What's new

Afghan Endgame: US Withdrawal, Taliban negotiations, Pakistan's position

Pakistans best role can be,to leave the mtter between US and Afghans.
Pakistan should stop NATO supply,out all Afghans from its land including terrorists like HAqani network and mine and fence the border.
I can ensure you that at least Pakistan will be peace.
 
. .
Pakistans best role can be,to leave the mtter between US and Afghans.
Pakistan should stop NATO supply,out all Afghans from its land including terrorists like HAqani network and mine and fence the border.
I can ensure you that at least Pakistan will be peace.

true that,but what I find amusing is the demand is coming from some one who is least qualified to lecture Pakistan. a country which has invaded Afghanistan for right or wrong reasons and has repeatedly killed civilians and under its occupation the terrorism has increased, Pakistan is more destabilised and add increased drug trade as icing on the cake. How detached or indifferent from reality these jobsworth envoys is amazing.

There is no acknowledgement of the infiltration from Afghan side into Pakistan, the sidelining of the Afghan majority Pashtons, discrimination and oppression by the Northern Alliance against the Pashton population and turning a blind eye on Indian operations in helping terrorist activities in Balochistan.
America needs to restrain its trigger happy PS3 generation soldiers from killing civilians and ensure that the regime in Kabul is true representative of the Afghan population and then withdraw its occupation forces. The neighbours of Afghanistan have no choice but to live with all this and they will do what is best for them and the region’s safety and prosperity.
 
.
true that,but what I find amusing is the demand is coming from some one who is least qualified to lecture Pakistan. a country which has invaded Afghanistan for right or wrong reasons and has repeatedly killed civilians and under its occupation the terrorism has increased, Pakistan is more destabilised and add increased drug trade as icing on the cake. How detached or indifferent from reality these jobsworth envoys is amazing.

There is no acknowledgement of the infiltration from Afghan side into Pakistan, the sidelining of the Afghan majority Pashtons, discrimination and oppression by the Northern Alliance against the Pashton population and turning a blind eye on Indian operations in helping terrorist activities in Balochistan.
America needs to restrain its trigger happy PS3 generation soldiers from killing civilians and ensure that the regime in Kabul is true representative of the Afghan population and then withdraw its occupation forces. The neighbours of Afghanistan have no choice but to live with all this and they will do what is best for them and the region’s safety and prosperity.

We have suffered alot from Afghanistan,take the example of smuggling each year it costs our 120 bn PKR direct loss equivalent to kerry logger amount.
120 is just direct indirect loses are many times higher.There 3 million afghans in our country most of involved in smugling and criminal activities its common to see millionaire afghans riding on Land Cruisers ,how all they got?
It also adds to our insurgency in KPK,Blaochistan and Tribal areas all the weapons are smuggled fron Afghanistan as they are not made or sold in Pakistan.
Even Afghans do not like us some blame us for creating Taliban and some blame us helping USA so we are in loss every side.This is the time we decide for ourselves,mine and fence the border and stay away from Afghanistans' problem.
We should have relations with Afghanistan as we have with India.India has not damaged us so much in last 60 yrs as we have had from Afghanistan side in last 10 yrs.
 
.
There is no acknowledgement of the infiltration from Afghan side into Pakistan, the sidelining of the Afghan majority Pashtons, discrimination and oppression by the Northern Alliance against the Pashton population and turning a blind eye on Indian operations in helping terrorist activities in Balochistan.

Has Pakistan confronted India/US/Afghanistan once with the proof ? And coming from Pakistan it needs more than just proof. It needs hard, irrefutable proof.

When is Rahman Malik going to find the "opportune" time to reveal the proof or is it going to be just hot air forever.
 
.
Maybe it was in response to this statement by the most powerful man in Pakistan.

Stable Afghanistan not worth abandoning strategic interests – The Express Tribune

Maybe it was, but it would have made more sense if the response had come from Afghanistan, Iran or Tajikistan etc. the other thing about your link I want to point out is the genius wording, to make it look sinister. As if Pakistan doesn’t want stable Afghanistan if it hurts its interests.

What interests? The people should have asked and the Chief would have said, the stability and security of Pakistan. Which is the right of every nation. I would totally understand if the Indian COAS makes the similar statement if Pakistan starts supplying its long range missiles to say Siri Lanka or Bangladesh. So the chief might say, ok we respect the stability and sovereignty of our neighbours but not at the expense of the strategic interests of our country and part of that interest is its security from any threat.

What express tribute has “innocently” failed to mention is that Pakistan doesn’t want Afghan soil to be used against it, specially in Balochistan and Khaber provinces. So I would understand Kayani saying that a stable and secure Afghan state is all good but that shouldn’t mean that it should start facilitating or supporting terrorist organisations and other hostile agencies that have destructive ambitions towards Pakistan. But if that continues then there would be a an announcement of Pakistani version of “cold start” directed towards Afghanistan.
 
.
Did US show it wants peace in Afghanistan in the 10 years of fighting ??

Don't think so.
 
.
Tuesday, Jun 28, 2011
Taliban's return and India's concerns

M.K. Bhadrakumar

While there is no evidence that Barack Obama consulted New Delhi about the impending shift in U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, India must now begin a ‘dialogue' with the Taliban along with a policy to instil confidence in the Pakistani mind about our intentions.

The United States President, Barack Obama's announcement regarding the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan was not India-specific, as compared to Washington's initiative in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to bar the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technology to New Delhi. But it is more lethal, casting a shadow on India's regional strategies.

Why Mr. Obama took such a decision doesn't actually need much explaining. Put simply, his sharp political instincts prevailed. He had a pledge to redeem; he sensed the public mood; he heard “bipartisan” opinion in Capitol Hill that the soldiers be brought home; he faces an adverse budgetary environment and he understood that his priority should be to mend the U.S. economy rather than wage wars in foreign lands. The “surge” may have made gains, arguably, but gains are reversible; so, what is the point? Meanwhile, Afghan opinion is turning against foreign occupation and the killing of Osama bin Laden offers a defining moment.

On the diplomatic front, regional allies proved exasperatingly difficult, while European allies got impatient to quit. The regional opinion militates against a long-term U.S. military presence, while the contradictions in intra-regional relationships do not lend easily to reconciliation. The foreign policy priorities need vastly more attention: exports and investment, upheaval in West Asia, China's rise, etc.

There is no evidence that Mr. Obama consulted New Delhi about the impending shift in the U.S. strategy in India's immediate neighbourhood. We need to calmly ponder over what the U.S. means when Mr. Obama calls India its “indispensable partner in the 21st century.” In the period ahead, keeping the dialogue process with Pakistan on course; pursuing normalisation of ties with China; consolidating the gains of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's path-breaking visit to Kabul — all these templates of our regional policy assume great importance. Indeed, the raison d'être of a “new thinking” in policymaking cannot but be stressed.

The implications of Mr. Obama's drawdown decision are far-reaching. The U.S. has accepted the Taliban as being a part of the Afghan nation and concluded that it does not threaten America's “homeland security.” No segment of the Taliban movement that is willing for reconciliation will be excluded. Mr. Obama expressed optimism about the peace process. He estimated that al-Qaeda is a spent force and any residual “war on terror” will be by way of exercising vigilance that it doesn't rear its head again. The timeline for the drawdown — 10,000 troops by end-2011, 33,000 by mid-2012 and the bulk of the remaining 70,000 troops at a “steady pace” through 2013-14 — plus the change of command necessitated by David Petraeus's departure in September as the new head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) hardly leaves scope for keeping a high tempo of security operations. Obviously, the Taliban has borne the brunt of the U.S. firepower and has survived.

The stunning geopolitical reality is that the U.S. is barely staving off defeat and is making its way out of the Hindu Kush in an orderly retreat. The Taliban responded to Mr. Obama's announcement saying, “The solution for the Afghan crisis lies in the full withdrawal of all foreign troops immediately. Until this happens, our armed struggle will increase from day to day.” Again, Mr. Obama appears to be optimistic about the Kabul government's ability to assume the responsibility of security by 2014.

Mr. Obama completely avoided mentioning an almost-forgotten pledge that the former U.S. President George W. Bush made in the halcyon days of the war, that the U.S. would someday consider a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. He, instead, pleaded that this is “a time of rising debt and hard economic times at home” and he needs to concentrate on rebuilding America. The Afghans fear that western aid and projects would dry up. If that happens, Afghanistan will revert to the late 1990s when the Taliban regime first accepted the financial help offered by bin Laden. All hope now hinges on the international conference that Mr. Obama will be hosting in May next year in Chicago.

However, there is no need to press the panic button. A repetition of the civil war scenario of the 1990s appears a remote possibility. The Taliban's ascendancy in the 1990s was more an outright Pakistani conquest of Afghanistan in which the Pakistani air force, artillery, armoured corps, regular officers and intelligence agencies directly participated. The Taliban was a cohesive movement. Besides, there were regional powers determined to provide assistance to the non-Pashtun groups. In all these respects, the situation is radically different today. Pakistan hadn't yet known at that time the blowback of terrorism. The very fact that Pakistan learnt about the secret talks between the Taliban and U.S. representatives from news reports speaks volumes of its command and control of the Quetta Shura.

Pakistan cannot be so naïve as not to factor in the fact that a revitalised, triumphalist Taliban just across the Durand Line (which, by the way, has all but disappeared) could ultimately prove a headache for its own security. Pakistani commentators candidly admit that the Afghans deeply resent Pakistan's interference. There has been an overall political awakening among the Afghan people and a replay of the old Pakistani policies will be challenged. The gravitas of Afghan domestic politics has shifted. Thus, all things taken into consideration, Pakistan will see the wisdom of allowing a kind of intra-Afghan “equilibrium” to develop rather than try to prescribe what is good for that country.

Mr. Karzai has proved to be a remarkably shrewd politician gifted with a high acumen to network and forge alliances. He has emerged as a pan-Afghan leader who maintains working relationships with influential figures cutting across ethnicity and regions — Mohammed Fahim, Karim Khalili, Burhanuddin Rabbani, Rasul Sayyaf, etc. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-i-Islami, which is a Pashtun-dominated group antithetical to the Taliban, already forms a part of Mr. Karzai's government. Mr. Karzai has his own bridges leading toward the Taliban camp to which he once belonged, after all. There will always be disgruntled elements, but then there are the traditional Afghan methods of patronage and accommodation. Mr. Karzai takes an active interest in regional affairs. His bonding with Pakistan and Iran shows that his political antennae are already probing for openings in anticipation of the U.S. withdrawal.

In this complex setting, India's own policy orientations are realistic and near-optimal. The primacy on building warm and cordial ties with the government in Kabul; nurturing people-to-people ties; contributing significantly to reconstruction; non-interference in internal affairs; an aversion to Indian military deployment; a non-prescriptive approach to an Afghan settlement and the insistence on an “Afghan-led” reconciliation process; and, most important, the trust that Mr. Karzai knows the “red lines” — these parameters of policy are eminently sustainable.

However, a couple of points need to be made. India should establish communication lines with the Taliban — assuming, of course, it wants to talk with us. After all, we talked with Mr. Sayyaf, leader of the Ittehad, which Jalaluddin Haqqani served as commander. It is inconceivable that any Afghan could harbour ill will towards India and the Indian people. The rest is all the disposable stuff of how the Afghan has been manipulated by outsiders through the 30 years of civil war — including when he vandalised the Bamiyan statues. But in the kind of Afghanistan Mr. Karzai wants his country to return, it becomes possible for us also to rediscover the Afghan we knew before foreigners came and occupied his country. (Incidentally, this is also the basis of Mr. Karzai's optimism when he reacted on hearing about Mr. Obama's drawdown plan: “This soil can only be protected by the sons of Afghanistan. I congratulate the Afghan people for taking the responsibility for their country into their own hands … Today is a very happy day.”)

And, our “dialogue” with the Taliban must go hand in hand with a policy to do all we can by word and deed to instil confidence in the Pakistani mind about our intentions that for the foreseeable future, Afghanistan's stabilisation can become a shared concern for the two countries. Much has changed already in the most recent months in the prevailing air. No one talks seriously that the drawback of Mr. Obama's drawdown plan could be India-Pakistan “rivalry” in Afghanistan. There is actually no scope for zero-sum games, since Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan are legitimate — and are reconcilable with India's concerns.

Second, Indian diplomacy should utilise the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) process to evolve a new strategic culture of collective security for the region, which it lacks. Mr. Obama's words should be properly understood, when he said that the U.S. can no more “over-extend … confronting every evil that can be found abroad.” As India and Pakistan move to a new trajectory of growth, a favourable regional environment becomes the imperative need. India can learn a lot from the Chinese “technique” of creating synergy between the SCO track and Beijing's bilateral track with the Central Asian capitals — and with Moscow — which till a generation ago were weaned on unalloyed anti-China dogmas of the Soviet era. Indian diplomacy can do one better. It can adapt this “technique” to normalisation with Pakistan — and with China.

(The writer is a former diplomat.)

Alright Taliban !!!!
 
.
Has Pakistan confronted India/US/Afghanistan once with the proof ? And coming from Pakistan it needs more than just proof. It needs hard, irrefutable proof.

When is Rahman Malik going to find the "opportune" time to reveal the proof or is it going to be just hot air forever.

Now you are being defensive my friend. There is no need to be irate about it. You see when some of those cultural centres (as India calls them) are found in very remote places along the border then it does raise suspicions and when those suspicions are substantiated with pictures of some terrorists visiting those sites then it only confirms the claim. Whats more the BLA terrorist leader has already boasted his relations and help from India in his interview Bramdagh Bugti I am talking about.

I will like to end this argument here now because I don’t want to derail the subject. My family members and friends and class fellows have personally suffered due to BLA terrorism and we have found evidence of Indian involvement many times so its no hot air. Americans are putting pressure on Afghan government to keep a check on that specially the free hand to India. The information has been passed on to both Americans and Indians so there is no denying that. The claims are further confirmed because Bramdagh travels with Indian passport and he was also flagged in Dubai as well when he was visiting his Indian contact there. You see the Indian role in nurturing, training and supporting Mukti Bahni and Tamil tigers is well documented so its nothing new that is surprising. Lets face it India and Pakistan are not the friendliest of neighbours so such activities shouldn’t be a surprising.
Like I said earlier, lets stay on topic.
 
.
Maybe it was, but it would have made more sense if the response had come from Afghanistan, Iran or Tajikistan etc. the other thing about your link I want to point out is the genius wording, to make it look sinister. As if Pakistan doesn’t want stable Afghanistan if it hurts its interests.

That is exactly what Mr.Kayani meant. Stable Afghanistan is good as long as it does not hurt Pakistan's interests.


What interests? The people should have asked and the Chief would have said, the stability and security of Pakistan. Which is the right of every nation. I would totally understand if the Indian COAS makes the similar statement if Pakistan starts supplying its long range missiles to say Siri Lanka or Bangladesh. So the chief might say, ok we respect the stability and sovereignty of our neighbours but not at the expense of the strategic interests of our country and part of that interest is its security from any threat.

Actually that part is understandable. But given Pakistan's long interference in either of its neighbours such statements can only be perceived as wanting a regime in Afghanistan that is subservient to Pakistan. The world cannot be faulted for such a perception.And this is exactly what the US means by saying that Pakistan must work to remove that perception. I dont see anything wrong in it.

What express tribute has “innocently” failed to mention is that Pakistan doesn’t want Afghan soil to be used against it, specially in Balochistan and Khaber provinces. So I would understand Kayani saying that a stable and secure Afghan state is all good but that shouldn’t mean that it should start facilitating or supporting terrorist organisations and other hostile agencies that have destructive ambitions towards Pakistan. But if that continues then there would be a an announcement of Pakistani version of “cold start” directed towards Afghanistan.

Regarding Khyber, then why is not Pakistan not heeding to Afghan concerns on North Waziristan and is steadfastly protecting the Haqqanis ?

Regarding Balochistan it is more of Pakistan's agencies high handedness (targeted killing, kidnapping, roadside dumpings) that causes the resentment.
 
.
Now you are being defensive my friend.

Defensive ? Hardly. I am just asking for proof of India's action. Surely that is not too much to ask.

There is no need to be irate about it. You see when some of those cultural centres (as India calls them) are found in very remote places along the border then it does raise suspicions and when those suspicions are substantiated with pictures of some terrorists visiting those sites then it only confirms the claim. Whats more the BLA terrorist leader has already boasted his relations and help from India in his interview Bramdagh Bugti I am talking about.

Again you are just connecting two different things and coming to the conclusion that one must be because of the another while it may not necessarily be so unless proved to the contrary.

I will like to end this argument here now because I don’t want to derail the subject. My family members and friends and class fellows have personally suffered due to BLA terrorism and we have found evidence of Indian involvement many times so its no hot air. Americans are putting pressure on Afghan government to keep a check on that specially the free hand to India. The information has been passed on to both Americans and Indians so there is no denying that. The claims are further confirmed because Bramdagh travels with Indian passport and he was also flagged in Dubai as well when he was visiting his Indian contact there.

If Pakistan has so much evidence it as it claims (or as you claim) why is it not releasing to the international media and put an end to Indian atrocities. I ma arguing for Pakistan's sake.

What good are the evidences doing collecting dust while the Interior Minister goes on record saying "we will release it at the correct time".

You see the Indian role in nurturing, training and supporting Mukti Bahni and Tamil tigers is well documented so its nothing new that is surprising. Lets face it India and Pakistan are not the friendliest of neighbours so such activities shouldn’t be a surprising.
Like I said earlier, lets stay on topic.

Offtopic. Regarding Mukti Bahini it was not a Internationally Declared Terrorist Organistion. So your assertion is invalid.

Regarding the LTTE even that was not declared a Terrorist organisation when we were helping it. Once it was declared as terrorist we ceased our help as any responsible nation wild do and actively helped the Sri Lankans in rooting out them and this was acknowledged by the Sri Lankans themselves.
 
.
US should have rolled couple of mini nukes in Taliban. Taliban poof like that. Besides they are not much of headache for us. We are not the ones getting bombed everyday.
 
.
@Gounder

why international media? to give them rating boost? the information has been already passed and presented in US/ Afghan meetings and even Indians are aware of it.
I cant speak for Rehman Malik, poor chap cant make even a single comprehensive sentence without bungling up the whole thing lol. I agree that all evidence must be atleast leaked to the wikileaks to help you and other neutral people to judge and decide for themselves.
While you do that, we in Balochistan continue to bury innocent civilians of different ethnicities and even Bugthis and Marris who don’t agree with the terrorist violence.
You make fun of Rehman Malik and we mourn the deaths of doctors and professors killed by BLA in the name of their freedom.


we just take and accept reports and news to our convenience dont we?
have you yourself seen the details of Haqqani group? (even this naming is wrong they are plain taliban) yet you decide to accept the claims at face value. (by the way when I get time I will show you the map of Waziristan and then explain the absurdity of this claim)

Your argument about mukti bahni and LTTE is shocking. Going by this if LeT is not declared terrorist organisation then Indian & Pakistani civilians should continue to die quietly and don’t make a fuss until “international community” declare LeT terrorst?
What about the say of the victims?


Shame that we derailed ourselves but one thing is clear. There is no peace in Afghanistan at the expense of the majority of Afghan Population and that is Pashton. If America is really sincere about peace then it should ensure that they have their say in the future. And it is also beneficial to Pakistan because it also has large Pashton population and their interests and fate are interlinked.
 
.
why international media? to give them rating boost? the information has been already passed and presented in US/ Afghan meetings and even Indians are aware of it.

I was just figuratively speaking. If it is anything you can use the alternate word international community.

And if India is really bugging Pakistan why not indulge in diplomatic propaganda like the ones Indians indulge in ? Anyone/anything stopping Pak ?

I cant speak for Rehman Malik, poor chap cant make even a single comprehensive sentence without bungling up the whole thing lol. I agree that all evidence must be atleast leaked to the wikileaks to help you and other neutral people to judge and decide for themselves.
While you do that, we in Balochistan continue to bury innocent civilians of different ethnicities and even Bugthis and Marris who don’t agree with the terrorist violence.

But he should speak for Pakistan. Shouldnt he ? After all he is the interior minister of Pakistan. When Pakistan itself does not make its case , with proof ofcourse, how you expect some one else will on Pakistan's behalf ?

You make fun of Rehman Malik and we mourn the deaths of doctors and professors killed by BLA in the name of their freedom.

Surely the BLA doesn't exist in a vacuum. The high handedness of the Army and more particularly the FC is the main reason that pushes even the liberal Balochs who want to be a part of Pakistan towards the BLA or the BRA or whatever.

Im not the only one making fun of Rehman Malik...Am I ?

we just take and accept reports and news to our convenience dont we?
have you yourself seen the details of Haqqani group? (even this naming is wrong they are plain taliban) yet you decide to accept the claims at face value. (by the way when I get time I will show you the map of Waziristan and then explain the absurdity of this claim)

C'mon you dont have to think I know nothing about Taliban. Or are you denying two things ? Haqqanis are not present in NW and they are not conducting cross border attacks in Afghanistan ?

Your argument about mukti bahni and LTTE is shocking. Going by this if LeT is not declared terrorist organisation then Indian & Pakistani civilians should continue to die quietly and don’t make a fuss until “international community” declare LeT terrorst?
What about the say of the victims?

I'm speaking strictly from a legalistic point of view. When you can call the Mukti Bahini a terrorist organisation what description fits the Al-Shams, Al-Badr and even the then Pakistani Army in East Pakistan and its infamous Operation Search light.

Mukti Bahini was an inevitabe thing with the refugees flooding across the border and India hardly in a position to take tens of millions of refugees.


Shame that we derailed ourselves but one thing is clear. There is no peace in Afghanistan at the expense of the majority of Afghan Population and that is Pashton. If America is really sincere about peace then it should ensure that they have their say in the future. And it is also beneficial to Pakistan because it also has large Pashton population and their interests and fate are interlinked.

I'm saying that it is upto the Afghan Pashtuns and the US to decide. Pakistan should have no say that. And what Majority ? Pashtuns comprise about 40-45% of the population and the rest, the majority are non-Pashtuns.
 
.

Well, then, perhaps the US should involve Pakistan in the negotiations with the Taliban.

Can't backstab Pakistan, undermine its national security and regional concerns and then also expect Pakistan to cooperate.

But then, that has pretty much been the US MO since the invasion - undermine Pakistan every chance it gets. First by putting in place a virulently anti-Pakistan administration and Afghan Military and Intelligence leadership, and then by offering discriminatory nuclear waivers to India and boosting her civilian nuclear technology and industry, while trying to solidify India's advantage in larger fissile material stockpiles by attempting to coerce Pakistan over the FMCT.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom