Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 08 Sep 2011 02:03

Saudi prince: U.S. missed chance for Afghan withdrawal

*

By Andrew Quinn

WASHINGTON | Wed Sep 7, 2011 12:25pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States should have used the killing of Osama bin Laden to declare victory and quickly withdraw from Afghanistan and now faces an increasingly nationalist uprising in the country, a senior Saudi prince said on Wednesday.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to Britain and the United States, said the Obama administration had not been given enough credit for removing the al Qaeda leader, who was shot dead by U.S. special forces in Pakistan on May 1.

"The killing of bin Laden has not gotten the accolades that it deserves, not just throughout the world but even in this country," al-Faisal said at a conference on terrorism held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank.

"Killing bin Laden would have been the perfect moment when your president can say we've done it ... this is the timetable that we've set for withdrawal of troops and goodbye and good luck. But it hasn't happened that way."

As Saudi intelligence chief, al-Faisal monitored bin Laden in the 1980s seeking to support his efforts to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan but said he had no contact with him in the years leading up to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

U.S. President Barack Obama has pledged to press ahead with the decade-long conflict in Afghanistan under a timetable that would see 10,000 U.S. troops withdrawn by the end of the year and another 23,000 by the end of next summer.

The remaining 66,000 U.S. troops would be slowly withdrawn until a final transition to Afghan security control in 2014.

Some Republicans and Democrats in Congress have voiced hopes for a speedier withdrawal at a time when annual U.S. budget deficits have hit $1.4 trillion, and the $14.3 trillion U.S. national debt is leading to demands to sharply cut government spending.

'PERFECT MOMENT'

Al-Faisal said Obama should have used bin Laden's death to announce an immediate military withdrawal.

"I don't mean withdrawing your embassy, your economic aid or your other support, but having troops on the ground in Afghanistan has never succeeded," he said.

"I'm afraid America will come to a time -- whether it is next year or the year after or the year after -- when it will inevitably have to withdraw, and this would have been the perfect moment to leave with a victory and not to go on and sort of continue in this endless (conflict)."

Al-Faisal, who over his career has had extensive contacts with a range of Afghan political factions, said it was clear the conflict no longer just involved the Islamist Taliban and its supporters in Pashtun tribal areas.

"The Afghan people will not accept foreign troops ... They are going to fight them," he said. "It's not just Pashtuns who are fighting back against Americans, now it is gaining a nationwide complexion."

Asked if U.S. efforts to move toward political talks with the Taliban led by Mullah Omar would bear fruit, al-Faisal said the time for that may have already passed.

"I think now frankly Mullah Omar is extraneous," al-Faisal said. "All the information that we see is that he is probably somewhere in Pakistan, not even in Afghanistan, and it is becoming more of a nationalist resistance movement to the presence of foreign troops. So Mullah Omar will be one of many ... who are conducting the resistance."

The Saudi's have spoken on whatthey think of AfPak

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Sep 2011 08:45

The new Mullah Omar?

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 08 Sep 2011 11:23

ABV's decision not to cross the LOC put paid to the joint plans of US/China to create a crisis between India and Pakistan (using the latter), and subsequently to denuke India by piling on pressure in the UN, etc.

It was the resounding success of the Indian Army in the Kargil war that convinced the Americans that war would not cow India down, and that became the foundation of Clinton 'opening' up to India. He thought what he could not get through diplomatic pressure, economic sannctions, and a near nuclear war, he could get through his considerable charms.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Sep 2011 14:03

Gentlemen,

Pardon me, if I sound a bit stupid, but how was India ever going to get 'trapped' (whatever that means) in POK and in this crisis?

Let me elaborate - The immediate objective was to remove the intruders from the positions overlooking the NH-1A and restore the sanctity of LOC. Now, there were two ways of doing this - (a) India goes across the LoC bypassing the positions on ridges and mountains and attacks the supporting bases inside POK - but within couple of miles of LoC. This would have basically left the intruders on top w/o any back-up. They could have either starved to death or come down and surrender. (b) to do what the IA actually did.

Now, doing (a) would have meant that TSPA would have entered the fray 'openly' and it would not be linear game thence. There would have been series of attacks and counter-attacks - from India to gain the advantage and from PA to deny the objectives and gain advantages on its own. Now, in the hindsight we can say that what India did was right choice - it forced PA to stick to the mujahideen facade and it could not support the positions to the extent it could or wanted to do. Had India gone for option (b), that would not have been the case. In that case, IA would have required more resources in terms of men and material.

In all this, Indian plan to take POK proper - and that too, territories in Northern Areas (NA) opposite Dras in South to Turtok in North, would have been a non-starter. And there are two important reasons for this - both feeding into each other. (1) First, PA was at full alert - after all, they initiated the hostilities (b) Localization of conflict.

Firtstly, given the terrain and with PA at full alert, any Indian effort in this arena would have required massive investment in terms of men and material. And more importantly, there is the time factor. In an analysis done by Ravi Rikhye in one of his books, he was of the opinion that IA will need a months time to take Skardu and Gilgit and other territories in NA. On top of it, PA would have reinforced the sector with additional troops.

Secondly, w/o India widening the conflict like 1965, the dice would have been loaded in PA's favor. They could have really re-inforced the sector w/o fear of IA threatening them elsewhere and we would have had a slugfest. Remember, this was in 1999 and PA was in bad shape. They would not have wanted to confront India in the plains. I'm sure, Indian Generals were smart enough to figure this out.

In all this, if one observes the deployment pattern of IA, IMO, IA was prepared for limited assault across LoC on the lines of Options (a), should the Option (b) not work out. IA had moved 6th Mountain Division from Bareilly (this is AHQ reserve) to Gulmarg-Sonamarg Area with one brigade moved north of Zoji-la for offensive actions in Kargil sector (Kargil used in general sense). 6 MD (along with 19 ID already on LoC in Baramulla) in Gulmarg/Sonamarg area could have been used to threaten Azad Kasmir. Similarly, 39th Mountain Division had been disengaged from CI Ops and moved under 16 Corps for offensive actions, if required. 23, 27 and 57 Mountain Divisions had been moved in from NE to western sector.

With-out going all out against PA in other areas, and thus, ensuring that PA cannot re-inforce this sector, there was no way IA could have taken POK/Northern Areas. I don't think at any point in time, IA ever contemplated the taking POK during this scenario.

Fidel Guevara · Post by **Fidel Guevara** » 10 Sep 2011 05:40

With all the hoopla about the upcoming 10th anniversary of 9/11, I just wanted to commemorate the actual 10th anniversary of the one man who might have made all the difference - Ahmed Shah Massoud, AKA the Lion of Panjshir, killed by Al Qaida suicide bombers on 9 Sept 2001. With his credibility, charisma, and battle experience, he would have been a far better leader than that lapdog Karzai, and the Af-Pak region might well have been quite different today, with Massoud in charge.

Posting just a few excerpts from his wiki bio here:

A devout Sunni Muslim reportedly also always carrying a book of Sufi mystic Ghazali with him, he strongly rejected the interpretations of Islam followed by the Taliban, Al Qaeda or the Saudi establishment.[1] His followers not only saw him as a military commander but also as a spiritual leader.

The date of his death, September 9, is observed as a national holiday known as "Massoud Day" in Afghanistan.[3] The year following his assassination, in 2002, Massoud was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

...he attended the Lycée Esteqlal and obtained his Baccalaureate. Since his childhood, he was considered exceedingly talented; from 10th grade on, his school acknowledged him as a particularly gifted student. He knew many languages including Persian, Pashtu, Urdu, Hindi and French. He also had a good working knowledge of Arabic and English.

Following the 1979 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by Soviet troops, Massoud devised a strategic plan for expelling the invaders and overthrowing the communist regime. The first task was to establish a resistance force which had the hearts and minds of the people. The second phase was one of "active defense" of the Panjshir stronghold, while carrying out asymmetric warfare.

From the start of the war, Massoud's mujahideen proved to be a thorn in the side for the occupying Soviet forces by ambushing Soviet and Afghan communist convoys travelling through the Salang Pass, resulting in fuel shortages in Kabul.[10] The Soviets mounted a series of offensives against the Panjshir. Between 1980 and 1985, these offensives were conducted twice a year. Yet, despite engaging more men and hardware on each occasion, the Soviets were unable to defeat Massoud's forces. In 1982, the Soviets began deploying major combat units in the Panjshir numbering up to 30,000 men. Massoud pulled his troops back into subsidiary valleys, where they occupied fortified positions. When the Soviet columns advanced onto these positions, they fell into ambushes. When the Soviets withdrew, they handed over their positions to Afghan army garrisons, and Massoud and his mujahideen forces attacked and recaptured them one by one.

The United States provided Massoud with close to no support. Part of the reason was that it permitted its funding and arms distribution to be administered by Pakistan, which favored rival mujahideen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In an interview Massoud expressed: "We thought the CIA knew everything. But they didn't. They supported some bad people [meaning Hekmatyar]."

Abdul Rashid Dostum and his Junbish-i Milli militia backed by Uzbekistan joined an alliance with Hekmatyar in early 1994.[26] An estimated 25,000 people died during the most intense period of bombardment by Hekmatyar's Hezb-i Islami, the Junbish-i Milli forces of Abdul Rashid Dostum and the Hezb-e Wahdat of Abdul Ali Mazari in early 1994.[31] Atrocities were committed by individuals of different armed factions while Kabul descended into lawlessness and chaos as described in reports by Human Rights Watch and the Afghanistan Justice Project.[24][31] The militias who fought against the Islamic State and Massoud were known for their systematic brutality. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar released 10,000 dangerous criminals from the main prisons into the streets of Kabul to destabilize the city. Hekmatyar also cut off Kabul from water, food and energy supplies. The Iran-controlled Wahdat of Abdul Ali Mazari [as well as the Ittihad of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf supported by Saudi Arabia] targeted civilians of the 'opposite side' in systematic atrocities. Abdul Rashid Dostum allowed crimes as a perceived payment for his troops. For civilians there was little security from murder, rape and extortion.[32] The Taliban (who attacked Kabul in early 1995) in later years would commit massacres against civilians compared by United Nations observers to those that happened during the War in Bosnia.[33][34]

Ahmad Shah Massoud did not order any crimes.[31] The Afghanistan Justice Project which is frequently used by Human Rights Watch as source concludes:

"[T]here is no indication that senior Shura-e Nazar leaders [including Massoud] ordered abuses."[31]
—Afghanistan Justice Project

The Taliban's early victories in 1994 were followed by a series of defeats that resulted in heavy losses.[32] Pakistan provided strong support to the Taliban.[26][40] On September 26, 1996, as the Taliban with military support by Pakistan and financial support by Saudi Arabia prepared for another major offensive, Massoud ordered a full retreat from Kabul.[41] The Taliban seized Kabul on September 27, 1996, and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Massoud and his troops retreated to the northeast of Afghanistan.

In 1998, Ahmad Shah Massoud remained the only main leader of the United Front in Afghanistan and the only leader who was able to defend vast parts of his area against the Taliban. Most major leaders including the Islamic State's President Burhanuddin Rabbani, Abdul Rashid Dostum, and others were living in exile. The Taliban repeatedly offered Massoud a position of power to make him stop his resistance. Massoud declined. He explained in one interview:

"The Taliban say: 'Come and accept the post of prime minister and be with us', and they would keep the highest office in the country, the presidentship. But for what price?! The difference between us concerns mainly our way of thinking about the very principles of the society and the state. We can not accept their conditions of compromise, or else we would have to give up the principles of modern democracy. We are fundamentally against the system called 'the Emirate of Afghanistan'."[53]
—Ahmad Shah Massoud, 2001

"There should be an Afghanistan where every Afghan finds himself or herself happy. And I think that can only be assured by democracy based on consensus."[54]
—Ahmad Shah Massoud, 2001

Massoud also signed the Women's Rights Declaration. In the area of Massoud, women and girls did not have to wear the Afghan burqa by law. They were allowed to work and to go to school. Although it was a time of war, girl schools were operating in some districts. In at least two known instances, Massoud personally intervened against cases of forced marriage in favour of the women to make their own choice.[1] To Massoud there was reportedly nothing worse than treating a person like an object.

While it was Massoud's stated personal conviction that men and women are equal and should enjoy the same rights, he also had to deal with Afghan traditions which he said would need a generation or more to overcome. In his opinion that could only be achieved through education.

Jean-José Puig describes how Massoud often led prayers before a meal or at times asked his fellow Muslims to lead the prayer but also did not hesitate to ask the Jewish Princeton Professor Michael Barry or his Christian friend Jean-José Puig: "Jean-José, we believe in the same God. Please, tell us the prayer before lunch or dinner in your own language."

"The CIA officers admired Massoud greatly. They saw him as a Che Guevara figure, a great actor on history's stage. Massoud was a poet, a military genius, a religious man, and a leader of enormous courage who defied death and accepted its inevitability, they thought.... In his house there were thousands of books: Persian poetry, histories of the Afghan war in multiple languages, biographies of other military and guerilla leaders. In their meetings Massoud wove sophisticated, measured references to Afghan history and global politics into his arguments. He was quiet, forceful, reserved, and full of dignity, but also light in spirit. The CIA team had gone into the Panshjir as unabashed admirers of Massoud. Now their convictions deepened...."

These are just a few excerpts. If you haven't read his biography, I would strongly recommend reading it...very admirable military leader.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Sep 2011 07:56

Al-Qaeda loses its "renaissance man"

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 11 Sep 2011 13:25

Post-9/11, US sought India's military help for Afghan ops

Josy JosephJosy Joseph, TNN | Sep 11, 2011, 01.30AM IST

NEW DELHI: Days after the 9/11 attacks in the US 10 years ago, the American administration had sent its Pacific Command chief to New Delhi with three specific military demands - direct assistance to its navy and air force and presence of Indian troops in Afghanistan. The requests were rejected after Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee overruled a divided cabinet committee on security, one of the stakeholders disclosed to TOI a decade after India took the decisive turn and refused to join the military operations in Afghanistan.

The key source involved in decision making in India's security apparatus, Admiral Dennis Blair, then head of the US Pacific Command, was dispatched to New Delhi to present the US demands. The demands were fleet support for US military ships in Mumbai and Goa, 'stage-through' facility at Indian Air Force bases for US long range bombers and Indian ground troops in Afghanistan.

The demands were placed in the last week of November 2001 when Admiral Dennis Blair visited New Delhi and met the government top brass, including then defence minister George Fernandes, then national security advisor Brajesh Mishra and Admiral Sushil Kumar, then Naval chief and chairman of Chiefs of Staff Committee.

Blair's demands came after the US and the UK had started their war against terror in Afghanistan on October 7 to overthrow the Taliban regime that had refused to stop providing sanctuary to al Qaeda. Though Kabul had by then fallen, the decisive part of the war had only begun. Ten years on, the US operations in Afghanistan are still on.

The source said the three demands of Admiral Blair were placed before the cabinet committee on security chaired by PM Vajpayee, and attended by then home minister L K Advani, Fernandes, external affairs minister Jaswant Singh, Mishra and military chiefs.

The meeting saw at least two members of the CCS making "vigorous pitch" for accepting the three US demands. "They cited the global war on terror and wanted us to join without any conditions," the source said.

As the debate heated up, Vajpayee said, "Let's listen to our military chiefs" and turned to the three service chiefs. Admiral Kumar as the chairman of Chiefs of Staff Committee took the opportunity to air the views of the three service chiefs and put forth the Force's opposition to US proposals. The counter argument was that US and its allies operations in Afghanistan did not enjoy UN mandate and also India had not declared war on Afghanistan.

The UN Security Council would approve the setting up of the International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan only on December 20 - almost a month after the NDA-led government debated the US request for military assistance.

"Yeh toh bilkul baath hai," Vajpayee had said in his characteristic style, putting an end to what would have been a historic turn in India's military conduct.

Admiral Blair had dropped enough hint of his mission, saying the US was looking forward to building an unprecedented "non-traditional and unconventional" military-to-military ties with India.

Though there has been speculation through the decade about the exact nature of US demands, the specifics remained a closely-guarded secret.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 12 Sep 2011 02:22

Kyrgyz def min on a visit to Delhi for 3 days. Lots of action in Central Asia by India.

Tajik airbase status could be decided next year: Report

IAF Russia Airbase
Posted On: Sep 04, 2011

The Indian Air Force could deploy its MiG-29 fighters and Mi-17 helicopters at the Ayni airbase in Tajikistan.
MOSCOW (PTI): Russia, Tajikistan and India are expected to finalise next year the status and plans for joint use of the Tajik airbase Ayni, which New Delhi modernised at a reported cost of USD 70 million, a media report said here.

India had completed the reconstruction and modernisation of the abandoned Soviet-era airbase, near the Tajik capital Dushanbe in September 2010 and there had been speculations about deployment of a squadron of Indian Air Force's MiG-29 fighters and Mi-17 helicopters.

"The decision on Ayni will be found next year, when Tajikistan, Russia and India are expected to hold negotiations on the status of this object and work out the plan for its joint use. In this case Ayni will not be a purely Russian base," Kommersant business daily reported quoting an 'informed' source.

Commenting on Friday’s talks in Dushanbe between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his Tajik counterpart Emomali Rahmon, who agreed to close a deal early next year on extending the Russian 201st military base's lease for 49 years, the news daily reported that Ayni airbase will not be part of this Russian-Tajik military pact.

Back in December 2005, the Russian Vice Premier and the then Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov after talks with the then National Security Advisor M K Narayanan had declared that Russia and India will share the Ayni base at which Russia will deploy its fighters and helicopter gunships.

According to another source quoted by Kommersant, Tajikistan was asking USD 300 million for the lease of Ayni airbase to Russia, which Moscow is not willing to pay.

However, quoting Foreign Ministry sources, the daily said Moscow was in a hurry to decide the status of Ayni before “others claim a stake.”

There had been various reports about the US and France seeking this base in the close proximity of northern Afghanistan, an anti-Taliban stronghold, after NATO pullout from the volatile Afghanistan, although Washington had denied such plans.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Sep 2011 03:26

Shyamd, That report of US demands for Indis to particiapte in Afghan war are post dated ones. India offered right after 911 to give the very same things the US demanded of them later. However in order to placate TSP an its murderous military the US sidelined the Indian offer and chose to suck up to TSP. We see the results now ten years later.

if US had accepted Indian hep then SP would never be the problem it is now to itself nor the world. However US at that time had different ideas. They worried India would emerge the unchallenged power in sub-continent and thus upset US supreme interests of preventing any unchallenged regional powers.

After fall of Kabul and ousting the Taliban inviting India to Kabul is to make India part of the clean up operation and the target of jihadi fever and anger. They do the damage and India bears the brunt of it as a favor to the US!

Wonder who those two worthies in the NDA were: JS and GF?

sukhish · Post by **sukhish** » 12 Sep 2011 05:36

ramana,
yes US trys to get help on its own terms, but in the back of their mind they know the real danger is from the developing countries like India who in future rival that of the U.S. U.S knows Pakistan can never even remotely compete with the U.S.
that's exactly the reason why they have not broken their ties with pakistan even after they found OBL. India is in the back of their mind, no matter how you look at it. but they have a problem at hand now, their economy is not doing good and it's never going to grow as strong as that of India and pakistan is no friend of them. they can't keep pouring the same amount of money in pakistan as they use to ( because they don't much to spend on ). they will have to tailor down their military ambition, that's the only thing left of them. India must concentrate on it's economy and check corruption, which India is doing at a steady pace. the only thing constant in this world is change !!!!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 12 Sep 2011 06:27

Ramana, most certainly the US wanted (and continues to want) to keep India under check, having learnt from the unbridled support they gave to PRC early on after the resurrection of friendship with them in the 70s leading to the predicament they are in today vis-a-vis that country. They are never going to repeat that mistake.

But, I also sense another reason for Dennis Blair's visit to India. You are right about India offering help immediately, before TSP was forced by the US. Anybody in US position would prefer TSP over India for the operations for reasons of logistics, contiguity etc. However, a month later Dennis Blair requests India for support (I don't like the word 'demand'. The US could not have 'demanded' anything from India unlike TSP). The reason could have been due to their mistrust of TSP. By this time, ISI Chief's perfidy of wiring funds to Mohammed Atta were leaking and his double-cross while being sent to negotiate with Mullah Omar were known. The US wanted a hedge,perhaps and India was the next best bet.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Sep 2011 07:07

Be that as it may be, however it would have led to india being the bag holder like Gungadin again and be the butt of the jihad with TSP still intact. So they did the right thing in refusing.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 12 Sep 2011 21:57

Ramana ji, we are still trying to get into Af-Pak but on our own terms. I think we don't want to be seen as being lumped in with NATO/west banner. We tried unsuccessfully in 2008. Please see my post when time permits: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1158345

This plan is still doing the rounds and strategists view it as a game changer.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 12 Sep 2011 22:24

From Tribune (posting in full).
US backs opening Taliban office in Qatar: Report

By AFP - Published: September 12, 2011

The move is designed to allow the West to begin formal peace talks with the Taliban, Western diplomats told the paper. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
LONDON: The United States has endorsed plans for the Taliban to open political headquarters in the Gulf state of Qatar by the end of the year, British newspaper The Times reported on Monday.
The move is designed to allow the West to begin formal peace talks with the Taliban, Western diplomats told the paper.

The office of the self-styled Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan would be the first internationally recognised representation for the Taliban since it was ousted from power by the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

Western diplomats told The Times it was hoped that opening a Taliban office in Qatar would push forward the prospect of talks intended to reconcile insurgents with the Afghan government and bring an end to the decade-long war.

Washington is believed to have insisted that the office be located “outside Pakistan’s sphere of influence”, the report said.

“It will be an address where they have a political office,” one Western diplomatic source, who was not named, told The Times.

“It will not be an embassy or a consulate but a residence where they can be treated like a political party.”

The diplomat stressed that the Taliban would not be allowed to use the office in the Qatari capital, Doha, to raise funds.

The Times reported that the Taliban was seeking assurances that its representatives would be free from the threat of harassment or arrest.

Britain, which has the second largest contingent of troops in Afghanistan, declined to say whether it supported the creation of a Taliban office in Qatar. “This is a matter for the United States,” a Foreign Office spokeswoman said.

The US ambassador to Kabul said last week that the Taliban must feel “more pain” from increased military pressure before progress can be made in peace talks.

“The Taliban needs to feel more pain before you get to a real readiness to reconcile,” Ryan Crocker said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.

kumarn · Post by **kumarn** » 12 Sep 2011 23:17

shyamd wrote:Ramana ji, we are still trying to get into Af-Pak but on our own terms. I think we don't want to be seen as being lumped in with NATO/west banner. We tried unsuccessfully in 2008. Please see my post when time permits: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1158345

This plan is still doing the rounds and strategists view it as a game changer.

I think we should take a leaf out of Deng's advise to the Chinese leaders and keep a low profile and bide for our time, while growing our sinews of national power. Without securing ourselves internally it could be a disaster to venture out into afghanistan.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Sep 2011 19:37

Nightwatch comments:

LINK

Afghanistan: Special comment: The details of the five-hour complex attack in Kabul have been reported all day. An extremely knowledgeable, well-informed and brilliant Reader provided feedback that most of the news coverage is factually wrong, but NightWatch will provide more details as its sources clarify them.

Particularly misleading among the media comments are those that posit that the Taliban sent a signal or that the attack is part of the propaganda struggle. Those comments trivialize the Taliban achievement of destroying the security bubble associated with the most sensitive Coalition buildings in Kabul.

The media comments are comparable to describing the 1968 Tet offensive in South Vietnam as a tactical failure. That statement is accurate, but it is simply irrelevant. The Tet offensive in South Vietnam won the political and psychological war. It was a strategic victory, enabled by the military sacrifices..

Three major Taliban attacks have taken place in Kabul this summer. To characterize them as part of a public relations contest or signal-sending is to miss the point entirely. One such attack is a perhaps good fortune. A second might have been a coincidence, but three is a strategic trend.

Violent instability is always centripetal - it seeks the center of power. The images of the Coalition and Afghan forces fighting to defend themselves in Kabul mean the insurgency has reached the center of power. The small casualty count only means that the Taliban cannot yet seize power in Kabul. But if the Coalition were winning, these attacks should never have taken place at all. Kabul of all places should be kept secure, if the lessons of Tet 1968 had been learned.

The attacks signify that the Taliban have crossed a strategic threshold. The Afghans know the Coalition cannot guarantee their protection because the Coalition cannot be confident of its ability to protect its own soldiers and complexes. It does no lasting good to keep Helmand Province secure for a while, but repeatedly suffer these kinds of attacks in Kabul.

Hope PC understands the meaning of terrorist attack in Delhi and the signal it sends people.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Sep 2011 08:01

The British trail to the Afghan jihad

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 16 Sep 2011 22:47

U.S. Now Relies On Alternate Afghan Supply Routes

It was against this background that military planners developed what came to be known as the Northern Distribution Network, a variety of routes from Europe across Central Asia, and into Afghanistan from the north. The routes all avoided transit through Pakistan.

The first pathway was across the Caucasus region and Central Asia, largely on rail lines. Routes were later added from Iraq through Turkey and then to the east. Routes originate in each of the major Baltic ports (Tallinn in Estonia, Riga in Latvia, and Klaipeda in Lithuania) and continue through Belarus. One new route begins in Vladivostok on Russia's Pacific coast and extends through Siberia.

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/16/140510790 ... ply-routes

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 16 Sep 2011 23:01

^^^ From this article:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MI17Ad01.html

A recent Chinese commentary attributed to an influential strategic thinker, Pan Guang, Director of the Shanghai Center for International Studies and Institute of European and Asian Studies and concurrently the Director of SCI Studies Centre in Shanghai suggested that China might be on the brink of using the Karakorum and the POK territory for developing communication links with Afghanistan. Pan claimed that the matter was under the active consideration of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization following discussions with Beijing.

Pan wrote in an article in China-US Focus titled ''China and US in Central Asia: Role of the SCO and Possibility of Cooperation in Afghanistan'':
''Even though China has not sent its troops to Afghanistan, the Chinese support for the allied forces in the country is widely observable.

''At present, the United States and NATO are considering three options for involving China in the logistic replenishment for Afghan actions. First, China is required to open the Wakhan Corridor on the Sino-Afghan border as a channel for providing logistic support for NATO troops. But the corridor, over 5,000 meters in altitude, has very challenging topography and climate, posing serious technical difficulties to any passage. Second, highways and railways in China are used for transporting goods into the Pakistani Part of Kashmir, to be further trans-shipped into Afghanistan. Third, Goods are to be shipped to Gwadar, the Pakistani port constructed and managed by the Chinese companies, before they are transported into Afghanistan on land. For the moment, the second option is being focused upon by the two parties in negotiation.''

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 17 Sep 2011 03:16

Tracing India's roots to Bamiyan

US likely to persuade Pakistan to abandon Iran gas pipeline project

During the two-day discussions, the two sides will discuss the possibility of US financing the Diamer Basha Dam.

The US had already agreed to finance part of the project despite Indian objections, which considered northern areas as disputed territory where the proposed dam is being built.

The US move will allow other international financial institutions to finance the mega project.

Naveed Qamar told the US envoy that Pakistan is looking forward to future projects and “the energy dialogue will help both countries to enhance their cooperation keeping in view the future electricity requirements”.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 18 Sep 2011 16:27

x-posted

ISLAMABAD: The ambassador of Tajikistan, Zubaidin Zubaidov, has told reporters that his country and Pakistan were ready to start work on the Dushanbe-Chitral highway.

Speaking to the media at the embassy here, he rejected some demands that the road should be built through the Ghizer district of Gilgit-Baltistan.

He said from Tajikistan’s border to Chitral’s Boroghil valley, the distance was hardly 20 km while that to Ghizer it was around 400 km. He said for his government, the road through Chitral was the most suitable one.

He said both the countries were waiting for a go-ahead signal from the government of Afghanistan and as soon as Kabul gives approval to the project, work on the highway would be started.

The ambassador said that by building the highway, his country would get direct access to the Gwadar port.

Afghan government’s ‘go-ahead signal’ awaited on Chitral – Dushanbe road: Tajik envoy

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 20 Sep 2011 19:18

Breaking News:
Former Afgan Prez Burhanuddin Rabbani , who was heading peace council in Afg was killed in blast while he was holding Talks with Taliban. Venue Hote Intercontinental. Three others also killed. Details awaited.

mraghu · Post by **mraghu** » 20 Sep 2011 19:23

Timesnow reporting the same, Indicating it was a suicide bomber. 2 Men triggerred the blast were members of the Taliban.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Sep 2011 19:24

B Rabbani was part of the triumvirate trained by TSP: Hekmatyar, Rabbani and another in mid 70s. So he got his raisins from ISI for negotiating with good Taliban.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 20 Sep 2011 19:28

ISI/TSPA seem convinced that they are winning and are carrying out a "clean out the old" campaign. Rabbani was a Tajik but had street cred with the jihadi side. TSPA is wiping out any potential challenger.

mraghu · Post by **mraghu** » 20 Sep 2011 19:28

CNN-IBN: It seems these 2 guys were part of some delegation and were not checked at the security gates

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 20 Sep 2011 19:30

Note the similarity with the Ahmed Shah Masood killing. This has ISI fingerprints all over.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Sep 2011 19:30

So repeat of the Ahmed Shah Masood assassination.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 20 Sep 2011 19:38

I'm not making this up folks - see British Journalist Christina Lamb's tweet seconds ago

rabbani's killing & kabul attack last wk have ISI's fingerprints all over them US official tells me

Eerie...

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 20 Sep 2011 19:41

Rabbani's house is back to back with the US embassy.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 20 Sep 2011 19:41

ramana wrote:So repeat of the Ahmed Shah Masood assassination.

9/11 followed Masood's murder. I wonder what is up next.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Sep 2011 20:36

The killing of Rabani is clear signal signal to the northern alliance. Fall in line or pay the price.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Sep 2011 20:38

Not really. Its a signal to people not to negotiate with good Taliban without ISI participation.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Sep 2011 20:41

Standard ops - they are just ripping apart all of HK's "gang" and his trusted men. First it was the governors of each province - there was some reapproachment there. Then, all the hardcore clique or trusted individuals - Northern Police chief, Rabbani, AWKarzai etc. They are just picking them off one by one. Now the conversation has started as to who is next - this is exactly what the taliban want. They want everyone to be scared. ISI officials must be patting themselves on their backs on the number of high profile attacks they have executed so far successfully.

I wonder what will cause the US to go after TSP hard.... The US just had the bloodiest month in a while. These high profile assassinations. Now imagine whats going on in these afghan govt heads, can the US guarantee security for these guys taking on Afghan govt jobs? Unlikely.... US either has to step up its game and hit TSPA and Haqqani's, the ISI agents where it hurts hard or its game over for everyone. Now or never.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Sep 2011 20:45

This is truly shocking!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Sep 2011 20:47

Published on Sep 20, 2011

Powerful voice of peace silenced: India on Burhanudin Rabbani killing: PTI

Condemning the assassination of Chairman of the Afghan High Peace Council Burhanudin Rabbani, India Tuesday said tragically the forces of terror and hatred have silenced "another powerful voice of peace" there and reiterated its steadfast support to that country.

Expressing shock at the death of Rabbani, also former President of Afghanistan, External Affairs Minister SM Krishna "unreservedly" condemned the act of "great brutality."

"I fondly recall my meetings with him in Kabul and again in New Delhi last July when he had shared his vision of a harmonious and prosperous Afghanistan," he said in a statement here, hours after Rabbani was killed in a suicide bomb attack at his home close to the US Embassy in Kabul.

"Tragically, the forces of terror and hatred have silenced yet another powerful voice of reason and peace in Afghanistan. We unreservedly condemn this act of great brutality," the Minister said.

However, Krishna reiterated the steadfast support of the people and government of India in Afghanistan's "quest for peace and efforts to strengthen the roots of democracy".

He also offered his "deepest condolences" to the family of Rabbani and to the people of Afghanistan.

I believe Rabbani was in India a few weeks back!

The Afghans should start hunting down Paki suars!

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 20 Sep 2011 20:55

ramana wrote:Not really. Its a signal to people not to negotiate with good Taliban without ISI participation.

Actually, it is a campaign to eliminate anyone who *can* talk to the Taliban without ISI blessing. Note the similarity to the assassintions in J&K during the 2001-08 timeframe. Anyone who could claim credibility with the fundos but would not kowtow to TSPA/ISI was killed.

This is more than a message sending. This is TSPA's De-Nacht der langen Messer.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 20 Sep 2011 21:01

ramana wrote:Not really. Its a signal to people not to negotiate with good Taliban without ISI participation.

There was warning to TSP from Unkil about Haqani group.
This could be signal to Unkil not to over reach in TSP backyard.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Sep 2011 21:04

Rangudu wrote:This is more than a message sending. This is TSPA's De-Nacht der langen Messer.

This is indeed Die Nacht der langen Messer!

Zeit für ein Gegegzug!

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Sep 2011 21:37

ramana wrote:Not really. Its a signal to people not to negotiate with good Taliban without ISI participation.

That too, but will the northern alliance standby and let it slide. Or will they take the matters in their own hands considering how the talibs treated them the last time they were in Kabul. Moreover, if the killing is a message from the ISI. Will the US accept such a role for the TSP. Considering what happened the last time the TSP ran the show in Afghanistan.