Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

[svinayak]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =114173568

A Reporter's Tale Of Ambush And Captivity
Listen to the Story
Fresh Air from WHYY[38 min 18 sec]

EnlargeCharles Krupa/AP Photo
David Rohde was imprisoned 10 days by Serbian officials in 1995 while covering the war in Bosnia for The Christian Science Monitor.
New York Times reporter David Rohde was covering Pakistan and Afghanistan in November 2008 when he, driver Asad Mangal and local Afghan reporter Tahir Luddin were ambushed and kidnapped by the Taliban. They were taken into the tribal areas of Pakistan and held captive for over seven months before Luddin and Rohde managed to escape.

Rohde recounts the ambush — and his subsequent imprisonment in Pakistan — in the Times article "7 Months, 10 Days in Captivity":

"I felt the car swerve to the right and stop," he writes of the kidnapping. "Two gunmen ran toward our car shouting commands in Pashto, the local language. The gunmen opened both front doors and ordered Tahir and Asad to move to the back seat. ... The gunman in the passenger seat shouted more commands. Tahir told me they wanted our cellphones and other possessions. 'If they find we have a hidden phone,' Tahir said, 'they'll kill us.' "

The Times team members later won a Pulitzer Prize for their reporting from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Rohde also won a Pulitzer in 1996, while he was a reporter for The Christian Science Monitor, for his coverage of the Srebrenica massacre.

http://projects.nytimes.com/held-by-the-taliban/#intro

Does it look like a setup job to get a great story

[shravan]

Taliban take over Afghan province

www.atimes.com
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
Oct 29, 2009

ISLAMABAD - The United States has withdrawn its troops from its four key bases in Nuristan, on the border with Pakistan, leaving the northeastern province as a safe haven for the Taliban-led insurgency to orchestrate its regional battles.

The US has retained some forces in Nuristan's capital, Parun, to provide security for the governor and government facilities. The American position concerning the withdrawal is that due to winter conditions, supply arteries are choked, making it difficult to keep forces in remote areas. The US has pulled out from some areas in the past, but never from all four main bases.
.
.
.
The US withdrawal from Nuristan, if it becomes permanent, will give an unprecedented boost to the Taliban in the whole region. In the immediate term, they are better placed than ever to disrupt next month's presidential election runoff between the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, and his challenger, Abdullah Abdullah. The Taliban have already issued calls for people to boycott the voting.

In a foretaste of what is to come, the Taliban on Wednesday attacked a guest house in Kabul, killing at least 12 people, including six United Nations employees, two security officials and a civilian, according to police and UN officials. Kabul police said that three attackers, all wearing suicide vests, had also been killed.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at [email protected]

[kmkraoind]

No joint operations with US, no sending forces to Afghanistan : Antony

"There is no question of Indian involvement in Afghanistan," he told the media on the eve of the Coast Guard commanders' conference in New Delhi on Wednesday. Antony's statement assumes significance in the light of the Indo-US Yudh Abhyas '09 joint army exercises which conclude in Babina cantonment near Jhansi on Thursday. One of the scenarios envisaged during the 18-day joint exercises, the largest yet between the two countries, were of US and Indian forces jointly intervening in a third country under the aegis of the United Nations. Responding to a query on whether he thought Indian and US forces would ever operate together, Antony responded in the negative: "I don't foresee such a situation. Not now, not in the future. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, we are helping in the reconstruction but there is no question of military involvement in Afghanistan," Antony said.

Anthonyji is talking about smoke, where is the fire

UN leader condemns horrific scenes of death and destruction in Peshawar

[Nandu]

New US Plan. Buy off the Talbunnies with $$$.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 869503.ece

[negi]

India will not send troops to Afghanistan: Antony

“I am categorically saying that there is no question of Indian military involvement in Afghanistan…not now, not in the future…”

[negi]

Unkil logik

U.S. set to pay Taliban members to switch sides

There is a well-known saying in Afghanistan: "You can rent an Afghan, but you can't buy him."

Some experts on the region believe a U.S. program to pay Taliban fighters to quit the organization is buying temporary loyalty.

President Obama on Wednesday signed a $680 billion defense appropriations bill, which will pay for military operations in the 2010 fiscal year. The bill includes a Taliban reintegration provision under the Commander's Emergency Response Program, which is now receiving $1.3 billion. CERP funding also is intended for humanitarian relief and reconstruction projects at commanders' discretion.

The buyout idea, according to the Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is to separate local Taliban from their leaders, replicating a program used to neutralize the insurgency against Americans in Iraq.

"Afghan leaders and our military say that local Taliban fighters are motivated largely by the need for a job or loyalty to the local leader who pays them and not by ideology or religious zeal," Levin said in a Senate floor speech on September 11. "They believe an effort to attract these fighters to the government's side could succeed, if they are offered security for themselves and their families, and if there is no penalty for previous activity against us."

But Nicholas Schmidle, an expert on the Afghanistan-Pakistan region for the non-partisan New America Foundation, said that while the plan has a "reasonable chance for some success," the old Afghan saying will eventually be borne out.

"So long as the Americans are keenly aware of this, you're buying a very, very, very temporary allegiance," he said. "If that's the foundation for moving forward, it's a shaky foundation."

The bill comes as an uptick in violence claimed the lives of several American troops in Afghanistan over the past few months. In the most recent attack on Tuesday, eight soldiers were killed in what officials are calling a well-coordinated attack in southern Afghanistan involving improvised explosive devices and small-arms fire.

"There's been an amnesty program for low-level Taliban in place for many years now and thousands of people have taken advantage of it," he said. "So this is not entirely a new idea. The idea of bribing people, local guys, to come over. ... It's one of the most cost-effective ways to get people to lay down their arms, either to negotiate a peace or coerce them."

Levin touted the plan, using the 'Sons of Iraq' plan to drive home his point.

"Large numbers of young Iraqis, who had been attacking us switched over to our side and became the 'Sons of Iraq,'" he added. "They were drawn in part by the promise of jobs and amnesty for past attacks, and in part by the recognition that the status quo was creating horrific violence in their own communities. In their own interests and the interests of their nation, they switched sides and became a positive force."

But Bergen argues the comparisons are not analogous.

"In Iraq, they turned their guns on al Qaeda in Iraq, which was a foreign level organization that was imposing Taliban-style rule. And that didn't go down very well with the local Iraqi Sunnis," he said. But in Afghanistan, "The Taliban is the guy you grew up with. They're not some foreigners who came in and to be part of the jihad. ... The values they [Taliban] have are not far off from what rural Pashtuns have."
It's one of the most cost-effective ways to get people to lay down their arms


He added that al Qaeda in Iraq made a lot of mistakes - which was instrumental in getting Iraqis to "switch sides and get on the American payroll."

The top commander in Afghanistan has backed the plan for the Taliban.

"Most of the fighters we see in Afghanistan are Afghans, some with [a] foreign cadre with them," said Gen. Stanley McChrystal in a July 28 Los Angeles Times interview. Most are not ideologically or even politically motivated, he said in the interview. "Most are operating for pay; some are under a commanders charismatic leadership; some are frustrated with local leaders."

[Johann]

Interview with Bruce Riedel (a former CIA analyst and senior NSC staffer) regarding the interminable Af-Pak policy 'review'. Riedel advises Obama, but is not one of the 'principals' (Jones/Blair/Gates/Clinton/Biden/Obama) involved in the decision-making. His frustration is palpable.

Interviewer:Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor, CFR.org
October 8, 2009

http://www.cfr.org/publication/20376/da ... e_o_riedel

Among the ideas pushed forward is one that says that the Taliban is really not an enemy; al-Qaeda is the only enemy and so therefore it's not that necessary to defeat the Taliban. That would undercut the whole effort of boosting the Afghan military forces and increasing the military forces in Afghanistan. Is this a real competing idea right now?

This is a fairy tale. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have been closely aligned ever since Osama bin Laden came back to Afghanistan in the mid 1990s. The Taliban leadership under Mullah Omar has been unwilling to break with al-Qaeda for more than a decade. Ever since the two had their first meeting back in the nineties--which I would remind people was set up by the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI--these two have been in a partnership. What is most remarkable about that partnership is that it has survived and endured when arguably the Taliban has been a big loser in this partnership.

...One more thing: the view that you can win the war against al-Qaeda by just bombing al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan--you don't think that can work, do you?

No.

That's part of the fairy tale?

That's part of the fairy tale. We are doing a brilliant tactical job in degrading al-Qaeda today in Pakistan. It depends upon an intricate network of intelligence sources. At any time that network could start to dry up. At any time al-Qaeda could change operational procedures which would make it harder. Al-Qaeda operates in a syndicate of terror in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It swims among these groups: the Afghan Taliban, the Pak Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and others. And for eight years now, it has been able to successfully operate there by swimming in this environment. The notion that you can somehow selectively resolve the al-Qaeda problem while ignoring the larger jihadist sea in which [al-Qaeda] swims has failed in the past and will fail in the future. That's what President Pervez Musharraf tried to do in Pakistan and it failed utterly. That, in many ways, is what [former President George W.] Bush and [former Vice President Dick] Cheney tried to do and it failed utterly. It's a fairy tale, and it's a prescription for disaster.

There's a piece in the Washington Post today suggesting that when the policy review was agreed upon last spring, no one really knew how much it was going to cost. And a lot of the disagreement now is due to the cost factor. Do you agree with that?

The strategic review and the strategy that the president articulated in March tasked the Pentagon, and in particular CENTCOM [Central Command], to come up with an operational plan to implement it. The strategy called for a counterinsurgency strategy to be developed in Afghanistan, particularly in the south and west. The operational plan was first assigned to General David McKiernan, who was then commander. The White House and the Pentagon came to the conclusion, for good reasons, that was not going to work, and they brought in General McChrystal to fulfill this requirement for an operational plan. The cost of that change of command, which was really unprecedented--we haven't changed a battlefield commander since 1951 in the Korean War--was time. Instead of getting an operational plan in May or June, we're getting an operational plan now in September and October. The political dynamic in the United States is different. The political dynamic in Afghanistan is different. And there's some sticker shock at the size of what the operational plan calls for. That's the unfortunate reality. That delay, while probably necessary in order to have the right people, has cost us some time.

...This review has been going on for some time, and you've said that the president doesn't want to really be seen as dithering. Do you expect some decision-making soon?

At some point there is a cost to delay. And that cost comes in how our partners and how our enemies respond. Our NATO partners are already a bit squeamish. The Pakistanis are already beginning to wonder about the seriousness of the American commitment. So that undue delay has a cost. Our enemies have already come to the conclusion that victory is in sight.
...They are confident that time is on their side, that they will defeat the Americans just like they defeated the Russians. And one of the most important things that the president and the administration have to do is convey seriousness, convey determination.

[vina]

Transcripts of Defeat

Yeah. The US Afghanistan campaign is sounding more and more like the Soviet Experience. Win 99% of all company level engagements and still lose the war. It is just another repeat of the vietnam experience.

This war I submit simply cannot be won even if they bump up troop levels many fold. Pacifiying a hostile population and preventing infiltration is a tough job. You need orders of magnitude more troop, something approaching India's deployment in Kashmir to be able to barely keep a lid on things.

Historically, the only powers who could control Afghanistan were Indian. The two powers who really gave the "big danda" in large measure and kept an iron grip were the Mughals , whose campaign was led by Raja Man Singh of Amber and then the Sikhs under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, whose Afghan campaign was led by Hari Singh Nalwa. Even then it was a festering thing because for the Mughals it was always a wrestling match with the Iranians especially the Shia dominated provinces of Herat etc and the Iranians would foster an insurgency soon after a campaign.

Afghanistan can be won if the strategic pre requisites of sealing the borders with it's neighbors in it's entirity can be done. As long as the insurgents can flee across borders to safe heavens and access to flow of material from across the border, it can never be won militarily and held.

It is the same problem we face in Kashmir as well and it is the exact same problem the Americans faced in Vietnam who were able to resupply via the Ho Chi Minh trail via Cambodia and the steady backing of China and USSR for supplies to North Vietnam.

If the US really really wants to win in Afghanistan, there is no alternative but to take on Pakistan. Yes. The war can be won militarily only if there is a two front situation for the Taliban. The Americans should open another front .. A line stretching from south of Quetta to roughly the western boundaries of the Indus river across southern Punjab and sweep inwards. Without control of the so called "FATA and NWFP" Afghanistan cannot be won. Remember these are essentially Pushtoon areas to the west of the Indus. The Indus was the boundary between India and Afghanistan.

The US strategy should be to basically use the Pakistan army to cow down the Pakistani Punjabi population and keep the terrorist elements there quiet and as a cover for the its rear from insurgent attacks while it persecutes the war from the west of Indus.

Basically the American offensive is coming from the wrong side. They should hold the hills /high ground in Afghanistan and drive the Talibs down lower and mop them up in offensives in the FATA /NWFP and other Pushtoon areas to the west of Indus. The current strategy of "outsourcing" the fighting in the FATA/NWFP to Pakistan army will simply never ever work. They have too many conflicts of interest and lack of committment for it to work.

Now the question is how to execute on this and how do you bend Pakistan to do it. For that Pakistan should get into more distress. Lot lot more distress and be left with no alternative. US should work with chopping the Pakistan/China axis for starters. That is one carefully cultivated strategic source of strength for Pakistan. Next is the Paki - Saudi axis and oil for credits exchange. The first one largely as a counter against India, the second is the financial lifeline. Do both and Pakistan becomes more pliable. If both dont work, simply threaten to violate the durand line and put feet on the ground and get the Pakthunistan voices going from Kabul. Present the choice of loss of even notional sovereignty to the Pakistan in FATA/NWFP and Balochistan and an option of strike directly into Pakistani Punjab , thus ending the sorry ass country, or acqueisce to American /NATO feet on the ground west of indus.

Yeah. Basically, Afghanistan cannot be won, unless the stakes are escalated and the war is persecuted in the "rear areas" and support bases, which is Pakistan.

[Muppalla]

The chorus starts to get out of AfPak.

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/

[Umrao Das]

Also listen to our man Scott Ritter {who was right on target in Iraq WMD non existance. Please note he has a wife who is Russian as per Dr. Tim} on CNN saying that Taliban is no enemy, and US must quit AFghanistan. He says Gen Mc Crystall.


Hear here Scott Ritter and watch too
http://ricksanchez.blogs.cnn.com/2009/1 ... en-to-him/

[ramana]

NPR had a discussion on Nov 5th 2009 on the Af-Pak situation.

They interviewed a Pentagon rep who was asked who is the enemy?
The person said its Taliban and they are three types: Traditional Taliban led by Mullah Omar who were running Afghanistan before 9/11, Haqqani faction of Taliban who are the most ideological faction and the Gulbuddin Hekmatyar faction. These are the three types in Afghanistan. To me all seem to be TSP supported groups.

They next interviewed Susan Rice, the US ambassdor to UN, who said the enemy was Al Quaida who are being sheltered in Pakistan.

To me looks like there are two war going on led by US. One is in Afghanistan against TSPA supported Taliban and another in Pakistan against Al-Quaida.

Meantime there is Pasthun civil war led by TTP/Mehsud Tribe in NWFP against TSP.

In Pakjab, TSPA supported terrorists groups take out recalcitrant TSPA officers to bring about the jihadi transformation there.

[NRao]

Sad to note that the US does not consider a national army being paid to do what the army should do in the first place, as an entity that the US is fighting.

Not to mention the corrupt politicians in Pakistan.

[ramana]

Op-Ed Pioneer, 6 Nov 2009

EDITS | Saturday, November 7, 2009 | Email | Print |


US can’t dither on Afghanistan

Hiranmay Karlekar

One can understand US President Barack Obama’s difficulties in hammering out a new military policy for Afghanistan. On the one hand, Gen Stanley A McChrystal, the commander of American forces in the country, wants at least 40,000 troops more to shore up counter-insurgency operations, and Adm Mike Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, more funds — the figure going round in Washington is $ 50 billion — for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to a report by Elizabeth Bumiller in The New York Times of November 4, this would be on top of the $ 130 billion the Congress has authorised for the period from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010. On the other, the liberal Left in the Democratic Party and Vice-President Joseph Biden oppose both demands. In Afghanistan, he has to do business with President Hamid Karzai whom he and his advisers like Mr Biden and Mr Richard Holbrooke, his pointsman for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Mr Peter Galbraith have criticised openly and sharply.

While his desire not to blunder into a course of action which would be disastrous for the US makes sense, he will do well to remember that the delay in finalising a policy and the manner in which the conflicting viewpoints are being aired, gives the impression of a divided American political establishment and a vacillating President. The result is a growing feeling that the US may either choose a self-defeating soft option or, even if it goes for the right course, will leave when the going gets tough and the body bags coming home become more numerous.

This will enable the Taliban and Al Qaeda to resist more tenaciously in the hope of victory tomorrow. It will also encourage Islamabad, which is now supposed to be in the midst of a fierce offensive against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, commonly referred to as Pakistani Taliban, not to extend the same against the Afghan Taliban waxing under the leadership of men like Sirajuddin Haqqani holed up in North Waziristan. Pakistan would continue considering them as strategic instruments with which to re-establish its dominance over Afghanistan after the US and Nato forces leave, much in the same way after its Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate and the US Central Intelligence Agency had helped create the Taliban in 1994.

This aspect has been discussed endlessly, particularly in the context of the known Pakistani design to gain ascendancy over Afghanistan in quest of strategic depth against India. Even those in that country who consider the idea hare-brained and support to the Taliban and Al Qaeda dangerous, will be inclined not to act against them for fear of retribution when they take over. Nor should the US be surprised if Mr Karzai seeks to protect his back in the event of an American withdrawal leaving him to deal with a resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda, by striking alliances the US disapproves of. Significantly, Ahmed Rashid writes in Descent into Chaos: How the war against Islamic extremism is being lost in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia that “the US attack on Iraq was critical to convincing Musharraf that the United States was not serious about stabilising the region, and that it was safer for Pakistan to preserve its own national interest by clandestinely giving the Taliban refuge”. In the present instance, read delay in policy formulation in place of the Iraq war.

To a large extent, Mr Karzai’s dependence on men like Gen Abdul Rashid Dostum and Marshal Mohammad Fahim Khan, is a result of the failure of the US under President George W Bush and the West generally to provide adequate funds for war-ravaged Afghanistan’s reconstruction and enough troops and equipment to prevent a Taliban revival. In fact, the planning, money and troops that should have gone to stabilising Afghanistan and helping President Karzai to consolidate his position went to Iraq. It would be grossly unfair to blame him now for the mess that his country is getting to become. But is a conveinent scape goat

Unfortunately, the US and its allies have been doing precisely this, ignoring not only the severe shortcomings in their own efforts but also the fact that one cannot radically transform the character of a country’s Government and root out historically entrenched corruption by waving a magic wand. Which country in the world is free from corruption? Would the economic crisis currently afflicting the world have occurred without gargantuan corruption and inefficiency in the world of American big finance? Did the US Government not contribute to it by relaxing controls during the incumbency of President Bill Clinton? And what about the massive expenses scam by British MPs and Ministers? And what about corruption in Pakistan which would now be a recipient of fresh and massive doses of US financial and military aid? Besides, can Mr Karzai or anyone else wish away Gen Dostum and Marshal Fahim Khan, the latter a former Defence Minister of Afghanistan? {The real reason is the Karzai alliance with these two men who are the former NA warlords. The only people who could object to these men are the TSP jihadis. the corruption charge is a stick to beat Karzai for his alliance with these two people. And that benefits only TSP. Recall Ms Fair's comment to US Congress that US has to create space for TSP to act on its terrorists.}

Unfortunately, neither Mr Obama nor Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain seems to realise all this or the fact that their efforts to compel him to do their bidding can only undermine his position. Two examples would illustrate this point. The manner in which they arm-twisted him into accepting a run-off in the recent presidential election and his submission clearly indicated that he was bending unwillingly to pressure, which in turn could only have severely eroded his standing with Afghans who value defiant courage and independence above everything else in men, and look down upon those who stoop. Equally damaging was Mr Obama’s congratulatory message after Mr Karzai was finally declared elected President, admonishing him for failing to take on corruption and the drug trade, which he did not do during his first term, and his public commitment to do so, which followed.

One wonders whether Mr Obama’s attitude towards Mr Karzai stems from the fact that his advisers on Afghanistan include people known to be close to Pakistan which makes no secret of its hostility towards the Afghan head of state. Whatever it is, he will now have to deal with Mr Karzai and the sooner he finds a way of doing it without the former’s position the better it will be for both the US and Afghanistan. And he should announce his policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan before the military situation on the ground deteriorates further.

So now we understand the US charade of distancing from Karzai and the hope that Abdullah^2 win could have reduced the former NA space.

[ramana]

We have studied Af-Pak for over a decade and still cling to psy-ops fro interested parties. If Af-Pak is not resolved suitably it will take down the Western domination of the world system. Its bigger than Korea, Vietnam and Cold War. Its an assymetric war between two different world views. The earlier examples were similar zero-sum situations.

[Prem]

Af_Pak mess can be settled only with Mahbharat type of Yudh . Quite a bit reallignements will go on before decisive battle happen. Instead of Panipat , it will be fought in Peshawar .

[ramana]

We have studied Af-Pak for over a decade and still cling to psy-ops fro interested parties. If Af-Pak is not resolved suitably it will take down the Western domination of the world system. Its bigger than Korea, Vietnam and Cold War. Its an assymetric war between two different world views. The earlier examples were similar zero-sum situations.

Af-Pak region


Indian Prespective:

- Afghanistant shouldnt become safe haven for terrorists
- Afghanistan shouldnt become 'strategic depth' for TSP
- Afghanistan should be multi-ethnic, multi-cultural modern state
- Ensure Afghanistan does not become base for extremist/"guided" Islam

TSP prespective:

- Afghanistan should have a TSP friendly regime for following reasons:
- Settling Durand Line to prevent loss of NWFP
- Provide strategic depth for
- Terrorist camps
- Hide special weapons
- Hinterland for heroin growing

Pashtun Prespective:

- Any ruler in Afghanistan has to be a Pashtun as they created modern Afghanistan
- Eventually erase Durand line and regain lost lands to British India

Non Pashtun Prespective:
- Pashtuns should not dominate and impact their sub-nationalism:Tajik, Hazara, Uzbeg etc..

US prespective:

- Non Islamist govt in Afghanistan to prevent:
- Regrouping of Islamist forces like AlQ & 'bad' Taliban
- Provide bases for US forces for hedge against Central Asia and fracturing TSP
- Provide base for 'guiding' new ISlamist thinking in Central Asia

PRC prespective:

- Ensure TSP retains influence in Afghanistan to hedge rising India
- Ensure US is weakened due to Afghanistan to preclude Uigher revolt
- Ensure Afghanistan does not become base for extremist/"guided" Islam

Iran prespective:

- Ensure TSP does not dominate Afghanistan
- Ensure balance in Shia (Hazara interests) versus Sunni(Pashtuns) power
- Ensure Afghanistan does not become base for extremist/"guided" Islam

Russian prespective:

- Ensure Afghanistan does not become base for extremist/"guided" Islam
- Ensure Afghanistan keeps the US occupied

Central Asian countries:

- Ensure Afghanistan does not become base for extremist/"guided" Islam

EU countries:

- Ensure Afghanistan does not become base for extremist/"guided" Islam
- Ensure Afghanistan is not a heroin producing region

Geographic prespective:

- Afghanistan is the pivot of Central Asia.
- Pathway to conquer Indian sub-continent or Central Asia
- High mountains and challenging terrain
- Not much arable land
- Only three rivers: Helmand,Kabul and Herat

History Prespective:

- Afghanistan has been at cross roads of invasions of Indian sub-continent
- Afghanistan was declared a neutral country between the British and Tsarist Russia
- Afghanistan has suffered continuous turmoil and civil war since 1973 if not since Abdur Rehman in late 19th century

Consequences of US failure in Afghanistan:

- Extremist Islam wins and will roll over most of the current Islamic states
- Have high negative impact on Indian sub-continent
- Certain radicalization of TSP with its nuclear weapons
- Uigher uprising in East Turkistan
- Central Asian countries will be radicalized
- PRC will gain Asian domination but lose East Turkistan
- Russia might be rolled back to the Duchy of Muscovy
- Demoralized by the defeat in far away lands the 'malaise' in American politics could return leading to political wilderness a la Vietnam
- Drug trade will zoom on the supply side
- World globalization will suffer
- It could lead to loss of leadership as other challengers will emerge



What else?

[Prem]

Simple solution is to dissolve Pakistan and bring the whole area under Indian influence IOW restore the balance with with pre 47 India sans British . Its inevitable anyhow so why not cooperate and settle sooner than latter.

[ramana]

Its not so simple.....

Meanwhile Hindu reports


MMS wants world to stand firm on Afghanistan

Manmohan wants world to stand firm on Afghanistan

Sandeep Dikshit


Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso (right) and Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt at the India-EU Summit in New Delhi on Friday. —


NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday urged the international community to stay the course in Afghanistan and called upon the West to introduce a more open and friendly visa regime to enable greater people-to-people movement.

Dr. Singh said stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan was of vital importance to India than any other nation as it stood to be affected more by the turmoil in the two countries.

He, however, appreciated the efforts of the international community in bringing stability in Afghanistan. He sincerely hoped that it would be willing to stay the course in recognising the problem.

The Prime Minister was talking to reporters along with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt (whose country heads the European Union) and European Commission President Jose Manuel Borosso at the end of the 10th India-EU Summit,

...

Almost what I am saying! I hope to figure out how to stand firm without getting bankrupt or losing the civlizational impulse.

[ashkrishna]

Simple solution is to dissolve Pakistan and bring the whole area under Indian influence IOW restore the balance with with pre 47 India sans British . Its inevitable anyhow so why not cooperate and settle sooner than latter.

Looks good if you discount how many opportunities this scenario presents for a large scale blunder by the Indian leadership. This is what scares me. Far from harvesting the strategic capital from a dissolved pakistan , we might end up catapulting a huge boulder on to our own heads.

open borders, 'cultural exchanges' and what not.....

[Prasad]

Simple solution is to dissolve Pakistan and bring the whole area under Indian influence IOW restore the balance with with pre 47 India sans British . Its inevitable anyhow so why not cooperate and settle sooner than latter.

I think an oft-repeated 'watch out' on this topic on brf has been "what exactly do you do with the population of this area that isn't exactly india-friendly?" You can't win them over within a few days. So what solution do you propose (rmji style) to take care of the population that you will take over along with the land?

[Prem]

Population control is not impossible.Pakjabis are already shaking by the arrival of Pure Islam. Start subsidising Pushtoons and Sindhi , Baluchi wont be an issue. There are 3 or 4 main Pakjabis districts which require pruning or say uprooting which can be outsourced to local yahoos. The competing powers must realize that Indian capacity to manage or mess Pa-Af area will grow many fold within a decade or so . The onlee good time for world to disenage from the area must be after 2020. MMS is right in appealing to Uncle and his Sarbalas to stay for a while.

[ramana]

We now have to figure out the maximum and minimum acceptable solutions to each of the parties.

[ramana]

We now have to figure out the maximum and minimum acceptable solutions to each of the parties.

Indian Perspective:
- Maximum acceptable solution is a strong and vibrant Afghanistan free from Islamist fundamentalism.
- Minimum acceptable solution is a Afghanistan free from TSP influence

TSP perspective:

- Maximum acceptable solution is Afghanistan incorporated into TSP

- Minimum acceptable solution: TSP friendly regime in Afghanistan

Pashtun Perspective:

- Maximum acceptable solution: Any ruler in Afghanistan has to be a Pashtun
- Minimum acceptable solution A:ny ruler of afghanistan has to be a Pashtun.

Non Pashtun Perspective:
- Maximum acceptable solution Pashtuns should not dominate and impact their sub-nationalism:Tajik, Hazara, Uzbeg etc.
Minimum acceptable solution: Pashtuns should include the other ethnic minorities in government

US perspective:

- Maximum acceptable solution: Non Islamist govt in Afghanistan
- Minimum acceptable solution: Friendly regime in place irrespective of their Islamist credentials.

PRC perspective:

- Maximum acceptable solution: Ensure TSP retains influence in Afghanistan
- Minimum acceptable solution: Ensure Afghanistan does not become base for extremist/"guided" Islam

Iran perspective:

- Maximum acceptable solution: Ensure TSP does not dominate Afghanistan
- Minimum acceptable solution: Ensure balance in Shia (Hazara interests) versus Sunni(Pashtuns) power

Russian perspective:

- Maximum acceptable solution: Ensure Afghanistan does not become base for extremist/"guided" Islam
- Minimum acceptable solution: Ensure Afghanistan does not become base for extremist /"guided" Islam

Central Asian countries:

- Maximum acceptable solution: Ensure Afghanistan does not become base for extremist/"guided" Islam

Minimum acceptable solution : Ensure Afghanistan does not become base for extremist/"guided" Islam

EU countries:
Maximum acceptable solution: Ensure Afghanistan does not become base for extremist/"guided" Islam and drugs production
Minimum acceptable solution : Ensure Afghanistan does not become base for extremist/"guided" Islam and drugs production


Next we work on options that meet the perspectives and acceptable solutions.

[ramana]

Cutting to the chase this is what I see as viable. I can go on and on about the factors that influence Afghanistan but it will be like a RAND report or worse IDSA article.

PLAN:

- US increase troop presence and crushes bad Taliban. Otherwise it will lose and the malaise kicks in.
- US manages TSP while doing this. Not at cost of any other nation.
- The good Taliban get regularized into para-military scouts etc. Crucial to get them under a uniform and get rid of their tribal dress. The Afghan National Army still gets its share of Tajiks and Uzbegs and Hazaras as top layer to guarantee the ethnic rights.
- The Ghilzais and Durranis have to make up and work out a compromise certified by the loya jirga to ensure Pashtun solidarity.
- An all powers conference to declare Afghan neutrality is crucial to return Afghanistan to buffer status like in the 19th century. This is to neutralize any wet dreams of wannabe jihadis. Same time all the ethnic areas will have millat/autonomy status: Pashtuns, Tajiks and Hazaras and Uzbegs. The rights of sub-minorities in these areas are guaranteed by Afghan National Govt eg. Pashtuns in Tajik areas und so weiter.

A G-8/OECD/INDIA and PRC economic program has to be worked out to stabilize the country. US will have the TSP economic stabilization program.

A strong advice is to seek Pashtun autonomy in TSP as a self determination right same as the Kurds in Iraq to satisfy the self determination rights. as this is related to the Afghan issue.

[NRao]

This is NOT an AfPak related article, but would impact all forms of Islamic terrorism, very interesting take and the way it came to light:

New jihad code threatens al Qaeda

[Paul]

- An all powers conference to declare Afghan neutrality is crucial to return Afghanistan to buffer status like in the 19th century. This is to neutralize any wet dreams of wannabe jihadis.

For Ramana's scenario to come true, I think an Iran-Unkil Sam grand agreement is a key prerequisite.

That I think is debatable whether it can happen at this time.

[Gagan]

In spite of all the gaali galoch between unkil and Iran, there has always been some track II diplomacy going on. Ombaba said so when he stated that he was willing to talk to anyone.
If not overtly, there is some covert understanding in place.

How is it possible that on the Af-Pak issue, where the US us spending so much monetary and human capital, the US is not smoothing one important neighbour of both afghanistan and pakistan?

[ramana]

What no comments?

[AnimeshP]

Another "expert" on how Afgahnistan problem for Unkil can be solved ....
"India must solve Kashmir", "India must stop meddling in Tribal areas" ...

A Temporary Peace

It means acknowledging that, though the primary challenge in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a development one, encompassing processes of politics and economy and long term, large-scale processes of nation-building, you cannot begin to address the development challenge without moderating the security competition between India and Pakistan.

Without it, without some semblance of a comprehensive regional strategy, without mechanisms to moderate the security competition between India and Pakistan, without a resolution of Kashmir, at most we are busy constructing a temporary peace in Afghanistan.

[chanakyaa]

Afg: Aynak Copper Project is Inaugurated in a Glorious Ceremony (by singing Afghan and Chini national anthem ??)

Aynak Copper Project was inaugurated in a glorious ceremony in Aynak area of Logar Province. The ceremony was attended .......
This rite was inaugurated by reading of some versus of Holy Quran and the playing of National Anthems of Afghanistan and China, and followed by reading the message of President Karzai by the Minister of Mines as fallow:
“Some of mines of our country are unique by its quality and quantity in the world. The Aynak copper mines is one of them and discovered about 36 years ago, its primary survey and project implementation was started during the presidency of Mohammad Daud, but stopped during the three decades conflict.
By the continuous struggle and work of MoM, this large project underwent a tender process, and in a transparent process, the MCC Company of China was declared as a winner in accordance to laws of our country (Which laws??) and accepted international procedures, the contract of exploration and exploitation of Aynak Copper Mine was signed between Afghanistan and MCC of China.
Aynak Copper Project is the largest economical project of the country that besides preparing the work opportunities for the people, has a lot of other useful projects in sectors of constructions, training, railway and power supply. The annual income from this project, has a significant role in sustaining the economical base of the country, therefore, the inauguration of this project is a source of our satisfaction.

[Johann]

Ramana,

Good work in systematically breaking down the situation and interests down to the essentials. One comment however;

US perspective:

- Maximum acceptable solution: Non Islamist govt in Afghanistan
- Minimum acceptable solution: Friendly regime in place irrespective of their Islamist credentials.

The minimum acceptable solution for the US would be to accept an unfriendly regime in place that nevertheless denies its territory to training and planning for the global jihad.

A good example of such a situation would be Sudan, which the US has had very hostile relations with ever since the Islamist revolution in 1989.

Nevertheless, they've avoided direct conflict for the most part ever since the local Army-Islamist combine booted out OBL and the global jihad out of Sudan in 1996.

In spite of all the gaali galoch between unkil and Iran, there has always been some track II diplomacy going on. Ombaba said so when he stated that he was willing to talk to anyone.

There was track II diplomacy between the US and Iran since 2006, and Bob Gates was the driving force behind it.

The result was that both Iran and the US began to cooperate in Iraq, since both agreed that civil war and collapse was not in either country's interests. Both wanted the Maliki government to survive.

The notable thing is that this took place Ahmadinejad's government and the Bush Administration which elevated mutual hostility to levels that hadnt been seen since the 1980s.

More than anything else, it is US-Iranian cooperation in Iraq despite hawkish administrations in Tehran *and* Washington DC that has convinced Sunni Arab states that they are going to be sidelined by America sooner or later.

[Malayappan]

Ramana Sir, the PLAN in your post can be actually termed as the best possible solution from the perspective of overall global interests. One clear, positive aspect in that is it preserves territorial integrity of Afghanistan. If the plan is not accepted, dividing up Afghanistan will be the only solution. And the problem will be that this solution will be reached after many, many deaths.

If this so simple, what can possibly prevent this? I must clarify that I 'bolded' overall global interests pointedly, not as a motherhood statement. US and the West today dont seem to think in terms of overall global interest, but choose to place paki interests above everything else. They have pointedly disregarded deaths of their own forces due to attacks from across the border, and copious intelligence from their own agencies on paki role in it. Rather than downsize paki ambitions, they have mounted a massive PR campaign to downsize scope of their own mission!

For your plan to work, US and the West will need to make the conclusion that the overall global interests should be seen as a superior cause than pakistan's narrow anti-Indian agenda. Sadly for them, today they are not there.

The US needs to get out of this paki fix that makes them value the interests of paki army above everything else in this world, including lives of their own citizens!

[Sanjay M]

When US troops don't have enough bread, Obama is telling them to eat cake:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 09563.html


I think it's time for the US to bring its two "frenemies" to heel, by moving to re-draw the borders over there.

A reunified Pashtun ethnic state is the answer to ousting the Taliban, and to sidelining the uncooperative Karzai and Pakistan.

[Rudradev]

A "reunified Pashtun ethnic state" will be nobody's proxy, and will inevitably pose a direct threat to the United States' interests. That's because circumstances have forced Pashtun nationalism to become inextricably intertwined with, and symbiotically linked to the ideology of Deobandi fundamentalist Islam. Just as German nationalism was inseparable from the ideology of National Socialism in the 1930s. One does not exist without the other at present. The Pashtun Civil War thread will shed more light on this.

America doesn't have the time, nor the resources, nor the slightest opportunity to mount the sort of social engineering effort it would take to disentangle the two and create a malleable, pliant Pashtun nation that served Western interests as a reliable and stable partner. In the middle of an armed conflict environment it would be absolutely impossible for such an effort to succeed.

By the way, glad to have you back! The Atlanti-Cysts better look out now

[Malayappan]

A critique of the Small Footprint strategy

The big impact of small footprints
by Thomas Hegghammer, senior research fellow at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) and an associate of the Initiative on Religion in International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... footprints

Some contentious points, but in essense arguing that Joe Biden's plan of

significantly reduced military presence that focuses more on destroying al Qaeda than on building Afghanistan, and relies more on airstrikes and special forces than on conventional tactics

will not work.

He makes some interesting observations -

The history of jihadism is full of examples of seemingly small incidents having a major effect on mobilization.

and provides illustrations.

[ramana]

In my above post on TSP's maximum expectation I had said it was to swallow Afghanistan. Here is x-post that gives similar data.

http://pakhistorian.com/
Current Pakistan Now Step one: Current day Pakistan


Step two: Take control of Pashtun areas


Step 3: Confederation of Afghanistan and Pakistan.


Step 4: Work with the Muslim world


Step 5: Grow the Muslim world

[NRao]

Obama to press China on Afghanistan

Although China is extremely reluctant to play any military role in Afghanistan, with which it shares a short border, the increased US lobbying comes at a time of growing realisation in Beijing that its interests would be considerably damaged by a US withdrawal and Taliban victory.

[NRao]

Nato pays high price to get supplies past Taliban

[NRao]

Gates ‘appalled’ by Afghan leaks

[NRao]

Envoy’s concerns highlight deep US divisions