Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 15 Dec 2017 02:38

deleted.
Not important enough

periaswamy · Post by **periaswamy** » 15 Dec 2017 02:42

deleted

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 15 Dec 2017 02:52

Deleted

periaswamy · Post by **periaswamy** » 15 Dec 2017 03:08

^^ You see me stopping you from writing whatever you want?

Correction: should have written "Tajiks were anti-taliban of the "good" kind", not "pro russia". No afghan group has been pro-Russia. Fixed post.

Indian politics will not allow putting Indian troops in Afghanisthan, as the political capital that has to be expended for such a venture makes it infeasible for any elected Indian government. Short of India reclaiming PoK to get direct access to Afghanisthan, India is going to have to stick to "development and trade" with Afghanisthan. That's how it rolls so far.

But then again, US is never going to withdraw for Afghanisthan even if it makes noises about it, and this leaves pakistan in a position of primacy in determining US afghanisthan policy. This may explain why the situation has not changed in a couple of decades. Even Turkey's involvement in Afghanisthan is not likely to go against pakistan's interests, as turkey-pakistan relations have been improving during Erdogan's regime.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Dec 2017 03:18

Parasu, I suggest you write your own thoughts and not correct Periaswamy.
Let the facts speak for themselves.
The truth will align with the facts.

Periaswamy suggests it Pakistan at the root of Ghani's troubles.

What is your suggestion?

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 15 Dec 2017 03:25

Even if India/US/ISAF were to succeed in creating a modern westfalian state out of the mess in Afghanistan, who will it be aligned to. A sunni Iran or at best a secular Turkey. So who are these countries aligned to?
India is doing something similar in Afghanistan to what US did in Iraq. Topple Saddam and try to create a modern Iraqi state aligned to US. A Shia majority state was always going to gravitate towards Iran, sooner or later.
Afghanistan will align with islamic forces, no matter what the end product is. Indian politicians keep parroting `A stable and secure Pakistan is in India`s interest`. Similar stupidity is visible in its Afghan policy.
In fact, an unstable, chaotic and warring Afghanistan is in everyone`s interest. That is what India should work to achieve.

periaswamy · Post by **periaswamy** » 15 Dec 2017 03:51

If India just stands still, Pakistan will do all the hard work of keeping Afghanisthan unstable. In that sense, India's current policy is generating some goodwill and "soft power" with Afghanisthan, for whatever that is worth. Afghans seem to revert to warring factions after any short period of stability. India completely getting out of Afghanisthan makes Pakistan more powerful and will allow pakistan to use afghan territory like they did before 9/11.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Dec 2017 05:04

There was a tweet today from an Afghan Maj. General that a truck from Pakistan is seized at a border crossing and has suicide vests and guns vs. a truck convoy from India that is carrying wheat.

So Afghan forces are very aware of what is happening.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 15 Dec 2017 08:08

Parasu wrote:Even if India/US/ISAF were to succeed in creating a modern westfalian state out of the mess in Afghanistan, who will it be aligned to. A sunni Iran or at best a secular Turkey. So who are these countries aligned to?
India is doing something similar in Afghanistan to what US did in Iraq. Topple Saddam and try to create a modern Iraqi state aligned to US. A Shia majority state was always going to gravitate towards Iran, sooner or later.
Afghanistan will align with islamic forces, no matter what the end product is. Indian politicians keep parroting `A stable and secure Pakistan is in India`s interest`. Similar stupidity is visible in its Afghan policy.
In fact, an unstable, chaotic and warring Afghanistan is in everyone`s interest. That is what India should work to achieve.

Parasu, I have some thoughts on the above.

For example, every Islamic state votes against us in the OIC (may be one or two had raised some objections or absented at the most, but that is fading memory today). But, India has largely 'good' to 'excellent' relationship with most of these countries. The Islamic countries would of course align with Sunni states or a Shi'a Iran as per their demography. India, or no other power, can do anything about it. This is axiomatic. Therefore, this cannot be a valid input driving India's foreign policy. KSA is getting cosier with Israel by the day!

Afghanistan is a very difficult country to deal with because of the diversity, centuries of internecine warring, deeply-entrenched clannish divisions, interference by various stakeholder nations both adjacent and faraway, failure to develop strong institutions, backwardness etc. Even very strong Kings/Leaders could not turn it around or make a lasting impression in the last two centuries. Added to all the chaos is the newly emerging India-China power play also in Afghanistan. India-Pakistan is passe. All over Asia, it is the tussle between a zhongguo(Middle Kingdom)-mentality Imperialistic-Communist China (a Communist China demanding Imperial-like obeissance & tributary through its OBOR) and a benign 'Vasudeiva Khutumbakam'-sprouting India as it has influenced for a millennia or more.

China wants 'peace' in Afghanistan in order to scrape its natural wealth and resources and make it insolvent through its grandiose projects which would be irrelevant to the common folk Afghans, as it has done everywhere else in the world. India has civilizational relationship with Afghanistan (which China doesn't have). India wants peace for connectivity and energy import and not lose its sphere of influence. India wants to build relevant projects in Afghanistan. Therefore, peace is sought for different reasons.

No country wants interminable - this is the operative word, IMO - instability around its peripheral nations for fear of spillover and wrong influence on itself.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 15 Dec 2017 08:45

All resolutions passed by OIC are supposed to be unanimous by their set up rule . Even if few countries oppose , they have to go along .

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Dec 2017 22:11

US demands Afghanistan to replace Kalashnikov assault rifles with American rifles

https://vpk-news.ru/news/40447

Washington requires Kabul to replace 50,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles, donated to the country's security forces, by American rifles.
This was stated on Friday by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, whom TASS quotes , speaking in the Federation Council within the "government hour".

"The Americans began to insist that 50,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles with ammunition that were donated to Afghan security forces were removed from service and, in return, Afghanistan purchased American rifles and assault rifles," he said. "In addition to questions about where these 50,000 assault rifles will go, and we have already asked such a question to the Afghans, there is another - what explains this desire to undermine the ability of the Afghan army to use the weapons to which it is accustomed and to impose something to which we must get used to it, "Lavrov continued. The minister recalled that the United States had earlier demanded that Afghanistan abandon Russian helicopters well-known to the army of the country and established themselves in the field, and replace them with American ones. "There is no answer (about the reasons for the US action - TASS comment), in addition,

Lavrov added that Russia actively helps equip Afghanistan's army and security forces with weapons to combat the threats of drug crime and terrorism that the US could not cope with. "If we talk about who will solve this problem inside Afghanistan, surely these are the Afghan security forces and the Armed Forces of Afghanistan," he said. "We actively help equip them with the weapons they need." At the same time, he said, the American military personnel in the country can not cope with either the growth of drug production or the threat of terrorism. "There can not be any excuses for fighting terrorism, it's written right in the mandate of the NATO forces," the Russian Foreign Minister added. "But every time we are interested in what they are doing in this regard, we do not get any clear answers."

VKumar · Post by **VKumar** » 15 Dec 2017 23:23

India has been training Afghanistan military. We can give them the weapons on which we are training them. Or those that we are retiring and are surplus to us, incl. MIG 21, Arty, tanks. A very few helicopters we have given in the past but more can be offered as we replace cheetah, etc. This will help Afghan military fight the Taliban and also threaten Terroristan. A viable two front may result. Just as we face enemies on 2 fronts so will Terroristan.

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 16 Dec 2017 01:30

For example, every Islamic state votes against us in the OIC (may be one or two had raised some objections or absented at the most, but that is fading memory today). But, India has largely 'good' to 'excellent' relationship with most of these countries. The Islamic countries would of course align with Sunni states or a Shi'a Iran as per their demography. India, or no other power, can do anything about it. This is axiomatic. Therefore, this cannot be a valid input driving India's foreign policy. KSA is getting cosier with Israel by the day!

You are saying that since Afghanistan will gravitate towards Sunni Islamic states anyway and there is nothing we can do to stop it, we must not count this as a factor at all. IMHO, we have a choice, either to enrich this state by investing billions of dollars into it with zilch in return or to ensure that we get something in return by dirtying our hands playing the different ethnicities in Afghanistan. Investment, imo, should be dependent on whether we are planning to get anything in return in strategic terms or not.
Saying, this is axiomatic is similar to saying "this is gods will", "this is fate". A strict no no.

Afghanistan is a very difficult country to deal with because of the diversity, centuries of internecine warring, deeply-entrenched clannish divisions, interference by various stakeholder nations both adjacent and faraway, failure to develop strong institutions, backwardness etc. Even very strong Kings/Leaders could not turn it around or make a lasting impression in the last two centuries. Added to all the chaos is the newly emerging India-China power play also in Afghanistan. India-Pakistan is passe. All over Asia, it is the tussle between a zhongguo(Middle Kingdom)-mentality Imperialistic-Communist China (a Communist China demanding Imperial-like obeissance & tributary through its OBOR) and a benign 'Vasudeiva Khutumbakam'-sprouting India as it has influenced for a millennia or more.

China wants 'peace' in Afghanistan in order to scrape its natural wealth and resources and make it insolvent through its grandiose projects which would be irrelevant to the common folk Afghans, as it has done everywhere else in the world. India has civilizational relationship with Afghanistan (which China doesn't have). India wants peace for connectivity and energy import and not lose its sphere of influence. India wants to build relevant projects in Afghanistan. Therefore, peace is sought for different reasons.

Wrong. The conflict is between ideology of living together and ideology of murdering people. Do we see the Chinese migrants blowing up western citizens in Paris, London and New York. Crushing them with cars and trucks in Barcelona and Brussels. No, we dont. The Chinese migrants are just like us. The Chinese are victims of knife attacks at train stations. We have our attacks in Mumbai and Delhi.
We may and will compete with China. That is inevitable. It will be geopolitical competition. But we do not have civilizational conflict with them.
Secondly, we have no civilizational ties with Afghanistan. Historical ties, yes. But when the last hindus and buddhists were converted or turned out from Afghanistan, we lost the civilizational ties. Todays afghanistan is an ISLAMIC land. It is ISLAMIC state of Afghanistan. The prominent parties are hizb-e-ISLAMI or Jamiat-e-ISLAMI. When the men have nothing to do, they join ISIS or taliban. And this is true for govt soldiers as well. The soldiers we are counting on and spending money training.
If there are any civilizational ties we have, it is east of us in the buddhist lands of south east Asia.
There is no `do goodery` west of us. It is a waste if there is no plan to get returns.

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 16 Dec 2017 01:45

https://warontherocks.com/2017/12/afgha ... nsurgents/

IN AFGHANISTAN, TODAY’S PRO-GOVERNMENT MILITIAS COULD BE TOMORROW’S INSURGENTS

Research for my forthcoming report for the U.S. Institute of Peace, which includes interviews with elders of a district in Jowzjan province that was briefly overrun by Islamic State in June this year, suggests that former Jombesh commanders and their fighters make up almost half of Islamic State forces in their area. Former Jombesh commanders are also well represented in Taliban ranks in this and other northwestern provinces, including neighboring Faryab.

This pattern was not limited to the Jombesh heartlands. Across the country, commanders left without livelihoods after demobilizing followed a similar path. Although assessing precise figures is hard, it is reasonable to assume that in every province with a Taliban presence some if not many insurgent commanders have, at some point since 2001, operated as pro-government commanders.

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 16 Dec 2017 02:59

Russia Ready To Cooperate With US On Afghanistan: Putin

“This is one of the focus areas where we could really join our efforts with the United States. And if we achieved this joint work, these efforts could become more efficient. We can see a growing threat of international terrorism in Afghanistan. We can see the radical militant groups occupy larger and larger swathes of land at the northern border of Afghanistan,” Putin said.

“We can see that the central government in Kabul needs support of the international community. And we are ready to provide such support, just like in previous years, including support in preparation of domestic personnel for the police and the military,” Putin added.

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 17 Dec 2017 22:36

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/u ... 827475.ece

Karzai was in Delhi today. He was at the invitation of PM Modi whom he met. Also present were Doval and Jaishankar.

This could be in response to Ghani sidelining the Tajiks and consolidating power. Ghani recently met General Baaja of Porkistan too. General Baaja visited Iran right after his Kabul visit.
Karzai is a known opponent of Ghani. He, Tajiks, Hazaras and Dostum have made the alliance against Ghani.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 18 Dec 2017 17:26

An interesting map of Afghanistan. Note the areas of Pakistan that are coloured / shaded.

https://twitter.com/Syriawar2017

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 19 Dec 2017 06:11

Looking at this map I fail to understandd how can Taliban continue to hold sway in dis contiguous zones separated by Afghan/NATO held territories. Some of these regions such as Faryab, Baghdis and Ghor do not even border Pakistani occupied Balochistan or the occupied Tribal territories.

Won't the Taliban need to move through the AGF territories to re-arm and re-supply? The only way this would be possible is through complicity, or the map is all wrong.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 19 Dec 2017 10:02

Borders are not sealed. These are wild areas. Movement is possible across regions though broadly the region may be dominated by one group. It is possible to move into Pakistan with equal ease and its the same for movement into Iran or other neighbouring countries too. I am not sure how authentic this map is but it comes from a Syrian handle who have both Afghans and Pakistanis fighting on both sides of the Syrian war.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 20 Dec 2017 01:18

I don't think the map is credible at all. This looks like something made to reinforce the Pakistani position that the majority of Afg is under Taliban control and that Iran and Russia and not Pakistan is supporting the Taliban.

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 20 Dec 2017 16:27

https://www.khaama.com/russia-deploys-h ... rder-04084

The Russian military has deployed heavy military equipment along the border between Afghanistan and Tajikistan apparently to prevent the threats posed by the terror groups to the Central Asian countries, it has been reported.

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 21 Dec 2017 17:08

https://www.khaama.com/india-mulls-buyi ... rces-04090

India mulls buying more Mi-35 gunships for the Afghan forces.

The proposal comes after a request from the Ghani government, including during a visit to Delhi by Afghanistan’s National Security Advisor Hanif Atmar in October, and follows several visits to Moscow by Indian officials to discuss the logistics, according to a local news outlet, The Hindu.
An Indian Defence Ministry team is also expected to travel to an East European country, possibly Serbia or Ukraine, that still operate Soviet-era aircraft, and an Afghan defence team is expected in Delhi “shortly” to follow up on the discussions, a diplomat told the paper.
The Afghan officials have not formally commented in this regard so far but Kabul has long been urging New Delhi to provide support to the Afghan security force as the country has invested billions of Dollars in reconstruction so far.

VKumar · Post by **VKumar** » 21 Dec 2017 19:28

Next step is to give them fixed wing aircraft, better artillery and armour.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 21 Dec 2017 19:48

They should get f-16’s, maybe about 3 squadrons, doesn't matter if used or new and India can have joint ownership on those squadrons

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 21 Dec 2017 22:56

Arming Afghanistan is completely wrong.
One never knows when a Ghani type will start visiting GHQ in Rawalpindi again.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 21 Dec 2017 23:50

The joint control is not just about command but at technical level too, the situation we would face is not dissimilar to US supplied/aided F-16’s in Pakistan not going into the hands of Chinese, even if the pak generals want to do exactly that given the current political climate, maybe that arrangement can be studied.

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 22 Dec 2017 01:38

Its not just about agreement. US has many ways to force Pakistan to comply. Do we have similar resources?
Heck even Mi-35 or F-16 are not ours. One is American and the other Russian.

IAF is down to 34 squadrons. Neither are we swimming in gold. Lets first focus on our defence.
Besides, Afghan govt is doing fine without the shiny toys. They have NATO airpower to support them till 2024 at least.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Dec 2017 03:12

Today Ghani have talked about USA Aghanistan partnership in sacrifices and
Vice President Mike Pence makes unannounced trip to Afghanistan http://reut.rs/2kTFDoP
Something cooking as it'snot Xmas related and Paki Bajwa have been croaking for last 2-3 days.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 22 Dec 2017 03:20

Parasu wrote:Its not just about agreement. US has many ways to force Pakistan to comply. Do we have similar resources?
Heck even Mi-35 or F-16 are not ours. One is American and the other Russian.

IAF is down to 34 squadrons. Neither are we swimming in gold. Lets first focus on our defence.
Besides, Afghan govt is doing fine without the shiny toys. They have NATO airpower to support them till 2024 at least.

To put things the other way,
1. we are not going to war tomorrow
2. we are not going to be beggared by giving a few planes to Afghans.
But yes it will hurt the paki plans a bit for sure

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 22 Dec 2017 04:11

ArjunPandit wrote: To put things the other way,
1. we are not going to war tomorrow
2. we are not going to be beggared by giving a few planes to Afghans.
But yes it will hurt the paki plans a bit for sure

1. That is where we started. If Ghani starts visiting GHQ in Rawalpindi like he did upon taking office in 2014, those planes wont hurt nobody.
2. We are already giving Afghans helos to counter the insurgency. As of now, we do not even know if Afghanistan govt will remain stable in the foreseeable future.
3. And if hurting paki plans is the aim, shouldnt we be building an Indian airbase in Afghanistan rather than buying planes for them?!

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 22 Dec 2017 05:56

Afg. would like to use the planes against Taliban and in its war on terror much like Pak claims to use its f-16s, aiding the purchase of those Afghani planes and having a stake on their use should be an achievable strategy within the window the Trump presidency offers. Though we never forgo the veto option on these assets even if Ghani types prove to be turncoats or otherwise.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 22 Dec 2017 06:22

Parasu wrote: 3. And if hurting paki plans is the aim, shouldnt we be building an Indian airbase in Afghanistan rather than buying planes for them?!

As much as i wish for it, we havent grown that much spine. GoI is very risk averse (as noted in the Def budget % of GDP). That also means we are not going for war anytime soon (unless it is thrust upon us be proverbial pakistaniyat). Now, as they say you can rent an afghan but not buy him. It is better for us to give them weapons till the time we have taken back PoK to support an IA/IAF base in that region. Because taht is the least risky and most rewarding (read inflict pain on paki or paki plans) in the short term.
If it were to me, I would have done what chola says to do with china

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Dec 2017 10:53

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 24 Dec 2017 01:13

Why did Saudi Arabia and Qatar, allies of the US, continue to fund the Taliban after the 2001 war?
From a new book published on the subject. This continues to confirm that TSP cannot afford to fund its Af-Pak operations and relies on donations to run it... Today its Russia & Iran funding a big chunk to the Taliban. Trump strategy is to wait it out and expand operations and cut TSP funding.

Time will tell who wins...

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 24 Dec 2017 22:03

US stationed a large fleet of Harrier Jumpjets for operations in Afghanistan, except for an attack on an airbase when some of these jets were damaged, no combat related news was heard about them. Are they just being used as honeypots for the Taliban?

With rockets and guns they could be used in roles that the Mi-35 gunships are being used

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 25 Dec 2017 00:58

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/ru ... every-day/

Russia: ISIS has over 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, more coming every day

“Russia was among the first nations to ring alarm about the expansion of IS into Afghanistan (…) Lately ISIS has boosted its presence in the country. Our estimate is that their force there is stronger than 10,000 troops and is continuing to grow. That includes new fighters with combat experience received in Syria and Iraq,” Kabulov said in an interview with RIA Novosti.

This Zamir Kabulov fellow is a powerful figure in Moscow but his rants are getting more senseless. If there are 10k ISIS fighters in Afghanistan and they are coming from Syria/Iraq, how are they reaching Afghanistan?! Via Tajikistan?! So what is the Russian 201st motorized division doing there. Running taxi services?!

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 25 Dec 2017 01:31

http://www.tolonews.com/index.php/afgha ... rs-locally

He (Kabulov) alleged helicopters “without identifying insignia” are transferring fighters and delivering “Western [military] equipment” to the Afghan branch of the terrorist group.

“Those who are making comments in the international level, they never say something without evidence,” said MP Ali Akbar Qasemi.

And Afghanistan calls out Kabulov`s nonsense.

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 26 Dec 2017 16:55

https://www.rt.com/business/414253-chin ... -corridor/

China and Pakistan are looking to include Afghanistan in their $57 billion economic corridor, as part of Beijing's Belt and Road initiative, said Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, as quoted by Reuters.

“So China and Pakistan are willing to look at with Afghanistan, on the basis of win-win, mutually beneficial principles, using an appropriate means to extend the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to Afghanistan,” the agency quotes Wang as saying.

Parasu · Post by **Parasu** » 28 Dec 2017 00:50

http://www.tolonews.com/business/2nd-ai ... umbai-city

2nd Air Cargo Route Launched - To India’s Mumbai City

ritesh · Post by **ritesh** » 29 Dec 2017 06:46

Parasu wrote:https://www.rt.com/business/414253-chin ... -corridor/
China and Pakistan are looking to include Afghanistan in their $57 billion economic corridor, as part of Beijing's Belt and Road initiative, said Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, as quoted by Reuters.

“So China and Pakistan are willing to look at with Afghanistan, on the basis of win-win, mutually beneficial principles, using an appropriate means to extend the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to Afghanistan,” the agency quotes Wang as saying.

Is it just wishful thinking by chinese or they believe that afgans will transfer aid money to repay their commercial loans for this.

This once again illustrates that hard facts matter and not any propaganda. All this talk of not allowing trade between paki and afgans themselves was just talk and nothing else.