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: Updates & Discussions

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by @speaks, Apr 8, 2011.

  1. DaRk KnIght

    DaRk KnIght Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    1,295
    And some people said that situation will become normal after US withdrawal.
     
  2. Virajith

    Virajith Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,910
    Likes Received:
    623
    India, China could find common ground in Afghanistan


    When India and China sit across the table in Beijing on Thursday for their first-ever focussed dialogue on Afghanistan, they will find two major points of commonality.

    The first is their shared interest in investing huge amounts in Afghanistan to extract mineral resources.

    The second is their influence on Afghanistan — direct in case of India and indirect for China via Pakistan — that could enable both put their economic plans in motion.

    The environment before the talks is conducive. While back-to-back visits by the two Prime Ministers is not on the cards, both sides are working on a series of interactions between the senior leaderships.

    The India-China border remains tranquil and misplaced reports about Chinese intrusions, especially in the Ladakh area, have now ebbed after New Delhi traced the source.

    On the Brahmaputra, the Ninth Inter-Ministerial Expert Group report broadly mirrored the previous one — that no instance of water diversion has occurred from the main course of the Brahmaputra and its tributaries.

    Doubts remain especially over construction activity at three places on the river and a road passing through the Great Bend area which is being continuously upgraded. In his first meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sought a joint monitoring group to allay Indian fears about dams that would impede the Brahmaputra’s flow.

    China has not replied so far and India will continue to press them on this. But New Delhi’s strategic fears have so far been assuaged. The Indian assessment after last month’s maiden Manmohan-Xi meeting in Durban was that Beijing wished to add to measures being taken to keep the border incident-free, expand economic engagement to address India’s complaints of a ballooning balance of trade deficit and enlarge areas of bilateral consultations on global and security issues.

    It is against this backdrop that India and China will seek to know each other’s plans in Afghanistan. The first prerequisite for stable investment environment will be to minimise the possibility of violence. India has bagged a large chunk of the Hajigak iron ore mine while China had won tenders for a copper mine and has now been allocated oil blocks in the Amu Darya basin in northern Afghanistan.

    Politically, India is fairly well placed in Kabul. It does not expect Kabul-Delhi equations to change after the 2014 presidential elections though the picture about candidates in the fray is yet to become clear. India’s capacity building programmes have done well. China has started off with some of its own in the medical field but would be unable to match India’s core expertise in this area.

    Where China scores over India is its ability to influence the behaviour of violence-prone groups through its close ally Pakistan. As the copper and iron ore mines are located in areas where the ability of these groups to conduct hit-and-run operations is high, China could be in a better position than India to reign in these forces while Kabul tried to resolve their grievances.

    The new Chinese leadership has taken over in a situation which was different when the previous change occurred 10 years ago. The new leadership is aware that China today is much more in the limelight by virtue of its global standing. The present leadership would therefore be taking steps to correct impressions about passivity in Afghanistan. The two countries thus not only have common grounds to check instability in Afghanistan but share concerns about the country turning into a militant hub with implications for the security situation in Kashmir as well as Xinjiang.

    But much will also depend on the many irons in the fire in Afghanistan. One indication is the speeding up of the number of trilaterals and multilateral conferences, overt and secret. India itself has two trilaterals on hand — two rounds held with the U.S. and Afghanistan and the first one in the offing with Russia and China. China, Russia and Pakistan too have held a meeting that saw high-level participation while Islamabad has held parleys with Kabul and Washington.

    With several factors in play, Thursday will see a limited exercise of India and China for the first time gauging their interests in Afghanistan, especially in discussing disruption-free linkages in trade and communications between them and Afghanistan.


    India, China could find common ground in Afghanistan - The Hindu
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. Virajith

    Virajith Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,910
    Likes Received:
    623
    Germany Prepared To Stay in Afghanistan After 2014


    BONN — Germany is prepared to continue its military engagement in Afghanistan when ISAF ends in 2014, but only as part of an international mission and under certain conditions.

    Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle presented their country’s offer to a possible international mission on April 18 in Berlin.

    “The German federal government is prepared, as of 2015 for the following two years, to provide soldiers of around 600 to 800 for the train, advise and assist mission,” de Maizière said. The minister presented a so called “Hub and Spoke” model for Afghanistan, the hub being the capital. From there, four spokes would go out to the largest population centers in the north, south, east and west.

    Germany is prepared to send its soldiers to Kabul and north to Mazar-e-Sharif, which is already the country’s area of responsibility.

    “We are prepared to take on responsibility in the north, in Masar-e Sharif, as the framework nation, while being supported by our international partner nations,” the minister said. According to de Maizière, this model is limited to about two years. After that, the training, advising and assisting will be concentrated on the Kabul region.

    “The German contribution will then entail around 200 to 300 soldiers,” he said.

    Besides the capability to train and advise the Afghan National Security Forces, this mission would include providing support to its own troops and other troop contributors. Examples include logistics, medical facilities, transport capabilities, the protection of the servicemen and possibly evacuation, the minister said.

    De Maizière said that conditions needed to participate in a new international mission after 2015 include a formal invitation from the Afghan government, a UN Security Council Resolution, a status of forces agreement with the Afghan government and a security situation that allows it.

    With respect to the current ISAF mission, de Maizière said, “Thereby a mission will end, that was also a combat mission in its nature. Afghanistan must then look after its own security at the operational level.”

    A future mission to train, advise and assist would be conducted to secure the results of the work.



    Source
     
  4. brahmos_ii

    brahmos_ii Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,762
    Likes Received:
    932
    With prospects for peace in Afghanistan and the region at stake, Hamid Karzai needs to end the uncertainties surrounding next year’s presidential election

    On the eve of the decisive transitions — political, security and economic — in Afghanistan next year when NATO drawdown will take place, an unprecedented manthan is under way. Old feelings and emotions long suppressed, and new urges, are being expressed, even asserted, forcefully and publicly. In the process, the contradictions of Afghan society and polity are being pushed to the surface.

    The old are using traditional forms: the media and by putting up hoardings in the cities. The posters, although few, of Daud Khan and the photographs of Najibullah, both strong, if brutal, leaders and symbols of Pashtun authority, which have made an appearance in Kabul, indicate as much a waning of the fear of Mujahideen leaders as of a yearning, among some, for effective, even authoritarian, leadership. The youth are turning to the social media to articulate their political views, largely indicative of a desire for democracy and development.

    For the future of Afghanistan, this manthan needs to lead to consensus on an overarching national theme for Afghan society and polity. But that is nowhere discernible. President Karzai, who has been the central figure in Afghan national life for over a decade, has failed to provide the vision and leadership essential for the evolution of such consensus.

    New thinking
    A paradigm shift is taking place in large sections of the Afghan political elite as well as the main NATO countries regarding management of the transitions. Until now it was felt that the principal challenge in 2014 after the drawdown of foreign forces would come from Taliban insurgency. The capacity of the Afghan security forces to cope with an invigorated Taliban was suspect. It was therefore considered essential to draw the Taliban into a reconciliation process so that the insurgency could be contained post NATO troop drawdown. This approach is now giving way to a new thinking which emphasises that the key to success will lie in a fair and credible presidential election, which is scheduled to be held in April 2014. The reconciliation process, led by the High Peace Council under Salahuddin Rabbani, is not being abandoned but it is no longer considered crucial to future stability.

    The premise of the new approach is that if the Afghan political process coheres it will give confidence to the people in the future of the country, and an Afghan government with a credibly elected President, with the people behind it will be able to successfully handle the insurgency and keep the economy going. Such a government will critically need the international community’s continuing financial support and the presence of around 10,000 U.S. troops which will be available if the Presidential elections are fair.

    At the heart of present thinking lies the role of President Karzai in organising an orderly election next year for a smooth handover of power. The Afghan Constitution does not permit Mr. Karzai to contest the next election. He has said publicly he will adhere to the Constitution but everyone this writer met in Kabul earlier this month said he had taken no practical steps to begin the election process. Some therefore suspect that he is still seeking a way to continue beyond the constitutionally mandated period. However, most believe that he is focussed on finding a person who can not only win the election but will also ensure his security and assure him of immunity and a role in a future set-up.

    Many names including that of his brother Qayyum Karzai are doing the rounds but Mr. Karzai has not been able to make up his mind. Hence, the atmosphere is full of uncertainties and all eyes are on President Karzai. For over a decade he masterfully outmanoeuvred all Afghan political actors but failed to emerge as the leader of the Pashtuns, leave alone the country. At the same time, he ensured that no one else did. Consequently, he has no natural successor. Perhaps he did not form a party so that no one could emerge as a natural successor.

    Divisions

    Through all this uncertainty, the political class is preparing for elections. It is fractured on ethnic lines and there are contending groups within each ethnic community. The Tajiks are divided into two broad fronts: one led by the former Vice-President, Ahmad Zia Massoud, and the other by the former Foreign Minister, Dr. Abdullah, and the former Speaker, Qanooni. Among the Hazaras, the old Mujahideen leader Mohaqiq remains the main figure, while the enduring Uzbek leader Dostum continues his hold over his people. Many Pashtun political figures, both within Afghanistan and in the diaspora, fancy their chances. In typical Afghan fashion everyone is talking to everyone else but it is unlikely that the real coalitions and their candidates will emerge till autumn.

    The most problematic issue that confronts Afghanistan is its readiness for a non-Pashtun President. Almost all Pashtuns firmly believe that only a Pashtun can lead the country. But one Tajik leader said that the Pashtun have to be prepared to accept that a fair election might bring up a non-Pashtun.

    Pakistan factor
    In recent weeks, Mr. Karzai is raising the temperature with Pakistan especially over charges of the Pakistani Army violating the Durand Line. Skirmishes have taken place between the two countries leading to casualties on both sides. Pakistani diplomats have been summoned to the Foreign Office. Mr. Karzai has asserted that Afghanistan will never accept the Durand Line as the international border, a theme that resonates with all Afghans. If this is an attempt to refurbish his image, it comes too late even though tough action against Pakistan is popular. Mr. Karzai knows that Afghanistan cannot play the anti-Pakistan card beyond a point. More significant is the Pakistani conviction, not without reason, that the present approach of seeking to bypass the Taliban, which effectively means putting Pakistani interests aside, will not work. Taliban influence in many provinces in southern and eastern Afghanistan is strong and through them Pakistan can calibrate levels of violence especially after the drawdown of NATO forces. Significantly, Pakistan is establishing serious contacts with non-Pashtun groups too.

    With Mr. Karzai keeping both the country and the international community guessing, the Afghan elite has been sending funds out of Afghanistan. Property prices in major Afghan cities have fallen by up to 50 per cent. The afghani has slipped by about 15 per cent against the U.S. dollar in recent weeks. Many Afghans feel that the situation of the 1990s will not come to pass. But those with means have transferred assets abroad, including Pakistan, by way of an insurance against any eventuality. Property prices have moved up in Peshawar.

    For India

    The period of transitions will bring difficulties in the execution of India’s Afghan policies. A deteriorating security situation will impede the completion of major projects which are experiencing delays as it is. As of now, however, India is developing new projects. An agricultural university is planned to be established in Kandahar. Dr. M.S. Swaminathan visited Kabul last week to discuss its contours with Mr. Karzai and his ministers. The university project must be vigorously pursued despite the security challenges in Kandahar. The Indian skills development programme is particularly important for Afghanistan.

    Major Indian companies are interested in Afghanistan but are worried about the future of the country. The government must work with Indian industry and Kabul to address their security concerns in innovative ways. A push at the Afghan resources sector needs to gather momentum even now. Action on the ground is especially required in respect of the large Hajikak iron project. We also need to talk to all regional countries about developing Afghanistan’s transport sector including access to the sea so that it would be possible to send Afghan natural resources to international markets.

    As part of India’s support, the India-Afghanistan strategic partnership agreement should be implemented in all areas, including defence and security, without refracting it through the prism of our relations with any other country.

    At this critical stage, India also needs to reach out to all Afghan political actors, including old friends, and assure them that it will follow its tradition of not intervening in their politics and will support the evolution of their constitutional process.

    Afghanistan is on the cusp of change and the skies are cloudy. Mr. Karzai needs to act decisively as a statesman and not as a traditional Popalzai chieftain. Perhaps, he should recall the political science courses he took in Shimla on the importance of upholding the constitution and look beyond a policy of divide and rule.

    Wanted, an Afghan statesman - The Hindu
     
  5. brahmos_ii

    brahmos_ii Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,762
    Likes Received:
    932
    Hamid Karzai has let the Pentagon’s cat out of the bag — to the displeasure of the Obama Administration. The Afghan president revealed inside information about President Obama’s war plans after all U.S. “combat troops” completely withdraw in 17 months at the end of 2014.

    As was known in recent years, the Obama Administration actually plans to keep troops in Afghanistan after the “withdrawal” at least to 2024. They won’t be “combat troops,” so Obama didn’t actually mislead the American people. Instead they are to be Special Forces troops, who certainly engage in combat but are identified by a different military designation, as well as U.S. Army trainers for the Afghan military, CIA contingents, drone operators, and various other personnel.

    The White House has kept other details secret, such as troop numbers and basing arrangements, until it is certain a final Strategic Partnership Declaration is worked out with the Kabul government. When that occurs, the White House expects to make the announcement itself at a time of its choosing, sculpting the information to convey the impression that another 10 years of fighting is not actually war but an act of compassion for a besieged ally who begs for help.

    On May 9, however, during a speech at Kabul University, President Karzai decided to update the world on the progress he was making in his secret talks with the U.S., evidently without Washington’s knowledge.

    “We are in very serious and delicate negotiations with America,” Karzai said. “America has got its demands, Afghanistan too has its own demands, and its own interests…. They want nine bases across Afghanistan. We agree to give them the bases.


    “Our conditions are that the U.S. intensify efforts in the peace process [i.e., talks with the Taliban], strengthen Afghanistan’s security forces, provide concrete support to the economy — power, roads and dams — and provide assistance in governance. If these are met, we are ready to sign the security pact.”

    Washington evidently was taken aback by Karzai’s unexpected public revelations that made it clear President Obama is anxious, not hesitant, to keep American troops in Afghanistan. Few analysts thought there would be as many as nine bases. Neither the White House nor State Department confirmed requesting them but both emphasized that any bases in question were not intended to be permanent, as though that’s the principal factor.

    If American engagement lasts until 2024 it will mean the U.S. has been involved in Afghan wars for most of the previous 46 years. It began in 1978 when Washington (and Saudi Arabia) started to finance the right wing Islamist mujahedeen uprising against a left wing pro-Soviet government in Kabul. The left regime was finally defeated in 1992 and the Taliban emerged as the dominant force among several other fighting groups in the mid-90s.


    The CIA remained active in Afghanistan and was joined by the rest of the U.S. war machine weeks after the Sept. 11, 2000, terror attacks in Washington and New York. The objective was to overthrow the Taliban and destroy al-Qaeda, which also emerged from the Washington-financed wars. The U.S. swiftly took control of Kabul and al-Qaeda fled to Pakistan. Since then, the American foreign legion has been fought to a stalemate by a much smaller poorly equipped guerrilla force, which is where the situation remains today.


    The U.S. has engaged in secret talks with the Taliban off and on for a couple of years. The hope is that the Taliban will agree to stop fighting and subordinate itself to the Kabul government in return for money, and a certain amount of administrative and political power within the national and certain provincial governments.

    The Taliban will agree to nothing at this stage but an immediate and total withdrawal of U.S. military forces and the closure of bases. The White House evidently thinks that a combination of U.S.-trained Afghan forces plus the remaining Americans might bring their opponents to the bargaining table. The nine bases also provide the U.S. with a strong bargaining chip to relinquish at the right time.

    Washington has additional reasons for remaining in Afghanistan, as we wrote in the May 31, 2011, issue of the Activist Newsletter — and little has changed:

    “The U.S. has no desire to completely withdraw from its only foothold in Central Asia, militarily positioned close to what are perceived to be its two main enemies with nuclear weapons (China, Russia), and two volatile nuclear powers backed by the U.S. but not completely under its control by any means (Pakistan, India). Also, this fortuitous geography is flanking the extraordinary oil and natural gas wealth of the Caspian Basin and energy-endowed former Soviet Muslim republics such as Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Lastly, Iran — a possible future imperial prize — is situated directly across Afghanistan’s western border.


    “The U.S. wants to keep troops nearby for any contingency. Washington’s foothold in Central Asia is a potential geopolitical treasure, particularly as Obama, like Bush before him, seeks to prevent Beijing and Moscow from extending their influence in what is actually their own back yard, not America’s.” Soon after this was written the Obama Administration revealed its “pivot” to Asia. Remaining in Central Asia is now part of what we have called America’s “ring of fire” around China, singeing North Korea as well.

    Karzai occasionally makes strong public statements that criticize the U.S. They seem mainly intended to bolster his position by showing the Afghan people he is not Uncle Sam’s total puppet, but he’s to be praised for these statements.

    For example, he often complains openly when the U.S. commits war crimes in his country, which have been numerous. He has demanded the U.S. discontinue night raids on homes. In late February, according to the Guardian, he ordered “U.S. Special Forces to leave one of Afghanistan’s most restive provinces, Maidan Wardak, after receiving reports from local officials claiming that the elite units had been involved in the torture and disappearance of Afghan civilians.” He recently charged that Washington was allowing the Taliban to increase its violence to make it necessary for him to approve the U.S. demand to remain until 2024.

    Washington named Karzai acting president soon after the Bush Administration’s aggressive invasion 12 years ago. His job was to serve the interests of the United States while governing Afghanistan. Karzai was elected president with decisive U.S. backing two years later. The Obama Administration maneuvered to oust him in the 2009 election, charging him with gross corruption, but its candidate withdrew just before the voting. Karzai legally cannot run for another term, but intends to continue playing a powerful role if he can pull it off.

    Karzai is shrewd and realizes America’s intentions are far more corrupt than his own because he only wants money, power and a somewhat better deal for Afghanistan, while the hypocritical U.S. wants everything there is to grab for its own geopolitical interests. He has long been on the CIA’s generous payroll and also distributes payoffs to various warlords, some of whom are closer to the CIA than to the government. A week before the 2001 invasion the CIA was inside the country smuggling money to the warlords to join the impending war on the Taliban.

    The White House dislikes the Afghan leader but he’s all they have at the moment. They desperately need him now, particularly until signing a final agreement on having U.S. troops remain until 2024. President Obama well remembers his humiliation when Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki rejected demands to keep troops in Iraq after the “withdrawal” date, Dec. 30, 2011.

    Obama pressured Maliki for years to permit up to 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq after the “combat troops” pulled out. In mid-October 2011 the Iraqi leader finally accepted 3,000 to 5,000 troops in a training-only capacity. The Iraqis then insisted that they remain largely confined to their bases, and refused Washington’s demand to grant legal immunity to the soldiers when they entered the larger society.


    That was the deal-breaker. Washington routinely demands legal exemption for its foreign legions as a matter of imperial hubris, and would not compromise. The day after the deal collapsed, Obama issued a public statement intended to completely conceal his failure. “Today,” he said, “I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year.”

    Several important issues in the Washington-Kabul post-2014 negotiations seem to have been decided, including a U.S. payment of at least $10 billion a year to train and pay for some 400,000 Afghan soldiers and police officers. Among the remaining issues are two of considerable importance — troop strength and legal immunity for American personal (both for soldiers and tens of thousands of U.S. “contractors” who will remain in the country).


    Reports circulated in the last few months that between 3,000 and 20,000 U.S. troops, mainly Special Forces, CIA contingents, drone operators and contractors of various kinds, will remain after 2014. The main air cover is expected to come from Navy aircraft carriers probably stationed in the Arabian Sea or Indian Ocean. Drones are expected to play a major role in battle as well as surveillance. Last year there were some 400 drone attacks in Afghanistan and that number is expected to continue increasing.

    The New York Times reported Jan. 3 that “Gen. John R. Allen, the senior American commander in Afghanistan, has submitted military options to the Pentagon that would keep 6,000 to 20,000 American troops in Afghanistan after 2014…. With 6,000 troops, defense officials said, the American mission would largely be a counterterrorism fight of Special Operations commandos who would hunt down insurgents. There would be limited logistical support and training for Afghan security forces. With 10,000 troops, the United States would expand training of Afghan security forces. With 20,000 troops, the Obama administration would add some conventional Army forces to patrol in limited areas.”


    The May 11 New York Times reported that “The Obama administration has yet to decide how large a force it would like to keep in Afghanistan, but administration officials have signaled that it is unlikely to total more than 10,000 service members. They said it was more important now to hash out a range of issues, like whether American troops would continue to have legal immunity in Afghanistan after next year, than to talk about the specifics of where troops would be based.”


    The big remaining issue is immunity for U.S. personnel. Our guess is that, unlike in Iraq — where conditions are far different — Washington will find a way around the issue. It is difficult to see how the Kabul government of Karzai or his successor in next year’s elections can survive for long without substantial American financial support for a prolonged period.


    American forces are engaged in Obama’s drone wars in western Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and soon Africa. Regime change in Libya would not have occurred had the Obama Administration refused to participate. President Obama has been fanning the flames of regime change in Syria for nearly two years, and now he’s about to up the ante. He’s strangling Iran with unjust sanctions and keeps warning that war is possible. He calls Hezbollah, the Shia self-defense organization in Lebanon, a terrorist organization, as he does Hamas in Gaza, the victim of overwhelming Israeli hatred and violence. And now Obama in moving more military power to East Asia to confront China.


    If George W. Bush was in the White House today, a huge American peace movement would be out on the streets demanding an end to America’s endless immoral wars. But now a Democrat officiates in the Oval Office, his Nobel Peace Prize wisely hidden in a dark closet lest his militarist propensities provoke an unseemly contrast.


    Obama’s many wars are but extensions of Bush’s wars plus killer drones, but the great majority of Americans either seem to have forgotten or simply don’t care about the wars, even though their tax money will amount to $80 billion for Afghanistan in fiscal 2014. Meanwhile, Pentagon generals anticipate various new wars of one kind or another well into the future. The battle against al-Qaeda is expected to last 20 more years. The world has become America’s battlefield.


    Afghanistan? Didn’t we have a war there once? Oh, that’s right, it ended when we got rid of Bush, didn’t it?
    The author is editor of the Activist Newsletter and is former editor of the (U.S.) Guardian Newsweekly. He may be reached at jacdon@earthlink.net or Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter


    The Afghanistan War May End by 2024 ? Maybe | Global Research
     
  6. Bangali

    Bangali FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    7
    so in short the afghani abadis will not be vacated till 2024
     
  7. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    Let's ask ourselves, why is it that the date has been postponed in the past and is still being considered even in this late hour?

    I remember Bush back in 2001 and some officials had planned withdrawal around mid-2002.
    Then extended to 2004. Then came back the taliban, back from the dead and from the silent caves, then there was talk of a possible 2007 withdrawal, and 2008. Then 2012. But the irony here is that after all said and done in campaign speeches, Obama increased the number of boots on the ground (uncanny resemblance to Vietnam) and now 2014.

    Where we now have people talking about a limited presence beyond 2014, with some committed. Again an uncanny resemblance to Vietnam.

    All this goes hand in hand with the U turn in strategic thinking and policy.
    I'm not saying they aren't murderers any more, they still are.

    But err, back in 2001, Bush said 'we do not negotiate with terrorists.'. Basically calling the talibs terrorists and grouping them with Al Qaeda. Today, they not only want to negotiate with them on withdrawal plans, they also want them part of a political process in Kabul, which Karzai vehemently opposed. So much so, that they see that their little angel Karzai is backing the TTP and they are n't willing to fight the TTP (Pakistan's problem) in their own backyard. There's the hypocrisy too.
     
  8. brahmos_ii

    brahmos_ii Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,762
    Likes Received:
    932
    Russia, India and China will make every effort to make Afghanistan a peaceful and prosperous state . This announcement was made a few days ago by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia in Delhi at a meeting of foreign ministers of the three countries. According to Sergei Lavrov, they agreed to step up the work under the aegis of the United Nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The theme is commented by Petr Goncharov.

    The reason behind the"reverence" displayed by Sergei Lavrov towards the UN and the SCO is obvious. Today, the problem of Afghanistan is virtually monopolized by the U.S. and Co, despite the fact that the problem itself, especially the consequences if it is not resolved, is largely of regional character. Therefore, at the meeting in Delhi, the foreign ministers of the three countries paid particular attention to Afghanistan in their discussion of possible regional threats.

    The fact that Russia, India and China will deal with Afghanistan after "the United States and NATO" have exhausted themselves has been voiced in different media for a long time . In principle this is exactly as it should be . But there is one "but". And this "but" is Pakistan . Nobody refuted Zardari’s famous formula " if Pakistan is a part of the Afghan problem, then it must be a part of the solution as well" . Everybody agrees with it because it's true. In this case, it is important how successfully Moscow, New Delhi and Beijing will be able to interact with Islamabad in solving the Afghan problem. Yes, and how will Islamabad react to its being "bypassed" ? Here is the opinion of Peter Topychkanov, an expert on Pakistan:

    “An intensive dialogue, including regular exchange of military delegations, has been going on between Moscow and Islamabad. Besides, Islamabad is well aware of the position of the Moscow towards Pakistan’s approach to the Afghan problem . Finally, Sergei Lavrov mentioned not by chance that the active cooperation of Russia, India and China on Afghanistan is planned in the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in which, of course, there is a great prospect for Pakistan.”

    One could end the commentary at this optimistic note by the Russian expert, but another point must be made. The SCO is considering the adoption of India and Pakistan to the organization as full members. Moreover, the issue is being discussed in conjunction with the Afghan problem .

    Afghanistan: Russia , India, China and Pakistan - News - Politics - Russian Radio
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,041
    Likes Received:
    2,259
    Country Flag:
    United States


    Most of the civilized world realizes that dealing with primitive religious fanatics of limit intelligence is just vermin control. When they start to get out of control you just start killing them until the problem subsides. You really cant deal with or educate such people and its a waste of time to even try.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2013
    1 person likes this.
  10. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    Oh yeah?

    And how's that plan worked out? Don't say it... 12 years, barely made a dent, the world's greatest power along with some of the greatest allies.

    That plan hasn't been able to defeat some small, ill-equipped, poorly trained rag tag army with no real source of income.
     
  11. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,041
    Likes Received:
    2,259
    Country Flag:
    United States
    The US changed the government in Afganstan, killed Osama, lot of the Taliban leadership, and put Pakistan in the position of either having to do something about the Taliban or suffer the consquences.. You never can get rid of all the vermin. Every day Pakistan is whineing about another Taliban or Al Quada that bites the dust.

    Some times it has been reported USA will have as many as six drones over a site at one time. Production of drones is inexpensive and so is their operations compared manned aircraft and the USA is building hundreds of them. Pakistan and Afganstan provide great on the job training. Other then a few crews to maintain the drones and the pilots can remain in the USA and its an 8 hour shift.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2013
    2 people like this.
  12. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    Let me rephrase that for you.

    The US put up a very shaky and temporary puppet in government, killed one OBL created hundreds more (not just here, globally), and messed up the entire region even more.

    Pathetic failure.
     
  13. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,815
    Likes Received:
    2,970
    That's entire point. Taliban aren't a military problem, they are a social problem, and they won't go away until they are approached that way. People and ideas come first.

    Really a pathetic performance for a country that has produced one of greatest military thinkers of 20th century, if not ever.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,327
    Likes Received:
    3,575
    Country Flag:
    India
    so what will be your strategy after 9/11 if you are in charge
     
  15. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,041
    Likes Received:
    2,259
    Country Flag:
    United States
    The Pathetic failure is Islam and Pakistan, ever since Muslims elevated sucide bombers to heros in in their conflict with Israel this is the direction the world was headed. The Pakistani leadership is caught in a trap of its own making. Since the 1970s, the local media has (often under government pressure) enthusiastically backed Islamic radicalism and hatred of infidels (non-Moslems, especially all those Indian Hindus). Efforts to make peace with India and the West are crippled by the large number of Pakistanis who still believe the decades of anti-infidel propaganda and cannot be quickly turned around
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page