Afghanistan News & Discussion

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 05 Jul 2010 12:00

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

They have amreeki money as long as amreekis are in Afghanistan, but there's no guarantee they'll have it after that. Even if they do, it will only be in connection with suppressing AlQaeda, and there's no guarantee that Taliban will do that once they have fuller breathing room in Afghanistan. ISI are riding the tiger, and are unable to control it despite their best efforts. They can't hope to completely dictate terms to Taliban, otherwise they would have been able to oust AlQaeda even before 9/11. They can't even pry Haqqani away from Osama now.

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.

I think we need to have a limited air war with Pak over Afghan skies, just like Israel had with Syria over Lebanon and Bekaa.
We definitely need to try out the PAK-FAs against PAF-16s at the earliest opportunity. The Russians will be most interested in the combat data.

PAK-FA equals PAK Falcon Anihilator.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 05 Jul 2010 12:57

July 2011 deadline was a mistake: Senator Joe Lieberman

"On balance, I think it was a mistake, because it sent a message to the Afghans, to the Taliban, to people in the neighbourhood that we're going to leave, regardless. And that's not the fact," Lieberman told the Fox News.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Jul 2010 14:16

Sanjay M wrote: 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.

I think we should be patient and encourage the US to stay on in Afghanistan. Look, at the end of the day the Taliban is powerful and is able to control the south and even parts of the north. And reality is the taliban is afghani - a large part at that. Karzai is faced with a tough choice - be pro TSP or anti TSP. And at the end of the day TSP is a neighbour and it does significantly impact what happens in Afg. He is the leader of Afghanistan and serves their people - He probably feels that making peace with TSP is what it takes to bring peace to afg.

I think we need to get into the mind of Kayani and see what he wants for TSP. Are we sure that TSP wants an uncontrollable Taleban in power in Kabul? Or do they want someone they could do business with ?

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 05 Jul 2010 15:12

Partition of AFG.... Will it be in India's favour?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Jul 2010 15:21

Sanjay, forgot to point out that Hezbollah is not fighting the govt of lebanon, it fights Israel, so it is actually an asset to the lebanese govt rather than a big problem.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Jul 2010 17:47

Under the current distribution of military potential, any division of AFG will be temporary. KSA+USA+UK will not like a separate entity in the north, as they will imagine entrenchment of Iran and Russia there. This will mean renewed inputs to the Talebs to take the north down. The north has not proved as ruthless as the Talebs. In the current world order if an Islamic force is as absolutely anti-humanitarian as the Talebs then they are guaranteed freedom from the otherwise vicious internationally coordinated efforts such as facing charges and trials as war-criminals and crimes against humanity.

So Talebs will get protection as well as renewed support, and the northerners will be short work. India getting involved in the north is logistically not feasible, unless of course it is ready to appear as having joined completely the Iranian side. But in the end it will be on the losing side.

The key to solving the Afghan problem is two : first get all the resources of the Paki occupation gov in Islamabad engaged in putting out domestic fires, preferably lit by a virulent insurgency in the south as well as in the north. This will prevent putting in resources to stake a claim on AFG south. Moreover they will be forced to give way to the Talebjabis among themselves in order to try and stabilize the situation. This means more Talebjabis pouring into Pakjab and ultimately eating away at the Islamabad gov and pushing it towards the south.

This will provide all the right conditions and excuses for a pro-active India to crush this Talebjabi problem once and for all. Draw the Talebs out into the plains of Paki occupied western India and finish them off. Their invincibility lies in the hills of the HinduKush.

naren · Post by **naren** » 06 Jul 2010 02:49

Not sure if it was posted before. Its about 40 minutes.

PBS Frontline: Behind Taleban Lines

Netflix link

This past fall, veteran Afghan journalist Najibullah Quraishi negotiated extraordinary access to a militant cell in northern Afghanistan with longtime ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. For 10 days, Quraishi would live among the hard-core fighters of Hezb-i-Islami's "Central Group" as they attempt to bomb a highway that has become a vital new coalition supply route.

"I was thinking that I'm going to meet a group of Taliban," Quraishi tells FRONTLINE. "I was thinking, this is the time which I came myself to enemy. I was thinking they might not let me go back."

In Behind Taliban Lines, FRONTLINE provides a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the growing insurgency in Afghanistan -- a first-ever film among these militants as they travel from village to village, picking up support and weapons, imposing sharia law and collecting taxes as they open up a new battlefront in Afghanistan's northern provinces.

"We have around 3,000 to 4,000 Hezb-i-Islami men in the north," a commander named Kalaqub tells Quraishi."People come to us from all over Afghanistan. … They come from Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan. We get special mujahids from abroad, but we're not allowed to talk about them." Quraishi believes that these special mujahids are mainly Arabs from Yemen and Saudi Arabia trained by Al Qaeda.

Indeed, as the men of Central Group proceed toward their target, Quraishi meets a young bomb maker from Uzbekistan who says he was trained by Al Qaeda.

"America started this war in Afghanistan so that European countries like England and America would be safe," he tells Quraishi. "But they should know that once the mujahideen conquer Afghanistan, … we'll aim for the Middle East and Europe."

Quraishi films the men of Central Group building the IEDs, the improvised explosive devices -- stuffing the shells with gunpowder, wiring the blast cap -- and talking about the damage they hope to inflict: "This will pop out the eyes of the Americans," one says. "The fire, smoke and debris will cover 50 to 100 square meters." After a suspenseful night spent waiting in the field, the insurgents' plan is ultimately foiled when the bombs fail to detonate.

Quraishi manages to interview the man in charge of some 4,000 Hezb-i-Islami fighters in the north. His name is Cmdr. Mirwais, a former millionaire businessman who turned to jihad after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. "Jihad has become a duty for all the Afghan nation because the foreign and non-believer countries have attacked us," Mirwais says. "They're getting rid of our religious and cultural values in Afghanistan. They've increased obscenity and want to force Western democracy on our country."

It was Cmdr. Mirwais who first invited Quraishi to live among the insurgents as a guest, following the journalist's contact with a Taliban intermediary late last summer. And, after some 10 days of filming, it was Cmdr. Mirwais who Quraishi says may have helped save his life.

"Mirwais took my hand; he took me aside," Quraishi says."He said: 'Brother, I invited you here as a guest. I know your plan is to be here for 14 days, but I'm really sorry.'" Two men had arrived from Pakistan -- likely from Hezb-i-Islami and Al Qaeda -- and they demanded to know why an outsider had been allowed in to film among the fighters. "'They keep telling me that you are a spy and we have to behead you.'"

Quraishi escapes and decides to revisit the place on the highway where he'd witnessed the insurgents planting their roadside bombs. In a telling scene near the end of the film, the local Afghan police seem not to appreciate -- or even to acknowledge -- the extent of the insurgent threat in the north. "Everything's fine," the police chief says. "There's no problem. They've caused some problems, but everything's fine in this area near the main road. It's not a problem."

It seems this journalist guy was covertly sabotaging their IED mission. May be some jammer hidden in his camera ? The bomb went off only after the convoy left. Kinda reminded me of "Road Runner" cartoon.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Jul 2010 03:54

brihaspati wrote:Under the current distribution of military potential, any division of AFG will be temporary. KSA+USA+UK will not like a separate entity in the north, as they will imagine entrenchment of Iran and Russia there. This will mean renewed inputs to the Talebs to take the north down. The north has not proved as ruthless as the Talebs. In the current world order if an Islamic force is as absolutely anti-humanitarian as the Talebs then they are guaranteed freedom from the otherwise vicious internationally coordinated efforts such as facing charges and trials as war-criminals and crimes against humanity.

I disagree - the US, though maybe not the UK, sees AlQaeda as a more dire near-term threat than Russia. It's only the Atlanticists in the US who always see Russia as the greatest enemy. Obama wants to reboot relations. As for KSA's enmity with Iran, that didn't stop them from shrieking loudly against Israel's bombardment of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon.

So Talebs will get protection as well as renewed support, and the northerners will be short work. India getting involved in the north is logistically not feasible, unless of course it is ready to appear as having joined completely the Iranian side. But in the end it will be on the losing side.

No amount of bribery for Taliban would help to get rid of AlQaeda, which is a fundamental prerequisite for the US.

The key to solving the Afghan problem is two : first get all the resources of the Paki occupation gov in Islamabad engaged in putting out domestic fires, preferably lit by a virulent insurgency in the south as well as in the north. This will prevent putting in resources to stake a claim on AFG south. Moreover they will be forced to give way to the Talebjabis among themselves in order to try and stabilize the situation. This means more Talebjabis pouring into Pakjab and ultimately eating away at the Islamabad gov and pushing it towards the south.

That would be the best strategy for AlQaeda too, since putting Islamabad on the back foot would keep the heat off them. But ultimately, ISI hardliners would love for Islamabad to fall, so that they can gain ascendancy. So they don't mind seeing Islamabad burning, as they see it as a way to renew Pak like a Phoenix from the ashes.

The more chaos Pak is in, the more leverage the ISI have.

Even if all of Pakistan were on fire, this wouldn't bother the ISI one bit, and they would keep right on pressing their agenda. I wanted to start a thread called "Why Kaangress is like the ISI" because in both cases, you have organizations that are fanatically committed to their agenda, even if the country collapses underneath them. Ultimately, both entities are like a state within a state, and both feel that the country is merely a shell to house their all-important selves.

This will provide all the right conditions and excuses for a pro-active India to crush this Talebjabi problem once and for all. Draw the Talebs out into the plains of Paki occupied western India and finish them off. Their invincibility lies in the hills of the HinduKush.

But nobody would be finishing Talibs off on the plains. Talibs would remain unopposed:

Pak would only abdicate to Taliban advances, and/or strike deals with them.
Pak would then use the Taliban advances to arm-twist the Americans for more aid, blaming them for the Taliban resurgence.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Jul 2010 04:03

shyamd wrote:Sanjay, forgot to point out that Hezbollah is not fighting the govt of lebanon, it fights Israel, so it is actually an asset to the lebanese govt rather than a big problem.

Sure they're defiant of Lebanon's govt - they're a state within a state. When the Lebanese govt tried to reign in Hezbollah by demanding it disarm, they put out massive protest marches in the streets in direct intimidation to force the govt to back down. So they are certainly fighting the govt - they are only at peace with it to the extent that it does their bidding.

After Hariri was assassinated, with links clearly pointing to Syrian intelligence, many Lebanese demanded that Syrian forces withdraw from the country. Hezbollah countered with their own massive street protests, demanding that the Syrian overlords be allowed to stay.

But you know all this - you're just showing a selective memory.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Jul 2010 04:05

Atri wrote:Partition of AFG.... Will it be in India's favour?

Yes, of course it will be in India's favour, because it will trigger partition of Pak.
Partition of Pak is definitely in India's favour.

Ethnic consolidation over Islamic consolidation means Pak's destruction.

Southern Afghanistan would automatically be drawn to recombine with Norther Pakistan, to restore the natural country of Pashtunistan. Then Baloch and others can also follow.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Jul 2010 04:16

shyamd wrote:I think we should be patient and encourage the US to stay on in Afghanistan. Look, at the end of the day the Taliban is powerful and is able to control the south and even parts of the north. And reality is the taliban is afghani - a large part at that.

Taliban has had plenty of non-Afghans churned out by Pak madrassas. That's how they were winning against Masoud and Dostum. All those Punjabi prisoners put on display by Northern Alliance leave the non-Pashtuns of the North under no illusions about how "Afghani" the Taliban are. When Taliban are universally known to be controlled by ISI, then how Afghani can they be?

Karzai is faced with a tough choice - be pro TSP or anti TSP. And at the end of the day TSP is a neighbour and it does significantly impact what happens in Afg. He is the leader of Afghanistan and serves their people - He probably feels that making peace with TSP is what it takes to bring peace to afg.

I think we need to get into the mind of Kayani and see what he wants for TSP. Are we sure that TSP wants an uncontrollable Taleban in power in Kabul? Or do they want someone they could do business with ?

Karzai is pulling a Mountbatten - the last viceroy went out of his way to seek peace/ceasefire through the UN, because he was mainly motivated by the desire to not have British soldiers fighting each other on both sides of the Indo-Pak battlefront. He was saving his people, not ours!

Likewise, Karzai doesn't want to be fighting his own Pashtuns in the company of non-Pashtuns. He can't stomach the idea.

As for his Afghaniat and piety, that didn't keep him above rigging the elections horrendously, to ensure his "victory". You may be willing to embrace Uncle Karzai's good character, but I'm not. The guy is shafting us.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Jul 2010 05:57

^^ Fair point.

Sanjay M wrote:
Sure they're defiant of Lebanon's govt - they're a state within a state. When the Lebanese govt tried to reign in Hezbollah by demanding it disarm, they put out massive protest marches in the streets in direct intimidation to force the govt to back down. So they are certainly fighting the govt - they are only at peace with it to the extent that it does their bidding.

After Hariri was assassinated, with links clearly pointing to Syrian intelligence, many Lebanese demanded that Syrian forces withdraw from the country. Hezbollah countered with their own massive street protests, demanding that the Syrian overlords be allowed to stay.

But you know all this - you're just showing a selective memory.

Lol. Syrian army is Hezbollah. I suppose much like Taliban is TSPA.

Okay. If Hezbollah was permanently at odds with the lebanese govt, they would be in total control of Lebanon, you yourself state that they raised "protest marches". By the way it was the March 14th Alliance (West plus KSA backed) that asked/still asks for Hezbollah to disarm.

Hezbollah's sole aim is to "defend" Lebanon (or actually Syria) from Israel, not to take over Lebanon. Lebanese army is a joke - so they rely on Hezbollah - ask any lebanese person - this was even echoed 2 months ago by the Lebanese president who said they are in no position to ask Hezbollah to disarm until the Lebanese army becomes strong enough to defend itself, until then they need hezbollah. Hezbollah and Lebanese intelligence work together on a day to day basis, even recently they both were involved in the 120 odd spies arrested of the last 8 months or so.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 06 Jul 2010 05:59

Sanjay M wrote:As for his Afghaniat and piety, that didn't keep him above rigging the elections horrendously, to ensure his "victory". You may be willing to embrace Uncle Karzai's good character, but I'm not. The guy is shafting us.

What has Karzai's rigging of Presidential elections in Afghanistan got to do with his friendship with India? There may reasons for India to be cautious of him, but let's not give irrelevant reasons for that.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Jul 2010 08:33

RajeshA wrote:What has Karzai's rigging of Presidential elections in Afghanistan got to do with his friendship with India? There may reasons for India to be cautious of him, but let's not give irrelevant reasons for that.

Karzai's election-rigging and his kleptocracy are what give ammunition to the Taliban - grist for the mill.

Karzai marginalizes the Northerners by avoiding any issues that matter to them, instead choosing to rule over them through a network of cronies.

These are the types of antics used to hold together a patchwork state, lording over peoples who don't naturally belong together. Let the peoples have their own natural sovereignty, and live as independent nations with dignity, rather than trapping them and binding them together using cronyist chains.

An Afghanistan that is partitioned back into its natural component states will then live more happily, and the remaining Pashtun rump-state will naturally reunify with NWFP, bringing about the dissolution of Pak.

How can Karzai be India's friend if he is negotiating with Pak/ISI?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 06 Jul 2010 08:36

Does Karzai have a choice when it comes to negotiating with Pak/ISI?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Jul 2010 08:37

shyamd wrote:Lol. Syrian army is Hezbollah. I suppose much like Taliban is TSPA.

Okay. If Hezbollah was permanently at odds with the lebanese govt, they would be in total control of Lebanon, you yourself state that they raised "protest marches". By the way it was the March 14th Alliance (West plus KSA backed) that asked/still asks for Hezbollah to disarm.

No they wouldn't - why would they want to be in control of Lebanon, trying to manage the day-to-day running of the country, when they are just an Iranian proxy solely focused on fighting Israel?

Hezbollah's sole aim is to "defend" Lebanon (or actually Syria) from Israel, not to take over Lebanon. Lebanese army is a joke - so they rely on Hezbollah - ask any lebanese person - this was even echoed 2 months ago by the Lebanese president who said they are in no position to ask Hezbollah to disarm until the Lebanese army becomes strong enough to defend itself, until then they need hezbollah. Hezbollah and Lebanese intelligence work together on a day to day basis, even recently they both were involved in the 120 odd spies arrested of the last 8 months or so.

Israel already signed a land-for-peace deal with Lebanon, returning the southern buffer zone in exchange for peace. And look what they got - only more war - a very predictable outcome of appeasement.

You seem to be spouting a lot of taqqiya - just like Pak does. They too ask for peace, and then turn around and wage war when concessions are made to them.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 06 Jul 2010 08:46

The economist has two articles (apologize if already posted):
1. "Pakistan's role in Afghanistan:
Ganging up on India
Rumours fly as Karzai talks to Pakistan"
http://www.economist.com/node/16485368? ... d=16485368
2. "Stanley McChrystal goes:
After McChrystal:
Barack Obama has sacked his commander in Afghanistan. But the real worry is that the war is being lost"
http://www.economist.com/node/16432784
Gautam

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Jul 2010 08:47

Carl_T wrote:Does Karzai have a choice when it comes to negotiating with Pak/ISI?

Yes, he has a choice, just as we have a choice in fighting ISI instead of negotiating with it.
What good will come of negotiating with ISI?

Kaangress wants to negotiate with ISI, Karzai wants to negotiate with ISI - the reason being that neither are concerned with the welfare of the public whom ISI preys upon with its terror, but are only concerned in preserving themselves.
As long as Karzai and Kaangress are protected behind a phalanx of bodyguards which the public doesn't have the luxury of, then of course they can haggle carefree with ISI over how many virgins will be sacrificed to the volcano/Minotaur/rakshasa.

"Look, I'll let you have 20 villagers this month - just as long as you leave the royal family alone"

Haha, as if the beast will ever be satisfied.

Karzai is only interested in keeping his obsolete throne alive, and will sacrifice the rest of us toward this end. India should not willingly go along with selling ourselves out.
We should go back to directly backing the Northern Alliance with Iran, and send this joker packing. Pak praetorians only understand one language - brute force.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 06 Jul 2010 08:52

I don't understand how Karzai and a fledgling Army can be fighting Pak when Pak is the country that he'll have to deal with after US leaves. Which other country has a lasting interest in Afghanistan and the resolve to achieve that interest apart from Pak?

Karzai can't survive without Pak's goodwill, if he loses that then who will defend him when the Taliban are standing outside Kabul? What he can do is cut deals with Pak and grant the Taliban some land so they don't bother him.

You're demanding that he protect Indian interests instead of his own.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 06 Jul 2010 08:56

Carl_T wrote:Does Karzai have a choice when it comes to negotiating with Pak/ISI?

If the answer is no, that just means that Karzai has no choice but to unfriend India. Still makes him an unfriend of India.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 06 Jul 2010 08:57

Point is, why do we expect him to be a friend when his strategic interests are so apparent?

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 06 Jul 2010 09:21

Carl_T wrote:Point is, why do we expect him to be a friend when his strategic interests are so apparent?

We should focus on those that are friendly to our interests and not waste energy and resources on those that may have compulsions to be not our friends. It's not our job to have sympathy and understanding for karzai's compulsions. We need to help those that are willing and able to help us, period.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Jul 2010 09:31

Carl_T wrote:I don't understand how Karzai and a fledgling Army can be fighting Pak when Pak is the country that he'll have to deal with after US leaves. Which other country has a lasting interest in Afghanistan and the resolve to achieve that interest apart from Pak?

Karzai can't survive without Pak's goodwill, if he loses that then who will defend him when the Taliban are standing outside Kabul? What he can do is cut deals with Pak and grant the Taliban some land so they don't bother him.

You're demanding that he protect Indian interests instead of his own.

I'm saying he has no legitimate interests to protect - you can't equate a man with a country. (Well, Kaangress does - "Indira is India, India is Indira")

I understand that this guy will do anything it takes to keep himself alive, but how is that beneficial for Afghanistan or for India?

You might as well have said:
"You're demanding that ISI protect Indian interests instead of its own"

Neither do I expect ISI to protect Indian interests ahead of its own, nor do I find their interests legitimate to begin with. Neither do I expect self-obsessed Karzai to protect Indian interests ahead of his own, nor do I find such interests to be legitimate to begin with. The people of Afghanistan will only suffer under any pact between him and Pak.

He may feel like he's Sheikh Abdullah, but he's just another Kandahari kingpin - no wonder he feels strong kinship with Pak.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Jul 2010 09:36

KLNMurthy wrote:
Carl_T wrote:Point is, why do we expect him to be a friend when his strategic interests are so apparent?
We should focus on those that are friendly to our interests and not waste energy and resources on those that may have compulsions to be not our friends. It's not our job to have sympathy and understanding for karzai's compulsions. We need to help those that are willing and able to help us, period.

Exactly! Are we supposed to waste time wondering when exactly Rawalpindi became hostile to us? Are we supposed to somehow feel sympathy for them over ourselves?

Donkey-zai has ditched us, and we need to show our response. This always happens to India - everybody always feels at ease ditching big, dumb, friendly, slow-witted India. Such is the record of our low-returns on investment.

We now need to bypass this guy, to show him how irrelevant he is. He needed us more than we needed him. Now that he no longer even needs us, then we can show everybody how useless he was.

All the past 7 years have done, is to allow Pakistan to re-group Taliban, with his cooperation. Karzai doesn't deserve a country or a throne - a country shouldn't exist just to satisfy a ruler's need for self-esteem.
I'm reminded of the old Afghan saying - "Found a horseshoe, now let's go buy a horse"
This guy is the tail wagging the dog.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 06 Jul 2010 09:44

I am equating him with the country because the decisions he is making are the same decisions any other leader of Afghanistan will have to make whether it is Karzai or Abdullah Abdullah. Afghan interests are the interests of the ruling party. Thus, Karzai = Afghanistan.

Any leader of Afghanistan will first try to protect his rule, and after the US is gone, he needs to ensure stability of his country, and if he does not have the goodwill of Pakistan, do you think he will get that stability?

I'm not inclined to believe that TSP will tolerate a pro-India leader in Kabul. Even if a pro India leader comes to power, he will negotiate with Pakistan.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Jul 2010 09:55

Carl_T wrote:I am equating him with the country because the decisions he is making are the same decisions any other leader of Afghanistan will have to make whether it is Karzai or Abdullah Abdullah. Afghan interests are the interests of the ruling party. Thus, Karzai = Afghanistan.

Nonsense, your "l'etat, c'est moi" rationale is a hollow one.
Masood would have never behaved like this, nor I suspect would Najib. They would have simply taken the fight to Pak.

Neither are Afghan interests the interests of the ruling party, nor are Indian interests the interests of the ruling party - especially when the Afghan ruling party is only ruling because of election-rigging. At that point, what makes them different from any other thug off the street?

Abdullah Abdullah would never be cutting any pact with Pak - which is why NA never caved in to Pak for the entire war.

Any leader of Afghanistan will first try to protect his rule, and after the US is gone, he needs to ensure stability of his country, and if he does not have the goodwill of Pakistan, do you think he will get that stability?

I'm not inclined to believe that TSP will tolerate a pro-India leader in Kabul. Even if a pro India leader comes to power, he will negotiate with Pakistan.

Show me any previous leader from Kabul who negotiated with Pak - following your logic, they all should have. Karzai is the first and only one. May he be the last.

It's time to stop this crap once and for all. It's time to formally partition Afghanistan.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 06 Jul 2010 10:06

Sanjay M wrote: Nonsense, your "l'etat, c'est moi" rationale is a hollow one.
Masood would have never behaved like this, nor I suspect would Najib. They would have simply taken the fight to Pak.
...

What's wrong with fostering a coup d' etat by Amrullah Saleh?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 06 Jul 2010 10:07

Again you're missing the key point. Before the Taliban there was another nation to the north that would ensure the security of the the Afghan regime right? That no longer exists. That is why they did not negotiate with Pakistan.

The NA never caved in to Pak interests.... after the NA captured Kabul...how did that turn out again?

btw, what happened to Najib?

Surely any ruler of Afghanistan would not want to end up like the above two.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 06 Jul 2010 10:14

Pakistan has always complained to the US about being abandoned by the US after USSR withdrew from Afghanistan. The US has promised pak that it won't do so again. The US will continue paying pakistan long after it exits from Afghanistan, mainly to ensure that al-quaida there won't target US interests. Pakistan will ensure that while making show of stopping some anti-US terrorist programs to continue getting US aid.

It will also serve Pakistan's aim of getting a strategic depth in Afghanistan against India. And when TSP has a pak-friendly govt in power in Kabul, it will continue its anti-India programs that had been interrupted for a while due to US presence in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan knows it is screwed, caught been US and Pakistan. It knows that once the US exits, it will be at the mercy of pakistan. Karzai is just trying to get close to pakistan so that he remains an influential person in Kabul post-US withdrawl instead of ending up like Najibullah

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 06 Jul 2010 10:17

putnanja wrote: Afghanistan knows it is screwed, caught been US and Pakistan. It knows that once the US exits, it will be at the mercy of pakistan. Karzai is just trying to get close to pakistan so that he remains an influential person in Kabul post-US withdrawl instead of ending up like Najibullah

This.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Jul 2010 10:46

KLNMurthy wrote:What's wrong with fostering a coup d' etat by Amrullah Saleh?

Well, Saleh & Co will become NA again. Abdullah Abdullah has a better chance to be a good PM for all of Afghanistan, and he could probably beat Karzai in an honest election - which is one of the things that has Karzai worriedly running to Pak. When you take the royal privileges away from this cronyist, then suddenly he doesn't want to be on your team anymore - such is his Afghaniat

(Likewise, I'd suspect that if Nehru-Gandhis were truly threatened with loss of lifestyle privileges in India, then they'd be threatening to ride Paki tanks into New Delhi - Murtaza Bhutto-ishtyle)

There's no need for coup d'etat when Abdullah could probably win an honest election.
But that may be why Karzai is trying to pre-empt things by running to Pak.

I think that NA should make like East Pakistan and leave.
There's no point in giving Pak the benefit of its "what's mine is mine, what's your we share" mentality. This is the most decisive way to turn the tables on them.
Once Northern Afghanistan is beyond its reach, then Southern Afghanistan becomes the main issue, and it would automatically gravitate together with NWFP.
Pakjabis would suddenly be the odd man out.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Jul 2010 10:59

Carl_T wrote:Again you're missing the key point. Before the Taliban there was another nation to the north that would ensure the security of the the Afghan regime right? That no longer exists. That is why they did not negotiate with Pakistan.

USA is there, Russia is more powerful than during the 1990s, while Pak is ever poorer.
But Karzai is frightened for himself - he fears the Americans will push him out of power. And make no mistake, he cares more about his personal power than about the future of his country. That's why he runs a corrupt kleptocracy that bilks the people of money at every opportunity. How is that helping national interest? It's not - it's helping his own interest by fattening his wallet.

The NA never caved in to Pak interests.... after the NA captured Kabul...how did that turn out again?

btw, what happened to Najib?

Surely any ruler of Afghanistan would not want to end up like the above two.

Najib was betrayed by his own Pashtun general Tanai, who cut a deal with Pak to stage a coup (ISI-sponsored Saur Revolution). Najib then had to flee and hole up in the UN embassy, until one day Taliban arrived and hanged him on the spot.

Likewise, it's Talibs who could easily hang Karzai to get him out of the way, once they make a full comeback. Remember what Taliban did to Hezb-i-Wahdat.
Why would they allow Karzai to hang around as their mascot? Which jihadi will feel inspired to eagerly die for him? Why would Pak want to keep around some unreliable guy who might one day change sides again, in pursuit of his personal interest? Do you think Pak will take a gamble on that? It's not like kleptocratic Karzai is the darling of the West, that they'll be pleading on his behalf.

Pak can hold out their arms in an embracing stance, just as a feint. Then once they have him in their embrace, they'll stab him and discard him. They don't need to keep him around, except to maintain a semblance of diplomacy in front of the Americans while they're still there.

I wonder what AlQaeda is planning? They could see merit in killing Karzai, even if nobody else would.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Jul 2010 11:07

putnanja wrote:Pakistan has always complained to the US about being abandoned by the US after USSR withdrew from Afghanistan. The US has promised pak that it won't do so again. The US will continue paying pakistan long after it exits from Afghanistan, mainly to ensure that al-quaida there won't target US interests. Pakistan will ensure that while making show of stopping some anti-US terrorist programs to continue getting US aid.

It will also serve Pakistan's aim of getting a strategic depth in Afghanistan against India. And when TSP has a pak-friendly govt in power in Kabul, it will continue its anti-India programs that had been interrupted for a while due to US presence in Afghanistan.

The thing is that India wouldn't sit idly by while Pak sets J&K on fire again. Nor would NA sit idly by and meekly allow some pro-Pak govt in Kabul to disenfranchise them.
Kurds never handed over all their arms just because US forces had arrived in Iraq, neither did Kosovo Liberation Army.

Afghanistan knows it is screwed, caught been US and Pakistan. It knows that once the US exits, it will be at the mercy of pakistan. Karzai is just trying to get close to pakistan so that he remains an influential person in Kabul post-US withdrawl instead of ending up like Najibullah

Anybody who embraces Pak ends up a goner - whether they want to or not.
This is because ISI won't pussyfoot around - Durand Line means too much to them.
Those hardliners want maximum control, and aren't going to trust in some guy who could just as easily flip-flop back the other way again.

Will Karzai announce his acceptance of the Durand Line? Hah, if he did, then he'd lose any shred of legitimacy he has left in front of Pashtuns.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 06 Jul 2010 11:14

Sanjay M

Can you throw some light on the Al Queda you keeping talking about? How many members does it have? Who is their leader? What kind of ammunition do they possess? Do they have any state support? Where do they get their funds from? I'd like to get a fee for how powerful is this entity given that the entire cold war machinery that US & its western lackeys built up are brought to the fore to fight this so called Al Queda monster. So I'd like to know more about this organization. And please note, not the CNN/Fox/state dept/Pentagon version. Definetly not what Peter Bergen told you. I am looking for some authentic sources, western or otherwise.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 06 Jul 2010 11:16

It would be interesting scenario if indeed Karzai accepts the Durrand line. The Pashtuns will slaughter him in broad daylight, and then I wonder how TSP will deal with them when passions would be running high.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Jul 2010 11:25

CRamS wrote:Sanjay M

Can you throw some light on the Al Queda you keeping talking about? How many members does it have? Who is their leader? What kind of ammunition do they possess? Do they have any state support? Where do they get their funds from? I'd like to get a fee for how powerful is this entity given that the entire cold war machinery that US & its western lackeys built up are brought to the fore to fight this so called Al Queda monster. So I'd like to know more about this organization. And please note, not the CNN/Fox/state dept/Pentagon version. Definetly not what Peter Bergen told you. I am looking for some authentic sources, western or otherwise.

Ask these questions again, once Taliban come back to power in Afghanistan - at least the Southern portion of it. Then the answers will be more obvious to you, and less deniable.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 06 Jul 2010 13:36

Afghanistan urges Pakistan to act against terror groups

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

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 06 Jul 2010 14:32

Indian government should proactively involve in Afganistan in helping NATO forces. Also Indian armed personnel can be send in large numbers to assist AFganistan government to fight terrors with heavily armed. It will be interesting to see Indian Muslims being trained in large number to fight Afghan terrors and also protect India's interest by being there. If they had supported local groups they cannot come back to India If they had remained faithful they will fight for India. I think India needs a strong Muslim armed faithful armed forces to fight the terror.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 06 Jul 2010 17:12

Sanjay M wrote:Abdullah Abdullah has a better chance to be a good PM for all of Afghanistan, and he could probably beat Karzai in an honest election - which is one of the things that has Karzai worriedly running to Pak.

During the election, Abdullah Abdullah was himself hobnobbing with the Pakistanis. The Pakistani Ambassador accompanied him on one of his campaign meetings.

Sanjay M wrote:(Likewise, I'd suspect that if Nehru-Gandhis were truly threatened with loss of lifestyle privileges in India, then they'd be threatening to ride Paki tanks into New Delhi - Murtaza Bhutto-ishtyle)

Sanjay M ji,
I object to this very strongly.

I find all these comparisons between Congress and Karzai totally needless, besides the point, and distracting. Secondly you are making grave insinuations about India's leaders simply off the cuff.

Sanjay M wrote:When you take the royal privileges away from this cronyist, then suddenly he doesn't want to be on your team anymore - such is his Afghaniat

This is cheap.

Karzai has been India's friend and has enabled Indian access to Afghanistan for the last almost nine years. He has not spoken ill of India even once. And this is how you treat him. Is this how India should treat him?

Corruption, cronyism, political maneuvering, hobnobbing with warlords, drug trade, etc. etc. are all tools which the Western media has used to hit at him. They may all be true, and still from our viewpoint, all this is not our business. Every society has its own constraints and dynamics and we cannot be placing our standards of morality on others. To say the least, Indian politics is hardly better.

So let's stop whacking our friends with a stick?

As far as Hamid Karzai's meetings with Pakistanis go, I hardly think we have sufficient details and politicking and positioning is much more complicated than just black and white. We don't know his game plan. For every Karzai's sell out you sell to me, I can sell you a genius move on his part, even a pro-Indian move.

I understand both the moral and the strategic imperative of helping Afghans and wishing them a mature political system and stability. I understand the logic of partitioning Afghanistan, and would go with the rationale to some extent, but what I don't understand is your desire to build a case for a strategic imperative on the foundations of some arbitrary morality and by cursing India's friends.

From your writing you like to make the world very black and white - Northern Alliance good, Taliban bad! Abdullah Abdullah good, Karzai bad!

If one wants to develop a good strategy, one should leave the domain of morality preaching, and think of national interests alone.

If we think, that Karzai has outlived his usefulness to India, then we will draw our conclusions and look for alternatives, but I don't understand why we should start hitting at an India's friend's image, and incurring his and his follower's ire. He can still of use. Why burn bridges, especially where India only has a very few?

James B · Post by **James B** » 06 Jul 2010 17:42

RajeshA wrote: During the election, Abdullah Abdullah was himself hobnobbing with the Pakistanis. The Pakistani Ambassador accompanied him on one of his campaign meetings.

AFAIK, even India as well backed Abdullah Abdullah and that is one of the reason Karzai is behaving indifferently towards India. The reason for backing Abdullah Abdullah was he was seen as efficient administrator while Karzai as an incompetent and full of corruption. I will post a link on this as soon as I find it.