Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 12 Feb 2013 17:56

@RoyG
The actual border that separates afghanistan and pakistan is the durrand line. That should have been the actual border but it isn't. The afghans hold the british india responsible for it. The afghans views the state of pakistan as illegitimate - trouble makers of indian muslim origin occupying afghan lands by brute force.

The pashtuns living in north west pakistan are connected to afghanistan by blood.
---------

The pashtuns in pakistan will fight as long as they are given money and weapons
Similarly, the afghan forces will continue to fight as long as they are given money and weapons

Post american withdrawal, drones operations will still be there and the afghan forces will still get money and weapons. Today, when the afghan forces retaliate on the borders, the pakistanis complain to the americans. Post withdrawal, the americans won't be there and afghan forces will get to conduct their operations more freely.

Historically, the afghans have been forced to submit to the punjabi masters on their east. The one good thing to come out of the afghan invasion may have to be their sovereignty from the clutches of PA.

The last part is still speculative. We'll just have to see how much teeth the afghan forces are going to get against their punjabi enemies.
------
an article from dec 2012

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... 164752.ece

Afghan military commanders and intelligence officials have begun urging India to provide direct military assistance to the country’s fledgling armed forces following a series of skirmishes with Pakistani troops this autumn, highly placed government sources in Kabul told The Hindu.

Key equipment sought by the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), the sources said, include medium trucks that can carry 2.5-7 tonne cargos, bridge-laying equipment and engineering facilities. India was also asked to consider the possibility of supplying light mountain artillery, along with ordnance, and to help Afghanistan build close air-support capabilities for its troops in preparation of drastic scaling-down of western forces in 2014.

The requests followed fierce fighting along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that raged from July to September, in which both sides used artillery — and comes amidst fears that Afghanistan may be unable to hold together in the face of renewed jihadist assault in the run-up to the country’s Presidential election.

India’s Afghan test

For India, the Afghan military demands present a strategic dilemma, as well as the first real test of the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Hamid Karzai on October 4. The accord, Afghanistan’s first with any country, opened up the prospect of significantly expanding military cooperation far beyond training the country’s military and police personnel, India’s main contribution so far.

“India agrees to assist as mutually determined,” clause 5 of the section on political and security cooperation reads, “in the training, equipping and capacity building programmes for the ANSF.”

Now estimated at 3,52,000-strong, the ANSF cost over $4 billion to support—far beyond the government’s resources. Participants at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s summit in Chicago this May agreed to continue to foot the Bill until 2017, but also sought “gradual, managed force reduction” to about 2,28,500. Kabul fears the social consequences of putting over 1,00,000 trained soldiers out of jobs, and worries that recession in the West could lead to a further scaling back of support.

Nor is there clarity on the precise nature of how many troops the United States will maintain after 2014, though its government has said some numbers of personnel will remain. Vanda Felbab-Brown, an expert at the Washington, DC-based Brookings Institution, recently warned that “if the definition of [the post-2014] United States mission then is only very narrow counter-terrorism for its own contingents and on-base counter-insurgency training for the ANSF, the United States may be severely constrained in providing crucial and necessary resources to the ANSF.”

Strategic dilemma

India, diplomatic sources in New Delhi said, however fears being sucked into a military relationship with Afghanistan that could enrage Pakistan — a country which has long worried that its northern neighbour could be used as a base for aggression by its historic eastern adversary. Islamabad has, in the past, alleged that India’s intelligence services are using Afghanistan to back secessionists in Balochistan, as well as jihadists fighting the Pakistani state.

“Frankly,” said Sushant Sareen, an expert at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi, “I think its worth New Delhi’s while to take the risk. Pakistan says it is happy for Afghans to decide their own future. It is time to put that claim to the test.”

President Karzai’s administration is engaged in a last-ditch effort to secure Pakistani support for the 2014 transition, by seeking its support for negotiations with Taliban leaders based in Peshawar and Quetta. Mr. Karzai has even offered Pakistan a strategic partnership agreement, like that signed with India. However, Afghan government sources said, the military leadership believe Indian assistance will be critical if these efforts fail — and snowballing violence within the country leads to future skirmishes along their border with Pakistan.

Fighting along the Durand Line — the 2,640 km frontier drawn by British administrator Mortimer Durand of British India and Afghan Amir Abdur Rahman Khan in 1893, but never ratified by Kabul — has erupted periodically since 9/11.

In the summer of 2003, the Afghan government claimed Pakistan established bases up to 600 metres inside its territory, along the Yaqubi Kandao pass. Even though the skirmishes that broke out were local, they set a pattern. In 2007, clashes broke out again when the Pakistan army sought to erect fences inside Afghan territory in the Angoor Adda area, along the border with South Waziristan. Like this autumn, both sides exchanged artillery fire.

The latest clashes, Afghan army sources told The Hindu, were sparked off by a succession of attacks by jihadist groups operating in the Kunar area, including the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which are alleged to have the backing of local Pakistan army units.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 12 Feb 2013 19:08

nvishal wrote:@RoyG
The actual border that separates afghanistan and pakistan is the durrand line. That should have been the actual border but it isn't. The afghans hold the british india responsible for it. The afghans views the state of pakistan as illegitimate - trouble makers of indian muslim origin occupying afghan lands by brute force.

The pashtuns living in north west pakistan are connected to afghanistan by blood.
---------

The pashtuns in pakistan will fight as long as they are given money and weapons
Similarly, the afghan forces will continue to fight as long as they are given money and weapons

Post american withdrawal, drones operations will still be there and the afghan forces will still get money and weapons. Today, when the afghan forces retaliate on the borders, the pakistanis complain to the americans. Post withdrawal, the americans won't be there and afghan forces will get to conduct their operations more freely.

Historically, the afghans have been forced to submit to the punjabi masters on their east. The one good thing to come out of the afghan invasion may have to be their sovereignty from the clutches of PA.

The last part is still speculative. We'll just have to see how much teeth the afghan forces are going to get against their punjabi enemies.

Like I said before, the ISI harbors leaders of both and will be playing an active role in negotiations with the Americans with the aim of curtailing the influence the Karzai regime. Who do you think is going to fill the vacuum? The "Pakistani Taliban"? Moreover, LeT wouldn't be looking to setup camps in Afghanistan if the PA didn't think the political climate in Afghanistan was tipping in its favor. You're correct that the Durand line is a colonial construct and Pashtuns on both sides don't recognize it. Afghanistan and Pakistan are essentially now one state which is growing increasingly Islamic and it's pashtun nationalism which is increasingly being sidelined.

Ramana and I had exchanged views on the matter a while back and he had come to the conclusion that a face off would happen between the PA and mullahs. However, PA will lose quickly and it will be more of a political transition than a civil war. It will not be a drawn out conflict like Syria due to a powerless civil society and lack of religious opposition.

The three trump cards that PA has is pitting radicalists against dharmic india and seperatists and religious groups within Pakistan, China, and it's nuclear weapons.

(1) By pitting Islamists against Sindhis, Balochis, Shias, etc it will keep the attention of the Taliban and other Islamic factions off of Punjab and the institution and keep the Pakistan state together. Meanwhile, the PA will try to push Islamists elements against dharmic india which will be the real pressure valve and keep it relevant in the eyes of the Pakistani people.

(2) As insurance, the PA will cede more territory to the Chinese to checkmate the power of the Taliban, other Islamist groups and the Indian military and therefore preserve itself.

(3) Nuclear weapons will keep the Chinese, Americans, and Saudis at the table and behind the PA so they will always have a fresh supply of cash, arms, and other resources to preserve itself. In the event that PA bends over to mullahs these three actors will ensure that the transition is smooth.

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 12 Feb 2013 19:55

RoyG
Pointing out dozens of predictable outcomes is not wisdom(such forecast gives only confusion). Only one thing can happen. Narrowing down on the most possible outcome is real work; that is good analysis.

Think like an afghan. Almost half of your land has been annexed by your neighbour. Would you call that an ally or an enemy?

The militants cannot win against the PA because they are divided, lack actual leadership and incapable both militarily and financially. But the afghan forces can look eye to eye with the PA if the world wishes to cultivate them with ammunition and money. And I see that happening.

Once the afghan forces get hold of the streets, it's going to be like mumbai police encountering underworld gangs back in the early and mid 90s.

Ahhh plz with the whole dharmic mumbo jumbo. The real world revolves around money and agreements.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 12 Feb 2013 20:50

Pointing out dozens of predictable outcomes is not wisdom(such forecast gives only confusion). Only one thing can happen. Narrowing down on the most possible outcome is real work; that is good analysis.

Oh you mean like how the Taliban are going to travel all the way to the USA to commit terror attacks? No no, this is not good analysis. I've given you the most likely outcome which is already happening. The Taliban backed by the PA are negotiating from a position of strength and will be the biggest players in Afghanistan after the US withdrawal in 2014.

Think like an afghan. Almost half of your land has been annexed by your neighbour. Would you call that an ally or an enemy?

The afghans don't enjoy the same national framework that India or China has. They are a very tribal people whose only binding force is Islam. If both populations that exist on both sides don't recognize the Durand line where does the question of annexure fit in?

The militants cannot win against the PA because they are divided, lack actual leadership and incapable both militarily and financially. But the afghan forces can look eye to eye with the PA if the world wishes to cultivate them with ammunition and money. And I see that happening.

Why exactly do you keep trumpeting this point? Again, if the PA has managed to drive out the Americans with all the military might they have brought to the table, how exactly then will the "afghan forces" who operate under a corrupt leadership be able to withstand the same treatment? It's impossible. Perhaps you can give us some evidence of that happening.

Once the afghan forces get hold of the streets, it's going to be like mumbai police encountering underworld gangs back in the early and mid 90s.

Acha Acha...like Mumbai police ecounter...except with AK and RPG pyre, religious fervor, drugs, IED mubarak, and widespread support from citizenry and PA. Perhaps, we should send some encounter specialists to Afghanistan. Cakewalk onlee...

Ahhh plz with the whole dharmic mumbo jumbo. The real world revolves around money and agreements.

By dharmic I was drawing an ideological distinction between Islam and the indigenous traditions of the subcontinent. Sure, money and agreements make the world go round but identity is critical to the designs of many political and social frameworks and institutions like the PA. I wouldn't characterize it as mumbo jumbo.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 12 Feb 2013 21:16

Hi guys, would you happen to know or have a map of the claimed border by Afghanistan if the Durand line is to be junked?

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 12 Feb 2013 22:41

@RoyG
1) The taliban regime is adequate for militant groups to plan and launch attacks on western interests. eg: 9/11 attacks

2) Insurgency is not a conventional war. The purpose of an insurgency is plain harassment of the security forces through hit-n-run attacks. Indian forces have experienced this in kashmir valley since more than 30 years so who won in kashmir? No one. The security situation in kashmir is described as a law and and order problem handled by the police. The same is happening in afghanistan. They don't need the army to sort out an insurgency. It has to be controlled through policing.

3) The taliban can't win if the US won't give up. There are almost 65000 US troops in afghanistan. The afghan forces number around 250000. While the quantity lacks quality, they are far better trained than the insurgents. This is beside the leftover american presence that will continue covert drone strikes on military camps in af-pak region.

4) As the civilian govt takes control of afghanistans sovereignty and foreign policy, it'll have a cascading effect on the pashtun population living in pakistan. Compulsion turns into determination.

5) Very few people understand identity and culture. Perhaps the biggest lie the pakistanis have managed to tell the world is that afghanistan cannot be solved.

@vasu

Search for "afghanistan including durrand line" on google. Or try "afghanistan ethnic groups"

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 12 Feb 2013 23:09

1) The taliban regime is adequate for militant groups to plan and launch attacks on western interests. eg: 9/11 attacks

The Taliban has the means but why? They're already guaranteed a win in Afghanistan and are holding negotiations with the Americans. The United States is more concerned with Pakistan as far as global terror is concerned.

2) Insurgency is not a conventional war. The purpose of an insurgency is plain harassment of the security forces through hit-n-run attacks. Indian forces have experienced this in kashmir valley since more than 30 years so who won in kashmir? No one. The security situation in kashmir is described as a law and and order problem handled by the police. The same is happening in afghanistan. They don't need the army to sort out an insurgency. It has to be controlled through policing.

Are you seriously comparing the insurgency in Kashmir with the situation in Afghanistan?

3) The taliban can't win if the US won't give up. There are almost 65000 US troops in afghanistan. The afghan forces number around 250000. While the quantity lacks quality, they are far better trained than the insurgents. This is beside the leftover american presence that will continue covert drone strikes on military camps in af-pak region.

The US has given up. The US will be pulling out the bulk of its forces in 2014. If the US + Afghan forces couldn't keep the Taliban at bay how do you expect the Afghan forces to go at it alone?

4) As the civilian govt takes control of afghanistans sovereignty and foreign policy, it'll have a cascading effect on the pashtun population living in pakistan. Compulsion turns into determination.

What compulsion?

5) Very few people understand identity and culture. Perhaps the biggest lie the pakistanis have managed to tell the world is that afghanistan cannot be solved.

The fact that they are being asked to come to the table and negotiate means that they have a vision for Afghanistan (solution).

Watch starting at 27:00

Reinforces what I've been saying.

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 13 Feb 2013 01:19

^Including the pakistanis in the afghan-taliban talks seems like a shortcoming but the fact is that things have not been going in pakistans favour since the american invasion of afghanistan.

Afghanistan has come a long way since 2001. The afghan army went from nothing to 2.5lac in 12 years. Pakistan has 3lac. That fact alone underlines the strategy since the afghans don't even have an economy to fund this huge army. Yet it needs it because of the threat from PA.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Feb 2013 01:23

It is very interesting that in spite of ~10 years of support from US, India etc., the Baluchi+Hazara+Ujbek+Tajik groups couldn't come up with separate BHUT nation that would leave Pakthuns and Pakis in a even tighter embrace.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 13 Feb 2013 01:48

RamaY wrote:It is very interesting that in spite of ~10 years of support from US, India etc., the Baluchi+Hazara+Ujbek+Tajik groups couldn't come up with separate BHUT nation that would leave Pakthuns and Pakis in a even tighter embrace.

Tajiks and Uzbeks are divided. They banded together to fight the Pashtun Taliban, but they have their centuries old differences. In Afghanistan, Turkish networks (including but not limited to Gulenists) are active among the Uzbeks and formed personal relationships with Dostum. They spoke Turkish with him and opened schools in that area teaching Turkish and discouraging the use of Dari/Farsi. These Turkish orgs are closely allied with NATO/US. So they played identity politics there. Within Tajikistan itself, there is a significant Ozbek minority which tends to act as a fifth column at times. Hazaras are Shi'a and had gravitated towards Iran, but their extended experience there has been a net disappointment (not nearly as bad as their harrowing experience in TSP, though). So the extended area provides a bigger picture view of why the "BHUT" nation didn't form.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Feb 2013 02:02

But President Obama called it differently. "This is hearsay, but I understand Obama said, Hell no. My guys are not surrendering. What do we need to rain hell on the Pakistani military?"
..
..
The commando also makes known his admiration for the President: That was the one time in my life I was thinking, I am f**king voting for this guy. I had a picture of him lying in bed at night, thinking, You're not f***king with my guys. Like, he's thinking about us.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 472050.cms

Thinking how will MMS would have commanded such an op.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 13 Feb 2013 02:47

nvishal wrote:^Including the pakistanis in the afghan-taliban talks seems like a shortcoming but the fact is that things have not been going in pakistans favour since the american invasion of afghanistan.

Afghanistan has come a long way since 2001. The afghan army went from nothing to 2.5lac in 12 years. Pakistan has 3lac. That fact alone underlines the strategy since the afghans don't even have an economy to fund this huge army. Yet it needs it because of the threat from PA.

Shortcoming? Like the west has a choice..Things haven't been going in pakistan's favor since its inception. Pakistan has 5 lakh not 3 lakh. Believe what you want. The Taliban backed by the PA is going to push for the cities and greatly expand their influence from the South once the withdrawal is complete in 2014. Pakistan is committed to placing the Taliban in charge in Kabul and will chew up those pathetic ANA soldiers.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 14 Feb 2013 04:20

@rajivwashpost: Exclusive: WH and Pentgn discusng plan to keep 8k US troops in Afg in '15 but then cut to under 1k in '17 http://t.co/mKUcxYyh

@rajivwashpost: Military wanted this year's Afg drawdown limited to 25k troops, not the 34k Obama will announce tonite http://t.co/EbvwD120

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 15 Feb 2013 02:23

Very interesting : Tom donilon on Charlie rose says They will let ANSF lead the fight in 2013 and 2014 fighting seasons to see how they do and what they need etc. this should give them the experience for post 2014

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 15 Feb 2013 07:58

US on same page with Afghanistan, Pakistan: official
Kerry Zarry_Sherry ke Beech, Kaisa hai Yeh Bandan Purana

WASHINGTON: The United States is seeking Pakistan’s support to secure Afghanistan as it prepares to pull out from the war-ravaged country by the end of next year, says the State Department.
The issue came up when the new US Secretary of State John Kerry called President Asif Ali Zardari on Tuesday to show his interest in continuing close ties with a key ally which shares a long and often troubled border with Afghanistan.Mr Kerry emphasised “our shared interest in regional stability, including a secure and peaceful future for Afghanistan,” State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters in Washington.Mr Kerry acted as US President Barack Obama’s unofficial envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan when he headed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and often visited the two countries to supplement the administration’s efforts for resolving difficult issues.Mr Nuland noted that Mr Kerry had established “a longstanding relationship” with many Pakistani leaders during these visits, and he used the phone call to “underscore the continuing importance of an effective, strong, and mutually beneficial US-Pakistani relationship”.Since Mr Kerry called President Zardari hours before President Obama announced his plans for ending the war in Afghanistan, diplomatic observers in Washington say that their conversation must have focused on the issue.Asked if Afghanistan’s reconciliation process also came up during Mr Kerry’s conversation with the Pakistani leader, Ms Nuland noted that Washington, Islamabad and Kabul were on the same page on the issue.“We have been in a good place in recent months — Afghanistan, Pakistan, US — in terms of using the core group that we established to support Afghanistan reconciliation to work through some of the practical issues like safe passage for Taliban who are willing to consider reconciliation,” she said.
“As you can see from some of the moves that have been going on between Afghanistan and Pakistan, they are also having a better dialogue now about facilitating reconciliation. So we would hope that that trend could continue,” Ms Nuland added.Secretary Kerry also underlined the issues on which the United States and Pakistan had common interests. These include fighting terrorism and extremism, supporting democratic civilian institutions, and supporting Pakistan’s efforts to increase economic growth, she said.Secretary Kerry also discussed “our ongoing interest in finding a concrete way to act jointly in support of all of these goals, and he made clear that he looks forward to working with President Zardari going forward,” the spokesperson said.—Correspondent

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 15 Feb 2013 08:46

shyamd wrote:@rajivwashpost: Exclusive: WH and Pentgn discusng plan to keep 8k US troops in Afg in '15 but then cut to under 1k in '17 http://t.co/mKUcxYyh

Oh, the Americans propose anything but it will be the Taliban who will dispose the proposals.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Feb 2013 07:52

India, US, Afghanistan to hold talks next week - Sandeep Dikshit, The Hindu

Afghanistan continues to occupy a prime place in India’s deliberations with other countries and with the second India-U.S.-Afghanistan meet scheduled here for next week, the United Kingdom sought to assuage hurt Indian sentiments over not being kept in the loop about the third Afghanistan-Pakistan meet it hosted recently in London.

While the Afghans briefed South Block about discussions between their President Hamid Karzai and his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari earlier this month with British Prime Minister David Cameron, the Indians were miffed at Downing Street keeping them in the dark.

As Mr. Cameron will be in Delhi next week, British Foreign Secretary William Hague called up External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid to assure him that the main intention was to speed up the reconciliation process. India wants this to take place with the “red lines” in place — talks with Taliban to be held only if it gives up violence and agrees to abide by the Afghan Constitution. From reports filtering in from London about the meeting, New Delhi apprehended that the envelope with respect to the red lines was being pushed to the maximum extent possible.

Mr. Hague reportedly clarified that the red lines won’t be disturbed and explained that the third meeting – after similar exercises last year in Kabul and London – was aimed at examining the issues that the Taliban would bring into a dialogue, if it takes place.

With enormous amounts of money and lives invested in attempting to stabilise Afghanistan over the past decade, India’s message to the officials’ level trilateral will be to ensure that the reconciliation exercise is guided by the basic principles agreed upon by the international community — the Taliban to abjure violence and express faith in the present Afghan Constitution and leadership.

The delegations to the talks will be led by Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister Jawed Ludin, Ministry of External Affairs Additional Secretary Y.K. Sinha and U.S Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 18 Feb 2013 16:05

India to talk to China, Russia on Pak role in Afghanistan

Anirban Bhaumik NEW DELHI, Feb 17, 2013, DHNS
With the US and the UK apparently conceding to Pakistan the lead role in reconciliation with Taliban, India is set to hold talks with Russia and China on emerging scenarios in Afghanistan ahead of the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force’s withdrawal from the conflict-ravaged country by 2014.

National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon is likely to meet his Russian and Chinese counterparts later this month to discuss the evolving situation in Afghanistan.

New Delhi is also expected to air its concern over Pakistan’s role in the peace-process in Afghanistan during British Prime Minister David Cameron’s visit to India scheduled on Monday. Cameron recently hosted Afghan and Pakistan presidents Hamid Karzai and Asif Ali Zardari at his country residence Chequers Court at Buckinghamshire in England and is understood to have encouraged the two leaders to strike a strategic partnership agreement. India will get another opportunity to discuss the issues when it will have a trilateral talk with the US and Afghanistan in New Delhi next week.

Sources said India is expected to drive home the point that Pakistan continues to be “a part of the problem” and it cannot yet be seen as “a part of the solution” in Afghanistan. Any hasty careless move to launch the peace process would in fact give an opportunity to Taliban to crawl back to power after 2014. New Delhi is likely to point out that the US itself, in 2011, publicly slammed Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence for its role in fomenting terrorism in Afghanistan.

What worries India is the Afghan High Peace Council’s five-step draft roadmap to 2015, as it appears to have been designed to kick-start a process that would ultimately give Pakistan the “strategic depth” it always aspired to have in Afghanistan. New Delhi is apprehensive about Washington outsourcing to Islamabad the peace-process with Taliban, before and after the drawdown of the International Security Assistance Force from Afghanistan.

The “draft road map” also seeks to give some key positions in post-2014 Afghanistan to the leaders of Taliban, including that of provincial governors, police chiefs and cabinet ministers.

To facilitate the peace-process, Pakistan, since November, released 26 Taliban prisoners from its jails, ostensibly on request from Afghanistan but without any oversight, triggering fear that some of them might go back to extremism.

When Menon broached the issue during a meeting of the BRICS high representatives for security in New Delhi last month, it was agreed that he and his counterparts from Russia and China would have a separate meeting to exchange views on the peace-process with Taliban and discuss the emerging scenarios in Afghanistan. Sources said the meeting might take place later this month.

New Delhi has made it clear that it is in favour an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned process towards peace in Afghanistan but insisted that the “Red Lines” agreed in London Conference in 2010 were strictly adhered to and the extremists entering the process were made to severe all links with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Feb 2013 19:48

I am not too sure if playing the TSP card against both PRC & Russia is such a good tactic right now. Everyone knows the Pakistani duplicity and what is their interest in keeping Afghanistan their backyard. The world powers seem to recognize the Pakistani approach as stemming from a genuine concern for its integrity and security. The Chinese & Russian interests are converging vis-a-vis US approach to Indo-Pacific region. The Russians have begun to show, for some time now, a keenness towards improving relationship with Pakistan. The India-Russia relationship has seen a number of wrinkles lately. Both PRC & Russia may dismiss Indian attempts as coming from a narrow Indian view point. But, both have however a stake in containing the terror emanating from Af-Pak for their own reasons. IMO, it is these fears that must drive an India-PRC-Russia approach, along with Iran. Of course, TSP will be discussed along the way but India should not betray its TSP-centric approach.

If India was so worried about Pakistani influence in a third country and so distrustful of it, how come that India itself is spreading a red carpet for Pakistan in its bilateral relationship spite of attack after attack, war after war ?

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 18 Feb 2013 19:59

Sridhar garu, any idea what is causing this shift in Russian stance wrt TSP? is it increasing Indian reluctance to buy Russian hardware? appears like we are distancing nations which have been friendly to us and gathering inimical forces around us in the process.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Feb 2013 20:19

venug, it may be OT here. I do not find anything unnatural in the 'drift'. India was forced to lean towards the Soviet camp during the Cold War era. we also had a PM who was pathologically anti-West. After the demise of the USSR, India's own dire economic situation in the early 90s (along with that of Russia's), globalization, economic liberalization in India etc., a certain realignment was inevitable. Russia cannot interpret diversification of Indian arms purchases as necessarily anti-Russian. Unfortunately, India-Russia relationship did not blossom into a multi-faceted one apart from military and diplomatic engagement.

Coming back to the India-China-Russia approach to Afghanistan, it was in October 2009, the foreign ministers of the RIC trianglemet in Bangalore and demanded a greater say for themselves in the resolution of the Afghan problem. It was on March 27, 2009 that the Obama administration announced its much awaited review of the Afghan policy. The policy recognized a division between Taliban, good and bad. The US announced its willingness to talk to the 'good' Taliban in Afghanistan. On that very day, the Shanghai Cooperation organization (SCO) announced its Moscow Declaration. While there was similarity in approach as far as the involvement of neighbours and regional players such as Russia, China, India, Iran and Pakistan in resolving the Afghan situation, it differed from the US policy of differentiating among the Taliban. This Declaration also castigated Pakistan for its support to terrorism and asked it to dismantle these infrastructure. Unfortunately, it has not progressed much beyond the declaration in the last four years. Now is the time to pick this up or else it may be too late.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Feb 2013 00:19

@Samiyousafzai: Top Pakistani militant leader mulvi Faqir Muhammad detained by afghan intelligence forces.. .. http://t.co/oQHwOhlt

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Feb 2013 13:29

shyamd wrote:@Samiyousafzai: Top Pakistani militant leader mulvi Faqir Muhammad detained by afghan intelligence forces.. .. http://t.co/oQHwOhlt

This guy, a 'bad' Taliban for TSP, was ruling Bajaur and PAF claimed he had been killed in its attack in March 2010. And, PAF claimed money from the US for this.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Feb 2013 14:12

Link

With John Kerry, an expert on the region, becoming U.S. Secretary of State, it is putting more faith in Tuesday’s U.S.-Afghanistan-India trilateral where Indian officials will get to hear about future plans from the main players.

Several problems in this assessment, if it were indeed true.

India is completely misreading the Af-Pak situation
Indian MEA must be high after smoking some fine stuff that they put faith in Kerry
India seems to have run out of options and seems clutching at straws
Has India learnt any lesson from past experiences and study of US foreign policy ? It appears not.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 19 Feb 2013 14:26

This seems to be par course for a country that has consistently relied on others to pressure the pakis while itself avoiding hard choices.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Feb 2013 15:44

SSridhar wrote:
shyamd wrote:@Samiyousafzai: Top Pakistani militant leader mulvi Faqir Muhammad detained by afghan intelligence forces.. .. http://t.co/oQHwOhlt
This guy, a 'bad' Taliban for TSP, was ruling Bajaur and PAF claimed he had been killed in its attack in March 2010. And, PAF claimed money from the US for this.

LOL!

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Feb 2013 06:01

NATO, PAKO , MASSO and Talibasso Will all Eat Hazar Onions and Hazar Jootes

Nato may station up to 12,000 troops in post-2014 Afghanistan

BRUSSELS: Nato may station up to 12,000 troops in Afghanistan to train and assist Kabul’s forces after its combat mission against the Taliban ends there in 2014, US officials said Friday.US Pentagon spokesman George Little said Nato was considering deployment of between 8,000 and 12,000 troops, including any US contribution, but no final decision has yet been made.Reports of a US presence of 8,000 to 12,000 troops “are not correct,” he said.President Barack Obama “is still reviewing options and has not made a decision about the size of a possible US presence after 2014,” he said, adding that discussions will now continue with Nato allies and Afghanistan.US press reports suggest Washington wants a US troop figure well below 10,000.
The issue of Nato’s post-2014 mission in Afghanistan is sensitive, with the allies anxious to ensure that the efforts in blood and money of more than 12 difficult years are maintained by a strong Afghan army.However, the war has grown increasingly unpopular and some countries are reluctant to make a large commitment given the risks still posed by the Taliban.Additionally, there has been uncertainty over the US role as Washington and Kabul negotiate an accord on the legal status of US troops after 2014.Earlier, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had declined to give precise figures for the post-2014 mission and stressed that Nato was looking at a variety of options and seeking to maintain the most flexibility.Panetta, who also rejected the report of 8,000 to 12,000 US troops being involved, said the training and advisory mission would have a presence throughout Afghanistan.There “will be a presence in Kabul and in the North, South, West and East,” he told a press conference at the end of a two-day Nato defence ministers meeting in Brussels.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Feb 2013 06:11

Jhujar wrote:Nato may station up to 12,000 troops in post-2014 Afghanistan

So many numbers are being bandied about. 5000, 7000 and now 12000.

But, finally, it is all

There won't be a single soldier come 2015.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Feb 2013 06:31

SS ji,

Did you watch the MJA speech in Canada? Pls check it between ~30-45 mins where he talks about the world wars. It has some hints about Pakistan and Af-Pak.

I am trying to write a blog post on it, may take a few days...

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 24 Feb 2013 20:40

3 separate suicide attacks against the ANA today. 1 was prevented by the NDS in Kabul diplomatic enclave, the other killed 1 guard. Targets selected appear to be NDS buildings. I guess we'll see a response in TSP soon.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Feb 2013 23:01

RamaY wrote:SS ji,

Did you watch the MJA speech in Canada? Pls check it between ~30-45 mins where he talks about the world wars. It has some hints about Pakistan and Af-Pak.
I am trying to write a blog post on it, may take a few days...

He also confirms BR adage,Pakistan =Islam and V.V.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 28 Feb 2013 15:35

'US diplomatically paralysed in Afghanistan due to Pakistan'

Washington: Pakistan has always hedged its bet with the Taliban and is paranoid about a close relationship between Afghanistan and India, paralysing America's diplomatic ability in the war-torn country, a retired US general has said.

The American interests' conflict with those of Pakistan in Afghanistan, retd Gen Jack Keane, former Vice Chief of Staff, and currently the chairman of the Board for the Institute for the Study of War, said during a Congressional hearing on Afghanistan.

"That's why they've always hedged their bet with the Taliban, so to speak, because they believe they may in fact have to deal with them again, and they're very concerned about the incumbent government and what they perceive to be a closer relationship between that government and India, which is the paranoia that the Pakistanis have always suffered from," Keane said.

"So this adds to the complication of this relationship and the fact that they are a growing nuclear arsenal in the region with a military oligarchy that truly runs the country, a largely ineffective civilian government, and it gives us a lot of concern, you know, for the region.

"And then you add the added factor of support for the Afghan sanctuaries in Pakistan."

"I believe it's paralysed our ability diplomatically, you know, to deal effectively with them as it pertains to the issue on Afghanistan," Keane said.

Keane said he has been disappointed with America's inability to shape the conditions a little bit to bring the Pakistanis closer to what US objective is as it pertains to those sanctuaries.

"And obviously they have interests that we can influence as well in a concerted effort to do that. I think we could have achieved better diplomatic progress than what we have had to date," he noted.

Why worry, have Kerry.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 28 Feb 2013 15:52

SaiK wrote:
But President Obama called it differently. "This is hearsay, but I understand Obama said, Hell no. My guys are not surrendering. What do we need to rain hell on the Pakistani military?"
..
..
The commando also makes known his admiration for the President: That was the one time in my life I was thinking, I am f**king voting for this guy. I had a picture of him lying in bed at night, thinking, You're not f***king with my guys. Like, he's thinking about us.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 472050.cms
Thinking how will MMS would have commanded such an op.

Even if they were Beheaded he would have said Peace process is uninterpreted and will continue and the WKK can have maja with RAPE

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Mar 2013 16:58

Bleak prospects for Afghanistan - Comment in TFT

Russia, India, Iran, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have in the past supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. These countries would never want Afghanistan to be ruled by the Taliban again. India has invested a lot in Afghanistan. It would dread to see the Taliban calling the shots. Russia, Iran, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan also feel seriously threatened by the prospect of the Taliban control of Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Pakistan are the three countries that recognized Mullah Omar's Taliban regime as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The Pakistani military establishment cannot digest the possibility of Indian influence in Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia does not want to see Iran as playing any important role in Kabul.

It seems likely that the struggle between the regional powers would result in the repeat of the situation of the 90s in Afghanistan. The countries involved would officially be denying any meddling, but unofficially backing their favorites.

Although the US Department of Defense wants to maintain some military presence in Afghanistan, it is possible that, like Iraq, President Barack Obama may decide on a total pullout. Even if a few thousand troops are kept in Afghanistan, their presence would not deter the Taliban who could not be defeated by the almost 150,000 US, NATO and ISAF soldiers.

The Taliban smell victory. They think if they could defeat the mighty US army they could easily take on the Afghan National Army (ANA) after 2014. The ANA has not developed into a well-trained, disciplined and professional force. The Taliban have also been able to infiltrate the Afghan army. An indication of that is so many incidents of 'green on blue' attacks where the ANA soldiers killed the US and NATO troops. The Taliban strategists believe that the ANA would fall apart on ethnic lines within a few years with a majority of its Pashtun soldiers switching to the Taliban.

The US and its NATO allies would continue to financially and militarily support the Northern Alliance backed Kabul government after 2014. But to what extent and for how long? The US public opinion is fed up with Afghanistan. Also, the US is faced with a huge fiscal deficit. If Afghanistan descends into civil war and the US backed Kabul government remains mired in factional fighting and corruption, it would be difficult for the US to continuously pour in tens of billions of dollars into Afghanistan for decades.

In the long run, the US might rely on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to persuade the Taliban that they should not provide sanctuaries to Al Qaeda in areas under their occupation.

As the Taliban fight for total control of Afghanistan after 2014, the Pakistani establishment might feel inclined to reach deals with the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and other militant groups. It is likely that under persuasion of Mullah Omar, the TTP, instead of fighting in Pakistan, would switch to fighting in Afghanistan under his command.

There are also indications that in the next few years, the Mujahideen, with Taliban help, would reactivate the dormant front in the Indian occupied Kashmir.

In such a situation, the India-Pakistan relations will go from bad to worse. Pakistan's ties with the US and its NATO allies would also be strained. The Pakistani support for the Afghan Taliban and the Kashmiri Mujahideen would create more problems for the Pakistani society. The pro-Taliban forces and sectarian militants will get even stronger in Pakistan, and the democratic, peace loving, secular and moderate elements will get marginalized further.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Mar 2013 15:58

Nightwatch on India-China moves in Af-Pak

China-India: Chinese media reported that India and China have agreed to start a dialogue on Afghanistan. An 'in-principle' agreement on official-level dialogue has been reached and dates for the first meeting are being worked out. Earlier this week, Indian National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon travelled to Moscow for the first three-way dialogue between India, Russia and China on Afghanistan in an effort to build on common security concerns. At present, India has an institutionalized dialogue on Afghanistan only with the US. Comment: The news commentary noted that China first offered India a wider dialogue on South Asia in general. India declined to hold talks about what it considers its sphere of influence with its primary competitor. Afghanistan is different because India and China share an interest in preventing the return of the Taliban or another extremist Islamist regime. India was a primary backer of the Northern Alliance tribes that fought the Pashtun Taliban before the US intervention in late 2001. As for China, Mullah Omar's Taliban regime allowed terrorism training for Uighur Islamic separatists from Xinjiang, China, and rejected Chinese inducements to terminate it. China is Pakistan's most important ally, but Pakistan also did nothing to stop the Uighur training by the very Taliban regime that Pakistan supported. {So, the Chinese decided to have an agreement with the Jama'at-e-Islami to stop this menace but JI has no influence over the Taliban, especially the Punjabi component, anyway. JI founder Maulana Mawdudi may be regarded as one of the two pillars of jihadi Islamism in the twentieth century, the other being Syed Qutb, but this is the twenty first century and the Taliban have travelled a long way from the Mawdudi teaching. In fact, Qazi Hussain saheb himself was on the Taliban's hitlist before he escaped that by dying naturally}

On Feb 18, I posted the belowmentioned here:

Coming back to the India-China-Russia approach to Afghanistan, it was in October 2009, the foreign ministers of the RIC triangle met in Bangalore and demanded a greater say for themselves in the resolution of the Afghan problem. It was on March 27, 2009 that the Obama administration announced its much awaited review of the Afghan policy. The policy recognized a division between Taliban, good and bad. The US announced its willingness to talk to the 'good' Taliban in Afghanistan. On that very day, the Shanghai Cooperation organization (SCO) announced its Moscow Declaration. While there was similarity in approach as far as the involvement of neighbours and regional players such as Russia, China, India, Iran and Pakistan in resolving the Afghan situation, it differed from the US policy of differentiating among the Taliban. This Declaration also castigated Pakistan for its support to terrorism and asked it to dismantle these infrastructure. Unfortunately, it has not progressed much beyond the declaration in the last four years. Now is the time to pick this up or else it may be too late.

prashanth · Post by **prashanth** » 11 Mar 2013 10:07

The great American betrayal

For this reason, it is important to reverse the appellation AfPak to PakAf, at least mentally. We need to ensure that a “solution” in Afghanistan has a collateral beneficial effect in Pakistan. Or, at least, it should not affect Pakistan negatively. This is not, of course, a call for pandering to Islamabad’s Afghan fantasies.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 11 Mar 2013 14:02

prashanth wrote:The great American betrayal

For this reason, it is important to reverse the appellation AfPak to PakAf, at least mentally. We need to ensure that a “solution” in Afghanistan has a collateral beneficial effect in Pakistan. Or, at least, it should not affect Pakistan negatively. This is not, of course, a call for pandering to Islamabad’s Afghan fantasies.

'collateral beneficial effect on Pakistan' as perceived by Pakistan or as perceived by the rest of the more civilized world ?

The rest of the world would like to see a well-representated, Islamic (even if not secular but certainly devoid of Wahhabi/Deobandi/Salafi/Takfuri Islamist influence), constitution-abiding, progressive governance in Afghanistan. Such an Afghanistan would be friendly with Pakistan even if there are border disputes and both countries would enjoy normal state-to-state relationship at nos cost to normal state-to-state relationships of Afghanistan with other countries. Does Pakistan want that ?

No, it wants a Talibani Pashtun dominated government in Kabul, implementing its interpretation of Shariah, with jihadi Islamism as its core, and a particularly vicious anti-India slant, and which is willing to provide it with strategic depth once again.

The American betrayal is that in the last minute, the US, in its hurry to exit, has capitulated to the same dark forces that were initially against it in c. 2011 (Taliban and Pakistan) and is surreptitiously transferring power to them.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 13 Mar 2013 17:03

McRaven says they will maintain 30k western troops post 2014. NATO has made operational plans only for 15k. US is now negotiating for bases in Tajikistan.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 13 Mar 2013 18:00

SS,

Manoj Joshi's analysis is deeply flawed because he seems to put India, China, and US on the same pedestal in terms of their concerns, and at the same receiving end of TSP's perfidy. He is dead wrong. Only India will be the one negatively affected by TSP's Afghan fantasies, and only India, and of course Afghanistan will be at the receiving end of TSP. US & China are making sure their interests are met, there is no negative fall out on them, and TSP will oblige them. India and Afghanistan (minus pro-TSP Taliban) will suffer the real nightmare of USA's betrayal. And the US slime balls have no interest in seeing to it that TSP murderous venom against India is not given a fillip by their withdrawal.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 13 Mar 2013 18:15

CRS, agreed.

See this debate between Amarullah Saleh & Asad Durrani, among others.