Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 04 Jan 2012 07:11

Taliban reach ‘preliminary deal’ on Qatar office

KABUL: The Afghan Taliban said on Tuesday they have reached a preliminary agreement to set up a political office in the Gulf nation of Qatar, and asked for the release of prisoners held at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay. In a statement on their purported website “Voice of Jihad”, the group said they had held “preliminary talks with relevant sides including Qatar” to open an office outside Afghanistan, without confirming where it would be. One of their demands would be for a prisoner exchange to include the release of Taliban inmates from the US-run detention facility Guantanamo Bay, they said. “We’re now prepared, while having a strong presence inside (Afghanistan), to have a political office outside (Afghanistan) for negotiations,” the statement said. “And as part of this we have reached initial agreement with relevant sides including Qatar.”
The Taliban office is seen by Western and Afghan officials as a crucial step to moving forward with secretive attempts to reach a negotiated end to a decade of war in Afghanistan It was welcomed by one of the Afghan government’s top peace negotiators as a “gesture of good faith”, from a group which in the past has laid down strict pre-conditions for any talks including the withdrawal of all foreign forces. “We are right now ready ... to have a political office overseas, in order to have an understanding with the international (community),” spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in an emailed statement. “In this regard we have reached an initial understanding with Qatar and relevant sites.” The Afghan government had pushed for an office in Saudi Arabia or Qatar, but said in late December that Kabul would accept a Taliban liaison office in Qatar, if its officials retained control of the negotiating process. A senior member of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, the body charged with seeking a negotiated end to the country’s decade-long war, said he welcomed the Taliban’s decision to set up a political office in Qatar. The United States will support Afghan-led efforts to reach a negotiated end to the war with the Taliban, including a possible Taliban political office in the Gulf state of Qatar if that is agreed by all sides, said the US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. agencies

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2012_pg1_2

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 04 Jan 2012 10:19

Iran Tests Missiles, Issues Warning

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 04 Jan 2012 10:22

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... s-say.html
Huawei’s Work in Iran May Violate U.S. Sanctions, Lawmakers Say

Jan. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Six U.S. lawmakers urged the State Department to investigate whether Huawei Technologies Co. violated U.S. law by supplying sensitive technology to Iran.
Huawei, China’s largest maker of phone equipment, said Dec. 9 it would voluntarily restrict business in Iran because of that country’s “increasingly complex situation.” The Shenzhen, China-based company said it wouldn’t seek new customers in Iran and will limit the scope of business with existing clients.While calling Huawei’s decision on Iran a “positive step,” the lawmakers in a Dec. 22 letter to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the company’s “previous actions and continuing service of existing contracts with Iranian clients may violate” an Iran sanctions law passed in 2010. The letter was released yesterday by the office of Representative Sue Myrick, a North Carolina Republican.The law, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, prohibits the U.S. government from “entering into or renewing a contract with a company that exports sensitive telecommunications technology to Iran,” the lawmakers wrote.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 04 Jan 2012 20:26

I wonder how Pakistan feels about the Taliban office being set up in Doha - with support from the US and Germany

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 04 Jan 2012 20:54

And they can't even blast it or incur the wrath of Qatar+KSA+ don't know who else..

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Jan 2012 00:38

Pray for our brave ones helping the people of Afghanistan and keeping J&K safe.

Forces await govt nod for Tajikistan field hospital

The armed forces have readied a team of over 70 medical personnel, including 10 specialist doctors, to set up a field hospital in Tajikistan and are now awaiting orders from the government on when to establish the facility.

While a timeline for setting up the hospital has not been fixed, a team has been kept on high alert and would be ready to move within hours of a government order. “We are ready and as soon as we get the orders, the field hospital would be set up there,” Director General of Army Forces Medical Corps (AFMC) Lieutenant General H L Kakria said on Friday.

The senior officer also said India has resumed full-fledged medical services in Afghanistan that had been disrupted last year after a deadly attack on the Indian medical team in Kabul. “We are back to full strength in Afghanistan and the work of our doctors has been appreciated,” Kakria said.

The Indian teams had been temporarily recalled after the attack on Indians working in Afghanistan. Teams at all five locations have now been given additional security.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Jan 2012 00:45

India, Iran to resolve crisis in Afghanistan

Asia News NetworkBy Seema Mustafa in New Delhi/The Statesman | ANN – Tue, Dec 27, 2011

New Delhi (The Statesman/ANN) - In a fresh round of consultations Iran and India agreed to step up efforts for a regional initiative to resolve the crisis in Afghanistan. One of the proposals under consideration is to invite the various chieftains and groups in Afghanistan to reach a consensus in approach at a regional level meeting in any state capital.

Advisor for International Affairs to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Ali Akbar Velayati met Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently in New Delhi to raise the issue of regional cooperation under the larger umbrella of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. He said it was essential to look for a solution within the region identifying China, Russia, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, India and the Afghan government as major players in the proposed initiative.

Relations between India and Iran seem to be on the mend with the suave Dr Velayati discussing the gas pipeline with the Prime Minister as well. He also sought to make light of India's opposition to Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) saying that there was no problem between Iran and the IAEA so long as "they do not act under the influence of the United States." Prime Minister Singh can be expected to visit Iran next year.

Iran and India have similar positions on Afghanistan, both being wary of Pakistan and the influence of the Taliban in decision-making. Both have been very close to the Northern Alliance, and the regional initiative suggested by Velayati is targeted at providing a level playing field for the Afghan chieftains, warring or otherwise. Pakistan has been suggested a dialogue with sections of the Taliban over and above other groups, with both India and Iran hesitant about providing this legitimacy.

The proposal to convene a regional meeting with Afghan groups is new, and has generated some interest in New Delhi. In Iran's assessment, as Dr Velayati put it, the Americans are being left with few choices now, with their exit from Afghanistan now imminent. He said that he had not expected to see a withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, but this has come to pass. In Afghanistan it was imperative to bring all parties within the country together with others in the region to work out a solution and ensure reconstruction of the beleaguered nation with full sovereignty.

Significantly, Iran's new confidence comes from a minute analysis of the regional situation where it finds itself with more friends than foes. The US invasion of Iraq has ironically left a pro-Iran government in place, with the same being the case in Libya and Tunisia. Opposition from the erstwhile regime of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt has been tempered by the current protests with continuing support for Iran from the Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hama in the Gaza strip. The balance of power has shifted from pro-US regimes in the Middle East to the street that is not hostile - in fact quite the opposite in many countries - to Iran.

Velayati is still pushing the gas pipeline with the old 'under the sea' proposal being currently revived for discussion. India that had come under US pressure to back out of the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline in return for the civilian nuclear energy agreement, is back in talks with Iran on this issue again. Dr Velayati said that there were no problems on either side about providing gas, and purchasing gas, only in the transition of gas as New Delhi was fearful of the security of the pipeline through Pakistan. There is broad agreement to renew "serious discussions" on the issue to work out a solution.

As predicted, Iran is on board with our plans for Afghanistan. Afghanistn is one area that we dont share the same interests as the GCC.

Backgrounder posted on 14th July

Basically, they are still allied with the US. But hte US has to speak to the KSA directly to influence Egypt, Pak etc at least this is the situation that KSA wants I think. But KSA has to look after its own interests, Karzai and the afghan govt for whatever reason are allied with Iran. KSA has no choice but to back Taliban take over, hence the statement of KSA supporting TSP interests in Afghanistan. So, what will happen is India and US will get closer - hence discussing Af-Pak on a regular basis. Pranab "exchanged notes" with Clinton. She'll be in Dilli to discuss more about Af-Pak. I think India is going to increase its role with respect to the ANA, ANP. So, theAfghan India defence pact signed recently is with US bakcing and is to scare Pak? We are already working closely with the Afghans.

At the end of the day, India has an interest in protecting Kabul govt and integrating the good taleban into Kabul parliament. So KSA & our interests diverge here. But getting Karzai to travel to KSA and offer alliance to fight Tehran will infact tighten the noose around Pak even further for us and will protect Indian and US interest. This will give a free run for US to chase Haqqani's.

Problem is US is weak now and Tom Donilon says they are "outsourcing" issues to their partenrs in the region. Turkey to handle Syria and Iran for example. Oman was handling areas of the Iran file.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Jan 2012 03:10

The BO admin goal of getting out of Afghanistan before the 2012 elections is giving the TSP a whip to crack. Hence they are misbehaving.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Jan 2012 08:45

The Problem Prisoners: Ten of the most controversial detainees still held at Guantánamo.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 11 Jan 2012 15:13

I had revealed some of BND activities in 2008:

Jan 08

It is learnt that MI6 wasn't the first western intelligence agency to enter into talks with Taliban.

In July 2005, the BND (german intel agency) flew 2 commanders of the Taleban into Zurich for talks. The talks didnt achieve anything.

All the western agencies are after the same thing with the Taliban. That is to get them to distance from Al Qaeda. They have all failed because it is difficult to identify taliban figures who hold large authority over the organisation, which is led by a Shura council.

Nov 08

British Intelligence brought a taleban represantative to London to meet with British officials. Also travelled to France and Germany.

Spiegel special on BND and their involvement in negotiations.
How German Diplomats Opened Channel to Taliban

-------------------
ISI brokered the deal for Talebs to open office in Doha and are kneck deep in negotiations.

MurthyB · Post by **MurthyB** » 13 Jan 2012 01:53

(NSFW!)

Shock, outrage over Marine urination video

Talibunnies getting due respect.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 15 Jan 2012 15:15

Afghan endgame: US ready for Haqqani talks

By Kamran Yousaf
Published: January 9, 2012

The US is now arguing that the Haqqani network has a ‘pivotal role’ in any future political dispensation of Afghanistan.

ISLAMABAD: Despite having suffered serious setbacks in the aftermath of the November 26 Nato airstrikes which killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, Washington and Islamabad have continued ‘dialogue’ even amidst flaring tensions.

The US has taken Pakistan into confidence over the unprecedented development of allowing the Taliban a political office in Qatar to advance the Afghan reconciliation process, sources revealed.

A senior Pakistani official stated that the Obama administration not only sought Pakistan’s consent over the Taliban office but had also given a ‘green light’ to allow the deadliest Afghan insurgent group, the Haqqani network, to be a part of the reconciliation process.

The move by Washington was a clear deflection from its previous policy of keeping Islamabad at bay over its peace overtures with the Afghan Taliban.

“Yes, we were onboard,” said the senior Pakistani official referring to the latest push by Washington to seek a political settlement of the Afghan conflict.

The US has long resisted talks with the Haqqani network, believed to be based in the North Waziristan Agency.

Contrary to Washington’s prior stance, the country’s military establishment is now looking to avoid confronting the Haqqanis head on, arguing that the group has a ‘pivotal role’ in any future political dispensation of Afghanistan.

“They [Americans] are now following the same approach that we have been advocating for years,” said a security official, requesting not to be named. The official added that Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani himself conveyed to US President Barack Obama in late 2010 that a solution to the decade-old conflict in Afghanistan could only come through the meaningful talks with the Taliban.

The Pakistan military had even urged the US to announce a ceasefire in Afghanistan creating “favourable conditions for talks with the insurgents”, it was disclosed. But Washington, instead of following that policy, initiated talks with the Taliban on its own, said the official.

“The CIA had attempted to woo certain Taliban individuals but their efforts failed because those people had nothing to do with the Taliban,” commented defence analyst Brig (retd) Mehmood Shah.

Shah – the former security secretary of the Federal Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) – said the opening of the Taliban office was certainly a “positive development”.

An American diplomat also confirmed that the two countries have been engaging in dialogue on the Afghan endgame despite the recent hiccup in the relationship in the wake of the Nato attacks.

“We have already acknowledged that Pakistan has a critical role in the Afghan reconciliation process,” said the diplomat, who requested to remain anonymous.

Meanwhile, a Pakistani security official accepted the fact that despite Islamabad’s strong reaction to the Salala attack, the US did not escalate the situation further.

“The US approach has allowed us to keep the channel of communication open with them,” said the official.

The Express Tribune further learnt that Pakistan has asked the US not to send any senior officials to the country for the time being, bearing in mind the growing US resentment over the hugely unpopular Nato airstrikes.

Another western diplomat pointed out that Pakistan could have taken far worse steps than what was actually done after the Nato attack.

“The blocking of Nato supplies is of course a big decision, but it certainly isn’t a drastic step,” the diplomat told The Express Tribune.

“Had Pakistan denied its airspace to the Nato forces, that would have been a disaster,” he remarked.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Jan 2012 04:50

Despite Official Line, Taliban Foot Soldiers Are Furious at Video of U.S. Troops Urinating on Dead Afghans

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jan 2012 01:00

Apparently saffron growing instead of poppy is being declared as the best outcome of throwing the Taliban out.
India should watch out that Kashmir saffron prices dont crash due to this. Will lead to our own problems.

Many years ago some guy was elling saffron flowers near Kasuli. Our driver said its most likely dyed flowers and not fall for that.

r_subramanian · Post by **r_subramanian** » 18 Jan 2012 01:04

An excellent article by Praveen Swami in The Hindu

West's romancing of the Taliban
...
For a sensible understanding of the intellectual underpinnings of western romancing of the Taliban, therefore, one must excavate deeper than oil rigs: the West's relationship with Islamism has to do with ideas about the world, not just cash. In search of reliable collaborators across the Middle East, colonial states threw their weight behind reactionary tendencies in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Islam was used to legitimise this project.
Led by the enigmatic scholar, Gerhard von Mende, Nazi Germany's Ostminsterium recruited Muslims from Central Asia to aid its fight against the Soviet Union. Ian Johnson's remarkable history, A Mosque in Munich, shows the Central Intelligence Agency recruited many of these ex-Nazis.
The West's Afghanistan policy marks a return to these geostrategic roots —this time founded on the hope that religious-authoritarian regimes will provide a volatile region stability. Its growing engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, its tactical embrace of jihadists in Libya and Syria, its use of the right-wing cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, as a mediator with the Taliban form other parts of this mosaic.
...

link

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jan 2012 01:08

Also after WWII and the decolonization, these extreme pan Islamist movements were supported to snuff out Arab Nationalism which were becoming pro-Soviet Union.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Jan 2012 04:11

ramana wrote:Also after WWII and the decolonization, these extreme pan Islamist movements were supported to snuff out Arab Nationalism which were becoming pro-Soviet Union.

Now to remove the extreme pan Islamist movements they are waging the WOT and GOAT. The cycle continues and it keeps getting into total mess.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 18 Jan 2012 11:34

cross post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right response
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2012_pg3_4

Pakistan also wasted its chance. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in the US had provided Pakistan with a golden opportunity to get rid of the Afghan and other militants and the 55-year-old religio-political mindset of its elite. Pakistan should have declared war against the terrorists before the US did. The Pakistani army should have entered Afghanistan before the US forces did. Or the least Pakistan could do for its eternal good was to become an active partner in the war: the Pakistani forces should have joined the NATO forces within Afghanistan.

Apparently it looks as if the presumption put forward was not workable. How could the Pakistan Army, which carried an extra load of Islamic dynamics, agree to wage a war against its own creation, the Taliban; particularly when it was certain that the war would not remain confined to Afghanistan, and it would also spread to Pakistan?

Pakistan did not respond rightly to the changed situation. Pakistan did not act first. Nor did it become an active partner. It became a facilitator, a perplexed ally, of the US. It agreed to intelligence sharing, and to provide routes for logistics and bases for bombardment.

Despite Pakistan remaining away from a proactive war in Afghanistan, the militants started a war within Pakistan. For the Pakistani army it meant facing with less strength, lesser outside support, the same terrible things as it would have faced being an initiator or partner in the war against extremists. Not putting the whole weight behind the allies did not help. Rather, it created an environment of suspicion.

What Pakistan did also meant that when the war would be won, it would be the choice of the allies what degree they would accommodate Pakistan in the Afghan affairs. This is what is happening since two years — since peace started appearing in Afghanistan. While every country that matters is one way or the other present in Afghanistan, Pakistan is almost out.

The time for action in Afghanistan has passed, but Pakistan can still act. Pakistan can still become the centre of the region. Blocking the NATO supply routes and not attending important congregations like the one held at Bonn will not help. All that Pakistan has to do is to declare, wholeheartedly, a war against extremist thoughts and activities in Pakistan, and also against those foreign militants who live in Pakistan and are most active in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border belt.

Our military and media keep on telling us that the war in Afghanistan will be won only through a dialogue with the Taliban. The ground realities tell a different story. NATO has almost won the war. There are not many Taliban sympathisers in today’s Afghanistan. Factually there were not many Taliban sympathisers in Afghanistan even when the Taliban were the rulers. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan with the support of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia — and in the beginning with the support of the US also. The talks being held presently between the Americans and the so-called Taliban leaders is not because of any necessity. It is one of the final propaganda touches being given to an endgame.

Similarly, the Pakhtun nationalism as propagated by our media and strategic experts too does not exist in Afghanistan. What exists over there is that the Pakhtun population is busy in the state affairs and round-the-clock economic activities. However, peace achieved in Afghanistan is still fragile for reasons related to the Pak-Afghan border. This is why the US before the withdrawal of a majority of its troops in 2014 would go to any length to ensure that the hard earned peace is not disturbed in Afghanistan. Any length does not mean waging a war. However, it definitely means using all kind of means and machines to make the Pak-Afghan border impregnable to a required length and breadth.

Hillary Clinton recently suggested turning the turmoil-ridden border into a regional trade hub. It is the only way out. Pakistan does not have much time to waste. Pakistan has to be part of this great transformation. The Pakistani security establishment must understand that strategic depth today does not mean an extension of boundaries. It means either strategic alliance or expansion of the economy. While no country is interested in making a strategic alliance with Pakistan, the whole world — including India — is ready to help Pakistan expand its economy, provided a democratic Pakistan becomes stable and safe/free of religious extremism.

True, a 64-year-old agenda cannot be replaced so quickly with a four-year-old agenda but let us struggle with clarity. Inside Pakistan it will take time to change the religio-political mindset. Inside the Pak-Afghan border belt, bringing about a change is a matter of months. Let us do it. Let us save ourselves from the tragedies that we will continuously face in case the Pak-Afghan border belt remains in turmoil.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 18 Jan 2012 14:20

http://biggovernment.com/rohragohmert/2 ... e-taliban/

An article by two republican senators Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
who met NA leaders in Berlin recently.

The State Department even went to extraordinary links to attempt preventing the writers from meeting with the Northern Alliance leaders.

we have politically and militarily undermined the natural and historic barrier to the Taliban, which is the non-Pashtun peoples of the North, Central and Western parts of Afghanistan.

A Northern Alliance leader says that of the more than 800 Taliban detainees that have been released, he is now seeing many of them fighting, killing and terrorizing again. Yet, the Northern Alliance leaders are being effectively shut out of the plans for the way forward, while being demonized by the American government they helped.

Perhaps we should even consider support for a Balochistan carved out of Pakistan to diminish radical power there also. Surely, leaving Afghanistan to the same terrorist thugs who enabled the September 11th attacks is the very definition of insanity

Inspite of some obfuscation,light dawning in duplicitee.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jan 2012 22:12

Pankajs, Even the US did not demand that TSP dejihadify itself. It allowed them to retain the TSP jihadi camps for latter use. Its not out of ignorance but sheer bloodymindedness. The idea was to retain those jihadis for use in the area. The Kunduz airlift, the escape from Tora Bora all are indicators.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Jan 2012 23:31

The idea was to retain those jihadis for use in the area.

Which are you are refering. IMO it was for one and only purpose to change the demographics of the entire region.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 19 Jan 2012 00:21

Taliban peace talks 'at risk' as Obama stalls on Guantánamo

Europeans fear US failing to appreciate 'game-changing' offer could prompt Afghan ceasefire 'as early as 2012'

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 19 Jan 2012 12:40

16 killed in two attacks in southern Afghanistan

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN: Two attacks just hours apart killed 16 people and wounded more than 20 others on Wednesday in the insurgency-wracked southern Afghan province of Helmand, officials said.

A suicide bomber on a motorcycle killed 10 civilians and two policemen in the first attack at a bazaar, while an intelligence official was among the dead in a second blast caused by a mine, which was claimed by the Taliban.

General John Allen, commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), said in a statement

“Mullah Omar (Taliban leader) has lost all control over Taliban insurgents, otherwise he would immediately denounce these attacks and order his ‘forces’ to stop attacking innocent Afghan civilians,” Allen said.

“This latest act of violence further confirms that the insurgency has declared outright war on the people of Afghanistan and will stop at nothing to continue to use terrorism and intimidation to advance their own malign and selfish ends.”

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 19 Jan 2012 22:30

Apologies for posting this in full

The Fog of Peace

Afghanistan policy, like Vietnam policy before it, has taken on a life of its own, impervious to ground truth. The simple reality is that "peace talks" with the Taliban have no chance whatever of a positive outcome from the perspective of U.S. policy. Just as it did in Vietnam, the United States has been fighting the wrong war in Afghanistan with the wrong strategy from the very beginning.

In Vietnam, the United States was ideologically hell-bent on fighting a war against communism, and shaped its strategy accordingly. For nearly a decade in Afghanistan, the United States has insisted on fighting a secular war, a counterinsurgency, against a religious movement. However, our enemy in North Vietnam was not fighting a war for communism, and in Afghanistan our enemies are not fighting an insurgency. They are fighting a jihad, and no South Asian jihad in history has ever ended in a negotiated settlement. And this one will not either. There is no overlap between the way insurgencies and charismatic religious movements of this archetype in the Pashtun belt end. Insurgencies by definition have both political and military arms. Regardless of what they have learned to say, the Taliban does not. One hundred percent of the movement's leaders are Muslim clerics. After fighting a second war in Asia the wrong way for almost a decade, the United States is now again desperately seeking a way out of the quagmire from within the wrong set of potential outcomes.

The primary reasons why "peace talks" are delusional are three fold: First, there is no "Taliban" in the sense the proponents of talks envision it. To believe so is cultural mirroring at its peak. Second, the enemy is interested in pre-withdrawal concessions, not a settlement, in an alien culture in which seeking negotiations to end a war is surrender. To believe otherwise is simply wishful thinking. And third, no understanding with senior clerics in the Taliban movement has ever outlived the airplane flight back to New York. Like a second marriage, trusting the "Taliban" to keep a bargain is a victory of hope over experience.{Nice way of putting it. The same is true in our case wrt pukistan and the 'aman ki asha' brigade}

First, the best way to understand the "Taliban" is not as a political entity that can carry out negotiations, but as an event in time analogous to the First Crusade. It is a loose network of military-religious orders which share a common goal, quite similar to the Crusader orders, which included the Knights Templar, Knights of Malta, and the Knights Hospitaller. The "Taliban" is comprised of similar military-religious orders, including, to name a few, the Haqqani network, the Quetta Shura, the Tora Bora Front, the Tehrik-i-Taliban, the Lashkar-i-Taiba, Hisb-i-Islami Khalis, and Hisb-i-Islami Gulbuddin. Like the crusaders, who shared a common purpose and owed allegiance to the Pope in Rome, the "Taliban" groups share a common purpose and acknowledge the religious supremacy of Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Amir-ul-Mumaneen, or "Leader of the Faithful," in Quetta. And like the crusader groups, the "Taliban" groups have no real "political wing," because in the jihadist mindset now ascendant in the Pashtun region, Islam and governance are not separate entities. The church and the state cannot be disaggregated in this way.

Just as the Knights of Malta did not agree on policy matters with the Knights Templar, and carried out radically different strategies in the Holy Land, so the various groups of the jihad often fundamentally disagree with one another on how to achieve their common goal of establishing religious rule over disputed territory. Each jihadist group has, just as each crusader group had, its own unique and complex internal dynamics. And, just as the Pope was distant from the Holy Land, Mullah Omar is distant physically and operationally from the central battlefields in Afghanistan. The course of events in Afghanistan, as were those on the ground in Acre, Tyre, or Jerusalem, are decided by local dynamics, events, and power struggles -- not by the Pope, and not by Mullah Omar. Just as the Vatican had no practical control over the behavior of the Knights Templar on the ground in Jerusalem, the Quetta Shura has none over the operational activities of the Haqqani Network, the Tehrik-i-Taliban, or even its own local commanders fighting in Afghanistan. Even if one could find bonafide representatives of the Quetta Shura, and not a con artist Quetta cobbler as was the case last time, the Quetta Shura cannot control events in Afghanistan any more than the Vatican could control events in the Holy Land in the eleventh century.

Second, the motives of any such representatives simply do not now and will never coincide with our own. The Quetta Shura has no genuine interest whatsoever in any "peace talks" or negotiations except to gain concessions such as the release of their comrades in Guantanamo Bay. They have fought for almost 20 years for control of Afghanistan and are now within two years of the withdrawal of foreign troops. As the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) makes unequivocally clear, they have not in any way changed their intent to retake control of Afghanistan and reestablish their Islamist state. If they had any interest in genuine talks, they would hardly have assassinated Berhanuddin Rabanni, head of the Afghan High Peace Council and the Karzai regime's lead negotiator, last year.

Furthermore, although the Pentagon has added the imaginary golden fabric of "progress" and the imaginary significance of the "attrition of mid-level leadership" to the emperor's new clothes of peace talks in Afghanistan, both of these are simply fictitious. The reality is, despite all the Pentagon smoke and mirrors, the new NIE shows there has been no sustainable progress in Afghanistan, and the enemy still has a virtually unlimited supply of soldiers and leaders. There are hundreds of thousands of recruits waiting to join the cause in Pakistan, every village has a mullah to lead them on the battlefield, and the madrassas of Pakistan produce hundreds of new militant mullahs every year. They have extensive direct and indirect military support from the Pakistani government and army. And just as the Saigon government was in Vietnam in 1970, the Karzai kleptocracy in Kabul is illegitimate, incompetent, and utterly unpopular in Afghanistan today. As the desertion of a third of the tiny Afghan National Army each year proves, almost no one except Americans and Britons are willing to die for it. On a good day, the Afghan National Army has perhaps 100,000 men under arms. In a sobering comparison, the South Vietnamese army (ARVN) had more than a million men under arms, including a large, modern air force, in a country one quarter the size of Afghanistan, and it collapsed in three weeks of fighting in 1976. The Taliban, who have studied American military history, fully understand this calculus.

Finally, the last nail in the coffin for "peace talks" is simply pragmatic. The Taliban in its original, unsplintered form, was a notoriously unreliable partner in discussions. In seeking to mediate with its elements between 1996 and 2001, foreign groups representing every interest from health care to oil pipelines to preservation of antiquities found that every "understanding" with the Taliban had completely unraveled before the foreign negotiators had even landed back in New York or London. The Taliban of 1996-2001, which was infinitely more centralized and controllable than it is today, never kept a single such agreement for more than a week.

In summary, wishful thinking aside, there is no central, political entity called the "Taliban" with whom to negotiate. The enemy is not interested in "peace talks" when they are convinced they have already won a complete victory against a hated and infidel puppet regime and an American puppeteer they now see as weak. And even if all that were not true, today's disaggregated jihadist groups would not and could not keep any bargain which a few members of one crusader order might make in any case. "Peace talks" and hopes of a negotiated solution in Afghanistan are delusional, and American policy-makers should be devoting their time and efforts to managing the coming civil war in Afghanistan rather than weaving any more new clothes for the emperor. In the next phase of the war, which will certainly begin when NATO has removed most of its combat power from the country, the United States will face stark political and military choices in determining the modality and extent of its support to the non-Pashtun ethnic groups who will oppose the Taliban's restoration.

Thomas H. Johnson is a Research Professor in the National Security Affairs Department at the Naval Postgraduate School and the Director of the Program for Culture & Conflict Studies. M. Chris Mason is a retired Foreign Service Officer with long experience in South Asia and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies in Washington, DC.

Where does that leave India?

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 19 Jan 2012 22:53

The similarity between Vietnam and Afghanistan ends with the involvement of Americans in both the theatres.....lets not mix the two....
While Vietnam was an unjust war....Afghanistan is a just war...the difference between a just and unjust war have huge psychological significance....Americans are not going to give the Afghan platter to the jihadists..specially now that the Americans seems to have lost control of those nutjobs at least in the Af-Pak...they are trying their best to have an enemy within the Af-Pak to neutralize these nutjobs....As Pakistan increasingly moves towards civil war...Americans will have their own merchanaries to take on those jihadists....they will not want any Indian role in the Af-Pak..if they can control the events..if not then India will have to pull off the gloves and finally oust the neo-greeks from Hindukush....

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jan 2012 22:56

I wouldnt use the word just as it has some connotations in US theology. Its not same as justified.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 19 Jan 2012 23:11

well if the diagnosis by Thomas H. Johnson is correct then whatever anybody may say about Pakistan having a weak hand could be seriously wrong. Which brings me to the conclusion that my hunch has some substance to it. Indians need to lead the lead a dirty fight inside Pakistan with the rest denying any startegic space to Pakistan inside Afghanistan. Would be a wish come true if US could join in such a fight, that I think could be a decent quid pro quo for all the Parliament attacks, bomb blasts, 26/11s where we had to hold back.

One thing that I was unaware of was the desertion rate in ANA. If that is true then the Indians trying to train the officers may not be a low risk high gain excercise.

On the other hand if the diagnosis is wrong then so could be the prognosis.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 20 Jan 2012 05:09

The glory of war.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... m-20110327

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 20 Jan 2012 14:46

Pakistan’s closure of supply routes costs US 6 times more for new route

WASHINGTON — The U.S. is paying six times as much to send war supplies to troops in Afghanistan through alternate routes after Pakistan’s punitive decision in November to close border crossings to NATO convoys, the Associated Press has learned.

Pentagon figures provided to the AP show it is now costing about $104 million per month to send the supplies through a longer northern route. That is $87 million more per month than when the cargo moved through Pakistan.

Over the past year or so, the U.S. military has been shrinking its reliance on the Pakistani routes, which are used to transport fuel and other non-lethal supplies. U.S. officials say they could manage indefinitely without that access if Pakistan either makes the closure permanent or offers to reopen it under unacceptable conditions.

Officials said that moves by Pakistan to briefly close the supply routes on two previous occasions after disputes with the U.S. prompted the Pentagon to begin shifting more to the northern crossings. Officials also believe that even if Pakistan eventually opens the supply routes, that there will be additional fees charged, so the alternate routes would help avoid those extra costs.

On the other hand, sending NATO convoys through Pakistan is seen by Washington as a significant piece of the overall U.S.-Pakistani partnership. Failure to reinstate those routes would signal a more severe diplomatic breach between the two countries at a critical time in the Afghan war and the ongoing battle against insurgents who seek sanctuary on the Pakistan side of the border.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 20 Jan 2012 15:02

10 NATO troops killed in Afghan attack, helicopter crash

Four soldiers were killed by a member of the Afghan National Army in eastern Afghanistan on Friday. The suspected shooter has been apprehended, according to a NATO statement.

The attack occurred just hours after a military helicopter crashed in southern Afghanistan, killing six NATO service members, according to military officials. “The cause of the crash is under investigation,” according to a NATO statement. “However initial reporting indicates there was no enemy activity in the area at the time of the crash.”

In a statement, Taliban officials claimed responsibility for the attack.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 20 Jan 2012 16:12

Taliban-U.S. peace talks look more likely; military worried

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Obama administration is moving ahead with plans for negotiating with the Taliban, confident that talks offer the best chance to end the 10-year-old war in Afghanistan. But the military worries things are moving too fast, and intelligence agencies offered a gloomy prognosis in their latest Afghanistan report.

Those talks, if they ever take place, would include the United States, the Taliban and the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai, a senior U.S. official said.

The diplomatic, military and intelligence branches of the U.S. government differ over the value of talks with the Taliban or whether now is the right time to so publicly shift focus away from the ongoing military campaign that primarily targets Taliban insurgents.

The latest Afghan National Intelligence Estimate warns that the Taliban will grow stronger, using the talks to gain credibility and run out the clock until U.S. troops depart Afghanistan, while continuing to fight for more territory

It says the Afghan government has largely failed to prove itself to its people and will likely continue to weaken and find influence only in the cities. It predicts that the Taliban and warlords will largely control the countryside.

Meanwhile, Karzai is still uneasy with the pace and direction of talks. He resents the selection of the Gulf state of Qatar as the site of a Taliban political office, although he has reluctantly agreed to that U.S.-backed plan. And he worries that the United States will strike a deal with the Taliban and force that deal on his government

U.S. officials close to the negotiations say that despite these warnings the Taliban high command is more ready for talks than in the past, at least with the United States if not the elected Afghan government it opposes.

One topic was expected to be a U.S. offer to release two or three Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo to custody in Qatar, although two officials said that effort is moving more slowly than plans for the office.

The senior U.S. official said the U.S. has set clear conditions for opening the office, including that the Taliban must agree not to use it for fundraising or propaganda, or to run insurgent operations. Larger conditions include assurances that the insurgents are truly interested in a political settlement and not using negotiations as a way to run out the clock until U.S. forces leave.

The U.S. intelligence assessment looks past the near horizon for talks.

It predicts the likely outcome of two strategies: moderate engagement, in which the U.S. continues special operations raids against key Taliban leaders, and village outreach to strengthen local government, while conventional forces train Afghanistan's army and police force, and limited engagement, in which the U.S. would continue economic and political support, and some Afghan security training, but most troops would withdraw.

Both strategies can weaken the Taliban, the analysts say, but ultimately, neither course of action is likely to stop the continued weakening of the Afghan state, the officials said. The NIE did suggest eliminating top Taliban leaders in the next two years and continuing to build Afghan government could help offset that.

In that way, the NIE's bleak predictions also give the White House reason to hasten the reconciliation process, in order to pull U.S. troops out what some analysts termed a hopeless stalemate.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 20 Jan 2012 16:17

Towards a Stable Afghanistan: The Way Forward
A report of the Joint Working Group of RUSI and the Vivekananda International Foundation.

As Afghanistan approaches the 2014 deadline for the drawdown of most of the military forces in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), there is considerable, and justifiable, anxiety among all the stakeholders, including the government of Afghanistan, the countries contributing troops and assistance on the ground, and Afghanistan's regional neighbours.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 22 Jan 2012 23:13

cross post
--------------
A fractured policy

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Jan 2012 03:56

pankajs wrote:Towards a Stable Afghanistan: The Way Forward
A report of the Joint Working Group of RUSI and the Vivekananda International Foundation.
As Afghanistan approaches the 2014 deadline for the drawdown of most of the military forces in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), there is considerable, and justifiable, anxiety among all the stakeholders, including the government of Afghanistan, the countries contributing troops and assistance on the ground, and Afghanistan's regional neighbours.

Its a very good report which gives a second opinion on whats happening in Afghanistan.

Appendix 2 gives details of Indian aid to Afghanistan as of Feb 2011...

....
The Situation on the Ground
The Taliban has been pushed out of most population centres, and special forces operations have successfully disrupted Taliban networks, albeit at some significant cost to Afghan public support for ISAF, largely as a result of collateral damage. Areas under effective Afghan Government control have expanded, legal economic activity has grown and access to health has greatly improved, with up to 82 per cent of the population now having access to basic healthcare. The provision of education has also improved fast. In 2001, only one million children were in school, all of whom were boys. .....

However, notwithstanding these huge achievements, there is a military stalemate and the overall security situation in Afghanistan remains tenuous. Insurgency is still especially strong in the eastern provinces and is taking advantage of ISAF’s reduced operations in the north and west to expand its presence there. The pernicious production of narcotics has increased. Governance in Afghanistan is still afflicted by rampant corruption, misdirected and wasted donor assistance, as well as inept administration of funds, all threatening the popularity of the Karzai administration and lending support to those who oppose the existing constitutional order. Sectarian divisions remain strong and, although the eruption of a new civil war is not imminent, it cannot be excluded as a possibility after 2014. Critical in this regard will be whether Afghanistan can carry through an effective presidential transition in 2014, together with the ability of President Karzai’s successor to maintain a broad coalition of forces in support of the central government. Accordingly, it will be important that an appropriate enabling security environment is created in order to ensure that elections are held in as free and fair a manner as is practical.

As long as TSP provides safe haven and more for Haqqani and Omar groups Afghanistan will be unstable. If the Qatar talks don't make headway the ISAF needs to neutralize these two groups.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 25 Jan 2012 11:53

cross-post

India concerned over victory of "dark forces" of terrorism

WASHINGTON: India has sought a cautious approach on the US-backed peace talks with the Taliban, warning against a victory for the "dark forces of terrorism" if such negotiations are put on a fast track.

"While we agree that ultimately there would have to be political solution, we also believe that this should not become an over-riding objective that needs to be achieved at all costs for that would risk the prospect of the victory of the dark forces of terrorism and extremism that have plagued the region for long," Indian Ambassador to the US, Nirupama Rao has said.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 25 Jan 2012 12:02

ramana wrote:As long as TSP provides safe haven and more for Haqqani and Omar groups Afghanistan will be unstable. If the Qatar talks don't make headway the ISAF needs to neutralize these two groups.

I think we are on the same page and so is GOI.

"While we agree that ultimately there would have to be political solution, we also believe that this should not become an over-riding objective that needs to be achieved at all costs for that would risk the prospect of the victory of the dark forces of terrorism and extremism that have plagued the region for long," Indian Ambassador to the US, Nirupama Rao has said.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 27 Jan 2012 17:13

ANSF will take over night raids by April 2012.

member_22286 · Post by **member_22286** » 27 Jan 2012 17:25

ANSF ?? Afghan Special forces?? Can the Afghan forces sustain themselves with Us money in the absence of US? That remains to be seen the US end game seems to be placing a capable Najibullah like president ala Soviet style and let him take care of Af-Pak

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 27 Jan 2012 18:41

Pasha has been urging Afghan fighters to negotiate with Unkil. Pasha met with Emir of Qatar and CP Tamim and also PM of Qatar. Before travelling to Qatar, Pasha went to KSA twice to meet with KSAGIP head. Riyadh was actually meant to host the office but Iran and others vetoed the idea because KSA is too close with Unkil. Turkey was also a possible place at one point.

ISI is trying to organise a shura with various terror/militia from Af Pak. Hezb - e Islami i.e. Hekmatyar is doing the leg work for ISI. Karzai met him with US diplomats on New years day in Kabul. They are still negotiating on what role Afghan govt will play in the talks, this is the bone of contention because Karzai says the US is sidelining the govt.

Lets see.... Meanwhile Iran wants to do its own Afghan shura meeting in Tehran with India.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 31 Jan 2012 01:04

Hezb e islami is running negotiations on behalf of ISI. Trying to organise a shura with militants. Now afghan govt is going to do more talks as US sidelined them