Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

[ramana]

Could be but the stresses in Af-Pak are mcuh more than elsewhere.

[RamaY]

^^ Ramanaji

Next Arab Domino May Be Oil Darling Algeria: Reuel Marc Gerecht

I was reading this article and it stuck me.

Slowly the military dictatorships of west-asia are transformed into islamic-democratic states using the color revolutions.

To my mind there are two possible outcomes
1. Islamic mullahcracies come together to form Ummah - forming an Islamic nation
2. Mullahcracies get delegitimized and these regions revert to their pagan nationalities.

[svinayak]

Oil is the primary motive. These are Mediterranean Oil supplies and can be free from the middle east politics.

They need to secure these before they work on the Gulf suppliers

[Rudradev]

I just had a thought. So far we are thinking that either Afghanistan or Pakistan will emerge as the survivor after US leaves.

What if the end result of the end of War on terror is the collapse of both states?
I mean what is Afghanistan and Pakistan both get re-organised like Yugoslavia or CIS or what not. Maybe the ultimate result of the end of Cold war is the collapse of the state systems among the pre-modern people of Af-Pak due to the collapse or irrelevance of the Great Game itself.

Are we ready for it?

What if they are covertly thinking of collapse of Indian state itself

I have stopped thinking that this is a likely goal of the west, at least in the medium term.

When the British departed in 1947, what were left behind in the capitals of India and Pakistan were intended as gubernatorial proxies that might provide inroads for the extension of economic, and possibly political colonialism.

Pakistan was favored because at the time, the proxies over there seemed willing to lend themselves to not only economic but also political colonialism as a rentier state (the aim of the Wilsonians, with their Great Game obsession).

Meanwhile the proxies in India were taking a socialist path and did not seem as if they would even be amenable to economic colonialism (the aim of the Hamiltonians, which has crystallized as globalization since the Cold War ended.) Thus Hamiltonians and Wilsonians were united in supporting Pakistan no matter how internally messy it got, and also united in disfavour towards India under any circumstances.

Today things have changed. Power in New Delhi resides with "Mercantilists" as Brihaspati calls them (as opposed to the "Landsmen" who actually have a spiritual and emotional investment in the soil of India... these are the parties out to exploit the producers and resources of the interior, and make a buck by acting as dalaals for overseas economic colonialists.)

This is a situation quite attractive to the Hamiltonians. They will not favour a disintegration of India, however much some Wilsonians might want it, simply because it is less efficient to have to cultivate Mercantilist proxies in 30 different states rather than a single Mercantilist proxy who can deliver the entire Indian market and resource base for economic exploitation. As long as the power in Delhi shows itself as willingly Mercantilist, it will be allowed the maintenance of *basic* Indian interests (such as territorial integrity.) In that sense Khan Grease Party acts as a guarantor (by allowing economic colonialism) of certain Indian interests as long as these remain consonant with, and subservient to the interests of the West.


The situation will change if the Landsmen, or some nationalist party closer to the Landsmen, take power in New Delhi away from the Mercantilists. Then we will go back to a situation such as under IG, PVNR or ABV... where the Hamiltonians will no longer trust that the current disposition in Delhi is totally willing to submit India for economic exploitation, and therefore will not support even basic Indian interests like territorial integrity. Worse yet, the Wilsonians will see any nationalist progression as evidence that India's potential for political colonialism is declining. At that point, Hamiltonians and Wilsonians will once again be united in undermining the territorial integrity of India (if such a thing is realistically possible by then.)

Pakistan, meanwhile, fizzled out of its promise. Over the decades it demonstrated its utter lack of values to the Hamiltonians in Washington... what is there to economically exploit in Pakistan? Meanwhile the Wilsonians were resolute in their support of Pakistan, with its rentier military Kabila, for all this time. However, what seems to be happening now (to come back to Ramana's point) is a disillusionment, even among the Wilsonians, that further investment in supporting Pakistan will earn them any points in the Great Game.

It may very well be, as Ramana says, that the US has decided that if they can't win the Great Game via their Pakistani proxy... then they must fix the Gameboard so that nobody can win. Let there only be trouble emanating from AfPak, not just for the US but for everybody (the closer they are geographically the more the trouble will be.) Then at least there is a chance that Central Asian nations, India, Russia, and even China and Iran will become more reliant on the US to relieve some of the discomfiture that a fractured, toxic AfPak on their flanks is causing them. Far better this way, than some other power taking over the AfPak Square and actually winning the Great Game.

[shyamd]

The next SSS

Kharotabad: A Taliban safe haven

By Qaiser Butt
Published: October 17, 2011

Hospital alleges an NGO provides free medical treatment to injured militants.

ISLAMABAD: People in Kharotabad are living in constant fear of possible drone attacks in their neighbourhood, considering that over the past six months, the Afghan and local Taliban seemed to covet this part of Quetta as a veritable ‘vacation spot’.

Every four months, Taliban fighters return from war fronts in Afghanistan and rent out dozens of residential accommodations in this vicinity, The Express Tribune has learnt.

Their presence is becoming a major concern for people living in adjoining areas, especially because this is the same area where the US alleges the Quetta Shura is hiding out.

A few madrassahs in Kharotabad are also providing ‘free’ accommodation to these militants.

They move freely as if to defy invisible observers, who they think are keeping a watch over them, making it obvious to them that Kharotabad is a safe haven for the Taliban.

Creating an army

Students from religious seminaries in the province are being recruited for the Afghan Taliban movement, a dime a dozen. They are reportedly ‘trained for jihad’ in Afghanistan by Afghan ‘commanders’, before they are sent on designated terror missions.

At least six to eight new, unarmed recruits leave Kuchlak Bazar, located near Quetta, on brand new 75CC motorbikes every morning, headed towards Afghanistan.

They are, it is learnt, told to avoid travelling on main highways to dodge security forces and instead take lesser known mountainous routes via Kuchlak to Qamar Din Karez town on the Pak-Afghan border.

They also avoid travelling in groups – two persons per motorbike. They are also given Rs5,000 each, in addition to sufficient money for fuel.

A majority of these boys join Taliban with their parent’s consent, while many others embark on this ‘holy mission’ without the knowledge of their guardians.

The ideology faction of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), led by MNA Maulana Esmatullah and his party members, is a motivating force for these young students of Balochistan.

Mullah Omar’s messages to people in Pakistan and other parts of the world are also sent through Kandahar to Quetta.

Free medical care for war-wounded Taliban

The Afghan and local Taliban who are wounded during their missions in Afghanistan, are reportedly receiving free medical treatment at five prominent private hospitals, a majority of which are situated on the Airport Road.

The administration at these hospitals told The Express Tribune that an international NGO of world repute, funds their medical care.”We are being paid by this NGO for the medical care being provided to the wounded or sick Taliban militants,” the administrator at Dr Abdul Khaliq Memorial Hospital alleged.

The NGO does not allow the police or intelligence agencies access to these “under-treatment” Taliban. The NGO puts up a ‘don’t know’ front “We have not set up any field hospitals in Balochistan to provide medical assistance to the Afghan Taliban or other militants,” the NGO’s head of sub-delegation told The Express Tribune.

However, he said, the NGO is supporting three private hospitals in Quetta for providing medical assistance to wounded people. “Doctors at Ikram Hospital and Imdad Hospital are providing medical assistance to people injured in bomb blasts, firing incidents and other forms of violence.”

Hundreds of patients, mostly Afghans, receive treatment at these private hospitals in the provincial capital, he added.

(WITH ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY SHEHZAD BALOCH IN QUETTA)

[RajeshA]

He didn't say which NGO is in this business of "humanitarian" help!

[shyamd]

Oil is the primary motive. These are Mediterranean Oil supplies and can be free from the middle east politics.

They need to secure these before they work on the Gulf suppliers

is it about the long run - making it another client state where you can sell them everything and make money - like they did from the GCC.

[svinayak]

Clinet state are inevitable
These are countries with low population with large agenda. They do not have the man power resource to maintain their countries.

[shyamd]

^^ It dpends, they have a very young population and a large number of youngsters. They are all slowly kickig out the foreigners. I think KSA already announced plans to get rid of 3mil expats.

Also, the GCC has enough leverage (not just oil) to cause trouble for the US if it wants to - both are tied to the hip.

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

U-turn?: Convince Taliban to talk, US asks Pakistan

By Kamran Yousaf / Munizae Jahangir
Published: October 22, 2011

‘MOTHER-IN-LAW’ IN TOWN: Hillary Clinton with Hina Rabbani Khar ahead of their joint press conference in Islamabad. PHOTO: AFP
ISLAMABAD:

After months of belligerent rhetoric, the US is now willing to hold talks with the Afghan Taliban – and is looking at Pakistan as its go-between.

Speaking at a flurry of events on Friday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she had asked Pakistan to “encourage the Taliban to enter negotiations in good faith.” These talks would also involve the Haqqani network, a move which speaks volumes for the US’ urgency to end the decade-old conflict in the war-torn country.

(Read: A middle ground must be found)

In apparent diplomatic double-speak, however, Clinton also insisted that Pakistan take action within “days and weeks” to dismantle alleged terrorist sanctuaries on its soil, warning that a failure to do so would have devastating consequences for all concerned. “We should be able to agree that for far too long extremists have been able to operate here in Pakistan and from Pakistani soil,” she said.

“It’s like that old story: you can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours … eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard,” Clinton added.

Clinton’s requests for Pakistan to act as an intermediary were the first time the US had formally and publicly called for such action, and appear to reflect the Obama administration’s strong belief that Pakistan still holds significant sway over the Afghan Taliban. The secretary of state urged Pakistan to use its contacts with the “Pakistani Taliban, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqanis and the other terrorist groups and try to get them into the peace process, but if that fails, to prevent them from committing more violence.”

Clinton has outlined three conditions for talks with the militants: they must lay down arms, abide by the Afghan constitution and respect basic human rights, especially women’s rights. On this latter point Clinton spoke at some length.

Despite reapplying pressure on Pakistan over alleged safe havens in North Waziristan, Clinton admitted, as had been earlier reported, that the US had already held a meeting with representatives from the Haqqani network, which was arranged through the ISI. “It was Pakistan who delivered the contact person,” Clinton said.

(Read: US met Haqqani network – Clinton)

However, the Secretary of State stressed that the talks could not be termed a negotiation: “We’ve had one preliminary meeting just to see if they would show up.” It is believed the meeting took place during the summer, well before the attacks mounted by the insurgent group against US troops stationed in Afghanistan.

Clinton, who led a high-powered US delegation that includes CIA Director David Petraeus and the new Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, held extensive talks with Pakistan’s top civil and military leadership. It was unusual for such senior civil, military and intelligence officials to undertake a joint trip to Pakistan, and the Secretary of State said this reflected the urgency and the importance of working through the many challenges that the countries face.

(Read: ‘Clear’ on both ends: US talks war, Pakistan preaches peace)

Asked whether Pakistan and the US had reached an understanding on the Haqqani network, Clinton said there are options other than a military clampdown. Although she said that Pakistan should not “allow them (the Haqqanis) across the border into Afghanistan,” the Secretary of State emphasised that the US was “on the same page with (Pakistan Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez) Kayani.”

Clinton also admitted that the US has no evidence of direct ISI involvement in the attack on the US Embassy in Kabul last month, as was earlier claimed by the US’ then top military man Admiral Mike Mullen. She also agreed that every intelligence agency has contacts with unsavory characters as it is part of their job.

(Read: Attack in Kabul and beyond)

The secretary of state went on to say that, at one point, Washington had considered unilateral action inside Pakistan. Clinton imagined a scenario in which more US personnel had lost their lives at the hands of the Haqqanis. Sentiments would have run high, she explained, but “boots on the ground was never a serious option.”

Foreign Minister Khar, who attended the high-level talks and held separate meeting with Clinton, acknowledged the presence of safe havens of terrorists in the tribal areas. “Do safe havens exist? Yes, they do exist – on both sides. Do we need to cooperate? Yes. We can cooperate more and achieve better results,” she added.

Clinton also highlighted the importance of trade between the two countries, having met President Asif Zardari and discussed economic cooperation. She added that the gas pipeline from Turkemenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan “is a good thing and we endorse it; it will bring prosperity to the region,” while urging caution over proposed cooperation with Iran, a “difficult and a dangerous” neighbour for Pakistan in her view.

Later Clinton interacted with Pakistani civil society leaders at a townhall style forum where she was confronted with tough questions. One of the female participants likened the United States to an unsatisfied mother-in-law.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 22nd, 2011.

Deciphering the roadmap: US, Pakistan to push for Afghan endgame deal

By Kamran Yousaf
Published: October 20, 2011

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shakes hands with US Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker upon her arrival in Kabul. PHOTO AFP

ISLAMABAD: In what seems an unprecedented development, Pakistan and the US will push for a ‘deal’ on the Afghan endgame when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets the country’s top civil and military leadership in Islamabad during a two-day trip beginning today (Thursday).

The significance of the visit, official sources say, can be judged from the fact that Secretary Clinton will be accompanied by US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey and Central Intelligence Agency Director David Patraeus.

It is a rare instance for the secretary of state, who arrived in Kabul on an unannounced visit on Wednesday, and the US military and intelligence chiefs to undertake a joint trip to Pakistan. “This is the first time that senior US officials are coming to Islamabad together and suffice to say discussions will be on the Afghan endgame,” said a senior security official.

Another official disclosed that Secretary Clinton was arriving in Islamabad to clear up the confusion about her country’s “options and proposals” on Afghanistan. “Frankly, so far the Americans have not shared their roadmap on Afghanistan with us,” the official added. “What confuses us is that we don’t know who is in charge in Afghanistan. Is it the Pentagon or the State Department? This is complicating matters,” he said.

Sensing the importance of the visit, Pakistan’s top civil and military leadership have done their homework and prepared a joint strategy, it is believed. According to the strategy, the contents of which have been shared with The Express Tribune, Pakistan will inform the US that sustainable peace in Afghanistan can only be achieved through a meaningful political reconciliation.

(Read: Afghan war anniversary: 10 years on, the answers are blowing in the wind)

What this means, one official explains, is discussions with insurgent groups. “There is a need to first identify reconcilable groups,” he said. Pakistan might also insist that the US drop preconditions attached to negotiations with the Afghan Taliban. “Afghanistan is a tribal society and they never accept any preconditions and we understand that the US is also now convinced,” the official added.

The strategy also talks of Pakistan’s fears regarding growing Indian influence in Afghanistan. “Pakistan has no issues if the US thinks that by giving India a lead role it will bring sustainable peace in Afghanistan. But obviously that is not the case,” the official pointed out.

(Read: Karzai‘s great gamble)

Another area of concern for Pakistan is the Afghan National Army. Pakistan argues that a 400,000-strong Afghan army will disband into splinter groups when the international forces led by the US pull out of the war-torn country. Based on this assumption, Islamabad believes that the US needs to rethink its strategy.

It is unclear whether the US will endorse Pakistan’s point of view given the differences between the two countries on some strategic issues, such as how to tackle the Haqqani network. The US has so far remained adamant in its demand for a military offensive against the group.

The Pakistan Army has resisted US pressure, though the army chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, told parliamentarians on Tuesday that if he was convinced that an operation in North Waziristan would bring about peace in Afghanistan, he would do it tomorrow.

Despite differences, experts say the countries have mutual interests. “Pakistan and the US don’t wish to see Afghanistan used against any third country,” said Rustam Shah Mohmand, former ambassador to Afghanistan.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 20th, 2011.

[Virupaksha]

What are the effects of US "withdrawal" from Iraq on Af-pak? and why now?

Why the need to free up troops now, how does this butterfly link to the bellicose clinton mohtorma butterfly warnings

[shyamd]

Just learnt this - FYI, Faaren intel says that Mulla O was treated for heart issues 3 months ago in isloo

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 22, 2011
By Myra MacDonald
She came, she saw, she confounded: Clinton in Pakistan: Reuters

So to get back to Clinton and the Afghan settlement. We have three possible approaches, with various permutations. The one currently favoured by the United States is to keep fighting, to keep the door open for talks, and to keep piling pressure on Pakistan in the hope that it yields results. The second – as expressed by Amrullah Saleh – is to take the idea of talks with insurgent leaders off the table altogether, end the confusion and build up governance within Afghanistan in the years that are left before 2014. The third is to seek a ceasefire, so that in the absence of violence, talks might take place in a more conducive atmosphere.

Any one of those approaches has its merits.

[ramana]

^^^^

Nightwatch 24 Oct 2011

Afghanistan: In an interview with Pakistan's GEO TV broadcast on the 22d, President Karzai said, "If fighting starts between Pakistan and the US, we are beside Pakistan. If Pakistan is attacked and if the people of Pakistan need Afghanistan's help, Afghanistan will be there with you." He also said that Kabul would not allow any nation, including the US, to dictate its policies.


Comment: Karzai appears to have been playing to his Pakistani audience as well as countering the impression of being a US lackey in the aftermath of the US Secretary of State's visit. A more complete broadcast of Karzai's statement included mention of India. He also said Afghanistan would side with Pakistan in the event India attacked Pakistan.

This was a cheap shot at the US and India and a grand gesture to Pakistan that has received high praise from Pakistani media commentators. Karzai's inclusion of India is perplexing because India is an important benefactor of the Kabul government.

India has strong and enduring ties to the tribes of the Northern Alliance that overthrew the Pashtun-based Taliban. Pakistan has longstanding ties to the Pashtuns of southern Afghanistan.

Karzai's cheap shots actually might nurture an improvement in Pakistani cooperation that other efforts failed to achieve. Karzai seems to sense that the end game has begun, which seems to underpin his interpretation of the significance of the high-powered US delegation to Pakistan. He is mending fences with Pakistan in order to find a way to survive in his neighborhood.

Special comment: A comparison of US media reports about the activities of the US Secretary of State's delegation in Pakistan and Pakistani news outlet reports shows a mismatch.

In the US media, the US delegation appears to have taken the Pakistani government to the "woodshed" over the Haqqani syndicate. The difficulty with that narrative is that the Pakistanis did not exhibit any signs of effrontery, as they have in the past. They did not invite the Americans to leave, which would have been appropriate between sovereign powers. Chief of Army Staff General Kayani made no public statement about alleged US demands for more Pakistani military pressure on the Haqqanis.

Pakistani media reported no stress in relations with the US during the visit. Thus it is unclear how tense are US-Pakistani relations. It is clear that the US visit involved much public posturing, an indicator of a cover story. Pakistani treatment of the US delegation's visit is not consistent with high tension in the relationship.

[Agnimitra]

MKB: Pakistani wolf to guard Afghan henhouse

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Islamabad underscored that the United States now sees the futility of visualizing Pakistan as a hostile power and of trying to impose an Afghan settlement that is unacceptable to the Pakistani military. The US has switched to a startlingly innovative strategy - to "incentivize" Pakistan by inviting it to play a major role in Afghanistan.

...

The visit by United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Islamabad last week turned out to be yet another defining moment in the endgame in Afghanistan. It took place under the heavy cloud cover of propaganda. Foggy Bottom habitually resorts to strident public diplomacy when Uncle Sam's tailcoat is on fire so that the awkwardness of dousing the flames remains a private affair.

This was literally the case last week. US diplomats strove to give spin to media persons amenable to listening, that Clinton was going to hand down a tough message to the recalcitrant General


Headquarters of the Pakistani army in Rawalpindi: "Pakistan must crack down on the Haqqani network who take shelter in North Waziristan on the Afghan border regions and incessantly bleed the US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces, or else, the US would suo moto act."


...

Clearly, Clinton's was a do-or-die mission. Seldom if ever is it that the "good cop" and the "bad cop" undertake a joint mission. Clinton was accompanied at the talks in Islamabad by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director David Petraeus and the chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey. What did Clinton's mission accomplish?


Dramatic u-turn
In the event, five things emerged. One, the US has publicly acknowledged the centrality of Pakistan's role in the Afghan endgame. Two, the US publicly accepted the consistent Pakistani demand that the Haqqanis should be engaged in talks and that excluding them would make the entire process fragile. The Haqqani network is one of the most important components of the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan.

Three, therefore, the new approach will be to "squeeze" the Haqqanis so that they come to the negotiating table - rather than try to vanquish them as an irreconcilable insurgent group. Four, the US understood the range of factors behind Pakistan's hesitation in launching military operations in North Waziristan and would therefore switch tack and opt for "other forms of acting", such as sharing real-time intelligence and debilitating the network's lethal capabilities.

Five, Clinton conceded repeatedly Islamabad's "legitimate" concerns regarding the Taliban operating out of safe havens on Afghan soil to carry out cross-border terrorist attacks on its soil, and henceforth US troops would "up the military tempo" against those sanctuaries and prevent them from attacking Pakistan....

Clinton categorically denied that the Barack Obama administration recently considered the option of US ground incursions into Pakistani territory. "That has never been a serious consideration." On the contrary, the US is rebooting the strategic dialogue with Pakistan and is putting together a new work plan, "Because we got, as you say, diverted over the last months, and we want to get back to business."

Clinton also gave a "no-objection" certificate to the Inter-Services Intelligence's dealings with the Haqqanis. She couldn't have put it across in a nicer way:
Now, every intelligence agency has contacts with unsavory characters. That is part of the job of being in an intelligence agency. What those contacts are, how they are operationalized, who has them - all of that is what we are now working on together. But I don't think you would get any denial from either the ISI or the CIA that people in their respective organizations have contacts with members of groups that have different agendas than the governments.

So, I think what we are saying is let's use those contacts to try to bring these people to the table to see whether or not they are going to be cooperative ... it was the Pakistani intelligence services that brought a Haqqani member to a meeting with an American team. So you have to know where to call them. You've got to know where they are. So those are the kinds of things that we have to examine and understand how they can be beneficial.
Clinton revealed after the talks that in Pakistani army chief Parvez Kiani's estimation, Pakistan and the US were "90% to 95% on the same page". She shared the general's optimism. "I think that our cooperative relationships between our military, between our intelligence agencies, are back on an upward trajectory." The residual issues pertain to the "operational" parts.

A grand bargain
What explains the dramatic u-turn in the US's strategy? In a nutshell, the Obama administration sized up that Pakistan was hunkering down and an impasse was developing, which was unacceptable, given the timeline ahead for the US withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014. The heavy pressure tactic to the point of brandishing the sword failed to produce the desired result and is unlikely to work.

In sum, Washington sees the futility of visualizing Pakistan as a hostile power and of trying to impose an Afghan settlement that is unacceptable to the Pakistani military. The US has, therefore, switched to a startlingly innovative strategy. The mantra is to "incentivize" Pakistan by inviting it to play a major role in Afghanistan, but on conditions, which also ensures that the US's strategic interests remain protected.

It essentially devolves on conceding Pakistani primacy in Afghanistan and putting the Pakistani leadership in charge of negotiating with their counterparts in Kabul a settlement accommodating the Taliban that would stop the bloodshed and stabilize the country.



...

Indeed, history might record that the main thrust of Clinton's mission to Islamabad was to clear the (temporary) hurdle of the Afghan endgame so that all protagonists can bite the succulent fruit of the low-hanging New Silk Road project that aims at exploiting the vast mineral resources of Central Asia.

Significantly, Clinton also included Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in her regional tour - the two countries other than Pakistan that would have crucial roles to play in developing the communication links connecting Central Asia with world markets. Her focus in the regional capitals was on the "New Silk Road vision", which she will be presenting at an Istanbul conference on November 2 in an "effort to get the region to buy into it" - to use Clinton's words.

While in Islamabad, she was candid that without Pakistan's active support, the New Silk Road project was not going to work. She exuded optimism that under the canopy of the "New Silk Road vision", even the intractable India-Pakistan animosities could be sorted out as the two South Asian rivals become accustomed to the name of the game, which is that the ultimate aim of all good politics is about creating wealth and prosperity in their impoverished lands.



...

So far so good. It is almost certain that the apple cart will not be upset before Clinton unveils the US's "New Silk Road vision" at the conference of Afghanistan's neighbors and major powers in Istanbul a week from now. But what happens beyond that?

Many imponderables remain. First and foremost, it might be that Pakistan is taking up much, much more than it can chew. The assumption that Pakistan has decisive influence over Taliban groups will be put to the acid test. Specifically, what about the US's intentions regarding establishing a permanent military presence in Afghanistan? Are the Taliban willing to accept it as the price to pay for political accommodation - and if not, will Pakistan want to arm-twist them? Meanwhile, Pakistan's own stance on the issue remains ambiguous.

Equally, non-Pashtun groups would view Pakistani intentions with great suspicion. Not only does the US's new Afghan policy refuse to factor in Iran as a key player, Clinton even utilized the regional tour to indulge in some high-voltage characterization of the Iranians as bad boys hopelessly wedded to dangerous pastimes. Iran will be closely watching every baby step that Pakistan takes from today onward.

Equally, Pakistan's appetite has been whetted and how it presents its own "wish-list" to Obama (which it will do some day soon) will be keenly awaited in the neighboring capital of New Delhi. The New Silk Road has a long gestation period and such fruits have a tendency to turn sour quickly in the Central Asian steppes.

At any rate, Delhi would assess that in the long run, we are all dead, and, therefore, its emphasis would be on the now and the tangible. The US may need to work on Delhi to roll back its influence in Kabul; it may at some point try to mediate on the Kashmir problem between India and Pakistan; it may resuscitate its robust military partnership with Pakistan; it may invite in China as a "stakeholder" in South Asia.

Learning to live with the Americans in the neighborhood isn't exactly turning out to be a pleasant experience for Indian pundits. One day they were told that the Haqqanis were the murderers who attacked the Indian Embassy in Kabul - and, indeed, the US Embassy too - and now they overhear tit-bits of conversation that the US has had a change of heart.

Conceivably, they would hope to hear from US National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, who arrives in Delhi this week, how such phenomenal shifts take place in US policies and where this leaves its one and only "indispensable partner" in South Asia and the entire Indian Ocean region - India.

[Agnimitra]

^^^ To what extent was the Paki ability to "hunker down" under US pressure due to Irani support?

[Rangudu]

Carl,

I'm not sure about others but I'd sooner analyze the utterings of a Zaid Hamid or Arundhati Roy than I'd pay heed to anything MKB says. In other words, MKB = DKB as far as I'm concerned. I wish there was a filter to hide posts that has this joker's name in it.

[Agnimitra]

Rangudu, I know how you feel. But the absence of concrete action and Karzai's fawning on TSP lends MKB's agitprop some credibility.

[Virupaksha]

DKB??

[Rangudu]

Carl,

Analyzing daily events by writing magnum opus type junk doesn't make sense. Unkil's various wings often work erratically and Karzai is known to have behavioral disorders, including perhaps a biploar disorder and addiction. One needs to try to filter out the noise and identify trends.

[Lalmohan]

karzai is actually goading TSP to start a hot war with unkil, its one way of ensuring that unkil keeps enough troops in afghanistan and saves his hide from the talibains

[shyamd]

Afghan endgame: Pakistan, US agree on ‘blueprint’

By Kamran Yousaf
Published: October 24, 2011

Pakistan insists on a ceasefire in Afghanistan as a first step to enter meaningful negotiations with the Taliban, while the US appears to want to fight and talk simultaneously. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The Afghan endgame took the centre stage during extensive talks between the US and Pakistan during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Islamabad last week.
As a result of those marathon discussions, both Pakistani and US officials have now disclosed that the two countries agreed on a “blueprint” that seeks a peaceful end to the decade-old war in Afghanistan.
Secretary Clinton led an unprecedented high-powered delegation, including the American military and intelligence chiefs, but her discussions with Pakistan’s top civil and military leadership were not, it seems, confined to bilateral relations or a plan on how to deal with the Haqqani network.
“You can say it is a breakthrough as we have agreed on a broader framework and a concept of reconciliation for Afghanistan,” said a senior Pakistani official, who asked not to be identified. A US diplomat also confirmed the development.
The Pakistani official said the two sides will now work out details such as clearly defining the role of those countries involved in the reconciliation process in Afghanistan.
Pakistan, he said, was ready to use its contacts with the Afghan Taliban to bring them to the negotiating table with the US, but would not become a guarantor of the process. “The US is willing to agree on things which we have been telling them for months,” he added.
The move is also an acknowledgement that Pakistan cannot be bypassed in such matters related to Afghanistan, he pointed out. In the past Pakistan has voiced concerns over attempts by the US as well as Afghanistan to keep Islamabad at bay over their peace overtures with the Taliban.
Despite an agreement in principle on the way forward for Afghanistan, there seem to be certain issues on which the two countries have yet to come up with a common strategy.
For example, Pakistan insists on a ceasefire in Afghanistan as a first step to enter meaningful negotiations with the Taliban, while the US appears to want to fight and talk simultaneously.
“We’re obviously working with the Afghans to fight those who will not reconcile, but we also must have a track for talking to those who are willing to come in off the battlefield within the parameters that we and the Afghans have set and that we have supported,” said a senior State Department official. “So I don’t think there’s any different disagreement between us, that we have to fight and squeeze even as we talk,” he added.
Islamabad is also opposed to the idea of attaching preconditions such as renouncing violence and accepting the Afghan constitution for talks with the Taliban.
On the question of the Haqqani network, a Pakistani official said the US still has reservations and will continue to apply pressure. “They want us to take certain actions to dismantle their (the Haqqani’s) ability and capability to target US forces in Afghanistan.”
Published in The Express Tribune, October 24th, 2011.

[ramana]

MKB was also saying the same things about the US-TSP compact on Afghanistan.

[Agnimitra]

^^ That's right.

[Rangudu]

What compact? So far we've only heard reports from ISI-lifafa "journalists". US media is saying the opposite.

I'm willing to bet my monthly salary that there is no real agreement on anything. The most Unkil has 'conceded' is to tell TSPA that US will no longer ask them to hit Haqqanis militarily but instead (a) they should force their assets to the table, (b) they should give intel on locations of key leaders and (c) provide guarantees that if they come to table they will behave.

Of these maybe (a) can happen. But (b) and (c) are non-starters. If one is keen on seeing something, one can see Mona Lisa in an ink splatter.

Added later:

No matter how hard TSPA tries or how weak US becomes, the dog's tail cannot be straightened. TSPA cannot force the Haqqanis to abandon Al Qaeda anymore than they were able to make Mullah Omar give up OBL after 9/11. As a result, Unkil will never abandon Afghanistan fully and will keep enough bases and 20k+ troops indefintely. This is the wall that any misguided talks efforts will always keep hitting. BTW, see this lifafa piece on the so called deal

He added that there was one more problem and that was the guarantee being sought by the US officials about the success of dialogue with Taliban militants.
“How can we give such a guarantee? Yes we can facilitate talks but that doesn’t mean that the Taliban are subservient to us, they will do whatever suits them,” the official said.

[Prem]

Afghan, NATO forces kill or capture 200 militants ( 14400 jobs created)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45011114/

KABUL, Afghanistan — Tens of thousands of Afghan and NATO troops killed or captured 200 insurgents in eastern Afghanistan during two operations targeting the violent Haqqani network blamed for the majority of attacks in Kabul, the U.S.-led coalition said Monday. At least 20 of the insurgents had ties to the Haqqani group, which is affiliated with al-Qaida and the Taliban, said German Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, a coalition spokesman in Afghanistan. The roughly 180 others were from the Taliban or other groups, though not all have been identified.About half of the Haqqani fighters were identified as leaders and the other half were bomb makers or individuals who help militants in various ways, such as distributing weapons and supplies, running safe houses or preparing areas for attack."Removal of the midlevel cell leaders with their expertise and leadership has significantly disrupted insurgent operations and degrades the Haqqani network's ability to coordinate and execute future attacks against combined team forces and the people of Afghanistan," Jacobson said

[Lilo]

^^

KABUL, Afghanistan — Tens of thousands of Afghan and NATO troops killed or captured 200 insurgents in eastern Afghanistan during two operations targeting the violent Haqqani network

All the US troops arrayed on Af-Pak border were for this .
And we have a thread on Unkil's strike options on TSP... .

Removal of the midlevel cell leaders with their expertise and leadership has significantly disrupted insurgent operations and degrades the Haqqani network's ability to coordinate and execute future attacks against combined team forces and the people of Afghanistan," Jacobson said

Reminds me of Aaron Eckhart's line in Dark Knight... soo well scripted.
Now again like the movie , if only a Jokeresque "agent of chaos" turns up, things may for once get interesting for REAL.

[Rudradev]

Afghan, NATO forces kill or capture 200 militants ( 14400 jobs created)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45011114/

KABUL, Afghanistan — Tens of thousands of Afghan and NATO troops killed or captured 200 insurgents in eastern Afghanistan during two operations targeting the violent Haqqani network blamed for the majority of attacks in Kabul, the U.S.-led coalition said Monday. At least 20 of the insurgents had ties to the Haqqani group, which is affiliated with al-Qaida and the Taliban, said German Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, a coalition spokesman in Afghanistan. The roughly 180 others were from the Taliban or other groups, though not all have been identified.About half of the Haqqani fighters were identified as leaders and the other half were bomb makers or individuals who help militants in various ways, such as distributing weapons and supplies, running safe houses or preparing areas for attack."Removal of the midlevel cell leaders with their expertise and leadership has significantly disrupted insurgent operations and degrades the Haqqani network's ability to coordinate and execute future attacks against combined team forces and the people of Afghanistan," Jacobson said

It would be interesting to know what exactly happened here. Especially because the report is coming directly after Mohtarma Clinton's visit to Pakistan, at a time when ISI-lifafoos are claiming that some "deal" has been struck between TSP and US over Afghanistan.

200 insurgents were killed or captured by a huge buildup of NATO troops, incl. heavy weapons and aircraft, in Paktika province right on Haqqanis' doorstep. Of them, only some 10% actually had "ties" to the Haqqani network (which could mean anything from being part of their current cadre, to having once worked for a warlord who was in some way affiliated to the Haqqanis at one time.)

I cannot believe for one minute that this was the result of a Haqqani assault on an entrenched NATO position that vastly outnumbered and outgunned them. Haqqanis and ISI are not that stupid as to give the enemy open battle at a time and place of his convenience. Even if they'd planned a mass assault/infiltration across the Durand Line, they would have called it off when they learned about the well-advertised NATO buildup directly across the border.

So what is not being reported here?

Possibilities:

1) US/NATO actually crossed into N.Waz and successfully assaulted the Haqqanis on their home turf, with TSPA/ISI acquiescence. IMHO improbable. But you never know with the TSPA's tendency to talk tough while GUBOing.

2) Haqqanis/ISI ordered, or tricked, or forced some cannon fodder jihadis into infiltrating Paktika at exactly the time and place where they would run into the buildup of NATO troops. It was a stage-managed H&D satisfying exercise for Unkil, who can now draw down claiming that he has achieved retribution for the Kabul attack and Rabbani killing (without actually having to fight the Haqqanis.)

3) This was an advance/scouting party sent by Haqqanis to probe the NATO buildup's readiness; depending on their success, Haqqanis are preparing to launch a much bigger assault.

4)?

Whether the NATO buildup draws down or stays put from this point forward, will give us an important clue as to what actually might have happened.

[Lilo]

It would be interesting to know what exactly happened here. Especially because the report is coming directly after Mohtarma Clinton's visit to Pakistan, at a time when ISI-lifafoos are claiming that some "deal" has been struck between TSP and US over Afghanistan.

200 insurgents were killed or captured by a huge buildup of NATO troops, incl. heavy weapons and aircraft, in Paktika province right on Haqqanis' doorstep. Of them, only some 10% actually had "ties" to the Haqqani network (which could mean anything from being part of their current cadre, to having once worked for a warlord who was in some way affiliated to the Haqqanis at one time.)

So what is not being reported here?

Possibilities:

2) Haqqanis/ISI ordered, or tricked, or forced some cannon fodder jihadis into infiltrating Paktika at exactly the time and place where they would run into the buildup of NATO troops. It was a stage-managed H&D satisfying exercise for Unkil, who can now draw down claiming that he has achieved retribution for the Kabul attack and Rabbani killing (without actually having to fight the Haqqanis.)

^^ I firmly believe that above is the case.

Mainly because i vaguely remember some thing similar which happened in past Af-pak farce.
Infact it feels like dejavu .

[Virupaksha]

4) pay off the journalist to publish a dictated news report for H&D massage of khan.

[abhishek_sharma]

The fuss over Afghan oil

[Altair]

4)?

Whether the NATO buildup draws down or stays put from this point forward, will give us an important clue as to what actually might have happened.

A huge cash transfer to a crore commandu can also help in getting the desired result?

[nvishal]

Is it possible to stop western-centric militants from forming in "pakistan controlled afghanistan"? Can pakistan prevent that? Can convert military programs in afpak ensure that another strike on western lands does not take place?

No one is sure about this. If the US steps back from where it is now, it means that it has made a compromise. It means that it is ready to suffer a few costs in the form of terror strikes on its home land.

Pakistan is a US asset in southasia. It has been bank-rolling it since independence. The chinese have been doing the same. India should make the logical assessment and try to minimize losses as much as possible. This two front war could possibly turn into a three front. We have an enormous coastline which can either be an asset or a liability.

[svinayak]

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=121620
The proposed strategic Afghan-US accord envisages retention of 3-5 military bases by US troops beyond 2014. It also envisions induction of Indian military into Afghanistan under the garb of peace keeping force and trainers and to fill up the vacuum created by departing troops. The perceived arrangement will allow USA , India and Afghanistan to collectively continue with covert war against Pakistan with major focus on Balochistan. In addition, Indo-US-Israeli nexus would also continue with its efforts to destabilize Xingjiang province and Tibet to keep China pressurized. In other words, the spotlight will remain focused on Pakistan and China . Indo-Afghan strategic agreement complemented by Afghan-US strategic agreement will render US-Pakistan-Afghanistan trilateral composite dialogue irrelevant and instead will make Indo-Afghan-US nexus relevant. It will help Karzai in keeping the Taliban out of power for some more time. Depending upon the evolving situation, the US plan can be suitably modified to hold only those military bases that are located outside Taliban dominated regions of Southern and Eastern Afghanistan and in collusion with India , provide full support to ANA in its efforts to capture as much territory from the Taliban. Also, continue with covert war against Pakistan .

Indo-Afghan Strategic partnership inked in New Delhi on 4 October has reinforced Pakistan’s apprehension that India wants to position itself as a key player in Afghanistan and that the US is fully supporting Indian ambitions. India ’s sustained efforts have finally been crowned with success and now it has placed itself at the centre stage of the endgame in Afghanistan . While Pakistan government apparently seems to be unperturbed with this development and is putting up a complacent posture, the GHQ is rightly concerned over the paradigm shift in the regional equation and must have got busy in assessing its impact on the security of Pakistan and how best to counterbalance it.

Although our leaders are playing down the implications of this accord and are hoping that Afghan leadership will demonstrate requisite maturity and responsibility, the fact of the matter is that Northern Alliance heavy regime led by Karzai has constantly maintained an aggressive and hostile posture against Pakistan and has remained heavily tilted towards India . It has been an active partner in the covert war orchestrated by intelligence agencies of India , USA , Britain , Israel and Germany and has been on the forefront to spoil Pak-US relations. It is naïve on part of PM Gilani and FM Hina to say that Indo-Afghan accord will not have any adverse impact on Pakistan . This agreement has been signed at a time when Pak-US relations are at its lowest ebb and the USA is in a truculent mood. Both Afghanistan and the US are accusing that the ISI is linked with Haqqani network and is involved in murder of Rabbani. Karzai has preferred India over Pakistan ignoring the fact that his country is neither geographically contiguous to India , nor has common religion, culture and traditions.

He describes India as a ‘great friend’ since India has helped Afghanistan in development works and in establishing intelligence agency RAAM and shaping up NDS and training of police. RAW has taught members of RAAM how to motivate and train saboteurs and to cultivate agents in other countries. Large number of training camps and centres established in Afghanistan for the training of Balochistan and FATA specific terrorists are jointly managed by RAW and RAAM. Indian Army instructors had been training Northern Alliance fighting force in Iran in second half of 1990s and Indian Army had planned and coordinated the ground offensive against Taliban on 7 October 2001 . Indian military academies are now imparting training to ANA officers, and vacancies for various courses are being offered liberally.

While the relationship of India and Afghanistan has been steadily warming up since 2002, India made its place with the help of its investments worth about $2 billion. So far Indian assistance was confined to trade, investment, science & technology, education, agriculture, health, transportation and roads. New fields of security, intelligence, mining and hydro carbon explorations have now been incorporated. The accord is likely to grow in scope and may include new areas of cooperation in coming years.

[anmol]

The World According to Condi

Who did Condoleezza Rice loathe -- and love? The former secretary of state dishes in her new book on everyone from Dick Cheney to Muammar al-Qaddafi.

OCTOBER 24, 2011




On President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and then-President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan: Rice recalls a meeting at the White House with President George W. Bush and the two pugilistic leaders that she compares to a boxing match with Karzai far outmatching his Pakistani neighbor -- the session ending with Bush remarking that the two almost came to blows.

[Lalmohan]

mushy was and remains a buffoon, i am not surprised that karzai ran rings around him
something tells me kiyani is the real dr strangelove

[shyamd]

YAAWWNNN!!!!


Backing down: US no longer urging full-scale Waziristan blitz

Published: October 25, 2011

Senior diplomat says Islamabad agreed to tackle Haqqanis. PHOTO: APP/FILE
ISLAMABAD:
During US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent visit to Islamabad, Pakistan made a commitment to Washington that it would tackle the Haqqani network, a senior American diplomat told The Express Tribune.
However, what is significant is that the US is no longer pushing Pakistan to initiate a full-scale military offensive in North Waziristan which is allegedly being used by the Haqqani network as a launching pad to target US-led international forces in Afghanistan.
“We are not asking Pakistan to invade North Waziristan. What we want is for this Haqqani threat to be eliminated, either through the use of force, or by other means,” the diplomat disclosed, requesting anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue.
If Pakistan were able to convince the Haqqanis to come to the negotiating table, that would be a “very positive start”, he said. He did not, however, say exactly what commitment Pakistan had made with the US regarding the Haqqanis. “We leave it to Pakistan,” he added.
Despite Islamabad’s commitment, he cautioned that a lot of work is yet to be done in order to judge whether or not Clinton’s recent trip was successful.
“I won’t say the worst is over, but what I do believe, is that the best is yet to come,” he said.
For years, Pakistan has been resisting US pressure to go after the Haqqanis in North Waziristan. Its reluctance is attributed to the military establishment’s decade-old contacts with the network and the belief that the group has a critical role in the Afghan endgame.
But in recent months, the Haqqani network has become a major thorn in the relationship between Pakistan and the US.
The US stepped up pressure on Islamabad to dismantle “terrorist sanctuaries” from North Waziristan.
But during Clinton’s visit, the two sides covered significant ground to narrow down their differences, not only on the Haqqani network, but also on the Afghan reconciliation process.
Regarding Pakistan’s role in the Afghan reconciliation process, he said Pakistan needs to be honest about its links with the Afghan Taliban.
“We want a commitment from Pakistan to play a constructive role in the Afghan reconciliation process,” said the official when asked what specific role the US wants Pakistan to play. His remarks underline concerns in US ranks that Pakistan is yet to be forthcoming on the Afghan endgame.
“We simply want Pakistan to be honest with us about whether or not they can bring the Afghan Taliban to the negotiating table,” he pointed out.
Pakistan, during the discussion, did agree to facilitate the US to help it reach out to the Afghan Taliban but insisted it would not become a guarantor of the process.
When approached, Foreign Office spokesperson Tehmina Janjua refused to confirm reports about Islamabad’s commitment with Washington in terms of the Haqqani network.
“I can only say that Secretary Clinton’s visit was very constructive. Both sides put across their point of view on key issues in an open and candid fashion,” she added.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 25th, 2011.

[JE Menon]

[shyamd]

China seeks military bases in Pakistan

By Amir Mir

ISLAMABAD - While Pakistan wants China to build a naval base at its southwestern seaport of Gwadar in Balochistan province, Beijing is more interested in setting up military bases either in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan or in the Federally Administered Northern Areas (FANA) that border Xinjiang province.

The Chinese desire is meant to contain growing terrorist activities of Chinese rebels belonging to the al-Qaeda-linked East

Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) that is also described as the Turkistani Islamic Party (TIP).

The Chinese Muslim rebels want the creation of an independent Islamic state and are allegedly being trained in the tribal areas of Pakistan. According to well-placed diplomatic circles in Islamabad, Beijing's wish for a military presence in Pakistan was discussed at length by the political and military leadership of both countries in recent months as China (which views the Uyghur separatist sentiment as a dire threat) has become ever-more concerned about Pakistan's tribal areas as a haven for radicals.

Beijing believes that similar to the United States military presence in Pakistan, a Chinese attendance would enable its military to effectively counter the Muslim separatists who have been operating from the tribal areas of Pakistan for almost a decade, carrying out cross-border terrorist activities in trouble-stricken Xinjiang province.

There have been three high-profile visits from Pakistan to China in recent months; the first by Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar; the second by President Asif Ali Zardari and the third by the director general of the Inter-Services Intelligence, Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha.

The Pakistani visits were reciprocated by the September 28 visits to Islamabad by Chinese Vice Premier Meng Jianzhu and Public Security Minister Meng Jianzhu. This was prompted by two bomb blasts in Kashgar city of Xinjiang province on July 30 and 31 in which 18 people were killed.

The explosions provoked senior government officials in Xinjiang to publicly claim for the first time in recent years that the attackers had been trained in explosives in ETIM/TIP camps run by Chinese separatists in the Waziristan tribal regions of Pakistan.

The Chinese allegation was described by many in the diplomatic circles of Islamabad as a clear sign of the growing impatience of Beijing with Islamabad's failure to control radical groups operating within its borders.

The Chinese charge was made on the basis of a confession by a Uyghur militant arrested by the Chinese authorities. Pakistan swiftly extended all possible cooperation to Beijing against the ETIM/TIP network. "Terrorists, extremists and separatists in Xinjiang province constitute an evil force," said an August 1 statement issued by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry after Chinese President Hu Jintao rang Zardari to express his grave concern over the growing activities of "terrorists" belonging to the Pakistan-based ETIM/TIP network.

In a subsequent video released on September 7, ETIM/TIP corroborated earlier Chinese claims that it was involved in attacks in Xinjiang in July.

The ETIM/TIP, run by natives of Xinjiang province, a Muslim-dominated region three times the size of France, is fighting against the settlement of China's majority Han ethnic group in the western province, describing its struggle as a freedom movement.

The ETIM/TIP maintains that the Chinese are a colonial force in Xinjiang province - which it refers to as Turkistan - and emphasizes Islam over ethnicity. Though the ETIM/TIP network on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border has been much weakened in recent years in the wake of the killing of many of its top leaders in US drone attacks, hardcore Uyghur militants are still shuttling between China and Pakistan, mainly because Xinjiang province shares a border with Pakistan.

The ETIM/TIP presence in Pakistan was first confirmed when one of its founding leaders, Hasan Mahsum alias Abu Muhammad al-Turkistan, was killed by Pakistani security forces in South Waziristan in October 2003.

The next one to be killed by the Americans in a drone attack was Memetiming Memeti alias Abdul Haq al-Turkistani, the ETIM/TIP chief, who was targeted in North Waziristan on February 15, 2010. Abdul Haq was succeeded by Abdul Shakoor Turkistani, a Chinese Uyghur, who is well known for his friendly terms with major Taliban groups in Waziristan.

He has taken control of overall command of Chinese and Uzbek militants in North Waziristan, due to his past association with the late Abdul Haq and late Tahir Yuldashev of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

Beijing believes that the Chinese rebels operating from the Pakistani tribal areas are well-connected to al-Qaeda, which not only trains them but also provides funding.

Thus, Pakistan and China, which have cooperated for a long time in the field of counter-terrorism, have intensified their efforts to nip the terrorism in the bud, especially after the Kashgar blasts.

In fact, it was in the aftermath of the May 2 US raid which killed al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in his Abbottabad hideout that Islamabad started playing its China card aggressively, perhaps to caution Washington against pushing it too hard. Shortly after the Abbottabad raid, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani traveled to Beijing.

Accompanying Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar had stated on May 21 that whatever requests for assistance the Pakistani side made, the Chinese government was more than happy to oblige, including agreeing to take over operations of the strategically positioned but underused port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea on expiry of a contract with a Singaporean government company.

He disclosed that Pakistan had asked China to begin building a naval base at Gwadar, where Beijing funded and built the port. "We would be grateful to the Chinese government if a naval base is constructed at the site of Gwadar for Pakistan," he said in a statement. Mukhtar later told a British newspaper in an interview: "We have asked our Chinese brothers to please build a naval base at Gwadar port."

Knowledgeable Defense Ministry sources in Islamabad say that by having a Chinese naval base in the Gwadar area, Pakistan intends to counter-balance Indian naval forces.

However, diplomatic circles in Islamabad say Beijing, which has no military bases outside its territory and has often been vocal in criticizing American moves for operating such bases, first wants to establish military bases in Pakistan, which could be followed by the setting up of the naval base.

Therefore, Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie promptly dismissed (on June 6) suggestions that Beijing was carving out a permanent naval presence in India's neighborhood.

Answering questions at the 10th Asia Security Summit, organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, Liang disclaimed moves to build naval bases at Gwadar and at a Sri Lankan port. Emphasizing his credentials as a member of the Chinese State Council and Central Military Commission, he said:
We will have a very serious and careful study of an issue of such importance to the government and the military like the reported move for establishing naval bases in Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Indeed, we will have exact plans and set up a panel to discuss it if the move were for real. However, I haven't heard of it.


Asked by Manish Tewari, the Indian Congress party's spokesman, to spell out China's core interests in South Asia and the Indian Ocean area, Liang said:
The core interests include anything related to sovereignty, stability and form of government. China is now pursuing socialism. If there is any attempt to reject this path, it will touch upon China's core interests. Or, if there is any attempt to encourage any part of China to secede, that also touches upon China's core interests related to our land, sea or air. Then, anything that is related to China's national economic and social development also touches upon China's core interests.
The Chinese desire to have military bases in Pakistan is not a new one and has been discussed in the past.

An article published on the official website of the Chinese central government (http://www.gov.cn) on January 28, 2010, signaled that Beijing wanted to go the US way and set up military bases in overseas locations that would possibly include Pakistan. The obvious purpose would be to exert pressure on India as well as counter American influence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The article stated:
Setting up overseas military bases is not an idea we have to shun; on the contrary, it is our right. It is baseless to say that we will not set up any military bases in future because we have never sent troops abroad. As for the military aspect, we should be able to conduct a retaliatory attack within the country or at the neighboring area of our potential enemies. We should also be able to put pressure on the overseas interests of potential enemies. With further development, China will be in great demand of military protection.
Analysts say although it might not be politically feasible for the Pakistani government to openly allow China to set up military bases on its soil, Islamabad might allow Beijing the use of its military facilities without any public announcement as a first step.

The Chinese demand to set up military bases in Pakistan has gained momentum at a time when the Indian military leadership is already raising a hue and cry over the alleged presence of People's Liberation Army (PLA) troops in the Pakistan-administered part of Kashmir as well as in the FANA, which was earlier called Gilgit and Baltistan.

In August 2009, the Pakistan government passed the Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order to grant self-rule to the people of the area and create an elected legislative assembly. Gilgit-Baltistan thus gained de facto province-like status without doing so constitutionally.

Gilgit Baltistan province borders Pakistan's Khyber Pukhtunkhwa province to the west, Afghanistan's Wakhan Corridor to the north, China to the east and northeast, Pakistan-administered Kashmir to the southwest, and Jammu Kashmir to the southeast.

Although the supposed Chinese military presence in Pakistan's northern areas of Gilgit Baltistan has been a matter of intense speculation in India, it was on October 5 that Indian army chief General V K Singh went public for the first time with the Indian establishment's assessment of the kind of Chinese presence in the northern areas of Pakistan. "Around 4,000 Chinese including troops of the People's Liberation Army are present in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir," Singh told journalists in New Delhi.

However, senior Foreign Office officials of Xinjiang told this writer during a briefing in Urumqi, the capital of the province, that the Indian army chief's claim was fallacious and must be based on some misunderstanding.

Despite the fact that diplomatic ties between China and India have improved in recent years, they are still at odds over territorial claims from both countries dating back to the India-China border war in 1962.

While India and Pakistan control Pakistan-administered Kashmir (Azad) and Jammu Kashmir states respectively, China claims part of northeastern Kashmir that it says is a part of Tibet. Therefore, Beijing is highly critical of India's support for the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, who fled Tibet in 1959 and set up a government in exile in the northern Indian hill town of Dharmsala.

The Indian army chief was not the first senior military official to have talked about the alleged Chinese presence in the northern areas of Pakistan.

In April this year, Northern Army Commander Lieutenant General K T Parnaik, while addressing a seminar in Jammu and Kashmir, said that the Chinese footprint in Pakistan-administered Kashmir was increasing steadily and its troops were actually present along the line of control (LoC) that divides the disputed Kashmir area.

"The Chinese presence in Gilgit-Baltistan and the northern areas of Pakistan is increasing steadily. There are many who are concerned about the fact that if there was to be hostility between India and Pakistan, what would be the complicity of the Chinese. Not only are they in the neighborhood, but the fact is that they are actually present and stationed along the LoC," Parnaik said.

Zhang Xiaodi, the director general of the foreign affairs office in Urumqi, told this writer in a meeting on October 10 that there is no truth in the allegations leveled by Indian military officials. "There are only Chinese construction teams working in the northern areas of Pakistan on certain development projects being carried out by Pakistan and China jointly. The presence of People's Liberation Army troops there is out of question."

At the same time, there are those in the Pakistani Embassy in Beijing who view the Indian army chief's allegation against the backdrop of the Pakistan army's recent decision to include for the first time Chinese troops in military exercises along the border with the Indian states of Punjab and Rajasthan; the 101 Engineering Regiment of the PLA took part in exercises with their Pakistani counterparts in August this year.

Analysts say China's deepening strategic penetration of Pakistan and the joint plans to set up not only new oil pipelines and railroads but also naval and military bases, are enough to set alarm bells ringing in New Delhi and Washington. The repercussions are particularly stark for India because both Beijing and Islamabad refuse to accept the territorial status quo and lay claim to large tracts of Indian land that could come under Chinese sway once Beijing is allowed to establish military bases in Pakistan.

The fact that Gilgit and Baltistan is located in the Pakistani-administered part of Kashmir presents India with a two-front theater in the event of a war with either country. By deploying troops near the LoC and playing the Kashmir card against New Delhi, Beijing is clearly signaling that Kashmir is where the Sino-Pakistan nexus can squeeze India.

Amir Mir is a senior Pakistani journalist and the author of several books on the subject of militant Islam and terrorism, the latest being The Bhutto murder trail: From Waziristan to GHQ.

[ramana]

Will cost Mushy and the TSPA some H&D!!!

Expect some rage boys jihadis to attack Kabul.

[anmol]

Bolton: Karzai Caught Double-Dealing, Needs His Hat Handed to Him
By On the Record
Published October 25, 2011 | FoxNews.com

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," October 24, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS GUEST HOST: We are back. And "On the Record" tonight, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai making some explosive remarks about the United States this weekend. Karzai said in an interview with a Pakistani reporter, quote, "God forbid if a war breaks between Pakistan and America, we will side with Pakistan. Afghanistan would stand with you. Afghanistan is your brother," he said. But now the Afghan president's office is saying that the media, quote, "misinterpreted" Karzai's remarks.

I'm joined now by former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, joins us. And he's already laughing! Why the chuckles, Ambassador Bolton?

JOHN BOLTON, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR/FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Well, this statement is obviously outrageous, and a whole lot of U.S. officials, from the secretary of state on down, ought to be having conversations with President Karzai to express that.

But you know, back in the day, an American politician could say one thing in the Northeast, another thing in the South, another thing in the West and get away with it. That obviously doesn't happen today. Within 24 hours, an inconsistency is being pointed out.

But in other cultures, they're just not used to that. You're speaking in, I don't know, Urdu or Pashtu, whatever President Karzai was speaking in to some Pakistani radio station, and if you get found out, you say, Well, I was quoted out of context or you've got the interpretation wrong. Unfortunately, he got caught in duplicity and double dealing. And he needs to be called out for it very severely in private.

MACCALLUM: You know, sort of aside from the fundamental discussions that you and I are going to have in a moment about our relationship with Pakistan and Afghanistan, I mean, what about Karzai as an individual? Because this isn't the first time, you know, that we've heard these kind of -- I'll call them gaffes, I guess, from him, and that he's had to sort of be, you know, brought into line in some ways in terms of our diplomacy in lines of how he's thinking about things. And whether he's stable is really the underlying question, is it not?

BOLTON: Well, I think he's very stable. I think this is part of the culture that he can say one thing to another person and the precise opposite to another and believe that he can get away with it. It's one reason why we, the United States, are not going to reform Afghanistan, its culture or its government in our lifetime, and that shouldn't be our objective. We shouldn't think we're going to fundamentally change the country.

But even more importantly, to understand we're not there to benefit Hamid Karzai. A lot of people say, "Oh, how can he be so ungrateful after all the help we've given him?" It's true we've benefited him and the Afghan people, but this is a fundamental political point. We're there to protect American interests. As an incident of that, we may benefit the Afghans, but we're not there to make them a better people, a happier place to live. We're there to advance our own interests, and that's why President Karzai really needs to have his hat handed to him.

MACCALLUM: And you know, to that point, in terms of U.S. interests and being in Afghanistan, the mission is to eradicate the Taliban, to make them, you know, unable to operate out of that area. And one of the main problems that we've had with that, of course, is the Haqqani network, which is just over the border into Pakistan. And the whole idea with Hillary Clinton's trip or one of the central ideas of the secretary of state was to sort of, you know, have this really -- have a tough talk, basically, with Pakistan and show an alliance between Afghanistan and the United States that says, Look, you know, you're going to have to crack down on this Haqqani network because we're never going to get anywhere in Afghanistan if we can't solve this problem.

BOLTON: Well, and the reason that there are American attacks inside the territory of Pakistan is against the Haqqani network, against Taliban, against Gulbuddin Hekmatyar -- that is to say, against the people who are trying to overthrow Hamid Karzai.

So the duplicity here is really quite breathtaking, and equally so when you realize that just a couple weeks ago, Karzai was in New Delhi making an agreement with India to have a major Indian aid program inside Afghanistan, which drives the Pakistanis crazy.

So this culture of saying one thing to one side, another thing to another side, a third thing to the third side and thinking you can get away with it is really revealed here in its full splendor.

But it brings -- should bring us back to the fundamental. We're there to destroy the Taliban and al Qaeda, to make sure they don't take over Afghanistan again. The kind of government Afghanistan has obviously is a factor in that, but our making a nice, sweet, pretty, representative government in Afghanistan with Hamid Karzai as president is not our objective. Our objective is to destroy the Taliban and al Qaeda.

MACCALLUM: What did you think of the -- the state -- our State Department basically came out and said, Look, you know, let's take the temperature down on this a bit. This is a hypothetical. We are not about to go to war with Pakistan and -- no, against Pakistan, rather. So there's no question of whose side Afghanistan would be on in this issue. Did you like the way that they handled that? Was that the right way to go?

BOLTON: Well, I think it's right to cool the rhetoric down in public. I think that's probably correct, although I must say, you have to great your teeth when you say that. And I do think there should be some hard conversations in private because this kind of comment by Karzai undercuts support for the war in Afghanistan.

We've already got enough problems because President Obama doesn't explain it to the American people, doesn't relate it to our own security, is really more eager to withdraw than he says publicly. He's delighted he's now going to be able to withdraw from Iraq by the end of the year. He'd be even more delighted if he could do the same in Afghanistan.

So Karzai sort of sticking his thumb in our eye does not help what is already a difficult political situation here in the United States.

MACCALLUM: It's certainly difficult for the families of our military who have shed blood in his country...

BOLTON: Absolutely.

MACCALLUM: ... and that is another very important element to all of this. Ambassador, thank you. Always good to talk to you. Thanks. Thanks, John Bolton...

BOLTON: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: ... for joining us tonight.

BOLTON: Good night.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-re ... z1bowtsYh4