What's new

The Battle for Bajaur - PA seizes control

‘No offer of asylum made to Mula Umar’ says S. Arabia
Sunday, November 23, 2008

RIYADH: Saudi Arabia has declined that it had offered political asylum to Taliban frontline leader Mula Omar on condition of laying down arms, Arab T.V. reported on Sunday.

According to T.V. an official of Saudi foreign ministry denied the German daily report that Saudi King Shah Abdullah had offered Mula Umar a political asylum in Saudi Arabia.

“There lies no truth in reports which reported Saudi offer of asylum to Mula Umar”, he said in a statement to a Saudi news agency.
 
'Charlie Wilsons War'

i am sorry this movie is a total distortion of facts!
 
"i am sorry this movie is a total distortion of facts!"

Well...not TOTAL-but damned close.:lol:
 
Pakistan had a crucial role in running the anti-Soviet operations, and had it soldiers and airforce involved (successfully) in quite a few skirmishes.

Could we have done so without the financial and military backing of the Saudis and the US?

Probably not.

I am not in disagreement with any of this. The role was crucial, it could not be otherwise. There was no other staging area available.

It is the extent of that role that is the point of contention. You have the predominant Pakistani POV here and then there are the USA and Afghani POVs.

In the predominant Pakistani narrative, Pakistani role is the most crucial and others were more or less helping hands. Afghans are expected to be grateful for the assistance rendered during their worst hour and for keeping their refugees.

The USA narrative is quite the opposite with them being the prime movers and Pakistan being more or less a staging area and liaisons. They expect both Afghans and Pakistanis to be grateful for saving them from the USSR's clutches and they are sure that it couldn't have been otherwise if it were not for them.

Then there is the Afghan narrative in which they are the only major players with Pakistan and all others being minor players and helping them only in their self-interest. I have seen a few articles by some Afghans where they are most critical of the Pakistani role! This narrative expects the USA and Pakistanis to be grateful to them for defeating the USSR!

I am sure you would have seen such POVs too.

I personally feel that while the Afghan role was obviously crucial in that they provided the manpower that did the actual fighting, the battle was won because of the strong backing of the USA with Saudis pitching in majorly on the financial side. The Pakistani role was more towards liaison and training. Here again there are versions of the CIA training the ISI trainers first.

Without the USA, I don't see how the USSR could be deterred from invading Pakistan itself. In the warm water theory that would be the logical next step.

The chaos in Afghanistan post Soviets was not of our making, but that of the different Afghan factions. If it was of our making, then it was alos of teh making of the US and the Saudis, since without their funding and support the Jihad would not have been carried out. Most of all, the Soviets were to blame, for starting the whole fiasco in the first place.

We did not strongly support Massoud or Dostum during the Jihad, and we obviously were opposed later, and these warlords were part and parcel of the violent strugge for power in Afghanistan.

If there were 'criminals', then they were all the factions, including Massoud's forces, who massacred thousands of Heratis in a bout of ethnic cleansing. And these are the people India ended up supporting, so lets not pretend like there were any 'good guys' in Afghanistan

Well, this makes sense. There were no good guys because there were no good options to choose from. Not for you and not for India. Everyone had interests to protect there and it was geo-politics that was at play.

So the blame is shared by all those who created the monster and failed to put it back in the bottle. Because there are claims here that Pakistan was alone in creating the monster, it would follow that it alone was responsible for the mess. I don't believe that was the case.

Pakistan needed help during this phase as much as it needed help in the period between 1979-1991.

I've already edited your earlier post to take out the language designed to instigate, unfortunately before Kasrkin could respond. That Pakistanis and Indians will disagree on many issues is obvious - condescension will not improve the atmosphere of discourse.

Keeping what you find 'amusing' to yourself would be a good idea, you can get your points across perfectly well without generalizing about "Pakistanis this or that', as I have pointed out to you before.

Franky I don't think I made any generalizations at all. I said "too many people" believe that Pakistan was the "most major" player and I think I stand vindicated here. At least based on the posts here. But I also have seen this coming from some of the most senior Pakistani figures.
 
Same reason the Americans didn’t nuke the North Vietnamese or the North Koreans and the Russians didn’t just nuke the Hungarians or the Chechens or the Chinese?:crazy:
Because it would be political, social, moral and yes, military suicide. One sure way to have the world gang up against you just by the “press of a button” as you up it, hardly worth one warm water seaport.
C’mon why didn’t the US win the Cold War when USSR could have just nuked them to oblivion with their superior quantity of warheads? Why did the Soviets lose when their vast armies could have just bulldozed through Europe in 15 days? Because everything has consequences, the USSR and the US were not ready to deal with those consequences.
LOL did you even put an ounce of thought into it before you framed that “Why didn’t Russia nuke Pakistan” question?:lol:

Those 10,000 nukes were made to be used when required. And rest assured they would use them without batting an eyelid instead of losing so many soldiers.

It was not used for one reason. Deterrence!

And the USSR armies did not roll through Europe because of the same reason, the USA threat of the use of nukes if that ever happened.

Another contradiction there, if I might point out. You just acknowledged that Pakistani soldiers and officers were involved in combat with the Soviets. And yet you see fit to dispute my observation that it was Pakistan that defeated the Soviets more than can be said for any other country short of the Afghans themselves. So do you seriously disagree or is this another failure to comprehend my post resulting in an impulsive and little thought through rebuttal (as usual)? The training, planning, organization, logistics and aye direct professional on the ground military contribution came from Pakistan. It is very fair to say that if any country, other than Afghanistan can claim to be victors when the Soviets withdrew, that would be Pakistan.

AFAIK, the Russian army never lost any major battle. It was a battle of attrition with the Afghan militias. So I don't see your point.

Was there ever a conventional battle of any significant size between the Red army and Pakistani army?

Just gimme a break please! Who on Earth said you need to beat someone nuke by nuke and dollar by dollar in order to defeat them in any one particular theatre?

The modern day wars are about the resources that can be brought to bear by the respective sides. It has been like that since the WW-1.

I'm afraid we did have the might and the resources. Where we got them from is secondary to the fact that we had them and used them. The Indians had Soviet technical, military, financial support and backing, and they defeated our garrison in East-Pakistan but I'm not going to claim that it was the Soviets or their communist allies that did it.
The weapons that came to us from the west were mostly not from the west, they were recycled, faulty, unreliable and inappropriate in almost any way you can think of other than the fact that they made it harder for the Soviets realize that the west was on our side. All of the manpower came from Pakistan and our Muslims allies, Saudis payed every bit as much as the Americans did and that’s not even counting the Chinese. So yes we had allies and friends, and we made use of them just like every other country has allies and makes use of their contribution in its endeavors. But that does not mean that you get to ridicule the fact that it was a Pakistani victory. We live in an inter-dependant world especially where finance and security are concerned. All the weapons, money and recruits you name it, went through us (despite the CIA persistently insisting on direct battlefield supply).

You may read the three POVs (Pakistani, USA and Afghanistani) that I have seen being bandied about. I mentioned them in the reply to AM. You naturally mention the Pakistani POV.

There is no ridicule at all from my side. I am just offering my perspective and feel free to disagree as I disagree with you here.

All three POVs see themselves in the driver's seat and the others as helpers.

It was something that was essentially ours to give. Supplies ‘poured’ into us, our garrison and depots, not Afghanistan directly.:disagree:

That is not how the Afghans see it. I have seen their writings complaining bitterly about Pakistan robbing them of their due. The supplies did come for Afghanistan and not for Pakistan. You played liaison there and perhaps not a very honest one.

I used the words ‘American commitment’, not ‘contribution’. They are spelt quite differently if you would care to note. During the campaign American aid was faulty, inconsistent and insufficient at times but after the conflict it was completely non-existent.

Why would it be otherwise as per your narrative? You were the driver of the gravy train, you got to handle the aftermath! It was your war after all, to protect yourselves from getting gobbled up by the USSR.

So any help you got was a bonus, no?

It’s very funny you should raise that. Okay we supported ‘criminals’ like Hikmatyar who ‘destroyed their whole country’ but who the hell supported the Northern Alliance might I add? The KNOWN drug smugglers, wanted-for-human-right-abuses warlords? People who were/are every bit if not more brutal than Hikmatyar and any of his friends. You don’t suppose they were destroying their country much were they? India sure was keen to ‘help’ them ruin their country and pump drugs into Pakistan despite the fact that India had no part in the war before. Why is only Pakistan crucified for looking out for her interests?

I don't think India supported any of the Afghan militias till 1991. We are discussing the period of the war and its immediate aftermath not the period after that. That would be a separate discussion.
 
great discussion by vinod and kasrkin, personal attacks not withstanding. i would strongly suggest to read (if not already) Steve Coll's excellent book on Afghanistan "Ghost Wars". it will certainly change your POV (whatever it maybe)

if Obama can, i am sure you can.!!!
Cheers!
 
Last edited:
great discussion by vinod and kasrkin, personal attacks not withstanding. i would strongly suggest to read (if not already) Steve Coll's excellent book on Afghanistan "Ghost Wars". it will certainly change your POV (whatever it maybe)

if Obama can, i am sure you can.!!!
Cheers!

Thanks for the suggestion and it means something to get acknowledged by you.

AFAIK, there was no personal attack. I did not make it nor did I notice if made against me.
 
Thanks for the suggestion and it means something to get acknowledged by you.

AFAIK, there was no personal attack. I did not make it nor did I notice if made against me.

thanks, just doing my bit for Indo-Pak Understanding!
 
NATO says cooperation with Pakistan "best ever"

Sun Nov 23, 2008

By Golnar Motevalli

KABUL, Nov 23 (Reuters) - NATO said on Sunday cooperation between its troops in Afghanistan and the Pakistani army is the best it has ever been, as the two forces hit Taliban insurgents in a coordinated operation from both sides of the border.

Tension has risen between Pakistan and Western forces in Afghanistan in recent months over increased U.S. missile strikes against Taliban and al Qaeda militants on the Pakistani side of the mountainous, porous border.

But operations launched by NATO forces in Afghanistan's northeastern Kunar province and by Pakistani troops in the adjacent Bajaur district on the other side of the border represented a new level of cooperation, the spokesman said.

"The cooperation with the Pakistani forces is ... the best it has ever been," said Brigadier General Richard Blanchette, spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

The cooperation was the result of tripartite meetings between ISAF, the Afghan military and Pakistani forces, he said.

"This is not only a cooperation in the execution. This is also a cooperation that has happened in the planning," Blanchette said.

The pressure on Taliban militants on both sides of the border may hamper the insurgents' usual winter withdrawal from Afghanistan into Pakistan's tribal regions, analysts say.

Washington and its NATO allies have been trying to foster cooperation between neighbours Afghanistan and Pakistan since the emergence of a civilian government in Islamabad and the election of Asif Ali Zardari as president there in September.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has formed a good working relationship with Zardari, diplomats say, in contrast to the often acrimonious relations the Afghan leader had with Zardari's predecessor President Pervez Musharraf.

Karzai repeatedly accused elements within Pakistani intelligence service under Musharraf of secretly arming, training and equipping the Taliban in order to keep Afghanistan weak.

Violence has risen sharply in Afghanistan with at least 4,000 people killed this year, a third of them civilians.

Taliban attacks have spread from the traditional militant strongholds in the south and east to areas closer to the capital, Kabul, prompting a major U.S. review of strategy in a war that is now in its eighth year and shows no sign of any let-up.

(Editing by Dominic Evans)

http://www.in.reuters.com
 
Well, I think that Zardari is selling Pakistan anyway so what is bad for Pakistan is surely good to others. We must remind that back then Karzai blaimed Pakistan for everything... His puppet democracy is ruled by warlords that suddenly are happy with Pakistan? There is something more fishy.
 
"...a school of thought subscribing to that POV exists there is no question."

That's a far step down from this-

"And the US IS to blame for not sticking to its commits to Pakistan and Afghanistan. That much is without doubt and is widely acknowledged including within the US itself."

I can just imagine had we actually done so.:lol::lol:

You'd still be screaming about our neo-colonial aspirations.

S-2:

If you would bother to read my post, instead of rushing to pitch your smiley's in, perhaps you wouldn't come across as so abrasive and continuously go off on tangents.

What does this mean?

"I have doubts about whether support for the idea of continued engagement with the region post Sovites was/is 'widespread', but that a school of thought subscribing to that POV exists there is no question. "


So thank you for merely repeating what I had said, and ignoring the actual point here - that particular school of thought may not be 'widespread', but its not a 'tap dance either'.

Kasrkins somewhat incorrect assertion is not invalidated by your own swing to the other extreme. The truth as always is in the middle.

Accusations of 'neo-colonal aspirations' come from a history of covert regime change and interference in local political dynamics to benefit US interests. That is what suspicions arround current US invovlvement in Afghanistan stem from as well, and that is not what 'engagement means' nor what I was referring to.
 
Last edited:
Blaming the US for every cause and effect does not subside with me at all. Infact the afghans and it people had freedom that they fought for, and in return what did they actually created. A complet and devestation of a throwback society that was not seen in earth for last 100 years.

Blaming the US for every 'cause and effect', where did I say that?

You are completely mischaracterizing my post - what I have said is that there is plenty of blame to go around, including for the US. Lets not forget that when it came to Europe there was the Marshall plan. The argument for Afghanistan is that there should have been continued engagement by the international community to try and broker a comprehensive peace and invest in reconstruction.

And even if I was blaming the US, the precedent for blaming a single eneity for every 'cause and effect' has already been set by some Indian and Western commentators, who blame Pakistan for everything in Afghanistan. I don't see the champioins of US 'innocence' rushing to argue against similarly oulandhish claims against Pakistan.

As I said elsewhere, 'whats good for the goos is good for the gander'.
 
Last edited:
Vinod:

I appreciate your post.

I don't exclusively blame the US or India for the mess Afghanistan is, and I do not exonerate Pakistan from her actions there either. Each could claim to have legitemate reasons with dire consequences for their national security for invovlement in Afghanistan.

None of the actions of the abovementioned parties would have ocurred had a series of evens not been set in place by others, beyond the control of each entity. That is why I find the attempts of some to white-wash their sins and role, and place all the blame at Pakistan's doorstep to be disingenuous.

And neither one of the three, US, Saudis, Pakistan, could have initiated those actions, or succeeded, without the support of the others. It is true though that, after Afghanistan, Pakistan has suffered the most from the repercussions of the Soviet invasion.
 
I have doubts about whether support for the idea of continued engagement with the region post Sovites was/is 'widespread', but that a school of thought subscribing to that POV exists there is no question.

Hm, yeah. But actually that is not what I said, I was referring to a point of view held by historians, commentators and analysts. It is one of the many popular historical perspectives relating to the causes and effects of the Cold War, perhaps the most neutral PoV that suggests that the US and USSR both used conflicts in the world for their own short-term ends and essentially left the world a worse place. The reference to the post-war Afghanistan situation is part of it but nowadays that particular situation is being bought up frequency by all sorts of people to bring the current war in Afghanistan and the difficulties at rebuilding it into prospective. So I never suggested that this essentially historical narrative is part of the worldwide leadership’s political manifesto or something. That was all S-2s talented misdirection attempt sir.

Those 10,000 nukes were made to be used when required. And rest assured they would use them without batting an eyelid instead of losing so many soldiers.

They obviously didn’t think the loses they sustained in Afghanistan were worth nuking a sovereign country allied with the US. Otherwise they would have done it, their bombs and jets did reach Pakistani territories…but nukes? Why would they think their own political, social, moral, diplomatic and eventually military/economic destruction is worth the destruction of Pakistan? Bottom-line is they didn’t use it, that proves the above statement is wrong. Everything else about this is useless, inconsequential and a hypothetical waste.

It was not used for one reason. Deterrence!

And the USSR armies did not roll through Europe because of the same reason, the USA threat of the use of nukes if that ever happened.

Actually this was not true before the deployment of Pershing 2 and Tomahawk cruise missiles in Western Europe (which was in the 80s), these missiles were considered the first serious threat to the Soviet doctrine of bulldozing through Europe in 15 days (the time it would take for western reinforcements to arrive through the Atlantic) which is what explained the violent Soviet objections.

But that’s beside the point, the point is that the US didn’t nuke North Vietnam and Korea, and the USSR didn’t nuke Hungry or Czechoslovakia or China who we fellow communists countries! (so you can’t even try and argue that the US would have nuked the Russians if they nuked some 3rd world ally). There are more considerations and consequences of nuking someone than just the fear of being nuked back, otherwise every nuclear power would have been nuking everyone else without nukes. So I don’t even know how you are trying to suggest that just because Pakistan wasn’t nuked means it was somehow irrelevant or anything less than critical in the defeat of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan.

AFAIK, the Russian army never lost any major battle. It was a battle of attrition with the Afghan militias. So I don't see your point.

You’re objection is pretty pointless. What would be your definition of ‘lost’ and ‘battle’ in this case? There were plenty of confrontations were Soviet formations were soundly beaten by the Mujahideen before reinforcements arrived (and Mujahideen withdrew to their original bases). There were plenty of Soviet operations that failed to achieve their goal i.e. pacification of a Mujahideen strong holds despite repeated attempts (take the ridiculous amount of times the Soviets tried to capture Panshir Valley for instance, and eventually forgot about it). And even further there were territories in Afghanistan that the Soviets were never able to contest except from the air (do read the book I was referred to).

Was there ever a conventional battle of any significant size between the Red army and Pakistani army?

Lack of conventional fighting in no way has any bearing on the fact that the Soviets lost primarily due to the efforts of Pakistan and its armed forces.

The modern day wars are about the resources that can be brought to bear by the respective sides. It has been like that since the WW-1.

There is OBVIOUSLY more to it, I’m not even going to try to argue with you on that. From the Battle of Thermopylae to the 6 Day War and further, history proves you are wrong. American aid to us was hardly a match to what the Soviets spent on their presence in Afghanistan, still they lost.

You may read the three POVs (Pakistani, USA and Afghanistani) that I have seen being bandied about. I mentioned them in the reply to AM. You naturally mention the Pakistani POV.

I don’t contest the fact that everyone has their own view, but you are obviously trying your best to ridicule the Pakistani prospective as can be seen by your first comment that started this little discussion.

That is not how the Afghans see it. I have seen their writings complaining bitterly about Pakistan robbing them of their due. The supplies did come for Afghanistan and not for Pakistan. You played liaison there and perhaps not a very honest one.

They were ours to give to which ever groups we liked, we were obviously more than just liaison.:crazy: I have no idea what you are referring to by ‘writings’ unless you came across the dairy of an Afghan Mujahideen field commander who thinks the Pakistanis are preferring his rival band (most probably because he was incompetent). In that case, please do share…

Why would it be otherwise as per your narrative? You were the driver of the gravy train, you got to handle the aftermath! It was your war after all, to protect yourselves from getting gobbled up by the USSR.

So any help you got was a bonus, no?

These is no doubt that the victory achieved by Pakistanis and the Afghans against the Soviets did serve America’s interest. And also there is also no doubt about the fact that Afghanistan as well as Pakistan suffered greatly doing what was obviously good for American interests (millions of refuges, mujahideen weapons filtering back across the border, being sold in our local markets, etc). It was logical, given that fact that the Americans appreciated our efforts and suffering during the war so much, for them not forget everything as soon as peace with the USSR became a priority. Think of it as a humanitarian compulsion if not a social and political commitment that they failed to honor. If the values America claims to represent were true, then this ‘bonus’ would not have been considered a bonus at all and rebuilding could have taken place (if it could happen with the Germans and the Japanese who fought America and got a ‘bonus’ then why for not the Afghans who fought America’s enemies?).

I don't think India supported any of the Afghan militias till 1991. We are discussing the period of the war and its immediate aftermath not the period after that. That would be a separate discussion.

That’s an interesting evasion, but unfortunately the point is that you aided/assisted those people despite knowing exactly what they were and what they did, even if it was after the Soviets left. So you can hardly accuse us of being self-serving or destructive as far as our associations with people like Hekmatyar are concerned.

I’m sorry for being part of what hijacked the thread everyone, I will say no more about it unless furthered engaged.
 
Last edited:
"If you would bother to read my post, instead of rushing to pitch your smiley's in, perhaps you wouldn't come across as so abrasive and continuously go off on tangents."

Hardly off on a tangent. I didn't presume an absolutist position here. Kasrkin did.

I never argued to the other extreme so don't pin an unascribed position to me, thank you. No doubt that POV exists. I've come across it. Doesn't make it accurate nor prevalent. Certainly not among the world's leaders in the early nineties nor now.

Abrasive? My nation's hands drip with blood, remember?:angry:
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom