Afghanistan News & Discussion

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 02 Jul 2010 01:41

^^^ if unkil really wanted OBL that badly, i think someone would have delivered him by now - enough inducements have been placed. the point being that OBL is irrelevant alive, if dead he becomes a martyr to galvanize the cause, if captured he becomes a heroic figure (Not like saddam) and encourages reprisal attacks and hostage taking

besides, OBL may well be dead in the wilderness, even the international front for thingy and jehad don't need him (al-q)

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 02 Jul 2010 01:47

satyamm

Yes you are correct, however if you look at the map of AFG
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h ... CDwQ9QEwBQ

You will see that the north of the country is bordered by Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan, can these nations not be co opted to assist a new nation as a buffer to a taliban state?

lsunil,

Thats a great idea, but I think a new state in the north should be used to train them.
If the ISAF were to just hold the main cities, toatally withdraw from the countryside, it could institute a subtle policy of "De-islamisation" secular education, womens education & empowerment, modern farming, healthcare etc, if the south wants to live in the 7-8th century, well thats upto them.

From the Telegraph via Jihadwatch
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/iran- ... roops.html

Again, what will the west do??
This is an act of war, but votes are more important.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 02 Jul 2010 02:03

I don't think we should to go for the whole of Afghanistan, I think it is better to do it in parts, start from one side near Tajikistan to keep supply lines open, and consolidate support among the Tajiks and friendly Pashtun leaders to set up a confederacy rather than creating and propping up a centralized government.

I think engagement of Iran is absolutely crucial to having influence in Afghanistan as it has historically been in Iran's sphere of influence, and still has the most interest, and a friendly nation there begins Pakistan's encirclement.

lsunil · Post by **lsunil** » 02 Jul 2010 02:09

@Lalmohan
It is a chess strategy where you wage war until you capture or kill the king. It is not over until then. Capture of OBL will mean a success pre withdrawal. ATM the US knows it cannot rebuild the country. And it does not have OBL either. It wants out but it needs a reason to save its face. A super power loosing a war, you know what that means? The last time that happened was in vietnam.

@Haresh
The indian presence won't go down easily with the afghans even if the approval ratings of india is positive in that country. The afghans still view the pakistanis as "indian muslims" and hence as SDRE. They still have that TFTA syndrome in them and *do not like* being clubbed with the SDRE pakistan. So to piss off the pakis, they brag about india. Plus india is a country that has invested in basic infrastructure development which the afghans get to see and appreciate. A military presence will be seen as an invasion just as the US invasion. The afghans would rather go up in smoke than to let a foreign power pacify it. Hence, i think the only way to pacify them is to train the afghans to manage themselves. An afghanistan minus the taliban is bad news for pakistan.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Jul 2010 02:16

US sees Afghan role for both India, Pakistan

WASHINGTON: A senior US official on Thursday offered strong support for India's involvement in Afghanistan and voiced hope that the two countries can work together with Pakistan.
Pakistan is deeply suspicious of its historic rival India's role in Afghanistan, where New Delhi has provided 1.2 billion dollars in aid since a US-led campaign ousted the Taliban regime in 2001.Michele Flournoy, the US undersecretary of defense for policy, said that India was playing a “critical and positive role” in Afghanistan.“We highly value India's role and, frankly, the sacrifices that India has made in support of this mission in building economic and social opportunities in Afghanistan,” she told the Asia Society.“We see India's continued involvement in Afghanistan's development as a key part of that country's future success,” she said.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... stan-hs-05

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 02 Jul 2010 04:26

US allies want out of Afg.

US too will want out soon.

Maybe OBL will be produced dead or alive (probably dead after being kept on ice for 8 years), the mission declared a success and the pull out will begin.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Jul 2010 04:42

Whether you are playing the "dead" or growling showing your fangs and lashing your tail in preparation to pounce - both mean you are taking the initiative. Those who take initiative are always in a better position than those who take no initiative.

I think this cyclical argument has been going on for centuries : Afghans are pouring out through the NW gap and creating havoc on the plains and foothills, so "foreign" elements go in to teach a lesson. But then too many "foreign" presence supposedly unites "fundoos" and then the wise judgment is to withdraw so as to hopefully disband that unity. Once "foreign" withdraws, Afghan unity disbands and descends back on to the plains in a myriad groups. Back to business.

So foreign presence or not Afghans will go on making raids and causing a nuisance. They will simply complain depending on whatever factor is most convenient as an excuse to start the game all over again. It is simply an unsustainable economy, but the problem is that these groups have found a time tested profitable method of living off the other's labours. They will never leave the place because then they will have work and compete in modern economies. On the other hand using the territorial features to be of immense nuisance value is much more sustainable at much less intellectual efforts.

For Afghans to fall in line and behave, you need to surround them with a single state, one that therefore can maintain a stranglehold on everything that goes in and comes out. One of the reasons fall of Iran (and dissolution of Pak) is so important for a solution to the AFG problem. Then of course remains the small problem of the CAR border of AFG.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 02 Jul 2010 04:46

Neshant ji,

Time has passed for OBL to be cought this year (I too thought May/June would be it)..we are almost into the long weekend ( I won't be surprised that McCrystal had to go because of this - forget all about the RollingStone story). Osama may well live for another couple years just in time for the 2012 election.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Jul 2010 06:47

RamaY wrote:What would be the case if/when India asserts its interests in Afghanistan and sends say 50,000 Army to Kabul? Can it be a game changer?

50,000 Indians would end up dead or captured, with no land route to get back home.
The only way to avoid that would be to partition Afghanistan into North Afghanistan and South Afghanistan, perhaps with Kabul as part of the north. Then Indian troops could stay stationed in a Pashtun-free North Afghanistan, while Pak troops would stay stationed in Pashtun South-Afghanistan. Then India could arm and train Pashtun elements to seek reunification between South Afghanistan and NWFP, to make Pashtunistan. Meanwhile, Pak would arm and train Islamists to try to seek pan-Islamic unification of all Muslims in North Afghanistan, South Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan.

Apparently, there's no real group focused exclusively on unifying North Afghanistan and South Afghanistan - except perhaps the Kangress-like Karzai and his network of bribe-taking kleptocrats. A man like him without any real constituency would easily be swept aside in any real clash of power blocs, where the power of bribery and cronyism easily shrivel under the flame of ethnic passions. If Karzai makes any serious move to ditch his Western coalition-partners by hooking up with Haqqani & Co, then he may end up with a crate of mangoes.

I presume that if Karzai ditches the Western coalition, then he'll also ditch India simultaneously, and we'll have to go back to dealing directly with the Tajik and Uzbek factions, along with Hazaras.

If Pak is feeling really wily, then they'll use any upcoming confrontation between Iran and US/Israel to sucker the Iranians into accepting Taliban.
Without any Iranian conduit to Afghanistan, India is largely helpless and shut out. The Russian route is way too roundabout.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Jul 2010 07:29

Stratfor
June 29, 2010 | 0858 GMT

The 30-Year War in Afghanistan

By George Friedman

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 02 Jul 2010 07:38

The positive side effect of our regime's general indifference to any Indian casualty, be in Mumbai, Mao-land or elsewhere is that it is also indifferent to Indian casualties in Afghan. Plus these days US$1-2billion is not a lot of money... So I think the 'involvement' will go on...

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Jul 2010 08:10

Sanjay M wrote:Stratfor
June 29, 2010 | 0858 GMT

The 30-Year War in Afghanistan

By George Friedman

Is the Afghan war tied to 30 year rise of India in the sub continent and the world.

The Afghan War is the longest war in U.S. history. It began in 1980 and continues to rage. It began under Democrats but has been fought under both Republican and Democratic administrations, making it truly a bipartisan war. The conflict is an odd obsession of U.S. foreign policy, one that never goes away and never seems to end.

But the ultimate question is about the American obsession with Afghanistan. For 30 years, the United States has been involved in a country that is virtually inaccessible for the United States. Washington has allied itself with radical Islamists, fought against radical Islamists or tried to negotiate with radical Islamists. What the United States has never tried to do is impose a political solution through the direct application of American force. This is a new and radically different phase of America’s Afghan obsession.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Jul 2010 08:13

Afghan Hindus And Sikhs Grapple With Uncertain Future

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/07/ ... ities.html

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 02 Jul 2010 08:30

The AP3 in Wardak

AP3: "Afghan Public Protection Program"

Wardak, which adjoins the capital, is known as "the gateway to Kabul." A lush green province of hills, streams and valleys, it was also a popular picnic and vacation spot for those seeking to escape the heat and dust of the city. The AP3 has its fans — the 1,200 young men who are now employed in the program are happy to have work; their families are also better off, and those who work in development are grateful that they can now implement their projects.

The AP3 is an initiative of the Ministry of the Interior and the U.S. Special Forces. According to a uniformed officer on Ghulam Mohammad’s team, who did not want to give his name, the new recruits receive no training whatsoever. Not that it is much of a loss, he added. “The Americans do not understand this war,” he said. “The training they give is useless. They want us to carry big backpacks — in these hills! It is guerrilla war. They just don’t get it.”

According to Rahimullah, a resident of Nerkh district in Wardak who claims to have witnessed clashes between the AP3 and the Taliban, the lack of direct contact is due to the fact that the AP3 simply run away when they come across the better-equipped and more battle-hardened Taliban. “I do not think that these boys can bring security,” he said. “The Taliban control the night in our area. These boys just escape when they see the Taliban. They sit in their checkpoints and smoke hashish. When I pass by, I see blue smoke coming out.”

Spin Gul, a young man who returned to Wardak after two years spent working in Iran. He was having no luck finding a job. Then someone told him the AP3, which that would pay him a whopping 8,000 afghani (about $160) per month. So Spin Gul signed up, was vetted by the local department of the intelligence services and his village local council, went off to a nearby province for three weeks of training, then was issued a uniform and an AK-47. “I know the people in my area,” he said. “I know who is Taliban and who is not. We are much more effective than the national police and army.”

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Jul 2010 08:33

Suppiah wrote:The positive side effect of our regime's general indifference to any Indian casualty, be in Mumbai, Mao-land or elsewhere is that it is also indifferent to Indian casualties in Afghan. Plus these days US$1-2billion is not a lot of money... So I think the 'involvement' will go on...

So you're saying that India could do another IPKF Lanka-ishtyle in Afghanistan, and absorb lots of casualties. But it would be far worse than the IPKF mission, since the place is landlocked and there is no good supply route into there. This would be Hindu Kush 2.

Taliban would then of course have maximum motivation to help Pak turn J&K into a warzone.

I don't think India troops would be able to effectively patrol Pashtun villages in the South of Afghanistan. ISI would waste no time in throwing every jihadi b*st*rd they have at Indian troops there. This would be ISI's wet dream - their ultimate fantasy come true.

Indian troops would have to stay safely in the Northern parts of Afghanistan. That could help create a de facto partition of Afghanistan, with South Afghanistan ceded to Taliban rule. That might create the conditions for negotiation with Pashtuns in South Afghanistan to seek reunification with NWFP and create Pashtunistan.

I don't think ISI would be able to thwart the reunification of Pashtunistan, no matter how many extra virgins it offered to recruit fidayeen.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 02 Jul 2010 08:48

Rather than IPKF this sounds much more like Israel's Lebanon campaign.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Jul 2010 09:29

At least Israel still had a border with Lebanon to directly facilitate support.

Even though SLA proxies weren't a strong buffer against the Iranian-supported proxies, they were easily supplied. Even if NWFP is a Bekaa Valley, there's little India could do to strike that place. If India were to maintain airbases in Afghanistan, I doubt that airstrikes could be conducted across the Afghan-Pak border. For one thing, it would only antagonize the Pashtuns of NWFP against India while not actually eliminating any threat.

But if some cross-Durand airstrikes were to "accidentally" hit Pak nuclear assets in NWFP, then that might be a good way to shake them up.
It might also force Pak to withdraw military forces away from the Indo-Pak border to reinforce the Durand Line.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Jul 2010 09:59

Holbrooke: No 'Dysfunctional Relationship' Exists for U.S. Leaders in Afghan War

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/jan ... 06-30.html

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Jul 2010 10:42

another Boston.com photo essay:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/0 ... _2010.html

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 02 Jul 2010 11:00

Guys, I said 'will' not 'should' and I was referring to the current level of involvement, which is basically projects not referring to troop deployment on large scale. Sorry for not being clear I guess it was a bit out of context in light of recent posts.

In any case, re troop deployment, under select scenarios, it may be worthwhile.

a) Unkil/UK/Germany/France/Russia agrees & completely outsources Afghan to India with NATO air support to take out any target we ask for from nearby bases / sea based carriers
b) Any escalation into TSP supported as well at India's discretion.
c) Powell style warning to TSP to lay off or be bombed from air (in Pakjab, not NWFP/FATA) as well. Obviously a warning that if they move even an inch towards their nuke it is end of their barbaric animal land for the half life of uranium/plutonium.
d) Full funding including salary, compensation to jawans as coalition of the billing.

Obviously these are not going to happen even in fantasy...but if it does, we have the legs and arms to do it if supported well. Russia/US is different for them everything from climate, food, culture, language, all alien. For us it is 70-80% same..

In any other circumstance, it is fraught with risks that we cannot, at this stage of military/economic power, absorb.

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 02 Jul 2010 13:57

Western europeans are weak and unsure of their cause.
The commercial aspect is all that matters.
Take a look at this story, Austria, Non NATO/EC supplies sniper rifles to Iran, Iran passes them on to various Iraqi factions, 170 western troop killed by these rifles = NO REPRISALS AGAINST AUSTRIA

http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/ ... om_ir.html

The west have alienated the Russians by giving sanctuary to Chechan islamists, allowed fund raising for these islamists. They have rubbed the Bears nose in the dirt with regard to Serbia & Kosovo.
All for money & votes from the moslems in the EC.

lsunil · Post by **lsunil** » 02 Jul 2010 15:09

Hareshji,
The US and the west will not cease extending refuge and support to the islamists because they indirectly work for unkil's interest. It was only after the fall of the twin towers that they realised that their games carried a cost.

India and russia have faced many 9/11 sort of massacres in the past while unkil has had to face it only once. If the west is propping up the islamists in asia for it's own strategic purposes then their is no reason why india and russia cannot do the same to the west.

Britain and europe are already getting packed with muslims. We should encourage that immigration. India has a lot of fundoos in it's ghettos. We might as well encourage them to settle in the west and teach them to clear the visa procedures.

Give the west a little taste of it's medicine.

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 02 Jul 2010 15:18

lsunil,

I think to a certain extent you may be right.
The western ie UK/USA view is that a terrorist is only a problem if white UK/USA citizens are killed and or economic interestes damaged. Dead brown/non whites, Russians, Chineses just don't figure.

I fear that even though I live & was born in the UK, what the UK may need is a few hundred dead at the hands at islamic terrorists.

When that happens there will be serious civil disturbance and with that there will be economic losses.
It is all well and good for western liberals/lefties to harp on about multiculturalism/tolerance/Human rights, but you cannot have a successful economy without social stability, every islamic convert/beleiver/immigrant in the UK is a threat to stability.

Look at this latest nonsense from the AL Guardian, islams main defender & apologist in the UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... with-india

They have no idea what they are up against.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 02 Jul 2010 17:28

RamaY, (In response to your question about 50K Indian troops in Afghanistan)

Yes. With global implications.

But keep inmind what Christine Fair said. She is "mystified" by the US government's reluctance to play hardball over the Lashkar e Taiba. She is "mystified" because she has not yet internalised the underlying balance of power logic that is driving American actions in Afghanistan. Or she is lying. Either way, it makes no difference to us, as we are only interested in actual behaviour.

On our side, no one is mystified. We know why the US is reluctant to turn the screws on this particular bunch.

arun · Post by **arun** » 02 Jul 2010 19:01

X Posted from the Pakistani Terrorism thread.

The Islamic Terrorist fomenting ways of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on display yet again. IEDology of Pakistan exported to Afghanistan.

Major General Gordon Messenger spokesman for Britain’s mission in Afghanistan:

Pakistan and Iran 'backing Afghan attacks on British troops'

Bomb attacks that are killing British troops in Afghanistan are being funded and supplied from Iran and Pakistan, a senior officer has said.

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Published: 2:49PM BST 01 Jul 2010 …………………..

Maj Gen Messenger told reporters in London that British military intelligence has found “evidence” that some of the IED attacks are being supported from outside Afghanistan.

“We are looking beyond Afghanistan in terms of the provision of some of the more sophisticated components and the provision of finance,” he said. “There is evidence that something is coming in from Iran, something is coming in from Pakistan.” …………………..

The Telegraph, UK

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Jul 2010 19:21

Don't be surprised! Didn't I warn for some time that Iran would not be bothered by the so-called Shia-Sunni divide where the larger geopolitics of securing the "Gulf" is concerned? In fact Iran could actually play a role in fueling the Talebs too, and Iran may actually ditch whatever "nice" relations it plays at having with India to gain advantages in the AFPAK area.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Jul 2010 19:58

JE Menon wrote:RamaY, (In response to your question about 50K Indian troops in Afghanistan)

Yes. With global implications.

But keep inmind what Christine Fair said. She is "mystified" by the US government's reluctance to play hardball over the Lashkar e Taiba. She is "mystified" because she has not yet internalised the underlying balance of power logic that is driving American actions in Afghanistan. Or she is lying. Either way, it makes no difference to us, as we are only interested in actual behaviour.

On our side, no one is mystified. We know why the US is reluctant to turn the screws on this particular bunch.

JEM for the sake of the WKKs and MUTUs please spell it out so there is no ambiguity.

lsunil · Post by **lsunil** » 02 Jul 2010 20:15

So the picture gets clearer.

*Unkil will not disband the PA because that would let india escape from south asia
*The purpose of the nuke deal was to distance india from iran plus improve the indo-us relations. The lifafa journo's have been saying it is to counter china which is false IMO.

Underneath the surface, it is not just china that wants to keep india busy in south asia but US too wants the same thing.

What did george bush tell the chinese to get the NSG waiver?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 02 Jul 2010 20:18

Guys, where is the link to that article in which Christine Fair was quoted? I recall it was an op-ed piece in the Huffington post.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Jul 2010 21:41

brihaspati wrote:Don't be surprised! Didn't I warn for some time that Iran would not be bothered by the so-called Shia-Sunni divide where the larger geopolitics of securing the "Gulf" is concerned? In fact Iran could actually play a role in fueling the Talebs too, and Iran may actually ditch whatever "nice" relations it plays at having with India to gain advantages in the AFPAK area.

Hazaras will not forgive the Talibs, especially after the horrible massacre in Mazar-i-Sharif.

Likewise, Hezb-i-Wahdat were massacred when Taliban first seized Kabul.

I don't see how Iran will get these people to forget such things, after what was done to them.

Hazaras have actually prospered the most under the US invasion. They have benefited the most from Western development efforts.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Jul 2010 21:43

Suppiah, I just read your comment that GOI doesnt care for the Indian casualties in Afghanistan. This is not true and totally incorrect. They do care and short of troops deployment they take all the steps they can legally take.

Whining is understandable but not conveying incorrect picture.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 02 Jul 2010 21:57

Ramana, perhaps in the Afghan context you are right...my whine whether justifiable or not, was based on 'track record' in the Indian context, particularly both civilian and para-military.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 02 Jul 2010 22:00

>>On our side, no one is mystified. We know why the US is reluctant to turn the screws on this particular bunch.

The US is playing a global game. It has to balance not just current powers, but future ones. It does not want to lose all leverage positions with regard to India. Therefore Pakistan. But Pakistan is on very shaky foundations. The most stable among them, the army, requires its "non-state" reserves on standby and able. Those reserves are LeT, for the moment. To get a little local co-operation, and to hedge its balance of power bets for the future, the US turns a blind eye to the LeT - so long as these reserves don't kill too many of their own.

The US thinks it is acting in its own interests. It may not be, but that is none of our business. Our business is to ensure that we accumulate wealth and are only minimally damaged as a result of American miscalculation and callousness. Our business is, in the meantime, to engage comprehensively with the very country whose actions (or considered inaction) are indirectly killing our people and to turn the situation around while conceding as little as possible.

Our business is also to remember, record and remind when the time comes in order to block any moral plays in the years ahead. It's a long term game and it's not sexy. We have to be patient and accept some minor stumbles along the way. But there won't be any major ones, I don't think, so long as we keep to our basic principles of state.

As such, Pakistan needs to become a pure Islamic state asap. It is not pure enough. Yet. But purification is underway. The yindoos are not fools. We know how to stay alive, and to thrive even in extremis.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 02 Jul 2010 22:05

Just been doing some thinking. So here goes my thoughts:

If we analyse the timing of the release of Karzai negotiations with Taliban and making peace with Kiyani etc.

Timeline:
Negotiations with Taliban news from Feb onwards.
Karzai begins pro TSP moves post May 2nd.
On 13th June 2010 Afghan minerals news is released.
July 1st - Taliban reject negotiations - say we are winning war.

I feel the aim of the US is this: These talks were just a trial by the US/NATO/West, to see if Taliban would back the diplomatic initiatives. Haqqani gang is the biggest pain in the arse for western forces there, and it was clear that approaching Kiyani was in a hope that Kiyani will rein in the Haqqani (ISI controlled) gangs.

The release of the minerals thing was to add a sweetener to the taleban/Haqqani gang (i.e. we will make you very rich if you give up the fight). So essentially, strip off a major part of the taliban which is ISI controlled (perhaps the ones that are after money$$$). Was it not true that a major group in east of afghanistan changed from talib to being pro govt around feb/march time?

The aim with this mineral sweetener is to pull away the ones that are fighting for money. Lets see how this plays out, I am not sure which part of the taliban made the statement yesterday, but there is an ideological/religious group - defeating the west is bigger than money for them!

JMTs etc

Where does this leave the US? Well we know TSP is the gateway to central asia. Trade routes to central asian oil must go through via turkey or TSP(russia is not a friend to the US). So it is good to have at least one country on your side. So for the time being at least, TSP is going to be unharmed.

Where does this leave India? Back to square one - Back Northern Alliance guys, and test the waters close to Durand Line. India should strengthen coordination with Iran/Russia (to be fair it was Iran's initiative, FM Mottaki has been to Delhi twice in 3 months I think).

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Jul 2010 22:32

Sanjay M wrote:
brihaspati wrote:Don't be surprised! Didn't I warn for some time that Iran would not be bothered by the so-called Shia-Sunni divide where the larger geopolitics of securing the "Gulf" is concerned? In fact Iran could actually play a role in fueling the Talebs too, and Iran may actually ditch whatever "nice" relations it plays at having with India to gain advantages in the AFPAK area.

Hazaras will not forgive the Talibs, especially after the horrible massacre in Mazar-i-Sharif.

Likewise, Hezb-i-Wahdat were massacred when Taliban first seized Kabul.

I don't see how Iran will get these people to forget such things, after what was done to them.

Hazaras have actually prospered the most under the US invasion. They have benefited the most from Western development efforts.

Also, note the continued attacks against Shias in Pak, not just Afghanistan:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_ ... 491799.stm

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Jul 2010 22:38

CRamS wrote:Guys, where is the link to that article in which Christine Fair was quoted? I recall it was an op-ed piece in the Huffington post.

Try this:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 52#p897752

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Jul 2010 22:45

JE Menon wrote:As such, Pakistan needs to become a pure Islamic state asap. It is not pure enough. Yet. But purification is underway. The yindoos are not fools. We know how to stay alive, and to thrive even in extremis.

Sure - by converting. The demographic numbers show that across the board.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 02 Jul 2010 23:17

I was thinking of alternative scenarios in Af-Pak area after 9/11. It kinda looks like Bell's theorem.

Scenario 1: No U-Turn by Musharraf

Time frame: October 7, 2001

Amrika invades Afghanistan. Key sections of Paki intelligence regulars present in Kunduz are wiped out. AQ and Taliban escape into Pakistan. Pak Army provides fire cover for these Taliban elements.

Outcome:
- USA gets defeated/threatened by Paki Nukes or Pakistan's musharraf is carefully taken to 7th century arapia
- Operation Iraqi freedom is permanently postponed
- USA permanently losses a client state west of India

Conclusion: 9/11 plot is nothing but a client state making a small bite on the breast it is feeding on. The only reaction to it is temporary separate of the client state from the breast. There is no U-Turn in it. If at all it is I turn (Continue with what you are supposed to do).

Scenario 2: India doesn't go back to Afghanistan

To provide aid money and take re-construction efforts. That would deny Pakistan the opportunity to blame India with 90,840,350 embassies and other ridiculous claims.

India could have saved few lives for itself. It could have saved the embarrassment of leaving Afghanistan again.

Afghanis would be a couple of billions of $$ and few million female-dreams poorer.

Rest of the story would have been same. Pakistan would have lost a chance to save its H&D (because there is no win against India in Afghanistan).

Scenario 3: India went full force in Afghanistan

India sends 125,000 force as part of US/NATO coalition forces.

I see two outcomes -
Worst Case - Faces severe attacks from Taliban/ISI/AQ in Afghanistan. US/NATO escape the blame sighting non-compliance of NATO standard equipment of Indian Armed Forces. Atleast few ISI sleeper cells in India go active.

Best Case - Indian Army and Afghan National Army go hand-in-hand and stabilize north-central parts of Afghanistan. Pakistan makes lots of noise and initiates war with India. India squeezes Pakistan like an ripe mango

. USA loses client state.

Conclusion - USA cannot allow the best case scenario and will push it as close to the worst case scenario as possible.

Current Scenario: That brings us to current scenario of US/PAK perfidy.

Possible Course of Action for India when Unkil and his harem leaves Afpak region leaving Afghanistan to Pakistan

Strategy 1 - Stay Course

Action: Stay in Afghanistan, aiding and reconstructing whatever areas are out of Taliban Control.

Ramifications: India cannot do this alone. So it must build coalition of willing. Can Iran and Russia show the same level of support and capability as earlier?

Strategy 2 - Cut Losses and go home

Action: Pack your bags and go home. Tell Afghans that as long as they support Taliban for whatever reasons, they cannot expect to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Tell them you are there for them as and when they convert.

Strategy 3 - Be Creative and thoroughly selfish

* Leave few hundred thousand AK-47s in Afghani women hands before leaving the place.
* Arm the anti-Taliban warlords to the teeth.
* Once majority of US/NATO forces leave the place (except for the few who are staying in permanent US bases >> That would be the truce between Unkil and Taliban; a token US Army presence in 2-3 military bases to help Taliban against future AQ infiltration ) initiate a full-fledged war with Pakistan on one or other pretext (ETA 2013?). Systematically destroy TSPA and its ordinance factories.
* Let worry about TSPA nukes.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Jul 2010 23:25

shyamd wrote:Where does this leave India? Back to square one - Back Northern Alliance guys, and test the waters close to Durand Line. India should strengthen coordination with Iran/Russia (to be fair it was Iran's initiative, FM Mottaki has been to Delhi twice in 3 months I think).

India is in a far better situation today to support Northern Alliance than we were in the '90s.

However I don't think that India should only support the Northern Alliance. It is imperative that we find an understanding with the Pushtuns. In fact, India does not have any grudge against them. We need to wean the Pushtuns away from the clutches of the ISI.

Pakistan would soon find out, that when Americans leave Afghanistan and the Taliban wins there, it would mean curtains for Pakistan itself. Pakistan has control over the Taliban only as long as the Taliban are fighting NATO/ISAF/Americans. When the Taliban get their own country, Pakistan's influence would wither away, as the Taliban would get their own sources of financing and would not need any safe havens any more.

It is Pakistan, which needs to have a compliant Taliban, which needs to constantly interfere in the Taliban politics, to get strategic depth and avoid turmoil in Pakistan itself. Whoever is in power in Afghanistan, would have issues regarding borders with Pakistan. It is Pakistan which has no money for construction and commerce with Afghanistan and as such needs to keep Afghanistan weaker, poorer and less stable than itself. It is Pakistan, which has the lowest approval rating in Afghanistan.

India on the other hand is not saddled with all these restraints. For India it does not matter, who is in power in Afghanistan. We can be friends with anybody. We can be of assistance to anybody. If it is the Taliban, we can be friends with Taliban also, the same Taliban Pakistan put in power.

As Southern Afghanistan moves into Taliban hands, we should move proactively to get to know and befriend them. If some province's Governor, Taliban or just Pushtun, needs help for putting up some infrastructure, like roads, power stations, hospitals, administrative training, etc. India should be willing to provide it. There are so many Afghans who are crippled. This is one area, in which India can be forthcoming with providing prostheses. Even Taliban would welcome such assistance. India can give other forms of medical help including allowing the Afghan Taliban to come to India for medical treatment.

Now some people may consider the Taliban to be India's enemies. Well they are not. Only those who do Pakistan's bidding are India's enemies. It will indeed be far easier to put them away, if India's access to the Taliban were substantial. Indeed Pakistan would soon find out, that their own creation, Taliban, would prove to be far more dangerous to Pakistan, than Karzai's Govt. ever was, even with the 10,000 Indian consulates there.

India does not need to interfere in Afghanistan's politics. What we want is simple: neutralize Pakistan's influence over the Taliban, allowing the Taliban more leeway to continue their brand of expansion and politics deep into Pakjabi and TSPA territory. What we need is that TSPA remains busy on its Western Frontier and leaves Kashmir in peace. What we need is - open channels to power holders in Afghanistan at all levels.

It is easy for Taliban to get recognition in Islamabad but it is Delhi's recognition which would provide them with international legitimacy. The Taliban of today is far more savvy than it was in the 90s. So India does have something to give.

We should stop looking at the Taliban as the eternal hand-maiden of TSPA! And Ideology is just a word!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 02 Jul 2010 23:36

Just came back from London and saw how mafia works

Could it be that IA814 episode handled by both Taliban and EnDeeYe mafia gangs?

Taliban - We need some insurance that you don't visit us after you take your maal.

EnDeeYe - We are honorable family onlee. All we want is our maal and you take your maal

Taliban - We cannot believe you kafirs... Even our brophet told us not to believe Yindoos baniaas... we want more assurance onleee

after some deliberation

EnDeeYe - Theekhain! we will send our Singhji on the same plane. So you can shoot him if there is any action... but it will also give some assurance that if you do anything funny... maa-ki-kasam your talipanni topis will be sent to jennat...