Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 10 Aug 2011 05:14

^^^Agreed 500%.
Read this report......ISI is moving fast already.......
NEW DELHI: India Tuesday said Pakistan's spy agency, the ISI, has "reactivated" terror camps in Pakistani Kashmir with some 2,500 terrorists present there.
"The government is aware that the (Inter-Services Intelligence) ISI has reactivated terrorist training camps in Pakistan occupied Kashmir," Minister of State for Home Affairs Jitendra Singh told the Lok Sabha in a written reply.
Singh said a number of training camps and launching pads were "reportedly active" in Pakistan and parts of Jammu and Kashmir under its control.
SOURCE:http://expressbuzz.com/states/tamilnadu ... 02647.html

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Aug 2011 06:57

Yogi,

Time to activate Operation durvasa?

For those who dont know Yogi wrote a sceanrio "Drop of a Grenade" in circa 2003

sum · Post by **sum** » 10 Aug 2011 21:19

Finally, some news on the SEALs front after the unusual quiet from Amir-khan side:
Obama's solemn salute to soldiers killed in Afghan crash

United States President Barack Obama paid his last respect to the soldiers killed in Afghanistan when the helicopter that were carrying them exploded mid-air after being reportedly hit by a rocket propelled grenade.

It was a sobering moment for Obama and the accompanying team of top Pentagon officials as they saluted the last remains of the US soldiers killed in the Afghan battlefield over the weekend -- the deadliest attack by the insurgents' post 9/11.

The remains of these dead soldiers were brought to the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware by two C-17 planes, with 30 of them draped in US flags and eight in Afghan flags.

The atmosphere, according to the White House officials, was very sober, very somber. "It was a very serious atmosphere," the official said.

Obama made no remarks during his stay at the Dover Air Force Base. He just walked in and started speaking with first group of family members. Williams said at least three family members for each serviceman were invited to attend the ceremony.

Why does this feel like the lull before a storm? Somehow, Amir-khan seems to have really tightened up after this incident with even no "leaks"/off-the-cuff remarks etc..

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Aug 2011 21:21

sum wrote:
Why does this feel like the lull before a storm? Somehow, Amir-khan seems to have really tightened up after this incident with even no "leaks"/off-the-cuff remarks etc..

That is why PLA was invited in Pakistan for Brigade level excercise

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 10 Aug 2011 21:49

Kandahar looks to a new strongman

The southern Afghan city of Kandahar is gripped by fears over a power vacuum created by the Taliban's assassination of key leaders, with the deaths fracturing a complex web of tribal alliances keeping the peace. Despite past accusations of embezzlement and collusion with drug lords, former governor Gul Agha Sherzai is emerging as the likeliest strongman to fill the gap.

Competition or cooperation among the various Durrani and Ghilzai Pashtun tribes in Kandahar and the surrounding Pashtun provinces has defined war and peace in the region.

...certain outside forces now want to exploit the uncertainty and disunity among the Pashtuns of southern Afghanistan, sensing an opportunity to shape the region to their liking.

...Observers in the region, however, consider tribal rivalries a mere cover for a complicated power struggle among strongmen. Controlling the Afghan narco-economy in the area is considered the major spoil of power in this region.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Aug 2011 22:46

Don't know what to believe.
Most likely ISI gave some fake tips again and got some people killed. Just like they gave up all those fake Gitmo prisoners to divert "Wrath of Khan!"

CBS News reports:

Forces kill Taliban who downed US helicopter

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 10 Aug 2011 22:52

^^^^^^
Ya right, the guy who fired the RPG to CH-47 was carrying a red flag all along saying "I downed the helicopter, come and kill me, kill me....."

Again media management to make the dumb amerikans feel good in the bad economy with stock market crashing.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Aug 2011 23:24

US says Taliban who shot at US helicopter dead

Nato said the raid had killed a Taliban leader and the insurgent who fired at the military helicopter on Saturday.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 11 Aug 2011 00:19

Hi ramana

I just posted on the Pak thread - we do not even need to be Durvasa. The front door is wide open, with many vital formations from ARS and ARN engaged in the fighting in Tribal Areas. It used to be that India would take weeks to get our formations in place. With their key formations tied up looking west, it is PA now that will take weeks to get them back - and by doing so, they will leave the field open for the "good" Taliban (just to add a redundant clarification - I mean the ones hammering Pak).

Unfortunately, India has never been inclined to be Durvasa. We could, instead, highlight the fact that Pak have been at our mercy for years now, and had we chosen to do so, we could have strolled in at any point of our choosing from Siachen to Sir Creek. Maybe that will chip away at their raisin dieter.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 11 Aug 2011 00:22

A follow up from the TSP thread which is more relevant here.

Why did India support to Soviet invasion? I think that was a massive blunder on IG's part, which has cost us in blood in J&K, and influence in Afghanistan. The picture only changed post 9/11.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Aug 2011 00:28

She hoped TSP would be busy with bear breathing down their neck.

At same time she was wary of the Bear in Afghanistan and loss of one buffer. Hence she was muted. As a dilli billi said we neither support nor condemn the FSU in Afghanistan

TSP is the other buffer.

Now PRC and uncle are in both the buffers.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 11 Aug 2011 03:22

>>Why did India support to Soviet invasion?

YIP, I think it would be more accurate to say that we didn't actively oppose the invasion, rather than that we supported it. Relevant babudom were broadly aware of the possible implications. But this was not a case where our active opposition would have changed the scenario (i.e. Soviets would have walked in anyway, they were playing what they considered a bigger game). Moreover, active opposition would have meant basically swinging to the American side, which could have its own spin-off headaches (witness Pakisatan

), and would have meant literally turning against a country that had supported us at certain critical junctures in the period between 1970-1980...On the whole, therefore, a tricky affair. Perhaps we could have been a bit more vocal, a bit less reticent. But on the whole, we were truly quite without the capability to do anything other than talk in that situation, and therefore, wisely I think, we mainly kept quiet.

Ambar · Post by **Ambar** » 11 Aug 2011 04:40

Gerard wrote:US says Taliban who shot at US helicopter dead
Nato said the raid had killed a Taliban leader and the insurgent who fired at the military helicopter on Saturday.

I think 2 latest strikes are related : 1) The F-16 strike on Taliban who shot down the Chinook. 2) The drone attack on Haqqani group yesterday that sent 27 to go get their 72s.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 11 Aug 2011 04:49

Thanks guys. Let me expand a bit on my question/post on Sov invasion; before that, however, an apology if this is a cow and coconut tree kind of post. Given time constraints, I limit my visits to a few threads. There are several potentially interesting threads that I have not read at all, and others where I am more than a year behind! I also have less context into some relatively new posters (by which I mean practically anyone who first joined or changed handles in the last five years or so). So if I appear to be a tubelight or a Late Latif, pardonez moi.

So anyway, I recently got an email with a list of targets scoped out by Dawood Gilani - and what made my eyes pop out was that one of the targets on his list was Somnath! (Not the poster here, the place on Gujarat seacoast with the famous temple - the poster here is onlee on the hit list of ... never mind I yam just kidding Somnath saar). Which, in turn, led me to re-read on Gaznavid invastions. With that, I ran into a site (which has probably been mentioned here) called Voice of India, that has material on Gaznavid and Ghorid invasions.

One of the epiphanies I had was that neither of the two Mehmuds were two bit invaders when they first attempted to invade India - that was a mistaken impression from my school days and a reflection on how I was first taught history. It turns out that both had pretty huge empires spanning parts of Persia, Turkmenistan, etc.). If we look at it that way, then Mahmud of Gazni did not really invade what we now think of as India, but some Hindu kingdoms that were actually somewhat smaller than the Gazni kingdom at that time. Given a choice, I think he would have desired to actually rule parts of India, but he was resisted by a confederation led by the Shahi kings of Punjab. Apparently, his first (and last) successful invasion was Somnath, because by then he had established a fearsome reputation and the kings were less inclined to oppose him individually or in a coalition. However, even the, he was badly mauled on his way back.

After his death, his son Mehsud was actually hammered by the Hindu Shahis, who went on to reclaim lost territory in what are now PakJab and NWFP. And because of that, there was a 150 year hiatus before another invader was strong enough to invade India.

Mahmud of Ghori similarly had a very large empire in Central Asia which he co-ruled with his brother. Note that like the previous invader, he had his other flanks secure before he could dare to contemplate an Indian invasion. FOR SOME REASON (which is the source of my pain), by the time he invaded, the idea of a Hindu confederation had faded away. His first attack was on the Solankis of Gujarat, and he was actually beaten back. Note that in this invasion, the Chauhans did not support the Solankis, a favor that was later returned when Ghori attacked Prithviraj. This is also the current source of my anger against the Rajputs, and maybe if someone can explain this my pain can ebb a little bit.

But that is enough of a digression. How I apply this to the here and now is that a large, stable entity that rules or controls Afghanistan is not in India's interests. What is more insiduous is that I feel many times the rulers in Punjab are not regarded as "one of us" by the rulers of kingdoms to the east of them. Hence the Hindu Shahis, heroic though they were, were on critical occassions left to defend for themselves against an invader that was numerically stronger (and sometimes possessing other tactical advantages as well). I feel I can extrapolate this to several later invasions; and if I keep extrapolating to modern times I feel that only the British had it right. Even though we can sneer at them for their failures in Afghan wars, their vision was true. They knew where the main threat to their Jewel in the Crown came from, and they took ample measures to protect their empire.

And that is why I feel that any modern ruler in India should have the lessons of the millenium seared into their consciousness - no ruler, however friendly or benign, should be allowed in Afghanistan if that ruler is stronger than the ruler in Punjab or the rest of India. And that is why, inspite of your explanations, I still believe it was a monumental blunder that India did not resist the invasion. Friends do not invade a friend's front yard. USSRs invasion of Afghanistan was not a friendly act to India, and deserving of a violently negative response, no matter what the cause or what other considerations.

And while I am at it, let me continue my provocative line of reasoning further. Zia became the true descendent of the Hindu Shahis, the true gate guardian of Bharat Mata. He had the balls to take the weapons at his disposal to throw off the maurauder from Central Asia. If I look at it that way, I am even inclined to suspend my hatered for Pakistan - after all, were they not the spruned Hindu Shahis who lashed out at their blinkered cousins to the east?

Going forward, I am going to be somewhat more hesitant in considering independent Baluchistan and Pashtunistan, unless it is first ensured that Punjab and Sindh are direcly under the umbrella of India. India must first defend Punjab, unless it wants to defend itself at Panipat. And we know how it always turns out.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Aug 2011 04:58

YIP, Will reply soon. The analogy is misplaced.

Yes Ghazni and later Ghori were quite big time Sultans in Central Asia. They made it big in aftermath of Turkic takeover of the Caliphate post 900 AD.

Things happened long ago due to particular circumstances.

PrithviRaj's accession to Dili kingdom was disputed by Jaichand who was his cousin. Then Samyukta's marriage did not endear him to the compact of kings. So Prithviraj was isolate. Its said his minster advised conserving his resources for his own survival. Also he was a mere boy.
As the saying goes hang together or will hang separately.
As Bin Powell said Past is past.

We should learn and not repeat the mis-steps nor visit the ire on the descendants.

And do look up Cancun meet between Mrs G and Reagan and the cooperation between US and India in the 80s due to that.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 11 Aug 2011 05:06

looking forward to your reply, ramana. Who is PCA? PC Alexander?

The grouse I have with our modern gurus like Subramaniam et al is that they do not write their histories. Maybe because they never really retire. However, I do wish they would leave behind something to be published after their death.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Aug 2011 05:18

Y I Patel wrote: And that is why, inspite of your explanations, I still believe it was a monumental blunder that India did not resist the invasion. Friends do not invade a friend's front yard. USSRs invasion of Afghanistan was not a friendly act to India, and deserving of a violently negative response, no matter what the cause or what other considerations.

And while I am at it, let me continue my provocative line of reasoning further. Zia became the true descendent of the Hindu Shahis, the true gate guardian of Bharat Mata. He had the balls to take the weapons at his disposal to throw off the maurauder from Central Asia. If I look at it that way, I am even inclined to suspend my hatered for Pakistan - after all, were they not the spruned Hindu Shahis who lashed out at their blinkered cousins to the east?

Going forward, I am going to be somewhat more hesitant in considering independent Baluchistan and Pashtunistan, unless it is first ensured that Punjab and Sindh are direcly under the umbrella of India. India must first defend Punjab, unless it wants to defend itself at Panipat. And we know how it always turns out.

This is good and I had this similar thought in my head when I was doing the geo political analysis for India and historical info about the region.
The modern times are different but Zia was defending the geo graphy region in his backyard.
The modern diplomats are the product of the colonial process and just 33 years after independence they had to make a decision on a geo political matter. But the entire GOI was setup to align with the SU by the British master to create a block and bring Pakistan Zia into the US block to fight the might of the Soviet. The ideological support to the soviet union is part of the colonial process and hence they are not to be blamed.

But the British had a deeper plan in the 40s to make the sub continent a muslim majority and has the plan going on.
Pakistan population and large mass is supposed to make it a reality in the future and control the destiny of the region but India has stood strong for more than 60 years now. But its hold on its civilization identity has been diluted with a purpose to create space for non indic penetration. Indian elite has not understood this and they are fumbling and confused.

Yes Ghazni and later Ghori were quite big time Sultans in Central Asia. They made it big in aftermath of Turkic takeover of the Caliphate post 900 AD.

Things happened long ago due to particular circumstances.

The motive of that period was the force of history of Islamic expansion from persia and arab land which was sweeping. That force was backed by resource and urge to change the frontier.

But in the modern time Pakistan is a rentier state and Indian state has resources to make it sub servient to its Indian political economic dominance. Super powers US/PRC are the sponsers and are the real Ghazni and Ghori in the modern time.
India has not acted but has the geo political advantage.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Aug 2011 08:48

Heck I wish Mrs G had written her memoirs! She was more strategic than all the gurus. And quite a long view person.

Someone I forget told me that she felt FSU in Afghanistan will eventually unravel TSP.

About letting the 93K go free, she said our fight is not with the people of TSP we don't want permanent foes.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 11 Aug 2011 08:55

I was way too young then to understand or follow politics, but was'nt there a time immediately after the Shimla Pact where Pak was on its knees and more open to a constructive relationship with India? Again, we are talking about Pak here, so this is a crazy question of the type my son keeps asking me (on other issues).

In other words, would it have been possible to actually work with Pak against a common enemy? Might have ment ceding some power to Pak, but eventually we ended up giving it a lot more! And with the wrong group of people! From what I have read about Zia he seems a lot more pragmatic than Bhutto.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Aug 2011 09:02

No. Right after 1971, ZA Bhutto came and stiffened the TSP spine. He launched the Nazariya-e-Pakistan movement as Two nation theory wasnt enough. He got into cahoots with Zbig and launched the Afghan meddling project. He quelled the Baloch revolt and used air force to bomb them . Mrs G couldnt do much as the Emergency took her shine off. The Afghan Meddling led to FSU takeover of Afghanistan and return of TSP as frontline state.

For about two three months in 1972, there was discussion in Hindu by G,K Reddy about possible scenario for TSP. POK, Punjab and Sindh joining India. NWFP to revert to Afghanistan. Baloch either independent or with Iran which had Shah of Iran and its own Baloch citizens.

As a reward for all this Zia mia hanged Bhutto.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 11 Aug 2011 09:21

"Victory Disease" - an affliction when someone or some entity achieves stunning success. I read that term in context of the Japanese decisions immediately after Pearl Harbor.

The thing is, sometimes when a country achieves a great success, there is a period of heady disorientation while the decision makers try to figure out the best options from brand new and hitherto unconsidered vistas. Two well know current victims - China and Iran.

Was India like that after 1971? Did we consider all we surveyed as ours for taking? Was a further breakup of Pakistan and reintegration into India a realistic proposition at that time? And that is just related to what we are immediately talking about. IG, sorry, Durga Mata, was the all conquering queen. She, from what I read, was a changed person after 1971. And in retrospect, she took some terrible decisions. Were the ones she took in 1979 among those terrible decisions?

From what I have read, and please excuse the vague recounting of Afghan events, the trouble began when Amin took over in a coup and swung decidedly towards USSR. Before that, it looks like Afghanistan artfully balanced USSR, USA and Iran. After the leftward swing, Pakistan started sheltering mozzie fundos including our later friend Ahmed Shah Mehsud. Then, uunder Amin there was more nasty infighting between the two communist factions, leading to a bloody coup and the Soviet tanks rolling in. Babrak Karnal became the president. Rest is history.

The problem is, this is classic Soviet tactics. They do not come in overnight. They set the stage for a long time, and sometimes use engineered causes to invite themselves in. In this long slide, what was India's role? And why did India not wake up until too late to the eventuality that tranpired? Blame Raa? Blame the masters of Raa.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Aug 2011 09:27

No India never got that disease. We were too busy to think like that.

No please read any good wiki page on Afghanistan.

Daoud deposed his nephew Zahir Shah and lauched a modernization program. It was resisted by mullah types who took shelter in TSP: Rabbani, Hekmatyar and one another.
Daoud was deposed and overt Commies took over. They couldnt stand against TSP supported mullahs and FSU was invited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 11 Aug 2011 10:04

YIP,

Just tell your friend that the only thing worse than being America's enenmy is being America's friend.
Then give the example of India and Pakistan. We have not done badly despite being opposed by the US for over 4 decades. And pakistan is in a sh!thole as a DIRECT consequence of supporting US policy in this part of the world.
That should be enough evidence of what American influence does to its friends.

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

The most important perspective in any discussion on Pakistan's position in western imperial superstructure is its role in controlling the Middle East. It is one of the two states created by the withdrawing British empire on the basis of religion - the other being Israel. Both countries bookend the region described by Caroe as 'wells of power'. (This point keeps getting ignored.)

Pakistan can be and has been used to destabilize the region around it (Afghanistan, India, Iran), while Israel is used to block any genuine Arab challenger from emerging (who also has popular support). This has been the Anglo Saxon game, and it will remain their game until an alternative source of energy is found.

What this means is that for the Anglo Saxons, the Indian 'problem' is a subset of its designs for West Asia. IOW, the Indo Pak conflict will only be seen from the prism of West Asian 'conflict management' prism, which in its turn is a subset of the energy politics and pricing issues.

In both areas (1. Indo-Pak; 2. Israel-ME), the west has designed the politics to keep the regions in a state of permanent low intensity conflict. This is helpful because both regions can be flared up at will. Flaring up Israel-ME region boosts oil prices. Flaring up Indo-Pak keeps India from growing out of the subcontinent and challenging the western interests in its own backyard.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 11 Aug 2011 10:22

Well, actually India's relations with USA are a mixed bag, but I would not say that India has uniformly been in opposition to USA. In 1971 we directly worked against US interests, but US has been known to do a lot worse with countries it regards as "real" enemies.

As for Pakistan, please do not fall for its lame excuse of blaming all troubles on USA. Pakistan's troubles are its own creation, and stem from a pathological genetic condition. USA is amoral in taking allies, and quite frankly did not care what Pak did with the alliance so long as the main purpose of fighting USSR was served in some manner. US actions vis a vis Pak were like offering cigarettes and alcohol to a friend. From a strict moral viewpoint obviously that would be unethical, yet who is really to blame? And please do not counter by saying that USA pushed/forced those on Pak. It was an alcoholic, druggie and chain smoker at birth.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 11 Aug 2011 10:34

Y I Patel wrote:A follow up from the TSP thread which is more relevant here.

Why did India support to Soviet invasion? I think that was a massive blunder on IG's part, which has cost us in blood in J&K, and influence in Afghanistan. The picture only changed post 9/11.

Actually Indira Gandhi did begin to gradually distance itself from the Soviet Union after about a year after the invasion when it was clear that every ethnic group in Afghanistan was fighting them, and that the Soviets were not going to have a quick in and out as they promised.

Arms purchases from Western Europe increased, and she began to put out more feelers towards the United States. The Indian position increasingly called for Soviet withdrawal, especially in private. However the level of dependence on the Soviets for military modernisation in particular made her very reluctant to publicly criticise the Soviets.

Could a stronger, more public position against the Soviet presence have encouraged an earlier Soviet pullout? It seems unlikely; benefits would have been more likely to accrue in other places like earlier US and Canadian support against the Khalistanis.

It is one of the two states created by the withdrawing British empire on the basis of religion - the other being Israel.

British policy about Israel went through many flip-flops, but was certainly not pro-Israeli under the Labour Party in the 1945-1952 era. They were against further Jewish immigration from Europe (the spark for the guerilla war against the British) and favoured a one-state solution rather than partition. American support for Israel in 1948 had very little to energy or the Cold War, and everything to do with general American sympathy for Jewish causes after the Holocaust, and the importance of the Jewish vote to Truman and the Democrats. British policy towards Israel changed once Churchill and the Tories were re-elected in 1952.

In both areas (1. Indo-Pak; 2. Israel-ME), the west has designed the politics to keep the regions in a state of permanent low intensity conflict. This is helpful because both regions can be flared up at will. Flaring up Israel-ME region boosts oil prices. Flaring up Indo-Pak keeps India from growing out of the subcontinent and challenging the western interests in its own backyard.

This sort of assumes that every outcome is desired and planned for when its often the exact opposite. Rising oil prices have in every case damaged Western economies. In the Cold War era India-Pakistani tensions weakened rather than strengthened containment of the Soviet bloc, and in the post 9/11 era divert Pakistan from the job expected of it.
A lot of times countries stick with a pattern of behaviour not because of those negative outcomes, but in spite of it.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 11 Aug 2011 10:53

Why did India support to Soviet invasion? I think that was a massive blunder on IG's part, which has cost us in blood in J&K, and influence in Afghanistan. The picture only changed post 9/11.

When USSR invaded afghania in 1979, Charan Singh was the PM, not IG...and he publicly rebuked th invasion.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 11 Aug 2011 11:25

Y I Patel wrote:It turns out that both had pretty huge empires spanning parts of Persia, Turkmenistan, etc.). If we look at it that way, then Mahmud of Gazni did not really invade what we now think of as India, but some Hindu kingdoms that were actually somewhat smaller than the Gazni kingdom at that time. .... After his death, his son Mehsud was actually hammered by the Hindu Shahis, who went on to reclaim lost territory in what are now PakJab and NWFP. And because of that, there was a 150 year hiatus before another invader was strong enough to invade India.

Not quite. The Hindu Shahi kingdom was annexed by Mahmud and the dynasty extinguished for good. The Ghaznavid sultanate was established in Punjab, from where they continued launching raids into the Gangetic plains.

The hiatus in these raids came only when the Chauhan Rajputs rose to form a large kingdom in Rajasthan, and pushed up into Punjab, defeating and weakening the Ghaznavid sultanate. This led to their war with Muhammad Ghori who annexed most of the Ghaznavid territory in western Punjab.

Y I Patel wrote:Mahmud of Ghori similarly had a very large empire in Central Asia which he co-ruled with his brother. Note that like the previous invader, he had his other flanks secure before he could dare to contemplate an Indian invasion. FOR SOME REASON (which is the source of my pain), by the time he invaded, the idea of a Hindu confederation had faded away. His first attack was on the Solankis of Gujarat, and he was actually beaten back. Note that in this invasion, the Chauhans did not support the Solankis, a favor that was later returned when Ghori attacked Prithviraj. This is also the current source of my anger against the Rajputs, and maybe if someone can explain this my pain can ebb a little bit.

Erase this idea from your mind that any confederacy can ensure permanent victory. A united Iran could not defeat the Arab invaders, nor could a powerful Chinese empire defend against the Mongol invaders, who were much less in numbers and resources to the Chinese. They held a distinct military advantage...

Similarly the Turkic invaders of India had the advantage of superior horses, so even when defeated on the battlefield, like Ghori was in his first battle with Prithviraj, they could still escape on these powerful mounts (I hope you are aware that the story of Prithviraj repeatedly defeating, magically capturing, and generously letting go Ghori is a complete myth? They only fought two battles). This advantage of horses lasted till the 16th century, when artillery and later on disciplined infantry became the next dominant features of Indian warfare. Until that time Independent Indian kingdoms could survive only in areas where indigenous breeds of horses were developed (as in Rajasthan), or where foreign horses could be imported annually at a huge cost (as in Vijayanagar) through a friendship with the Arab and Portuguese naval powers.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Aug 2011 11:29

When the Russians moved into Afghanistan in December of 1979, the caretaker government led by Charan Singh was in power, about to turnover authority to Mrs. Gandhi's government which was just then being formed. Her party had won the parliamentary election but she was not in office yet. The Ministry of External Affairs apparently fumbled around and tried to get Charan Singh to authorize a statement about India's response to the Afghan situation, but he wouldn't do it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -singh.htm

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Aug 2011 11:33

Airavat wrote: <SNIP>

OT Alert:

Airavat sahab, please to suggest comprehensive books on Indian history.

The two that have been suggested here are one by Sarvarkar and other by Majumdar. Your opinion please?

Thanks.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 11 Aug 2011 11:40

>>Rising oil prices have in every case damaged Western economies.

A very large proportion of rising oil prices at the pump acrue to the local government and companies. These petrodollars are then recycled in the local economies.

The thing to note is that rising energy prices thus enrich energy and finance companies. Firms that make goods and services are certainly hurt. Overall, the financial oligarchies get stronger.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 11 Aug 2011 12:00

abhischekcc wrote:>>Rising oil prices have in every case damaged Western economies.

A very large proportion of rising oil prices at the pump acrue to the local government and companies. These petrodollars are then recycled in the local economies.

The thing to note is that rising energy prices thus enrich energy and finance companies. Firms that make goods and services are certainly hurt. Overall, the financial oligarchies get stronger.

Abischek, you live in the US; you know how politically sensitive the price of gasoline is in that country, and the correlation between low energy prices and high growth. Presidents in power during historically low oil prices tended to be remembered exceptionally kindly because of the effect on growth - Reagan and Clinton for example. Others like Ford, Carter and both Bushes not so much.

Energy security and support for Israel have been opposing rather than complimentary pillars of US Mid-East Policy since the 1970s. For largely domestic ideological reasons support for Israeli security took precedence over energy security in the Bush years.

Anyway this is OT for this thread.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 11 Aug 2011 12:07

>>Energy security and support for Israel have been opposing rather than complimentary pillars of US Mid-East Policy since the 1970s.

My last OT comment on this.
Energy security and support for Israel are sometimes opposite and sometimes complimentary. When they coincide, big transformations are possible. When they oppose, stalemate is usually what happens.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Aug 2011 16:03

Just for the record again,recent revelations show that Paki forces were also used aaprt from CIA/western covert forces,to destabilise the then Afghan govt.,leading to it to "invite" the Soviet forces.It was knowldge of these covert ops aginst the Afghan govt. that made Mrs.G. never criticise the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan openly.If she did,it was discreet.

Now news that the secret US-Taliban talks to work out a deal for the future of that country has gone kaput! How asinine of the US to imagine that they could also hunt the Talibs down with extreme prejuudice and yet expect to work out a peace deal with them! They've learnt nothing from their logest ever war and will one day walk or run from that country with their tails between their legs.The sad ,secret welcome that the Seal 6 team recd. when they returned home in coffins,with the pres. Obama a lonely mourner,in stark contrast to the manner in which the British dead are received in Wooton Basset,with the public paying homage,is a sickening reflection of the soul of the US administration/establishment which seems embarrassed to acknowledge their sacrifice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... leaks.html

Secret peace talks between US and Taliban collapse over leaks
Secret exploratory peace talks between the United States and the Taliban leadership have broken down after details of the negotiations were leaked, Western diplomats have told The Daily Telegraph.

Xcpts:

By Dean Nelson, Ben Farmer in Kabul
10 Aug 2011
The breakdown in the talks at such an early stage has led to recriminations and claims that the details of the meetings and the identity of the Taliban's chief negotiator were deliberately leaked by 'paranoid' Afghan government figures.

Absolute confidentiality had been a key condition for the meetings which were held in Germany and Qatar earlier this year between Tayeb Agha, Taliban leader Mullah Omar's former private secretary, and senior officials from the US State Department and Central Intelligence Agency. The meetings were chaired by Michael Steiner, Germany's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The talks were described as a preliminary exercise aimed at agreeing a series of confidence-building measures to persuade the Taliban that the United States and its allies are serious about a negotiated settlement, sources close to the talks told The Daily Telegraph.

They said Taliban leaders were extremely nervous about entering talks because of widespread scepticism among their own commanders who believed the Americans were only seeking dialogue to divide their movement and fears that any discussions would damage their own credibility.

But after only three sessions details of two meetings in Germany and one in Qatar – held in March and April - were leaked to the Washington Post and Der Spiegel news magazine which named Tayeb Agha as the key Taliban negotiator.

According to diplomatic sources and others close to the talks, Tayeb Agha has not been seen since and American officials have not been able to contact him through intermediaries in Quetta and Peshawar in Pakistan, where he is believed to live.

"The talks were a big deal, the real thing. I hope people will learn the lesson on the importance of confidentiality in the early stages. People in the US are horrified about what has happened," said one source close to the talks.

Sources in Kabul confirmed the talks appeared to have been "blown out of the water" by the publicity.

After years of the Taliban rejecting Hamid Karzai's overtures, news of contact with a senior aide to Mullah Omar had kindled cautious hope in Kabul.

Abdul Hakim Mujahid, the Taliban's former envoy to the United Nations and now a member of Mr Karzai's High Peace Council, told the Daily Telegraph in June that the contacts were "helpful".

He said: "[Tayeb Agha] is still very close to Mullah Mohammad Omar, it's a good sign. Not only close to Mullah Omar, but also close to Pakistan."

American officials had understood the need for complete confidentiality but decided President Hamid Karzai's government had to be kept informed of developments.

Michael Semple, the former deputy European Union representative in Kabul and a leading expert on Taliban thinking, said the disclosure of the talks and the identification of Tayeb Agha was regarded as damaging by the insurgents.

"The Taliban have long claimed that they will drive the foreigners out by force before contemplating talks. They need a period of confidential contact to satisfy themselves that there is something serious on offer to warrant them taking the big step of acknowledging that negotiations have to start now and not after things have been settled on the battlefield," he said.

"When the fact that talks had taken place and the identity of the Taliban envoy were leaked the Taliban shifted into their version of damage control. The leadership put it about that the contacts were nothing out of the ordinary. They were just routine discussions about prisoner releases, which a movement at war has to undertake periodically.

"It is hardly surprising that the Taliban chose to downplay the significance of Tayyab Agha's mission. In terms of progress towards negotiations which might end the war, it has proved a case of one step forward and two steps back," he added.

Here is a link to who this jerk is.Dig the Paki connection.

http://www.afghan-bios.info/index.php?o ... 9&Itemid=2

Xcpt:

Tayyab Agha is a man said to be the direct representative of Taliban leader Mullah Omar in a report by German newsmagazine "Der Spiegel" that describes recent negotiations in Germany between Agha and U.S. diplomats. So far the Taliban leadership has made no statements about Agha's role or his mandate as a negotiator. And this, along with the fact that Mullah Omar himself remains a fugitive, raises questions about his credibility as a representative. Asked about Agha's role in the current Afghan Taliban organization thought to be based in Quetta, Pakistan, Afghan journalist Sami Yusufzai says: "I don't think that he has any major role in the Quetta Shura Taliban. His name does not come up when people talk about the mainstream Taliban council, but he does seem to have some role in the Taliban's political wing, which they established recently." Afghan analyst Waheed Muzhdah says that even if the man is the real Tayyab Agha, his credibility as a negotiator will be undermined by the Taliban's refusal to publicly acknowledge his role. So far, says Muzdah, the Taliban refuses to endorse such talks.(20110500)

The unanswered question is how much of the Quetta Shura leadership Tayyab Agha can deliver to a negotiating table. Still being in contact with Mullah Omar is not the same as speaking for him. "It's still not clear that this is the route," a European official said.(20110620). The family of Tayyab Agha is still living in Pakistan and may be a "hostage" to prevent Tayyab Agha to act against Pakistan's plans for future Afghanistan.(20110720)

Tayyab Agha mediating with the Americans has reportedly gone missing, frustrating US attempts to hold another round of talks to settle the negotiating parameters for the decade-old conflict in Afghanistan, officials have said.(20110808) An Afghan leader familiar with the negotiation process said that the US has made frantic efforts to contact Agha for further talks, but there has been no success so far. "Agha has not yet been traced and is believed to have gone either to Qatar or the United Arab Emirates," he added. The same source said that Agha was annoyed at the disclosure of the secret talks to the media by Karzai and Gates, as the negotiators reportedly want to keep the matter secret.

Tayyab Agha is fluent in English, Arabic, Dari, Pashtu, Urdu and comfortable on a computer.
Last Modified 2011-08-08

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 11 Aug 2011 16:04

US begging for reconciliation?
Diplomats’ movement: US pushes Pakistan to ease restrictions

ISLAMABAD: The United States has launched fresh efforts to convince Pakistan’s security establishment to ease travel restrictions on its diplomats and review a decision of expelling American military trainers in the aftermath of the Abbottabad raid.

US Ambassador Cameron Munter met Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani on Tuesday at the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi. Both sides confirmed the meeting but would not divulge details.

“Those were private discussions and I am not in a position to comment on it,” said US Embassy spokesperson Alberto Rodriguez.

However, a Pakistani military official told The Express Tribune that the two “must have discussed the ongoing tension between the two countries.”

Some TV channels reported that the US envoy sought Gen Kayani’s intervention to lift restrictions imposed on the movement of US diplomats.

Pakistan recently started implementing new measures that restricted the movement of foreign diplomats and non-diplomats in the country.

The US ambassador was stopped briefly at the Islamabad airport by officials a few days back for not having a travel permit that he was supposed to have from the foreign office. The ambassador was, however, allowed to continue with his travel to Karachi.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Aug 2011 16:11

Hope they make the TOp echelons in the US beg and Humliate them. SO that deep resentment is built up throught he US system against them

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 11 Aug 2011 17:18

rohitvats wrote:OT Alert:

Airavat sahab, please to suggest comprehensive books on Indian history.

The two that have been suggested here are one by Sarvarkar and other by Majumdar. Your opinion please?

Thanks.

To add to these I'd say Jadunath Sarkar. He was unique in paying attention to military history. on Google books you can go through Fall of the Mughal Empire in four volumes.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Aug 2011 21:35

SSridhar,
Can you upload your presentation on Abdr Rehman to Taliban in slideshare or scribd and post the link for forum education?

Thanks, ramana

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Aug 2011 23:38

Airavat wrote:
rohitvats wrote:OT Alert:

Airavat sahab, please to suggest comprehensive books on Indian history.

The two that have been suggested here are one by Sarvarkar and other by Majumdar. Your opinion please?

Thanks.
To add to these I'd say Jadunath Sarkar. He was unique in paying attention to military history. on Google books you can go through Fall of the Mughal Empire in four volumes.

Thank you. Just downloaded and printed the book by Savarkar.

To be honest, I've never been through such a rendition of Indian History...Oh! what all I have missed.

subodh · Post by **subodh** » 11 Aug 2011 23:40

Somebody was wondering re the SEAL episode, why there was no follow up reporting about the Rangers they were supposedly sent in to rescue.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -a-rescue/

There were no Rangers involved. That was just made up.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 12 Aug 2011 01:12

subodh wrote:Somebody was wondering re the SEAL episode, why there was no follow up reporting about the Rangers they were supposedly sent in to rescue.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -a-rescue/

There were no Rangers involved. That was just made up.

I am not sure that is what the report says. The report below basically says SEALs were being sent as reinforcements for the Ranger team already in Wardak. However the report does say it was not a "rescue" mission as claimed earlier.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/mission- ... 811?page=1

The military initially said that the troops -- including 22 Navy SEALs -- who died on Saturday were on their way to rescue a contingent of Army Rangers who were pinned down by insurgents, only to drop that account on Wednesday. Now officials say the troops were sent to apprehend fleeing militants, a far lower-level mission that could have been carried out by smaller numbers of conventional forces. The Rangers had been sent to Wardak Province, a violent and sparsely-populated region of the country, in pursuit of a local Taliban commander thought to control a small network of local fighters.

The target escaped, and an array of current and retired Special Operations personnel believe the wanted militant was simply not a significant-enough Taliban leader to justify risking the lives of so many highly trained forces.

A former SEAL commander with extensive recent combat experience said he didn't know who the Taliban leader was, but there was no way he was worth losing 38 men.