Afghanistan News & Discussion

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 14 Nov 2010 12:01

wig · Post by **wig** » 15 Nov 2010 08:48

The Obama administration has developed a plan to begin transferring security duties in select areas of Afghanistan to that country’s forces over the next 18 to 24 months, with an eye toward ending the American combat mission there by 2014, officials said Sunday.
The phased four-year plan to wind down American and allied fighting in Afghanistan will be presented at a NATO summit meeting in Lisbon later this week, the officials said. It will reflect the most concrete vision for transition in Afghanistan assembled by civilian and military officials since President Obama took office last year

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

Ashley Kravitz · Post by **Ashley Kravitz** » 16 Nov 2010 03:10

Afghan Buddhist relics: Archaeologists issue warning

Afghan archaeologists say they are racing against time to salvage a major 7th Century religious site unearthed along the famous Silk Road.

They have warned that the 2,600-year-old Buddhist monastery will be largely destroyed once work at a mine begins.

A Chinese company is eager to develop what they say is the world's second-biggest unexploited copper mine which lies beneath the ruins at the site.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11757639

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Nov 2010 09:57

http://www.defense19.com/reports-4783

No Longer Under-Resourced, U.S. Confident of Winning Afghanistan War

There can't be a serious discussion of the future of Afghanistan without talking about Pakistan, the chairman said. The United States needs to engage Pakistan – a nuclear power with an economy in shambles and its own problem with terrorism. Mullen has worked to establish a relationship with Pakistani Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the army chief of staff, meeting with him about 30 times in three years. "When I first met him, there was this enormous trust gap between us, both as individuals and as countries," Mullen said. "Both of us are working hard to fill that up as rapidly as we can."

But the break in relations from 1990 to 2002 has left a mark, and the question Mullen said he is asked most in Pakistan is, how long are you going to stay this time?
"(Kayani) trusts me to a point now where he tells me what he is going to do long before he does it," the admiral said. "We have to understand their challenges. They have to focus on India, but they have rotated some 60,000 to 70,000 troops into the fight on the border [with Afghanistan]. They have lost many soldiers and civilians to terrorism. Sometimes his timelines doesn’t match my timelines."

Americans are not a patient people and "aligning the patience indexes sometimes can be difficult," Mullen said. The Pakistani army is resource constrained, but it seems to have the will to take on the Pakistani Taliban. The Pakistani army had to change to a counterinsurgency force for the battles in the tribal areas along the Afghan border. They pulled troops from Kashmir, the volatile northern territory bordering Pakistan and India, retrained them and rotated them into the counterinsurgency fight.

During the White House review of actions in Afghanistan, Mullen said he will look closely at the growth and training of the Afghan security forces. "The whole idea of transition of putting the Afghan security forces in the lead is fundamental," he said. "That's our way home." And the process of training Afghan soldiers and police is improving. "We've put in place a structure, which means trainers, curricula, buildings where the training takes place, which didn't occur before," he said.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 18 Nov 2010 17:57

I didn't know where to put this, but this is perhaps an outstanding account of the Great Game and its consequences for the Brits in Afghanistan...

http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Afghan-War ... 78-80.html

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 18 Nov 2010 18:03

What the Americans have forgotten:

When historians write of Afghan
treachery and guile, it seems to have escaped their perception that
Afghan treachery was but a phase of Afghan patriotism, of an unscrupulous
character, doubtless, according to our notions, but nevertheless
practical in its methods, and not wholly unsuccessful in its results.

Bhisham · Post by **Bhisham** » 22 Nov 2010 09:28

This was really good summary.

Thanks.

Airavat wrote:Mapping the insurgency: Varun Vira

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Nov 2010 01:29

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... re-islamic

Afghans can draw on pre-Islamic past to solve identity crisis

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Nov 2010 01:42

While NATO secretary general, Anders Rasmussen framed 2014 as the end of NATO’s combat mission in Afghanistan, Obama made sure to refer to 2014 as a target date rather than a deadline. The withdrawal of U.S. forces would, he noted, depend on the readiness of Afghan forces to take responsibility for their country’s security.Writing for Politico, Josh Gerstein described the NATO announcement as little more than spin. It “seemed intended to generate headlines or at least a public perception of a plan for withdrawal.”
In all likelihood, that media strategy will continue well into the future, and will become especially apparent when we arrive at previously announced target dates. In July 2011, we can expect the cameras to be rolling when the official drawdown of soldiers begins. As in Iraq in 2010, in Afghanistan in 2014, we can expect the president to announce the formal end of America’s combat mission and applaud the soldiers for a job well done. As in Iraq, the official end of the combat mission in Afghanistan will not mean the removal of all troops, but rather the continued presence of thousands of soldiers serving as advisors and trainers. And as in Iraq, the line between advisor and combat soldier will continue to be murky.

http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2010/1 ... t-a-number

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 04 Dec 2010 04:40

India offered us choppers, Karzai told Gen Petraeus

WikiLeaks has revealed that India was prepared to offer light attack helicopters to the Afghan government months after its embassy in Kabul was targeted by suicide bombers.

It has also been revealed that just a month before Indian Army officers in Kabul were attacked by suicide bombers, the US had asked for a briefing on the Indian training of Afghan security personnel.

In a separate cable, it has been revealed that a month before three Indian Army officers in Kabul died in an attack by suicide bombers, India agreed to brief the US on its training of Afghan Army personnel after the matter was raised by US Special Representative Richard Holbrooke during a visit to New Delhi.

The documents reveal that the US did not talk of any expansion of Indian military role on Afghanistan but subtly encouraged India to focus on cooperation in agriculture.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Dec 2010 16:01

A Day That Shook The World: The battle of Tora Bora
Tuesday, 7 December 2010

On 7 December 2001 the US and allied forces started what came to be known as the Battle of Tora Bora, a crucial conflict at the onset of the war in Afghanistan, believing that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in a mountain cave fortress.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 50688.html

PS:X-posted from the "71 war thread.

The main aim of the Indian forces was to liberate Dacca and cut Pak to size-into two.A holding exercise was envisioned in the west while we went full speed to liberate E.Pak before both the US and the Chinese stirred.The "Yellowskins" could do little in winter and the Yanquis responded by sending in a posse by sea,but Gen.Sam and the Indian armed forces were too fast on the draw than Martial,sorry!...Marshal Nixon and his sidekick "Doc" Kissinger.Even though the posse to save the Pakis got to the "corral" at the fag end of the shootout,they found that the "Injuns" had already lassoed 95,000 Pakis and their friends the Cossacks had the cowboys outflanked.Thus both the Pakis and the Yanquis kissed the dust,one physically and the other diplomatically and the Yellowskins' reputation lived up to the colour of their skin!

Almost 40 years on,the Yanquis have learnt nothing from their humiliation of '71 and along with their posse pals the Brittanic Barbarians and their Paki "halfcastes",being cut down to half their former size,are embroiled in a poker fight with the Afghanis,the Asian version of the afeared Apaches.While the duplicitous bloody Great Game being played by the Yanquis,Pakis and Afghanis,"the Good,the Bad and the Ugly",each trying to get one to slit the others' throat for a "Fistfull of Dollars", the Injuns sit on the borders a-waiting-a-watching-and-a-laughing at their mortal enemy and its bum-chum savage each other and waste the blood of their palefaces and braves.The Yanquis have not been able to win because their rent-boy the Pakis keep on asking "For a few Dollars More"!

Ultimately,it is going to be "Obama's Last Stand" and this is what the Pakis will get,"A present for you Amigo,a coffin from (the Great) Satan".

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 10 Dec 2010 07:14

This thread needs a bump.
Cables Shed Light On Complex U.S.-Afghan Ties

C. Christine Fair, an assistant professor at Georgetown University's Peace and Security Studies Program, says none of these criticisms will be new to Karzai.

"It's easy to point the finger at Karzai because he is so deeply culpable of so many problems," she said. "But it really has to be remembered that this is a synergistic relationship, and the way in which we have dealt with Karzai — to serve the purposes of our counterinsurgency — is, quite frankly, hypocritical at best."

For example, Fair says, look at the way the U.S. treats Karzai's brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, who is head of the provincial council in Kandahar. Several cables focus on his alleged ties to Afghanistan's opium trade.

"It's one thing to be very clear that he is a part of an enormous drug-trafficking network that nets all sorts of proceeds that go into various pockets," she said. "But how about the reality that he's been on the CIA payroll?"

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 10 Dec 2010 15:23

Karzai is an easy, perhaps the easiest, target. And they know he's vulnerable and dependent on them. Let them say the same thing about Pakistani leaders, who are up to their eye-teeth in worse. More importantly, let them find a viable alternative to Karzai. And please, nobody say Abdullah Abdullah. Although he is a good man, and essentially a Karzai-type leader from the west's perspective, he has nothing from the Afghan perspective that Karzai has - most importantly the fact that Karzai is a Popolzai Pashtun leader. When the dust settles, it is this sort of thing that will swing the vote - which is why the ISI is busy killing off the "normal" Afghan leaders...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Dec 2010 00:38

I really don't understand the US strategy with regard to Karazai. They are doing their damndest to ensure he is weakend by constant allegation of corruption and ensuring the lack of forces to takeover the mission. Any action that will ensure that Afghan state sturctures will withstand TSP onslaught are weakened or not allowed to grow/develop. The Ghilzai Pashnuts of TSP do not have legitimacy in Afghan society with in Pashtuns or the larger polity.

Is it they have an alternate plan or they are dense and dont understand Afghan social dynamics? Or are they creating defacto strategic depth for the TSP by weakning Karazi to hedge for Indian rise?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Dec 2010 00:46

Well for one thing, the Americans need somebody to be the fall guy for their messing up the Afghan mission. They feel Karzai can be that person. The narrative is Afghans remained disenchanted with the government in Kabul because of rampant corruption, so the reason why Americans lost Afghanistan had nothing to do with their strategy, their fighting, their alliance with TSP, etc. but only with Karzai's ineffectiveness in winning over the population of Afghanistan away from the Taliban.

The second reason is Karzai was close the neo-conservatives, the Khalilzad's etc. of the last administration, and anybody who is chummy with the Republicans get first a cold shoulder from the Democrats, because Republicans must be wrong about the world, so Democrats need to start anew. Even MMS got a cold shoulder first after he told Bush, he was madly in love with him.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Dec 2010 17:03

Turkmen natural gas pipeline Tapi to cross Afghanistan

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Dec 2010 21:09

Haresh ji,

Please do write some titles or some remarks, in addition to links. It gives the posters here the choice whether to click on them or not.

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 13 Dec 2010 22:11

Pakistan peace plan: General Kiyani shows true colours

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... lours.html

Pakistan encouraging Hamid Karzai in coalition with militants

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tants.html

All those lives and all that money expended and for what??
The trouble with the west is they have no idea how to fight dirty and no idea who their civilisational friends and enemies. They have tied themselves up in absurd human rights laws and rules of engagement.
This mess will be left to others to clean up.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Dec 2010 22:19

No Haresh, they are the original experts who came up with how to fight dirty. No they have bigger target for which TSP is nurtured.

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 15 Dec 2010 16:45

ramana,

They may have been once, but not now.
Our UK politicos are clones of each other. They are effeminate, politically correct "Lady boys" each keen to "reach out".

We are tied by by various Human rights laws and the dreaded European Community.

When British sailors were siezed by iran there was NO response from the UK and our allies the EC or NATO.
Iranian aircraft were still allowed to fly into UK/EC/NATO airspace/airports, embassies were allowed to stay open, goods were still imported, students allowed to study.

The same with the situation in AFG, there is clear evidence of pak/iranian involvement but the west will not dare do anything.
Sooner or later the bullet will have to be bitten.
A interesting story here from Hitlers favourite newspaper http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... itain.html

labour/liberal/conservatives faun and A$$ lick the paki/islamists out of fear & greed.

The pak ISI/army is clearly linked to the taliban, why are PIA allowed into UK/EC/NATO airspace/airports, why have paki students/citizens not been deported in handcuffs, why is there any sort of assistance to pak??

We see the a$$ licking every day, LeT is in Britain & europe, unfortunaltley it will take further bloodbaths before the west wakes up.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 19 Dec 2010 13:15

X-posted in af-pak thread
This is big if true.China supplying and advising Taliban in afghanistan.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_incl ... fghanistan

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 19 Dec 2010 21:47

To Canada based readers, and those in other countries, there is an awful sounding op-ed in today's Toronto Star, that I don't even want to look at, because going by the title, it is a piece that links Kashmir with Afghanistan. It probably won't be as bad as some articles on the subject, but any linkage between solving the Afghan quagmire and the Kashmir issue, is utterly perverse and repugnant. There were of course in past years, some Afghans fighting in Kashmir, but that's not the info or approach these kind of articles normally take.

In general, what is the problem with Indians? Why aren't they getting the( rather simple) idea across firmly, that India is not alien, undesired, interloping or unacquainted with Afghanistan? India has a 3000+ year relationship with Afghanistan that predates Islam and even Buddhism. The very names Afghanistan, Kabul and Kandahar are of Indian origin. Even in modern times, Indians have been economically and culturally involved in Afghanistan, and that is before the Taliban, the Mujahadeen and the Russians.

It often feels that Indians themselves are going out of their way to downplay or downgrade the association between the two countries.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 19 Dec 2010 23:47

Varoon Shekhar:

I went to the star web site, and I found something from some Haroon dude. Is that the one yo are talking about? By the standards of dung being heaped by US on India to "win" AfPak, this didn't seem that bad. All he said was that Obama impressed upon MMS to placate TSP, and MMS is predisposed to that.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 20 Dec 2010 09:05

Yes, CRamS, that is the article. It's nice to know that it isn't so bad. But any linking of solving the Afghan problem, and the Kashmir issue, is perverse and repugnant. And as for Indian involvement in Afghanistan, it has every right to be there, just as it has every right to be in Burma and Thailand and Kampuchea. The connections are as ancient, familiar and popular.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 20 Dec 2010 14:25

>>And as for Indian involvement in Afghanistan, it has every right to be there, just as it has every right to be in Burma and Thailand and Kampuchea.

This is absolutely right. But IMHO, and it looks to me the general approach of GOI, this is not the time to articulate that aggressively. Why? Because that argument has the powerful force of reason behind it. So this is something we keep as a card for later, if and when the time comes. Meanwhile, we will continue with what we are doing development wise - which is fully above board - and very hard for anyone to oppose without sounding utterly ridiculous, which is why comments every now and then about Pakistan's baseless perceptions about our development strategy in Afghanistan get no real traction anywhere. As you may recall, our developmental assistance approach was recently strongly supported by GOTUS.

No one knows on what rational basis to criticise our strategy in Afghanistan. Because there is none. And they don't know on what basis to comprehensively support Pakistan's clearly irrational position on both the role of the state of Afghanistan and of India in relation to that.

And this is why apparently Col. Lang got an itch, and said "you should be proud" to A_Gupta I think. The beauty of it is we really simply want Afghanistan to prosper and become a stable, normal happy country. Pakistan wants to use Afghanistan as an instrument of its policy against India, Iran and other Central Asian states - and to rent out itself as a facilitator when necessary to the highest bidder du jour.

There is no case for Pakistan here. And it's constant harping about the Indian threat doesn't hold much water either, because even with the most extreme provocations and aggression, India has simply not responded in kind. Given these realities, how can any of the major powers (except China which makes no pretence about morality in behaviour and relationships between states) expressly come out and support Pakistan? They cannot do it in word. Only in deed, and they are doing so. But in doing so, they are caught in a cleft stick because of the difference between what they do and what they say - and the need to explain that to an impatient public.

At the end of the day, as we know, Satyam Eva Jayate.

The drawback? It is a slow process. But we have time, and increasingly we have the money. Not to mention a steady growth of our strategic autonomy. These things may not be easily visible if we follow the 24/7 news cycle. There is a tendency, therefore, to miss the wood for the trees.

Do not misunderstand this to mean that everything's perfect. On the contrary. This is shown most clearly in the numbers of Indians dead through terror attacks. But if we keep the big picture in mind, and we are absolutely firm about it despite the myriad provocations, there is only one way things can go. Hiccups will be there, road bumps will be there, but there will be no backtracking needed.

Damn, I've been posting quite a bit these last few days. Must be the holiday spirits.

amit · Post by **amit** » 20 Dec 2010 15:32

^^^^
JEM,

Please keep posting. Your posts bring in a semblance of sanity in hot button discussions.

Pity you don't have the option of looking forward to becoming a BRF Oldie, a motivation, that I suspect drives some newbies to post away.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 20 Dec 2010 17:58

I agree with amitji.

PrasadZ · Post by **PrasadZ** » 20 Dec 2010 20:13

And as for Indian involvement in Afghanistan, it has every right to be there, just as it has every right to be in Burma and Thailand and Kampuchea. The connections are as ancient, familiar and popular.

India has every right to be where its strategic interests are (as defined by itself) and by its ability to sustain a presence there. People question rights primarily as a proxy to questioning ability. IMO, many arguments (very persuasive too) are found where ability is present

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 20 Dec 2010 20:15

it would seem that except for the haqqanis, most other afghans welcome the indian presence...

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 21 Dec 2010 12:52

Plan B In Afghanistan

Given the alternatives, accepting a de facto partition of the country makes sense
Robert D Blackwill

US policy toward Afghanistan involves spending scores of billions of dollars and suffering several hundred allied deaths annually largely to prevent the Afghan Taliban from controlling the Afghan Pashtun homeland.

But the United States and its allies will not defeat the Taliban militarily. President Hamid Karzai’s corrupt government will not significantly improve. The Afghan National Army cannot take over combat missions from ISAF in southern and eastern Afghanistan in any realistic time frame. And on December 15, the New York Times assessed that “two new classified intelligence reports offer a more negative assessment and say there is a limited chance of success unless Pakistan hunts down insurgents operating from havens on its Afghan border”. That won’t happen.

With these individual elements of US Afghanistan policy in serious trouble, optimism about the current strategy’s ability to meet its objectives reminds one of the White Queen’s comment in Through the Looking Glass: “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

De facto partition offers the Obama administration the best available alternative to strategic defeat. The administration should stop setting deadlines for withdrawal and instead commit the United States to a long-term combat role in Afghanistan of 35,000-50,000 troops for the next 7-10 years.

Concurrently, Washington should accept that the Taliban will inevitably control most of the Pashtun south and east and that the price of forestalling that outcome is far too high for Americans to continue paying. The United States and its partners should stop fighting and dying in the Pashtun homeland and let the local correlation of forces take its course – while deploying US air power and Special Forces to ensure that the north and west of Afghanistan do not succumb to the Taliban. The United States would make clear that it would strike al-Qaida targets anywhere, Taliban encroachments across the de facto partition line, and sanctuaries along the Pakistani border using weapons systems that were unavailable before 9/11.

Accepting a de facto partition of Afghanistan makes sense only if the other options available are worse. They are One alternative is to stay the current course in Afghanistan. The United States deploys about 1,00,000 troops in Afghanistan, yet there are now only 50-100 al-Qaida fighters there. That is 1,000-2,000 soldiers per al-Qaida terrorist at $100 billion a year – far beyond any reasonable expenditure of American resources given the stakes involved. And even if many of the roughly 300 al-Qaida fighters now in Pakistan did move a few score miles north across the border, it would not make much of a practical difference – surely not enough to justify an indefinite major ground war.

Another alternative is for the United States to withdraw all its military forces from Afghanistan over the next few years. But this would lead to a probable conquest of the entire country by the Taliban. It would draw Afghanistan’s neighbours into the fighting. It would raise the odds of the Islamic radicalisation of Pakistan, which would in turn call into question the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. It would weaken the budding US-India strategic partnership, undermine Nato’s future, and trigger a global outpouring of support for Islamic extremist ideology and increased terrorism against liberal societies. And it would be seen around the world by friends and adversaries alike as a failure of international leadership and strategic resolve by an ever weaker America.

A third alternative is to achieve stability in Afghanistan through successful negotiations with the Taliban. As CIA director Leon Panetta has said, however, so long as the Taliban think they are winning, they will remain intransigent. Despite the major intensification of drone attacks, the US cannot kill the Taliban into meaningful political compromise.

The analogy most cited to justify the current Afghanistan policy is the 2007 “surge” in Iraq. Yet as former US envoy to Afghanistan James Dobbins has pointed out, by 2007, the Sunni Arab minority in Iraq had been decisively beaten by majority Shia militias, and it was only after this defeat that the Sunni Arabs turned to American forces for protection. The Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, in contrast, is rooted in that country’s largest ethnic group, not its smallest.

These Pashtun insurgents have been winning their civil war for the last several years, not losing it. In Iraq, by 2007 al-Qaida had made itself unwelcome among its Sunni Arab allies. In Afghanistan, al-Qaida is hardly present, and presents no comparable threat to the Afghan Taliban leadership. Pashtun elders are less influential than the Iraqi sheiks that brought their adherents over with them when they decided to switch sides. In short, the Iraq surge has little application to Afghanistan.

Historians may puzzle over why the president, despite his deep agonising as described in Bob Woodward’s book on the war, deployed 1,00,000 troops into Afghanistan nearly 10 years after 9/11, why US policy makers spoke as if the fate of the civilised world depended on the pacification of Marja and Kandahar. Accepting the de facto partition of Afghanistan is hardly an ideal outcome in Afghanistan. But it is better than the alternatives.
The writer is a senior fellow at the US Council on Foreign Relations and former US ambassador to India.

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/ ... =HTML&GZ=T

Posted in full because the article is not very long and poses a intresting idea which I don't know why has not become more popular among the US govt. The entire area bordering TSP should be divided and named Pakhtunistan with it's capital at Kandahar while Kabul should become a part of the second country.

The eastern and Southern part of Afghnistan are infested with TSP creatures and radical afghan Pakhtuns and it's best to cut off the part of the country and isolate it for Special ops. purpose and drone Ops.

Northern and Western Afg. comprise largely of Hazara, Uzbeks, Tajiks and more such ethnic communities which have no great love for Taliban and might not be quite so averse to long term US presence and ethnic cleansing of Pashtun type to Pashtuinistan. Also , negotiations should be put in place for the formation of "Greater Pashtunistan" comprising pashtun dominated areas of TSP.

This would be excellent from american and Indian POV too. We would get a stable ground to establish our presence and land route via Iran (chabahar) while US would have the ease of sitting right next door to Iran , a base of sorts to keep their eyes on Iran and a possible staging area for US troops while TSP presence will be minimal outside Pashtunistan with the terrain also not quite as rough as it is currently in the Af-Pak border regions.

Also, I don't think the likes of Iran or other neighbouring countries sans TSP have any love lost for the Taliban - they would be very welcome to the idea.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 21 Dec 2010 19:10

for the above to work, there is also a need for an independent baluchistan, providing sea access and logistics for US forces in the region

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Dec 2010 02:01

Afghan sex practices concern U.S., British forces

In late 2009, U.S. and British forces ordered a study of Pashtun male sexuality. They were worried that homosexuality and pedophilia among Afghan security forces and tribes could create cultural misunderstanding with allied troops, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Washington Examiner.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 12 Jan 2011 03:49

Afghan situation disturbs Pak-wary Krishna

...
What he left unsaid was that the situation in Afghanistan was set to become more difficult for India with US-led international forces scheduled to start withdrawal from mid 2011. The Taliban still control large swathes of Afghanistan.
...
...
New Delhi has even shifted its stance on the “good Taliban” — former Taliban members now willing to sever ties with terrorist groups. Krishna today said those willing to disassociate with terror must be encouraged to participate in the peace initiative.
...
...
But India is faced with growing isolation in Afghanistan because regional players like Iran, Tajikistan, Russia as well as China disagree with its stand that Pakistan should be kept out of the Afghan peace process. These countries believe that while Pakistan is part of the problem in Afghanistan, it is also part of the solution.
...
...
But India’s increasing irrelevance in Afghanistan means it will be a bystander after the scheduled withdrawal of US-led forces starts in July. South Block sources concede it is a difficult situation in Afghanistan.
...
...
Government sources say the Prime Minister has conveyed to all Western leaders that they would be committing a “historic blunder that we will be ruing for generations” by leaving Afghanistan without securing the social, economic and political gains achieved in the last decade.
...

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 12 Jan 2011 08:47

I have a Plan C for Afghanistan.

Give Afghanistan an honorable death. Pump it with more arms and ammunition. Let it find its destiny in war and death

Let it be remembered. India will have to pay it dearly for its inaction against Adharma.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 21 Feb 2011 22:29

26 killed in Afghan suicide attack

Kunduz (Afghanistan), Feb 21 (DPA) A suicide bomber in the northern province of Kunduz killed at least 26 people and injured 37 inside a government building, an official said Monday.
...
The incident is third suicide attack in three days. On Sunday, a suicide bombing targeting a branch of Kabul Bank in the city of Jalalabad killed at least 42 people, most of them Afghan security forces.

Afghanistan has seen a sudden surge in violent attacks with high civilian casualties in recent weeks.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 21 Feb 2011 23:17

Op-Ed in the NYT (authors are from Center for a New American Security)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21nagl.html

IT is hard to tell when momentum shifts in a counterinsurgency campaign, but there is increasing evidence that Afghanistan is moving in a more positive direction than many analysts think. It now seems more likely than not that the country can achieve the modest level of stability and self-reliance necessary to allow the United States to responsibly draw down its forces from 100,000 to 25,000 troops over the next four years.

...
Half of the violence in Afghanistan takes place in only 9 of its nearly 400 districts, with Sangin ranking among the very worst. Slowly but surely, even in Sangin, the Taliban are being driven from their sanctuaries as the coalition focuses on protecting the Afghan people in key population centers and hubs of economic activity, and along the roads that connect them.
...
Afghan Army troop strength has increased remarkably. The sheer scale of the effort at the Kabul Military Training Center has to be seen to be appreciated.
...
These changes on the ground have been reinforced by progress on three strategic and political problems that have long stymied our plans. {staying power, Afghan corruption and Pakistan}

...President Obama and the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, have effectively moved the planned troop withdrawal date from July 2011 to at least 2014, with surprisingly little objection....NATO is not collapsing because of Afghanistan.....

...the coalition’s military and civilian leaders are taking a new approach to the Afghan and Pakistani governments.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 24 Feb 2011 17:47

Afghan suicide blast kills one, wounds 26

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — A suicide car bomb attack killed an intelligence agent and wounded 26 other people in an Afghan town on the Pakistan border Thursday, officials said, in the latest in a wave of blasts.

---

Pakis have got aggressive after RD's arrest.

BSR Murthy · Post by **BSR Murthy** » 25 Feb 2011 11:37

A Taliban shooting at an Afghan bank that killed scores of civilians comes as the U.S. is negotiating with the group. Lloyd Grove talks to Afghan’s top media mogul about the brutality. Plus, watch the video.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... mainpromo8

Last Saturday, a gang of gunman marched into the Kabul Bank in Jalalabad, in eastern Afghanistan, and massacred up to 60 unarmed civilians in cold blood. Dozens more victims suffered grievous wounds. The brutal Feb. 19 attack was staged as workers were gathered in the bank to withdraw their pay.
The Taliban quickly and proudly claimed responsibility—although Pakistan’s dread-inducing Inter-Service Intelligence agency (a largely pro-Taliban, fanatic Islamic cabal known as the ISI) has also been implicated.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 25 Feb 2011 12:15

^^^ discretion advised in viewing the video ... folks being shot at point blank range.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 01 Apr 2011 23:30

Up to 20 UN staff killed in Afghanistan after U.S. pastor burns Qur'an

UNITED NATIONS, April 1 (Reuters) - The United Nations death toll in an attack on the U.N. compound in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif could be as high as 20, U.N. officials told Reuters on Friday.

That figure, which is likely to change, includes international and local staff, U.N. guards and Nepalese Gurkha soldiers hired to protect the compound, U.N. officials said on condition of anonymity.

Two of the dead were beheaded by attackers who also burned parts of the compound and climbed up blast walls to topple a guard tower, said Lal Mohammad Ahmadzai, a police spokesman for the northern region.

If confirmed, it would be the highest ever loss of life in an attack on the United Nations in Afghanistan