India / Afghanistan - A New Strategic Relationship

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Oct 2011 01:37

You know all the $Ts that US lost in iraq and Afghanistan is interesting. From what we can tell it was paid to US asse(t)s: contractors, troop suppliers etc. Not much was spent in those countries. The money was not sticky unlike in other situations.

So where did it all go? Where all those hedge funds prior to 2008 shelters for this money and the crash took and cleaned up the bubble? Maybe the crash of 2008 was to clean out the parasites?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 09 Oct 2011 02:06

Question ,
Suppose IAF gets the permission to have base in Afghanistan. Flying from that side . How effective can MKI be in doing BFI to Poak missiles hidding in KP hills?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 09 Oct 2011 03:42

RamanaGaru,

I actually hope India is helping the Baluchis. And India can just do this silently.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 09 Oct 2011 04:27

India can train the Afghan Army, but how do you motivate the Pashtuns in the Afghan Army to put their hearts in the fight against Taliban who are their kinsmen from their villages? That is why the renegades in the Afghan Army and Police keep attacking and killing their US/ NATO allies.

It is only the non-Pashtuns who would be keen to fight the Taliban.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 09 Oct 2011 05:58

de-Islamizing the Pashtuns is a long term project. if they are guaranteed a Pashtunistan, it could happen. I'm not sure how the internal factions in Afghanistan would take this though. how would the Karzai faction react, presently and after him?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 09 Oct 2011 14:34

devesh wrote:de-Islamizing the Pashtuns is a long term project. if they are guaranteed a Pashtunistan, it could happen. I'm not sure how the internal factions in Afghanistan would take this though. how would the Karzai faction react, presently and after him?

De-islamizing is a very long term and probably an impractical goal. However, efforts should be made, IMO, to bring back the practice of the Pakhtunwali code among the tribes. During the 1979-1989 jihad, the attempt was not to superimpose the wahhabi/deobandi/salafi Shariat over the the traditional Pakhtunwali code. The code always took precedence over anything else. That was supplanted by this particularly very narrow interpretation of the Shariat when the Taliban were encouraged by Pakistan in 1994 to assume power. Since they mainly came from the Deobandi seminaries of KP FATA and Karachi, they imposed this pernicious code by duly eliminating jirga elders. The same tactic has been carried out in FATA as well after c. 2004 with devastating results of radicalization.

anmol · Post by **anmol** » 09 Oct 2011 14:36

German General Says NATO Mission Has 'Failed'

A top German general who was instrumental in planning the Bundeswehr's mission in Afghanistan has said that the intervention has failed and the Taliban will regain power within months of withdrawal. Ten years after the invasion, he is far from alone with his critique.

It was 10 years ago that the United States, together with its NATO allies, marched into Afghanistan to put an end to Taliban rule and begin the hunt for al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden. A decade later, the terrorist leader is dead. But, says Harald Kujat, former general inspector of the German military, the mission has been a failure.

"The mission fulfilled the political aim of showing solidarity with the United States," Kujat told the German daily Mitteldeutsche Zeitung. "But if you measure progress against the goal of stabilizing a country and a region, then the mission has failed."

Kujat said that it was ignored for too long that "the opponent was fighting a military battle and we needed to do the same." In reference to claims from German political leaders, among others, he said "the argument that it was a stabilization mission was maintained for too long." The result, he said, is that soldiers were not given what they needed in order to effectively fight the enemy.

Kujat is hardly the first to criticize the Afghanistan war. But his words carry weight in Germany. He was a leading planner of the German mission to Afghanistan and served as general inspector of the German military -- the Bundeswehr's highest-ranking soldier -- from 2000 to 2002. Part of his job included advising both the German government and the Defense Ministry on military matters.

Timeline for Withdrawal

The former Bundeswehr leader also took aim at Germany's plan to complete withdrawal of all of its 5,000 combat troops from Afghanistan by 2014, a timeline that was reiterated on Friday by Germany's special representative for Afghanistan, Michael Steiner.

"If we withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014," said Kujat, "then the Taliban will take over power again within just a few months."

Steiner declined to name a date for the beginning of Germany's withdrawal from Afghanistan, but the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel has said it aims at beginning the pullout by the end of 2011, conditions permitting. Steiner said that a plan would be presented by the end of the year.

The withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan was a major topic at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels on Thursday. NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark said that, even after 2014, the alliance would focus heavily on training the Afghan military.

Kujat isn't the only heavyweight critic of the Afghanistan mission to have spoken out in recent days. Speaking in Washington at an event organized by the think tank Council on Foreign Relations, Stanley McChrystal, who led the Afghanistan troop increase ordered by President Barack Obama in 2009, said that the US had a "frighteningly simplistic" view of Afghanistan when the war began. He also said that the US and NATO were only "50 percent of the way" toward achieving the goals they had set for themselves.

Pressuring Pakistan

"We didn't know enough and we still don't know enough," McChrystal said. "Most of us, me included, had a very superficial understanding of the situation and history, and we had a frighteningly simplistic view of recent history, the last 50 years."

Obama on Thursday, increased pressure on neighboring Pakistan, saying that the Islamabad regime's connections with "unsavory characters" had put the country's relationship with the US at risk. Washington has long been urging Pakistan to cease supporting Islamist militant attacks inside Afghanistan, an effort which has been redoubled in the wake of the US killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan this spring.

Pakistan fired back on Friday. Salim Saifullah, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Pakistan's Senate, told Reuters that "this is not helping either the US, Afghanistan or Pakistan. There will be pressure on the (Pakistani) government to get out of this war (on Islamist militancy)."

cgh -- with wire reports

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 09 Oct 2011 15:30

Kakkaji wrote:India can train the Afghan Army, but how do you motivate the Pashtuns in the Afghan Army to put their hearts in the fight against Taliban who are their kinsmen from their villages? That is why the renegades in the Afghan Army and Police keep attacking and killing their US/ NATO allies.

It is only the non-Pashtuns who would be keen to fight the Taliban.

India can increase the mix of non-Pashtuns. Another point to note is that not all Pasthuns are same. The mix can consists of those that are anti-Pak (Taliban). Attacking US/NATO is a different reason as they all resent US. At the ground level, US/NATO is running a brutal kill-machine on Afghans and hence the emotions are different.

member_19686 · Post by **member_19686** » 09 Oct 2011 17:45

You might have a better chance deIslamizing Nuristanis than Pakhtuns.

The latter were forcibly converted to Islam in Abdur Rahman's Jihad of 1895-96 after the Durand Line was established and the British looked on.

The Kalash Kafirs are the surviving remnants of this ancient group destroyed by Islam.

They were thoroughly Islamized within 2 generations and were one of the first groups to raise the banner of Jihad against USSR.

This site of Richard Strand gives more info:

As Afghâns encroached on the region, relations between them and the Nuristânis grew more hostile. From the Nuristânis' viewpoint, they were surrounded by hostile peoples, bent on converting them to Islâm through force. Numerous holy-war expeditions against the "Kâfirs" (including the unconverted Indo-Âryan-speaking peoples of the region) were mounted by regional Muslim rulers, including those of Timur-e Lang (Tamerlane) in 1398 A.D. (Frazer-Tytler 1967: 58), Bâbur in the early 1500's, Akbar in the late 1500's, and Jahângir in the early 1600's (Kakar 1971: 186-87). The Nuristânis' response to such intolerant hostility was hundreds of years of incessant murderous raids on the lowland Afghân population, in compliance with their custom of blood revenge.
At the end of the 19th Century A.D. pressure on the Nuristânis mounted as they became pawns in the imperialist "Great Game" between Great Britain, Russia, and the Afghân Âmir ("Commander") Abdur-Rahmân Khân. Many Nuristânis voluntarily submitted to Islâm and agreed to pay tribute to the Âmir in order to prevent war, but he required total submission and spurned their offers of peace (Kakar 1971: 181 ff.). After he and the British agreed on a boundary (the "Durand Line") beyond which neither would advance, he had license to annex the independent polities east of his current empire up to the line, including those of present-day Nuristân. He mounted campaigns up the Laghmân and Kunar Valleys in 1895, and succeeded in overcoming all the "Kâfirs" by the end of 1896 (Kakar 1971: 197-200).4 His troops destroyed and plundered most of the temples and religious idols, and they compelled the men to submit to circumcision as a sign of their submission to Allâh. Thousands of Nuristânis from Laghmân were deported to other provinces of the Âmir's empire and only later allowed to return, but in general the conquered Nuristânis were treated well. Many deportees were inducted into the army, establishing an enduring tradition of integrating Nuristânis into national life through governmental service. Governmental mullahs were sent to educate the new converts in the requirements of their new God, and after two generations the populace was thoroughly Islamized.

Pre-Islâmic Religion: Before their conversion to Islâm the Nuristânis practiced a form of ancient Hinduism, infused with accretions developed locally. They acknowledged a number of human-like deities who lived in the unseen Deity World (Kâmviri d'e lu; cf. Sanskrit deva lok'a-). Certain deities were revered only in one community or tribe, but one was universally revered as the Creator: the ancient Hindu god Yama Râja, called imr'o in Kâmviri. The deities guided peoples' destinies and could be influenced through sacrifice, prayer, and dance. Supplicants communicated with the deities through shamans, who would go into a trance after the area was purified with juniper smoke to invite the deities' presence. Such communication often resulted in the disclosure of a transgression of purity against a diety, who demanded a sacrifice of livestock in appeasement. Some details of the former religion, as practiced by the Vasi, appear here.

http://users.sedona.net/~strand/Nurista ... anis1.html

In August 2002 the Catalan born zoologist and anthropologist Jordi Magraner was killed by Jihadis who slit his throat and let him bleed to death. He was originally a zoologist, but he started pursuing the bizzare by searching for the yeti or the "hairy man" in Northern Pakistan. It was there that he became acquainted with the Kafirs where he lived and worked with them for years. The Pakistani newpapers considered his links with the Kafirs as "shady" connections for which he deserved death.

A friend of mine met a Kalash near Kandahar in 2009 when he was on tour as Infantry Soldier in US Army, the man revealed himself to be Kalash after he found out my buddy was Hindu. He said he was originally from Chitral area and was there for work and that the Muslims won't rest until they wiped out his community, they are just kept alive for tourist $ by Paki gov't.

So may be India has a better chance of winning over the relatively recently Islamized Nuristanis than the long converted Pakhtuns (who were predominantly Shaivas at the time of their forcible conversions not Buddhists, KC Srivastav wrote about pre-Islamic Afghanistan in Hindi).

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 09 Oct 2011 22:27

Folks:

Call me pessimistic, but all this talk about de-islamization etc. are pipe-dreams IMHO. Not going to happen. Islamists will kill all members of a tribe in their area before they let them de-islamize.

The way I see it this new India-Afg agreement has only limited utility. Without land contiguity, India cannot influence in a big way what happens in Afghanistan.

IMHO, once the US/ NATO forces leave, the Taliban will soon fight/ terrorize/ murder their way to power in Kabul. The Pashtun soldiers of the Afghan Army will either desert or defect to the Taliban side once the fighting starts.

The critical tasks for India at that time would be:

1. Help the Northern Alliance hold their territory against the Taliban. That would require massive help from Iran, Russia, the CAR states along with India. India can only provide material and infrastructural support and for that too, if the states that border AFG on the north and west co-operate. Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif must not be allowed to fall, and the road from Iran must be kept open.

2. Protect the LOC in J&K against renewed onslaught by the resurgent Taliban/ ISI.

Once the above two objectives are achieved, then slowly the Taliban/ ISI can be undermined in AFG as well as NWFP, by sowing discord among the Pashtun tribes. But that will be a very long-term project that will have to be sustained no matter who is in power in New Delhi.

Given past history, I am not very hopeful. I will be happy if objectives 1 and 2 above are acheved.

JMT.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 09 Oct 2011 23:57

The one thing all Afghans Pashtuns included as well mulla O, agree on is the Durand Line. The paki mortal fear is Pakhtunistan. We must find a way to unite all afghans around the return of pakhtun land east of the DL. This could buy time for a coalition rather than a race to take over Kabul and split Afghanistan.

IMHO, the strategic depth stuff is just a cover to prevent Pakhtunistan from happening. We must find ways of using it against the pakis.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Oct 2011 00:23

India needs to forget about de-Islamization of Afghanistan. Even talk of it plays into the hands of those who want to incite Pushtuns against India.

What we could do one day is to set up Pakjab vs Pushtunistan, a "secular" free-wheeling land vs Islamic fanaticism, thus pushing Pakjabis one day to look for security at India's doorstep, under an Indian security umbrella. For that we have to move the Pushtunistan Movement into something rabidly anti-Pakjabi, Pushtunistani ideology made out of equal parts of Pushtun Nationalism, Pushtunwali, and Talibanism.

While we are in Afghanistan we have to marry Pushtun Nationalism with Talibanism with virulent Anti-Pakjabism. Imagine brutal Pushtun terror among TSPA ranks and Pakjabi Tanzeems, regardless of their "Islamic credentials". All Pakjabis kabilas and tanzeems would be declared Murtads, regardless of how pious they are, and they will be hunted down. Pushtunistani Nationalism would be the reason, but Pakjabi Murtadism would be the excuse. Pakjabis get hit regardless of whether they want to submit to Pushtuni brutality or not. So they would look for cover with Indians one day.

Pushtun Nationalism and Islamism would go hand in hand, and so would terror on Pakjabis. Only those Pakjabis who decide to turn Dharmic would be given protection by India. We will save only "minorities"! Muslim on Muslim violence is not our problem.

So while India is in Afghanistan, we have to build influence over Afghan Tajik politics, Afghan Pushtun Nationalism as well as to buy over the Taliban groups acting out of Pakistan, paying them through our Pushtun friends in Afghanistan to go hunt Pakjabi POrcs.

ISI will continue to pay Taliban, Afghan Pushtuns, even Pakjabis to come and fight against Afghans and Indians in Afghanistan. We have to pay much more to Taliban, Afghan Pushtuns, Pakistani Pushtuns to go and hit TSPA and ISI in Pakistan in their homes, in their cantonments, in their bases, in their defence colonies, everywhere. Sooner or later, all Taliban foot-soldiers would be fighting for us and killing Pakistani establishment people.

The question is really who pays them more and who makes who look like Murtads.

Narad · Post by **Narad** » 10 Oct 2011 01:46

RajeshA wrote: While we are in Afghanistan we have to marry Pushtun Nationalism with Talibanism with virulent Anti-Pakjabism.

Saar thank you for the excellent write up. Pakjabis know the consequences of this doctrine very well and are shit scared of the pashtoon nationalism and talibanic barbarism. Munna today is ready to do an unglee to unkil and khule aam blow up Indian assets in afg in hope of avoiding just that. From all indications coming so far, your line of thinking is the obvious approach that India will apparently take once she is in such a position where it can significantly infulence afghan entities. The taliban in talks with rabbanni could have been such an attempt, which caused major khujlee in paki musharraf.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Oct 2011 03:31

Afghanistan is a key piece in building a neighborhood coalition around India. It provides potential for peace in the troubled country. Only a potential for there are no guarantees as TSP with PRC as its backers is bent upon disturbing the peace in search of elusive strategic depth. They have willing fools in India and elsewhere who egg it on. This is unfortunate for that encouragement is not based on reality. If TSP in the mistaken belief that it can use some bogus cards it will be totally mistaken and rue the whirlwind. The AV is a portent of dissuasive power that will be wielded.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Oct 2011 03:47

^ +1.

De-Islamization is not something that is done by force or strategy or even overtly. Let me explain.

If we read Ramayana and MB, we can observe that various regions in the sub-continents followed different flavors of faith (similar to modern construct of religions), but it didn't stop them to work within a common set of dharmic structures such as preeminence of Vedas and dharma (a combination of human, animal rights and environmentalism). As the time progressed all the regions contributed to and celebrated the common culture that we call Bharatiyata today.

IMO, we can achieve an equivalent of that structure even in these modern days. In the first step we need to allow various nation-states of the sub-continent to keep their individuality in all spheres of their nationalism while ensuring that all these regions accept the leadership of Bharat in the matters of mutual concern (something like Bharatiya samrat/emperor of MB times).

There will be lot of opposition in this process of assimilation. The bad-lands of Af-Pak are like Vali-Sugriva. The forces of west-Asia are similar to Khara-Dushana. Our main fight is with the ten-headed Ravana who is further west and who stole our Laxmi.

The need of the hour is to prepare our national conscience (Rama) for the long-Vanavasa. This Rama has to be given to Viswamitra who will take him to face his first obstacle - Tataki, along with her children Maricha and Subahu. We must be careful (or perhaps pretend to believe the golden-lady when the time is necessary)

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 10 Oct 2011 04:54

To put it another way, nationalism or even tribalism may be an antidote to islamism. The latter stresses obligations and connections to everyone far. The former says you owe first allegiance to your hood.

The ummah concept has always been posited to transcend nationalism (state). We have to highlight that it begins at home and that land and ethnicity trump pan-islamism,

Thus we could get muslims to be like the rest of us: "All politics is local".

"De-islamization" is not gonna work any more that "deprogramming" the moonies did. We have to get them to focus on individual self interest.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Oct 2011 06:38

Are you guys in wrong thread?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Oct 2011 08:35

ramana wrote:Rangudu, Can you find the best estimates of Taliban numbers in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

A few estimates:
Link

2009 reports

....
The Taliban rebels are estimated to number no more than 25,000. Ljubomir Stojadinovic, a military analyst and guerrilla warfare expert from Serbia, said that although McChrystal's reinforcements would lift the ratio to 20-1 or more, they would prove counterproductive.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 10 Oct 2011 16:41

SSridhar wrote:
devesh wrote:de-Islamizing the Pashtuns is a long term project. if they are guaranteed a Pashtunistan, it could happen. I'm not sure how the internal factions in Afghanistan would take this though. how would the Karzai faction react, presently and after him?
De-islamizing is a very long term and probably an impractical goal. However, efforts should be made, IMO, to bring back the practice of the Pakhtunwali code among the tribes. During the 1979-1989 jihad, the attempt was not to superimpose the wahhabi/deobandi/salafi Shariat over the the traditional Pakhtunwali code. The code always took precedence over anything else. That was supplanted by this particularly very narrow interpretation of the Shariat when the Taliban were encouraged by Pakistan in 1994 to assume power. Since they mainly came from the Deobandi seminaries of KP FATA and Karachi, they imposed this pernicious code by duly eliminating jirga elders. The same tactic has been carried out in FATA as well after c. 2004 with devastating results of radicalization.

Islamization of AFG took 250 years, when Gandhaar was giving a solo fight while heartland was cherishing the 600 years of freedom and prosperity. In spite of that, there were dharmik pockets well until decade of 1990. It is a multigenerational process.. So for deislamization all we need to do is back calculate and estimate. if one believes in reincarnation, then it can be seen as "Multi-Janma" process..

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 10 Oct 2011 22:13

It is the strategic aim of India to turn the Pustuns into the new Punjabis of the subcontinent...and to use them to extend our influence in the Central Asia and driving out the Turks,Persians and the Chinese....The Brits tried for the Centralized structure through the TSPA for the control of Central Asia and it backfired....Decentralization is the new control...community management through self sufficient group is the answer....the community school will outspace the mosque through the community management....

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 11 Oct 2011 12:06

President Hamid Karzai chaired the plenary session of the Council of Ministers (CM) at Presidential Palace yesterday. To begin with, President Karzai discussed the result of India visit and said during this visit besides meeting with higher authorities of India, the strategic cooperation agreement between Afghanistan and India was signed that create grounds for political, cultural, social, economic, security, trade, training, growth of civil society and popular contacts. He added that this agreement is never directed any country but it aims at ensuring development of Afghanistan. The CM while confirming and supporting the results of the President’s visit to India instructed the ministry of foreign affairs to adopt appropriate measures towards implementation of this agreement with the cooperation of related government organs

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Oct 2011 12:17

Actually India needs the Pushtuns to be Islamic radicals, many of whom may even be, depending on the tribe. What has been missing from the mix is the outpouring of explicit anti-Pakjabism which has been simmering just below the surface. The Islamic narrative is somehow succeeding in keeping it below the surface.

We have to get that anti-Pakjabism out into the sunlight regardless of the Islamic narrative.

People need not base their cooperation only on the basis of commonality of values. Commonality of strategic interests and patronage can be even more useful for an alliance.

There are still more superpowers that have to bite the dust in the region!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Oct 2011 12:51

Let's look at some words of wisdom from the man who knows the situ best before we start planning our "grand strategy" for the "Great Game"...Karzai himself.

Karzai told the BBC that there was no difference between the Taliban and the Pakis,they were one and the same.The Taliban were toally under Paki control ,hid in Paki sanctuaries and took their orders from the Pakis (ISI).In essence,the Taliban cannot even fart without the Paki military's permission.Therefore imagine the consequences if India were to replace the US/NATO in their role in the country.The hatred of the Pakis towards India would simply go off the Richter scale! A massive amount of terror would be released into India and with minimal funding prolong the conflict as there is so much of small arms and ammo left over in Pak from the anti-Soviet largesse provided by the west,that it can last for a century! All that the Talibs have to do is what they've been doing to NATO.Land mines and sneak attacks and assassinations of popular leaders who are anti-Talib.The same tactics that the LTTE used in Sri Lanka.

Now unfortunately Aghanistan is not Lanka-an island,having borders with many countries that to inhospitable and immensely difficult to police.A "Rajapakse"- a military offensive fight to the finish ain't gonna work.The elephant in the room in Afghanistan which very few speak of,is the massive amount of money that comes from the drug trade! This is controlled by elements inimical to India,namely the ISI,CIA (yes,historically it has been involved in the drug trade) and key functionaries in the two nations Afghanistan and Pak.Control of the drug trade had bedevilled any peace in the country as everyone wants a cut.The funds obtained from drugs also helps fuel the war.

MKB's assessment is not far offf the mark.China is very careful in its dealings with the country,wanting commercial concessions to rape it of its mineral wealth rather than a military presence ever mindful of its own Uighar problem! This is what India must do first before any help is given to the Afghans,gain key concessions for mineral exploration rights and then protect our interests with force if need be later.The retreat by the US in Iraq does not mean a retreat from the oilfields! No way that Uncle Sam is going to lose out on the billions he is making from Iraq's oil.I am also afraid that any attempts to convert the ungodly to civilised ways will end up in utter failure.Radicalism and Islamaist fundamentalism has taken too deep roots in Af-Pak for ther being any hope that the monsters who are waiting to go back and cut off the noses of women ,will ever repent of their devilish ways.They are beyond the pale and imagining India trying to convert them into civilised behaviour is ludicrous.

Now there is a possibility that a weakened Pak might actually give India the benefit of the doubt and refrain from attempting to overthrow Karzai if it feeels that we are not making an outflanking military move on it.But this is only if it is weakened first.Which brings the solution to the puzzle back to Pak.Unless Pak is weakened militarily and economically by the US with trade and aid sanctions,including military sales sanctions,it will not be in a position to substantially orchestrate a Taliban takeaway of Kabul.Should India feel that its legitimate interests are being threatened by the Pakis,then we should have our back-up plan ready which is the sober objective of dismembering or clinical dissction of the TSP by forcefully encouraging Baluchistan and Sindh to secede.The Paki military can then decide which is more important to it,holding the pieces of Jinnah's moth-eaten state together,or trying to grab control of a neighbur,losing ones own "home" in the process! India should embark upon preparatory moves for both options simultaneously so that a carrot-and-stick policy towards Pak is put in place.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 11 Oct 2011 14:58

James Lee in Afghanistan

Quite a few interesting pics of ANA here. Definitely worth a look.

This one caught my eye.

Uniformed culture - Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks and Turkmen move together in a slow-moving chow line in Mehtarlam district, Laghman province, on April 23. Such united fronts are short-lived. After grabbing lunch trays of rice and goat meat, these Afghan National Army soldiers find seats at tables divided along ethnic lines. Distrust amid some groups can be traced back to late 19th century land disputes. Bridging these ethnic fault lines within the Afghan National Security Forces will become increasingly important as foreign governments prepare to withdraw military resources. Photo by James Lee

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 11 Oct 2011 16:36

Philip wrote:
Which brings the solution to the puzzle back to Pak.Unless Pak is weakened militarily and economically by the US with trade and aid sanctions,including military sales sanctions,it will not be in a position to substantially orchestrate a Taliban takeaway of Kabul.

This is the million $ question. TSPA, is like a narcotic or instant manhood arousal drug in the hip pocket of US. It cannot let go off it because TSPA does provide thrills to US from time to time. Recall Uneven's spin on TSP, namely, it is not a terrorist country, but there are terrorists in an otherwise pro-western country. It takes only a superpower's spokesman like Uneven with a single-minded focus to protect its interests to come with such self-satisfying sleight-of-hand to make night look like day and vice versa. He was of course refering to TSP RAPE, both in TSPA and elsehwhere who are the only ones who count. Weakining this entity means US has pretty much chopped off its manhood in that part of the world. What is left then for US? SDRE Baba Ramdevs and Ann Hazares giving moral lectures on the benefits of Yoga and corruption free society? You think US is interested in that?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Oct 2011 19:01

With Afghan Pushtuns, India should have a clear deal. They get the Pushtun areas in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and some in FATA, while India gets PoK and Chitral. Then we meet at some place in the middle and can do good trade!

Both parties get territory, both parties get trade, both parties get a piece of Pakjabi musharraf!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Oct 2011 19:09

Samudragupta wrote:Decentralization is the new control...community management through self sufficient group is the answer....the community school will outspace the mosque through the community management....

A federal system that provides sufficient freedom to local structures (language, caste/tribal linkages, sub-culture etc) while defining/managing the national adhesive in conjunction with MIC to keep these statelets together. In earlier days it was SD and Sanskrit. It can be resurfaced and reinstated.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Oct 2011 19:20

RajeshA wrote:With Afghan Pushtuns, India should have a clear deal. They get the Pushtun areas in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and some in FATA, while India gets PoK and Chitral. Then we meet at some place in the middle and can do good trade!

Both parties get territory, both parties get trade, both parties get a piece of Pakjabi musharraf!

I doubt it will be that easy.

If what they say about the tribal-code is correct, the tribes in Af-Pak region have lot of karma to be repayed/collected before there can be any peace between these warring tribes, TSPA and Unkil. In my humble opinion, there is nothing India can do in this regard. Let Divine/Good/Bad/Ugly muslims fight with each other and with unkil for all the centuries to come.

India's play should be limited to accumulate good will with each of these tribes/groups without getting involved in any inter-group karmic play. If A wants to hurt B, C... Z and vice versa let them do it while building good will with each one of these A...Z. Yes, some of these forces would love to draw india into the mud by attacking its interests at home and abroad. Make a note of that action and try to pay the dues with that player on India's own; without using any goodwill it accumulated with other players. If we use any of these players we will be getting deeper into their fights and karmic play.

I think India is doing exactly that and more power to it. When the warring factions collect enough blood money from each other, India will be the only player would be amicable to all players. That is when a SA-Federation under Indian leadership can be proposed and achieved.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Oct 2011 19:30

That picture shows whats wrong with the US method of raising the ANA. Mixed regiments will lead to under performance as there is no cohesion in the tribal society. The idea of Afghansitan or nation stateis not ther or very weak.
A better option is what the English did in raising unitary formations officered by a composite group of officers. They did this with the Scottish Highland and Lowland regiments and then spread it worldwide in theri colonies.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 11 Oct 2011 20:39

Guys former Afghan Intel Chief Amrullah Saleh gave a Hardtalk Interview on BBC on Oct. 10th. I searched but could not find it on youtube or any other such video site. It is only on BBC, but that damn thing plays only iPlayer which is only for the UK. If anyone finds the interview please post. It will be worth watching...

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 11 Oct 2011 21:12

JE Menon wrote:Guys former Afghan Intel Chief Amrullah Saleh gave a Hardtalk Interview on BBC on Oct. 10th. I searched but could not find it on youtube or any other such video site. It is only on BBC, but that damn thing plays only iPlayer which is only for the UK. If anyone finds the interview please post. It will be worth watching...

I saw the program, was disappointed by the attitude of the hostess of the program Zena Badawi. Saleh said nothing that wasnt already known by BRF. However, the hostess, acted as if she was paid by the ISI to conduct the interview and defend it. She also totally ignored the comments made by Adm. Mulen??,

She also tried to portray Saleh as a sort of warmonger who was against peace in Afghanistan. I Was left wondering just whose interests BBC represents.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Oct 2011 21:15

I can imagine that Zeinab Badawi would act like that. May be Amrullah Saleh is now better informed about BBC policy.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 11 Oct 2011 21:17

ramana wrote:That picture shows whats wrong with the US method of raising the ANA. Mixed regiments will lead to under performance as there is no cohesion in the tribal society. The idea of Afghansitan or nation stateis not ther or very weak.
A better option is what the English did in raising unitary formations officered by a composite group of officers. They did this with the Scottish Highland and Lowland regiments and then spread it worldwide in theri colonies.

What you say makes sense. Even the IA follows the same practice in its regiments. But the Khans will follow what has worked in the US Army. They have no segregation in the US army today. They are trying to replicate what has worked for the US army. While ignoring the tribal and ethnic divisions of the native society.

If it succeeds nothing like it. But the risk of failure is too great in this endeavor.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 11 Oct 2011 21:23

RajeshA wrote:I can imagine that Zeinab Badawi would act like that. May be Amrullah Saleh is now better informed about BBC policy.

Maybe not, one thing I have noticed is that when non native English speakers or those who treat it as a second language are interviewed by native English speakers (Such as BBC / CNN hosts). They are not really able to put their point across and the native English speakers use it as a tool to try and intimidate the guests.

I have seen it in BBC's interview of Indians, Pakistanis and now Saleh. The most distressing part is that the guest rarely understands the game that is being played. If he understands the game, the interview will be over in 5 minutes rather then the scheduled 25 minutes.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Oct 2011 21:25

Its not time for experiments based on illusions. The time is for reality and securing the Afghanistan. The idea of Afghanistan is still weak due to the multi-ethnicity and tribal society. Mixed units may be the future if they survive till then.

CRS, In you rage you mix metaphors and thus blunt your message!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Oct 2011 21:30

Need to think about the Carry and Canny meetings in Gelf and what do they mean to the new relationship.

Usually when TSP sees they have us support they become foolhardy and create an incident. There are many reasons for that, mostly psychological to assure themselves they have not sold out and are still focussed on India. So expect another severe incident in Afghanistan against Indian presence there.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Oct 2011 23:28

ramana wrote:That picture shows whats wrong with the US method of raising the ANA. Mixed regiments will lead to under performance as there is no cohesion in the tribal society. The idea of Afghansitan or nation stateis not ther or very weak.
A better option is what the English did in raising unitary formations officered by a composite group of officers. They did this with the Scottish Highland and Lowland regiments and then spread it worldwide in theri colonies.

Was about to say the same thing.

You cannot replicate the US Army model (with all class regiments) when the very essence of nationhood is non-existant and loyalties are more on ethnic, religious (Shia/Sunni) and linguistic lines.

The one concern the USA may well have is that Infantry Regiments (or armored or artillery, as the case of BIA) raised on ethnic lines will have loyalty to leaders from the respective region or ethnicity. But this will happen nonetheless. If the ANA collapses after US withdrawl or there are mass scale desertions, this will still happen. But at least the present efficacy should not be compromised.

To address these, they could have had mixed regiments with fixed %age distribution between various ethnicities. For example, 25% Hazar and Tajiks each and 50% Pashtuns. Fixed class/ethnic regiments of Sikh Regiment type will not work, IMO.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 12 Oct 2011 06:08

India in the endgame

Disclaimers by President Karzai and Dr Manmohan Singh, or Pakistan Foreign Office’s feeble attempt to downplay it notwithstanding, the Strategic Partnership agreement signed by Afghanistan and India last week signals a paradigm shift in the regional equation.

It allows India to position itself as a key player at the centre stage of the endgame in the war-torn country while the US and its Nato allies prepare for their planned exit by 2014. The timing, scope, content and accompanying statements are enough to ring alarm bells in the GHQ and Aabpara. This is the first such agreement Afghanistan has signed with any country, coming ahead of the one being negotiated by the US, apparently envisaging bases to maintain some forces even after withdrawal to protect its strategic and economic interests.

The message is unmistakably loud and clear. Army Chief Gen Kayani’s warning to Kabul against Afghan incursions and FO spokesperson’s condescending advice to President Karzai to demonstrate “maturity” and “responsibility” are indicative enough of the discomfort being felt here.

The moth-eaten concept of “strategic depth” was shred to tatters long ago. Here we see a serious jolt to the fanciful ideas that given its strategic proximity, military strength and historical or traditional links with a vast swathe of the Afghan populace for whom it has made huge sacrifices, Pakistan is favourably placed to fill the post-Isaf withdrawal power vacuum.

Instead, there is a new alignment of forces inimical to Pakistan’s long-term national interests and stakes; an increasingly disillusioned if not hostile US, the ever-antagonistic Northern Alliance, an emerging global power eager to assert it and Karzai at the centre make combustible combine to squeeze Pakistan in the great game.
:
:

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 12 Oct 2011 07:54

India-Turkey talks

During his meetings with top Turkish leaders, Vice-President Hamid Ansari reiterated New Delhi's position that any solution to Afghanistan must be led by its people with Ankara recognising the role being played by New Delhi in assisting Kabul in reconstruction. Mr. Ansari also briefed the hosts about the recent visit of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai to India during which both countries signed a strategic cooperation pact.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Oct 2011 09:09

Winds of Change

THE wind shifts. By an inevitable process, geopolitical alignments dissolve and coalesce in new configurations as nations and power blocs rise and fall. Today the West is in decline and that trend has recently accelerated.

Last Tuesday, two separate developments in one day demonstrated how the pattern of global power is changing, to the severe disadvantage of Nato, its leading member the United States, and the European Union.

Firstly, Afghanistan and India signed a “strategic partnership” agreement. This reflected the need for Hamid Karzai and his beleaguered government to take out some insurance against the departure of Allied forces by 2014: Britain, America, et al, having achieved precisely nothing over the past decade, have exhausted their options, money and credibility; they are on their way out. So the anti-Taleban elements in Afghanistan are seeking protection from India, the inveterate enemy of Pakistan, the Taleban’s not-so-covert godfather. This move was not entirely a response to the murder of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the Afghan government’s peace envoy, with the complicity of Pakistani intelligence: there had been many meetings and increasingly close links already forged between Afghanistan and India.

The agreement, however, was a blow to Pakistan, whose paranoia regarding India is intense. The pledge by the Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh that India would “stand by Afghanistan” provoked acute resentment in Islamabad. Pakistan fears encirclement; India, the major power in the region, becomes enmeshed in treaty commitments; there are resonances of Europe in 1914 – for Bosnia-Herzegovina read Kashmir. That parallel might prove unduly pessimistic; the consideration that cannot be overlooked, though, is that both major protagonists are nuclear powers. Why are they nuclear powers? Because of the weak-kneed reluctance of the West to enforce non-proliferation – a perceived impotence from which Iran has drawn its own conclusions.

For the Western powers, last week’s modest but significant realignment of forces in South Asia signalled their irrelevance. It is ten years since the BBC’s John Simpson waddled into Kabul to liberate it from the Taleban. Leaving aside the fact that the BBC poses a more insidious threat to civilisation than the Taleban, the delusions of those days – that Islamic fundamentalism had been defeated, that the priority was to establish schools for Afghan girls, that MTV pumped in on satellite dishes would soon convert Afghan ‘yoof’ into Western-style degenerates and empty the mosques – can now be seen as downright cretinous. We have lost the Afghan war, which we needlessly inaugurated, and the Islamic world derides our failure.

On the same day that Afghanistan turned its back on the West and looked to the rising regional power of India, the efforts of the Nato and EU axis to extend the destabilisation of the Middle East by the anarchic “Arab spring” were curtly smacked down in the United Nations Security Council, where Russia and China cast an unusual joint veto on sanctions against Syria. Four other security council members abstained: India, Brazil, South Africa and Lebanon. Granted that the last-named was acting out of geopolitical necessity as a near-satellite of the Syrian regime, the opposition to America of two rising economic powers – India and Brazil – was a further symptom of the shift in power. The walkout by Susan Rice, US envoy to the UN, was reminiscent of the flouncing out by frustrated East German or Bulgarian delegations in Cold War days.

Britain and its allies lied shamelessly about the purpose and limitations of UN resolution 1973 on Libya: it was supposed to endorse a “no-fly zone” to protect civilians; it was used to effect regime change by force. By what conceivable casuistry could the bombing of Sirte, a wholly pro-Gaddafi town, be represented as protecting civilians? A genuinely neutral intervention would have bombed rebel troops advancing against a hostile community. Russia and China knew when they let the resolution pass what Nato intended; they gave Western hawks enough leeway to shred their credibility among the rest of the world.

Now, thanks to its toy-town EU empire and Weimar currency, western Europe is hurtling towards bankruptcy; so is liberal-occupied America. The West has run out of cash; it has squandered goodwill by invading other states; President Pantywaist is dithering in the White House while Vladimir Putin prepares to resume the tiller in Russia. The hard-headed realists in Moscow and Beijing saw them coming: Barack Obama, a president so discredited the current joke is that Kenyans are claiming he was born in Hawaii; “modernising” windbag Dave; Sarkozy, Merkel, the implausibly reconstructed Maoist Barroso – a mélange of mediocrity, vanity and hypocrisy.

Of all the absurd theories generated by the 20th century, none was more ridiculous than Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” canard, which arrogantly assumed Western-style liberal “democracy” was the terminus of human development. Despite such neo-conservative vapourings, history marches on regardless.

A lot of rants mixed with some reality.