Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 02 Dec 2009 10:29

NRao wrote:This is something India should be more than be able to live with.

All in all this is a good start.

Baloney.

History has shown us when TSP has been given more financial aid and modern weapons it has led to conflict with India. Ombaba is perusing the same strategy as previous presidents. The results will be the same.

Americans have a short attention span and already tired of these endless wars. Ombaba's popularity will decline like that of Truman after Korea, Johnson after Vietnam and Bush-II after Afghanistan & Iraq. When the next US president pulls out, India will have to use its influence in Afghanistan to achieve its objectives. Its best to ignore the US at this time.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 02 Dec 2009 11:13

It is not just 30,000 more troops.
20,000 were sent in this year. That is a total 50,000 troops.

The total no of troops will be 100,000 (98,000) in 6 months.
In addition there will be Blackwater / Xe type dirty and Khatarnaak CIA forces inside Pakistan, whose numbers will only swell.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Dec 2009 11:15

No kudos to me for getting the speech right?

An I even posted the logic of how I got there.

amdavadi · Post by **amdavadi** » 02 Dec 2009 11:21

Kudos to you ramana ji. You are Maha Rishi, you have to be right 99.999%. It is folks like us who only needs
to be right 0.0001%.

Ramana Ji,you got POTUS speech over the thanks giving holiday. We just heard it today

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Dec 2009 11:24

Thanks. And tell BIL to shoot between the eyes.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 02 Dec 2009 11:26

ramana ji is advising obama.

.....

amdavadi · Post by **amdavadi** » 02 Dec 2009 11:28

BIL is leaving out of monterey. He had to enroll into DLI program for 14 weeks.

Rest of the story some other time.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Dec 2009 12:28

ramana wrote:No kudos to me for getting the speech right?

An I even posted the logic of how I got there.

Ramana, sorry about this, but I guessed I missed the post you are talking about. Could you please point me to the post link.

TIA

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 02 Dec 2009 12:39

US has been trying and failing for eight years now to get the tribal arithmetic right... which is why they should be rightfully mad at the damn Durrani princeling they installed on the throne. Eight years, and he can't get his own tribe behind him!

So what does the superpower do? If they keep going by the old British algorithm, they need to have the following happen:
(1) Install puppet Durrani prince in Kabul. Think Shah Shuja. Check.
(2) Get betrayed by Punjabi ally. Think Ranjit Singh. (Sorry to all Sikh friends for this objectionable analogy, but history does say that Ranjit Singh promised to help Brits and then dumped them. Very few realize how critical this lack of Sikh support was to the British in the First Afghan War.) Check. Check. Check.
(3) Get bitten in the ass by resurgent tribes. Think Siege of Jalalabad. Canadians getting whupped does not rise to the same level, nevertheless, Check.
(4) Declare victory and withdraw, continue to control princeling remotely. His Majesty Obama the First just took the first step towards that today.

But to have effective leverage, some counterweight is needed in Kabul. There has to be a strong Prime Minister to keep Karzai from straying off the reservation. Keep an eye peeled for the Parliamentary elections. Any wonder why Karzai does not favor political parties? This is another reason why Kandahar is so important. The three apexes of Pashtun heartland are Kabul, Kandahar, and Peshawar. Right now US just controls the least influential node of the three. Even the Sovs did better by having effective control over two nodes for pretty much their entire sojourn. Control of Kandahar would give much better political traction with the Pashtun, something that Karzai has so badly failed at delivering.

Long term? If we stay with the Brit playbook, things might go something like so:

The surge will be used to give Taliban a good thrashing in the Kandahar region. Being Afghans, some will melt away and most will declare allegiance to the most powerful Amir of the day. Suddenly, Americans will be the new conquerors where none had conquered before. To the sound of trumpets, the victors will proudly mount their steeds and... fly away.

But that will be only two thirds of the story. Or maybe one half. The other half is in East Pashtunistan, where the hammer blows would not have fallen as heavily.

So when victory is finally declared, there will be some kind of west-leaning Pashtun coalition in power in Kabul, and a strong residue of Talibanaized Pashtun in the east. When US led forces recede into the background, what will the two halves do? Will they go at each others' throats, or will they unite against Punjab?

What will have happened to Pakistan in the mean time? The coming American offensive will include much more overt attacks east of the Durand line. Will the combined attacks from US and PA be enough to degrade the Talibanized Pashtun sufficiently? That would imply less Pakistani control over Afghanistan, but also a lower danger of blowback against Punjab. On the other hand, TTP may metastasize into Punjab, and if my crystal ball is correct, in Kashmir. The big player to watch will be LET. So far, Pakistan has kept it out of the game in spite of India's best post-11/26 efforts. But pressure has to be mounting on LET to get off the sidelines, not in the least because it's parent is facing an ideological fork in the road.

In many ways, Pakistan now ends up in a no-win situation. If it succeeds indegrading the Taliban in NWFP and Baluchistan, it will only end up helping the anti-Pak Pashtun coalition in Kabul and possibly pushing the rest into Punjab and Kashmir. On the other hand, if Pakistan tries to hedge against this by pulling punches against Taliban, it will only leave Taliban strong enough to act against Pakistan itself; moreover, relations between the US led coalition and Pakistan will plummet even further. In other words, Pakistan may end up being the Cambodia of this Vietnam.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Dec 2009 13:06

This "tribal arithmetic" is a false problem and a fool's errand.

What's required is to re-draw the borders, and not maintain some precarious balancing act for a house of cards, by hoping to use supercomputers to number-crunch the "tribal arithmetic".

The borders are unnatural, and they contribute to the problems over there. Eliminate the existing borders - there is nothing sacred about them. Durand Line is an artificial British imposition, and Pak has inherited this irrational legacy. It's the Pashtun problem which created the Kashmir problem and not vice-versa, no matter what the Pakistanis and their Atlanticist abettors tell you.

It's no coincidence that Jinnah & Co despatched Pashtuns to attack J&K in 1948 - they were acting to kill 2 birds with one stone, understanding that the Pashtun tribals posed just as much of a threat to Pak as Kashmiri independence.

So forget about the trivial complexities of "tribal arithmetic" and go in for a rational solution. Re-draw the Afghan and Pak borders. Nothing less than this will work.

Abhibhushan · Post by **Abhibhushan** » 02 Dec 2009 15:46

Has this been posted in any thread? http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/dec/ ... -obama.htm

vijayk · Post by **vijayk** » 02 Dec 2009 17:57

abhishek_sharma wrote:Expansion in Pakistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world ... ategy.html

From same source

In recent months, in addition to providing White House officials with classified assessments about Afghanistan, the C.I.A. delivered a plan for widening the campaign of strikes against militants by drone aircraft in Pakistan, sending additional spies there and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the C.I.A.’s budget for operations inside the country.

The expanded operations could include drone strikes in the southern province of Baluchistan, where senior Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, officials said. It is from there that they direct many of the attacks on American troops, attacks that are likely to increase as more Americans pour into Afghanistan.

Does any one here think that CIA/US will some day decide that not only drone strikes but they have to take out ISI/military leaders in Islamabad/Rwalpindi? Can they and will they dare to eliminate Hamid Guls etc.? I think that is the only way Paki fanatics can be scared into real co-operation. If only our leaders had these guts, we would not have see so much escalation of war by Pakis.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Dec 2009 18:17

NRao wrote:This is something India should be more than be able to live with.

All in all this is a good start.

I am rather confident we all are not reading the same news reports. I find most of the posts are based on rather dated material (and that is fine, nothing against that).

Having said that the only element within this speech that concerns me is the 2011 drawdown date.

I had said this about 10ish years ago: Pakis will do something to bring the world to go against them and that India only needs to wait it out (and better still dismember PakiLand) (In fact let me go out on a limb again: China will be in the same boat, China will do something stupid enough to get a ton of nations to gang up against her).

Here is what I see WRT the latest Obama speech: IF nothing comes out of it, India is where she is. IF something comes out of it, it will help India with very, very low cost to India.

The bottom line - as I see it - is that (as reported in the WashPost) terrorist groups cannot reside on the Afghan-Pakistan area. IF that can be achieved then, to a great extent, the rest should fall into place.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Dec 2009 18:31

Obama Af-Pak speech snub: India says 'not complaining'

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Dec 2009 18:31

In Rediff, Colonel Anil Athale writes:

http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/dec/ ... af-pak.htm

In the first part of his two-part series, Making sense of the Af-Pak cauldron, Colonel Anil Athale outlined why the developments in the region can be called the second jihad. In this concluding part he says a long-lasting solution to the Af-Pak situation is balkanisation of the region.

Basically what I said

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Dec 2009 18:32

Obama calls PM; discusses AfPak, climate change

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 02 Dec 2009 18:33

Having said that the only element within this speech that concerns me is the 2011 drawdown date.

Anybody in India involved in CT/CI ops will tell that any deadline openly declared is a wrong way to start. I guess, this is for US public.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Dec 2009 18:51

Kanson wrote:
Having said that the only element within this speech that concerns me is the 2011 drawdown date.
Anybody in India involved in CT/CI ops will tell that any deadline openly declared is a wrong way to start. I guess, this is for US public.

Not quite.

I was planning on waiting for a day or so, but here goes. The 30,000 (actually 40,000 when we count the "NATO" forces too) are mostly non-combatant forces. Their major goal is to hold on to a few major "urban" areas and then train locals like heck. This is not a mission - on the Afghan side - to take out the Taliban/AQ. The "take out" has to happen on the Pakistani side.

The plan seems to be to raise a proper ANA and local police + government.

If and when "CT/CI ops" occur the thinking is that the ANA/locals will do MOST of that - the hand over of the country that he mentioned.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, there is a dramatic corresponding change in fin-aid mechanism.

This is what I envision the goal is:
1) Remove terrorist orgs from the region entirely (check out the groups they mention in the WashPost article - they have been named),
2) Build a viable force on the Afghan side that can actually take care of business (!!!!!! tough one)
3) Build governance on the Afghan side
4) Re-balance the government-military equation on the Pakistan side

I expect MOST of the CT/CI ops to occur within Pakistan.

What bothers me is that THIS "surge" will start in 2010 (summer?) and the end will start in summer of 2011?

Remember that by 2011 most of the heavy lifting has to be finished - Kandahar needs to be secured, government and a very well trained and working police force in place, etc, etc, etc.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 02 Dec 2009 19:12

What bothers me is that THIS "surge" will start in 2010 (summer?) and the end will start in summer of 2011?

Only a war can be fought in that time line with adequate preparation and contigencies. So i too in bewilderment.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Dec 2009 20:06

Obfuscation, from Pakistani side, has started:

Obama warns Afghanistan, Pak fumes

“Our issue is not how you deploy them (US troops in Afghanistan) and how you use them. We are only concerned about the negative implications. The more you coordinate with military authorities of Pakistan, the better it will be,” The Daily Times quoted Qureshi, as saying.

Pakistan NEEDS an "out" - an exit strategy for herself - from all this. The PA/ISI cannot come out as a second string. Pakis will try and find a way to protect the current system.

And, from the rest of the world perspective, the current system is THE problem - it cannot survive if the region wants to experience lasting peace.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 02 Dec 2009 20:10

IOW, TSP's gamble paid off. The khans will leave the region, for good or ill, with tail tucked between the legs grandly declaring peace, victory, democracy, liberlism, civil rites etc in Af-Pak on their way out.

There are no positives from Dilli's POV, IMO. The talibs will willy-nilly retake control of Afgn, reharvest drug monies from heroin production and in general become a firmer base for islamist terror than any in the known world.

Ananya · Post by **Ananya** » 02 Dec 2009 20:24

MR Nice has statred to dig his own grave, TSP would do the same what Iran did to Carter .

Ananya · Post by **Ananya** » 02 Dec 2009 20:27

exit strategy for TSP would be to lie low for some time Milk US as much as possible wait for the surge to end and then spring back in Meanwhile do some military excersie in FATA do avoid drones and look at the clock.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 02 Dec 2009 21:31

Finally, a good article on Af-Pak at Huffington Post! I am impressed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-r ... 76673.html

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Dec 2009 21:43

People are not paying attention to the part where he assured TSP of US support. In essence he repeated Rossevelt's pledge to Ibn Saud on the cruiser Quincy. TSP might think they are a pole when they are zero(using complex variables analogy!) and make those silly statements, when he is assuring their survival. By themselves they will be gone. With US support they can survive.

TSP reaction is the minor issue in this Af-Pak strategy. If all else fails they can get the NDA back in govt.

The bigger issue is the US has to succeed for Af-Pak is the real domino and failure here will take down the US and Western domination. The 2011 begin of drawdown goal is to show that its a short term surge for the economic costs are much much than just $1B/month for it could unravel the whole US edifice since post WWII. Read Niall Fergusson's "fall of empires" article from Newsweek. In addition 2011 is one yaer before the elections.

BO has tough play to deliver. He was elected by a party that does not support the war. Yet as President he cannot let US interests suffer. In addition he has the Repubs playing opposition, who had drawn down the troop levels to 32000, when he took office and were just sitting on the decison to send 30,000 troops which he did. They didnt despite wrapping themselves in flags.

My only beef is that his making speeches about Afghan corruption undermines Karazai. He cant hope to make progress while doing that. I guess he had to pacify the SD honchos like the US Ambassador there.

Next step is an economic conf for aid to Afghanistan.

I would like to see the plan for increasing the ANA and policy.

The plan for good Taliban re-integration.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Dec 2009 21:47

xerox khan network will still be obfuscated by afpak. we need to also see the paki migration patterns especially on our borders. a few more strategic unpublished slowly built up hi tech deployments could help us nail.. this is the right time to engage from our side!

and shh!...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Dec 2009 21:50

Manny wrote:Finally, a good article on Af-Pak at Huffington Post! I am impressed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-r ... 76673.html

very good and accuarte depiction of events. Hope she writes teh sequel as she promised.

BTW in her article

One old Afghan hand told me, "There are places along the border where you can eat lunch in Pakistan, and then go to the loo in Afghanistan."

The old Afghan hand must be a Paki sympathiser for everyone knows its the other way around, at least in South India.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Dec 2009 22:10

Ramana,

Your comments WRT Pakistan are too broad. Is it possible to be more specific WRT "survival"? Who do you see is being told, within Pakistan, that they will survive?

TIA.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

And, WRT drawdown. Does not mean that they will recall the entire 100,000+ troops (even within a year or two). The more I think about it "drawdown" is only meant for re-election purposes (as you seem to imply). I am inclined to believe that the troops will be there in some capacity for about 10 more years - say back in 2020 (rounding numbers here).

Declaring victory and leaving is not an option in these times. It just cannot be. Victory has to mean that the threat is dissipated for a gen or so. Else the consequences would be worse than now. I am fairly confident that people are now aware to what extent the US is involved in this "war on terror". Af-Pak is very important, but is not only game in town. Or, it is part of a larger game and therefore "failure" here will reverberate elsewhere - for instance, it is very closely tied to Homeland Security efforts. Declaring victory and leaving (assuming that such a declaration is a fake) will have greater consequences for the US than even India.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Dec 2009 22:17

the nuke tests were followed by earth quakes in afpak region. a long sustained bombings can bring about the same or even harder problems to the region.. say by 2012!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Dec 2009 22:19

The assurance is to those who want TSP to survive not any particular group. These folk might currently be in disparate groups now for that reason. For instance the support to jihadists comes from : Salafist ideology, hedging against India, fear of loss of N-e-P. So the message is to the hedgers and N-e-P types.

Yes it will be gradual drawdown to begin in that year.

Yes its a bigger game of global dimensions.

There is hedging going on for that from London types.

-----

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Dec 2009 22:48

ramana wrote:
TSP reaction is the minor issue in this Af-Pak strategy. If all else fails they can get the NDA back in govt.

Hear this

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 02 Dec 2009 23:07

Wow, that Huffington Post article actually calls it out! I was stunned!

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 02 Dec 2009 23:13

From WP:
Pakistan officials wary of Obama's strategy for Afghanistan

Pakistan's government expressed confusion and concern Wednesday about President Obama's new Afghan strategy, which calls for Pakistan to step up its cooperation against terrorism in exchange for a pledge of a long-term partnership "after the guns fall silent."<snip>

Also:

For the first time, Obama was very categorical about these safe havens and sanctuaries. It's now going to be much more difficult for those in Pakistan who have been in a state of denial about it," analyst Ahmed Rashid told Dawn Television here. "It's really crunch time."

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 02 Dec 2009 23:14

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-roddy

Melissa Roddy is the director of CONFLICT OF INTEREST, a documentary film focused on underlying and previously unreported issues regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan. Like several of the principals in the saga of that region, she is also a native Texan. In December of 2007 she achieved worldwide attention with the publication of a print article and documentary short exposing propagandistic misinformation in the movie “CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR.”

KaranR · Post by **KaranR** » 02 Dec 2009 23:16

Manny wrote:Finally, a good article on Af-Pak at Huffington Post! I am impressed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-r ... 76673.html

The lady is not only well informed but got all her facts right. Enjoy reading the article.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Dec 2009 23:19

pgbhat wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-roddy
Melissa Roddy is the director of CONFLICT OF INTEREST, a documentary film focused on underlying and previously unreported issues regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan. Like several of the principals in the saga of that region, she is also a native Texan. In December of 2007 she achieved worldwide attention with the publication of a print article and documentary short exposing propagandistic misinformation in the movie “CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR.”

She is getting some truth but not the complete truth. Unless the real history of the region starting from Ghandhara is discussed there will be no clarity.

Ages before there was such a thing as the British Empire, Pashtun and Balochi tribesmen fought against Punjabi domination. Yet, Punjabi domination is exactly the legacy that the British left them in 1947.

Unless the Sikh history and Sikh rule over the Afghanistan and Punjabis is discussed there will be NO solution to the problem in AfPak

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 02 Dec 2009 23:23

pgbhat wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-roddy
Melissa Roddy is the director of CONFLICT OF INTEREST, a documentary film focused on underlying and previously unreported issues regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan. Like several of the principals in the saga of that region, she is also a native Texan. In December of 2007 she achieved worldwide attention with the publication of a print article and documentary short exposing propagandistic misinformation in the movie “CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR.”

Found some sample clips of CONFLICT OF INTEREST ... I have not seen them ... so take it FWIW

http://afghan-info.blogspot.com/

And I also found the article on "Charlie Wilson's War" ... very interesting read ...

http://www.alternet.org/story/71286/

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 02 Dec 2009 23:24

From: CNN's AC360 Transcripts Zakaria uvach:

...The one big difference in Afghanistan which complicates it enormously is that you have this regional power that has historically-supported many of the militias that have destabilized Afghanistan. That still supports some militias and some terrorist groups. What do you do about that?

Michael Ware pointed out the leadership of the Afghan Taliban. The people who are waging war in Afghanistan against U.S. forces are all in a city called Quetta. They are called the Quetta Shura. Shura means council. The people now think many of them are in Karachi.

Al Qaeda is almost entirely, its leadership, in Pakistan. So we don't have an easy strategy. Now, I actually brought this up with the president at the luncheon. He said, "Look, the problem is we don't have an easy option in Pakistan. We can't just go in there. It's a sovereign nation. We have to work with them. We have to cooperate."

But that's -- it's a policy that is in some substantial part based on the good well of the Pakistani military and a Pakistani government that is in severe crisis.

If I were to point to one weak spot in the overall strategy, that's it. Not that it's clear that President Obama can do anything about it. But fundamentally, it's very difficult to solve this without dealing with Pakistan.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Dec 2009 23:25

Af-Pak needs Punjabi domination but of the right kind. Now i understand why Ba...d British made sure to finish the blood line of Maharaja Ranjit Singh .

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Dec 2009 23:29

Prem wrote:Af-Pak need Punjabi domination but of the right kind. Now i understand why Ba...d British made sure to finish the blood line of Maharaja Ranjit Singh .

True destiny of the Sikhs, the Panth and Sri Akal is rule and justice over AfPak.
We have to make this a reality.