Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Oct 2011 23:57

^^^ Above is a partisan piece and need not be considered for any attention.

anmol · Post by **anmol** » 26 Oct 2011 01:01

Agreed sir.

But I highlighted it because IF the Republicans want american presence in Afghanistan then they would have to sell it to their base and Karzai makes that difficult with that statement.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 26 Oct 2011 05:40

Agreed with Ramana - John Bolton/Fox News = Waste of time

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Oct 2011 05:57

anmol, That Bolton ignores the ground realities in Afghanistan emerging from chaos of last forty years since the Daoud Coup. The idiot wants to apply Western norms in the Star Wars cafe at the outer rim of the galaxy!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Oct 2011 06:30

The region looks easy for many outsiders to get inside and mould it for their interest.

But once you get in you cant get out without trouble

There is no permanent friends in that area and it cant be changed

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 26 Oct 2011 09:39

As it scoots from Af-Pak, US ‘bargain’ may sell India short

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 Oct 2011 10:23

http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.as ... ruck-blast
50 killed, injured in Afghan fuel truck blast

KABUL: At least 50 people were killed or injured when a fuel truck targeted by a bomb erupted in flames in northern Afghanistan, an official said Wednesday."A smaller explosion, caused by a magnet bomb, made a hole in the fuel truck. When people gathered around it to collect the pooling fuel, a bigger explosion took place," said Roshna Khalid, provincial spokeswoman in Parwan which lies north of the capital Kabul.
"At this time we know that about 50 are killed or injured."

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 26 Oct 2011 16:51

Pratyush wrote:As it scoots from Af-Pak, US ‘bargain’ may sell India short

Correct analysis, but off the mark in this sense. The "deal" surely benefits US. It can declare victory and "cut and run" (although I wouldn't characterize it as such, just a pragmatic retreat to secure its larger geo-political interests), and basically we are back to the "South Asia" India TSP equal equal status quo that previalied prior to 9/11; actually with TSP's venom and fury greatly enhanced due to US largese since 9/11. So I don't see how US has any obligation as such to not sell India short, especially when MMSjI and his minions themselves refer to TSP as a "friendly" power.

And while the docJi-led brigade derive misguided self satisfaction that US is as weak as India in its dealing with TSP, this hideous deal from India's POV involves TSP keeping its end of the bargain with US, i.e., no terror agaist US or else Rawilpindi will be rendered a parking lot from the air. So bereft of all the grandiose ambitions that engulfed US post 9/11, this deal is as pragmatic as it gets, and secures US interests. piGLeTs and Talibunnies sluaghtering SDREs and TSP potentially annhilating Chennai or Mumbai is no skin off US back. In fact, it presents a grand opportunity for US foreign policy and "South Asia experts".

In other words, US basically gets what it wants through all the levers of power in US's supoerpower arsenal. And this is exactly what CRamS and Co were couselling MMSji and his brigade assuming they were listening, namely, letting TSP off the hook on 26/11 and terror at large is a surrender of colossal proportions however much DocJi and others spin this is the equivalent of US cutting a deal with TSP.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 26 Oct 2011 18:33

US is quickly loosing control and to some extent in a retreat and kept the road open for the Indians....If the Indians have the capability they will drive through the road....in as much Americans will bother less about the escalating matrix in the future...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Oct 2011 18:44

CRS, "Cut and slink away" is more apt.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Oct 2011 18:56

Pratyush wrote:As it scoots from Af-Pak, US ‘bargain’ may sell India short

Worth reading here:

US bargain may sell India short
Venky Vembu

In the army headquarters at Rawalpindi, the mood following US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s tough-talking visit earlier this week to Afghanistan and Pakistan is certain to be one of restrained celebration.

That’s because for all of Clinton’s public hectoring of Pakistani leaders about the “dire consequences” their country faces if it fails to go after the Haqqani group of terrorists – and her colourful invocation of serpentine metaphors – the US appears to have thrown in the towel and yielded ground in significant ways that could seriously jeopardise Indian interests in the region.

Clinton said she pressed Pakistan to fully share intelligence with U.S. forces in Afghanistan to prevent attacks and choke off money and supply routes. AFP
In effect, the US, which is winding down its troops presence in Afghanistan and with its relationship with Pakistan at its lowest ever since the assassination of Osama bin Laden in May, is reconciled to the fact that the 10-year war in Afghanistan is unwinnable without Pakistan’s support.

Rather than prolong the agony by staying on Afghanistan – and continuing to have a combative relationship with Pakistan, despite its well-documented ties to jihadi terrorists – the US now calculates that the shortest exit route lies in handing over to Pakistan the keys to the Afghan ‘kingdom’.

In fact, influential US policy thinktanks and diplomats are recommending just such a course as part of a “grand bargain” with Pakistan that, if implemented, would sell India short on Kashmir.

As articulated by former US diplomats and strategic advisers Teresita Schaffer and Howard Schaffer, the “grand bargain” would work like this:

The US gives Pakistan what it wants in Afghanistan – but on two conditions: Pakistan assumes responsibility for preventing terrorism out of Afghanistan, and Pakistan agrees to settle Kashmir along the present geographic lines.

In other words, as it cuts and runs from Afghanistan, the US would concede Pakistan’s primacy in Afghanistan (thereby effectively limiting Indian influence in any new Afghan dispensation), and furthermore push for a settlement of the Kashmir dispute with the existing Line of Control as the international border.

The fact that such a hideous proposal is even put on the table by the Schaffers, who are intimately familiar with the geopolitics of the region – and particularly with the mechanics of Pakistan’s bloody-minded negotiations with the US – is mind-boggling. It’s perhaps an acknowledgement of the extent to which US strategic options appear to have shrunk in the estimation of even its keenest minds.

The perils embedded in such a “grand bargain” are blindingly obvious: It rewards Pakistan in the present (with primacy in Afghanistan and a settlement on Kashmir), but requires that Pakistan deliver only in the future (with a pledge to prevent terrorism). Such a deal would revolve around Pakistan’s promise of peaceable conduct for ever and ever more. As America’s own experience of recent months, where it was the victim of Pakistan’s perfidy on several occasions, shows, such a promise from Pakistan is meaningless.

Even otherwise, such scenario-building overlooks two critical considerations relating to Pakistan’s yearning for a slice of Kashmir. The first, Pakistan’s sponsorship of jihadi groups that operate in Kashmir is aimed not just at wresting the border State from India – but at dismembering India.

As Lisa Curtis, a South Asia expert at the Heritage Foundation who served in former President George W Bush’s administration, has observed:

“the Kashmir issue is more a symptom of the larger problem between India and Pakistan; it’s not as if dealing with Kashmir will make these terrorist groups melt away. The aims of India-focussed groups like the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba are broader than Kashmir: they’re trying to wreak havoc throughout India and dent India’s image as an emerging power. They use the situation in Kashmir to justify what they’re doing, but they’re not interested in Kashmir. The idea that if the US intervenes in Kashmir, it would help focus Pakistan’s attention on dealing with militant groups is a mischaracterisation of the problem and a misunderstanding of the situation.”

If Pakistan is ‘rewarded’ with primacy in Afghanistan and a Kashmir deal – despite its blatant sponsorship of jihadi terror targeted at India and the US – it will only embolden it to leverage its ‘suicide bomber’ mindset for yet more bloody gains.

Second, Pakistan’s hopes of wresting Kashmir from India have, if anything, been dashed in recent years, largely owing to its own descent into the hell-world of the terrorism that it spawned. And although India has in the past considered a Kashmir solution along the lines advanced – acknowledging the Line of Control as an international border – it has rather less incentive to yield any ground to Pakistan, which is on a losing wicket.

The notion that Pakistan’s Generals and Pashas can somehow be trusted to keep Pakistan’s end of the bargain – by reining in terrorists from here to eternity – is fanciful in the extreme.

During her visit, Clinton signalled that the US and Pakistan were “90, 95 per cent in agreement… about the means of our moving towards what are commonly shared goals.”

A Pakistani official was even more candid, speaking of a “breakthrough” following an agreement on a “broader framework and a concept of reconciliation for Afghanistan.” It was, he claimed, an acknowledgement that Pakistan could not be bypassed in matters related to Afghanistan.

That alone should set alarm bells ringing all the way from Srinagar to New Delhi.

I think the younger thinkers are finally thinking about Indian interests and not just the line handed from US think tanks. So the writer should be commended. The article is totally from Indian point of view which is sadly missing from retired chatterati lifafa writers.

he makes two points;

TSP cant be trusted based on even US experience.
So called bargain rewards terrorism.
Kashmir can't be given to a sinking dhow filled with RATS.
Even if India had though about Yellow Sea as Eye Bee, it no longer does.

I would also say Cashmere is not US baap ka maal to slice and dice to give away to terrorist rats.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Oct 2011 19:53

Nightwatch, comments:

Nighwatch, 25 October 2011

Pakistan-US: A pro-Taliban media outlet reported today, 25 October, that the high-powered US delegation that visited Islamabad recently made a formal request for help during the US troop pullout; pledged support for Pakistan's leadership role and an end to India's military role in Afghanistan. It reported the Americans have come to terms. Talks will be held in Istanbul on 2 November.

Comment: The author of the article describes his information as having come from Pakistani military sources. The publisher is viscerally anti-US, but the brief overview of the US visit seems generally accurate. Talks are scheduled for 2 November.

Haqqani talks. The Haqqani network will not take part in peace talks with the US until negotiations are led by Taliban leaders, an unnamed senior Haqqani commander said on 25 October. The US will be unable to resolve the Afghan conflict until it hold talks with Taliban leaders, he said. The Haqqani network, part of the Taliban led by Mullah Mohammed Omar, rejected peace talk offers in the past, the commander said.

Comment: If the Haqqani spokesman is telling the truth, then the US has made a serious analytical error about the nature of the relationship between the Haqqanis and Mullah Omar. The attempt to drive a wedge between Haqqani and Omar appears to have failed.

I guess even Nightwatch is becoming MKB lite?

The US expertati are misleading the US public as they talk tough in public and make deals with terrorists. This will lead to severe blowback as the terrorists and their supporters get enthused that their tactics are working and will redouble their efforts.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Oct 2011 20:22

once again - source is pak-mil, and therefore high on herbs and djinn majik

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 26 Oct 2011 21:03

Not sure why BBC decided to run this general knowledge piece today:

Afghanistan: Pakistan accused of backing Taliban

Pakistan has been accused of playing a double game, acting as America's ally in public while secretly training and arming its enemy in Afghanistan according to US intelligence.

In a prison cell on the outskirts of Kabul, the Afghan Intelligence Service is holding a young man who alleges he was recruited earlier this year by Pakistan's powerful military intelligence agency, the ISI.

He says he was trained to be a suicide bomber in the Taliban's intensifying military campaign against the Western coalition forces - and preparations for his mission were overseen by an ISI officer in a camp in Pakistan.

After 15 days training, he was sent into Afghanistan.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
In Afghanistan we saw an insurgency that was not only getting passive support from the Pakistani army and the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, but getting active support”
End Quote
Bruce Riedel

Adviser to President Obama in 2009
"There were three of us. We were put into a black vehicle with black windows. The police did not stop the car because it was obviously ISI. No-one dares stop their cars. They told me... you will receive your explosive waistcoat, and then go and explode it."

...

Sorry if its been posted already.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 26 Oct 2011 21:11

ramana wrote:Pakistan-US: A pro-Taliban media outlet reported today, 25 October, that the high-powered US delegation that visited Islamabad recently made a formal request for help during the US troop pullout; pledged support for Pakistan's leadership role and an end to India's military role in Afghanistan. It reported the Americans have come to terms. Talks will be held in Istanbul on 2 November.

This could be a trap for pakis.It would allow Pakis lower their guard so that US can have an element of surprise. They might be testing how pakis would react if they let them know US would be leaving soon and US is prepared for a deal. US would also be reaching out for some sane people in Pakistan. They are going for the kill. The whole afghan drama with troop buildup, Indian agreement and Clinton in townhall adds up.
Unkil is going after the crown jewels.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 26 Oct 2011 21:29

It's a wider game. Some elements of Pakistan's actions and general strategy is informed by close mentoring from Beijing.

sukhish · Post by **sukhish** » 26 Oct 2011 22:11

Unkil will get what it wants and that's the elimination of terriorists, pakistan doesn't have choice at all at this moment.
Unkil will talk good and will take out the key guys, since it has good intellegence sources on ground.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Oct 2011 22:18

The thing to understand is there is a timeline. PRC is getting anxious to dethrone the US. They were earlier ready to wait their turn but not anymore. hence the US is cutting losses to stay afloat longer. This is a key dynamic.
Both PRC and US are relying on the TSP to get their aims.

However other forces are also inching their way.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 26 Oct 2011 23:33

Key Afghan group warms up to prospect for US talks

By Qaiser Butt
Published: October 26, 2011

“We consider that trying to invite individuals or fighting groups for peace talks other than the Taliban Shura would be waste of time,” a Haqqani commander told Reuters by phone.
ISLAMABAD:

In a significant development following an apparent shift in the US policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan, a key insurgent group led by a former warlord said that it’s willing to pursue “direct or indirect” talks with the United States without any preconditions.

However, the deadliest of all Afghan militant factions – the Haqqani network – remains adamant on its previous stance, with its commander reiterating on Tuesday that they would not take part individually in any peace talks.

These developments came days after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton openly sought Pakistan’s help to reach out to all insurgent groups for a political settlement of the decade-long war in Afghanistan.

A senior leader of Gulbudin Hekmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami militant group has said that it is to enter into peace talks with the US. “We are willing to have a direct or indirect political dialogue with Washington,” Dr Ghairat Baheer told The Express Tribune. However, he hastened to add that such a dialogue must take place in a country other than the US and Afghanistan. Asked if Hizb-e-Islami would accept Islamabad’s role as an intermediary, Dr Baheer said that Pakistan’s role in any future talks would be vital.

Dr Baheer, who is also son-in-law of Hekmatyar, said that before any dialogue took place, the United States would have to establish its seriousness to a political settlement of the Afghan imbroglio.

Dr Baheer was held by US forces in extrajudicial detention for over six years at different facilities in Afghanistan and the US, including the infamous Guantanamo Bay.

He denied Western media reports that Washington had rejected an earlier peace overture of his group. “We never attempted to hold negotiations with the United States on our own,” he said.

Hizb-e-Islami has been fighting the US-led Nato troops in Afghanistan. And at the same time the group is also actively involved in the Afghan politics. Some of the group’s former fighters hold portfolios in President Karzai’s cabinet. The speaker of the Afghan Wolosi Jirga, lower house of parliament, Abdul Rahoof Ibrahimi, who is an ethnic Uzbek from the Kunduz province, is a former Hizb leader.

‘Waste of time’

In the meanwhile the Haqqani network has said that it is a part of the Taliban movement and hence not mandated to broker peace with the US individually. “We consider that trying to invite individuals or fighting groups for peace talks other than the Taliban Shura would be waste of time,” a Haqqani commander told Reuters by phone from an undisclosed location in Afghanistan.

“They (the Americans) would not be able to find a possible solution to the Afghan conflict until and unless they hold talks with the Taliban Shura,” said the commander, referring to the Taliban leadership council (Quetta Shura).

But the Haqqani commander viewed Secretary Clinton’s talks offer with skepticism. “This is not the first time the US has approached us for peace talks. The Americans had made several such attempts for talks which we rejected as we are an integral part of the Taliban-led by Mullah Mohammad Omar,” he told Reuters by phone from somewhere in Afghanistan. (Additional input from Reuters)

(Read: Change of tack on the Haqqanis)

Published in The Express Tribune, October 26th, 2011

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Oct 2011 01:27

Are those two different guys or same?

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 27 Oct 2011 02:30

"So the duplicity here is really quite breathtaking, and equally so when you realize that just a couple weeks ago, Karzai was in New Delhi making an agreement with India to have a major Indian aid program inside Afghanistan, which drives the Pakistanis crazy."

As opposed to the Pakistan supported Taliban which drives the Afghan people very sane and non-crazy, as well as reassuring the Indians. What the $%&*& is wrong with these commentators?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Oct 2011 02:33

Supporting terrorists who kill Indians drives the Indian crazy.
Two crazy things will cancel out each other.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Oct 2011 02:48

Well the UK never feels guilty for all the suffering (famines) and killings (Partition etc) under their watch, the US thinks its OK to arm a terrorist nation and give vague warnings that mislead the IN on wild goose chase and protects terrorists(DCH and Rana) under plea bargains. So they think its OK to play daku-police with India.
And we have India politicians (MMS) who say UK was the great master, and bureaucrats(MKN) who say India is not serious about extraditing DCH to India, that reinforce the message thats its free to hurt and harm India.

Israel never makes the West forget the pogroms/massacres of the past and the ultimate one of Holocaust while India has to grin and bear it and say thank you master like Gungadin.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 Oct 2011 06:01

Indian-Afghan strategic partnership: perceptions from the ground

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Oct 2011 19:27

nightwatch 26 Oct 2011

China-Pakistan: Asia Times Online reported today, 26 October, that China is interested in establishing military bases in either Pakistan's tribal areas or its northern areas that border Xinjiang Province and attributed this story to unidentified Pakistani sources. The sources supposedly said Pakistani and Chinese political and military leaders discussed the issue in recent months and Pakistan wants China to build a naval base at its southwestern seaport of Gwadar in Baluchistan Province.

The author of the article opined that it was a deliberate deceptive leak by Pakistani intelligence to embarrass the US.

Comment: Treating the issues in reverse order, China has made it clear that it does not seek a naval base in Gwadar in western Pakistan. That part of the Pakistani leak is a fabrication. China has invested commercially in Gwadar and the railroads that eventually and ultimately will connect to Chinese rail in Xinjiang. Chinese naval ships have access to Gwadar, but Chinese leaders have denied any intention to build a Chinese naval base anywhere.

China will not seek a base in the northwestern tribal agencies for several reasons. First is that China has built no base anywhere and disdains bases as symbols of colonialism. Of more tactical importance, anti-Chinese Uighur terrorists have been trained in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime and in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, called Azad Kashmir. The Afghanistan training ended with the US intervention. Training of Chinese Uighurs at bases in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir apparently continues.

Pakistani intelligence runs the insurgent training bases and camps in Azad Kashmir. A Chinese intelligence installation might have value for monitoring the Uighurs, but would not constitute a base. No other installiation would have any value except against India.

Pakistan: Former president Pervez Musharraf warned Wednesday that Pakistani spies will need to take 'counter-measures' in Afghanistan if US troops leave it unstable or it becomes too close to India.

{Its TSP spies that already make Afghainstan unstable! So what is he drinking?}

On a visit to Washington, Musharraf described relations between the United States and Pakistan as 'terrible', but defended the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate that American officials have accused of supporting extremists.

Comment: Civilian prime ministers, primarily Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, committed Pakistan to supporting the Taliban. Musharraf was a field grade officer when the policy began to be executed. Under his tenure, however, as coup leader and later president, he continued that policy, which is actually sound for Pakistan's strategic interests, beyond 2014 when US soldiers will have departed.

The significance of Musharraf's statement is that it reveals that the Pakistani leadership will never let Afghanistan alone. They will always find a justification for meddling on behalf of Pakistani strategic depth and the Pashtuns. With the US end game in sight, they sense even more reason to continue a policy that has blunted Indian inroads in Afghanistan and prevents the formation of a power vacuum after the US leaves.

{Is this assessment correct? As far as I can tell, Afghanistan has veered closer to India than earlier on! So what policy success have the TSP spies achieved? It was US intervention in Afghanistan during the Reagan era that reduced the Indian influenece and even that was only after the Taliban captured Kabul. DIstance and time may dim prespective but should not distort truth.}

Afghanistan always has been unstable In the past 20 years, India and Iran became the supporters of the northern tribes against the Pakistan-supported Pashtuns in the south. That polarity has not changed during the US and NATO interlude and will intensify after 2014. Musharraf is asserting a hard truth.

Afghanistan: President Karzai is expected to announce on 2 November that the International Security Assistance Force will hand over security responsibility for 17 more areas to Afghan forces beginning in December. The areas include the Takhar, Sar-e-Pul, Samangan, Parwan and Balkh provinces in the north, Daikondi in central Afghanistan, Nimroz in the west and parts of Wardak and Ghazni provinces.

Comment: Five of the provinces are moderately quiet. However, Wardak and especially Ghazni are hot provinces in the Pashtun heartland that will be true tests of Afghan security force capabilities.

Now match these areas with Dr. D'Souza article about Indian goodwill to get better picture.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 Oct 2011 00:18

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/che ... _blog.html
Clinton urges Congress: Don’t ‘undercut’ U.S. progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday told lawmakers that “we should build on our momentum, not undercut our progress” in Pakistan and Afghanistan, part of a bid to stave off Congress’s growing frustration over developments in the region.“Working with our Afghan and Pakistani partners is not always easy, but these relationships are advancing America’s national security interests. And walking away would undermine those interests,” Clinton said.The administration, she added, needs Congress as a full partner in the strategy. “This strategy requires resources,” Clinton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “I can’t sugarcoat that fact.”Obama administration officials have been attempting a delicate balancing act in the region, on the one hand trying to keep Pakistan close and on the other insisting ever more vigorously that it crack down on militant leaders launching attacks in Afghanistan. Last week, while traveling to the region with a high-powered delegation of U.S. officials, Clinton warned the Pakistanis that they would have to pay a “very big price” if they did not take action against militants. In her remarks Thursday, Clinton emphasized the military progress the United States and its allies have made in Afghanistan, as well as the killing of Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaeda leaders. She also acknowledged lawmakers’ concerns but said, as she has before, that there is no better alternative to sustaining U.S. efforts.
“America paid a heavy price for disengaging after the Soviets left in 1989. We cannot afford to make that mistake again,” she said. “We have to be smart and strategic. And we have to work together to protect our interests.”

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 28 Oct 2011 14:40

'Pak-US work plan to usher Afghan stability': FO

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan confirmed on Thursday that it had agreed on a work plan with the United States to help open a “new chapter of stability, prosperity and development in Afghanistan.”
The work plan, Foreign Office spokesperson Tehmina Janjua said, was agreed between the two countries during the recent visit of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Pakistan.
“It was clear during the discussions that there is broad convergence of views between the two countries at the strategic level. Both countries agreed to have a work plan in order to translate these convergences into desired results,” Janjua said at a news conference, when asked to give an overall assessment of Secretary Clinton’s visit. However, she would not provide further details.
The development, if proven to be true, would be Pakistan’s first official acknowledgement of the two countries reaching a broad understanding on the endgame in Afghanistan.
“I think we’ve done a lot to clear the air,” Clinton told reporters on Friday in Islamabad. Quoting Kayani, she added that the two sides are ‘90% to 95% on the same page’. Clinton, who was accompanied by Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey and Director Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) David Patreaus, was successful in convincing Pakistan to deliver the Haqqani network to the negotiating table and further constraint the group’s leverage in Afghanistan.
A senior US diplomat told The Express Tribune that Pakistan had made a commitment to tackle the deadliest Afghan Taliban insurgent group.
Conversely, the US appears to have softened its earlier stance, seeking a full-scale military offensive in North Waziristan. A senior military official revealed that the shift in US policy was part of an understanding between the two countries in which Pakistan would persuade the Haqqani network to come to the negotiating table with the US.
The official added that after years of deeming the group irreconcilable, the Obama administration had now been convinced that the Haqqanis could be brought to the negotiating table.
“Complex situations require clarity of purpose, objectivity and firm determination; that is what both countries are willing to look at,” Janjua said referring to the tentative agreements made by the US delegation’s visit to Islamabad.
Zardari to attend
Afghan summit
The foreign office spokesperson added that President Asif Ali Zardari will hold talks with Afghan and Turkish leaders on the eve of a long-awaited conference on Afghanistan in Istanbul.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Turkish President Abullah Gul will also attend the meeting on Saturday, spokeswoman Tehmina Janjua told reporters.
The agenda will include peace, stability and reconciliation in Afghanistan and economic cooperation for Afghanistan, she said.
Turkey hosts a regional conference on Afghanistan on November 2 in Istanbul, which Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar will attend.
The Istanbul conference is intended to chart Afghanistan’s future with the US-led NATO mission already locked into troop drawdowns that are scheduled to bring all foreign combat troops home by 2014.
(Additional input from AFP)
Published in The Express Tribune, October 28th, 2011

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Oct 2011 22:00

FATA might be a damp squib.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Oct 2011 07:14

China passes the buck in Afghanistan

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Nov 2011 00:47

The Taliban is Winning the Propaganda War

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Nov 2011 00:48

India seeks to end ‘interference’ in Afghan

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Nov 2011 00:51

There is no end to trouble
Another water row in making

Afghanistan plans to build 12 dams on Kabul River

* Pakistan may face 8MAF water shortage

* Joint AfPak multi-disciplinary group to evaluate the impact recommended

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Nov 2011 00:59

Water seminar: Experts call for Kabul-Islamabad water treaty
Former federal secretary of water and power Ashfaq Mahmood said it was the right time for Islamabad to sit with Kabul and form a water treaty or else it will be too late.

ISLAMABAD:
For a country whose water availability per capita has plummeted by 78.4% over the past six decades, Pakistan needs to plan aggressively to avoid threats to food security that may arise due to water disputes, said participants at a seminar on Tuesday.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Nov 2011 01:26

Afghanistan and the Ghosts of Vietnam

NJ: In the book you argue that Vietnam had a seminal impact on the American psyche, changing the way the country thought about itself. Do you think Afghanistan could have a similar impact on this and future generations?
Kalb: Well, the United States is still a great power, with awesome resources and a very talented people living on a great piece of real estate. But we also have a lot of problems, and one of them is a degree of self-doubt that we probably haven’t seen since our defeat in Vietnam. Before Vietnam, we were not only a great power, but as a people we were filled with this sense of omnipotence and a conviction that there was nothing we could not do. Remember, up until that time we had never lost a war. I remember clearly a news conference with [former Secretary of State] Dean Rusk right after the 1968 Tet Offensive. Rusk kept jabbing his thumb into the lectern and repeating, “There’s nothing that the United States cannot do.” Of course, what we learned in Vietnam, and are relearning in recent years in Afghanistan and Iraq, is that there are things we cannot do. So we’re beginning to see a kind of self-doubt appear again that we haven’t seen since our defeat on April 30, 1975, when the North Vietnamese army rolled into Saigon. Once again we are at least contemplating the question of how a great power emerges from a humiliating defeat. Even if the Afghan war is not eventually viewed as a defeat, we are clearly entering a new phase in our national history where we have to be more mindful of our own limitations and the needs of other nations. We have a lot to learn in terms of adjusting to that new world.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Nov 2011 02:10

I did mention the return of the 'malaise' if Af-Pak fails in my Oct 2009 summary.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Nov 2011 15:27

Continuing from TIRP Thread

Dilbu wrote:US's post-2014 Afghan agenda falters: By M K Bhadrakumar

There couldn't have been a more appropriate venue than the old Byzantine capital on the Bosphorus to hold a regional conference on Afghanistan at the present juncture. The conference at Istanbul on Thursday carried an impressive title - "Security and Cooperation in the Heart of Asia". The "heart" had 14 chambers - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Read the full article.

Until the West understands that their only way to Central Asia goes through Baluchistan, and that too a Baluchistan which is first liberated and then made an integral part of India, they will keep on going in circles running after their tails.

The only thing standing between the West/India and Central Asia is Pakistan-occupied Baluchistan. Liberate it and the fruits of Central Asian access would be accessible to all!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Nov 2011 15:32

Imagine a International Conference in Muscat where all Baluch Sardars, representatives of political parties in Baluchistan, and those of the Liberation Movements show up and declare the Liberation of Baluchistan and the West, India and some Islamic countries concur! That would be something!

The problem is not one of controlling Pakistan or Afghanistan, but rather one of liberating Pakistan-occupied Baluchistan.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 03 Nov 2011 15:50

Rajesh ji,

The Key is Iran.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Nov 2011 15:54

Pratyush ji,

Both Iran and Baluchistan provide potential access for India to Central Asia.

Iran is however an independent primary geopolitical player in Asia. What one needs is a secondary player willing to align with India, or preferably willing to subsume its identity in India.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 03 Nov 2011 15:56

>>Until the West understands that their only way to Central Asia goes through Baluchistan, and that too a Baluchistan which is first liberated and then made an integral part of India, they will keep on going in circles running after their tails. The only thing standing between the West/India and Central Asia is Pakistan-occupied Baluchistan. Liberate it and the fruits of Central Asian access would be accessible to all!

RajeshA, extend this line of thinking a little bit - both in past and in future:

PAST: Whose geostrategic interests does paksitam (I like this word: Pak=Pure, Sitam=Torture, PakSitam means Pure Torture) serve - Britain. It was Britain that created paksitam for controlling the ME, stopping Russia in CE, opening a gateway to China, and keeping India down. It worked really well for 60 years.

PRESENT:

Today, all the ground realities have changed. US/west needs India to balance China, bailout W Europe

, keep paksitam down, and manage the ME.

IOW, the British world view is no longer relevant, and with it its arrogance of imposing its own world view on the world is gone.

FUTURE:

The west needs a large country (or alliance) that will:
1. Help keep open Asia's markets to the west.
2. Manage China.
3. Manage the global commons.
4. Has some respect for the rule of law (if at least for public consumption only).
5. Be a democracy (if at least for public consumption only).

What the west really needs to do is change the way it looks at the world. And for that it has to change the way it looks at itself.