Afghanistan News & Discussion

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

:rotfl:

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."
If they accept those three conditions, they will become more than good, almost virtuous Taliban. Why they will become Redshirts.

Great ennunciation SMKji.


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
Good stance to show India is most unwillingly agreeing to those three conditions.


Who was that complaing about a bad seat for India? Who cares where you are seated when you make the vehicle go where you want it?
D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by D Roy »

The only thing that will happen if the Goras go down the good taliban bad taliban route is the partition of what we call Afghanistan.

And won't be surprised if this time Migs fly over Afghan airspace to give air support to the re-formed northern alliance against the "good" taliban.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by CRamS »

I asked this question a long time ago, namely, how possibly potent to US interests could a bunch of Ak-47 wielding thugs in Afganistha be? After 9/11, there was this great romanticism with so called "war on terror", with footbal players showing off their machismo joining the war, Jeraldo type maacho comic journalists making a fool of themsles "dodging bullets" and vowing to get OBL etc. All that romanticism has evaporated. At the end of the day cold real-politick calculation revelaed that as long as the thugs in the region don't threaten western interests, TSP keeps India busy and provides access to central asia, nothing much else is at stake. Hence the need to keep western etch&dee intact and run.
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by Airavat »

chanakyaa wrote:TSP in the meantime is getting absolutely free ride to unkil coffers, like a pimp?
We don't need London conference, the West will be defeated :mrgreen:

Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US Dr Maliha Lodhi on Thursday said the London Conference was not a big success and it could not bring any big change in the given situation. She said if America or Europe thought that the Taliban could be weakened militarily or their loyalties could be bought, it was a mistake.

Talking to ‘Aaj Kamran Khan Kay Saath’, she further said the present conference was the 6th in nine years and the Obama administration had given three Afghan strategies in just one year. Besides, 2009 proved to be the worst-ever year for America and Nato because record deaths of their personnel took place. Secondly, the Afghan elections were rigged, causing a crisis there. The third aspect is that the public support for the Afghan war was dwindling over the past years in those countries.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by shyamd »

Taliban hold secret talks with UN envoy in Dubai’
Officials confirm that there is split in the Taliban with a middle and younger cadre appearing to be ready for reconciliation with Kabul, and the paper said it was not immediately clear which section had taken part in the Dubai meet.

“We believe there are mid-level commanders who are not averse to rapprochement as they feel that the war is dragging too long. And there is a section which is opposed to fighting on behalf of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda,” the officials said.

The Afghan President has already indicated holding of meeting of tribal elders in the next few weeks to put into action his plans to reach out to the Taliban.

“We must reach out to all of our countrymen, especially our disenchanted brothers, who are not part of al-Qaeda or other terror outfits, who are ready to accept the Afghan Constitution,” he said.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25382
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by SSridhar »

RamaY wrote: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.
Here is what the US Defence Planning Guide for the post cold war era after 1990s states, inter alia,

“We should discourage Indian hegemonic aspirations over the other states in South Asia and on the Indian Ocean. With regard to Pakistan, a constructive US-Pakistani military relationship will be an important element in our strategy to promote stable security conditions in Southwest Asia and Central Asia. We should therefore endeavour to rebuild our military relationship given acceptable resolution of our nuclear concerns”.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10205
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by sum »

India needs to relook its Afghan policy

Comments by External Affairs Minister SM Krishna on the eve of the London [ Images ] conference on Afghanistan, that there is little difference between the "good" and the "bad" Taliban [ Images ], are a manifestation of the schizophrenic disconnect within the Indian establishment over its policy on Afghanistan—and its neighbour, Pakistan.

Committing $ 1.2 bn in aid to Afghanistan, which makes India [ Images ] the sixth-largest donor in the world, has created an unprecedented space for manoeuvre in the Hindukush heartland. With projects in every district in Afghanistan, from electricity transmission lines to training women in the SEWA way, India's benign presence has been vindicated by a recent study commissioned by the BBC, ABC and ARD — the British, American and German broadcasters, respectively — which found that 71 per cent of the Afghan population was in favour of India playing a big role. And yet, SM Krishna threw it all away in London.
The tragedy is that even as Krishna spoke for the country in London, a change in India's mindset — attitude, policy, strategy, call it what you will—is already under way in Delhi [ Images ]. The establishment core in another part of South Block is preparing to "evolve" its own black-and-white positions on the Taliban and present a more "nuanced" approach to the global community.

The argument behind this significantly sophisticated approach is that India must return to playing a much bigger role in the ever-changing great game in the innards of Asia. Of course, oil and gas and all those crucial transit routes into central Asia over which Afghanistan sits, like a veritable Nandi bull, are terribly important.
Actually, this strategy is not new. It dates back to the first year of National Security Adviser Shiv Shanker Menon as foreign secretary in 2006-07, when the first ideas of distinguishing between the "good" and "bad" Taliban were floated around the corridors of South Block. Menon had just returned from Pakistan as high commissioner, all hell was breaking loose in the Af-Pak region, and that's when ideas beyond the realm of common thought and speech began to be articulated.

In fact, the evolution of India's strategy on Afghanistan—which Krishna either missed in London or didn't want to talk about—is really its first big strategic move on the international stage, in the wake of the Indo-US nuclear deal, and it's all about announcing that India is now part of the solution in Afghanistan.

Of course, all the western powers in London didn't want to discuss the parameters of such a "regional solution" in public glare, even though Gordon Brown [ Images ] had mooted the idea and US leaders like Hillary Clinton [ Images ], Robert Gates and Richard Holbrooke [ Images ] had confirmed it. All of them had told Delhi that they wanted India to play a bigger role, including training Afghan security forces.

Here is the western argument favouring India: Pakistan is playing fast and loose with the Afghan Taliban, Iran can't be trusted, China is too much of a competitor to also be allowed to win in Afghanistan, while Russia [ Images ] ... well, Russia is already a big power. That leaves India, a benign presence with both civilian and security capabilities, to upgrade its presence, so that the US and NATO forces can go home peacefully.

Except, the Pakistani veto hangs over the West. The Pakistani army and the ISI, which is playing such a crucial role in battling the Pakistani Taliban in the Swat and Malakand valleys and now in South Waziristan, have told the Americans that they would not tolerate an enhanced Indian influence in Pashtun areas like Kandahar and Jalalabad and in the rest of the country.

This is what explains Pakistan's oft-repeated statement that only Afghanistan's "contiguous neighbours" can be allowed to participate in any "regional" mechanism or structure that may be set up to help the Afghans take charge of their own future. (India, to counter this, has now begun saying that it is a neighbour as Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir [ Images ] hugs the Wakhan corridor.) That is why Turkey, under Pakistani pressure, did not invite India to participate in its day-long conference on Afghanistan in Istanbul on Monday (on the eve of the London conference). That is why several influential Pakistani analysts link a resolution of the Kashmir dispute with promises to the US that they will upgrade the fight against the Afghan Taliban.
So, with SSM now the new czar, will we see his ideas slowlo come into the picture and India begin to assert herself more in A'tan?
Malayappan
BRFite
Posts: 462
Joined: 18 Jul 2005 00:11

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by Malayappan »

Hamid Karzai fails Taliban who gave up arms
Ajan changed sides after falling out with Haqqani’s “Pakistan Taliban”, so called because they allegedly receive money from Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI.
He said he received 200,000-500,000 Pakistani rupees (£1,500-£3,700) every month, either smuggled from Dubai, or in bags of cash that would fill the back of pick-up trucks from Pakistan.
“We were on top of the mountain and Haqqani’s people ordered us to the district office here in Pul-i-Alam, to destroy a United Nations vehicle to make them leave,” he said. “I’m 28 years old. I just didn’t want to do this any more.”
Yes, this is from a newspaper published in the UK, not India.
Malayappan
BRFite
Posts: 462
Joined: 18 Jul 2005 00:11

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by Malayappan »

Not for Sale from the Newsweek, says "Kabul's Western allies want to pay Taliban fighters to quit the insurgency. Lots of luck"
Even if Karzai and his U.S.-NATO allies offer great gobs of money to defecting Taliban, where could they go with it? They couldn't go home for fear of being put to death by their former comrades in arms. They wouldn't want to live in expensive Kabul, where people on the streets would make fun of their country ways, huge black turbans, and kohl eyeliner. They hate everything that Kabul represents: a sinful place of coed schools, dancing, drinking, music, movies, prostitution, and the accumulation of wealth
in the countryside, most ordinary Pashtuns regard themselves as the big losers in the past eight years of Karzai's rule and foreign military presence. As they see it, accurately or not, their ethnic rivals—the Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazara—have received the spoils of the Taliban's defeat, while Pashtun villages have suffered from official abuse, corruption, neglect, and war.
The London conference was a futile exercise. Once again Washington and its allies are looking for solutions that don't exist: a new Karzai, bribing the Taliban, negotiating with the Taliban. No Taliban leader of any stature seems to have entered into negotiations thus far.
Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2177
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by Varoon Shekhar »

A simple statement by India( or anyone) such as, neither the Taliban nor their ISI/Pak backers are legitimate, would be worth a thousand more words. Only a regime that believes in democracy, pluralism and an independent(as far as possible) foreign policy have any legitimacy. India should state that entities not striving for these goals, need to be isolated and defeated. And yes, of course, forcefully assert that India itself has every right to be there; it's not an interloper or a rogue, nor unpopular or non-progressive.
KaranR
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 22 Jan 2009 00:28

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by KaranR »

We don't need London conference, the West will be defeated :mrgreen:

Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US Dr Maleeha Lodhi on Thursday said the London Conference was not a big success and it could not bring any big change in the given situation. She said if America or Europe thought that the Taliban could be weakened militarily or their loyalties could be bought, it was a mistake
She means Pakistanis can be bought and in turn they can purchase the Taliban-Tubbies.
So please keep the cheque coming in from Uncle Sam and Euro.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by CRamS »

Varoon Shekhar wrote:A simple statement by India( or anyone) such as, neither the Taliban nor their ISI/Pak backers are legitimate, would be worth a thousand more words. Only a regime that believes in democracy, pluralism and an independent(as far as possible) foreign policy have any legitimacy. India should state that entities not striving for these goals, need to be isolated and defeated. And yes, of course, forcefully assert that India itself has every right to be there; it's not an interloper or a rogue, nor unpopular or non-progressive.
You got to be kidding. India does not have the power differential visa vi TSP nor 3 and half friends to aver something like that and make it stick. That would make TSP TFTA go ballistic on the SDREs impinging on their own backyard. Plus, TSP will sieze the moment and do an equal equal on Kashmir. They will say that if India believes in democracy, why don't they offer Kashmiri Muslims the 'right of self determination' (meaning the right to seceede). And then it will become the familiar verbal back & forth volleys between SDREs and TFTA; while Uncle will sieze his own moment and say if both wants he will mediate :-). Thats one of the reasons IMO as to why India is coy about drawing attention to how pupular it is with Afghans and how much TSP is hated. Once again TSP will do an equal equal and bring attention to how much India is hated by Kashmiri Muslims. TSP and its 3 and half friends have managed to bring in Kashmir alongside Af-Pak, putting India on the defensive. All India can do is keep quiet, do good work, compile dossiers, and sing aman ki aasha as TSP cocks a snook at India and satisfies its periodic India blood thrist by attacking Indian interests in Afganisthan or something more daring like Mumbai.
Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2177
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by Varoon Shekhar »

CRamS, you're right, but India should have the intestinal fortitude to distinguish its behaviour and ideology from that of Pakistan, and include Kashmir if need be. Stress the democratic, pluralistic character of Kashmir, with its Hindu, Buddhist and Moslem sections; point out that one can be an atheist or agnostic openly in Kashmir, whereas definitely not with the Taliban. If Pakistan ridiculously equates Indian involvement in Afghanistan with Pakistan's 'involvement' in Kashmir, have the moral argument ready. And also suggest to Pakistan that its entities can be permitted to set up beneficial projects in Kashmir, the way India is doing in Afghanistan. And don't forget to mention India's 2,000+ year historical connection in Afghanistan, to the time when Afghanistan was Hindu-Buddhist.
Bhaskar
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 23:46

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by Bhaskar »

Has anyone heard about the Farkhor Airbase? I think its India's only military base in a foreign country. It borders Afghanistan and it can be used for Deployments into Afghanistan and airstrikes in Pakistan/Afghanistan.
KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4849
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by KLNMurthy »

CRamS wrote: You got to be kidding. India does not have the power differential visa vi TSP nor 3 and half friends to aver something like that and make it stick. That would make TSP TFTA go ballistic on the SDREs impinging on their own backyard. Plus, TSP will sieze the moment and do an equal equal on Kashmir. They will say that if India believes in democracy, why don't they offer Kashmiri Muslims the 'right of self determination' (meaning the right to seceede). And then it will become the familiar verbal back & forth volleys between SDREs and TFTA; while Uncle will sieze his own moment and say if both wants he will mediate :-). Thats one of the reasons IMO as to why India is coy about drawing attention to how pupular it is with Afghans and how much TSP is hated. Once again TSP will do an equal equal and bring attention to how much India is hated by Kashmiri Muslims. TSP and its 3 and half friends have managed to bring in Kashmir alongside Af-Pak, putting India on the defensive. All India can do is keep quiet, do good work, compile dossiers, and sing aman ki aasha as TSP cocks a snook at India and satisfies its periodic India blood thrist by attacking Indian interests in Afganisthan or something more daring like Mumbai.
Two points:
1. Articulating our ideological and moral position clearly doesn't necessarily mean that we are going to wage war against TSP or anyone else who is against it. It does mean that we will keep averring it, and defend ourselves against any attack. Note that the attacks are already taking place, and are unlikely to get worse solely because we state our position clearly. They will, however, remove any confusion in our own minds (first and foremost), and challenge our countrymen to come together on the values that are asserted.

2. Do we really think that the case of J&K Muslims == the case of Tibetans / Balochis et al? I assume not (on BRF anyway). In that case, we should not run away from knee-jerk rhetorical challenges from moral delinquents and intellectual midgets like TSPians. Briefly put, being "for" democracy and pluralism also means being ready to defend against assaults on the same, that too on our soil, which is what we are doing when fighting the insurgency in J&K.

Just to give an analogy, the American Confederate States had a legal right to both secede and keep blacks as slaves; however, a democratic (more democratic than the South anyway) Union under Lincoln chose to fight and crush them, and today no one says that he was wrong and undemocratic to have done so.

I leave it as an exercise to the reader :-) to articulate whether the morality of the old South was better or worse than the morality of TSP.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by CRamS »

Varun/KLN,

I agree with you guys, and short of war, India must and should be able to articulate its stand. I was just pointing out current Indian dispenastion, the govt and elites in India are just not up to it. Perhaphs they are a reflection of the populace at large, I don't know.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10205
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by sum »

Bhaskar wrote:Has anyone heard about the Farkhor Airbase? I think its India's only military base in a foreign country. It borders Afghanistan and it can be used for Deployments into Afghanistan and airstrikes in Pakistan/Afghanistan.
IIRC, no IAF planes are currently placed there?
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by Airavat »

India and Russia talk Afghanistan

Though India and Russia are not involved in the plan to reconcile the Taliban or are troop-contributing countries, they have a stake in Afghanistan. It is understood that Russia is open to the idea of training Afghan police and willing to undertake reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan with the western funds. Mr Patrushev also brought up the issue of drug production in Afghanistan and is understood to have told Mr Menon that the western countries also needed to address this issue and stop drug production. Neither countries are convinced about the reconciliation plan or with the effort to talk to the moderate Taliban.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by RamaY »

My Road Map for Afghanistan using the below map

1. US/NATO cedes the control of low and medium risk provinces to UN. Bharat, Russia and Iran will contribute to UN forces to maintain peace in these provinces and train ANA. The cost of these forces will be sponsored by UN by channeling Afghan-Donors money.

2. US/NATO forces will focus their energies in High and Extreme risk areas while ANA is developed into a 500,000 strong force and is strong enough to replace US/NATO. At the end of the day ANA should be strong enough to protect Afghanistan’s territorial and political sovereignty.

3. US/NATO will negotiate with IOC, Taliban and Pakistan on the future of united Pakthunkwa so that permanent peace can be achieved in Pak-Af region by addressing the just demands of Pashtun tribes.

4. Since Pakistan is a developed nation with strong military, political, scientific and administrative institutions, US will divert its AID money to Pakthunkwa and Afghanistan regions.

Image
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Take Iran out of the equation.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by RamaY »

ramana wrote:Take Iran out of the equation.
Ramanaji,

My calculation is that India would need Iranian help to support and sustain a large, long-term military engagement in Afghanistan. I also would like India to play a proactive role in a positive-engagement of Iran with rest of the world.

Perhaps India can keep this at bilateral level for the time being.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

It can be bilateral arrangement with Iran. Bringing in Iran will cause automatic no from US.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by RamaY »

ramana wrote:It can be bilateral arrangement with Iran. Bringing in Iran will cause automatic no from US.
Highly possible. Another strategy could be that India proposes the west that both Afghanistan and Pakthukwa regions can be devoid of the logistics problem, if Baluchistan is made an autonomous province (pending independence, to be determined on its support for GWOT) to provide alternative logistics routes to Afghanistan and Pakthunkwa.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34917
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by chetak »

ramana wrote:It can be bilateral arrangement with Iran. Bringing in Iran will cause automatic no from US.
We are already out of pocket more than a billion dollars on this afghan fiasco.

Cozying up to iran will cost us plenty big, peddling their gas pipeline and what not.

They will squeeze us financially till it hurts and at the end of the day it may just be a taquiya move.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by RamaY »

Some random thoughts

Image
Bhaskar
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 23:46

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by Bhaskar »

sum wrote:
Bhaskar wrote:Has anyone heard about the Farkhor Airbase? I think its India's only military base in a foreign country. It borders Afghanistan and it can be used for Deployments into Afghanistan and airstrikes in Pakistan/Afghanistan.
IIRC, no IAF planes are currently placed there?
I think you are confusing between the Farkhor Airbase with the Ayni Airbase. The Ayni Airbase is west of the capital Dushanbe whereas Farkhor lies with the border of Afghanistan.
India was evicted of Ayni Airbase after Russia's disapproval seeing India's greater ties with the United States.
Coming to Farkhor, India has a permanent Airbase there and there are russian Mig-29's stationed (about a dozen but I am not sure).
The IAF never talks about this base as it doesn't want to Pakistan/China or Russia to pressurize Tajikistan to evict India out of the base.

Farkhor is the only military base of India outside the country after India got evicted off of Ayni. There were plans to make a military base in Mongolia, but due to fears of a Chinese retaliation, the plans were cancelled.
Last edited by Bhaskar on 03 Feb 2010 08:43, edited 1 time in total.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by Neshant »

We are already out of pocket more than a billion dollars on this afghan fiasco.
I suggest not spending any more money in Afghanistan until it becomes clear how/what influence India holds there.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10205
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by sum »

I think you are confusing between the Farkhor Airbase with the Ayni Airbase. The Ayni Airbase is west of the capital Dushanbe whereas Farkhor lies with the border of Afghanistan.
India was evicted of Ayni Airbase after Russia's disapproval seeing India's greater ties with the United States.
Thanks for the clarification.

Is there no way of getting a foothold into Ayni back?
Bhaskar
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 23:46

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by Bhaskar »

sum wrote:
I think you are confusing between the Farkhor Airbase with the Ayni Airbase. The Ayni Airbase is west of the capital Dushanbe whereas Farkhor lies with the border of Afghanistan.
India was evicted of Ayni Airbase after Russia's disapproval seeing India's greater ties with the United States.
Thanks for the clarification.

Is there no way of getting a foothold into Ayni back?
Wish there was... India faced eviction due to Russia's disapproval and increasing Tajikistani-Pakistani relations and as President Zardari made a visit to Tajikistan in July of 2009, he clearly said that India is using these bases to encirlce Pakistan and for its use getting a Military hold of Afghanistan. The Tajiks are reluctant to evict India off of Farkhor as Russia supports that base as India uses it to secure goods coming from Russia. But, getting a base in Ayni would give India a greater depth in Central Asia through which the Russians weren't very pleased with. India had placed 150 Engineers and Mi-17's there before being evicted.
In the end, getting Ayni back would solely rely on pleasing the Russians.
Talks started for a base in Mongolia. If not Ayni, there are other places for the Indian Air Force to set their base up in.

Sorry for going Off-Topic, but the talk of Farkhor was necessary as its the closest Indian military base to Afghanistan.
shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by shaardula »

Karzai Der Spiegel Interview
'There Has To Be Peace Now'
01/31/2010
In an exclusive SPIEGEL interview, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, 52, discusses prospects for reconciliation with the Taliban, his difficult relationship with Washington and the Germans' role in the country following the deadly September bombing near Kunduz that caused numerous civilian deaths.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by Prem »

Note from Afghanistan: “Make Sure What You are Ridiculing is Not Your Own Beard” by Rameen Javid

http://keridouglas.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... een-javid/

It has interesting observation, Afghans long for Dr Najibullah's liberal days I.e its Pukes who are imposing Talibanizm on them.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4727
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by putnanja »

The audacity of Afghan peace hopes - M.K. Bhadrakumar
...
The fact of the matter is that the decisions of the London conference not only constitute a 5-year road map for conflict resolution in Afghanistan but are destined to impact on regional security and stability for a long time to come. The decisions run on four different but inter-connected templates. First and foremost, what seemed to some a heretic idea until recently has come to habitate the centerpiece of the political agenda, namely, that the war needs to be brought to an end by “reintegrating” and “reconciling” the Taliban in the Afghan national mainstream. Second, whatever residual war effort remains will focus on persuading or coercing the Taliban to negotiate. Third, the so-called “Afghanisation” process will be speeded up so that by July next year the drawdown of American forces in Afghanistan can commence. Fourth, enduring peace in the Hindu Kush can be attained only in a regional environment in which Afghanistan’s neighbours cooperate by setting aside their competing rivalries and by resolving their outstanding disputes.
...
...
For the Pakistan-hating, China-bashing veterans of our strategic community, all this must have come as a stunning bolt from the blue. But they are only at fault. The Indian strategic thinkers should not have been such incorrigible fundamentalists to fail to appreciate the shades of political Islam or discern the western propaganda about the Taliban. Mixing up the Taliban completely with the adversarial mindset of the Pakistani security agencies was equally wrong. Overlooking the indigenous roots of a homegrown movement was always injudicious. The triumphalism over Taliban’s ouster in 2001 was unwarranted, as it was never in doubt that such a grassroots movement cannot be expected to simply fade away in the Afghan-Pakistani political landscape; a return of the native was inevitable. Lastly, the U.S. intervention in 2001 was quintessentially a contrived revenge act on the part of the George W. Bush administration precipitated by a cataclysmic backdrop unparalleled in America’s history; to be sure, the world community condoned it but as time passed, it lost its “raison d’etre” and became hard to justify.

...
...
Where did the establishment go wrong? First, our flawed Afghan policy stands exposed. It has a thirteen-year old history. It was circa 1997-98 that Delhi probably began sliding into a strategic mistake by regarding Afghanistan as a theatre of India-Pakistan rivalry. That was a reversal of the Indian policy, which was best evident during the 1992-95 period when despite overtures from the Mujahideen, the Narasimha Rao government stubbornly refused to get involved in any form in Afghanistan’s fratricidal strife — although the temptation to pay Pakistan back in the same coin for the low-intensity war in J&K (and the Valley was witnessing incessant bloodshed at that time) was always lurking in the shadows. The level-headed estimation in South Block was that India-Pakistan differences were already far too vexed and blood-soaked to add yet another dimension to them.
...
...
What lies ahead? Make no mistake that the Taliban are returning to Afghanistan’s power structure — quite plausibly, under Mullah Omar’s leadership. The U.S. expectation to “split” the Taliban will likely prove misplaced. As months ebb away, fighting intensifies and Omar in no particular hurry, Washington’s pleas to Islamabad will become more and more insistent to bring the so-called Quetta Shura to the negotiating table. Pakistan (or, more appropriately, Pakistani military) will have the option to cooperate or lapse into sophistry and claim helplessness. How the Pakistani military chooses to play will almost entirely depend on the pound of flesh it can extract from the U.S. At a minimum, there will be an India-dimension to it — thanks to our flawed Afghan policy and our failure to develop diversified consultations with like-minded countries such as China, Iran and Russia that have high stakes in regional security and stability. The silver lining is that once in power, the “Afghan-ness” of the Taliban is bound to surface.

...
...
Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2177
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by Varoon Shekhar »

Bhadrakumar is totally, inexplicably non-judgemental about the Taliban, and their various programmes, including forcing Hindus to wear yellow badges and banning women from working outside the home.He finds no time to comment on their anti-pluralist, anti-secular, anti-liberal and anti-modern ideology, either. I wonder if he's ever so equivocal about the most aggressive Hindu organisations like the VHP, who are a lot more liberal and tolerant than the Taliban on their best day.
KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4849
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by KLNMurthy »

Varoon Shekhar wrote:Bhadrakumar is totally, inexplicably non-judgemental about the Taliban, and their various programmes, including forcing Hindus to wear yellow badges and banning women from working outside the home.He finds no time to comment on their anti-pluralist, anti-secular, anti-liberal and anti-modern ideology, either. I wonder if he's ever so equivocal about the most aggressive Hindu organisations like the VHP, who are a lot more liberal and tolerant than the Taliban on their best day.
Lot of times these strategy guru types of India sound like the beaten-down elderly uncle of the family who berates the daughter of the house and her brothers for the crime of being assaulted by the local hoodlums. The entire message boils down to, "why did you unnecessarily provoke those fellows, I say? Don't you know they will do this only?"
shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by shaardula »

Prem wrote:Note from Afghanistan: “Make Sure What You are Ridiculing is Not Your Own Beard” by Rameen Javid

http://keridouglas.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... een-javid/

It has interesting observation, Afghans long for Dr Najibullah's liberal days I.e its Pukes who are imposing Talibanizm on them.
no, the more interesting part is where the author rips apart theory-walas. its even become mythical - the afghan persona. a lot of people are invested in covering up their shoddiness by constructing some sort of super human afghan who supplants his own reality and experience and lives according to the monchromatic, conveniently reductionist theories of theory-walas.
Last edited by shaardula on 04 Feb 2010 07:15, edited 1 time in total.
Malayappan
BRFite
Posts: 462
Joined: 18 Jul 2005 00:11

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by Malayappan »

A Profile of the Taliban's Propaganda Tactics by Abdulhadi Hairan, an Afghan journalist. He also gives his perspective on the different talibans. Nothing new for the regulars, but useful reference and archival value
Malayappan
BRFite
Posts: 462
Joined: 18 Jul 2005 00:11

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by Malayappan »

When you read MKB, you need to parse a lot. He has some hobby horses and he is virulently anti-american. Having said that he is well informed on Afghanistan - Iran - Central Asian issues, and serves as an important alternative viewpoint. He has always been consistent in his 'understanding' of the taliban pov. Ignore his pet peeves, and parse, there will always be some small nuggets hidden away. And if he is writing about things like Indo American relationships, or India's (positive) ambitions, read and move on!
Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2177
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by Varoon Shekhar »

"Lot of times these strategy guru types of India sound like the beaten-down elderly uncle of the family who berates the daughter of the house and her brothers for the crime of being assaulted by the local hoodlums. The entire message boils down to, "why did you unnecessarily provoke those fellows, I say? Don't you know they will do this only?" "

Excellent analogy, and it explains many Indian non-governmental statements. Blaming the victim for the crime, or placing the entire responsibility for violence on simply non-provoking of the violent party by the policies and comments of the citizenry or government. Nothing less than angelic behaviour from the victimised group or country will suffice in this approach.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Afghanistan News & Discussion

Post by shyamd »

India, Iran discuss Afghanistan
India and Iran have held extensive discussions on the developments in the region including Afghanistan as part of their annual diplomatic consultations.

Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao headed the Indian delegation, while Mohammad Ali Fathollahi, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Asia and Oceania led the Iranian side during the two-day dialogue.

Diplomatic sources told The Hindu that substantial discussions were held on “regional issues” including the recent developments regarding Afghanistan and the transit route from Iranian port of Chabahar to Afghanistan, which Iran and India have jointly developed.

In the past, both India and Iran have been wary of engaging the so called “moderate Taliban” in Afghanistan. However, last month’s conference in London, in which Iran did not participate, has decided to create a fund in anticipation that resources would be needed to draw a significant number of Taliban into the Afghan mainstream.

Discussions were also held on transit, including further activation of the North-South corridor which has been a joint initiative of India, Iran and Russia.

Sources said Ms. Rao had an “excellent” meeting, which lasted for more than an hour on Tuesday, with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

She also met Iran’s point person on nuclear talks, Saeed Jalili, widely known as a confidant of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. Jalili had led the Iranian delegation for talks, held last year in Geneva, in which the Americans had also participated.

He also led the Iranian side to talks held in Autumn in Vienna, where a deal was proposed to swap Iran’s stocks of lightly enriched uranium with atomic fuel rods for use in a Tehran research reactor engaged in producing medical isotopes.
Post Reply