Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 23 May 2013 13:17

shyamd wrote:Afghan response to the spate of attacks over the last week has started:

A bomb planted in a rickshaw tore through a vehicle used by security forces in #Quetta on Thursday, killing at least 12 people, police said.

Why do the Afghan response not reaching Punjab...if at it is an Afghan response because that is where the centre of gravity of Pakistan lies??

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 May 2013 13:45

I think they were caught off guard. The Afghans definitely took a big hits in the last week. So this was like a quick response. Expect more and Talib commanders being Qutl'd in FATA NWFP

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 May 2013 19:20

Shyamd, The Quetta attack was aimed at a RRF police vehicle and not the Pak military. Most likely it was Baloch freedom fighters and not Afghans.

BTW under Karzai Afghans have become MMSque like and are Frontier Gandhian despite grave provocations from TSP.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 May 2013 21:10

ramana wrote:Shyamd, The Quetta attack was aimed at a RRF police vehicle and not the Pak military. Most likely it was Baloch freedom fighters and not Afghans.

Did notice that it occurred in Balochistan but again they'll retaliate where they see fit - a court or wherever they can. Its also no secret that US/Afghans provide support for the Baloch to punish Pak for its perfidy.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-22635000
Taliban have claimed the attack in retaliation of killing several militants

BTW under Karzai Afghans have become MMSque like and are Frontier Gandhian despite grave provocations from TSP.

What makes you say that? I have heard the total opposite from all sides including desi's.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 25 May 2013 01:31

#BREAKING :At least 6 #Pakistani policemen were killed when militants ambushed their vehicles on the Indus Highway near #Mattani #peshawar

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 May 2013 06:21

I think these are attacks coming from the TTP and its affiliates. The latest Mattani attack could be from Mangal Bagh Afridi of Lashkar-e-Islam. I do not believe that the Afghans are retaliating in any way.

The situation in FATA is a throwback to 2002 when the AQAM was in retreat and had a compliant Muttahida-Majlis-e-Amal, backed by the PA, in control politically in KP. The TTP, which was on the defensive after successful drone attacks, will now be consolidating under a friendly dispensation in KP. There is already a peace talk going on between GoP, backed by the PA, and the TTP. A jihadi-pasand Nawaz would only be expected to accelerate the talks. Everyone is working towards c. 2014 now. The blowback to Pakistan will come after the Taliban consolidate their hold in Afghanistan. IMO, it is still a couple of years away.

IMO, the current attacks are settling personal scores and therefore would be only sporadic and random.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 May 2013 06:28

Also if Afghans were attacking the Quetta Shura and not RRF vehicles would be targeted.

Again quo bono would be helpful to figure out the mess as SS is doing.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 25 May 2013 17:55

Thats why I said the NDS was caught off guard with the scale of the attacks in the last 2 weeks and haven't been able to respond effectively so they are resorting to hitting easy targets. NDS will respond and hit Talib kammandu's soon as they did in March.

------------------
http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/docume ... tan/276735

Endgame afghanistan - One of the best documentaries out there. Sit down with the knowledgable players

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 Jun 2013 20:29

Contrary to what has been reported, India has agreed to send a military team to Kabul to see what exactly their requirements are. Matter is shrouded in secrecy for obvious reasons

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 02 Jun 2013 15:40

Taliban leadership in pak and Qatar sent delegation to Tehran to discuss future policies and that Taliban rule is not a threat to Tehran. Talks finished today. Some flew back to Kabul and were arrested on arrival.

India must be watching this closely and looking at what happened in the talks.
I think Iran will be stupid to believe them.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Jun 2013 15:48

shyamd wrote:Taliban leadership in pak and Qatar sent delegation to Tehran to discuss future policies and that Taliban rule is not a threat to Tehran. Talks finished today. Some flew back to Kabul and were arrested on arrival.

India must be watching this closely and looking at what happened in the talks.
I think Iran will be stupid to believe them.

The Pakis and Taliban are asking for a 10-year cease-fire for consolidation and finishing off any resistance to Taliban and thus to Pakistan in Afghanistan.

Afterwards they can turn westwards.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Jun 2013 17:53

It is strange that we discuss AFG and PAK as single whole entities. So the supposed incidents - of sometimes fighting and sometimes hand-shaking leaves us scratching our heads because we will not go into a realistic model of multiple interest groups , with all having some common priorities, and then competing other issues.

The Afghans in general are committed to Islamism. Whatever "sekular" tendencies came in under a brief US interlude under the limited monarchical initiatives of "reform" or modernization, and under the communists - has been successfully eroded under western and Saudi benevolence since then.

This means that the main Taleb movement even if started on Paki soil, was an Afghan Pashtun affair - the classic case of "irregulars" trained by the regular army, getting a mind and army of their own because of sub-identity distinctions. Moreover, there is a huge territorial as well as social and ideological grey zone in between the southern Afghans and west-north-west Pakis.

It was always an error to disntinguish between the Paki Talebs and AFG Talebs - where aims and objectives were concerned. The Paki Talibs simply remain under greater intervention control by ISI becuase of proximity. But their overall aim is a caliphate that spans both western Pak and southern AFG for a start, and subsequently expand in both directions to the east as well as the west.

Iran as I ha d suggested a long time ago, would be interested in roll-back of US influence from its flank in Pak around the Gulf, and would sponsor the Talebs if they promise to go seriously against the US. NO matter shia-sunni rhetoric as many here believed.

At the moment - Talebs can safely expand in both directions - but if the really want buildup period, they will have to spare Iran for the time being. Their first fear will be renewed western intervention, and hence they would like to roll back US for good. They know that in the region, Saudis will not want that, and would applaud if Talibs go after Iran. So from that perspective keeping quiet and seemingly neutral would allow them to fight off remnant influence of US in their south.

On the other hand there will be no objection from any quarters - official "Islamic" friends of Left-Congressi "mainstream" India, or the "west" or China, if they move against India. In fact they will be able to mobilize a lot of sympathies, support and non-resistance from Pakjabis and majority of Pakistanis if the Talebs go east. For Talebs it will be a shrewd move to quietly incorporate Pakjabis into their caliphate.

So eastern move is more likely from a strategic as well as tactical viewpoint. On the other hand the Left-Congress mainstream can blame the "right wing fundamentalists" in resisting Islamization, for the Talebs coming over, so everyone is justified in what they will be doing.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 02 Jun 2013 18:38

ramana wrote:From epic times of Shakuni Mama in Mahabharat to the historic times from the rein of Ashoka and later period till the Mughals, Afghanistan or Gandhar depended on subsidy from Indo-Gangetic plains. And they often decided the political fate of Indo-Gangetic plains by swinging with the invaders or opposing the invaders.

That subsidy ended with Mahraja Ranjit Singh and was reinstated by the British as part of the Afghan Wars Treaty with Shah Shuja and Dost Mohammed. The Partition of India into India and Pakistan ended the subsidy and has led to this mess.

Yes, because Afghanistan is too agriculturally poor to generate the resources needed for any state - foreign or domestic to control such difficult terrain and prickly social complexity.

Pakistan did reinstate the subsidy - but mostly to forces challenging the Afghan state in almost all of its iterations since 1973- secular nationalist, communist, independent Islamist, or pro-Western.

Things have gotten worse as well since the silk road started to dry up in the 18th century. The re-establishment of trans-Eurasian trade of real value is going to change the Pakistan's calculus on Afghanistan. It will no longer be able to afford to play the spoiler in the same way, and Afghanistan as a whole will not be so economically dependent on trade with Pakistan either. Northern Afghanistan's ongoing integration with the road and rail networks of Central Asia and Iran is a vital step in the long term integration, development and normalisation of the country into the world system. Its isolation was deeply a-historical and unhealthy.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 02 Jun 2013 18:49

brihaspati wrote:It was always an error to disntinguish between the Paki Talebs and AFG Talebs - where aims and objectives were concerned. The Paki Talibs simply remain under greater intervention control by ISI becuase of proximity. But their overall aim is a caliphate that spans both western Pak and southern AFG for a start, and subsequently expand in both directions to the east as well as the west.

You have that backwards. The Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani government have no real trouble with each other. On the other hand the Pakistani Taliban harbours a deep hatred for the Pakistani state which it sees as treacherous American-paid mercenaries and an occupying force. The Pakistani Taliban is a barely coherent movement with enormous internal tensions, but its core are radicalised Deobandi Mehsuds from Waziristan with good friends from the Punjab, Uzbekistan, the Arab world, etc pitching in to help out. So its not surprising that Mullah Omar has never been able to make the Pakistani Taliban obey him - their views of the Pakistani state are more or less diametrically opposed.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Jun 2013 20:29

Johann, again, you consider the Paki state as one single entity. The Paki Talebs represent one portion of the Paki state that does not like the compromises the other portions make. But they are very much part and parcel of the Paki state - they represent social, political, religious and coercive wing dominant mobilizations.

In a way the Paki elite uses this majority trend in very similar ways that the Congress does for India : use the threat of the majority trend to external forces as sole claimant of the middle ground and hence a "moderate" voice that should be given the dough to keep everyone in check.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 03 Jun 2013 01:04

The TTP is willing to kill PA officers, including serving and retired ISI men. That is not part of the normal continuum of disagreement within the Pakistani national security establishment.

The establishment never expected to be targeted in this way by jihadis - simply coming to terms with it has been an enormous ideological and psychological struggle. The fact that TTP hostility has continued in the face of all available carrots and sticks is even more disturbing for them. That is why Indian or American control over the TTP is the only explanation that still makes sense to a lot of the Pakistani right wingers.

The fact is that between permission for American bombs, PA offensives under US pressure, and the Chinese encouraged Lal Masjid siege the Pakistani state has sold out the jihdis again and again, trading their blood for money - that is a problem for people who hold a code of revenge ('badal') as a way of life.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 Jun 2013 02:57

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... dia_gamble
Karzai's India Gamble

KABUL, Afghanistan—Before he set off for India with a wish list of military hardware, Afghan President Hamid Karzai gave negotiations with Pakistan one last chance -- at least in principle. On April 24, he traveled to Brussels for a trilateral meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and General Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan's chief of Army Staff, whose cooperation is seen as essential for any post-2014 peace deal with the Taliban. The protocol screw-ups were telling: A photo-op from Truman Hall, the residence of the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, shows a startled looking Kerry (standing in front of the wrong flag) betwixt the stonefaced Afghan president and his effective counterpart in Kayani. Pakistan's civilian foreign secretary, also present on the trip, was not even in the frame.
Already strained over how to approach negotiations with the Taliban, the relationship between Kabul and Islamabad had reached a new level of intransigence in April over Pakistani plans to build a military gate on what the Afghan government considered its side of the border. Karzai had responded by ordering Afghan troops to remove the gate and any other "Pakistani military installations near the Durand Line," the contentious British-mandated border between the two countries. In trying to resolve the conflict with the Taliban before he leaves office next year, Karzai has repeatedly bent over backward in hopes of securing Pakistani cooperation -- often risking political capital at home, where anti-Pakistan sentiment is on the rise. Now, it seems, Karzai no longer wants to wait at Pakistan's mercy.According to a source close to Karzai, Kayani actually agreed in the talks to help push the Taliban toward publicly agreeing to negotiate with the Afghan government, but the offer was evidently not trustworthy enough to dissuade the Afghan president from looking to Pakistan's archrival for assistance. (The July deadline for a similar offer -- made at a previous summit in Britain -- for a "peace settlement" with the Taliban to be reached "over the next six months" is fast approaching with no progress.) Kerry summed it up aptly before jetting back to Washington: "We are not going to raise expectations or make any kind of promises that can't be delivered."In sharp contrast with his vocal optimism following previous dialogues, Karzai remained hushed after the Brussels meeting. Soon after he returned home, the border dispute with Pakistan turned deadly, as Afghan soldiers exchanged fire with Pakistani border guards. One Afghan soldier was killed and several Pakistani guards were reportedly wounded. In response, Karzai met with the family of the soldier who died in the clashes and declared him a national hero. The presidential palace then issued a statement on behalf of tribal elders Karzai had met, claiming that Afghan territory extends "as far as Attock," a city located deep inside Pakistan that borders its Punjab province. Then on May 21, Karzai dealt Pakistan the ultimate snub by travelling to New Delhi in search of military equipment that, according to Indian media included 105 mm howitzer artillery, medium-lift aircraft, bridge-laying equipment, and trucks. No public statements have been made specifically addressing Karzai's request for hardware, but sources close to the Afghan president suggest that India is sending a military mission to assess Afghanistan's needs and will most likely provide some of the equipment. After a decade of limiting its $2 billion in assistance to development and reconstruction so as not to irk Pakistan, India seems willing to up the stakes. In New Delhi's calculation, respect for Pakistani sensitivities hasn't protected Indians from attacks in the past. Even building a highway cost India 135 casualties -- "one human sacrifice...for every kilometer and a half constructed," as the country's foreign minister put it.
Other government sources, both Afghan and Indian, however, say that Karzai's request poses a number of problems, one of which is logistics. India would have to cooperate with Moscow in order to supply the Afghan government, since some of the hardware --like Antonov An-32 aircraft -- is manufactured in Russia. It would also have to consult both Moscow and Tehran for transit routes in order to deliver the weapons to landlocked Afghanistan. This gives Pakistan two potential pressure points from which to exert influence over the deal. (Both Russia and Iran have their own fears about allowing arms to be sent to a volatile country so close to home.) Training and maintenance poses another challenge as hardware cannot be simply handed over to inexperienced armed forces.
In public at least, Pakistan is downplaying fears that it will try to derail the arms shipments. "As a sovereign country Afghanistan can pursue its own policies," Pakistan's Foreign Secretary Jalil Abbas Jillani told reporters last week. "But we hope that it would mind the overall peace and security situation."The urgency for Karzai to acquire such weapons -- particularly air support and the 105 mm howitzers that are effective at up to 11,000 meters -- stems from the belief that Taliban militants are playing a waiting game at the borders. Once the foreign soldiers leave, Karzai fears, insurgents holed up in the border areas will start crossing in large numbers to test the government in Kabul. After 2014, the war could very well escalate, as the recent battle in Sangin -- reportedly involving hundreds of Taliban and lasting several days -- indicates. It could conceivably even turn into trench warfare -- which Afghan soldiers are woefully underequipped equipped for. Even with NATO and the United States actively involved, Afghan soldiers routinely bleed to death from treatable injuries because they lack air transport.Nonetheless, Karzai and India are taking a considerable risk in testing Pakistan at such a vulnerable moment for Afghanistan and the region. Days after Karzai's return from New Delhi, a squad of suicide-bombers besieged a central part of Kabul for almost an entire day. The Afghan government blamed it on terrorists "supported by the intelligence of countries in the region" -- a common euphemism for Pakistan. Some observers have already connected the incident to Karzai's overture to India.

Shanmukh · Post by **Shanmukh** » 03 Jun 2013 07:29

Gurus - I have only one qualm about supplying any hardware to the Afghan government. Can we be sure it won't end up in the hands of the jihadis? The ANA is not exactly what I would call a trustworthy force. Can they be actually depended upon to fight the Taliban? What is to prevent them from making deals, taking our weaponry and turning those guns against us?

What has been our past experience? Did we supply military hardware to the Najibullah government? If so, what became of it? While the Pakistani domination of Afghanistan via the Taliban would be bad, infinitely worse is aiding our own enemies.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 03 Jun 2013 08:01

http://dawn.com/2013/05/30/waliur-rehma ... officials/

TTP confirms Waliur Rehman death; suspends talks

DERA ISMAIL KHAN: The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) confirmed to Dawn.com on Thursday that the deputy leader of the militant organisation, Waliur Rehman, was killed in a US-led drone strike on Wednesday and further announced that the talks with the government stood suspended.

TTP also announced that the killing would be avenged.

“Yes its confirmed that Maulana Waliur Rehman has died in the US drone strike along with his six mujahideen and we are proud of his sacrifice, we are happy as well as grieved on Waliur Rehman’s martyrdom, as we are all ready to die for our cause,” TTP spokeperson Ehsanullah Ehsan told Dawn.com when asked if the Taliban no.2 is really dead as being claimed by various sources.

“We are suspending all kinds of contacts and revoke the peace talks offer with the government, soon we shall be responding with full force,” he said adding that,“on one hand the Pakistani government is advocating the mantra of peace talks, and on the other it is colluding with the United States and killing the Taliban leadership.”

Earlier Pakistani intelligence officials had said the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan’s deputy leader was buried at an undisclosed location after his death in a US drone strike.

Khan Said aka Sajana Mehsud was reportedly nominated to succeed Rehman as the deputy of the TTP. Said is believed to be a close aide of the former deputy, Rehman, who was killed in a US-led drone strike on Wednesday.

When asked about the replacement Ehsan declined to comment and said, “No I can not confirm yet, who will be taking over, the Taliban shura has not decided about it yet,” he added

The US had accused Rehman of involvement in a 2009 suicide attack in Afghanistan that killed seven CIA employees.

Rehman’s killing could rattle the incoming government’s goal of negotiating with the Taliban.

Rehman had previously been considered amenable to talks.

Two intelligence officials say informants on the ground told them Rehman was buried Wednesday night. Two militants claimed they attended the funeral. All four spoke on condition of anonymity.

the bolded portion has interesting clues.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Jun 2013 17:06

^^^did ehsanullah really use the word "mantra"?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Jun 2013 03:58

So four witnesses to Wali-ur-Rehman's burial!

The sources are bious Bakis.

What kind of a martial name is Sajana Mehsud!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jun 2013 01:26

Very useful and important history of Peshawar:

The Legacy of Peshawar

Dr. Amarjit Singh, IDR

Read the notes also.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jun 2013 22:12

MIT Tech Review:

The world as a free fire zone

Obama contribution

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 11 Jun 2013 04:17

Taliban Gun and rocket attack near Kabul airport

Afghan security forces have tackled heavily-armed militants who seized a building near the main airport in the capital Kabul.

Officials said seven gunmen had been killed in the five-storey building under construction near the airport and the attack was now over.

The Taliban earlier said that they carried out the assault.

But the attack left several unanswered questions: For example, how did the insurgents manage to get their heavy weapons and a vehicle loaded with explosives up to the airport's perimeter despite all the security in place?

Some experts said the attackers wanted to convey the message that they can strike at will in Kabul.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jun 2013 09:29

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

As of Tuesday, June 18, 2013, at least 2,103 members of the U.S. military had died in Afghanistan as a result of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, according to an Associated Press count.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jun 2013 16:03

Text from friend in Doha on the Taliban office -"mate, why oh why, the entire western foreign press is descending on Doha and there is nothing here for them."

"No one here has a clue about this Taliban office and majority of experts are specialists in Gulf/Middle East Affairs"

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Jun 2013 18:41

The Taliban are rebuffing the American demands and the US is swallowing the insults from and the intransigence of the Taliban to start the talks. The Taliban know that they have the uppermost hand as the US has a deadline while the Taliban do not have. This is a defeat for the US whatever spin one wants to give it. Wait for more humiliating days [for the US] to follow.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jun 2013 20:37

SS and ShyamD, i think looking at Af-Pak or Fak-Ap thru GOAT prism is distorting our prespective.

I think US wants to gift Taliban, Afghanistan as a block to Indian access to Central Asia.

Under Karzai, Afghanistan is India pasand country.

All this swallowing insults is a hungama.

member_23692 · Post by **member_23692** » 20 Jun 2013 01:12

Taliban is Paki is Taliban is Paki

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Jun 2013 04:32

Endgame in AfPak or Descent into Chaos - G.Parthasarathy, Business Line

The US roadmap on Afghanistan may run aground, if the experience initiated by the leader of the erstwhile Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, in the late eighties is any indication.

On June 22, 2011, President Barack Obama announced that the US intended to end all combat operations in Afghanistan by the end of 2014, while transferring responsibility for security to Afghan forces. This process is in place and the bulk of security operations even now are undertaken by Afghan forces, with American logistical backing.

The American strategy also involves a process of “reconciliation” through talks in Qatar between the Taliban, on the one hand and the Afghan High Peace Council, on the other.

Taliban and its ISI backers may not settle for anything short of substantial control in the initial years, over the bulk of Southern Afghanistan. The US is expected to retain a residual military presence of around 8,000 troops in Afghanistan, together with control of around half a dozen military airports, while focusing on training and counter-terrorism operations.

There is scepticism about the will of the US, to stay the course on its Strategic Partnership Agreement with Afghanistan to “combat al-Qaeda and its affiliates and enhance the ability of Afghanistan to deter threats against its sovereignty, security and territorial integrity”.

Gorbachev’S WITHDRAWAL

Interestingly, like Obama, Mikhail Gorbachev commenced withdrawal of Soviet forces in Afghanistan in 1988. Gorbachev’s entire strategy was based on the naïve belief that Pakistan will cease arming the Peshawar-based Afghan Mujahedeen, in accordance with its commitments in the Geneva Accords. (In the preceding years, the CIA funded and provided the ISI with weapons, enabling them to arm and equip an estimated 80,000 fighters to challenge the writ of the regime of President Mohammed Najibullah).

Pakistan’s President General Zia-ul-Haq, however, made it clear that he had no intention of abiding by the Geneva Accords. He told and he would deny Soviet accusations of the ISI arming the Afghan Mujahedeen, telling President Reagan: “We will deny any arms aid is going through our territory. After all, that is what we have been saying for the past 8 years”.

Gorbachev made an ill-advised and desperate attempt to negotiate with the Peshawar-based, ISI-backed Seven Party Alliance of Fundamentalist Afghan Parties.

The Mujahedeen just stalled for time as they obtained ever more direct Pakistani military assistance to oust the Najibullah Government, which, interestingly, offered fierce resistance, till the Soviet Union collapsed in December 2011 and arms supplies dried up.

President Zia stated: “We have earned the right to have a friendly regime in Afghanistan. We took risks as a frontline State, and won’t permit it to be like it was before, with Indian and Soviet influence there and claims on our territory. It will be a real Islamic State, part of a pan-Islamic revival that will one day win over the Muslims of the Soviet Union, you will see it”.

Is Obama’s “end game” in Afghanistan and his faith in “reconciliation” with the Taliban set to prolong the agony of the Afghans?

Afghanistan is, and will likely remain, an international basket case, for at least a decade. It will need at least $4.1 billion annually to maintain its armed forces.

The economy can become self-sustaining only if the country’s mineral wealth can be put to use, which will require at least a decade of conditions conducive to economic development.

The only redeeming feature is that the US, unlike the Soviet Union, will not collapse. Moreover, there is some recognition in the International Community that a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan will lead to the Afpak Region remaining the epicentre of global terrorism.

Much is going to depend on how domestic developments within Afghanistan play out and on the credibility of its Government. It is crucial to ensure that the forthcoming Presidential elections in 2014 are transparent, fair and credible.

NEW DELHI’S BLUNDER

It would of course be ideal if India can work with others to try and see that the leading Presidential candidate enjoys genuine domestic and international credibility and respect. President Karzai could then assume the role of an elder statesman.

Given the ideological inclinations of the Zia era officers, who now run the Pakistan army, it is going to be a difficult task to persuade and pressurise the military establishment to discard Zia’s grandiose notions of Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan and the Islamic world.

New Delhi will be making a serious mistake if it allows misplaced concerns about Pakistani “sensitivities” to inhibit its political and economic partnership, or its defence relationship, including arms supplies, with the dispensation in Kabul.

India has compromised its interests by seeking to appease Chinese “sensitivities” in the conduct its relations with the US, Japan, Vietnam and other ASEAN members.

Such undue concern for Pakistani “sensitivities” in Afghanistan will have serious security implications for India.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Jun 2013 04:39

ramana wrote:I think US wants to gift Taliban, Afghanistan as a block to Indian access to Central Asia.

Under Karzai, Afghanistan is India pasand country.

All this swallowing insults is a hungama.

Ramana, checkmating India was a game started by the British and then passed on to the US. Pakistan was the tool for this purpose for such a long time. It took various forms including nukes and terror as a state policy, all with the approval of the GotUS. When this policy boomeranged and the US had to root out terror, it took care to hit at only the component that was the threat to the US. This is again another mistake by the US because, the local terror and the global terror have coalesced and they have the same worldview today unlike pre-2001.

I am not so sure that the US is enacting a drama here. It is truly getting whacked as it always happens from the ISI. It may be true that the ISI is going to lose its control of the Taliban very soon, but, at this point of time and until they are re-installed in Kabul, the ISI have control.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Jun 2013 09:49

Kabul backs out of talks with Taliban too - Atul Aneja, The Hindu

Piqued by the unfurling of the Taliban flag and the attribution of the name, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, to its office opened on Tuesday, the government of President Hamid Karzai conveyed to the U.S. in no uncertain terms that the process of granting symbolic political legitimacy to the Taliban must stop {The US double game} . . . "As long as the peace process is not Afghan-led, the High Peace Council will not participate in the talks in Qatar" . . . The Afghan government drove home its message that it was unhappy with the Americans’ business-as-usual attitude with the Talban when it announced that it was suspending talks with Washington on stationing fewer troops in the country after the formal withdrawal of U.S-led NATO forces at the end of 2014.

The Americans were also under fire from the Taliban later on Tuesday. Soon after opening their Doha office, the Taliban killed four American troops near Kabul, sending a clear message to Washington that it was in no position to impose its will on steering Afghanistan’s political transition.

A statement issued by Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid signalled that the attack on the Americans was a deliberate decision, and not hyper-activism of a fringe group. {More such attacks will certainly happen. The Taliban and the ISI are on a roll}

“Last night two big rockets were launched at Bagram which hit the target. Four soldiers are dead and six others are wounded. The rockets caused a major fire,” Mujahid announced.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jun 2013 15:17

so they get to open a office in a american protectorate like qatar and then kill amercans with impunity the same day.

sounds like khan chacha is GUBO as usual.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2013 15:46

ramana wrote:SS and ShyamD, i think looking at Af-Pak or Fak-Ap thru GOAT prism is distorting our prespective.

I think US wants to gift Taliban, Afghanistan as a block to Indian access to Central Asia.

Under Karzai, Afghanistan is India pasand country.

All this swallowing insults is a hungama.

The get around to this is that we will have access via the INSTC network that we are building in Iran and therefore have 2 routes into Central asia.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Jun 2013 16:33

No dates set for US-Taliban talks

Preliminary Afghan peace talks in Qatar between US and Taliban officials are unlikely to take place on Thursday as had been expected, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Asked if the meeting would happen on Thursday, the source replied: "There is nothing scheduled that I am aware of." Asked if that meant they would not happen today, the source added: "Yes that's correct."

A senior US official said on Wednesday that talks with the Taliban were likely to be held within the next few days in Qatar, after delays caused by tensions over the naming of a new Taliban office in the capital, Doha.

A statement on Qatar's foreign ministry website late on Wednesday clarified that the office which opened, was called the " Political Bureau for Afghan Taliban in Doha" and not the "Political Bureau for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan".

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2013 17:33

Apparently they are in a meeting now. Don't know who with though.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2013 20:20

From press reports Taliban is offering a prisoner swap as CBM.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2013 23:36

ramana wrote:SS and ShyamD, i think looking at Af-Pak or Fak-Ap thru GOAT prism is distorting our prespective.

I think US wants to gift Taliban, Afghanistan as a block to Indian access to Central Asia.

Under Karzai, Afghanistan is India pasand country.

All this swallowing insults is a hungama.

The get around to this is that we will have access via the INSTC network that we are building in Iran and therefore have 2 routes into Central asia.

member_23692 · Post by **member_23692** » 21 Jun 2013 02:19

In their haste to get out of Afghanistan, it looks like the US has dropped all pretense now. There are no "Vietanam-esque" declarations of victory and no "Iraq-esque" claims of creating democracy in Afghanistan . By now starting direct negotiations with the Talibs behind Karzai's back and by backtracking on all pre-conditions that they had imposed on Taliban for commencement of talks, the Americans have come out completely in the open now and shamelessly thrown Karzai, the non pashtuns and the anti-pakis under the bus. In a sense, they have thrown India under the bus.

What is India doing about all this ? Perhaps India is being the ultimate Chankian. It does nothing. It seems that the Indian winning strategy is to win it all by losing all its territory and allowing the conversion of all its people. It is way beyond simpletons like me to even comprehend, leave aside conjure up, such brilliance.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jun 2013 02:34

rsangram, Long ago India realised it has no cards inside Afghanistan- ruled by Pashtuns, Islamists etc.

So they came up with another card.

Support the legitimate govt of Afghanistan.

Who? Legitimate govt is the one that has the broadest support of all Afghans.

Why? Such a a govt will press for Durand Line erasure.