Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2010 02:36

The big picture is the US wants to close or reduce its war with Islamism. The questionis will the Islamists allow it or see this as a victory and move into new areas?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Jul 2010 03:43

Fareed Zakaria Flip-Flops Yet Again - This Time on Afghanistan

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Jul 2010 08:53

Read this from Orbat.com:

The BRF argument is that when Afghanistan is done, as it will be shortly, the Taliban will turn on the Pakistan Army and the people of Pakistan, and that will be the end of Pakistan.

I don't know who is saying this on BRF. I've said that if Afghanistan is bifurcated, then it could lead to the creation of Pashtunistan. But that's by no means an automatic result of US departure. It's upto those who oppose Pakistani domination of the region to ensure that Taliban are kept out of the Northern half of the country.

Certainly, in the wake of a US departure, Pakistan would immediately set J&K on fire again with full force. It might even spread attacks beyond the state to the rest of India, a la 26/11 - they'd have no reason not to. So the way ahead would by no means be smooth.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2010 09:06

They don't understand the nuances of Taliban, Pakiban and Wahabandis. Its too complex. Its the Wahabandis who will eventually turn on the TSPA.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Jul 2010 11:19

ramana wrote:The big picture is the US wants to close or reduce its war with Islamism. The questionis will the Islamists allow it or see this as a victory and move into new areas?

The islamists are not in the business of seeking accomodation over some one if they can dominate him. Any US drawing down form it war in AFG concurrent to with the withdrawl from Iraq without defeting Islamism will be seen as a victory by islamists.

So in future we can expect a claim from the Islamists to have defeted two superpowers and an intensification of the Jihad Movement globally.

India will suffer dur to its proximaty to the badlands.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Jul 2010 17:29

US slaps sanctions against Taliban, Haqqani network

Font Size
-A +A
Agencies
Posted: Jul 23, 2010 at 1209 hrs IST

Washington In a move against the Haqqani network, the US has slapped financial sanctions against three top Taliban leaders, including Nasiruddin Haqqani, a brother of key Taliban leader Sirajudin Haqqani.

The sanctions announced by the Department of Treasury, besides Nasiruddin also target Gul Agha Ishakzai, a top aide of the outlawed organisation's chief Mullah Omar and Amir Abdullah, former treasurer to senior Taliban leader Mullah Baradar.

The move could be a big setback to Pakistan army which has been cozying up to President Hamid Karzai to involve the Haqqani faction in the proposed new set-up in Afghanistan, post US and NATO withdrawal from the country.

The Treasury Department's step will freeze the assets of these militants, ban their travel and trigger an arms embargo. The action comes after a senior Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee called for sanctions against the Haqqani network.

Together with US sanctions, the new action prohibits any financial transaction of these terror leaders in member countries of the UN, which is likely to put pressure on Pakistan to initiate operation against the group.

"The sanctions placed on the three leaders as terrorists would deprive them of the assets they need to fund the terror operations," said Adam Szubin, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

"We will continue to aggressively work to expose and dismantle the financial networks of terrorist groups in support of the President's goal of a stable Afghanistan," Szubin said.

Ishakzai is the head of the Taliban's financial commission and is part of a recently-created Taliban council that coordinates the collection of zakat from Baluchistan Province. He has collected money for suicide attacks in Kandahar and has been involved in the disbursement of funds for Taliban fighters and their families.

A childhood friend of Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, Gul Agha has served as Omar's principal finance officer and one of his closest advisors. He lived in the presidential palace with Omar during Taliban rule, served as his personal financial secretary and was one of Omar's closest advisors.

At one time, individuals were not permitted to meet with Mullah Omar unless approved by Gul Agha. Gul Agha traveled in late 2006 to obtain weapon parts and in December 2005 facilitated the movement of people and goods to Taliban training camps in Iran.

Amir Abdullah has served as treasurer to senior Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Barader and was the former deputy to the Taliban governor of Kandahar Province. Abdullah has traveled to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Libya and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to fundraise and collect money for the Taliban, the Treasury said.

In 2001, Abdullah helped many senior Taliban members who fled Afghanistan to settle in Pakistan. Abdullah also facilitates communication for Taliban leadership and coordinates high-level meetings at the guesthouse of his Karachi residence.

Nasiruddin Haqqani is a key leader of the Haqqani network, the Treasury said. He is the brother of Sirajuddin Haqqani, previously designated by US in March 2008.

Nasiruddin functions as an emissary for the Haqqani network and spends much of his time raising money.

From at least 2005 to 2009, Nasiruddin collected funds for the Haqqani network, including during a 2008 fundraising trip to a Gulf state and during regular travel to the (UAE) in 2007.

As of mid-2007, Haqqani reportedly received funding from donations from the Gulf region, drug trafficking, and payments from al-Qa'ida. In 2004, he traveled to Saudi Arabia with a Taliban associate to raise funds for the Taliban. Also in 2004, Haqqani provided funds to militants in Afghanistan for the purpose of disrupting the Afghan presidential election.

Lol. As if this would actually work.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 23 Jul 2010 18:08

Update on Amrullah Saleh:

Minority leaders leaving Karzai's side over leader's overtures to insurgents : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 55_pf.html

PANJSHIR VALLEY, AFGHANISTAN -- The man who served as President Hamid Karzai's top intelligence official for six years has launched an urgent campaign to warn Afghans that their leader has lost conviction in the fight against the Taliban and is recklessly pursuing a political deal with insurgents.

In speeches to small groups in Kabul and across northern Afghanistan over the past month, Amarullah Saleh has repeated his belief that Karzai's push for negotiation with insurgents is a fatal mistake and a recipe for civil war. He says Karzai's chosen policy endangers the fitful progress of the past nine years in areas such as democracy and women's rights.

"If I don't raise my voice we are headed towards a crisis," he told a gathering of college students in Kabul.

That view is shared by a growing number of Afghan minority leaders who once participated fully in Karzai's government, but now feel alienated from it. Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek politicians have expressed increasing concern that they are being marginalized by Karzai and his efforts to strike a peace deal with his fellow Pashtuns in the insurgency.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 23 Jul 2010 18:12

India has a major role in Afghanistan: U.S.

Mr. Holbrooke also spoke of the “red lines” that would be observed in integrating militant groups and, in an interview to a private TV channel, ruled out accommodating the Haqqani network.

This is music to Indian ears since South Block believes that the group led by Jalaluddin Haqqani (now by his son Sirajuddin) has been close to the Al-Qaeda and other Wahabi groups since the 1980s when it was heavily patronised by the CIA and the ISI and lionised as the “noble savage.” Since then the U.S. has announced a reward on Jalaluddin and killed his sister and a son in separate drone strikes.

http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/23/stories ... 921400.htm

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2010 20:39

India has a role in Afghanistan whether US acknowledges or not. So its only the DIE who hear that as music. Another fluff/lifafa article.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 23 Jul 2010 21:55

Unkil cannot cut and run that easily from Afghanistan as some of us might be thinking. Unkil is neck deep in af-pak with mounting body count because it serves a purpose. Unkil is keeping the terrorists engaged in their den without giving them an opportunity to plan and regroup, which will otherwise surely lead to attacks all over europe and USA. This time around a post GOAT Afghanistan ruled by good/bad taliban will be a lawless playground of global islamic militancy 100 times more dangerous than in 2001. Just imagine a country with no govt, awash with drug money, hardened islamic fighters from all over the world sharing boundaries with TSP, Iran and CAR.

Even if we discount TSPA and ISI's involvement this is a pretty dangerous mix. It will be very difficult to formulate an exit starategy from Af-pak. Only a delusional man with death wish will trust TSPA and handover the control of region to terrorists like taliban. But for all we know amirkhans might go ahead and do just that.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Jul 2010 00:38

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03316.html
NEW DELHI --

Recent moves by Afghanistan and Pakistan to improve their once-frosty relationship have prompted deep concern in other countries in the region and led some to consider strengthening ties to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's political rivals.e U.S. government considers the Afghan-Pakistan overtures essential to combating insurgencies wracking both nations. But India, Iran and Afghanistan's northern neighbors fear that they are a step toward fulfilling Karzai's desire to negotiate with Taliban leaders and possibly welcome some of them into the government. These nations believe that Karzai's plans could compromise their security and interests by lessening the influence of Afghanistan's Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara ethnic minorities with whom they have cultivated close links, diplomats and government officials say. The apprehension, voiced pointedly by senior Indian officials in interviews this week, has emerged as yet another challenge for the U.S. government as it seeks to encourage new initiatives to stabilize Afghanistan while minimizing fallout on the already tense relationship between India and Pakistan. In an attempt to assuage those concerns, the Obama administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, traveled here Wednesday to meet with India's national security adviser and foreign secretary. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, arrived Thursday for two days of meetings with top military and civilian leaders.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Jul 2010 00:52

Dilbu wrote:Unkil cannot cut and run that easily from Afghanistan as some of us might be thinking. Unkil is neck deep in af-pak with mounting body count because it serves a purpose.

It is Unkil's version of Al Taquia

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jul 2010 01:00

Prem wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03316.html
NEW DELHI --
Recent moves by Afghanistan and Pakistan to improve their once-frosty relationship have prompted deep concern in other countries in the region and led some to consider strengthening ties to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's political rivals. The U.S. government considers the Afghan-Pakistan overtures essential to combating insurgencies wracking both nations. But India, Iran and Afghanistan's northern neighbors fear that they are a step toward fulfilling Karzai's desire to negotiate with Taliban leaders and possibly welcome some of them into the government. These nations believe that Karzai's plans could compromise their security and interests by lessening the influence of Afghanistan's Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara ethnic minorities with whom they have cultivated close links, diplomats and government officials say. The apprehension, voiced pointedly by senior Indian officials in interviews this week, has emerged as yet another challenge for the U.S. government as it seeks to encourage new initiatives to stabilize Afghanistan while minimizing fallout on the already tense relationship between India and Pakistan. In an attempt to assuage those concerns, the Obama administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, traveled here Wednesday to meet with India's national security adviser and foreign secretary. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, arrived Thursday for two days of meetings with top military and civilian leaders.

So how do they plan to assuage the concerns? By asserting TSP weapons will not be tracked!

Compounding India's pique is the fact that it believed it had cultivated close ties with Karzai. India has opened four consulates in Afghanistan, even though relatively few Indian citizens live there, and invested $1.3 billion in development projects -- far more than Pakistan has.

"The Indians are shell-shocked," said a Western diplomat involved in Afghanistan policy. "They went in with more than a billion dollars, and now Pakistan is eating their lunch."

U.S. officials are trying to persuade the Indians to abandon their traditional zero-sum logic that what's good for Pakistan must be bad for them. "You cannot stabilize Afghanistan without the participation of Pakistan as a legitimate concerned party," Holbrooke said at a meeting with Indian journalists here.

I guess the Western diplomutt doesn't realize the irony of the situation. Indian aid is mostly in Northern Afghanistan while US aid is in Pakistan and goes to prop-up a regime that supports attackers of US and NATO troops.

And he calls himself a diplomat! He is more like a do taka spokesman in the village square.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 24 Jul 2010 04:53

The Pak lifafas are upset at Blackwill's proposal:

http://thedawn.com.pk/2010/07/22/blackw ... atherings/

http://rupeenews.com/2010/07/23/the-naj ... ghanistan/

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 24 Jul 2010 13:11

^^^ learned a new word:

"amphigory" - a piece of nonsensical writing, usually in verse, or less commonly in prose.

Damned thing was had to read the whole article linked in "thedawn.com.pk" to reach it. Still, you learn something new every day...

Meanwhile, for saturday entertainment:

http://rupeenews.com/most-popular-artic ... ilization/

Come on guys, you got to admit, these guys put the chut in chutzpah!!!

(I know, I know, it's pronounced differently, but could not resist).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Jul 2010 08:57

Nightwatch, 7/23/10

Russia-Afghanistan: Russia and NATO have mutual long-term interests in Afghanistan, Russian Chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces General Nikolai Makarov said following talks with Chairman of NATO's Military Committee Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola, Interfax-AVN reported.

Both commanders are interested in NATO's success in Afghanistan, Makarov said, adding that Russia will provide assistance by ensuring the transit of military property and personnel through Russian territory.

Comment: Makarov's is the latest in at least a half dozen recent comments professing Russian support to the US effort in Afghanistan. The cumulative significance is that they prove that the Russians smell the US end game in Afghanistan and are determined to be a part of it and the new game that begins when the Americans depart.

Diverging from US policy, the Russians do not intend to transfer to Pakistan responsibility for stability in Afghanistan. They do not expect and will not rely on Pakistani good will. They also do not intend to allow US decisions to go unchallenged. The US Secretary of State's public tilt to Pakistan could not have done more to galvanize Russian and Indian interest and opposition to US schemes. An ascendant or even a healthy Pakistan suits no Russian or Indian interests and does not promote stability in South Asia.

Thus the Russians appear to be sincere in offering assistance by providing a secure, northern, railroad route alternative to the porous over-the-road supply route through Pakistani which appears to be a major source of supply for the Taliban. The Russians are sincere in the sense that helping the US serves Russian long term interest in influencing events in northern Afghanistan, if not in Kabul, and keeps the costs low for now. The new railroad bridges across the Oxus River are major assets in the Russian scheme for supporting the northern tribes.

As for Pakistan, the Pakistanis have made it abundantly plain that Afghanistan remains a secondary and minor concern for Pakistani leaders, provided India has no foothold. For Pakistanis, like General Kayani, they have been raised to perceive India is an existential threat to Pakistan. Thus, no matter what they have promised, US aid will be diverted, substituted and repackaged to support the confrontation with India.

When Afghanistan degenerates into its second civil war, Russia and India will again side with the northern Alliance tribes against Pakistan and the Pashtuns. In that scenario, ten years of US investment, deaths and involvement will have counted for little, but history will have resumed a more normal path. The Carter administration discovered that Afghanistan is just two oceans too far to sustain a US commitment. Astonishing how short some memories can be.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 25 Jul 2010 09:20

Alright, but will Pakistan get renewed support from Saudi in backing Taliban?

Saudis are more vulnerable to US pressure, and would not like to see another 9/11 mar ties, in spite of whatever desperate position the Pakis are in.

Will Pak fight in Afghanistan alone, thru Taliban?

Who else can Pak get support from? China is leery of fueling any fires in Central Asia on its western flank, which it has sought to keep isolated and protected thru Shanghai-5.

Haqqani & Co will of course get financing thru AlQaeda, which is why renewed conflict will see AlQaeda again grow back to full size (and even bigger).
The US will watch this with alarm, restricting itself to verbal admonishments until AlQaeda launches another 9/11.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Jul 2010 11:43

What will happen in Afghanistan if the US leaves, which it will of course not, is not simply a return to what is referred to as "civil war", and an alignment along pre-9/11 lines. These contours will remain, hell they exist now. It's not like India or any of the traditional supporters have de-aligned from the Northern Alliance, and it's not like the US has no relationship with the NA either.

What has happened is that India and the others have built, over these years, fairly significant and direct links with the Pashtuns - Taliban and non-Taliban. These Afghans do not need necessarily to go via Islamabad. And if the US disengages on the ground, then everybody else will feel more free to become players. The days when Pakistan could singly determine who rules the roost in Afghanistan are gone, for the time being at least.

And as we know the Taliban are not that shy about taking the war into Pakistan. India is neither unhappy nor happy about the situation emerging in Afghanistan. We are well positioned either way. The pre-9/11 situation in Afghanistan is over for the time being. So is the pre-9/11 situation in Pakistan. Only the Paks don't know it yet. They are too busy with their grand strategic ambitions.

Pakistan is being choked, and the hold is getting tighter in a faily well-calibrated fashion. This is how uncle does its thing. Many of us on BRF are unwilling to see that or acknowledge that (which also has its value).

India needs to be ready for the fall-out, for fall-out there will be. We can expect steady escalation of terror all across India, and against Indian interests in Afghanistan. The Pakistani army will not be reduced without a fight. We must be prepared to pay back, or even pay it forward

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 25 Jul 2010 13:09

Good points. Whenever Pak feels squeezed by Uncle and/or India, it usually goes crying to China, to garner new leverage. China-Pak N-Deal was a recent example of this.

So can Pak go crying to China on this latest issue as well?
What new options could China give to Pak?
Chinese themselves acknowledge they have no players in Afghanistan, and thus their ability to influence events there is extremely limited. They do have Shanghai-5, but that's a common forum against outside meddling, not purely for Beijing's agenda.
Could China use Shanghai-5 to drum up support for sanctity of borders, to somehow create support for Durand Line? Meh, probably not.

Unless the Chinese parent can come up with some new toy for their child Pak, then I guess this is where the limits of China's power show themselves short.

Could China open direct negotiations with Karzai, for Pak's sake?
Would that make a difference? Or are they reluctant to expose themselves directly?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Jul 2010 13:40

I mean seriously guys, does anyone really think that Karzai has all of a sudden gone into "trust" mode with the ISI which killed his father and many of his near and dear ones?

Sanjay, Pak can go crying to China, and Beijing has is resources in Afghanistan as well, but it would be delusional for the Paks to think they are anything more than a cat's paw for Beijing, and therefore that Beijing would protect Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan (what are they? Specifically) rather than its own.

Plus Beijing, contrary to some of our own assumptions, is neither omni-potent nor omni-present. Interesting things are happening on its easter shores and this will continue. Internally, the situation is not likely to get better in the foreseeable future, meaning key leaders will have to give more mindspace to these issues and are likely to leave lower officials with greater leeway. Pakistan will increasingly have to deal with younger, less experienced hands who could not give a flying fu(k about nixon, kissinger or their mommies. Bottomline? China has little interest in anything more than the economic sphere in Afghanistan, and it would not want to get involved in the tribal/taliban/Al Qaida mess, when it knows full well that such activity will only result in greater "activism"

among the East Turkestanis.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Jul 2010 17:47

Omnipotence is at most a pretension - that includes both China and USA. Just as China has its own internal problems, USA has too. So whatever they may pretend now, they may not actually be in a position to keep up those pretensions forever. Both are tactically shrewd if not strategically sound. Both quickly cut their losses and abandon their hosts if they see greater profits elsewhere in collaborating with the enemies of their erstwhile hosts. Both think short term in their geopolitics, and slightly longer term in economics - but that still does not free them from making spectacular dumb acts. That of course happens because short term initiatives can gather momentum and go out of hand to have a dynamic of their own.

For China, the key problem in entirely abandoning the PA+ISI regime is because of the financial and geo-political investment made in the KKH. Firstly because the highway surely needs a substantial financial and engineering infrastructure to be maintained to keep the highway functioning. If the south and west of Pak descends into chaos over which the pak regime and therefore China has no handle, then the investments are a total loss. China can cut its losses by abandoning the highway altogether. But the problem then comes that for quite a while the highway will still provide easier access by Islamists to eastern Turkmenistan. Military and nuisance assets can flow both ways - once channels are established, and the strategic shortsightedness of the Chinese leadership shows up here when they did not foresee that the KKH and associated infrastructure could one day be used against them.

This is why PRC may back up a rump Islamabad regime up in the POK, for some time if the south and west falls to the talebs. However this may not be feasible for long if Islamabad loses the power to compensate or pay. Islamabad will lose the only guaranteed income from drugs trade if it loses the west and south. Its rump nature will initially bring in more dole from the USA with which it can pay Chinese arms dealers, but over time this source will also dry up as USA will seek to cut deals with the Talebs.

We should not be fooled about current posturings about going after the "Talebs" by USA. It is all part of a flexible game strategy where posturings are also signals of pressure and at the same time a willingness to negotiate after upping the ante. USA always negotiates and cuts deals with groups it sees as the potential winner in a given situation as long as it helps weaken the "strongest" enemy.

Thus Afghan demands of PA may still be met partially, as long as PA can show some degree of control over the access to the sea. For the USA, the southern route to AFG will be important. This combined interest from PRC and USA may still decide to preserve a portion of PA regime to survive. But then it depends on the value of AFG as a resource. PRC can bypass Pak for AFG interests. USA cannot.

I think this puts Pak under impossible pressures. If they cannot maintain some pretense at stabilizing the "western front", and shows signs of buckling and allowing the Talebs to move up POK, and both USA and PRC do not want to antagonize the Talebs for future negotiations directly - then they may actually tacitly agree to let India occupy POK. Indian occupation of POK provides USA a route to AFG through India, and if India can play smooth with PRC, turn around KKH into a "trade route" through India with China. This sor of finishes off any hope for Islamabad to survive.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Jul 2010 18:06

A fantastic post. So fantastic I'm tempted to delete it. Seriously. For fear that it's going to appear in various forms across Pak newspapers in coming days.

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 25 Jul 2010 20:36

Some time ago a unmentionable member had defined the Jupiter ji post in a one and half liner.

"Uncle is known for one night stands, Uncle dates the world delivers"

The lates is PRC winks and shows its hemline (in Africa its working)

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 25 Jul 2010 21:11

It's ridiculous to think that China will let India have POK - except under a dire situation where POK was in danger of going independent, thus posing the threat of being a US proxy near China's sensitive western borders.

Other than that, China would always want POK to stay in Pak's obedient hands.

There are umpteen possible routes for India to trade with China, given the 1500km border.
KKH is more about access to Gulf for them - particularly via Gwadar.

In that case, if Pashtunistan and Baluchistan were to gain independence while being at loggerheads with the Pakjabi rump state, then Beijing would have to walk a tightrope between their competing interests in order to retain access to the Gulf via Gwadar. If they fell back on POK-Pakjab-Karachi as a route, it would be dangerously vulnerable to Indian interference.
It might be safer for them to go through POK-Pashtunistan-Balochistan or POK-Pashtunistan-Iran to get to the Gulf, which would tilt PRC towards having POK in Pashtun hands for simplicity.

The Chinese definitely don't want POK to be independent though - for them, that's the worst of all possible options - because then as a free agent they'll hook up with the US, like Adlai Stevenson wanted.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Jul 2010 21:31

brihaspati wrote:I think this puts Pak under impossible pressures. If they cannot maintain some pretense at stabilizing the "western front", and shows signs of buckling and allowing the Talebs to move up POK, and both USA and PRC do not want to antagonize the Talebs for future negotiations directly - then they may actually tacitly agree to let India occupy POK. Indian occupation of POK provides USA a route to AFG through India, and if India can play smooth with PRC, turn around KKH into a "trade route" through India with China. This sor of finishes off any hope for Islamabad to survive.

brihaspati ji,

this is indeed a novel idea, at least AFAI am concerned.

It is thus in Indian interest, that the Taliban get control over KKH and smuggle both drugs and Jihad up the KKH, on the one hand, and plunder any shipments between PRC and TSP. So some intrusion of the Taliban into PoK may not be totally undesirable.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Jul 2010 21:50

Menon garu has already expressed serious concerns! I would not go as far as letting T's do D's all the way up KKH. But threatening to do would be the best!

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 25 Jul 2010 23:27

Taliban are just as comfortable riding donkeys as Toyota pickups. So why would they be dependent upon KKH when they could meander through Waqqan corridor or Tajikistan, to get to Western China?

Furthermore, because it's not possible to keep Taliban free of AlQaeda contamination once they get too powerful, the US would then not like to see Taliban's power grow, whether through drug trade, etc. So long as Pashtuns are pitted against their neighbors by ISI, then the threat of AlQaeda growing among them is guaranteed.
The way I see it, the only way to purge the Pashtuns of AlQaeda infection is to make them whole again, and thus healthy enough to fight off the AlQaeda infection. This results in transferring their problems onto Pakjab, which would end up as the remaining residual irredentist revanchist rump state - ripe for AlQaeda to move into.

When US pursued the Drug War in Columbia, they eventually succeeded in chasing the Drug Lords out of that country, only to see their business shift into Mexico, where it has now become a bigger threat than ever.

If Pashtuns are liberated from the yoke of Pakjabi domination and thus made immune to AlQaeda influence, and if the remaining rump state of Pakjab then becomes the new home for AlQaeda, then would AlQaeda have an adequate sanctuary there? Whereas the previous home consisting of landlocked FATA and South Afghanistan offered protection thru their geographic isolation, the Pakjabi home would offer the protection thru the nuclear shield.

However Pakjab could be more easily encircled and ultimately disarmed, even while they tried to take their jihadi war directly into India.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 25 Jul 2010 23:28

Sanjay M wrote:It's ridiculous to think that China will let India have POK - except under a dire situation where POK was in danger of going independent, thus posing the threat of being a US proxy near China's sensitive western borders.

It is doable. Do not underestimate the situation. China does not have a friendly population in POK.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 25 Jul 2010 23:59

^^^ And that's why China would prefer to have POK under Pakjabi control rather than be a free agent for anti-China mischief.

But you're all now saying that if Pashtuns/Taliban become free agents, they would be able to make sufficient use of POK that China would find it more attractive for POK to be in Indian hands. I'm saying why couldn't Taliban simply wander their mules over to China by way of Waqqan or Tajikistan?

Taliban don't need KKH to wage Opium Wars against China - all they need is a receptive market.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Jul 2010 00:37

Sanjay M wrote,
It's ridiculous to think that China will let India have POK - except under a dire situation where POK was in danger of going independent, thus posing the threat of being a US proxy near China's sensitive western borders.

Other than that, China would always want POK to stay in Pak's obedient hands.

There are umpteen possible routes for India to trade with China, given the 1500km border.
KKH is more about access to Gulf for them - particularly via Gwadar.

Well the idea behind sticking like a glue behind Pak is if Pak satisfies all that is required by the PRC geopolitical vision. If Pak does not exist as a functional entity to ensure that, why should PRC keep on dishing money into that bottomless basket? What is it that Pak can give to PRC that PRC values so much?
(1) nuisance value to prick India
(2) access to IO and Gwadar
(3) have a handle on US antics in AfPak
(4) a good market for Chinese arms industry and somewhat limited market for Chinese industry
If Islamabad loses control over access to the sea, (2) and (3) and (4) goes out of reckoning. Is the nuisance value to India of such great value that it can prompt no-returns investment and possible complete loss of all investments in an unproductive small rump state at war with everyone around itself? That will depend on the political maturity of the then PRC leadership. I see the greater likelihood of the CPC leadership seeing the obvious benefits in cutting deals with India and ditching Islamabad altogether.

The "trade angle" was suggested by me as a means of providing the right excuses for deal-cutters from the Chinese side to convince or neutralize pro-Pak hawks within CPC. India can provide the same access to IO over land in geographical parallel to th existing rout to the sea - hain ji?!

In that case, if Pashtunistan and Baluchistan were to gain independence while being at loggerheads with the Pakjabi rump state, then Beijing would have to walk a tightrope between their competing interests in order to retain access to the Gulf via Gwadar. If they fell back on POK-Pakjab-Karachi as a route, it would be dangerously vulnerable to Indian interference.
It might be safer for them to go through POK-Pashtunistan-Balochistan or POK-Pashtunistan-Iran to get to the Gulf, which would tilt PRC towards having POK in Pashtun hands for simplicity.

In both the above "vulnerable scenario" the calculations will have to be based on a "reliable" Pashtunistan. Once badly burnt in the POK investment scenario about Islamist states "promises" why should China go for the extended and extremely volatile POK-Pashtunistan-Iran route? Another round of huge investments and all for nothing. For that matter how long do we think the present Iranian regime is going to be there? I have grave suspicions that it will not last very long. Iran will change its colour over the next two decades.

The Chinese definitely don't want POK to be independent though - for them, that's the worst of all possible options - because then as a free agent they'll hook up with the US, like Adlai Stevenson wanted.

Lets put our hunches together : if POK gets "independence" it will turn to India. It is the "valley" which will get isolated.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Jul 2010 01:09

Sanjay M wrote:^^^ And that's why China would prefer to have POK under Pakjabi control rather than be a free agent for anti-China mischief.

It will not remain that way since Pakjabi does not know how to rule. It is a miracle that 60 years have passed without much disaster.

Taliban don't need KKH to wage Opium Wars against China - all they need is a receptive market.

Taliban is a ragtag group and does not have the capability to do beyond a small region let alone China.
China can crush lot of internal market when it needs to do.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 26 Jul 2010 01:24

Afghan Round I to Pak- Wagah land export deal shuts out India - K.P. NAYAR

Washington, July 24: As India and Pakistan wearily eye each other on the next steps in their bilateral dialogue, Islamabad has won a round of the new “great game” for control of New Delhi’s strategic backyard.

Through a mixture of deft negotiations with Kabul and considerable arm-twisting of Washington, Pakistan last weekend obtained the Hamid Karzai government’s approval to an agreement that allows Afghanistan’s trucks to carry goods to the Wagah border for onward export to India without allowing similar reciprocal facilities for Indian products.

...
...
When the Soviet Union broke up, India was among the first countries to open embassies in the Central Asian republics, aid the new governments and seek trade and economic co-operation with them under the personal direction of then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao who was acutely conscious of the strategic importance of the former Soviet territories for New Delhi.

But these efforts were hamstrung by the absence of access to Central Asia. Pakistan doggedly opposed allowing its territory for Indian goods’ transit to Afghanistan and onward transport to Central Asia.

On its part, Pakistan was also handicapped by its inability to use Afghanistan as a transit route for exports to Central Asia. But the new treaty with Kabul removes that handicap for Pakistan.

...
....
As part of Rao’s farsighted initiatives, India opened up new areas of co-operation with Iran and worked jointly with Tehran on an India-Iran-Central Asia-sea-rail link which would have allowed New Delhi to tap Central Asian markets.

The link was made feasible at considerable cost and with great fanfare but, subsequently, under pressure from Washington, New Delhi scaled back its engagement with Tehran.

It is not that South Block is unaware that Pakistan is incrementally gaining in its objective of realising the dream of its “strategic depth” in Afghanistan.

The ministry of external affairs is also aware that the only option it has to counter Islamabad’s drive is to return to the arrangements in the 1990s with Iran and Russia to co-ordinate their approach to domestic alliances in Afghanistan.

But even last week, US national security adviser James Jones urged Indian leaders across the board on a visit to New Delhi against recent attempts by the UPA government to revive ties with Tehran.

For more than a year, the Obama administration has been doing some heavy lifting in both Islamabad and Kabul to reach an agreement on their bilateral transit trade treaty.

...
...
Besides, Pakistan wants to keep its cards in future negotiations with India so as to be able to dangle the carrot of access to Afghanistan through its land route.

...
The treaty poses a dilemma for India. It cannot refuse Afghan goods through Wagah except by risking Kabul’s displeasure and accusations of hampering mitigation of Afghanistan’s grinding poverty.

By buckling under US pressure, India is giving up all the gains made earlier. Wish PVN was alive and in power at this crucial juncture. Hate to see all his effort going waste

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 26 Jul 2010 01:46

brihaspati wrote: Well the idea behind sticking like a glue behind Pak is if Pak satisfies all that is required by the PRC geopolitical vision. If Pak does not exist as a functional entity to ensure that, why should PRC keep on dishing money into that bottomless basket? What is it that Pak can give to PRC that PRC values so much?
(1) nuisance value to prick India
(2) access to IO and Gwadar
(3) have a handle on US antics in AfPak
(4) a good market for Chinese arms industry and somewhat limited market for Chinese industry
If Islamabad loses control over access to the sea, (2) and (3) and (4) goes out of reckoning. Is the nuisance value to India of such great value that it can prompt no-returns investment and possible complete loss of all investments in an unproductive small rump state at war with everyone around itself? That will depend on the political maturity of the then PRC leadership. I see the greater likelihood of the CPC leadership seeing the obvious benefits in cutting deals with India and ditching Islamabad altogether.

The "trade angle" was suggested by me as a means of providing the right excuses for deal-cutters from the Chinese side to convince or neutralize pro-Pak hawks within CPC. India can provide the same access to IO over land in geographical parallel to th existing rout to the sea - hain ji?!

The Chinese may sell to us, but not through us. Indian middlemen already cripple India's own economy as it is - why would the Chinese be interested in experiencing more of the same? I can picture Indian dockworkers going on strike even as we speak.

The Chinese prefer lopsided master-servant relationships, rather than negotiations among equals. They see us as a rival, not as a partner.

In both the above "vulnerable scenario" the calculations will have to be based on a "reliable" Pashtunistan. Once badly burnt in the POK investment scenario about Islamist states "promises" why should China go for the extended and extremely volatile POK-Pashtunistan-Iran route? Another round of huge investments and all for nothing. For that matter how long do we think the present Iranian regime is going to be there? I have grave suspicions that it will not last very long. Iran will change its colour over the next two decades.

There is redundancy between POK-Pashtunistan-Iran and POK-Pashtunistan-Balochistan. Even if Iran loses it current Ayatollahist dispensation, there's no reason why it would become estranged from China. Even if it were to become estranged from China, other nearby routes like POK-Pashtunistan-Balochistan are there as a backup. Straits of Hormuz are a chokepoint of course, but Indian ports are no more favourable in that circumstance.

China is worried about more than just trade routes - they are also interested in natural resources. They want 2-way flow across these routes - their manufactured goods flow out, and the natural resources flow back in by the same path. Therefore the more natural resources are positioned along these routes, the better. Iran and Balochistan offer far greater access to natural resources than congested India, where tribals start shrieking over their rights the minute they see anybody with a shovel.

Besides, China seems more inclined to write us off and drain every last drop of water from Tibet, rather than haggling with us over what they see as theirs.

Lets put our hunches together : if POK gets "independence" it will turn to India. It is the "valley" which will get isolated.

An independent POK will look for a "Far Emperor" rather than a near one. The US would be their best option, and even perhaps EU as well. The farther emperors would also be more willing to cater to the whims of the Azadis. This means support to regain Baltistan-Gilgit-Hunza, and even Aksai Chin. The Azadis would stay quiet about Aksai Chin at first, just like how Talibs and Hekmatyars keep quiet about Durand Line, but later they would press their demands against China when they were in a stronger position to do so.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 26 Jul 2010 01:57

Acharya wrote:It will not remain that way since Pakjabi does not know how to rule. It is a miracle that 60 years have passed without much disaster.

And look at the even lousier North Korean rule - yet China keeps clutching them to its bosom. Old relationships/habits die hard. For them, better the devil they know than the one they don't know.

Taliban is a ragtag group and does not have the capability to do beyond a small region let alone China.
China can crush lot of internal market when it needs to do.

With the right foreign backers, Taliban could do a lot to China. And this is why China has formed Shanghai-5. I think even the USA had longterm visions of Taliban doing this, before AlQaeda suddenly reared their heads and bit them.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Jul 2010 02:18

Whole point was that independent POK will never survive, and even the path towards "independence" will have to be walked with Indian support. The choice is between becoming an extension of China or an extension of India. It may seem a foregone conclusion that they will join China. But why should they join a power structure that even dictates what sermons can be given at the Friday prayer and when they can at all open? Joining India yet gives a chance to link up with the rest of IM, and still retain access to IOR directly.

The path that de-Ayatollaization of Iran takes place, is crucial. If it has to succeed with US help, then post transition, linking up with China will be difficult. The safer bet will be to cooperate more with India as a first step towards long term slow divorce from under the shadows of USA.

I did not say China actually has to "gain" in trade with India. It is about providing sufficient excuses to one of the factions within the CPC to neutralize the others about foreign policy.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jul 2010 03:47

Must read. As I have stated, ISI must be belled:

Guardian :: Afghanistan war logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth of occupation

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Jul 2010 04:03

^^Role of Iran behind AFG militancy should not be surprising. I tried to draw attention to this over objections about the Shia Sunni divide and Iranian love for India. The role of Iran in the future will be even more in favour of Islamists in AFPak. They are simply extending their flank as counter to US presence and pressure on Iran.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jul 2010 04:08

Afghanistan War Logs

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 26 Jul 2010 05:58

If you liked that one, then read this one - you'll like it even more:

Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

One memory that sticks out on Hamid Gul's crimes, was during 26/11 when the terrorists were on the phone with him, asking him what they should do with the hostages, which even included Chinese tourists. He unhesitatingly exhorted them to execute them all. Then later when US sought to have Gul declared a terrorist before the UN Security Council, the same China then intervened to protect Gul, even though days earlier he'd had their own citizens executed.

I was amazed to see that China would react in this way, without any thought to what happened to their own citizens.

Anyhow, note how NYT tries to downplay some of the reports as "fantastic", etc.
They also give the obligatory plug to Polish intelligence having warned India (who knows - they may even read BRF)

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 26 Jul 2010 06:50

So only because LeT started openly battling NATO troops, can we see that western media is blaming TSP?
Militant alliance targeting Western troops

NATO commanders are convinced the Pakistani militant group behind the Mumbai massacre has joined forces with the Taliban.

The group has formed a new alliance to kill Western soldiers in Afghanistan.

In the past few weeks, NATO command has accused Lashkar-e-Toiba of being behind a string of attacks and an influx of fighters into eastern Afghanistan.

In Delhi last Thursday, Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, described the group as "terribly dangerous" and a "co-equal threat as the Taliban and al-Qa'ida".

The issue was raised over the weekend by Admiral Mike Mullen, the top US military commander, after he arrived in Islamabad for meetings with General Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan's powerful army chief, whose term has just been extended by three years.

The matter is highly sensitive because of the organisation's close links to Pakistan's military intelligence service, the ISI.

Officially outlawed under US pressure in 2002, the LET has continued to operate under different names. LET camps have long been used by al-Qa'ida for training.

After initial denials, Pakistan has admitted that LET played a part in the November 2008 massacre in Mumbai in which 173 people were killed. Last week, the Indian government accused the ISI of being the real masterminds.

US officials are concerned that LET has expanded its focus to Afghanistan and a global agenda.

The Obama administration had refrained, until now, from going public, but the matter has become more urgent after a sharp increase in the death toll of NATO troops in Afghanistan. Last month was the deadliest of the nine-year war and coalition fatalities in the first six months of the year were more than double last year's.

"Lashkar has been operating not just in India but in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and more globally and has linked up with other organisations such as al-Qa'ida," said Admiral Mullen. "I see them as starting to emerge as a larger regional threat and at least an aspirational global threat."

While the Pakistani military has taken action against terrorist groups such as the Pakistani Taliban, it has refused requests from Washington to move against the Afghan Taliban or LET.

LET enjoys widespread support in Pakistan through its charitable arm. It is well funded by backers in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.

Before flying to Islamabad, Admiral Mullen held meetings in Delhi where the Indian army leadership voiced fears that the LET may attempt to strike at October's Commonwealth Games.

"I worry a great deal about a repeat attack," said Admiral Mullen. "Those 10 terrorists (in Mumbai) were able to bring two nuclear-capable countries if not to the brink (then) to the possibility of some kind of response."

Senior Indian officials, including Home Secretary G.K. Pillai, and national security adviser Shivshankar Menon, claimed last week that David Headley, a Pakistani-American who was allegedly involved in the Mumbai attacks, had revealed that the ISI had a direct role in the Mumbai attacks.

In January, authorities in Bangladesh arrested a number of LET operatives whom they had believed were planning to attack the US embassy and the British high commission in Dhaka.

"Very few things worry me as much as the strength and ambition of LET," said Daniel Benjamin, the State Department's top counter-terrorism official.