Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

[member_23692]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

And while we Indians are busy with internal strife, scandals, appeasement and generally denigrating each other, even this forum missed this development which is mentioned in this story above - Washington Post article dated Oct 5 2012. There are several other sources who have confirmed this to me personally.

US has accepted the facts that 1) They cannot defeat Paki, 2) They cannot withdraw from Af without Paki, 3) They cannot have a stable Af post withdrawl without placating Paki, and 4) The Placation and accomodation to Paki, I call it total capitualation, on part of US has now seriously begun. This means Af will forever in the future be in Paki sphere of influence and India is left holding the bag again.

Now we will all moan and groan about the "evil West" conspiring with Taleban to keep India in check - as if India is so mighty that it requires Islam and the West together to keep it in check.

In all seriousness, this is what we get for relying on others to fold and others to do our job for us and taking a backseat pretending to be all Chankian. The law of "Physics" still holds. Do your own dirty work. Be proactive. Be straightforward and dont flinch from a fight. And as the real Chanakya would say (well before the advent of Islam and the Islamists who perfected this axiom), "Always err on the side of aggression".

[nakul]

Panetta to Karzai: Thank U.S. for sacrifices rather than criticize

The U.S. defense chief called on President Hamid Karzai to thank Americans for the sacrifices of those who fought and died in Afghanistan rather than level criticism at the United States.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's comments Friday followed accusations by Karzai that the United States is not doing enough to fight terror in neighboring Pakistan.

Karzai also said the United States is failing to supply Afghan forces with weapons it needs to fight insurgents.

"Look, we have made progress in Afghanistan because there are men and women in uniform who have been willing to fight and die for Afghanistan's sovereignty," Panetta told reporters shortly after landing in Lima, Peru, for a meeting with Latin American defense officials.

"Those lives were lost fighting the right enemy not the wrong enemy, and I think it would be helpful if the president, every once in a while, expressed his thanks for the sacrifices that have been made by those who have fought and died for Afghanistan, rather than criticizing them."

The sharp reaction from Panetta, a rare public dressing down of the head of a country, came a day after Karzai accused the United States and NATO of attacking insurgents in Afghanistan rather than targeting the support they receive from Pakistan.

"The U.S. and NATO should go to the places where the roots of terrorism exist. They are saying one thing but acting contrary to that," Karzai said at a news conference in Kabul, according to CNN affiliate Tolo TV.

Karzai also threatened to turn to Russia and China among others if the United States did not supply Afghanistan with equipment needed to fight the insurgency.

"I asked the U.S. government to equip our air force with weapons, intelligence and transport planes -- we still haven't received a response from them," he said. "Our discussions will continue next week as well, and if they show no interest in this, we will decide whether to purchase from Russia, China, India or any other country."

Karzai's criticism of the United States come as relations between Kabul and Washington have steadily eroded in recent months, pushed in part by the accidental killing of civilians and the U.S. military's refusal to surrender a number of prisoners to Afghan control.

Tensions have been further exacerbated by attacks against coalition troops by Afghan troops or insurgents disguised in security uniforms that have left dozens dead.

The timing of Karzai's criticism comes as the United States surpassed a military casualty milestone last month, with more than 2,000 U.S. troops killed in the 11-year war.

Karzai laid some of the blame on the United States for the shelling of Afghanistan's eastern border provinces by insurgents inside Pakistan, saying his forces were not sufficiently equipped to respond and the United States should have stepped up.

"According to the Afghan-U.S. strategic pact, the U.S. is committed to defend Afghanistan against any such foreign threat until the Afghan forces find the ability," he said. "We asked them several time but they never accepted that these attacks were occurring."

Panetta said the United States remains committed to timetable to withdraw American combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

[CRamS]

rsangram:

Indeed, from the article, written by Paki pasand David Ignatius, it does look like TSP got its main demand met: no India in Afghanistan. And another demand for sure dictated by US to its munnas in Delhi is India's surrender on 26/11 and make piss with TSP. What this means of course is that MMS will fulfill his dream of having breakfast in Kabul, lunch in LaWhore (TSP will facilitate that), dinner in Delhi (Sonia will facilitate that), and of course Nobel piss in Stockholm (US/UK will facilitate that), and undyTV and CNN-IBN will declare India a global super power of the 21st century, and Indian middle class will celebrate by singing Jai Ho.

[member_23692]

rsangram:

Indeed, from the article, written by Paki pasand David Ignatius, it does look like TSP got its main demand met: no India in Afghanistan. And another demand for sure dictated by US to its munnas in Delhi is India's surrender on 26/11 and make piss with TSP. What this means of course is that MMS will fulfill his dream of having breakfast in Kabul, lunch in LaWhore (TSP will facilitate that), dinner in Delhi (Sonia will facilitate that), and of course Nobel piss in Stockholm (US/UK will facilitate that), and undyTV and CNN-IBN will declare India a global super power of the 21st century, and Indian middle class will celebrate by singing Jai Ho.

You are making the same mistake that nationalists tend to make all the time. You seem to think that all citizens think like you. Most dont. Infact, I dare say, 90% dont. I happen to think that there are no more than 10% of the population, if that, who are true nationalists in their thinking and are willing to make real sacrifices for their country and countrymen.

Therefore, I must disagree with you that MMS is the problem, rather he is not the root of the problem. He is merely a manifestation of the problem, an open sore, a really ugly open sore, but a symptom nevertheless, not the root cause. The root cause are our general population which insists on behaving not as a nation, but more as castes, groups, clans and even individuals. In our society, it is all about the power of numbers that empowers a group, not the hard work, creativity, innovation and enterpreneurship of the people. In our culture, it is all about "might is right", which then compels people to organize in numbers to "take" from "other groups", rather than expanding the pie for all through expanding opportunities for all, regardless of caste, creed, color, region or language. So why blame MMS alone ? Who in today's political system is better ? And how can one be better in our political system or in our society, for that matter?

90% of the solution of a problem lies in its correct diagnosis. If we keep diagnosing the problem wrong, we will keep finding the wrong solutions. The diagnosis of our disease is not MMS or any other politician, it is our people. The politicians are merely open sores, symptoms of the disease. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we will be able to find a solution. As Michael Jackson said, "I am talking to the man in the mirror".

[member_20283]

^^^^ Its much easier to blame a figurehead than to introspect. What you say is true, you say any of this to an average Indian, and they'll be pretty upset or will throw their hands up in the air showing a defeatist attitude.

Apologize for OT

[Varoon Shekhar]

If there is some kind of action taken against Indian interests( people, projects) in Afghanistan, following the US withdrawal in 2014, does India have a contingency plan to retaliate against the Pakistani military, ISI and the Taliban. There's no way Pakistan should get away with violence or forced withdrawal of Indians from Afghanistan. What about all the goodwill for India within Afghanistan, and the people who don't want Indians to leave? What about the strategic agreement signed between India and Afghanistan in 2011.

[brihaspati]

rsangram ji,
this eventual outcome of apparent Pak "win", and abandonment by US was predicted on the forum a very long time ago. An interim level post from 2009 :
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 81#p752281
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 99#p658399
Another from 2010:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 12#p900312
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 70#p963070
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 01#p903101

I also had an exchange where my position that sanitizing AFG would require encicrlement and annihilation campaign, short of which USA will have to withdraw without significant damages to teh Talebs - was obviously found to be ridiculous by hands on military expertise. I cannot find this post.

But this was my feeling at the beginning of 2009:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 38#p602738

It seems most unlikely that Obama will increase overseas military commitments and war or surgical strikes against Iran is most unlikely unless Iran deliberates provokes US into a position where it will be embarassed internationally if it does not retaliate. Obama will try to hold the "line" rather than expand or contract. His main tactic will be to retain the bluster to outshine Bush in foreign affairs but basically do nothing. He will try to achieve more with bluffs and diplomatic pressure and nerve wars rather than do anythinng that escalates military commitments. He will be under pressure to be seen not to retreat compared to Bush's legacy, which will be a dampener for those within and outside US who hope that Obama will reverse many of the aggressive Bush moves.

For the subcontinent, Obama's main strategic steps will be to reassure and to a certain extent increase cooperation with India mainly in the economic arena. Obama will also see to it that Indian regimes are not penalized at the elections by not taking aggressive retaliatory measures against Pakistan. Obama's tactic will be to increase public visibility of military collaboration with India, and a declared programme of strengthening defence capabilities of India, and maybe even some kind of enhanced NATO type guarantee of alliance/protection in case of thrird party aggression. Similarly Obama will see to it that any Pakistani regime is not penalized by the people, by holding off India from POK. If India can bargain here properly, it can wrangle out an agreement to station troops on the eastern border of Afghanistan as part of a strategy of anti-terror and disruption of Taleban supply lines to the POK. The key here again will be to stabilize rather than expand. This is here where Obama and US policy will begin to unravel. The situation in the Afghan+Pakistan front needs expansion and dynamic rather than stabilization. Stabilization of control would mean the beginning of loss of initiative on NATO part and the turning point of the campaign. The reason static war would be disastrous for the US, is because of the peculiar ground situation.

So far the anti-US forces have been fighting Chinese Red army style mobile warfare. Such war style can only be matched by continuous positional movement and encirclement of mobile warriors. As soon as this movement is lost, the mobile warriors gain advantage. For now, in an unfamiliar and unaccustomed territory, positional static NATO can be picked off at ease by its opponents. Obama's concentration on economic affairs out of necessity, is likely to lead to less stress on foreign affairs that are seen to be expensive and without direct long term benefits. This in turn is likely to lead to less clarity on strategic military objectives, and a corresponding confusion in the military command over operations. It will not be as if Obama himself will be directly responsible, but his preoccupation with internal affairs and priority to world economic manipulation will lead to a neglect of military expansion and stop-gap stabilization tactics.

But we can only observe and rant. The real decisions of power lie in the hands of the oligarchy - which is of course limited by its global optimization concerns and is not concerned with the fate of any individual units or nations.

[brihaspati]

As far as I remember, the running war of posts I had with the military-expertise person - was about the only way that Afghans would be defeated, would be encirclement and annhilation of all fighting and support infrastructure - including the "societal" one that provided the support. This was exactly how they had been repeatedly defeated by invaders - its not as if Afghans have never taken grass in their teeth to the conquerors.

This would be difficult in modern globally connected media circus, where, USA or non-Muslim forces are subject to Geneva protocol, but Muslims everywhere are practically speaking, free of such restrictions. Thus no one talks of trying the Talebs for crimes against humanity, but if India or USA went ahead and paid back in the same coin to Talebs - Hague would be shaking in volcanic indignation.

We have to realize how, our unconditional "humanity" is used by Islamists everywhere to ultimately destroy this very humanity we uphold.

[Varoon Shekhar]

Curious that we don't hear much from Indians settled in or working in Afghanistan. What are their thoughts, and their plans, including for the 'worst case scenario'. Do they feel India/Indians have sufficient support within Afghanistan to be able to stay on, regardless of the Pak-US wranglings.

"but if India or USA went ahead and paid back in the same coin to Talebs - Hague would be shaking in volcanic indignation.

We have to realize how, our unconditional "humanity" is used by Islamists everywhere to ultimately destroy this very humanity we uphold."

This is a keeper.

[RoyG]

If there is some kind of action taken against Indian interests( people, projects) in Afghanistan, following the US withdrawal in 2014, does India have a contingency plan to retaliate against the Pakistani military, ISI and the Taliban. There's no way Pakistan should get away with violence or forced withdrawal of Indians from Afghanistan. What about all the goodwill for India within Afghanistan, and the people who don't want Indians to leave? What about the strategic agreement signed between India and Afghanistan in 2011.

Repeat after me...It's all gone.

[CRamS]

"but if India or USA went ahead and paid back in the same coin to Talebs - Hague would be shaking in volcanic indignation.

I can't understand that despite whats out in the open, you can club India and US together on this issue. Yes, surely, assuming India summons the capability and b@lls to retaliate to Talebs and their TSP patrons, you are right, India will be sent to the gallows at the Hague for trying to protect its interests. The pompous western toadies will be all over showing their phony love of Muslims by selling India down the river. But are you really serious that US, if it were to take out Talebs, even with nukes should they choose to, will face any consequences at the Hague? Which planet are your living in boss? Not only will US not face any consequences, in fact, US media itself and its western lackeys will praise US has having done their Christian God's work in bringing the Talebs to justice. And lest you forget, its is US that is judge and jury on what happens at the Hague. Have the war criminals responsible for the gang rape of Iraq and running torture chambers for so called Al Queda suspects faced any punishment? No, they are living kusy retired lives giving speeches and collecting lots a moolah.

We have to realize how, our unconditional "humanity" is used by Islamists everywhere to ultimately destroy this very humanity we uphold."

I see you put humanity quotes, but please as much as this might sound offensive and self-flagellating, India's pathetic response to Talebs and TSP is a manifestation of our physical, moral, and intellectual cowardice. As an example, do you think any Indian politician can summon the courage and call on Taleb barbarity in the open, just as India's senior minister Jairam Ramesh asked Hindus to introspect and asked if more temples were needed or more toilets? Will he have a fraction of the guts to make any such observations on the Abrahamic religions of "peace".

[member_23692]

rsangram ji,
this eventual outcome of apparent Pak "win", and abandonment by US was predicted on the forum a very long time ago. An interim level post from 2009 :
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 81#p752281
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 99#p658399
Another from 2010:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 12#p900312
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 70#p963070
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 01#p903101

I also had an exchange where my position that sanitizing AFG would require encicrlement and annihilation campaign, short of which USA will have to withdraw without significant damages to teh Talebs - was obviously found to be ridiculous by hands on military expertise. I cannot find this post.

But this was my feeling at the beginning of 2009:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 38#p602738

It seems most unlikely that Obama will increase overseas military commitments and war or surgical strikes against Iran is most unlikely unless Iran deliberates provokes US into a position where it will be embarassed internationally if it does not retaliate. Obama will try to hold the "line" rather than expand or contract. His main tactic will be to retain the bluster to outshine Bush in foreign affairs but basically do nothing. He will try to achieve more with bluffs and diplomatic pressure and nerve wars rather than do anythinng that escalates military commitments. He will be under pressure to be seen not to retreat compared to Bush's legacy, which will be a dampener for those within and outside US who hope that Obama will reverse many of the aggressive Bush moves.

For the subcontinent, Obama's main strategic steps will be to reassure and to a certain extent increase cooperation with India mainly in the economic arena. Obama will also see to it that Indian regimes are not penalized at the elections by not taking aggressive retaliatory measures against Pakistan. Obama's tactic will be to increase public visibility of military collaboration with India, and a declared programme of strengthening defence capabilities of India, and maybe even some kind of enhanced NATO type guarantee of alliance/protection in case of thrird party aggression. Similarly Obama will see to it that any Pakistani regime is not penalized by the people, by holding off India from POK. If India can bargain here properly, it can wrangle out an agreement to station troops on the eastern border of Afghanistan as part of a strategy of anti-terror and disruption of Taleban supply lines to the POK. The key here again will be to stabilize rather than expand. This is here where Obama and US policy will begin to unravel. The situation in the Afghan+Pakistan front needs expansion and dynamic rather than stabilization. Stabilization of control would mean the beginning of loss of initiative on NATO part and the turning point of the campaign. The reason static war would be disastrous for the US, is because of the peculiar ground situation.

So far the anti-US forces have been fighting Chinese Red army style mobile warfare. Such war style can only be matched by continuous positional movement and encirclement of mobile warriors. As soon as this movement is lost, the mobile warriors gain advantage. For now, in an unfamiliar and unaccustomed territory, positional static NATO can be picked off at ease by its opponents. Obama's concentration on economic affairs out of necessity, is likely to lead to less stress on foreign affairs that are seen to be expensive and without direct long term benefits. This in turn is likely to lead to less clarity on strategic military objectives, and a corresponding confusion in the military command over operations. It will not be as if Obama himself will be directly responsible, but his preoccupation with internal affairs and priority to world economic manipulation will lead to a neglect of military expansion and stop-gap stabilization tactics.

But we can only observe and rant. The real decisions of power lie in the hands of the oligarchy - which is of course limited by its global optimization concerns and is not concerned with the fate of any individual units or nations.

It is easy to predict India's(Hindu's) future. Defeat! Defeat! Defeat! There, I predicted it too and it will prove to be correct.

It is amazing, though, how many people bury their head in the sand or are smoking something that makes them very "effervascent", shall we say. At least you are not one of those, even though what you predicted probably did not require any extra-ordinary vision.

[Varoon Shekhar]

":lol: Repeat after me...It's all gone."

What does that mean in real terms? That, starting in 2014, Indians and all Indian investments and projects( including the parliament building) will have to be withdrawn, under pain of death? And that this is okay with the 'world', including the Geneva convention types? Won't it be seen as blatant, unprovoked ethnic targeting? And how will the secularists/Nehruvian Stalinists take this or explain it to the public- by blaming the "Hindu nationalists". Actually, even they cannot resort to those tactics. They will now have to condemn unreservedly, unabashedly, unequivocally, the real cause and the real villain-Pakistan, its military,its fundamentalists, its elite and its intelligence agency. And they will have to devise counter measures, big time. They would have absolutely no excuses at this stage. And there should also be very strong messages sent to the US that it is hugely to blame for any atrocity on Indians or loss of Indian economic presence.

[member_23692]

"And there should also be very strong messages sent to the US that it is hugely to blame for any atrocity on Indians or loss of Indian economic presence.

And after about two hours when Hilary and Huma and Obama and Susan Rice stop laughing, barely, what do we do then ?

[Varoon Shekhar]

Indian spokesmen and even large sections of the media, have not forcefully put across the breathtaking hypocrisy of the US arm twisting India vis-a-vis Iran, and the same US doing little about Pakistan. Particularly, where India is concerned, it is not Iran, but Pakistan which is the source of so much terrorism against India. This reality is not being strongly expressed.

[RoyG]

":lol: Repeat after me...It's all gone."

What does that mean in real terms? That, starting in 2014, Indians and all Indian investments and projects( including the parliament building) will have to be withdrawn, under pain of death? And that this is okay with the 'world', including the Geneva convention types? Won't it be seen as blatant, unprovoked ethnic targeting? And how will the secularists/Nehruvian Stalinists take this or explain it to the public- by blaming the "Hindu nationalists". Actually, even they cannot resort to those tactics. They will now have to condemn unreservedly, unabashedly, unequivocally, the real cause and the real villain-Pakistan, its military,its fundamentalists, its elite and its intelligence agency. And they will have to devise counter measures, big time. They would have absolutely no excuses at this stage. And there should also be very strong messages sent to the US that it is hugely to blame for any atrocity on Indians or loss of Indian economic presence.

Is this a rant or refutation?

[brihaspati]

It is easy to predict India's(Hindu's) future. Defeat! Defeat! Defeat! There, I predicted it too and it will prove to be correct.

It is amazing, though, how many people bury their head in the sand or are smoking something that makes them very "effervascent", shall we say. At least you are not one of those, even though what you predicted probably did not require any extra-ordinary vision.

No, what is extra-ordinary is that others too could not share the visions even when it did not need extraordinary capabilities. By the way, I did not predict a defeat for the Hindu/India. In all these posts, it was about retreat of the US forces, and sometimes possible consequences on India. I also said that the retreat was conditional on a certain type of military thinking or action/campaign plan.

Afghans can still be crushed, but it needs a huge manipulation of the prevailing international power structures that protect the main militancy capacities of jihad, and a determination to be ruthless. Whether Hindu/Indians are capable of doing it or not is a different issue altogether. I don't think defeat or victory - either - can be ruled out entirely.

[Haresh]

The big three who can help save Afghanistan
As its forces withdraw, Nato should not be afraid to seek help from Russia, India and Iran, says Shashank Joshi

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... istan.html

[RamaY]

^ This is the problem with west and its geopolitics.

They come to a region which they have no business in. Then they create a problem and fail to contain it, forget about solving it. Then they want the help of regional powers to solve their problem per their world-view.

The regional powers are always asked to help west but not given the control.

For a true Af-Pak solution, the west must walk out and then the real regional powers, India and Iran must step in. Since Iran and India are themselves converts to Islam and Secularism respectively, they have no clear strategy for Af-Pak region.

[shyamd]

@mattaikins: Whoah - Ahmed Rashid says Afghan intel sources told him they're supporting Pak Taliban Mullah Fazlullah. http://t.co/r2bYPrMs

[shyamd]

Barack Obama sends top diplomat Wendy Sherman to India to discuss the 'Afghan strategy'

[Johann]

The Afghan Taliban is not going to just be able to walk into Kabul after NATO combat forces withdraw in 2014.

- Firstly, the vast majority of Pashtuns fighting in the Taliban are fighting in their native provinces. The number one recruiting tool for the Taliban is jihad against infidels on Afghan soil. When that's gone it's going to be much harder to recruit and retain volunteers. This is why the Taliban is trying to negotiate with the Americans and Karzai - they're afraid of serious infighting once the kafireen leave

- Secondly, the Americans will still be putting a lot of military aid into the Afghan forces, and there will be a lot of military advisors rebadged as State Department after 2014, not to mention CIA, contractors, etc. If by chance a 'status of forces agreement' is negotiated, then there will be significant US special forces and aviation remaining past that date.

[RamaY]

^ Then how did Taliban come into power previously?

Please note that USA did not have any issues with Taliban as is. The issue came when Taliban declined to give up OBL. Now that OBL is gone, there will not be any issue for USA with a Taliban govt.

You might ask then why didn't TSPA give up OBL and have taliban take over Afghanistan. With Talibani-Afghanistan Pakistan gets only jihadis. With USA in Afghanistan, Pakistan got $$$.

[RoyG]

The Taliban will eventually take most of the urban strongholds. They are more motivated, better equipped than the ANA, and enjoy the backing of the PA. Coalition troops always had a hard time keeping their influence at bay outside the urban areas. With less boots on the ground they will take most of the country in no time. All this talk of "oh its not going to be so easy" is bunk. These jihadis will chew those less pious phuckers alive who decide not to side with them.

[Johann]

Roy,

The Afghan state will lose ground in the south to the Taliban, but they're not going to lose the provincial capitals unless the Americans cut off aid the way the Soviets cut off aid to Najibullah at the end of 1991. And airpower can be flown in very quickly, as quickly as 2001 if they go conventional and try for a big massed push. Again, there is a reason the Taliban is trying to negotiate.

[brihaspati]

17th Jan, 2009

For the subcontinent, Obama's main strategic steps will be to reassure and to a certain extent increase cooperation with India mainly in the economic arena. Obama will also see to it that Indian regimes are not penalized at the elections by not taking aggressive retaliatory measures against Pakistan. Obama's tactic will be to increase public visibility of military collaboration with India, and a declared programme of strengthening defence capabilities of India, and maybe even some kind of enhanced NATO type guarantee of alliance/protection in case of thrird party aggression. Similarly Obama will see to it that any Pakistani regime is not penalized by the people, by holding off India from POK. If India can bargain here properly, it can wrangle out an agreement to station troops on the eastern border of Afghanistan as part of a strategy of anti-terror and disruption of Taleban supply lines to the POK. The key here again will be to stabilize rather than expand. This is here where Obama and US policy will begin to unravel. The situation in the Afghan+Pakistan front needs expansion and dynamic rather than stabilization. Stabilization of control would mean the beginning of loss of initiative on NATO part and the turning point of the campaign. The reason static war would be disastrous for the US, is because of the peculiar ground situation.

So far the anti-US forces have been fighting Chinese Red army style mobile warfare. Such war style can only be matched by continuous positional movement and encirclement of mobile warriors. As soon as this movement is lost, the mobile warriors gain advantage. For now, in an unfamiliar and unaccustomed territory, positional static NATO can be picked off at ease by its opponents. Obama's concentration on economic affairs out of necessity, is likely to lead to less stress on foreign affairs that are seen to be expensive and without direct long term benefits. This in turn is likely to lead to less clarity on strategic military objectives, and a corresponding confusion in the military command over operations. It will not be as if Obama himself will be directly responsible, but his preoccupation with internal affairs and priority to world economic manipulation will lead to a neglect of military expansion and stop-gap stabilization tactics.

Wrote on 22nd June, 2010,

Even if MC's strategy was bout keeping "boots on the field", the underlying overall strategy was still to clear "urban" settlements of visible Taleb presence, present this as sufficient "clearance" to home media and political opinion - claim that Talebs have been cleared and visible gov was a friendly/favourable modified hotch-potch of warlord+druglord+jihadlords+triballords - who were in control.

As I pointed out a long time ago - this would have only worked when the Afghan economy only depended on the trade routes controlled by the cities. The insurgents no longer need to loot the trade routes or cities only to maitain their armed strength - that entire country is now an open market for illegal trafficking - of women, drugs and guns. Look at how many markets it can tap into - the Uzebeks, Kyrgyzs, Turkmenis, Kurds, Chechens,....not to mention China, Iran, and Paki occupied western India.

The real strength of the insurgents lie in the general Islamization of the entire CAR, breakdown of Soviet control over these "badlands" and NATO-EU prevention of regrowth of Russian influence as much as possible, China's entry as a major supplier of arms and ammunitions, increased production of drugs perhaps under western protection to provide non-audited off-shore funds for covert ops against deemed "enemies" of the west, Gulf oil money from both facets of Islamic imperialism - KSA and Iran, and the delusional facet of Islamic imperialism - the occupation government at Islamabad.

It is too much for a NATO to handle. Not with the limitations imposed by the excruciating need to protect the image and basic institutions of the ideology that spawns Jihad. They will have to withdraw, but now with the blundering declarations of intent by their commanders and politicians - they will be forced to face a Saigon-evacuation type situation - since they will not be able to retreat easily.

[Prem]

US aims to keep 10,000 troops in Afghan
Dus Hajari For Paoq Bimari

WASHINGTON: The administration of President Barack Obama aims to keep around 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan after formal combat operations in that country end in 2014, The Wall Street Journal reported late Sunday.Citing unnamed senior US officials, the newspaper said the plan was in line with recommendations presented by General John Allen, commander of US and international forces in Afghanistan, who has proposed a force between 6,000 and 15,000 US troops. This force will conduct training and counterterrorism operations after the NATO mission in Afghanistan formally concludes at the end of 2014, the report said.About 67,000 US troops are currently deployed in Afghanistan alongside 37,000 coalition troops and 337,000 local soldiers and police that make up the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). The United States and Afghanistan launched crucial talks on November 15 on the status of US forces remaining in Afghanistan after the NATO withdrawal of combat troops in 2014. The US has stressed that it is not seeking permanent bases in Afghanistan. It is also considered likely to shy away from a security guarantee, which would require it to come to the nation's assistance against aggressors. That, however, is seen as one of the targets of Afghan negotiators.Afghan President Hamid Karzai is said to be willing to accept a US troop presence post-2014 as long as his key demands are met. According to the Journal, his main request is that American forces come under the jurisdiction of Afghan courts. However, the paper said, some defense analysts outside of the US government believe that the training and counterterrorism mission would require a much larger US presence -- perhaps as many as 30,000 troops.

[brihaspati]

Johann,
the question is about logistics. A medieval fort might have held out hordes for longer periods on the Afghan lap of trade routes. But roving, mobile, fluid-battle adopters have an advantage on the Afghan countryside because of logistcs sustainability issues - compared to the cities. The cities have modernized and developed a dependence on infrastructure at a much faster pace than the countryside in AFG.

You can turn the urban centres into fortified camps. But with current population levels, impossible to sustain them as meaningful centres of authority just by air-supply. The writ of the gov will not run much further beyond a few kilometres from the city perimeter.

The Pashtun-Tajik divide may hold a volatile fromtier - but the Talebs have the strength of the numbers. Moreover, they have transnational support of the primary resourceful section of Islamists - the Saudi centred Gulf islamism (and therefore the indirect support and tolerance of non-Muslim, non-Arabic allies of the Saudis). Even Iran will not go entirely against them under the Ayatollah-ate - for Talebs hold the promise of roll-back of US influence from the eastern side of the Gulf.

[brihaspati]

US aims to keep 10,000 troops in Afghan
Dus Hajari For Paoq Bimari

WASHINGTON: The administration of President Barack Obama aims to keep around 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan after formal combat operations in that country end in 2014, The Wall Street Journal reported late Sunday.Citing unnamed senior US officials, the newspaper said the plan was in line with recommendations presented by General John Allen, commander of US and international forces in Afghanistan, who has proposed a force between 6,000 and 15,000 US troops. This force will conduct training and counterterrorism operations after the NATO mission in Afghanistan formally concludes at the end of 2014, the report said.About 67,000 US troops are currently deployed in Afghanistan alongside 37,000 coalition troops and 337,000 local soldiers and police that make up the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). The United States and Afghanistan launched crucial talks on November 15 on the status of US forces remaining in Afghanistan after the NATO withdrawal of combat troops in 2014. The US has stressed that it is not seeking permanent bases in Afghanistan. It is also considered likely to shy away from a security guarantee, which would require it to come to the nation's assistance against aggressors. That, however, is seen as one of the targets of Afghan negotiators.Afghan President Hamid Karzai is said to be willing to accept a US troop presence post-2014 as long as his key demands are met. According to the Journal, his main request is that American forces come under the jurisdiction of Afghan courts. However, the paper said, some defense analysts outside of the US government believe that the training and counterterrorism mission would require a much larger US presence -- perhaps as many as 30,000 troops.

It is actually the latter phase of the Vietnam war. There will be the temptation and mistaken military belief that US can "stabilize" with larger troop presence on the ground. But typical US reaction in the face of such situation is to posture aggression, while negotiating behind the scenes with the primary powers seen as sustaining the opponent. In this case it will be three - KSA, PRC, and both their lapdog, Paki occupation gov of western India.

[shyamd]

US is keeping forces in Herat province - thats the word on the street.

[Rony]

Can India stay the course in Afghanistan?

[RoyG]

Roy,

The Afghan state will lose ground in the south to the Taliban, but they're not going to lose the provincial capitals unless the Americans cut off aid the way the Soviets cut off aid to Najibullah at the end of 1991. And airpower can be flown in very quickly, as quickly as 2001 if they go conventional and try for a big massed push. Again, there is a reason the Taliban is trying to negotiate.

The Taliban are negotiating from a position of strength. Airpower doesn't mean anything if you don't have boots on the ground. With the US pulling out the bulk of their forces, there will be little resistance to the proxy war being waged by Pakistan.

[Johann]

Johann,
the question is about logistics. A medieval fort might have held out hordes for longer periods on the Afghan lap of trade routes. But roving, mobile, fluid-battle adopters have an advantage on the Afghan countryside because of logistcs sustainability issues - compared to the cities. The cities have modernized and developed a dependence on infrastructure at a much faster pace than the countryside in AFG.

You can turn the urban centres into fortified camps. But with current population levels, impossible to sustain them as meaningful centres of authority just by air-supply. The writ of the gov will not run much further beyond a few kilometres from the city perimeter.

B,

The Afghan Taliban's forces are mobile within a given province or district but it has very little strategic mobility so far - it can't deploy forces from province to another easily. This is for basically the same reasons that Afghanistan is so difficult to govern centrally.

The Quetta Shura has tried to develop a strategic mobility capacity, but the intense US focus on killing Taliban leadership in the field has shut that down. It is possible that if Coalition special forces and drones are withdrawn in 2014 (in the event that SOFA negotiations between Karzai and the USG fail), they will finally have the peace and quiet to do it. But the quality of the ANA's officer corps is also improving, and as long as they continue to receive military aid they can and will hold out.

Drug trade notwithstanding the rural economy in Afghanistan is tied to the provincial urban centres because that's where money is concentrated. The Taliban can not and will not cut off the city from normal trade or services - they find it far more profitable to tax that trade. That combined with the occasional bombing or assassination inside the city is the means they use to demonstrate the upper hand and persuade desertion and defection.

The Pashtun-Tajik divide may hold a volatile fromtier - but the Talebs have the strength of the numbers. Moreover, they have transnational support of the primary resourceful section of Islamists - the Saudi centred Gulf islamism (and therefore the indirect support and tolerance of non-Muslim, non-Arabic allies of the Saudis). Even Iran will not go entirely against them under the Ayatollah-ate - for Talebs hold the promise of roll-back of US influence from the eastern side of the Gulf.

Based on what I've seen on the findings of both government and non-government field studies the Taliban's real advantage is not so much numbers as the fact that they've worked much harder and squaring the circle between raising local forces embedded in the community, while making them answerable to central authority. This is the ultimate challenge of power in Afghanistan. But their problem of holding all the little local commanders together (especially the opportunists) becomes MUCH harder when NATO withdraws ground forces and a lot of the ideological glue melts.

But despite that Gulf commitment (mostly Qatari) to the Taliban is a fraction of what it was in the 1980s and 1990s. As long as the Americans continue to provide aid, the Taliban can not take the cities and declare victory. The Taliban knows and understands this. This is precisely why they are trying through negotiations to see if they can persuade the Americans to disengage from Kabul to a much greater degree. The formula is roughly this - lean on Karzai to make us coalition partners in government, and we'll make sure Al Qaeda doesn't operate from Afghanistan, and then you can really go home and forget all about this corner of the world.

[CRamS]

Johann,
The formula is roughly this - lean on Karzai to make us coalition partners in government, and we'll make sure Al Qaeda doesn't operate from Afghanistan, and then you can really go home and forget all about this corner of the world.

Lets leave aside the CNN/Fox worldview, they live in alternate universe, but at the moment, today, how powerful is so called Al Queda? Even assuming that Talibunnies allow this mighty Al Queda to operate in Afghanistan, what capabilities do they bring to table to mount any meaningful attack against the white west? Now, once again, please stick to reality and don't quote the "might" of Al Queda as CNN/Fox would by citing the attack on the US embassy in Benghaazi, Libya. That attack has less to do with Al Queda terrorism, even though they guys who did it might have the Al Queda label, than it is between 2 thuggish groups taking revenge against each other: late Quaddafi and his supporters Vs "freedom fighters" & US.

[Johann]

Lets leave aside the CNN/Fox worldview, they live in alternate universe, but at the moment, today, how powerful is so called Al Queda? Even assuming that Talibunnies allow this mighty Al Queda to operate in Afghanistan, what capabilities do they bring to table to mount any meaningful attack against the white west?

CRS,

Al Qaeda is a framework for Salafi Jihadis who hold the West responsible for blocking their version of Islam from rescuing the Muslim world. Al Qaeda has two main modes of prosecuting the fight - supporting Salafi-jihadis in insurgencies in Muslim societies around the world, and preparing Muslims from the West to conduct attacks at home. What that boils down to is propaganda, recruitment and most crucially, training.

Al Qaeda has been decimated because of unrelenting American pressure (not just in Af-Pak, but Yemen and Somalia as well), but it is far from dead. In the absence of that pressure it will regenerate. Part of that pressure has been the presence in Afghanistan and drone strikes in Pakistan. The Taliban has warned through its Qatar channel that continued drone strikes in FATA would undo any negotiated peace deal. This is obviously a problem for the Americans.

[shyamd]

Missed this important piece - SSji - whats your take?

Change of heart?

In a goodwill gesture, Pakistan agreed last week to release nine Taliban prisoners who are expected to help negotiate reconciliation in Afghanistan.

The move came after requests by the Kabul government and the Afghan High Peace Council. Negotiations between the US, the Afghan government and the Taliban had been going on for over two years, a source said, and there were reports that after an important Taliban leader is released from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, the Taliban would be allowed to run an office in Qatar.

The nine leaders released by Islamabad are among more than 50 that it has detained. The held Taliban men include Mullah Baradar, who is married to Mullah Omar's sister. He is seen as having considerable influence over Taliban fighters operating in Afghanistan.

"We are disappointed that the Pakistanis did not release Mullah Baradar," a member of an Afghan peace delegation said, "but we are very happy that it made the decision to release some of the detainees."

"The move indicates a change of strategy by Pakistan and the ISI"

The peace council includes former Taliban members including Arsalan Rahmani Daulat, Habibullah Fawzi, Sayeedur Rahman Haqqani and Faqir Mohammad. Other members of the council include Pir Sayed Ahmad Gailani and Abdul Rab Rasul Sayyaf.

"We look forward to very close cooperation between the two countries because peace in Afghanistan means peace in Pakistan," said Salahuddin Rabbani, chairman of the HPC and son of the assassinated veteran leader and negotiator Burhanuddin Rabbani. "We are very confident that we will be able to work closely so that peace and stability comes to Afghanistan," he told reporters.

Later, speaking from Kabul, he said a lot of progress had been made. "Soon you will hear good news," he said. "A lot of bridges need to be built for more cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Pakistan acknowledged the existence of a Quetta Shura in a statement by Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar after repeated denials in December 2009. Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, Mullah Abdul Qayyum Zakir, Mullah Abdul Rauf, Mullah Muhammad Hassan, Mullah Ahmad Jan Akhundzada, and Mullah Muhammad Younis - top leaders of the Quetta Shura - were all caught in Karachi and other cities of Pakistan in a series of joint raids in February 2010.

Mullah Mir Muhammad was caught from Faisalabad on January 26, 2010 in a joint raid by Pakistani and American intelligence officials when Americans intercepted a messenger and immediately asked Pakistanis to take action.

Also in Pakistani custody is Mullah Abdul Salam caught in January 2010, and Maulvi Abdul Kabir caught from Nowshehra on 20th February 2010 in similar raids by Pakistani and American teams.

"Taliban stopped talking to us in March or April this year and this move by the Pakistanis is a step in the right direction and at the right time," said a senior NATO commander based in Afghanistan. "That shows a change of strategy by Pakistan and the ISI. This will certainly help the Afghan government develop a mechanism for a viable political settlement with the Afghan Taliban."

"US strategists are trying to stabilize Afghanistan enough to prevent it becoming a favorable environment for terrorism," said Michael Semple, a research fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. He is also a key EU negotiator with the Taliban in Afghanistan. "They calculate that Pakistan will benefit from it and can help achieve it. They consider Pakistan a challenge because they find themselves struggling to get the Pakistani establishment to deliver on hopes for cooperation. And they find Pakistan a puzzle as Pakistan is the first place threatened by the consequences of that non-cooperation - as we have seen in Dir recently."

"Pakistan wants an Afghanistan that can deal sustainably with religious extremists, drug peddlers, and foreign-sponsored pressure groups, and is at best neutral when it comes to India and Pakistan," said a senior military official who asked not to be named. (A senior Paki jernail per AK Chishti's tweets)

There is concern in countries in the region, including Pakistan, that Afghanistan could descend into further chaos if foreign forces leave without a political peace process in place well before the 2014 deadline.

Afghanistan's High Peace Council has failed to establish direct talks between the government of President Hamid Karzai and the Taliban because of the prevailing mistrust on both sides. But observers believe by securing the release of Taliban prisoners during its talks in Islamabad, the council can hope to win some support among insurgent groups in Afghanistan.

What was Pak offered for the sudden kindness when they were winning this war? Or is Pak playing nice to get Obama to drop his idea of stationing troops in Afg? - not plausible...

If this peace thing goes through - then the jihadi's are going to be diverted south back to J&K in mid 2013 - when the snow melts - those passes are going to see more jihadi's come through.

[brihaspati]

Surely all the investments made by India in AFG will counter any tendency to send the jihadis down south and east? Also GCC will stop Taleb jihadis from doing any damage to India. I am sure there is nothing to worry about.

[svenkat]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/Bombers-hit-US-base-in-Afghanistan-14-dead/articleshow/17458900.cms

Suicide attackers detonated bombs and fired rockets outside a major US base in Afghanistan on Sunday, killing five people in a brazen operation that highlighted the country's security challenges ahead of the 2014 Nato combat troop pullout.

Local police officials said bodies in Afghan police and military uniforms were scattered around the entrance of the airfield in the eastern city of Jalalabad after a two-hour battle. A Taliban spokesman said the militant group had launched the 6 am assault.

The Taliban, who have been fighting US-led Nato and Afghan forces for more than a decade, sometimes dress in uniforms for attacks.

Two suicide bombers died after blowing themselves up in cars, said Nasir Ahmad Safi , a spokesman for the provincial government. Seven other bombers were killed in the a gunbattle with Afghan and coalition forces. Three Afghan soldiers and two civilians also died, said Safi.

US helicopters circled overhead. "There were multiple suicide bombers involved ," said Major Martyn Crighton, a spokesman for the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Several coalition troops were wounded, he said. The United States and Afghan government are scrambling to stabilize Afghanistan before most Nato combat troops withdraw at the end of 2014 and hand over security to Afghan forces.

Some Afghans doubt government security forces will be able to defend the country against any Taliban attempts to seize power again after foreign troops withdraw. There are also growing fears that a civil war will erupt. Afghanistan's defence ministry spokesman said there were rocket attacks at the Jalalabad base followed by suicide bombings.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_AFGHANISTAN?SITE=AP

Two Afghan students from a private medical school were caught up in the attack and killed, as were three other Afghans working at the base, Mashreqiwal said. He did not know whether the base workers were private guards, members of the security forces or civilian employees.

Nine attackers took part in the assault in total, he said, three of whom were killed in the suicide blasts and another six gunmen who died in the ensuing fighting that lasted a few hours.

Maj. Martyn Crighton, a spokesman for the international military force in Afghanistan, said that helicopters "were deployed and used."

The NATO military coalition described the attack as a failure.

"We can confirm insurgents, including multiple suicide bombers, attacked Jalalabad Airfield this morning. None of the attackers succeeded in breaching the perimeter," Lt. Col. Hagen Messer, a spokesman for the international military coalition, said in an email.

In the south, meanwhile, a NATO service member was killed in an insurgent attack, the international coalition said in a statement. It did not provide further details.

Very bleak situation in Afghanistan.

[CRamS]

Johann,

There you have it, the problem is not Al Queda, the problem is TSP. America is fooling itself and the world with this Al Queda bogey.

[Johann]

Johann,

There you have it, the problem is not Al Queda, the problem is TSP. America is fooling itself and the world with this Al Queda bogey.

CRS,

This is a question of interlocking synergies. Looking at just one part or another is like the blind men touching different bits of the elephant and arguing bitterly that the others are all wrong.

Pakistan is certainly *part* of the Al-Qaeda problem because its willing to let its territory be used by the movement. As a nuclear armed ideological Islamic state, its one of the most attractive bases, but this is offset by the Pakistani government's habit of playing both sides against each other.

Al-Qaeda will also just as happily sprout up in places like Somalia and Yemen, and any other place where you have failed states.

Al Qaeda is just the framework for Muslims who believe America is the root source of the Muslim world's problems, and that the solution is waging total war on America and its allies until they force a retreat. As long as America remains a dominant force in the world, and the Muslim world is a mess it will remain an attractive proposition to some.

Al Qaeda has two particular strategies when it comes to America based on the Soviet experience
(a) inflict direct unacceptable costs in blood and fear that forces disengagement
(b) force a disproportionate response that leads to overreach, bankrupting themselves and alienating friends and neutral parties.

Al Qaeda has forced retreat but not disengagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they haven't been able to fill the vacuum, so its only a partial victory on that front. Not nearly as total as with the Soviets who not only pulled out but abandoned Najibullah.

They were much more successful in the second category under GW Bush, but Obama has repaired a lot of that damage. But they have managed to engineer enduring damage to the American 'brand' in the Muslim world, and the world at large in so many ways.
Not the same level of damage done to the Soviets, but still, something the US will have to spend even more money and effort repairing.

Of course Al Qaeda has done even more damage to its own brand value in the Muslim world, but the movement that underpins it can easily emerge under a new brand given the amount of money the Gulf States are pouring into Salafi Jihadis post-Arab Spring to make sure that the Arab Spring doesn't reach their shores.