Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Mar 2010 11:48

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryRev ... art004.pdf

A nice link showing the parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan. And how the situation can be reversed if the Administration has takes a more thoughtful approach the the problem . Few relevant portions in quotes.

The tragedy of Afghanistan is that there is a political solution, but we keep ignoring it…

The same fatal axes of failure loom before the United States now in Afghanistan, and time is running out. The United States has perhaps the duration of this presidential administration remaining before NATO peels away, the Afghan and American populations grow tired of the U.S. engagement (a process which has already begun), and the Taliban consolidates its jihad into a critical mass as it did in 1996. It is not possible to create a legitimate national government in that time. A ceremonial monarchy would have provided the necessary traditional legitimacy for an elected government in Kabul, but since the Afghan monarchy was eliminated by the U.S. and the U.N. against the express wishes of more than three-quarters of the delegates at the Emergency Loya Jirga in 2002 (the single most foolish act of the war and the Afghan equivalent of the Diem coup in 1963), the United States must now embrace the only remaining secular alternative to the religious legitimacy of the Taliban—the traditional legitimacy of local tribal leadership.

The loss in Afghanistan is a foregone conclusion as per this article if the current policies continue. But for the Gurus the war may have already been lost.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Mar 2010 23:38

The look-and-feel is being controlled from Pakistan. And, as long as that continues, why is it so difficult to understand that the glasses will be colored? And, why is so difficult to understand that this is an Islamic movement? Meant for export. How much longer will we all have to wait till the next 911? One made in Pakistan this time.

Hamid Gul has not gone away. His thinking will not go away. And as long as that remains there will always be a 911 in the making. We cannot escape that.

And, it seems nor can we escape PC behavior. Courts, democracies, etc, which cannot live happily with 911s for too long.

On a slightly different note, what I find funny is "political solutions". Which end of the spectrum is the question I have. But, ..............................

Does the US Congress have a concept of vote of confidence? Democracies should have one.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 21 Mar 2010 08:10

India against US reconciliation with Taliban

New Delhi believes that Washington needs to decide if it wants to be responsible for establishing a regime that is “a complete antithesis to the lofty ideas of human rights and women’s empowerment that the US champions worldwide.” Highly-placed sources said that New Delhi conveyed its concern over the pitfalls of a move for reconciliation with the Taliban to the visiting US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian affairs Robert Blake
...
...
New Delhi also made it clear that it would not scale down its “development partnership” with Afghanistan in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Kabul on February 26 last, and was even ready to provide military training to a larger number of personnel of the Afghan National Army in institutions in India, if President Hamid Karzai’s government asked for it.

...

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 21 Mar 2010 11:35

This is from a UKstani rag. We well know how trustworthy, credible and objective they be. so TIFWIW only.
Iranians train Taliban to use roadside bombs

TALIBAN commanders have revealed that hundreds of insurgents have been trained in Iran to kill Nato forces in Afghanistan.

The commanders said they had learnt to mount complex ambushes and lay improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which have been responsible for most of the deaths of British troops in Helmand province.

The accounts of two commanders, in interviews with The Sunday Times, are the first descriptions of training of the Taliban in Iran.

According to the commanders, Iranian officials paid them to attend three-month courses during the winter.

Yuo, so 'taliban commanders' whoever they be made fit to reveal these damning exposes to a Ukstani rag. How fitting. So what if the resolutely shia Iranians are irreconcilably opposed to the sunni-wahabi talibs.

What's more, it turns out that its the eeevial eye-ranians only who are semi-directly responsible for NATO deaths in Afgn, *not* the frontline ally. How convenient.

Gotta watch is this is a trial balloon for a new meme that will splattered over the 'world press' in the next few days trying to shift momentum aganst eyeran from papistan. jai hor, jai hor.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Mar 2010 22:12

putnanja wrote:India against US reconciliation with Taliban

...
New Delhi also made it clear that it would not scale down its “development partnership” with Afghanistan in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Kabul on February 26 last, and was even ready to provide military training to a larger number of personnel of the Afghan National Army in institutions in India, if President Hamid Karzai’s government asked for it.

...

Interesting. Restricting outsourcing of Af-Pak poicy?

Now we will actually may see a three-corner situation. Assuming that the US has a corner of their own and have not outsourced THEIR policy formulation mechanism to the Pakistanis.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Mar 2010 23:07

Karzai holds peace talks with insurgents

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has held talks with representatives of a major insurgent group whose leader is known for anti-U.S. rhetoric and support for al Qaeda, officials said Monday.

Karzai's deputy spokesman Hamed Elmi told CNN the delegation from the Hizb-i-Islami group of maverick militant Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, which has been behind numerous deadly attacks in Afghanistan, had submitted a peace plan.

Afghan Hezb-e-Islami militants hold peace talks in Kabul

Hezb-e-Islami fighters are based mainly in eastern Afghanistan and share many aims with the Taliban - the biggest militant group in the country. There have been recent tensions however, with the two groups clashing in the north.

Observers say the talks in Kabul may only be preliminary but they come at a fluid time in Afghan politics, with a peace jirga, or tribal gathering, due to be held some time next month and a surge in US-led troop numbers under way.

On Friday the former UN envoy to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, confirmed he had been holding secret contacts with top Taliban leaders for the past year.

abhishekm · Post by **abhishekm** » 22 Mar 2010 23:37

Hari Seldon wrote:This is from a UKstani rag. We well know how trustworthy, credible and objective they be. so TIFWIW only.
Iranians train Taliban to use roadside bombs
TALIBAN commanders have revealed that hundreds of insurgents have been trained in Iran to kill Nato forces in Afghanistan.

The commanders said they had learnt to mount complex ambushes and lay improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which have been responsible for most of the deaths of British troops in Helmand province.

The accounts of two commanders, in interviews with The Sunday Times, are the first descriptions of training of the Taliban in Iran.

According to the commanders, Iranian officials paid them to attend three-month courses during the winter.
Yuo, so 'taliban commanders' whoever they be made fit to reveal these damning exposes to a Ukstani rag. How fitting. So what if the resolutely shia Iranians are irreconcilably opposed to the sunni-wahabi talibs.

What's more, it turns out that its the eeevial eye-ranians only who are semi-directly responsible for NATO deaths in Afgn, *not* the frontline ally. How convenient.

Gotta watch is this is a trial balloon for a new meme that will splattered over the 'world press' in the next few days trying to shift momentum aganst eyeran from papistan. jai hor, jai hor.

Well, it is entirely possible that the Iranians have woken up to the very real possibility that the Taliban will control large swathes of Afghanistan come 2012 and that it would be better to deal with them in a constructive manner. Note how the Iranians don't seem as touchy as India when it comes to the "good Taliban versus bad Taliban debate". Iran faces the threat of an Israeli/US strike on its nuclear facilities and as such I don't see why they shouldn't hurt the US wherever possible. That's precisely what they have been doing in Iraq by supporting both Al-Sadr as well as the rival SCIRI faction.

From a long-term perspective, the Iranians would love to have some kind of leverage over the Taliban. Besides, this Taliban is very different from the rabid Wahabbi monster which existed pre-2001. Now, with Al-Qaeda scattered and command being concentrated in the hands of local Afghans again, the faultlines between Sunni and Shia may diminish (but not disappear entirely).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Mar 2010 01:46

Hekmatyar though an ISI puppet spent the wilderness years after 9/11 in Iran. So there could be an Iran connection to the talks with Hekmatyar.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Mar 2010 04:22

The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight

Six billion dollars later, the Afghan National Police can't begin to do their jobs right—never mind relieve American forces.

Oh well, ..................... we will have to stay for a few more years ........................

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 23 Mar 2010 11:14

Fighting over a name

Railway Minister Ghulam Ahmed Bilour of Awami National Party said in a statement that instead of “using delaying tactics” the PML-N should adopt a clear stance on the renaming of the NWFP. “ANP will be obliged to Nawaz Sharif if he agrees on Pakhtoonkhwa.”

Mr Jhagra said the PML-N was not against renaming the province, but did not want a “controversial” name. He claimed that the name ‘Pakhtoonkhwa’ would divide the people of NWFP. PML-N’s stronghold in the NWFP is the Hazara region and adjoining areas where people mostly speak Hindko. Other names suggested by the PML-N are Gandhara, Khyber and Abbasin (Pushto for the river Indus).

The demand to give NWFP a name was initially raised by Frontier Gandhi — known here as Bacha Khan — in the first legislative assembly of Pakistan. He had suggested Pukhtoonistan but the name did not see the light of day. In the Zia-ul-Haq regime — which accepted the need to give the province a name instead of its geographical identity that was seen as a colonial hand-me-down — Pukhtoonkhwa emerged as a viable alternative as Pukhtoonistan was resented by the anti-Pukhtoon lobby.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Mar 2010 11:23

The next Camp Gitmo,Bagram Air Base! The (edited out - some restraint please; JE Menon) are transferring their filth,dumping their refuse to our backyard fom GITMO.Bagram already serves as a concentration camp for US prisoners.

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

Bagram air base in Afghanistan 'could be new Guantanamo'
The United States is reportedly considering whether to detain international terrorist suspects at Bagram air base in Afghanistan after the closure of Guantanamo Bay.

Excerpt:

The idea is being considered because without Guantanamo Bay, which President Barack Obama has pledged to shut, it has to either put suspects through its own court system or hand them over to foreign governments.

"No one particularly likes any of the choices before us right now, but Bagram may be the least bad among them," a senior defence official told the Los Angeles Times.

Related Articles
Afghanistan's 'Guantanamo' poses new prison problem for Barack Obama
CIA staff face new investigation as full details of prisoner abuse released

Barack Obama has issued his orders on Guantanamo but closing it will be tougherAny decision to expand the existing detention facility at Bagram would be expected to draw heavy criticism from allies and human rights groups.

Bagram currently holds around 800 prisoners, the vast majority captured in Afghanistan.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Mar 2010 23:51

Taliban fighters training in Iran, U.S. officials say

"We've known for some time that Iran has been a source for both materiel and trained fighters for Taliban elements in Afghanistan," Army Lt. Col. Edward Sholtis said Monday. But, he said, it is unknown whether that training is occurring with the support of Tehran, or it is "simply something that is happening beyond the government's control."

Predators over Iran?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Mar 2010 02:27

Afghan Taliban name new deputy leaders after arrest

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Mar 2010 02:35

(Not part of the Pak-Af policy)
Five steps to making a deal with the Taliban

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 24 Mar 2010 05:48

ramana wrote:Hekmatyar though an ISI puppet spent the wilderness years after 9/11 in Iran. So there could be an Iran connection to the talks with Hekmatyar.

Petraeus and Gates comments about Iranian support to the Taliban although direct, have been guarded because its not a simple issue.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has always been willing to work with Sunni Islamists willing to overlook sectarian issues.

Hekmatyar fell out with the ISI in 1994 when he was thrown over for the Taliban who were much more effective, and growing much faster. Hekmatyar and Iran also had the same stance on the US from Desert Shield onwards. Besides Hekmatyar was a Sunni Islamist, but not a Salafi or Deobandi.

The Khatami government pushed Hekmatyar out of Iran after 9-11 as a gesture of good will, and Hekmatyar reconciled himself to a position as a junior Taliban ally.

The Ahmadinejad government on the other hand thinks gestures of good will to the US are a waste of time. They are particularly keen on retaining influence in the provinces adjoining Iran like Herat, Farah and Nimruz. From their point of view untrammeled Pakistani influence over the Taliban in those provinces could only mean trouble.

Not all Taliban are Deobandi ideologues - a good number of commanders are pure opportunists who will take guns and gold from anyone offering. These are *precisely* the same ones the Americans might recruit for use against both the committed Taliban, as well as Iran. Its certainly in Iran's interests to rent these people first.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Mar 2010 06:07

Changing realities of Afghanistan
http://tinyurl.com/pakistaniat-nahi-chalegi

Code: Select all

Expatriate remittances have played a great role in supporting, or some say sustaining, Pakistan’s fledging economy. If this is true, then Afghanistan’s expatriate remittances in 2006, around $ 3.4 billion, are proportionately much higher than Pakistan’s $ 6.4 billion because its population of 28 million is one-sixth of its neighbour’s 180 million: on per capita basis, Afghanistan gets $ 121 against Pakistan’s $ 35 as expatriate remittance. Like Vietnam and South Korea, once occupied by the US, the Afghan expatriate remittances are going to grow much faster than Pakistan. Therefore, the Afghan economy will be helped to sustain itself by a large amount of foreign remittances in difficult times.
Furthermore, several countries are making substantial investments in Afghanistan. For example, China has invested $ 3 billion in the Aynak copper mine and is in the process of constructing of a new railroad between Afghanistan and its Xinjiang province, and an electricity station. , to protect its economic interests and control a 1990s-like insurgency in Uighur province, China will be least tolerant of the Taliban in this area.After the construction of a half-mile long bridge over the Pyanj River, the trade between Tajikistan and Afghanistan has increased by 700 percent. After opening of the Friendship Bridge between Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, Afghanistan’s trade with the Central Asian countries has increased manifold. Russia is also planning to link Afghanistan with Europe through rail, which already goes up to Uzbekistan.Most of these investments and trade linkages are taking place in northern and western Afghanistan. Eventually, these parts of Afghanistan will become a separate economic unit with new prosperity and fresh world outlook. If religious militancy continues, it will be limited to southern and eastern Afghanistan bordering Pakistan.
Even southern Afghanistan will have a new outlook because of a new trade route to the Arabian Sea. India completed a 135-mile long road from Nimroz to Iran’s Chabahar seaport. This means that landlocked Afghanistan will not be dependent on Karachi’s port. As a matter of fact, Chabahar seaport will much closer to the major Afghan cities than Karachi. Sooner or later, the closer seaport will be preferred over a very long route, resulting in less dependence over Pakistan.
Besides these economic developments, the Afghan society is changing very fast. A very long war has destroyed many traditional professions, forcing the people to change their lifestyles. For example, animal husbandry or herd breeding, once the profession of a large portion of Afghan population, has decreased a whopping 80 percent. Similarly, many other traditional means of living have changed due to continuing war.The Afghan mindset is in the process of transformation. Many recent visitors to Afghanistan have indicated that refugees who have returned back have brought new sets of ideas that they were exposed to while living abroad. They have picked up experiences of living under relatively modern states where democratic ideals are pursued.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 24 Mar 2010 20:53

x post

IOL: The U.S. contingent in Afghanistan is preparing its next offensive against the Taliban in the North Eastern province of Badakhshan, as part of its regional strategy.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Mar 2010 21:20

WSJ :: Mar 22 :: U.S. Sees Hope in Pakistan Requests for Help

This is getting to be Pak-Pak-Af!!!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Mar 2010 21:22

Policy formulation in real-time

Cell Carriers Bow to Taliban Threat

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 25 Mar 2010 13:51

Ashley Tellis on Birader arrest. Reference and Citation value.
Beradar, Pakistan, and the Afghan Taliban: What Gives?

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 25 Mar 2010 14:07

Ralph Peters in NY Post sticks his neck out and predicts - (BTW, what a lot of bile for Karzai!)
Karzai's tilt toward Tehran

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Mar 2010 23:51

India concerned about US-Pakistan talks on Afghanistan

India is not bothered so much about Pakistan's hunger for a nuclear deal with the US, but is closely watching the outcome of the strategic dialogue between Islamabad and Washington for any sign of a secret deal on Afghanistan's future.

'We are not worried about Pakistan's pitch for nuclear deal. That won't happen due to Pakistan's proliferation record. But we are closely following the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue, specially on issues relating to Afghanistan,' a government source said.

'The situation in Afghanistan is of direct concern to India. Any deal with the Taliban can push that country back into medieval barbarism,' the source said.

After the Jan 28 London conference that envisaged reintegration of the Taliban in the political mainstream, concerns have been raised in India's strategic establishment about a hidden deal between the US and Pakistan to the detriment of India's interests in that country.

'They (US) have given Pakistan a veto over the future of Afghanistan. It's a big setback for India,' Satish Chandra, a former deputy national security adviser and a former envoy to Islamabad, told IANS.

The ongoing US-Pakistan strategic dialogue, Chandra pointed out, showed that the US was mollifying Pakistan to win its full support for the battle against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

On record, the US has lauded India's role in the reconstruction of war-torn Afghanistan and denied there were attempts to marginalise New Delhi in the emerging power play in that country.

But this hasn't cut much ice with strategic experts here.

'Pakistan wants to become the sole spokesperson of the Taliban. Pakistan has eliminated all potential mediators between the Taliban and the US so as to be the sole mediator with the Taliban,' says Alok Bansal, a Pakistan expert at the National Maritime Foundation, a think tank. 'It's a cause of grave concern for India.'

Pakistan was one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban after it seized power in Kabul, the other two being Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. This was when India, along with Iran and Russia, backed the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance.

Once the Taliban was ousted from power after 9/11, Pakistan covertly took the Islamist militia and Al Qaeda remnants under its wings. At the same time India came out in full support of President Hamid Karzai, re-igniting an India-Pakistan proxy war in Afghanistan.

New Delhi is also concerned about a 'multi-year security assistance package' the US has announced for Pakistan that could include cutting-edge weaponry running into billions of dollars.

India has time and again pointed out that the weapons the US has given to Pakistan are used against Indian assets, but Washington has not paid much heed.

'The Taliban is not going to be fought with these weapons. Where are they going to use these weapons?' asked Chandra. He then went on to answre his own question: 'Against India.'

National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon has been blunt, saying that giving military aid to Pakistan was like giving alcohol to an alcoholic. Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao aired these concerns during her trip to Washington this month.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said after talks with Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmmod Qureshi in Washington Wednesday: 'Our goal is a multi-year security assistance package, including foreign military financing, based upon identified mutual strategic objectives, which would further strengthen our long-term partnership with Pakistan.'

But she ruled out any mediatory role for the US in resolving the Kashmir dispute and described Pakistan's plea for 'non-discriminatory access to energy' - an euphemism for an India-like nuclear deal - as a 'complicated issue.'

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Mar 2010 00:20

National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon has been blunt, saying that giving military aid to Pakistan was like giving alcohol to an alcoholic.

Err its more like petrol/gasoline to an arsonist which is more criminal.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Mar 2010 00:25

Malayappan wrote:Ralph Peters in NY Post sticks his neck out and predicts - (BTW, what a lot of bile for Karzai!)
Karzai's tilt toward Tehran

Well they want Karzai to be their puppet on a chain. Unfortunately for them he is hedging just as US is hedging with TSP!

While he despairs this is the very thng that will happen:

So Karzai's rushing to cut multiple deals to maintain his throne in Kabul. It may well work in the short term. In the longer term, he'll be dead or in exile (bemoaning the lack of American support for his crusade for democracy . . .). Scamming Americans is one thing, playing Iranians or Pakistanis another. We send sniffy diplomatic notes. They send assassins.

Also noted in previous columns, Pakistan's making a grand show of helping us by busting senior Taliban and al Qaeda officials (which they could have done years ago). Islamabad's not doing it out of solidarity with Uncle Sam, but because it needs to weaken Taliban elements and leaders it can't control in order to close the hoped-for Afghan deal.

Coming perhaps as early as this year (certainly within the next few years), the Karzai Compromise will at first look like this:

* Karzai remains the titular head of the Kabul regime.

* Iran "owns" western Afghanistan.

* Pakistan replaces the United States as the Kabul government's security guarantor.

* NATO grabs the excuse of "national reconciliation" to dash for home.

* The United States won't be far behind NATO, although we'll continue to pour in aid to "avoid destabilizing the situation."

This being the Greater Middle East, the deal won't last. Karzai holds too weak a hand; national ambitions are in conflict; the hatreds go too deep. Here's what will come next:

* The Iranians and Pakistanis will struggle for influence. The next phase of the endless Afghan civil war will be a proxy fight between Tehran and Islamabad (alongside the internal factional warfare).

* Al Qaeda will align with Pakistan, gaining clandestine sponsorship.

* Karzai will be replaced by a tougher ruler backed by Pakistan, while the Iranian side elevates its own contender for power based in Herat.

* India will side with Iran. China will support Pakistan.

* Pakistan will find itself unable to control its Afghan proxies, after all. Another military regime will take power in Islamabad, as Pakistan finds itself bogged down in an Afghan morass and violence spreads at home.

* The Taliban will fight everybody and outlast everybody.

The key for India is to ensure China doesnt back TSP in its own interests.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 26 Mar 2010 02:04

For that to happen, India must take over POK.

PRC can sponser TSP with it's $2tn reserves. But it has to travel thru IOR.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Mar 2010 05:52

Errrr ................. TSP as in ISI and PA.

Even Obama has crowned them!!! He single handedly is pushing India away. Has not read his Indo-US history, among others.

For what it is worth:

putnanja wrote:India lets US know: F-16s for Pak could cloud IAF’s 126-plane dea

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 26 Mar 2010 07:21

Cross Posting the Huffington Post piece with Christine Fair's interview
"It is all about undermining Karzai": Pakistan's "New" Relationship?

The reality is that Pakistan has wrapped up those members of the Afghan Taliban that have been trying to seek a deal directly with Karzai, circumventing Pakistan's interests

We knew that one!

Ultimately, they have no desire to see Karzai, or the US, succeed in their current strategies:
It is all about undermining Karzai, not supporting him. I was really surprised that the New York Times fell for the canard that this was a new day.

Pretty much ties up with that Ralph Peters article posted earlier.

US is taking the position that at least right now pakistan is more useful than Karzai? If yes that throws up many, many more questions!

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 26 Mar 2010 12:02

India's Af-Pak Strategy
pdf of the article. Covers a lot of ground. Archival, Citation and Forwarding value

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 27 Mar 2010 00:26

From WikiLeaks 26. Mar. 2010: CIA report into shoring up Afghan war support in Western Europe, 11 Mar 2010
PDF File. Size - 135 KB

This classified CIA analysis from March, outlines possible PR-strategies to shore up public support in Germany and France for a continued war in Afghanistan. After the dutch government fell on the issue of dutch troops in Afghanistan last month, the CIA became worried that similar events could happen in the countries that post the third and fourth largest troop contingents to the ISAF-mission. The proposed PR strategies focus on pressure points that have been identified within these countries. For France it is the sympathy of the public for Afghan refugees and women. For Germany it is the fear of the consequences of defeat (drugs, more refugees, terrorism) as well as for Germany's standing in the NATO. The memo is an recipe for the targeted manipulation of public opinion in two NATO ally countries, written by the CIA. It is classified as Confidential / No Foreign Nationals.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Mar 2010 01:58

Daily Grimes article on

Changing realities of Afghanistan —Dr Manzur Ejaz

Afghanistan’s political economy is drastically changing. The investments by China, India, Central Asian countries and Iran are changing the future prospects of Afghanistan. Furthermore, the Afghans’ migration to Western countries and socio-political experiences of millions of refugees in Pakistan, Iran, India and other countries are going to impact the future orientation of the Afghan society.

Expatriate remittances have played a great role in supporting, or some say sustaining, Pakistan’s fledging economy. If this is true, then Afghanistan’s expatriate remittances in 2006, around $ 3.4 billion, are proportionately much higher than Pakistan’s $ 6.4 billion because its population of 28 million is one-sixth of its neighbour’s 180 million: on per capita basis, Afghanistan gets $ 121 against Pakistan’s $ 35 as expatriate remittance. Like Vietnam and South Korea, once occupied by the US, the Afghan expatriate remittances are going to grow much faster than Pakistan. Therefore, the Afghan economy will be helped to sustain itself by a large amount of foreign remittances in difficult times.

Furthermore, several countries are making substantial investments in Afghanistan. For example, China has invested $ 3 billion in the Aynak copper mine and is in the process of constructing of a new railroad between Afghanistan and its Xinjiang province, and an electricity station. The trade linkages are likely to grow and China would like to invest in other key industrial inputs like coal, iron, aluminium and many others that the country is endowed with: Afghanistan has large deposits of natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulphur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, and precious and semiprecious stones. Consequently, to protect its economic interests and control a 1990s-like insurgency in Uighur province, China will be least tolerant of the Taliban in this area.

After the construction of a half-mile long bridge over the Pyanj River, the trade between Tajikistan and Afghanistan has increased by 700 percent. After opening of the Friendship Bridge between Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, Afghanistan’s trade with the Central Asian countries has increased manifold. Russia is also planning to link Afghanistan with Europe through rail, which already goes up to Uzbekistan.

Most of these investments and trade linkages are taking place in northern and western Afghanistan. Eventually, these parts of Afghanistan will become a separate economic unit with new prosperity and fresh world outlook. If religious militancy continues, it will be limited to southern and eastern Afghanistan bordering Pakistan.

Even southern Afghanistan will have a new outlook because of a new trade route to the Arabian Sea. India completed a 135-mile long road from Nimroz to Iran’s Chabahar seaport. This means that landlocked Afghanistan will not be dependent on Karachi’s port. As a matter of fact, Chabahar seaport will much closer to the major Afghan cities than Karachi. Sooner or later, the closer seaport will be preferred over a very long route, resulting in less dependence over Pakistan.

Besides these economic developments, the Afghan society is changing very fast. A very long war has destroyed many traditional professions, forcing the people to change their lifestyles. For example, animal husbandry or herd breeding, once the profession of a large portion of Afghan population, has decreased a whopping 80 percent. Similarly, many other traditional means of living have changed due to continuing war.

The Afghan mindset is in the process of transformation. Many recent visitors to Afghanistan have indicated that refugees who have returned back have brought new sets of ideas that they were exposed to while living abroad. They have picked up experiences of living under relatively modern states where democratic ideals are pursued. For example, the Afghan refugees living in Pakistan have had new experiences of yearning for democratic values, equality and the right to protest even under military dictatorships. Therefore, Taliban or no Taliban, Pakistan has to deal with a changed Afghanistan. ...

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 27 Mar 2010 05:46

Malayappan wrote:India's Af-Pak Strategy
pdf of the article. Covers a lot of ground. Archival, Citation and Forwarding value

Shashank Joshi's article linked above is one of the most clear headed presentations of India's point of view on the Afghanistan situation and more generally of the situation in that country. Strongly recommended reading.

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 27 Mar 2010 05:57

More of Shashank Joshi's writings can be found in the following link ... some relate to AfPak but others don't. In general, he seems to have a deep interest in both Afghanistan/Pakistan and India's security. His writings are worth keeping an eye out for

http://shashankjoshi.wordpress.com/writing/

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 29 Mar 2010 04:58

x post:
Very interesting indeed.
India shifts Afghan policy, ready to talk to Taliban

In the wake of a possible American pullout from Kabul next year, New Delhi has sharply re-oriented its strategy towards Afghanistan by reaching out to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami party and keeping its door open in case of a reconciliation effort by the Taliban.

While the new Afghan policy is being crafted at the highest levels with National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon playing a lead role, New Delhi is learnt to have made contact with Hizb-e-Islami party even though it knows that Hekmatyar is firmly under Pakistani control. New Delhi is also now amenable to talking to Taliban in case the latter are to open an engagement. This change in Indian posture comes as Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid also talked about reconciling with India.

Top government sources told The Indian Express that New Delhi wants to reach out to the second generation Pashtun leaders like Nangarhar Governor Gul Agha Sherzai, and is with the former Northern Alliance leaders like Marshal Fahim, Karim Khallili and Mohammed Mohaqiq in backing President Hamid Karzai’s government.

This fine-tuning of India’s position on Afghanistan comes after exchange of views between top diplomats. After the February attack on Indians in Kabul, Vice-President Hamid Ansari, Pakistan-Afghanistan envoy Satinder Lambah and former West Asia envoy Chinmay Gharekhan wanted India to adopt a neutral position in Afghanistan. This essentially meant keeping out of Aghanistan politics but carrying on the development works in the war-torn republic.

This month, this view was nuanced further by the UPA government, with New Delhi now all for an independent or neutral Afghanistan that does not require the crutches of neighbouring Pakistan. According to a paper prepared by the Ministry of External Affairs on the subject, India should back an Afghanistan that keeps out terrorism emanating from Pakistan and does not allow the state to slip back into the violence spiral of 1990s. The sub-text of the paper is that Afghanistan will come under the total influence of Pakistan if New Delhi were to let matters go out of hand.

While a section in South Block wants India to go back to supporting the former Northern Alliance faction, the fact is that all the top six alliance leaders are firmly backing Karzai, including Marshal Fahim, heir of legendary Ahmed Shah Masood, and Uzbek leader Mohammed Dostum. New Delhi is conscious of the fact that its former allies like Iran of the Northern Alliance days are still confused on whether they want the Americans out or the Taliban.

It is in this context that New Delhi wants to reach out to Pashtuns in the south and on the Durand Line while retaining ties with its Northern Alliance friends and President Karzai. So rather than the expected downscaling of Indian engagement in Afghanistan, New Delhi is all for enlarging it, lest it wants to let the republic be dominated by extremist forces of the past.

Good to see MEA banging heads and trying to work out a policy. We should look at Iranian policy, who are they backing etc. The route to Afg goes through Iran.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Mar 2010 05:36

^^^^

About time.

Now, for the comic relief we can expect Pakistan asking for $10 Billion from the US to keep the Taliban out of the influence of India.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Mar 2010 05:41

Obama in Afghanistan: 'Progress made'

On a surprise visit to Afghanistan today.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 29 Mar 2010 05:58

shyamd wrote:x post:
Very interesting indeed.
India shifts Afghan policy, ready to talk to Taliban

Could this be what Quereshi meants when he sternly suggested in DC that India must change its policy very soon.

In other words, US brokered a deal whereby "good Taliban" comes back, and

1) allows India to do the good work and keep its mouth shut
2 but takes its bidding from TSP.

In other words, TSP gets strategic depth (not to mention "good terrorists" like LeT), and India gets to become "global super power of the 21st century" for the money it is pouring into Afganisthan. And of course, US declares victory in the GWOT, and announces that should India and TSP seek mediation (after the next LeT attack), it will be willing to render its good offices and hopes India & TSP will make love by taking into account "wishes of the Kashmiris" (Muslims that is).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Mar 2010 06:04

CRS,

Taliban wanted India to change position months ago. I do recall that Taliban person stating that they will not allow bases for outsiders too. (?????)

Also, seems to me that while TSP and perhaps the US has the "good" vs. "bad", India seems to have it as "Iranian" vs. "others". From this report what is new to me is that the NA is behind Karzai too (and why is it that this TOO escaped Indian strategists is something astounding).

Everyone seems to be rolling the dice. As in everyone.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 29 Mar 2010 08:20

Somethings do not add up. The US leaving the area altogether is not in TSP or Karzai's interests. The Generals will not forget, where the meat comes from. The US will not leave, as it knows only too well, what that means. It will certainly look to reduce its commitments and look to stabilize the situation. Stability under current context means a deal with Taliban, which in turn is a deal with TSP and that means its Generals. There is only one deal.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Mar 2010 08:40

Kabul’s move for talks with top Taliban upsets US

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... ets-us-930

Two senior US officials – state and defence secretaries – have expressed concern over the Afghan government’s effort to seek reconciliation with the Taliban leaders, calling it premature.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates told a Senate panel this weekend that he believed it was still “probably early” for Kabul to seek reconciliation with senior militant leaders.

“The shift of momentum is not yet strong enough to convince the Taliban leaders that they are, in fact, going to lose,” he said.

“It is when they begin to have doubts about whether they can be successful that they may be willing to make a deal. And I do not think we are there yet,” he explained.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went a step ahead, saying clearly that Kabul’s move was a cause of concern for Washington.

“We’re particularly concerned about the reintegration, reconciliation plans that the Karzai government has undertaken,” she said.

The statements clearly show Washington’s indignation with Kabul’s move and explain why the US administration reacted differently from the Afghan and Indian governments to the recent arrest of Mullah Baradar and some other Taliban leaders in Pakistan.

In fact, US officials publicly acknowledged that the CIA was an equal partner in the raid that netted Mullah Baradar and his comrades.

Afghan and Indian officials, on the other hand, said that Kabul was already negotiating a reconciliation deal with Mullah Baradar and blamed Pakistan for scuttling their move by arresting him.

...

They claimed that India’s strong support for Kabul’s reconciliation effort also exposed fissures between Washington and New Delhi over how to settle the Afghan dispute.

In her statement before the Senate panel, Secretary Clinton acknowledged that the Afghan government expected the people they sought to reconcile with to abide by the law and constitution of Afghanistan, but she was not sure if the Taliban leaders were ready to do so.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Mar 2010 09:30

NRao wrote:CRS,

Taliban wanted India to change position months ago. I do recall that Taliban person stating that they will not allow bases for outsiders too. (?????)

Also, seems to me that while TSP and perhaps the US has the "good" vs. "bad", India seems to have it as "Iranian" vs. "others". From this report what is new to me is that the NA is behind Karzai too (and why is it that this TOO escaped Indian strategists is something astounding).

Everyone seems to be rolling the dice. As in everyone.

NRao, The NA is with Karzai. Check his cabinet and the VP's. Abdullah^2 was a US candidate and really ahd no chances in current Afghan polity as he is a non Pashtun.

GOI policy has been to support the legitimate central power. If Taliban are being legitimized it makes sense to open channels with them.
The Kabul Embassy bombing was quite deleterious.

BTW, I read in B&N a book " The Reluctant spy" by John Kiriakou. What struck me was that the US did not engage the Taliban in a big battle and defeat them. They fought a covert war and allowed them to run to fight another day. This is a root cause for the continued terrorist strikes. The US experatti didn't understand the Pashtun mind. No defeat like the Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Sikh wars or the Second Afghan War. Hence they think 2001was a number of skirmishes.

Also folks read this review of Horse Soldiers in NYT.
Looks like Rumsfield was the genius in adopting the SF with local militia in Afghanistan, to get a quick win for US and the subsequent mess there.