Afghanistan News & Discussion

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Oct 2009 21:24

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03068.html

'Why Did Benazir Die?'
Add the Pakistani government to those dismayed by the Obama administration's wavering on Afghanistan.

ONE OF the ideas the Obama administration is considering in response to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan reportedly is called "Pakistan First." Championed by Vice President Biden, the idea is to focus U.S. efforts on attacking al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan's tribal areas with drones or Special Forces, while backing the government's efforts to pacify and develop the lawless areas where al-Qaeda and the Taliban are based. The battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan, meanwhile, would be put on the back burner.

"Pakistan First" would excuse President Obama from having to anger his political base by dispatching the additional U.S. troops that his military commanders say are needed to stop the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan. It would nominally focus U.S. efforts on a nuclear-armed country that is of far greater strategic importance.

Funny, then, that Pakistan's civilian government doesn't think much of the idea. In a meeting with Post editors and reporters Tuesday, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said without reservation that Taliban advances in Afghanistan were a mortal threat to his country. "We see Mullah Omar," the leader of the Afghan Taliban, "as a serious threat. If the likes of Mullah Omar take over in Afghanistan, it will have serious implications for Pakistan," Mr. Qureshi said. "They have a larger agenda, and the first to be impacted by that agenda is Pakistan. . . . Whether they do it in Pakistan or whether they do it in Afghanistan, it will have implications on Pakistan and it will have implications on the region."

Like a couple of senior European leaders who visited Washington last week, Mr. Qureshi expressed a diplomatic version of dismay at President Obama's public wavering on fighting the Taliban. "If that is going to happen, why have we stuck our necks out?" he asked. "Why did Benazir die?" Benazir Bhutto, the former leader of the ruling Pakistan People's Party, was assassinated after she campaigned in favor of a decisive move by Pakistan to take on the Taliban movement -- something the government and army declined to do until this year. Elements of the military or its intelligence service may still quietly support some Taliban groups; if the United States appears to retreat, those forces will be strengthened -- at the expense of the pro-Western civilian government.
ad_icon

Mr. Qureshi declined to express an opinion about the deployment of more U.S. troops to southern Afghanistan, saying he was not a military expert. But he drew a contrast between NATO's operations in the south and Pakistan's operations against the Taliban this year. "Your troops went in and cleared the area. But once you came out, the Taliban came back in," he said. "What we do is: We go in, and we clear and we hold. When you do that, it requires more contact. It requires more resources. And it means more casualties."

Mr. Qureshi was talking about Pakistan -- but he was also describing the "counterinsurgency" strategy for Afghanistan that Mr. Obama embraced last March and backed until the general he appointed determined it would require more troops. It seems pretty clear that if Mr. Obama decides to abandon counterinsurgency in the name of something called "Pakistan First," America's best allies in Pakistan won't be happy.

sum · Post by **sum** » 08 Oct 2009 21:29

I fear that the US administration will get the message and respond in the way Pakistan wants. Our resolve has to go beyond simply "protecting our embassy" and "refusing to get intimidated", we have understand the game being played and redouble our efforts.

Absolutely...the final joke will be on us (just like last year where all and sundry were discussing the balkanisation of Pak and GoI sat on its haunches waiting for things to fall in place which simply didnt happen and Pak seems to be gaining strength with each passing day and seems to be squeezing Amrika and Desh even harder)

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 08 Oct 2009 21:41

Watch Parthasarathy and the the ther two ... on TimesNow. It is on at this time.

sum · Post by **sum** » 08 Oct 2009 21:45

Muppalla wrote:Watch Parthasarathy and the the ther two ... on TimesNow. It is on at this time.

Seems to be over....what did he say? ( Actually is more depressing seeing the hard talk of our higher ups followed up by zero action on the ground).

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 08 Oct 2009 21:53

Yeah it is over.

As usual Partha was very articulate. I just caught it in the last ten minutes and I could catch all the outfits names. He particularly named an outfit that is future of LeT style operative in Afghanistan solely created for anti-India ops inside Afghanistan.

The Pakis are are Pakis and they say their usual rubbish " this is done by terrorists who want to put a wedge in the relationship between India and Pakistan ". I don't know the other Indian person on the panel who asked the last question that what is the action taken by Pakistan in the last twenty years on any single person who commited crime in India. He further extended his question by asking did pakistan ever took any action against any person who acted against anywhere in the world. The NaPakis mumbled and say they can only act based on evidence.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Oct 2009 22:01

Muppalla wrote:Yeah it is over.

As usual Partha was very articulate. I just caught it in the last ten minutes and I could catch all the outfits names. He particularly named an outfit that is future of LeT style operative in Afghanistan solely created for anti-India ops inside Afghanistan.

The Pakis are are Pakis and they say their usual rubbish " this is done by terrorists who want to put a wedge in the relationship between India and Pakistan ". I don't know the other Indian person on the panel who asked the last question that what is the action taken by Pakistan in the last twenty years on any single person who commited crime in India. He further extended his question by asking did pakistan ever took any action against any person who acted against anywhere in the world. The NaPakis mumbled and say they can only act based on evidence.

Makes sense that way they have plausible deniablity after all Afghanistan has so many terrorist groups. However only TSP controlled groups attack Indian interests which is dead giveaway. I expected TSP to attack again in India on a larger scale but then Kerry-Lugar speccifically limits that and Obama Admin has to take accoun tof the law of the land. By hitting Indian interests in Afghanistan they still can vent and meet K-L requirements and be ascribed to terrorism in Afghanistan.

Nothing stops other Afghan groups from attacking these anti-Indian groups.

Also is this the Haqqani group (ISI branch) that claimed the credit or was it Mullah Omar's group? Or Hakeemullah's group?

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 08 Oct 2009 22:08

ramana wrote: Also is this the Haqqani group (ISI branch) that claimed the credit or was it Mullah Omar's group? Or Hakeemullah's group?

Yes Haqqani group is what Partha named as equivalant to LeT and he indicated it is specific to attacking Indian interests in Afghanistan.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 08 Oct 2009 22:26

Charlie Rose interviewed Qureshi recently {http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/6745}. Qureshi was openly using the word "you" to blame USA & the West. Rose was asking the standard questions; for which Pakistan must have template answers made, reviewed, revised and played hundreds of times. It was a cat and mouse game, and the mouse was eating up the cat in front of eyes.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Oct 2009 22:28

Thanks to MMS and his gullible allowance of ref to Balochistan he has scored a self goal.

From Nigthwatch, 7 Oct., 2009

Afghanistan: On 7 October, the eighth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban posted a statement on their website, shahamat.org, saying they pose no threat to the West.

According to Reuters, the statement reads: “We had and have no plan of harming countries of the world, including those in Europe … our goal is the independence of the country and the building of an Islamic state.” the statement went on to say that the Afghan Taliban were prepared for "a long war" if foreign troops "want to colonize the country of proud and pious Afghans under the baseless pretext of a war on terror."

Comment: The point worth noting is that the Taliban posting reinforces the statement on Sunday by US National Security Advisor Jones that there are fewer than 100 al Qaida in Afghanistan. Al Qaida is not welcome in Afghanistan by either side of the fight. The statement posted on the website is accurate, based on the past eight years. The Taliban resurgence is a home grown development that did not appeal to, rely on or seek Arab or al Qaida help, according to information in the public domain.

After their ouster from Kandahar in 2001, the Taliban openly derided the Arabs of al Qaida and blamed them for the Taliban’s misfortunes. They vowed never to allow the foreigners -- especially the haughty, insensitive Arabs -- back into Afghanistan, consistent with the history of Pashtun xenophobia. They have been true to that vow ever since, as General Jones confirmed, indirectly.

The premise that Afghanistan would become an al Qaida safe haven under any future government is alarmist and bespeaks a lack of understanding of the Pashtuns on this issue and a superficial knowledge of recent Afghan history.

In December 2001, Omar was ridiculed in public by his own commanders for inviting the “Arabs” and other foreigners, which led to their flight to Pakistan. The worst atrocities committed by the vice and virtue cops of the Taliban government were committed by the foreign thugs who accompanied bin Laden, according to media reports at the time. The Afghans did not behave that way against their own people, though they were brutish against the Soviets.

There is no factual basis for presuming that support for international Islamic terror is the norm in Afghanistan, rather than a tragic mistake. More than a thousand years of history reinforces the ethnic trait of visceral hatred of outsiders of all kind. Omar’s experience with the bin Laden and the Arabs revalidates the ancient wisdom.

See Neustadt and May’s Thinking in Time, Chapter 3, for a discussion of the appropriate uses of reasoning by historic analogy.

Bin Laden and his acolytes were/are exporters of a toxic world view that took root in Germany deeper than in Afghanistan. The Taliban were focused on subjugating recalcitrant Uzbeks and Tajiks of the Northern Alliance, not on exporting terror. No Afghans attacked the World Trade Center.

Even today, Omar and his merry men do not push – as they easily could -- the age old idea of a greater Pashtunistan that would join Pakistani Pashtuns with Afghan Pashtuns and would split modern day Pakistan north to south along the Indus River. The point is the security situation could be much, much worse and has been in the past, if the Quetta Shura were as brutish as some claim.

There are no good guys, but any successful strategy in Afghanistan will include the Pashtuns in some kind of power sharing arrangement. No matter who governs in Kabul in the future, bin Laden and al Qaida will not find a safe haven in Afghanistan again because almost all Afghans continue to agree on that point after eight years.

For the record, the leading exporters of violent revolutionary doctrines today are the remnants of al Qaida in Pakistan and Iran via the Revolutionary Guards Quds force and its Hizballah proxies. Pakistan is just a regional supporter of terror against its neighbors, but so is India from time to time.

Mostly confirms Paul's analysis of the Pashtun Civil War.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 08 Oct 2009 22:32

My local right-winged radio talk show host was making noises yesterday on Afg. He claimed he did not know the right course at this moment. To me it looks like the people are being prepared for going all the way in, or getting out of there totally.

Siddhartha · Post by **Siddhartha** » 08 Oct 2009 22:40

pgbhat wrote:
SSridhar wrote:The target was undoubtedly Indian embassy. TIMES NOW reports that the blast was of the same intensity as last year's. Because of measures taken after last year's incident, the Indian embassy and the Indians there escaped. Once again, the Haqqanis helped by ISI must have conducted this. It won't be surprising if the ISI leaves tell-tale evidence of its involvement just as in last year's case. Soon after this, we should see a major attack within India.
I was thinking exactly the same.

Me too...Probably November again..

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 09 Oct 2009 01:35

Good Chance to happen at Diwali time, Pakis wont be able to hide their animal upbringing for long.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 09 Oct 2009 02:59

Chindu reporting A reminder of India’s burden and stake in Afghanistan

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 09 Oct 2009 06:06

Obama Wants to Take War to Pakistan?

Well, maybe this could be more in India's interest.

I wouldn't mind seeing the US take the fight into Pak territory. But Osama & Co are hiding in Balochistan. Would the Pak Army allow the US to pursue AlQaeda anywhere on Pak territory - including in Balochistan?

I think that an alarmed Pak Army would staunchly refuse to allow US forces into Balochistan.

I don't see how the US could get Pak to budge on this issue.

But is this undertaking the reason why Obama invited Unmanlymohan to be his first foreign dinner guest? Is Obama trying to get India to keep a low profile during this delicate phase of the war? Only time will tell.

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 09 Oct 2009 06:46

I doubt that MMS's invite from BO had anything to do with their "shift" in AfPak Policy. The invite was something Hillary Clinton delivered during her visit months ago, when they hadn't anticipated this surge in Taliban activity.

I don't think TSPA is going to alllow US forces into TSP nor are they going to sit by and watch the growth of US assets in TSP after the KL (PD?) bill.

But things are coming to a head soon. The US in A'stan is going to lose more and more ground (and lives) with the current strategy with no increase in troop levels, and going after TSP directly is going to bring a direct (read open) confrontation with the TSPA (and their Fliend), and I think the US will blink first, unless India and the US act decisively. Problem is McChrystal believes moderate Taleban exist and TSPA can be trusted. Good for him, about 6 months will make it crystal clear.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 09 Oct 2009 08:10

I like this Lara Logan - she argues forcefully:

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 09 Oct 2009 08:14

Even if yankees enter Pokistan (remote possibility though), they will do whatever they need to get their job done, and then leave. Look at it this way, if Pokis don't mess with IN, who will yankees sell their weapons to and how would they continue to claim that they are the only one who can save the world.

However, I see a lot of Pok-war rhetoric, and I'm trying to read between the lines. Will continue to monitor..

JAI HIND.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Oct 2009 09:00

She comes on CBS radio. Looks like US news reporters all lost their mojo. Its all UK folks lifting the heavy burden. All US news reporters do is anchor- lead a**ed.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 09 Oct 2009 09:06

I don't think PakTalibs will cooperate with the American plans to flush AlQaeda out of Pakistan.

I think that PakTalibs would hinder US forces every step of the way, and give AlQaeda shelter.

I think that AlQaeda might be forced to shift into deeper areas of the Pak heartland, such as near Punjab-Baloch border. They will lead the Americans on a merry chase through Pakiland.

Let's face it, Balochistan itself is a vast playing field, full of rugged mountains and valleys. Even if you had the entire Chinese People's Liberation Army at your command, you'd never be able to cover Balochistan adequately.

If I were AlQaeda, and I heard that the Americans were coming to Balochistan, then I would hightail it way out into the badlands. There's no way the Americans would be able to easily comb that terrain. The Talibs and AlQaeda would take every opportunity to ambush their hunting parties.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Oct 2009 09:10

About the Kissinger article in Newsweek, comments from Ram Narayanan

In the article reproduced below, Henry Kissinger makes, among other things, the following important points:

**Those in the chain of command in Afghanistan, each with outstanding qualifications, have all been recently appointed by the Obama administration. Rejecting their recommendations would be a triumph of domestic politics over strategic judgment. It would draw us into a numbers game without definable criteria.

**President Obama, as a candidate, proclaimed Afghanistan a necessary war. As president, he has shown considerable courage in implementing his promise to increase our forces in Afghanistan and to pursue the war more energetically. A sudden reversal of American policy would fundamentally affect domestic stability in Pakistan by freeing the Qaeda forces along the Afghan border for even deeper incursions into Pakistan, threatening domestic chaos.

**It would raise the most serious questions about American steadiness in India, the probable target should a collapse in Afghanistan give jihad an even greater impetus. In short, the reversal of a process introduced with sweeping visions by two administrations may lead to chaos, ultimately deeper American involvement, and loss of confidence in American reliability. The prospects of world order will be greatly affected by whether our strategy comes to be perceived as a retreat from the region, or a more effective way to sustain it.

**In a partly feudal, multiethnic society, fundamental social reform is a long process, perhaps unrelatable to the rhythm of our electoral processes. For the foreseeable future, the control from Kabul may be tenuous and its structure less than ideal. More emphasis needs to be given to regional efforts and regional militia. This would also enhance our political flexibility. A major effort is needed to encourage such an evolution.

**Concurrently, a serious diplomatic effort is needed to address the major anomaly of the Afghan war. In all previous American ground-combat efforts, once the decision was taken, there was no alternative to America’s leading the effort; no other country had the combination of resources or national interest required. The special aspect of Afghanistan is that it has powerful neighbors or near neighbors—Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Iran. Each is threatened in one way or another and, in many respects, more than we are by the emergence of a base for international terrorism: Pakistan by Al Qaeda; India by general jihadism and specific terror groups; China by fundamentalist Shiite jihadists in Xinjiang; Russia by unrest in the Muslim south; even Iran by the fundamentalist Sunni Taliban. Each has substantial capacities for defending its interests. Each has chosen, so far, to stand more or less aloof.

**The summit of neighboring (or near-neighboring) countries proposed by the secretary of state could, together with NATO allies, begin to deal with this anomaly. It should seek an international commitment to an enforced nonterrorist Afghanistan, much as countries were neutralized by international agreement when Europe dominated world affairs. This is a complex undertaking. But a -common effort could at least remove shortsighted temptations to benefit from the embarrassment of rivals. It would take advantage of the positive aspect that, unlike Vietnam or Iraq, the guerrillas do not enjoy significant support. It may finally be the route to an effective national government. If cooperation cannot be achieved, the United States may have no choice but to reconsider its options and to gear its role in Afghanistan to goals directly relevant to threats to American security. In that eventuality, it will do so not as an abdication but as a strategic judgment. But it is premature to reach such a conclusion on present evidence.

In reference to Kissinger’s essay, a friend Reggie Sinha writes:

QUOTE:
India must offer 100,000 Indian Army troops to help stabilize Afghanistan immediatley (200,000 - 250,000 would be ideal). This should not be seen as bailing out the Americans, but to ensure India’s own survival.

If Americans withdraw (for whatever reasons), the Pakistan military/ISI/Taliban flushed with the fervor of defeating yet another superpower, convinced of their own invincibility, powered by the ideology of militant Islam, strait-jacketing India’s nuclear options, and rearming itself again with U.S. and Chinese weapons, will unleash untold horrendous terrorist atrocities in India hundred times more powerful than the 1989 Kashmir/Kargils. Worse, China may join in to "teach a lesson" again as well as internal subversives will also play a significant role in destabilizing the country (and if USA withdraws, Afghanistan will be ruled jointly by Pakistan-China with a strong Chinese military presence in Afghanistan). Frankly, India does not have a choice!

Instead of a sense of schandenfreude (meaning, taking pleasure in somebody else’s misery) many Indians feel about Americans in Af-Pak currently, it is actually for India’s own survival (and I am not even using terms like benefit, safety, security here) that it immediately positions a strong 100,000 Indian army force in Afghanistan. Operation Nalwa, commanded preferably by a Sikh general, would have such a salutary stabilizing effect in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) that will leave even the most "strategic" western experts confounded.

Of course, the U.S. administration will be reluctant to accept this Indian offer, given that the U.S. military/CIA is "embedded" and "tight" (to use a Bush term) with the Pakistan military/ISI, its relationship built over the last several decades fighing the Afghanistan war. Milt Bearden’s recent testimony case is in point!

However, at a time when the Obama administration is most vulnerable in the area of commiting more troops in Afghanistan, there is a historic opportunity for the GOI to play its cards adroitly effecting a transformative paradigm change in US’s role and subcontinental geopolitics in India’s favor for ever. The opportunity is in the form of the Indian Prime Minster dangling a USD 250 billion dollar military/economic/business purchase order during his November visit to the USA. It is as simple as ABC. Really!! All South Block needs is political will!
UNQUOTE.

Reggie has raised an important issue which needs to be thoroughly debated. As of now I do not think it would be wise for India to send troops to Afganistan, even if there is a request from the US to that effect, for two reasons:

1) It would lead to increased attacks on India by Pakistan-based terrorists actively encouraged by the Pakistan army and the ISI.

2) India’s large Muslim population of 150 million plus may not approve of such a move.

However, let’s look at Kissinger’s point that "Each [of Afghanistan’s powerful neighbors or near neighbors—Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Iran] has substantial capacities for defending its interests. Each has chosen, so far,to stand more or less aloof." and also his point that "Each is threatened in one way or another and, in many respects, more than we are by the emergence of a base for international terrorism: Pakistan by Al Qaeda; India by general jihadism and specific terror groups; China by fundamentalist Shiite jihadists in Xinjiang; Russia by unrest in the Muslim south; even Iran by the fundamentalist Sunni Taliban."

If it’s possible to get all of Afghanistan’s neighbours -- Pakistan, India, Iran. Russia and China -- to contribute troops to help stabilize Afghanistan, that looks to me like a win-win situation.

The issue needs to be discussed threadbare.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 09 Oct 2009 09:36

ramana wrote:She comes on CBS radio. Looks like US news reporters all lost their mojo. Its all UK folks lifting the heavy burden. All US news reporters do is anchor- lead a**ed.

NBC's Richard Engel, Middle East Correspondent who was in Afg for sometime; went in Charlie Rose's program and said there is no difference between Taliban and AQ. Then said Talibans are from the people, ie one can not distinguish between Taliban and the people. He claims Afg people want Americans to be out of there. Engel went on to talk about a honorable exit, which means increasing the troops in the short term. He blamed NATO for the resurgence of Taliab, when USA drove them South. His view was that German and Italian troops did not venture out of their base, as they operated more like a peace keeping troops than like a troops in a war.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 09 Oct 2009 09:55

Richard Engel is accurate in assessment.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 09 Oct 2009 15:17

The Nobel Peace Prize bestowed on an Obama without any significant achievement to his credit, will now have its impact on the pursuit of Afghan War against terrorists. His hands will be tied by the morality of the Nobel Prize even if he wishes to prosecute the war by sending more troops. One can now safely assume that this is another twist, in the never ending saga of twists, in favour of Pakistan's Afghan strategy.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 09 Oct 2009 15:30

SSridhar-> Could it be Obama won the noble peace process only because the Bush Missile defence plan and subsequesnt Russian deployment caused a nuclear standoff which the scandanavians did not like. When Obama changed the Missile defence plan and the nuclear stand off in Europe is temporarily over these guys are cheering Obama?

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 09 Oct 2009 15:35

Obama gives more aid to TSP
Refuses to meet a Budhist -Dalai Lama
Almost dumps Israel
Is ready to bed with Taliban(oh they are good Taliban. They use smaller stones while killing women)
Expect some hurriyat leader to get one next year.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 09 Oct 2009 15:57

Aditya_V wrote: Could it be Obama won the noble peace process only because the Bush Missile defence plan and subsequesnt Russian deployment caused a nuclear standoff which the scandanavians did not like. When Obama changed the Missile defence plan and the nuclear stand off in Europe is temporarily over these guys are cheering Obama?

Possible. They may also say that the speech he made to the Muslim nations at Cairo a few months back was good enough for the Prize or his speech in the UN for nuclear disarmament, or his speech at the G-8 summit calling for banning ENR technology export to non-NPT countries etc., etc. If somebody is awarded a Nobel Prize for mere speeches, it should be Obama. Isn't it too premature to award him when nothing has been translated into action ? We know that Nobel Peace Prizes are somewhat susceptible to political pressure. Whatever that might be, this is bad news for India both with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, he {Alfred Nobel} said the peace prize should be given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Sweden and Norway were united under the same crown at the time of Nobel’s death.

arun · Post by **arun** » 09 Oct 2009 16:20

Afghan officials claim Pakistani link for the bomb attack outside the Indian Embassy at Kabul yesterday. Once again the Pakistan based Haqqani faction of the Taliban which has close links to the ISI is implicated:

Posted on Thu, Oct. 08, 2009 06:46 PM

Pakistan-based group suspected in Indian Embassy bombing in Kabul

By SARAH DAVISON AND JONATHAN S. LANDAY
McClatchy Newspapers

Afghan officials suspect that the same Pakistan-based group that's blamed for a suicide attack on the Indian Embassy 16 months ago staged a car-bombing there Thursday that killed at least 17 people and wounded 76. ......................

Suspicions in Thursday's bombing focused on the Islamic extremist network led by Jalaluddin Haqqani. .{Snipped} ........................

Mc Clatchy

More confirmation of the Islamic republic of Pakistan’s complicity in the terrorist act of bombing the Indian Embassy in Kabul for the second time on Oct 8th 2009 from Afghan sources.

Afghanistan’s Ambassador to the US, T. Jawad talking to US TV Channel PBS :

ISI behind attack on Indian embassy: Afghan envoy to US

"We are pointing the finger at the Pakistan intelligence agency, based on the evidence on the ground and similar attack taking place in Afghanistan,"

PTI

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 09 Oct 2009 18:42

The Saudi view: A To-Do List for Afghanistan by Turki al-Faisal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03884.html (Prince Turki al-Faisal was the longtime director general of Saudi Arabia's intelligence service, the Al Mukhabarat Al A'amah. He was also the Saudi ambassador to the United States.)

The dominant American view: Barack Obama 'sees role for Taliban in Afghanistan's future': http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... uture.html

McChrystal being given a scolding: McChrystal Faulted On Troop Statements: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01879.html

The outlines of the plan are emerging. Prop up Karzai, get the so-called "moderate Taliban" into government.

India will get the gratitude of the Afghan people (that is, until the next generation is indoctrinated on Taliban text-books). The Paks seem set to take over.

Observe how this ties in with the UN-sponsored election fraud.

Too many powerful forces aligned. India will have to talk with the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Iran and Russia to figure out where to go from here.

Too bad for the people of Afghanistan.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Oct 2009 19:39

Dmurphy wrote:Kabul blast images

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8296297.stm

Heartfelt condolences to relatives of the killed. India must announce a hefty ex-gratia (>$20000 & >$5000) to all the dead and injured.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 09 Oct 2009 19:55

SSridhar wrote:Richard Engel is accurate in assessment.

That was my assessment of him too. Ironic that when so many people get things right, things still go wrong. It must be the system. The system is greater than the individuals. He has an hour of documentary this Sunday, hopefully it gets uploaded to the internet. If it does, I will mail you the link.

He had good things to say about McCrystal. He said he was the best in USA in the field. Afg is truly a nightmare for invaders and occupiers. How the heck did Buddhism take root in that land? Engel differentiated between Iraq and Afg. Iraqis openly greeted Americans. He gives examples of how people went and spoke to Americans in English wanting something or the other - visas, immigration, establishment of institutions, schools ithyadi. He contrasts the expectations with Afgans - who have seen no improvement in life in the last 8 years. They simply want all of these guys to get out.

And, Obama. Unless he has miracles in his walking closet; he is probably going to be get flak anyway - doesn't matter if he does something or does not. Regarding dumping of Israel comment. Ah, I wish USA did that. The World continues to pay the price for the faults of Europeans and Middle-East.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 09 Oct 2009 19:59

SSridhar wrote:His hands will be tied by the morality of the Nobel Prize even if he wishes to prosecute the war by sending more troops.

On the flip side, one could also make the case that even if he sent more troops, it is because McCrystal asked for it. Obama is after a Nobel peace prize winner, he had to send troops only because he had to do so. The Islamic world can be argued with morality on the shoulders - "You know how peace I am and my country is; I am doing this for your (and our) own good".

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Oct 2009 20:17

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03884.html

- Convene a meeting of the security-intelligence departments of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia to devise ways of eliminating al-Qaeda's leadership. China, Russia and Saudi Arabia have a long-standing vendetta with al-Qaeda and will contribute intelligence and other resources to rid the world of this cancer.

- Push India and Pakistan to fix Kashmir. That is doable, once both countries see a determined effort by the United States in that direction. Both countries are beholden to the United States -- Pakistan for the military and financial support it receives and India for the nuclear energy agreement it has signed with Washington.

To my knowledge the ME nations contributed more towards the terror infrastructure of Afghanistan than its national development. These nations should be put in their place and religion must be shunned as the criteria to involve external parties in international negotiations.

This moron wants KSA/China’s involvement in Afghanistan but not India.

At the same time this moron has the audacity to comment on Kashmir.

I think India must stop using religion as a criteria to link up with any nation-state. After all we are secular nation.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 09 Oct 2009 20:42

Imperialists tend to cultivate "mad dogs" to set upon rival powers. Pakistan and the Taliban are mad dogs that have been cultivated for many decades now.

Some elements in the West may think that they will be able to ride this tiger, and that the mad dogs will bite only India. But the nuclear neo-caliphate that with result from conceding Afghanistan to the Paks will boomerang on its patrons too.

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 09 Oct 2009 22:06

Obama's War - PBS Frontline

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 09 Oct 2009 23:18

RamaY wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03884.html

- Convene a meeting of the security-intelligence departments of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia to devise ways of eliminating al-Qaeda's leadership. China, Russia and Saudi Arabia have a long-standing vendetta with al-Qaeda and will contribute intelligence and other resources to rid the world of this cancer.

- Push India and Pakistan to fix Kashmir. That is doable, once both countries see a determined effort by the United States in that direction. Both countries are beholden to the United States -- Pakistan for the military and financial support it receives and India for the nuclear energy agreement it has signed with Washington.
To my knowledge the ME nations contributed more towards the terror infrastructure of Afghanistan than its national development. These nations should be put in their place and religion must be shunned as the criteria to involve external parties in international negotiations.

This moron wants KSA/China’s involvement in Afghanistan but not India.

At the same time this moron has the audacity to comment on Kashmir.

I think India must stop using religion as a criteria to link up with any nation-state. After all we are secular nation.

RamaYji, don't loose your temper over this. The source of this article is "Turki al-Faisal" from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. When was the last time anything sensible came out from the land of Saud other than thick, juicy OIL?

Land of Saud, apart from their personal religious agendas, is a propaganda machine for the yankees. Although, your approach to avoiding religion is right, "religion" is a major disadvantage for IN.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 10 Oct 2009 10:37

McChrystal should be heard
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/letters/ ... 68854.html

Sandwiched between an article titled “Elizabeth Smart says she was raped daily” and one titled “Florida College ready for flesh eating Zombie attack” was a brief 74-word notice titled “Senate defeats bid to force General’s testimony.”

It sure seems like a good place to hide the most important news that happened on 10/01/09.

Obama appointed Gen. McChrystal to be in charge of the Afghanistan situation. As his own appointee, he rightfully promised to listen carefully to his advice.

Now that the general has given his honest opinion, not one single Democratic senator wants it spoken in Congress.

When Sen. McCain submitted a bill which would have required Congress to hear the General no later than Nov. 15, 2009, it was defeated by a 59-40 vote (strictly party lines).

Why is it that no one whose philosophy is left of center wants the public to know what is really going on? Gen. McChrystal thinks he needs up to 40,000 more troops. He feels that we need a “new war plan” and we need it soon.

This is an honest opinion of an honest man. It seems that hearing him speak to Congress is a reasonable thing to expect. Obviously, the Democratic senators know exactly what he would say. They just don’t want the people of our country hearing it.

Let him talk, then vote against him if you will, but at least let us all hear his opinion and the reasons for his forming it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Oct 2009 16:15

Tony B.Liar might be out of office,but he has not been forgotten by those who have lost loved ones in fighting Blair's War in Iraq and Afghanistan.He is being criticised from the "Pulpit" and the "Public" for his "war crimes".

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

Tony Blair has 'blood on his hands', says father of killed soldier
Peter Brierley, whose son Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley was killed in Iraq in 2003, has accused Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of having "blood on his hands".

Tony Blair was told he had "blood on his hands" by Peter Brierley, left, the father of Lance Cpl. Shaun Brierley, right, who was killed in March 2003

Mr Blair, who has repeatedly defended his decision to lead Britain into the conflict, was rebuked by Mr Brierley at a reception for guests who attended a commemoration service marking the end of the Iraq campaign and honouring the 179 British personnel who died during the six-year conflict.

Mr Brierley refused to shake Mr Blair's outstretched hand at the event staged at the Guildhall in the City and told the politician: "I'm not shaking your hand, you've got blood on it."

Related Articles
Rowan Williams attacks Government over Iraq war
Archbishop of Canterbury criticises 'cost of Iraq war'
Queen honours Iraq dead
Iraq war: now longer than duration of World War II

Mr Blair was ushered away and afterwards Mr Brierley, from Batley, West Yorkshire, said: "I understand soldiers go to war and die but they have to go to war for a good reason and be properly equipped to fight.

"I believe Tony Blair is a war criminal. I can't bear to be in the same room as him. I can't believe he's been allowed to come to this reception.

"I believe he's got the blood of my son and all of the other men and women who died out there on his hands."

Lance Corporal Brierley, 28, was a radio systems operator with 212 Signal Squadron when he was killed in a road traffic accident in March 2003 in Kuwait while serving in Operation Telic.

"It comes back to me every day, every time I see a coffin come off a plane; it reminds me of what happened to Shaun", Mr Brierley added.

Mr Blair had joined the Queen, Gordon Brown, Iraq veterans and bereaved families at the St Paul's Cathedral service.

During his address the Archbishop of Canterbury criticised "policy-makers" for failing to consider the cost of the Iraq war.

Dr Rowan Williams, who has previously described the decisions which led to the conflict as "flawed", praised the "patient and consistent" efforts of troops on the ground.

"Many people of my generation and younger grew up doubting whether we should ever see another straightforward international conflict, fought by a standing army with conventional weapons", he said.

"We had begun to forget the realities of cost. And when such conflict appeared on the horizon, there were those among both policy-makers and commentators who were able to talk about it without really measuring the price, the cost of justice."

The Archbishop alluded to the controversial nature of the conflict which brought hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets in protest in the run up to the war.

"In a world as complicated as ours has become, it would be a very rash person who would feel able to say without hesitation, this was absolutely the right or the wrong thing to do, the right or the wrong place to be", he said.

But he praised the efforts of the forces on the ground, who he said were really the ones with the task of upholding Britain's ''moral credibility''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/0 ... blair-snub

Blair faces critics from pulpit and public as Britain remembers
Esther Addley
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 October 2009 22.30 BST

Tony Blair meets a member of the RAF regiment after the memorial service. He was later snubbed by the father of a dead soldier. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/EPA Six-and-a-half years after he sent British forces into battle in Iraq, Tony Blair today came face to face with the uncomfortable consequences of his decision when the father of one of the 178 military personnel who died in the conflict refused to shake his hand, denouncing him as a "war criminal".

Peter Brierley, whose son Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley died in a road accident while on service in Iraq barely a week after the invasion in March 2003, publicly snubbed the former prime minister at a reception that followed a service commemorating those who served in the conflict. As Blair proffered his hand, Brierley told him: "I'm not shaking your hand, you've got blood on it."

Later, Brierley, from Batley, West Yorkshire, who has campaigned for a number of years for an inquiry into the war, said: "I believe Tony Blair is a war criminal. I can't bear to be in the same room as him ... I believe he's got the blood of my son and all of the other men and women who died out there on his hands."

The incident topped off a discomfiting day for Blair, who had previously heard Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, speak pointedly at the service at St Paul's cathedral, London, of the "mistakes" of those behind the conflict, including those "policymakers" who had lost sight of the cost of war.

"Many people of my generation and younger grew up doubting we should ever see another straightforward international conflict, fought by a standing army with conventional weapons," Williams said. "We had begun to forget the realities of cost. And when such conflict appeared on the horizon, there were those among both policymakers and commentators who were able to talk about it without really measuring the price, the cost of justice."

The prime minister, Gordon Brown, and Iraq's president, Jalal Talibani, were joined at the service by a dozen senior members of the royal family, including the Queen, the Prince of Wales and Prince William, bereaved family members, and 2,000 of the 100,000 personnel who served in Iraq during Britain's six-year engagement, which formally ended in April this year.

But it was the suntanned man sitting in the row behind his Downing Street successor whose presence excited most comment, and who perhaps felt the archbishop's words most keenly.

Williams criticised the "invisible enemies – letting ends justify means, letting others rather than oneself carry the cost, denying the difficulties or the failures so as to present a good public face" – that had menaced those involved in the conflict.

Williams is blessed with a sonorous lilt and a subtle prose style that can sometimes make his words, at first, seem more emollient than they are. This was no soothing homily from a man who has previously described decisions leading to Britain's involvement in the war as being morally and practically flawed.

"Reflecting on the Iraq campaign, we cannot say that no mistakes were ever made – when has that ever been the case?" Williams said. "But we can be grateful for the courage and honesty shown in facing them. Justice does not come without cost. In the most obvious sense, it is the cost of life and safety. But there is another sort of cost involved in holding back the easy instinctive response and checking that you are genuinely doing something for the sake of long-term building or healing."

He alluded to the vexed questions those responsible had faced, however, even as he emphasised that the justice of the war itself remained under debate.

"In a world as complicated as ours has become, it would be a very rash person who would feel able to say without hesitation, this was absolutely the right or the wrong thing to do, the right or the wrong place to be," he said.

Only once, and then obliquely, were the uncounted mass of Iraqi dead referred to, when the archbishop prayed for "those whose memory we cherish, and those whose names we will never know".

Monarchs, princes, politicians and soldiers are dwarfed equally under the dome of St Paul's. It was collectively, in its clumps of khaki, navy and air force blue, that the congregation had its force. In a sea of sober suits and sharply ironed uniforms, what stood out were the scarlet sashes, the gold epaulettes, the thousands of polished medals.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 10 Oct 2009 17:22

The CFR speaks:

The United States would increase aid to the government in Kabul only if President Hamid Karzai agrees to form a broad-based coalition government. Without this, he will not have the legitimacy to lead -- or to be an effective partner for the United States -- given the fraud that characterized the recent national election.

Thus, the UN-sponsored election fraud provides the opening needed to get the otherwise unelectable pak-backed "moderate Taliban" into power.

Also

What the United States and the world should seek is a Pakistan that remains intact, and exercises tight control over its nuclear weapons and considerable if not total control over terrorists within its borders.

Thus the state of pakistan, its nukes, and its terrorists, should be kept on a leash, but preserved for future use.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02576.html

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Oct 2009 17:29

. . . considerable if not total control over terrorists within its borders.

The Indian goose of over-dependence on the US is cooked above.

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 10 Oct 2009 23:13

Is SEWA a Taliban target?
Jumana Shah / DNA
Friday, October 9, 2009 8:58 IST

Ahmedabad: SEWA does what the Taliban abhors -- support and empower war-affected Afghan women by training them. And this is believed to be one of the main reasons for the second shocking attack in a little over one year on the Indian embassy complex in Kabul on Thursday early morning.

The Embassy houses office of Ahmedabad's internationally acclaimed voluntary movement for women - Self-Employed Women's Association on the ground floor, which has five women workers from Ahmedabad and about 200 Afghan women working regularly.

In spite of the constant peril on the lives of its workers, SEWA courageously set a base here in 2007to help local women live in dignity. The angry Taliban are believed to have led the July 2008 attack on the complex which killed 60 persons, including a senior IFS officer.

"We have known that the Pak Taliban are quite upset with SEWA's help to Afghanistan's war-ravaged women. The government's assessment is that Indians are being targeted mainly because of two reasons - SEWA's programmes and India's help to the Afghan government with infrastructure like building the Parliament and a large power grid project," said Reema Nanavati, director of economic and rural development at Sewa.

She re-asserts that though the lives of SEWA workers are constantly in peril, there is no question of pulling back. "If we withdraw, it means we are succumbing. Indian embassy has been very cooperative and given us good security," she said.

Over the past year, hundreds of women of the war-ravaged community, widows, orphans and the wounded, have been trained through a vocational training programme for horticulture, floriculture, embroidery, stitching garments, processing fruits, etc.

SEWA established a center in Kabul in response to a request by the Afghanistan government to the Government of India. Soon after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Aghanistan in 2006, SEWA was selected for the programme. Women's delegations visit Ahmedabad every second month for vocational and management training.

The programme has been a success in Kabul, rehabilitating at least 1,000 families. Women earn a daily stipend to work in SEWA and their products are sold in local markets. While SEWA's work has received much global repute, the NGO's efforts were recently appreciated by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who visited their outlet in Mumbai. "Women are the worst victims of a war, and it is women who will have to bring about peace in the country," Nanavati observed.

India may be left unhappy as the US woos 'good' Taliban
Uttara Choudhury / DNA
Saturday, October 10, 2009 2:20 IST

New York: New Delhi, which thinks there is no 'good Taliban' or 'bad Taliban', is likely to be disappointed by US president Barack Obama's rethink on strategy in Afghanistan.

The US is sharpening focus on fighting al Qaeda above all other goals, while downgrading emphasis on the Taliban.

White House officials acknowledged that Obama is prepared to accept Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future and will determine how many more soldiers to send there, based on ensuring the war is now tightly focused on squashing al Qaeda.

It is a narrower objective that could require less than the 40,000 new soldiers sought by general Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan. Obama's developing strategy on the Taliban will "not tolerate their return to power", the senior official said. However, the US will fight only to keep the Taliban from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to al Qaeda, the official said.

The US appears to be bowing to the reality that the Taliban is "too ingrained" in Afghanistan's culture to be entirely defeated. Although Obama's decision on troop levels and other elements of a new blueprint on Afghanistan is two weeks away, it appears increasingly that the US is prepared to accept a Taliban role in parts of Afghanistan.

This could mean the US will reach out to moderate Taliban elements, paving the way for its members willing to renounce violence to participate in a central government.

Indian foreign secretary Nirupama Rao visited the Indian embassy on Friday and discussed security with top Afghan officials. A suicide bomb attack outside the embassy a day earlier had killed 17 people.

The Taliban was also connected to the 2008 Indian embassy bombing which killed 54 people. Indian officials had accused the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) of masterminding the 2008 bombing. The US authorities implicated ISI members in that bombing by disclosing intercepted calls showing Pakistani spies provided direct support for the attack.

Team Obama, especially vice president Joe Biden, believes elements in the Taliban are close to al Qaeda, with its one-point agenda of going after western targets, but probably not the majority.

The US has begun to view the hardy Taliban as a local group more interested in Afghan issues, as opposed to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, which plainly targets the US.

"They're not the same type of group," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "It's certainly not backed up by any intelligence."