muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
To my thinking the hammer & Anvil is an operation with each inside their own borders and small contingent liason - Kunar-kapisa corridor is a tactical enterprise - I think pounding them from the air in the FATA from NWFP to Balouchistan, with reception committees doing the needful on the otherside.
The Quetta Shura, it's my reading, is being prepared - which is why Mr. Khalizad's curious comment. Why should he care? Perhaps he's just the caring type, though ambitious, perhaps he has more to contribute.
Now, I understand that I may read the tea leaves wrong, but I do seriously think that events may follow the outline above.
That's rather unfair, the Latvian contibution does not have the same importance as that of the US, neither does the English nor the Canadian. It is about the US, and the fig leaf of the "coalition" is just that, a fig leaf.
Again, that's unfair, this is a problem between US and it's NATO allies, the whole approach to drugs is a or at least has been a battle between US and NATO commanders.
There is a theme here, the US is in charge in Afg, no point suggesting that it is not.
The above makes the point that the US is in charge in Afg -- let me see if I can make that point in a better way - see, Hikmatyar, Haqqani and the Taliban shura are directed effecting the policies and behaviour of the Afghan government - the Afghan government! - You will have noted Karzai once again has called for reconcilliation with the Talib - he has done this either under direction or he sees the writing on the wall about the consewuences of greater provincial engagment by the US.
Ok, the US will need to declare success/victory within the next four years and relations between Pakistan, and Afghanistan will see a marked improvement, Indian consulates on the Pakistani border will become an expensive and pointless burden.
There is a ofcourse a great deal of worry in the English capital - and it's all about the kind of deal the US and Pakistan are working to make and therefore they too have appointed a special reprresentative --- you will note that the English had not appointed any special representative between the Israeli and the Arabs, what gives?? Why do they want their two cents included? Why do they want to be a part of any deal or derail one? What sudden interest in Afghanistan have they discovered other than playing Tonto? What shift are they percieving that may tolerate a more enlarged role for them?
There are other players as well and we need not underestimate them or their resources. I will be very suprised indeed and it will be a strong signal to rubbish the ideas above, if the kinds of NYT articles that have proliferated of late about Pakistan and the ISI, were to continue into the next six months.
I read earlier your comment about doubling down on deuces - it may be that they are not the gamblers you imagine them to be, but are shiftier than the croupier. They may also have some help.
Soon it will come down to a choice for the US and if my reading of this is even half way decent, Iranian "assistance" will come after lengthy and difficult negotiations and will be more meaningful for a after US Afghanistan, Iraq setting a model.
The Quetta Shura, it's my reading, is being prepared - which is why Mr. Khalizad's curious comment. Why should he care? Perhaps he's just the caring type, though ambitious, perhaps he has more to contribute.
Now, I understand that I may read the tea leaves wrong, but I do seriously think that events may follow the outline above.
That's rather unfair, the Latvian contibution does not have the same importance as that of the US, neither does the English nor the Canadian. It is about the US, and the fig leaf of the "coalition" is just that, a fig leaf.
.
Again, that's unfair, this is a problem between US and it's NATO allies, the whole approach to drugs is a or at least has been a battle between US and NATO commanders.
There is a theme here, the US is in charge in Afg, no point suggesting that it is not.
The above makes the point that the US is in charge in Afg -- let me see if I can make that point in a better way - see, Hikmatyar, Haqqani and the Taliban shura are directed effecting the policies and behaviour of the Afghan government - the Afghan government! - You will have noted Karzai once again has called for reconcilliation with the Talib - he has done this either under direction or he sees the writing on the wall about the consewuences of greater provincial engagment by the US.
Ok, the US will need to declare success/victory within the next four years and relations between Pakistan, and Afghanistan will see a marked improvement, Indian consulates on the Pakistani border will become an expensive and pointless burden.
There is a ofcourse a great deal of worry in the English capital - and it's all about the kind of deal the US and Pakistan are working to make and therefore they too have appointed a special reprresentative --- you will note that the English had not appointed any special representative between the Israeli and the Arabs, what gives?? Why do they want their two cents included? Why do they want to be a part of any deal or derail one? What sudden interest in Afghanistan have they discovered other than playing Tonto? What shift are they percieving that may tolerate a more enlarged role for them?
There are other players as well and we need not underestimate them or their resources. I will be very suprised indeed and it will be a strong signal to rubbish the ideas above, if the kinds of NYT articles that have proliferated of late about Pakistan and the ISI, were to continue into the next six months.
I read earlier your comment about doubling down on deuces - it may be that they are not the gamblers you imagine them to be, but are shiftier than the croupier. They may also have some help.
Soon it will come down to a choice for the US and if my reading of this is even half way decent, Iranian "assistance" will come after lengthy and difficult negotiations and will be more meaningful for a after US Afghanistan, Iraq setting a model.
. You make my point yet again.
.
