Future of Afghanistan?

[Leader]

Afghanistan that is no one's back yard or part of "strategic depth".

neither its a back stabbing land for anybody against Pakistan !!

 

[khurasaan1]

There are number of countries involved in Afghanistan, some are said to be constructive and others destructive.

what can be the possible future of Afghanistan after ISAF withdrawal?(If they actually do that)

will there be again a civil war?
will they be divided back to tribal system of governance?
will 3 state formula be workable?
can Afghans be able to develop a consensus based Afghan government? or will this present system pervail?

how do you see Afghanistan shaping after expected ISAF withdraw?

I hope and pray that US/NATO wont be able to withdraw from Afghanistan ...and it will be a great death bed for the evil Western powers there....cuz they r nothing but killers of humanity...

 

[desioptimist]

I hope and pray that US/NATO wont be able to withdraw from Afghanistan ...and it will be a great death bed for the evil Western powers there....cuz they r nothing but killers of humanity...

American casulaty in afganistan is below 2000, in nearly 10 years. Compare that with casualty in vietnam was nearly 58000.
I think they are bit too touchy about deaths otherwise it is just too low to make any impact on them.

 

[CLIPPER4LIFE]

Unlike most Pakistanis I think the US invasion has been good for afghans in terms of development, and economically becoming more open, as the taliban regime had no friends internationally (except for pakistan ) that would aid the country. Now, because of the US, a system has been laid down, and afghanistan has seen like i think 6-8 % growth.

The future for afghanistan will mostly be a transit country. This comes when Pakistan economy grows to its potential, and trades with a lot of central asian states. Afghanistan will than vitalize its strategic importance. Plus the country has vast natural resources (Lithium + oil) and just need to become economically safe for people to invest in the country.

The solution is that Pakistan needs to develop, which will directly help its neighbors. The only man that i can think of that will possibly do this is Imran Khan, because he isnt corrupt like the other politicians.

 

[RazorMC]

If Afghanistan is not stabilized, the influx of refugees is going to be a huge problem for Afghanistan's neighbouring countries, not just Pakistan. On papers it may seem better to balkanize Afghanistan accourding to ethnic groups, but the truth is that balkanization is going to be a disaster esp. for Pakistan. Instead of having a strong, independent Afghanistan as its neighbour in the future, we'll be looking at a hot-spot of endless wars for power and supremacy.

Recent admissions by the US and Afghan government of large mineral deposits is going to make other countries even more willing to take over Afghanistan, regardless of the human cost. Those mineral deposits may have been better left to the people of Afghanistan, not plundered for some "quick bucks".

Afghanistan can still have a prosperous future, but this will only come through peace and an end to decades of fighting.

 

[CLIPPER4LIFE]

The thing is that the pashtuns and hazaras+uzbek never really liked each other. When Afghanistan was created from the Durand Line, the areas near the North and West were more muslims from central asia or persian, and the pashtuns at that time took over the land. Therefore both ethnic groups had countless fights ethnically and have never really accepted the other ethnic group.

Though with development thats going to increase infrastructure projects, people to people meetings will stop the hatred between the two groups.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

American casulaty in afganistan is below 2000, in nearly 10 years. Compare that with casualty in vietnam was nearly 58000.
I think they are bit too touchy about deaths otherwise it is just too low to make any impact on them.

Possibly over a hundred billion dollars worth a year of land-holding experiment...problems proving intractable...how many more years before the cost becomes untenable?

 

[Leader]

American casulaty in afganistan is below 2000, in nearly 10 years. Compare that with casualty in vietnam was nearly 58000.
I think they are bit too touchy about deaths otherwise it is just too low to make any impact on them.

probably about 11,000 Russians were killed in 10 years war. the ISAF casualities in almost half of that, but in this game the main reason of pain is economic, given the current falling economy of usa.

 

[CLIPPER4LIFE]

Possibly over a hundred billion dollars worth a year of land-holding experiment...problems proving intractable...how many more years before the cost becomes untenable?

Many Americans have felt the grunt of this war including me, but hey our Defense economy has been BOOMING

 

[muse]

All to easy to get Pakistanis posters to take their eyes off the ball, so to speak, the issue is not Afghanistan as a transit route, it has and always be that, the issue is not US casualties (incredibly, not a single word about the Afghans who have lost their lives since the US came on to the scene)

After 9/11 GWOT had credibility, peoples of the world sympathized with the US and US had a right to strike out at Al-Qaida -- but look at what followed, the US in essence intervened in a civil and ethnic war - right or wrong, that not what I'm arguing about, I'm simply stating what actually happened -- then GWOT morphed into WOT after Abu Gharib , now even the WOT in an international sense is also discredited - Don't get me wrong, there's still terrorism and there is Islamican terrorism, for sure, but that's more of a problem for Pakistan, arguments that suggest an international dimension, I would argue, suffer from the association of US DoD with these arguments. And whether you like it or not, and please, I'm not taking a position regarding good/bad or right/wrong, just operational, as in general perception, facts, namely if the US is involved with it, especially in any way the DoD, it's poison - among Muslim majority states, the US suffers generally and the DoD specifically.

Now, the US seeks to exit Afghanistan, however, if one examines the kinds of facilities they have built and the size and number of airfields they have built, one cannot help thinking that they have every intention of coming back -- will that be good for Afghanistan?? Have the last 10 years been good fo Afghanistan? Certainly, for the business community, and certainly for Tajiks and specifically for Panjshiris, and yet the civil war continues. If indeed the life blood of this civil war is Pakistan, how does one explain that it has not only continued but has become more popular (after all witness the increased US effort).

We said the US seeks to exit -- others plan to keep it "engaged" and bleed it of treasure (which it will produce so long as there is paper), blood and credibility.

And look at what the US has done to itself in these 10 years - it now has a reputation as a torturer, a rogue state that runs illegal incarceration facilities around the world, inside the US, surveillance of citizens has become norm (indeed as the servers of this forum are in the US, it is under the same "security" paradigm. So has it all been worth going after a bunch of radicalized, murderous for sure, Utopians??

Well, for Pakistan, cleansing the society of these radicals has become an existential necessity and yet US remains highly unpopular -- The US think they have outplayed the Pakistani policy makers, who have taken the US to the bank and asked it to come again.

For Afghanistan, to bring the civil war to an end, the US must be allowed to leave but only after it offers an international undertaking that it will not return -- this the US will not do anytime soon, it is a reflection of the esteem it accords Afghan blood.

 

[BATMAN]

there will be no peace in afghanistan as long indian army is running covert terrorism in and around afghanistan.

 

[muse]

Please do make an effort to add to the conversation -- For instance, I would not have a problem with a increased Indian role in Afghanistan - I really don't see it as much of a problem as soon others do -- more than Pakistan, Afghanistan is a country where the sun can actually rise in the West, depends on how much money you have and how wisely you spend it over a really long period of time -- so by all means lets consider an enlarged Indian role in Afghanistan (what does it matter the color of the cat so long as it catches mice) -- After all, it's not as if the Indian is congenitally unreasonable.

 

[CLIPPER4LIFE]

@ Muse

I wasnt saying what the US is doing is morally right, but I'm saying in a business perspective that what the US is doing is good. We can and have said all the bad things of what the US is doing, and i will agree with a lot of them, but I'm just trying to state the positive aspect of what they are doing.

Plus ask any afghan, except the golden era of 1960's they have been ALWAYS FIGHTING and they are proud about that. They boast that they defeated alexander the great, and the british etc. etc. and they have all the right to state this, because they did defeat them. They are also defeating the US right now because the US have never been prepared for this warfare.

Now looking at this from my aspect of United States History, every time the US invaded a country (mostly for bad things like disagree about price or w/e) they have always helped rebuild the country, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Honduras, Venezuela, etc. etc.

- I'M not saying that invading a country is right but they do help rebuld the country, and let a lot of immigrants from that country enter the US.

- Now f you look at other colonizers like France or Britain, they never really helped the country rebuild its infrastructure and w/e look at the North African states, Algeria was on its own for 20 years, before France started helping them and allowing algerian immigrants to come to France

 

[muse]

Clipper

Actually, I'm very familiar with events and personalities in Afghanistan - and I do agree with you that if there is any kind of winner in Afghanistan as a result of US intervention, that it is the business community - no doubt about it, US spends money -- The point I was making was whether it was money spent smartly or just money thrown about - because as you know, it cannot be sustained, sure the US can print as much paper as there is paper, in the end (which is really in the near future) of course it just can't be sustained -- at home, if the home can be thought of as a front, it's collapsing, increasingly policy makers rely on the threats posed by amorphous "terrorists" and no major holiday in the US goes with out an arrest of a generally juvenile "Muslim terrorist" or would be terrorist".

I just think it's tragic, yes, tragic what the US has made of itself.

By the way, If one looks at the example of England in India and Malaysia or China - well, I think you will find it difficult to conclude that the English were bad for business, actually they were all about business - consider Punjab (Poun-Jab), one may think that most of the develolpment work is the result of Pakistan govt projects, however, it was a project of the English to feed populations in the East of India.

Americans good for Business in a national or regional sense? I' don't about that, honestly, I don't know abut that - there was a time (Eisenhower) when the US was the power of Light, in the sense that egalitarian instinct, development, progress and hope were all associated and vigorously, with the US and US policy, alas, this is now associated with another power and rather negative things associated wit the US, again, from perspective, tragic, but it is what it is, I suppose.

 

[Mutee]

I personally see a very bright future for Afghanistan very hard working and honest ppl but it will take some time once the NATO leaves we will see progress it's going to be tough but still I believe they will pull through