Bharat Rakshak

Karzai also offered his own timeline goal, saying Afghanistan wants to be able to assume security control in some parts of the country in two years, and to lead security for the entire country by the end of his five-year term, which just started after his recent re-election.

When it was pointed out that even terror groups such as LeT and Jaish-e Mohammed, which are based in Pakistan, found no mention in the US strategy, Tharoor said the US was not engaged in any operations against India's "immediate enemies".

Bolded part is critical: Indian position seems to be 'Yes, you are doing the right stuff, and therefore that is OK, BUT, that from an Indian PoV is not enough, and, perhaps we will have to take care of it ourselves'. (And, Tharoor is the right actor for this position - he has lived that game-playing role.)

Mort Walker wrote:NRao,

Can you agree to the statement that BHO's Pak-Af policy can be judged successful if there are no significant terror strikes in India?

''No, I think it's because if, as we suspect, he is in North Waziristan, it is an area that the Pakistani government has not had a presence in, in quite some time,'' Gates said, adding that although the Pakistani government has its own priorities, any pressure it brings on the Taliban is helpful because it is in league with al-Qaida.

(in relation to where OBL may be hiding):

Neshant wrote:

(in relation to where OBL may be hiding):

he's either dead long ago or in china

NRao wrote:

Mort Walker wrote:NRao,

Can you agree to the statement that BHO's Pak-Af policy can be judged successful if there are no significant terror strikes in India?

Very uncomfortable answering such an open ended question, so allow me to add a dimension to it - for the next 50 year (preferably for ever) - "yes" with a hedge.

(where are you going with this question?)

Of course, one key difference is that Pakistan was actively abetting the Mujaheddin at that time. And now they are not. So it will be different this time.

Of course, one key difference is that Pakistan was actively abetting the Mujaheddin at that time. And now they are not. So it will be different this time.

Y I Patel wrote:Among many other things to scratch one's head over, one is the military strategy for the coming years.

We are informed that the additional troops will be deployed to population centers of eastern and southern Afghanistan, particularly Kandahar. Additionally, some troops will guard key highways such as the one from Pak border to Kandahar and the one from Kabul to Kandahar. At the same time, troops will be moved out of isolated valleys and villages where they would be exposed to piecemeal attacks.

So far, so good.

BUT... this is exactly what the Soviets did - they focused in sanitizing the cities, and depopulated large swathes of outlying areas to deny support to the Mujaheddin. They did this from day one, and kept at it for 10 years... and with up to 180 k troops deployed in Afghanistan plus who knows how many special forces operating from the then Soviet Republics just north of the Afghan border. And with an Afghan Army that they had trained and indoctrinated, one that was vastly superior to the current avatar. Of course, one key difference is that Pakistan was actively abetting the Mujaheddin at that time. And now they are not. So it will be different this time.

The Obama administration is turning up the pressure on Pakistan to fight the Taliban inside its borders, warning that if it does not act more aggressively the United States will use considerably more force on the Pakistani side of the border to shut down Taliban attacks on American forces in Afghanistan, American and Pakistani officials said.

The blunt message was delivered in a tense encounter in Pakistan last month, before President Obama announced his new war strategy, when Gen. James L. Jones, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, and John O. Brennan, the White House counterterrorism chief, met with the heads of Pakistan’s military and its intelligence service.

United States officials said the message did not amount to an ultimatum, but rather it was intended to prod a reluctant Pakistani military to go after Taliban insurgents in Pakistan who are directing attacks in Afghanistan.

For their part the Pakistanis interpreted the message as a fairly bald warning that unless Pakistan moved quickly to act against two Taliban groups they have so far refused to attack, the United States was prepared to take unilateral action to expand Predator drone attacks beyond the tribal areas and, if needed, to resume raids by Special Operations forces into the country against Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

.............................................

“We’ve offered them a strategic choice,” one administration official said, describing the private communications. “And we’ve heard back almost nothing.” Another administration official said, “Our patience is wearing thin.”

abhischekcc wrote: What I would want to watch is how America deals with the fissiparous effects (on pakistan) of its own military policy. I am not sure they even acknowledge the problem.

The Durand line is not respected by both sides of this population and the respect of this line by the US, is the achilles heel of the surge strategy.

NRao wrote:

The Durand line is not respected by both sides of this population and the respect of this line by the US, is the achilles heel of the surge strategy.

I am not sure that this surge is as much to ensure the sanctity of the Durand Line, but there is some truth to this statement.

However, since the game plan is to raise somewhere around 300,000+ military and police force, assuming a bunch of things, this has to have some impact in THAT region.

IF I were to add that (300K) to the "Durand line is not respected by both sides .....", it could snow ball into something that we all seem to agree on - split Pakistan.

The one thing I would like to add is that such a split - actually - would also be good for the PakJabis!!!!! We all can then live sakun-se.

A majority of the population in Afghanistan are Pashtuns.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai made it clear today that his country's security forces will need 15 to 20 years of financial and training assistance.

Karzai made his statement at a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and just a week after President Obama outlined his strategy for Afghanistan which calls for a surge of 30,000 troops before he starts withdrawing them in 2011.

"We hope that the international community, in particular the U.S., as our first ally, helps us reach the ability -- in terms of economic ability as well -- to sustain a force that can protect Afghanistan with the right numbers and the right equipment," Karzai said.

"Afghanistan is looking forward to taking over the responsibility in terms of paying for its forces and delivering to its forces out of its own resources, but that will not be for another 15 years," he said.

In the past, Karzai has said he hoped to have Afghan forces take the lead in the country's security in five years. That is still the goal, he indicated, but it would require up to two decades of assistance to get there.

Gates did not dispute that timeline, but emphasized the U.S. desire for Afghan security forces to be trained quickly so they could begin taking over security for parts of the country in July 2011.

.........................................

BTW the population distribution does matter for Af-Pak tranquility. In order to provide for the nationalist aspirations of NWFP Pashtuns, my idea is to give them autonomy same as the Kurds in Iraq.
This was also in my points.

abhishek_sharma wrote:De-tensioning of Kashmir border critical to stability: Mullen

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/article62217.ece

As part of this strategy, Interior Minister Rehman Malik [ Images ] has urged religious scholars to issue fatwas against the Taliban militants, by terming them as kafirs (non-believers).

In an attempt to dissuade the hardline militants, Malik has urged the renowned Ulemas (clerics) of the country to issue fatwas against suicide attacks, bomb blasts and to term the activities of the Taliban as Kufr (un-Islamic).

Responding to the government's plea, Tahirul Qadri, founding leader of Minhaj-ul-Quran International, became the first cleric to term Taliban activities as Kufr.

Like Najibullah, Karzai hails from a powerful Pashtun tribe. No matter what Taliban leader Mullah Omar says publicly, he should know well enough that Karzai has a base and a name among Kandahari Pashtuns and if he combines with powerful Ghilzai - the largest Pashtun tribe - like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the coalition could prove formidable

Power has a logic of its own in the Hindu Kush. Obama should encourage Karzai to exercise power rather marginalize him.

Never underestimate the Afghan ingenuity to inveigle foreigners in their scheme of things by creating an optical illusion that the latter call the shots.

WASHINGTON — The top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is questioning whether the United States is focusing on the right country in it's war against the Taliban and the al-Qaida terrorist network.

Sen. Dick Lugar said Wednesday the U.S. risks spending billions of dollars fighting in strategically less important Afghanistan while militants becoming more secure in their havens across the border in Pakistan.

The Indiana Republican prepared the remarks for a Senate hearing where lawmakers will hear testimony from Gen. David Petraeus ( peh-TRAY'-uhs), overall commander for the Mideast region, and Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The senior American general in Afghanistan is predicting success for President Barack Obama's revamped war strategy and telling Congress it's the best available approach, even though it differs from what he originally sought.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and his political counterpart, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, told House and Senate committees Tuesday that they fully support the Obama plan, which does not reflect fully either man's initial preferences.

To probe further, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday was calling Eikenberry and Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander for the greater Middle East, to jointly testify on the new U.S. approach.

McChrystal told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that he believes the Taliban can be defeated; he defined that as weakening the militants to a point that they no longer are capable of threatening the Afghan government. His first objective, though, is to reverse the momentum the Taliban have acquired in recent years.

McChrystal cautioned against expecting immediate results, but he said progress should be evident within a year.

"Ultimate success will be the cumulative effect of sustained pressure," he said.

Obama has ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. While endorsing the president's plan, the general said he had not recommended Obama's 18-month deadline for beginning a pullout and had preferred that more fresh forces be sent in.

Eikenberry, who had privately expressed doubts about sending a large number of additional troops, stressed the importance of widening the anti-Taliban effort to include more U.S. and NATO civilian contributions to stabilizing the country and building the credibility of the central government.

The ambassador offered words of caution about the outlook for turning around the war. "Our forces and our civilians are trying to help a society that simultaneously wants and rejects outside intervention," he said.

He also spoke cautiously of the Afghans as partners.

"In spite of everything we do, Afghanistan may struggle to take over the essential tasks of governance," he said, adding, "If the main elements of the president's plan are executed, and if our Afghan partners and our allies do their part, I am confident we can achieve our strategic objectives."

In Afghanistan on Wednesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates toured NATO's new joint command center at the Kabul airport.

"Getting this place gives us new opportunities, especially now that there are new forces coming," he said. "We've got all the pieces coming together to be successful here."

The Associated Press