Afghanistan News & Discussion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2009 02:53

I wrote this in 2001 after fall of Taliban.

Indian Interests in Afghanistan

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 21 Oct 2009 08:28

Taliban at our doorsteps should be no different from Paki Army at our doorstep. Actually Taliban will be better as:

- With identical level of hostility, there will be more transparency – you know exactly what to expect
- There will be no overt Western pressure to make peace. We will still get gratuitous advice, but there will be more understanding. The hostility will be recognized and understood. This will save a lot of diplomatic energy for us
- Managing the message when dealing with potential internal saboteurs should be easier. LeT modules can be expected to get less local support.
- State generated hostility to the Western world will be higher. So the burden of managing terrorism from our western borders will be less than 100% on us.

Our military and diplomatic efforts should do enough to prevent a 100% takeover by the Taliban- whether Paki backed or not. Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras should have their space and force(s) to defend that space. Eventually there has to be a division of territory.

A rump Pashtun state with solid western borders will force the Salafists to look eastward for territory and sea access. A confederated arrangement with Islamabad will be the solution. Here there will be no need for them to hurry and shed blood uselessly. Power and control can be gained in steps. As far as possible they will like to preserve the current Paki army to act their own force. Controlling this crucial piece of real estate with a large momeen population and a lashkar to support it will be a key step in the establishment of the Caliphate.

Taliban of the 90s may have listened to the paki army, but today they need not. Instead it would be the other way.

Whatever the whiskey drinking generals may say or want or do, they will not be able to influence this course.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2009 09:36

Rajamohan has an article saying TSP and PRC are winning in Afghania.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2009 21:42

From Nightwatch, 10/18/09....

Special Note: NightWatch has been studying the unclassified fighting reports in Afghanistan by district for the first two weeks of October. The NightWatch focus, as always, is on the now 400 districts because they are where the government succeeds or fails, much more than in Kabul. That means they are where the Taliban exploit corruption, bad government and the absence of government in order to expand. The fight for Afghanistan is not won in Kabul. That is just the prize that goes to the winner.

The data is incomplete and the findings are tentative. Nevertheless they support the NightWatch thesis that the insurgency as now constituted is self-limiting … to the Pashtun provinces in the south and the Pashtun enclaves in the north. There are no new districts showing the signs of a sustained presence of Taliban or other anti-government fighting cells that are not Pashtun, based on the unclassified research.

This means the Taliban and most anti-government groups remain, as they have for eight years, primarily Pashtun. They are having little to no success breaking out of the Pashtun “nation.” Districts in Konduz Province and other areas of the north, for example, that have anti-government cells appear to be those that have Pashtun communities as the result of coerced transmigration programs in much earlier periods.

These communities were outgrowths of the King’s version of a”lily pad” strategy. The King was a Pashtun and required loyal enclaves all over the country from which his forces could operate to maintain order among Tajiks and Uzbeks, for example. They tended to be hostile to their Uzbek and Tajik neighbors, who reciprocated the feelings, in the best of times.

The significance of these tentative findings is that the anti-foreign appeal of the Taliban and Pashtun nationalists is not resonating among the other tribes. The anti-government movement is limited to about half the districts of Afghanistan at most and shows no capability to move beyond them yet.

The good news is the northern tribes seem to be checking the Pashtuns. The other good news is the anti-government forces cannot win against the NATO/ISAF forces.

The bad news is most of the Pashtuns may be counted as being anti-government and anti-foreign. That means NATO/ISAF cannot militarily defeat the anti-government forces without many more forces and without imposing an occupation regime or martial law in the nine core Pashtun provinces. Control the nine Pashtun provinces and the rest will fall in line.

The larger implications are that the anti-government resistance is not monolithic. That means that one set of tactics does not fit all.

It also means that the Taliban expansion into the north, about which NightWatch warned in 2008, can be reversed, but will require using different tactics from those used in the Pashtun south. The Pashtun enclaves in the north require protection from their non-Pashtun neighbors. The Pashtun clans are far from united in their needs and wants.

Consolidation of the north and control of the center -- meaning Kabul and Jallalabad -- ought to be high priorities. Herat, the western anchor of the centerline, is doing okay, and the Hazaras, who occupy Bamiyan Province and hold the middle of the central line, hate the Sunni Pashtuns. Weaker leaders than Karzai and NATO have held the Herat to Kabul to Jallalabad line and the North, while retaining a strong presence in key southern cities.

The fighting data show the pro-government and NATO forces have more assets and more advantages than the international press report in reducing the violence and in establishing a national unity government. The fighting data by district shows the Kabul command might need several hundred separately crafted solutions to win the loyalty of the people in the 200-plus disaffected districts. In the era of the computer, that is not a particularly daunting task for smart people. That is, in fact, a bounded set.

When neither side can win on the battlefield, politics becomes the battlefield. That will become more apparent to the Taliban leaders as winter approaches. More on this later.

For now, Readers may take away that the security problem is not as dire as some suggest, is manageable, containable and even reversible, but it will take more creative and critical thinking than is evident in public releases.

Paul, What will the defeated Talibs do to TSP in case the above scenario materializes?

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 21 Oct 2009 21:46

ramana wrote:Rajamohan has an article saying TSP and PRC are winning in Afghania.

I see that Raja Mohan now has some kind of professorial Chair at the Library of Congress, wonder if that means anything as to his objectivity.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2009 21:47

A related item from Nightwatch 10/18/09

Security. The Iranian military said today the United States and Britain were responsible for a suicide bombing that targeted the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the Pishin district of Sistan-Balochistan province, Haaretz reported.

Iranian state television said its sources indicated the British government was directly involved in organizing, supplying and employing the militants who conducted the attack, and that the attack was aimed at redirecting problems the West faces in Afghanistan to Iran. Both the U.S. and British governments have condemned the attacks and denied any involvement.

The Jundullah terrorist group, led by Abdolmalek Rigi, claimed responsibility for the suicide attack that killed 42 people, including at least five Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commanders, who were meeting in Sistan-Baluchistan province. President Ahmadi-Nezhad blamed terrorists in Pakistan for "cooperating" in the attack and urged the Pakistani government to arrest the responsible individuals.

Jundullah is a Sunni Arab Baluchi group that Iran and international news agencies claim is supported by the US from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Groups using the same name inflicted significant casualties on the IRGC this year, but the weekend attack was by far the most serious.

If this is a US-backed operation, it tends to explain press reports of IRGC support for the Taliban in the eastern border provinces of Iran, as retaliation and creation of a hostile buffer zone in western Afghanistan. A severe crackdown in southeastern Iran is likely as well as an increase in covert Iranian support to the Taliban in western Afghanistan.

So Af-Pak is increasing in size.....

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 21 Oct 2009 22:06

- There will be no overt Western pressure to make peace. We will still get gratuitous advice, but there will be more understanding. The hostility will be recognized and understood. This will save a lot of diplomatic energy for us

I would not count on the west to support us in any way. No sooner than the Taliban take over they will be adopted by the west as the new MUNNA if they can manage to keep their global Jihad ambitions on check.

India will do well to start opening channels with the Mehsud and Haqqania branches of Taliban through the Deoband ulema. For every Madarasa in the NWFP, the Deoband school of thought is their inspiration.

Ramana, I will reply in detail later. Gotta get back to work.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 22 Oct 2009 03:22

- The Taliban has always grown by absorbing existing and new groups. Certain elements of the Taliban are much more closely affiliated with the global jihad than others. The global jihad itself is and was far from monolithic.

Until 1993, the global jihad's presence was much stronger within Pakistan than Afghanistan. Arab and Western pressure on Pakistan to do something resulted in the Pakistanis under Bhutto extraditing a few, expelling a few, but pushing the majority in to Afghanistan.

The Taliban's initial association with Bhutto made many global jihadists very fearful of it as late as the 1996, but the Taliban's absorption of trusted Afghan jihadis like Jalaluddin Haqqani, and support by friends of the global jihad in Pakistan eventually assured most of them. After December 2001, they fled back in to Pakistan.

Some of these pro-global jihad elements of the Taliban are close to the Pakistani security establishment (e.g. the Haqqanis), and others are estranged (e.g. the Mehsuds). The global jihad has hedged its bets.

In short the global jihad will stay in the region whether Pakistan cooperates with the West against it or not, and whether the Taliban is successfully fractured or not.

What Pakistani cooperation (predator strikes, monitoring of airports, etc) does is mitigate the global jihad's ability to bring terrorist plots against the West to successful completion. Although the West has been far from altruistic, given the networks of mutual support, it has also reduced the network of bases available for Chechens, Uzbeks and S.E. Asians to train, plan and recuperate.

Denying the global jihad bases in Afghanistan (there is no real choice between splintering the Taliban, or using troops - both are essential for success) prevents a return to the 1990s, when Pakistan was able to largely elude pressure to support effective action against these forces by using Afghanistan as a scapegoat.

- The Talibanisation of the Punjab is the next turning point in this conflict. Those in Pakistan who wish to retain the tool of jihad *must* support it in order to maintain overall control of the jihadi sphere in the region.

Yet it will bring huge costs to Pakistan's stability and economy, and severely strain (if not destroy) its relationship with the US and weaken it with respect to India. The Red Mosque siege, and the wave of suicide bombings that followed are a preview of its developing internal effects.

- Somalia, Yemen and Gaza offer huge opportunities to the global jihad, situated closer to the heart of the Middle East. However they do not have the potential depth and size of Afghanistan and Pakistan, or crucially, the same access to infrastructure and technology.

America remains more closely and directly engaged in the area because of the Pakistani nuclear question, and that is itself a draw for the global jihad; not just the dream of nuclear weapons, but the opportunity to directly fight, kill and demoralise America. Thus American disengagement can only come with the resolution of the Pakistani nuclear problem.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 22 Oct 2009 04:13

Ramana Saar,

Wrt the Nighwatch article on the ejection of the Pakhtun communities from Northern Afghania, it is not new. The Tajiks and Uzebeks took full advantage of the Taliban fall after 9/11 and ethnically cleansed Pakhtuns from their territories. Hekmatyar incidentally comes from a resettled Pakhtun family. These Pakhtuns were settled by King Abdur Rehman in the later 19th century to cement the Pakhtun overlordship over the Tajiks ( Baccha Sakhao – a Tajik usurper was the other claimant to the Kabul).

Secondly, If Talibs are unable to take over these territories again (unlikely for reasons I mentioned before) I would not count that as a failure for them. Their core interests are in retaining control the area parallel to Durand line Kabul/Jalalabad in NE afghania and Kandahar – the pakhtun heartland in the south (as nighwatch says - where Pakhtuns arehold the ground in Afghania, Talibs will rule). The key to take control over Kabul is Parchinar district in NWFP.

Why is that the case? If you look at the map of Durand line. You will see that Pakistan border takes a sharp projection into Afghanistan near Kabul. I remember reading in Raman’s blog. Kabul is only about 90kms from this . An overnight journey for the Muj. The Afghan Mujahideen used to launch attacks on Kabul from this territory. The Soviets were never able to provide foolproof security for Kabul due to this region and this is why you see Parchinar in the news again and again. This is also why they need the support of the Mehsuds and Wazirs to keep the initiative in NE Afghania. Southern Afghanistan struggle is a intra Pakhtun affair. Their rivals are the Pupulzais (Durranis) led by Karzais and sooner or later these two tribes will come together in the larger interests of the Pakhtun cause.

Kabul is close to Tajik lands and control for Kabul will be a tough contest with Tajiks and to a lesser extent the Uzbags.

If you look at the war east of the Durand line, only two tribes - Mehsuds and to a lesser extent the Wazirs in FATA/WANA are fighting the PA. The Brits left this area alone for a very good reason, for to provoke them would be to stir a hornet’s nest. The Faqir of Ipi who in the 1930s led a successful guerilla war against the British Indian empire was also from this area. The PA by being forced to going into FATAfor the first time 100 years to take out the foreign terrorists have opened a Pandora’s box…not that they do not know what they are doing. See KAyani’s open letter to the Mehsuds (Mush was bragging about it in CNN few years ago). The other Pakhtun tribes are watching on the sidelines and will jump on the winner’s side at the 11th hour. Then there are the sarakari Pakhtuns like the Khattaks who live on the plains and will fight on Pakistan’s side. When central asian invaders passed through these territories to raid India, these carpetbaggers would sit on the sideline and join the last stages of the battle to loot the spoils of war. It may not be very different now.

People have pointed to the difference in the behavior of the Taliban in Kanahar hijacking versus the Paki vermin role in Kaluchak massacre. This is because the Kashmir Jihad is being fought by the Punjabi Taliban who do not have a code of conduct or any other purpose in life other than to destroy India. When the Talibs appoint them as Mansabdars of Lahore, it will be no better than it is now. What India needs to do is to develop and maintain contacts with Pakjabi leaders like the Sharifs and hand over Pakjab for a period of 30- 40 years so that it is maintained as a buffer state before the Talibs cross the Indus in full force. They can sanitize the place before it is absorbed into India.

Furthermore, looking at the big picture, it is in Indian interests for the battle to intensify further to prevent to the two front nightmare from crystallizing into reality. The situation has not deteriorated to the extent that India can stop worrying about Pakistan joing PRC in a war – limited or otherwise. Key Paki strike formations like the Kharian corps need to pulled back to take on the Talibs to prevent this from happening.

Finally, sooner or later India will have to take on the mantle of the empire and Pakistan (New India

- as Caroe put it) to bring the region till the Oxus back under Indian influence.

This is a ethnic war being fought under the garb of religion. This is why I said religion and nationalism as separate entities that do not mix is a canard spread by 20th century historians.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 22 Oct 2009 04:29

B Raman Saar is in hospital. He has urinary bladder cancer....pray for his recovery soon.

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/

I am entering the Hospital tomorrow (October 21,2009) for cistoscopy followed by biopsy. Yesterday and today, I had a series of tests---stress test, ECG, Echo etc--- to enable the doctors satisfy themselves that I will be able to withstand the procedure. According to the doctors,my heart condition is superb for my age (73). My energy level is very high. The biopsy will enable the doctors to grade my urinary bladder cancer---superficial affecting the bladder lining only in which case the treatment will be simple or deeper affecting the bladder muscle in which case it could be life-threatening calling for an aggressive treatment. According to my doctors, 85 per cent of the urinary bladder cancers are a nuisance, but not life-threatening. Fifteen per cent are life-threatening. They are hoping that the biopsy will show that I fall in the 85 per cent group. I expect to be out of hospital on Oct. 25. Thereafter, I will be in my brother's house awaiting the biopsy result. Regards. B.Raman. 20-10-09

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 23 Oct 2009 03:14

Securing India’s interests in Afghanistan - Shanthie Mariet D’Souza

...
Interestingly, India’s “aid diplomacy” has generated intense domestic debate, given the vulnerabilities its projects and personnel face in Afghanistan. While some would want India to send troops, others propound continuation of the ‘aid only’ policy. While the latter option would not be in India’s long-term strategic interests, an outright military response of troop deployment, apart from its limited utility, would work straight into propaganda of the Taliban and its sponsor.

What India needs in the near-term is a reinvigorated policy in terms of protecting its projects and carving out a larger regional role in the long-term stability of Afghanistan. Amid talks of U.S. withdrawal, India needs to consider long-term scenarios of its political, diplomatic and military options.

In a revamped diplomatic strategy, India can work towards the creation of a “concert of powers” — a regional grouping including the U.S., Russia, the EU, India, Iran, CAR (Central Asian Republics) and China.
...
At a local level, India needs to widen its web of engagement beyond the Karzai government. Its Afghan policy in the past few years has alienated its traditional support base among the Northern Alliance groups who have increasingly aligned with Iran. There are alienated Pushtun communities in southern and eastern Afghanistan, who are in need of India’s support in building local capacities. These groups can be cultivated as protectors of Indian aid projects by making community participation and local ownership a key plank of the aid policy. On the military front, India can enhance the training for the Afghan National Police in counter-insurgency given its experience in building a COIN grid in Jammu and Kashmir.
...
..
(Shanthie Mariet D’Souza is Associate Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. )

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 24 Oct 2009 00:42

Most informed commentators are betting on US exiting from Fak-Ap. Khaled Ahmed has been saying this for more than a year. If US withdraws...will the NA/Karzai arrangement work??? or will Karzai be forced to come to terms with Talibs.? Need to think this through to see what it means for Indian interests?

If Pakistan is in a tails you win, heads I lose, even if NATO withdraws...should it not be the other way for India?????

AFGHANISTAN: UNITED STATES EXIT OPTION DISASTROUS Disastrous for who???India/Pak/West/PRC?

By Dr. Subhash Kapila

Introductory Observations

President Obama, nor at apex levels of US Administration, has anyone given any indication that the United States is considering the ‘Exit Option’ from Afghanistan.

Yet the persistence with which this option is being discussed in US corridors of power and US media leads one to believe that in Washington such a discussion is being generated and contrived by vested forces who stand to gain from a US exit from Afghanistan. In an earlier Paper on Afghanistan this Author has pointed out that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia primarily, followed by China are the nations which badly want the United States to make an exit from Afghanistan.

The ‘Exit Afghanistan’ debate in Washington is being spearheaded by “Pakistani apologists” in the United States comprising retired senior Armed Forces officers and former US diplomats seconded by a number of strategic analysts.

United States “Exit Option” from Afghanistan is also being fostered by Western European countries of NATO on two grounds, namely (1) Reluctance to bear load of commitment of additional military forces to Afghanistan and (2) Mindful of sentiments and repercussions of large Muslim populations in their midst.

The United States standing and image as the global superpower would be fatally struck by such an ill-advised option. This too stands pointed out by this Author earlier. Additionally, it needs to be highlighted that an “Exit Option” from Afghanistan will not be viewed as a pragmatic military initiative but projected in the wider Islamic World as a victory of Islam over the United States.The United States can ill-afford such an impression being created.

Would the United States like to submit itself to such an ignominy?

However, the US “Exit Option” from Afghanistan is still being vocally discussed despite the above strategic losses to USA that could accrue in its wake.

Imperative therefore it becomes to highlight once again that such a move is disastrous for USA. Also a brief exploratory exercise of the ‘Exit Option’, however inadvisable, becomes necessary to set the facts straight. This Paper discusses the following issues:

United States “Exit Option” should be From Pakistan, NOT, Afghanistan
United States “Exit Option” From Afghanistan Examined
Afghanistan Scenarios likely in Wake of US Exit From Afghanistan
United States “Exit Option” Should be From Pakistan, NOT, Afghanistan

In this Author’s address at an Army Seminar followed up by a SAAG Paper on US Af-Pak strategy (SAAG Paper No 3316. Dated July 22, 2009) the following “Nightmare Scenarios” which the United States may soon have to face in Pakistan were painted as under:

Pakistan Government failing and its nuclear weapons falling in Islamic extremist hands
Islamist elements within Pakistan Army or extreme Islamic terrorists getting control of over one or more of Pakistan’s 60-100 nuclear weapons.
Civil War within Pakistan
In these worst case scenarios, the United States may be left with no option but to resort to direct military intervention in Pakistan.

For such a possible military intervention against Pakistan the United States has no other option but to use Afghanistan as the base and spring board.

United States continued military embedment in Afghanistan was again stressed in a recent Paper of his and that this emerges as an over-riding strategic imperative for the United States.

This Author’s Concluding Observations bear repetition, as they are even more valid today than a few months back:

Implicit in the Af-Pak Strategy in relation to Pakistan’s worst case scenarios is that:
1. Failure is not an option for the United States in the execution of Af-Pak Strategy

NOR

2. Is an Exit Strategy possible

Inevitably, the Af-Pak Policy has made this war as “America’s War” with all the connotations attendant.
Civil War is very much a possibility in Pakistan. Dangers exists of “Pashtun nationalism” merging with the Taliban movement.
Pre-empting Pakistan’s slide towards a “Nuclear Yugoslavia in the making” dictates “NO EXIT” of United States from Afghanistan.

This Author needs to be forgiven to harping back on his earlier summations on Afghanistan. It was being projected by this Author that the United States has a strategic dilemma as to whether to save Pakistan first or Afghanistan first. Implicit in this was the Author’s contention that it was beyond United States resources to concurrently save both.

This Author’s major conclusion was that this dilemma could be resolved by USA attempting to first stabilize Afghanistan and thereafter the United States could then be in a position to save Pakistan sequentially. Further, that if the first priority of USA was to save Pakistan then USA runs the risk of losing both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

United States “Exit Option” From Afghanistan Examined

While a US “Exit Option” from Afghanistan is being glibly argued by US Pakistani-apologists, none of them have cared to spell out as to what sort of US exit from Afghanistan are they envisaging.

On analysis, this Author can envisage only three types of US “Exit Options” from Afghanistan, and these are:

Vietnam Type, Saigon Style Exit
Iraq Pattern Planned and Graduated Exit
United States Exits Afghanistan after handing over Afghanistan to the United Nations
A Vietnam type, Saigon Style Exit would be an ignonimous disgrace for the United States and does not merit discussion. However to pre-empt such an eventuality the:

United States must make a firm commitment of long term embedment in Afghanistan
United States provides required force levels to its military commanders in Afghanistan.
United States does not dither in surgically disconnecting Pakistan from its overall strategic formulations in the stabilization of Afghanistan.
A US Iraq-pattern exit strategy would require at least 8-10 years to enable stabilization of Afghanistan and build-up the Afghan National Armed Forces to at least 400,000 strong to resist a Pakistan-Taliban combined takeover of Afghanistan. For these 8-10 years a sizeable US military embedment would be required in Afghanistan.

This option is no different from a firm declaration of US intent to stay embedded in Afghanistan as the end aims are the same. In both cases the United States would require enhanced troop levels, strategic endurance and strategic patience.

Finally, an option which envisages the United States handing over Afghanistan to the United Nations for peace-making and peace-building with UN Forces deployed there is something which the United State would not prefer. The United States has resisted “internationalisation’ of Afghanistan conflict.

Afghanistan Scenarios Likely in Wake of US Exit From Afghanistan

Pakistan aided by Saudi Arabia can be expected to make an instant grab of Afghanistan, should the United States exits Afghanistan in any of the patterns discussed above. Such regime take-over moves in Kabul by Pakistan would generate armed opposition from non-Taliban and non-Pashtun groups. The old Afghan war-lords era would return with a civil war like situation. This could lead to regional instability, disintegration of Afghanistan and a possible disintegration of Pakistan by extension.

Possibility exists of China at the sub-surface level aiding Pakistan’s ambitions in this direction. China’s involvement in the ensuing Afghanistan imbroglio would tempt other regional countries to step in and take sides, strategically muddying the Afghanistan situation so much that the United States may be forced to a military return to Afghanistan.

Another possibility that comes to mind is that sensing the likelihood of a US withdrawal from Afghanistan, regional powers like Russia, Iran and India who have strategic congruence on Afghanistan, could put their act together and step-in in a concerted manner to stabilize Afghanistan, provide security and initiate economic re-construction.

Pakistan then in a knee-jerk reaction would resort to its old policies of disruptive military and Taliban actions in Afghanistan on being thwarted of its strategic ambition to reclaim Kabul.

However, the Russia-Iran-India combine would have enough leverages of dissuasion of Pakistan in its military moves and possibly posing direct threats towards Pakistan’s disintegration. Supports my argument that Northern ethnic will hold the line and this will lead to Pakistan's disintegration.

More simply put, the Post-US Exit period in Afghanistan is likely to be murky, contentious and destabilizing for the region. It could invite responses from its regional neighbors to cut down Pakistan’s imperial pretensions to size. Is this not the whole objective and good for Indian interests. This why I am asking NATO withdrawal is disastrous for who? The author is not thinking out of the box

Concluding Observations

The United States needs to recognize the following strategic realties in relation to its military involvement in Afghanistan:

Stabilized Afghanistan with an independent self-reliant military capability to defend itself should be the top most priority for US national security interests.
Afghanistan can be stabilized by a surgical disconnect of Pakistan from US Afghanistan policy and military liquidation of Al Qaeda and Taliban harbored in Pak Army sanctuaries
The ‘Pakistan Threat’ to Afghanistan can be neutralized by US Special Forces and US drone operations. It does not require US molly-coddling of Pakistan.
All of the above require a long-term United States military embedment in Afghanistan. It is “America's War” now and the US public needs to rally around President Obama to protect US national security interests in Afghanistan and the region. There is no ‘Exit Option’ from Afghanistan for the United States in face of Islamists blackmail

(The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email: [email protected])

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 24 Oct 2009 00:51

Think about this further, I think Ahmed Shah Durrani's state itself was a setback for India as it formalized Kandahar's split from India. Fracturing of this state along ethnic lines is good for Indian interests as Pakhtuns will be forced to look for Indian sponsorship to hold the line in North (vs. Tajik), central ( vs. Hazara/Uzbek) and western (vs. Persian) Afghanistan.

Karzai may be forced to come to an agreement with Talibs for the greater good of the Pakhtuns. He is a tribal leader with grassroots support of the pupulzai tribe and the erstwhile king's supporters...Talibs will have to co-opt him to consolidate their hold on South Afghanistan.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 24 Oct 2009 01:13

now i understand why india has been calling for pashtunistan for a long time

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Oct 2009 01:47

Karazai is no match for Talebs. As and when US withdraws, will TSPA and TSP essential core be destroyed or weakened? No chance. The fond hope that once US withdraws, Talebs will become docile and be just another TSP, then it will be a fundamental mistake. The main Jihadi core and ambitions for a neo-Caliphate will remain - and this is the principal structure that overlaps the Talebs as well as TSP/TSPA.

Karazai will be forced to align with the Talebs and will be kept as a figurehead until the Talebs can push back the NA sufficiently north. The blame has to be put on the head of Karazai and his tribal rivalries or detractors. Behind this the Talebs will work and expand in both directions into central and northern AFG as well as south further into Pakistan.

They gain less, and will be up against forces very similar to themselves if they push beyond central AFG. The much easier, tactically and strategically important, direction lies in the south and east. This is where all their interest will lie.

First, the last time and even now, when they are forced to retreat from the centre of power in AFG it is because US airpower can reach into their bases from Pakistan. They need to neutralize this weakness, and force US forces to do the longer haul from carriers in the IOR or IOR island bases.

Second, Pakistan has greater modern rashtryia and military infrastructure compared to Waziristan, which they urgently need in order to expand their power base. Something not possile with their resources in the AFPAK borderland.

Third, they will get natural sympathy and support from large sections of the populations in the Punjab - the most populous and resourceful of all the provinces.

Fourth, in spite of India shouting and giving repeated proof of its "secularism", India has not struck back at Jihad or Islamism. From the Islamic viewpoint, this only shows the effeminacy and weakness of the non-Muslim majority in India - who are therefore ripe for and deserve ghazwas and conquering in the name of Islam. Moreover India will be a soft target in their eyes. India has shows none of the viciousness that the Islamist has shown.

Over millenia of brutalization, the general social psyche of these populations have become like carnivorous scavenging animals in packs. The basic psychological feature for such animal packs, is submission to the most vicious and brutal leader. Such packs also have an uncanny sense of fear in other animals or humans, and will pounce and tear to pieces any animal they think is weak or frightened to feed off. On the other hand, they usually escape or flee or wag their tails in aject surrender when they realize that the other animal is ready to treat them with their own pack medicine.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Oct 2009 02:18

Bhadra Kumar is right. I too felt that the US humiliated a Popalzai in front of the whole Afghan world by their charade of unfair elections, that too after Tammny Hall, Bush vs Gore and the Chicago rigging that goes on even today.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/postin ... 1&p=760317

And he is right about the occupation forces? how do you have rigging even with the occupying forces?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Oct 2009 16:22

both candidates have been accused of rigging... == to pre-empt. karzai will 'win' 2nd round, and this time all doubt will be removed and baksheesh spread around to soften the blows. i suspect that increasingly unkil will opt to buy off warlords who are wavering to see who wins. there is something to be said for focusing on the IIF/AlQ's, the talibs are really 'normal' pashtun brigands who are currently incensed with kaffir foreigners on their soil - and can be bought off. the wild card remains the TSPA...

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 24 Oct 2009 17:08

ramana,
something wrong with the link about bhadrakumar you have posted.

bhadrakumar:
http://www.hindu.com/2009/10/24/stories ... 980800.htm

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 24 Oct 2009 18:52

^^^ Re Bhadrakumar's article: The Afghan street knows the elections were rigged - so Karzai's admission, though painful for Karzai himself, is no big deal for them.

Also, Bhadrakumar generally tends to take a pro-Chinese (and by extension pro-Pak) line. He ignores the fact that 91% of the Afghans hate the Taliban (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/ ... enemy.html) The international community now has a solemn obligation to protect those who have stuck their necks out in the effort to save Afghanistan from the Talibs.

The US has a long history of encouraging people to stick their necks out and then abandoning them. Who can blame the Afghans for hedging their bets? The memories of Najibullah hanging from a lamp-post are still fresh.

As far as India is concerned, it entirely depends on Iran, the Central Asian Republics and Russia. All of these have a profound distaste of the Talibs, and if they want to make a stand, India can definitely help. But on its own, there is not a whole lot that India can do.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 25 Oct 2009 10:52

the vote rigging started long ago as US paid off popular election candidates not to participate in the elections to ensure karzai would win.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 25 Oct 2009 13:46

A long, but excellent article that takes a close look at McChrystal's operation: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/magaz ... wanted=all

Shows how the people are being held hostage by the Talibs, and how the worry that the International community is going to abandon them forces them to obey the Talibs.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 25 Oct 2009 20:02

There are sometimes wheels within wheels. Take a look at these important and intriguing news articles:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghan president: Unknown helicopters transfer rebels to N Afghanistan
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009- ... 216259.htm
http://www.chinaview.cn 2009-10-12 13:52:56 Print

KABUL, Oct. 12 (Xinhua) -- Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has said that gunmen had been airdropped by unknown helicopters to the relatively peaceful northern provinces, a local newspaper reported Monday.

"President Karzai alleged Sunday that some unidentified helicopters dropped armed men in northern Baghlan, Kunduz, and Samangan provinces at night since the past five months," local daily Outlook said.

The president said "even today we received reports that the furtive process is still ongoing."

According to the newspaper, Karzai did not share the evidence with journalists but said, "A compressive investigation was underway to determine which country the helicopters belonged to; why armed men were being infiltrated into the region; and whether increasing insecurity in the north was linked to it."

Karzai made this disclosure amid escalating Taliban-linked insurgency in northern Afghanistan over the past several months. Afghan Defense Minister Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak told parliament on Saturday that some 4,000 militants from Chechnya, Pakistan and Middle East countries have sneaked into Afghanistan to carry out terrorist activities.

Earlier, governor of northern Balkh province said that certain circles had been distributing weapons to irresponsible men in the northern region to sabotage peace.

------------------------------------------------------------

Also, UK army providing Taliban with air transport : http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=10 ... =351020403

-------------------------------------------------------------

^^^ If this is true how is it to be interpreted? How is it related to the UN-sponsored election fraud, with the push to hand over power to the "good Taliban"?

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 25 Oct 2009 20:40

Free article from Strat
The U.S. Challenge in Afghanistan
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091020 ... fghanistan

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 26 Oct 2009 00:53

Paul wrote:
AFGHANISTAN: UNITED STATES EXIT OPTION DISASTROUS Disastrous for who???India/Pak/West/PRC?

By Dr. Subhash Kapila (The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email: [email protected])

I find this author a paragon of unclear writing and confused thinking. Am glad you had the patience to decipher his writings.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 26 Oct 2009 08:13

Abdullah Abdullah's interview with CNN's John King

ABDULLAH: The -- to call this a clean election, I think this -- with all due respect to Mr. Karzai, this a bit -- a bit of ignorance, I should say. To say the least. This is like the fraud of the history. And unfortunately, the government was involved, IC was involved. That's according to everybody, international observers, UNAMA, elections complaints commission,the people of Afghanistan.

People lost their fingers because Taliban had threatened to cut their fingers and they did so in some cases. Violence took place throughout the country. I lost many of my campaign people, campaign managers in people who have voted for me. So this is a serious, serious thing.

KING: Is he, Dr. Abdullah, known for consensus and coalition- building, and would you welcome a spot in a Karzai government should he win this election?

ABDULLAH: No, I think I left Mr. Karzai's government some three- and-a-half years ago.........pursuing the agenda for change, which is changing the highly centralized presidential system into a parliamentary system, going for elected governors, having a truly independent election commission, independent judiciary, promoting the political parties, having the chance and opportunity for a credible group throughout the country and many other things, which is part of my agenda. I'll pursue this in an opposition, provided President Karzai is elected as a result of a transparent and credible process. This will be my hope.

The security situation is deteriorating unfortunately at this stage. And from three highways which leads -- four highways which leads to Kabul, or from Kabul to the -- leads to the rest of the country. Three are insecure, just 15 kilometers outside Kabul, in the outskirts of Kabul.

Today, the whole project by the people of Afghanistan is not seen as such as their own. So, because there is, there is a highly centralized system, an incompetent system which cannot deliver to the people, that could be taken care of through the democratic process.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 26 Oct 2009 10:04

Afghania

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Oct 2009 17:51

Karzai is now history.He should've condemned the "recount" and to preserve his honour simply kicked out the international team,who are doing everything in their power to see his rival Abdullah Abdullah,the US's one and future puppet, as his replacement.He has lost face and effectively is finished,unless he can display some Afghan cunning-as he did forging an alliance with Hekmatayar and sabotage Abdullah and the US's plans.

Worst day for the US in years and not the last casualties to be suffered for many moons to come.

Helicopter crashes: 14 US soldiers and civilians die in Afghanistan
Fourteen US soldiers and civilians have died in two helicopter crashes in America's deadliest day in Afghanistan for four years

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

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 27 Oct 2009 07:08

Philip wrote:Karzai is now history.He should've condemned the "recount" and to preserve his honour simply kicked out the international team,who are doing everything in their power to see his rival Abdullah Abdullah,the US's one and future puppet, as his replacement.He has lost face and effectively is finished,unless he can display some Afghan cunning-as he did forging an alliance with Hekmatayar and sabotage Abdullah and the US's plans.

Actually, Karzai is being supported by the Western deep state through election fraud and other means. He is a weak and compromised entity, making him more controllable. What went wrong was that the election fraud became too blatant. If power is to be handed over to the "good Taliban", it is easier to do so via a person like Karzai. But Karzai shows some independence from time to time, so his deep state backers are not entirely happy with him.

Perhaps Karzai himself may not realize that the chalice of deep state support is poisoned, and that he will be gotten rid of at the right time.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 27 Oct 2009 09:58

^^^ However, one thing Karzai has going for him are his alliances with various warlords, including Marshal Fahim. These alliances, give him the muscle-power that he otherwise does not command. They may enable him to resist, to some extent, unprincipled Western pressure to compromise with the Taliban. These warlords are unsavory characters but they are at any rate a vast improvement over the Taliban.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 27 Oct 2009 12:40

An important article about the power equations is Afghanistan. Also casts some light on the "helicopters ferrying Taliban" incident that was mentioned in a previous post:

Bloody conflict looms in Afghan north: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... government

What makes things murkier is that the Brits have been trying to set up their own Taliban militias. There was an uproar about this maybe a year back, and Karzai had expelled a British diplomat at that time.

The need of the hour is to think about what might happen if the US and Nato either withdraw precipitously. The US is paying $400 per gallon of oil in Afghanistan, and the financial crisis is making things harder. There is the possibility of the West making an unprincipled deal with Pakistan.

How would we coordinate the various anti-Taliban warlords and Afghan National Army? What will be the policy of Iran, the CARs and Russia? Abdullah and Karzai should both be on board in this effort.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Oct 2009 13:05

One singular fact on the ground is the increased effort to improve the Karakorum Highway between occupied territory in POK, ceded by Pak to China.This is a strategic move by China which will allow it to send in troops from the Tibet region into the Af-Pak region should it become neccessary.If the US withdraws handing over ground control to an Afghan military force,which in the latest media report says is highly corrupt,what happened in S.Vietnam will happen here also.There will b a free-for-all to control Afghanistan and you can bet that the Sino-Pak team will do its utmost to gain control.Pak might want to induct Chinese troops in as "peacekeepers",while it is engaged at trying to put out the fires of its own with its own civil war at home.China is supposed to be able to moveinto and garrison upto 50 divisions in Tibet,a huge number,of which a large percentage could move into Afghanistan.I don't think that US planners have taken this threat into their consideration at all,believing that their favourite rent-boy of the region will be able to sort out the mess.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 27 Oct 2009 20:03

Excellent on-the-ground report from Max Boot: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/ ... 4550.shtml

Highly recommended.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 27 Oct 2009 20:47

Afghan bombs kill eight US troops

An Afghan civilian was also killed by what were called "multiple complex IED attacks" - or improvised bombs.

The deaths make October the deadliest month for American forces in the eight-year war in Afghanistan.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 28 Oct 2009 10:22

Danger of run-off being rigged, too. An assessment by Peter Galbraith: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/opini ... ref=global

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 28 Oct 2009 10:24

Incident from 2007 - Afghans accuse expelled envoys of channelling money to Islamic insurgents : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... gents.html

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 28 Oct 2009 10:41

Brother of Afghan Leader Is Said to Be on C.I.A. Payroll : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world ... wanted=all

Apparently, Karzai's brother is also heavily involved in the drug trade. These shenanigans become a strategic threat when they reduce the anti-Taliban side's credibility vis-a-vis the Taliban. So far, the Taliban is still winning the unpopularity contest.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Oct 2009 11:42

The CIA seems to be placing their bets on every number! Famous old saying,"safety in numbers".

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Oct 2009 21:05

Pranav, When others do it its piracy, bootlegging etc. Then the Western corporates move in to control it its legitimate.

The Afghan drug trade is their economic lifeline. For first time since the historic times the Afghan area does not need subsidy from the Indo-Gangetic plains or anyother place. And from NPR it was facilitated by the US engineers who built the Helmand dam on that river!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Oct 2009 19:21

Sensational if true,but it explains a lot of matters.Let's not forget the close ties that US oil had with the Taliban,as it tried earlier to establish a pipeline (the only feasible route)through Afghanistan into Pak and the Arabian Sea,the outlet for Central Asian oil controlled by the US.The Taliban went to Texas and had meetings with Unocal and the CIA.The US still needs the pipeline,as bilions of oil exports are at stake which is why this war is being fought say some informed experts (check the "oil and conflict" thread).The new US policy of talking to the Taliban and allowing them to have a say in the Afghan administration was bitterly opposed by Karzai,thus explaining why the US is supporting ABdullah Abdullah to the hilta and wanting Karzai out.Karzai;s mob are happy with their poppy crop and are least interested in a pipeline to Pak,allowing the Pakis and the ISI control over a large part of Afghanistan,which is why this report which indicates that the CIA and ISI are supporting the Taliban secretly must be taken seriously.

U.S. aiding the Taliban?
MCT News Service
October 29, 2009

MAZAR-E-SHARIF, Afghanistan To a foreigner, the rumor sounds preposterous. But to the average Afghan, it's well within the range of the possible: Western military forces are using their helicopters to ferry Taliban fighters around the country.

A soldier with the 209th Shahin Corps of the Afghan National Army, which has been battling insurgents in Kunduz province in northern Afghanistan, insists he's witnessed it with his own eyes.

"Just when the police and army managed to surround the Taliban in a village of Qala-e-Zaal district, we saw helicopters land with support teams," said the soldier who asked that his name not be used because he is not authorized to speak to the press. "They managed to rescue their friends from our encirclement, and even to inflict defeat on the Afghan National Army."

This story, in one form or another, is being repeated throughout northern Afghanistan. People claim to have seen Taliban fighters disembark from foreign helicopters in several provinces.

"Our fight against the Taliban is nonsense," said the soldier from Shahin Corps. "Our foreigner 'friends' are friendlier to the opposition."

For years, there have been widespread rumors that the Taliban are being indirectly financed or even directly supported by foreign military forces.

Such rumors gain credence in part because many Afghans can't believe that a ragtag group of insurgents have been able to outmaneuver the world's sole remaining superpower for more than eight years.

And in a country where foreign intrigue has existed for centuries, such suspicions appear perfectly normal.

In this case, the belief is that foreign forces are ferrying Taliban fighters from the volatile south to what had been a more peaceful north so that coalition forces will have an excuse to expand their reach all across the country.

Even Afghan President Hamid Karzai gave an unexpected boost to such rumors earlier this month when he announced that he was investigating reports that "unknown" helicopters were ferrying the insurgents from Helmand province in the south to Baghlan, Kunduz and Samangan provinces in the north.

The rumors have become so pervasive that top military commanders have felt compelled to issue public denials, a tactic that often only fuel public suspicion.

"This entire business with the helicopters is just a rumor," said Brig. Gen. Juergen Setzer, who was recently appointed commander of the International Security Assistance Force. "It has no basis in reality, according to our investigations." Capt. Tim Dark, of Britain's Task Force Helmand, was even more emphatic.

"The thought that British soldiers could be aiding and abetting the enemy is just rubbish," he said. "We have had 85 casualties so far this year." Engineer Mohammad Omar, governor of Kunduz province, refused to comment on the issue. But Enayatullah Enayat, governor of Samangan, also denied that the helicopters were moving the opposition around in Samangan.

"I am in contact with both national and foreign forces in Samangan," he said. "I have not seen any suspicious helicopters bringing in the Taliban." Still, local villagers insist they have seen Taliban fighters disembarking from helicopters with their own eyes.

In the Baghlan-e-Markazi district of Baghlan province, residents witnessed a battle last month in which they insisted that two foreign helicopters had delivered the Taliban fighters who then attacked their district center.

"I saw the helicopters with my own eyes," said Sayed Rafiq from Baghlan-e-Markazi. "They landed near the foothills and offloaded dozens of Taliban with turbans, and wrapped in patus (a blanket-type shawl)."

According to numerous media reports, the Taliban attacked the district center. The district police chief, the head of counter-narcotics unit and a number of soldiers, were killed in the attack.

Amir Gul, the district governor of Baghlan-e-Markazi, insisted that the Taliban fighters had been delivered by helicopter.

"I do not know to which country the helicopters belonged," he said. "But these are the same helicopters that are taking the Taliban from Helmand to Kandahar and from there to the north, especially to Baghlan."

Baghlan police chief Mohammad Kabir Andarabi said that his department had reported to the central government that foreign helicopters were transporting the Taliban into Baghlan.

The Baghlan provincial governor, Mohammad Akbar Barikzai, told a news conference on Oct. 21 that his intelligence and security services had discovered that unidentified helicopters were landing at night in some parts of the province. "We are investigating," he said.

In the end, the results of such an investigation may not matter. The fact that many Afghanis are ready to believe that coalition forces are somehow in collusion with Taliban fighters to keep the country destabilized indicates a deep level of distrust of Western involvement that will be difficult to overcome.

ABOUT THE WRITER

Ahmad Kawoosh is a reporter in Afghanistan who writes for The Institute for War & Peace Reporting, a nonprofit organization that trains journalists in areas of conflict. Readers may write to the author at the Institute for War & Peace Reporting, 48 Grays Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, U.K.; Web site: www.iwpr.net. For information about IWPR's funding, please go to http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?topsupporters.html.

This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.
(c) 2009, The Institute for War & Peace Reporting

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Oct 2009 20:40

Those must be the friendly Tailban being co-ordinated with Karzai's brother's liason. See the NYT report about Karzai's brother being in uncle's payroll to liase with Taliban.
In Iraq, US helicopters were ferrying Kurds and others to cobble a coalition and one time friendly fire took out a whole bunch of trouble makers who were being ferried.