Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Afghanistan Timeline: News, Updates & Discussions

Discussion in 'South Asia & SAARC' started by @speaks, Apr 8, 2011.

  1. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Some one once said something like that about the American Indian. That was before motto "A Good Indian is a Dead Indian." No offense to Indians.

    Its not politically correct but their is such a thing as social Darwinism, if you cant change or adjust to modern world you die or you get killed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TWVA_E7cGsI
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2013
  2. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
  3. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    Re: Afghanistan: Updates & Discussions

    First and foremost, if Al Qaeda was found to be responsible.
    I would pursue them and them only. I would not target Islam, the muslim world, or Afghanistan or the taliban.

    I would have arranged made it so that ALL Al Qaeda including OBL would be arrested by ordinary policemen.

    Al Qaeda would have been my prime objective, and it would be my wish not to give them what they want. Al Qaeda wanted war, they wanted to die fighting. It would be my aim to put them through a proper court, do things by the book, they would be given an open trial each one and civilian jury to decide their fate.

    If there was to be a conflict (I also mean it in a non-violent sense), it would be one of reconciliation, not a war, or a war of revenge for that matter.

    My personal feeling is that, the US knew this war could have been avoided, but it purposely invaded and purposely drags it on.

    You aren't wrong in the facts and events, but the way you clump them together, completely forgetting what went on in between and why.

    I have no patience to discuss this with you my dearest AA, we've been over it before.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2013
    1 person likes this.
  4. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    A pathetic failure for the country itself, but also a huge, perfectly orchestrated and highly profitable war for a very very tiny percentage of people.
     
    3 people like this.
  5. neil_diablos

    neil_diablos Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    947
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    America did not go to war at Iraq or Afghanistan with the purpose of winning. They simply went there to further their nefarious interest, exploit natural resources and to keep their military industry alive and well.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
    We went in there to kill the people that murdered 3000 americans in cold blood on 911. Afganstan and Pakistan could have saved themselves a lot of pain by turning them over to us in the first place. As far as americans are concerned Muslims, Pakistans and Afgans can keep killing each other until the cows come home but when you start killing americans we will show you what war really means.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2013
  7. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    Hang on, you're claiming American intervention was a result of 9/11? Ha!
    If you list the reasons for Al Qaeda's acts of terror against the US, all had to do with US intervention in Iraq, in the Israel Palestine conflict.

    Those 3,000 you paid for with interest with the lives of some 300,000 directly or indirectly.
    That's 9/11 multiplied by a hundred, not counting the future deaths that may occur in Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan, after effects, conservative figures I haven't accounted for.

    You have made many enemies now. By God, al Qaeda are the least of your worries.

    Hell, even the Al Qaeda are no different from you, both murderers on a big scale.
     
    2 people like this.
  8. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
    There is no question that what happen in Afganstan was a result of 911.
    The civilized world now regards Pakistan, Afganstan and much of that part of the world with the same amusement and disgust as they one did cannibals and head hunters in other primitive cultures. What the USA has done in that part of the world so far is quite restrained in comparison to what we can do and may do in the future.

    President Musharraf says Muslems are the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most un-enlightened, the most deprived, and the weakest of all the human race. Hes not going to get any argument from me.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2013
  9. brahmos_ii

    brahmos_ii Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,790
    Likes Received:
    954
    The picture in Afghanistan today is bleak: worsening security, ubiquitous Taliban presence, poor coordination between donors and the government, and a slowing economy

    Exactly 12 years ago, on November 13, 2001 — just two months after the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud and the al Qaeda strikes in New York and Washington D.C. — Massoud’s forces entered Kabul after Taliban fighters fled the city the previous night. This came on the heels of desperate diplomatic efforts to prevent the Northern Alliance from occupying Kabul and taking over the reins of government.

    Why did the United States and its allies go to Afghanistan? U.S. troops went there to get rid of the al Qaeda leadership, and combat terrorists with a global reach. Operation Enduring Freedom was launched against terrorist entities and the states that harboured them. That was the reason for targeting the Taliban regime.

    Intense operations
    The United Nations Security Council mandated an International Security Assistance Force for the security of Kabul and its environs on December 20, 2001. ISAF has since been supported by 49 U.S. allies and partners. At its high point in 2011, there were 1,40,000 ISAF troops in Afghanistan, including 1,01,000 Americans, not counting contracted private security personnel.

    After such impressive marshalling of forces and intensified military operations, Afghanistan continues to remain among the greatest security challenges of our times. What happened?

    A 2009 Senate Foreign Relations Committee report blamed the 2001 Pentagon leadership for the “lost opportunity” of preventing Osama bin Laden’s flight from Tora Bora to Pakistan. Centcom Commander General Tommy Franks turned down a CIA request for a battalion of Army Rangers to assist a rag-tag force tracking bin Laden. Concurrently, in late November 2001, Pakistani planes were allowed to airlift from Kunduz hundreds of Islamabad’s advisers and troops, presumably along with some of the Taliban’s and al Qaeda’s leading cadres. A year or so later, the U.S. shifted its attention to Iraq, leaving the Afghan and Pakistan tasks unfinished.

    The U.S. and NATO initially believed that a strong Afghan Army was not required, since the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters had dispersed without a fight — as for those who fled, Pakistan would take care of them. Afghans are still reaping the consequences of this initial neglect. The blunder of sub-contracting to Pakistan the management of the Taliban resulted in the outfit’s fighters being nursed, nurtured and re-infiltrated into Afghanistan from 2005.

    Since then, Afghanistan has become an arena for experimentation in social and political engineering. The military campaign was first cast as a war against terror, then as a counter-insurgency operation. The advantages gained by the surging American troops and more muscular military action were defeated by the announcement of the exit strategy.

    Opportunity lost
    As for building Afghan capacity, little was done for several years. U.N. representatives on the ground advocated a ‘light’ international footprint. Rich countries were initially parsimonious in their commitments. In early 2002, Afghanistan was a relatively clean slate on which anything could be written, so long as the country’s well-wishers took account of its regional strategic space. But that was not to be.

    Paradoxically, after the Taliban recovered, regrouped and re-equipped itself in its safe havens and brought violence back to Afghanistan, a stepped-up civilian effort followed. The Afghanistan Compact, put together in London in January 2006, made nation-building the main focus of the future international effort. Its conceptual flaw was the vision to transform Afghanistan into the image of its benefactors.

    The instruments used to achieve this, such as the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, bypassed Afghan institutions and indigenous impulses. Afghan political leaders complained that the parallel structures created by the PRTs undermined their government. Between 2001 and 2009, the Afghan government incurred an expenditure of $5.7 billion through its own budget and institutions, compared to $41 billion committed for assistance to Afghanistan during the same period.

    Extent of fraud
    Audits point to the fact that contractor profits and consultant fees absorbed a substantial part of the international assistance. The 2008 U.S. Commission on Wartime Contracting reported that fraud alone could account for as much as $12 billion spent in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of this actually funded terrorism and insurgency in Afghanistan. “Every year, nearly $500 million flow into the Taliban kitty from western sources,” the former ISI Chief, Asad Durrani wrote recently. This was mainly by way of protection money.

    Moreover, all three pillars of Afghanistan’s transformation — security, governance and development — were undermined by the growing security deficit. Increasing Taliban attacks immobilised the fledgling state structures at all levels and undermined Afghan growth and development. As Asadullah Khaled, former Kandahar Governor and former head of the National Directorate of Security, told me on my first visit to Kandahar in February 2008: “It is not that the Taliban is strong; it is that we are very weak.”

    The picture in Afghanistan today is bleak: worsening security, ubiquitous Taliban presence, poor coordination between donors and the government, a slowing economy, and increasing insecurity. A complete exit of ISAF would be a catastrophe for the country, the region and the world. Such an exit would dampen the ongoing development effort, undermine the impressive social and economic gains achieved with so much effort and sacrifice, embolden the enemies of progressive change in Afghanistan, and possibly even lead to a reversal to the ancien regime of 2001, with serious security implications worldwide.

    So, where do we, the world community, go from here on Afghanistan?

    The international community should not abandon Afghanistan. It should not encourage the country’s partition or leave it to the mercy of those who are not accountable to the Afghan people. It should avoid acquiescing on exclusive rights over Afghanistan of any single power, or group of outside powers. The global community should abjure extra-territorial demands, defined in terms of a veto over decisions that Afghans themselves must make. Afghanistan’s neighbours should guarantee its independence and sovereignty rather than engage in acts that subvert them.

    A return to status quo ante should be avoided. Terrorist networks in the region, with their cult of suicide bombings, are ever more closely tied to al Qaeda and its associates. Their membership is more dispersed, diverse, and numerous than it was in 2001. Their restitution in Afghanistan might well lead to the unravelling of the state system in Pakistan, creating for India and the world an even bigger security challenge than the one we face today.

    We must strive to make Afghan security sustainable by supporting its security apparatus and dismantling the infrastructure of terrorism, both within the country and its border regions. Terrorism and insurgency have never ceased anywhere in the world where support, sustenance, and safe havens for terrorists and insurgents have been available in the contiguity.

    On development, the world should abandon the idea that it can come from outside. An environment should be created in which Afghanistan can develop itself. Afghan voices should be heard and space allowed for national leadership. We must work towards desirable outcomes, without tangling in processes internal to Afghanistan.

    Afghanistan will be economically sustainable when it becomes a trade, transportation, energy, and minerals hub in the region. The Afghan leadership had hoped to join SAARC six years ago, and that Afghanistan would soon become a land bridge linking Iran and Central Asia to China and the Indian subcontinent. The templates and action agendas for dismantling trade and transit barriers, and encouraging freer movement of goods, services, investments, peoples, and ideas, are already in place. It is the inability to operationalise them that prevents Afghanistan’s sustained stabilisation.

    Hard task
    In spite of multiple international back channels and the efforts of the Afghan High Peace Council, talks with the Taliban have not made much headway. Key players within the Taliban and Pakistan’s state structures are yet to be convinced that they should abandon their campaign to seize power by violence. It is a hard act to fight and talk simultaneously. While a lasting and permanent solution with them on board will be difficult, without them it will be impossible. Efforts for peace, re-integration, and reconciliation with the reconcilable must, therefore, continue.

    Afghanistan’s fragmented polity needs to look at reconciliation — between and among ethnicities, between Afghanistan and its neighbours, and between the government and those elements of the armed opposition ready to embrace democracy and the Afghan Constitution, respect human rights, and end ideological and organisational links with al Qaeda and its associates. As Rumi, the great Afghan Sufi sage said in his Masnawi 800 years ago: “Believe in God, yet tie the camel’s leg.”

    Post-Taliban Afghanistan, 12 years on - The Hindu
     
  10. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Its allways been Bleak in that part of the world, a religious hell hole might be a better description. Reconciliation religious retarded fanatics, good luck.
     
  11. neil_diablos

    neil_diablos Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    947
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    Damn you Jungi!!!! You stole my response! :fuu:
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. brahmos_ii

    brahmos_ii Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,790
    Likes Received:
    954
    Afghan traditional leaders will meet next week to decide whether to support a security pact that could allow some US troops to stay in the country after 2014, an official said Tuesday.

    Around 2,500 tribal elders and other civilian leaders are expected to take part in the “loya jirga” starting Nov. 21 to decide whether to accept the draft Bilateral Security Agreement between Afghanistan and the US.

    “The loya jirga in which 2,500 people from different categories participate will be held next Thursday,” Abdul Khaliq Hussieni Pashaee, a spokesman from the jirga preparation commission, told AFP.

    “We have finalized the lists and all preparations are complete, the delegates are going to start coming to Kabul in a couple of days,” he said, adding the jirga was expected to last four days.

    The draft pact was hammered out in Kabul last month by the US Secretary of State John Kerry. But he left without a final deal as Afghan President Hamid Karzai said only a jirga had the authority to decide on contentious issues.

    These include a US demand to retain legal jurisdiction over its troops in Afghanistan, which would give them immunity from Afghan law. The request emerged as the main sticking point after Kerry’s visit.

    If the agreement is passed by both loya jirga and parliament, between 5,000 and 10,000 US troops would stay in Afghanistan to help fight al-Qaida remnants and train the national army.

    The collapse of a similar security agreement with Iraq in 2011 led to the US pulling all its troops out of the country, which is currently suffering its worst sectarian violence since 2008.

    On Monday the Taliban, whose government was toppled by a US-led invasion in 2001, warned members of the assembly they would be punished as “traitors” if they endorsed the deal.

    Washington had been pushing for the agreement to be signed by the end of October to allow the US-led NATO coalition to plan the withdrawal of its 87,000 combat troops by December 2014.

    Afghan Assembly Considering US Deal To Begin Nov. 21 | Defense News | defensenews.com
     
  13. brahmos_ii

    brahmos_ii Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,790
    Likes Received:
    954
    Opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan reached a record high in 2013 as farmers seek to "insure" themselves before NATO forces withdraw next year, the United Nations said on Wednesday.

    The area planted with poppy rose by 36 percent in 2013, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said in its annual report on Afghanistan, while production of opium, the main ingredient in heroin, jumped almost 50 percent compared with last year.

    There are fears that the departure of most of the US-led NATO troops, who currently number around 75,000, by the end of 2014 will throw the war-torn nation into chaos.

    "Farmers may have driven up cultivation... trying to shore up their assets as insurance against an uncertain future, which could ensue from the withdrawal of international troops next year," the UNODC said.

    More than a decade of Western-backed efforts to eradicate opium production have had limited success and farmers in two previously "poppy-free" provinces in the north began growing the crop in 2013.

    Afghan officials blamed insecurity as the main factor behind the surge, which has continued for a third straight year.

    "More than half of the opium cultivation takes place in Helmand," Din Mohammad Mubarez Rashidi, the acting Afghan counter-narcotics minister, told a news conference.

    Helmand in the south is one of the most troubled regions in Afghanistan where the Taliban are most active.

    "Taliban and al-Qaida encourage farmers to cultivate and protect their crops," the minister said.

    Rashidi, recently appointed by President Hamid Karzai to the post, said he was determined to fight opium cultivation including the "use of force to prevent cultivation".

    The report said that in 2013 the area under opium poppy cultivation rose to 209,000 hectares (516,230 acres) from the previous year's total of 154,000 -- higher than the previous peak of 193,000 hectares in 2007.

    Opium production reached 5,500 tons, up by almost half from 2012 but lower than the 2007 high of 7,400 tonnes as bad weather in southern Afghanistan affected crops.

    The farm-gate value of opium production -- around $950 million, or the equivalent of four per cent of national GDP in 2013 -- increased by almost a third.

    Funding the insurgency

    Together with profits made by drug traffickers, the total value of the opium economy within Afghanistan was significantly higher, the report said.

    It suggested the illicit economy would grow further while a slowdown of the legal economy was predicted in 2014.

    "What is needed is an integrated, comprehensive response to the drug problem, embedded in a long-term security, development and institution-building agenda," said UNODC executive director Yury Fedotov.

    Despite the presence of tens of thousands of foreign troops since a US-led invasion ousted the Taliban in 2001, Afghanistan produces about 90 percent of the world's opium.

    Poppy farmers are taxed by the Taliban, who use the cash to help fund their insurgency against the government and Nato forces.

    Most of the cultivation takes place in the southern and western provinces where the revolt is most active.

    In Helmand province, the main poppy-producing region, the area under cultivation rose by a third in 2013. Neighbouring Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban, saw a 16 percent rise.

    The poppies, which provide huge profits in one of the world's poorest countries, also play a large part in the corruption that plagues Afghan life at every level.

    Afghan opium cultivation hits record high in 2013: UN - The Times of India
     
  14. brahmos_ii

    brahmos_ii Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,790
    Likes Received:
    954
    Afghan President Hamid Karzai addresses a press conference at the Presidential Palace in Kabul on November 16, 2013. Afghan President Hamid Karzai on November 16 called on the Taliban and their affiliates to join an assembly on a security pact that could allow some US troops to stay in the country after 2014. Around 2,500 tribal elders and civil leaders are expected to take part in an assembly known as a "loya jirga" next Thursday, to decide whether to accept the draft Bilateral Security Agreement between Afghanistan and the US.

    The bilateral security agreement between the U.S. and Afghanistan is in jeopardy now that Afghan president Hamid Karzai has rejected a key provision.

    The U.S. wants Afghanistan to give American troops permission to enter and search Afghans' homes freely. Karzai insists that is non- negotiable. Thomas Gouttierre, Director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, says the U.S. wants to keep that provision for the safety of its troops.

    “Many Americans were being killed and attacked…so we felt we needed the ability to go after those who were attacking us. In order to be able to do that, individuals were seeking or using Afghan homes, in many ways, to hide or to escape. This is why it was initially a major part of what we felt we needed to have, and did have.”

    Gouttierre says Afghanistan still needs American protection once U.S. troops leave next year.

    "Hamid Karzai and most all Afghans want a continuing American presence in Afghanistan. When you consider Pakistan on one side, Iran on the other, it's a rather hostile neighborhood, or violent neighborhood."

    If no agreement is reached, Afghanistan might need to rely soley on their still immature security forces to protect themselves after U.S. troops leave in 2014.

    But Gouttierre says in all likelihood, Karzai is playing his political cards to put Afghanistan in a favorable position once U.S. troops leave his country.

    “I think what you see right now is a bit of political posturing, and an assertion by Karzai that is in some ways predicated on his frustration and his perception with the way the United States has dealt with him diplomatically.”

    Read more: US-Afghanistan security agreement in jeopardy - News - World - Voice of Russia - US Edition
     
  15. layman

    layman Aurignacian STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,024
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Country Flag:
    United States
    US rules out Afghanistan 'apology' in security talks

    [​IMG]

    WASHINGTON: The United States has ruled out apologizing to Afghanistan for “mistakes” made during the 12-year war and denied claims in Kabul that such a mea culpa was being drafted.

    The stern comments in Washington came after Afghan leader Hamid Karzai’s spokesman said President Barack Obama planned to write a letter acknowledging that American military errors had caused civilian casualties.

    “There is not a need for the United States to apologize to Afghanistan. Quite the contrary,” US National Security Advisor Susan Rice told CNN on Tuesday.

    The State Department also expressed caution on a long-sought bilateral security agreement (BSA), after an official in Kabul said the two sides had reached agreement on key points of the agreement.

    Aimal Faizi, Karzai’s spokesman, said Obama would write to his boss acknowledging US “mistakes in the war on terror” and the suffering of the Afghan people due to American military operations, as part of the BSA.

    But Rice said “no such letter has been drafted or delivered. That is not on the table.”

    US officials later said the request for a letter had come from Karzai himself during a phone call with Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday.

    The security agreement could lead to a small group of US troops staying behind after the withdrawal of combat troops in 2014 to train Afghan forces and to mount anti-terror missions.

    Officials in Washington said there was still some way to go before reaching a final agreement on the pact, to be put to an Afghan Grand Assembly of tribal chieftains and politicians, known as a “loya jirga” for approval.

    Faizi said Tuesday that a major hurdle in negotiations toward an agreement – relating to the issue of whether US troops staying on in Afghanistan would be allowed to search the homes of Afghan citizens – had been overcome.

    Faizi said the deal would allow US troops to enter Afghan homes once Nato forces withdraw in 2014 but only in “extraordinary circumstances” where there was an urgent risk to life.

    He said both sides had now agreed to the clause on house searches, apparently ending an impasse which had threatened to scupper the agreement.

    Faizi said Karzai and Kerry spoke by phone Tuesday during final negotiations for the security agreement which will shape Washington’s future military presence in the war-scarred nation.

    However officials in Washington said there was still some way to go before reaching a final agreement.

    “We’re not there yet. There are still some final issues we are working through,” said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

    Even if a final agreement is reached, Afghanistan has insisted that the BSA must be approved by a mass gathering of tribal chieftains and politicians.

    The four-day grand assembly, known as a “loya jirga” in Pashto, is set to begin on Thursday in Kabul.

    The BSA will determine how many US soldiers stay in Afghanistan when most of NATO’s troops deployed in the country since 2001 – currently numbering 75,000 – leave at the end of 2014.

    The Taliban have branded the loya jirga meeting a US-designed plot, vowing to pursue and punish its delegates as traitors if they approve the BSA.

    Highlighting the ongoing security challenges facing Afghanistan, a Taliban suicide bomber on Saturday struck close to the venue where the meeting is set to be held killing a dozen people, most of them civilians.

    The issue of legal immunity for US troops who remain in Afghanistan has also held up negotiations. Failure to broker a similar deal in Iraq in 2011 prompted the Americans to pull out completely. The country is now in the grip of some of its worst sectarian violence since 2008.

    More Info
     

Share This Page