What's new

The big three who can help save Afghanistan

Northen Alliance again? Were they not beaten like dogs before? Today Taliban are much more stronger then they were at the time they defeated Indian supported Northern Alliance. Another Phoka Shot!

Times change - the same Northern alliance have an airforce and a standing army of 3.2 lakhs now. Earlier they were a militia. The US supported the Mujahedeen last time, The difference now is the US and NATO support the Northern Alliance so does India, Russia, Iran and Central Asia - and increasingly China.
 
US forces leaving completely will see a relapse maybe worse from the situation pre 9/11.. it will only settle for a while before the circle of extremism starts again.

Can be countered through drone strikes and strategic strikes by US special forces on suspected training places and important individuals, also by strengthening the intelligence monitoring and make sure that no one unwanted comes in and goes out.

Pakistan is a major player and it can help in stabilizing Afghan by just controlling some elements, but that is a choice..

I believe the major player is Afghanis themselves. It them who have to decide. And we can't control any element, till Afghans do themselves. We may launch operations in tribal areas to root out Talibans, but then who will do operations to clear their infrastructure inside Afghanistan. Green on Blue attacks are being done by Afghans recruited / screened inside Afghanistan by Afghan forces / US forces, why then blame us for that. What has the tribal areas anything to do with such attacks. But as you know someone has to be made the scapegoat for the failures.

It was the delusion of Zia and others after him (Famously, acknowledged by Mushy Saab) which wanted Afghan as a bulwark for its asymmetric warfare, it sorely went out of Pakistan's hand.. Do you think the TTP problem will go away?

It may have been a delusion, but on ground there has been nothing which suggests that we wanted or want to use Afghanistan as a strategic depth platform. We have no infrastructure in place in Afghanistan nor even inside Pakistan on the Pak-Afghan border which can tell that Afghanistan is to be used as a strategic depth platform. Please speak about the facts on the ground instead of bringing in something or thinking of someone. If someone gives me an option to think i can bring in Iran also as a strategic depth option, but can it be ?? Pakistan has done nothing which can suggest we have Afghanistan as strategic depth option, not a single road has been developed to suggest that. All our forces, garrisons, strike forces and majority of the airfields are within a dozen or few hundred kilometers of the border, inside Punjab & Sindh.

Agreed.. Pakistan will play a major role in how Afghanistan shapes up after the dust settles..

For Afghanis themselves to decide.

Hmm, why would Afghan Taliban be interested in being friends with Pakistan? Pakistan is in some way responsible for death of many of their cadres.

With whom they will be friends then ?? Iran, impossible. CAS, hard due to Russian influence. Plus, Pakistan has not officially or directly fought or declared war on Afghan taliban. TTP is separate.

Of course all you need a fool to change everything! Lets not got there albiet this whole discussion will become useless! ;)



Did you mean ever or never or even?

i meant in dire consequences they might, slight chance that they will think of sending troops, as a last resort.
 
Times change - the same Northern alliance have an airforce and a standing army of 3.2 lakhs now. Earlier they were a militia. The US supported the Mujahedeen last time, The difference now is the US and NATO support the Northern Alliance so does India, Russia, Iran and Central Asia - and increasingly China.

Countries / groups with airforce / men & material have fallen down to rag tag adversaries.
 
Countries / groups with airforce / men & material have fallen down to rag tag adversaries.

Countries which practically have the backing of half the world and all global powers - falling to a rag tag militia group - name one such country.

Though a peace accord - with the Taliban morphing into some kind of political party would be ideal.
 
[:::~Spartacus~:::];3485796 said:
you brought balochistan to an afghanistan thread??
Yes! Because the next target for the US is Balochistan. Three marine divisions are to be stationed permanently in Afghanistan with one division in Southern Afghanistan for contingency operations in Balochistan.

Hardline American analysts have suggested that Washington help the Baloch break away from Pakistan so that American and Nato forces can have unfettered access to landlocked Afghanistan, given how Pakistan has been holding the US to ransom.

The Rohrabacher resolution introduced by California Republican Dana Rohrabacher and co-sponsored by two other Republican Congressmen Louie Gohmert (Texas) and Steve King (Iowa), says that the Baluchi nation has a "historic right to self-determination."

Stating that Baluchistan is currently divided between Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan with no sovereign rights of its own, the resolution explains that "in Pakistan especially, the Baluchi people are subjected to violence and extrajudicial killing," and therefore, the Baluchi people "have the right to self-determination and to their own sovereign country; and they should be afforded the opportunity to choose their own status."

Placed next to the oil lanes of the Persian Gulf and covering a common border with Iran and Afghanistan, Balochistan is strategically very significant. The Gwadar Port, being the third largest port of the world, is situated at the doorway of the Persian Gulf (180 nautical miles from the Strait of Hormuz through which 40% of World’s Oil passes) and at the largest trade route of the world.

It is due to this fact that makes it geo-strategically more important to the world powers. The emergence of new Central Asian Republics (CARs) has added to its value, as it will provide the shortest route (Quetta to Chaman) to Central Asia. America has an eye on Gwadar as being its future “Potential Military Base”.

Considering the above, the withdrawal from Afghanistan is not going to put an end to American meddling in South Asia. In fact the focus would then shift to Balochistan. And Pakistan can ignore this only at its own peril. It needs to be prepared for big power rivalry there especially between China and the US of A, jockeying for geostrategic space and the potential economic advantages.


And those who think that the US of A would withdraw all forces by 2014 are mistaken. America has come to stay there permanently, or at least for the next 30 years with a so called 'Stabilization Force'. Afghanistan is too important a country to be left to the wolves to play ducks and drakes that would lead to a civil war sooner than later that will not be in the interests of the US of A.

So that's the connection between Afghanistan and Balochistan.

My two bits.
 
Can be countered through drone strikes and strategic strikes by US special forces on suspected training places and important individuals, also by strengthening the intelligence monitoring and make sure that no one unwanted comes in and goes out.

But that is when US does not leave completely.. That is what I have been telling from the start.. it will be very difficult if they leave completely..

They have been there for a decade don't not know how will they enforce movement..

I believe the major player is Afghanis themselves. It them who have to decide. And we can't control any element, till Afghans do themselves. We may launch operations in tribal areas to root out Talibans, but then who will do operations to clear their infrastructure inside Afghanistan. Green on Blue attacks are being done by Afghans recruited / screened inside Afghanistan by Afghan forces / US forces, why then blame us for that. What has the tribal areas anything to do with such attacks. But as you know someone has to be made the scapegoat for the failures.
Of course but they are part of the game, the most important players in that game are US and Pakistan.. US short term and Pakistan long term. One of the most impotant thing Pakistan can do is to clear its house, no need to do anything in Afghanistan if the policy makers are so averse for being made a scapegoat. That will help the whole region not just Afghan but will be a uphill task IMO.

It may have been a delusion, but on ground there has been nothing which suggests that we wanted or want to use Afghanistan as a strategic depth platform. We have no infrastructure in place in Afghanistan nor even inside Pakistan on the Pak-Afghan border which can tell that Afghanistan is to be used as a strategic depth platform. Please speak about the facts on the ground instead of bringing in something or thinking of someone. If someone gives me an option to think i can bring in Iran also as a strategic depth option, but can it be ?? Pakistan has done nothing which can suggest we have Afghanistan as strategic depth option, not a single road has been developed to suggest that. All our forces, garrisons, strike forces and majority of the airfields are within a dozen or few hundred kilometers of the border, inside Punjab & Sindh.
I am not talking about asymmetric warfare TK not a platform for your strategic delivery assets or the like.. those which were used by Zia to train the Mujaheddin and eventually Insurgency in Kashmir. That Strategic depth because there was no road, no frastructure no boundary, just plains and mountains best suited to keep things secret. Can you do that with Iran?


For Afghanis themselves to decide.
Cmmon TK, if Pakistan wants a stake in that decision, will it be denied? This is like BD and India.. India said they were independent but India had a very big role to play in what BD decided..


With whom they will be friends then ?? Iran, impossible. CAS, hard due to Russian influence. Plus, Pakistan has not officially or directly fought or declared war on Afghan taliban. TTP is separate.
Russian themselves, Iran's trade with Afghanistan has increased many folds after 2001, I do not see why not..
CAS? (Can you expand)
TTP can be a friend but of no import at least initially, except if a civil war actually breaks soon enough..


i meant in dire consequences they might, slight chance that they will think of sending troops, as a last resort.
maybe, most likely not.
 
Its sad to see that the world has made a country a game of Chess :(
But India should play and win this :D
 
Yes! Because the next target for the US is Balochistan.
My two bits.

Yeah , if you are so keen then open a new thread and discuss the whole imagined scenario with no links or sources merely talking out of behind in that ... The topic is Afghanistan , not Baluchistan and not even future US interests ... There are several other targets as well , so should we all derail the thread and discuss every future scenario ? :azn:

But refrain from going off topic and trolling , never served one well !

Two bits for trolling , right !
 
On Topic , no single country or a group of countries can fix Afghanistan which has been messed up for almost the last 200 years !
 
Some Pakistanis on PDF have a delusion that Pakistan will become stable after the departure of US from Afghan, that they will regain the strategic depth..

Well, one thing is sure time will tell!

what if u are proven wrong and u are in a delusion that Pakistan will not become stable then ..........
here why dont u and i have a wager with the respectable audience in pdf as witnesses starting 2013 and in 2014 Pakistan will be better then india economically . will u eat ur hat cause i will if i lose so how about it .................. (we can always post videos cant we hahahaha )
 
what if u are proven wrong and u are in a delusion that Pakistan will not become stable then ..........
here why dont u and i have a wager with the respectable audience in pdf as witnesses starting 2013 and in 2014 Pakistan will be better then india economically . will u eat ur hat cause i will if i lose so how about it .................. (we can always post videos cant we hahahaha )

Sure man, I certainly would like Pakistan to be stable.. but it should be through eradicating the scum inside Pakistan not making peace with the elements like TTP and the mullahs..
 
There's a lot of moves left in this game of chess - let's see what set of combination and set of players turn out victors in the end. I bet on Afg - Pk becoming one autonomous region and the Northern Alliance with Kabul as the center becoming a separate country. Baluchistan remains uncertain.

Pakistan will continue to work in its favour. The entire area along Pakistan-Afgh. border is porous. Afghans rely a lot on Pakistan for their livelihood - namely those in the east/southeast of the country where Pakistani currency and Pakistani goods are seen in circulation in their bazars. That's why Karzai (NATO's poodle) even tried reaching out to Pakistan calling both countries as "conjoined twins" (i have my own views on that)

as for Baluchistan, it may be uncertain in indian brains; but as far as PAKISTANI Baluchistan - it will remain intact and once domestic/foreign investment and security is there (they both go hand in hand) the area will flourish economically and the tiny, unrepresentative warlord band of thugs your country foolishly supports will be sent back to their Creators

same way Iranians Sista va Balouchistan future ought not be "uncertain" either. If i were indian, i'd be more worried about your internal rebellions, separatism and insurrections before worrying about "Certainty" of other places :cheers:


just saying!
 
It gets covered by the numerous mining interests in Afghanistan - Afghanistan pay for their own security.

Most of the mining contracts were picked up by China however they haven't even started them due to security reasons so that is out of the question.

Most likely the poppy fields but they can only pay for so much considering most is pocketed by corrupt politicians in Afghanistan like the Karzais.
 
Yes! Because the next target for the US is Balochistan. Three marine divisions are to be stationed permanently in Afghanistan with one division in Southern Afghanistan for contingency operations in Balochistan.

Hardline American analysts have suggested that Washington help the Baloch break away from Pakistan so that American and Nato forces can have unfettered access to landlocked Afghanistan, given how Pakistan has been holding the US to ransom.

The Rohrabacher resolution introduced by California Republican Dana Rohrabacher and co-sponsored by two other Republican Congressmen Louie Gohmert (Texas) and Steve King (Iowa), says that the Baluchi nation has a "historic right to self-determination."

Stating that Baluchistan is currently divided between Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan with no sovereign rights of its own, the resolution explains that "in Pakistan especially, the Baluchi people are subjected to violence and extrajudicial killing," and therefore, the Baluchi people "have the right to self-determination and to their own sovereign country; and they should be afforded the opportunity to choose their own status."

Placed next to the oil lanes of the Persian Gulf and covering a common border with Iran and Afghanistan, Balochistan is strategically very significant. The Gwadar Port, being the third largest port of the world, is situated at the doorway of the Persian Gulf (180 nautical miles from the Strait of Hormuz through which 40% of World’s Oil passes) and at the largest trade route of the world.

It is due to this fact that makes it geo-strategically more important to the world powers. The emergence of new Central Asian Republics (CARs) has added to its value, as it will provide the shortest route (Quetta to Chaman) to Central Asia. America has an eye on Gwadar as being its future “Potential Military Base”.

Considering the above, the withdrawal from Afghanistan is not going to put an end to American meddling in South Asia. In fact the focus would then shift to Balochistan. And Pakistan can ignore this only at its own peril. It needs to be prepared for big power rivalry there especially between China and the US of A, jockeying for geostrategic space and the potential economic advantages.


And those who think that the US of A would withdraw all forces by 2014 are mistaken. America has come to stay there permanently, or at least for the next 30 years with a so called 'Stabilization Force'. Afghanistan is too important a country to be left to the wolves to play ducks and drakes that would lead to a civil war sooner than later that will not be in the interests of the US of A.

So that's the connection between Afghanistan and Balochistan.

My two bits.

Nope before they can even try to "liberate" Baluchistan they need to stabilize Afghanistan which will be impossible considering the Taliban do not let up, by the way the Taliban's power is the strongest in Southern Afghanistan next to Baluchistan and there are many no go zones for NATO forces there. Why do you think they are trying to negotiate with the Taliban now?
 
Times change - the same Northern alliance have an airforce and a standing army of 3.2 lakhs now. Earlier they were a militia. The US supported the Mujahedeen last time, The difference now is the US and NATO support the Northern Alliance so does India, Russia, Iran and Central Asia - and increasingly China.

This Northern Alliance was what it was because of the man who led them. They have no leadership that 3.2 lakh number is a joke considering there are almost daily desertions and a lack of respect for command within the ranks. Not to mention the Taliban fighters than continuously infiltrate said army.
 
Back
Top Bottom