Bharat Rakshak

Washington Post:

How a negotiated peace could leave Afghanistan looking like Lebanon

Karzai = Lebanese govt
Taliban = Hezbollah
Pak = Iran
ISAF = UNIFIL
India = Israel

Karzai = Lebanese govt
Taliban = Hezbollah
Pak = Iran
ISAF = UNIFIL
India = Israel

this means that india should have land access to AFG.

darshhan wrote:Just in case taliban manage to reoccupy afghanistan , we do have an airbase in Tajikistan.We can use this base for supporting northern alliance provided political will is available along with tajik govt's permission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farkhor_Air_Base

India should ask the relevant people to maintain a list of Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, and anti-Taliban Pushtuns in the Afghan National Army. In the worst case scenario, these will form the nucleus of a new self-defence force. Also need to stockpile supplies in Tajikistan.

If Karzai cuts a deal with Pak, then I say we ditch Karzai by promoting our own version of "Saur Revolution" which sees him fleeing to the UN embassy for asylum, like Najib did before him.

We should support the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and other assorted anti-Taliban factions who oppose Pakhtun-Milat (Pakhtun chauvinism)

The country could be split between North and South, with Pakhtuns dominating the South and non-Pakhtuns holding the North. Then Pakistan would be cut off from the North, and holding a worthless restive South. AlQaeda would then naturally try to spread a Pakhtun war southwards into Pak, which would be seen as an easier and juicier target by AlQaeda. Why would AlQaeda and other jihadis want to waste their time once again fruitlessly fighting Northerners on behalf of Islamabad's interests, when they would find it more profitable to seize control of Pak and its nukes?

Even the various Hamid Gul types in ISI would want that scenario, seeing it as an opportunity to finally re-make Pak in their own image.
That would be a much more favorable situation for India, since Pak would find itself under seige on all sides.

USA would suddenly find that the war is no longer about keeping Afghanistan out of AlQaeda control, but about keeping Pakistan out of AlQaeda control.
Even if the US is foolishly willing to hand Afghanistan back to Taliban - are they willing to hand Pakistan over to Taliban??

Just recalling that recent "discovery" of Afghan mineral wealth - would the US be willing to offer that up that wealth as a carrot to Pak, to persuade it not to wage all-out war to conquer Northern Afghanistan and beyond? Could Pakistan realistically employ most of its people as miners in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan? India and Iran could both easily keep Pak out of the North (in guerrilla parlance, all we have to do to win there is to not lose.)

V_Raman wrote:this means that india should have land access to AFG.

that's irrelevant - we're still the local kaffir/scapegoat

anyway, if the US/Israel strike Iran's nuclear facilities, I'm imagining that Iran would hit back at US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps that's one key reason why the US may be looking to get out of both countries.

To hit out in Afghanistan, Iran would mainly rely on the Hazaras as its main proxies, and not necessarily the wahabi AlQaeda.
Although I would imagine that Taliban, instigated by AlQaeda, might opportunistically express outrage at any US/Israeli attack on Iran (that would mainly depend on whether Taliban is still an opposition trying to raise a ruckus, or whether it's by then a ruler watching guardedly against rival neighboring states)

Still, the populist jihadis are not known to give any quarter to those who retreat from them. Instead they'd keep in hot pursuit, crowing over their victories, and using them to fuel further boldness.

what if iran is not on india's side? will india be able to influence anything in afghanistan? i somehow think that usa will arrive at an agreement with iran and that will leave india without any support around afghanistan except russia.

V_Raman wrote:what if iran is not on india's side? will india be able to influence anything in afghanistan? i somehow think that usa will arrive at an agreement with iran and that will leave india without any support around afghanistan except russia.

Iran will be on India's side by virtue of the fact that it is smaller than Pakistan, and Pakistan is a dirty trickster which tries to suckerpunch each of its neighbors. Taliban first got into Kabul by murdering the Iranian-supported Hezb-i-Wahdat. They are also virulently anti-Shia.

Iran knows that if Pakistan is successful in dominating Afghanistan, then it will have a foothold near Iran's soft northeastern borders, already beset by narco-trafficking.
Any sustainable govt in Afghanistan will require power-sharing among all Afghan parties, but Pak only wants winner-take-all for itself. Pak can't live with power-sharing or anything less than total domination over Afghanistan, because deep down the Pakis know that their state is only living on borrowed time which is running out. Pak needs some new gimmick to keep itself alive, and that new gimmick was supposed to be a 'Silk Road' to the riches inside Central Asia. A partial road is a road to nowhere, therefore total domination is required to make the road happen. Unfortunately, since Pak doesn't have deep coffers or overwhelming firepower, it has to resort to its only card - the hate ideology of Islamic fanaticism (specifically the deobandi-wahabi type).





Meanwhile, here's an article on

Understanding Russia’s Approach on Afghanistan, Pakistan

The implications of this are that after an American departure from Afghanistan, Russia (probably along with India and Iran) can be expected to work to prevent the Pakistani-backed Taliban from reasserting control over all Afghanistan, just as they did in the 1990’s. How successful they can be in achieving this aim, though, may well depend on whether the United States abandons Afghanistan altogether as it did during the 1990s, or whether Washington actively works with Moscow and others to contain the Taliban and its Pakistani supporters.

What happens if US withdraws from afghanistan?

Not much. Back to the old days. Back to pre-2001 invasion when afghanistan was ruled by the taliban while pakistan had some leverage in that country. What was the security situation in india in those days? Same thing. We will have to send our troops back in kashmir.

The real key to the region lies in pakistan. Particularly, the pakistani elite which controls the army with dear life and the political parties with a loose hand. By taking out the elite, the extremists loose their security and sustenance. The americans are making a deal with the elite thinking that they could make them take out the extremists with the lure of money but they do not realize that the elite need the extremists for their survival. The elite's double standards are enough for the americans to cry foul and consider leaving the region.

The amercians have realised that the answer lies in pakistan but i do not think they know what to hit in pakistan. They know that no big attacks on US soil have taken place because they have kept the extremists/al-keeda busy in afghanistan. The minute they leave afghanistan, the risks of an attack on US becomes more imminent.

There is something funny about this Haqqani business.

The US is asking TSPA to mount an operation against Haqqanis in N. Waziristan. TSPA has declined.

TSPA earlier tried to broker a settlement between Haqqanis and the US. US was wary because of how "thick" the Haqqanis are with Al Qaeda. In the article I have linked, a Pakistani analyst as much as admits that Haqqanis could hand over OBL and Al-Zawahiri if they wanted.

Now TSPA is trying to broker a settlement between Haqqanis and the Karzai regime and the US is uncomfortable with that (or at least, some in the Obama administration are uncomfortable with it.) TSPA is also trying to tempt Karzai with overtures from other of its proxies, Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar, but Haqqani is the centerpiece.

The one missing piece in all this: the US has been drone-striking all kinds of Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, and according to recent media articles about McChrystal, it has been using black-ops to take out others as well. But apparently it has not hit Haqqani network very hard, because the leadership of that network still survives and its warfighting capabilities are intact and effective.

So why can't the US simply pound N. Waziristan to smithereens with airstrikes? It may not have the intel to kill Haqqani or the Al Qaeda top brass with Predators, but it could surely make a dent in the Haqqani group's warfighting capabilities no? Could it not reduce Haqqani from a lynchpin to another minor player with overwhelming military pressure?

Or is it that the US is also hedging some of its bets on backing Haqqani?

Rudradevji , According to my knowledge there are three important afghan groups which are fighting against Americans in Afghanistan.The first is led by Mullah omar based in quetta.The second is haqqani faction led by siraj haqqani who is the son of jalaluddin haqqani and is based in north waziristan.This group is allied with Taliban as of now.The third group is led by gulbuddin hekmatyar.

Among all three factions US has done the most damage to haqqani faction.It is the mullah omar faction based in quetta that US has not acted against.There has not been a single drone attack or special forces strike against quetta based militants.

On the other hand there have been some strikes against Haqqani network in waziristan.In fact siraj haqqani's younger brother Mohammed haqqani has been killed in one of the drone attacks.Another brother Omar haqqani was killed in a firefight with coalition troops in paktia province.Other leaders of haqqani faction have also been killed by US and other coalition troops.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/print3.asp?id=15932

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/world ... an.html?hp

For other al qaeda and taliban leaders killed in drone attacks.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes-hvts.php

In fact long war journal is the best website for following drone attacks on Pakistan.

I agree with you that this list of killed terrorists is dominated by Al qaeda leaders.Taliban leaders are few and far between.The main reason for this would be that Arabs stand out like sore thumbs in these Pashtun areas.Also the local pashtun tribes would be more eager to betray these Arabs as compared to their Pashtun brethren in Haqqani faction and Taliban.

It is not that Americans are giving leeway to haqqani faction.It is just that compared to AL qaeda they are not getting as much quality intelligence about haqqanis.When they get they do strike as is evident by the above strikes.

It is the Mullah omar faction which has emerged completely unscathed in quetta.They are the ones who should be targetted.

Did the US consider this option?

Before they leave the Afghanistan, eliminate top leaders in Haqqani, ISI, Paki RAPE put a structure of forces that keeps eliminating future leaders.

To start with they can start with Xerox Khan. The idea is to unsettle Paki garbage enough that they keep fighting amongst themselves instead of focusing on outside world.

US officials don't seem to care about how many soldiers they lose to Taliban or Haqqani, all they care about is keeping relations with Pak manageable.

For the US govt, soldiers are a commodity whose lives are to be weighed against other costs.

Sanjay M wrote:US officials don't seem to care about how many soldiers they lose to Taliban or Haqqani, all they care about is keeping relations with Pak manageable.

Stability of Pakistan is most important in the Af-Pak campaign.

Acharya wrote: Stability of Pakistan is most important in the Af-Pak campaign.

I have heard this many many times from US anal-ysts. And given that anal-ysts are mouthpieces of Pentagon/State dept, this is indeed official US policy. Only shows that us SDREs are not all that bad. US is so paranoid about our rise, that they will even expend their soldiers' lives, but won't do the right thing to win AfPak hands down in a heartbeat: destroy TSPA.

Vigilante Gary Faulkner Returned by Pakistan





http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/201 ... .in.us.cnn

Haha, the guy's a nut, but how many Indians would go after perpetrators of 26/11 on their own? More likely we'll sit and whine about it onlee.

^^^ They will be termed Hindu terrorists!

But you can see from this guy's uninhibited personality that he doesn't care what others think - and he will simply act on his convictions or impulses, unaffected by popular opinion. He's obviously religious and quite naive as well, which is why he seems to have been undeterred.

If he had made it into Afghanistan, local Talibs would have had a nice time ransoming him.

Panetta: Afghan war has 'serious problems,' but progress being made

Realization ..................... in progress.

Will Holbrooke be next to exit?

Ombaba making progress on PAK-AF

Obama has hinted that other members of his Afghanistan war team may go the way of McChrystal. That may imperil his special envoy to the region, but Richard Holbrooke has shown a knack for perseverance.

{snip}

Holbrooke has shown an ability to hold on.

"He's a dead man walking, but he could be walking for some time," said one person who has worked closely with Holbrooke.

{snip}

With Shift in Afghanistan, Talk Turns to Exit

Last weekend, though, he scorned the “obsession around this whole issue of when do we leave,” saying he was focused on making sure the troops were successful. The July 2011 deadline he set was intended to “begin a process of transition,” he said, but “that doesn’t mean we suddenly turn off the lights and let the door close behind us.”

Nothing new.

Success in Afghanistan? Not by 2011

Pakistan key to Afghan reconciliation: Petraeus
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... -060-rs-01

Clearly, we want to forge a partnership or further the partnership that has been developing between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Those countries are always going to be neighbours. And helping them develop a constructive relationship would be an important contribution,” the general said. But he also warned not to expect these recent contacts between Pakistan and Afghanistan to lead to an immediate reconciliation between the Afghan government and the Taliban insurgents. “Now, whether that is possible, such an agreement, I think is going to depend on a number of factors that will play out over the course of the summer, including creating a sense among the Taliban that they are going to get hammered in the field and perhaps should look at some options,” said the general.
When the senator asked Gen Petraeus if he knew about a reported meeting between President Karzai and Sirajuddin Haqqani, Gen Petraeus said Mr Karzai denied meeting any leader of the Haqqani Network. “In talking to President Karzai in the vehicle on the way over here, he assured me that he has not met a Haqqani group leader, by the way in recent days or, I think, at any time,” the general said.

Pakis, Pakis, Pakis. Yawn!!!! Pakis are busted.

India has legitimate stake in Afghanistan: Top US Gen

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05193.html
Some Afghan military officers to get training in Pakistan

This is meant to demonstrate confidence to Pakistan, in the hope of encouraging them to begin a serious consultation and conversation with us on the issue of [the] Taliban," Rangin Dadfar Spanta, Karzai's national security adviser, said of the training agreement.
The previously unpublicized training would involve only a small group of officers, variously described as between a handful and a few dozen, but it has enormous symbolic importance as the first tangible outcome of talks between Karzai and Pakistan's military and intelligence chiefs that began in May. It is likely to be controversial among some Afghans who see Pakistan as a Taliban puppet-master rather than as a cooperative neighbor, and in India, which is wary of Pakistan's intentions in Afghanistan.

shyamd wrote:Afghan president meets with Siraj Haqqani: Report

Similarities between Karzai/Obama/Sonia: an alien minority (Pashtun/Kenyan/Italian) presiding over a different ethnic group (NorthernAlliance/WASPs/Indians) using a network of corrupt cronies and special interest groups to subdue that majority while effectively selling out to foreign interests.

This type of situation is untenable, and can only result in an explosive social reckoning.

In Karzai's case, he could face a non-Pashtun revolt even as he blatantly moves to invite in Taliban.
In Obama's case, he'll be a one-term president voted out of office.
In Sonia's case, Kaangress could likewise be voted out (many terrorism casualties later.)

But I agree with one of the commenters, that a crate full of mangoes would have been the best solution for this 'meeting of the minds'.

Pakistan weighs up chances in post-McChrystal era

Reliable witnesses in Waziristan say in recent months they have seen truckloads of armed Punjabi Taliban - known for their spectacular attacks on Pakistani military targets - pass through dozens of security checkpoints every day to reach the border towns.

They claim having seen both Punjabi and local militants using military transport to move in the border areas.

US funding.

Dalrymple again:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/01/afghanistan-pakistan-proxy-war-with-india

It is a measure of how little the west still understands the conflict in Afghanistan that news of Saleh's sacking last month merited so much less attention than last week's sacking of General Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal's departure reflects no important alteration in strategy, but the sacking of Saleh gave notice of a major and ominous change of direction by Karzai. As Bruce Riedel, Obama's Afpak adviser, said when the news broke: "Karzai's decision to sack Saleh and [Hanif] Atmar [the head of the interior ministry] has worried me more than any other development, because it means that Karzai is already planning for a post-American Afghanistan."

Pakistan has not been a faithful ally

In recent days, the heads of Pakistan's army and intelligence service have been making secret trips to Kabul to meet with Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's corrupt and inept president. These Pakistani officers have been coddling him, telling Karzai the Americans cannot win in Afghanistan, so he should consider Pakistan his true ally. Karzai's reaction to that is not known, but his aides have been saying for weeks that the president has "lost faith" in the United States. Still, Karzai must be smart enough to realize that listening to Pakistan's smarmy approach is like letting the fox into the hen house. Wasn't it Pakistan that happily supported the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001? Don't Pakistanis openly believe that the Taliban remain reliable allies in their unending fight with India? And what use would Pakistan have for Karzai once the Americans are gone? Right now, Pakistan is sidling up to Sirajuddin Haqqani, the Taliban leader who runs a militant network, partners of al Qaeda, that is responsible for a significant part of the insurgency in Afghanistan. The generals in Islamabad are Haqqani's ally, even as his men kill Americans. So, while we pay Pakistan to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban, behind our backs the generals are cutting deals with both groups undermining the American war effort in Afghanistan.

How Byzantine. But what else should we expect from the Pakistanis? After all, the city of Byzantium, capital of the ancient empire famous for complex, underhanded perfidy, was renamed in 1930. After several incarnations, it was named Islamabad.

US Army scholars publish something called LeTort Papers. Looks like Af-Pak was already lost in 2006! Poor Obama he has to pick up the pieces.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/

Read the first paper.

Some Gyaan has been appearing in the US-UK press lately. But it's far from clear that there has been any fundamental change in policy. Need to wait and watch.

Sanjay M wrote:Pakistan has not been a faithful ally

In recent days, the heads of Pakistan's army and intelligence service have been making secret trips to Kabul to meet with Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's corrupt and inept president. These Pakistani officers have been coddling him, telling Karzai the Americans cannot win in Afghanistan, so he should consider Pakistan his true ally. Karzai's reaction to that is not known, but his aides have been saying for weeks that the president has "lost faith" in the United States. Still, Karzai must be smart enough to realize that listening to Pakistan's smarmy approach is like letting the fox into the hen house. Wasn't it Pakistan that happily supported the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001? Don't Pakistanis openly believe that the Taliban remain reliable allies in their unending fight with India? And what use would Pakistan have for Karzai once the Americans are gone? Right now, Pakistan is sidling up to Sirajuddin Haqqani, the Taliban leader who runs a militant network, partners of al Qaeda, that is responsible for a significant part of the insurgency in Afghanistan. The generals in Islamabad are Haqqani's ally, even as his men kill Americans. So, while we pay Pakistan to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban, behind our backs the generals are cutting deals with both groups undermining the American war effort in Afghanistan.

How Byzantine. But what else should we expect from the Pakistanis? After all, the city of Byzantium, capital of the ancient empire famous for complex, underhanded perfidy, was renamed in 1930. After several incarnations, it was named Islamabad.

US Army study :

L-e-T

pdf ~ 117 pages

I have yet to see an Indian study on LeT more than two pages!

A discussion of the foundation of Lashkar-i-Taiba (LeT), the development of its modus operandi, and engages in an investigation of LeT’s activities in India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir region are discussed. Further, LeT’s fundraising methods are touched upon, and LeT’s relationships with regional state and nonstate actors such as Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Dawood Ibrahim’s D-Company are analyzed. Also, the impact that these developments have on domestic Islamist terrorism in India are addressed. The author argues that although LeT has been a vital component of Islamabad’s regional strategy in the past, the organization has grown beyond the control of its former patron, is largely self-sufficient and operates independently of the political process, and has expanded its agenda well beyond Kashmir. These developments challenge the long-held notion that irregulars can be sustainably used to achieve limited objectives in an asymmetric conflict and should serve as a clear warning to other state sponsors of terrorism. However, contrary to many analyses, LeT is not likely to sacrifice its independence and come under Al-Qaeda’s umbrella. Rather, LeT will continue to evolve into a distinctive, South Asia-centric terrorist actor in its own right while still receiving aid from fringe elements in Pakistan’s security and intelligence apparatus and elsewhere. This will not only allow LeT to continue to plan future Mumbai-style terrorist attacks in India from safe havens in Pakistan, but will also allow LeT to guide and assist the predominantly indigenous Indian Mujahideen (IM).

well, here's some silly commentary, at any rate:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home ... 125824.cms

As for Karzai, he is exploring his options. He knows that a deal with the Taliban-Pakistan combine would be disastrous for him. For all his faults, his vision for Afghanistan is closest to that of the US and India. "What Karzai wants for his country is what India wants for Afghanistan,” says a senior Indian official. But he’s a survivor and he knows that after the Baradar affair, he will have to go through the Pakistanis to do a deal with the Taliban. He’s doing that, and this week even allowed some of his army officers to be trained in Pakistan. India has offered to train the Afghan army, but only if Karzai asks for it. So far, he hasn’t done so.

But Karzai remains India’s best bet. To that extent, India should help Karzai do the one thing the west wants him to: govern.

What a worthless puff piece.

What does it mean by, "What Karzai wants for his country is what India wants for Afghanistan” - what is that, exactly? India wants a sovereign Afghanistan that can offset Pak - how can Karzai achieve that by negotiating with Taliban under Pakistani auspices?

This should be done by holding talks with Baitullah Mehsud's gang, and giving Pak a heart attack.

What should also be clear is that Haqqani is not going to sell out his dear friends AlQaeda. Pak is going to have to lie through their teeth by giving false assurances that AlQaeda will be put out of commission. We know that such guarantees make Credit Default Swaps look like solid gold by comparison. In fact, Pak deception will amount to the Great SubPrime of Atlanticist history - they'll all be betting big on Pak guarantees that aren't worth a hill of beans.

By this, I mean that AlQaeda will come out of hiding once the coast is clear, after the Americans are gone. They will then resume their help to the Taliban, who will once again be locked in battle against the North. Because you know that the North isn't going to be suckered by Pakistani assurances, even if the Americans can be (courtesy of the persuasive Atlanticist 5th column among them).

And what will India be doing? Twiddling its thumbs?

To aqkhan and any other Pak-lurks reading this - no amount of terror attacks can actually derail India, short of a decapitation strike on the Kaangress leadership.
This is because the Kaangress leadership couldn't care less about the ordinary jawan or common man being killed. As long as they're safe behind their phalanx of security men and in air-conditioned comfort, they'll be quite happy fiddling like Neros while India burns. That's why your 26/11 didn't even make a dent in Indian policy. The typical babu response to terror attacks is then, "let's not get unsettled by this, we don't want to give the terrorists any feeling of satisfaction" etc, etc.

It's only when the terrorists have dared to do decapitation strikes against the apex leadership that India's overall policy trajectory has been affected. Anything short of that just doesn't work.

ramana wrote: but will also allow LeT to guide and assist the predominantly indigenous Indian Mujahideen (IM).[/b]

There is nothing indigenous about IM. There are all directed by Pakistan and this is directly against freedom of India.

Sanjay M wrote:well, here's some silly commentary, at any rate:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home ... 125824.cms

As for Karzai, he is exploring his options. He knows that a deal with the Taliban-Pakistan combine would be disastrous for him. For all his faults, his vision for Afghanistan is closest to that of the US and India. "What Karzai wants for his country is what India wants for Afghanistan,” says a senior Indian official. But he’s a survivor and he knows that after the Baradar affair, he will have to go through the Pakistanis to do a deal with the Taliban. He’s doing that, and this week even allowed some of his army officers to be trained in Pakistan. India has offered to train the Afghan army, but only if Karzai asks for it. So far, he hasn’t done so.

But Karzai remains India’s best bet. To that extent, India should help Karzai do the one thing the west wants him to: govern.

I think he is hinting at approaching other Pashtun's who are at the end of the day Afghan's. India has been saying this from day 1. It is just which part of this taleban that India wants on the table. Karzai tried the Indian approach but after Baradar arrest - they need to go through TSP.

So, we might see a future afghanistan - a democratic one with certain groups backed by different nations as is currently in Iraq. In Iraq, we have Maliki backed by the Shia's (indirectly backed by Iran), Kurds (backed by the US and Israel, GCC), Sunni Baathi Allawi (Backed by GCC).

Karzai (backed by the west, India), NA gang (Russia, India, Iran) Taleban Good (India, Iran, maybe west) Bad (TSP), Hekmatyar (China).

Can we see this in afghanistan next year? Is this the western vision for Afghanistan? But the above relies on a strong army/national police system. Take the Mehdi army as the Taleban. Then you see similarities.

Videos:

Taliban get owned trying to raid base

Afghan Mujahidin attacking an ANA Military Base from the other side

shyamd wrote:I think he is hinting at approaching other Pashtun's who are at the end of the day Afghan's. India has been saying this from day 1. It is just which part of this taleban that India wants on the table. Karzai tried the Indian approach but after Baradar arrest - they need to go through TSP.

My whole point is that "going thru TSP" means negotiating with them, and not with any Pashtun. As far as Pak is concerned, they want to woo Karzai away from NA - they're not going to be allowing him to woo any Pashtuns away from themselves.

So, we might see a future afghanistan - a democratic one with certain groups backed by different nations as is currently in Iraq. In Iraq, we have Maliki backed by the Shia's (indirectly backed by Iran), Kurds (backed by the US and Israel, GCC), Sunni Baathi Allawi (Backed by GCC).

Pak supporting democracy in Afghanistan? Don't be naive. Pak would be horrendously exposed and vulnerable under any democracy, since then they run the risk of Pashtun reunification, which they won't allow at all costs.

Pak would rather go through the motions of any negotiations, in order to get the Americans to leave, and then when the coast is clear they'll resume their support for the most extremist elements in order to seize control of Afghanistan by brute force.

Karzai (backed by the west, India), NA gang (Russia, India, Iran) Taleban Good (India, Iran, maybe west) Bad (TSP), Hekmatyar (China).

Hekmatyar backed by China?? Why would they back a fanatic like him? He was Pak's pre-Talib fundie from the 80s, whom they turfed out in order to make way for Taliban, after Pak felt a need to change the status quo in frustration over the military stalemate in Afghanistan (and of course Hekmatyar's refusal to formally recognize the Durand Line, which really got Pak worried)

I could see Hekmatyar perhaps getting backing from Iran, since he was previously aligned with the Iran-supported Shia Hezb-i-Wahdat (the ones whom Taliban massacred under the pretext of 'evacuating' them from Kabul, when rival Masoud took the place)

Can we see this in afghanistan next year? Is this the western vision for Afghanistan? But the above relies on a strong army/national police system. Take the Mehdi army as the Taleban. Then you see similarities.

There'd be no strong army allowed by Pak. Again, any Afghan consolidation would be viewed by Pak as a potential springboard for Pashtun reunification, and for meddling by India.

Instead, it would be like Lebanon, with Taliban operating like Hezbollah as a state within a state. Northern Alliance would be expected to operate like the Christian junior partners in the governing coalition, with the king as the nominal head of state.

In order for this setup to remain even remotely stable, Pak would have to get India's support by abandoning militancy in J&K - and they'd never do that. Also, there's potential for any US/Israeli strike on Iran to have ripple effects on Afghanistan.
Furthermore, AlQaeda would not feel any desire to cooperate with any stable arrangement that sees them as losers.

Haqqani is right now probably just humoring ISI by letting them seek any "talks".
He can see that the Americans want to get out, and he'll just hold out until they leave and he can go back to business as usual.
Will the Americans send Haqqani a crate of mangoes? Will they get him in a drone strike?

Critics press Obama on Afghanistan withdrawal deadline

Afghan Ambassador Said Tayeb Jawad wrote: The July 2011 deadline to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan is unrealistic and unhelpful, Afghan Ambassador Said Tayeb Jawad told CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday.

"First, if you over-emphasize a deadline that is not realistic, you are making the enemy a lot more bold," Jawad said. "You are prolonging the war. That deadline should be realistic. The line should be based on the reality on the ground and we should give a clear message to the enemy, to the terrorists who are a threat to everyone, that the United States, NATO, Afghans are there to finish this job."

Sanjay M wrote: My whole point is that "going thru TSP" means negotiating with them, and not with any Pashtun. As far as Pak is concerned, they want to woo Karzai away from NA - they're not going to be allowing him to woo any Pashtuns away from themselves.

Yes of course.

Pak supporting democracy in Afghanistan? Don't be naive. Pak would be horrendously exposed and vulnerable under any democracy, since then they run the risk of Pashtun reunification, which they won't allow at all costs.

I suppose it is in their interest not to have a democracy, however, this is where the americans come in. They have to show the american people results of afghan invasion. That is to have a democracy, so, it is down to the americans to get a functioning democracy in place, regardless of TSP's intentions. Of course, there will probably other factors that the US arm twist TSP into accepting a democracy. But, bottom line is american's want to retain an interest here too - democracy and Karzai is a good option. We could have said the same post invasion of Iraq (in fact the plan was to have someone like Chalabi as a dictator of Iraq).

Pak would rather go through the motions of any negotiations, in order to get the Americans to leave, and then when the coast is clear they'll resume their support for the most extremist elements in order to seize control of Afghanistan by brute force.

Yes, but this is where, we need to develop a strong national army that is allied to Karzai or Govt of Afg - which is powerful enough to fight against Taliban. But TSP will eventually do this, however, its again upto the US - as they need to show results for their people and really need to work hard to hold TSP back.

Hekmatyar backed by China?? Why would they back a fanatic like him? He was Pak's pre-Talib fundie from the 80s, whom they turfed out in order to make way for Taliban, after Pak felt a need to change the status quo in frustration over the military stalemate in Afghanistan (and of course Hekmatyar's refusal to formally recognize the Durand Line, which really got Pak worried)

Regarding Hekmatyar and China - Link. Can email the full article if you wish

I

could see Hekmatyar perhaps getting backing from Iran, since he was previously aligned with the Iran-supported Shia Hezb-i-Wahdat (the ones whom Taliban massacred under the pretext of 'evacuating' them from Kabul, when rival Masoud took the place)

He is also receiving backing from Iran. IRGC set up a new garrison just to train his folks and others.

There'd be no strong army allowed by Pak. Again, any Afghan consolidation would be viewed by Pak as a potential springboard for Pashtun reunification, and for meddling by India.

Yes of course TSP don't want it. But the US could or will want it, just to retain its interests. Depends how things plays out.

Instead, it would be like Lebanon, with Taliban operating like Hezbollah as a state within a state. Northern Alliance would be expected to operate like the Christian junior partners in the governing coalition, with the king as the nominal head of state.

A possibility. Its down to whether US can pull its weight with TSP at the end of the day.

He can see that the Americans want to get out, and he'll just hold out until they leave and he can go back to business as usual.
Will the Americans send Haqqani a crate of mangoes? Will they get him in a drone strike?

That is exactly what the taliban are saying - we are winning, we can see NATO wants out - we aint gonna stop till we hit kabul. TSP doesn't have to settle for democracy in kabul, however, US needs something to show for all the lives lost, money spent, so will probably have to pull its weight and could get a democracy. Its crunch time for India and NATO - to see if Afghanistan can become an Iraq or become Lebanon.

I think Indian diplomats and others are jockeying now - to create an Iraq, where you have all these different interests being represented in parliament of Afghanistan. This is their vision.

shyamd wrote:I suppose it is in their interest not to have a democracy, however, this is where the americans come in. They have to show the american people results of afghan invasion. That is to have a democracy, so, it is down to the americans to get a functioning democracy in place, regardless of TSP's intentions. Of course, there will probably other factors that the US arm twist TSP into accepting a democracy. But, bottom line is american's want to retain an interest here too - democracy and Karzai is a good option. We could have said the same post invasion of Iraq (in fact the plan was to have someone like Chalabi as a dictator of Iraq).

It's dangerously naive to believe that the Americans will settle for nothing less than democracy in Afghanistan. Even in their policy debates over Iraq, nobody was ever holding out the hope of Jeffersonian Democracy there. With the greater difficulties of Afghanistan, there is even less expectation of this. (Especially when the US State Dept is loaded with Atlanticists hissing into Obama's ear: "JUSTGETOUTGETOUTGETOUT!")

The Americans will settle for whatever stable arrangement denies AlQaeda a sanctuary to hide and operate in. Ironically, their best choice for this would have been a strongman like Najib - which is why ISI/Taliban made it job#1 to hang him from a lamp-post while our babus stood around wringing their hands in impotent despair, like Prithvi Raj Chauhan's inbred descendants.

Yes, but this is where, we need to develop a strong national army that is allied to Karzai or Govt of Afg - which is powerful enough to fight against Taliban. But TSP will eventually do this, however, its again upto the US - as they need to show results for their people and really need to work hard to hold TSP back.

There is no army on the planet that can indefinitely keep jousting with the Talibanimals, as long as they have safe sanctuary in Pak to keep coming back again and again. The Talibanimals are too dumb to know when to quit - which is the way Pak likes it - so they'll always keep fighting. It's peace which they're afraid of, not war.

Regarding Hekmatyar and China - Link. Can email the full article if you wish

sure, I'm at [email protected]

He is also receiving backing from Iran. IRGC set up a new garrison just to train his folks and others.

Which is why things are trending in Pak's favor. Unless Iran were to invest enough in Gulbuddin to make him a rival pole for Pashtuns to gravitate around. In which case, Pak/ISI would make it job#1 to bring him to the lamp-post.

But we all saw how suddenly and easily Gulbuddin's forces folded and ran on the first encounter with Taliban. Courtesy of ISI, of course - which only shows that Hekmatyar really doesn't have any meaningful base of his own, without ISI to prop him up.

He's just a paper tiger, and Iran is only supporting him for lack of better options.

Yes of course TSP don't want it. But the US could or will want it, just to retain its interests. Depends how things plays out.

US wants to get out, and Pak/Talibs know this. They smell the fear and fatigue in the Americans, and they're now waiting for the endgame. The US media are singing this song loudly, and even if the Americans were to have another success like the Tet offensive, their media would still portray it as debacle - at least the Atlanticist elements would.

A possibility. Its down to whether US can pull its weight with TSP at the end of the day.

Well, you can see how "well" the US has "pulled" Pak so far - not very well at all.
They don't have enough leverage with Pak, nor do they seem to know how to get any.
They should have allowed Baitullah Mehsud to keep fighting Pak, instead of killing him in the drone strike.
It's not too late to create more Baitullahs though - they would come in very handy for the US in pressuring Pak. The US could hook them up with the Baloch, and really make Pak howl in pain.

That is exactly what the taliban are saying - we are winning, we can see NATO wants out - we aint gonna stop till we hit kabul. TSP doesn't have to settle for democracy in kabul, however, US needs something to show for all the lives lost, money spent, so will probably have to pull its weight and could get a democracy. Its crunch time for India and NATO - to see if Afghanistan can become an Iraq or become Lebanon.

Nah, US policy debates have already set the tone that nobody needs Jeffersonian Democracy in Afghanistan to meet the criteria for success. All the US needs is a stable arrangement that denies AlQaeda a home.

Pak sees this, and they're trying to talk around the fact of Haqqani's stubborn allegiance to AlQaeda, to convince the US that they can guarantee AlQaeda won't be a threat in the future. This is all rubbish of course - the minute the Americans leave, then AlQaeda will be back to its old tricks, Pak's pleading notwithstanding.

What "bond" or "bail" can Pak put up for the US, as insurance against non-compliance? They have nothing.

I think Indian diplomats and others are jockeying now - to create an Iraq, where you have all these different interests being represented in parliament of Afghanistan. This is their vision.

Parliaments are fine when there is rule of law. When there is no rule of law, then parliamentarians can easily be assassinated. You saw what happened to Lebanon's Hariri. Afghanistan's parliament would be too fragile, deadlocked and dysfunctional. This is because they're really not one country, and ought to be allowed to go their separate ways.

That's why I feel India should mainly invest in heavy infrastructure in the North in particular, and not bother to build in the South. Indian infrastructure projects in the North can be marketed to Karzai as a way to buy the allegiance of Northerners, which is what he and his Kaangress-type babus would find attractive. (We can argue that it's too dangerous to build in the South, where ISI/Talibs can kidnap and kill Indians.)
When civil war inevitably breaks out, that northern infrastructure will come in handy in fighting the war, and in keeping the North functional and resistant against Taliban.
Meantime, Pak would be hard-pressed to pay for the Taliban war-machine from its own pockets. Their spending engine can't match our spending engine, especially when we pre-invest to 'prime the pump'.

Pak is already preparing for its endgame in Afghanistan - we should too.

The nutty nation is just that, nutty, so don't how seriouly to take this report of an attack on US troops, but look at the language they use

In Paktia, Mujahideen at five o'clock Sunday morning , launched an armed attack on a joint invaders and puppets convoy, the battle lasted for a full hour in which four invaders tanks and two puppet army military vehicles were destroyed, seven American and five puppet terrorists were killed, and the many others were injured. also one Mujahid was martyred and two were wounded. Reported by Zabihullah Mujahid. ( Taliban website )