Afghanistan News & Discussion

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 15 Apr 2014 13:41

Actually what I specifically meant were the Saudis. Most of the rest of the world lost interest in what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out in 1989. They didn't, and maintained full funding. Without that funding and support its unlikely the Mujaheddin could have advanced from the countryside to Jalalabad and then Kabul in the 1989-92 period.

They are the only player that has *consistently* been willing to put really large amounts of money into Afghan war and politics for the last 40 years.

If they are now willing to back Kabul, its huge. I suspect this has a lot to do with their rivalry with the Qataris - in the last few years they like to back the opposite horses. The Taliban's international office has an official presence in Doha. The Qataris have money and can do damage that way, but they don't wield the same kind of religious influence.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 15 Apr 2014 14:08

If Saudi suddenly decides to ga against Al Queda/ Taliban they will have to face insurgency in their country on a much larger sclae than what they currently have. The only thing keeping the unwashed crowds from their doorstep is their funding. If that stops then AQ & co will push hard for a regime change in Saudi.

gunjur · Post by **gunjur** » 16 Apr 2014 10:24

Gunjur wrote:Apologies if already posted.

Afghanistan: as China forges new alliances, a new Great Game has begun - By William Dalrymple

It seems a paki is upbeat that their pals the chinese may police a'stan, thus allowing far greater say to pakis in a'stan

Since the US invaded Afghanistan there has been a common thread to the policies of America and China towards Afghanistan. The US has consistently opposed a role for China in Afghanistan’s future and, equally consistently, China has refused to accept any meaningful role in Afghanistan’s future security or security-related

Not unsurprisingly, China has taken every opportunity to benefit from the vacuum in Afghanistan for economic opportunities. It has secured rights for copper mining and has been seeking opportunities to undertake other mining ventures. It has also invested in rail and road networks in those portions of Afghanistan in which China has an interest.

The US, on the other hand, might have lost virtually all opportunity to exploit the economic opportunities offered by Afghanistan and, through it, by Central Asia. However, it has sought every opportunity to safeguard its “strategic interests” to encircle China and Russia and deny both a role in the future of Afghanistan.

But China has never sought a role in Afghanistan’s future nor was it expected that US would ever acquiesce to giving China such a role.

It is against this backdrop that a most unexpected event occurred in mid-March when US experts on Pakistan and Afghanistan met their Chinese counterparts in Beijing. It was kept very quiet but some Chinese dailies made a small mention of it, which led to a mention in English-language -media as well.

Commenting on the meeting for The Guardian, in an article titled “Afghanistan: as China forges new alliances, a new Great Game has begun”, the historian William Dalrymple attributed this development to Chinese concerns about its large Uighur population in the province of Xinjiang; and to the Uighurs’ possible “Pakistan connection”.

Even as he drew this conclusion, Dalrymple pointed out that the US State Department finds little evidence of a Pakistan connection with Uighurs, though it acknowledges the contribution of Uzbeks to Pakistan’s internal insecurity.

China’s long-term concern about its Uighurs is indisputable. Chinese historians attribute their ancestors’ defeat by Genghis Khan to the support ancient Uighurs gave the Mongol emperor.

The Chinese decided many decades ago that they were going to change the demographic contours of Xinjiang – and one way of doing that was through the decision to terminate the Kazakhstan-China oil pipeline at Urumchi, the capital of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. As a consequence, Uighurs might soon become a minority in the region.

While I agree that the consequence of these developments do indicate the beginning of a “new Great Game” – a reference to historical jockeying for influence in Central Asia – I fear that Dalrymple might have merely scratched the surface of the reasons for this development. He obviously has no explanation for the US’s change in policy, and nor do I have an explanation that I can support with evidence. Therefore, I am forced to draw conclusions.

Not having been able to obtain its desired bilateral security agreement with the Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai, the US will no longer be in a position to influence the future of Afghanistan after he leaves office. It would, therefore, be fair to conclude that America’s ambitious strategic plans for containing China and Russia have to be curtailed.

If the US has reached this conclusion, it must also have realised that it is compelled to seek assistance from either Russia or China so as to retain some measure of control over Afghanistan’s future. If this is a fair conclusion, which one of these two would be more acceptable to the US? China, a distant foe based in Asia, or Russia, the traditional foe that opposes the US on the European continent as well as in Asia?

I would choose China any time.

Dalrymple quotes the Sino-US confrontation in the South China Sea over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands as an event that has “disguised” the growing detente between these two great powers. I consider this confrontation as a turning point.

Apart from its concerns with its Uighurs, China, being a direct neighbour, has genuine interests regarding Afghanistan’s future. However, China has followed a policy of avoiding reasons for military confrontation with the US while it is growing economically.

So long as America considered Chinese interference in Afghanistan as a threat to US interests, China was more than willing to stay out of Afghanistan and bide its time. If, however, the US is willing to offer China some sort of role, it would be astonishing if China turned it down.

What is more, even as China is also seeking common ground with Russia, it is aware that the US is a distant foe. Even if Sino-Russian relations improve, China will inevitably have to face the Russian challenge in Asia just as the US and Nato must face Russia in Europe.

What would be more logical than a Sino-US detente on Afghanistan to jointly tame the Russian bear in Europe and Asia in this beginning of a new Great Game?

Brig Shaukat Qadir is a retired -Pakistani infantry officer

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Apr 2014 03:01

He is that high angle Bofors in Kargil guy!

One of these days PRC will take over TSP and make them work for a living for all the free aid they are getting.

gunjur · Post by **gunjur** » 20 Apr 2014 16:23

Why the U.S. must cut Afghanistan loose - Chellaney

Afghanistan’s presidential election, now apparently headed for a runoff stage, will mark the first peaceful transition of power in the history of that unfortunate country, ravaged by endless war since 1979. Displaying courage in the face of adversity, Afghans braved Taliban attacks and threats to vote in large numbers on April 5.

After almost 35 years of bloodletting, Afghans are desperate for peace. President Hamid Karzai’s successor will have his work cut out for him, including promoting national reconciliation by building bridges among the country’s disparate ethnic and political groups; strengthening the fledgling, multiethnic national army; and ensuring free and fair parliamentary elections next year.

The role of external players, however, overshadows these internal dynamics. Two external factors will significantly influence Afghanistan’s political and security transition: the likely post-2014 role of U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces; and interference by Pakistan, which still harbours militant sanctuaries and the command-and-control structure for Afghan insurgency.

Pakistani interference in Afghanistan’s internal affairs can only be made to stop if U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration finally makes that a condition for continuing its generous aid to cash-strapped Pakistan – a remote prospect.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, has made a U-turn on the U.S. and NATO military presence in Afghanistan and is now seeking bases there for a virtually unlimited period. He had declared in Cairo in 2009, “We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there.” But in a change of heart, he now wants bases there to house a fairly sizable U.S.-led NATO force armed with the authority to “conduct combat operations.”

The U.S. President is under political attack at home for having failed to persuade Mr. Karzai to sign a bilateral security agreement, which is to provide the legal basis for keeping U.S. bases. The fact that the U.S. left no residual forces in Iraq when it ended its decade-long occupation of that country has made the appeal particularly strong to maintain bases in Afghanistan, where America is seeking to terminate the longest war in its history.

Although Kabul and Washington have finalized the terms of the bilateral agreement, Mr. Karzai withstood intense U.S. pressure to sign, leaving that critical decision to his successor. In truth, Mr. Karzai was afraid that if he did, he could go down in Afghan history as the second Shah Shuja. A puppet ruler installed by the British in 1839, Shah Shuja was deposed and assassinated three years later, but not before precipitating the First Anglo-Afghan War.

Mr. Obama now has little choice but to wait and try to persuade the next Afghan president to sign the accord. He has not, however, grasped the main reason why his county’s war has foundered – failure to reconcile military and political objectives. From the time it invaded in 2001, America pursued a military surge in Afghanistan, but an aid surge to the next-door country harbouring terrorist havens and the “Quetta Shura,” as the Afghan Taliban leadership there is known. The war was made unwinnable by Washington’s own refusal to target Pakistan for actively abetting elements killing or maiming U.S. troops.

Terrorism and insurgency have never been defeated in any country without choking transboundary sustenance and support. Afghans have borne the brunt from two fronts – U.S. military intervention and Pakistan’s use of surrogate militias.

Mr. Obama’s basing strategy could presage a shift from a full-fledged war to a low-intensity war, but without fixing the incongruous duality in American policy. Indeed, a smaller U.S. force in Afghanistan would only increase Washington’s imperative to mollycoddle Pakistani generals and cut a deal with the Quetta Shura in order to secure its bases.

Washington plans to gift Pakistan its surplus military hardware in Afghanistan, including several hundred mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. It has also agreed to taper off drone strikes in Pakistan.

Even more revealing is what the drones have not targeted. To preserve the option of reaching a Faustian bargain with the Afghan Taliban, the U.S. has not carried out a single air, drone or ground attack against its leadership, which is ensconced in Pakistan’s sprawling Baluchistan province. U.S. drone strikes have been restricted to the Pakistani tribal region to the north, Waziristan, where they have targeted the Pakistani Taliban – the nemesis of the Pakistani military.

To make matters worse, the U.S. plans to start significantly cutting aid to Kabul beginning next year, which threatens to undermine Afghan security forces, a key part of keeping the Afghan Taliban at bay.

Last May, Mr. Obama recalled the warning of James Madison, America’s fourth president: that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Yet he now seeks a long-term military engagement in Afghanistan, which is good news for the Pakistani generals but not for U.S., Afghan or regional interests.

Admittedly, there are no good options. But an indefinite role for foreign forces would be the equivalent of administering the same medicine that has seriously worsened the patient’s condition.

It is past time for Afghanistan to be in charge of its own security and destiny. Outside assistance should be limited to strengthening the Kabul government’s hand.

gunjur · Post by **gunjur** » 20 Apr 2014 19:00

Abdullah Abdullah still in lead for presidency after half ballots counted in Afghanistan election.

Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission said initial results based on almost 50 percent of the vote from the 34
provinces showed Abdullah in the lead with 44.4 percent.

Abdullah is followed by academic Ashraf Ghani who obtained a 33 percent share of the ballots.

Obtaining less than half the votes in the first round would mean the top two candidates going up against each other in a second round of elections.

Zalmay Rassoul, backed by two of President Hamid Karzai's brothers, trailed far behind with 10.4 percent of the vote.

The final first round results will be released on May 14 and a run-off, if needed will take place in late May.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Apr 2014 12:13

From NightWatch for the Night of 21 Apr 2014

Afghanistan: With about half the ballots counted, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah leads the vote count in the presidential election. The Independent Election Commission (IEC) announced that Abdullah had 44.4 percent and former World Bank economist Ashraf Ghani had 33.2 percent of the votes counted so far from the 5 April election.

If no candidate gains more than 50 percent, a second-round election between the two leading contenders is tentatively scheduled for 28 May.

Comment: A brilliant and extremely well-informed Reader provided the best explanation for the relatively low level of Taliban attacks on election day. His sources reported a surge in deal-making between candidates and the Taliban to keep attacks down.

The daily number of attacks remains low. The Taliban have not announced their annual spring offensive. If an offensive does not take place, that would suggest heavy deal making.

The parties are maneuvering to prepare for the post-NATO period which will include Taliban participation, directly or indirectly. After 13 years of fighting, it is striking how little the political landscape has changed.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Apr 2014 21:47

NW is being mis-informed. Taliban want a Pashtun to come to power. Instead its a Tajik.
Also dumb to have 50% run-off and allow more than two candidates to run!!!

Right now Abdullah is ~10% more than his nearest rival and is 6% away from 50%. And the third guy has another 10% which would have put ABdullah over the top.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 23 Apr 2014 09:48

^^ quite right. I have been tracking this closely. But hardly surprising, don't you think? I don't think they want Ghani to come to power. He will be too close to the US. And perhaps Karzai secretly wants Abdullah to come to power and that's why he brought Rassoul in? [so he can cut a few vote %'s here / there and then Karzai can cut a deal with Abdullah so its a mutual win-win?]

Interestingly, Abdullah has had talks with Rassoul and I wonder what it would have been about [Abdullah obviously hinted that at such a critical juncture they will not be talking about the weather and such]

@ ramana - I don't remember who... but didn't someone in the forum mention earlier that Talibans might prefer a Tajik? [Besides, Abdullah can swing both ways as he is part Pashto and part Tajik. I don't know about his swinging both ways wrt to anything else though.

]

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 24 Apr 2014 15:16

Afghanistan: Can 1996 Repeat Itself? – Analysis

A paper produced by late B. Raman in 2013 on the consequences of US withdrawal from Afghanistan in end 2014 is reproduced below. The points made by him including India’s options are still relevant. The only change if any is that the Haqqani network has emerged stronger thanks to the total support given by ISI of Pakistan. — SAAG Director

Can 1996 Repeat itself in Afghanistan?

By B. Raman

As the US troops prepare to thin themselves out of Afghanistan starting from next year, India has to worry whether 1996 can repeat itself in Afghanistan, when the Taliban, with the help of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), captured power from the Afghan Mujahideen in Kabul and enforced its rule.

2. In searching for an answer to this question, one has to remember what happened after the Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 1988:

1989: The Afghan Mujahideen, with ISI’s help, tried to have Najibullah’s army defeated at Jalalabad, so that they could set up a base there. They were defeated by Najibullah, who demonstrated the strength of his army.

1992: The Afghan Mujahideen succeeded in overthrowing Najib by taking advantage of a US-encouraged split between Najibullah and Rashid Dostum and setting up their Govt in Kabul.

1994: Naseerullah Babar, Benazir Bhutto’s Interior Minister, promoted the formation of the Taliban in Kandahar to escort Asif Ali Zardari’s cotton convoys from Turkmenistan. The US established secret contacts with the Taliban to secure its support for a gas-oil pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan being planned by UNOCAL.

1996: The Taliban, with the ISI’s support, overthrew the Mujahideen Government in Kabul and set up its Government.

1996: Ahmed Shah Masood set up his Northern Alliance to counter the Taliban.

1996: Osama bin Laden shifted from Khartoum to Jalalabad and from there to Kandahar where Mulla Omar, the Amir of the Taliban, was based.

1998: bin Laden formed the International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Crusaders and the Jewish People for fighting against the US and Israel.

1998: Al Qaeda carried out explosions outside the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam. US carried out reprisal Cruise missile attacks on Al Qaeda camps in Jalalabad. Not successful.

1999: The US demanded that the Taliban should hand over bin Laden to it. It also demanded that Pakistan should force the Taliban to hand over bin Laden to it. Both the Taliban and Pakistan evaded the US demand

11/9/2001: Al Qaeda carried out its terror strikes in the US homeland.

October, 2001: The US declared its war on the Taliban and Al Qaeda and ordered military action in Afghanistan. The Taliban was overthrown, but Omar and bin Laden crossed over to Pakistan, where they were given shelter by the ISI. The Northern Alliance collaborated with the US in its operations.

3. The sequence of events mentioned above was due to the following reasons:
•The sudden and abrupt withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan.
•The differences between the Pashtoons and the Uzbeks and the consequent lack of unity in the Najibullah Government.
•The ambivalent US policy towards the Taliban. It hobnobbed with it initially in the hope of getting its support for the projected UNOCAL pipeline project and realised too late the pernicious nature of the Taliban.
•The USA’s misplaced faith in Pakistani co-operation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

4. What is the position now as the US prepares to thin itself out?
•Just as the Soviet troops withdrew in 1988 before effectively defeating the Mujahideen, the US is going to thin itself out before effectively defeating the Neo Taliban and the Haqqani Network, both of which continue to operate from Pakistan.
•The command and control of Al Qaeda based in Pakistan has been badly disrupted, but not eliminated.
•There could be political instability in Afghanistan after President Hamid Karzai completes his term next year leading once again to ethnic differences between the Pashtoons and non-Pashtoons.
•The ambivalent US policy towards a possible political role for the so-called good Taliban post-2014 could add to uncertainties and instability.
•In 1988, to facilitate the Soviet withdrawal, Pakistan ensured that there were no attacks on the withdrawing Soviet troops by the Mujahideen. Pakistan had better control over the tribal areas on the Afghan border. Today. Pakistan has little control over the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and will have little ability to facilitate the withdrawal of US troops and equipment.

5. Qualitatively, the ground situation post-2014 will differ from that which prevailed in 1988 as follows:
•The Soviet withdrawal in 1988 was abrupt and total with no Soviet presence left in Afghanistan. There was no air cover for the Soviet troops due to the effective use of the US-supplied Stinger missiles by the Mujahideen. The US withdrawal is going to be gradual and not abrupt and total. The US will still have some presence with the required air cover in Afghan territory to enable the Afghan troops perform their security role. The Soviet troops left Najibullah all alone without any back-up support to counter the Mujahideen. The US is unlikely to leave the Karzai (his successor’s) Government all alone.
•The US fleet of Drones and their effective use will enable the US to prevent the Neo Taliban, the Haqqani network and Al Qaeda under Ayman Al-Zawahiri from re-grouping.

6. From 2014, the US will have the limited objective of preventing a come-back by a Neo Al Qaeda that could again pose a threat to the US homeland. The Neo Al Qaeda is presently focusing on Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Africa. After the US thin-out, it might be tempted to re-focus on the Af-Pak region. To prevent this, the US will need a continued capability to maintain a limited ground presence in Afghanistan and operate its fleet of Drones.

7. What should be India’s options and policies? If the post-1996 events are repeated in Afghanistan, India may again face serious security problems in Jammu & Kashmir and even in hinterland India. To prevent this, Indian policies should be focused on the following:
•Continue to strengthen the Afghan security forces through training and supply of arms and ammunition.
•Strengthen trilateral intelligence co-operation involving the intelligence agencies of India, Afghanistan and the US.
•Encourage the US not to repeat the Soviet mistake of total withdrawal, but to maintain a minimum presence in Afghan territory to keep weakening the Neo Taliban and Neo Al Qaeda.
•Encourage the US to continue using its Drone fleet and if the US faces any difficulty in using them from Afghan territory, allow the US to operate them from Indian bases.
•Work for a smooth political transition after Karzai completes his term.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Apr 2014 01:17

Today is 4/24. Is the counting over in Afghanistan?

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 25 Apr 2014 01:25

ramana wrote:Today is 4/24. Is the counting over in Afghanistan?

80% have been counted so far. Abdullah leads with about 44% and Ghani at about 33%.

Plenty of allegations of fraud and manipulation. Threatening letters from the Taliban were posted on people’s doors; roadside bombs were placed on routes to the voting centers; and, in some cases, battles raged near the polling sites. Sometimes polling stations weren't even opened in some areas. Etc.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 25 Apr 2014 07:38

Final results come out only in May. May 15th or something like that. Likely runoff.

Looks like Abdullah will win? Votes have really consolidated behind him. I reckon he will finish with 46-48% at this rate. Quite brilliant. If Karzai were smart, he will cut a deal with Abdullah and shut the 2nd round. Will he?

@Agnimitra - isn't "plenty" a bit exaggerated? They talk about 100 (was it 100's of cases?) cases but most media reports say that things were much calmer and much better than any other Afghani elections in recent times? Yes to Taliban warning / coercion and voting stations being closed etc. But not a great deal of complaints there. I believe that the closing o a few remote stations was a strategic decision to preclude a Talibani 'attempt'

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 25 Apr 2014 07:51

vijaykarthik wrote:most media reports say that things were much calmer and much better than any other Afghani elections in recent times?

This is true. The enthusiasm to go out and vote has been the highest, people there really want security and development. I feel for my Afghan brothers. Yet, the country is plagued by communal fratricide. An Afghan friend currently in India told me that a fellow-Hazara was murdered 1.5 weeks back, during the election fever. That sort of thing happens a lot over there.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 25 Apr 2014 09:08

ramana wrote:Also dumb to have 50% run-off and allow more than two candidates to run!!!

Don't quite get the point right. Are you talking about why there is more than 2 candidates in the run-off? This is the first round and the runoff will have only 2 candidates [the top 2 vote % candidates will enter the run-off]. If there is a run-off [because of no agreements between the leaders etc], then it will happen in late May. Perhaps early June. that will be tragicomical situation and US will need a clear result by Aug or so for them to keep their supply lines intact and also take decisions etc [this was something that I saw from some media report. Ideally, they will prefer it getting much earlier. Most Ideal scenario: they wanted the BSA and SoFA signing to be done yesterday.]

The most dire scenario I read about Af: no clear results / leader till August end. Hope it wont be so bad.

Af w/o US troops will be a fright. And with Pak losing control over TTP talks etc, it makes it even more messy.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 26 Apr 2014 15:17

Latest news on Af elections

KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghanistan's presidential elections are headed for a runoff after full preliminary results released Saturday showed the front-runners failed to win to a majority and avoid a second round of voting.

Former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah garnered 44.9 percent of the vote, followed by ex-Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai with 31.5 percent, said election commission chairman Ahmad Yousuf Nouristan. The candidates are vying to replace President Hamid Karzai, the only president Afghans have known since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion to topple the Taliban's hard-line Islamic regime.

"According to our findings it seems that, this election will go to the second round," Nouristani said. "We have a tentative schedule of June 7th to start the second round."

The preliminary results are to be finalized on May 14 after investigations into fraud complaints. But those investigations are unlikely to invalidate enough votes change the outcome that points to a second round. Electoral law requires a runoff between the top two candidates if no one gets a majority.

The eventual election winner will oversee a tumultuous period as the U.S. and NATO are expected to withdraw most of their troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year. Karzai, whose relations with Washington have sharply deteriorated, was constitutionally barred from running for a third term

Both Abdullah and Ahmadzai have promised a fresh start with the West and have vowed to move ahead a security pact with the U.S. that Karzai has refused to sign. That pact would allow a small force of American soldiers to stay in the country to continue training Afghan army and police to fight the Taliban.

The preliminary results were from about 6.6 million valid votes counted by the election commission, Nouristani said. He said the commission had invalidated some 240,000 ballots for fraud and other irregularities, and it also further examining ballots from 444 polling stations — potentially representing more than 200,000 votes — because of fraud concerns.

While Abdullah was the clear front-runner in the first round of voting, a runoff could involve a completely different picture as both he and Ahmadzai court the six other candidates in the race and their respective support bases.

Zalmai Rassoul, another former foreign minister who placed third 11.5 percent of the vote, could emerge as a kingmaker, as could Abdul Rasoul Sayyaf, an influential former lawmaker and religious scholar who won 7.1 percent.

It is unclear whether Rassoul and Sayyaf could deliver the votes of their supporters, who are largely Pashtuns, the country's largest ethnic group.

If voters follow previous patterns of choosing along ethnic lines, some believe much of the Pashtun vote will coalesce around the candidate who shares their ethnicity in a runoff — and many Pashtuns do not view Abdullah as one of their own, since he has an ethnic Tajik mother and Pashtun father.

Still, Abdullah — who was second place to Karzai in the 2009 election — clearly received some Pashtun support in the first round, and his experienced campaign may draw enough in a second round to put him over 50 percent.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 07 May 2014 11:41

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27258566#

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 May 2014 21:37

I have started seeing Afghan-Indian restaraunts in Bay Area.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 08 May 2014 00:59

Viewpoint: India risks destabilising Afghanistan
Crumbling Yellow Teeth Media

India's decision last week to pay for arms and equipment from Russia to boost the strength of the Afghan National Army (ANA) could be a dramatic game-changer in the region - as well as a step fraught with escalation in regional rivalries.Pakistan is almost certain to look critically at the deal and accuse India, its rival, of trying to outflank it.For the last few years India has tactfully declined to say yes to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's repeated pleas for the Indian supply of heavy weapons for the ANA, such as long range artillery, tanks and aircraft.
Both the US and India seemed to have been careful in not upsetting Pakistan, which has been critical of the size of the ANA and will most certainly react if the ANA receives offensive weapons.Both Pakistan and Afghanistan have no control over large parts of their common border.India's refusal to accept Mr Karzai's requests has gone down well in Islamabad, and both India and Pakistan have been on their best gentlemanly behaviour when it comes to not making provocative or rash statements about their well-known mutual rivalry in Afghanistan.This relationship was tested after the Afghan Taliban's Haqqani network launched attacks several years ago on the Indian embassy and its personnel in Kabul.
India has declined, saying it does not want to get involved in the civil war in Afghanistan even though it has supported the government strongly.Now that the Americans are leaving by the end of this year, India seems to have changed its tune.o far the agreement with Russia implies that India will pay for Russian arms such as light artillery and mortars to be delivered to Afghanistan. However both countries say it could involve the delivery of heavy weapons in the future.
Afghans have long fought with Russian or, previously, Soviet weapons and much prefer those to Western arms.All this is likely to deeply annoy Pakistan, and escalate tensions with India and rivalry over their influence in Afghanistan.The Pakistan army has a low opinion of the ANA and does not trust it receiving offensive weapons which could be used on their common border.
This tit-for-tat escalation has already led to fire-fights, exchanges of artillery fire and casualties between the two armies on the border. Islamabad also has suspicions that Indian trainers or advisers on the border could theoretically now replace US and Nato trainers.However, one country could play a stabilising or balancing role and that is China. President Karzai has also asked China for military help but Beijing has been extremely reluctant to get involved on the ground in Afghanistan - just as China refuses to get involved in other conflict zones such as North Korea.Pakistan could now ask its closest ally, China, to get more involved in bolstering the ANA. That could balance Indian and Russian influence.One critical unanswered question remains: who is going to pay the $4bn a year that the ANA needs to continue functioning and paying salaries?The US and Nato have said they are willing to foot part of the bill but not for very long. There is no hint that India, Russia or China have offered money up front to support the ANA.Most experts conclude that the ANA will have to drastically reduce its size anyway by next year, because nobody will be willing to support more than 320,000 soldiers and policemen who constitute the present Afghan security forces.If outside countries pour in heavy weapons without the money to pay for sustaining the army, the danger of those weapons ending up with the Taliban becomes even greater.That is exactly what happened with the last lot of Soviet heavy weapons left behind in 1989 when Soviet forces left Afghanistan. The weapons were soon in the hands of warlords and the Taliban and the civil war started.Pakistan fears that any heavy weapons arriving in Afghanistan could end up in the hands of the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban.Afghanistan needs peace before it needs more weapons, and it needs bigger doses of diplomacy and political dialogue to get the Taliban to stop fighting.If that could happen, rather than flooding it with weapons once again, Afghanistan would be a happier place

.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 08 May 2014 00:59

Viewpoint: India risks destabilising Afghanistan
Crumbling Yellow Teeth Media

India's decision last week to pay for arms and equipment from Russia to boost the strength of the Afghan National Army (ANA) could be a dramatic game-changer in the region - as well as a step fraught with escalation in regional rivalries.Pakistan is almost certain to look critically at the deal and accuse India, its rival, of trying to outflank it.For the last few years India has tactfully declined to say yes to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's repeated pleas for the Indian supply of heavy weapons for the ANA, such as long range artillery, tanks and aircraft.
Both the US and India seemed to have been careful in not upsetting Pakistan, which has been critical of the size of the ANA and will most certainly react if the ANA receives offensive weapons.Both Pakistan and Afghanistan have no control over large parts of their common border.India's refusal to accept Mr Karzai's requests has gone down well in Islamabad, and both India and Pakistan have been on their best gentlemanly behaviour when it comes to not making provocative or rash statements about their well-known mutual rivalry in Afghanistan.This relationship was tested after the Afghan Taliban's Haqqani network launched attacks several years ago on the Indian embassy and its personnel in Kabul.
India has declined, saying it does not want to get involved in the civil war in Afghanistan even though it has supported the government strongly.Now that the Americans are leaving by the end of this year, India seems to have changed its tune.o far the agreement with Russia implies that India will pay for Russian arms such as light artillery and mortars to be delivered to Afghanistan. However both countries say it could involve the delivery of heavy weapons in the future.
Afghans have long fought with Russian or, previously, Soviet weapons and much prefer those to Western arms.All this is likely to deeply annoy Pakistan, and escalate tensions with India and rivalry over their influence in Afghanistan.The Pakistan army has a low opinion of the ANA and does not trust it receiving offensive weapons which could be used on their common border.
This tit-for-tat escalation has already led to fire-fights, exchanges of artillery fire and casualties between the two armies on the border. Islamabad also has suspicions that Indian trainers or advisers on the border could theoretically now replace US and Nato trainers.However, one country could play a stabilising or balancing role and that is China. President Karzai has also asked China for military help but Beijing has been extremely reluctant to get involved on the ground in Afghanistan - just as China refuses to get involved in other conflict zones such as North Korea.Pakistan could now ask its closest ally, China, to get more involved in bolstering the ANA. That could balance Indian and Russian influence.One critical unanswered question remains: who is going to pay the $4bn a year that the ANA needs to continue functioning and paying salaries?The US and Nato have said they are willing to foot part of the bill but not for very long. There is no hint that India, Russia or China have offered money up front to support the ANA.Most experts conclude that the ANA will have to drastically reduce its size anyway by next year, because nobody will be willing to support more than 320,000 soldiers and policemen who constitute the present Afghan security forces.If outside countries pour in heavy weapons without the money to pay for sustaining the army, the danger of those weapons ending up with the Taliban becomes even greater.That is exactly what happened with the last lot of Soviet heavy weapons left behind in 1989 when Soviet forces left Afghanistan. The weapons were soon in the hands of warlords and the Taliban and the civil war started.Pakistan fears that any heavy weapons arriving in Afghanistan could end up in the hands of the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban.Afghanistan needs peace before it needs more weapons, and it needs bigger doses of diplomacy and political dialogue to get the Taliban to stop fighting.If that could happen, rather than flooding it with weapons once again, Afghanistan would be a happier place

.

KJo · Post by **KJo** » 09 May 2014 01:49

This is amazing news. Kudos to Karzai or whoever appointed him.

First Afghan Hindu appointed Afghanistan’s special envoy

A Hindu Afghan was was for the first time appointed as the ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

The Afghanistan embassy in Canada following a statement said the newly appointed ambassador Sham Lall Bathija, presented his Letters of Credence to His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada, at a ceremony held in Rideau Hall, Ottawa.

Mr. Bathija was called an extraordinary, plenipotentiary and special envoy of the Afghan Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

The Presidential Palace officials said Sham Lall Bathija is a senior Afghan diplomat who specializes in economy and has good knowledge of economic affairs in developing countries.

Bathija was born in southern Kandahar province of Afghanistan and has completed his higher education in the field of economy and law in India, according to BBC Persian.

akashganga · Post by **akashganga** » 09 May 2014 06:41

KJoishy wrote:This is amazing news. Kudos to Karzai or whoever appointed him.

First Afghan Hindu appointed Afghanistan’s special envoy

A Hindu Afghan was was for the first time appointed as the ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

The Afghanistan embassy in Canada following a statement said the newly appointed ambassador Sham Lall Bathija, presented his Letters of Credence to His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada, at a ceremony held in Rideau Hall, Ottawa.

Mr. Bathija was called an extraordinary, plenipotentiary and special envoy of the Afghan Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

The Presidential Palace officials said Sham Lall Bathija is a senior Afghan diplomat who specializes in economy and has good knowledge of economic affairs in developing countries.

Bathija was born in southern Kandahar province of Afghanistan and has completed his higher education in the field of economy and law in India, according to BBC Persian.

Great news. Till 7th or 8th century the present day afganisthan was populated by hindus and now few are left. I read somewhere that even in 19th century afganisthan had significant hindu/sikh population.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 09 May 2014 12:35

NightWatch for the night of 8 May 2014

Afghanistan: For the record. The Taliban announced that it will begin its spring offensive. The Islamist extremists said that the offensive, beginning on Monday, would cleanse "the filth of the infidels" from the country.

The offensive is named "Khaibar", after an ancient battle between Muslims and Jews. "If the invaders or their internal stooges believe that reducing the number of foreign forces will dampen our Jihadi fervor then they are sadly mistaken."

It added that attacks during the coming "fighting season" would target US military bases, foreign embassies and vehicle convoys, as well as the Afghan government.

"The days of ... the barbaric invaders (on) the pure soil of our country have come (to a) close, Allah willing, due to your 13-year Jihad and sacrifices," it told its fighters. "The main target of the current year's blessed Jihadi operation shall be the foreign invaders and their backers under various names like spies, military and civilian contractors and everyone working for them like translators," it said.

The offensive will consist of suicide bombings, "insider attacks" by Afghan soldiers and complex assaults on military facilities. "Such war techniques which shall inflict maximum losses on the invaders while preventing corporeal and financial losses on the ordinary civilians."

Comment: A more prudent strategy would be to begin this offensive after Western forces have departed. That is not the Taliban way, however.

The Taliban offensive will be the true test of the capabilities of Afghan government forces to stand up to the Taliban during a fighting season. For the Taliban, the offensive at this time could backfire in the form of a signed Bilateral Security Agreement between the US and the new government of Afghanistan that prolongs Western military presence and support.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 09 May 2014 13:39

^^ however, will the west forces move? I don't think its likely at all. They will move heaven and earth to ensure that the skeletal staff [and cupboard full of skeletons] surely remain behind.

KJo · Post by **KJo** » 09 May 2014 23:46

akashganga wrote: Great news. Till 7th or 8th century the present day afganisthan was populated by hindus and now few are left. I read somewhere that even in 19th century afganisthan had significant hindu/sikh population.

I have some Afghan friends who grew up in Kabul in the 70s and I talk (email) to them every day discussing politics and beating up on Pakis. They tell me that growing up, there were areas in Kabul where Hindus and Sikhs had their stores and they would get the most amazing Pakoras there among other sweets. Everyone had a few Hindus or Sikhs as classmates and many Afghans (Muslims) would later travel to India for degree studies.

This other Afghan friend tells me that the country was completely converted to Islam and the Hindu/Sikhs who are Afghans are the ones who lived in that area near what is today's Pakistan and migrated sometime in the recent centuries. They are not the descendents of the original Hindu "Afghans".

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 May 2014 08:55

Call for China to be proactive in Afghanistan - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

The Chinese are already active in Afghanistan. They have multiple reasons to do so, increasing their sphere of influence in their neighbourhood especially over an unstable country, this is the right time to intervene, there is help from STFU-TSP to do so, there is mineral wealth to be exploited there, there is a need to deny Indian influence there both for its sake and the sake of Pakistan, Afghanistan is part of the old Silk Route and likely new Land Silk Route, plenty of opportunity for trade, keep a tab on the nexus between Uyghur jihadists and the Taliban, establish its claim as a successor to the US legacy etc.

A spate of terror attacks in recent weeks targeting railway stations in China has brought into the spotlight the government’s concerns about growing capabilities of extremist groups in the far-western Xinjiang region, with Chinese officials and strategic experts fearing that terror groups could soon become further emboldened by possible instability in neighbouring Afghanistan following the imminent withdrawal of United States-led NATO forces.

Chinese strategic scholars are now calling on Beijing to rethink its long-held reluctance to play a greater security role in neighbouring Afghanistan – where Chinese involvement has largely been limited to investments in mines and infrastructure projects – amid fears that a deteriorating situation there could impact security in Xinjiang in the wake of three daring attacks in recent weeks that have left at least 30 people killed and more than 200 injured.

Only on Friday, five people in Xinjiang’s southern Kashgar prefecture were given jail terms ranging from seven to 15 years for spreading “video and audio material to incite separatist activities”, the official Xinjiang Daily reported, adding that the southern Xinjiang border regions of Hotan, Kashgar and Aksu which border Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Central Asia were “areas overseas separatist forces attempt to penetrate the most.”

Security blue book

This week, a government think-tank released a first ever National Security Blue Book, or policy guideline, warning that as Chinese overseas interests were expanding, terrorism in China was “taking on new characteristics.”

“The risk of China facing more international terrorism is being intensified,” the book said, adding that there were “10 terrorist attacks in China last year.”

On Tuesday, six people were injured as at least one assailant armed with long knives stabbed passengers at a railway station in the southern industrial metropolis of Guangzhou.

This followed an attack last week in Xinjiang’s provincial capital Urumqi that left at least three people killed and 79 injured when attackers detonated explosives and stabbed people. The Urumqi and Kunming attacks, according to officials, were carried out by extremist Uighur groups from Xinjiang. The Uighurs are an ethnic Turkic Muslim group native to Xinjiang, which has a history of ethnic tensions between Uighurs and the majority Han Chinese. The attacks have prompted warnings from Chinese strategic experts for Beijing to step up attention on its western frontier. Zhao Minghao of Peking University in a recent article warned that the government should not be distracted by maritime tensions on its eastern frontiers.Another challenge

“Although confronted by diplomatic challenges including the Diaoyu Islands disputes [with Japan], the South China Sea spats and the North Korean nuclear issue, Chinese leaders also have to pay attention to the security to the west of the nation. Afghanistan in the post-2014 era is posing another challenge for China’s neighbourhood diplomacy,” he warned.

“To safeguard the stability in border areas and economic interests in Afghanistan, Beijing should continue to play a role on relevant issues. China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region borders Afghanistan through the Wakhan Corridor. When the Taliban was in power, Al Qaeda set up training camps and provided arms equipment for terrorist and separatist groups from Xinjiang.”

Showing keener interest

Chinese officials believe members of the separatist East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) have been hiding out in border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In recent months, Beijing has indeed begun to show greater interest in playing a broader role in Afghanistan beyond investing in projects. China has organised separate bilateral and trilateral dialogues involving Afghanistan, Russia, Pakistan and India, and also pushed for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) grouping to take up a greater role there following the NATO withdrawal.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 10 May 2014 11:35

ramana wrote:He is that high angle Bofors in Kargil guy!

One of these days PRC will take over TSP and make them work for a living for all the free aid they are getting.

In your dreams. What's in it for them? Much better to keep North Korea West fantasizing about coming glory under the tutelage of tallel than mountain fliend.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 11 May 2014 12:11

The Haqqani Network, Again - Edit in DAWN

ONCE upon a time, there was a demand of Pakistan: do more, the Americans urged, against the Haqqani network in North Waziristan. That time eventually passed, with the Americans seemingly coming to the conclusion that overt pressure on Pakistan on the North Waziristan/Haqqani issue was counterproductive in other areas while perhaps also recognising that the post-surge pivot to eastern Afghanistan never materialised and dialogue with the Afghan Taliban became the more pressing concern. But, in what must surely come as a surprise for those outside the closed circles in which such matters are debated, US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns has revived the do-more mantra on his visit to Pakistan this week. What that seems to suggest is that as the security and governance transition in Afghanistan approaches a critical phase, the US is once again worried about the power of the Haqqanis to impact security and stability in Afghanistan. And if that is the case, then as the de facto patrons of the Haqqani network, the Pakistani state could find itself yet again under renewed pressure.

Yet, where there is danger, there is often opportunity too. In the past, by swatting aside any plea, request or demand to squeeze the Haqqani network, the security establishment was essentially sticking to its hedging strategy — something that all sides involved in Afghanistan practise to some degree or the other. But if there has ever been a moment to stop hedging — not from some narrow, self-interested distorted security point of view, but from the perspective of desirable regional and national stability — this may be it. What was once one-way traffic in terms of accusations and the movement of militants has become two-way traffic across the Durand Line — with Pakistan having much to worry about in terms of the TTP leadership escaping to Afghanistan where it will almost surely find suitors eager to pay Pakistan back for its perceived sins over the years. From there, it would be a short hop to Fata truly going up in flames and the settled areas of Pakistan coming under renewed and intense pressure. A new understanding on cross-border militancy is important, and achievable. Policymakers here must also know that the drone campaign can be restarted with the flick of a switch.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 11 May 2014 15:27

Rassoul lends his support for Abdullah.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27361019#

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 May 2014 09:29

vijaykarthik wrote:Rassoul lends his support for Abdullah.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27361019#

Good news. Means Abdullah**2 and. Karzai are joining hands.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 13 May 2014 11:01

NightWatch for the night of May 12, 2014

Afghanistan: Update. Taliban officials announced that their Khaibar military offensive began with rocket attacks against the Kabul airport and Bagram airfield. The rockets injured no one and did little damage.

A mix of attacks has been reported in five provinces, including Nangarhar, Logar, Ghazni, Parwan and Kabul. News services reported 21 people killed.

Comment: With the drawdown of Western forces, incident and attack reporting is slower and less accurate. In the past two months, attacks and incidents have slowly increased, but ranged between 20 and 30 a day, with few killed or wounded. Most occurred in the Pashtun provinces of the south, supplemented by a handful of attacks in three or four Pashtun enclaves in northern Afghanistan. That information provides a baseline for following and gauging the severity of the new Taliban offensive.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 13 May 2014 14:14

^^ it seems surprising that they make it sound like its an annual ritual. Who all (countries) fund the Taliban? Do they have an allegiance to any one country currently or is it that *that* control has got broken. Last time I checked, Pak cant control Taliban anymore. Can Saudi? Don't think that's possible either. I do wonder how this end game will work out and who exactly is going to foot the bill for all these sound, fire and light show. For how long?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 May 2014 12:21

vijaykarthik wrote:^^ it seems surprising that they make it sound like its an annual ritual.

Yes Vijay, it has been an annual ritual. Who is funding them ? West Asia, Pakistan, extortion racket, robbery etc all over Pakistan . . . Do you remember the cartoon a long time back on American money passing hands and ending up with the Taliban?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 May 2014 12:27

From NightWatch for the Night of May 13, 2014

Afghanistan: Update. The first two days of the Taliban's new spring offensive are underwhelming. On Sunday, fewer than 36 attacks were reported. On Monday, fewer than 18 were reported; half were roadside bombs. The worst incident was a suicide bomb attack near Kandahar, in the south, that killed 5 and injured 35 people.

Comment: The Khaibar offensive is off to a slow start. The reasons for this are not yet clear, but it is a reprieve for Afghan forces. One open source reported that the Taliban leadership dismissed its top military leader because the Taliban failed to surge to prevent the Afghan presidential elections. Leadership disarray could be contributing to the lackluster start. {I doubt it. There was a quid-pro-quo for this among the US, Pakistan and the Taliban. The local attacks within Afghanistan have been led by warlords like Haqqanis and others. Not every warlord is an adherent to jihadi Islamist ideology; they are also swayed by money and power. Many of them were temporarily bought over through money by Karzai and the Americans. This situation might not last very long.}

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 May 2014 20:31

SSridhar wrote:
vijaykarthik wrote:^^ it seems surprising that they make it sound like its an annual ritual.
Yes Vijay, it has been an annual ritual. Who is funding them ? West Asia, Pakistan, extortion racket, robbery etc all over Pakistan . . . Do you remember the cartoon a long time back on American money passing hands and ending up with the Taliban?

The old cartoon is now lost.

but here is another in similar vien....

Prem wrote:

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 14 May 2014 20:35

=)) good 'un

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 May 2014 21:21

Lost and found..

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 May 2014 16:57

NightWatch for the Night of May 15, 2014

Afghanistan: Update. The Independent Election Commission posted the final results of the first round of the presidential election. The top two candidates are Dr. Abdullah, who received 45% of the votes and Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai who received 31.56%.

The Commission indicated that 7 million people voted, or about 58% of the registered voters.

Comment: An analysis of provincial results shows Afghanistan remains strongly polarized, based on tribal allegiances, which also means region. That judgment should surprise no one.

Dr. Abdullah, a Tajik with Pashtun blood, won an outright majority in 15 provinces, all but one of them in the Tajik and Uzbek north and in the Hazara regions of central Afghanistan. In the south he won by a cleear majority only in Ghazni Province.

Ashraf Ghani won nine provinces outright; seven of them are in the Pashtun region of the south. However, two other Pashtun candidates prevented him from making a stronger showing. The Pashtuns remain fractured and fractious so that their most appealing candidate came in a distant second. They have a second chance in the run-off election, but the Taliban spring offensive will help ensure they will not win the presidency.

The northern tribes have not forgiven the Pashtuns for the brutality and repressive policies of the Taliban. The results announced today confirm tthat attitude remains strong and was manifest in the voting.

The significance of this is that in the past 13 years, the tribal factors that promote insurgency remain strong. Abdullah is likely to win the runoff election next month. His prospects improved after the Taliban announced their spring offensive this week.