India being left out of Afghan matrix
- Thread starter Fighter488
- Start date
DaRk WaVe
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,239
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
India out of the loop on ******
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN
Mar 18, 2010
WASHINGTON: The atmospherics are good but the ground realities are unfavourable. India is struggling to stay relevant and advance its geo-political equities with the United States at a time Washington is buffeted by domestic pressures and international crises that are undercutting its resolve to put ties with New Delhi on a higher plane.
Good intentions, broad agenda, and packed schedules notwithstanding, Indian diplomatic foray into Washington this week was notable for gripes and grievances than any significant advancement towards the stated goal of achieving a strategic relationship with the US, foreign secretary Nirupama Rao had a series of meetings on Tuesday, including a drop-in by secretary of state Hillary Clinton at a state department meeting with her counterpart William Burns, but in the end there was no meeting of minds on the most fundamental security issue of the times.
India and US disagree on Afghanistan and Pakistan. That much became clear towards the end of the foreign secretary's visit although elaboration on this issue was foiled by the cancellation of Rao's wrap-up press meet (Indian Embassy said she was unwell).
At a time when Washington is searching for an exit strategy from the ****** region, a statement released at the end of her visit (in lieu of the cancelled press conference) tersely noted that “she (Rao) reiterated India's long-held position that it was important for the international community to stay the present course in Afghanistan for as long as it is necessary.'' The international community on the other hand wants to get the hell out of Afghanistan — yesterday.
There were other unresolved issues. Rao's engagement was also partly torpedoed by the withdrawal by the government of the nuclear liability bill in Parliament hours after her arrival here. As a result, there was little progress on tying up loose ends of the civilian nuclear deal including an agreement on reprocessing although there were brave words about the deal being on track and on schedule.
Most notably, on the issue of high-tech cooperation, the Indian side was still pleading for removal of some its organizations from the so-called Entities List, seven years after the establishment of the group. “The Indian side requested the US department of commerce to review US export controls applicable to India and update them to bring them in keeping with the changed political realities that contextualize India-US strategic partnership today,'' the concluding statement said.
To say India has become a mere sideshow in Washington would be overstating it (besides meeting Clinton, Rao also called on the NSA Jim Jones and two key lawmakers on a day Washington was awash with the health care issue and the US-Israel spat). There were important advances in bilateral matters, including setting the stage for external affairs minister S M Krishna's visit to Washington shortly leading in turn to President Obama's visit to New Delhi later this year.
But on the ****** issue, India is clearly out of the loop. Pakistan is again the new game in town. Even as the Indian foreign secretary made the rounds of a capital in political and legislative ferment (over the health care bill), diplomatic corridors were abuzz with Afghan president Hamid Karzai's own outreach to the Taliban through his brothers and Pakistan's effort to impose itself on that engagement.
Rao meanwhile was telling think-tankers that Taliban remained untouchables for New Delhi. India's gripe about US arms to Pakistan also went largely unaddressed. In fact, even as Rao was complaining about the potential use by Pakistan of US-supplied weapons against India, Washington had delivered from its base in Jordan a squadron of 14 AH-1 Cobra advanced helicopter gunships to Pakistan.
India out of the loop on Af-Pak - India - The Times of India
DaRk WaVe
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,239
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Pakistan's role in Afghanistan : Tickets to the endgame
Pakistan wants a say in ending the war, and it knows how to ask
Mar 18th 2010 | ISLAMABAD | From The Economist print edition
A HIGH-LEVEL delegation of Pakistanis is due to sweep into Washington for the restart on March 24th of a “strategic dialogue” with America. The Pakistanis have muscled their way to the table for what looks like a planning session for the endgame in Afghanistan. The recent arrest of the Taliban’s deputy leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, and a clutch of his high-ranking comrades, has won them a seat.
The Pakistani team, led by the foreign minister, will include both the army chief and the head of the army’s spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). America has upgraded its own representation at the talks, last held in mid-2008, from deputy-secretary to secretary-of-state level. The dialogue is supposed to cover the gamut of bilateral issues, including help for Pakistan’s fragile economy, and even, on its ambitious wish-list, civil nuclear technology.
But the future of Afghanistan is the most pressing topic, and in Pakistan that issue is always controlled by the powerful army and the ISI. Pakistan believes that the Americans are coming to understand its fear of encirclement: a rising India to the east, uncertain relations with Iran to the west and growing Indian influence in Afghanistan to the north-west.
Whereas some see in Pakistan’s arrest of Mr Baradar hints of a strategic shift against its old jihadist proxies, it seems depressingly more likely to be an attempt by the ISI to grab control of the Taliban’s negotiating position. Mr Baradar had been making overtures directly to Hamid Karzai’s government in Kabul—bypassing Pakistan.
According to a senior Pakistani official, the detention of Mr Baradar is a double victory for Pakistan. It has captured a Talib who had become troublesome. And it hoped to win plaudits for cracking down on the insurgency’s leaders, meeting longstanding demands from the NATO-led coalition and Afghan government.
Instead, it finds itself criticised anew, despite dropping the denials it has maintained since 2001 that Afghan Taliban leaders were on its soil, and despite having acted against one of them. By some accounts Mr Karzai is angry that his favourite Talib was locked up. Other regional powers, such as India, Iran and Russia, are said to be alarmed that Pakistan is putting itself in the driving seat in the Afghan negotiations. According to Ahmed Rashid, a veteran observer of Afghanistan, Pakistan’s reinvigorated interference in its neighbour’s affairs risks setting off a regional competition for influence that could push Afghanistan back into the sort of civil war it endured in the 1990s, between proxies backed by outside powers.
Pakistan’s position has evolved. Rather than seeing the ethnic-Pushtun Taliban as its best hope of a friendly government in Kabul, its policymakers would now prefer the Taliban to be part of a broader-based Afghan government. Perhaps it has realised at last that extremists wielding unbridled power from Kabul tend to export disaster across the porous border they share. So Pakistan also needs links with non-Taliban elements in Afghanistan.
America is taking a harder line than most of its partners, Britain included, in seeking to weaken the insurgency, perhaps even inducing some rebel commanders to defect, before considering talks with the Taliban leadership. But as America plans to start drawing down its forces next year, the jostling for a political settlement is well under way. Pakistan’s basic demand is that any future regime in Kabul must be Pakistan-friendly, by which it means not too close to India. The Pakistanis believe they are close to convincing America that they hold the key to stabilising Afghanistan.
Pakistan's role in Afghanistan: Tickets to the endgame | The Economist
Pakistan wants a say in ending the war, and it knows how to ask
Mar 18th 2010 | ISLAMABAD | From The Economist print edition
A HIGH-LEVEL delegation of Pakistanis is due to sweep into Washington for the restart on March 24th of a “strategic dialogue” with America. The Pakistanis have muscled their way to the table for what looks like a planning session for the endgame in Afghanistan. The recent arrest of the Taliban’s deputy leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, and a clutch of his high-ranking comrades, has won them a seat.
The Pakistani team, led by the foreign minister, will include both the army chief and the head of the army’s spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). America has upgraded its own representation at the talks, last held in mid-2008, from deputy-secretary to secretary-of-state level. The dialogue is supposed to cover the gamut of bilateral issues, including help for Pakistan’s fragile economy, and even, on its ambitious wish-list, civil nuclear technology.
But the future of Afghanistan is the most pressing topic, and in Pakistan that issue is always controlled by the powerful army and the ISI. Pakistan believes that the Americans are coming to understand its fear of encirclement: a rising India to the east, uncertain relations with Iran to the west and growing Indian influence in Afghanistan to the north-west.
Whereas some see in Pakistan’s arrest of Mr Baradar hints of a strategic shift against its old jihadist proxies, it seems depressingly more likely to be an attempt by the ISI to grab control of the Taliban’s negotiating position. Mr Baradar had been making overtures directly to Hamid Karzai’s government in Kabul—bypassing Pakistan.
According to a senior Pakistani official, the detention of Mr Baradar is a double victory for Pakistan. It has captured a Talib who had become troublesome. And it hoped to win plaudits for cracking down on the insurgency’s leaders, meeting longstanding demands from the NATO-led coalition and Afghan government.
Instead, it finds itself criticised anew, despite dropping the denials it has maintained since 2001 that Afghan Taliban leaders were on its soil, and despite having acted against one of them. By some accounts Mr Karzai is angry that his favourite Talib was locked up. Other regional powers, such as India, Iran and Russia, are said to be alarmed that Pakistan is putting itself in the driving seat in the Afghan negotiations. According to Ahmed Rashid, a veteran observer of Afghanistan, Pakistan’s reinvigorated interference in its neighbour’s affairs risks setting off a regional competition for influence that could push Afghanistan back into the sort of civil war it endured in the 1990s, between proxies backed by outside powers.
Pakistan’s position has evolved. Rather than seeing the ethnic-Pushtun Taliban as its best hope of a friendly government in Kabul, its policymakers would now prefer the Taliban to be part of a broader-based Afghan government. Perhaps it has realised at last that extremists wielding unbridled power from Kabul tend to export disaster across the porous border they share. So Pakistan also needs links with non-Taliban elements in Afghanistan.
America is taking a harder line than most of its partners, Britain included, in seeking to weaken the insurgency, perhaps even inducing some rebel commanders to defect, before considering talks with the Taliban leadership. But as America plans to start drawing down its forces next year, the jostling for a political settlement is well under way. Pakistan’s basic demand is that any future regime in Kabul must be Pakistan-friendly, by which it means not too close to India. The Pakistanis believe they are close to convincing America that they hold the key to stabilising Afghanistan.
Pakistan's role in Afghanistan: Tickets to the endgame | The Economist
Fighter488
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,050
- Reaction score
- 0
Arrests by Pak attempt to scuttle talks with Taliban: UN diplomat
Sachin Parashar | TNN
New Delhi: As India laid out its Afghanistan policy on Friday, even entailing reintegration of the Taliban, there was more evidence to suggest that Pakistan will stop at nothing to acquire strategic depth in that country.
Outgoing UN chief in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, has said that the recent spate of arrests of powerful Taliban leaders, including Mullah Baradar, was effected by Pakistan on purpose to sabotage UNs initiative to engage Talibans supreme leader Mullah Omars men. While admitting that the UN had preliminary talks with Taliban leaders in Dubai, Eide said the talks with Omars men had been progressing well until a certain moment a few weeks ago.
The effect (of the arrests) in total, certainly, was negative on our possibilities to continue the political process that we saw as so necessary at that particular juncture, the Norwegian diplomat told BBC, adding that the Pakistanis did not play the role they should have.
As much as India dislikes the idea of any agency engaging Mullah Omars Taliban, this disclosure by the diplomat will lend credence to speculation in India that Pakistan, through these arrests, is sending the message that no settlement would be possible without its playing a stellar role in it.
India made it abundantly clear on Friday that it was not averse to Taliban reintegration even though it will oppose all attempts by the Taliban to become a part of the Kabul government in any reconciliation initiative.
Highly placed government sources said India will not oppose the reintegration of any group if it shuns violence, snaps links with all terror groups and is willing to accept the democratic government in Afghanistan.
They said that India will have no problems with reintegration as it is doing the same thing in the north-east and other parts of our own country. There will be a problem only if these men are given a role in the government. The thing with Taliban is that they want the whole cake, not just a slice of it, said a source, adding that even the London Conference had not called for reintegration of Taliban as a whole and only stressed on allowing them a respectable position in society on certain conditions.
Sources said there was no question of India being deterred by General Ashfaq Kiyanis offer in particular to play mediator between the Taliban and US-led forces. We know that it is not a zero-sum game for us. Pakistan has traditionally had an important role in Afghanistan but it reduced after 9/11. The US knows what the consequences would be if Taliban were to come back. They also know that it was Pakistan who created Taliban, said the official.
He went on to say that it would be too simplistic to believe that the US would just walk away from Afghanistan.
Stating that India had symbiotic links with Afghanistan, he said there was no question of scaling down its developmental operations in the country.
Fighter488
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,050
- Reaction score
- 0
A flawed logic indeed. How come two different scheme of thought fits together here?
1. Taliban reintegration
2. Even though it will oppose all attempts by the Taliban to become a part of the Kabul government.
Some one in MEA really sucks.
Fighter
1. Taliban reintegration
2. Even though it will oppose all attempts by the Taliban to become a part of the Kabul government.
Some one in MEA really sucks.
Fighter
DaRk WaVe
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,239
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Eide "greatly exaggerating" Taliban talks, former deputy says
Former U.N. representative in Afghanistan Kai Eide is greatly exaggerating his new claims that he had months of discussions with senior Taliban leaders, his former top deputy tells The Cable.
"He was not meeting with senior Taliban leaders," said Peter Galbraith, who was Eide's No. 2 and close friend until Eide fired him for raising questions about the U.N.'s lack of action over the massive election fraud perpetrated by President Hamid Karzai's government last September, in an interview. "He's greatly exaggerating."
Galbraith, who was aware of the meetings but did not participate in them, said that they were with lower-level people who may or may not have had ties to the Taliban.
"The meetings were not particularly often and it was never clear where these people stood and what their connections were to the Taliban," he said, suggesting they might have been disgruntled former Taliban associates.
Galbraith also rejected Eide's contention that the recent arrests of Afghan Taliban leaders by the Pakistani military was the reason the talks broke down, as Eide claims.
"The discussions ended when he left UNAMA," he said, referring to the removal of Eide by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in December. "The arrests have nothing to do with it."
Galbraith is clearly no disinterested observer, but Special Representative Richard Holbrooke also said Friday that the recent arrests and the drive to pursue reconciliation with the Taliban have nothing to do with each other.
"We are extremely gratified that the Pakistani government has apprehended the No. 2 person in the Afghan Taliban ... this is a good thing," Holbrooke said. "It's not related [to reconciliation] ... We don't see this as linked."
The U.S. government was aware of Eide's discussions. "He had mentioned this to us in a general way," Holbrooke said, responding to questions posed by The Cable at a Friday press conference, adding that there was no U.S. involvement in the talks.
Holbrooke had called the press conference to discuss the next week's landmark meetings between the United States and Pakistan in Washington, the first round of the new "strategic dialogue" between the two countries.
"It's a major intensification of our partnership," said Holbrooke. "This is not a photo op ... this is an intense, serious dialogue between the U.S. and Pakistan."
The Pakistani delegation will be led by Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and will also include Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, incoming Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh, Army Chief of Staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Prime Minister Zardari's advisor Wazir Ali, Ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani, and many others.
The U.S. contingent will be led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and will include Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Holbrooke, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson, Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew, NSC Senior Director David Lipton, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, Under Secretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy, and many others.
The trilateral dialogue between the United States, Afghanistan, and Pakistan will still go on and another meeting could come later this year, according to Holbrooke. Holbrooke is headed back to the region next week, stopping off in Brussels before going on to Afghanistan. He was going to stop in Pakistan but that became unnecessary because the Pakistanis are coming to Washington, he said.
The question of how to disperse billions of dollars of new aid to Pakistan, a point of contention between Holbrooke and Senate leaders, was discussed during a high-level meeting at the White House Friday morning, Holbrooke said, where "almost every senior person in the United States foreign policy community was in the room."
Eide "greatly exaggerating" Taliban talks, former deputy says | The Cable
DaRk WaVe
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,239
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Eide "greatly exaggerating" Taliban talks, former deputy says
Former U.N. representative in Afghanistan Kai Eide is greatly exaggerating his new claims that he had months of discussions with senior Taliban leaders, his former top deputy tells The Cable.
"He was not meeting with senior Taliban leaders," said Peter Galbraith, who was Eide's No. 2 and close friend until Eide fired him for raising questions about the U.N.'s lack of action over the massive election fraud perpetrated by President Hamid Karzai's government last September, in an interview. "He's greatly exaggerating."
Galbraith, who was aware of the meetings but did not participate in them, said that they were with lower-level people who may or may not have had ties to the Taliban.
"The meetings were not particularly often and it was never clear where these people stood and what their connections were to the Taliban," he said, suggesting they might have been disgruntled former Taliban associates.
Galbraith also rejected Eide's contention that the recent arrests of Afghan Taliban leaders by the Pakistani military was the reason the talks broke down, as Eide claims.
"The discussions ended when he left UNAMA," he said, referring to the removal of Eide by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in December. "The arrests have nothing to do with it."
Galbraith is clearly no disinterested observer, but Special Representative Richard Holbrooke also said Friday that the recent arrests and the drive to pursue reconciliation with the Taliban have nothing to do with each other.
"We are extremely gratified that the Pakistani government has apprehended the No. 2 person in the Afghan Taliban ... this is a good thing," Holbrooke said. "It's not related [to reconciliation] ... We don't see this as linked."
The U.S. government was aware of Eide's discussions. "He had mentioned this to us in a general way," Holbrooke said, responding to questions posed by The Cable at a Friday press conference, adding that there was no U.S. involvement in the talks.
Holbrooke had called the press conference to discuss the next week's landmark meetings between the United States and Pakistan in Washington, the first round of the new "strategic dialogue" between the two countries.
"It's a major intensification of our partnership," said Holbrooke. "This is not a photo op ... this is an intense, serious dialogue between the U.S. and Pakistan."
The Pakistani delegation will be led by Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and will also include Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, incoming Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh, Army Chief of Staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Prime Minister Zardari's advisor Wazir Ali, Ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani, and many others.
The U.S. contingent will be led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and will include Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Holbrooke, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson, Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew, NSC Senior Director David Lipton, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, Under Secretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy, and many others.
The trilateral dialogue between the United States, Afghanistan, and Pakistan will still go on and another meeting could come later this year, according to Holbrooke. Holbrooke is headed back to the region next week, stopping off in Brussels before going on to Afghanistan. He was going to stop in Pakistan but that became unnecessary because the Pakistanis are coming to Washington, he said.
The question of how to disperse billions of dollars of new aid to Pakistan, a point of contention between Holbrooke and Senate leaders, was discussed during a high-level meeting at the White House Friday morning, Holbrooke said, where "almost every senior person in the United States foreign policy community was in the room."
Eide "greatly exaggerating" Taliban talks, former deputy says | The Cable
DaRk WaVe
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,239
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
India against US reconciliation with Taliban
India has advised the United States against any attempt for ''reconciliation'' with the Taliban, as it might take Afghanistan back to the pre-9/11 days with an ''obscurantist and mediaeval regime'' back to power in the country.
New Delhi believes that Washington needs to decide if it wants to be responsible for establishing a regime that is “a complete antithesis to the lofty ideas of human rights and women’s empowerment that the US champions worldwide.” Highly-placed sources said that New Delhi conveyed its concern over the pitfalls of a move for reconciliation with the Taliban to the visiting US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian affairs Robert Blake.
Blake was in a tour to India from Thursday to Saturday. He will also travel to Pakistan and Afghanistan. “There cannot be a distinction between good Taliban and bad Taliban. There is nothing called good Taliban, and we still believe the Taliban are bad,” said a senior official.
He, however, pointed out that New Delhi was in favour of reintegration of Taliban elements into the system of governance in Afghanistan, if they eschew violence.
“This is what we are doing with the insurgents and extremists in our country too and we think this is what can be done to initiate a political process in Afghanistan if the international community believes that the problem could not be resolved militarily,” he added.
Military training
New Delhi also made it clear that it would not scale down its “development partnership” with Afghanistan in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Kabul on February 26 last, and was even ready to provide military training to a larger number of personnel of the Afghan National Army in institutions in India, if President Hamid Karzai’s government asked for it.
The terrorist attack in Kabul on February 26 last resulted in the death of 16 people, including six Indians. The terrorists apparently targeted the Indian Medical Mission.
India against US reconciliation with Taliban
Last edited:
Fighter488
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,050
- Reaction score
- 0
ToI feed dated 27th March 2010.
Fighter
IN THE LINE OF FIRE
Reveal Its Designs To Drive India Out
Sachin Parashar | TNN
New Delhi: There is no dearth of Indian officials who believe that Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) played an important role, if not the main lead, in the February 26 Kabul attack and going by what is on record, the confidence doesnt seem misplaced. The fact that LeT is now deeply involved in attempts to drive India out of Afghanistan has been made obvious by several satellite phone conversations intercepted by Indian agencies in the past few months.
These intercepts, which have been brought to the notice of US security agencies, are in Urdu and not just in Pashto which, according to Indian officials, suggests the involvement of LeT. The location of the satellite phone in most of these conversations was established in areas adjoining the Kunar province along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. It is well known that Kunar is the place where LeT was first formed in the early 1990s.
One such conversation was intercepted in the first week of February by RAW in which terrorists were heard talking about the need to hurt India in Kabul. Even though this was taken as a precursor to a major attack on Indian interests in Kabul, the attacks on February 26 could not be prevented because the modus operandi or the timing was not discussed in the conversation.
Unlike earlier, apart from Pashto, many of these recent intercepts have been in Urdu. These were taken up with US agencies and they later authenticated them, said an official source, adding that through the intercepts, India has been able to confirm at least five meetings since September last year in which plans to attack Indians in Afghanistan were discussed.
These intercepts also revealed that ISI officials were in constant touch with not just LeT but also other groups in Afghanistan to carry out attacks against Indians and Indian establishments in Afghanistan. The first of these was in Kunar in September last year in which LeT played host to ISI, Taliban leaders and other groups like Hizb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) which is headed by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an ISI lackey and rabid India-baiter. According to Indian officials, it appears that the LeT is trying to revive its old base in Kunar and use it to carry its battle against India to Afghanistan.
A week after the February 26 attacks on Indians in two guesthouses, a spokesperson for the Afghan intelligence service had said that the perpetrators were from LeT because they were heard talking in Urdu by those present at the spot. He had said the Afghan government was very close to establishing this. US counterterror coordinator Daniel Benjamin said in Delhi that US was focusing on LeT because it was filling up the gap left by a diminished al-Qaida.
Fighter
IN THE LINE OF FIRE
Intercepts nail LeTs Kabul plan
Reveal Its Designs To Drive India Out
Sachin Parashar | TNN
New Delhi: There is no dearth of Indian officials who believe that Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) played an important role, if not the main lead, in the February 26 Kabul attack and going by what is on record, the confidence doesnt seem misplaced. The fact that LeT is now deeply involved in attempts to drive India out of Afghanistan has been made obvious by several satellite phone conversations intercepted by Indian agencies in the past few months.
These intercepts, which have been brought to the notice of US security agencies, are in Urdu and not just in Pashto which, according to Indian officials, suggests the involvement of LeT. The location of the satellite phone in most of these conversations was established in areas adjoining the Kunar province along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. It is well known that Kunar is the place where LeT was first formed in the early 1990s.
One such conversation was intercepted in the first week of February by RAW in which terrorists were heard talking about the need to hurt India in Kabul. Even though this was taken as a precursor to a major attack on Indian interests in Kabul, the attacks on February 26 could not be prevented because the modus operandi or the timing was not discussed in the conversation.
Unlike earlier, apart from Pashto, many of these recent intercepts have been in Urdu. These were taken up with US agencies and they later authenticated them, said an official source, adding that through the intercepts, India has been able to confirm at least five meetings since September last year in which plans to attack Indians in Afghanistan were discussed.
These intercepts also revealed that ISI officials were in constant touch with not just LeT but also other groups in Afghanistan to carry out attacks against Indians and Indian establishments in Afghanistan. The first of these was in Kunar in September last year in which LeT played host to ISI, Taliban leaders and other groups like Hizb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) which is headed by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an ISI lackey and rabid India-baiter. According to Indian officials, it appears that the LeT is trying to revive its old base in Kunar and use it to carry its battle against India to Afghanistan.
A week after the February 26 attacks on Indians in two guesthouses, a spokesperson for the Afghan intelligence service had said that the perpetrators were from LeT because they were heard talking in Urdu by those present at the spot. He had said the Afghan government was very close to establishing this. US counterterror coordinator Daniel Benjamin said in Delhi that US was focusing on LeT because it was filling up the gap left by a diminished al-Qaida.
Fighter488
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,050
- Reaction score
- 0
We are ready to reconcile with India: Taliban
New Delhi: Claiming that it was not in “direct conflict” with India, Taliban has said there was a possibility of reconciliation even as it justified the February 26 Kabul attack on Indians as a “legitimate” action.
In a self-contradicting interview, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid claimed his organisation did not want India out of Afghanistan but attacked the country for supporting the Hamid Karzai government and western forces. “If the Taliban returns to power, we would like to maintain normal relations with countries including India. It’s possible for the Taliban and India to reconcile with each other,” Mujahid told a news magazine.
He said “India’s role is different from those countries that sent troops to occupy Afghanistan.” At the same time, he added that, “India isn’t neutral in the Afghan conflict as it is supporting the military presence of USled coalition forces in Afghanistan and working for the strengthening of the Hamid Karzai government.”Also, he said, “India has never condemned the civilian casualties caused by the occupying forces”, a reference to US-led troops in Afghanistan. Asked about the February 26 attack in which Indians, housed in two hotels in Kabul, were targeted, he said Taliban was responsible for it. PTI
New Delhi: Claiming that it was not in “direct conflict” with India, Taliban has said there was a possibility of reconciliation even as it justified the February 26 Kabul attack on Indians as a “legitimate” action.
In a self-contradicting interview, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid claimed his organisation did not want India out of Afghanistan but attacked the country for supporting the Hamid Karzai government and western forces. “If the Taliban returns to power, we would like to maintain normal relations with countries including India. It’s possible for the Taliban and India to reconcile with each other,” Mujahid told a news magazine.
He said “India’s role is different from those countries that sent troops to occupy Afghanistan.” At the same time, he added that, “India isn’t neutral in the Afghan conflict as it is supporting the military presence of USled coalition forces in Afghanistan and working for the strengthening of the Hamid Karzai government.”Also, he said, “India has never condemned the civilian casualties caused by the occupying forces”, a reference to US-led troops in Afghanistan. Asked about the February 26 attack in which Indians, housed in two hotels in Kabul, were targeted, he said Taliban was responsible for it. PTI
pkd
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,432
- Reaction score
- 0
In Afghan end-game, India gets that sinking feeling
In Afghan end-game, India gets that sinking feeling - Reuters -
In Afghan end-game, India gets that sinking feeling - Reuters -
ice_man
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2009
- Messages
- 6,727
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
COPY PASTE OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE SO EVERYONE CAN READ!
In Afghan end-game, India gets that sinking feeling
Both India and Pakistan have for decades sought to secure influence in this Central Asian geopolitical crossroads and President Barack Obama's public, if vague, time-table to start to withdraw military forces has added to an urgency to gain leverage.
With the Taliban in power during the 1990s, India lost sway in Afghanistan. Under Afghan President Hamid Karzai, India used economic clout, some USD 1.3 billion in aid, to up it presence with new consulates and the construction of power lines and highways.
For New Delhi, it helped guarantee Afghanistan would not become a harbour of militants who could cross over to Kashmir.
But the London conference on Afghanistan in January was a turning point for many in India. It ushered in the idea that Europe and the United States could accept getting certain Taliban commanders involved in a deal to bring stability to Afghanistan.
"There is a genuine sense of disappointment - even disbelief - that the US perspective on reconciling the Taliban evolved all too abruptly, contrary to what Delhi was given to understand," said MK Bhadrakumar, a former Indian diplomat who has worked in Islamabad and Kabul.
While a significant number of other Afghanistan watchers say the euphoria over London was overdone, and question especially whether Washington significantly softened its position on reconciliation with the Taliban, Bhadrakumar's view is common in India.
Karzai also hinted he was now focused more on Pakistan.
"India is a close friend of Afghanistan but Pakistan is a brother of Afghanistan. Pakistan is a twin brother," Karzai said after meeting Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani in March.
It wasn't always like this. After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the United States pressurised Islamabad to rein in militants. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was feted in Washington months after Hillary Clinton visited New Delhi in 2009.
Now many Indians criticised what they saw as a tepid response by Washington to what they saw as a clear Pakistani link to the attack on the Kabul guest house.
"It is unfortunate that the Obama administration has forgotten its fine rhetoric about strengthening the forces of democracy in Pakistan," said Bhadrakumar. "The US has reverted to good old-fashioned geopolitics. The US current AfPak approach has begun casting shadows on US-India ties."
It may not all go Pakistan's way.
"Islamabad believes that this stepped-up cooperation will enable it to win long-term concessions from the US, which would give Pakistan a geopolitical balance against India," Eurasia analyst Maria Kuusisto wrote in a report. "The US is likely to adopt a highly cautious approach to these Pakistani requests."
Manouvre
Indian officials believe that while Islamabad is winning the PR war, India has room for manoeuvre — and the Indian Express reported on Monday that New Delhi may be willing to reach out to some Taliban elements to counter Pakistan.
"Of course Pakistan is better at shouting from the rooftops," said one Indian senior government official. "But we are not on the defensive. They will not get what they want.
But tension with Washington has surfaced, with India mulling legal action to force the United States to grant it access to David Headley, who admitted in a US court this month that he scouted targets for the Mumbai attacks, which killed 166 people.
In a front page story, the Indian Express warned that the US companies could fail in their bids for a USD 10 billion contract for 126 fighter aircraft — one of the world's biggest arms contracts — if aircraft sales went ahead with Pakistan.
Washington has been irked by India's parliament stalling a bill limiting nuclear firms' liability for industrial accidents, delaying entry of US firms into a USD 150 billion market.
"The worry is caused by a feeling in the policy establishment that the US wants to get out (of Afghanistan) as soon as possible," Brajesh Mishra, India's former National Security Advisor. "Pakistan wants to broker a deal. The worry is that would lead us back to the 1990s.
In Afghan end-game, India gets that sinking feeling
Both India and Pakistan have for decades sought to secure influence in this Central Asian geopolitical crossroads and President Barack Obama's public, if vague, time-table to start to withdraw military forces has added to an urgency to gain leverage.
With the Taliban in power during the 1990s, India lost sway in Afghanistan. Under Afghan President Hamid Karzai, India used economic clout, some USD 1.3 billion in aid, to up it presence with new consulates and the construction of power lines and highways.
For New Delhi, it helped guarantee Afghanistan would not become a harbour of militants who could cross over to Kashmir.
But the London conference on Afghanistan in January was a turning point for many in India. It ushered in the idea that Europe and the United States could accept getting certain Taliban commanders involved in a deal to bring stability to Afghanistan.
"There is a genuine sense of disappointment - even disbelief - that the US perspective on reconciling the Taliban evolved all too abruptly, contrary to what Delhi was given to understand," said MK Bhadrakumar, a former Indian diplomat who has worked in Islamabad and Kabul.
While a significant number of other Afghanistan watchers say the euphoria over London was overdone, and question especially whether Washington significantly softened its position on reconciliation with the Taliban, Bhadrakumar's view is common in India.
Karzai also hinted he was now focused more on Pakistan.
"India is a close friend of Afghanistan but Pakistan is a brother of Afghanistan. Pakistan is a twin brother," Karzai said after meeting Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani in March.
It wasn't always like this. After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the United States pressurised Islamabad to rein in militants. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was feted in Washington months after Hillary Clinton visited New Delhi in 2009.
Now many Indians criticised what they saw as a tepid response by Washington to what they saw as a clear Pakistani link to the attack on the Kabul guest house.
"It is unfortunate that the Obama administration has forgotten its fine rhetoric about strengthening the forces of democracy in Pakistan," said Bhadrakumar. "The US has reverted to good old-fashioned geopolitics. The US current AfPak approach has begun casting shadows on US-India ties."
It may not all go Pakistan's way.
"Islamabad believes that this stepped-up cooperation will enable it to win long-term concessions from the US, which would give Pakistan a geopolitical balance against India," Eurasia analyst Maria Kuusisto wrote in a report. "The US is likely to adopt a highly cautious approach to these Pakistani requests."
Manouvre
Indian officials believe that while Islamabad is winning the PR war, India has room for manoeuvre — and the Indian Express reported on Monday that New Delhi may be willing to reach out to some Taliban elements to counter Pakistan.
"Of course Pakistan is better at shouting from the rooftops," said one Indian senior government official. "But we are not on the defensive. They will not get what they want.
But tension with Washington has surfaced, with India mulling legal action to force the United States to grant it access to David Headley, who admitted in a US court this month that he scouted targets for the Mumbai attacks, which killed 166 people.
In a front page story, the Indian Express warned that the US companies could fail in their bids for a USD 10 billion contract for 126 fighter aircraft — one of the world's biggest arms contracts — if aircraft sales went ahead with Pakistan.
Washington has been irked by India's parliament stalling a bill limiting nuclear firms' liability for industrial accidents, delaying entry of US firms into a USD 150 billion market.
"The worry is caused by a feeling in the policy establishment that the US wants to get out (of Afghanistan) as soon as possible," Brajesh Mishra, India's former National Security Advisor. "Pakistan wants to broker a deal. The worry is that would lead us back to the 1990s.
ice_man
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2009
- Messages
- 6,727
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Great going guys! finally after a decade of having our back against the wall "divine" help has come & Pakistan is gaining its footing again in international arena!
Afghan taliban were never our enemies! infact they never harmed anyone they were caught up in the whole US & Al Qaeda war!
Afghan taliban never attacked any country directly! they never attacked pakistan,iran or india,kazakhsitan or any other country for that matter! TTP are a whole different entity with no links to afghan taliban!
afghan taliban were the rightful rulers of their country until the US came in toppled their government!!!
human rights violation aside they were able to keep the crime rate low & poppy growth lowest in the history of Afghanistan! no suicide attacks existed either! the country was safer then it is today!
Afghan taliban were never our enemies! infact they never harmed anyone they were caught up in the whole US & Al Qaeda war!
Afghan taliban never attacked any country directly! they never attacked pakistan,iran or india,kazakhsitan or any other country for that matter! TTP are a whole different entity with no links to afghan taliban!
afghan taliban were the rightful rulers of their country until the US came in toppled their government!!!
human rights violation aside they were able to keep the crime rate low & poppy growth lowest in the history of Afghanistan! no suicide attacks existed either! the country was safer then it is today!
prototype
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 2,672
- Reaction score
- 0
r u sure they never harmed anyone what about the attrocities they carried on millions of afgani people,and how can u say human rights aside when that itself was the biggest problem
and how afgan taliban become the rightful ruler of the nation since they were not elected by democratic process,they will again return to their old ways if come to power
though now i have a feeling it is inevitable to stop taliban from coming back to power
Similar threads
