Afghanistan News & Discussion

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 11 May 2009 23:15

From News items:
The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan is stepping down:
Gen. David McKiernan will be replaced by Lt Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who commanded special operation forces in Iraq.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 12 May 2009 02:50

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 12 May 2009 09:08

NYT:

Commander’s Ouster Tied to ‘New Approach’ in Afghan War

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced the decision in terse comments at the Pentagon, saying that “fresh eyes were needed” and that “a new approach was probably in our best interest.” When asked if the dismissal ended the general’s military career, Mr. Gates replied, “Probably.”

Oww!

Pentagon officials said it appeared that General McKiernan was the first general to be dismissed from command of a theater of combat since Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 12 May 2009 09:24

More on this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8044735.stm

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 12 May 2009 09:45

Karzai & Hekmatyar to share power as part of US exit strategy - Najam Sethi Edit in DT

As a part of America’s “exit strategy” from Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan may be about to offer power-sharing to the old Hezb-e Islami warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The US special envoy Richard Holbrooke is said to be behind a move to start communicating with the Taliban; and Mr Hekmatyar may be the right man to start with, although there is a $10 million reward on his head together with Mullah Umar, the chief of the Taliban who never saw eye-to-eye with him. The latter has a better equation with Al Qaeda, however, if President Karzai wants to work through him.

The Americans have reportedly started talking to Mr Hekmatyar’s friends and the offer is for some ministries in the Kabul government for his party while he goes and takes a long R&R in Saudi Arabia. His party has a standing in Afghanistan now and controls the province of Kapisa. He himself is rumoured to be flitting between there and North Waziristan with important contacts within the Pakistani establishment. Pakistan always wanted him to run Afghanistan for Islamabad but he was never trusted by the fellow Pashtun militias and kept out of Kabul. He fought his Afghan rivals mercilessly and hardly ever compromised. Isolated in the extreme, he went and stayed in Iran to survive, and returned from there in 2001 in time to, as he boasted to the BBC, “help Osama bin Laden escape from Tora Bora”.

Is this being done to “balance” the extreme step of Mr Karzai choosing Afghanistan’s worst warlord, General Faheem, as vice president for the coming elections? It is difficult to imagine Mr Hekmatyar letting his party cohabit with a government that has his old Tajik sworn enemy as vice president. In February 2007, the 249-member Wolesi Jirga, Afghanistan’s lower house of parliament, had overwhelmingly passed a resolution declaring amnesty for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by various warlords and commanders between 1978- 2001. President Karzai will have to sign this amnesty order if he wants Mr Hekmatyar’s party in his cabinet. And a life of comfort in Saudi Arabia is not exactly Mr Hekmatyar’s preferred option.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 May 2009 10:16

What is Hekmatyar's tribe? and which grouping is it Durrani or Ghilzai?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 12 May 2009 10:40

Ramana, he is a Ghilzai.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 May 2009 10:58

Then it wont last but better him then Mullah Omar the one eyed major from TSPA.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 12 May 2009 18:43

Sanjay M wrote:Well, witness this:

Seeing/hearing is believing. They really are that stupid. Maybe they think they're still in the Philippines. Or Kansas.

Admins,

Some 2 years ago in Jan-2007, I had started a thread titled as "Christianist menace in India, World". In that thread, I had cited that US Army is a Christianist Army, along with being a robber baron who loot oil wells. I had stated that ONLY TWO purposes why American people are killing lakhs of people in Iraq and Afghanistan are robbing oil wells and Christianizing people in middle east. And that war on terror and urge to spread democracy are smokescreens

That thread was trashed, and due to false complain from a member that I am insulting Christianity, I was banned. Now we have truth before us, that US Army is not only assisting missionaries but also asking soldiers to be part of spreading Christianity. I got this fact 2 years ago from traces, but there are tons of evidences all over for every to see and verify.

This is important for India, as the Christianist Army of US will not stop at Iraq and Afghanistan. There next stop is Iran and then India. So we better discuss this problem, if not worry about solution. So now may I start a thread titled as "Christianist menace from US over in India, World . Or are American people so holy that they must be assumed as secular and cant be accused of being Christianists?

==========

Christianization of Iraq and Afghanistan are IMPORTANT part of strategy of American people, polity. If say 5% to 15% of Iraq, Afghani population can be Christianized, that that population will fee threatened from Muslims and so will insist on American Army presence of its protection. Thus, they will become loyal American puppies.

US Army and Missionaries together play hand-in-hand. Let me give a dramatized versions as follows

1. American soldier will beat a guy to near-death, break both his legs and hands and leave him bleeding.

2. A missionary will come and put plaster over one arm and one leg for free and then say "become Christian, and then only I will repair you other arm, leg"

So superficially, it is secular or force-less game. The soldier never tried to convert. And missionary is only helping, not threatening or forcing or beating anyone. Imagine American people as one body, and American soldier as right hand, and missionaries as left hand. The right hand makes people bleed and left hand caresses them with condition of conversion. This game must be exposed. We should realized and discuss (if not try to solve) this problem ASAP.

===

Read posts on this forums

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk ... hp?t=52279

===

American people have created chaplain Corps in Army, Navy etc.

http://www.goarmy.com/chaplain/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... lain_Corps

Their official purpose is to give spiritual support to soldiers. But in reality their goal is to ensure conversion.

giri_hk · Post by **giri_hk** » 12 May 2009 18:50

From Stratfor

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090511 ... gic_debate

Obama and Gates have stated that the goal in Afghanistan is the defeat of al Qaeda and the denial of bases for the group in Afghanistan. This is a very different strategic goal than in Iraq, because this goal does not require a coalition government or a reconciliation of political elements. Rather, it requires an agreement with one entity: the Taliban. If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 May 2009 21:25

Commander’s Ouster Is Tied to Shift in Afghan War

The move reflects a belief that the war in Afghanistan, waged against an increasingly strong Taliban and its supporters across a rugged, sprawling country, is growing ever more complex. Defense Department officials said General McKiernan, a respected career armor officer, had been removed primarily because he had brought too conventional an approach to the challenge.

He is to be replaced by Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, a former commander of the Joint Special Operations Command. He served in Afghanistan as chief of staff of military operations in 2001 and 2002 and recently ran all commando operations in Iraq.

Forces under General McChrystal’s command were credited with finding and capturing Saddam Hussein and with tracking and killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. His success in using intelligence and firepower to track and kill insurgents, and his training in unconventional warfare that emphasizes the need to protect the population, made him the best choice for the command in Afghanistan, Defense Department officials said.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 12 May 2009 22:30

ramana wrote:Then it wont last but better him then Mullah Omar the one eyed major from TSPA.

Whaddya mean? Hekmatyar is the next worst thing to Taliban! Hell, he was the predecessor to Taliban!
Under his tenure, there were plenty of jihadi training camps churning out fighters for Kashmir.

So are we going to go back to those days again? Because if we do, then we have to upset the cart. Hekmatyar is himself wanted as a terrorist by the Americans, and now they're willing to deal with him?

Osama's initial attacks, like against US forces in Mogadishu, and against Al-Khobar Towers in Saudi, were around his period as Hekmatyar's guest.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 May 2009 22:46

giri_hk wrote:From Stratfor

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090511 ... gic_debate

Obama and Gates have stated that the goal in Afghanistan is the defeat of al Qaeda and the denial of bases for the group in Afghanistan. This is a very different strategic goal than in Iraq, because this goal does not require a coalition government or a reconciliation of political elements. Rather, it requires an agreement with one entity: the Taliban. If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question.

Nightwatch comments on 5/11/09

Afghanistan: Comment. STRATFOR wrote a thought-provoking essay today about the split in US policy circles over what should be US strategic goals. The debate seems to center on what the US wants and what is achievable. The debate is almost endless.

A fundamental goal of military operations is to prevent what the enemy wants to achieve. The Taliban goals never seem to get much discussion compared to the US goals. Any one who studies the Taliban will readily appreciate how simple their goals are, compared to those of the Americans. They just want to return to power in Afghanistan. If the US can’t prevent that, then it cannot win.

The Taliban path to power is no mystery and it does not require them to attack the center at any particular time. Rather they work on the periphery, steadily replicating the centripetal movement that carried them to Kabul in 1996. Now, as then, they have worked to take over population control and decision-making in villages and then in districts, always moving from the geographic and political periphery towards the centers of power in the cities. They have repeated the same tactics of probing, intimidating and pressuring with guns and brutal problem solving over and over until they worked, in at last 150 of the 398 districts. Probably more. They operate on no timetable and will take as much time as it needs until outsiders leave… their history shows the outsiders always tire and leave.

District by district they have been achieving their simply stated goal – returning to power. Should all the southern districts come under their domination, Kabul also would fall under their control as it has in the past. The Tajiks and Uzbeks know they can always go home to the north.

Lofty goals are important, but preventing the enemy from realizing his objectives ought to be a first simply stated, practical, tactical priority, one would think. What does it take, district by district, even village by village if necessary, to prevent the Taliban from returning to power?

If Taliban cannot be prevented from returning to power in the districts, implementation of a sophisticated, integrated civil-military reconstruction program won’t matter. The Taliban offer no such bribes. They offer swift justice, firm solutions to problems and law and order. One brilliant and knowledgeable Reader observed in feedback that Islamic fundamentalism rises in the absence of functioning government alternatives. The Quran is an instant filler of political vacuums.

As long as the Taliban are present with weapons at night in villages, the evidence shows they are achieving all they need to achieve at this time.

SanjayM the need is to split the Taliban by allowing the goal of Pahstun nationalism over the goal of Wahabi islamic revival.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 12 May 2009 23:11

Fair enough, and although Hekmatyar to his credit demurred from signing an endorsement of the Durand Line as Pakistan asked him to, he is still a strong fundamentalist rather than a Pashtun nationalist. This is the whole reason why Pakistan turned to him in the first place.

It would be nice if a national unity govt with Karzai might soften him up, but there's no guarantee of that. Furthermore a double Pashtun leadership may not be accepted by the minorities (eg. Tajiks/Fahim, Uzbeks)

I'm assuming from Gates' remarks, that he's timing McKiernan's dismissal with the new Karzai-Hekmatyar arrangement, as a change to turn the page to a new chapter, and break ties with the past. Perhaps this would give the new dispensation a boost in credibility. But really, how many ordinary people on the ground even knew who McKiernan was? If McKiernan's dismissal was intended as a propaganda tactic, then it's likely to have limited positive effect on Afghans. If anything, it will have a preponderantly negative effect on US military morale.

I'm worried that Pakistan will use its backchannels with Hekmatyar to cripple the war, and ultimately bring down the govt.
Every drone strike will give Hekmatyar an opportunity to shriek about civilian casualties. The wife rape laws will inevitably see support from him.

If India can find a way to co-opt Hekmatyar, then we'd better try it, but I feel it's unlikely. Perhaps we can prey on his wounded pride from being run out of town by Taliban. What Hillary Clinton is to Democrats, Hekmatyar is to the jihadis. He was the former frontrunner.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 May 2009 23:21

Using Chanakya's mandala theory the NA guys are friendly to India as the Islamised Pashtuns are not. However not all Pashtuns are Islamised. Close but not all. So need to keep the NA folks interests aligned while courting the others.

I think a big move would be to integrate FATA and WANA to NWFP and bring in the Pashtun areas still in Baluch and Punjab areas. This can be an autonmous province of TSP to deal with Pashtun aspirations inside TSP which got thwarted at Independence.

At same time there is a need to reorganize Afghan politically to ensure better representation of the NA as they need stake in afghan continuity when the Pashtun re-alignment happens.

Some sort of Lebanon type compromise with VP from NA as a Constituitional measure.

skher · Post by **skher** » 12 May 2009 23:48

Some sort of Lebanon type compromise with VP from NA as a Constituitional measure.

If that's the scenario,then the erstwhile royalty{Crown Prince Ahmad Shah} deserves a royal welcome.He should be the equivalent of the Supreme Leader in Iran or the elected emir of Emirates.

Since Afghanistan is pure presidential system,there is no dilemma of separation of powers.

The elected King is the moral & spiritual guide ; ensuring the integrity & religious tolerance in the country.Ministry of Religious Affairs & education is directly under his purview.

The ANA takes oath for king and country and if ever the two are in conflict shall not intervene - this ensures that army is professional and apolitical.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 May 2009 00:05

Not really. The King is from Durrani tribe already. So if the top elected post will be a Pashtun due to demographics. Then case closed for the others.

So I think the Karzai offer of VP to Fahim is a good move. Hekmatyar is being offered some seats in the cabinet and personal exile to KSA. Lets see how it pans out. Wish that those killed in Embassy bombing were alive. We need good understanding of the locla dynamics to ensure Indian interests are also served.

My big picture is the need to stabilize Afghanistan from the ill effects of FSU intervention and the TSP led Taliban misadventure leading to 911 and the subsequent US attack on Afghanistan. This stabilization will lead to a strong Pashtun presence there which will assert itself. As Afghanistan is SAARC member India should consider development program to revive the country. Sort of revive the subsidy from Indo-Gangetic plains from Shakuni mama times. The road from Iran is already a step in the right direction.

The second move is to ensure consolidation of East Pashtunistan as an autonomous region of TSP to bring stability to the NWFP and appurtnent areas to address Pashtun nationalism. This has to happen as part of the Af-Pak process. If it happens India should invest in Dera Adam Khel area to outsource small mfg and machining industry via the Iran road.

Once these happen the need to re-make TSP and bring it back from FakAp is on cards.

skher · Post by **skher** » 13 May 2009 01:39

ramana wrote:Not really. The King is from Durrani tribe already. So if the top elected post will be a Pashtun due to demographics. Then case closed for the others.

A pity.I thought the pretender enjoyed cross-party support.
Maybe if 30% of candidates are reserved for minorites [sikhs,hindus,jews also] and women in all political parties;then things could be different.

How is confessionalism of Lebanon different & better from proportional representation,a system enjoying greater popularity?

So I think the Karzai offer of VP to Fahim is a good move. Hekmatyar is being offered some seats in the cabinet and personal exile to KSA. Lets see how it pans out. Wish that those killed in Embassy bombing were alive. We need good understanding of the local dynamics to ensure Indian interests are also served.

iirc; Fahim was defense minster & VP way back in 2001?It didn't work out then - where he was in a greater position to bargain; how are we so sure it won't peter out again? Has the ruskie/Yamri Khan equation changed? Then,what abt pak?

My big picture is the need to stabilize Afghanistan from the ill effects of FSU intervention and the TSP led Taliban misadventure leading to 911 and the subsequent US attack on Afghanistan. This stabilization will lead to a strong Pashtun presence there which will assert itself.

Yes,the highway is there and the Taliban are most grateful (opium money had serious side effects) and Provincial Reconstruction Teams do very little work in their wake.Also,taxation is new and resisted.
Dunno where the projects are headed without Russia, Tajikistan and Iran....need to be part of C.O.W.

The second move is to ensure consolidation of East Pashtunistan as an autonomous region of TSP to bring stability to the NWFP and appurtnent areas to address Pashtun nationalism. This has to happen as part of the Af-Pak process. If it happens India should invest in Dera Adam Khel area to outsource small mfg and machining industry via the Iran road.

Once these happen the need to re-make TSP and bring it back from FakAp is on cards.

Emergence of Pashtun influence would mean cultivating a strong support base in Af (hence Hillmatyar) and Pak...how reliable is the Awami National Alliance to the East Pashtunistan idea?
Also,we should not be seen doing this...it's a creation of C.O.W. to ensure a credible buffer.

How autonomous is the republic/governorate(millet)? Surely pukis will extrapolate this to JK.

This would also mean we wld have TSP a la Soviet Union or more closely Iraq the 'three star system' - here there would be Four Stars and a Crescent.

ISI can wash it hands off any attack launched from there "not our jurisdiction".

It would also need lots of propaganda to make this digestible to pakjab & might need boots on the ground for long term in both Af & Pak. The Brits from basra?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 May 2009 02:23

Thanks Skher for commenting...

I read about a dozen books on Afghanistan. These range from histories, travelouges, biographies,and ethnic studies. What I surmise is Afghanistan is a swing region for the Indian sub-continent.

In the epic period it was part of the Indian sub-continental mileu. It swung away to Persia during the Achaemenid Persian Empire. It returned during the Mauryan period. It had many Buddhist rulers for quite a few centuries. It swung away during the Parthian and Sassnid empires of Persia. After this
it again swung towards India till the Islamic Turks conquered it. It again swung away from India during the early Islamic period. During early Mughal rule it was brought back only to be lost by later Mughals. After decline of Mughal power, Ahmed Shah Durrani and his successors created the modern state of Afghanistan.

In all these periods from epic to the modern times the region has required outside subsidy to survive- Shakuni mama used to live in Hastinapura to take care of his kingdom's interests. During the Mauryan period the Indo-Greek Buddhist helped Ashoka to gain power at Pataliputra. In return the Indo-Gangetic plains subsidised the viharas and monastries in the region. However the Buddhist stream was in decline when the
Islamic hordes took over the region. After Islamic conquest the subsidy was no longer voluntray due to razas of Ghazni and Ghori established a sultanate at Delhi.

Even after the Anglo-Afghan Wars the British used to give subsidy to the Afghans(Durand Line settlement). End of colonialism removed this subsidy and there was open competetion for Afghan favor between the West and Soviet Union and landed us in this mess.

Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic (Pashtuns,Tajiks,Uzbeks and Hazaras), multi-sectarian (Sunni and Shia), multi-lingual(Pashtu, Tajik, Dari etc) with complex demographics. More Pashtuns live outside (they live in NWFP and other areas) than in Afghanistan. More Tajiks and Uzbeks live in Afghanistan than in Tajikistan and Uzbegistan.

Afghanistan has a border problem which is a holdover from the colonial period. The British setup the Durand line as the border between Afghanistan and NWFP, FATA and Baluchistan. The Afghans declared in 1949 they wont repect that.

A solution has to take into account all these factors.

Hence I think :

- the first step is to stabilize Afghanistan to provide a viable state
- the second step is to address Pasthun national aspirations in Pakistan which were thwarted by British and ML
- the third step is to address instability in Pakistan state structure

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 May 2009 02:25

ISI can wash it hands off any attack launched from there "not our jurisdiction".

The corollary is that the victim of such attack is free to respond without violating Paki sovereignty or crossing red lines

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 May 2009 03:30

Hekmatyar reaching a power-sharing agreement with Karzai would indeed be an interesting development. If Fahim is the VP and the Karzai-Fahim Combi win the Presidential Elections, and with Hekmatyar on board, it would mean a Durrani-Ghilzai-Tajik alliance.

Mullah Omar is also a Ghilzai and several notches more powerful than Hekmatyar. However with Hekmatyar aligned with Karzai, there would be a slight possibility of making inroads into the Taliban strongholds.

Hekmatyar is now 62 and he is not getting any younger. The political space in Afghanistan is carved up between the America-supported Karzai (at the moment, not sure on this) and Mullah Omar led Taliban. Mullah Omar is hardly going to entertain Hekmatyar in his administration or his organisation. Aligned with Al-Qaida or Taliban, Hekmatyar will simply be offering the services of Hezb-i-Islami to them for all sorts of terrorist errands and get nothing substantial in return. Aligned with Karzai and the international coalition, he could become another warlord in Afghanistan, share in power and get a chance to claim the leadership over the Ghilzais.

For Hekmatyar to play a credible role in Afghanistan, he will at least initially have to show himself to be an independent quantity there, not dependent on Americans, Pakistanis, Afghan Taliban or Iranians. He lived in Iran for over 6 years. That would have been sufficient time for the Iranians to have developed good channels of communication with him. This could also have changed him somewhat. Such channels can be useful now.

I am not sure whether India can really work with him. However Pakistan already has a horse in the Ghilzai leadership race, and that is Mullah Omar. So if Gulbuddin Hekmatyar cannot be their horse, would he be willing to be India's horse? Moreover, Pakistan, which was earlier supported by the USA in the 80s, would not have the same amount of loose change to give away to Mr. Hekmatyar. India could have somewhat deeper pockets.

What is India's interest in Afghanistan? Basically it is to neutralize Pakistan's strategic depth, and instead make it into a pincer against the Pakistanis. Secondly we want that at some point in time, Pushtun nationalism should become the dominant force in Pushtunistan, striding both sides of the Durand Line, upending Talibanism. We want Pushtunistan to be a country and not a cause. Thirdly we want Afghanistan region to be India's bridge into Central Asia.

India can support Hekmatyar only on the condition, that he himself supports the current India-friendly political dispensation in Kabul, and speaks out in favor of an independent Pushtunistan!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 May 2009 03:35

RajeshA wrote

What is India's interest in Afghanistan? Basically it is to neutralize Pakistan's strategic depth, and instead make it into a pincer against the Pakistanis. Secondly we want that at some point in time, Pushtun nationalism should become the dominant force in Pushtunistan, striding both sides of the Durand Line, upending Talibanism. We want Pushtunistan to be a country and not a cause. Thirdly we want Afghanistan region to be India's bridge into Central Asia.

Yes I want a stable Afghanistan in order to have peace and tranquility in Central Asia. Its the cockpit of Central Asia.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 13 May 2009 03:36

The best thing would be to sever Northern Afghanistan from the rest of the country. They have no desire to be dominated by the Pashtuns to the south.

This would leave the southern Pashtun Afghan rump state a de facto Pashtun state, with automatic focus on the Pashtun lands to the south of the Durand Line.

Afghanistan's and Pakistan's borders are both the product of colonial gerrymandering. Undoing this for one will automatically lead to undoing it for both.

The non-Pashtun north is our best prospect for leverage, since Pakistan and Taliban have the least influence there. It might be best to see the northern components merged with their respective CAR parent - eg. Uzbek Afghans merging with Uzbekistan, Tajik Afghans merging with Tajikistan, etc.

Furthermore, the mountainous Hazara-dominated Hazarajat of central Afghanistan should automatically be religiously affiliated with Iran. And if Iran goes nuclear within the next couple of years, then any US military action against Iran might lead to automatic Iranian retaliation in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In the case of Afghanistan, Iran could back Hazaras to assert themselves in a way that would bring down any Afghan central govt. Actually, wasn't it a Shia uprising in Herat following the 1979 revolution which precipitated Soviet intervention in the country?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 May 2009 04:09

That is why I say Westphalian construct is not suitable for some regions!

My only comment is India needs a contiguous corridor to Central Asia and subsidizing the Pashtuns is not out of reach of India's pockets. So no need to create new forces.

Further I see no need to add to Iran's reach/kitty.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 May 2009 04:16

ramana wrote:That is why I say Westphalian construct is not suitable for some regions!

My only comment is India needs a contiguous corridor to Central Asia and subsidizing the Pashtuns is not out of reach of India's pockets. So no need to create new forces.

Further I see no need to add to Iran's reach/kitty.

Couple of years ago i mentioned that there sholuld be permanent, official $ allocation for Afghanistan /Pashtunistan area in India's defence budget . The land and folks over there can be useful stone to kill many local and migrating ( foreigner) bad birds.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 May 2009 04:45

Just because the Hazara are Shia, it does not automatically make them a candidate for incorporation into Iran. The Hazara have different ethnic roots than the Persians, just as Shia Iraqis also have different roots and would not want to become part of Iran either. Besides Iran is not the hub of Shi'ism. It is Najaf and Karbala in Iraq.

It is also not a good idea to gift away Northern Afghanistan to the CARs. Northern Afghanistan should remain an independent loosely federated entity like Switzerland with multiple cantons. A Northern Afghanistan attached through trade and culture to India, gives India a means to project our influence into the CARs. Giving them away, would mean allowing the CARs to define their border much closer to India, and to exert cultural homogeneity over the Afghan Tajiks, Uzbeks and Turkomen. It should remain India's beachhead into Central Asia and not the boundary of our influence. The CARs are as it is much closer to Russia, China, Turkey and Iran. If they get hold of Northern Afghanistan, chances are the region would be pulled into Russia's, China's, Turkey's or Iran's near abroad. This becomes all the more of a loss to India because as much as we may wish, the Pushtun areas would for a long time resist Indian influence. Giving away Northern Afghanistan then practically means drawing the border for Indian Subcontinent at Dera Ismail Khan.

Northern Afghanistan and Pushtunistan should become a confederation with their capital in Kabul, with India as a benign underwriter for political stability there. Baluchistan should be part of the Indian Union with a direct land link to Northern Afghanistan from the West of Pushtunistan. From the East, India should be linked to Northern Afghanistan through Northern Areas of J&K, Kohistan, Chitral and Badakhshan.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 13 May 2009 05:05

I'm not saying that the Hazara should be incorporated into Iran, they can just be a surrogate/affiliate of Iran, just like the Shia Arabs of southern Iraq. Likewise, Pashtuns don't have to be incorporated into Pakistan, because they too share a different history than the Pakjabis.

The point I'm making is that Iranian support for Hazara separateness would further reduce a remaining rump Afghan state into a de facto Pashtun state, whose natural tendency would be to reunify with Pashtun lands south of the Durand Line.

I don't see what the complexity is in understanding this stuff.

To make the Pashtuns more Pashtun and less Islamic, take all the non-Pashtuns away from them. What's so hard to understand? If you can't influence the Pashtuns directly towards this goal, then influence them indirectly by removing the non-Pashtuns from their jurisdiction.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 13 May 2009 06:08

Gates changes commanders in Afghanistan

US defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked for the top US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan to resign and recommended he be replaced by a former Special Operations officer in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.

He made the announcement without explanation at a Pentagon news conference Monday, May 11, attended also by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen.

DEBKAfile's military sources report that the unusual step of changing commanders in mid-war indicates that the situation on the Afghan front is a lot more serious than apparent from official accounts. It may also reflect a sharp difference of opinion between the Obama administration and the high command as represented by Gen. McKiernan.

Western military experts have long been critical of US and British war strategy in Afghanistan. Taliban and al Qaeda manage are rapidly moving in on large stretches of the country, while US and UK units are too slow and cumbersome to cut them off. Their old-fashioned, slow combat techniques give the fast-moving enemy the upper hand. (Anyone studied military strategy will remember Napolean vs I think the Prussians?)

Required in Afghanistan, say most experts, are small, swift units armed with massive firing power – not unwieldy groups which are lodged in large bases and emerge for forays against the enemy. Taliban and al Qaeda keep track of US troop movements through local informants employed at their bases and so deny them the element of surprise.

Last week, Gates was in Afghanistan and visited the large Camp Leatherneck base under construction in the embattled southern province of Helmand on the Pakistan border. This base is designed to accommodate the 17,000 extra troops Obama has approved for Afghanistan in the summer.

The defense secretary apparently received the impression that Gen. McKiernan was not planning a change in tactics and therefore decided to replace him.

The incoming chief, Gen. McChrystal, currently the director of the joint staff, was forward commander of the US military's covert Joint Special Operations Command from 2006 to August 2008, which was responsible for tracking down and killing al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi in April 2006, as well as high-profile Sunni insurgents.

Gates seems to believe that McChrystal's special operations tactics may succeed better in breaking Talilban-al Qaeda resistance than the more traditional methods of the departing Gen. McKiernan.

Taliban hits E. Afghan government center after US replaces top commander

Taliban launched massive suicide bombing attacks Tuesday, May 12, on two government buildings in the eastern Afghanistan town of Khost which houses a big American base near the border with Pakistan. US forces attending a meeting with Afghan officials responded, sparking running gun battles that killed an estimated 20 people and wounded three US troops. US and Afghan troops freed 20 hostages.

According to some reports, the Taliban's multiple attacks in Khost were planned to ambush the US forces responding to the explosions.

The Khost attack came as the new US ambassador, former general Karl Eikenberry, presented his credentials to Afghan president Hamid Karzai in Kabul, the day after the top American commander Gen. David McKiernan was replaced by defense secretary Robert Gates with Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a former Special Operations forces officer in Iraq.

The size of the attacking insurgent force is not clear. According to one version, eleven suicide bombers took part. A Taliban spokesman said to the AFP news agency "Thirty of our fighters armed with suicide cars, suicide jackets and guns" mounted the attack.

Military sources say the rebels' attacks have become more complex and sophisticated. The Khost attack was one of the deadliest in recent months.

For DEBKAfile's background on the change of US commanders in Afghanistan click HERE

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 May 2009 14:15

Sanjay M,

I am very much in favor of pushing the creation of Pushtunistan through a consolidation of non-Pushtun Afghan identity into a more tightly knit North Afghanistan, an identity which stands in contrast to the Pushtuns. The Pushtunistan that I favor, like you, should be composed of both Afghan Pushtun areas and the Pushtun belt in Pakistan.

In case I understand you correctly, and I may err here, we differ on simply the level of fragmentation/devolution of power of North Afghanistan and the level of attachment between various Afghan ethnicities and neighboring countries. I do not think, that in order to push for Pushtunistan, it is necessary for the adjoining states to make a claim on the areas under various ethnicities in North Afghanistan. North Afghanistan should remain a viable independent entity.

I favor a well knit North Afghanistan, something on the lines of Switzerland. There are French-speaking, German-speaking and Italian-speaking cantons in Switzerland. But these cantons are strongly tied into the Swiss Federal Structure even as they enjoy a high level of autonomy. These cantons do not owe any allegiance to the France, Germany or Italy, nor do they allow themselves to be overly influenced by these countries. They consider themselves Swiss first, despite their linguistic connections to these countries.

This level of separation between the adjoining states and the ethnicities in North Afghanistan is important in my view.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 13 May 2009 17:11

Hi RajeshA. Ok, well, northern Afghan regions don't have to automatically be merged with their parent CAR ethnic states, but could have a close surrogate relationship with them, just as Iran could with Hazarajat.

What's also important is that Pashtuns be ethnically cleansed out of the northern areas, which would obviously then limit any Taliban power-projection into the north, and force them south of Kabul. Again, by purging the north of any Pashtun presence, the resulting ethnic polarization will automatically boost Pashtun nationalism in the Pashtun-controlled lands, which will automatically have consequences for the Durand Line.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 May 2009 17:29

Sanjay M,

I hope that that kind of surrogate relationship with adjoining countries allow the North Afghanistan ethnicities to also have a mutually beneficial 'surrogate' relationship with India as well, without those adjoining countries blocking Indian influence.

The sharper the demarcation of North Afghanistan from Pushtunistan, the better it is. The majority of Indian aid should also be directed towards North Afghanistan, where that aid can have a longer lasting effect. In south when the Taliban march in, all the Indian funded projects and infrastructure will either be destroyed or used without any appreciation.

skher · Post by **skher** » 14 May 2009 00:28

India Confirms Pak Troop Reduction At Border

Tushar Srivastava, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, May 13, 2009

Pakistan HAS shifted some troops from its eastern border with India to its restive western border with Afghanistan, a top government official confirmed to HT here on Tuesday.

“There has been a ‘thinning’ of troops but they have ‘many more’ which can be moved out,” the official, who did not wish to be named, said. This is the first official confirmation from India of Islamabad moving out troops from its border with India.

“This is a unilateral decision (by Pakistan) and has nothing to do with a similar reduction by India. We are under no pressure from the US, nor have we been approached by the Americans on this front,” the official said.

Pakistan’s move, he said, also shows there is no threat to it from its eastern border; the real threat is from its border with Afghanistan, now a safe haven for the Taliban.

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari had earlier said in Washington that Islamabad had started moving troops from its border with India. However, there had so far been no confirmation of this from the Indian side.

“We’ve had some cold times and we’ve had some hot times with them (India), but democracies are always trying to improve relationships,” Zardari had said in an interview to PBS public television in Washington last Friday. “I’ve always considered India a neighbour we want to improve our relationship with...”

The Pakistan President had denied the US had a role in that decision. “No. It was the demand-based proposition; when demand goes up, we shift.”

“There is an active threat on the Afghan border from our side, from their side, from within the mountains, and that’s where we’re engaged today. Today’s war for the perceivable future for the world and for us is that area,” he had said.

Af-PAk Ethnic Map:-

Pushtunistan Proposals :-

* Map 1
* Map 2
* Map 3
* Map 4
* Map 5

RajeshA wrote: The sharper the demarcation of North Afghanistan from Pushtunistan, the better it is. The majority of Indian aid should also be directed towards North Afghanistan, where that aid can have a longer lasting effect. In south when the Taliban march in, all the Indian funded projects and infrastructure will either be destroyed or used without any appreciation.

But can't the Taliban be simply vanquished?

Can a federalist republic with an ethnically based voting system work in such a place?

Af-Pak is headed for UN Mandate...it's zimply too confusing to handle alone,I say.

JMT

PS:ramana saar,a humble lurking SDRE like me was a bit overwhelmed by the amount of housecleaning India would have to do; to clear up muck created by others.Hence exasperated comment.

Never doubted your opinion.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 14 May 2009 02:16

RajeshA wrote:Sanjay M,

I hope that that kind of surrogate relationship with adjoining countries allow the North Afghanistan ethnicities to also have a mutually beneficial 'surrogate' relationship with India as well, without those adjoining countries blocking Indian influence.

I don't see why they would automatically block Indian influence. Anyway, by focusing on more humble and achievable goals, such as re-affiliation of the northern Afghans with their parent CARs, we would ensure severe consequences for Pakistan.
I feel that CARs would automatically have an interest in gaining a land corridor to the ocean via Balochistan. Therefore it would be in their interest to cooperate with us. They would recognize Pak to be obstacle requiring removal.

The sharper the demarcation of North Afghanistan from Pushtunistan, the better it is. The majority of Indian aid should also be directed towards North Afghanistan, where that aid can have a longer lasting effect. In south when the Taliban march in, all the Indian funded projects and infrastructure will either be destroyed or used without any appreciation.

I agree, and plus more infrastructure in the north means more autonomy for the north, as well as more modernization and less Islamism.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 May 2009 06:16

Sanjay M wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Sanjay M,

I hope that that kind of surrogate relationship with adjoining countries allow the North Afghanistan ethnicities to also have a mutually beneficial 'surrogate' relationship with India as well, without those adjoining countries blocking Indian influence.
I don't see why they would automatically block Indian influence. Anyway, by focusing on more humble and achievable goals, such as re-affiliation of the northern Afghans with their parent CARs, we would ensure severe consequences for Pakistan.
I feel that CARs would automatically have an interest in gaining a land corridor to the ocean via Balochistan. Therefore it would be in their interest to cooperate with us. They would recognize Pak to be obstacle requiring removal.

It is not quite a zero sum game, but it is also not as if we, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Iran, Russia and India will become one happy family. You and I have a slightly different vision for the region. I see India spreading her influence into Central Asia, while the canvas you draw implies that the Central Asian countries expand southwards to meet India and the Indian Ocean. To me it looks like a rehash of the Chinese takeover of Tibet. India and China became neighbors, but not on terms favorable to India. If the CARs expand southwards, then it would on terms more unfavorable than what India could have got.

In the CARs there is a potential conflict held back by a heavy lid of Soviet-era understanding and Soviet drawn borders. Alone in the Ferghana Valley, there is potential for endless conflict. It is extremely important, that the CARs do not think of changing their borders. Otherwise it will lead to endless wars, most prominently between Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. If China enters the field, then one can expect not only endless war but endless intense war. Then there is also the Al Qaida factor, which will use the chaos.

So if India wants to be able to avail of the business opportunities in Central Asia, it is best that there is no change in borders. The CARs would have a very difficult time cutting up Afghanistan. There are simply too many enclaves of ethnic communities spread in other majority ethnicities. Drawing a demarcation line between North Afghanistan and Pushtunistan will be hard enough.

As far as Baluchistan is concerned, my view is that it should belong to India proper as a full member of the Indian Union.

The CARs will have an active interest in getting rid of Jihadi Pakistan, without the need of gifting away land to them.

It is far more plausible and peaceful, that Northern Afghanistan becomes and remains a sovereign and viable state. Lot more parties (CARs and Iran) would be amenable to such a solution than the specter of eternal war in the region for the spoils of war and breakup of Afghanistan.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 14 May 2009 11:16

I feel that Muslim-majority Baluchistan should obviously be an independent state, and not part of India. Muslim-majority states are a headache, and we don't need a Bangladesh problem like Pak had. Besides, Baluchistan is also partially occupied by Iran, so we don't need any trouble with them either.

Baluchistan is also partly occupied by Afghanistan, and that's why Pashtuns should be evicted from those territories and into their genuine Pashtun lands. If Afghanistan is split up, then the northern portion can be free and independent and cleansed of its Pashtuns. Likewise, the Baloch portion of Afghanistan could merge with Balochistan and also be cleansed of its Pashtuns.

Then the Pashtuns can concentrate into their rump areas, and dissolve the Durand Line, along with Pakistan itself.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 May 2009 13:23

There are probably around 8 million Baluch people in Baluchi Baluchistan in Pakistan. They are spread over 6 million km² in Baluchistan. That is very sparsely populated place. So fewer people bring a bigger dowry into a marriage with India than the Baluchis. Besides the Baluch consider themselves as moderate Muslims and have shown themselves to be very protective of the Hindus amongst them. They also occupy the best piece of strategic real estate in the region, full of minerals and a coast striding the heavily used waterways of the Indian Ocean. Baluchistan was once a part of India.

If Tibet, which was never really a part of India can be forcefully integrated into PRC, then why should a Baluchistan, whose people may not be averse to Indian nationhood be rejected.

I think that qualifies them to have a place at India's high table.

Sanjay M wrote:Besides, Baluchistan is also partially occupied by Iran, so we don't need any trouble with them either.

It is the weak that court trouble. We should be past the stage of trembling in our diapers. Why should Iran be a problem? The Baluchis are Sunnis and do not wish to be ruled by the Shia theocracy in Iran. So the future Baluchis of India will not be tempted by Iran. If India accepts Iranian occupation of Iranian Baluchistan, Iran would be more than happy.

India is far too big and important that Iran would court trouble with India. We would probably be some of the best neighbors around with a booming business going between us. The Baluchis can be allowed free travel and free trade across the border.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 14 May 2009 17:52

Baluchistan is too strategic an area, and would be courted and meddled with by every major power on Earth. The strategic worth of its land makes it extremely sensitive. The huge size of its land would raise many eyebrows if it were to somehow join with another country. Its Muslim majority could never be part of India.
India is not a PRC, that it can/should do a Tibet. India could never militarily defend Balochistan's huge territory, except perhaps by naval assistance.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 May 2009 21:15

The major powers would want to use Baluchistan because of its strategic location. However that seems to be a distant possibility considering that any major power would first need to stabilize the region. It would need to pacify both of the anarchic powers there, the Baluchis and the Pushtun. For that the major power would need to put lots of boots on the ground. That can be done only by the Pakjabis (a steadily weakening group), Iranians (have enough on their plate with their own Baluchis) or the Americans (are already stretched thin and would not want another guerrilla war on their hands). The Chinese or the Russians cannot project power in any major way in the Indian Ocean. The Europeans do not need such Great Game bakwass.

That leaves only India. Only India is the major power in the Indian Ocean, which can enter the Baluchistan theater in a big way, naturally over the sea route first. We are a power that can claim, that the Baluchis were part of our historic national boundaries. The Baluchis need a major power on their side to push back the Pushtun/Taliban onward march. We need not be the ones who fight on the frontline against the Taliban necessarily, but we can form the backbone of any Baluch defense against the Pushtun. The Baluchis have no problems with India culturally. We belong to the region. They have a problem with Iran because of the historic resistance against domination by Tehran, but not with India.

Every major power who wants to make use of Baluchistan as a conduit between West and East Asia or between Central Asia and Indian Ocean wants it stabilized. Without stability this strategic area cannot be used anyway. So stability is a requirement for every major power. If India moves in and provides the stability and allows transit facilities for the other major powers, the other powers would grudgingly accept India's presence in Baluchistan.

As far as being a Muslim land is concerned, the Baluch would well heed the advice of staying moderate, because otherwise they would be susceptible to intrigue from the fundamentalist Pushtuns. So that is sort of a guarantee that they keep their distance from Wahhabism. Secondly ethnicity plays a much bigger role in Baluch struggle than religion. They have been subjugated for centuries by their co-religionists. All people in the region who define themselves ethnically first are in fact qualified to become a part of the Indian nationhood, as long as they are willing over time to subsume their nationality within the broader Indian nationhood. This can happen over time.

The grandson of Akbar Bugti, Brahamdagh Bugti has asked for help from India for Baluchi independence from Pakistan. We have good channels of communication. We have a good relationship. We should use it.

By the way India is vastly more qualified at management of federal-state relations than Pakistan. Secondly we have a very short naval route to Baluchistan, much shorter than West Pakistan had to East Pakistan. Thirdly we don't have a non-friendly naval power blocking our way, as the Pakistani Navy will go the way of Pakistan, into the history books. So I do not expect a similar problem as Pakistan.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 15 May 2009 00:28

US strike killed 95 children in Afghanistan One step forward, two steps backward is the US story of Afghanistan.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 19 May 2009 08:27

NYT:

Zalmay Khalilzad May Run for Afghan Presidency