Has Pak. been sidelined by the Indo-Afgh. Strategic Agreement?

[53fd]

I think its time for Pakistan to go on holiday. Perhaps a couple of months in sunny dubai. Chill out and watch from a distance and recharge the batteries

It's not long before the Mayor of Kabul isn't even Mayor anymore. And then unfortunately, India will find itself at a loss.

 

[MilSpec]

Indians have been hiding under America’s skirt for 10 years in Afghanistan and in these 10 years they have kept themselves sheepishly tucked away inside America's skirt so what 'tees mar khani' they are going to pull off with this tamasha ?!?! balls all!!
Nothing changes on ground , it all comes out in the open and if anything , this reinforces our stand that the sitting afghan government are in bed with the Indians and are parts of the axis that is targeting Pakistan.

I can use similar rhetoric too to prove how pakistan has been using it's neighbors for it's own security paraphernalia ,its really worrysome that pakistan's mentality being stuck in the securty arrangement of the 60's where it sees Indians targetting pakistan. there is no need for us to target pakistan in anyway. In the sixties Pakistan was equivalent to India in terms of military strength, technology and global soft power projection. 40-50 years later the world has moved away from that direction and pakistan no longer posses any convntional threat to India, so this no longer has to be a zerosum game. India has been a major Aid contributor to Afghanistan and any move from India doesn't necessarily mean it has to be Anti- Pakistan.

Pakistan need to be very clear if it wants afghans to be extended protectorate of pakistan and needs permission and approval of Pakistanis of whom they can side with or not. Afghan government will resent any negative pressure from pakistan's assymetric assets in afghanistan to pressurize the government into siding with paksitani views. This heavy handed arm twisting via Taliban/haqqani network is practially blackmailing by pakistan to ensure that afghanistan remain pakistan's military playground.

The major distrust for pakistan springs from its major support towards pashtun taliban regime. Pakistan sided with pashtuns leading to demolition of other minorities of afghanistan. it included providing support to taliban to fight against massoud , the only true leader of the afghanistan. If pakistan stops marginalizing uzbeks, tajiks hazaras and other minorities of afghan, doesn't it reduce the trust deficit among afghan and international community. Treating minorities of Afghanistan better doesn't translate into alienating ethinic pashtun majorities. Pakistan has substantial influence on pashtuns which is evident by the support it enjoys among events in Afghanistan. Can pakistan influence the pashtuns in accepting other minorities as equal partners of pakistan's assitance and vice versa.

Pakistan needs to shed it's security state state vision stuck in 60's and needs to reallign itself with it's objectives for the future.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

May be / May be not

There is no 'maybe' about Afghan policies essentially being the same pre and post Rabbani assassination.

.. Sentiments surely did.. Big time...

Sentiments mean squat when it comes to national interests, given the criticism out of the Pakistani establishment, of the Karzai regimes policies (leave aside the argument over whether the criticizm was valid in your eyes or not), certainly no one in the Pakistani establishment was fooled by 'sentiment', nor cared about it.

 

[deckingraj]

Here is the answer to this video:

Kabul-Delhi pact won’t affect Pakistan: Kharhttp://www.dawn.com/2011/10/05/kabul-delhi-pact-wont- affect-pakistan-khar.html

The headline sums it all...Actually there is not much in this so called strategic pact..Apart from the training of the Afghan Security Forces(which was also happening but on a very low level) i don't see anything different....

May be someone can correct me....I believe that though this is diplomatically a strong message yet on the ground nothing earth shattering...

 

[SMC]

Who cares about this soap opera. US has already lost. In 2-3 years, Mayor of Kabul will become the mayor of his house and Afghan Taliban will rule Afghanistan again. Why waste time worrying about this carnival.

 

[Rank]

just one signal from GHQ - ISI ... and whole Afghanistan under Pakistan control once again...

It's Pakistan's battlefield where we destroy Rooosss and now Amereeka!

Love to see Indians in Afghanistan... again another new soft drink with Mc donald burger for ISI!

and Karzai... sorry we will see you on the day of judgment LOL! sorry brother we cant do anything..

remember rabbani!

 

[Birruna]

just one signal from GHQ - ISI ... and whole Afghanistan under Pakistan control once again...

It's Pakistan's battlefield where we destroy Rooosss and now Amereeka!

Love to see Indians in Afghanistan... again another new soft drink with Mc donald burger for ISI!

and Karzai... sorry we will see you on the day of judgment LOL! sorry brother we cant do anything..

remember rabbani!

Is taliban in power in Afghanistan a good thing for Pak? In the name of denying India influence in Afghanistan is Pak shooting itself in its foot?

 

[karan.1970]

I think its time for Pakistan to go on holiday. Perhaps a couple of months in sunny dubai. Chill out and watch from a distance and recharge the batteries

true.. last 10 years of participating in Afghanistan has only brought miseries to both countries

---------- Post added at 07:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 AM ----------

It's not long before the Mayor of Kabul isn't even Mayor anymore. And then unfortunately, India will find itself at a loss.

Do remember, at worst, India simply has to walk away 2 billion dollars poorer.. On the other hand, if things dont go as bad as you predict, Its Pakistan's neighborhood as every one keeps harping on

 

[karan.1970]

There is no 'maybe' about Afghan policies essentially being the same pre and post Rabbani assassination.

Who is talking of pre and post Rabbani only.. I am simply highlighting a change of stance of Afg/NATO/US towards Pakistan over last few years which was cognizant of Pakistan sensitivities earlier and is not now..

Sentiments mean squat when it comes to national interests, given the criticism out of the Pakistani establishment, of the Karzai regimes policies (leave aside the argument over whether the criticizm was valid in your eyes or not), certainly no one in the Pakistani establishment was fooled by 'sentiment', nor cared about it.

It may not mean much for you, but in international diplomacy, sentiments drive a lot of policy / posture changes. A good example is how USA shapes the public sentiment before making a major policy change. But then you may chose to have a different view.. Also, do remember that individual stance of Afg in isolation is not the only question here.. A lot of what Afg does, is done in consultation with NATO, which again used to be extremely sensitive to Pakistan's concerns wrt India in Afghanistan, which doesnt seem to be the case now..

 

[KS]

When was Pakistan not being 'sidelined'?

1) Pakistan has been complaining for months that it has been excluded from US & Afghan talks for political reconciliation with the Taliban,

2) and the Afghans have refused to allow Pakistan to train Afghan forces, while India has been training small batches of Afghan security forces already.

So what exactly is a new development here?

1) US is the invader, Afghanistan is the sovereign country being invaded and Taliban is the fighting force which is made upof indigenous Afghans (as Pak claims) . So why exactly should another country, Pak be consulted in this ? Is there any international obligation/rule for such an expectation on Pak's part ?

2) As a sovereign nation, Afghanistan is the final authority in deciding which country should train its forces. Again why is Pakistan expecting that it has the birth right to that effect ? If they choose India fine, if they choose Guinea-Bissau then fine. Thats their prerogative. Not anyone elses.

Let me tell you whats the problem with Pakistan - It expects every country in the world to pamper it,listen to its concerns and if the other country does not do it as its conflicts with its own national interest, it feels hurt and starts crying the victim.

 

[EjazR]

Whoever the maijority of afghanis want they should get I dont see why you are saying it should be taleban? im not. But karzai is a puppet. The west them selves in reports in western press say that karzai is a puppet and that is election was a fraud

The problem is that the Taliban do not agree with elections. They KNOW that if there were free and fair elections, there is no change they will ever come to power without moderating their attitudes and not appear a Pakistani puppet govt. which at present is what their image is in Afghanistan.

If they were confident of winning elections, they would have openly come out to say this but they arn't. Therein lies their fear of what the majority of Afghans want - i.e. not the Taliban

 

[Alchemy]

Its not only the "delivery" aspect that should be seen here ..... its the timing at which these agreements have been made that you must observe !!!

 

[Rafael]

But the Taliban were not exactly governing!

They were controlling like they supposedly control 70% Afghanistan now. That doesn't mean they are running schools and dispensaries. It just means they are blowing up schools and market places like they used to whip women on their behinds and massacre minorities then.

And what exactly is Karzai led, Nato installed govt. doing? Are they governing Afghanistan? Heck they can't even step out of Kabul and their fortresses too are becoming dangerous. Read the latest reports coming out and you'll come to a conclusion that those attack in the heart of Kabul couldn't have been possible without internal support which support my argument once again that Taliban still do have a massive support in that country. And whether Taliban were governing or controlling Afghanistan as you say, they were doing a much better job than present govt.

And yes, a band of 50000-60000 motivated and armed killers and psychopaths can do it in a country like Afghanistan. They were the most organized force in Afghanistan at that time and they were being supported by PA officials who helped in some of the initial fights that built their momentum.

I still believe they cannot. See Afghanistan is a heavily armed society and they have never accepted the occupying forces be it internal or external. Even rulers like Nadir shah and Zahir shah were having tough time to get that country under control due to frequent revolts. And you want me to believe that a heavily armed society with a culture of gun fights surrendered 95% of their country to a militia of 60,000 odd fighters? Over 30 milllion people were tamed by Taliban by force? I am not buying it

We are talking two different things here. You said Afghans hated India "more". From whatever I read and see, they love our culture and have no issues with India. They are grateful for all the help that we are providing them.

I don't care for what they think of NATO.

That was a general statement implying to all non-Muslims. Not just India or Nato.

The external support made the crucial difference.

Again lets just agree to disagree.

I am talking of average Afghans.

Noted.

 

[Devil Soul]

Pakistan squeezed by Afghan-India pact
By AFP
Published: October 6, 2011
ISLAMABAD: The new Afghan-Indian security pact could inflame Pakistan’s proxy war against India and threatens Islamabad’s regional ambitions in South Asia as its ties with Kabul and Washington hit rock bottom.
Pakistan has been on the defensive as Afghanistan has cosied up to India. Kabul claims the recent murder of its peace envoy Burhanuddin Rabbani was plotted in Pakistan, and has accused Islamabad of hindering the investigation.
(Read: Karzai travels to India amid regional tension)
Pakistan has been terse about the burgeoning India-Afghanistan alliance. “Both are sovereign countries and they have the right to do whatever they want to,” Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said in brief response.
But the alliance undermines Pakistan’s policy of courting Afghanistan to offset the regional superpower status of India, with which it has fought three wars since independence in 1947, including two over Kashmir.
Fearful of encirclement by its wealthier neighbour, Pakistan has long focussed on Afghanistan — arming Islamist warlords against the Soviets in the 1980s, backing the Taliban in the 1990s and hedging its bets in the 2000s.
But the new strategic partnership sealed Tuesday, which will see India take a bigger role in training Afghan security forces after already dishing out more than $2 billion in aid, threatens to isolate Pakistan further.
Pakistani military affairs analyst Ayesha Siddiqa went further.
“This pact will definitely lead to a more intense proxy war between India and Pakistan in Afghanistan, because India will be training the Afghan military and Pakistan does not consider this in its interest,” she told AFP.
When US-led forces invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 after the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan formally sided with the United States, but has been long accused of playing a double game with its old warlord and Taliban friends.
Those accusations reached fever pitch after the US embassy in Kabul was subject to a 19-hour siege on September 13 and Rabbani was assassinated on September 20.
Those incidents came after the US killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on the doorstep of Pakistan’s top military academy in May.
The United States launched a concerted campaign last month, accusing Pakistani intelligence of involvement in the embassy attack and demanding the state cut all ties with the Haqqani network, an Afghan Taliban faction.
And although Prime Minister Gilani declared a “victory” in facing down US pressure on the Haqqanis, officials behind the scenes paint a less rosy picture of relations.
“Every time I think we’ve hit rock bottom, I find both countries have shovel in their hand and are digging further down trying to find a new bottom,” one Pakistani security official told AFP on condition of anonymity.
US options for action are limited. Pakistan, which says nearly half the US war effort in Afghanistan is routed through its territory, stonewalled the Haqqani accusations and last week the pressure began to ease off.
Some say Karzai’s visit to India was an opportunity to take up where the United States had left off with its accusations — and strike a chord in India, which blamed the horrific 2008 Mumbai attacks on Pakistani militants.
Yet despite the distrust, Kabul recognises that there can be no resolution to the 10-year Afghan conflict without at least acquiescence from Islamabad.
Karzai on Wednesday sought to ease Pakistan’s discomfort, describing it as Afghanistan’s “twin brother” — although “brother” is also a word he uses for the Taliban — and India as a “great friend”.
Nevertheless, analysts say, the Kabul-Delhi partnership may force Pakistan into reappraising its approach to militancy.
“There has to be less obvious support for insurgents in order to prevent much obvious isolation,” said A.H. Nayyar, a physics professor and political analyst at Lahore University of Management Sciences.

 

[ares]

Pakistan has already laid its eggs in Haqqani basket whereas India has laid its in Karzai's...lets see who's eggs hatch.

PS: Regardless of what Pakistan might want the war zone will remain restricted to Af-Pa.k region.