Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Dec 2012 18:55

CRS, I know that the US has no concerns for Indian position. Indian 'caution' is impotent and is an expression of frustration. Pakistan has so far played it very well but they have many advantages vis-a-vis Afghanistan.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 21 Dec 2012 19:18

SSridhar wrote:CRS, I know that the US has no concerns for Indian position. Indian 'caution' is impotent and is an expression of frustration. Pakistan has so far played it very well but they have many advantages vis-a-vis Afghanistan.

My frustration is with the entire fraud. Even if US did not take Indian concerns, a genuine AfPak war should have involved de-fanging TSP's ability to use terror as an instrument of state policy. Who will expose this fraud? Only "recently released documents" many years hence will tell the story. And who knows what the world and regional situation will be by then.

Indian so called caution even if its impotent is laughable. Because if India is cautious of the Talibunnies, it ought to mean that India be cautious of TSP as well. But its playing kirket and making love to this terrorist abomination, and US is doing exactly the same thing, except that whatever US is doing will secure its interests with more certainty that the certainty that TSP is piling up to strike a terror-nuke fatal blow against India sometime in the future.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 21 Dec 2012 22:25

THe question is about timing. When will TSP turn against India formally? Will it continue with its deniable non-state actions, or combine it with a formal TSPA involvement? Will it force the Talebs to do the needful and stay out of the picture only to take advantage of any retaliation that India dishes out?

The question is complicated, because of the US mediated "alliance" for India with the GCC. The Gulf has its own agenda for the subcontinent, and it is not very different from what the Pak wants for the subcontinent. For some time, the primary agenda will be to establish Sunni jihad properly in AFG. Until that is sort of achieved, there will be no immediate attack on India. In fact India may see a decrease in jihadi attacks in the runup to a formal wider strike against India. Cooperation by the Pak and Saudis will increase to lull Indian regimes, or provide the right justifications for the Islamophile core of the rashtryia regime to carry on with their supportive measures for the theology in various parts of the country.

Once the Talebs become entrenched again, they might be given some investments by the Saudis, but the jihadi army that has developed will need fresh territory to practice their killings and rapes. Pakistan will also want a "permanent solution" to its India problem. That is when the "regime change" doctrine that has developed in the Gulf+West would be tried out on northern India.

We can keep an eye out for the pattern of behaviours, increasing cooperation from the GCC and pak, and the progress of entrenchment of the Talebs in AFG, as a sure indicator of when the TalebPak move as backed up from behind by the Saudis and their oil-drug-international-finance connected partners.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 21 Dec 2012 23:24

I seriously doubt it is Paki ability to sell snake oil that kept the Taliban option in Af-Pak area. I think it is in fact USA that is holding on to Taliban option. It is better if we can analyse what benefit USA is trying to get by encouraging islamic regimes all around the world.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 22 Dec 2012 00:28

so who will be the "rebels" who will shout of regime change in India? can't believe that it will be of the saffron variety; even if they do, they won't be given the legitimacy by the external powers. so what, more secularist/naxal rebels?! or the "youth revolt" ala Tahrir Square? important question is fighting component. who will be given that legitimacy?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Dec 2012 11:52

RamaY wrote:I seriously doubt it is Paki ability to sell snake oil that kept the Taliban option in Af-Pak area. I think it is in fact USA that is holding on to Taliban option. It is better if we can analyse what benefit USA is trying to get by encouraging islamic regimes all around the world.

RamaY, as I said, the Americans have faced serious stalemate, if not defeat, in their Afghan operations even after the so-called 'surge'. They are war-weary and want to go back home, as are their allies, some of whom have already left or have announced plans to leave shortly. The Americans have no great support from the Afghans either as they have managed to offend everyone there. The Pakistanis had effectively used their wits and weapons to blunt US strategies as well. The US economy has also taken a terrible hit, as are many other Western economies too. The ground has been slipping under their feet as the law of diminishing returns has taken a stronghold in Afghanistan. In the meanwhile, the US has been facing more challenges from the Chinese and they need to pay more attention to APAC. They need to get out of a debilitating Afghanistan trap asap. Though the Al Qaeda has not been entirely vanquished, OBL had been killed and AQ has been sufficiently scattered and decimated to be of any immediate threat to the US. The Americans have realized that turning Afghanistan around and away from the Taliban, though a laudable objective, cannot be achieved.

The desperate Americans were therefore forced to negotiate with the Taliban because of the no-win situation, or worse, a likely more disastrous situation for them in the coming years. Pakistan cleverly pushed its strategy of 'turning around the Taliban to a peaceful settlement through negotiations'. To an American mind, willing to clutch at straws to extricate itself from the quagmire, it should have come as music to its ears. Though American mistrust of Pakistan meant that the US tried to directly deal with the Taliban, the Pakistanis ensured a partial failure of that approach by arresting important Talibani negotiators who had access to Mullah Omar and by safe-keeping the Quetta Shura out of American harm. There was also the drama of an impostor Taliban negotiator being seriously taken in by the US until he turned out to be a criminal serving jail term in Peshawar ! Pakistan simply toyed around with the US and conveyed the message clearly that it had the means to 'make or break'. This led to several games until the US has now been forced to accept the involvement of Pakistan in determining the future of Afghanistan after 2014. Thus, Pakistan crawled back into a position of prominence that was slipping away earlier.

I may grudge, but I admire Pakistani diplomacy here.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Dec 2012 22:56

devesh wrote:so who will be the "rebels" who will shout of regime change in India? can't believe that it will be of the saffron variety; even if they do, they won't be given the legitimacy by the external powers. so what, more secularist/naxal rebels?! or the "youth revolt" ala Tahrir Square? important question is fighting component. who will be given that legitimacy?

Not okay for this thread: but the pattern is to use "leftists" to start the focused expression of dissent against a reigning regime, and then use the more well organized Islamist networks to take over the "dissent".

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 22 Dec 2012 23:29

It may be convenient to directly deal with Afghanistan Govt. and sign agreements that make it possible to strike mujahid positions with fighter jets from India or some similar situations.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Dec 2012 00:29

You will have to cross Paki or Iranian airspace, unless you get permission to station directly in AFG. Also GOI will not want step into empty boots of the US - by doing so.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 23 Dec 2012 01:25

SSridhar wrote: I may grudge, but I admire Pakistani diplomacy here.

Boss, its not just diplomacy. I mean it was a military strategy as well using its terrorists. So TSP brought leverage to the table and thats what did the trick. Diplomacy without leverage is like having the intent to have sex but can't get it up, so the desire cannot be satisfied. So just as a woman who would ignore a man who cannot get it up, no matter how handsome he is, US could easily have ignored TSP but for its military strategy. Diplomacy alone without any leverage is what India has to show, and the results are there for everyone to see. Even the Afghans while lapping up Indian goodies fear TSP more than they fear India or US. One also has to admire how TSP played with fire (terrorists) who were threatening to consume it, but then once again, it deftly forced us Indian cowards reflected by the leadership in Delhi bail it out with you guessed it, diplomacy "both of us are victims" garbage, and of course pigLeTs. And then their ultimate trump card. Nukes. So anybody who says terror and nukes did not reap dividends for TSP is out of their minds.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 23 Dec 2012 01:43

What if Afghanistan decides to take path of nuclear research as a way of defense and then suddenly is able to conduct a few tests as well?

What impact will it have if India gives moral support and nuclear safety materials along with Russians training Afghans on routine training etc?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Dec 2012 03:14

SS ji

I do not agree to the point that either US and NATO are tired of war and want to go home. This is based on their keen interest in waging war in other places, be it Libya or Syria or Iran.

If they are really tired of war whether it is economically or militarily or politically they wouldnt be itching for those new engagements.

This applies to EU members especially and USA also.

If we ask right questions in right forums and use world media smartly, we can checkmate this nonsense.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Dec 2012 03:19

vishvak wrote:What if Afghanistan decides to take path of nuclear research as a way of defense and then suddenly is able to conduct a few tests as well?

What impact will it have if India gives moral support and nuclear safety materials along with Russians training Afghans on routine training etc?

Indians are not Chinese or Russians - they are primarily Yindoos. So it is - according to the Jehangiri logic for dealing with Yindoo women, okay to take from India, but not give back. They will take nuke materials but will use it against us. Please do not get under this influence of the myth of legendary, unconditional, non-opportunistic, non-theological Afghan love for India.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Dec 2012 06:32

RamaY wrote:I do not agree to the point that either US and NATO are tired of war and want to go home. This is based on their keen interest in waging war in other places, be it Libya or Syria or Iran.

They are perfectly happy with long-distance war using fighter/bomber jets, but totally weary with putting boots on the ground. Unfortunately for them, troops are required on the ground in Afghanistan and they need to fight and take casualties.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Dec 2012 07:39

RamaY ji,
look at US past tendency. They fight up to a point, and then they will go for a quick underhand negotiation with the power they reckon is behind the small mosquitoes they are trying to swat. They went for a Mao-Nixon meet - oiled up before for at least 5 years in preparation, all the while the V-war was going. They will and have gone for similar understandings with Pak and PRC/Saudis about this. AFG will be allowed to fall back into Sunni dominance, and under Pak influence with PRC backup. Saudis have sufficient ties with PRC to assure the US about the Paki-AFG-Taleb-PRC front to hold firm. At least thats what the super intelligent plotters and planners think for now.

In 10 years time, but better in 30 years time, they will say - that it was all done then in national interests onlee. That it all went wrong down the lane, was something not foreseeable at the time.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Dec 2012 07:47

Let us also recall that Yousuf Raza Gilani, when he was the PM of TSP, had suggested to Karzai that PRC should replace the US after c. 2014 and that the yuan should replace the dollar. He later suggested this to Man Mohan Singh also when he came to India, hoping to garner support.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 23 Dec 2012 07:48

SSridhar wrote:I may grudge, but I admire Pakistani diplomacy here.

Sounds like a "rational" choice for a nation that understands and knows how to deal with Khan and their objectives. A rational set of choices for a nation that has to face an undeniable geo-polical and demographic realities of the region. I did say not only rational but predictable, based on how TSP defines its self interests.

The debate within in TSP is not about the role of Taleban, the debate is they think they co-operated too much with the Americans and opened up space for non-pashtuns and thus India.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Dec 2012 08:22

Ok now I understand. There is lot of difference between starting a war and finishing it. Our western empires are good at first one only?

Looks like they destabilize the target environments with their shock and awe so these regions cannot offer a coherent alternative for few decades.

Is that their strategy of protecting their empire? How to shake it up?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 23 Dec 2012 09:23

If you take away the revenge factor out of the equation, i.e., avenging the deaths of US troops due to TSP perfidy, US has achieved the objectives it set for itself in its AfPak venture, i.e., elimination of the "mighty" Al Queda. So handing over Afghanistan to TSP rent a boy to make sure Al Queda doesn't get a base there again is good enough for US.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 23 Dec 2012 11:13

In Afghanistan US's aim was never about defeat of Taliban. As in words of one senior individual, they were "laser-focused" on Al-queda. Taliban was of no consequence to them. After all just like Saudi Arabia, if Taliban restrict the role of females or support islamic fundamentalism then it is fine.

In fact handing over of Afghanistan to Taliban would be good for India in the long run.
Firstly it will open up the eyes of Indian establishment and people who continue to parrot that India's and American goals are in sync or overlap. They do not, not by any yard stick.
Secondly Taliban will never be able to shake off the Pakistani linkage tag. So all the havoc they cause in Afghanistan, especially if they manage to reduce Afghanistan to 12 century Arabia, would be good. A 12-century Arabia will hardly be able to serve as a strategic depth to Pakistan
Thirdly and more importantly, Pakistan maybe infected with Taliban ideology. Till now the Pakistani establishment and the ruling class, including the democratically elected representatives of Pakistani parliament and its provinces, have used Islamic fundamentalist as its attack dog. It would be poetic justice if they were to be devoured by the same attack dog. The dream of Jinnah would finally became the nightmare for his children. I dont foresee Pakistan surviving more than 2 decades under a Taliban like ruling structure.

The beauty of Islamic fundamentalist is that they have a knack of ruining the countries they run. Think of Iran. Think of Saudi Arabia. Think of Afghanistan under Taliban. There is a 100% guarantee that they will make such a mess out of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It would be better if they manage to beat Grozny and take the top slot for messed up places.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 23 Dec 2012 20:36

When crisis is the identity - by Mohammad Taqi

One thing that no one is willing to say out loud is that a modest-sized regional power has all but outmaneuvered and outwitted an international military and diplomatic coalition in Afghanistan. Pakistan appears set to have stared down the US in Afghanistan and that too on the US dime for the most part. Apparently the Pakistani policy of coming to the negotiating table with a nuclear suicide vest strapped on has paid off. No one in the US, the region, or the world for that matter has been willing to call this nuclear bluff. The twin gimmicks of using foreign money and domestic jihadists to pursue its foreign, and domestic policies have been perfected by Pakistan since its founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah sought to milk the US and also let the jihadist irregulars loose in Kashmir.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 23 Dec 2012 21:46

The following is from a subscription article at foreign affairs.

Hadley and Podesta’s objectives make sense. But to achieve them, Washington must focus not just on getting to 2014 but also on what comes after. To their credit, the authors recognize that some forces and financial aid will be necessary beyond 2014. And the Obama administration has sought to convince the Afghans, the insurgents, and regional powers that NATO and the United States will not bolt after 2014. Yet the constant talk of departure dates undercuts the credibility of Washington’s recent agreements to maintain a presence in the country. If Washington wants Pakistan and the Taliban to negotiate seriously, it must stop sending mixed signals.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Dec 2012 10:52

ShauryaT wrote:When crisis is the identity - by Mohammad Taqi

One thing that no one is willing to say out loud is that a modest-sized regional power has all but outmaneuvered and outwitted an international military and diplomatic coalition in Afghanistan. Pakistan appears set to have stared down the US in Afghanistan and that too on the US dime for the most part. Apparently the Pakistani policy of coming to the negotiating table with a nuclear suicide vest strapped on has paid off. No one in the US, the region, or the world for that matter has been willing to call this nuclear bluff. The twin gimmicks of using foreign money and domestic jihadists to pursue its foreign, and domestic policies have been perfected by Pakistan since its founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah sought to milk the US and also let the jihadist irregulars loose in Kashmir.

That is because US is willing to be stared down by a non-power. It has chosen to have small men who cast big shadows to run its policy there with out control, clarity nor competence.
it still hedges the Pakis to keep India down.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 24 Dec 2012 11:03

Who is going to provide Pakisatan the financial wherewithal to bring their Taliban to power again in Kabul and keep them there?

I'm hoping Pakisatan plays its old game once much of NATO leaves. We have no more to worry abt than we always had. The others though will have a handful.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Dec 2012 11:05

Kerry.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 24 Dec 2012 11:13

Kerry won't do anything more than Hillary did with what'sername huma as adviser...
He won't risk his rep for anything anymore let alone the paks.
The paks may think they have him in their pockets. They always do when someone new comes in.
In any case his access to purse strings is limited.
No one has an interest in a stable Taliban ruled pak other than isi. They are confident of victory now.
It's a fantastic opportunity to allow them to further destabilize Pakistan, and make some personal money while at it...

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 Dec 2012 11:38

Taliban calls for new Afghan Constitution as a pre-condition for talks

Afghanistan’s Taliban has called for a new constitution as a pre-condition for it joining the nation’s fledgling peace process, according to a declaration issued by representatives at a landmark meeting in France.

Representatives from the country’s warring factions met on Thursday for two days of talks that diplomats hope will bolster relations in the war-torn country.

It is the first time since a U.S.-led bombing campaign drove the Taliban from power in 2001 that senior representatives have sat down with officials from the government and other opposition groups to discuss the future, in a meeting brokered by a French think tank. “Afghanistan’s present constitution has no value for us because it was made under the shadows of B52 bombers of the invaders,” said the declaration, which was handed to participants during the meeting and later released to the media.

“Islamic Emirate, for the welfare of their courageous nation, need a constitution that is based on the principles of the holy religion of Islam, national interest, historical achievements, and social justice,” it read.

The meeting was organised by the Foundation for Strategic Research (FRS) near Paris. The talks come against a background of accelerating efforts to draw the Taliban and other opponents of President Hamid Karzai into negotiations on how Afghanistan will be run after Western troops withdraw at the end of 2014.

Mr. Karzai’s government has drawn up a roadmap for peace which involves persuading the Taliban and other militant groups to agree to a ceasefire as a prelude to becoming peaceful players in the country’s nascent democracy.

As a first step in that direction, Mr. Karzai’s administration has been attempting to secure the release of top Taliban prisoners held by neighbouring Pakistan. Despite the landmark meeting, the Taliban’s declaration continued to display a lack of trust in the government.

“The invaders and their friends don’t have a clear roadmap for peace,” it stated.

“Sometimes they say we want to talk to the Islamic Emirate, but sometimes they say we will talk with Pakistan. This kind of vague stance will never get to peace,” it said.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 24 Dec 2012 19:59

Talks are offered as a peace gesture however that has been taken as pakibans as an excuse for pakistaniyat to spread in Afghanistan via pakiban and has claimed talks itself as vague and therefore excuse to not have peace by saying "vague stance will never get to peace".

Others are looking on as innocent bystanders which is appalling to say the least at the .accusations and indirect threats of violence under excuses.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Dec 2012 04:06

JE Menon wrote:Who is going to provide Pakisatan the financial wherewithal to bring their Taliban to power again in Kabul and keep them there?

I'm hoping Pakisatan plays its old game once much of NATO leaves. We have no more to worry abt than we always had. The others though will have a handful.

The finance earlier came from the Saudi dawaists and off-shore banking networks. USA simply provided more of the muscle, and less of the cash - or the cash was jointly arranged. So this can be arranged now the same way. You can look at how the current Syrian funding is being organized. Funding for such a jihad - will not be a problem at all. Especially if it can shown to be in the "national interests" of a host of nations - for "stability" etc.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Dec 2012 04:17

But the interests are not the same as in the past, either for the Saudis or for the US.

Drug exports plus china plus bits of private funding frm the gulf is my feeling. This will be the paki angle.

I can't see the Saudis providing funds to the Taliban thru Pakistan anymore. Not seriously. And direct funds to the Talibs has a whole different color. Frankly, I see many ways in which the pakisatans will rue the day they got the Taliban started....

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Dec 2012 04:33

Pakis have a problem no doubt. But the question to ask is - which Pakis will be trouble? The aam Paki will be screwed as usual no matter who rules. But the crucial nexus between the landowners, upper echelons of the TSPA, and the Dawa networks will benefit from the continued Taleb growth or return to power.

The Talebs did not really crackdown on the drugs trade - they used it to gain funds. So none of the current funding routes will be shaken. Also the main means of cash transfer is through the Dawa networks, the charities, and the transnational criminal networks. Don't see any substantial difficulties in this continuing.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 Dec 2012 06:41

JE Menon wrote:Drug exports plus china plus bits of private funding frm the gulf is my feeling. This will be the paki angle.

JEM, those will exactly be the sources. China certainly will be a major player. A China greedy for resources, wants to make big investments in Afghanistan and naturally want them to be protected by paying up the Taliban, exactly like how the Americans proposed to do during the 90s. As a spinoff, PRC can also cut Indian influence, something that should please its ally Pakistan as well. I won't be also surprised if the 3½ Friends make pledges to the Taliban for stopping any harassment of their soldiers during the vulnerable withdrawal phase.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 25 Dec 2012 09:48

^ so that should be a good outcome for India, right? After all it wanted a stable, peaceful and democratic Afghanistan. And the majority "want" Taliban rule because they are either afraid of Taliban or bought by them (Kapil Sibal and PC logic).

It will be a defeat for India unless it clearly spells out its interests and shows the will and courage to pursue its interests on its own.

If this is not the right time, perhaps India should bide the time and save the $b or so it is wasting there. Perhaps it can build a 1000MW thermal plant With that money and provide 24x7 power to Delhi.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 Dec 2012 18:44

India worried as Afghanistan & US look towards Pak for solution

Pakistan is firmly in charge now and the US has simply accepted that. By announcing a timeframe for withdrawal, the Taliban & Pakistan realized long ago that it was the US that has to make concession after concession to meet the deadline. The Taliban has to simply sit it out for the American to come begging to them. That is what is happening. As for Pakistan, it successfully resisted taking any action against the Taliban, knowing that it has to stand its ground only until c. 2012, (except on the inconvenient variety of Taliban) and when it took action , it took care to flatten unoccupied mud-and-stone houses in villages after pre-announcements and also milk the US money for reconstruction and reparation.

After 1989, the US abandoned Afghanistan to the mercy of the mujahideen and Pakistan and made an exit without bothering about the consequences of its actions. It left behind enormous caches of arms & ammunition which Taliban & TSP used later in pursuits of their goals, including against India. The US behavour brought an enormous blow back to Afghanistan and helped Pakistan become more radical and war-mongering. Eventually, this folly cost the US very heavily. But, it has learnt nothing out of that. It is making the same mistake all over again. Pakistan is indeed a snake-oil salesman and the US is indeed a defeated superpower. The Taliban/Pakistani claim of having defeated the US, which will start doing the rounds in c. 2013, would not be hollow unlike when they (Mujahideen/Pakistan) said so in c. 1989.

India is up against a huge problem.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 25 Dec 2012 19:22

And India is welcoming the terrorists in Bengaluru.And like a dumb Indian,I am watching the match.

SSji,
Ok,I am boycotting it too.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 Dec 2012 19:30

svenkat, I am not and I won't.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 25 Dec 2012 21:37

SSridhar wrote:India worried as Afghanistan & US look towards Pak for solution

I thought India and TSP are making piss. So why is India worried?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 25 Dec 2012 23:16

svenkat wrote:And India is welcoming the terrorists in Bengaluru.And like a dumb Indian,I am watching the match.

SSji,
Ok,I am boycotting it too.

Here is a IM conversation I had with a friend over this kirket sell out. He is symptomatic of the malaise that afflcits many a well meaning but dumb Indians which TSP is exploiting to the hilt

Me: I am boycotting this cricket s@it. As I was telling you over the phone, for heaven's sake, terrorism is not politics. Get that out of your head. Also, as far as I know its pay per view, and I ain't paying jack s@it to watch this crap.

My friend: Boss you are dealing with aam admi here, the real bad guys and their financiers are the ones that need to be daelt with. No offence but you need more mature thinking rather than having the same mindset as the bad guys over there. That makes you no different than them except for the religion. Think about it.

Me: So you say my thinking is that same as that of ISI & LeT. Thats total rubbish. Also recall South Africa were banned from Olympics and India went along with that. Not all South African were bad right? Pakistan as a whole is awash with terrorists especially anti-India terrorists. And they use terror as an instrument of state policy. Unless they feel the pain they won't change. Some good people will be affected, but thats too bad. I hope Pakis thrash India; at least that way, Indians like you will then forget cricket with them and see them for who they really are. Talk to later, this is not getting anywhere.

Anindya · Post by **Anindya** » 26 Dec 2012 11:46

CRamS

You friend's claim that aam aadmi in pakistan are not the bad guys is false. On the contrary, the aam aadmi in Pakistan are terrorists, supporters, financiers and extremists - the data on this is overwhelming. Terrorism is a cultural artifact of Pakistanis, not "just" a government policy issue.

The association of people like Shahid Afridi and Umar Gul with terrorists is well known and so is that of ex-cricketers like Imran and Javed of course.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 30 Dec 2012 19:38

The poison of Arab fundamentalism in Afghanistan

The Arab militants have always viewed Afghanistan as their staging area for glory in Central Asia. Even Osama Bin Laden and many other Arab fanatics were cheer leading Afghans over a false claim that Afghanistan is Khorasan, and from this land, the black flags will rise, and no one will stop them, they the black flag holders, will march upon Illya(Jerusalem) and place their flags into its soil. Obviously, one can see, from the mention of Jerusalem, it has some motive and best described as wishful thinking of your typical Saudi Arab Bedouin fanatic at the time. Afghanistan has absolutely no relation to Jerusalem or its people hence such dubious claims should be brushed aside and never taken seriously.

However, in this case, there was a motive for such things to be spoken of, as the Arabs started to flood into Afghanistan during the Soviet Jihad, Arab fanatics such as Abdullah Azzam, were calling for Arabs to prepare for Jihad against the Communists and its Afghan supporters, they considered Afghanistan as Dar Al Islam. The Arab militants made their way to Pakistan as a first point of call, and from there, they headed to Peshawar to receive training from the Pakistan’s ISI intelligence agency and military. It became difficult for the Afghans to accept such foreigners on their land because most Afghans never experienced the presence of a fanatical gang of “Wahabist/Salafists” as most Afghans at the time were Sufis, there were Arab DAWA groups, also known as missionary workers, who brought ideals and values totally alien to most Afghans at the time.

The process of Arabinazation of Afghanistan came with many repercussions and problems such as Arab fanatics destroying holy Sufi shrines in Afghanistan that angered many Afghan villagers, as they considered holy and inspirational. Arabs caused anger amongst the Afghan people and resulted in many Arabs being killed for crimes such as destroying Sufi shrines, mocking and insulting local Afghan Muslim leaders on the basis that they speak no Arabic and executing prisoners of war.

Afghanistan became a playground for Arabs to become famous in their native lands, for example there were “Gucci Jihadis”, who came to Afghanistan for a few months, took pictures of themselves attacking Afghan Communist positions and then returning home being welcomed back as “Mujahedeen’s”. Obviously, Afghanistan was seen as a place of earning trophies with no regard to the welfare of the people of Afghanistan, Arabs just couldn’t resist in turning Afghanistan into another Arab Desert Tribal battleground.

The Arabs in Afghanistan displayed acts of barbarity and gave no regard to the Geneva Convention and the rights of prisoners of war, just like their forefathers in Arabia; they looted and brutally slaughtered many Afghans. In the Communist held town of Jalalabad in 1989.The Arabs captured 60 Afghan government soldiers and took them away. The Arab fanatics physically cut the Afghan government soldiers into pieces and sent them back to Jalalabad to intimidate the supporters of the Afghan government and install fear in the masses of what will happen if you oppose the presence of Arab fanatics in the region.

The Arabs, were by far the most brutal people in Afghanistan, they were the driving forces of backwardness and hostility in Afghanistan. Hyman, who wrote the book titled Arab involvement in the Afghan war, has given a very precious account of the resentment the Arab fanatics faced from the Afghan people as follows:-

“The arrogant, bigoted behaviour of Arabs in the Southern border provinces of Afghanistan provoked friction and a backlash among Pashtun tribesmen and their allies. In particular, it was their treatment of captured Afghan women in Kunar and Nangrahar provinces in the winter of 1988-89, which provoked keen resentment among Afghans. They were accused of being responsible for forced marriages and rape, as well as many casual killings."[1]

The Arabs were extremely opposed to any form of progression or development that they deemed against their Islamic beliefs or became an obstacle towards their lust for killing the native Afghan population who they saw as non believers. During Afghanistan’s rebuilding phase, the Arabs became obstacles, and started working against any western or secular aid agency work, and only permitted the most radical orientated Islamic charities to function and provide to the Afghan people, even during the 1990s, when the Taliban were in control, western aid workers were attacked by such elements in Kunar, for one purpose, which was to keep the population under its Arabian inspired hegemony.

The Afghan people, were the not the only ones, who suffered under the Arab militancy in Afghanistan, the same Afghan Islamists, who conspired with the Arab and Pakistani fanatics guided by the Pakistani ISI to bring Afghanistan to her knees, became the victims of their own allies from the Arab world. A Militant Islamist, by the name of Maulvi Hussain, of the Hizb-i-Islami group in 1980, decided to establish his own base in Bajaur in present day Khyber Pakhtunkhwa tribal district, his base openly welcomed Arab fighters to train to fight in Afghanistan. Maulvi, referred to himself as a Salafi, and had a strong presence and influence in the Kunar region of Afghanistan, that all ended, when Maulvi Hussain was killed by his own Arab guest.

During near to the end of the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, the Arabs sided with the more fundamentalist groups and as expected, starting stirring up Afghans to fight other Afghans over faith and Islamic issues. The Arabs preferred to side themselves with the Hekmatyar group on ideology, as both groups, shared a similar Islamic belief and agreed on many issues. However, the Arabs in Afghanistan, started to preach to Afghans, that those areas that are under the Afghan government control are no longer Muslim because the people support the Afghan government and object to the Arab call for Jihad hence they are kaffirs/heathens (Non-Muslims).

The Arabs wouldn’t hesitate in this instance to declare whom object to their terrorist activities as enemies of Islam, and believed the laws of Islamic conquest on those areas fully comply with their standards. The rules of conquest covered many areas which appeared insane and oppressive to the Afghan people; however the laws were then written up by the Arab fundamentalists at the time, the oppressive laws, promoted that the rape of women (combines, sex slaves), execution of prisoners and the selling of women as slaves would all be permitted with full compliance from all sectors of the Arab Militant movement in Afghanistan.

The Afghan Islamists, facing the consequences of allowing such people to take part in their deluded and dreadful jihad on the Afghan government, resented the Arabs methods, and complained and warned the Arab fanatics that such methods will only help the Afghan government take advantage and would go against their aims and objectives.

The Arabs wanted to turn Afghanistan into a Wahabi state, in doing so; they aimed to limit the influence of Iran, because through Afghanistan the influence of Iran played a logistical role to other countries such as Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The Arab countries and their henchmen committed atrocities in towns and villages especially in the Kunar and Nangrahar region of Afghanistan during the period of 1988 to 1989 where by mass murders of men; the kidnapping of women and other terrible acts of punishment took place. The Arabs seemed to regard the Afghan people as mere peasants with a very bad knowledge of true Islamic belief and seemed to only look down upon the Afghan people instead of showing any sign of respect or equality.

Just like the Pakistanis, and others who took part in meddling in Afghanistan, followed a two faced policy, whereby they welcomed progression and development in their native lands, while on the other hand, they promoted Jihadist sentiments in Afghanistan, totally opposite to their values to their own kin, like the UAE who was one of the three countries who recognised the Taliban movement.

The whole Anti Soviet fiasco was not for the liberation of the Afghan people, but for a transformation of a well established cultural and historical Afghan state into a Jihadi haven that would be used by Arab militants around the world to spread their hegemony to other countries, especially in Central Asia and Russia’s Caucasus region.

The Afghan people never liked the dishonest, brutal and oppressive Arabs, as a matter of fact and expected; the Afghans had an enough of their oppressive behaviour and started to fight back from Kandahar to Kabul. Thousands of Arabs were captured and sent to Bagram airfield and Guantanamo bay, in Kabul alone, Arab terrorists were attacked by Afghans, and their mouths stuffed with Afghani bank notes to symbolise their hatred of their character and years of oppression.

The King, the messiah and the leader of the Arab militants, Osama Bin Laden, was insulted and humiliated seeing his Arab militants treated in such a manner. Osama Bin Laden like a coward, fled to Pakistan, from this ToraBora hideout, he bribed his fellow Mujahedeen commanders to allow him and his men access to cross into the Parchinar Beak to Pakistan where he was eventually found in Abottabad, Pakistan in 2011 very close to one of Pakistan’s main military bases which has speculated deep suspicions over Pakistan’s handling of the situation and its role in the region.