Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by ramana »

RajeshA posted....
Published on Nov 03, 2010
By Meredith Buel
Republican US Election Victory Could Impact South Asia: VOA News
"I think Pakistan will have to understand that there has been a change in the political landscape of the United States," said Retired Pakistani Army Lieutenant General Talat Masood. He points out the U.S. election results were, in part, fueled by voter anger because of the poor economy and U.S. government spending.

Pakistan is one of the major beneficiaries of U.S. foreign aid and receives billions of dollars in economic and military assistance.

The increase in the number of Republicans in Congress is likely to have an impact on bilateral relations, said Masood.

"I think there will be a greater scrutiny as far as assistance is concerned and greater conditionality imposed on Pakistan," he said. "And I think Pakistan would be expected now to do even a lot more and perhaps there will be even greater pressure on Pakistan."
Now an Islamabad-based defense analyst, Talat Masood believes Republicans will bring more demands on the Pakistani Army he says is already stretched too thin.

"Pakistan's sanctuaries in North Waziristan and other areas, perhaps there will be greater pressure that Pakistan launch and clear those sanctuaries," Masood said.
So it means cut and run is out and now if any progress happens in Af-Pak it will go to the Repubs tough stance.

We need to understand the meaning of the elections more deeply.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by abhishek_sharma »

We Need an Indian Civilian Surge
The United States is still struggling to bring stability to Afghanistan. Why not ask India to help?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... lian_surge
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by shyamd »

Drones aren't doing the job, so they are training TSPA to do the job. Giving them more weapons and new US rifles. Training is taking place close to Peshawar.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by ramana »

Those trained guys will take on TSPA. They will become the new coup brigade.
Malayappan
BRFite
Posts: 462
Joined: 18 Jul 2005 00:11

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Malayappan »

The Battle for Afghanistan - Militancy and Conflict in Kandahar By Anand Gopal from New America Foundation
This study attempts to understand the Taliban of Kandahar by looking at the factors that spurred their rise and the networks and structures through which they operate.
Check it out!
SriSri
BRFite
Posts: 545
Joined: 23 Aug 2006 15:25

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by SriSri »

SriSri wrote:This is *BIG*

White House moves away from 2011 Afghanistan withdrawal timeline
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... lan10.html

The new policy will be on display next week during a NATO conference in Lisbon, Portugal, where the administration hopes to introduce a timeline that calls for the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan by 2014
Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Rangudu »

This is indeed BIG news, but it has been just as we expected. Only fools and TSPA would have based their policies on the July 2011 withdrawal idea.

Unkil ain't going nowhere and ain't nobody gonna do nothin about it. You see what I'm sayin man?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by ramana »

Also means Blackwill's ideas have been thrown into the dustbin. I note that its after the India visit.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by CRamS »

Rangudu wrote:This is indeed BIG news, but it has been just as we expected. Only fools and TSPA would have based their policies on the July 2011 withdrawal idea.

Unkil ain't going nowhere and ain't nobody gonna do nothin about it. You see what I'm sayin man?
R-man, is it the naivety of US elites or what, that all of them keep saying TSPA is worried about US withdrawl, dis-engagement bla bla, when we all know very well that TSPA can't wait for US to withdraw so they can come marching down Kabul through their Talibunny proxies.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by ramana »

CRS, If you read between the lines of Bush's new book and Obama Wars you get the feeling that TSP nukes are safe (from jihadis, external forces etc) only because the US in in Af-Pak. They are the garuntor of the TSP nukes being safe.
krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5881
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by krisna »

SriSri wrote:
SriSri wrote:This is *BIG*

White House moves away from 2011 Afghanistan withdrawal timeline
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... lan10.html

The new policy will be on display next week during a NATO conference in Lisbon, Portugal, where the administration hopes to introduce a timeline that calls for the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan by 2014
^^^^
Also Uncle is building one of the biggest embassies in kabul and 2 more in herat and mazahr-e -sharief,spending over 500 million. why spend so much when they have to withdraw shortly with the economy in trouble at home.
They did not feel the need to have more than 1 all these 10 years but now constructing 2 more :?:
Are they capable of looking after them with forces thinned to protect these structures. More juicy targets for talibans. :!:
Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Rangudu »

CRS,

The "US leaving in 2010" argument is used as a pretext by Kayani and the semi-official TSP mouthpieces in DC to justify the inaction against Mullah Omar and Haqqanis. Therefore a public repudiation of the withdrawal idea is important from the point of view of blunting TSPA's excuses.

The longer 2014 timeline also has serious implications for TSPA's actions on the ground. They have used the 2011 deadline as a means to pressure even the non-ISI controlled Talibunny commanders to keep fighting or face the wrath once the US leaves in six months. Now, there is a realistic chance of breaking ranks between the ISI controlled and other commanders.

You can keep saying sky is falling, TSPA is winning etc. but I'd not underestimate the effect of 2014 on TSPA-Talibunnies.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by NRao »

U.S. Tweaks Message: Troops Will Still Be in Afghanistan in 2014
................Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all cited 2014 this week as the key date for handing over the defense of Afghanistan to the Afghans themselves. Implicit in their message, delivered at a security and diplomatic conference in Australia, was that the United States would be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan for at least four more years.
The message shift is effectively a victory for the military, which has long said that the July 2011 deadline undermined its mission by making Afghans reluctant to work with troops perceived to be leaving shortly.
AnimeshP
BRFite
Posts: 514
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 07:39

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by AnimeshP »

Well ... looks like Canada is also planning on sticking around ...
Canada Considering Staying in Afghanistan
Defense Minister Says Canada Considering a U.S. Request to Stay Past 2011 in a Training Role
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by abhischekcc »

ramana wrote:CRS, If you read between the lines of Bush's new book and Obama Wars you get the feeling that TSP nukes are safe (from jihadis, external forces etc) only because the US in in Af-Pak. They are the garuntor of the TSP nukes being safe.
Another way of interpretating that statement is that as long as US is in pakistan, pakistan is safe from India and does not need to threaten use of nukes. IOW, if pakistan IS nuke nood, then US presence is hiding that fact (from India, primarily). This, of course, suits the US very well - both, pak not having nukes and India thinking pak has nukes.

So, the question - does pak have nukes, still remains open?
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by svinayak »

abhischekcc wrote: CRS, If you read between the lines of Bush's new book and Obama Wars you get the feeling that TSP nukes are safe (from jihadis, external forces etc) only because the US in in Af-Pak. They are the garuntor of the TSP nukes being safe.

Another way of interpretating that statement is that as long as US is in pakistan, pakistan is safe from India and does not need to threaten use of nukes.
IOW, if pakistan IS nuke nood, then US presence is hiding that fact (from India, primarily). This, of course, suits the US very well - both, pak not having nukes and India thinking pak has nukes.
US came to AF Pak to protect Pakistan from collapse. Any more isolation and Pak support to Taliban after 911 would have created policy cul de sac for US.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by abhischekcc »

Acharya, pak was sitting pretty at the time of 911, with control over Afghanistan. How come the US invaded Adfghanistan and virtually threatened pakistan with an invasion to get its cooperation, if pak was on the verge of a collapse?
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by darshhan »

krisna wrote: ^^^^
Also Uncle is building one of the biggest embassies in kabul and 2 more in herat and mazahr-e -sharief,spending over 500 million. why spend so much when they have to withdraw shortly with the economy in trouble at home.
They did not feel the need to have more than 1 all these 10 years but now constructing 2 more :?:
Are they capable of looking after them with forces thinned to protect these structures. More juicy targets for talibans. :!:
Krisna ji.The security of these embassies and consulates will be looked after by PMCs(Private Miltary contractors).Also while constructing these consulates they will ensure that these buildings are suitably hardened against most of the threats(especially of the terrorist variety).
rahulm
BRFite
Posts: 1299
Joined: 19 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by rahulm »

Saif al-Adel, the new Al-Quaeda's chief of international operations, The man behind the courier packages

The strategy seems to have morphed from state sponsored asymmetric warfare with some degree of plausible reliability to the establishment of a state that wages asymmetric warfare as a matter of policy. Its an RTA (Revolution in Terrorist Affairs).
It called for al-Qaeda to focus on "the greater objective, which is the establishment of a state". The new attrition strategy marks the triumph of a minority faction within al-Qaeda who had opposed the September 11 attacks, arguing that the inevitable US retaliation against Afghanistan would cost the jihadist movement its only secure base.
The TSP connection
American and Pakistani sources have disclosed that al-Adel is running several similar operations as part of a war of attrition to persuade Western public opinion that the war against terrorism is unwinnable. This would clear the road for al-Qaeda to capture power in fragile states such as Somalia and Yemen.{So TSP is expanding its foot print westwards into the ME and Africa?}

"His strategy is to stage multiple small terror operations, using the resources of affiliates and allies wherever possible," said Syed Saleem Shahzad, a Pakistani expert on al-Qaeda.
A US counter-terrorism official said the idea was for "small but often attacks" that would hurt the West more than a "one-off terror spectacular".
But in March this year he was released [by Iran] along with Iman bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's daughter, and senior al-Qaeda operatives Suleiman al-Gaith and Mahfouz al-Walid. Iran swapped the terrorists for Heshmatollah Attarzadeh, a Pakistan-based diplomat kidnapped by al-Qaeda last year.
Born in Egypt, he is said to have served as a colonel in its special forces.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by shyamd »

^^ yes debka was talking about it last week. But they were twisting the story to say that Iran released him to North Waziristan to put pressure on the US.
They didn't talk about exchange for the diplomat angle. Supposedly NATO felt the effect of his presence straight away.

Saif Al Adel was focused on Iraq before he went to Iran. Saif Al Adel is just a nickname. Forgot his real name. He's a former egyptian special forces officer
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by ramana »

rahulm, in the RTA please include the technology upgrades from EFP based IEDs. To make up for lack of sophisiticated machinng and metalforming they are packing larger qty of explosives.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by ramana »

Shyamd In the above articel it says:
Little is known about al-Adel, who is also known by the names Muhammad al-Makkawi and Ibrahim al-Madani. Born in Egypt, he is said to have served as a colonel in its special forces. He was arrested in 1987 with several jihadists.
Egypt must have his real name?
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by shyamd »

Yes, his real name is Mohd Al Mekkawi I believe from memory. They have pictures off
him and they all know who he is.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by ramana »

Are those also nom de guerres?

I mean from Mecca and Medina?
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by shyamd »

Not sure IOL calls him Mohammed Mekkawi. But could be a nom de guere. Saif Al Adel means Sword of Islam or of that sort
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Prem »

http://www.cfr.org/publication/23253/us ... istan.html
The Task Force, chaired by former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage and former national security adviser Samuel R. Berger, and directed by CFR Senior Fellow Daniel S. Markey, notes that nine years into the Afghan war, the outcome of the struggles in the region are still uncertain and the stakes are high. “What happens in Afghanistan and Pakistan matters to Americans,” affirms the report. It warns that “militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan pose a direct threat to the United States and its allies. They jeopardize the stability of Pakistan, a nuclear power that lives in an uneasy peace with its rival, India.”

Pakistan

“To further enhance Pakistan’s stability, the United States should maintain current levels of economic and technical assistance to help military and civilian leaders reconstruct and establish control over areas hard-hit by the flood, including those contested by militant forces.” The Task Force recommends “continued and expanded training, equipment, and facilities for police, paramilitaries, and the army.”
“To reinforce U.S.-Pakistan ties and contribute to Pakistan’s economic stability in the aftermath of an overwhelming natural disaster, the Obama administration should prioritize—and the Congress should enact—an agreement that would grant preferential market access to Pakistani textiles.”
“As it cultivates a closer partnership with Islamabad…the United States still needs to seek a shift in Pakistani strategic calculations about the use of militancy as a foreign policy tool. Washington should continue to make clear to Islamabad that at a basic level, U.S. partnership and assistance depend upon action against LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba], the Afghan Taliban, especially the Haqqani network, and related international terror groups.”
Afghanistan

“In Afghanistan, core American security aims can best be achieved at a lower cost if the United States manages to shift a greater burden to Afghan partners,” explains the Task Force. “The United States should encourage an initiative with three complementary elements: political reform, national reconciliation, and regional diplomacy.”
“Political reforms should aim to grant a greater voice to a broader range of Afghan interests,” states the Task Force. “Rather than leaving the reconciliation process to [Afghan] President Karzai and his narrow support base, Washington should participate fully in guiding a broad-based, inclusive process, bearing in mind that a rapid breakthrough at the negotiating table is unlikely. Afghan reform and reconciliation should then be supported by a regional diplomatic accord brokered by the United States.”
“To foster Afghanistan’s viability as a security partner, the United States must continue to build cost-effective Afghan security forces appropriate to the capabilities necessary to protect the population. This will require more army and police trainers, as well as an expansion of community-based stabilization forces.”
“Afghanistan needs a self-sustaining foundation for generating jobs and revenue that will reduce dependence on international assistance. To meet this need, the United States should encourage private sector investment in Afghanistan’s considerable mineral and energy resources, its agricultural sector, and in the infrastructure needed to expand trans-Afghan trade.”
Pranay
BRFite
Posts: 1458
Joined: 06 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Pranay »

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

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has developed a plan to begin transferring security duties in select areas of Afghanistan to that country’s forces over the next 18 to 24 months, with an eye toward ending the American combat mission there by 2014, officials said Sunday.

The phased four-year plan to wind down American and allied fighting in Afghanistan will be presented at a NATO summit meeting in Lisbon later this week, the officials said. It will reflect the most concrete vision for transition in Afghanistan assembled by civilian and military officials since President Obama took office last year.

In many respects, the concept follows the precedent set in Iraq, where a similar troop surge and strategy shift under President George W. Bush in 2007 enabled American-led coalition forces to eventually hand over security duties to the Iraqis region by region. By last summer, Mr. Obama was able to pull out two-thirds of United States forces from Iraq and declare America’s combat mission there over.

“Iraq is a pretty decent blueprint for how to transition in Afghanistan,” one American official said Sunday, insisting like others on anonymity to discuss the strategy before its presentation. “But the key will be constructing an Afghan force that is truly capable of taking the lead.”
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by svinayak »

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

No Longer Under-Resourced, U.S. Confident of Winning Afghanistan War
There can't be a serious discussion of the future of Afghanistan without talking about Pakistan, the chairman said. The United States needs to engage Pakistan – a nuclear power with an economy in shambles and its own problem with terrorism. Mullen has worked to establish a relationship with Pakistani Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the army chief of staff, meeting with him about 30 times in three years. "When I first met him, there was this enormous trust gap between us, both as individuals and as countries," Mullen said. "Both of us are working hard to fill that up as rapidly as we can."

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

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

During the White House review of actions in Afghanistan, Mullen said he will look closely at the growth and training of the Afghan security forces. "The whole idea of transition of putting the Afghan security forces in the lead is fundamental," he said. "That's our way home." And the process of training Afghan soldiers and police is improving. "We've put in place a structure, which means trainers, curricula, buildings where the training takes place, which didn't occur before," he said.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Pranav »

Despite Gains, Night Raids Split U.S. and Karzai - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/world ... ht.html?hp

Why is Karzai trying to undermine a tactic that is working?

There is a significant malignant faction in the US and UK that does not want the military strategy to succeed: Petraeus' War Inside The Beltway - http://www.npr.org/2010/11/15/131326729 ... he-beltway
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by ramana »

These raids may be of his supporters.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Pranav »

ramana wrote:These raids may be of his supporters.
Interesting possibility ... maybe the raids are being used, to some extent, to clip Karzai's wings.

But need more data.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by darshhan »

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

No Longer Under-Resourced, U.S. Confident of Winning Afghanistan War
There can't be a serious discussion of the future of Afghanistan without talking about Pakistan, the chairman said. The United States needs to engage Pakistan – a nuclear power with an economy in shambles and its own problem with terrorism. Mullen has worked to establish a relationship with Pakistani Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the army chief of staff, meeting with him about 30 times in three years. "When I first met him, there was this enormous trust gap between us, both as individuals and as countries," Mullen said. "Both of us are working hard to fill that up as rapidly as we can."

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

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

During the White House review of actions in Afghanistan, Mullen said he will look closely at the growth and training of the Afghan security forces. "The whole idea of transition of putting the Afghan security forces in the lead is fundamental," he said. "That's our way home." And the process of training Afghan soldiers and police is improving. "We've put in place a structure, which means trainers, curricula, buildings where the training takes place, which didn't occur before," he said.
Mullen as usual is Banking on Pakistan to do the right thing , the chances of which happening are currently almost impossible.As a result of this naivete Americans will continue to lose their troops without affecting any change in Pakistan whatsoever.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Pratyush »

The only way the pakis will play nice is if they get a credible threat of India and US tag team event. Since it is not going to happen. You can forget about the TSP beheaving.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by Lalmohan »

with so many troops at their disposal and if cashmere is the jaguar vein then why rotate troops from kashmir? why not from sindh or baluchistan or pakjab? surely all must be well there?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by ramana »

ramana wrote:These raids may be of his supporters.

Nightwatch, 11/15/2010
...
Afghanistan: In a press interview, President Karzai said that the U.S. military should reduce the visibility and intensity of its operations in Afghanistan and end night special operations forces raids, The Washington Post reported on 14 November.

Karzai told reporters in Kabul that he wanted U.S. soldiers off the roads and to reduce their intrusiveness in the daily life of Afghans. He said the United States cannot sustain the current level of troops in the country, and that a large long-term presence is not good for the Afghan people. He also said he met with high-level Taliban leaders about three months ago that he believes are in contact with Mullah Mohammad Omar, but that talks are in the preliminary stages and were mainly about exchanging a desire for peace.

Today, Afghan Taliban leader Mohammed Omar encouraged Afghans to continue the fight until all foreigners have left the country.

Comment: Karzai's comments are consistent with Pashtun demands to limit foreign intrusions into Afghan daily life. They apparently confounded the US command, but should not have been a surprise because of mounting outrage over US special forces raids against house without any obvious sign of Afghan national authority.

The simplest solution would be for a few Afghan special forces personnel to lead raids against individual houses. US or NATO special forces acting alone would seem to lack any legal basis in Afghan law for unilateral intrusions. The US claims Afghanistan is a sovereign state.

Karzai is requiring the US honor Afghan sovereignty and there are ways to accomplish that but they require changes to US tactics that will not be efficient and maybe not effective, as a modern military system measures effectiveness. The message is that the struggle to win hearts and minds of the Afghan people is eroded by the brutality of tactics that ignore Afghan cultural sensibilities.

Karzai simply said the US tactics do not match the coalition strategy.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by ramana »

Nightwatch comments on 16 Nov 2010
....
Pakistan: For the record. The Daily Times published today an essay by former Chief of Army Staff and President Musharraf. It is titled "Don't Mess with Pakistan." This essay also was printed in Newsweek.

The essay is an essentially accurate and fairly balanced short history of Pakistan. It appeals to all the prejudices Pakistanis hold against India, Russia and the United States. Musharraf leaves out a few key facts but overall it is accurate to the intelligence. Three paragraphs are excerpted below because of their cogency and accuracy in describing the Pakistani world view.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 presented Pakistan with a security threat from two directions: Soviets to the west, who wanted access to the Indian Ocean through Pakistan, and Indians to the east. Once again Pakistan joined hands with the United States to fight Moscow.

We called it jihad by design, this effort to attract mujahideen from all over the Muslim world. And from Morocco to Indonesia, some 25,000 of them came. We trained and armed Taliban from the madrassahs of the then North West Frontier Province, and pushed them into Afghanistan. By this time, the liberal and intellectual Afghan elite had left for the safer climes of Europe and the U.S., leaving behind a largely poor, religious-minded population to fight the 10-year jihad. We-Pakistan, the U.S., the West, and Saudi Arabia-are equally responsible for nourishing the militancy that defeated the Soviet Union in 1989, and which seeks now to defeat us all.

The Soviets quit Kabul, and the Americans abandoned Islamabad. Washington rewarded its once indispensable ally by invoking the Pressler Amendment and imposing military sanctions, and by choosing to foster a strategic relationship with India. Pakistan was left alone to deal with the nearly 4 million Afghans who had streamed into our country and became the world's largest refugee population. The people of Pakistan felt betrayed and used. For Pakistan, the decade of disaster had begun. No efforts were made to deprogram, rehabilitate, and resettle the mujahideen or redevelop and build back war-ravaged Afghanistan. This shortsightedness led to ethnic fighting, warlordism, and Afghanistan's dive into darkness. The mujahideen coagulated into Al Qaeda. The Taliban, who would emerge as a force in 1996, eventually would occupy 90 percent of the country, ramming through their obscurantist medievalism.

A couple of points stand out. Musharraf claims Pakistan volunteered to join the coalition to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. This is a patent lie. Musharraf refused to cooperate in 2001 and had to be persuaded.

More accurately, he said that Pakistan joined the US to prevent India from gaining an upper hand in the post-Taliban government in Afghanistan. Thus, under Musharraf, Pakistani cooperation always served its anti-India national security goals. That remains the case today.

The final point is Musharraf's expectation, or fear, that the "coalition" will abandon Afghanistan again, as it has in the past and will leave Pakistan with 30,000 dead who will have died for nothing.

This essay is part of Musharraf's program to prepare for his return to Pakistani politics. He still sees himself in messianic terms as the man who can rescue Pakistan from incompetent leadership and militant attacks. He is preparing to return and is determined to lead once again.

Pakistan-US: For the record. "Pakistan has been the primary victim of international militancy and curbing it is in Islamabad's interests," U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robert Blake said on 16 November, Associated Press of Pakistan reported. He said that increasingly, it is difficult to differentiate between militant groups in the region, saying that they are increasingly acting as a syndicate. He said that U.S. President Barack Obama has made it clear that Pakistan is the primary victim.


U.S. President Barack Obama's recent three-day visit to India was not meant to counterbalance China's growing global influence in any way, Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake said, PTI reported 16 November. Blake said the trip was more about expanding and supporting India's role in global and Asian institutions, a growth that need not come at the expense of China. Blake said both Obama and India want a positive and cooperative relationship with China and do not seek to contain it.

Comment: These are odd statements and their timing is infelicitous. For example, it is not normally the role of an assistant secretary of state to clarify the statements of a US President or correct perceptions about the purposes of his actions. Assistant secretaries are often deliberately left in the dark about larger strategic purposes.

Some of the statements are factually wrong. Others are superficial and pointless. Plus no leaders in Islamabad, New Delhi or Beijing will credit them. Odd, coming so soon after the President left Asia.


Afghanistan: The German army is planning to escalate operations against the Afghan Taliban, German State Secretary of Defense Christian Schmidt said 16 November, DPA reported. The announcement came after a successful offensive to drive the Taliban out of Chahar Darah District, Konduz Province, according to Major General Hans-Werner Fritz, the International Security Assistance Force's northern Afghanistan commander.

Schmidt said the Chahar Darah offensive proved the worth of an offensive strategy against Taliban nests, but he also said that Taliban influence does not necessarily always need to be pushed back with violence. Fritz said the surge of troops into the country this year has resulted in more battles and attacks but that forces can now go into areas they were previously unable to enter.

Comment: In the past three years, the German contingent in Konduz has mounted at least six offensives against the Taliban in Chahar Darah District, which is the center of the Pashtun insurgency in Konduz because Pashtun are the majority in that district. All Taliban combat actions radiate from Chahar Darah.

The Germans have proclaimed victory repeatedly, only to be embarrassed by aggressive Taliban attacks in retaliation. The Pashtun fighters simply avoid combat and move to welcoming Pashtun communities in other districts of Konduz. The fight in Konduz is fundamentally ethnic and the Taliban protect the Pashtuns.

For the record. Afghan U.N. Ambassador Zahir Tanin asked the UN Security Council to remove 10 Taliban members from the list of individuals of the Taliban and al Qaida subject to UN sanctions, adding that reconciliation and reintegration of former combatants is crucial for lasting peace and security in Afghanistan. Speaking at an open U.N. Security Council meeting, Tanin asked the sanctions committee to consider removing other names submitted by Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government.

Comment: This is a substantive initiative to create an atmosphere conducive to talks with the Taliban. It might not work, but it is noteworthy.

....
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by svinayak »

ramana wrote:Nightwatch comments on 16 Nov 2010


The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 presented Pakistan with a security threat from two directions: Soviets to the west, who wanted access to the Indian Ocean through Pakistan, and Indians to the east. Once again Pakistan joined hands with the United States to fight Moscow.

We called it jihad by design, this effort to attract mujahideen from all over the Muslim world. And from Morocco to Indonesia, some 25,000 of them came. We trained and armed Taliban from the madrassahs of the then North West Frontier Province, and pushed them into Afghanistan. By this time, the liberal and intellectual Afghan elite had left for the safer climes of Europe and the U.S., leaving behind a largely poor, religious-minded population to fight the 10-year jihad. We-Pakistan, the U.S., the West, and Saudi Arabia-are equally responsible for nourishing the militancy that defeated the Soviet Union in 1989, and which seeks now to defeat us all.
This is the revealing part. No previous Pak head of state has admitted that they trained 25k Jihad fighters during the 1980s to fight the soviet Union. How could India be a threat if India had not participated in the afghan fight and India had to take the brunt of the jihad fight in kashmir after the war was over.
KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4849
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by KLNMurthy »

CRamS wrote:
Rangudu wrote:This is indeed BIG news, but it has been just as we expected. Only fools and TSPA would have based their policies on the July 2011 withdrawal idea.

Unkil ain't going nowhere and ain't nobody gonna do nothin about it. You see what I'm sayin man?
R-man, is it the naivety of US elites or what, that all of them keep saying TSPA is worried about US withdrawl, dis-engagement bla bla, when we all know very well that TSPA can't wait for US to withdraw so they can come marching down Kabul through their Talibunny proxies.
TSPA calculates they will win either way: if US stays, they get money as the "indispensable ally". If US leaves they can move in more directly into Afghanistan.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by svinayak »

KLNMurthy wrote:
TSPA calculates they will win either way: if US stays, they get money as the "indispensable ally". If US leaves they can move in more directly into Afghanistan.
India has to make sure no matter what happens India wins in the end.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Post by RamaY »

^ I think they 'consider' it a win as long as Pakistan can get military and financial aid.

US presence in Af-pak area ensures many things
- US Aid
- PRC Aid (to counter USA)
- Indian inaction (to counter USA-aid and PRC actions)

The top layers of Pakistan care about only money and power, the mango-abduls only about survival and 72-raisins. As long as these two parties get what they want, Pakistan survives (which is a victory in their opinion).
Post Reply