Comments on: And now, into the dead end in Afghanistan Perspectives on Pakistan Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:31:05 +0000 hourly 1 By: pakistan Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:14:48 +0000 The Man has spoken as I said in March 12 post, and straight to the parrot nosed clintonian, get you forces out of the urban areas and confine them to the cantonments. The Afghan forces shall protect your rag tag sub-graded military of still over 100.000, until you are able to pack up and leave.
If only the suntanned american President had listened to the four star brave General Macchrystal, who had earned himself a name among the citizens of Afghanistan.

We are soon going to see the staff Seargent with medalled chest, who single handed carried out the assault on the women and children while they were asleep. Vietnam lies, once again?

Rex Minor

By: pakistan Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:52:20 +0000 The clock is ticking faster than I had calculated. We are now not far away from the Zero hour; Mr Karzai shall be forced to order the departure of all foreign forces, starting with the yanks. First the desecration of the holy book, then the sergent with his team gets drunk and marches into the houses of a village knowing very well that most men are not in houses, and massacres chidren and womn.
This reminds us of the hollywood films describing the criminal behaviour of the marines against vietcongs , their families and children. Was Gen. Macchrystal was right in his assessment of the current USA administration? What happned to 2014 withdrawl; two years is long time to spend in the cold environment of the most treacherous people of he world. All this work and training of Afghan army, who learnt to shoot when they are five years or less, was for nothing. What about lessons in freedom and democracy to a Nation of freedom and lower Jirga from the military of a country who themselvs have few hundred years of history? Much ado about nothing? And what about the the Mafiosi new strategy of reducing military costs and use of special forces with unmanned drones?
Any military man with a basic knowledge knows that one cannot continue with a war when the supply line has been cut off? Pakistan now holds the proxy of war, not the great America? USA military underrated the intelligence of the Pakistani Generals when they deraded them as allies in the abbotabad crisis?

Henry Kissinger is still talking and advising the administration, how about starting a new war in Iran?

Rex MInor

By: pakistan Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:58:31 +0000 @sensiblepatriot

I do acknowledge your view and would also add that in the view of the outsider, it was not the Indian State or the Govt. but Mrs Gandhi who was running the show what she did, following the style of the colonialists. India has come a long way and have made significant progress snd structural changes since as well as brought in a new constitution. Indian military though has yet to become a National army in real sense, reforming its colonial structure.

Across the border, though,and going deep into Afghanistan there is a war being waged against the Pashtun Ntion, squeezed between the forces of the US and NATO and the Pakistan military. Foreign invaders are now in disaaray and their hold has been broken and Pakistan military is counting their dead caused by the deceit of its ally and those who went into the trap of waziris. My prognoses is that once the all out spring attack starts, no force is likely to stand up to Taliban forces neither domestic( ala northern alliance defectors) nor across the border, which is no longer a border any longer,and they are very likely to spread across the plains of Pakhtunkhawa and Baluchistan enroute to Kashmir. India will then have the opportunity to use their loly pops to stop them.

This is nothing more than my educated guess, and so far my forecastes have proven to be accurate.

Rex Minor

By: sensiblepatriot Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:34:50 +0000 kpsingh01: “That is why it is important to think of redrawing the geography in the region”.

I wish that we had power to change anything, there could be division of Afghanistan with eastern and southern part of Afghanistan going to pushtoons and Parts of North and West going to Tajik-Uzbek-Hazara shias. The taliban could enjoy their state. The western part of Afghanistan should atleast be autonomous in my view. Just because it doesn’t concur with geopolitical interests of superpowers (and even countries like India) writes a sad epitaph on the future of Afghanistan. And you’re right that although we dont have power, we could only hope for it.

Rex:”If they do not behave they can easily be pshed over to their ancestors land of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan etc”.
This forum has been for quite sometime a delightful place for blowing certain myths about a country,culture or an incident. For people who are willing to open their minds, it has been a place of learning and relearning. Atleast I have relearned and unlearned some of the aspects of what we thought and stereotyped other cultures. I am sure you are too and ofcourse we not too young to behave like a child or too adamant like an old fool. Nobody condemns the sikh riots as we Indians ourselves do, but one must realize that Anti-Sikh riots were in response to Indira Gandhi killing. She was the epitome and symbolism of feudal grip over Indian political structures. Most educated Indians are ashamed of how she ran the country like a dictator and thoroughly weakened the democratic structures of India. She began with weakening India economic structures(with her foolish leftist policies to weakening institutions of democracy like Press (which crawled when asked to just bend),the judiciary-bureaucratic structures which have become complicit under her guidance. India as a namesake democracy was built and moulded by this lady and made politics thoroughly a family business.
Not that I condone her killing, But the political discourse in the country at the time of her death became so delusional and power drunk that anybody who questioned her automatically became a traitor to the country.
But for her one victory as PM (the Bangladesh war with Pakistan), she left India on its weakest movements. Her penchent to use radicals(Bhiindranwale) to counter growing akali(right to the centre) political might have taken her life more than anything.
It is intersting here to note that RSS and other Hindu Organizations actually helped save thousands of sikhs from the massacre that took place. It was not a Hindu state crushing the sikhs for their act but the power of sycophancy to the first family that led to the disaster.
when some people talk of sikh riots as genocide by Hindu state, it makes us laugh as Indians as we know how the state constructed a myopic narrative that anything bad for the first family (Nehru-Gandhi) was automatically bad for India. Similarly after Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, a host of massacres on the maharashtrian brahmins took place as Nehru thought his (delusional) idea of secularism was punctured by a radical Hindu. Similarly when Rajiv was assassinated, two decades of constant and systematic ban on Tamilians was followed from Government services and a narrative was created (mostly in North India) that people of this state were traitors.
Congress was used to be a rainbow coalition where both left-right coexisted for their own selfish ends and more riots took place in their rule than any party. Only when political right became seperated from this congress that congress started behaving more secularly as they lost right wing Hindu votes. (shivsena was a congress lapdog union to kick communists in bombay and first shilanyaas or Ram temple movement in Ayodhya was started under Congress government before RSS took over, very similar to what they did with sikhs in punjab). see similiarity with PPP.

This is the reason why I have appreciated the role played by the new communations and social media as there can be many interpretations of an incident (although one truth) and some ugly lies which formed the basis of state’s narrative started melting away with this new actor in 21st century. I dont ask you to acknowledge my point of view but before some one crassly say that Anti-Sikh riots were orchestrated by Hindu State he also should know the other narrative (actually the true narrative) that Anti-sikh riots were orchestrated by a feudal Authoritarian government which does not see religion but sees only power.
And your contention of pushing Tajik-uzbeks out of Afghanista like just like a punjabi rant about other ethnic groups of Pakistan and as a sympathizer of pushtoons (who form significant population of Pakistan), I am sure you wont like it.

By: pakistan Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:12:20 +0000 @Sensibepatriot
I thought you should be the last one to differ from my analogy of the so called Norther Alliance. Do you reckon if the Americans would have come to aid Sikh Nation in India who wanted to have a separate Khalistan, they could have taken over the helms of the hindu majority Govt. and established a Khalsa land from the hindu land? Certainly not! Not that I supported the action of the Indian military which drove hundreds and thousands of sikhs leave India and have since been living in every corner of he world from the UK to Italy, central europe to australia, canada and the USA. But the fact is that sikhs who live today in India are a pacified peaceful people. Similarly, some of the leaders of the so called infam Northen alliance have been killed, and some have left the country and others are now behaving like good citizens. Pashtuns or call them talibans if you will, are Afghans and the rst are citizens of Afghanistan. If they do not behave they can easily be pshed over to their ancestors land of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan etc.

Mr karzai is a Pashtun leader as well and is closer to Taibans than to to others. His family has suffered a lot and one hopes that he is going to remain loyal to his tribe first before he mucks about with the Americans or the tajiks and uzbeks.

Fear is the greatest weakness of a human being, the Pashtuns do not have this annimal in their DNA. The four star American General Macchrystal is the first military commander who has been able to come near them and understood them and thought that the surge as ordered by Mr Obama and his senior militry adviser propose was an error of judgement. Mr obama fired him and later after real experience also releved his advisors who suggested surge to him! end of story.

Rex Minor

By: KPSingh01 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:58:37 +0000 sensiblepatriot,

You have made very good analysis on the situation.

“In my first post, I have mentioned how it is difficult to build a country with no state structures and the only institution that could take Taliban militarily and idiologically was the Northern Alliance”

Afghanistan as we know of it in history, died in 1978 when the Soviets invaded in 1978. After that it has turned into a battle ground. It was further reduced into rubble by the internecine war between the various ethnic groups. The whole thing resembled a Discovery channel show on Heynas fighting each other to feed on a dying animal. Then came the Taliban to chase away all wild dogs and heynas and began to eat on the carcass by itself. It helped all dung beetles and germs to thrive (call them as Jihadists). Then came the bison charging at the Taliban which ran away immediately. The bison does not eat the carcass. Once it drove the Taliban, it had no idea what to do with the dead animal. Suddenly the bison decided to charge at another sleeping animal and ignored the carcass. The Taliban came back and began to munch on the carcass again. The bison returned and the Taliban has become bolder dodging it and frustrating it. The tired bison now wants to move on. As far the carcass, there are only bones left.

In the above scenario, there is no use trying to revive a dead Afghanistan. We know it will revert back to its natural state – wolves, wild dogs and Taliban fighting each other out for territory. And the chaos from it will affect the entire neighboring region. That is why it is important to think of redrawing the geography in the region. The Taliban will not be able to declare victory as a result. They get a piece of the pie. The rest goes to others who will now want to work on their new nation. They will seek alliance from other nations to protect themselves. Different ethnic groups might have different outlook towards religion, governance and geo-politics. It will prevent Pakistan from capitalizing on the entire country. It will only be dealing with a part of what was Afghanistan, mostly Pashtuns. It will completely change the equation in the area.

Of course, you and I do not get to sit and define the future goals for this region. It is just a thought. If things happened this way, one can seek long lasting solutions for the region.

By: sensiblepatriot Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:37:11 +0000 kpsingh01:”The Taliban, their sponsors and rest of the Afghans should have been made to fight each other. If the Taliban and its sponsors gained, the US could have softened them up with cruise missiles, drone strikes and weakened them. Simultaneously they could have pressured the Pak military to tow in line and cause confusion in the Taliban ranks”.
KP, They attempted this for last few years. But I wonder whether its too little and too late for it now. We could atleast hope that it is atleast in the right direction after Obama.

By: sensiblepatriot Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:47:09 +0000 KP, Remember once you said that breaking Afghanistan into pushtoon and non-pashtoon regions is more realistic and feasible policy. Although these thoughts went into the debate on the future of Afghanistan in American foreign circles.There were few reason why they did not back this plan.In my opinion the reasons for their actions are.
Firstly, if it concurred with their interests they would have done so like their support to East Timor or South Sudan where the countries which broke up will always be under constant threat from its Islamic neighbour forcing them to come under defacto American influence. Even if there was a state created to the west of Afghanistan, it is more likely to be closer to Iran (with its ethnic similarity) than to the Americans.
Secondly, Strategic experts in South Asia thoroughly understimate the adverserial relations between US and Iran. It generally overrides everything else and the size of Iran is the only thing that is safeguarding them till now. Americans know Iran is not a pushover and they realized late that even after democratic project in Iraq, the ethnic closeness of Iraq has helped Iran rather than them. Unwittingly Americans had helped safeguard the western flank of Iran and they wouldn’t want to do the same with Iran’s eastern flank as well. we know now how they opened another front in their north with their involvement in syria.

Thirdly, their biggest objective was to disarm the Afghan militants and root out the bases which attacked US and create conditions that no such attacks occur in future. Dividing Afghanistan will in no way solve this objective of theirs.
Finally for strategic reasons, it made sense for them to have their bases close of Kabul and Kandahar from which they can oversee activities in China,India,Pakistan and Russia dominated Central Asia.
It is indeed good idea to rebuild infrastructure in the west of Afghanistan (of which India is doing) and bring a semblance of normalcy to the less radical non-pushtoon groups who could not be swayed by Pakistan. But that doesn’t solve their objective to decriminalizing and deterrorirsing both sides of Durand line. Nevertheless Americans moved ahead and realized where the real problem is, and its the Pakistani penchant for dominance in Afghan affairs. Also in places in kandahar and kabul there is huge population which is ethnically non-pushtoon creating a vested interest for non-pushtoons to vie for influence there.

Rex, regarding currency reserves and deficits I will oneday post my opinion. Suffice it to say that in an interconnected world there is no complete rollover for a country and if one country get affected the crisis ends in engulfing all the actors. In case trade relations worsen China with large trade surplus is the one going to get affected more than US whose trade deficits will only decline and thats good for US. This is seperate topic and we will hopefully discuss it someday.

By: sensiblepatriot Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:13:09 +0000 kpsingh01: “I don’t think this was the only factor. It could have been one of the factors. The neo-cons had been plotting to go after Saddam Hussein right from day one. 9/11 became a distraction. I think their enthusiasm stemmed from the influence the Royal Saudi family has on GWB family”.
KP, It was indeed true that neo-cons in bush administration were plotting to go after Saddam and they went ahead because it also concurred with their interests and not just Saudis. The Saudis were more desperate to undermine Iran (more than Iraq) either through an act or war or financial repression (rallying support for sanctions on Iran). But Americans themselves had a realty check on this and know it would be enoromously difficult to attack and subdue Iran and cannot go just because they have the saudi support and so they chose lesser enemy. so while Saudi influence was enoromous on American foreign policy it wouldn’t override everything else.

I agree with rest of your post on how America should have conducted the war. One must remember that America won the first Afghan war by using local insurgent groups rather than entrenching themselves. Once they brought down American boots on the ground, the war turned into a kind of war of logistics. While Americans had better technology,weapons and financial resources, Afghan insurgents had better hiding places (with Pakistan as their incubator), human intelligence and time on their side.
An insurgency consisting of loose group of organized radicals do not worry about body count which Americans have to worry and are accountable to American senate and answerable to public.
Not surprising that while Pashtoons were trying to win by just managing to not lose the war. While anything close to stalemate was a defeat for the Americans under their first objective of nation building.
In my first post, I have mentioned how it is difficult to build a country with no state structures and the only institution that could take Taliban militarily and idiologically was the Northern Alliance.

Rex, You are wrong here to assume that Northern Alliance was propped up by the Americans, I ask you to read history of Afghan where one realizes that both Ahmad Shah Masood as Tajik rallied different non-pashtoon groups like Tajik,Uzbeks and Hazara shias to build an army to fight Soviets and then took on taliban before he was assassinated. The new afghan army may not have the mettle to take on the Taliban, but Americans failed to sufficiently support Northern Alliance wich could have been a bulwark again resurgent Taliban. Americans unfortunately had their own suspicions on Northern Alliance because it was secretly supported by Iran (along with Russia and Inda), this Iranian support made them suspicious of their intentions.

By: pakistan Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:27:46 +0000 There are always people who do not get the message. NATO less Americans are the first to make a run for the narrow exit! Only brave ones do not leave the sinking ship; the Captain!

Rex Minor

PS there was a typo error, 2014 should read 2012.