Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Mar 2012 20:21

Nightwatch comments on 28 Mar 2012

Pakistan: Thousands of Islamists from right-wing, religious and banned organizations demonstrated in Islamabad on the 27th. They called on the Pakistani government not to reopen the Afghan border to NATO and US supplies. Hafiz Saeed, the head of the banned charity Jamaat-ud-Dawa which is a front for the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist group addressed the crowd, in defiance of a government ban that prevented him from speaking at a similar rally last month.

Comment: The Pakistanis never explain how banned groups and prominent Islamist leaders invariably surface with impunity at any rally that criticizes the US or Pakistani policy that supports US interests. Rallies always have wealthy and powerful backers because it is expensive to print banners and posters professionally and to bus protestors from outside Islamabad. Most of the groups demonstrating are based in the northwest.

The capability to organize and execute a large demonstration requires various kinds of government support, including permits and extra security in Islamabad. The timing of the demonstration relative to the Pakistani Taliban threat to kill members of parliament who approve a resumption of aid strengthens the palpability of the Pakistani Taliban threat.

Afghanistan: Afghan authorities arrested 18 people, reportedly Afghan National Army soldiers, after interrupting a plan for a suspected mass suicide attack, intelligence officials said. The officials said 11 suicide jackets were seized in the Defense Ministry. The Afghan Defense Ministry said the reports are rumors.

Meanwhile Italian authorities announced they arrested ten suicide bombers on Sunday. The Italian announcement stated the disruption of Taliban plans was the product of Italian intelligence services' work.

Comment: Authorities in Kabul judge that the raids disrupted Taliban plans to start this year's spring offensive this week with a blitz of suicide bombings in Kabul. The key claim in the statement from US authorities is that the Afghans made the arrests. The statement made no claim that the Afghans did the actual intelligence work.

The Italians statement was clearer about who did the heavy intelligence work. No one doubts the ability of Afghans to make arrests, but their ability to perform actionable intelligence work remains an open question and is critical in making decisions about transferring security responsibilities.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Apr 2012 23:45

LINK

President Obama apologized for the mass killing and promised justice. But this and other incidents, such as the desecration of dead bodies and the Quran, prompted even more tension between the United States and the Afghan government the U.S. is trying to support. This is the moment when commanding General John Allen testifies before Congress today. And we're going to talk about this with Denis McDonough, he is President Obama's deputy national security adviser.

Mr. McDonough, welcome to the program.

DENIS MCDONOUGH: Thanks, Steve, it's good to be with you.

INSKEEP: He's at the White House this morning.

And in what way is the U.S. talking of changing the day-by-day rules for American troops in Afghanistan?

MCDONOUGH: Well, one thing I think we've seen, Steve, as a result of this appalling and tragic incident - and I'll tell you, as a dad, it's hard to listen to the story that you just played. And I think that's exactly what President Obama has said over the last week or so. Which is, we'll get to the bottom of this and hold accountable anybody who's responsible for it.

But as it relates to our strategy, Steve, I think this event and the events of the last several weeks, if anything, underscore that our strategy of a steady and responsible transition to Afghan lead is exactly the right course. And that's exactly what we're going to continue to do on a day-to-day basis, give over more and more territory to trained Afghans so they're in the security lead.

INSKEEP: Is that transition going to include, as some news reports are now suggesting, putting Afghans - in effect, giving Afghans an opportunity to weigh in before U.S. raids are begun? That there would be an Afghan judge that would weigh in on whether U.S. troops could strike in one place or another?

MCDONOUGH: Well, I think you're referring to some of the reports in this morning's newspapers about the ongoing negotiations on a memorandum of understanding, related to special operations in Afghanistan. I really can't get ahead of those negotiations, Steve.

But what I can tell you is that in a strategy that is designed to put Afghans in the lead, to take over responsibility for their country, it would certainly make a lot of sense to establish the kind of institutions and the kind of capabilities among Afghans so that they can take over these efforts rather than leaving them to us.

INSKEEP: Without saying that you're getting ahead of negotiations here in Iraq, if I'm not mistaken, there was a phase in which U.S. troops asked the permission of judges before going out on raids. Is it reasonable to think that that might be one of the phases we're heading for in Afghanistan?

MCDONOUGH: One of the things that we do in our own country is that there is a special FISA court, for example, where we take certain steps to try to get judicial authority to take steps, as it relates to national security. So I think it would reasonable to expect that we try to do the same kind of thing in a country like Afghanistan, where we're trying to develop the kind of institutions on which Afghans can rely for a much more robust national security.

INSKEEP: Dennis McDonough, what about President Hamid Karzai's demand that American forces be confined to their bases next year - by next year?

MCDONOUGH: Well, you know, the president - President Obama and President Karzai had a very good conversation late Thursday night, early Friday morning, in Kabul. And they discussed some of the comments that President Karzai had made. And, frankly, we're able to clarify some of those. I think out of that conversation, they both agreed that they maintain very strong support for what we call the Lisbon Process.

This is a transition process whereby, sometime during 2013, Afghans will be in the lead in every part of their country for security. And then by the end of 2014, they'll be fully responsible for their own security. So that was...

INSKEEP: Well, help...

MCDONOUGH: So that was one thing that got clarified, of course.

INSKEEP: Well, help me clarify this, because President Karzai said I want U.S. troops confined to their bases next year. President Obama did call him. This conversation was reported by White House officials. But then Karzai went on and make more remarks that seemed to reinforce his earlier position. Is he still asking U.S. troops to be confined to their bases in a relatively short order here?

MCDONOUGH: As I said, the presidents agreed that we have to stick to the Lisbon Process. They agree that we'll continue to carry out the kind of steps to put, as we've already done, Afghans in the lead over 50 percent of their country. And depending on how this next transition - this next tranche of transition, as we call it, Steve, goes, Afghans will be in the lead and almost 75 percent of the country. So we'll continue that process.

And the president agreed that we'll continue to talk to President Karzai about his concerns about what's happening in Afghan villages, and that's only reasonable.

INSKEEP: I'm reading that as a no: U.S. troops are not going to confine themselves to bases in that timeframe.

MCDONOUGH: As I said, we'll continue to talk about the concerns that he's raised on the call - and publicly.

INSKEEP: Now, going ahead here, Mr. McDonough, if we look after the year 2014 - which is when Afghanistan is supposed to be completely in the lead - should we presume at that point that thousands of U.S. troops are going to have to remain, to train and support and advise the hundreds of thousands of Afghan troops who will be responsible for security in the country at that point?

MCDONOUGH: Well, I wouldn't presume any decisions for the Afghans. But I would say that one of the lessons we learned in the late '80s and early '90s, Steve, is that the way we ended our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan at that time left Afghans and Pakistanis very confused about whether we thought we had enduring interest in the region. And as a result...

INSKEEP: Oh, when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, right.

MCDONOUGH: That's correct. And that's correct and as a result, I think we lost a lot of ground. And I think eventually we saw what happened whereby, over the course of time, not only was there continued fighting, but the Taliban ended up taking over power. So, we are going to maintain a capability to make sure that people understand we have enduring interests in the region.

Whether that includes troops, whether that includes domestic advisers in - of the such - and such, things that will work out with the Afghans in the context of the security partnership that we're negotiating with them now.

INSKEEP: OK. Mr. McDonough, thanks very much.

MCDONOUGH: Thanks so much, Steve.

INSKEEP: Denis McDonough is at the White House this morning. He is the deputy national security advisor for President Obama. He's talking with us this day when the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, is expected to testify before Congress after a series of deadly incidents there. We'll have more through the day. It's MORNING EDITION from NPR News.

Good for us. We just have to make sure they stick to their commitment.

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 07 Apr 2012 04:09

^^^^
...as I mentioned many times before - it is very helpful from Bharat's point of view
if unkil stays in Afghanistan and keep fighting with taliban...and if it goes on for a
long-long time....longer the better - in a stalemate situation......let the pot be
kept boiling...........

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 07 Apr 2012 21:01

Trapping Ourselves in Afghanistan and Losing Focus on the Essential Mission

Were we completely honest with ourselves, we would recognize that a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, however grim in human terms, would not only leave India the clear victor, but might solve quite a number of strategic problems.

Enemy-focused Approach #1. Concentrate on the continued attrition of al Qaeda and the prevention of an outright Taliban
takeover. Cease development efforts. Turn domestic security requirements over to “our” Afghans, reversing our hapless attempt at being an honest broker in favor of supporting those figures and groups willing to fight against the radical Islamists. Reduce our footprint to a force that can, if necessary, be sustained entirely by air (15,000 troops or less).
Establish a mothership base at Bagram, with a few subsidiary bases distributed around the country. Design our residual force around special operations capabilities reinforced by drones, conventional attack, and rotary wing aircraft, and sufficient conventional forces for local defense and punitive raids.
Ask all NATO forces that do not contribute directly to the core mission of destroying our mutual enemies to leave the country. Ignore the opium issue. Instead of attempting to foster governance, concentrate on rendering provinces ungovernable for the most extreme Taliban elements, striking fiercely whenever they come out in the open to exercise control of the population.

Enemy-focused Approach #2. While less desirable than the first approach, a complete withdrawal of our forces from Afghanistan—while continuing to strike our enemies with over-the-horizon weapons and supporting anti-Taliban Afghan factions to keep the Pashtun provinces ungovernable by our enemies—would still be preferable to an increase in our present forces. Allow Afghanistan to further disintegrate if that is its fate. Let an unfettered India deal with Pakistan. The past and persistent tragedy of our involvement in Afghanistan began with our unwillingness to accept that punishing our enemies is a legitimate military mission and need not be followed by reconstruction largesse. We never sense when it is time to leave the party, so we wind up drunk on mission creep. At home, a polarized electorate defined our simultaneous commitments solely in domestic political terms: For the left, Iraq was Bush’s war and, therefore, bad. But those on the political left felt the need to demonstrate that they, too, could be strong on national security, so Afghanistan became the good war by default. It has been impossible to have an objective discussion of the relative merits, genuine errors, appropriate lessons, and potential returns of each of these endeavors.
In this long struggle with Islamist terrorists, our focus should not be on holding territory, but on the destruction of our enemies. That is a lesson we should have taken from al Qaeda’s disastrous engagement in Iraq. Thanks to its own grave miscalculations,al Qaeda suffered a colossal strategic defeat as millions of Sunni Muslims turned against it. Its error was to believe that a terrorist organization could and should hold ground.Al Qaeda immobilized itself by seeking prematurely to administer cities and districts, forsaking its flexibility and losing the war of popular perceptions. In Afghanistan, we are in danger of making a parallel mistake as we assume that physical terrain still matters.Throw away the traditional maps. Chart the enemy. Our focus should be exclusively on his destruction. As the Obama administration attempts to come to grips with the Afghan morass, it must begin with the strategist’s fundamental question: “What’s in it for us?”

http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-54/18.pdf

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 28 Apr 2012 19:54

Bump...
Not a zero-sum game in Kabul ---- Chinmaya S Gharekhan

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 29 Apr 2012 15:57

Afghan Taliban reject safe passage offer of US-AfPak

The Afghan Taliban have dismissed an offer from Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US to arrange safe passage for militants willing to engage in peace talks as an attempt to "create schisms" in their ranks, claiming that such efforts were aimed at diverting attention from "real issues".

"The enemy is trying to create schisms in our ranks. They will fail the way their strategies have failed over the past 10 years. This offer reflects the weaknesses, frustration and state of panic of the inimical forces," said a statement issued by the Afghan Taliban.

"Such kind of efforts by the United States have raised questions about its efforts to reach an understanding with the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan," the statement said, referring to stalled exploratory talks between the Taliban and American officials in Qatar.

At a meeting in Islamabad on Friday, top Afghan, American and Pakistani officials agreed to explore ways to arrange safe passage for Taliban militants wanting to join the Afghan reconciliation process.

The "Core Group" of the three countries decided to form a sub-group to examine the issue of safe passage for Afghan Taliban leaders who give up violence.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 01 May 2012 20:38

From a good Taliban is a dead Taliban to there are good Taliban (the one's you can negotiate with) and bad Taliban to fight, talk, build to Taliban Is 'Not Our Enemy' comment by Biden to what now seems to be a unilateral surrender by US in A'stan to Paki demands.

That's the exit strategy folks - pack up, do the walk of shame ASAP and call it MISSION ACCOMPLISHED at home!

Pakistan is wary of Indian influence in Afghanistan: Pentagon

WASHINGTON: Wary of Indian influence in Afghanistan, Pakistan continues to support insurgent groups and provide terrorist safe havens so as to have its influence inside the war-torn country, the Pentagon told the Congress on Tuesday.

Pakistan's selective counter insurgency operations, passive acceptance of insurgent safe havens and its unwillingness to interdict materials such as IEDs components undermine the security of Afghanistan, it said in a congressionally mandated report.

The Pentagon informed Congress that because of "pervasive mistrust, long standing tensions an divergent strategic interests" continue to make genuine co-operation with Pakistan very difficult for the United States.

"Insurgent efforts ? including assassinations of Afghan officials and attack on Afghan coalition forces emanating from the safe havens in Pakistan (particularly those sheltering the Haqqani network and other Taliban affiliates), continue to threaten the emergence of a durable and stable political solution in Afghanistan," the report said.

The Pentagon said that Pakistan continues to seek a stable, secure Afghanistan, an Afghan government with primacy for Pashtuns and limited Indian influence.

"To this end, Pakistan has allowed an insurgent sanctuary in its border to persist, offering a safe haven to Afghan Taliban and associated militant groups including the Haqqani Taliban Network in the North Waziristan Agency," it said.

"Pakistani leaders have tolerated this due to their concerns that Pakistan will be left alone to confront an unstable, an unfriendly, or an Indian-influenced Afghanistan on its border.

"Accordingly, Pakistan seeks to play a key role in the peace and reconciliation process to advance a political settlement that considers Pakistani interests," the Pentagon said.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 May 2012 21:01

Its not hard to see that it is not really all about India there. Its also about protecting its Musharraf - that border was open for a long time and virtually no defence whatsoever. They tried to raise the FC to take care of the musharraf but that seems to have failed. So its a bigger concern for TSPA to cover its Musharraf. This is a priority and they cant do any mischief in J&K until this problem is resolved.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 May 2012 21:12

Shyamd,
The fundmental problem is the Khyber-Pakhtunwa, formely known as NWFP, which is part of TSP. It was annexed by British from Afghanistan by drawing the Durand Line( till 1992?). The population is mostly Ghilzai Pashtuns. Lord Curzon separated parts of it and attached to Balochistan and West Punjab.

After partition the TSP knew they had a problem with K-P Pashtuns and lapse of Durand Line. So to build identity they channeled the unrest into Kashmir invasion in 1947 and failed. After FSU takeover of Afghanistan in 1979, they channeled the unrest there. Aftermath of 911 drove the unrest back into TSP. Its now sitting there as a festering sore. They renamed the NWFP as K-P to address the identity crisis. Its not enough for Pashtun nationalism requires the erasure of Durand Line and re-merger of the Pashtun lands.

Its not like Macedonia and Greece in the Balkans. The Macedonians in Greece are not desirous of joining the other state for various reasons.

K-P will join Afghanistan eventually.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 01 May 2012 21:15

A very clear viewpoint, Ramanaji.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 May 2012 21:35

Yup, good clarity on the issue and that is certainly the main issue. TSPA just using India as a coverfor the main issue. Western intel are certainly aware of it and why ISI controls top rung of Taleban.

Is the break of TSP or ceding KP to Afghanistan a bigger headache for Unkil and friends? I thnk it is imperative that Afghan govt stays in control and we do capacity building of the ANA. Hence why access to Afghanistan via Iran is absolutely essential to our national security interests.

--------------------------------
Strategic Ties With Afghanistan to be Strengthened: PM

PTI | New Delhi | May 01, 2012

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today conveyed India's "unwavering commitment" to assisting Afghanistan in its efforts to build a peaceful, democratic and prosperous country and hoped the strategic bilateral partnership would be further strengthened in the critical period ahead.

The assurance was given by the Prime Minister when Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassoul called on him at his residence here.

"He (Singh) reiterated India's unwavering commitment to assisting the government and people of Afghanistan in their endeavour to build a peaceful, stable, democratic and prosperous country," a statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs said.

Singh welcomed the holding of the first session of the India- Afghanistan Partnership Council and expressed the hope that the strategic partnership between India and Afghanistan would be further strengthened in the critical period ahead.

The Prime Minister conveyed his best wishes to President Hamid Karzai and other leaders of Afghanistan.

On his part, Rassoul expressed his country's deep appreciation for India's friendship, generous assistance and the crucial role it is playing in the process of stabilisation, reconstruction and economic development of Afghanistan, the statement said.

Earlier in the day, External Affairs Minister S M Krishna and Rassoul co-chaired the inaugural session of the India-Afghanistan Partnership Council which has been mandated to implement the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed by Singh and Karzai in October 2011.

Besides his meeting with Singh, during which they discussed a range of bilateral, regional and global issues of mutual interest, Rassoul also held parleys with Krishna and National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon.

Meanwhile, during the first meeting of the India-Afghanistan Partnership Council, the two Foreign Ministers welcomed the holding of the first meeting of the Joint Working Group on Political and Security Consultations.

They decided that the three Joint Working Groups on Trade and Economic Cooperation, Capacity Development and Education, and Social, Cultural, Civil Society and people-to-people contacts will meet at an early date to recommend further steps to deepen and enhance cooperation in their respective fields.

Rassoul welcomed India's initiative to host a Regional Investors' Meeting here to facilitate investments in Afghanistan.

The Ministers reaffirmed the determination of both the governments to enhance and explore all avenues under the aegis of India-Afghanistan Partnership Council to further strengthen the strategic partnership between the two countries, the statement said

.

Political solution to fighting Taliban necessary: Afghan FM

New Delhi, Tue, 01 May 2012 ANI

New Delhi, May 1 (ANI): Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassoul on Tuesday said that a political approach was needed to counter the Taliban, and added that the Hamid Karzai-led government would be willing to talk with only those groups who recognise and respect the democratic set up and the sanctity of human rights.

Addressing a joint news conference with External Affairs Minister S.M.Krishna here, Rassoul said: "We are also only not looking at the military side of preparation to fight against Taliban but also a political solution. The political situation of peace process is based on a decision by the Jirga (House of Representatives) which approved that Afghanistan needs peace but also put a condition for this peace and that line in the condition is that they are going to talk to those people who accept our Constitution, respects all the achievements that we have made in the past 10 years means democratic processes, woman rights, human rights, freedom of the press etc. so we are going to talk to those people who accept this condition, the process is in place and we have just started to see how achievement we can make."

He also said that India's contribution in training Afghanistan's national security forces would be pivotal with the end of international military operations in the country after 2014.

"As you know, that the end of 2014 is going to be the end of military operation of the international force in Afghanistan and Afghanistan will take the full responsibility of the security in Afghanistan. So we are in discussion with our partners, the international community of sustainability and training of Afghan national security forces that are becoming a real force and have demonstrated that in the recent attack in Kabul. With India we are continuing to discuss about the training our officers in not only national security forces but also in equipping in the longer term our security forces," Rassoul said.

Earlier, Rassoul and Krishna held detailed discussions in a bid to strengthen bilateral ties and addressed the first session of the India-Afghanistan Partnership Council to implement the Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) signed between the two nations last year.

India is Afghanistan's sixth-largest aid donor, giving about six times more than an estimated $330 million given by Pakistan.

New Delhi has offered Kabul to rebuild the Afghan national airline Ariana, donating Airbus aircraft despite a shortage in its own fleet. It also trained pilots.

India wants to ensure a withdrawal of US troops by 2014 does not lead to a kind of 1990s civil war that spreads militancy across borders. But it also knows its traditional foe Pakistan has far greater influence in Afghanistan.

India has already trained a small number of officers from the Afghan National Army at defence academies in India.

Throwing light on the first session of the India-Afghanistan Partnership Council, Rassoul said that he discussed keys political, economic, cultural and military issues in a bid to improve their strategic partnership.

"The two of us (India and Afghanistan) in two of our respective deliberations have had an opportunity in the past two days to discuss and share concrete ideas and plans in moving forward our cooperation in the security and political economic and trade education and capacity building, social and cultural field and people to people contacts. Our cooperation and partnerships in all these areas is not only good for the country but also important for promoting peace, security and prosperity in the region," said Rassoul.

On his part Krishna hailed the inaugural session of the Indo-Afghan Partnership Council.

"Foreign Minister Dr. Zalmai Rassoul and I have today embarked on a landmark step in our bilateral relations by co-chairing the inaugural session of the India-Afghanistan Partnership Council. Our meeting formally sets in motion with the implementation of the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed in October 2011 between the Prime minister of India and President of Afghanistan," said Krishna.

He further noted that the Council is proof of India's unflinching support to Afghanistan in its reconstruction endeavours.

"This event is also a reflection that India is unwavering in its commitment to assisting the people of Afghanistan in their endeavour to build a peaceful, stable, democratic and prosperous nation," added Krishna.

India has had good relations with most of the governments that have ruled Afghanistan over the decades with the exception of the Pakistan-backed Taliban, who captured Kabul in 1996 and ruled until they were forced from power in late 2001.

Since then, India has given Afghanistan about $2 billion for projects including roads, power lines and the construction of the Afghan parliament.

Krishna confirmed that India would aide Afghanistan's rehabilitation projects to promote it as a stable nation sans the presence of extremist forces like Taliban.

"Our approach of high level political engagements and broad base developmental assistance in a wide range of sectors which have been identified by the Afghan government as priority areas of the construction and development will not only continue but is said to intensify under the framework of the partnership counsel. We will continue our engagement in reconstruction and rehabilitation projects in alignment with the Afghan national development strategy. We will continue to partner the Afghan government to ensure that Afghanistan is a source of regional stability and does not become a target for extremist forces," said Krishna.

In October 2011, Afghan President Hamid Karzai had signed a wide-ranging agreement with India to deepen ties between the two countries, including assisting in the training of Afghan security forces.

Karzai and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had sealed a strategic partnership, which includes help from New Delhi to train Afghan security forces as international troops prepare to head home in 2014.

The Afghan Foreign Minister would also meet Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee and then call on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at his residence.

The Afghan Foreign Minister will depart from New Delhi on Wednesday. (ANI)

“With India, we are continuing to discuss about training our officers, training national security forces, but also equipping, in the longer term, our security forces,” Rassoul said.

Neither foreign minister made any reference to Indian media reports this week saying the two countries had decided to upgrade intelligence sharing from “routine letters” to a more real-time system. Those reports quoted unnamed officials.

An Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman said Tuesday he knew nothing about such a plan.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 May 2012 21:55

If you want more clairty, Afghanistan will have to be split too. Once the K-P merges back with Afghanistan, the Ghilzai Pashtuns will dominate (they number more thant Durranis) the land and that wont be acceptable to the Tajiks and Hazaras etc. Its not like Westphalian concept of different mores for rulers and subjects are accepted in this part of the world.
Ahmed Shah Durrani stitiched a sultanate out of Mughal ruins and the sultanate gained legitimacy as a nation state due to English and Tsarist Russian rivalry with the agreement for a buffer state in Afghanistan.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 May 2012 22:05

I was about to ask the same about the position of Hazara's, Tajiks. Glad you said the above. I think right now Pashtuns view the NDS as a Hazara intel service and not representative of Pashtun's. There is a greater need to resolve this issue.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 02 May 2012 01:41

Ramana ji,

Thanks for covering the fault lines of Pak and Afghan theater separately.

By the way, Obama in Afghanistan to sign security pact.

Leaders of US and Afghanistan will sign the pact today. This in theory would give US political cover to base its troops in support role post 2014. This also means continued US monetary support post 2014.

Specifics will be worked out in some later agreement.

This is a welcome news but it is high time for India to focus on its interests in A'stan. Expecting Americans to protect us from Paki terrorism and to safeguard our interests in A'stan, after the drawdown is complete, would be wishful thinking.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 May 2012 01:59

Keeping the us in Afghanistan is a low cost Indian option and is being pursued.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 02 May 2012 03:43

India stepping on the gas to finalise TAPI pact

Anupama Airy, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, May 02, 2012

India is speeding up its efforts to sign an agreement for importing gas through the US-backed $10-billion Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline.

At the same time, it is going slow on the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) project that would have moved huge quantities of gas

from the south Pars field in the Persian Gulf into India. Some government officials see this as an indication that India is toeing the US line and reducing its energy dependence on the sanctions-hit Iran.

The urgency on the part of the government is palpable. The petroleum ministry recently wrote to the National Security Council (NSA) secretary Lata Reddy on April 2 that “There is an urgency for signing the gas sales and purchase agreement (GSPA) under the TAPI gas pipeline project”.

A cabinet note is ready, and when it gets the nod, India will sign the GSPA for importing gas under this project, the petroleum ministry officials confirmed.

Both the IPI and TAPI projects have been under discussion since the ’90s.

“While it is difficult to say if TAPI will see the light of the day, but IPI has certainly been put on the backburner,” a senior official said on condition of anonymity. “Stepping up efforts on the TAPI project is a clear indication that New Delhi is following the US’ anti-Teheran stand.”

India and other south Asian nations have already reduced their import dependence on Iranian crude oil by over 20%.

India has slashed its import plans from 18.1 million tonnes of crude oil to 14 mtpa.

“Both IPI and TAPI were high on the agenda of UPA-I and we cannot allow outside powers to determine our economic requirements, our foreign policy priorities or our national security needs,” said former petroleum minister Mani Shankar Aiyar.

On its part, the US has welcomed India’s renewed interest in TAPI. Senior advisor in the US department of state Daniel Stein said at the 7th Asia Gas partnership summit here recently: “TAPI fits into the US government’s Eurasian energy policy meant to assist Europe and Asia in their quest for energy security.”

http://www.hindustantimes.com/business- ... 49264.aspx

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 02 May 2012 05:41

An important political speech by President Obama from Bagram Air Base.

Key points: -

1) Afghan security forces will be ready for a complete transition by 2014.

2) Today's agreement highlights that International forces will assist Afghan Security forces in two key areas post 2014, viz., CT and training. Afghan security forces now number 352,000 and the same force level will be maintained for three more years.

3) In the Chicago Summit, NATO will resolve to sustain a strong and durable Afghan force.

4) We will not build permanent bases in A'stan. The policing of Afghan streets and mountains will be left to the Afghan people.

5) We are negotiating peace with Taliban under the same conditions - break with Al Qaeda, renounce violence and abide by Afghan law.

6) We are building a global consensus for peace and stability in South Asia. There will be more deliberations on this in the Chicago Summit.

7) I've made it clear to Afghanistan's neighbor - Pakistan, that it can and should be an equal partner in this peace process that respects Pakistan's sovereignty, interests and democratic institutions.

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

Harsh words for Pakis from POTUS!

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 02 May 2012 11:25

Pakis seem to have retaliated to what Obama had to say on his recent trip to A'stan!

Six killed as explosions rock Kabul

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 May 2012 20:54

Both are related to the anniversary of OBL being sent to jahannum

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 03 May 2012 00:56

Speaking to CNN-IBN's Suhasini Haidar in an exclusive interview, Afghanistan Foreign minister Zalmai Rassoul says convincing Pakistan on terror safe havens is still the big concern

Afghan FM clarifies something that I always wondered - whether Indian interests would be better served if we sent a division to A'stan. He says time of foreign troops in A'stan is ending while maintains that Pakis understand that A'stan is a sovereign country and has the right to chose what relations it will have with other countries (i.e. no Paki veto on India-Afghan relations).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 May 2012 04:26

CNN:What did Obama speech in Kabul mean?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 06 May 2012 00:15

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280791
Afghanistan’s Future Is Linked With That Of India’s’
Afghan foreign minister on Indo-Afghan relations and the challenges before Afghanistan.

What are Afghanistan’s expectations from India in terms of translating the Strategic Partnership into concrete initiatives, both in areas of economy and security?
India is already doing a lot for Afghanistan for the last 10 years. India is not a donor country but it has contributed over $ 2 billion and it has much more value because it has been spent on projects that we wanted to have and from which the Afghan people benefited directly. For example the construction of a strategic road in our border with Iran, in energy and health care, especially in the future of Afghan’s education. Among the Afghan children who are going to school over 40 per cent are girls. For the first time in our history so many children and going to school and so many of them are girls. But more importantly it is the scholarship that India is giving to Afghanistan. Because of three decades of war, three decades of Afghans could not go to school. So the amount of scholarship that India is giving will help in educating a large number of them and create a knowledge pool for the country.
What else do you seek from India?
For Afghanistan, India is a model of democracy. We believe that if India can become the biggest democracy in the world there is no reason why Afghanistan cannot do that.
“The market in India is so big all our agricultural produce can be sold here. That’s why better India-Pakistan relations are so important for us.” Our students who study here—not only learning science and technology—but the democratic environment in which they study will be prepared for the future of creating something similar in Afghanistan.he US and its allies had abandoned Afghanistan in the past when the Soviet troops had withdrawn from the country. Are there fears that you may face a similar situation in 2014 when the US and NATO forces leave the country?For the last 10 years the Americans are telling us all the time that they will not repeat what they had done after the Afghan jihad. And we understand that. The way we are preparing post 2014—we have a very important Strategic Partnership with the US.
Has it been signed? I knew it was finalized?
Yes, it was signed late last night (Tuesday). We also have similar kind of agreements with the UK, France and Italy and very soon we will have one with Germany, the European Union and also with NATO before the Chicago Summit (scheduled to be held later this year). But the most important agreement that we signed first, was with India. It is a major country in the region and we will stay in the region. Our future is closely linked—geographically, historically and socially- with India. That is why the Strategic Partnership with India is very important. The first meeting of the consul yesterday was very positive. And it gives us lot of hope that this partnership is just not a piece of paper but will have a lot of material for the future.
But what are your expectations from India on the economic and security areas?
On the economic front, we are already engaged. But it has to shift now from aid to investment. India has already invested in a major iron ore project in Afghanistan and we are working with our Indian friends on other projects. Not in mining but also in agriculture and we want India’s small and medium enterprises to come and set up shop in Afghanistan. It is a win-win situation for both sides. In our vision, by the next decade the Afghan economy should be self-sustainable. We have the potential—of mining, agriculture, which is very important in the region. We are also the bridge between South and Centre Asia and the Middle East. But the potential need to be used so that Afghanistan by the end of 2024 can be fully self-reliant.
But this decade as you mentioned is so important and, therefore, what kind of financial support do you need from the international community?
There is no doubt that withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan will create financial problems. We cannot have a vacuum. For that reason—first, the political support for Afghanistan is needed. And that was discussed in the Bonn Conference. Even countries that don’t have good relations with each other agreed this to be very important. Parallel to that we need support for our national security forces—for training, for equipments, etc—that’s something that be decided in the forthcoming Chicago Summit. About $ 4 billion will be given to Afghanistan by the NATO countries and the major part will be given by the US and other countries will be asked to extend their support and help. That’s on security but the Strategic Partnership we signed with the US also talks about certain amount of money the US will give Afghanistan annually. This is not only for developing various projects but also in terms of budgetary support.

Do you expect a similar kind of financial support from other major countries?
We have the upcoming Tokyo Conference that will look into the financial side of support to Afghanistan for the next 10 years. It is not going to be a donor’ conference but it is going to be a forum to discuss how the money that is already committed to Afghanistan will be used. Because the problem that we faced in the last 10 years is not on the amount of money but how it was used and it should be used according to our plans.

India is already training the Afghan police force, but is there any talk of expanding that to other areas under the Strategic Partnership?
Yes, we are talking about training our officers and also about equipments—that is something that we are lacking. We are pushing our allies to give us more equipment. The Afghans are good soldiers, if you train them well and equip them well, they can do the job

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 07 May 2012 01:11

Congress' intelligence heads: Taliban stronger

Rogers said that he and Feinstein agree the first step should be for the U.S. to designate the Haqqani group a terrorist network and "take aggressive steps" to disrupt their operations. He said that group is responsible for nearly 500 U.S. deaths and continues to operate outposts along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 May 2012 07:35

Traveling with U.S. troops gives insights into the recent massacre

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 18 May 2012 17:59

Stable Kabul the only way out for Pakistan ---- Najam Sethi

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 21 May 2012 05:28

A very important article on how Obama administration shaped its Pak-Af policy.

Charting Obama’s Journey to a Shift on Afghanistan

It was just one brief exchange about Afghanistan with an aide late in 2009, but it suggests how President Obama’s thinking about what he once called “a war of necessity” began to radically change less than a year after he took up residency in the White House.

...

All combat operations led by American forces will cease in summer 2013, when the United States and other NATO forces move to a “support role” whether the Afghan military can secure the country or not.

Mr. Obama concluded in his first year that the Bush-era dream of remaking Afghanistan was a fantasy, and that the far greater threat to the United States was an unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan. So he narrowed the goals in Afghanistan, and narrowed them again, until he could make the case that America had achieved limited objectives in a war that was, in any traditional sense, unwinnable.

...

The lessons Mr. Obama has learned in Afghanistan have been crucial to shaping his presidency. Fatigue and frustration with the war have defined the strategies his administration has adopted to guide how America intervenes in the world’s messiest conflicts. Out of the experience emerged Mr. Obama’s “light footprint” strategy, in which the United States strikes from a distance but does not engage in years-long, enervating occupations. That doctrine shaped the president’s thinking about how to deal with the challenges that followed — Libya, Syria and a nuclear Iran.

...

Mr. Obama began to question why Americans were dying to prop up a leader, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who was volatile, unreliable and willing to manipulate the ballot box. Faced with an economic crisis at home and a fiscal crisis that Mr. Obama knew would eventually require deep limits on Pentagon spending, he was also shocked, they said, by what the war’s cost would be if the generals’ counterinsurgency plan were left on autopilot — $1 trillion over 10 years. And the more he delved into what it would take to truly change Afghan society, the more he concluded that the task was so overwhelming that it would make little difference whether a large American and NATO force remained for 2 more years, 5 more years or 10 more years.

...

The first slide that General Lute threw onto the screen caught the eye of Thomas E. Donilon, later President Obama’s national security adviser. “It said we do not have a strategy in Afghanistan that you can articulate or achieve,” Mr. Donilon recalled three years later. “We had been at war for eight years, and no one could explain the strategy.”

So in the first days of his presidency, Mr. Obama asked Bruce O. Riedel, a former C.I.A. officer with deep knowledge of the region, to lead a rapid review. At the time, the president was still speaking in campaign mode. He talked about remaking “an economy that isn’t dominated by illicit drugs” in Afghanistan and a “civilian surge” to match the military effort. But he said little about the Riedel team’s central insight: that Pakistan posed a far greater threat.

“If we were honest with ourselves, we would call this problem ‘Pak/Af,’ not ‘Af/Pak, ’ ” Mr. Riedel said shortly after turning in his report. But the White House would not dare admit that publicly — even that rhetorical reversal would further alienate the Pakistanis.
Related

Mr. Obama agreed with Mr. Riedel, but thought the review did not point clearly enough toward a new strategy. To get it right, the president ordered up a far more thorough process that would involve everyone — military commanders and experts on civilian reconstruction, diplomats who could explore a negotiation with the Taliban, and intelligence officials who could assess which side of the war the Pakistanis were fighting on.

...

The tight group of presidential aides charged with answering questions like that — of redefining the mission — began meeting on weekends at the end of 2010. The group’s informal name said it all: “Afghan Good Enough.”

“We spent the time asking questions like: How much corruption can we live with?” one participant recalled. “Is there another way — a way the Pentagon might not be telling us about — to speed the withdrawal? What’s the least we can spend on training Afghan troops and still get a credible result?”

By early 2011, Mr. Obama had seen enough. He told his staff to arrange a speedy, orderly exit from Afghanistan. This time there would be no announced national security meetings, no debates with the generals. Even Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton were left out until the final six weeks.

The key decisions had essentially been made already when Gen. David H. Petraeus, in his last months as commander in Afghanistan, arrived in Washington with a set of options for the president that called for a slow withdrawal of surge troops. He wanted to keep as many troops as possible in Afghanistan through the next fighting season, with a steep drop to follow. Mr. Obama concluded that the Pentagon had not internalized that the goal was not to defeat the Taliban. He said he “believed that we had a more limited set of objectives that could be accomplished by bringing the military out at a faster clip,” an aide reported.

After a short internal debate, Mr. Gates and Mrs. Clinton came up with a different option: end the surge by September 2012 — after the summer fighting season, but before the election. Mr. Obama concurred. But he was placing an enormous bet: his goals now focus largely on finishing off Al Qaeda and keeping Pakistan’s nuclear weapons from going astray. Left unclear is how America will respond if a Taliban resurgence takes over wide swathes of the country America invaded in 2001 and plans to largely depart 13 years later.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 21 May 2012 07:58

US Afghan relations seem to have improved as US Paki relations nosedive.

Key points from the joint press conference -

The Chicago NATO summit will be mostly focused on A'stan.

Both leaders reaffirm their support for the transition of Afghan security to Afghan troops in 2013 and the withdrawal of all NATO troops from A'stan by 2014.

US will honor the strategic partnership it signed and support A'stan post 2014.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 21 May 2012 10:31

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-N ... ban-s-view
NATO summit: The Taliban's viewThe Taliban issued a statement ahead of today's NATO summit in Chicago, expressing frustration with the coalition's moves to 'prolong the occupation.

Quote:

Hours before the start of a major NATO summit in Chicago, the Taliban's main spokesman released a lengthy statement signaling the insurgency was open to a political solution to the conflict but accused NATO of "wavering in their stance" on negotiations.The Islamic Emirate has left all military and political doors open," read the statement, written in English and attributed to spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. "[H]owever the invaders are utilizing a one step forward, two steps backwards tactic. They are conjuring artificial excuses to prolong the occupation of Afghanistan, are wavering in their stance and do not seem to have a clear strategy for a political solution."Until NATO stops wavering, the statement continues, the Taliban considers the coalition's calls for talks to be "meaningless
Obama's two-pronged message of peace talks but prolonged troop presence unsettled what appeared to be a Taliban strategy of running out the clock on the US withdrawal target of 2014. The Taliban's statement today suggests the insurgency is irked by the move to "prolong the occupation."Whether Obama's gambit pushes the Taliban to publicly return to negotiations remains to be seen. While today's statement signaled openness again to negotiations, it also expressed doubts about NATO's sincerity in wanting to leave. "The foreigners should forgo prolonging and complicating the Afghan issue for their colonialist objectives," the statement reads.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 May 2012 10:38

Jhujar wrote:http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-N ... ban-s-view
NATO summit: The Taliban's view

The Taliban issued a statement ahead of today's NATO summit in Chicago, expressing frustration with the coalition's moves to 'prolong the occupation.

Hours before the start of a major NATO summit in Chicago, the Taliban's main spokesman released a lengthy statement signaling the insurgency was open to a political solution to the conflict but accused NATO of "wavering in their stance" on negotiations.

This is clearly not a ragtag outfit but the wing of the Pakistan Army.

Pakistan army uses the Taliban to have dialogue with ISAF and the NATO. The Taliban is a proxy for the real army trying to take over Af Pak

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 May 2012 03:46

Nightwatch 18 May 2012

Afghanistan: Special comment. The NightWatch analysis of the monthly fighting trends for the past two years shows that the Taliban peaked in July 2011, when Afghanistan experienced more than 2,900 security incidents in a single month. The Taliban continued to fight at roughly the same level as in 2010, namely over 2,000 incidents a month, until the end of September 2011.

The first big decline to over 1,000 incidents per month occurred in October. That plateau lasted three months. The second big drop to below 1,000 incidents started in January 2012 and has continued, except for a spike to about 1,160 in March.

February 2012 experienced the lowest number of incidents since the Taliban resurgence in the mid-2000's, with just over 580 security incidents. With the proclamation of the spring offensive in May, the number of security incidents is already over 1,000 at mid-month, but shows no prospect of reaching the 2,900 benchmark of July 2011.

The Taliban peaked in another sense. The summer of 2011 also was the high water mark for Taliban's expansion north of the Hindu Kush. Every major city in the north has a Pashtun enclave, the result of internal transmigration policies under prior governments. The high numbers of incidents last summer corresponded to the activation and spread of fighting cells in the Pashtun communities in the north.

In 2012, the cumulative decline in security incidents in the key towns of the north has become stark. For example, Badakhshan, Konduz and Baghlan Provinces, which cover a large swath of mountainous territory, experienced just over one security incident per day in April 2012 and one fourth of them proved to be criminal activity. At long last the German-led NATO contingent appears to have succeeded in reducing the fight in these provinces to a police problem.

The Taliban expansion in the north was supported primarily from Pakistan, meaning money and strategic plans were conveyed by couriers from Pakistan who occasionally got caught. The data in 2012 indicates the expansion proved beyond the capabilities of the Pakistan-based organizers to sustain. Attacks and clashes continue in the north, but most are roadside bombs or drive-by small arms fire that do less damage than in prior years.

The Taliban also appeared to have lowered their profile around Herat and the western provinces. The number of incidents is down, but remains higher and more lethal than in the northern provinces.

The news in the 13 Pashtun provinces is less positive. Within the overall trend of decline, the clashes and incidents have become more concentrated in the south, southeast and east and account for a large majority of all incidents across the nation.

Explanations

Explanations for the decline are many and intertwined. It is simplistic to attribute it to a single one. The surge of forces in the South in 2011 shifted the territorial patterns of the fighting and almost certainly contributed to the start of the decline in August 2011. It also exerted systemic pressure in that it stressed the supply operations from Pakistan as well as Pashtun kinship relations as fighters fled to safety among the Pashtun clans. Generally, the Taliban just moved to other districts and provinces to continue the fight.

NATO operations plus the loss of the NATO supply line from Karachi to Afghanistan also seem to be significant factors. The months of deepest decline occurred after surge forces began to leave, but while the NATO supply line remained blocked. Any anti-government supply providers who relied on leakage in the NATO supply chain for steady supplies came up empty.

The loss of the NATO supply channel seems to be a large factor in the decline in Taliban operations since last November.

The reaffirmation of an end of active combat operations by the NATO forces in 2014 also seems to have contributed significantly to the reduction. This has two parts. NATO forces seem to have reduced their operations and the Taliban appears to be husbanding its manpower. Actions by fighters associated with Hekmatyar and the Haqqanis {H^2} prove that the anti-government forces remain a significant threat.

Other analysts will no doubt have additional explanations.

Two hard points

First, the data indicates that the death of bin Laden appears to have had little to no impact on the fighting in Afghanistan. The Taliban surge continued through July 2011. The number of security incidents remained above 2,000 per month through September.

Second, throughout the period of decline, the Taliban and other anti-government fighters continued to receive steady supplies for roadside and suicide bomb materials, even in northern Afghanistan. All of these supplies - explosives, batteries, wire and plastic -- are trucked from Pakistan. After more than a decade, little to nothing has been done to stop the killing and maiming of NATO personnel and Afghans that is possible only because the materials are trucked in from Pakistan.

The failure to neutralize the strategic supply system from Pakistan stands as the single greatest policy failure of the Afghan war. Without supplies and support from Pakistan, the Taliban would have collapsed into criminal lawlessness permanently ten years ago. It means that all lessons of the Vietnam War have been forgotten.

Closing thoughts
The decline in fighting is consistent with several prognoses, each of which depends on the diagnosis of the behavior. For example, a decline in clashes would portend an improved security situation if the diagnosis is the Taliban has been defeated. However, sensational attacks in Kabul and the sustained fighting in the Pashtun south and east indicates the anti-government fighters are not defeated.

The decline also is consistent with Mullah Omar's grand strategy of outlasting the foreigners. In this scenario, the Taliban would husband manpower, avoid costly battles and wait for supplies to build up and fatigue to dissipate. They are doing enough to encourage the foreign forces to leave, but not so much as to risk reversing any departure decisions made in foreign capitals.

A variation of the second scenario is that the Taliban deliberately are making it easier to transfer security responsibilities to Afghans because of private deals being struck and Taliban expectations that this generation of Afghan soldiers will join the Taliban just as an earlier generation did.

The evidence indicates the Taliban and other anti-government movements are not beaten and are waiting. The Karzai government will not last more than a few months without NATO tactical air support.

Its also possible that Karzai will interdict the truck route from TSP and break the Taliban.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 22 May 2012 17:52

America has never lost a war! Never!! Even when they have not met a single objective that they started off with

They just adjust their objective to the low success rate and declare victory and get out!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 May 2012 21:37

NIghtwatch 21 May 2012

Afghanistan: Comment: The NATO leaders agreed to transfer combat operations to the Afghan Army by mid-2013. Only one news commentator recognized this as coded language for accelerating the end of the NATO military commitment to Afghanistan, 18 months early.

An unidentified US general hastened to put the best face on the early withdrawal decision by insisting to the press that US forces would continue to fight the Taliban until the end of 2014. However, that is a decision for the Commander-in-Chief and the President overruled him. This fight ends a year from now.

Another news service reported an American official as taking bets on how long the Karzai regime would last after US combat forces left in 2014. Wrong question.

The relevant question is how long can the Karzai regime survive after all combat operations are turned over to Afghan forces? If the Afghans won't fight, there will not be enough NATO forces to hold Kabul for long.

As reported in other editions of NightWatch, the Soviet-backed client, Najibullah, survived for three years after Soviet combat forces withdrew. That is the measure of merit.

The Soviets equipped their Afghan clients with the same equipment Soviet forces used. They did not draw down stockpiles of obsolescent equipment to outfit their Afghan allies. Two reports this weekend relate how deeply the Afghans resent being treated as second-class allies, equipped with outdated gear US forces do not use. If these accounts are accurate, as they appear, they explain the increased fratricide among so-called allies.

The next year will be unpleasant and dangerous for any NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. The good news is nobody wants to be the last man to die in this conflict.

Also the forces against Najibullah were openly supported by TSP which was covertly supported by US. In this case Karzai has atleast tacit support from US.
Further its not in Indian interest to allow Karzai to fall to fundamentalist forces supported by TSP.

During Najibulla's time Inda was not sure as FSU collapsed/was collapsing(acting as it had not national interests) and accomodating US was primary interest for India before the POKII tests.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 04 Jun 2012 20:27

NATO strikes deals with Central Asian nations for withdrawal of equipment from Afghanistan to completely bypass Pakistan

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Jun 2012 04:35

VK scents a Chinese tunnel

- ‘Outflanking move’ near Afghan border with interests for India: Ex-chief
SUJAN DUTTA

New Delhi, June 4: China is opening its narrow border with Afghanistan with roads and probably a tunnel under the Pamir ranges skirting Jammu and Kashmir with strategic implications for India, former army chief Gen. V.K. Singh has told The Telegraph.

“It is an outflanking move,” the general who retired last Thursday said. “India risks losing the influence it has in Afghanistan because of a China-Pakistan link that is getting stronger and is seen in evidence here,” he said.

Since retirement four days ago, the general has said he was giving top priority to writing his PhD thesis on “Fundamentalism in Afghanistan and the Geo Strategic Significance of the Wakhan Corridor”.

Singh registered as a PhD candidate as army chief in 2010 with the department of defence and military sciences of Bhopal’s Barkatullah University.

The Chinese connection to Afghanistan, he says, is through the Wakhan Corridor that skirts the northern areas of Jammu and Kashmir, territory that India claims but is under Pakistani occupation. But for PoK, India would have had direct access to Afghanistan through the Wakhan Corridor.

India does not have transit rights to Afghanistan through Pakistan. Most of its shipping to Afghanistan is done through the Iranian port of Chabahar.

“China’s objective is to increase connectivity with Afghanistan where it already has considerable presence along with India in development and other projects,” the general said.

“This connectivity would be physical. And it is interested in this comparatively quieter area (the Wakhan Corridor) through which it would facilitate the exploitation of natural resources in Afghanistan,” he said.

As chief, the general red-flagged the presence of Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers, mostly engineers, in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The building of the Karakoram highway abutting the Siachen glacier to its northeast through Shaksgam valley in Aksai Chin — India-claimed territory that Pakistan has ceded to China — is also a strategic concern of the Indian Army.

A “panhandle” of territory in Afghanistan’s extreme northeast, the Wakhan Corridor or Wakhan Tract is at most 220km long and 64km at its widest. It separates Tajikistan (to its north) with PoK (to its south). At its eastern extremity, it has only a 76km-long border (half the distance between Calcutta and Kharagpur) over high mountains at the top of which is the 16,100-feet Wakhjir pass that has no road through it.

Despite being adjoining countries, Afghanistan and China do not have a border crossing since the Wakhjir pass was shut after Mao Tse Tung’s communist forces took over China in 1949.

The Wakhan with the headwaters of the Amu Darya (Oxus river) borders Xinjiang province’s Tashkurgan Tajik Autonomous County that has a Muslim majority. This is the area popularly known as the “Pamir Knot”.

Through the wars that have ravaged Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion (1979), the sparsely populated Wakhan has been largely peaceful.

To its west, the Wakhan emanates from the northern parts of Afghanistan where India has counted on a largely Afghan Tajik population whose leader was Ahmed Shah Masood before he was assassinated in 2001, two days before 9/11.

Singh said that in the course of his research, he has found evidence of military engineering activity on the Chinese side of the border. On the Afghan side, the nearest roadhead is close to 100km from the Wakhjir pass.

The former army chief was still researching his topic and did not want to go into the evidence behind his findings. It would be safe to assume, however, that he would utilise considerable technical, human and academic resources.

The Wakhan Corridor was a creation of “The Great Game” when Britain and Russia competed for strategic space. It roughly defined the border between British India and the Russian Empire in the late 19th century.

The Wakhjir pass itself remains closed for nearly half the year. A tunnel under the mountains would be an engineering feat — rivalling the kind that China has demonstrated with its railway line through Tibet — that would ensure all-weather access.

In December 2009, the US was reported in the Chinese media to have requested Beijing to allow access from its territory to the Wakhan Corridor (and Afghanistan). The US wanted to use the route as an alternative supply line for Nato forces because of an increase in attacks on the convoys in Pakistan. So far such access, if any, has not been visible.

Singh’s suspicion that such a tunnel was being built by the Chinese boosts the “garland of pearls” strategy — that China is surrounding India with bases and logistics centres — stretching from naval outposts in littoral countries like Sri Lanka and the Maldives, to ports like Gwadar in Pakistan and Hangyyi in Myanmar to the high Himalayas north of Kashmir.

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 06 Jun 2012 14:39

U.S. Seeks Larger Role for India in Afghanistan

Secretary Panetta's Request Is Expected to Tweak Pakistan, Which Has Resisted a Bigger Delhi Role There

The U.S. is encouraging India to take a more-active role in Afghanistan after years of keeping New Delhi's participation limited in deference to Pakistan.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta arrived in New Delhi on Tuesday and attended meetings with Indian Prime minister Manmohan Singh and National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon. On Wednesday, he is due to meet with the defense minister, A.K. Antony, and deliver a speech on the growing U.S.-India partnership.

In a statement after the meeting with Mr. Singh, Pentagon press secretary George Little said Mr. Panetta discussed the U.S. strategy in Asia with both leaders. Mr. Little said that Mr. Panetta said the U.S. "views India as a net provider of security from the Indian Ocean to Afghanistan and beyond."

"Over the last 10 years, for a variety of reasons, India has not played a particularly active role in Afghanistan even though it steadily increased its economic investments in Afghanistan," the senior official said.

Another defense official said with Western powers preparing to wind down, Afghanistan was at a pivotal moment, and the U.S. recognized that other countries in the region were going to play a more critical role.

"We really need to engage with India on Afghanistan writ large as we move forward with transition," the official said.

Please read the comments as well.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Jun 2012 20:09

Same jokers wanted to see a reduced role for India in Afghanistan and used to complain about the many consulates and claimed they were staffed by spies."*

* Despite Indian spies really working for US!!!

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 07 Jun 2012 07:20

ramana wrote:Same jokers wanted to see a reduced role for India in Afghanistan and used to complain about the many consulates and claimed they were staffed by spies."*

* Despite Indian spies really working for US!!!

Nevertheless. It was in our interests then and now to raise the game and our stakes in Afghanistan. It is the lynchpin for the "bheda" part of the strategy with TSP. Pashtun assets are critical, if we have to have a say in Afghanistan. It is only through Pashtun assets, Afghanistan can be controlled. The Durranis are India's best bet.

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 07 Jun 2012 11:55

Can India ‘Fix’ Afghanistan?

As the United States winds down its military engagement in Afghanistan, optimism is growing about the role India can play to stabilize and develop the country.

This week, visiting United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta encouraged Indian leaders to take a more active role in Afghanistan, involvement once considered by the United States as merely an opportunistic way for India to antagonize Pakistan.

The United States’ encouragement is hardly needed. India plans to “intensify” its already “high level political engagement and broad-based development assistance in a wide range of sectors,” India’s minister for external affairs, S.M. Krishna, told Afghanistan’s visiting foreign minister, Zalmai Rassoul, in a speech in New Delhi last month. With assistance from Europe and the United States expected to drop substantially, India may be left as one of Afghanistan’s most prominent aid partners.

Here on India Ink, we have been asking: Does this make any sense? On first glance, at least, India seems an unlikely provider of development assistance because of the serious issues troubling it at home. Many of the same things that Afghanistan needs, from infrastructure to education, India is having troubles providing for many citizens, even without the regular threat of attacks from the Taliban.

India’s state-run power industry struggles to get enough fuel thanks to mismanagement and bureaucracy, even its brightest youth can’t land a spot at a good university and about third of its citizens live in destitute poverty, with hundreds of millions malnourished. The current central government is grappling with a growing deficit, shrinking economic growth and an increasingly dissatisfied voter base.

It’s no surprise that India’s Afghanistan plans have been greeted with some skepticism.

“In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king,” said Rajeev Malik, an economist at CLSA, a research and brokerage house, who has been a sharp critic of India’s fiscal policy and government. “India has not managed to fix these issues itself,” he said, but added that the country “probably has more experience than Afghanistan.”
A Self Employed Women's Association center in Kabul, Afghanistan.Courtesy of SEWAA Self Employed Women’s Association center in Kabul, Afghanistan.

India’s on-the-ground aid record, though limited, has been decent.

More ambitious plans are in place. In October of last year, when Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, visited India, the two countries signed a strategic agreement that said India would train and equip Afghan security forces. This month, India is holding meetings for regional investors interested in Afghanistan in New Delhi.

Invitees include Turkey, China and Pakistan. Over a dinner in May in New Delhi, Mr. Rassoul told Indian government advisers Afghanistan would like India to concentrate on building up governance, law courts and health care.

“We don’t want a fundamentalist Afghanistan, just like everyone else,” explained Syed Akbaruddin, spokesman for India’s Ministry of External Affairs, in a recent interview. “We don’t want an Afghanistan that slides backward.”

India’s aid to Afghanistan comes without any conditions, unlike aid to India from foreign countries in the past, he said. India is not pressuring the Afghanistan government to improve, say, education for girls, or rights for women, but is focusing on infrastructure and other concrete projects, he said.

India’s projects in Afghanistan are “replicas of what India has been able to successfully implement in some part of India or the other,” said Mr. Akbaruddin. “They have been incubated in some part of India.”

Staunch supporters of India’s involvement say sheer practicality of the alliance makes it work.

“Today the average Afghan knows that for many of the things that would lead to an improved quality of life, India offers the most viable option,” said C. Uday Bhaskar, a security analyst based in New Delhi.

To explain, he offered an example: The quality of higher education in Britain or the United States or Australia might be better than in India, he said, but most Afghans can’t afford Western universities, and if even they could, they probably wouldn’t get a visa to go anyway.

Much of what is on Afghanistan’s “wish list” can be “enabled in a considerable degree by India,” Mr. Bhaskar said. President Karzai himself attended an Indian university, doing his postgraduate studies at Himachal Pradesh University, in Shimla
Whether the ambitious plans in industries like mining and manufacturing will work out remains to be seen. In November, a consortium of public and private Indian companies, led by the state-owned Steel Authority of India, won a bid to mine in three states in Afghanistan, which includes the construction of a six million-ton steel plant, an 800-megawatt power plant and 200 kilometers each of road, rail and transmission lines – as well as a pledge to set aside one percent of profits for establishing educational and medical facilities.

“We are very bullish about this,” the chairman of SAIL said when the deal was announced. Total investment by the Indian companies is pegged at $10.8 billion.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 07 Jun 2012 12:43

India finalising plans to train 2500 ANA troops simultaneously across 25 regimental centres in the country. Upto 25,000 eventually in 3 years. This is in Our primary national security interests to help the afghan people, we must not waver in our resolve.

DGMI training their counterparts in Pune, but being kept under wraps.

China to build pipeline via Afghanistan & Tajikistan.

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 07 Jun 2012 13:42

The key to success in Afghanistan is to be able to neutralize interference/terrorism emanating from Pakistan.
Pakistan is the common enemy of both nations .. hope the drone attacks along the border do their part, and if not, it may be
necessary to target areas deeper within Pakistan as someone mentioned in the Terrorist Pakistan thread .. prediction of carpet bombing of
Pakistan may turn out to be real.

Pakistan seems to be preparing for a major showdown with earlier reports of trenches/bunkers being beefed up along the Rajasthan border and missile tests.

China true to its nature, will play both sides and try to prolong the agony of the Afghan people.