Afghanistan News & Discussion

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 16 Apr 2012 17:45

I hope now atleast Nato gets a bunch of pathans to disguise themselves as good taliban and with training takes revenge by taking the taking 7 core commanders at the next GHQ meeting in Pindi.

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 16 Apr 2012 17:52

RamaY wrote:^ That shows US naivety or double-game.

Irrespective of their motive US world-view is inimical to Bharat and Dharmic interests.

No, I think it shows what the narrative will be for US pull out and after US pull out. US govt paid analysts will say " We defeated Al qaida. We won. Taliban not our target. We had no fight with Taliban , so we won" The same will be copied word by word by our toilets.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 16 Apr 2012 17:54

Sometimes changing the definition of victory also helps.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 16 Apr 2012 19:47

There are CTs that many powerful entities have vested interest in keeping the drug business going in Astan. So, the idea of Saffron is a non-starter for them (because they don't want the drug business to stop).

I think we are not able to understand the whole game in Astan. I mean we really don't know what is US doing(or wants/wanted to do) in Astan. If they wanted to catch/kill Osama, then they already have accomplished it(allegedly).

So, what are they still doing in Astan? What are their goals? I think no one knows the answer for sure. Do they want to eliminate all the terrorists in the region?(then, why ally with Pakis?) Do they want to get rid of Taliban? Do they want to bring democracy to Astan?(then, why talk of good taliban?) Do they want to simply stall the next terror attack? Do they want to have a base in Astan? (then, why declare a date of retreat?) Do they want to withdraw?(then, why didn't they withdraw as soon as they killed Osama?)

Frankly, I can't understand their motive or their goal. I think most aam people in US also don't know why US is in Astan and what it wants to do. Without knowing their motives or goals, it is difficult for anyone to predict US' actions.

anmol · Post by **anmol** » 17 Apr 2012 21:32

Afghan schoolgirls poisoned in anti-education attack

By Mohammad Hamid

KUNDUZ, Afghanistan | Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:44am EDT

(Reuters) - About 150 Afghan schoolgirls were poisoned on Tuesday after drinking contaminated water at a high school in the country's north, officials said, blaming it on conservative radicals opposed to female education.

Since the 2001 toppling of the Taliban, which banned education for women and girls, females have returned to schools, especially in Kabul.

But periodic attacks still occur against girls, teachers and their school buildings, usually in the more conservative south and east of the country, from where the Taliban insurgency draws most support.

"We are 100 percent sure that the water they drunk inside their classes was poisoned. This is either the work of those who are against girls' education or irresponsible armed individuals," said Jan Mohammad Nabizada, a spokesman for education department in northern Takhar province.

Some of the 150 girls, who suffered from headaches and vomiting, were in critical condition, while others were able to go home after treatment in hospital, the officials said.

They said they knew the water had been poisoned because a larger tank used to fill the affected water jugs was not contaminated.

"This is not a natural illness. It's an intentional act to poison schoolgirls," said Haffizullah Safi, head of Takhar's public health department.

None of the officials blamed any particular group for the attack, fearing retribution from anyone named.

The Afghan government said last year that the Taliban, which has been trying to adopt a more moderate face to advance exploratory peace talks, had dropped its opposition to female education.

But the insurgency has never stated that explicitly and in the past acid has been thrown in the faces of women and girls by hardline Islamists while walking to school.

Education for women was outlawed by the Taliban government from 1996-2001 as un-Islamic.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Apr 2012 00:10

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... -speak-up/
As Kabul Burns, The President Needs To Speak Up

This news pours cold water on hopes for an improved relationship after Pakistan agreed to allow NATO forces to send ground shipments over Pakistani territory to Afghanistan.Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Pakistan, warns that the attack highlights the need for the US to stay the course in Afghanistan. A quick withdrawal, he argues, would pretty much ensure that some of the world’s nastiest groups would once again find a warm welcome in Afghanistan to plan global terrorist attacks.He is right, and there is another reason for concern. So far, the radicals have been the big losers in their military campaigns against the US. Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia was crushed by the US with the help of Sunni Arabs in Iraq who soon came to loathe its barbarity, brutality and bizarre religious interpretations.For groups like Al-Qaeda and its gang of assorted siblings and offshoots, anything that can be perceived as a military victory against the US and its allies is oxygen. The prestige of these groups, in steep decline given their miserable military record, will recover. Recruiting will prosper. Donations will flow.At the same time, the likely involvement of Pakistani government elements in backing Haqqani points to the complexity of the problems the US faces on the ground. And Afghan President Karzai, who seems constitutionally unable to refrain from taking little nips at the hand that not only feeds him but protects him from those who would stone him to death as a blasphemer, is not much help.
Still, Afghan government forces appear to be gaining capacity. And other governments in the region are increasingly united in their concern that the worst elements in Pakistan’s security structure have plans for postwar Afghanistan that are unacceptable. Russia, India, China and Iran: none of them can tolerate the kind of Afghanistan that the ISI would like to create.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 18 Apr 2012 02:02

Asian powers anxiously contemplate Afghanistan sans America

Praveen Swami
Share · Comment (2) · print · T+

Fear Sunday's carnage may become daily occurrence if U.S. reduces its troop presence

Last week, President Vladimir Putin stunned Russia's Parliament with these words for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) soldiers his own army is trained to fight: “God bless them,” he said.

“We understand what is happening in Afghanistan — right?” he asked legislators. “We are interested in things there being under control, right? And we do not want our soldiers to fight on the Tajik-Afghan border, right?” “It is in our national interests to help maintain stability in Afghanistan,” he continued. “Well, NATO and the Western community are present there. Let them do their work.”

For weeks before Sunday's coordinated Taliban terror strikes, Asia's great powers had been anxiously contemplating the prospect of an Afghanistan without America. In 2014, the United States will reduce its troop presence in Afghanistan to 20,000 or less — and, given the unclear road map to the future, many Asian leaders fear Sunday's carnage might become a daily occurrence.

Last month — Indian diplomatic sources have told The Hindu — Chinese and Russian diplomats at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting in Beijing privately said they would welcome a long-term NATO troop presence. Iran and Pakistan — like India, observer-members of the SCO — are bitterly opposed to the prospect. However, NATO has the backing of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, all of which fear Afghanistan could become a haven for Islamist terror groups and heroin-trafficking gangs.

No clear road map for regional support to Afghanistan has manifested itself — but Russia is considering allowing NATO a logistical base at Ulyanovsk — perhaps ironically, the birthplace of revolutionary leader Vladimir Illych Lenin.

No one knows for certain, though, just what kinds of regional support will in fact be needed. Later this summer, at the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago, President Hamid Karzai, is expected to sign on to a strategic partnership agreement. India committed, last year, to train Afghanistan's security forces through a similar agreement — becoming the first country Mr. Karzai chose to partner with. Donor-states will also be meeting in Tokyo, to lay out a financial blueprint for Afghanistan's aid-dependent government

In a best-case scenario, these partnerships will prove enough to hold the Afghan state together after 2014.

Afghanistan's much-reviled security forces demonstrated considerable skill on Sund, killed 36 jihadists while losing eight police, army and intelligence personnel — and this without allowing a single target to be overwhelmed by the attackers. The country's troops have also held the ground in troubled pockets of Herat, where NATO troops withdrew last year; an imminent sweep into Ghazni, military strategists say, could yield similar gains. Local political deals, the government said, have led to at least 4,000 insurgents surrendering — and another 1,000-odd returning home to their villages.

It is also clear, though, that these gains are fragile. Afghanistan's security force strength — including its police — will be cut from 3,50,000 to 2,30,000. The army itself will be slashed from 2,40,000 now to 1,91,000. There is still no clear road map for how the army will develop critical infrastructure to replace what NATO now offers. The army is short of everything from close air-support capabilities to heavy engineering infrastructure, and even workshops to maintain its jeeps.

Economic challenges will also stare Afghanistan in the face come 2014. NATO expenditure is now estimated to account for 80% of Afghanistan's gross domestic product, and no one knows just how this shortfall will be met.

“The troop cuts alone,” says analyst Omar Sharifi, “could have a crippling impact. There will suddenly be over a 1,00,000 men on the streets, with no skills other than fighting.”

Karzai looks to Pak.

Mr. Karzai, sources close to the President have said, is convinced Pakistan will hold the keys to the future after 2014 — but there are few signs it is willing to use them to open the door to peace. The Taliban's core leadership is based in Pakistan, and important elements of the jihadist coalition, such as Islamist warlord Jalaluddin Haqqani's networks, have the support of that country's military establishment. In recent months, Mr. Karzai has lobbied Pakistan to allow Afghan peace negotiators direct access to the Taliban leadership, and to exercise pressure on the organisation to scale back attacks.

Little reason has emerged so far to believe that his efforts will yield results. Taliban leaders, believing their negotiation prospects will improve after 2014, walked out of talks with the United States in Doha last month — and, on Sunday, signalled that they will continue to use terror to disrupt the Afghan state.

That is bad news for Afghanistan's anxious Asian neighbours, who must now find means to solve a problem NATO's colossal resources failed to fix.

ANA/ANP manpower cuts is very very serious. Thats what turned Iraq into what it was a few years ago. Receipt for disaster. And I dont think India is with Iran and Pak on NATO removal!

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Apr 2012 03:08

India for fast-tracking transport corridor to boost trade with Azerbaijan

Arun S.
Share · print · T+
New Delhi, April 17:

India wants to fast-track the setting up of an International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) to improve connectivity with Azerbaijan. The transport corridor will also help save time and transportation costs.

[The INSTC member countries include India, Iran, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyztan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, Belarus, Oman, Syria and Bulgaria (observer).]

During a meeting in Baku with Mr Huseyngulu Baghirov, Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Azerbaijan, Mr Jyotiraditya M. Scindia, Minister of State for Commerce and Industry, called for identifying the impediments that block the smooth functioning of the transport corridor, an official statement said on Tuesday.

OIL & GAS

Meanwhile, India also expressed keenness to participate in the exploration and development of oil and gas fields in Azerbaijan. India also sought to use the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline for evacuation of oil to meet India’s energy security needs.

During the bilateral meeting, Mr Scindia identified petroleum, IT, food processing and pharmaceuticals as the sectors with the maximum potential for trade and investment with Azerbaijan.

The Minister also called for an early finalisation of a Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between the two countries to encourage investment flows and elevate investor’s confidence.

At the bilateral meeting, a protocol was inked identifying pharmaceuticals, energy, transport, agriculture and IT sectors as the key areas of cooperation. It also suggested steps to overcome the existing barriers.

-------------
I recommend India Iran and Russia talk on Afghanistan. A joint military training program along with ANA/ANP that is ready to intervene in support of HKarzai. We all use fairly similar assets. It is time to step up our role to secure the belly of russia and keep J&K safe, IRan to prevent a force standing on its eastern borders. All 3 countries are faced with a historic opportunity to stabilise afghanistan and make sure TSP is weakened for many years to come.

We need to collaborate more seriously and take our current cooperation a step further.West cant say anything either.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Apr 2012 03:13

Afghanistan doesn't want trg from Iran or Russia. They have been burnt before.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Apr 2012 03:36

An independent Afghanistan is what we all want. That is enough for Indian interests. But the fact is these 3 countries share a close interest in the success of Afghan government. And the 3 countries will suffer the most if they fail and dont get our acts together.

Everyone else is cutting and running. It is time to exercise our power as we approach 2013/14. US just wants enough to prevent collapse. But I hope the US knows how to prevent a coup because it is clearly coming and the last attack is just text book stuff. I hope the US puts in place the right measures.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 19 Apr 2012 04:31

when are we getting the C17s? if they coincide with the withdrawal timeline, then we have some action coming up from indian side...

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 22 Apr 2012 06:38

Amrullah Saleh opines for Aljazeera Ending the politicisation of Afghan security forces

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 22 Apr 2012 21:55

U.S. and Afghanistan Reach Partnership Agreement

KABUL, Afghanistan — After months of negotiations, the United States and Afghanistan on Sunday finalized drafts of the strategic partnership agreement that pledges American support for Afghanistan for 10 years after the withdrawal of troops at the end of 2014.
...
“It covers the broad spectrum of the existing, broad-based, comprehensive partnership between the two countries with the view towards sustaining that for at least another decade beyond the end of transition in 2014,” the official said.

The document outlines the two countries future relationship rather than specifying exact amounts of support or programs, but officials from both countries have said they hope that it will send a signal to insurgents and other destabilizing forces here that the United States is not going to abandon Afghanistan as it did in the 1990s after the Soviets were driven out. Rather American will continue to support the country in many areas.
...
Ultimately negotiators agreed to craft detailed separate agreements on those two issues and signed a memorandum of understanding on the transfer of detention operations to the Afghan government in March and in April signed a companion memorandum handing final authority on night raids to Afghan security forces, who are now carrying out all raids unless American assistance is requested.
...
However, the United States is already anticipating that it will make a substantial contribution toward paying for Afghanistan’s security forces beyond 2014 and is searching for contributions from its NATO partners. The amount is not settled but a figure of $2.7 billion a year has been under discussion. There would be additional foreign aid for civilian fields.

At some point, a security agreement will detail if and under what circumstances American troops will be positioned in the country in the post-2014 period, according to senior American officials.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 26 Apr 2012 17:16

Afghan helicopter-maintenance staff start training under NATO-Russia project http://bit.ly/Iq8p3S

Excelllent news!!

Arav · Post by **Arav** » 27 Apr 2012 04:13

Iran's part of Kazakhstan-Turkmenistan-Iran railway to wrap up by October

Iran's part of the Kazakhstan-Turkmenistan-Iran will be completed by October, Deputy Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araghchi said during a briefing at the Foreign Ministry of Kazakhstan.

Araghchi noted that Iran pays great importance to the project, and will do its best to complete its part of the road by October.

The overall length of the Kazakhstan-Turkmenistan-Iran railway is 900 kilometers (Iran - 70 kilometers, Turkmenistan 700 kilometers and Kazakhstan - 130 kilometers).

The Islamic Development Bank is financing Turkmenistan's part of the road, and over 30 percent (over 250 kilometers) of 700 kilometers have already been completed.

An Afghanistan becoming less dependent on Pakistan is good. Establishing Rail, Road connectivity between CAR States, Afghanistan & Iran serves India's strategic needs too.

TAPI is futile project, more odds in implementing. Better to ignore and lay undersea pipeline from Iran to India with Russia as a partner. Can Use Iranian infrastruture to import Oil from Turkeminstan to Iran by Rail and Ship from there to India. Practical, Viable & Economical.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 28 Apr 2012 00:29

Roperia wrote:Amrullah Saleh opines for Aljazeera Ending the politicisation of Afghan security forces

This guy is really high-caliber. Too bad he has been chucked out.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 28 Apr 2012 01:02

Problem is he has no political support... And Pashtuns already see NDS as a hazara intel service.

Some of saleh's men are still in there anyway

gunjur · Post by **gunjur** » 05 Jun 2012 11:06

As United States and Western nations pull out, China seeks role in Afghanistan

China and Afghanistan will sign an agreement in the coming days that strategically deepens their ties, Afghan officials say, the strongest signal yet that Beijing wants a role beyond economic partnership as Western forces prepare to leave the country.
Chinese President Hu Jintao and his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai will hold talks on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Beijing this week, where they will seal a wide-ranging pact governing their ties, including security cooperation.

China has signalled it will not contribute to a multilateral fund to sustain the Afghan national security forces - estimated to cost $4.1 billion per year after 2014 - but it could directly train Afghan soldiers

In February, China hosted a trilateral dialogue involving officials from Pakistan and Afghanistan to discuss efforts to seek reconciliation with the Taliban.
It was first time Beijing involved itself directly and openly in efforts to stabilise Afghanistan.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Jun 2012 21:21

Problem is what conditions will they place for their financial support and how seriously they take ETIM training.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Jun 2012 21:25

Gunjur wrote:As United States and Western nations pull out, China seeks role in Afghanistan
China and Afghanistan will sign an agreement in the coming days that strategically deepens their ties, Afghan officials say, the strongest signal yet that Beijing wants a role beyond economic partnership as Western forces prepare to leave the country.
Chinese President Hu Jintao and his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai will hold talks on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Beijing this week, where they will seal a wide-ranging pact governing their ties, including security cooperation.

China has signalled it will not contribute to a multilateral fund to sustain the Afghan national security forces - estimated to cost $4.1 billion per year after 2014 - but it could directly train Afghan soldiers

In February, China hosted a trilateral dialogue involving officials from Pakistan and Afghanistan to discuss efforts to seek reconciliation with the Taliban.
It was first time Beijing involved itself directly and openly in efforts to stabilise Afghanistan.

China has been funding terrorists for the last 30 years by aiding and arming Pakistan.
Now they want to be mediator and also have partnership with Afghanistan

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 05 Jun 2012 21:30

Actually I want to see few PRC soldiers getting slaughtered by Taliban, and their reaction. PRC military is not used to dealing with other people.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Jun 2012 21:32

shyam wrote:Actually I want to see few PRC soldiers getting slaughtered by Taliban, and their reaction. PRC military is not used to dealing with other people.

Extreme Jihadi Taliban killing PRC soldiers should be experienced.

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 08 Jun 2012 10:24

India set to ink coal exploration pact with Afghanistan

In a bid to further consolidate India’s growing economic interests in Afghanistan, coal minister Sriprakash Jaiswal is all set to lead a high-level delegation to Kabul over the next fortnight to ink a pact with the Afghan mines ministry. The pact will pave way for Coal India Ltd and Singareni Collieries to explore coal deposits in the country.

Responding to a recent request by Afghan mines minister Wahidullah Shahrani that Indian coal companies need to employ their expertise to help his country develop the untapped coal basins, the coal ministry has sought clearance from the ministry of external affairs for the visit this month. According to highly-placed sources in the coal ministry, the delegation would comprise Coal India Limited chairman S Narsing Rao and his counterpart from Sinagreni Collieries Company Limited Sutirtha Bhattacharya.

During the visit, the delegation will be briefed in detail on the investment opportunities in the country’s coal sector. “Following the high-level meetings, both the sides would ink a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) aimed at propelling investments in the Afghanistan’s mineral sector, especially coal,” a senior coal ministry official told The Indian Express.

Seeking to promote Indian investments, the Hamid Karzai government has already signed a strategic agreement to further cooperation in areas of minerals and hydrocarbons. Shahrani’s ministry has also inked MoUs with Indian ministries of commerce, mines, petroleum and steel.

“I would like to mention that Afghanistan has rich reserves of coking coal which we would be putting on bid in the near future. Signing of this bilateral cooperation MoU will greatly boost the interest of Indian public and private sector companies to invest in these coal mines in Afghanistan,” Shahrani said in his letter to Jaiswal. Reminding that India and Afghanistan have “age-old ties” the Afghan mines minister has asked Jaiswal to help in further strengthening the bilateral ties. The government of India has emerged as the biggest donor for projects aimed at giving Afghanistan a facelift. It has already invested about Rs 10,000 crore in various projects.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 03 Jul 2012 15:27

India's C&C Construction Company to build Afghanistan's new parliament building near Dar-ul Aman Palace. The project fund, 95 million USD, comes from the Indian Government. The project is to be completed by June 2013.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Jul 2012 21:35

Little America in Afghanistan

Before Reagan declared the Taliban as freedom fighters

Sorry about the large inline images

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Jul 2012 03:50

Why the sudden desperation at everyone cutting costs and fleeing? Wasn't there great confidence here about the permanence of US presence in AFG? Was it not believed that US was going to be there for the long haul - long after 2014? Its two more years even for the formal deadline! Why the panic button!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Jul 2012 04:27

Austerity measures have hit military and defence spending

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 12 Jul 2012 05:45

fotu of a victim of acid attack (Warning: not very pleasant)

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 25 Aug 2012 17:19

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 683452.cms

India, Afghanistan, Iran Strategic Meeting

Anindya · Post by **Anindya** » 28 Aug 2012 08:54

Interesting extracts from the US Army Red Team Report

On May 12, 2011 a US Army “Red Team” issued an unclassified report which purported to explain the burgeoning rash of murderous attacks (which have since escalated even further, still) by Afghan National Army (ANA) members on US and other NATO troops.

Although the report is dominated by apologetic, cultural relativist drivel which attempts, in vain, to explain away these acts of murder committed against the US and NATO troops by their by ANA “allies,” it also includes a crudely buried, sub rosa truthful narrative.
.....
Based upon extensive interviews, US and NATO troops, as the report notes, were both disgusted with, and highly (and justifiably) suspicious of, the Islamically-sanctioned practices and behaviors of their Afghan military allies, and Afghan civilians.

[p. 3] U.S. Soldiers’ views of ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces], particularly of the ANA, were…extremely negative. They reported pervasive illicit drug use, massive thievery, personal instability, dishonesty, no integrity, incompetence, unsafe weapons handling, corrupt officers, no real NCO [non-commissioned officer] corps, covert alliances/informal treaties with insurgents, high AWOL rates, bad morale, laziness, repulsive hygiene, and the torture of dogs. Perceptions of civilians were also negative stemming from their insurgent sympathies and cruelty towards women and children.

[Specific elaborations on Afghan Muslim treatment of dogs, women, and children; pp. 44-45] Many US soldiers were appalled by the rampant torture of dogs and puppies they witnessed while being based with ANSF units. Many ANSF members are prone to inflicting abuse onto stray dogs they bring to the base for “entertainment” purposes. Other ANSF members, while not condoning the torture, fail to see any importance in such behaviors given the standing of dogs in Islam. Dogs are seen as vermin and many ANSF members find it inexplicable that anyone could be concerned about such “trivial matters,” and deeply resent any interference…This animal abuse is a substantial psychological stressor for many US soldiers and has been the cause of many serious social altercations with ANSF members…

US soldiers reported that they had observed many cases of child abuse and neglect that infuriated them and alienated them from the civilian populace. They made it very clear that they wanted nothing to do with people who treat children so cruelly.

Although not reported by the US soldiers who participated in this study. There have been numerous accounts of Canadian troops in Kandahar complaining about the rampant sexual abuse of children they have witnessed ANSF personnel commit, including the cultural practice of bacha bazi, as well as the raping and sodomizing of little boys…

Similarly, US soldiers…mentioned the poor treatment and virtual slavery of Women in Afghan society, and how they found such practices repugnant.

They found it unpalatable to befriend other men who had such primitive beliefs; the cultural gulf was too wide. They were repulsed by the abuse and neglect they observed in how children are treated in Afghan society. US soldiers largely reported that they did not care for Afghan civilians due to these factors as well as their suspected sympathies for the insurgents.

...
As the Pentagon’s only serious and honest (and of course now former) expert on Islamic Law, Major Stephen Coughlin observed in 2007:

If the Enemy in the War on Terror (WOT) states that he fights jihad in furtherance of Islamic causes that includes the imposition of Shari’a law and the re-establishment of the Caliphate; And Islamic law on jihad exists and is available in English; Then Professionals with WOT responsibilities have an affirmative, personal, professional duty to know the enemy that includes ALL the knowable facts associated with the law of jihad.

And Coughlin, a well-trained lawyer, further argued that such understanding by our military leaders is obligatory if they are to uphold their essential commission:

...

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 29 Aug 2012 17:13

Cabinet reshuffle in Afghanistan. pres Karzai replaces eng Nabil (NDS chief) with Asadullah Khan. New MoInterior is a pathan.

Nabil was dismissed after he lied to Karzai saying he was in India when in fact he was in Tajikistan.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 06 Sep 2012 10:20

It says something about the immutable realities of the India-Afghanistan-Pakistan triangle that a 62-year-old speech by India's first prime minister remains just as valid today. "Because of the great tension between Pakistan and Afghanistan over various matters, we are continually being charged with having secret intrigues with Afghanistan and bringing pressure upon her to adopt a policy in regard to Pakistan," Jawaharlal Nehru complained in 1950.

India's current prime minister, Manmohan Singh, might have said as much, except now New Delhi mentions Pakistan as little as possible when it talks about Afghanistan.

Consider the talks among India, Afghanistan and Iran on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran last week. They studiously ignored Pakistan while focusing on India's planned investment in Iran's Chabahar port, which would reduce India and Afghanistan's dependence on the land route through Pakistan, to trade with each other and beyond.

No one should be surprised by India's new assertiveness in Afghanistan. In a decade, it has moved from a low-profile humanitarian footprint to a nuanced development-orientated one, and now, to a multi-layered strategic partnership that covers trade, investment and training of the Afghan security forces.

In 2008, in preparation for the Chabahar agreement, India financed the completion of the Delaram-Zaranj highway, which links major Afghan cities such as Kabul, Kandahar, Herat, Mazar-e-Sharif and Kunduz with Zaranj on the Afghanistan-Iran border. From Zaranj, a recently refurbished road leads straight to the Iranian port.

In October 2011, India signed a strategic partnership agreement with Afghanistan, unblinkingly stressing "civilisational links" and promising it was "here to stay".

A month later, a consortium of companies backed by the Indian government won mining rights to Afghanistan's biggest iron ore deposit at Hajigak, placing India alongside China as one of the country's main foreign investors.

In June, it held an international investment summit for Afghanistan in Delhi, which had the India foreign minister SM Krishna exhorting businessmen from 40 countries to "let the grey suits of company executives take the place of olive green or desert brown fatigues of soldiers in Afghanistan".

Senior Indian officials admit to a welcome change of pace in Afghanistan, arguing that the international community had been "hypersensitive to Pakistani sensitivities". New Delhi, they recount, was consequently limited to the anodyne supply of medicines and wheat to Afghanistan.

The strategic realities of 2012 are different from back then. Pakistan's truculence and the impending US-Nato drawdown of forces have allowed India to put forward what is described as an "idea of hope" for Afghanistan. It embraces the concept of the "New Silk Road" and involves a new "civilian surge" led by private business rather than US government officials.

To some extent, Chabahar, a free-trade zone in south-eastern Iran, exemplifies the possibilities of India's new plan. About 50 hectares near the port have been earmarked as a hub for Afghan trade. Chabahar would give landlocked Afghanistan ready access to a port, as well as plentiful supplies of oil and manufactured goods. India, meanwhile, would be able to bypass Pakistan and reach Afghan and Central Asian markets unhindered.

Could it work? Perhaps. Economics often has its own logic, independent of geopolitics and regional rivalries. India would like it, sanctions-hit Iran needs it and poor, undeveloped Afghanistan dreams of just such an economic lifeline. But an abundance of aspiration never promises success. Realpolitik, rather than the desire for three square meals a day, caused Mr Singh to express the wish to "some day soon" partake of breakfast in Amritsar, lunch in Lahore and dinner in Kabul. He didn't mention a snack in Tehran.

So perhaps this is the point at which the Indian-sponsored "idea of hope" must reckon with Pakistan's fear of strategic encirclement and China's efficiently executed ambitions in the region. And also Afghanistan's suspicion of Iran, a country that many Afghans place last - after India and Pakistan - on a list of regional friends.

Islamabad built its Gwadar port with Chinese help as a foil to Chabahar and is unlikely to be pleased at the Iranian port's imminent importance. The US is unsmiling about India's new project with Iran and China is warily watching developments.

So, what of security guarantees? The Indians bravely, if foolhardily, say they will pursue their blueprint for Afghanistan with the support of the Afghan National Security Forces and Afghan people. The Afghan army and police, however, have a patchy record.

In the last decade, India has been one of Afghanistan's largest donors, investing in humanitarian, educational and development projects, not least the Salma Dam in Herat and crucial power lines in the provinces. In financial terms, India is already one of Afghanistan's biggest players, as well as a cultural power. Many Afghans have a sentimental attachment to the country that simultaneously represents Bollywood and the best medical services in the region.

But it is a moot point if "people protection" can never be adequate, considering the Indian diplomats and workers killed in Afghanistan over the last few years.

The dangers are magnified with India's new posture in Afghanistan. Raising one's head above the parapet is a risky business.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 07 Sep 2012 05:43

^^^
Nehru was always good at giving grandiose speeches. of course, he is also the cleverest that he uses language like "intrigues" to describe India's own actions with Afghanistan. if one didn't know who spoke those words, they could be easily mistaken for a Viceroy of the Brits.

gunjur · Post by **gunjur** » 09 Sep 2012 17:45

Apologies if already posted

Afghanistan’s base bonanza

At the height of the American occupation of Iraq, the United States had 505 bases there, ranging from small outposts to mega-sized air bases. Today, as the US prepares for a long drawdown from Afghanistan, the true number of US and coalition bases in that country is similarly murky, with official sources offering conflicting and imprecise figures.

In February of this year, Lieutenant Lauren Rago of ISAF public affairs told that there were only 451 ISAF bases in Afghanistan. In July, the ISAF Joint Command Press Desk informed that the number of bases was now 550, 750, or 1,500, depending on what facilities you chose to count.

While some US bases are indeed closing down or being transferred to the Afghan government,the US military is still preparing for a much longer haul at mega-bases like Kandahar and Bagram. "Bagram is going through a significant transition during the next year to two years," Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Gerdes of the US Army Corps of Engineers' Bagram Office told Freedom Builder, a Corps of Engineers publication, last year. "We're transitioning ... into a long-term, five-year, 10-year vision for the base."

Improvements and expansions are planned for other bases as well. Documents shed light on a $10 to $25 million construction project at Camp Marmal near Mazar-e-Sharif in Balkh Province on the Uzbekistan and Tajikistan borders. Designated as a logistics hub for the north of the country, the base will see a significant expansion of its infrastructure including an increase in fuel storage capacity, new roads, an upgraded water distribution system, and close to 150 acres (60.7 hectares) of space for stowing equipment and other cargo.

Of those 505 US bases in Iraq, some today have been stripped clean by Iraqis, others have become ghost towns. One former prison base - Camp Bucca - became a hotel, and another former American post is now a base for some members of an Iranian "terrorist" group. It wasn't supposed to end this way.

Whether the fate of those Afghan bases will be similar to Iraq's remains unknown, but with as many as 550 of them still there it's clear that the US military and its partners are continuing to build with an eye to an enduring military presence.
Whatever the outcome, vestiges of the current base-building boom will endure and become part of America's Afghan legacy. What that will ultimately mean in terms of blood, treasure, and possibly blowback remains to be seen.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 11 Sep 2012 09:27

Taliban set to work with US in Afghanistan

Which Taliban faction ?

The Taliban is prepared to completely disown al-Qaida, allow the US to retain several military bases in Afghanistan and agree to a ceasefire deal to end its 11 year conflict with Nato, a new report released in London on Monday claimed.

The group, which was ousted by the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, is now willing to cooperate with the US on security and take part in peace negotiations in return for international political recognition, the study by London based Royal United Services Institute ( RUSI) said.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 11 Sep 2012 10:56

Now the US in return for basing rights and resources will end its offensive against the Taliban and shift its focus toward Iran. Meanwhile, the Taliban emboldened by victory will now look Eastward. I predict a massive flare up in cross border activity and communal rioting.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 11 Sep 2012 12:16

They won't give up until they take Kabul. We'll be okay till then. We know it is coming though. Our plan for stabilisation of Afghanistan is a long term solution to paki problem.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 11 Sep 2012 14:06

RoyG, you are right about the flare-up in cross border terrorism into India. How history repeats itself. When the Soviets left, the Najibullah government was harassed from all sides by the Islamists and he held on to Kabul for as long as possible. We can predict the same thing happening now even if the difference this time would be that there would be some US bases around. But, the Taliban can effectively lock the American soldiers behind in their barracks. It will be once again a bloody fight to finish to capture Kabul, where I do not expect the remnants of the US forces of any help to those who fight the Taliban. The Taliban would have an advantage because there would be no wily and formidable Ahmed Shah Masoud around now to contend with.

Again, like the Pakistani terrorism flaring up just as soon as the Soviets left, or slightly even before that, we can expect the same thing happening now as well. Of course, the more worrying factor for us would be that GoI would have a liberalized visa, liberalized banking and investment opportunities etc which would amplify the effects of terror this time around.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 11 Sep 2012 14:11

Apparently Pak told US we will give you Taliban in exchange you have to let go of Haqqani network

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Sep 2012 17:45

PRC is unlikely to put PLA on the ground in AFG. They are interested only in the far north east tip of AFG, and want to secure the jihadi supply routes into western China. Iran can and will use the Talebs as a means of removing or reducing US influence. They have been in touch for a long time.

No matter how much India hobnobs with Teheran, there is little confidence in Indian intent where it concerns these countries - how capabale, and how much of a political will - will India show in intervening in the region in the onlee way that these regions understand and are most attracted to, that is military thrashing. Every Indian leader who has shown the will to intervene militarily outside its borders - has been assassinated or have died under suspicious circumstances. The fabulously all-knowing all-anticipating and centuries-long-planning with no trace of such planning ever in any manifestation Indian state machinery - always failed to anticipate and prevent such events.

After 1971, India really has not gone in strongly and thrashed any enemy outside its borders militarily in a way that permanently disables the hostile entity. Even in 1971, Indian action resulted in two Islamist and anti-India dominant sentiment countries on its borders instead of the one country before. Maldivean action preserved a political force that eventually nurured Islamism. Sri Lankan action preserved the ethno-religious problem that matured into a conflict won by a side not that friendly to or that dependent on India.

If it is suggested that Iran has an interest in controlling Taleban - as if Iranian and Taleb interest contradict each other, then it should be clear that Iran will have little or no trust in Indian will to go against a Sunni affiliated movement. Indian foreign policy moves involving Sunni dominated regions is guided by internal domestic considerations or perceptions of the congrez.

Every indication of actual Indian behaviour about AFG - is uncannily parallel to the dangerously naive moves of Nehru over China and Tibet. A lot of bluster, and pretended bravery in doing "peaceful and legitimate" stuff in a contested zone, without showing and backing up with hard power, but doing almost everything imaginable to provide the excuses for enemies to do the needful militarily. AFG is centuries away in its current state to appreciate "development", but much much more interested in military dominance and military strengths it can use - in its internal power games.

It was suggested here long ago by me that - USA would be keen to come to an understanding with the Talebs and will help in putting Talebs back to power. By this they secure their sunni profile, and sort of can the Pak problem for the moment. India will always hesitate to do the needful in AFPAK as long as it remains vacillating in its attitude towards Islamism and Sunni jihad especially over its domestic electoral considerations. This vacillation is fatal, as it is seen by mullahcracy all over the region as a divine sign of the ultimate weakness and eventual destruction of the kaffir.