Afghanistan News & Discussion

[Bhaskar]

I would want us to give this article one good read.

Why India holds true to its Afghan ambitions
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le1518149/

[narmad]

KARZAI’S ATTEMPTS TO PLAY US, INDIA, PAKISTAN AND RUSSIA AGAINST EACH OTHER

The growth in drug trafficking, some tied directly to members of Karzai’s family, the poor performance of the Afghan police and military and the massive corruption combined with Karzai’s own alliances with India, alliances which are leading to more instability rather than less, are making Karzai’s future uncertain. Last week’s surprise visit by President Obama, coming on the heels of the “smackdown” given Israeli PM Netanyahu and the lenghy US visit by Pakistani Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi presented Karzai with a greatly altered political landscape, particularly in regards to his long personal relationship with India.

With relationships in Washington shifting from the Indo-Israeli alliance toward favoring Pakistan, whose recent military and intelligence successes have gained much notice, Karzai’s position has become increasingly precarious. Rumors that the US has been having “behind the scenes” talks with former Prime Minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, placed by the Bush administration on the “terrorist” list right under Usama bin Laden.

[ramana]

So who does he thinks will be an alternative to Karzai? BTW Karzai got elected recently even if by fraud. So what will US credibility be if they depose Karzai?

Looks like shades of Diem!

[Carl_T]

Does Mohammad Fahim still have enough influence to be a compromise leader instead of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar? Although I suppose the Taliban would not find it agreeable, but maybe other nations.

[ramana]

Carl, The Afghan imperative due to the tribal nature of the Pashtuns is whoever is a credible leader has to be a Durrani. The Mullah Omar types are the Ghilzais (Lodis of yore). Fahim is a Tajik and hence wont fit the bill.

Ahmed Shah Abdali created Afghanistan from the declining Mughal and Safavid Persia. Abdr Rehman created modern Afghanistan.

They are both Durranis.


I need Paul and SSridhar to map the Ghilzai tribes locations. My hunch is they are East of Durand Line and Abdr Rehman gave them to the British.

I may be wrong.

[abhishek_sharma]

Afghan President Rebukes West and U.N.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/world ... fghan.html

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, delivered extraordinarily harsh criticism on Thursday of the Western governments fighting in his country, the United Nations, and the British and American news media, accusing them of perpetrating the fraud that denied him an outright victory in last summer’s presidential elections.

Just days after meeting with President Obama, Mr. Karzai, who has increasingly tried to distance himself from his American backers, said the coalition troops risked being seen as invaders rather than saviors of the country.

The speech, later broadcast on local television, seemed a measure of Mr. Karzai’s mood in the wake of Mr. Obama’s visit, in which Mr. Obama rebuked the Afghan president for his failure to reform election rules and crack down on corruption. At points in the speech, Mr. Karzai used inflammatory language about the West.

“There is no doubt that the fraud was very widespread, but this fraud was not committed by Afghans, it was committed by foreigners,” Mr. Karzai said. “This fraud was committed by Galbraith, this fraud was committed by Morillon and this fraud was committed by embassies.” Mr. Karzai was referring to Peter W. Galbraith, the deputy United Nations special representative to Afghanistan at the time of the election and the person who helped reveal the fraud, and Philippe Morillon, the chief election observer for the European Union.

Later in the speech he accused the Western coalition fighting against the Taliban of being on the verge of becoming invaders — a term usually used by insurgents to refer to American, British and other NATO troops fighting in Afghanistan.

“In this situation there is a thin curtain between invasion and cooperation-assistance,” said Mr. Karzai, adding that if the perception spread that Western forces were invaders and the Afghan government their mercenaries, the insurgency “could become a national resistance.”

...

Mr. Karzai also sharply criticized The New York Times, the BBC, The Times of London and CNN, all of whom he accused of spreading the accusations of fraud. “They know the election was right, but on a daily basis they are call me a fraudulent president in order to pressure me,” he said.

...


“These foreigners came to me several times asking me to bring reform. When I asked what reform means, it means to sack Mr. Ludin and Mr. Najafi,” said Mr. Karzai, referring to Azizullah Ludin, the commission’s chairman, and Daoud Ali Najafi, the head of the commission’s secretariat, who were present at the speech and whom he lionized several times over, lauding their patriotism and courage.

He went on to say that he might be forced to comply with the demand, but he promised that the two men “will go to other major national posts.”

Mr. Karzai appeared about to agree to the West’s demands to change the election process because, he said, if he did not, Western donors would withhold the money Afghanistan needs to hold the parliamentary elections.

...

Diplomats quietly worried about another problem: that the anger toward the West would be used by antiwar advocates in countries with troops here to bolster their arguments for withdrawal. “People will hear this and say ‘Why are we helping this man?’ ” said a Western diplomat in Kabul.

[ShauryaT]

I need Paul and SSridhar to map the Ghilzai tribes locations. My hunch is they are East of Durand Line and Abdr Rehman gave them to the British.

I may be wrong.

No, not wrong at all. Ghilzais are mostly east of Durand line, with a healthy mix in the west too. However, their differences with the Durraniz are not as sharp as sometimes made out to be. The Duranis are more urbane, educated, et al due to the patronage from the days of Ahmed Shah Abdali than the Ghilzais. Another reason is due to TSP's inability and/or unwillingness to integrate and instill political reforms in the FATA for all these decades, which kept the population there inward looking. Also, the tribal divisions are complex with many tribes and sub tribes in the mix. There is also a healthy doze of Deobandi Islam, money and guns mixed into it to confuse the scenario, where tribal loyalties do not always pan out as envisioned.

As Johann mentioned above, the Taliban were kicked in 2001, while Rumsfiled was busy sucking upto Fahim and Dostum till 2006, the Taliban came in and filled the Vacuum in the Pashtun heartlands of rural Pashtunistan, TSP provided the sanctuary.

Until, Karzai is not able to get a Pashtun based force of his own, the default power in the land automatically wins. An outsider can only do so much.

The US went in there in rage, had resources to spare and little opposition and did not bother to think through on what to do. Now, it is a matter of a "graceful" exit.

Which other country in the world as a trillion dollars to spare?

Paul, SSridhar will surely have their perspectives.

[Carl_T]

Carl, The Afghan imperative due to the tribal nature of the Pashtuns is whoever is a credible leader has to be a Durrani. The Mullah Omar types are the Ghilzais (Lodis of yore). Fahim is a Tajik and hence wont fit the bill.

I don't deny that wrt to the Pakhtuns, but why does the leader have to be a Pakhtun? I believe the Tajik population is as big.

[Johann]

- Under Al-Qaeda's influence, as well as American pressure the Taliban's ideology has increasingly shifted towards that of global jihad since 2001. Not everyone who joins is ideological, but a lot of them are.

- The ideological crucible of the Taliban are the hardline Deobandi madrasas in Pakistan, recruiting from both Afghan refugees as well as Pakistani Pashtuns.

- That ideology, while open to working with and within Pakistan lacks any sort of Pakistani nationalism, and that is a potential problem for the PA

- America can not leave Af-Pak as long as it is the dominant security player in the Middle East. As long as it has that role, it will be global jihad's number one enemy, and that means the need to stay as physically close to Pakistan's nuclear material as possible.

[Rudradev]

svenkat,

Thank you for your contribution, but I'm afraid the only BS here is in your post. Specifically, the seductive fantasy that you can bomb an insurgency out. No one has done it yet.

Honestly, I don't see where SVenkat has said anything of the sort in his post.

What he has said is:

Johann,
Do you expect anyone here to believe in the BS you peddle?

The US is in Afgh to control the oil routes.Also to bolster Pak against India.If they were serious about Taliban they could have bombed the hell out of Taliban on both sides of the Durrand line.
.

That statement does not equate to an assertion that the Taliban insurgency can be eliminated by bombing alone.

There is no question that a sustained grass-roots level effort to win the confidence and support of the population, village by village, is a key strategy in combating any insurgency. And that the Americans have been remiss here in Afghanistan, leaving a vacuum that the Taliban flooded back to occupy.

But there is also no question that bombing the rear bases of an insurgency, where the insurgents derive material, logistical and military support from foreign governments, is an integral aspect of any such strategy as well. As long as the Taliban had an ISI-run, TSPA-sponsored infrastructure on the Pakistani side of the border to retreat to, recover at and resupply themselves from... there was never any hope of the Americans or NATO achieving their political objectives in Afghanistan. This is regardless of whether the Americans had done the political groundwork of fighting the insurgency within Afghanistan's borders.

This is what SVenkat has pointed out, and it's not "BS" at all. The Americans lost the Afghan war on 9/13/2001, when they co-opted Pakistan into their war effort. The sabotage began there and it has almost succeeded in wrecking Western strategy in Afghanistan today.

Why the Americans chose to pursue that option, allowing for the continued survival and dominance of the Pakistan army, is a question of far greater interest to India than the American neglect of fighting the Afghan insurgency politically. India has fought many insurgencies politically, with considerable success, and it is the Americans who have much to learn from us on that score.

[ramana]

Carl, The Afghan imperative due to the tribal nature of the Pashtuns is whoever is a credible leader has to be a Durrani. The Mullah Omar types are the Ghilzais (Lodis of yore). Fahim is a Tajik and hence wont fit the bill.

I don't deny that wrt to the Pakhtuns, but why does the leader have to be a Pakhtun? I believe the Tajik population is as big.

Check demographics and then we can talk.

[Carl_T]

They all give different numbers, the bottom and top surveys, so idk. Numbers of the 2 ethnic groups do seem similar though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#Ethnic_groups

[Johann]

Rudradev,

The US bombed North Vietnam (bridges, railways, ports, factories, etc) and the Ho Chi Minh Trail while bombing the Viet Cong. It wasn't enough to defeat the insurgency.

It wasn't until the hated Catholic bigot and dictator Diem was dead, and the South Vietnamese state actually started functioning productively at the village level that the VC were routed 1968-70. This was as the flow down the HCM trail actually increased as North Vietnamese troops hiding in the bush replaced VC hiding in the villages.

Do you remember the first month of the air campaign against the Taliban? October-November 2001? It achieved so little that the Taliban and Al Qaeda became cocky, and everyone else started to seriously worry. There just aren't that many 'strategic' targets an irregular movement provides.

It wasn't until US Special Forces teams were fully integrated with local allies in November-December that meaningful targets could be identified, and strikes coordinated with ground offensives. That is when the Taliban lost the initiative and commanders began to defect or flee.

To mount a similar campaign on the Pakistani side of the border also requires allies, and the ability to reach and protect them.

The Taliban and PA are strategic allies, but the Taliban's fundamental source of strength is not the PA, but its combination of organisation, ideology, ruthless clarity, and the abysmal governance on both sides of the Durand line. That is why the Taliban has no fear of the PA.

Think about what the Maoists greatest weapons are whether its Latin America, the Subcontinent or East Asia.

Carl,

There are more Pashtuns, plus they have close ties to Pashtuns in Pakistan, *plus* they are the economic centre of gravity in Afghanistan. More arable land, the largest external trade volumes, etc.

[svenkat]

Thanks Rudradev ji for putting it succintly.The US which screams about human rights has treated pashtuns callously and has left them to the mercies of TSPA/Taliban.

OT alert:The Pakjabis are either renegade hindus or people with fanatasies of being arab invaders.The gakkars(Kayani is one),awans are nothing but cowards.They were bolstered by the British after the Sikhs crushed them.The British invented a caste system(There has always been some sort of caste in India) for their interests.

Johann,
I see from the archives you show some interest about caste system.The British knew janjuas,awans,arains,gakkars,muslim jats for what they were.Yet they bracketed them with pashtuns.The Pakjabi-pashtun alliance was encouraged to allay pakjabi fears.What follows is pure hindoo 'speculation'.

Karma ensured end of pashtun-pakjabi alliance after 9/11.The Pakjabis are holding a tiger by its tail.Militarily Pakjabis can crush taliban but their Islamic ''morality'' will not allow it nor can these criminals allow pashtuns to start afresh because of the cowardice of pakjabis.The US and British christists have always known this.They know it now as well.But they cannot allow the evil casteist,genocidal,barbaric,dirty,dark smelly hindoos(read brahmins) to take control of the destiny of atleast 1/6 of humanity which has to be chained to the most mentally retarded species on the planet.

And the West rightly sees India as its nemesis.Because this evil,genocidal,barbarbaric 'brahminical' India is the one really pluralistic society in the world which respects diversity of race and language and creed.India is the world of tomorrow.(Huxley)

As stalwarts in this forum agree (whether Shivji or Rudradevji) we cannot be whining about others.Some like Shivji in the Congress tradition want to recogonise the paramountcy of US today,recogonise both our limitations and the nature of US,would like to concentrate on our capabilities.

While others like Rudradevji would want an independent and strong policy.But our polity has returned the Congress.

It is extraordinary that the 'manly' pashtuns lionised by British imperialists as opposed to the 'feminine,cunning' hindoos in the 19th and 20th centuries have been raped by the Anglo-Americans in the last decades.Divine justice for these predators of the Indian plains?

[Carl_T]

Carl,

There are more Pashtuns, plus they have close ties to Pashtuns in Pakistan, *plus* they are the economic centre of gravity in Afghanistan. More arable land, the largest external trade volumes, etc.

Cool, thank you for clarifying.

[Johann]

svenkat,

Its always nice to imagine one's group as marked out for some sort of special enemity because they are especially dangerous. If that's what one needs to feel special, who am I to try to take that away?

For the most part India has been seen either as a passive resource or an irritating obstacle in the West, but not a coherent threat or enemy. China on the other hand..."Yellow Peril", or Islam "The Turk" and "Greenmantle" are a different matter. Threats are endlessly fascinating, and must be engaged with.

The kind of anthropological or social knowledge of the subcontinent that Empire was built on died in old age homes in Simla, Bangalore and Brighton. There is no one in Downing Street or Whitehall who *ever* really understood those sorts of things, either then or now.

Large numbers of Pashtuns have chosen to flock to a particularly reactionary form of Islam - the Tajiks have not, which is why no one is worried about a Tajik Taliban. This is not a new phenomenon from the Pashtuns - its the same old thing that's been happening for centuries.
What is new is that significant areas of rural Pakjab, especially the most feudal and deprived seem to be doing their best to keep up with the Pashtuns. What are the long term implications of this? Its going to matter even if the PA is somehow cut down to size.

[CRamS]

Johann:

Boss, lets call a spade a spade. To suggest that US is actually fighting terrorists is an insult to anyone with room temperature level (in Cencius) IQ. What US is doing in AfPak is getting rid of "bad terrorists", while keeping in tact "good terrorists" (TSPA and its many manifestations) for a whole range of reasons: Indian (SDRE) containment, access to central Asian black gold etc. I mean the billions showered on the most savage terrorist enterprise, and claiming to fight a war on terror, man its makes me puke.

[Johann]

CRS,

No one is looking to make or take on and fight more enemies than they already have, whether its India or America. Fighting and confronting enemies is expensive.

The Americans don't believe they are obliged to fight anyone who isn't committed to 'global jihad', i.e. fighting not only America, but its closest allies and the current international order.

The PA is not committed to global jihad, but it has close allies that are. The PA is willing to help contain its jihadi allies for a fee. That is America's strategic quandary.

If the PA commits itself to global jihad, jettisons its jihadi allies, or even refuses to cooperate, the quandary disappears.

The PA is at a strategic advantage by placing America in this quandary, but I believe the Taliban itself maybe attempting to outmaneuver the PA, and placing itself at the centre of the strategic knot by ending the PA/ISI's role as its connection to the wider world. Can they succeed? It all depends on the movement's ideological flexibility.

[ldev]

To suggest that US is actually fighting terrorists is an insult to anyone with room temperature level (in Cencius) IQ. What US is doing in AfPak is getting rid of "bad terrorists", while keeping in tact "good terrorists" (TSPA and its many manifestations) for a whole range of reasons: Indian (SDRE) containment, access to central Asian black gold etc.

CRams,

What will the US do if India decides to send in troops to get rid of the "bad terrorists"? Will the US be able to stop India from doing that especially if that coincides with the drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan. And does India want to send in troops?

[CRamS]

Johann:

Can you please define what is "global Jihad"?

Why is a bunch of rag tag Isalmists which USA calls Al Queda taking on USA for what they percieve is injustice "global jihad".

Likewise, why is TSPA using terror proxies to unseat India and re-stabnlish "Moghul glory" not "global jihad"?

Can you please explain?

LDev:

By no means am I suggesting that India is not at fault. I, more than anybody esle admit and lament India's cowardice and incompetence. But that doesn't excuse USA for its propping up of that terrorist abomination called TSP.

[Carl_T]

I don't see what Taliban has to do with 'global' jihad. Their interests seem "local" jihad to me.

IMO "Global Jihad" is an ideal propounded to create a platform for disparate Muslim groups with regional aspirations in order to gain them cash, hardware, and sympathy. It is also useful for the other side to claim they are fighting "Global Jihad" to gain them the exact same things. In Sudan, the Muslims can claim global jihad against the infidels and count on support from Islamists, while the Christians can get sympathy for being victims of jihad and the sufferers of human rights violations. (lifted from S Huntington)

I think the way to deal with "global jihad" is to build strong connections to some of the groups who have nothing against you in order to cut off the supply lines to the groups that do. So perhaps it is not in US interests to say anything against LeT, as LeT has no beef with the US (AFAIK).

I don't know if that is the policy being followed, but I think it could be worth considering for India.

[Johann]

CRS,

I used quotation marks on 'global jihad' for a reason.

Why is the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines not seen as part of global jihad, but Abu Sayyaf (also in the Philippines) was?

Why is Hamas not seen as part of the 'global jihad'?

Why are the Islamists in southern Thailand not seen as part of the global jihad?

Imperfect as the word 'global' is, there is something to it. It is not one single group, but rather a coalition of jihadi groups from many countries, with individuals recruited worldwide. Jihadis are focused on attacking Americans and citizens of American allies all around the world, wherever they can, on every continent.

The fact is that the LeT and Taliban are very much part of the global jihad. The Taliban openly, the LeT covertly. If the PA was openly engaged in the global jihad, or even unwilling to take any action against it, American choices would be simpler and clearer, but the Pakistanis aren't quite that suicidal yet.

The LeT is an explicitly Salafi/Wahhabi (Ahle Hadith) group, which means its ideological connections to Al Qaeda's Saudi style Salafi ideology is very strong. The same goes for the Taliban because of the strong Deobandi-Salafi connections.

[Carl_T]

The fact is that the LeT and Taliban are very much part of the global jihad. The Taliban openly, the LeT covertly.

Could you clarify the "global" designation? I am not familiar with Salafism, but it seems to me Taliban/LeT's interest is regional. At least the Taliban pre-2001 seemed to be so.

[svenkat]

Johann,
The real issue is not caste,tribe but self interests.The Hindoos were dangerous then,they are dangerous now.Indias population is huge but per capita her resources are less.We too aspire to be a 'western' type society not to be western lackeys.American type capitalism of 1920s or European laizeez affaire colonialism has no chance in India.

The Indian model has to be well Indian.Saudi Arabia and Pakistan can afford to be american slaves and still be ok.India does not see West as an enemy but can never ever be a part of the western camp.We ,who have benefited from the Western Enlightenment and Science,want normal relationship with west.But Pakistan both brfore and after Independence has offered abject servility.Nations in a sense are extended families/tribes with common values.Pakistan has offered itself to the West,when India has offered a relationship.Naturally,the West has chosen Pakistan and would not forget its pup.

Similarly,the world today is western dominated.In time,we would like the world to be multi-polar.India has never been anti-west.But nobody would like to give up domination.Nobody would mind a potential competitor to be tied down.

For its part,Indias stupid and self-centred 'socialist' and 'non-aligned' nobodies did rub the Americans the wrong way over decades.

Neverthless,there are divergences in Indian and US world view.

[Airavat]

Opium seizures

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration now has 96 agents in the country who joined with Afghan counterparts and NATO forces in more than 80 combined operations last year, acting DEA administrator Michelle Leonhart said at a news conference in Kabul. Leonhart did not give figures for total amounts of drugs seized but said the increase was 924 percent between 2008 and 2009. The United Nations reported 50 tons of opium was seized in the first half of last year.

For farmers, opium poppy is a cheap, hardy, low-risk crop. Efforts to replace opium with other crops such as wheat and vegetables haven't scored wide success because profits for the farmers are much lower than for poppies. Leonhart gave no details of the strategy for the south, but stressed that the focus was not on farmers but on seizing drugs and weapons, arresting traffickers, and tracing the profits of the trade. "The money is what fuels the insurgency," Leonhart said.

[Brad Goodman]

I am not sure if this was posted here but MK Bhadrakumar has an interesting article in Atimes http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LD02Df02.html.

Here are some snippets

Why have things come to this impasse? The plain truth is that Karzai distrusts Holbrooke. He shares the widespread opinion in the capitals of the region that Holbrooke is under a Pakistani spell.

This is exactly what South Block thinks as well and so has been stonewalling his visits to New Delhi

The ISI dreads to think that all sorts of poachers are stalking the Taliban today - Iranians, Indians, Saudis, Russians, British, the Central Asians, and indeed the Americans themselves. The intelligence services of the world are no longer prepared to accept that the Taliban should remain the ISI's sole monopoly.

If MEA is in touch with bunnies then I am happy that some one there has his brain in the right place

[CRamS]

CRS,
The fact is that the LeT and Taliban are very much part of the global jihad. The Taliban openly, the LeT covertly. If the PA was openly engaged in the global jihad, or even unwilling to take any action against it, American choices would be simpler and clearer, but the Pakistanis aren't quite that suicidal yet.

The LET openly operates in TSP. Why hasn't USA demanded that TSP take action against them. And US's intentions are not saintly as you claim. There was a report that CIA would monitor LET camps in Punjab to makes sure there are no foriegn terrorists on campus, meaning, Arabs who target the west.

As a seasoned, intelligent BRite, you should know that if you US is serious about ridding "global terrorists", and that includes LET, that means TSP as country will fail to exist. Without terrorists to torment India, TSP will collapse. Can TSP survive India ignoring it? Of course, TSP will claim bogus disputes, real or imaginary, and so TSP is legitimate in demanding India's attention, and US will support that. But even accounting for that sophistry, take terror out of the equation, TSP is like a last wicket pairo tail enders in cricket chasing an impossible victory. So my question to you is why is US hell bent on propping up this abomination called TSP? Why not force it to take on all "global terrorists", no matter what the consequences, which can only be good in the long run. Is US scared that if that were to happen, the SDREs may get a little uppity? Think about it.

[Bhaskar]

US is not going to fight our war. Why shall US counter LeT? US is in Afghanistan for its own personal interests'. If we want to finish terrorism against our country, we shall fight them ourselves. I say we should send troops to Afghanistan to secure our citizens there and to fight our own War on Terror.

[Brad Goodman]

US is not going to fight our war. Why shall US counter LeT? US is in Afghanistan for its own personal interests'. If we want to finish terrorism against our country, we shall fight them ourselves. I say we should send troops to Afghanistan to secure our citizens there and to fight our own War on Terror.

You said it right Bhaskar, US is not there to fight for us neither US the the school teacher to whom we can go to complain agaist bully. We are solely responsible for our saftey security & progress. If some of these have an overlap with US interest we can expect some kind of co-operation example nuclear deal where India's energey security overlapped with US financial & geostrategic interest. Similarly if they clash we will see two countries taking opposing path. Example India will buy Russian arms or Iranian partnership in Afghanistan & US will lean on pakis to cut losses and get out of AfPak

LeT, Dawood are not on US radar because they do not directly affect their interest presently. They will only work with us if we can convince that it is in their own interest. remember there are no permenent friends here. If we forget this cardinal rule of the game then we will end up whining like porkies everytime unkil pursues her own self interests that undermine us.

[Bhaskar]

US is not going to fight our war. Why shall US counter LeT? US is in Afghanistan for its own personal interests'. If we want to finish terrorism against our country, we shall fight them ourselves. I say we should send troops to Afghanistan to secure our citizens there and to fight our own War on Terror.

You said it right Bhaskar, US is not there to fight for us neither US the the school teacher to whom we can go to complain agaist bully. We are solely responsible for our saftey security & progress. If some of these have an overlap with US interest we can expect some kind of co-operation example nuclear deal where India's energey security overlapped with US financial & geostrategic interest. Similarly if they clash we will see two countries taking opposing path. Example India will buy Russian arms or Iranian partnership in Afghanistan & US will lean on pakis to cut losses and get out of AfPak

LeT, Dawood are not on US radar because they do not directly affect their interest presently. They will only work with us if we can convince that it is in their own interest. remember there are no permenent friends here. If we forget this cardinal rule of the game then we will end up whining like porkies everytime unkil pursues her own self interests that undermine us.

We Indians expect US to fight our war. Some suggest an alliance with Russia or Iran might help us defeat LeT/Taliban. Our great Prime Minister expects Pakistan to defeat LeT for us .
No country is in Afghanistan to fight terror. No one is our ally. No one is going to do our job for us. Every country looks for its' own interests, including India. If we want to defeat Taliban,LeT, Huji, IM then we have to fight against them, ourselves, no matter where from the streets of Mumbai to the forests in POK. We can't cry and whine to others when hit by them.

[Carl_T]

Just imagine Obama trying to sell a war on Pakistan to the US population.

I don't think Obama wants to be part of the unemployment rate in 2012.

[Brad Goodman]

[quote="Bhaskar

We Indians expect US to fight our war. Some suggest an alliance with Russia or Iran might help us defeat LeT/Taliban. Our great Prime Minister expects Pakistan to defeat LeT for us .
No country is in Afghanistan to fight terror. No one is our ally. No one is going to do our job for us. Every country looks for its' own interests, including India. If we want to defeat Taliban,LeT, Huji, IM then we have to fight against them, ourselves, no matter where from the streets of Mumbai to the forests in POK. We can't cry and whine to others when hit by them.

Lets imagine for one second that say China decides to dump US tresuary securities in open market and that puts huge stress on US economy and one way out is India commits a big chunk of its forex reserves to support the dollar. Now will India do it? I am sure India will only do it if Unkil can offer us something which we desperately need like technology only then we would do it. So the bottomline is unless their is merge of common interest there will be no partnership. We need to clearly understand we have a partnership not relationship with US or for that matter any other country and partnerships work on profit.

[brihaspati]

Karazai will stay in power for quite some time over the next couple of years. Karazai is the apparently weakest candidate among all others, and has the ability to appear to go with the flow. He will be supported by each hawk jealous of other hawks. It will be preferable for each of the eager future emir-hopefuls of the Islamic Caliphate to allow an apparently "weak" candidate who can be potentially "manipulated" and "pressurized" to be placed in the key formal post, to block other potential "emirs".

The US position will evolve under several constraints :

(1) Loss of asset-values requires economic reliance on Gulf-oil and Chinese manufacturing. This implies satisfying both KSA and PRC demands and wishlists. This may translate into supporting Talebanization of POWI-AFG and restriction Israeli ambitions.

(2) In AFG, Karazai has shown powers of accommodation and a flexibility that will allow the USA to pursue this line. Karazai will allow the illegal drugs trade that allows covert operations to be funded in the whole area out of scrutiny of national budgets of western powers. This is crucial to continue possible operations against Iran, Russia, and even PRC and control subtly the regions of CAR and India.

(3) USA wants a breathing space, in which it will trade territory and regimes in order to appease the increasing consolidation of "global Jihad". If this can be done at the expense of powers and regimes faraway from the "domestic political repercussion" scenario - the best. AFG-POWI is a good place to test out this line.

[JE Menon]

That Atimes article by MKB is outstanding. Must read.

[Johann]

The LET openly operates in TSP. Why hasn't USA demanded that TSP take action against them. And US's intentions are not saintly as you claim. There was a report that CIA would monitor LET camps in Punjab to makes sure there are no foriegn terrorists on campus, meaning, Arabs who target the west.

CRS,

I don't think I've said anything that makes the Americans look particularly good. I've only said that like any other country they will only fight those who are determined to fight them. How do you think Hamas, Israel's enemy was able to fundraise on American soil for years?

The reports you are talking about are from Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, dating back to the 2001-02 period. The Americans didn't even get around to designating the LeT a terrorist organisation until late December of 2001, after the parliamentary attack.

The Americans did become convinced of the LeT's global jihadist orientation as plots like the Virginia Jihad case in 2004, and Willie Brigitte's arrest in Australia in 2003, and a number of other came to light.

There are reports that the US did pass warnings of specific planned LeT attacks to India as they worked on penetrating the organisation. Some were successfully thwarted by the GoI, others such as Mumbai got through.

Certainly the UNSC action to designate the JuD an international terrorist organisation could not have happened without US support, and probably would have taken place earlier if not for consistant Chinese refusal to go along. The JuD's publications and offices were shut down under US pressure.

As a seasoned, intelligent BRite, you should know that if you US is serious about ridding "global terrorists", and that includes LET, that means TSP as country will fail to exist. Without terrorists to torment India, TSP will collapse. Can TSP survive India ignoring it? Of course, TSP will claim bogus disputes, real or imaginary, and so TSP is legitimate in demanding India's attention, and US will support that. But even accounting for that sophistry, take terror out of the equation, TSP is like a last wicket pairo tail enders in cricket chasing an impossible victory. So my question to you is why is US hell bent on propping up this abomination called TSP? Why not force it to take on all "global terrorists", no matter what the consequences, which can only be good in the long run. Is US scared that if that were to happen, the SDREs may get a little uppity? Think about it.

CRS,

There are some Indians assume that India *must* be at the centre of all American decisions in the region, because after all, isn't India so awe-inspiring and threatening? It just isn't the case. So much of the time India is incidental rather than central to the issues. All of India's immediate neighbours fear it to some extent, including the Chinese Communist Party, but no one else does.

There's a phrase that says you can always rent an Afghan, but you can never buy one. Its just as true of Pakistan.

What that means is that there are things that no country can threaten or bribe Pakistan in to doing. If you want to make them do it you have to fight them and destroy them.

Whether its drugs, terrorism, nukes, the cold war, or whatever the pressing problem of the day, Pakistan is willing to offer partial cooperation instead of total hostility.

There's no question the PA is doing its best to protect the LeT - the sheer range of specific issues and details on which there is a constant tussle between Washington and Islamabad is exhausting, even to review. From what I understand it was as specific as deciding what to push during a meeting - accountability for Pakistani nuclear materials, access to AQ Khan, Madrasa reform, monitoring at Pakistani airports. Every single issue becomes a negotiation, requiring follow up while the list of new issues grew. After a while it becomes impossible to push equally hard on everything at the same time, so some areas are neglected until the US gets hit with a crisis that highlights the lack of progress.

Expensive and unsatisfying as it is, its cheaper than having to fight them, and more effective than getting nothing out of them at all through the kind of confrontation seen with Cuba/North Korea/Iran/etc.

Have you ever asked yourself why the US has not gone to war with Iran in 30 years despite outright hostility, and the direct sponsorship of so many terrorist attacks against the US? How about Syria, which has done the same?

Pakistan is willing to play a double game, and provide some assistance against its jihadi allies which is more than Iran is willing to do. So why would the US be willing to take harsher action against Pakistan than Iran? Or even equally harsh action?

[chanakyaa]

Lets imagine for one second that say China decides to dump US tresuary securities in open market and that puts huge stress on US economy and one way out is India commits a big chunk of its forex reserves to support the dollar. Now will India do it?

First of all, why would PRC ever dump those bonds in the open market? They are instead buying commodities, companies with those dollar bills. A smart move. If they ever dump those bonds, EU and unkil will come together and dump PRC, i.e. say no to their products. In the short term, it will be a nightmare for average joe in unkil's land to see no products in the grocery store. PRC and unkil know that. But, PRC is handling the situation much differently than Japs, and I give them a credit for that.

I am sure India will only do it if Unkil can offer us something which we desperately need like technology only then we would do it.

Now, I'm confused. What technology are you referring to, that would convince GoI to buy worthless bonds? Only citizens of India can help themselves get from where they are today to where they should be in future in terms of lifestyle, basic rights, and prosperity etc.. No need of any technology.

So the bottom line is unless their is merge of common interest there will be no partnership. We need to clearly understand we have a partnership not relationship with US or for that matter any other country and partnerships work on profit.

I agree. In terms of trade, commerce, and technology their is a great future from a mutual partnership with unkil.

[CRamS]

CRS,

There are some Indians assume that India *must* be at the centre of all American decisions in the region, because after all, isn't India so awe-inspiring and threatening? It just isn't the case. So much of the time India is incidental rather than central to the issues. All of India's immediate neighbours fear it to some extent, including the Chinese Communist Party, but no one else does.

India is central, core, to every issue US (and TSP) make in the region. For e.g., just think about the nuke issue. TSP is infested with terrorists, TSP has proliferated. Yet, no calls by US to de-nuke TSP. Just common sense would demand that TSP should not have nukes, and US should be leading the de-nuking charge. But why doesn't it do it as it does in case of Iran and NK? You guessed it, India, my friend. Take TSP out of the equation, where is the 'nuclear flashpoint' scenario to embarass India? Why is it that after an LET attack, US howls, much to TSP's glee about nuke flashpoint? And even if it were a nuke flashpoint, it was the LET attack that caused the nuke flashpoint, right? Why does US have it backward in pointing the finger at India for the so called 'nuke flashpoint'. The point being that TSP nukes and its blackmail serve as a pressure point on India. If tomorrow India volunatrily gives up nukes, and TSP refuses, B-52 bombers would be over Kahuta reducing it to a parking lot. So, when it comes to the region, US"s pre-eminent policy is to prevent India from assuming a great power role with teeth. And this lurks in every decision it makes. The cold war and to hatred of India, and to a certain exten disdain for Hinduism, continues to drive US policy towards India.


BTW: I am curious but when did Iran commit any terror attacks against US? Lets stick to facts, not propaganda.

[CRamS]

Johann:

Just wondering but how is maacho Stanley boy's assualt against the Talibunnies doing? I have not heard anything about the death toll among the white NATO boys (the only deaths that seem to matter) in this ongoing operation. What is the toll?

[svinayak]

CRS,

There are some Indians assume that India *must* be at the centre of all American decisions in the region, because after all, isn't India so awe-inspiring and threatening? It just isn't the case. So much of the time India is incidental rather than central to the issues. All of India's immediate neighbours fear it to some extent, including the Chinese Communist Party, but no one else does.

India is central, core, to every issue US (and TSP) make in the region.

I was discussing this with some analyst and money managers. This is exactly they did for 30-40 years. They made sure that India is out of their planning process but is core of their every decision making.

[abhishek_sharma]

KANDAHAR
Posted by Steve Coll

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/s ... dahar.html

As even casual followers of the Afghan war will know, its next big campaign will take place in Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban ...