US may use 'military means' to defend Afghanistan until 2024

[Sher Malang]

Except in 1955 when the Pakistani Embassy in Kabul was ransacked.

Any source you have/more details? I just came to know this today.

 

[JanjaWeed]

Spanta said that under the proposed deal, both sides could agree to extend U.S. military assistance past 2024.

10yrs probably means forever. Come 2024 stay would be extended for another 10yrs & so on. Fact of the matter is US needs a base to operate in Central Asia & Afghanistan seems to be the chosen one!!

 

[Sher Malang]

10yrs probably means forever. Come 2024 stay would be extended for another 10yrs & so on. Fact of the matter is US needs a base to operate in Central Asia & Afghanistan seems to be the chosen one!!

They have now came to know that with less spending and a working strategy they can also achieve a lot.

 

[Mercenary]

Any source you have/more details? I just came to know this today.

I read about the incident in a book.

Here is the wikipedia reference.

1955 in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sher Malang]

I read about the incident in a book.

Here is the wikipedia reference.

1955 in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You see how old is durand problem! and sadly to date no one has taken any strong step to solve this issue.

 

[JanjaWeed]

They have now came to know that with less spending and a working strategy they can also achieve a lot.

You are quite right. Moving away from combat role & focussing on security issues by training & preparing local security force is the right way to go. Then again their interest still remains in Afghanistan due their presence & that itself is enough insentive to see that Afghan remains stable. That 2014 deadline was eagerly awaited by few vested interests.... looks like that wait has just been extended indefinitely!!

 

[mjnaushad]

The sooner both states realize that aggressive stance towards each other is nothing but trouble the better it will be.... Today what Afghanistan is because of its previous govts aggressive stance towards Pakistan and Pakistan had no other choice except to support insurgency in Afghanistan which years later damaged us more than it did Afghanistan. A better future lies in truely brotherly relations Not the one in which official change statement as soon they cross border.


And for those who are calling it blow to Pakistan. NATO presence does not effect Pakistan's decisions. We cleard swat when we wanted it clear, we did not conduct waziristan until we thought is necessary. So if 200000 doesn't effect our decision or way of work 20000 is a small number. Even after 10 years of propaganda we are still here.

 

[Juice]

Its not a big blow to Pakistan.

After the Soviets left, Afghanistan evolved into a Civil War which caused havoc on Pakistan's western borders. With refugees and drugs streaming in.

Pakistan used the Taliban to bring order to Afghanistan. Pakistan's mistake was believing that it could control the Taliban but they started sheltering foreign terrorists like Al Qaeda which led to 9/11.

So if USA pulls out most of its forces but keeps Special Forces and Trainers, then that is not a bad thing for Pakistan.

It ensures that Afghanistan won't be torn apart by civil war, De-stabilizing Pakistan's western border and also makes the Taliban think that there won't be any victory after 2014. Which will cause them to negotiate.

One of the few who understand...those who claim the U.S. created the Taliban should read this. The ISI saw that irregulars could be put to good use after the Soviets left....but lost control of their own proxies (Taliban)

 

[FaujHistorian]

One of the few who understand...those who claim the U.S. created the Taliban should read this. The ISI saw that irregulars could be put to good use after the Soviets left....but lost control of their own proxies (Taliban)

No one "created" Talibotics. They were available for the highest bidder. First Pakistan, Saudi, USA paid the asking price. Then AlQaida goons gave a better offer and took over the movement.

ISI didn't operate alone. It was a team operation.

 

[Sashan]

I'm inclined to say that there is a high chance of Talibans taking over after US leaves afghanistan.

Not necessarily. For comparison, Mujahiddins won against Najibullah only after USSR withdrew support and aid for him in 1991. He was doing alright in 1989 and 1990. For example, in 1991, without USSR aid his airforce were grounded. Likewise there were lots of shortcomings in his forces. That caused his collapse.

Whereas US/NATO has pledged more than $4 billion dollars for the next 10 years. And already we are seeing how efficient Afghani forces are.


And US is not going to move out completely. Doing so is not good for it. It will mean conceding the space to Russia, Iran and Pakistan. It needs the foothold in that region. And unlike USSR, US is not alone. It has its NATO allies and ofcourse India will be supporting it just to offset Pakistan influence.And in 1991, Ahmad Shah Massoud was a major force - a non-Pashtun person along with other ethnic leaders and Pashtun leaders themselves.

Now Taliban is a Pashtun only force and that too does not represent the whole Pashtun community.

Last reason - India has a Bania-like attitude when it comes to spending. It has pledged $11 billion investments in Afghan. India will not do so without a concrete understanding with other countries.

 

[FaujHistorian]

.... India has a Bania-like attitude when it comes to spending. It has pledged $11 billion investments in Afghan. ;;;

I wish India had used "bania" mentality. Then it would be spending those precious $billions in Bihar and other BIMARU states.

The true reason India spends money in Afghanistan is to create Strategic depth for India. And that my brother is called "Jhagra" mentality.

peace.

 

[Sashan]

I wish India had used "bania" mentality. Then it would be spending those precious $billions in Bihar and other BIMARU states.

The true reason India spends money in Afghanistan is to create Strategic depth for India. And that my brother is called "Jhagra" mentality.

peace.

Mate - we have a setup where the powers are divested to individual states. So if the govt. of India wants to do something for the BIMARU states, it has to go through the state governments. When you have Mayawati and Laloo as CMs (now both are ex but the spending need to happen over a decade to reap the benefits) in those states, the money spent there will be money down the drain.

But it is beneficial if India spends the money in Afghanistan - We have our own fear. What if all the extremist elements including Taliban, LET and others join forces? It is trouble for us not only in Kashmir but also all over India. You might call it "Jhagra" mentality but I would say money well spent and remember we are doing business with Afghanistan.

 

[LetsGetRowdy]

real question is: who's going to defend afganistan from the usa?

 

[Sashan]

real question is: who's going to defend afganistan from the usa?

The question should be the other way around - Who would defend Afghanistan against Taliban? The only one is US at this time.

 

[Juice]

No one "created" Talibotics. They were available for the highest bidder. First Pakistan, Saudi, USA paid the asking price. Then AlQaida goons gave a better offer and took over the movement.

ISI didn't operate alone. It was a team operation.

When the U.S. was in the area, there were no Taliban. They came to be after we left and warlords left over from the Soviet fight started to carve out small warring fiefs.