Afghanistan News & Discussion

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Jul 2010 00:17

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

In IA 814 the 5 hijackers were from Karachi and Pakjab. The 3 Terrorists who were set free by NDA were also not Afghans or Pushtuns.

In Kandahar, the Taliban sided with the side which recognized them and supported them.

From the Indian side it was a political failure and a tragedy. That cannot be the reason, to shut out Taliban indefinitely. If we can have diplomatic relations with Pakistan, which has fought 4 wars with us, instigated and given support to multiple insurgencies, sponsored terrorism and taken innumerable Indian lives, then having relations with the Taliban should not really bother us!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Jul 2010 01:42

There is no point in repeating the errors that USA made in supporting or using Jihadis to win short term objectives or eliminating common enemies. They gifted us Jihad at greater levels when they encouraged and resourced the Talebs and Mujaheeds against the Soviets.

If we encourage the Talebs, it will come back to haunt us. Don't ever do this!

There are actually two fronts to be activated, to use the evolving geo-strategic situation on the AFPAK front. Deny completely while giving full support for a Baloch insurrection at a much higher intensity. Deny completely while launching cross border special forces operations to provoke and cause pain across the LOC in the Valley. Keep the PA busy at this two extreme geographical points, and let them pull PA units away from the Taleb frontier. It will only enhance the fall of Islamabad. Keep war hysteria alive in Pak. Then deny and an cool down. Unexpectedly start to provoke and raise temperatures - basically keep the Pak establishment continuously on the edge. They should be kept increasingly running around trying to put out fires at widely separated points within the territories currentlyy occupied by them.

Ultimately, There is going to be a Jihadi-Pashtun-Pakjabi-Taleb-ISI confrontation with India. This is the opportunity to destroy them as populations and a viable future political-military force. There is no point in being squeamish about this. We have to spread the conflict in a way that can be used to draw in the maximum number of the population into conflict as combatants so that they cannot hide behind "civilian" mask and use the Geneva protocol opportunistically. It is necessary to do this in a way that will rule out any regeneration of military capacity within the next few generations.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 03 Jul 2010 09:36

That's silly - separation of NWFP from Pak is the best option available. All that's required is partition of Afghanistan, which is already a de facto reality. Karzai is the only one standing in the way of this - he objects to "2-Nation Theory"

Pak was born of the "2-Nation Theory" so let it die by it as well.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Jul 2010 11:37

Pakistan asks the world community not to interfere in Afghanistan's internal affairs
What audacity !

While reaffirming its commitment to strengthening its friendly ties with Afghanistan, Pakistan on Friday urged the international community to stay engaged in the war-torn country without interfering in the country’s internal affairs.

lsunil · Post by **lsunil** » 03 Jul 2010 12:24

It is in pakistans interest to have the taliban run afghanistan. Whatever little control it has through the taliban is better than no control at all.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 03 Jul 2010 12:47

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... ttle-ss-02

Yawn says Petraeus faces uphill task - they should know as they are the ones that make it uphill...

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 03 Jul 2010 13:08

The stage is now open for a deal whereby India could agree to minimise its presence in Afghanistan – which it could accept as Pakistan's sphere of influence – in return for Pakistan withdrawing its longstanding sponsorship of the Kashmir jihad, which it could accept as India's domain. To satisfy Nato, an undertaking by Pakistan to drive al-Qaida from the region would also need to be included

William Dalrymple in the Guardian...

Now before we jump on this guy, let us think carefully - was it the yeevil yindoo chankayanism that led us to this nice position in the first place - that we let go of Afghan, which we dont need anyway, other than to cook TSP's goose, to get TSP to let go of Kashmir, that too happily endorsed by WASPs! May be we can give Tsp a choice - take Afghan or take water but not both!

And we all know what TSP can do with Afghan once it gets hold of it - use it as a strategic depth that ensures its own destruction in a wave of fanatic barbarianism and terrorism...

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 Jul 2010 14:09

Holbrooke to lighten terror list of Taliban

http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/post ... error_list

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 Jul 2010 14:39

Slide Show: Soldiers in Waiting

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

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Jul 2010 15:43

brihaspati wrote:There is no point in repeating the errors that USA made in supporting or using Jihadis to win short term objectives or eliminating common enemies. They gifted us Jihad at greater levels when they encouraged and resourced the Talebs and Mujaheeds against the Soviets.

If we encourage the Talebs, it will come back to haunt us. Don't ever do this!

brihaspati garu,

I make the assumption that you were reacting to the suggestions I made previously.

Talibanism is the ideological enemy of Dharma. It is as yet not an operational enemy of India. On the other hand, Pakistan is an operational enemy of India. Pakistaniyat is just such a confused mentality, that it is not worth considering as an ideological enemy.

The Taliban profess enmity towards India publicly, but as long as we do not engage in open hostilities, and India's strategic interests are not harmed by them, their public posture can be taken as simply a means to gain respectability in a population in Pakistan nurtured with hate towards India. Taliban's geographic distance to India also goes a long way in keeping potential conflict between Taliban and India in check.

India does not need to have any open relations with TTP, but if the Afghan Taliban do come to power in Afghanistan, it will be inimical to our strategic interests to not keep open channels to them.

The difference between Indians on the one hand and Americans or NATO, Russia, Pakistan, etc. on the other, is that we are not fomenting either Jihad there, or occupying their land or dictating their internal and foreign policies, or for that matter preaching them our ideologies.

brihaspati wrote:There are actually two fronts to be activated, to use the evolving geo-strategic situation on the AFPAK front. Deny completely while giving full support for a Baloch insurrection at a much higher intensity. Deny completely while launching cross border special forces operations to provoke and cause pain across the LOC in the Valley. Keep the PA busy at this two extreme geographical points, and let them pull PA units away from the Taleb frontier. It will only enhance the fall of Islamabad. Keep war hysteria alive in Pak. Then deny and an cool down. Unexpectedly start to provoke and raise temperatures - basically keep the Pak establishment continuously on the edge. They should be kept increasingly running around trying to put out fires at widely separated points within the territories currentlyy occupied by them.

The Pak establishment already has a mortal enemy knocking on its doors. All the enemy needs is some more time and power to knock down the door itself and send the Pak establishment packing.

Strong support for secessionist forces in Pakistan is good, be they Baluch, Pushtun, Sindhi, Gilgiti, Baltistani, MQM or some other group. It is also useful to keep them guessing on their eastern border, but Indian official rhetoric should stay calm and conciliatory.

brihaspati wrote:Ultimately, There is going to be a Jihadi-Pashtun-Pakjabi-Taleb-ISI confrontation with India. This is the opportunity to destroy them as populations and a viable future political-military force. There is no point in being squeamish about this. We have to spread the conflict in a way that can be used to draw in the maximum number of the population into conflict as combatants so that they cannot hide behind "civilian" mask and use the Geneva protocol opportunistically. It is necessary to do this in a way that will rule out any regeneration of military capacity within the next few generations.

Even if something like this is to be tried or comes to pass, it is imperative that we allow different factions within the Islamic coalition to first settle their differences in the only way known to Islam. The British effectively used the divide and conquer strategy to neutralize most of the Indian resistance to them. The same strategy can be used here, especially as we do not really need to do much, neither divide, as they already are divided and in search of the One Purity, nor do we need to conquer them, while they are at it.

An article linked earlier, I find encouraging and relevant to what I am saying.

Isunil wrote:Taliban wants 'normal' relations with India when back in power in Afghanistan

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Jul 2010 15:56

Suppiah wrote:
The stage is now open for a deal whereby India could agree to minimise its presence in Afghanistan – which it could accept as Pakistan's sphere of influence – in return for Pakistan withdrawing its longstanding sponsorship of the Kashmir jihad, which it could accept as India's domain. To satisfy Nato, an undertaking by Pakistan to drive al-Qaida from the region would also need to be included
William Dalrymple in the Guardian...

In no situation can we use J&K as a bargain chip because we cannot bargain with others over a part of our own nation. Dalrymple's suggestion also equates Pakistani terror and India's benign and generous presence in Afghanistan. In their anxiety to quit Afghanistan asap, this is another idea of appeasing terror.

That aside, Afghanistan is not exactly a place 'where not a blade of grass goes'. Besides, India is not interested in exerting hegemony over Afghanistan as Pakistan wants to. India's interests there are normal relationship with another sovereign country, something that had been forcibly denied to it after Najibullah's exit.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 03 Jul 2010 17:19

Suppiah wrote:
The stage is now open for a deal whereby India could agree to minimise its presence in Afghanistan – which it could accept as Pakistan's sphere of influence – in return for Pakistan withdrawing its longstanding sponsorship of the Kashmir jihad, which it could accept as India's domain. To satisfy Nato, an undertaking by Pakistan to drive al-Qaida from the region would also need to be included
William Dalrymple in the Guardian...

Our strategists are smarter than that. India will never agree to that deal. Whats the chance of TSP getting rid of terrorism? None. Infact IOL says, nevertheless ISI will still maintain/continue to control the terror groups.

We all know the world especially the west are in such bad shape economically, they are in no posiition to piss us off. Negotiators should make that clear. Just look at Iran.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 03 Jul 2010 18:18

Let us face it, we are not pumping $1b in Afghan (not to speak of valuable lives which in deference to Ramana I will agree GOI considers valuable) because we love the Pathans, it is basically a geo-strategic game. You accumulate assets in this game to sell to highest bidder, not to keep them and frame it up...in this game you can sell your mother if the price is right because you can always buy her back.

I am not saying go for it, I am saying consider it..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jul 2010 20:27

Suppiah wrote:
The stage is now open for a deal whereby India could agree to minimise its presence in Afghanistan – which it could accept as Pakistan's sphere of influence – in return for Pakistan withdrawing its longstanding sponsorship of the Kashmir jihad, which it could accept as India's domain. To satisfy Nato, an undertaking by Pakistan to drive al-Qaida from the region would also need to be included
William Dalrymple in the Guardian...

Now before we jump on this guy, let us think carefully - was it the yeevil yindoo chankayanism that led us to this nice position in the first place - that we let go of Afghan, which we dont need anyway, other than to cook TSP's goose, to get TSP to let go of Kashmir, that too happily endorsed by WASPs! May be we can give Tsp a choice - take Afghan or take water but not both!

And we all know what TSP can do with Afghan once it gets hold of it - use it as a strategic depth that ensures its own destruction in a wave of fanatic barbarianism and terrorism...

Dalrymple shows his Hyderabadi roots. How can he desire TSP be rewarded with territory that does not belong to it, either in Kashmir or in Afghanistan? What is his case for rewarding TSP with hegemony somemwhere or the other when it is failing in its own lands.
He thinks like a Paki for he is one.

lsunil · Post by **lsunil** » 03 Jul 2010 20:43

Dalrymple travels all over the indian continent, spends months among the locals, speaks the languages, watches them for the longest moments and finally settles in a farm house in delhi. He is an expert in the region but doesn't ever proclaim to be one. Such manner catches everyone's attention. What do indians think about such "experts" who claim that the india-pak tension has something to do with kashmir?

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 03 Jul 2010 21:13

That is not surprising. They washed the sins of holocaust and ill-treatment of Jews all over Europe by chasing Palestinians out of their homes! Now they want to wash their sins of Afghan and Pakistan using India as dumping ground.

Be that as it may, question is what are we in Afghan for? I am 400% sure MMS/ABV and all others are in there because of something it can do vis-a-vis TSP. We could say we will stay on there and play the game but that requires cooperation of either Iran and/or Russia. Not alone.

If that is there, then fine...but Russia has been purchased already (thanks primarily to Putin's idiocy in pursuing strategic goals ahead of domestic economy , there is a lesson in there for us, now Medvedev will back pedal if only offered a fig leaf, Ombaba is offering him a full 3 piece suit) and Iran is unpredictable ally.

So sell when the price is good should be the approach to Afghan..

lsunil · Post by **lsunil** » 03 Jul 2010 21:42

Unkil is not going to leave without making deals. Expect some deals with the PA. The primary goal post-exit will be to make sure there are no attacks back home. If the PA can assure the americans on that front then unkil will shower pakistan with financial and military aid "every time" it busts another jihadi plot because that(security) is all that matters to the american public - everything else be damned.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 03 Jul 2010 21:48

lsunil wrote:The primary goal post-exit will be to make sure there are no attacks back home.

That goal post has long been crossed - or become a lost cause. Now Unkil is fighting for his image, for his title as global mafia-don. Run away from Afghan with tail tucked under bottom, he is forever a mouse that no one will hear roaring. Look at small time thugs like Erdogan, Ahmed-nutjob, Bashar of Syria, Chavez, Dear Leader Kim...you name it...they will all be declaring independence along with many fence-sitters. China will become even more blatant and overt... mainland US may be safe but it will be another Australia.

That fear is what is keeping Unkil in Afghan and that is what will keep him there for a while...

Ombaba may even win elections fooling the American public that he has brought the boys home after a 'honorable' deal with TSP/Taliban. But any kid in ME will know Unkil is defeated...

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 03 Jul 2010 23:07

lsunil wrote:Unkil is not going to leave without making deals. Expect some deals with the PA. The primary goal post-exit will be to make sure there are no attacks back home. If the PA can assure the americans on that front then unkil will shower pakistan with financial and military aid "every time" it busts another jihadi plot because that(security) is all that matters to the american public - everything else be damned.

My friend, you are smarter than this aren't you? I mean lets not get carried away by this Al Queda bull shit planning attacks against mighty USA. 9/11 was a one off surpirse that Atta & Co managed to pull off. With the kind of awareness and filtering/monitoring of Muslims that US has put in place, absolutely zero chance of any Isalmist attack on mainland US. Only threat if at all would be from Islamists already in US, those with soosai bombing skills, especially TSP expatriates, but as I said, even their shadow is being monitored by FBI/police etc. And finally, by official stats from US itself, there are at most a few 100 or so, so called Al Queda hanging around in the tribal areas of TSP; and this mighty armada that US and its western lackeys have assembled there are to fight these few 100? Give me a break. And it gets more ludicrous when you consider that US is arming, funding, and supporting the most lethal terror outfit there is: TSPA/ISI/LET.

Thus, at the moment, reasons for US in Afganisthan are strategic than fighting terror, and that includes H&D. If US runs with its tail between its legs, the myth of Islamists defeating yet another super power after the Russians will assume messianic proportions. US will still be a super power, but the shock and awe aspect will be gone. I mean a rowdy like Hoolbrooke will find it hard-pressed to go to some 3rd world tin pot and say do this or else. The cold warriors and their mindset that is still pervasive in DC cannot stomach a military defeat, even a percieved one at that, that is equivalent to what the Russians had to endure. Then of course, there are issues of TSPA stability to cage those dirty, smelly, smarty Hindu argumentative SDREs. And last, but not the least Central Asian black gold is always on the minds of US strategists.

So, please, at least on BR, none of this Oh my, Oh my, Al Queda is coming, Al Queda is going to attack us cacaphony. Leave that to the pompous, well-paid mouthpieces on US media.

lsunil · Post by **lsunil** » 03 Jul 2010 23:39

CRamS wrote:9/11 was a one off surpirse that Atta & Co managed to pull off.

I think they have found a better way than to dig planes into buildings. Look at the mumbai attacks. They didn't try to run. They wanted to stay as long as they can and drop as many civilians as possible.

CRamS wrote:absolutely zero chance of any Isalmist attack on mainland US

What are the repercussions? Will it invade afghanistan again? Drone a few locations? Sure, they get revenge but will it stop the attacks? Tapping phone calls?

CRamS wrote:And it gets more ludicrous when you consider that US is arming, funding, and supporting the most lethal terror outfit there is: TSPA/ISI/LET.

US is definitely funding the PA. And i think that some of that money gets channelled right to the fundoos to keep the US busy. The trickle down is beside the point.

War costs men and money. If you had the choice to pay the PA to kill a few fundoos in the region while your men rest in afghan bases, then would you not go for it?

CRamS wrote:If US runs with its tail between its legs, the myth of Islamists defeating yet another super power after the Russians will assume messianic proportions.

But there is no other choice for it is there?

----------
Give me reasons why you think the US will stay

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 03 Jul 2010 23:48

lsunil wrote:Dalrymple travels all over the indian continent, spends months among the locals, speaks the languages, watches them for the longest moments and finally settles in a farm house in delhi. He is an expert in the region but doesn't ever proclaim to be one. Such manner catches everyone's attention. What do indians think about such "experts" who claim that the india-pak tension has something to do with kashmir?

His depth perception is limited. He doesn't notice that the Durand Line dispute pre-dates the Kashmir dispute by a wide margin. He doesn't notice that Jinnah sent Pathans in particular to invade Kashmir in 1948.

It is the Durand Line problem which has created the Kashmir problem, and not the other way around.
It is by solving the Durand Line problem that the Kashmir problem will disappear, and not the other way around.

If India disappears from the face of the earth tomorrow, the Pashtuns will still not stop trying to reunify.
If Kashmir disappears from the earth, or falls completely into Pak hands, the Pashtuns will still not stop wanting to reunify. They've been wanting to reunify since long before there was a Kashmir dispute, and they will keep wanting to reunify for long after the Kashmir dispute.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 03 Jul 2010 23:54

lsunil wrote:
Give me reasons why you think the US will stay

Myths are created in many ways. Today, even as Iraqis are dying like flies every other day, and 1000s and 1000s gone, a civilization destroyed, there is this myth created, demi God status, 1675 stars conferred on David Patreus for having "won" Iraq. In US today, can anyone offer a contrary view of Iraq and be taken seriously? Thus, its a matter of definition. Likewise, there is not enough momentum or not enough satsifaction among US elites, and the world in general that US has "won" in Afganisthan. Something has got to give, a few tactical victories agianst Talbunnies, some politcial movement that secures US long-term interests in the region (including for e.g. if MMS/Kiyani agree to joint love making in Srinagar and MMS wears his Afganisthan girl scout badge of honor around his neck; US will surely trumpet that as bringiong peace to nuke armed neighbors and the region through its AfPak strategy), etc; there will be enough moment in the US to declare victory, CNN/Fox will do the round-the-clock propaganda with stories from the front-line on how US troops defeated the Talibunnies where the Russians failed etc etc; the world will have no choice but to buy into it; and at some such juncture we will see US withdrawl; albeit slowly but steadily.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 04 Jul 2010 00:38

The irony is that the US could end this all by simply agreeing to partition Afghanistan into north and south. Pakistan and Taliban would be outraged, but Tajiks and Uzbeks would be grateful. Then the Pashtuns, like the Kurds, could start out on the road to seeking reunification across both sides of the Durand Line.

Some of you posters keep hinting that the US can't allow this, because of its "interests".
What interests - pray do tell.

"No, no, vee cannot talk about the interests, because if vee told you, then vee'd have to kill you"

If the US wants to make useful inroads into Central Asia, then reviving local ethnic assertiveness by promoting ethnic consolidation would sweep away their flabby Kaangress-like regimes which keep doting on Moscow for support to prop them up.
The way would then be open for the US to be their Far Emperor, which is what would suit everyone except the Russians, Pakistanis, Iranians and Chinese - ie. the walls on the cage.

The Atlanticists like Brzezinski of course don't find local Central Asian independence from Moscow to be enough. The Atlanticists want a grand holy crusade/jihad to surge out of there like a tsunami and wash across Eurasia right upto the gates of the Kremlin, which is the real target of the Atlanticists' ire, and whom they want to utterly destroy. (They don't care whether India or the NY skyline get hurt in the process, since that's just collateral damage to them.)

But for the purposes of US foreign policy interests, I would say that local ethnic independence of Central Asians from the rule of Moscow should be more than adequate to serve US needs, especially in comparison to the alternative of pan-Islamist jihadism, which would gladly turn its attention to destroying the US.

So ethnic independence is what would be in the USA's best interests to pursue in Central Asia, regardless of these cryptic references to the contrary.

If somebody has some other better idea of what would be in the American interest for that region, then they'd really better lay it out for me.

lsunil · Post by **lsunil** » 04 Jul 2010 00:39

Tribal warfare or sectarian violence is a normal thing within the ummah or the islamic world. It happens in the absence of a non-muslim and they are viewed as just squabbles by the islamic world. The shia sunni fiasco. The ahmadi uzbek pashtun tazik sufi whatever. If you do not aim them at a non-muslim then they'll start dropping each other off. It_is_normal. The non-islamic world fails to understand this fact.

You are talking about a political victory or a propaganda victory. The US has lost the military victory or the battle so far might be enough to push a political victory.

What are the conditions of victory? The US has always relied on the simple chess strategy where the goal is to capture or kill the king. In iraq's case, it was saddam hussein who was captured and executed later on. So in iraq, the americans did what they went in to do. But did it end the sectarian violence in iraq? No. I have said that such warfare is common in the islamic world.

What about afghanistan? What were the conditions of victory there? If we go by the chess strategy, then our king is OBL who is nowhere to be found.

If we go by the "go" strategy, then the objective is to hold as much territory as possible with the minimum amount of resources. The US has been trying for years to capture the taliban territory. After almost a decade, it turns out that the taliban is gaining ground.

Just like vietnam, the US holds the capitals and is trying to install a dummy govt which is bound to be overtaken after the US leave.

You are imagining a perfect show. Are the US TV networks going be remain in afghanistan when the troops leave to show a manufactured picture?

So what are the conditions for this "political" victory? A last fire fight between the taliban and the US troops in some village where the later wins?

@Sanjay M
The sectarian/ethnic warfare will never end. If the US is thinking about resolving these squabbles then it has gone mad.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 04 Jul 2010 01:58

The point is that there are 2 levels at which Central Asia could be independent from Moscow - the level of ethnic assertiveness, or the level of full-blown pan-Islamist jihadism. The former is a safe level at which the US could pursue its interests, and the latter is an out-of-control situation where the US runs a high risk of suffering damage.

The ethnic route is a lot safer for the US to pursue than the Islamist route, and pursuing one will automatically deflate the other. Therefore the ethnic route is the best choice for the US, and it's a mystery why they refuse to even contemplate it. There aren't even any wingnuts thinking aloud about it, and that's a real shame.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 04 Jul 2010 02:09

Splitting Afghanistan would be a great idea, but I think that's implicitly ceding control to Iran.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 04 Jul 2010 03:34

Carl_T wrote:Splitting Afghanistan would be a great idea, but I think that's implicitly ceding control to Iran.

What control would Iran have? Just over the Hazara regions in the West and interior.
Hazarajat in the interior is much too large, rugged and sparsely populated for Iran to exert real control there anyway. The mountainous interior serves as a natural buffer between north and south anyway. If Iran goes nuclear, then they might show a little more backbone in fending off Pakistan.

Northern portions of Afghanistan under NA would mainly gravitate towards Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Southern portion would of course go to Taliban, who might end up taking the path of Baitullah Mehsud by declaring themselves sovereign and then expanding the scope of their sovereignty southward across the Durand Line, which doesn't exist in practice anyway. Pak would be forced to either send in troops, or else
abdicate those regions to Taliban independence. If Pak sends in troops, we all know what their fate will be.

That's A-OK by me.

Let's ditch the unreliable Karzai and his Kaangress-like kleptocracy, which will cut deals with anyone including Haqqani and ISI, just to stay alive. His appeasement instincts are only going to strengthen Islamabad's hand, and ultimately rehabilitate jihadism rather than crush it.

Karzai doesn't have what it takes to win this war. His watered-down nationalism just doesn't pass muster. He's a Trojan Horse inside Kabul who will allow Taliban/ISI to sneak through the gates.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 04 Jul 2010 06:19

I think the Tajiks would side with their cousins in Iran, maybe not immediately, but eventually.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 04 Jul 2010 07:19

Well, Tajiks under Massoud did take help from Iran, which was a key supply line to the NA.
Sure, the precedent is there, the dialects are related.

But Iran would not control them, as NA would not be wholly dependent upon Iran.

What mainly matters is that the north is not controlled by Pak.

If Pak only controls southern Afghanistan, the Pashtuns would become restless under them.
Pak would either have to quickly divert the Pashtuns into war with India over Kashmir, or else it would have to face the prospect of Pashtun revolt and consolidation across the Durand Line.

Knowing Pak's propensity to strike first, it's a reasonable bet that they would attempt massive infiltrations across the border, in a bid to destabilize India and keep the Pashtuns distracted through foreign adventurism.

As per its usual style, the Kaangress govt would be caught napping.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 04 Jul 2010 07:34

LeT operative captured in Afghanistan

A combined Coalition and Afghan force detained a Taliban commander who is linked to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, or Army of the Pure, during a raid in eastern Afghanistan last night. Lashkar-e-Taiba has been linked to numerous complex attacks in eastern Afghanistan and in Kabul. Its fighters are believed to have worked with the Haqqani Network, run by Siraj Haqqani, to carry out attacks on Indian targets in Kabul, including two this year.

Lashkar-e-Taiba is thought to have a presence in several of Afghanistan's eastern provinces, including, Kunar, Nuristan, Nangarhar, Laghman, Paktia, Paktika, Khost, and Kabul. The terror group is known to have run training camps in Kunar and Paktia provinces up until the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Lashkar-e-Taiban also currently operates camps in Pakistan in Mansehra, Sindh, Punjab, and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Pakistan's military and its Inter-Services Intelligence directorate support Lashkar-e-Taiba as part of Pakistan's so-called strategic depth against rival India.

Like al Qaeda, the Lashkar-e-Taiba seeks to establish a Muslim caliphate in southern and central Asia. Lashkar-e-Taiba "consistently advocated the use of force and vowed that it would plant the 'flag of Islam' in Washington, Tel Aviv and New Delhi," according to the Southeast Asia Terrorism Portal. Also, like al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba practices Wahabism, the radical Islamist school of thought born in Saudi Arabia.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Jul 2010 07:38

RajeshA wrote: The Taliban profess enmity towards India publicly, but as long as we do not engage in open hostilities, and India's strategic interests are not harmed by them, their public posture can be taken as simply a means to gain respectability in a population in Pakistan nurtured with hate towards India.

Iran and Israel had similar relationship when Shah was in power. They had secret military and diplomatic relationship, while in public they hated each other.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Jul 2010 08:25

Pakistan's Gambit in Afghanistan

http://www.cfr.org/publication/22567/pa ... istan.html

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Jul 2010 05:31

Indian moves.

Menon talks to China FM about Afghan joint projects

India alerts Afghanistan about the Haqqani network

ntensified efforts to influence evolving power-sharing negotiations in Afghanistan, India and Afghanistan Friday held wide-ranging talks, with New Delhi making clear its unease about accommodating hardcore Taliban and militant groups like the Haqqani network.

Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao held delegation-level talks with visiting Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister Eklil Ahmad Hamiki.

'They also reviewed their development partnership and agreed to continue their consultations,' said the external affairs ministry.

The Afghan side briefed on the fragile security situation in Afghanistan and conveyed to India to continue a host of reconstruction activities in the country, said sources.

The meeting, held as part of regular foreign office consultations between the two countries, acquired an added significance as it comes amid reports of a secret meeting between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Al Qaeda-linked militant commander Sirajuddin Haqqani. The meeting was allegedly arranged by Pakistan's Army Chief Ashfaq Pervez Kayani.

According to a report by Al-Jazeera, Karzai met Haqqani along with Kayani and ISI chief Ahmad Shuja Pasha in Kabul for 'face-to-face talks'.

Both Kabul and Islamabad have vehemently denied these reports.

Kayani and Pasha, according to some reports, tried to influence Karzai to accommodate the Pakistan-backed Haqqani network which has targeted Indian assets in Afghanistan in the past.

India has conveyed to Afghanistan its concerns about any power-sharing deal with hardcore Taliban and groups like the Haqqani network which have a declared anti-India agenda, said the sources.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 05 Jul 2010 05:57

Petraeus takes over Afghan fight, vows to win it

KABUL, Afghanistan – "We are in this to win," Gen. David Petraeus said Sunday as he took the reins of an Afghan war effort troubled by waning support, an emboldened enemy, government corruption and a looming commitment to withdraw troops even with no sign of violence easing.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 05 Jul 2010 08:21

Beyond McChrystal Lies a Bigger Tug-of-War

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/weeki ... ndler.html

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 05 Jul 2010 10:03

shyamd wrote:The Afghan side briefed on the fragile security situation in Afghanistan and conveyed to India to continue a host of reconstruction activities in the country, said sources.

We should Karzai ask for explanations on why he has triggered dismissals and resignations of key security personnel. As an investor/underwriter/supporter of Afghanistan, we deserve explanations, as we deserve to know where our investment is going. We should definitely try to route infrastructure projects to the North, and demand local participation and accountability on security. Those who we see as performing better on security should get more of our investment and project work. This would be an incentive to get people to do more on security, as well as prevent money from being squandered on things that would only get destroyed or confiscated by the enemy. After all, it's not as if Indians don't have poor people too, who would like to see that money go to them. If Afghans want New Delhi to send its money to them over the Indian poor, then they'd better earn our money and our confidence by making strong efforts.

Any project investments made by us in the North would at least not be a total loss in the event ISI regains full control of the South. Infrastructure built by us in the North would be useful in maintaining its warfighting capability against Taliban in the South, as well as economic independence.

India should demand the right to route infrastructure projects as we see fit, as it's our money, and if Karzai recognizes that we have a genuine stake in seeing Afghanistan remain independent from Pak domination, then he should concede to us our demand that we route infrastructure where we feel it will do the most good. It's not as if India doesn't have experience in using rehabilitative methods to block the advance of terrorism and militancy.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 05 Jul 2010 10:12

Sanjay M wrote:
We should Karzai ask for explanations on why he has triggered dismissals and resignations of key security personnel.

Sanjay M ji,

I am sure that explanations have already been given,in fact karzai would not have embarked on such a path without consulting the Indians.

We may or may not like it, that being another issue altogether.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 05 Jul 2010 10:33

chetak wrote:Sanjay M ji,

I am sure that explanations have already been given,in fact karzai would not have embarked on such a path without consulting the Indians.

We may or may not like it, that being another issue altogether.

Well, if he feels comfortable in giving us explanations that we don't like, then we have to be able to exercise our own options. If he wants our continued support, then he'd better accept it on terms that also help our security. Investment in the North would be more preferable to us if we see that Taliban may be coming back.

Otherwise, if he gets too cocky with us, then we have to bypass him directly. His power in the North is mainly through bribery, but he can't outspend us. There is no reason for him to object to our routing infrastructure to the North, unless he truly plans to go whole-hog in embracing Taliban and marginalizing the North.

Our experience in Sri Lanka should tell us not to bow to a chauvinist who wants to marginalize a section of the country. If he's going to claim to be a national leader, and if he's going to deal with us as a national leader, then he has to give the North their due, or else be exposed as a chauvinist of the Pakhtun-Milat variety. If he fails our litmus tests, then we should feel free to bypass him and deal with Northern groups directly. If he tries to arrest any Northerner dealing with us, like Pak arrested Biradar, then this will tell us about the quality of his relationship with us.

We should give primary investment in those localities which are moderate and who are pro-India. This will incentivize others to be like them. We should increase the warfighting capability of the North, to prepare for any endgame. We should be prepared to outspend and outsmart Pak.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 05 Jul 2010 11:47

Sanjay M wrote: We should give primary investment in those localities which are moderate and who are pro-India. This will incentivize others to be like them. We should increase the warfighting capability of the North, to prepare for any endgame. We should be prepared to outspend and outsmart Pak.

Outspend them how,saar?
They have amreki money and backing.

outsmart? we are squeamish and kandle kissers. They have run rings around us by lying and cheating in every international fora.

If we had been at least 0.001% as ruthless, focused and
kicked them hard once in a while things would be just fine.

We shaft ourselves wantonly by cowboy morons running wild as at sharm el sheik. Different times different cowboys. When will one of these faqers make a fatal mistake and land us in an un retrievable situation??

OTOH, The pakis have had an unwavering national policy for over sixty years. Their entire country is united on screwing us unlike useless ***( words fail me!) in India who want to make nice,without understanding the consequences as long as the foreign NGO money keeps coming in every month.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 05 Jul 2010 11:55

chetak wrote: Outspend them how,saar?
They have amreki money and backing.

Foreign aid would reduce significantly once Americans leave and don't need their services (as in 90s).