Afghanistan News & Discussion

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 07 Apr 2010 20:33

munna wrote:I don't quite like the words for their negative connotation towards traditional Indian dresses

I was using an experession that TSP'ians use, not my choice of words; using someone's words about us is to indicate why others think about us like this. I should have put them in quotes. (Usage is similar to the use of words SDRE on BRF.)

sum · Post by **sum** » 07 Apr 2010 21:23

No one wants to align with the weak, even if they want to. Stength is worshipped, weakness is despised. That is what Vivekananda told us centuries ago.

Very true words.

Why in $#%^'s name would anyone want to align with a bit player( Afghan context) like India which doesn't even have the pretense of a trump card( which would make all players to fear us) to play in the Afghan game?

This one statement sums it up:

Says Moridian Dawood, advisor to the Afghan foreign minister, “India seems apologetic about its presence. It’s a regional player and must behave like one, instead of insisting on a benign presence with a penchant for staying in the background.”

A real slap on the face, if there was one for an "aspiring superpower"

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 08 Apr 2010 00:16

"CRS,

Why do the Americans get India wrong so often? Because they project their problems and obsessions as natural and universal, and failing to grasp fundamental differences in the Indian perspective.

There are also a few Indians who do the same thing - who project their issues on to America, and thus suffer from fundamental misreading of American priorities and perspective...."

You're right in the sense that the US has, taking the last 30 years, experienced more Iran linked terrorism than Pakistan linked terrorism. But the question is, why is it when the evidence in front of them is so blatant, so obvious, that they either fail to take action, prevent/strongly advise India against doing anything, while still insisting on the pre-eminence of Iran backed violence, and the necessity of India doing something diplomatically vis-a-vis Iran? Bear in mind that there has not been *one* terrorist act on US soil itself, linked to Iran in any way. Contrast this with Pakistani supported terror on Indian soil.

This approach might remotely even make sense( notice "remotely") if the US was not touched by Pakistan supported terrorism. But it has been! In Mumbai, in Afghanistan, within Pakistan itself( Daniel Pearl etc). Or parallely,
if India had been a victim of Iranian supported terror. But India has not even been touched by Iran, while the US has been struck, directly or indirectly, by Pakistan.

nithish · Post by **nithish** » 08 Apr 2010 04:50

not directly related but Kyrgyzstan is in trouble and it is hosting a US base in Manas;

Kyrgyzstan in crisis as clashes escalate

The government in Kyrgyzstan is struggling to retain power as deadly clashes escalate between police and thousands of protesters.
Officials say at least 40 people died in the capital, Bishkek, as protesters stormed government and TV offices.

The protesters are angry at rising prices and accuse President Kurmanbek Bakiyev of failing to curb corruption.
A key opposition leader has said the government has now resigned but there is no official confirmation.

The leader, Temir Sariyev, said Prime Minister Daniyar Usenov had agreed to tender the government's resignation and that Mr Bakiyev had left Bishkek.

Kyrgyzstan at the hub of superpowers’ plans

Reports of violence in the capital of Kyrgyzstan have prompted the US embassy there to express deep concern, and the Russian government to call for restraint.

These reactions help underline the strategic significance of Kyrgyzstan and the region it occupies.
Kyrgyzstan has found itself in the cockpit of what has been dubbed the new "great game" in the region - so-called because the modern big powers jostling for influence there appear reminiscent of the 19th Century contest between the British and Russian empires over access to India.
--------
The Manas air base has become a key strategic staging post for the US military in Afghanistan - especially after the closure of the so-called K2 base in Uzbekistan .
That itself followed the souring of relations between the US and Uzbek governments in 2005, after the Uzbek authorities cracked down violently on an internal threat posed by Islamic militants.

But the sensitivities have been growing - not least from Moscow, as the US-led operations in Afghanistan, and therefore also Washington's military interest in the region, have become ever more prolonged.
The Kyrgyz authorities have played Washington off against Moscow.

President Kurmanbek Bakiyev had already been pressing Washington for significant increases in the rental payments for Manas.
But in early 2009, on the back of a Russian promise of a huge aid package, he announced that the base would close.
It took a personal intervention by President Barack Obama to keep the Manas base open to the Americans. Even then it was on a compromise basis, under which Manas was to be described as a "transit centre".

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Apr 2010 07:08

The State Department doesn't think Hamid Karzai is a drug addict

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... rug_addict

QUESTION: Yesterday, Ambassador - former Ambassador Galbraith was on television making some pretty direct --

MR. CROWLEY: Outrageous accusations?

QUESTION: I'll leave you to characterize that. Does --

MR. CROWLEY: I will.

QUESTION: -- the U.S. Government have any reason to believe that President Karzai is like, hiding out in the basement of the palace doing bong hits or, you know, something worse? (Laughter.)

MR. CROWLEY: He is the president of Afghanistan. He's been significantly engaged with us on a regular basis. The Secretary talked to him Friday. Ambassador Eikenberry talked to him on Friday. He was with General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry over the weekend. We have no information to support the charges that Peter Galbraith has leveled.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Galbraith's comments --

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- but apart from the drug allegation, he talked about the president being - "flighty" perhaps is a nice word for it. Does the U.S. Government have any concerns about Karzai's stability, his mental state, or his seeming erratic behavior of late?

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: None?

MR. CROWLEY: None.

QUESTION: So you don't share Galbraith's opinion --

MR. CROWLEY: We don't.

QUESTION: -- of --

MR. CROWLEY: We don't.

QUESTION: In any way?

MR. CROWLEY: He - look, he is the president of Afghanistan and he is a figure that we respect and that we are working closely with to see the emergence of an effective government that - at the national level. And we will continue to work with others in Afghanistan on effective government at the provincial and local level.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Apr 2010 08:19

Obama sidelines Karzai as Washington alleges drug use

Has Al-Guardian ever used the accompanying picture of Karzai before?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Apr 2010 10:01

U.S. Tries to Mend Rift With Karzai

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world ... diplo.html

Seeking to quell an increasingly vitriolic and public dispute, the Obama administration said Wednesday that President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan was “a figure that we respect,” and it sharply countered claims by a former United Nations official that the president might be a drug user.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 Apr 2010 07:23

Holbrooke cleared to travel

http://www.politico.com/blogs/lauraroze ... avel_.html

On Tuesday, the Washington Note conveyed the news that Af/Pak envoy Richard Holbrooke's doctor had grounded him pending angiogram tests and was not permitting him to travel to the Afghanistan on a well-publicized trip with Gen. David Petraeus this week.

I have learned just an hour ago that the angiogram showed the best possible results. There was no significant obstruction that required intervention.

Richard Holbrooke has been cleared to travel with Gen. Petraeus to Afghanistan.

In fact, Holbrooke spoke to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directly, and she cleared the trip.

I can also report that Holbrooke is in excellent spirits — though he seemed in excellent spirits when he presided over an all-staff meeting Tuesday this week and had not yet informed his team of this potential health challenge.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 Apr 2010 07:25

Karzai Unhinged?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... i_unhinged

During my recent visit to Afghanistan, I got the chance to meet with military officers, mullahs, and senior government ministers, as well as journalists, NGO activists, parliamentarians, provincial governors, tribal leaders, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai himself. ...

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 Apr 2010 10:10

NATO Helicopter Downed in Southeastern Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/A ... istan.html

A helicopter belonging to international forces in Afghanistan has gone down in the country's southeast, NATO reported Friday. Taliban and Afghan officials said militants shot it down.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Apr 2010 20:28

Looks like there is a full scale psy-ops from the massa to delegitimize Karzai. Non State experts(NSE) demonize Karzai and State experts make soothing statements to play bad cop - good cop. Its this flurry of statements that reveal the game.

The likely goal is to soften him up to accept the Paki pasand Taliban as good Taliban.

By same token looks like Karazai is on the path to achieve something without TSP and US help. Hence the need to delegitimize him so he will accept their solution.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 09 Apr 2010 22:34

Ramanaji, this is a pattern of behaviour seen earlier amongst afghan(pashtun) strongmen who came to power on external assistance and then turned against their mentors.

Suugest reviewing the infamous exchange between Hafizullah amin and Leonid Brezhnev in Moscow and how this started the ball rolling by Soviets thinking Afghanistan was slipping and led to the invasion in 1979. He was assassinated by the KGB in a palace coup and replaced by Babrak Karmal. Amin, you may inerested to know was a Ghilzai Pushtun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafizullah_Amin

In February 1979 the US Ambassador Adolph Dubs was killed. The Khalq faction was gaining political power over the Parcham faction, with Karmal exiled to Europe. Amin had gained considerable control by March 1979 and was named Prime Minister although Taraki retained his other posts. The unrest continued however and the regime was forced to seek more Soviet aid. It was in that meeting between Taraki and Leonid Brezhnev that the decision to remove Amin took place.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Apr 2010 02:29

With Note, Obama Seeks to Ease Rift With Karzai

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world ... prexy.html

President Obama sent a letter to President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan this week, as Mr. Obama tried to ease the tensions that have flared since his visit to Kabul last month and to restore the two nations’ partnership at a time of accelerating military operations against Taliban insurgents.

Aides to Mr. Obama described the message as a thank-you letter for receiving him on short notice in March. They said that it did not directly address Mr. Karzai’s angry outbursts against the United States and its allies following the visit, but did include a recommitment to joint efforts in Afghanistan and renewal of Mr. Obama’s “willingness to work together,” as the White House put it.

Advisers to Mr. Obama declared the flare-up in tensions closed and said Mr. Karzai’s scheduled visit to Washington in May was “absolutely” still on, despite earlier hints that it might be canceled.

“We ought to calm the rhetoric,” Gen. James L. Jones, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, told reporters on Air Force One as the president returned from a short trip to Europe. He added: “This matter is really behind us now, and I think you’ll see that in the weeks ahead.”

...

General Jones suggested on Friday that those comments had been blown out of proportion. “President Karzai did not intend to create any damage to the relationship,” he said. He added that Mr. Karzai’s job is so difficult that “he probably is provoked in one way or the other to make certain statements that can be misinterpreted.”

General Jones added that “there was far too much reporting on lecturing and making corruption the centerpiece of everything we talked about” during Mr. Obama’s visit.

...

Speaking Friday, General Jones said he and Mr. Obama both left Afghanistan “fortified” and “reassured” by the talks with Mr. Karzai, and that it was now time to “get back to regular order here.”

skher · Post by **skher** » 10 Apr 2010 02:35

India prepares for Afghan winter - M D Nalapat

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=23514

This time around,such an outcome is not certain, given the deteriorating position in Afghanistan,and the consequent need for an Indo-Iranian strategy aimed at blocking the Taliban from once again taking over the country. In this context, those reports coming out of the US that speak of a Taliban-Iran alliance are ridiculed in Delhi, which is aware that these are as false as were reports of the imaginary WMD stockpiles in the possession of Saddasm Hussein This time around,however,India will seek to ensure that the bulk of the Pashtun people do not follow the Taliban.Because of pressure from a panicky General Stanley McChrystal, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is being forced into making overtures to the Taliban,even though he is aware that any involvement of Taliban elements in an Afghan government would be akin to Hindenburg allowing the Nazis entry into the German government in 1933. Not everybody is as clueless about reality as the CIA. South Block is backing President Karzai in his efforts to detach the Pashtuns from the Taliban,and is hoping that the CIA will not be allowed to repeart the very mess in Afghanistan that it created in 1994 when it began grooming what became the Taliban about eighteenmonths later.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 10 Apr 2010 07:14

This is a very interesting blog with documentary about Afghanistan's history. Dont know its accuracy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2 ... istan.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Apr 2010 07:19

The “unscrupulous” Mr. Karzai

http://filtercoffee.nationalinterest.in ... mr-karzai/

As China, Pakistan and Iran prepare to step up engagement with Afghanistan, there are question marks about where the recent developments leave India. While the Karzai government has in the past pressed New Delhi to play a larger role in the country, India has restricted its involvement in Afghanistan to providing humanitarian and economic assistance. Frustrated, the Karzai regime now looks to hedge its bets elsewhere.

This puts India in a precarious position. The prospects of a reemergence of a Russia-India-Iran order in Afghanistan aren’t great, given that Indo-Iranian relations are at a low. But we’re still very far away from throwing in the towel. There are significant caveats and complications in the Afghanistan-Pakistan-Iran relationship for it to become an order.

Both India and Iran share mutual interests in Afghanistan, and it is therefore imperative that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government make amends for its folly at the IAEA. India’s attempts at revitalizing its relationship with Russia is a positive step — it is important that this relationship extend itself to securing both nations’ mutual interests in Afghanistan.
Ultimately, it is in India’s best interests that no one order — be it the US and its Western allies, or the Pakistan-Saudi-China triumvirate — dominate Afghanistan’s landscape. This landscape will include the “unscrupulous” Mr. Karzai, and increasingly, warlords (affiliated as well as adversarial) and Taliban remnants. India must therefore work with regional powers and political players to ensure that its interests in Afghanistan are protected, at a time when power equations in the war-torn nation are rapidly changing.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 10 Apr 2010 10:02

U.S. Now Trying Softer Approach Toward Karzai

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world ... xy.html?hp

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Apr 2010 10:51

U.S. Should Work With Afghanistan Leader Karzai: Madeleine Albright.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... cq4dfP13X0

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 10 Apr 2010 11:08

What is the source of rift between US & Karzai. I don't believe this election fraud BS. More likely that Karzai despies front-line all-lie TSP, respects India, again with good reason, and hence US displeasure with him.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Apr 2010 11:12

CRamS wrote: More likely that Karzai despies front-line all-lie TSP, respects India, again with good reason, and hence US displeasure with him.

Karzai recently said that India is a friend and Pakistan and Afghanistan are conjoined twins.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 10 Apr 2010 11:26

He's quite correct!

My question is, it seems to be taken for granted that in order to control Afghanistan one must have Islamabad on board and in agreement. Why is this so? To make a rough parallel, why has that not been so in Iraq? The US has not needed Iran's agreement to control Iraq. Is it because institutions for governance already exist in Iraq but not so in Afghanistan?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 10 Apr 2010 17:49

>>What is the source of rift between US & Karzai?

Bullshit poured into the ears of American generals by Kayani and co, and some of their sympathisers in the US/UK (note that the UK has been decidedly less enthusiastic about the Karzai campaign). The utter nonsense about electoral fraud and concern for democracy (look who's talking, in terms of allies name one in the ME/Central Asia who is a more enlightened leader than Karzai) is post-facto justification of sorts.

As it appears, a decision was taken at some point to take Karzai down a notch, or to bring him down altogether, to satisfy the generals in Rawalpindi, and hence the steady stream of rubbish coming thru the Western media and snakes for hire like Peter Galbraith (do a check on his background, this fellow is nothing but an out and out crook for sale to the highest local bidder - and probably an agent of someone or the other and perhaps more than one in my humble phucking opinion). http://www.chowk.com/ilogs/64163/36997

This whole anti-Karzai impropagandu was clearly done really without much aforethought about what will happen after Karzai is made to look like an incompetent fool. And he has held their feet to the fire on that one, literally, with the recent unapologetic outbursts. Now, as you can see, some frenetic backpedalling is on. It is a huge mistake to underestimate the influence and reputation that Karzai enjoys among a chunk of the Pashtuns (when there isn't much to look at, people fall back on the tried and tested). Whatever one may say Karzai is local aristocracy and that still has some weight - and people in Afghanistan, Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns, know he is essentially a good man with the interests of the country at heart. The Afghans and Pashtuns, though they may be illiterate or semi-literate and mostly desperately poor, are not fools.

Frankly, I doubt even those behind the anti-Karzai psy-op effort realised how it would gather momentum and run away from them literally. If the idea was to tell Karzai not to take initiatives of his own, even if they stood literally no chance of durable success, it has failed miserably and perhaps even strengthened Karzai. However, don't expect this to be recognised or internalised in any way. Some sections of the American strategic community still seem to be in a hypnotic trance where the rubbish emanating from their Pakistani counterparts are concerned. And, unfortunately, a larger segment of the American establishment simply appear to be congenitally unable to see Afghanistan as a separate country quite capable of standing on its own. If they did that, they might then truly recognise that the problem is not Afghanistan, or Karzai, or the corruption in that country.

The problem is the Pakistani military/bureaucratic establishment, and what it wants to do in and to Afghanistan - an evil vision that this establishment considers as something virtually its birthright, and the Americans are, ignorantly or not, colluding willy-nilly. The ridiculous thing about all this is that, broadly speaking, the Americans are well intentioned. They mean no harm to Afghanistan. They need to step back, take a look, and re-orient their Af-Pak outlook, and if need be shift the bloody paradigm.

Sorry for the rant.

arun · Post by **arun** » 10 Apr 2010 18:49

X Posted.

Former Taliban era Afghan Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef describing Pakistan in his book “My Life With The Taliban”:

“Pakistan, which plays a key role in Asia, is so famous for treachery that it is said they can get milk from a bull. They have two tongues in one mouth, and two faces on one head so they can speak everybody’s language; they use everybody, deceive everybody. They deceive the Arabs under the guise of Islamic nuclear power, they milk America and Europe in the alliance against terrorism, and they have been deceiving Pakistani and other Muslims around the world in the name of the Kashmiri jihad.”

Taken from our former special envoy to West Asia, Chinmaya Gharekhan’s review of the book in Outlook:

Outlook

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 10 Apr 2010 20:22

India to play role in Afghanistan 'with or without America'

Militants attack Indian camp in Afghanistan

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 11 Apr 2010 09:23

On Friday, Afghan security forces nabbed a suicide bomber squad on the outskirts of Kabul that was expressly intended at "getting" Indian diplomats and embassy. India considers this to be a serious threat and the PM will stress this in his discussions.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 782686.cms

Can these folks be traced back to the TSPA?

Some other perfidy going on:

Three Italian medical workers are among nine men arrested in Afghanistan in connection with an alleged plot to kill a provincial governor, officials say.

The detentions came after suicide bomb vests and weapons were discovered at a hospital run by a Milan-based charity in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand.

Helmand Governor Gulab Mangal said the devices had been brought to the clinic "with the help of the foreign staff".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8613801.stm

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 11 Apr 2010 11:41

interesting story that, about the Italian Emergency NGO staff. There's a ring of truth to it somehow. Shows what a clusterfvk the situation is. There were apparently British troops among the arresting party as per video.

Don't be surprised if, sooner or later, AP disowns the legitimacy of the video, denying it was a video of the arrest or something like that. Already NATO apparently has denied its troops were involved in the arrest.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 11 Apr 2010 19:50

From swapan dasgupta's pioneer column.
link

Duno how true this is but makes for one neat little ROFL onlee. Check it out:

On March 28, Obama made a sudden visit to Kabul, partly to cheer American forces stationed there and partly to confer with President Hamid Karzai. According to reports carefully leaked by the American side, Obama read Karzai the proverbial riot act. He is said to have told him that the US found his style of governance quite unacceptable and the levels of corruption well beyond the threshold of tolerance. He was told to shape up or ship out.

Ok. SO what, one may ask.

Obama’s sharp tongue lashing hasn’t gone down well in Afghanistan. Karzai has rightly been offended by Obama’s discourtesy and has lost no opportunity to lash out at the West. He has sought to befriend Iran, caution the US against any unilateral offensive on Kandahar and even let it be known that sheer exasperation with American arrogance may drive him into the arms of the Taliban. The US has hit back by calling Karzai’s mental stability into question and even hinting that he is suffering the effects of hallucinatory drugs. Rarely has the relationship between two allies plummeted to such incredible depths.

For all practical purposes the US has said its triple talaq to Karzai.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 12 Apr 2010 10:26

Copied from US thread

AF-Pak dominates PM Manmohan Singh-Obama talks

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 786085.cms

US-India ties appear to be back on track after President Barack Obama assured Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that Washington fully recognized India's security concerns arising from the AfPak region and wouldn't do anything inimical to it since it valued the prospect of a strong strategic partnership with New Delhi.

Relief, satisfaction, and a renewed confidence was palpable among Indian officials as they briefed the media on a 50-minute meeting between Obama and Singh on a beautiful spring afternoon that brought hordes of people to the vicinity of the White House to see the finale of the cherry blossom festival. It also brought back color to US-India ties with Obama's assertion of support on various issues after a rather bleak run-up that called into question that state of play between the two countries.

Among the assurances that the Indian side reported receiving from Obama was that the US would work through the legal process to provide access to LeT terrorist David Headley (a sore point with New Delhi) and also seek continued Indian support in the developmental efforts in Afghanistan.

Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, who briefed the media on the Obama-Singh meeting said the US President told Prime Minister Singh that he fully understood India's concerns about the security situation in the region and assured him that "there is no country in the world where the opportunities for a strong strategic partnership are greater and more important to him and the United States" than the one with India.

Obama's assurance came after Prime Minister Singh strongly raised India's concern with him about Pakistan's relentless pursuit of terrorism as a policy option. "India's interests are constantly on the US mind," Rao, who was part of the Indian delegation at the meeting, quoted President Obama as saying.

A Prime Minister who has gained the reputation of being the most pro-American leader to occupy high office in India stepped up to a Sunday meeting with the US President to convey to him that New Delhi cannot forgo its strategic and security interests to US prevarication or Pakistani pressure in AfPak region, especially as both US and India desired the same end result – the defeat of terrorism.

In this context, Singh had a litany of complaints and grievances that over-ran Obama’s suggestion to reduce tensions through dialogue with Pakistan. Singh told him that he saw no will on part of Pakistan to punish the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai massacre even as terrorists such as Hafeez Mohammed Saeed and Ilyas Kashmir continued to operate with impunity.

...

Rao told journalists that the 50 minute meeting was “extremely positive and constructive” although the media scrum before the meeting began made much of the stolid body language on a warm spring day. It was the first meeting between the two leaders after the Singh State visit last November when Obama hosted an elegant dinner banquet for him at the White House.

Ahead of the meeting, the Indian side made it clear in unusually blunt language that New Delhi will not forfeit its core interests in its sphere of influence (read Afghanistan) just because of Pakistani’s existential paranoia.

Pakistan wants Washington to press India to downsize its growing presence and influence in Afghanistan because it fears being caught in a pincer. New Delhi believes its interests in Kabul pre-date the formation of Pakistan; Afghanistan was India’s neighbor before Pakistan was even a glimmer in its founder’s eye.

...

The tough language used ahead of the meeting – and the litany of grievances conveyed by Singh to Obama -- was unusual for New Delhi which has preferred to play a rather muted role even as Washington has ignored India’s concerns over growing Pakistani belligerence built on U.S dependence on it for the war in Afghanistan.

But it reflected the frustration in the Indian establishment over US prevarication in Afghanistan and its pandering to Pakistan’s toxic policies that include backing selective Taliban factions that remain its proxies. Washington has winked at this, and sometimes endorsed it, continuing its efforts to get a handle on the situation.

Singh also pushed back at Obama’s pressure on India to seek accommodation with Pakistan, which Indian officials say was unnecessary considering the prime minister is ahead of (and often at odds with) the public mood in India when it comes to seeking peace with Pakistan.

...

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 12 Apr 2010 11:06

One has to wait and see what happens before getting too excited. The same thing had happened in Nov: India was very concerned going into the meeting and came out reassured. After that there were a lot of things that happened that India felt were against its interests. So one has to wait and look at the actions.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 12 Apr 2010 13:09

That article has a lifafa feel to it, just my sixth sensor hardening of course.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Apr 2010 23:46

JE Menon wrote:That article has a lifafa feel to it, just my sixth sensor hardening of course.

Its by Chidanand Rajghatta.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 13 Apr 2010 00:06

It's at least encouraging to hear the Indian government make a strong statement, to the effect that, with or without the US, India will continue to have a presence in Afghanistan.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Apr 2010 01:10

Chinmayanand wrote:
Militants attack Indian camp in Afghanistan

From Nightwatch, 4/11/10..

Afghanistan: Militants launched a pre-dawn attack on an Indian road construction camp in eastern Afghanistan, burning vehicles and equipment and sending the crew fleeing, The Associated Press reported 10 April. The Afghan Interior Ministry said there were no deaths or injuries reported in the attack in Khost Province's Domanda district. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.

Note: Attacks against Indian companies always are in the service of Pakistani intelligence. Khost Province borders the tribal agencies of Pakistan. Indian companies and the Border Roads Organization have been building roads in many provinces of the Pashtun heartland, on the borders with Iran and Pakistan. Indian influence in Kabul makes some in Pakistan uneasy and they communicate this through their Afghan Taliban or Haqqani proxies.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 13 Apr 2010 01:15

>>Its by Chidanand Rajghatta.

Yup, I checked as soon as I read it.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 13 Apr 2010 07:59

Kazakhstan to Permit Military Overflights to Afghanistan

WASHINGTON — Kazakhstan has agreed to let the United States fly troops and weapons over its territory, a deal that opens a direct and faster route over the North Pole for American forces and lethal equipment headed to Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/world ... hstan.html

This is a positive indication, but it is still not clear if the US is going to reduce its reliance on and support for the Paks in the Afghan theater.

The US needs to be more transparent and consistent - we waste half our time trying to guess what they are going to do.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Apr 2010 08:09

JE Menon wrote:>>Its by Chidanand Rajghatta.

Yup, I checked as soon as I read it.

Why do you think its a lifafa article?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 13 Apr 2010 10:03

The Crossing: A Journey Through North Afghanistan

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... fghanistan

"Don't even dare travel on that road": In the first entry of a month-long travel diary, our correspondent ponders maps and routes in Kabul. ...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Apr 2010 14:25

Another "collateral damage" screw-up affecting major US military plans.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 095153.ece

Excerpt:

Nato Taleban blitz in jeopardy after troops shoot woman and child on bus

Nato plans for a massive operation in southern Afghanistan suffered a setback yesterday when soldiers opened fire on a bus, killing four civilians including a woman and child, and wounding more than 12 others.

The incident, on a road outside the city of Kandahar sparked angry protests. Elders in Kandahar — where the latest Nato operation will be focused — said that what little faith people still had in the coalition had evaporated.

“The operation hasn’t even started yet, but every day they kill civilians,” said Haji Wali Jan. “Even they must know a bus is full of civilians? If they are afraid of a bus, how can they continue with an operation in Kandahar?”

Hours after the incident a Taleban suicide squad attacked the Afghan intelligence agency’s headquarters in the city. Officials said that three men stormed a house opposite the National Directorate of Security. One of them was shot dead, a second detonated his suicide vest and the third was badly wounded and arrested. Officials said that five residents were wounded.

Related Links
General frustrated by Nato’s civilian death toll
Afghan president to block Nato offensive
How truth emerged about civilian killings

The attack on the bus is only the latest in a long and bloody series of incidents in which foreign troops have inadvertently killed civilians.

President Karzai — who has wept in public while demanding that Nato should stop killing innocent people — issued a statement condemning the attack and offering his condolences.

Nato’s International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) confirmed that four civilians including a woman were killed when a “route clearance patrol” opened fire on a bus in Zhari district.

“An unknown large vehicle approached a slow-moving Isaf route-clearance patrol from the rear at a high rate of speed,” the coalition said. “Upon inspection, Isaf forces discovered the vehicle to be a passenger bus.”

By that stage, however, the soldiers had already opened fire. The coalition claimed that the bus, which local people said was on the way to Oruzgan province, ignored warnings to stop. “The patrol attempted to warn off the vehicle with hand signals prior to firing upon it. Once engaged, the vehicle then stopped,” it said. In February three minibuses travelling in the opposite direction, through Oruzgan to Kandahar, were bombed on orders of US special forces, killing 27 civilians.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 14 Apr 2010 01:52

>>Why do you think its a lifafa article?

The language. It is clearly intended to give the impression that GoI has done a sterling job of putting forward our concerns forcefully to the US. This may, in fact, be true. But that in itself does not obviate the need for a few lifafa articles, just so that everyone knows. Clearly intended to show India as having talked tough and having prevailed as a result. It is possibly because GoI has been acquiring a reputation as being rather wobbly-kneed of late. Of course, one must not assume that only non-Indians can slip a lifafa into the right pockets, and it need not even be a conventional lifafa of greenbacks. Far more tempting, sometimes, to journalists is promise of access, good press for themselves (very useful in pay negotiations), and so on... But like I said, I just got a feel that it was a lifafa article. Maybe it was not, but I would put money on it that this one is in some way massaged into the media.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Apr 2010 03:57

Essentially the article provides a view which is at variance with the traditional l image of GOI that we hav seen over the last few years.

Good reason