Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 May 2010 08:38

Obama makes personal diplomacy part of Afghan strategy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03384.html

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 May 2010 00:53

Undoing damage in Afghanistan wrought by Bush-era diplomat
May 10, 1:47 AM
Afghanistan Headlines ExaminerMichael Hughes
http://www.examiner.com/x-30980-Afghani ... a-diplomat

Zalmay Khalilzad is major reason Karzai is in office and Afghanistan is in chaos (photo: Global Research)
Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post advised the White House a few weeks ago to "page" former Bush administration ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad because his "healing powers" could restore Afghan President Hamid Karzai's soundness of mind - a suggestion more insane than Karzai himself.
Before she penned her misguided diatribe, Ms. Parker should have paged Khalil Nouri, an Afghan foreign policy expert, former DOD contractor and someone very familiar with Mr. Khalilzad's less-than-stellar diplomatic performance. Well, I dialed up Mr. Nouri after reading an article he wrote in Veterans Today entitled: Mr. Khalilzad, Why Should the White House Page You? . This indicting and colorful essay illustrates how Khalilzad is not the anecdote to the Karzai problem - he is the root cause of it.
Mr. Khalilzad has a shocking history of supporting Islamic fundamentalists, made more astonishing by the fact his resume would make most neoconservatives jealous. During the 80s he served war hawk Paul Wolfowitz at the State Department, led the Bush/Cheney transition team in 2001 and subsequently- to round out the "who's who of neocons" - worked as a counselor for Don Rumsfeld.
By combining a peculiar affinity for Islamo-fascism with poor judgment, Khalilzad has left a clear track record of extremely damaging foreign policy decisions. As a Director at Rand Corporation and a paid consultant for the UNOCAL trans-Afghanistan pipeline, he lobbied the Clinton administration to recognize the Taliban. In 1999, in the very publication Ms. Parker now writes for, Khalilzad was quoted as saying: "In the rural areas, what the Taliban is seeking to impose is not very different than what the norm has been."
In his piece, Nouri exposes Khalilzad's primal political instincts and rationale for strong-arming Karzai into office - a man deemed by many Afghans to be wholly incompetent and an opportunist of the worst sort. As if speaking directly to Mr. Khalilzad, Nouri wrote:
A level that initially began with you as an "envoy" of the Bush-Cheney administration; and as always, your charming and skillfully understated powers of persuasion allowed you to intriguingly and deliberately engineer a path to become the backroom powerbroker who's scheming implanted your Unocal pal, Mr. Hamid Karzai, as the head of Afghanistan's transitional government at the emergency "Loya Jirgah" on June 10, 2002.
Not to mention, Karzai is a product of a circle of family, friends and associates filled to the brim with warlords, drug traffickers and criminals. Khalilzad went further than propping up the unqualified Karzai, he helped determine cabinet appointments and influenced policy. According to Nouri:
You ensured that the Northern Alliance and other warlords were legitimized as cabinet ministers, court officials, and regional governors, and that their wish for a religious-based government was enshrined into the Afghan Constitution. But, by giving them positions of power, you ignored the wishes of the majority of Afghans, who would rather see those criminals on trial. Additionally, it was your idea for the Karzai government to offer amnesty to the Taliban--a doctrine that you called, "co-optation in exchange for cooperation." Is it working sir?
The impact of Khalilzad's geopolitical genius doesn't stop there because Afghanistan is still reaping what Zalmay sowed during the war against the Soviets in the 80s, when he favored Islamic fundamentalists like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, now one of America's most wanted Afghan terrorists, over Muslim traditionalists. Years later, Khalilzad, beholden to this same lot, has placed these extremists into government positions, thus alienating moderate tribal leaders whose support is sorely needed today.
To top that, Zalmay then advised Karzai "the uniter" to block certain non-Pashtun ethnicities from gaining any government appointments. According to Arthur Kent, a source close to the Afghan President said: "He (Zalmay Khalilzad) encouraged Karzai to rid his government of Tajiks, and except for a few positions, he has succeeded. Ethnic fascism is not too strong a label for Zal and his friends."
Most tragically, Khalilzad backed Pakistan's campaign to eliminate Afghan hero Ahmed Shah Massoud, an ethnic Tajik who helped stop the Taliban from seizing all of Afghanistan and whose dire admonishments about the emerging specter of al-Qaeda fell on deaf ears in the U.S.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 May 2010 01:24

Wasnt conventional wisdom that AlQ eliminated Ahmed Masood as a prelude to 9/11? If this was a Paki hand then it boggles the mind who did it!

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 11 May 2010 06:46

ramana wrote:Wasnt conventional wisdom that AlQ eliminated Ahmed Masood as a prelude to 9/11? If this was a Paki hand then it boggles the mind who did it!

AlQ is riddled with double-agents.

And elimination of Masood is similar in spirit to the UN-supported vote fraud.

But that doesn't necessarily make Karzai and Khalilzad bad guys as far as India is concerned ... since they have Afghan blood, they are unlikely to like the idea of Afg becoming a Pakjabi colony.

As regards 9/11 and Afghanistan ... Bush & Co may not have wanted to go into Afghanistan at all ... the original intention was to use 9/11 to go into Iraq.

The Commission was furthermore, forthcoming about the extent to which certain members of the Bush administration pushed for attacking Iraq immediately after 9/11. It pointed out that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld instructed General Myers to find out as much as he could about Saddam Hussein's possible responsibility for 9/11. It also cited a report according to which, at the first session at Camp David after 9/11, Rumsfeld began by asking what should be done about Iraq (334-35). The Commission even portrayed Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, as arguing that Saddam should be attacked even if there were only a 10 percent chance that he was behind the 9/11 attacks (335-36).54 Finally, the Commission reported Richard Clarke's statement that the president told him the day after 9/11 to see if Saddam was linked to the attacks in any way (334). The Commission was, therefore, quite frank about the fact that some leaders of the Bush administration were ready from the outset to attack Iraq because of its possible connections to 9/11 or at least al-Qaeda-connections for which the Commission said that it could find no credible evidence.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=1391

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 11 May 2010 06:56

Khalilzad backed Pakistan's campaign to eliminate Afghan hero Ahmed Shah Massoud

Really? Who says this?

Examiner Michael Hughes

Who is this person? What is this site? It appears that any yahoo can publish any rubbish there.

What did Khalilzad actually say? Google books has this...

Taking charge: a bipartisan report to the President-elect on ..., Volume 1
By Frank Charles Carlucci, Robert Edwards Hunter, Zalmay Khalilzad

...

US Policies ... should also permit support for Massoud to prevent complete Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 May 2010 08:09

Oooops. I just gave Michael Hughes some props in the deterrence thread. May have to slow down ........................... He used to worship Hamid - THE Taliban expert.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 May 2010 08:17

U.S. Tries Using Its Good China for Karzai Visit

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/world ... arzai.html

Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative to the region, was dispatched to Andrews Air Force Base at 7 a.m. on Monday to personally greet Mr. Karzai.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 May 2010 10:15

The key to Af-Pak is for India to take back PoK, This will unravel TSP like no other thing. Taking back PoK is a legitimate thing for India. The West and PRC will do whatever it takes to prevent this retaking PoK.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 May 2010 10:31

^^^Amen to that.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 11 May 2010 10:43

ramana wrote:The key to Af-Pak is for India to take back PoK, This will unravel TSP like no other thing. Taking back PoK is a legitimate thing for India. The West and PRC will do whatever it takes to prevent this retaking PoK.

I sincerely hope you mean the land and not the animals living there.....but in any case, how does it help

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 11 May 2010 16:20

^^^ Inhabitants of Northern areas are mostly friendly. And it helps by giving land-link to Afg.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 11 May 2010 18:52

Is that short stretch that connects to Af usable at all?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 May 2010 19:22

ramana wrote:The key to Af-Pak is for India to take back PoK, This will unravel TSP like no other thing. Taking back PoK is a legitimate thing for India. The West and PRC will do whatever it takes to prevent this retaking PoK.

Tathastu Ramanaji! I have been arguing for this for more than a year (starting with RayC ji).

This is my thought process.

India has legitimate rights on POK+NA. This area is important to protect Jammu & Kashmir's long term interests. Reclaiming POK would pave the way for Aksai-Chin.

With little foresight India can do wonders in Af-Pak area. India must offer additional financial and military aid (ALH, Pinaka etc.,) in return for a permanent military base in Afghanistan facing POK/NA. The Farkhor base in Tajikstan can act as supporting base.

No doubt it will be a costly effort. But will reap more than 100 times economic and strategic benefits to India in next 10-20 years.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 May 2010 21:30

RamaY, You are looking at the legitmacy of Indian claim over POK. And benefits to India on re-integration of POK.

Spend some time to think about why its relevant to TSP and the impact on its socio-dynamics.

And then wonder why the West wants to ensure that POK remains with TSP.

Go back and read Kissinger, Dobrynin, Zbig's works.

I will quote all that in summary later on.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 11 May 2010 21:56

Just a word of caution. What makes strategic sense may not be easy to achieve. Just as its easy to strategize that Indian batsman should dispatch the short-pitched deliveries hurled at them over point, 3rd man, square leg and fine leg; fact is one must have the capability to execute such a strategy which seems to be lacking in the Indian batsman currently playing in the WC T-20. Likewise, India is having a tough time barely holding onto the Kashmir valley, do we really have the capability to take POK and more importantly, hold it thereafter?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 May 2010 22:03

CRamS wrote:Just a word of caution. What makes strategic sense may not be easy to achieve. Likewise, India is having a tough time barely holding onto the Kashmir valley, do we really have the capability to take POK and more importantly, hold it thereafter?

This is a 100 year project and cannot be achieved in a few decades. Indian independence took some 90 years before they left India. Force of history moves in 100-200 years time frame. Set of ideology and policy is promoted which will last hundreds of years. Results will come after several generations.
Our ancestors have fought and resisted for 1000 of years and current situation is just a small thing.

muraliravi · Post by **muraliravi** » 11 May 2010 22:26

Suppiah wrote:Is that short stretch that connects to Af usable at all?

The terrain around POK and Wakhan border is very similar (if not less rugged) to the terrain on which the karakoram highway has been built and effectively used for some of the most nefarious activities.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 May 2010 23:54

Shravan wrote:

ramana wrote:You dont see an US news service reporting this, do you?

There is a History of not showing the News in US Media when there is a connection between ISI & Terrorist Involment.

India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links to 9/11. Only a single US press outlet, the Wall Street Journal website, mentioned this connection in the editorial section (James Taranto writing) on October 10, 2001, saying it was an "internet only" story.
-------------
If anyone has second thoughts note the long enduring Western interest to protect TSP and especially its Army. If you look back with this point of view every action that UK and US took can be explained with this simple fact. The challenge for India is to make the TSP people disown this externally supported group running the kabila.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 May 2010 00:56

Nightwatch comments 5/09/10 and 5/10/10

Afghanistan: The Taliban threatened 8 May to launch a fresh offensive across Afghanistan starting 10 May, as President Hamid Karzai said international forces have yet to secure large parts of the country, Agence France-Presse reported.

The Taliban said the offensive will include assassinations of government officials, roadside bombs and suicide attacks against foreigners and those who support them. Defense Minister General Abdul Rahim Wardak quickly dismissed the threat as insurgent propaganda, adding that the Taliban do not have the ability to launch such attacks.

Comment: One BBC commentator described the Taliban statement as "part of a sophisticated propaganda campaign.…" Readers should tire of such blather. The Taliban already have begun to surge attacks in Kandahar. It is not propaganda.

In this they are buoyed by the American and Afghan failure to secure Marjah. It is just too insignificant for the Afghan government to waste its assets on. Old hands knew that about Marjah before the US attack. Its capture was not a centerpiece or a turning point. Whoever said it contained 80,000 people never looked at the satellite imagery.

It was pretty much a waste of time and energy, unless as part of a larger campaign to impose and sustain positive control of Helmand Province. The salient evidence that such a larger plan does not exist is the quick change of focus to Kandahar, a geographically, socially, economically and ethnically different target.

If the maneuver forces cannot stay and cannot be back filled with competent home defense forces, the result of a large scale offensive is no different from the many smaller scale operations in past years. NATO forces can win every battle, but still lose the war and the country.

On the outside looking in, the US command looks muddled. There simply are not enough forces to create a security environment in which nation-building has a chance. The single most important lesson of past counter insurgencies is that no farmer will plant a single seed unless he is confident he will live to see that seed bear fruit. The US and Afghan government cannot provide such a guarantee at this time, but the Taliban can.

and

Pakistan-US: The Pakistani Taliban were behind the attempted bombing in New York's Times Square, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said 9 May, Reuters and other media reported. Speaking on ABC television's "This Week," Holder said there is evidence of the Pakistani Taliban's involvement but there was nothing to suggest the Pakistani government knew of the attempt. Holder said the administration is satisfied with the amount of cooperation the Pakistani government was giving in the investigation.

Comment: There is nearly always a living system supporting what appears to be a lone actor. The investigation is slowly uncovering the twenty subsystems that are always present and essential for the extrusion of a single bomb.

Readers might wonder what would prompt the Commander of US Central Command to describe the attacker as a "lone wolf" last Friday, before the investigation really got under way. The Commander's comments were poorly timed. More importantly, the Administration in Washington just told the world who is in charge.

Karachi incident. Airport security authorities arrested a man at an airport in Karachi on 9 May after batteries and an electrical circuit were discovered in his shoes. He carried no explosives on his person, but security personnel found four live batteries and a circuit with a switch to turn it off and on in the man's possession. He was scheduled to fly to the Omani capital, Muscat, on a Thai Airways flight, BBC reported.

Comment: This was a rehearsal. Every attempted bombing includes are least one dry run, including that of the Christmas bomber. The rehearsal is not a direct replication of the attack sequence. The rehearsal for the Christmas bomber involved a flight from Yemen to a Gulf state, Dubai. That tested the sensitivity of the security systems to detect the explosive and the detonation mechanism.

Several points are important. Karachi systems are set sufficiently sensitive to detect the test show circuit. Secondly, Muscat is not the target. This is the second or third time in less than a year that a test run was directed at a Gulf state airport. The real run will be at western Europe, the UK or most likely the US.

The master planners probably will now delay the actual attack for more work on the circuitry because the test circuit was detected. However, that means an attack is still on, just delayed. They will need to test another circuit but might not use Karachi.

Pakistan-US: The US will supply Pakistan with F-16 fighter jets, Lockheed P-3C surveillance aircraft, Cobra helicopters and an Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate by June for operations against militants in Pakistan's tribal areas, Iran's state-run Press TV reported 8 May. The report said U.S. officials assured their Pakistan counterparts during a bilateral security meeting that the military supplies would be forthcoming, and pledged to increase intelligence exchanges between their two countries.

Comment: No one in South Asia will believe this equipment is for counter-insurgency, especially no one in New Delhi. The scheduled deliveries are not news. Iran is just trying to stir up trouble, but the Indians are already discouraged that the US is arming Pakistan to fight India, as they see it.

and

Pakistan: In a television interview with CBS today, Secretary of State Clinton repeated a charge she made during one of her visits to Pakistan, that some Pakistani officials know more about al Qaida and Taliban than they actually claim.

"Some Pakistani officials are more informed about al Qaeda and Taliban than they let on," Secretary Clinton said. "I'm not saying they're at the highest levels, but I believe somewhere in this government are people who know where Bin Laden, al Qaida, Mullah Omar and the Afghan Taliban leadership are."

Comment: The logic of Secretary Clinton's statement is compelling. If Pakistani intelligence does not know the location of these people then it cannot be a reliable partner in counter-terror.

It already has proven that it has the capability to round up the Afghan Taliban leadership. Moreover, the extent of support Pakistan provided the Taliban when Omar and bin Laden were both working together in Kabul and when bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora into Parachinar, Pakistan, places the burden of proof on Pakistani intelligence to try to disprove the Secretary's statement.

The Times Square bomber's connections to Pakistan justify more pressure on and more candor from Pakistan. The inability or unwillingness of a succession of governments in Islamabad to suppress terrorism is converting Pakistan into a threat to the continental US, as well as to India and Afghanistan.

Nightwatch does not recollect the reasons for rounding up Mullah Birader and his cohort(Quetta Shura). They were negotiating with Karzai. Maybe the trick is to make the TSP think that the Mullah Omar too is negotiating with Karzai independent of the ISI. Or Karzai praises Omar in DC.

Does Omar go on Haj? or Hajamat?

skher · Post by **skher** » 12 May 2010 02:28

ramana wrote:The key to Af-Pak is for India to take back PoK, This will unravel TSP like no other thing. Taking back PoK is a legitimate thing for India. The West and PRC will do whatever it takes to prevent this retaking PoK.

why delay in good work....stone pelters/free dam fighters for hire etc. are bountifully unemployed in the valley.
What better kashmiriyat than the king's empire wholesomely srinagar's?

The ^^^ proposal can be forgotten for now....TSP is too busy hurting itself.Why intervene....watch the soap opera unfold. Aid it later on, if at all needed.

West/PRC didn't intervene in 1971.Who scratched our back internationally?How will they benefit from this?
or can we be Israel now?

In 2007,the EU parliament had officially endorsed our claim over Kashmir.

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0507/109.html

Baroness Nicholson further went on to say that as supporting evidence, she was forwarding an official map of the region as it existed in 1909, which clearly showed Gilgit and Baltistan to be well within the State borders of Kashmir, an extract of the leasehold agreement of 1935, an extract of the Instrument of Accession of October 26, 1947 and a letter from Maharaja Hari Singh giving reasons for his decision to accede the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Dominion of India.

JMT

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 May 2010 02:32

I think it is important to follow the current visit, to DC, of Karzai. Follow the "body language".

Putting tensions aside, Clinton opens key talks with Karzai

I, for one, do not think it is this easy to put aside the differences. Let us see.

WASHINGTON – Brushing recent public spats aside, the Obama administration welcomed Hamid Karzai to Washington Tuesday, opening a round of partnership talks with the Afghan president.

At a breakfast meeting, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed Karzai for several days of partnership talks. Later Tuesday, Clinton is expected to hold closed-door bilateral talks with Karzai. President Barack Obama will host his Afghan counterpart at the White House on Wednesday.

Clinton said Tuesday that the United States' commitment to Afghanistan remains strong and will continue long after U.S. combat troops have withdrawn. But she said it was unrealistic to expect the two nations to see eye to eye on every issue.

"President Obama and President Karzai both understand that the ability to disagree on issues of importance is not an obstacle to achieving our shared objectives but rather it reflects a level of trust," she said.

Karzai expressed thanks on behalf of the Afghan nation to the American people for the sacrifices they have made there. He said Afghanistan will remain a dependable partner with United States and its allies in the global war on terror.

However, he also acknowledged the recent rift.

"As two mature nations and two mature governments - by now the Afghan government is mature, too - we will have disagreements time to time but that is a sign of a mature relationship, and a steady relationship."

Karzai's first visit to Washington after his re-election comes after prickly talk centering on the Afghan president's ability to rein in corruption and institute good governance practices.

Karzai was handed a victory in last August's national vote, marred by irregularities that forced a runoff. Since then, the Obama administration has publicly pressured Karzai to rid his government of graft and improve delivery of services to the Afghan people.

Karzai irritated U.S. officials when he blamed election fraud on foreigners who want a "puppet government" in Afghanistan. He further aggravated his most powerful ally when he told tribal leaders that the U.S.-led military alliance would not move against Taliban fighters in Kandahar "until you say we can."

Media reports have also included harsh criticism of Karzai by a former United Nations diplomat as well as claims that Karzai said he would consider joining the Taliban insurgency.

At one point, the White House indicated it would call off this week's visit.

But in recent weeks, the United States and Afghanistan have sought to play down their differences, rejecting the idea of any dispute between its leaders.

U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry noted Monday that there have been "ups and downs" in the relationship with Karzai.

He said he expects the United States and Afghanistan "to be able to work our way through difficulties and come back together and still find ourselves well-aligned" as a result of Karzai's talks with Obama.

"There will be serious dialogues in the days ahead on far-ranging issues, including how to best deliver on our government's commitment to help accelerate the strengthening of Afghan security and judicial institutions," Eikenberry said.

Asked if Karzai is a dependable partner for the United States, Eikenberry responded that he is the elected president of a close friend and ally. At the same time, he said Karzai's government must improve transparency and accountability, and that those issues will be discussed this week.

"The United States government, I know our administration, is in full support of President Karzai's efforts right now to make improvements there," Eikenberry said. "Much has to be done."

Karzai's visit also comes as questions arise about the timing of a planned U.S.-led military offensive on the Kandahar area that is the spiritual center of the Taliban.

U.S. military leaders acknowledged challenges to the eventual goal of turning over security to the Afghans.

"We will encounter increased violence as our combined security forces expand into Taliban-controlled areas," said Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the allied military leader.

McChrystal offered no specifics on when the offensive might start, but said securing control of the region is a goal of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.

"Our strategic priority is a development of the Afghan National Army and police, the forces that will ultimately secure Afghanistan," he said. "Much work lies ahead to mature this force, but its growth is largely on track."

skher · Post by **skher** » 12 May 2010 03:14

Acharya wrote: This is a 100 year project and cannot be achieved in a few decades. Indian independence took some 90 years before they left India.

It is not.At least, our enemies are under no such pretensions, having considered the fact that we always fought underfed...literally kept "hungry for action".

Political will is a 10000000 year project, which surprisingly under good leadership/unified command had achieved similar objectives within a 10-day action timespan & 13 month preparation timespan.

IMHO these historic words, spoken 30 years ago, are still to be considered in full (since force depletion of IA is still similar,if not worse) before PoK can be taken....

`Yes. Look its my job to fight. It is my job to fight to win. Are you ready ? Have you internally got everything ready ? Internationally, have you got everything ready ? I don't think so. I know what you want, but I must do it in my own time and I guarantee you 100 percent success. But I want to make it quite clear. There must be one Commander. I don't mind, I will work under the BSF, the CRPF, under anybody you like. But I will not have a Soviet telling me what to do and I must have one political master who will give me instructions, I don't want the refugee ministry, home ministry, defence ministry all telling me. Now, make up your mind'.

She said "All right Sam, nobody will interfere, you will be in command."

`Thank you. I guarantee you accomplishment'.

In 2010, IA forces have similar skeletions & a refugee crisis can now erupt anytime/anyplace in TSP.

However, the Marshal's checklist still stands unanswered [ideally it should always be ticked like Uncle Sam].

Otherwise, something concrete would have happened to Muridke,PoK either on 3 Dec 2008 or 13 Dec 2001 or 24 Dec 1999.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 12 May 2010 03:32

^ Acharya-ji,s point is about long term, civilizational level objects (at least that is what I understand from his posts).

I would put the timescale in 10-15 years assuming clarity of objective, political will, focus on details, and no-nonsense execution style.

* Preparation work will take 10-15 (Y1-Y15) years including Economic and Military preparedness.
* The final five years also spent on building coalitions (Y10-Y15)
* Media, Communication Management (Y14-Y15)
* Trigger event

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 May 2010 03:42

skher wrote:
It is not.At least, our enemies are under no such pretensions, having considered the fact that we always fought underfed...literally kept "hungry for action".

In 2010, IA forces have similar skeletions & a refugee crisis can now erupt anytime/anyplace in TSP.

However, the Marshal's checklist still stands unanswered [ideally it should always be ticked like Uncle Sam].

Otherwise, something concrete would have happened to Muridke,PoK either on 3 Dec 2008 or 13 Dec 2001 or 24 Dec 1999.

What ever we see now is a result of what happened 30 years ago. That has resulted in creating a vortex inside Pakistan which is manifested in the current jihad and crisis.

This is actually one step in the long process of change which India has initiated and India has to take the next step at the correct time. That time was not any of these dates - 3 Dec 2008 or 13 Dec 2001 or 24 Dec 1999

Several things have to change inside Pakistan and some of them include backlash against the PA.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 13 May 2010 06:11

Distrust of Afghan Leaders Threatens U.S. War Strategy

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/world ... fghan.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 13 May 2010 06:20

State pleased with on-message Clinton-Karzai meetings

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

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 13 May 2010 06:54

Inside the Karzai visit

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... rzai_visit

A State Department official told The Cable that inside the "business-like" meeting, "they went into significant depth on the core issues of the visit," including reconciliation, reintegration, security, the upcoming peace jirga, and the handover of U.S.-run detention centers such as the one in Bagram.

Karzai came to Washington with several demands, including that night raids and civilian casualties be reduced and that the detention centers be handed over to Afghan control at a date certain. The Obama administration hadn't publicly announced when it would relinquish control of the Bagram prison, but then today President Obama announced it would be done by January.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 14 May 2010 07:38

At U.S.-Afghan Meetings, Talk of Nuts and Bolts

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world ... arzai.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 May 2010 02:00

Hamid Karzai and Hillary Clinton at U.S. Institute of Peace

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/05/141825.htm

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 May 2010 02:25

How to Gauge Karzai's U.S. Visit

http://www.cfr.org/publication/22121/ho ... visit.html

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 15 May 2010 05:34

BREAKING: Oliver North Confirms Mullah Omar Captureby Brad Thor
Late this afternoon Lt. Colonel Oliver North confirmed that Taliban leader and Osama bin Laden ally, Mullah Mohammed Omar has been captured. The exclusive news of Omar’s capture was broken by Big Government Monday evening

According to Colonel North, Omar was picked up in Karachi on March 27th by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) who placed him under house arrest in what they call “community care.”

Per North’s sources, “[Omar] has since been transferred to a secret ISI lock-up under the Pakistani euphemism: “institutional care.”

North goes on to state, “According to several reports, all of this information was confirmed to U.S. officials by a senior Pakistani military officer ‘several weeks ago.’” A fact also broken in Monday’s Big Government exclusive.

Last weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton created a “diplomatic firestorm” when she indicted Pakistani cooperation with the U.S. in the hunt for Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives. Said Clinton, “I believe somewhere in this government are people who know where Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda is (sic), where Mullah Omar and the leadership of the Afghan Taliban is (sic)…”North hopes the Secretary was “dissembling,” because intelligence sources here in the U.S. and Afghanistan have informed him that Pakistani officials “know exactly where Mullah Omar is: in the hands of the ISI.” Driving the point home, North added, “This should not be news to the U.S. Secretary of State.”So what’s at stake and why did the Pakistanis grab Omar? As I reported earlier today, and as Colonel North confirms, everything is revolving around the so-called peace jirga between the Karzai government and the Taliban. “The ISI intends to be in the driver’s seat when the ‘Peace Talks’ get underway in Afghanistan later this month,” says North. “And the ISI officers calling the shots know Mullah Omar is the best bargaining chip they have.”Of additional note in North’s reporting are the predictions that an immediate, Vietnam-style, “cease fire” may be a pre-requisite for talks, as might a demand that Omar be granted safe haven in Saudi Arabia. The latter likely being an untenable requirement for the United States.One thing, though, is certain. As North puts it, there is a “near-total lack of intelligence on what’s really happening on the ground on either side of the Af-Pak border.” What little we are getting doesn’t seem to be getting to the appropriate people.

http://biggovernment.com/bthor/2010/05/ ... r-capture/

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 May 2010 06:28

Fences mended, Washington and Kabul look for the path forward

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... th_forward

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sitting next to Karzai, said that both sides had settled on a common set of conditions for reintegration. To be accepted back into society, Taliban members must renounce violence, adhere to the Afghan constitution, distance themselves from al Qaeda, and support the rights of women. "There is no military solution to this conflict," she emphasized.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 15 May 2010 07:23

Prem wrote:BREAKING: Oliver North Confirms Mullah Omar Captureby Brad Thor
Late this afternoon Lt. Colonel Oliver North confirmed that Taliban leader and Osama bin Laden ally, Mullah Mohammed Omar has been captured. The exclusive news of Omar’s capture was broken by Big Government Monday evening
...
http://biggovernment.com/bthor/2010/05/ ... r-capture/

This article de-bunks the above claim:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/05/13/ ... the-world/

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 May 2010 02:36

TSP is letting US take care of its anti-sarkar jihadis. All this US drone attacks on TTP and North Waziristan are a sign of this.

Most likely the bargain is to preserve the TSP state with the US taking out the anti-elements. This the price of stability.

sum · Post by **sum** » 16 May 2010 14:31

ramana wrote:TSP is letting US take care of its anti-sarkar jihadis. All this US drone attacks on TTP and North Waziristan are a sign of this.

Most likely the bargain is to preserve the TSP state with the US taking out the anti-elements. This the price of stability.

Isnt N.Waziristan the hub of Sarkari Taliban?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 May 2010 22:15

sum · Post by **sum** » 16 May 2010 22:43

If that is so, how does the following statement hold:

TSP is letting US take care of its anti-sarkar jihadis. All this US drone attacks on TTP and North Waziristan are a sign of this.

Isnt the drone attack in N.Waziristan a problem for the TSP since their sarkari Taliban are being hit hard? TTP i can understand since they are anti GoP.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 May 2010 01:22

N Waziristan is not exclusively sarkari jihadis. Non sarakaris are also present. By now some of the sarkaris are being transferred to POK. What is being done is to give coordinates of non sarkaris.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 18 May 2010 00:28

ramana wrote: And then wonder why the West wants to ensure that POK remains with TSP.

Go back and read Kissinger, Dobrynin, Zbig's works.

I will quote all that in summary later on.

Did you get a chance to post related information? Thx

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 18 May 2010 06:32

Apologies if posted earlier ...
Secrets From Inside the Obama War Room