Afghanistan News & Discussion

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 29 Jan 2010 05:10

Krishna was allocated a seat in the second of three rows of attendees at the conference which in itself reflected India's peripheral role in Afghan affairs in the eyes of the international community. This, despite India being the biggest regional aid-giver to Afghanistan, with a commitment of $1.3 million. Earlier in the week, Turkey, an ally of Pakistan, did not even bother to invite India to a confabulation on Afghanistan.

Krishna was among more than 70 foreign ministers and officials of international organisations who attended the convention at the 185-year-old Lancaster House, a coveted venue for summits and high level interactions.

Pakistan supports a differentiation between Taliban segments, including being generally soft towards the Afghan Taliban, which was sponsored by the Pakistani Army's Inter-Services Intelligence. In an interview to a British daily on Thursday, foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi claimed: "Pakistan is perhaps better placed than any other country in the world to support Afghan reintegration and reconciliation."

As a goodwill gesture, the conference was preceded by a lifting of United Nations sanctions on five leaders of the obscurantist Taliban regime, which was ousted by armed forces led by the United States after the 9/11 attack on New York by the Afghanistan-based Al Qaida. Among the beneficiaries is a former foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil.

However, Brown warned, "But those insurgents who refuse to accept the conditions for reintegration, we have no choice but to pursue them militarily." It is widely believed that hardcore elements among the extremists will not accept the amnesty.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 29 Jan 2010 05:31

Clear views from the Afghan summit

In the regional context, India's refusal or inability to respond substantively to efforts to reboot its peace process with Pakistan is deeply troubling for western policymakers. Another Mumbai-style terrorist attack, blamed on Pakistan-based militants, would spark "limited war" between the two countries, most probably in Kashmir, a well-placed diplomat predicted this week. That could spell disaster for the Afghan strategy. Yet it seems to some that India is waiting for the bombers to strike again.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 29 Jan 2010 06:07

Afghanistan Denies Tensions After Iran Shuns London Conference

Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Afghanistan’s foreign minister denied tensions with Iran after the government in Tehran stayed away from the conference on Afghanistan held in London today.

“We have good relations with Iran,” Rangin Spanta said in an interview. “There is no problem between Iran and Afghanistan. Iran has cooperated with Afghanistan in the past eight years for its reconstruction.” The presidents of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan will meet soon in Tehran, he said.

Speaking at a press conference following the 70-nation talks, U.K. Foreign Secretary David Miliband condemned Iran’s absence as “inexplicable” and “deeply regrettable.” Iran was invited to send a representative and declined, Miliband said.

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told the state-run Mehr news agency yesterday that the London conference was aimed at increasing the west’s military presence in Afghanistan, not addressing “the root of problems.”

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 29 Jan 2010 06:18

Bahrain went public with sending 120 "police trainers" to Afg. Based on IOL, these are actually SF soldiers who will be part of US contingent to protect Kabul. IOL said they were mulling sending these post eid. Was suprised when reading Bahrain FM twitter post, IOL figure of 120 was spot on.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Jan 2010 08:37

pgbhat wrote:World rejects India's Taliban stand
As a goodwill gesture, the conference was preceded by a lifting of United Nations sanctions on five leaders of the obscurantist Taliban regime, which was ousted by armed forces led by the United States after the 9/11 attack on New York by the Afghanistan-based Al Qaida. Among the beneficiaries is a former foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil.

However, Brown warned, "But those insurgents who refuse to accept the conditions for reintegration, we have no choice but to pursue them militarily." It is widely believed that hardcore elements among the extremists will not accept the amnesty.

This is what we have been saying here for long. The NATO-ISAF, by failing to discipline and punish Pakistan, allowed itself to be outflanked and outwitted by the wily Pakistanis. It was very obvious almost two years back that the denouement was nearing and the only possible way was for the US to cut a deal with the Taliban. Pakistan, the snakeoil salesman that it is, consistently sold the story to the Americans that peace deals with the Taliban will help in isolating the Al Qaeda leading to its destruction. That did not happen. The Al Qaeda, after 8 years of relentless pursuit may be degraded but not destroyed enough to assure that they won't resurface. The next sales pitch has been that there are good and bad Taliban. The US has swallowed that line too and is now attempting foolishly to wean away the good Taliban from the AQAM. As a clincher, Pakistan promised the US that it will turn the Taliban around, a promise that the tired and desperate US has clung on to like clutching at the straws. One can be sure that the USD 500 M will end up with the PA Generals and the AQAM shortly. It will even demand more and that too would be granted. Not resting with these, Pakistan has launched a more audacious line of reasoning that nobody other than itself, Iran and Afghanistan can decide the fate of Afghanistan. It has been dinning into the American ears that India's presence is complicating matters and that seems to have also resonated with the powers that be. The entire Pakistani effort is for this last point alone. Pakistan only does a thing that either gets itself an advantage over India or hurts India or both. The ultimate goal is India and India alone. Durand line can be taken care of after taking care of India.

On the whole, if we look back at the last (or is it lost ?) eight or so years, the Pakistanis successfully managed their double dealing, protected their man Mullah Omar and his entourage cleverly, staved off US adroitly, milked the US for arms etc. The arms it has got either for free or at a throwaway price covered by US funding itself are mind boggling. 36 F-16 Block 52s, mid-life upgrade to existing F-16 A/Bs, 8 P3-Cs, 115 155mm Self-propelled howitzers, 20 Cobra Attack helicopters, 6 C-130Hs, 500 AMRAAMs, 150 submarine/surface/air launched Harpoon Block II missiles, transfer of 3 Frigates, NVGs, 12 Shadow drones, and undisclosed special weapons. Apart from these of course, is the billions of dollars of cash it has received under various guises. Poor India, invested USD 1.3 Billion to improve the lot of the Afghans by building road, power transmission lines, hospitals, schools etc and all that will sink now. While one does not grudge the Indian investment made in good faith, we should be wary of the Western (especially the US) approach to problem-solving. In a few years, the kind of terrorism that India will face will be unimaginable.

The poor Afghans will go back to the old Taliban way of being subjected to ruthless tyranny. The peace that the Americans hope to achieve will be ephemeral and their days are now numbered.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 29 Jan 2010 08:42

^ SSridhar-ji, Last two paragraph of yours is depressing.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Jan 2010 08:50

In the meanwhile, India offers 150 scholarships to Afghan Farm Graduates

Mr. Krishna said in a statement that since agriculture was key to Afghanistan’s development, India had decided to offer 100 fellowships every year over the next five years for its agricultural students to do Masters and Ph.D. programmes in Indian universities.

He said India strongly supported the proposed Afghan National Institution Building Project agreed upon at the conference.

sum · Post by **sum** » 29 Jan 2010 09:01

World rejects India's Taliban stand

On the whole, if we look back at the last (or is it lost ?) eight or so years, the Pakistanis successfully managed their double dealing, protected their man Mullah Omar and his entourage cleverly, staved off US adroitly, milked the US for arms etc. The arms it has got either for free or at a throwaway price covered by US funding itself are mind boggling. 36 F-16 Block 52s, mid-life upgrade to existing F-16 A/Bs, 8 P3-Cs, 115 155mm Self-propelled howitzers, 20 Cobra Attack helicopters, 6 C-130Hs, 500 AMRAAMs, 150 submarine/surface/air launched Harpoon Block II missiles, transfer of 3 Frigates, NVGs, 12 Shadow drones, and undisclosed special weapons. Apart from these of course, is the billions of dollars of cash it has received under various guises. Poor India, invested USD 1.3 Billion to improve the lot of the Afghans by building road, power transmission lines, hospitals, schools etc and all that will sink now. While one does not grudge the Indian investment made in good faith, we should be wary of the Western (especially the US) approach to problem-solving. In a few years, the kind of terrorism that India will face will be unimaginable.

Goddamn it..even more depressing news.

Real depressing week if one is a jingo ( esp on the Pak front)

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 29 Jan 2010 09:37

" in the regional context, India's refusal or inability to respond substantively to efforts to reboot its peace process with Pakistan is deeply troubling for western policymakers. "

So what does the commentator expect will result from the this 'peace process'? If the idea is that India should make concessions on Kashmir, forget that. Equating its nuclear programme with Pakistan's to reach some kind of regional no-nukes regime- forget that as well. A joint anti-terrorist operation? What would that involve, considering that India wants the terrorists that Pakistan is shielding.

What is the guy talking about, or what does he think he's talking about?

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 29 Jan 2010 09:39

Actually, there is a bright side to the resounding rejection of the Indian POV on Afghanistan by the "international community".

All this time we were also clutching at straws of hope. That one day the Americans would wake up to Pakistan's double-dealing and put an end to it by force if necessary. That the rewards of Pakistan's support of terrorist Islamism would consume Pakistan itself. That the Americans would ask India to deploy troops to Afghanistan and encourage the expansion of our influence there.

Now that all of these ideas have been revealed for the delusions they really are, we can finally recognize one thing. India has *no* incentive, whatsoever, to throw in its lot or cooperate in any way with the strategies of the West... the US, UK and NATO... in Afghanistan. We are not on the same side, and have never been on the same side.

There is no question that for all the money and effort and goodwill and even lives we have spent trying to rebuild Afghanistan in the wake of Western invasion, the West wants to thank us by re-installing the terrorist Pakistani proxy known as the Taliban. Whatever we built there will be destroyed, or worse, serve the interests of our enemies.

With this realization comes freedom. Freedom to do what we need to do, and the West be damned if it screws up their game.

As long as we were deluding ourselves that we and the West were on the same side, we were prone to half-believing the drivel they fed us, to taking dictation from them on how to conduct our regional foreign policy, to accept their prescriptions on compromising Indian sovereignty over territory that is an integral part of India.

Now that the West has clearly rejected our view of the situation and actors in Afghanistan... we can finally free ourselves of the need to accommodate their view, their interests and their benefits. Not for one day more.

This is the moment of truth for our GOI. If indeed it is not bought and paid for by the West, it will strike out on its own and enact an independent policy on Pakistan and Afghanistan that is forged around Indian interests, and Indian interests alone.

If the GOI is in fact in Washington's pocket, then all is indeed lost.

sum · Post by **sum** » 29 Jan 2010 09:49

This is the moment of truth for our GOI. If indeed it is not bought and paid for by the West, it will strike out on its own and enact an independent policy on Pakistan and Afghanistan that is forged around Indian interests, and Indian interests alone.

If the GOI is in fact in Washington's pocket, then all is indeed lost.

Going by the recent actions of the GoI ( esp on strategic affairs), the above bolded part seems very, very unlikely to happen.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Jan 2010 09:49

I know it is a stupid idea. But -

What are the implications of India deploying its army, say 25,000 forces, to secure Kabul and train ANA in low-medium risk areas? I am assuming a 25k sustained force presense would lock down 75k worth of IA resources, that is ~10%.

This strategy might achieve the following results -

- Gives India necessary peace-time on its borders for next 10 years.
- Relieves India from this Cashmere pressure from west
- Gathers western support on its own anti-terror effort
- Allows it to engage TSP non-state actors on TSP soil

Appreciate some insight.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 29 Jan 2010 09:55

25 k is not even two divisions. What will they accomplish, especially in the absence of such logistical/intel support that at least the NATO and ISAF currently have? They will essentially join the besieged in Kabul, prolonging its fall by a week or so and then fighting desperately against the Taliban onslaught until they are killed to the last man. Najibullah redux.

I'd say it is a waste. To accomplish anything militarily we need a corps-strength formation at least. On the other hand we can try to get by with intelligence and special forces assets operating with a small footprint, and small groups of military advisers helping out the ANA (I hope we will at least do that). But this 25k is a middle ground with no benefits... not enough to achieve by might, too big to achieve by stealth.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Jan 2010 09:58

Rudradev wrote:25 k is not even two divisions. What will they accomplish, especially in the absence of such logistical/intel support that at least the NATO and ISAF currently have? They will essentially join the besieged in Kabul, prolonging its fall by a week or so and then fighting desperately against the Taliban onslaught until they are killed to the last man. Najibullah redux.

I'd say it is a waste.

How about India/Iran/Russia taking security responsibility of North-western Afghanistan? And ask US/NATO to work with TSPA?

I am not joking. If India and Russia can make a calculated offer, it might work.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 29 Jan 2010 09:59

Why should we be depressed?
We know the perfidy of Anglo-Saxons.It is not new.

Karzai is still in power.Iran and Russia will not allow Taliban to come back.Paki credibility with long beards will plummet.The US troops are still in ground.

Paki investment has gone bad.No one trusts them ie Taliban or other Afghans.Only Anglo Saxon barbarians trust them.Pakis have a millstone around their neck.I think it is good that some taliban become turncoat.It will weaken taliban and strengthen pashtun nationalism.Or create mayhem in general.Pakis have zero credibililty west of Indus.

Let us not under estimate paki TB.The pakjabis have isolated themselves.
They will never ever have a free run in Afghanisthan again.

All the whining by 'liberal' papers like Guardian is because Pakis are not being given a free reign.The 'liberals' are vociferous supporters of ==.

khan · Post by **khan** » 29 Jan 2010 10:02

IMO India should send troops to Afghanistan.

The ideal way to do it it would be under the UN since it would diffuse most of the domestic opposition. UN authorization should not be very hard to get since the Afghanistan situation is not nearly as controversial is the Iraq situation was.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 29 Jan 2010 10:05

^ What would that achieve? Is there clarity of purpose?

khan · Post by **khan** » 29 Jan 2010 10:20

pgbhat wrote:^ What would that achieve? Is here clarity of purpose?

Yes. Even if it prolongs/delays the Taliban takeover, it will be worth it:
[*]It might be enough to turn the tide. The americans think an extra 30,000 troops will make a difference - we can easily send another 30K in.
[*]If we manage to send some troops into the North (among the Hazra's), our troops will have a legitimate (UN Sanctioned) toehold in the region when the Taliban come back in. Our troops could help the non-Pashtun population fight back.
[*]If the American's leave, we could team up with the Iranian's to keep the Taliban contained.

Bottom line is part of being a regional/global leader involves taking a certain amount of risk. Some of the gambles pay off while others don't. Just because the situation is Afghanistan is looking bleak doesn't mean that there aren't opportunities to be explored.

Sending troops will open doors to many opportunities. Worst case scenario, we withdraw them with some egg on out face along with the Americans, British, German's, Polish... This is a low risk proposition.

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 29 Jan 2010 10:23

Look at it this way -

1. Iran is not attending.
2. All sorts of loose talk going on - I have linked a NYT report separately.
3. pakistan sees itself as the centre of the solution

4. A tired, lame duck prime minister sure to lose his job of leading a nearly broke country leads the conference.
5. A group of tired officials from other countries participate
5. SMK himself is a tired minister, and not exactly powerful politically back home.

It is great that they still offer the second row. Nothing useful will come except that $ 500m bonanza to Karzai. We need to focus on areas which matter. On Afghanistan, Iran and Russia matter far more! For now, make sure that we are just present and make the usual harmless statements.

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 29 Jan 2010 10:28

And the NYT piece-
War Plan for Karzai: Reach Out to Taliban
Some excerpts-

...exposed divisions between the Afghan government and its allies over the timetable for drawing down foreign forces and whether and how to reconcile with the leaders of the Taliban insurgency.

American officials pointedly did not talk about “reconciliation” on Thursday, and they were caught off guard by Mr. Karzai’s plans for a tribal peace conference

Mrs. Clinton said after the meeting, which reflected a growing urgency to wind down the West’s military involvement

Everyone understands that this ‘reconciliation’ process is just a name because they leave us in the lurch,” said Mullah Abdul Majed, a former Taliban commander who laid down his weapons in 2008 only to find himself abandoned by the government he had hoped to join.

Mrs. Clinton praised Japan for giving $50 million to the fund, but she said the United States had no immediate plans to follow.

While the differences over reconciling with the Taliban dominated the meeting, that was not the only divide. Even before it began, Mr. Karzai opened another chasm with his allies

Read it all!

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 29 Jan 2010 10:33

And this is from the Times!
Five-year plan to 'buy Afghanistan exit'

President Karzai’s apparent willingness to embrace negotiation appeared to be at odds with a tougher Western vision of how talks might develop.

Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister, said that his Government would take part in Afghan peace negotiations only if the Taleban agreed to cut ties with al-Qaeda and denied sanctuary to Osama bin Laden

Some of the comments are worth skimming through.

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Jan 2010 10:37

No we have no business there and definitely no point in entering Af-Pak just because Unkil wants to save its posterior. This is a war ravaged country with lot of disgruntled and angry people (thanks to Unkil) and India has a plethora of its own problems to address rather than clean up someone's sh!t. Moreover we are talking about the Taliban here who have sympathizers and support from the TSPA and ISI and they might pull off some nasty HIED or a 09/11 type attack in India and unlike the Unkil we neither enjoy the geographical isolation nor means to ensure no such attacks take place.

Additional troops for embassies or protecting infrastructure projects is fine but any large mobilization of men and material should be avoided.As for people who are touting this as a Chanakian ploy to corner/surround TSP let them keep on dreaming we are happy with a carpet bombardment of TSP with dossiers.

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 29 Jan 2010 10:39

And this is from our own HT!
Four more countries pledge troops for Afghanistan They are Armenia, Mongolia, Montenegro and South Korea.
And one more voice in the cacophony!

South Korean Vice Defence Minister Chang Soo-Man said: "Without the defeat of Taliban forces in Afghanistan, we cannot expect to enhance the quality of life of the local residents and we cannot be free of the fear of terrorism."

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 29 Jan 2010 10:47

How will India deploy 30,000 troops in Afghanistan? Surely pakis will not allow any supplies to go through them. The only option is to transport supplies through Iran or Uzbekistan. What will happen if those nations do not play ball?
Even if the troops are deployed, they will just be a magnet to the Taliban and pro-paki forces and they will have to fight them. What is the guarantee that our political leadership will back the troops and we will not face an IPKF situation.
It is high risk low return scenario. India is boxed in by geography. We have to accept that fact and try to eliminate the constraints by ensuring the collapse of the pure-landers by playing Chankian politics using various factions of the Taliban.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 29 Jan 2010 10:50

Hamid Karzai has outwitted the Anglo-Saxons by offering the olive branch to the top Taliban leadership.The Pentagon is shocked and Pakis are squirming.Even KSA is cornered as they are scared of Al-Qaeda.

No wonder the Anglo-Saxons are pi**** off with Karzai.He knows to milk the goras and maintain independence.Not your typical tin pot dictator.One hopes the West doesnt bump off Karzai.

The photo in NYT linked above tells it all.Karzai has a bemused look while Brown looks constipated.

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 29 Jan 2010 10:57

RamaY wrote:I know it is a stupid idea. But -

What are the implications of India deploying its army, say 25,000 forces, to secure Kabul and train ANA in low-medium risk areas? I am assuming a 25k sustained force presense would lock down 75k worth of IA resources, that is ~10%.

This strategy might achieve the following results -

- Gives India necessary peace-time on its borders for next 10 years.
- Relieves India from this Cashmere pressure from west
- Gathers western support on its own anti-terror effort
- Allows it to engage TSP non-state actors on TSP soil

Appreciate some insight.

Well... it would be a very bold decision. Would change the entire view of how the world views India. I am not well skilled when compared to the gurus of BR to tell if this decision would be the right one or not. Maybe someone in BR can tell us if sending troops to Afghanistan is viable or not.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jan 2010 11:29

Not now. It will increase the fractures inside India and bring the war on terror inside. Better wait till the Afghans invite. Meantime increase the civilian support.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Jan 2010 15:41

The Americans, the British and the Afghans have made tall speeches in the London Conference on the so-called 'outreach programme'. Nobody knows how they will go about implementing their wish-list.

How will they send the feelers to the 'reluctant' or 'ideologically uncommitted' Taliban ? How would they verify their change of heart ? How will they be monitored ? The problem in Afghanistan has always been controlling the villages. If the 'deserting' Taliban are integrated into the Army or the Police force, there is a real possibility of them subverting from within as happened when the Soviets were training and equipping the Afghan National Army in the late 60s. Also, laying down arms is inconsequential. After all, a Taliban can only handover an AK47 to the officials before surrendering. What is an AK47 in Afghanistan ? The surrendering Taliban are also required to forswear violence and promise to treat the women folk gently. My only comment is

Karzai speaks of ending corruption in an endemically corrupt and illiterate country. This is neither going to happen, nor does it need to be on the top of the list. The major focus must be to recover the villages from Taliban control and retain the hold. The Afghans must realize that the Taliban will not retake the villages. There is no way the Government is going to win the support of the people unless they are rid of the fear of the brutal Taliban. By announcing the dates for the initial exit as mid-2011, the London Conference has done precisely the opposite. The Afghan villagers know that their national army and the police would be no match for the AQAM, for it won't be just the Taliban who will return by late 2011. The Taliban now know, they would have smelled it quite some time back, that it is only a matter of time for them. They have the support of the Pakistan Army, the political leadership there and the ordinary masses.

If the Taliban leadership decides to lay down arms, end violence and take part in governance by sharing power with Karzai, it will be nothing but hudabaiya, taqiyyah and all those similarly fine qualities rolled into one. Karzai should fear his life every minute, not that he is feeling safe today. If Karzai faces an IED today, he will face a bullet at point-blank or a stab in the back after the deal. He would be lucky if he does not meet with a more brutal end like poor Najibullah.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 29 Jan 2010 20:52

If GOI get out of Tamas mode and play cards right, in 5 years Afghanistan can be what Pak is to China. Even at slow pace , this has to have happen in near future as its in the interest of both parties. 5 years is still a long period to build few mutualy benefitial partnerships with local forces in AfPak neighborhood. The time ought to be utilized in building extra capacity to respond to Paki manouvering.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Jan 2010 21:37

negi wrote:No we have no business there and definitely no point in entering Af-Pak just because Unkil wants to save its posterior. This is a war ravaged country with lot of disgruntled and angry people (thanks to Unkil) and India has a plethora of its own problems to address rather than clean up someone's sh!t. Moreover we are talking about the Taliban here who have sympathizers and support from the TSPA and ISI and they might pull off some nasty HIED or a 09/11 type attack in India and unlike the Unkil we neither enjoy the geographical isolation nor means to ensure no such attacks take place.

Additional troops for embassies or protecting infrastructure projects is fine but any large mobilization of men and material should be avoided.As for people who are touting this as a Chanakian ploy to corner/surround TSP let them keep on dreaming we are happy with a carpet bombardment of TSP with dossiers.

Negi-ji

It is not about Unkil or Aunty or their incestrous child. It is about Indian Interests.

A (semi or full) taliban controlled afghanistan will result in the following for India

1. 1. Increased terrorism in India as the boldened Taliban/TSP would re-instigate JK Terrorism and even Khalistan.
2. The North-West frontier of Indian Subcontinent (that is POK, NA, Pakistan, Afghanistan) will be completely out of Indian influence and PRC will use this opportunity to cut of India’s land routes to CAR and ME regions (Remember Asian Highway program?)
3. TSPA+ISI’s nuisance value goes up for western powers.

Benefits for India by going into Afghanistan

• Earns good will with western powers that can be used to curtain TSPA/ISI to some extent and remove cashmere cloths off.
• Can build a military-operational relationship with Iran/Russia that will be useful in future.
• Can become the mediator between mass and Iran
• Constrains TSPA/ISI to pakistate
• Can have a LOS to NA/POK
• Gives the much needed time/space for economic development for next 5-10 years.
• Will test IA's troop mobilization capabilities over long periods and long distances.

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 29 Jan 2010 21:52

^^ Anyone wonder how the Balochistan Issue will be hit after and if (in the near future) we send troops to Afghanistan?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jan 2010 22:31

A few things to understand. Current problems in Afghanistan are purely a result of intra-Pashtun rivalry breakdown what not. The Pashtuns of Afghanistan and bordering areas are historically two major groups: Durranis (represented by Karzai) and the Ghilzais(Mostly Taliban now).

Afghanistan is a clannish land if not tribal. The Durranis have legitimacy for rulership. The Ghilzais have been trying since a long time to overthrow the Durranis. All the Khalq (Amin, Taraki and Najibullah) were Ghilzai! And the Taliban (Omar and others) too.

Now corruption in a war ravaged country is called sharing spoils and building coalitions in modern countries like USA.

Karzai still has the most representative government in Afghanistan. He or some Durrani will still be the leader of Afghanistan for legitimacy.

If he can wean away some of the Ghilzais just as Ahmed Shad Abdali did he can restore some semblance of peace and stability. The TSP supports the Taliban as it thinks that Karzai can be thrown out and the later can rule. However it ignores the demographics and sentiment. So Taliban(under fundoos) restoration wont happen with popular support.

The British know all this but they are weak and want to go back to Europe. The US doesnt know and doesnt care so long as TSP is accomodated so they can declare victory and go home. The Afghan war is costing them economically. Read Gates interviews to Barnett in Esquire.
The game is to somehow make India pay (money, territory and what not) for all their deployments.

The tiger has to realise its not lamb.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Jan 2010 23:42

ramana wrote:
The British know all this but they are weak and want to go back to Europe. The US doesnt know and doesnt care so long as TSP is accomodated so they can declare victory and go home. The Afghan war is costing them economically. Read Gates interviews to Barnett in Esquire.
The game is to somehow make India pay (money, territory and what not) for all their deployments.

The tiger has to realise its not lamb.

Ramana-ji,

What is this special "Value Proposition" that TSP offers to USA that is important to unkil? Unkil is willing to pee on India, Afghanistan, even Iran for TSP.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 29 Jan 2010 23:51

Posting without comment ...
Afghan Men Struggle With Sexual Identity, Study Finds

An unclassified study from a military research unit in southern Afghanistan details how homosexual behavior is unusually common among men in the large ethnic group known as Pashtuns -- though they seem to be in complete denial about it.

Apparently, according to the report, Pashtun men interpret the Islamic prohibition on homosexuality to mean they cannot "love" another man -- but that doesn't mean they can't use men for "sexual gratification."

The U.S. army medic also told members of the research unit that she and her colleagues had to explain to a local man how to get his wife pregnant.

The report said: "When it was explained to him what was necessary, he reacted with disgust and asked, 'How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean, when one could be with a man, who is clean? Surely this must be wrong.'"

The report also detailed a disturbing practice in which older "men of status" keep young boys on hand for sexual relationships. One of the country's favorite sayings, the report said, is "women are for children, boys are for pleasure."

The report concluded that the widespread homosexual behavior stems from several factors, including the "severe segregation" of women in the society and the "prohibitive" cost of marriage.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 30 Jan 2010 00:43

ramana wrote:The British know all this but they are weak and want to go back to Europe. The US doesnt know and doesnt care so long as TSP is accomodated so they can declare victory and go home. The Afghan war is costing them economically. Read Gates interviews to Barnett in Esquire.
The game is to somehow make India pay (money, territory and what not) for all their deployments.

The tiger has to realise its not lamb.

Makes sense, but after a decade of war, I wonder what is meant by "declare victory" for unkil? Defeating Ghilzais? Were they so naive in thinking that suddenly the centuries old rivalries will end and they can keep their base there forever like Germany, Koreas etc? TSP in the meantime is getting absolutely free ride to unkil coffers, like a pimp?

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 30 Jan 2010 00:48

chanakyaa wrote:
ramana wrote:The British know all this but they are weak and want to go back to Europe. The US doesnt know and doesnt care so long as TSP is accomodated so they can declare victory and go home. The Afghan war is costing them economically. Read Gates interviews to Barnett in Esquire.
The game is to somehow make India pay (money, territory and what not) for all their deployments.

The tiger has to realise its not lamb.
Makes sense, but after a decade of war, I wonder what is meant by "declare victory" for unkil? Defeating Ghilzais? Were they so naive in thinking that suddenly the centuries old rivalries will end and they can keep their base there forever like Germany, Koreas etc? TSP in the meantime is getting absolutely free ride to unkil coffers, like a pimp?

The Americans are looking for excuses to get out of Afghanistan. They have realized that being in Afghanistan is of no use and is hurting their economy. Taliban lies in Pakistan and they cannot afford invading a nuclear armed country.
Americans are waiting for another election in Afghanistan. They would then claim Democracy has been installed in the country and the Afghan Army is equipped to fight another Taliban invasion and that will be considered a Victory in the Western media. Americans would happily get out of Afg.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 30 Jan 2010 02:20

RamaY wrote: Ramana-ji,

What is this special "Value Proposition" that TSP offers to USA that is important to unkil? Unkil is willing to pee on India, Afghanistan, even Iran for TSP.

unkil used paquis to lay a bear trap, and the bear was badly mauled. someone used the paquis to lay an eagle trap, and the eagle is hurting. maybe the eagle will flee the same as the bear. the paqui will rejoice and the khilafat movement will have achieved stage II of its global objectives. ofcourse the paqui will remain a condom, whilst the powers that be move on up.

what i dont yet understand is if the eagle trap has been laid only by the bearded ones or if the dragon has something to do with it

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 30 Jan 2010 03:20

The money India seems to have wasted in Afghanistan could well have been used to destabilise pakistan. A billion dollars is a lot of money in a land where people happily wear soosai vests for a meager 1000$.Aah !!! i have to calculate how many IED mubaraks can a billion dollar do in pakistan ...

Just GoI needs to give some moral support to Baloch and Pashtuns who are anti-pakistan. Let us start boiling pakistan. Pakis have been providing moral support to Kashmiri militants for long . Now it's time for India to provide moral support to Baloch and Pashtun nationalists.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jan 2010 03:27

durgesh, Rebuilding Afghanistan does that very purpose. Dont you see the takleef. As Afghania stablises TSP will boil by itself.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 30 Jan 2010 03:45

India willing to try out 'good Taliban'

New Delhi: Swept away by an international "consensus" led by US, UK and Pakistan, India has to swallow a bitter pill on the Taliban. With the London conference on Afghanistan clearing the way for a new chapter on negotiation with the Taliban, India is grudgingly coming round to accepting the new reality.

Speaking exclusively to TOI from London, foreign minister S M Krishna said, "We're willing to give it a try. If the Taliban meet the three conditions put forward -- acceptance of the Afghan constitution, severing connections with Al Qaida and other terrorist groups, and renunciation of violence, and they are accepted in the mainstream of Afghan politics and society, we could do business."
...
...
But he was clear about India's fundamental discomfort with the decision. India's position and assessment of the Taliban remains unchanged, Krishna said. "We consider them to be terrorists, who have close links with Al Qaida and other terrorist groups." He said India has seen the Taliban from up close, and more deeply than others ("they see them from far away" and through a blinkered vision). "We're next door and our experiences make it difficult for us to differentiate between good or bad Taliban," he said.

...
...
Pakistan, on the other hand, is calling the shots, despite the fact that majority of Afghans prefer India to Pakistan. But Pakistan is leveraging its continuing and close contacts with the Taliban and Al Qaida leadership to help work out a political deal that can get the US out of Afghanistan. In this, Pakistan's ISI, which has been pilloried for its terror links, is keen to find a way of worming its way back.
...
...