# Afghan government controls just 57 percent of its territory, U.S. watchdog says



## CriticalThinker02

Aerial picture of an Afghan landscape taken on Sept. 26, 2012. JEFF PACHOUD/AFP/Getty Images

The U.S. government's main watchdog organization in Afghanistan released its quarterly report to Congress this week, and it contained a shocking statistic: The government of Afghanistan has uncontested control over only 57 percent of its territory as of last November. That is down from 72 percent a year earlier.

The war in Afghanistan has proved to be the United States' lengthiest and costliest to date. Barack Obama campaigned for president on wrapping it up, but the emergence of the Islamic State in Afghanistan, as well as the resurgence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, have prolonged the U.S. troop presence. There are about 8,400 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, more than in any other war zone in the world.






The report, by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), notes that the loss of territory is probably because of a strategic shift made by the United States, NATO and their Afghan National Army partners. In the past year, their troops have abandoned remote outposts and started bolstering defenses around provincial capitals instead. Taliban and other militants have attempted at least eight times to capture those capitals.

Nevertheless, the report paints a stark picture of struggle for the United States and its allies. Key provinces that have major roads linking the country, such as Helmand, Kunduz and Uruzgan, are heavily contested. Just in the past month, militants carried out numerous strikes in Afghanistan's main cities, including a bombing of a mosque in Kabul that killed 50 and an attack in Kandahar that killed five diplomats from the United Arab Emirates, among others.






A third of the population, or 9.2 million Afghans, live in contested districts, according to the SIGAR report.

Civilian deaths hit record numbers last year. A grim toll has been exacted upon Afghan security forces as well, with at least 6,785 soldiers and police killed and 11,777 wounded through November last year, SIGAR reported. Nine U.S. troops died in Afghanistan last year. The United States spends about $3.8 billion in security assistance in Afghanistan annually.

The war in Afghanistan has resulted in a grinding stalemate, with the government unable to maintain control. Newly inaugurated President Trump has at times seemed to be of two minds as to his intentions regarding the war.

“I would stay in Afghanistan,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News Channel last year. “I hate doing it. I hate doing it so much. But again, you have nuclear weapons in Pakistan, so I would do it.”

The fighting and ceding of territory has triggered a humanitarian crisis for millions of internally displaced Afghans. Their numbers have swelled, and they have combined with hundreds of thousands of Afghans returning from refugee camps in Pakistan, where they are no longer welcome.

“We are talking about at least 1.2 million people on the move. They get some blankets and food, pots and pans, tent materials, enough for the first few months. But what happens after that?” Dominic Parker, head of office for the U.N. humanitarian coordinating agency in Kabul, told The Washington Post's Pamela Constable.

Parker's agency is trying to raise more than half a billion dollars to cope with the crisis. U.N. officials expect a third of the country's population to need some kind of aid this year, a 13 percent increase over last year.

Among other mostly dispiriting findings, SIGAR found that in 2016, Afghan opium production rose 43 percent over 2015 levels and poppy eradication results were the lowest this decade. The Afghan attorney general refused to enforce or continue investigating an enormous corruption scandal at the country's biggest bank, and in one province, Badakhshan, nearly 7 in 10 government appointments were based on patronage, not merit, the watchdog agency found.

“Over the past five years, SIGAR investigators have uncovered a widespread, intricate pattern of criminal activity that pervaded the Humanitarian Assistance Yard at Bagram Airfield,” the report said. “U.S. military personnel, stateside contacts, and local Afghans had conspired in bribery, fraud, kickbacks, and money laundering for years as new personnel were assigned there and, in some cases, adopted the corrupt practices of their predecessors or new colleagues.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ory-says-u-s-watchdog/?utm_term=.b02cd6508484

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hassan Guy

I don't think thats good news.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Verve

Afghanistan is heading to the bloodiest times in recent history.

Afghan gov forces consolidated in major cities (to claim legitimacy) and free hand to Daesh everywhere else.

Afghan Taliban (backed by R-C-P) v Daesh (backed by NATO) soon.


----------



## nangyale

*S*eems like the US is losing Afghanistan at an accelerating pace. Here is another article on the same theme that I posted earlier but was blocked. Let's see if it gets through the filters as a reply.
*
Losing a war one bad metaphor at a time*

By William Astore March 11, 2017

America’s war in Afghanistan is now in its 16th year, the longest foreign war in US history. The phrase “no end in sight” barely covers the situation. Prospects of victory — if victory is defined as eliminating that country as a haven for Islamist terrorists while creating a representative government in Kabul — are arguably more tenuous today than at any point since the US military invaded in 2001 and routed the Taliban. Such “progress” has, over the years, invariably proven “fragile” and “reversible,” to use the weasel words of General David Petraeus who oversaw the Afghan surge of 2010-2011 under president Obama. *To cite just one recent data point: The Taliban now controls 15% more territory than it did in 2015.*

That statistic came up in recent Senate testimony by the US commanding general in Afghanistan, John (Mick) Nicholson Jr., who is (to give no-end-in-sight further context) the 12th US commander since the war began. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he called for several thousand more troops to break what he optimistically described as a “stalemate.” Those troops would, he added, serve mainly as advisers and trainers to Afghan forces, facilitating what he labelled “hold-fight-disrupt” operations.

As to how long they would be needed, the general was vague. He spoke of the necessity of sustaining “an enduring counter-terrorism (CT) platform” in Afghanistan to bottle up terrorist forces, so they wouldn’t, as he put it, hit us in the “homeland.” Indeed, the US military considers “successful” what it has begun to speak of as a “generational” war because no major attacks on the United States have had their roots in Afghanistan since Sept. 11, 2001. And that certainly qualifies as one of the stranger definitions of success in a seemingly perpetual war that lacks a sound strategy.

*Of stalemates and petri dishes*

You know America is losing a war when officials resort to bad metaphors to describe its progress and prospects. A classic case was the infamous “light at the end of the tunnel” metaphor from the Vietnam War. It implied that, although prospects might appear dark — that “tunnel” of war — progress was indeed being made and, in the distance, victory (that “light”) could be glimpsed. Contrast this with World War II, when progress was measured not by empty words (or misleading metrics like body counts) but by land masses invaded and cities and islands wrested from the enemy. Normandy and Berlin, Iwo Jima and Okinawa are place names that still resonate with Allied heroism and sacrifice. That kind of progress could be seen on a map and was felt in the gut — metaphors were superfluous.

*Afghanistan, US military theorists claim, is a different kind of war, a fourth-generation war fought in a “grey zone”, a mish-mash, that is, of low-intensity and asymmetric conflicts, involving non-state actors, worsened by the meddling of foreign powers like Pakistan, Iran, and Russia — all mentioned in Nicholson’s testimony. (It goes without saying that the US doesn’t see its military presence there as foreign.) A skeptic might be excused for concluding that, to the US military, fourth-generation warfare really means a conflict that will last four generations.*

*Long and losing wars seem to encourage face-saving analogies and butt-covering metaphors.* For Nicholson, Afghanistan is actually a “petri dish” that, as in a laboratory of terror, has cultivated no fewer than 20 DNA strands of terrorist bad guys joined by three violent extremist organizations — VEOs in military-speak. To prevent a “convergence” of all these strands and outfits and so, assumedly, the creation of a super terror bug of some sort, Nicholson suggested, America and its 39-member coalition in Afghanistan must stand tall and send in yet more troops.

As it turns out, our 12th commanding general there isn’t the first to resort to biology and a “petri dish” to explain a war that just won’t end. In 2010, during the Afghan surge,* General Stanley McChrystal referred to the community of Nawa in southern Afghanistan as his “number one petri dish.” As the Washington Post reported at the time, McChrystal “had hoped the antibodies generated there [during its pacification] could be harnessed and replicated [elsewhere in Afghanistan]. But that hasn’t yet happened.” Nor has it happened in the intervening seven years. McChrystal’s petri dish experiment failed, yet his metaphor lives on, *even if now used in a somewhat different way, with the entire country (including parts of Pakistan) serving as that “dish” and terrorists, not American troops and friendly Afghans, multiplying in it.

It may not be the most appetizing metaphor, but you can at least understand why American leaders might prefer it to the classic one applied to foreign attempts to pacify Afghanistan back in the ancient days of European colonial experiments: “Graveyard of empires.”

To summarize Nicholson mixed-metaphorically: Afghanistan is a “petri dish” in which terrorist “strands” are “converging” to create a “stalemate” that is weakening America’s “enduring CT platform,” which could lead to terrorist attacks on the “homeland.” Let’s take that one apart, piece by piece. Is the Afghan War truly a stalemate, as in a game of chess? That hardly seems to fit a situation in which the endgame is —as the Pentagon with its generational thinking and Nicholson with his request for more troops suggest — hardly in sight. *In fact, at a time when the Afghan government may control less than 60% of its territory and its security forces are taking staggering, possibly unsustainable casualties, other players, not the US-led coalition, seem to have the momentum.*

What about that “enduring CT platform” — the presence, that is, of those U.S. and NATO troops (together with private military contractors), all showing “resolute support” for the Afghan people so as to keep us safe at home? What if, in fact, their presence is perpetuating the very war they say they are seeking to end? Can Afghanistan of the present moment truly be described as an experiment in terrorist biology, and if so are US-led “kinetic” efforts to kill those strands of terror working instead to create an even nastier virus?

Above all, are such metaphors just a way of avoiding the absurdity of suggesting that a few thousand (or even a surge-worthy 30,000) more US troops could possibly turn a never-ending, losing war into a victorious one almost 16 years later?

*Grim honesty among the ground-pounders*

For grim honesty, skip those metaphor-wielding commanding generals so deeply invested in a war that they can neither admit to losing nor contemplate leaving. Look instead to the ground-pounders, the plain-speaking corporals and captains who have met that war, up close and personal. Consider, for instance, a 2010 HBO documentary, _The Battle for Marjah_. Seven years ago, in a much larger military effort than the one presently being contemplated, US troops joined with Afghan forces to secure the town of Marjah in Helmand Province in the opium-growing heart of the country.

The documentary followed a Marine unit, which fought valiantly to clear that town of the Taliban in accordance with the counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine then experiencing a revival under Petraeus and McChrystal. The goal was to rebuild its institutions and infrastructure so US troops could ultimately leave. As usual, the Marines kicked ***: they cleared the town. But the price of holding it proved dear, while efforts to build a local Afghan government to replace them failed. Today, as much as 80% of Helmand is under Taliban control.

The documentary’s harshest lessons come almost as visual asides. *While Taliban insurgents fought with spirit, Afghan government forces, then as now, fought reluctantly. US troops had to force them to enter and clear buildings. In one case, a Marine takes a rifle away from an Afghan soldier because the latter keeps pointing the muzzle at “friendly” forces. We witness Afghan troops holding a half-hearted ceremony to salute their government’s flag after Marjah is “liberated.” Meanwhile, the faces of ordinary Afghans alternate between beleaguered stoicism and thinly veiled hostility. Few appear to welcome their foreign liberators, whether US or Afghan. (The Afghan government units, hailing from the north, were ethnically different and spoke another language.) An Afghan shown working with the Marines was assassinated soon after the US withdrawal.*

A tired Marine corporal put it all in perspective: for him, the Afghan War was a “mind-****.” At least he rotated out sooner or later. The Afghan people have had no such luck. To mix metaphors and wars, they were stuck in the big muddy of their “petri dish.”

Let’s turn to another ground-pounding Marine of more recent vintage, Captain Joshua Waddell. A decorated combat veteran of the war, he penned an article for this month’s _Marine Corps Gazette_ in which he lambastes the US military for its “self-delusion.” He writes:

“It is time that we, as professional military officers, accept the fact that we lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Objective analysis of the US military’s effectiveness in these wars can only conclude that we were unable to translate tactical victory into operational and strategic success.”

Supporting Waddell’s “lost war” conclusion is Gen. Nicholson’s own testimony, which cited the same old problems in the Afghan military: too many “ghost” (fake) soldiers — others, often commanders, pocket their salaries — indicating widespread and endemic corruption; unmotivated leadership, made worse by crippling shortages of skilled junior officers and noncommissioned officers; and too many unmanned Afghan checkpoints. (Those “ghost” soldiers, so good at funneling money to their creators, turn out to be bad indeed at securing checkpoints.)

*Seeing only what we want to see*

Given such a grim assessment, what difference, you might wonder, would just a few thousand more American troops make, when it comes to tipping the Afghan “stalemate” in Washington’s favor? In fact, Nicholson’s humble request is undoubtedly only an opening wedge in the Trumpian door through which future, far higher troop requests are then likely to enter.

Asked by Senator Lindsey Graham whether he could do the job in Afghanistan with 50,000 troops, which would quadruple coalition forces there, Nicholson answered with a “yes”. When asked about 30,000 US and other Nato troops, he was less sure. With that 50,000 number now out there in Washington, does anyone doubt that Nicholson or his successor(s) will sooner or later press the president to launch the next Afghan surge? How else to counter all those terrorist strands in that petri dish? (This, of course, represents déjà vu all over again, given the Obama surge that added 30,000 troops to 70,000 already in Afghanistan and yet failed to yield sustainable results.)

*That a few thousand troops could somehow reverse the present situation and ensure progress toward victory is obviously a fantasy of the first order, one that barely papers over the reality of these last years — that Washington has been losing the war in Afghanistan and will continue to do so, no matter how it fiddles with troop levels.*

Whether Soviet or American, whether touting communism or democracy, outside troops to Afghan eyes are certainly just that: outsiders, foreigners. They represent an invasive presence. For many Afghans, the “terrorist strands” in the petri dish are not only the Taliban or other Islamist sects; they are us. We are among those who must be avoided or placated in the struggle to stay alive — along with government forces, seen by some Afghans as collaborators to the occupiers (that’s us again). In short, we and our putative Afghan allies are in that same petri dish, thrashing about and causing harm, driving the very convergence of terrorist forces we say we are seeking to avoid.

All the metaphors and images do, however, suggest one thing — that Afghanistan isn’t real to American leaders, much as Vietnam wasn’t to an earlier generation of them. It’s not grasped as a sophisticated culture with a long and rich history. Those in charge see it and its people only through the reductive and distorting lens of their never-ending war and then reduce what little they see to terms that play well to politicians and the public back home. Stalemate? We can break it. Platform? We can firm it up and launch attacks from it. Petri dish? We can contain it, then control it, and finally, eradicate it with our lethal medicines. What they refuse to do, however, is widen that lens, deepen their vision, and see the Afghan people as a richly complex society that Washington will never (and should never try to) dominate and reshape into our image of a country.

The question now is what President Donald (we’re going to win!) Trump will do. If past is prologue, he will end up approving Nicholson’s request, in part because his leading generals, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, and Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, are so psychically and professionally linked to the Afghan War. (Mattis oversaw that war while serving as head of US Central Command, McMaster held a command post in Kabul, and Kelly’s son was killed there while on patrol.)

Y*et if Trump gives Nicholson the troops he wants — and then more of the same — he will merely be echoing the failed policies of his predecessors, while prolonging a war that will prove endless as long as foreign forces continue to meddle in Afghan affairs. His will then be a fate foretold in a war in which Washington’s greatest foe has always been self-deception.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

This map look similar to afghani pakhtun areas

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nangyale

save_ghenda said:


> This map look similar to afghani pakhtun areas


Or you can say the most fertile and habitable areas of the country.
Seems like the US is controlling mostly barren moutains, apart from the big cities.


----------



## Arsalan mehmud

Waqas said:


> “I would stay in Afghanistan,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News Channel last year. “I hate doing it. I hate doing it so much. But again, you have nuclear weapons in Pakistan, so I would do it.”


US will be there in Afghanistan till it destroy Pakistan Nuclear Asset.. Pakistan need to rethink and change its policy asap.. Might be changed.. Involving Russia, China, Iran and Turkey in peace negotiation with Afghanistan Taliban is the only solution to Pakistan prosperity..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CriticalThinker02

Verve said:


> Afghanistan is heading to the bloodiest times in recent history.
> 
> Afghan gov forces consolidated in major cities (to claim legitimacy) and free hand to Daesh everywhere else.
> 
> Afghan Taliban (backed by R-C-P) v Daesh (backed by NATO)



Daesh in Afghanistan is TTP re-branded.


----------



## SHAH820

world most advance force are defeated by world least advance forces 
US have blame pakistan for terrorism and pakistan is the only country with highest achievement in WOT even its not our war but we have to fight it pakistan was able to reduce terrorism by 90% in just 3 years on the other side US is lossing ground despite having the most advance army in the world


----------



## Verve

Waqas said:


> Daesh in Afghanistan is TTP re-branded.



Part of it is TTP. Eventually most of the warlord generals in Afghan army with their private militias will be part of Daesh as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Director General

Same report also states 70% of Population lives in gov't controlled areas.


----------



## Hareeb

The only solution is to divide Afghanistan in two or more separate countries with Kabul as Capital of Taliban controlled areas (Pukhtoon majority population) and Mazar-e-Sharif as Capital of areas controlled by Northen Alliance(Tajiks, Farsi speaking and others)--while no boots on ground by US/NATO or Pakistan-China-Russia or anyother foreign country. 

There will be no insurgency anymore and region will become peaceful by this division.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maximuswarrior

57 percent is way too much. The Afghan doesn't even control Kabul in its entirety. These Americans are kidding themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

Hareeb said:


> The only solution is to divide Afghanistan in two or more separate countries with Kabul as Capital of Taliban controlled areas (Pukhtoon majority population) and Mazar-e-Sharif as Capital of areas controlled by Northen Alliance(Tajiks, Farsi speaking and others)--while no boots on ground by US/NATO or Pakistan-China-Russia or anyother foreign country.
> 
> There will be no insurgency anymore and region will become peaceful by this division.



Kabul isn't pakhtun majority city, infact Tajik/Hazaras etc dominate.


----------



## Hareeb

save_ghenda said:


> Kabul isn't pakhtun majority city, infact Tajik/Hazaras etc dominate.


But they can take Kunduz and Taliban controlled areas near Mazar-e-Sharif in-return. Both can better off.


----------



## pakdefender

india will provide HAL Dhurv to bring the other 43% back in the control of kabuli government


----------



## Jacob Martin

Hassan Guy said:


> I don't think thats good news.


 It's great news for Pakistan. If the government in Kabul collapses then either good Taliban will take over or there will be fragmentation and Pakistan will control one faction or another. Either way you will get the "strategic depth" that Pakistan craves for.

However, Western aid and cooperation will also stop and I don't see how it will improve internal security in Pakistan.


----------



## BHarwana

pakdefender said:


> india will provide HAL Dhurv to bring the other 43% back in the control of kabuli government


Latest on the halat of Afghani gov
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/two-ana-bases-under-one-month-taliban-siege-in-baghlan.483121/


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

Does it take a genius to fathom this simple fact that it's destined to be doomed? Just look at the landscape. Only the folks who share their faith and hail from even tougher environment with higher motivation and objective have a slight chance. Case study: Babur Han from Fergana valley subdued the tribal chiefs and gained their support to conquer _Hindistan _to establish the mighty Mughal Empire!!! Match this in degree and kind, and be my guest to rule over Afganistan; otherwise, heed to Churchill's admonition: _we're fighting against GOD_...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Salza

Jacob Martin said:


> It's great news for Pakistan. If the government in Kabul collapses then either good Taliban will take over or there will be fragmentation and Pakistan will control one faction or another. Either way you will get the "strategic depth" that Pakistan craves for.
> 
> However, Western aid and cooperation will also stop and I don't see how it will improve internal security in Pakistan.



No in either case its not a good news for Pakistan. Its not 90s anymore. Pakistan hardly has any control on Afghan Talibans like it used to had once. Best way is to remain neutral with both Afghan Govt and the Afghan Talibans. Unfortunately the situation also depicts that Afghanistan is such a heaven for militants group like TTP, ISIS where they can easily operate at both sides of the border as Afghan Talibans and Afghan Govt are keeping their concentration against each other only thus providing them space to operate at will.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jacob Martin

Salman Zahidi said:


> No in either case its not a good news for Pakistan. Its not 90s anymore. Pakistan hardly has any control on Afghan Talibans like it used to had once. Best way is to remain neutral with both Afghan Govt and the Afghan Talibans. Unfortunately the situation also depicts that Afghanistan is such a heaven for militants group like TTP, ISIS where they can easily operate at both sides of the border since as Afghan Talibans and Afghan Govt are keeping their concentration against each other only thus providing them space to operate at will.



I seriously wish decision-makers were as wise and considerate as you are. And I say this in all sincerity. Unfortunately, the internal situation of Afghanistan has been used as leverage and means of playing strategic games. No one bothered to think for a second about what you have written.

If you have been around on PDF for long, I am sure you have noticed the cognitive dissonance wherein so many members cheer on the difficulties and demise of the government in Kabul, all because they see them as agents of US/India and therefore inconvenient to Pakistan. No one thinks about supporting them as in their absence, the entire militant apparatus in Afghanistan will spin out of control. Pakistan has suffered already due to this and still, every time these terror attacks happen, there is more blame for the same government that Pakistanis have worked so hard to undermine for so long.


----------



## Salza

Jacob Martin said:


> I seriously wish decision-makers were as wise and considerate as you are. And I say this in all sincerity. Unfortunately, the internal situation of Afghanistan has been used as leverage and means of playing strategic games. No one bothered to think for a second about what you have written.
> 
> If you have been around on PDF for long, I am sure you have noticed the cognitive dissonance wherein so many members cheer on the difficulties and demise of the government in Kabul, all because they see them as agents of US/India and therefore inconvenient to Pakistan. No one thinks about supporting them as in their absence, the entire militant apparatus in Afghanistan will spin out of control. Pakistan has suffered already due to this and still, every time these terror attacks happen, there is more blame for the same government that Pakistanis have worked so hard to undermine for so long.



Well if you ask me, decision makers are finally doing what they should do that is too remain neutral. We have pushed Afghan Talibans from our land into Afghanistan, though should had done much earlier anyways that's another thing.There is hardly any save haven for them in Pakistan after Operation Zarb-e-Azb. One can easily back up my claim by just counting US drones strikes inside Pakistan after 2013. Hardly any, since there is no target in Pakistan anymore else US would had keep raining hellfires from their drones.

Now coming back to Kabul Govt, well we have our own reasons not to trust or keep faith on them since we know how much capable they are, the day US calls of the day, Kabul Govt won't last much long. At the same time, Afghan Talibans cannot form pre 9-11 type Govt in Afghanistan as well. Their resources and logistics are limited, Pakistan won't back them blindly like we used to hence remaining neutral is the best option.

Lastly coming to your point of supporting Afghan Govt, well we did and still willing too. Best is too keep advising Afghan Talibans for the talks but as I said we don't control them which other thinks. We have destroyed their save havens inside Pakistan FATA area, kick out 80% of those Afghan Talibans from our land so the dice is really not into our hands now. Its in Afghan Govt hands how to play the game now. Their enemy is right inside their border now. Best way for everyone is to negotiate and reconcile with Talibans but the million dollar question is, what does Afghan Talibans really wants ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jacob Martin

Salman Zahidi said:


> Best way for everyone is to negotiate and reconcile with Talibans but the million dollar question is, what does Afghan Talibans really wants



Yes, that question still remains doesn't it? What will they negotiate for? It is really one of those situations where pragmatism will have to prevail and idealism will take a back seat. If it was possible, then eradicating the Taliban would be in everyone's best interest and also the right thing to do. Who wants a barbaric bunch who oppress people in the name of Sharia staking claim to territory?

Unfortunately, the only country close enough with the capability is Pakistan, and as you rightly said you have your own priorities. So as repulsive as the concept of negotiating with the Taliban is, I think it is unavoidable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Salza

Jacob Martin said:


> Yes, that question still remains doesn't it? What will they negotiate for? It is really one of those situations where pragmatism will have to prevail and idealism will take a back seat. If it was possible, then eradicating the Taliban would be in everyone's best interest and also the right thing to do. Who wants a barbaric bunch who oppress people in the name of Sharia staking claim to territory?
> 
> Unfortunately, the only country close enough with the capability is Pakistan, and as you rightly said you have your own priorities. So as repulsive as the concept of negotiating with the Taliban is, I think it is unavoidable.



You cannot eradicate Talibans completely but can contain them. Afghanis are living like this since ever. That's their way of life. We like it or not.

Bringing Talibans to table is in interest of everyone. Pakistan should make sure that we keep pushing them for talks and let them know that we wont be backing you even if you govern Kabul after US with drawl. Same signal was provided to them in the form of Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Meantime, US and others should provide some space to the talibans as well and some sort of agreement regarding power sharing is the way moving forward. India on the other hand, shouldn't corrupt Kabul regime minds regarding 'no' talks. If you observe carefully that's what India is doing actually. Else I don't think there is a solution to Afghan peace other than this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jacob Martin

Salman Zahidi said:


> You cannot eradicate Talibans completely but can contain them. Afghanis are living like this since ever. That's their way of life. We like it or not.
> 
> Bringing Talibans to table is in interest of everyone. Pakistan should make sure that we keep pushing them for talks and let them know that we wont be backing you even if you govern Kabul after US with drawl. Same signal was provided to them in the form of Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Meantime, US and others should provide some space to the talibans as well and some sort of agreement regarding power sharing is the way moving forward. India on the other hand, shouldn't corrupt Kabul regime minds regarding 'no' talks. If you observe carefully that's what India is doing actually. Else I don't think there is a solution to Afghan peace other than this.



Agreed. Talks are the only way forward as military solution is out of reach. However, the way I see it, engagement with Taliban can be in the form of:

Option A: Accommodation into a coalition government with certain ministries and maybe autonomous control of some territory/province.

Option B: total control over religious issues only.

Option C: de-facto division of the country with Taliban retaining control over their own territory.

Then there is the issue of the opium/heroine trade. Whether they want to actually shut it down or not. It is a huge issue there.

I think Option C would be the most preferable. Option A also sounds okay but I don't think it will work.


----------



## !eon

Jacob Martin said:


> It's great news for Pakistan. If the government in Kabul collapses then either good Taliban will take over or there will be fragmentation and Pakistan will control one faction or another. Either way you will get the "strategic depth" that Pakistan craves for.
> 
> However, Western aid and cooperation will also stop and I don't see how it will improve internal security in Pakistan.


If India wants to save her investment in Afghanistan, only solution is deployment of Indian army in Afghanistan.


----------



## xyxmt

57% territory controlled by Afghan govt with 50% margin of error in this assessment.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## NakedLunch

xyxmt said:


> 57% territory controlled by Afghan govt with 50% margin of error in this assessment.



LOL! Bravo.


----------



## ABCharlie

Jacob Martin said:


> Agreed. Talks are the only way forward as military solution is out of reach. However, the way I see it, engagement with Taliban can be in the form of:
> 
> Option A: Accommodation into a coalition government with certain ministries and maybe autonomous control of some territory/province.
> 
> Option B: total control over religious issues only.
> 
> Option C: de-facto division of the country with Taliban retaining control over their own territory.
> 
> Then there is the issue of the opium/heroine trade. Whether they want to actually shut it down or not. It is a huge issue there.
> 
> I think Option C would be the most preferable. Option A also sounds okay but I don't think it will work.



Option A wont work because the Taliban wont agree to it.

Option B can only work in a secular state. In Afghanistan, this is the same as giving all power to Taliban.

Option C, yes can work. But will be met with lots of resistance from all quarters. Both Kabul govt and Taliban are against any division of their country.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Luffy 500

Personally as a muslim I hope & dream that not too distant in the future Afghanistan joins Pakistan federation. Its the only pragmatic way for long lasting prosperity of both PAK and AF and what would soon be roughly 250+ million muslims. For that to happen PAK policy makers need to be astute and NOT resort to knee jerk nationalistic rhetoric or ethnic chauvinism. They should Work towards some sort of federalization of Afghanistan where by it would be bifurcated into several states by ethnicity. Slowly PAK can absorb the sunni & pastun dominated states while the shia dominated states can go to iran. PAK can offer these afghan sunni states some sort of special status within their union with huge autonomy eg. China type 1 country 2 system where these AF states would have their own constitution, currency(if they want), separate judiciary, fiscal policy etc. There should be free movement of goods and people between the states & PAK and PAK will control its defence, national security & foreign policy. I think Turkey can try the same in Syria too. It would be great if weaker muslim countries aggregate with culturally similar Stronger Muslim countries thereby forming large Islamic federal states where religious identity will supersede narrow ethnic nationalism & chauvinism. I believe that's the only way Muslims can stand up to hegemony of the non-muslim world.


----------



## Saif-ud-Din Qutuz

These numbers are way too stretched to be believed. At no given point in time (last 15 years), US and NATO controlled 57% of Afghanistan. This is outright fabrication of numbers to hide their military incompetence.


----------



## TMA

Jacob Martin said:


> It's great news for Pakistan. If the government in Kabul collapses then either good Taliban will take over or there will be fragmentation and Pakistan will control one faction or another. Either way you will get the "strategic depth" that Pakistan craves for.
> 
> However, Western aid and cooperation will also stop and I don't see how it will improve internal security in Pakistan.


Well those Khawarij terrorist groups will not get succor from NATO so that will help Pakistan a lot. Not everthing as Pakistan does have internal problems like corruption and home grown Khawarij (but they will be easier to deal with without foreign hands meddling).



Luffy 500 said:


> Personally as a muslim I hope & dream that not too distant in the future Afghanistan joins Pakistan federation. Its the only pragmatic way for long lasting prosperity of both PAK and AF and what would soon be roughly 250+ million muslims. For that to happen PAK policy makers need to be astute and NOT resort to knee jerk nationalistic rhetoric or ethnic chauvinism. They should Work towards some sort of federalization of Afghanistan where by it would be bifurcated into several states by ethnicity. Slowly PAK can absorb the sunni & pastun dominated states while the shia dominated states can go to iran. PAK can offer these afghan sunni states some sort of special status within their union with huge autonomy eg. China type 1 country 2 system where these AF states would have their own constitution, currency(if they want), separate judiciary, fiscal policy etc. There should be free movement of goods and people between the states & PAK and PAK will control its defence, national security & foreign policy. I think Turkey can try the same in Syria too. It would be great if weaker muslim countries aggregate with culturally similar Stronger Muslim countries thereby forming large Islamic federal states where religious identity will supersede narrow ethnic nationalism & chauvinism. I believe that's the only way Muslims can stand up to hegemony of the non-muslim world.


Only if the Great Afghan Warrior can get over his arrogant jealous nature towards "Daal Khor" and "Punjabi Ghulaam". I think some of them would prefer death and the rape of their women folk over accepting Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

