Partition of Afghanistan

[Fighter488]

Ex-US envoy for de facto partition of Afghanistan​

TNN, Jul 8, 2010, 04.57am IST

NEW DELHI: Should Afghanistan be divided into two? Former US envoy to India, Robert Blackwill, has suggested that the US should effect a de facto partition of Afghanistan.

The current counter-insurgency is not working, he says, because the Taliban don't see why they should negotiate peace when they haven't been defeated on the ground. The US, he suggests, will have to reconcile to the fact that the Taliban will control southern Afghanistan. They should be allowed to do so.

"After years of faulty US policy toward Afghanistan, there are no quick, easy and cost-free ways to escape the current deadly quagmire. But, with all its problems, de facto partition offers the best available US alternative to strategic defeat," Blackwill argues in an article in `Politico'.

Having let the Taliban control southern Afghanistan, the US, he says, should "then focus on defending the north and west regions -- roughly 60% of the population. These areas, including Kabul, are not Pashtun-dominated and locals are largely sympathetic to US efforts".

But it would not mean that the US would completely exit. Instead, "we would then make it clear that we would rely heavily on US air power and special forces to target any al-Qaida base in Afghanistan, as well as Afghan Taliban leaders who aided them. We would also target Afghan Taliban encroachments across the de facto partition lines and terrorist sanctuaries along the Pakistan border."

The US would work to secure the north and west and Kabul, which has considerably less Taliban presence or influence. "This might mean a long-time residual US military force in Afghanistan of about 40,000 to 50,000 troops. We would enlist Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and supportive Pashtuns in this endeavour, as well as our NATO allies, Russia, India, Iran, perhaps China, Central Asian nations and, hopefully, the UN Security Council."

The US, he says, would retain the freedom to strike at even civilian Taliban leaders in southern Afghanistan.

The arrangement, he says, would make Pakistan unhappy, but a "Pakistan would likely oppose de facto partition. Managing Islamabad's reaction would be no easy task -- not least because the Pakistan military expects a strategic gain once the US military withdraws from Afghanistan."

Ex-US envoy for de facto partition of Afghanistan - India - The Times of India

 

[Fighter488]

Instead of acknowldging POWER OF RESILENCE of Afghanistani people, instead of accepting ISAF's bankruptcy of ideas, morals and ethics, instead of abstaining from splitting the innocent blood of Afghans and NATO soldiers, these morons are trying to give thier incompetence a new dimension.

Down with BlackWill and his BRAIN(DEAD) WAVES

 

[Jigs]

This would be horrible. It would give them time to build up their forces once again. The U.S. made the mistake of thinking they won just by taking all the cities which caused the Taliban to regroup and resurface. Doing this would lift the pressure off them making it much worse.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Same talk was used for Iraq also, to partition it in Kurd, Shia & Sunni sections, which by the way has become, even though international borders have not been identified, but Kurds are running their own land, Sunni in the Sunni dominated areas, while Shia's in their own section.

What i see for Afghanistan is, if US left, it will go back to the same old way, NA controlling area, but this time much more and powerful they would be compared to previous time, and the country would continue to be in a state of civil war yet again.

I hope and pray, it does not happens so, and the people of Afghanistan finally find and live in peace.

 

[Fighter488]

But then Taimi, as soon as USA forces leave Iraq, it will be a mess again, in absence of a coherent police and millitary force. USA has already made Iraq a big BLACK HOLE of (In)stability!

And you are righ about Afghanistan. They will continue to fight each other for next 15 years atleast.

 

[TaimiKhan]

But then Taimi, as soon as USA forces leave Iraq, it will be a mess again, in absence of a coherent police and millitary force. USA has already made Iraq a big BLACK HOLE of (In)stability!

And you are righ about Afghanistan. They will continue to fight each other for next 15 years atleast.

Yes that is what has in reality happened, instead of bringing in stability to the world with their crusades, the US has brought in more instability, the moment they leave, both these countries will go into chaos, which will affect the countries in the region also and i hope there is no spilling over the border of the happening in these 2 countries, but that may just be a wish, countries will get affected. Remember how once the KSA had threatened to army the Sunnis of Iraq in case the whole power thing goes to the Shias, thus KSA would never want a Shia controlled and dominated country on its border, as well as Turkey won't want a Kurd controlled big area or even country at its border.

As for Afghanistan, if US fails in everything, i see them leaving and then keep supporting the NA to make it powerful enough to resist the Taliban and that the NA should control much of the country.

America will rest far away in one corner of the world, while rest of the world will get into trouble.

 

[prototype]

so this is the last option they have in hand....after so much chest thumping

 

[no_name]

Does the northern alliance still exists? I feel they have more will to fight compared to ANA.

 

[billi]

Ex-US envoy for de facto partition of Afghanistan​

TNN, Jul 8, 2010, 04.57am IST

NEW DELHI: Should Afghanistan be divided into two? Former US envoy to India, Robert Blackwill, has suggested that the US should effect a de facto partition of Afghanistan.

The current counter-insurgency is not working, he says, because the Taliban don't see why they should negotiate peace when they haven't been defeated on the ground. The US, he suggests, will have to reconcile to the fact that the Taliban will control southern Afghanistan. They should be allowed to do so.

"After years of faulty US policy toward Afghanistan, there are no quick, easy and cost-free ways to escape the current deadly quagmire. But, with all its problems, de facto partition offers the best available US alternative to strategic defeat," Blackwill argues in an article in `Politico'.

Having let the Taliban control southern Afghanistan, the US, he says, should "then focus on defending the north and west regions -- roughly 60% of the population. These areas, including Kabul, are not Pashtun-dominated and locals are largely sympathetic to US efforts".

But it would not mean that the US would completely exit. Instead, "we would then make it clear that we would rely heavily on US air power and special forces to target any al-Qaida base in Afghanistan, as well as Afghan Taliban leaders who aided them. We would also target Afghan Taliban encroachments across the de facto partition lines and terrorist sanctuaries along the Pakistan border."

The US would work to secure the north and west and Kabul, which has considerably less Taliban presence or influence. "This might mean a long-time residual US military force in Afghanistan of about 40,000 to 50,000 troops. We would enlist Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and supportive Pashtuns in this endeavour, as well as our NATO allies, Russia, India, Iran, perhaps China, Central Asian nations and, hopefully, the UN Security Council."

The US, he says, would retain the freedom to strike at even civilian Taliban leaders in southern Afghanistan.

The arrangement, he says, would make Pakistan unhappy, but a "Pakistan would likely oppose de facto partition. Managing Islamabad's reaction would be no easy task -- not least because the Pakistan military expects a strategic gain once the US military withdraws from Afghanistan."

Ex-US envoy for de facto partition of Afghanistan - India - The Times of India

looks liek the pashtuns are the trouble makers. Maybe push them into Pakistan, arent they a minority?

 

[TaimiKhan]

looks liek the pashtuns are the trouble makers. Maybe push them into Pakistan, arent they a minority?

Before opening it up, why don't you do some search on net and get the figures before coming up with absurd statements.

 

[mjnaushad]

looks liek the pashtuns are the trouble makers. Maybe push them into Pakistan, arent they a minority?

Hope this will help you

 

[billi]

Before opening it up, why don't you do some search on net and get the figures before coming up with absurd statements.

which part is wrong, that the pashtuns are the trouble makers? because they are the bulk of taliban. is pashto population more than 50% of afghanistan? i dont think so.

Population : Hazaras - 19%, Tajik - 25%, Pushtun - 38%, Uzbek - 6%

 

[apophenia]

Hopefully US run this idea by the Afghans before implementing it, instead of acting like they already know what's best for everyone else all the time.

 

[Awesome]

which part is wrong, that the pashtuns are the trouble makers? because they are the bulk of taliban. is pashto population more than 50% of afghanistan? i dont think so.

Please get an education - They are the biggest ethnic group in Afghanistan.

 

[billi]

Please get an education - They are the biggest ethnic group in Afghanistan.

ok thats right. they are the biggest minority.
maybe there should be a partition on the ethnic lines and create several nation states.

But the article does allude to the fact that the Pashtos are the main cause of the afghan problem.