghanistan. If one throws in the Pushtuns in Pakistan into the mix, then one is throwing the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkomen, Aimak, Hazaras and other smaller ethnicities to the dogs.

For a long time, the Taliban will continue to wield a lot of influence amongst the Pushtuns and will probably form the regime for quite some time. Northern Afghanistan and Baluchistan do not deserve to be at their mercy.

As such I would propose the following solution. The concerned construct should be of 3 separate states.
1. Northern Afghanistan (bolstered by Iran, Russia, India, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan)
2. Pushtunistan (Southern Afghanistan, FATA, NWFP, Northern Baluchistan)
3. Baluchistan (Southern Baluchistan) for the Baluchis, but part of India.

Baluchistan was a part of India, and I think the only way to make the place viable is by incorporating it as a part of India Proper, lock, stock and barrel.

The Baluchis are secular and have been the protectors of the Hindus in Baluchistan. They have had some support from India and also a measure of sympathy.

India is the only country that can keep Iran, Pakjabistan, and Pushtunistan at bay. We are the only country that can secure the country and accelerate its development. We are the only country, which can give it cut-to-fit political system off-the-shelf.

[ShauryaT]

ShauryaT, Good summation of the thread. Can you get rid of the quotes etc and make it an op-ed and send to the editor SRR?

Will clean up and send something - some time needed. Thanks.

[ShauryaT]

Obama reviews Afghan policy

G Parthasarathy

Ever since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 forged the US-led coalition to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan, Pakistan has provided shelter to Taliban political leaders in Baluchistan and allowed its military leaders and cadre to regroup and rearm in the tribal areas of the North-West Frontier Province. The duplicity of Gen Pervez Musharraf and his Army buddies has led to the Pakistan-Afghanistan region becoming the epicentre of global terrorism. The entire NWFP is now under Pashtun Taliban control. The Pakistani Army is unwilling and unable to assert the writ of the state in this troubled region.

The Americans initially overlooked this duplicity. But by 2008, American casualties in Afghanistan reached such high levels that a new carrot-and-stick strategy became imperative to deal with Pakistan. President George W Bush authorised raids by CIA ‘drones’ on terrorist targets within Pakistan, but appeared to lack a comprehensive strategy to deal with a resurgent Taliban.

Not so the new Obama Administration, which believes that the greatest threat to global security arises from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. US forces in Afghanistan are being doubled. Under the Command of Gen Bismillah Khan, the strength of the Afghan National Army is going to be raised to 136,000 personnel who are going to be better equipped.

Within Afghanistan, issues of domestic governance are going to receive enhanced attention with focus on making international aid more effective. This could mean that President Hamid Karzai would face strong opposition during the presidential election scheduled for September from leaders like Provincial Governor Gul Agha Sherzai. The Americans are preparing for a long stay in Afghanistan — something the Generals in Pakistan had believed would not happen.

Pakistan has already started feeling the heat. President Barack Obama has averred that while he is prepared to triple economic assistance, it would be directly linked to Pakistani cooperation in dealing with the Taliban. Moreover, the Americans will not hesitate to strike at ‘high value’ terrorist targets within Pakistan should they get ‘actionable intelligence’.

Recognising that civilian leaders like President Asif Ali Zardari have no control over ISI support for the Taliban and other jihadi groups, high-level dignitaries from the US and its NATO allies now meet Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Gen Tariq Majid rather than waste time meeting Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar. Whether this will succeed in enhancing civilian authority in Pakistan is questionable, but it is recognition of the reality that within Pakistan, the Army is a ‘state within a state’.

Diplomatically, the Obama Administration is evolving a new regional strategy in dealing with developments in Pakistan. A crucial reason for this change is that American military supplies moving through Pakistan are being subjected increasingly to attacks, or theft. There are suspicions that the Pakistani Army deliberately colludes in these attacks. Plans are underway to route supplies to Afghanistan through Central Asian countries like Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

Following discussions with NATO members, Russia’s Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin recently said, “In the event of NATO’s defeat in Afghanistan, fundamentalists who are inspired by the victory will set their eyes towards the north.” What Mr Rogozin meant was that Taliban-backed fundamentalists would seek to destabilise Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

While Russia has indicated its readiness to permit use of its territory for transit of American and NATO non-military supplies to Afghanistan, there are hints that it will be prepared to consider wider cooperation if the US addresses its concerns on issues like missile defence in Poland and the Czech Republic. It appears that Mr Obama is prepared to address these concerns. India has to encourage such moves and persuade the US and its NATO allies that Iranian participation is imperative in any effort to bring stability to Afghanistan.

These developments have far-reaching implications for Pakistan. The Taliban already control the entire NWFP, where the Army has traditionally backed radical Islamist elements to counter Pashtun nationalism. This should be evident from the fact that Taliban commanders like Jalaluddin Haqqani continue to operate from Pakistani territory. Significantly, the ISI chief, Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, has labelled Baitullah Mehsud, accused of being involved in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and Maulana Fazlullah, the Taliban cleric who now controls the entire Swat district, as “true patriots”. He has even justified the ideological leanings of the Taliban.

In virtually the entire NWFP, women can no longer go shopping and girls are prohibited from going to school. In the Swat district 8,000 women teachers have been rendered unemployed and 80,000 girls forbidden from going to school. Opponents of Shari’ah rule have been hanged within a hundred yards of Army posts and an entire Army division sits by idly near an Army Corps Headquarters as the Taliban surround the capital, Peshawar.

In such circumstances, can the Americans persuade the Pakistani Army to forsake its Taliban buddies and take them on? This appears highly unlikely. The Durand Line, the disputed border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which has not been recognised by any Government in Kabul, has ceased to exist. Pakistan’s claim that by attacking across the border the Americans are violating its territorial integrity defies logic as the Taliban have a free run across the Durand Line.

Can any attempt to stabilise the tribal areas within Pakistan succeed without the international community addressing the aspirations of Pashtuns on both sides of the Durand Line in an integrated manner, while acknowledging the reality that Pashtuns in both Pakistan and Afghanistan refuse to accept the Durand Line as an international border? These are issues that Mr Obama’s Special Representative Richard Holbrooke needs to carefully consider as the US prepares for a long stay in Afghanistan.

India has to prepare itself for the increasing volatility on its western land and maritime borders. Over seven years ago the US National Intelligence Council had noted: “Pakistan will become more fractious, isolated and dependent on international financial institutions. In a climate of continuing domestic turmoil, the Central Government’s control will probably be reduced to the Punjabi heartland and the economic hub of Karachi.”

With the entire Pakistan-Afghanistan border destabilised, will it not become imperative for Pakistan to shift its nuclear weapons to its ‘Punjabi heartland’? Recent developments along Pakistan’s western border thus make it imperative for India and the world to ponder over how to deal with this emerging scenario.

[ShauryaT]

Joint Chiefs Recommend Short-Term Goals on Way Ahead in Afghanistan

President Obama is expected to approve higher U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, but will not seek a long-term stable government there -- once a goal of the Bush administration.

NATO's top military commander Gen. John Craddock said Monday that the alliance would not oppose individual member nations making deals with Iran to supply their forces in Afghanistan as an alternative to using increasingly risky routes from Pakistan.

[RajeshA]

Moscow, Tehran force the US's hand by M K Bhadrakumar: Asia Times Online

It is unlikely the Taliban factored Iran's imminent zwischenzug when they blew up the 30-meter iron bridge in the Khyber Pass 24 kilometers west of Peshawar in northwest Pakistan on Monday, which halted the supplies for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops in Afghanistan. But the disruption of traffic once again exposed the vulnerability of the main NATO supply route and focused attention on Tehran.

Route through Pakistan => uncertain

This is forcing NATO into a major policy shift. NATO's top military commander in Afghanistan, General John Craddock, admitted that the alliance would not oppose individual member nations making deals with Iran to supply their forces in Afghanistan. To quote Craddock, a four-star American general who is also NATO's supreme allied commander, "Those would be national decisions. Nations should act in a manner that is consistent with their national interest and with their ability to resupply their forces. I think it is purely up to them."

Craddock was transferring rapidly to the operational plane what the alliance's secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer had said only a week ago that NATO member countries, including the United States, should engage Iran to combat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Scheffer wouldn't have spoken without Washington's nod. Craddock underscored it. NATO is keen to use the new highway built by the Indian government from central Afghanistan to the Iranian border at Zaranj, which would allow access to Iran's deep-sea Persian Gulf port at Chabahar. The road is largely unused. The Indians completed work on the highway hardly a fortnight ago.
NATO is scrambling. It must somehow reduce dependence on Pakistani supply routes, which are currently used for ferrying about 80% of supplies. The irony cannot be lost on onlookers. NATO seeks an Iranian route when Tehran is demanding a US troop pullout from Afghanistan.

Last Thursday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki remarked that Iran had paid attention to the plans of US President Barack Obama's administration to withdraw US troops from Iraq and "we believe this should be extended to Afghanistan as well".

Route through Iran => uncertain

Kyrgyzstan President Kurmanbek Bakiyev dropped a bombshell on Tuesday by demanding the closure of the US military base in Manas, which is used for ferrying supplies for Afghanistan. He said this after talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, during which Moscow pledged to Bishkek that it was writing off $180 million debt and would also provide Kyrgyzstan with a $2 billion soft loan and an outright grant of $150 million.

NATO's envoy to Central Asia, Robert Simmons, rushed to Bishkek in a last-ditch attempt to stall the Kyrgyz move, but only to regret the development and admit that NATO's Afghan operations would be adversely affected. Washington still hopes to salvage the situation, but that involves taking Moscow's help.

Route through Kyrgyzstan => uncertain

The US signed an agreement with Kazakhstan, Russia's key ally, offering to procure "a significant part" of its supplies for Afghanistan from that country. and in turn is pressuring it to make troop deployments in Afghanistan. Conceivably, Moscow (and Beijing) view with disquiet the US move to court their key Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) ally into the Western strategic orbit.

Route through Kazakhstan => uncertain

Last Saturday, the influential Moscow paper Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported that Russia proposed to reopen the key Soviet air base of Bombora on the Black Sea coast in Abkhazia.

Route through Georgia => uncertain

a. NATO supplies through Pakistan are disruption-prone, extortion-prone, insecure.
b. NATO supplies through Iran are premature, extortion-prone.
c. NATO supplies through Central Asian Republics are premature, extortion-prone.

d. NATO supplies through India and as-yet-Pakistan-occupied Kashmir are still premature.

Only after Pakistan loses its Pushtun Areas, can the ball get rolling. Only then could/would USA contemplate Indian control over Balwaristan, and consider an Indian takeover feasible.

Till now, USA had secured supply lines into Afghanistan. George W. Bush and Musharraf could al least ensure that. Those times are gone. The supply lines passing through Pakistan will get only further insecure with time. On the other hand, an intractable Iran will make supply lines through Iran extremely unpalatable. Russia too would extract a heavy price from Obama, and that too for allowing Obama to do good, i.e. hunt Al Qaida and Taliban. Every week, the White House will get reports of how, a particular supply route has become uncertain, because such-and-such country is having second thoughts. This is what we call a royal headache.

In the end, supplies through India could become Obama's only option.

[kasthuri]

In the end, supplies through India could become Obama's only option.

Is there a route through POK ? I thought it passes through China as well. And any case the roads have to be developed I believe. I may be way wrong here. It will be great if you can give more specifics on the route. Thanks.

[kasthuri]

And to gurus: Is there a possibility that the US out-sources some of the non-military supplies to India which in turn can take it through Iran?

[RajeshA]

In the end, supplies through India could become Obama's only option.

Is there a route through POK ? I thought it passes through China as well. And any case the roads have to be developed I believe. I may be way wrong here. It will be great if you can give more specifics on the route. Thanks.

As and when India moves into PoK, which on the map does have a tiny sliver of boundary with Afghanistan, India will be moving in a political-military context in which the TSPA would not be able to stop Indian march into the Northern Areas, and TSPA would have no control over adjoining areas in NWFP. It will be prudent for India not to just stop at Northern Areas but also consider taking control over some NWFP districts like Chitral, Kohistan, etc.

I am no expert of the geography of the area, but there are a few passes between Chitral and Afghanistan, like Baroghil Pass and Dorah Pass.

You don't need to have control over Khyber Pass to pass through.

[RajeshA]

And to gurus: Is there a possibility that the US out-sources some of the non-military supplies to India which in turn can take it through Iran?

We perhaps need to think outside the coolie mentality.

[ShauryaT]

Is there a route through POK ? I thought it passes through China as well. And any case the roads have to be developed I believe. I may be way wrong here. It will be great if you can give more specifics on the route. Thanks.

As and when India moves into PoK, which on the map does have a tiny sliver of boundary with Afghanistan, India will be moving in a political-military context in which the TSPA would not be able to stop Indian march into the Northern Areas, and TSPA would have no control over adjoining areas in NWFP. It will be prudent for India not to just stop at Northern Areas but also consider taking control over some NWFP districts like Chitral, Kohistan, etc.

I am no expert of the geography of the area, but there are a few passes between Chitral and Afghanistan, like Baroghil Pass and Dorah Pass.

You don't need to have control over Khyber Pass to pass through.

Practically speaking, the terrain is a no go area. As of now, all you have is a "summer" road that can pass through from PoK through the NA and the Wakhan is a land made in hell.

RajeshA mentions Chitral, etc...there is a reason, why, I have been saying India needs to befriend the Pashtuns.

[RajeshA]

RajeshA mentions Chitral, etc...there is a reason, why, I have been saying India needs to befriend the Pashtuns.

ShauryaT,

There is a lot more to Chitral and Kohistan, AFAIK, then just Pushtuns. There are many other ethnic groups there. It wouldn't be a bad idea to ensure that Chitral and Kohistan do not land up in an eventual Pushtunistan.

However I am also all for friendship with the Pushtuns.

If the coming Pushtunistan has to be one ruled by the Taliban, then some areas where Pushtuns have a presence, like Chitral and Kohistan may not have a problem staying outside of this entity.

[NRao]

I would think that within the next 6 months or so the Balouch region will be a viable option to access Afghanistan. The infrastructure could be an issue, but the access should be there.

[RayC]

Subnationalism has to be understood.

It is not only based on ethnicity, but also encouraged if things are not equitable.

When Pakistan got its State, it was East Pakistan which was keeping it above water economically. EP was marginalised in the polity of Pakistan. It rebelled.

Likewise, apart from Punjab, all others feel that they are marginalised and hence the furore.

Take the issue of the Kalabagh Dam. It would have helped agriculture of Pakistani Punjab and Pakistan.

The proposed construction of the Kalabagh Dam triggered an extremely bitter controversy among the four provinces of Pakistan, namely Punjab, Sindh, North-West Frontier Province, and Balochistan. The only province which is in favour of this dam is Punjab, which is the strongest among all four provinces, as usually the government is mainly centralised in it. The other three provinces have expressed extreme dissatisfaction, going so far as to have their provincial assemblies pass unanimous resolutions condemning the proposed dam. Hence, the project is still under consideration.

Sindh, the first province to point KBD project a blame game, is the lower riparian and strongest opponent of KBD. But its case mainly against Punjab is more on a conceptual basis of what Sindh thought to be "theft of water by Punjab" rather than locating an actual incident of theft. Sindh supports its argument by stating that by virtue of its name and history of water rights of the province, Indus River belongs exclusively to Sindh. Therefore, claiming the construction of dams, Tarbela and Mangla and now KBD actions of theft of water at the irrigation cost of Sindh. Further, Sindh presents many objections against the proposed dam, some of these objections are as follows:

* Sindh objects that their share of the Indus water will be curtailed as water from the Kalabagh will go to irrigate farmlands in Punjab and NWFP, at their cost. Sindhis hold that their rights as the lower riparian have precedence according to international water distribution law.

* The coastal regions of Sindh require a constant flow of water down the Indus into the Arabian Sea so that the flowing water can keep the seawater from intruding inland. Such seawater intrusion would literally turn vast areas of Sindh's coast into an arid saline desert, and destroy Sindh's coastal mangroves.it will effect the total GNP and its unfair also

* With the construction of dams, such as Mangla Dam and Tarbela Dam across the Indus, Sindhis have seen the once-mighty Indus turned into a shadow of its former glory downstream of the Kotri Barrage up to Hyderabad. They fear that there simply is not enough water for another large dam across the Indus, let alone three.

* The Kalabagh site is located in a highly seismic zone near an active fault, and the underlying rocks are likely to contain numerous fractures, causing the reservoir water to seep through the catacomb of fractures and discharge at the lowest point around the reservoir and the Indus river. [2]

* Damming the Indus has already caused a number of environmental problems that have not yet addressed. Silt deposited in the proposed Kalabagh dam would further curtail the water storage capacity of Manchar Lake and other lakes and of wetlands like Haleji Lake.

* President General Musharraf and other leaders, such as Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, have promised 'iron-clad' constitutional guarantees to ensure that Sindh gets its fair share of water. However, these assurances mean little to most Sindhis, who claim that even the earlier 1991 Indus Water-Sharing Accord, which is a document already guaranteed by the constitutional body, the Council of Common Interests, has been violated, and that Punjab has "stolen" their water.

The objection to Kalabagh in Sindh is widespread. Even political parties of Sindh that are in the central cabinet and are supported by General Musharraf, such as the MQM, have strongly denounced the dam.

The NWFP has two main objections to the dam.

* While the reservoir will be in the NWFP, the dam's electricity-generating turbines will be just across the provincial border in Punjab. Therefore, Punjab would get royalties from the central government in Islamabad for generating electricity. Contrary to this, however, Punjab has agreed not to accept any royalties from the Kalabagh Dam. The fact that the NWFP will suffer the adverse consequences of the reservoir but not get royalties is seen as unfair.

* Concerns that large areas of Nowshera District would be submerged by the dam and even wider areas would suffer from waterlogging and salinity as has occurred with the Tarbela Dam. As the water will be stored in Kalabagh damn as proposed, that will give water level rise to the city that is about 200 km away from the proposed location. This is very much possible but it can be easily controlled by giving and creating water streams and using tubewell systems.

The Baloch are not directly affected by the dam as such. Rather, most nationalist Baloch Sardars see the dam as another instance of Punjab lording it over the smaller provinces. By opposing the dam they are signalling their disaffection with being the poorest province and most neglected of all in development. In reality Balochistan can only get more water and its due share after the construction of Kalabagh dam and Kachhi canal.

Most independent analysts believe that the foremost problem with the proposed dam at Kalabagh is one of a trust deficit between the Punjab on one side and the other three provinces on the other. The noted columnist, Ayaz Amir suggested that the people of Punjab should redefine their assumptions about the rest of Pakistan and distribution of resources. A layman of Punjab does not understand why the rest of Pakistan does not trust Punjab. The answer, according to Amir, lies in the frequent coups staged by the Pakistan Army (which is overwhelmingly Punjabi in its composition), as well as the Army's extra-constitutional intervention and influence in public sector and civil institutions of the country in general and Sindh in particular. Now no province is ready to trust the Punjab.

All Pakistanis agree that Pakistan faces a severe water shortage, and that some form of water management must be implemented soon. Many point out that even if work on Kalabagh were to start tomorrow, it would still take at least eight years to complete and commission such a large dam. In the meantime, the water situation would continue to worsen. Smaller dams, barrages, and canals must be built before that, and water conservation techniques introduced.

The WAPDA for years repeatedly changed its statistics on the dam, to the point where no-one in Pakistan now believes any of its figures. Government of Pakistan formed a technical committee, headed by A. N. G. Abbasi, to study the technical merits of the Kalabagh dam vis-a-vis the other two. The four-volume technical report concluded that Bhasha or Katzarah dam should be built before Kalabagh, further complicating matters. To make matters even more complex, the report also stated that Kalabagh and Bhasha Dams could be considered feasible

The abrupt way in which President General Musharraf announced the decision to build the dam, simply overruling the objections of the smaller states, has sharply polarised public opinion.

[NRao]

Afghanistan Appeal May Temper European Allies' Ardor for Obama

[Nitesh]

Uzbekistan nears Afghan transit deal with U.S.

[Tilak]

U.S. Can Ship Afghan Aid Through Russia, Kremlin Says
By ELLEN BARRY
Published: February 6, 2009

MOSCOW — Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said Friday that Russia had fast-tracked approval of a plan to allow the United States military to ship nonlethal equipment across Russian territory to Afghanistan.

“We gave our consent, literally, in 24 hours,” he said. “We expect our American partners to provide a concrete request with the quantity and description of cargo. We shall grant the relevant permission as soon as it happens.”

Russia has emphasized its desire to cooperate with the United States and NATO in Afghanistan since the announcement on Tuesday that Kyrgyzstan, a close Russian ally, will close the Manas air base, a critical link in supplying the war effort in Afghanistan. Losing access to the base is a serious setback to President Obama, who hopes to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan.

Though Washington scrambled to dissuade Kyrgyz officials, the national security chief, Adakhan Madumarov, said Friday, “The fate of the air base is sealed.”

Competing interests shape Russian policy on Afghanistan. The Kremlin is eager to ensure stability in the region out of fear that the heroin trade and Islamic extremism could spread across its borders. But many Russians also feel deep frustration at the presence of the United States military in former Soviet republics.

---------------------

X-posted :

Afghan road gives India a boost
Feb 04, 2009 04:30 AM
$1.2 billion investment in Afghanistan projects seen as 'nightmare' for neighbouring Pakistanis

The new highway linked the Afghan towns of Zaranj, on the Iran border, and Delaram, 217 kilometres to the northeast.

It was constructed at the cost of six Indian and 129 Afghan lives, victims of attacks by an increasingly muscular Taliban insurgency. And it was hailed as a landmark in co-operation between India and Afghanistan.

Its strategic value – connecting the Iranian port of Chahabar with major Afghan cities – set alarm bells ringing in neighbouring Pakistan, whose relations with India are at a low point after Islamic militants carried out a massive attack on Mumbai in November.

A NATO official hinted that transit through Iran, once condemned as part of the "axis of evil," might be an alternative to the escalating risks of Pakistan's lawless borders.

If the Indian-built road becomes part of a new transit route, it would be an added boost to relations between India and the West, even as the U.S. cools toward Pakistan.

"It's a Pakistani nightmare," said Kamran Bokhari, director of Middle East analysis for the U.S.-based intelligence analysis company Stratfor.

"India believes the only way to neutralize Pakistan and keep it in the box, is to have good relations with the Afghans.

"But Pakistan's situation gets worse and worse."

A series of projects that have made India Afghanistan's largest regional supporter.

Since the Taliban were defeated in 2001, India has spent $1.2 billion (U.S.) in Afghanistan on projects ranging from dams and roads to backing for international agencies' nutritional campaigns.

It has about 4,000 aid and security officials working in the country, and has trained Afghan police officers.

Indian aid is visible on the ground. Hungry Afghan school children nibble high-nutrition biscuits between classes

Once-parched villages are rejuvenated by newly dug tube wells..

Homes that were in the dark are connected to power sources with the construction of transmission lines.

In a hearts-and-minds campaign, India is on the home stretch.


Pakistan, which tried to shore up its security and influence in a hostile neighbourhood after the Soviet invasion of 1979, backed Islamist insurgents who have added to Afghans' misery.

Afghanistan is only one forum for rounds of rivalry between India and Pakistan that began with the partition of India in 1947 and continued through a succession of bloody wars, including conflicts over Muslim-dominated Kashmir.

A nuclear arms race raised the stakes of the conflict.

But Pakistan's backing for the militants, including the Taliban, has sparked outbreaks of violence that have killed hundreds of Pakistanis, including former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

Now, says GTA-based security and defence analyst Sunil Ram, "Pakistan is using both Afghanistan and Kashmir as a means to get rid of its more radical elements, sending them on a jihad."


Meanwhile, says Bokhari, "Pakistan's Islamist project has backfired, they're being attacked by their own creations, the U.S. is on their tail, and Afghanistan still has a hostile regime."

Al-qaeda 3.5.7. version being apprehended didnt work. Neither did, Nato Terminals being bombed by "miscreants", closing down of Khyber pass towards FC operations, after the threats of peace deals with taliban.

Pakistans release of AQ "Photochor" Khan was a last ditch attempt at nuclear blackmail aimed at the world(especially US) , points to pakistans desperation on being down to its last cards as it continues to bluff away.. Interesting months ahead..

[NRao]

National Security Team Delivers Grim Appraisal of Afghanistan War

[NRao]

Former Iranian President Declares :: Khatami to Challenge Ahmadinejad for Job

[ShauryaT]

The Threat is Common: Brahma Chellaney

Herzliya (Israel): In the face of a spreading jihad culture, President Barack Obama has ended America's global "war" on terror as dramatically
and unaccountably as his predecessor had initiated it. With the stroke of his pen, Obama has effectively terminated the war on terror that George W Bush had launched to defeat terrorists who, he said, wanted to "establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia".

The asymmetric weapon of terrorism is a lethal one. Dealing with such unconventional warfare remains a central theme in international discourse, as at Israel's Herzliya Conference involving participants from the highest levels of government, business and academia. But the blunt truth is that the war on terror stood derailed long before Obama took office. The US occupation of Iraq proved so divisive in international relations that it fractured the post-9/11 global consensus to fight terror. Guantanamo, CIA's secret overseas prisons and the torture of detainees, including through water-boarding, came to symbolise the excesses of the war on terror.

The abrupt end of the war on terror thus means little. With Iraq and Afghanistan searing his presidency, Bush himself had given up the pretence of waging a global war on terror a war he had once equated with the Cold War struggle against communism. In fact, ever since Bush declared his war on terror, the scourge of transnational terrorism has spread deeper and wider in the world. The war's only outcome has been that it enabled the Bush administration to set up new US military arrangements extending from the Caspian Sea basin to South East Asia.

Not calling it a war any longer but labelling it a "struggle" or "strategic challenge" doesn't change the grim realities. Secular, pluralistic states have come under varying pressures, depending on their location, from the forces of terror. After all, vulnerability to terrorist attacks is critically linked to a state's external neighbourhood. A democracy geographically distant from the Muslim world tends to be less vulnerable to frequent terrorist strikes than a democracy proximate to Islamic states. The luxury of geography of Australia and the US contrasts starkly with the tyranny of geography of India and Israel. It is such realities that no change of lexicon can address.

Still, Obama is right in saying "the language we use matters". He has been wise to reach out to the Muslim world and to start undoing some of the excesses of the Bush years. The international fight against terrorism will be a long, hard slog. After all, the problem and solution are linked: Terrorism not only threatens the free, secular world, but also springs from the rejection of democratic and secular values. Worse, terrorism is pursued as a sanctified tool of religion and a path to redemption. Thus, the struggle against transnational terror can be won only by inculcating a liberal, secular ethos in societies steeped in religious and political bigotry.

In that light, the with-us-or-against-us terminology and use of offensive terms like "Islamofascism" were counterproductive. Counterterrorism is not a struggle against any religion but against those that misuse and misappropriate religion. The need is to reach out to Muslim moderates through correct idiom, not to unite the Muslim world through provocative language. Obama's gentler, subtler tone no doubt will help. But such a tone can be sustained only if the US continues to be free of any terrorist attack, as it has been for more than seven years. If a terrorist strike occurs in the US on Obama's watch, the president will come under intense attack for dismantling tools that had successfully shielded that country for long.

Having appointed a special envoy for each of the two regions central to the global fight against terrorism the Pakistan-Afghanistan belt and the Middle East Obama is likely to discover that ending the war on terror was the easy part. In fact, at a time when America's challenges have been underscored by a deep economic recession, increasing reliance on capital inflows from authoritarian China and jihad-bankrolling Saudi Arabia, two overseas wars and eroding global influence, Obama has already started redefining US anti-terror objectives more narrowly. His defence secretary has given the clearest indication yet that the new administration will seek to regionally contain terrorism rather than defeat it.

While outwardly the US looks set to pursue a military strategy in Afghanistan and a political approach towards Pakistan, in reality its troop surge in Afghanistan is intended to cut a political deal with the Taliban from a position of strength. According to Robert Gates, US objectives have been "too broad and too far into the future" and the new scaled-back goal is "to keep Afghanistan from becoming a base for al-Qaeda attacks on the US". There isn't enough "time, patience or money", in his words, to pursue ambitious goals there. Washington's proposal to triple non-military aid to Islamabad while keeping existing military aid flow intact, other than to tie it to concrete Pakistani cooperation on the Afghan front, will free Pakistan to continue its asymmetric war of terror against India.

The jarring US intent to focus on preventing attacks against America by regionally confining terrorism means that democracies with uncongenial neighbourhoods, like India and Israel, will bear the brunt of escalating terrorism.

The writer is professor, Centre for Policy Research.

[Philip]

For those with a keen sense of history,please read this delightful blast from the past,"The disasters in Afghanistan",from the Tmes (UK) archive .An excerpt from the paper Jan 12th 1843:

http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/vi ... 3-01-12-05

Experience had produced no salutary effect upon the military chiefs;for they still hoped,we should think against hope, that the perfidious and sanguinary Akhbar Khan would treat with sincerity for the evacuation of the country ,and that he would faithfully and honestly fulfil his promises and obligations .Hitherto every part of his conduct has been marked by deceit and treachery,every engagement into which he had entered had been broken or evaded;and the atrocious muder of the envoy by his own hand,abundantly proved that, while the barbarous sirdar was destitute of evrything in the most distant degree resembling faith and honour,he was at the same time, capable of planning and executing the most diabloical schemes for the gratification of his ambitions,his avarice, or his revenge. Major Pottinger declared in his convictions that no confidence could be placed "in any treaty" formed with the Affghan chiefs;and "numerous cautions" said Mr.Eyre were received by the General to put no trust in the profession of the Khans,who had "sworn" to accomplish our "entire destruction".

Every hour,too,increased the difficulties of a march upon Jellalabad,weakened and dispirited the troops,and afforded the enemy additional opportunities for maturing their plans to render that retreat impossible and ruin inevitable.Yet,although these things were plain and obvious to every soldier in cantonements,General Elphinstone continued to treat with the chiefs,and to confide in their professions,till it was impossible any longer to maintain his position.Famine was in his camp,discipline had almost disappeared,and the enemy,emboldened by impunity,at last attempted to force an entrance into the cantonements.

PS:The retreat from Cabul of 4,500 British troops 150 years ago is history.The way the US and NATO are pursuing this Afghan War,history might very well repeat itself,especially as the US thinks that it can engage in peace talks with the Taliban!It is a great pity that the current US and western powers do not delve into the bloody history of that country,of which the British have had the most experience of the "treachery of the Khans".

[RajeshA]

India's relations with Iran plummeted, when India was forced to vote against Iran on the nuclear issue at IAEA. It is time to put our relations with Iran front and center in the Indian Foreign Policy.

1. India's access to Central Asia depends on Iran.
2. Access to natural gas is facilitated through better relations with Teheran.
3. Checkmating the power of Taliban by strengthening of the Northern Afghanistan ethnicities can be done only in cooperation with Iran.
4. West is planning to hand over the reins of Afghanistan to Pakistan and leave. India, Iran and Russia need to look for an alternate arrangement.
5. Iran has a strong interest in seeing that anti-Shia hardline elements like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Sipah-e-Sahaba and Taliban do not get hold over Pakistani nuclear weapons, which can be ensured only through completely denuking Pakistan. India can cooperate with Iran on this issue.

Cooperation with Iran is essential, and India needs to move quickly on this issue. Elections will be held in Iran this year, which could see Ahmedinejad pitted against Khatami, however India should not go from the premise that the reformers will win, and India should wait. We should move now, and try to improve our relations across the board.

[Philip]

Rajesh you're spot on.The US plans to "hand over" Afghanistan to their tried and trusted rent-boy,Pakistan.As for the Taliban,whom the US want to negotiate power sharing with,here is the latest outrage from it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 692639.ece

Poland promises to punish Taleban executioners
(AFP/Getty Images)
Piotr Stanczak, who was beheaded four months after his capture
Zahid Hussain in Islamabad

Poland today promised to track down and "punish" Taleban terrorists who beheaded an engineer in Pakistan's lawless North West Frontier Province.

Piotr Stanczak, a geologist, was kidnapped four months ago while working in Attock district, close to North West Frontier Province, which is infested with Taleban.

Minutes before his murder on Friday night, he was shown appealing to the Polish government not to send troops to neighbouring Afghanistan.

In a video, released yesterday, a statement was shown by the Taleban saying that other foreign nationals in their custody would be executed soon if the Pakistani government did not release some 60 detainees held by the military.

Taleban release video of hostage beheading
Obama envoy heads into 'inherited mess'
Taliban’s deadly ‘justice’ cows Pakistan

The insurgents are holding at least four foreigners, including a Chinese engineer, plus Afghan and Iranian diplomats.

Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish Foreign Minister, this morning said that the video had been authenticated as genuine and promised that Poland would try to bring the perpetrators of the killing to justice.

The chances of doing so, however, appear extremely remote as Pakistan's tribal regions remain largely lawless and overrun by the Taleban.

"The cassette of the execution, this bestial execution, is authentic and unfortunately it confirms the worst," Mr Sikorski said.

"Now we can no longer save our compatriot, we are going to try to punish his killers.

"After consultation with the Justice Minister, we are issuing arrest warrants to arrest the men suspected of having committed this crime."

A Taleban spokesman told Pakistani newspapers that Mr Stanczak's body would only be handed over after the detainees had been freed. The spokesman, who identified himself as Mohammed, said the Taleban had rejected an offer of 100 million rupees, (£1 million), for the release of Mr Stanczak before his killing.

Pakistan has seen a rash of kidnappings and attacks on foreigners in recent months, mostly blamed on al-Qaeda and Taleban groups trying to destabilise the country's government and punish it for supporting the US-led war in Afghanistan.

An American UN worker was abducted last week in the border town of Quetta in southwestern Pakistan. Police are investigating a purported separatist group's claim of responsibility.

The Taleban is also increasingly resorting to kidnapping local businessmen for ransom. At least 200 people have been taken in North West Frontier Province over the past few months and released on payment of huge sums money.

[RajeshA]

Philip,

We were forced to vote against Iran, as the nuclear deal was very tentatively poised in the US Congress with the likes of Tom Lantos really turning the screws. We did oblige him, with that vote.

However now that those compulsions are gone, and we have the nuclear deal, and 'the axis of evil' Proponent-in-Chief and best friend of powers that-be in Delhi, Dubya is also just a page of dusty history, it is high time to move on. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR THE CURRENT LETHARGY.

There needs to be a heart-to-heart meeting between India and Iran at the highest level. In fact the more public the embrace of Iran the better. We also need to show our misgivings about USA still coddling and cuddling with its dog, Pakistan, despite Mumbai Attacks.

Ahmedinejad will be grateful if accorded a proper state reception by India. After the Iranian elections, such things would not carry the same value. Also any warmth generated now, will carry forward into the next administration anyway, regardless of whether Ahmedinejab or Khatami come to power. Friendly relations with the conservatives is institutional which count whereas friendly relations with reformers stays at the popular level at a modest level.

[NRao]

India's relations with Iran plummeted, when India was forced to vote against Iran on the nuclear issue at IAEA. It is time to put our relations with Iran front and center in the Indian Foreign Policy.

Just like India followed the US to swerve away from Iran, now India should be compelled to swerve towards Iran!

U.S. to Enlist Iran in Combating Afghan Drug Trade

Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's new point man on Afghanistan and Pakistan, is expected to engage Iran as part of a broad effort to stabilize Afghanistan and combat the country's growing drug trade, according to officials briefed on the special representative's plans.

[ShauryaT]

Rajesh you're spot on.The US plans to "hand over" Afghanistan to their tried and trusted rent-boy,Pakistan.As for the Taliban,whom the US want to negotiate power sharing with,here is the latest outrage from it.

What is the alternative from a US view point? One cannot govern Afghanistan without the Pashtuns. One cannot govern the Pashtuns only on one side of the border. One cannot deal with the Pashtuns on the other side without dealing with TSP.

The Northern Alliance held less than 5% of the territory of Afghanistan, even with the help of Iran, India and Russia.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh you're spot on.The US plans to "hand over" Afghanistan to their tried and trusted rent-boy,Pakistan.As for the Taliban,whom the US want to negotiate power sharing with,here is the latest outrage from it.

What is the alternative from a US view point? One cannot govern Afghanistan without the Pashtuns. One cannot govern the Pashtuns only on one side of the border. One cannot deal with the Pashtuns on the other side without dealing with TSP.

The Northern Alliance held less than 5% of the territory of Afghanistan, even with the help of Iran, India and Russia.

ShauryaT,

In the 90s, there was much confusion in the area. The Russians had become very much inward-looking, insecure and had a weak leadership. The Indian mentality in the 90s, if I may say so, was one in which we did not look upon ourselves as the inheritors of earth . The Iranians were also less abrasive and aggressive with Khatami at the helm. So all these nations have had a long journey in the last 10-15 years. So I am sure the support of India-Iran-Russia to the Northern Alliance / Afghan Government would have a totally different scale this time.

Secondly, after the Karzai came to power, Afghanistan has been able to build upon its security services, the Army, which can also be useful.

Thirdly, in those days the relationship between TSP and Taliban was very clear-cut. Now Taliban has become a tiger, which does not like the likes of Pakjabi and Mohajir 'vermin' to be riding it.

Fourthly Taliban is insistent and persistent in getting control over all Pushtun lands in Pakistan also, bringing it into a direct confrontation with the TSPA, unless TSPA waives the white flags in the beginning itself. (Many BRFites do not make the distinction, I do).

Fifthly, even if the Americans leave Pakistan and Afghanistan, it does not mean America is willing to fully disassociate with the region, as the area remains the 'Terror Central". So there would be some control over Pakistani involvement in Afghanistan.

Sixthly, the Afghans, the Pushtuns themselves are not very convinced about a renewed Taliban takeover. The Taliban get some resonance simply because of the drug and Arab money in it, and because there are foreign forces 'occupying' Pushtun areas.

Seventhly, the Taliban are going to be more busy extending their control over Pakistani Pushtun areas, than fighting the Tajiks and Hazaras in the North.

It is one thing that the Taliban come to have their hold extend over all Pushtun areas, but the other areas are not going to take this lying down, and the India-Iran-Russia trio should help the Northern Afghans fight Taliban.

It would be helpful to consider Northern Afghanistan and Pushtunistan separately.