Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 29 Jul 2010 07:40

Also, aerial technology has evolved to include the use of drones, etc, which the Soviets never used during the war.

But on the other hand, the Soviets never had to contend with Wikileaks either.

This CNN correspondent (whom shyamd has some fetish for) is questioning why the US Army never publicly stated that the downed CH-47 was hit by a heat-seeking missile:

I assume that the US doesn't want to demoralize its troops or embolden Taliban by openly acknowledging that there was a SAM threat.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 30 Jul 2010 16:25

Oooo.... Sanjay M getting personal once again, because you lost badly in a debate. Keep em coming. Just shows your level of maturity.

And you chose a bad example (like all your other previous examples about the flotilla and others), this is a debate of what can be released to be public and what should not, the question of who broke the Gaza ceasefire with Israel and hamas was a question of Fact. And it was proven by every media outlet that Israel broke it. You still can't seem to accept that fact, even though it was proven. Oh and not to forget that Israel had a blockade on Gaza "because of rockets", which even the defence minister of israel said was untrue. LOL!!

Sanjay M, you are a really bad loser. No offense mate, but you should really grow up. I'll leave it at that, I am sure you are smart enough to realise that on your own. Back to Af-Pak.

kittoo · Post by **kittoo** » 30 Jul 2010 17:13

ramana wrote:Was listening to NPR about the confirmation hearings and how the Gen was the one at the flag raising in Kandahar in 2001. And the voice over was saying "he was confident then but is now more circumspect". I immediately recalled the French guy's description of the encounter with Islam and how even after a big defeat it took 200 to 300 years to clear France of rvoing bands of miscreants. And finally about a millennium to take the fight to Algeria in 1830. Again it took similar amount of time for reconqusita in Spain.

I think they don't know what they are fighting. Modern mercantile capitalists don't have the staying power. The problem is one has to keep winning every battle, for to lose the final one will finish you off as the Persians, Byzantines, Chauhans all found. And you don't know which is the final one as the Austrians fond in 1680.

Ramana sir they dont even look at it as if they are fighting an ideology or religion. They try to avoid the fact that what they are fighting is not going to stop soon cause the enemy is very determined and motivated by religion. As long as they are in denial, how can anyone expect them to win completely?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 30 Jul 2010 17:57

Exactly, they don't know how to defeat Islamist ideology.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 30 Jul 2010 18:10

you know... we should rename this thread the "Durand Line Watch"

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 30 Jul 2010 19:23

Been doing some reading up on the facts of this wiki leaks expose and Af-Pak situation.

I think Obama has read that Af-Pak war is too expensive and especially with the economic situation. So, it will probably take another 2 years or so for staged withdrawal. But things may change if Obama runs for another term - he will probably kick start the Af-Pak war again to gain some populist support.

What is telling is that the Saudi's are now in the driving seat in West Asia and with the Taliban/TSP. KSA Prince Muqrin is calling the shots there. So essentially what is going on is KSA King A is pulling TSP and Karzai together in order to restore Taliban to power one way or another. DNW says that it was Washington that forced TSPA to extend Kayani's term. Obama and King A reckon Kayani is their man with the connections to stop the war.

DNW Says that KSA TSP are worried about Karzai opening up his own lines of communication with Taleban, so to jeopordize his efforts KSA int and ISI are getting involved.

King A is currently in Casablanca, met with CIA number 2. They agreed to KSA TSP USA alliance and to control the negotiations via their KSA GID and ISI. I mentioned that Leon Pannetta travelled to Riyadh to ask for fund Afg. King A said, ISI and KSA GID will pool all info on Taliban and share with Washington CIA, so that CIA will control the process too.
They discussed what Iran could do to break the alliance. They concluded that certain parties will be won over by Iran, but not enough to break the alliance. So the aim is to achieve a "national reconciliation".

So far Hillary Clinton etc say they want to strike a deal with Moderate elements but the accurate portrayal is that they are seeking to strike a deal with Taliban through moderate elements.

So basically they are all feeling gungho because ISI is backed by GID and CIA.

Now about Yindu's:

DNW says Yindu politicians and strategywallah's are pissed off with US getting chummy with TSP and KSA for this strategy to get Taliban back. Dilli guys reckon that Obama admin is kicking India out of Afg and door is opened for TSP military domination of Taliban and Afgh on the whole. This is TSPs objective as we all know on this forum.

Now Yindu's are being pushed to new levels of cooperation with the ayatollah's. So, MMS and Ayatollahs are seeing if by them getting close with each other, they can break the KSA ISI CIA alliance.

------------------------
Some more commentary:

Some leaked documents a breath of fresh air

In all the furor of the leaked documents posted on the leftist anti-war website Wikileaks, there is some information now in the public domain that actually might do some good. Finally, we are able to see documentary evidence that the United States actually knows, or at least believes, that the Pakistanis may not be part of the solution in Afghanistan, but are in reality a major part of the problem, and that the Iranians are supporting the Taliban in their operations against American forces. While many of us have suspected this all along, it is good to see it in real government documents.

Pakistan
America's relationship with Pakistan has had its ups and downs over the years, much of influenced by how much they could do for us in furthering our national interests. That is, after all, what foreign policy is all about. During the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, Pakistan's intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) was the conduit for virtually all American weapons and money to the Aghfan mujahidin.

Any one who knows Pakistan or the Pakistanis realizes that not all of the money nor weapons reached their intended recipients. The CIA officers responsible for the operation knew that there was going to be a certain amount of corruption, but that it was the price of doing business - there was no viable alternative to dealing with the ISI. The more important mission was getting weapons to the fighters in Afghanistan.

The weapons provided to the mujahidin included, as glamorized in the movie Charlie Wilson's War (see my comments on Charlie and "his" war), the FIM-92 Stinger shoulder-launched heat-seeking air defense missile system, to this day arguably the finest shoulder-fired system in existence.

As feared by many officers at the Pentagon when Representative Wilson basically forced the U.S. Army to provide Stingers to the ISI for the mujahidin, some of the missiles ended up in the hands of people we did not want to have them. In September 1987, while the CIA was still sending Stingers to the ISI, the U.S. Navy found Stingers on board the Iranian mine-laying ship Iran Ajr in the Persian Gulf. The serial numbers indicated that they had been shipped to the ISI for delivery to the mujahidin. A gift to the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps from our "allies."

After the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan in 1988, our assistance to the mujahidin stopped almost overnight. The mujahidin were disappointed that we did not continue our support, but our operation in Afghanistan were not about them, it was about the Soviets. Once the Soviets left, our foreign policy objective was achieved and we turned to other matters.

No longer needing the cooperation of the Pakistanis, the U.S. Congress began scrutinizing Pakistan's nascent nuclear weapons and missile programs. In 1990, once it was assessed that Pakistan was in fact developing a nuclear weapon, the United States halted delivery of additional F-16 fighter aircraft (that had already been paid for) under the terms of the Pressler Amendment. Relations between Islamabad and Washington chilled.

In the early 1990's, the ISI was involved in the creation of the fundamentalist Taliban - its charter members were drawn from the millions of Afghan refugees in northern Pakistan. When the Taliban took over in Afghanistan, they were supported by the ISI, and diplomatically recognized by Pakistan. There is more to the relationship between the ISI and Taliban than than Pakistani national interest.

As with many countries in the Middle East and South Asia, ethnic and tribal loyalties trump almost everything else. Many of the ISI are ethnic Pushtuns, as are most of the Taliban. It is the Pushtun tribesmen in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (especially in North and South Waziristan, the semi-autonomous regions along the Afghanistan border) that have extended protection to al-Qa'idah leaders Usmah bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar. There is also a large Pushtun contingent in the Pakistani armed forces.

The thought that the ISI and many in the Pakistani army are going to be fully supportive of the Pakistani government's efforts to move against their fellow tribesman in the Waziristans is wishful thinking. In fact, the exact opposite seems to be the case - the ISI, or at least some officers in the ISI, along with some Pakistani army officers are actively supporting the Taliban in their operations against American and coalition forces.

Regardless of what Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs would have you believe - and the documents tend to make him out as less than truthful - the Pakistanis are not serious about helping us eradicate an organization that they created. To think otherwise defies logic.

Iran
The Iranians likewise are much more involved in supporting the Taliban in its operations against American and coalition forces than the administration would have us believe. The Iranians, as they did with the Iraqi Shi'a militias such as the jaysh al-mahdi (JAM) of Muqtada al-Sadr, have been providing weapons and other support to the Taliban. Although the Taliban and the Iranians have many ideological differences, their mutual hatred of the United States supersedes any reluctance to cooperate with each other.

There are also the much-touted Obama outreach efforts to Iran - all of which have been rebuffed by the Iranians and have been a dismal failure. Could a desire to not offend the Ahmadinejad regime have played into the downplaying of Iran's support for the Taliban? I have my suspicions.

Last words
Julian Assange, the self-righteous arrogant co-founder of Wikileaks is joined by Amnesty International in its condemnation of American involvement in Afghanistan and what they believe is a high level of civilian casualties. Why don't they spend as much time condemning the Taliban and its murderous activities? They act like the Taliban is a legitimate entity rather than a bunch of murdering jihadist fanatics.

Finally, if U.S. Army intelligence analyst Specialist Bradley Manning turns out to be the source of the leaked documents, I urge the Secretary of Defense to pursue treason charges and seek the death penalty. Release of these classified documents when American troops are involved in combat operations rises to that level - if he did it, he deserves to die.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 30 Jul 2010 22:38

July is deadliest month for US forces in Afghanistan

The casualties brought the death toll for US soldiers in July to 66, an all-time high that surpassed the record toll of 60 for the previous month, according to the icasualties.org website.

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 31 Jul 2010 00:50

The politics of Taliban reconciliation

The onus is on the generals in Rawalpindi to effect the hardcore Taliban leadership's reconciliation and, as a quid pro quo, Washington recognises Pakistan's “legitimate interests” in Afghanistan.

Diplomatic engagements can be deceptive. The politics of reconciliation with the Taliban has all along been deceptive — and remains so. Indian journalists interpreted that the visiting U.S. Special Representative, Richard Holbrooke, ruled out the participation by the dreaded “Haqqani network” in the Taliban leadership in any Kabul set-up. Yet, he merely said he could not countenance circumstances under which the Haqqanis will become amenable to reconciliation — that is, it is up to the U.S.' sub-contractors in Rawalpindi, the Pakistani military leadership, to show otherwise.

Which is why, as Mr. Holbrooke underlined with a touch of unintended irony in New Delhi, “Improved U.S-Pakistan relations are not bad for India.” Another aspect of the U.S. doublespeak is that Washington is helpless about what transpires between Mr. Karzai and the Pakistani military leadership regarding the Taliban's reconciliation. This incredible alibi enables Washington to distance itself publicly from the Pakistani military's ongoing efforts to mediate a reconciliation agreement with both the Haqqani and the Gulbuddin Hekmatyar groups, which are on the U.S. “wanted” lists. Are we to believe that when the ISI diligently goes about identifying who among the Taliban leadership are “reconcilable” enough to be brought into the loop, the Americans and the British — their spy engines et al — are simply standing back and watching? This charade is wearing thin.

The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen (who came alongside Mr. Holbrooke to Delhi last week), would like India to focus on its military-to-military cooperation with America and, of course, to work hard with the U.S. to counter China's “assertive … territorial claims [and] aggressive approach to the near-sea areas recently.” His demarche buttresses Mr. Holbrooke's advice that India should not needlessly worry about the future of Afghanistan, where New Delhi too would have a role to play. Interestingly, Mr. Mullen suggested that India's priority should be to work with the U.S. to contain alleged Chinese expansionism, which he claimed was a shared concern. Mr. Holbrooke and Mr. Mullen's demarche makes sense. India, after all, belongs to the Pentagon's Pacific Command, whereas Pakistan falls under the Central Command.

The U.S. isn't quite the helpless onlooker at the ISI's subsoil manoeuvrings to reconcile the Taliban. Mr. Holbrooke travelled to New York on July 6 specifically with the mission of negotiating the removal of select Taliban members from the U.N. anti-terror blacklist. In effect, he acted as a facilitator for the Pakistani military, which insists that dropping the Taliban from a list of individuals targeted with travel and financial sanctions is a first step to convince it to end its insurgency and strike a peace deal with Mr. Karzai. Of course, Mr. Holbrooke's mission was frustrated, thanks to stalling by Russia, which maintains that there is insufficient evidence to remove the Taliban from the U.N. list. In effect, the Russian Foreign Ministry snubbed Mr. Holbrooke's mission.

Meanwhile, the recent Afghan-Pakistan transit agreement, brokered by Washington, brings dramatically close to realisation the U.S.' Great Central Asia strategy. Russia has invited Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan for a summit in Sochi in August. Mr. Holbrooke and Mr. Mullen have come at a most crucial juncture in regional politics — to mollify India over the Pakistani role in the geopolitics and persuade it to integrate into the U.S. regional strategies. The last thing Washington wants is a resuscitation of anti-Taliban resistance in Afghanistan. A fly buzzing around Vijay Chowk could easily tell that the politics of Taliban reconciliation is getting to be very serious

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 31 Jul 2010 17:40

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/world ... uslim.html
German converts making their way to Afghanistan.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 31 Jul 2010 17:48

^^^ There really is something called blow-back and Karma is a ...

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 31 Jul 2010 22:54

General to Senate: Kabul’s a done deal; on to Tehran!
http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/2912
( KLPD On Paki Day Dream)

The nominee to replace magical general David Petraeus as head of US Central Command stunned the Senate Tuesday when he told the Armed Services committee that he was optimistic about achieving victory in Afghanistan. The Associated Press describes “tough talking” Marine General James Mattis’s definition of success in Afghanistan as “propping up an Afghan government that is stable enough to keep “extremists” from using the country as a terrorist base.”
Propping up. But we’re leaving, right? Well, not exactly. Mattis also told the committee that he is comfortable with the Obama administration’s pledge to begin withdrawing from the country in 2011 because it has no actual meaning, a sentiment that echoes exactly that of his predecessor and of war department secretary Bob Gates, and that US-Pakistan relations were at an all time high, which is apparently not a reference to the record opium yields spilling out from Afghanistan.
Here’s Petraeus on the 2011 Afghanistan deadline.
“On the one hand, productivity experts say that there’s no greater productivity tool than a deadline,” Petraeus said. “The message of urgency that the deadline conveyed … was not just for domestic political purposes. It was for audiences in [the Afghan capital of] Kabul, who … needed to be reminded that we won’t be there forever. But we will be there, and presumably for quite some time.”
Here’s Bob Gates.
… this is a gradual process, and there will soon be 100,000 American troops and 50,000 troops from 43 other countries around the world in Afghanistan. No one should expect to see them all start to head for the exits on — in July of 2011. There will be a substantial presence, in my view, well beyond that period of time. Here’s Mattis.
“It’s a date when a process begins,” Mattis said. “It’s not a hand-off of a hot potato.”
So everyone is on the same page—we’re staying in Afghanistan for about, roughly, forever.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 31 Jul 2010 23:01

^^^The pukes must be

.They must be browning their pants for sure.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 01 Aug 2010 01:06

No boss. They think they've won. They believe that they have managed to get the Americans to look at things their way. All indications are that they feel they have out-manoeuvred India, Iran and others (including the US, btw) in Afghanistan. The slimily arrogant behaviour of Qureshi with our MEA and HM, the cutting reactions to Cameron's comments and the other responses, the dismissive approach to the Wikileaks - all indicate the usual misplaced confidence and bravado the Pakis show before they get kicked in the teeth.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 01 Aug 2010 01:36

But have they in fact outmaneuvered everybody?
Their maneuvering antics have certainly managed to get a lot of coalition countries mad at them.

They also seem to naively think that as long as they flap their lips fast enough, that it will let them take flight.

Their return to hostile rhetoric towards us seems to be in preparation for renewed conflict with us in the wake of an American exit. They sense that the end of the US presence is approaching.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 01 Aug 2010 04:32

JE Menon wrote:No boss. They think they've won. They believe that they have managed to get the Americans to look at things their way. All indications are that they feel they have out-manoeuvred India, Iran and others (including the US, btw) in Afghanistan. The slimily arrogant behaviour of Qureshi with our MEA and HM, the cutting reactions to Cameron's comments and the other responses, the dismissive approach to the Wikileaks - all indicate the usual misplaced confidence and bravado the Pakis show before they get kicked in the teeth.

+1 to the winning portion.

Regarding arrogant behaviour, Mushy did not even go to receive Bush when he made a state visit to Pak.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 01 Aug 2010 06:49

Impact of WikiLeaks, or the lack of it, on the Af-Pak scenario..

TOI reports...

Fight against terror: A leaking war

NYtimes reports..

The Great (Double) Game

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 01 Aug 2010 07:09

Pakistan Is Winning the War in Afghanistan

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 01 Aug 2010 11:12

^^^ That article needs to be quoted .

Of all the players in the Afghan game, Pakistan is running up the highest score. For several decades, Pakistan's policy toward Afghanistan has remained largely unchanged, regardless of who was running the country. That policy is to support Afghanistan's Pashtuns in their seemingly genetic resistance to outside control (outside in this case extends to any government located in Kabul). By supporting Pashtun autonomy, Pakistan establishes for itself a security buffer zone on its northwest frontier, which comes with a friendly auxiliary army -- the Afghan Taliban -- as a bonus.

For nearly nine years, U.S. officials have pleaded with Pakistan to suspend support for the Afghan Taliban and allow Afghanistan to unite under a central government. Pakistani officials have provided a variety of verbal responses to these entreaties but have not changed their policies toward the Afghan Taliban, whose military capability inside Afghanistan only seems to grow.

The United States cannot achieve its goals in Afghanistan while the Afghan Taliban's sanctuaries in Pakistan remain open. The Pakistani government refuses to close or even isolate those sanctuaries. Yet the massive U.S. foreign-assistance pipeline to Pakistan remains open. Why?

U.S. policymakers have seemingly concluded that they have more options and less risk by engaging Pakistan. They tried isolating Pakistan and found that course was neither wise nor sustainable. As a result, the Washington has opted to shower Pakistan with aid and hope that persistent persuasion will eventually result in greater Pakistani action against the Afghan Taliban.

The result has been a spectacular strategic success for Pakistan. Development aid from the United States has never been greater. The United States will deliver long-embargoed F-16 fighters to Pakistan and is providing other upgrades to Pakistan's armed forces. Along with this has come a de facto U.S. security guarantee against the perceived threat from India. Pakistan's diplomatic leverage over the United States has given it a free hand to work with China to upgrade its nuclear complex. Meanwhile, Pakistan's proxy forces in southeast Afghanistan are successfully defending the security buffer zone. Pakistan's dominant position has forced Afghan President Hamid Karzai to virtually sue for peace. This could result in an ethnic partition of Afghanistan that would secure Pakistan's main objective in the conflict.

With its winning position, Pakistan's current task is to arrange a stable end-state that avoids a backlash from the losers. Pakistan and the United States are in a largely zero-sum relationship over Afghanistan. Pakistan's leaders must fashion a settlement (however temporary) that allows the United States to save face, that maintains the U.S. aid pipeline, and that keeps the de facto security guarantee in place. U.S. officials should hope that Pakistan manages the endgame as well as it has managed the rest of the match.{so basically the Americans gave in to pakistani demands fully and hope that the pakistanis take care of Afghanistan for them}

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 01 Aug 2010 12:07

Rony wrote:^^^ That article needs to be quoted

Thanks for filling in.. I copied it but obviously forgot to paste..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Aug 2010 19:02

Call me insane if you like, but I am going to be charitable about Pakistan - for a short while - at least to see if that will help me organize my own thoughts.

The conventional story is Pakistan loves Taliban and wants Taliban to survive. reasons for this are "Pakistan is Taliban" or "Taliban are Pakistan's fighting arm to dominate Afghanistan and punish India". In the middle of all these crystal clear viewpoints we see contradictory news items that say "Pakistanis do not want Taliban ruling them" , "Pakis support army actions in clearing Swat and Waziristan". These latter news items are either dismissed as hogwash, or with glee as "Serves the buggers right"

Is there any way of reconciling these two diverging items of information "i.e that "Pakistan army supports Taliban" and "Pakis do not like Taliban" Yes of course, we say that the Amy and ISI are playing their own game. But if the army and ISI are playing their own game to support and strengthen Taliban while Pakis are against the Taliban the Pakis should be irritated with their army.

But no. They are not. Pakis support their army. Pakis generally do not like Taliban, and as per everyone, including WikLeaks, Paki army supports Taliban.

So what gives? How can all 3 of the above be true?

I have the following explanation and all 3 statements are true: They are:
1) Pakis support their army: true
2) Pakis do not support Taliban: true
3) Pakistan army supports Taliban: true

The thing to look at here is: Why does the Pakistan army not fighting the Taliban? Why does the Paki army seem to be both supporting and opposing the Taliban? Surely if they like the Taliban they should not be doing any fighting. But if they don't like the Taliban they should put their heart into the war.

Perhaps the real story is like this.
1) The "Taliban" are basically Afghan fighters in their lands. They have not yet been totally subjugated by anyone - although they have, with support fought off invaders starting from the Brits to the Soviets. The Soviets were fought with US arms, Paki advisers and Saudi+drug money.

2) The Pakistan army and the Taliban have built up relationships which cannot be broken without affecting the morale of the Pakistan army. The Paki army is not going to fight the Taliban. The Americans are fools to imagine that a 2001-2 threat by Amritraj will work forever.

3) In any case fighting the Taliban is tough business. Pakis may claim that they beat the Soviets. If they did - they should be able to dominate the Taliban, but I believe they know this is not feasible. The Taliban, which they (Pakis) cannot control in North Waziristan is hardly likely to remain in Paki control in Afghanistan. The Afghans have a long history of getting money and arms from various people and if they are in Afghanistan there is no guarantee that their loyalties will lie with the Pakis - especially if American money dries up.

4) If the US leaves Afghanistan, will American money dry up? This the the question that the Paki army needs to answer for itself. For us on BRF, it is easy to say "No. The US will continue to be stupid and keep giving Pakis money even after the cut and run and allow the Taliban to return to power in Afghanistan and turn a blind eye to what happens after that". But the Paki army is not BRF. They cannot be certain that the US will keep pouring money once the Taliban take over Afghanistan. Those Talibs will be hungry for money and arms and once in Afghanistan they can start getting money and arms from various nation that border Afghanistan - not just Pakistan. Unless Pakis are able to pay off the Taliban constantly, they will lose control. And if the Paki army loss control over the Taliban, who are basically Pashtun, then the Durand line may be dissolved and Pakistan splits.

5) The Pakistan army is playing safe with the Taliban. They are not hurting them too much and are paying them off using US money. If the Taliban come to power in Afghanistan, the Pakis hope to have the gratitude of the Taliban for having allowed them to survive in Pakistan. But over and above this- Afghanistan and the Taliban will still need money. If the Talibs make their own money from their own Opium, or if Talibs start getting money from elsewhere - the Pakis lose influence over Afghanistan and the actions of the Taliban. So ideally the US should still pay Pakistan for controlling the Taliban - but neither the control nor the money is guaranteed.

6) If the US does not leave Afghanistan, Pakistan still has a problem. It will not fight the Taliban and the only safe house for the Taliban will be in Pakistan and Pakistan will stand accused of helping to make the "war on terror" fail. This is what is happening now.

What does the US want in Afghanistan?

Ideally the US wants full control. The US wants Afghanistan to be stable. The US wants Pakistan to do its job. The US wants safe routes for oil and trade through Pakistan and Afghanistan. The US wants Al Qaeda. The US is not bothered abut Indian security.

Can Pakistan guarantee all this?

1) Without US money, definitely not
2) With US money - unlikely, IMO.

I see Pakistan as in for some trouble whichever way the cookie crumbles. A Taliban victory, which is so dreaded by everyone is not going to end up as a Pakistani victory for very long. The very same voters who, it is claimed want the US to pull out will demand that Pakistan not. be paid for funding he Taliban. And Pakistan will lose control over the Taliban.

Does the US understand all this? Yes
Does Pakistan understand Yes
India? Don't know.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Aug 2010 23:43

shukla wrote:Pakistan Is Winning the War in Afghanistan

One of the comments

the view of one American, which is
Pakistan is the key to getting us out of our foolish venture in Afghanistan. Yes, Pakistan will see to it that we bleed as long as we support an India-friendly government (the mayor of Kabul and associated bandits). Shocking, a nation that pushes for its own interests.
Too bad we don't.
So we should arrange a deal with them and get out.
I have not the slightest care about how this affects the ongoing India-Pakistan struggles. You guys want to avoid nuclear war? Be my guest. Except for the fallout that would poison the planet, I could care less.
For decades, the Big American muscular but clueless country boy has been bilked by both your nations. The Cold War provided an excellent way to do that, now we have "Islamofascism."
If the Chinese want to play games in the area, it's their fingers in the fire.
But it's time for us Americans to realize that our efforts to shape things in the region only empties our pockets. So,we should maintain cordial relations with both, trade when profitable and otherwise mind our own business.

The comments do not note that US and the mujahids were already in the region from 1980 and which created the current conflict. Now the question is when the next 911 going to happen

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Aug 2010 00:13

One more comment and with more intelligence

I believe the Pakistanis will do their best to keep the Taliban and al Qaeda from attacking us, in return for an India-free Kabul government.
After all, they can get large bribes -- oops, aid packages -- from us and they really don't need us stirring up the situation in Afghanistan.
They have already shown their ability to crush rogue insurgencies, and they have the support of their people for that. Election results show clearly that Pakistanis reject Islamic fanatic parties. The fact that they also dislike us has nothing to do with that. After all, WE are the ones giving the insurgents their recruiting slogans.
I have to admire the skill with which the Pakistanis can manipulate our clueless leaders. For sure, they help us direct our drone missiles onto people they want eliminate, then denounce us for killing civilians. They get the bonus and we get the onus. Brilliant.
If the Indians want to thwart Pakistani-inspired insurgencies they can
a: Reach some kind of agreement with Pakistan over Kashmir. They have been trying to work that out for some years now, I wish them luck.
b: Keep fighting their wars and risk nuclear annihilation.
We don't have a dog in this race, and personally, I don't have any animosity to either people. They are both inheritors of great civilizations, and their cleverness exposes how young a nation we are. I want us to stop being bamboozled, and rid ourselves of the notion that we can somehow solve all these problems in a region we scarcely understand.

US mollycoddled Pakistan at the expense of Afghanistan
Obama administration has continued Bush’s mollycoddling of Pakistan at the expense of Afghanistan. With three top Pakistan-apologists in Obama administration, namely Gates, Mullen and Petraeus promoting Pakistan’s victory, it was only a matter of time before Pakistan could have its cake and eat it too.
With General David Petraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen as well as Defense secretary Gates justifying Pakistan’s ‘terrorist connections’, Mullah Mohammed Omar’s QST trail from Quetta to Kandahar is operating unimpeded.
General McChrystal had warned about Pakistan’s sheltering of Taliban terrorists in his August 2009 report to Obama: Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year‘.
But US can not even use its drones to destroy QST that is causing daily deaths of US/NATO soldiers in Afghanistan since 2002! That shows Obama’s continuance of Bush’s mollycoddling of Pakistan.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates sought to justify Pakistan’s terrorist connections, alluding to a “deficit of trust” between Washington, DC and Islamabad. Mr Gates also said there was “some justification” for Pakistan's concerns about past American policies. Gen David Patraeus, rushed in with an apologia for his Pakistani friends, by claiming that while Faisal was inspired by militants in Pakistan, he did not necessarily have contacts with the militants which has turned out to be false. Both Adm Mike Mullen and Gen Patraeus fancy themselves to be “soldier statesmen” a la Gen Dwight Eisenhower. Adm Mullen has visited Pakistan 15 times and Gen Patraeus no less frequently.
With such stalwarts guiding Obama’s Afghan policy, US is going to hand over Afghanistan to Pakistan.
Obama will have his victory a la Vietnam style just like Nixon/Kissinger and Taliban government will return to power, also just like a la Vietnam style within two-three years. All the sacrifices of US military will be in vain and US government would have thrown away billions of dollars for nothing, just like Russians before. By that time Obama, Hillary and Petraeus will be gone from the scene.
Only question left will be ’will US continue to have to feed billions of dollars to Pakistan as ransom money after Taliban takeover of Afghanistan’ so that Pakistan can protect US from future terrorist attacks? And if US does not, then will Pakistan return to same old terrorism, citing US walk-away from the region just like back in 1996?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Aug 2010 04:16

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Aug 2010 07:07

Christiane Amanpour Interviews Robert Gates:

http://abcnews.go.com/thisweek/video/in ... t=11299997

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Aug 2010 12:00

shukla wrote:Pakistan Is Winning the War in Afghanistan

It's being claimed that Pakistanis have brilliantly manipulated the US, which is a bunch of hogwash. What's happened is that the US is infested with Atlanticist 5th-columnists who have repeatedly stayed America's hand in slapping Pakistan around, so as to preserve their favorite anti-Russian proxy.

The Atlanticists are the brinksmen, willing to go farther than anyone else is pursuing their interests. The rest of us are just meek spineless shirkers.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Aug 2010 22:11

With Pakistan, being consistent is key
The U.S. should be open-eyed in dealings with its difficult but crucial anti-terrorism partner, but making and following through on commitments is vital to the relationship.
By Bruce Riedel
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 4444.story

If the situation a year from now is not moving in the right direction, then Obama will face a dilemma. He knows he can't cut and run. That would give Al Qaeda a world-changing victory, jeopardize the stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan and increase the threat to the American homeland. So how should he proceed?
ne alternative option would be to trim down our presence in Afghanistan and focus on a smaller counter-terrorist mission, much as Bush did from 2002 to 2008. This option could best be described as creating a Fortress Kabul. NATO would concede much of southern Afghanistan to the insurgents but would maintain a large base in the north to wage drone and special forces attacks on Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorists. We would be committed to containing terrorism rather than truly destroying the terrorist nest.This approach has many flaws, but the worst is that it removes any incentive for Pakistan to cut its ties to the Taliban. Rather, Islamabad would have to come to an accommodation with the insurgents, because in all likelihood they would control the border region.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Aug 2010 22:30

^^^ Fortress Kabul sounds like Dien Bien Phu, but as long as North Afghanistan is separated from the Pashtun-dominated South, then Pak suffers more, since Taliban control over South Afghanistan would allow Taliban to grow too big for ISI to control. Once Taliban becomes big enough, they can shrug off ISI and become a sufficiently independent player that they become open to the overtures of others.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 Aug 2010 01:42

The Way Out of Afghanistan
by Leslie H. Gelb
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... kileaks/2/

President Obama can do as much. U.S. withdrawal should begin in July 2011, as promised—and go down to 15,000 or so over, say, two years. This would leave a residual force to train Afghan forces and provide them with logistical and intelligence support. Further firepower and commando capabilities should be readied to deal with international terrorist threats that will pop up. All this adds up to a powerful deterrent capability.He should then underline America's continuing commitment to Afghans ready to fight terrorists by instituting a plan to provide economic and military aid. In particular, funds and arms should be directed to the tribal leaders and warlords willing to fight the terrorists—and support should be given to efforts to divide Taliban leadership and attract Taliban fighters away from their cause.Then, he needs to build a containment policy against the Taliban with Afghan's neighbors. This includes Russia, India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and yes, Iran (which helped us in the beginning of the war). All share strong interests in preventing the spread of Taliban influence and curtailing the drug trade.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 03 Aug 2010 08:03

It is US who is going to be either a primary winner or a primary loser in Afghanistan. Rest of the NATO members are a reluctant participant in this war. They feel they have nothing to gain or lose from this war. The tremendous dislike majority of NATO countries showed towards Bush junior was because they blamed him for dragging them into this conflict. They were joyous when Obama was elected for he was going to be their deliverer, a messiah who would lead them out of Afghanistan. This was also the hope and anticipation of many anti war folks in US. Pressure from anti war people in US combined with pressure from NATO country has created a great uncertainty for Afghanistan war. Obama has to pick between US national interest and wishes of anti war people within his own party. There is a chance that level headed people in the administration will prevail and US will continue its course in Afghanistan. I say this because US is decreasing troops in Iraq and increasing them in Afghanistan. There is a plan to reduce the troop strength to 50K in Iraq and increase it to 100K in Afghanistan by the end of this month, I think. But, I must say the support for Afghanistan war is very thin.

Here is another blow to the war on terror:

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The Netherlands became the first NATO country to end its combat mission in Afghanistan, drawing the curtain Sunday on a four-year operation that was deeply unpopular at home and even brought down a Dutch government.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/01 ... d-wounded/

This war has exposed the hollowness of NATO. I mean maintaining a meager 1900 troop in this war broke the back of Dutch government. How can these countries ever fight a serious war?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Aug 2010 08:40

Prem wrote:The Way Out of Afghanistan
by Leslie H. Gelb
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... kileaks/2/

There is something that I don't like about the article - it sounds phenomenally stupid and deeply ignorant.

He starts off by saying that Ombaba needs a Vietnam type victory in Afghanistan. That is to say that Vietnam was lost but the USSR was defeated by other deft moves made by Nixon and Kissinger. He is totally ignorant of what the Taliban is and believes that Pakistan is part of the solution. He is right in saying that Pakistan is part of the solution - only he has not figured out what sort of solution Pakistan will play a part.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Aug 2010 09:37

Karan Dixit wrote:It is US who is going to be either a primary winner or a primary loser in Afghanistan. Rest of the NATO members are a reluctant participant in this war.

Karan the primary winners the warlords who manage to keep their supply lines open via Pakistan.

I think the US voter has been taught to see the Taliban as "bad guys" the "Injuns" who need to be defeated. But the people of the area are all Taliban. You give them money and guns, they will fight. You let them rot they will rot. You help them develop, they develop. Sometimes all 3 happen simultaneously.

As I see it rot is compatible with war, guns and weapons, but development is not. You can fight wars and rot, but you cannot fight wars and develop a stable society. Britain perhaps played a stellar role in managing to create a border (The Durand line) where none existed. The areas of Pakistan that were called "North West Frontier Province" and "Federally Administered Tribal Areas" were just tribes who were paid to live as they always did with no formal control and no imposition of any "National laws". True to Paki nature there was no "development" either.

The Taliban were select tribal warlords who received money. funds and training from the Pakistanis to continue what they did best - raid, pillage and subjugate. The relationship of the Pakistanis to the warlords was not one of treaties and agreements but personal relations and honor where jobs were done and agreements honored and payments made in money, arms or blood. All this was a very convenient way of breaking the back of the USSR in Afghanistan, but since there were no "agreements" on paper and everything was personal relationships, they could not be broken and declared void because the job was done.

Pakistanis have enough tribal tradition and knowledge and they used their tribal links to fight the Afghan war alongside the Taliban. But they cannot take down the Taliban. That is the US's fundamental error. But there are two errors here - one is American and the other is Paki.

The US assumed the Taliban were a tool that could be assembled and disassembled like a militia who could go back to a regular "day job". Pakistanis on the other hand were too obliging with the US. they actually changed themselves to do the US's bidding and created the Taliban out of their own people just because the US paid them for their war against India. Neither of them understood that the Taliban could become an autonomous force to reckon with because of the geography and tribal relationships of the AfPak region.

Demands are now being made on Pakistan to fight itself.
1) Stop terrorism against India
2) Check the Taliban.

Both these choices are bad choices for the Pakistan army. If you rewind the clock 30 years (when current Paki generals were entering the army) Pakistan had no Taliban to deal with, but they were free and ready to hit India. But time, the US did not care what the Pakis did to India as long as the Pakis did the US's job. And the US's job was done by creating Islamic militia who later became the Taliban.

Even today, the US will not mind what the Pakis do to India as long as the Pakis do the US's job. Only this time the US's job is to wind down the Taliban. So in fact the best choice for the Pakistani army is
1) Get paid by the US
2) Continue to hit India
3) Try and bring the Taliban under control

Pakistan is trying to bring the Taliban under their control by eliminating those parts of the Taliban that they see as disloyal and supporting those whom they see as loyal.

Now if you are Taliban what would you do? If you fight the US (which you want to do) you can get killed. But you are also being told what to do and what not to do by the Pakistan army. if you don't listen to the Paki army - they will kill you. So what do you do? You do the no brainer thing. You opt for survival where you cooperate with the Pakistan army as long as that allows you to survive (taqiyya). But if you live in an area where neither the Pakis nor the US can get you (Southern Afghanistan) you need not give damn about the US or Pakistan, both of whom are trying to restrict you.

This is essentially an insoluble problem unless everyone can agree and say "hands off Afghanistan, let them lead their own lives". But anti US forces (Al Qaeda) and Pakistan do not want "hands off Afghanistan". Both want to be in there. The US is in there to stop the anti US forces and Pakistanis in there for various reasons mainly India. The US are unable to stop the Taliban with or without Pakistani help. The Pakistanis are unable to stop the Taliban. Period.

The Taliban cannot be defeated as long as they get arms and funds. The funds come from America and the arms from Pakistan and America. if Pakistan is playing both sides, America is also playing both sides. The US has to make a break from funding and arming Pakistan army.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 Aug 2010 10:17

Stop Blaming the Afghans

Steve Coll

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/mag ... WIyYmI1MTE

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Aug 2010 14:27

shiv-ji, the bad taliban are the ones who are pro-afghan nationalism (by pak definition) and the good taliban are the ones who get their bread buttered at GHQ. interestingly, that is also probably 180 degrees to Unkil's definition

however, it seems as though the pashtun nationalism card is definitely being played... so perhaps ombaba's end game is to create a national pashtun identity, some autonomy for the NA territories and whatever happens across the durand line... so be it

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Aug 2010 16:11

There are a few things that India should note, as far as Afghanistan Winding-Down goes.

Code: Select all

1) The Taliban/Pushtuns want the Americans out of their areas.

2) Pakistan steers the Afghan Taliban using financing, safe-haven, and arms.

3) Few Pushtuns are enamored with Pakistanis.

4) Pushtuns do not respect the Durand-Line.

5) Northern Afghanistan does not want Taliban encroachment.

6) Taliban could threaten Northern Afghanistan ethnicities, if they come to power in Southern Afghanistan.

7) Some Pushtun tribes are open to friendship with India, as has been proven by Hamid Karzai.

Considering the above, what needs to be done is:

Code: Select all

a) The Pushtun Taliban need to veered out of Pakistan's control.

b) The Pushtun including Taliban can be directed to impose their sovereignty over both Afghan as well as Pakistani Pushtun areas.

c) The Northern Afghanistan ethnicities need to be protected from Pushtun Taliban aggression.

How this can done:

Code: Select all

i) The Americans move out of the Pushtun areas in Afghanistan, and allow the Pushtun leadership, at the moment, in Talibani hand to reassert itself on the ground in those cleared areas.

ii) This takes away the Pushtun need to look for safe-haven in Pakistan.

iii) Find an alternate financial source for the Taliban other than money coming through ISI.

iv) Undertake a hostile takeover of Pushtun Taliban using other Indian friendly Pushtun to channel money to the Taliban. The money can come from NATO, USA, Russia, Iran, India. Pay the Taliban more than what the Pakistanis can pay them.

v) Get All EU-NATO countries, and eventually USA to supply ISAF troops through Russia and Turkey/Azerbaijan/Georgia/Turkmenistan route, so reduce the dependence on Pakistan.

vi) Decrease Western financing of Pakistan.

vii) Use Karzai and other Pakistan-unfriendly Pushtun tribes to direct the alternatively financed Taliban to overtake areas in Pakistani Pushtun areas.

viii) Get the Pushtuns to declare an independent Pushtunistan.

ix) Secure Northern Afghanistan through ISAF/US troop support on the one hand and Russia/Iran/India axis on the other.

The point is the Taliban would rather allow themselves to financed and used by Pushtun leaders (Karzai & Co.), rather than Pakistanis, provided the Americans were not occupying their areas and the Pushtun leaders had enough cash to finance them.

Pushtunistan is the way out for Americans.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Aug 2010 03:05

India, Russia to step up cooperation in Afghanistan

http://www.hindu.com/2010/08/04/stories ... 551000.htm

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 04 Aug 2010 04:34

Lalmohan wrote:shiv-ji, the bad taliban are the ones who are pro-afghan nationalism (by pak definition) and the good taliban are the ones who get their bread buttered at GHQ. interestingly, that is also probably 180 degrees to Unkil's definition

Anyone know any links that break down the groups by affiliation into good/bad taliban? So the Quetta Shura, Haqqani Network, and Gulbuddin's group are all bad Taliban whereas the Pakiban is good Taliban?

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 04 Aug 2010 08:22

In fresh disclosures, Chris Alexander, a former Canadian ambassador to Kabul, has revealed that Pakistan Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has told Afghan President Hamid Karzai that he can broker a peace deal with the Taliban - only if Indian consulates in Afghanistan are closed down.

http://www.calcuttanews.net/story/667834

(^ Shows Pakistan's ill will towards India.)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Aug 2010 08:37

Carl_T wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:shiv-ji, the bad taliban are the ones who are pro-afghan nationalism (by pak definition) and the good taliban are the ones who get their bread buttered at GHQ. interestingly, that is also probably 180 degrees to Unkil's definition
Anyone know any links that break down the groups by affiliation into good/bad taliban? So the Quetta Shura, Haqqani Network, and Gulbuddin's group are all bad Taliban whereas the Pakiban is good Taliban?

Carl_T garu ask and thou shalt receive

The answers are all here in Sridhar's post
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 66#p915466

Sridhar wrote: There are certain putative things, again IMHO, as far as the Taliban and Pakistan go, IMO. One, the Taliban and the Al Qaeda are functioning as one unit today with the same worldview. That worldview is conquering the world by attacking the Axis of Evil which is Jews, Christians and Hindus. The Hindus were not on the Al Qaeda radar earlier, they have been added by the merger of the Punjabi Taliban tanzeems with the Taliban.

Two, by selectively targetting non-Pakistani Al Qaeda commanders through target killing, the CIA and the ISI have ensured, wittingly or unwittingly, that the Pakistani influence has become stronger in the new setup. Thus, we have Ilyas Kashmiri of HuJI/Brigade 313 as the operational commander today.

Three, Hamid Gul, Aslam Beg, and Col. Imam continue to guide the Taliban as Advisors and tacticians. The PA had never disowned these fine gentlemen and their theories of Talibanism and Strategic Depth continue to be the doctrines as Kayani and Shuja Pasha have stressed. Hamid Gul and Aslam Beg have for a long time now been parroting the Al Qaeda thinking on Yankee-Yahud-Hanadi axis.

Four, the Taliban are functioning cleverly as two separate units though they have a bayat to Osama and report to Mullah Omar for directions. One faction is the Quetta Shura helped by the Haqqanis and increasingly Hekmatyar. This combination has ISI written all over it. All these three owe their creation and existence to the ISI and the PA. There have also been WikiLeak and earlier reports that spoke of ISI officers being members of the Shura and hence controlling the proceedings. Hence the confidence of the PA that they could control them. This may be misplaced eventually and that time will tell. The second unit of Taliban is the Punjabi Taliban and local warlords in FATA and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa who are choosing their Pakistani targets for attacks according to the exigencies of their situation. To us, it may look paradoxical that these people are attacking the same State that supports their cause elsewhere. But, this second unit has tactical reasons for that while linking up strategically with the Taliban. For example, the State has placed curbs on them, the State had attacked them even if unwillingly and under international pressure and the State is seen as supporting the Great Satan (even if it double-crosses it). The PA may well be aware of this but they are unable to force the Afghan Taliban to rein in the second unit because the PA cannot cobble up another equally effective Afghan grouping as an alternate.
..

Before 9/11, the Taliban were simply nationalistic while giving asylum to Osama under ISI patronage. They allowed them to setup training centres for terrorism as they did the same with the Pakistani terrorrist groups for entirely different reasons. But, the Taliban were never interested in lending a helping hand to the PA to take on India even when they knew that we were helping the Northern Alliance. At this point of time, again, the Afghan Taliban are interested in re-possessing Afghanistan, and driving out the American and NATO forces. They cannot fritter away their resources in other fronts. I am also doubtful if the Afghan Taliban will ever be able to have enough resources to send to India on behalf of Pakistan because their cup would be full once they re-take Afghanistan. Afghanistan has never been easy to handle, and with the current geo political and geo strategic interests of so many countries, the Taliban may not be able to handle Afghanistan as freely as they did prior to 9/11.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 04 Aug 2010 09:15

great, thank you sir!

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 04 Aug 2010 23:19

Sorry if it is already posted. Fantastic stats with maps and tables. This article is a keeper.

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/jihadistan