Afghan Endgame: US Withdrawal, Taliban negotiations, Pakistan's position
- Thread starter Saifullah Sani
- Start date
It doesn't really matter, there is no way the US can have talks with the Taliban without Pakistan leading the process. The US doesn't even know who to talk to, the Taliban is not one single entity, it is very factionalized. They wanted to talk to Mullah Omar, but Mullah Omar has been out of public sight for quite some time now. They started talks with a person who was apparently a close aide to Mullah Omar behind Pakistan's backs, but he turned out to be nothing but a scammer, a total fraud. Pakistan is indispensable here, & nothing will happen without Pakistan. Pakistan still has all the cards in the negotiation process, & the US can do nothing but depend on Pakistan.
Hindustani
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,748
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
I thought the US "ok'ed" talks with the taliban along with pakistan. What happened?
Riz
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 9,162
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
As a result 7 nato men killed in an attack by taliban yesterday
Americans are talking to taleban cos they have no other choice. Taliban may not beat america and nato but then america cant beat taleban. America is frustrated with pak army and isi because they feel that with Pak support they could have dictated terms to taleban. The recent psyc ops by cia on pak army and isi is clear proof that our army and isi not following the dicates of america and are serving pakistani interests.
Long live pakistan its army and isi
Long live pakistan its army and isi
King Solomon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 2,990
- Reaction score
- 0
How do 'they' know that Pakistan is 'upset'?
President Camacho
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2011
- Messages
- 1,680
- Reaction score
- 0
A smart move by Pakistan would be to not involve itself in the talks.
US: Pakistan must show it wants Afghan peace
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press – 2 hours ago
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Washington's special envoy to Afghanistan said Monday that Pakistan must prove it wants an end to the war by preventing militants from hiding out on its soil and enabling those who launch attacks on the Afghan side of the border.
Marc Grossman, U.S. special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said in Kabul that discussions among Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States being held this week in the Afghan capital are important to coordinate efforts to find a political resolution to the nearly decade-long war.
He said they also are an opportunity to clearly convey to Pakistani officials that part of their responsibility for bringing peace is to stop supporting insurgent safe havens and those who attack Afghans and international forces in Afghanistan.
"We've been pretty clear that going forward here, we want the government of Pakistan to participate positively in the reconciliation process," Grossman said at a news conference. "Pakistan now has important choices to make."
Grossman and representatives from more than 40 nations are attending a meeting of the International Contact Group. The group's 11th meeting comes after President Barack Obama announced last week he was ordering 10,000 U.S. troops home by year's end; as many as 23,000 more are to leave by September 2012. That would leave 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
The 33,000 total to be withdrawn is the number Obama sent as reinforcements in December 2009 as part of an effort to reverse the Taliban's momentum and hasten an eventual political settlement of the conflict. The U.S. and its allies plan a full combat withdrawal by the end of 2014.
Michael Steiner, German representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said at the news conference that the international community's engagement will not end in 2014, when Afghan security forces are to have the lead responsibility for security across the nation, a process he said is on track.
"I think we have a strategy which is working despite the difficulties we have," Steiner said. "I am not painting here any illusions. We will have problems ahead. But I think we have a realistic strategy."
Separately, the U.N. World Food Program announced Monday it will cut food assistance to more than 3 million Afghans in about half the country's 34 provinces because of a shortage of money from donor nations.
The U.N. agency said it had planned to help feed more than 7 million people in Afghanistan this year, but a shortage of donor funds means only 3.8 million people will be helped through meals provided at schools and training and work programs. It said it needed an additional $220 million to continue its work in Afghanistan at the level originally planned.
The program will focus food assistance on helping the most needy Afghans, especially women and children, said Bradley Guerrant, the agency's deputy country director.
"We are working hard to raise the funds needed to restart these activities as soon as we can," he said.
Also, two roadside bomb blasts killed seven civilians Monday in Ghazni province in eastern Afghanistan, the Interior Ministry said. A vehicle struck one of the bombs in Qarabagh district, killing four civilians, including two children, the ministry said. Another vehicle hit a roadside bomb in Ghazni city, killing three civilians.
What is the matter with these american retards. Why must pakistan do anything. They are the ones that launched this war on terror. Pakistan should do what is in pakistans interest period. I think that the pakistan army and isi are protecting pakistans interest and thats what upsets americans and thats why they launch these campaigns against our institutions. They want our institutions to protect their interests.
Long live isi and Americans rot in hell.
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press – 2 hours ago
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Washington's special envoy to Afghanistan said Monday that Pakistan must prove it wants an end to the war by preventing militants from hiding out on its soil and enabling those who launch attacks on the Afghan side of the border.
Marc Grossman, U.S. special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said in Kabul that discussions among Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States being held this week in the Afghan capital are important to coordinate efforts to find a political resolution to the nearly decade-long war.
He said they also are an opportunity to clearly convey to Pakistani officials that part of their responsibility for bringing peace is to stop supporting insurgent safe havens and those who attack Afghans and international forces in Afghanistan.
"We've been pretty clear that going forward here, we want the government of Pakistan to participate positively in the reconciliation process," Grossman said at a news conference. "Pakistan now has important choices to make."
Grossman and representatives from more than 40 nations are attending a meeting of the International Contact Group. The group's 11th meeting comes after President Barack Obama announced last week he was ordering 10,000 U.S. troops home by year's end; as many as 23,000 more are to leave by September 2012. That would leave 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
The 33,000 total to be withdrawn is the number Obama sent as reinforcements in December 2009 as part of an effort to reverse the Taliban's momentum and hasten an eventual political settlement of the conflict. The U.S. and its allies plan a full combat withdrawal by the end of 2014.
Michael Steiner, German representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said at the news conference that the international community's engagement will not end in 2014, when Afghan security forces are to have the lead responsibility for security across the nation, a process he said is on track.
"I think we have a strategy which is working despite the difficulties we have," Steiner said. "I am not painting here any illusions. We will have problems ahead. But I think we have a realistic strategy."
Separately, the U.N. World Food Program announced Monday it will cut food assistance to more than 3 million Afghans in about half the country's 34 provinces because of a shortage of money from donor nations.
The U.N. agency said it had planned to help feed more than 7 million people in Afghanistan this year, but a shortage of donor funds means only 3.8 million people will be helped through meals provided at schools and training and work programs. It said it needed an additional $220 million to continue its work in Afghanistan at the level originally planned.
The program will focus food assistance on helping the most needy Afghans, especially women and children, said Bradley Guerrant, the agency's deputy country director.
"We are working hard to raise the funds needed to restart these activities as soon as we can," he said.
Also, two roadside bomb blasts killed seven civilians Monday in Ghazni province in eastern Afghanistan, the Interior Ministry said. A vehicle struck one of the bombs in Qarabagh district, killing four civilians, including two children, the ministry said. Another vehicle hit a roadside bomb in Ghazni city, killing three civilians.
What is the matter with these american retards. Why must pakistan do anything. They are the ones that launched this war on terror. Pakistan should do what is in pakistans interest period. I think that the pakistan army and isi are protecting pakistans interest and thats what upsets americans and thats why they launch these campaigns against our institutions. They want our institutions to protect their interests.
Long live isi and Americans rot in hell.
twoplustwoisfour
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
Yup, and when everything goes to the dogs, they can stand back and say, 'I told you so'....
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Multiple threads on similar issues have been merged - please continue the discussion on these issues on this thread, instead of starting a new one every time a US/Pakistani/Afghan official issues a Statement.
Saifullah Sani
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,339
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
JALALABAD, Afghanistan— U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry spent Thursday visiting a province in eastern Afghanistan, hoping to reassure local officials, tribal elders and shopkeepers that President Obama’s announced troop withdrawal “does not mean the United States is abandoning Afghanistan.”
“For nine years, the international community has been in front. Beginning now and over the next three years, the Afghan people will be in front,” Eikenberry told a group of elders in the Mohmand Dara district of eastern Nangarhar Province.
Although Afghan police and soldiers are expected to take full responsibility for security in the country by 2014, he said, “if you still want our support, we will still be here to help.”
In Kabul, the capital, President Hamid Karzai said Afghanistan would “always be thankful” to the international community for its assistance, but would be ready to stand on its own by 2014.
“This soil can only by protected by the Afghan sons, and it has to be protected,” Karzai said at a news conference. “The people of Afghanistan, by help of their sons and youths, will protect their soil and people.”
America’s European allies also welcomed the drawdown announcement and made their own withdrawal promises Thursday. But the reaction of Karzai’s political opponents, and the Taliban, ranged from skepticism to disdain.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the approximately 4,000 French troops in Afghanistan would engage in a “phased withdrawal” mirroring that of the United States.
Britain, with more than 10,000 troops, has previously said it will not be engaged in combat in Afghanistan by 2015. In a statement Thursday, Prime Minister David Cameron said that, “where conditions on the ground allow, it is right that we bring troops home sooner.”
During the past week in Britain, there has been an unusual back and forth between Cameron and military leaders over the high cost of continuing military efforts in Afghanistan and Libya, especially at a time of wide austerity measures in Britain, including deep defense cuts.
“There are insufficient resources and everyone — the U.S., Britain, NATO — is very stretched,” said Xenia Dormandy, a senior fellow at Chatham House, a think tank in London. “British and Americans are questioning if the gravest threat in the world is from Afghanistan or if the gravest threat is elsewhere.”
German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle praised the American plan and said Germany hoped to begin a withdrawal of its 5,000 troops in Afghanistan by the end of the year.
“We’ve already spent nearly 10 years in Afghanistan with our troops,” Westerwelle said Thursday. “Not only the Americans, but also the Europeans, and we Germans, will begin gradually pulling out our troops in Afghanistan this year.”
In Kabul, Abdullah Abdullah — a political opponent of Karzai’s and former foreign minister — voiced concern over the government’s ability to stave off extremist groups.
“The presence of a leader without a vision, without a sense of direction, without a sense of purpose ... [has] prevented most of the goals of the Afghan people to be achieved,” Abdullah said. “Our concern is that in the coming few years, [with] less resources, less troops available, we might miss further opportunities.”
The Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan and provided sanctuary to al-Qaeda before the U.S.-led invasion, dismissed Obama’s speech as symbolic, and said “our armed struggle will increase from day to day” until the international coalition is gone.
“The solution for the Afghan crisis lies in the full withdrawal of all foreign troops immediately,” the Taliban’s English-language statement said.
Eikenberry, at a news conference in the provincial capital of Jalalabad, said some Afghans have asked what will be different in Afghanistan as a result of Obama’s announcement.
“I tell them nothing has changed,” he said. “We have a continuing commitment to Afghanistan and the Afghan people ... we seek a long-term partnership and an enduring friendship.”
Several time, he mentioned concern over the continued existence of havens for Taliban and other insurgents inside Pakistan. Nangarhar is a border province, and its inhabitants are especially vulnerable to insurgent attacks from across the boundary.
“Afghanistan cannot enjoy security and stability until the terrorist threat from sanctuaries in Pakistan has been addressed,” Eikenberry said. “The United States remains absolutely committed to working with Afghanistan and Pakistan to address this threat.”
Local leaders at several of Eikenberry’s meetings expressed worry that their root problems — poverty, unemployment and lack of electricity — would worsen once the U.S. begins to reduce its aid programs and presence here as well as its military role.
“We stopped growing poppies and now we are growing vegetables, but it is hot here and we have no way to keep them cold,” one community leader in Mohmand Dara told Eikenberry, asking whether the U.S. would help finance a refrigeration plant for onions there.
The envoy demurred on that request, but also sought to reassure his audience, saying most U.S. aid would now be shifted to Afghan government programs rather than ended.
“I hope the next time I come here, we will be talking about onions instead of insurgents,” he said.
Wilgoren reported from Washington. Correspondent Michael Birnbaum in Berlin and special correspondents Sayed Salahuddin and Javed Hamdard in Kabul and Karla Adam in London contributed to this report.
Afghans welcome and worry about U.S. drawdown plan - The Washington Post
“For nine years, the international community has been in front. Beginning now and over the next three years, the Afghan people will be in front,” Eikenberry told a group of elders in the Mohmand Dara district of eastern Nangarhar Province.
Although Afghan police and soldiers are expected to take full responsibility for security in the country by 2014, he said, “if you still want our support, we will still be here to help.”
In Kabul, the capital, President Hamid Karzai said Afghanistan would “always be thankful” to the international community for its assistance, but would be ready to stand on its own by 2014.
“This soil can only by protected by the Afghan sons, and it has to be protected,” Karzai said at a news conference. “The people of Afghanistan, by help of their sons and youths, will protect their soil and people.”
America’s European allies also welcomed the drawdown announcement and made their own withdrawal promises Thursday. But the reaction of Karzai’s political opponents, and the Taliban, ranged from skepticism to disdain.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the approximately 4,000 French troops in Afghanistan would engage in a “phased withdrawal” mirroring that of the United States.
Britain, with more than 10,000 troops, has previously said it will not be engaged in combat in Afghanistan by 2015. In a statement Thursday, Prime Minister David Cameron said that, “where conditions on the ground allow, it is right that we bring troops home sooner.”
During the past week in Britain, there has been an unusual back and forth between Cameron and military leaders over the high cost of continuing military efforts in Afghanistan and Libya, especially at a time of wide austerity measures in Britain, including deep defense cuts.
“There are insufficient resources and everyone — the U.S., Britain, NATO — is very stretched,” said Xenia Dormandy, a senior fellow at Chatham House, a think tank in London. “British and Americans are questioning if the gravest threat in the world is from Afghanistan or if the gravest threat is elsewhere.”
German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle praised the American plan and said Germany hoped to begin a withdrawal of its 5,000 troops in Afghanistan by the end of the year.
“We’ve already spent nearly 10 years in Afghanistan with our troops,” Westerwelle said Thursday. “Not only the Americans, but also the Europeans, and we Germans, will begin gradually pulling out our troops in Afghanistan this year.”
In Kabul, Abdullah Abdullah — a political opponent of Karzai’s and former foreign minister — voiced concern over the government’s ability to stave off extremist groups.
“The presence of a leader without a vision, without a sense of direction, without a sense of purpose ... [has] prevented most of the goals of the Afghan people to be achieved,” Abdullah said. “Our concern is that in the coming few years, [with] less resources, less troops available, we might miss further opportunities.”
The Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan and provided sanctuary to al-Qaeda before the U.S.-led invasion, dismissed Obama’s speech as symbolic, and said “our armed struggle will increase from day to day” until the international coalition is gone.
“The solution for the Afghan crisis lies in the full withdrawal of all foreign troops immediately,” the Taliban’s English-language statement said.
Eikenberry, at a news conference in the provincial capital of Jalalabad, said some Afghans have asked what will be different in Afghanistan as a result of Obama’s announcement.
“I tell them nothing has changed,” he said. “We have a continuing commitment to Afghanistan and the Afghan people ... we seek a long-term partnership and an enduring friendship.”
Several time, he mentioned concern over the continued existence of havens for Taliban and other insurgents inside Pakistan. Nangarhar is a border province, and its inhabitants are especially vulnerable to insurgent attacks from across the boundary.
“Afghanistan cannot enjoy security and stability until the terrorist threat from sanctuaries in Pakistan has been addressed,” Eikenberry said. “The United States remains absolutely committed to working with Afghanistan and Pakistan to address this threat.”
Local leaders at several of Eikenberry’s meetings expressed worry that their root problems — poverty, unemployment and lack of electricity — would worsen once the U.S. begins to reduce its aid programs and presence here as well as its military role.
“We stopped growing poppies and now we are growing vegetables, but it is hot here and we have no way to keep them cold,” one community leader in Mohmand Dara told Eikenberry, asking whether the U.S. would help finance a refrigeration plant for onions there.
The envoy demurred on that request, but also sought to reassure his audience, saying most U.S. aid would now be shifted to Afghan government programs rather than ended.
“I hope the next time I come here, we will be talking about onions instead of insurgents,” he said.
Wilgoren reported from Washington. Correspondent Michael Birnbaum in Berlin and special correspondents Sayed Salahuddin and Javed Hamdard in Kabul and Karla Adam in London contributed to this report.
Afghans welcome and worry about U.S. drawdown plan - The Washington Post
hembo
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Tuesday, Jun 28, 2011
Taliban's return and India's concerns
M.K. Bhadrakumar
While there is no evidence that Barack Obama consulted New Delhi about the impending shift in U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, India must now begin a dialogue' with the Taliban along with a policy to instil confidence in the Pakistani mind about our intentions.
The United States President, Barack Obama's announcement regarding the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan was not India-specific, as compared to Washington's initiative in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to bar the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technology to New Delhi. But it is more lethal, casting a shadow on India's regional strategies.
Why Mr. Obama took such a decision doesn't actually need much explaining. Put simply, his sharp political instincts prevailed. He had a pledge to redeem; he sensed the public mood; he heard bipartisan opinion in Capitol Hill that the soldiers be brought home; he faces an adverse budgetary environment and he understood that his priority should be to mend the U.S. economy rather than wage wars in foreign lands. The surge may have made gains, arguably, but gains are reversible; so, what is the point? Meanwhile, Afghan opinion is turning against foreign occupation and the killing of Osama bin Laden offers a defining moment.
On the diplomatic front, regional allies proved exasperatingly difficult, while European allies got impatient to quit. The regional opinion militates against a long-term U.S. military presence, while the contradictions in intra-regional relationships do not lend easily to reconciliation. The foreign policy priorities need vastly more attention: exports and investment, upheaval in West Asia, China's rise, etc.
There is no evidence that Mr. Obama consulted New Delhi about the impending shift in the U.S. strategy in India's immediate neighbourhood. We need to calmly ponder over what the U.S. means when Mr. Obama calls India its indispensable partner in the 21st century. In the period ahead, keeping the dialogue process with Pakistan on course; pursuing normalisation of ties with China; consolidating the gains of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's path-breaking visit to Kabul all these templates of our regional policy assume great importance. Indeed, the raison d'être of a new thinking in policymaking cannot but be stressed.
The implications of Mr. Obama's drawdown decision are far-reaching. The U.S. has accepted the Taliban as being a part of the Afghan nation and concluded that it does not threaten America's homeland security. No segment of the Taliban movement that is willing for reconciliation will be excluded. Mr. Obama expressed optimism about the peace process. He estimated that al-Qaeda is a spent force and any residual war on terror will be by way of exercising vigilance that it doesn't rear its head again. The timeline for the drawdown 10,000 troops by end-2011, 33,000 by mid-2012 and the bulk of the remaining 70,000 troops at a steady pace through 2013-14 plus the change of command necessitated by David Petraeus's departure in September as the new head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) hardly leaves scope for keeping a high tempo of security operations. Obviously, the Taliban has borne the brunt of the U.S. firepower and has survived.
The stunning geopolitical reality is that the U.S. is barely staving off defeat and is making its way out of the Hindu Kush in an orderly retreat. The Taliban responded to Mr. Obama's announcement saying, The solution for the Afghan crisis lies in the full withdrawal of all foreign troops immediately. Until this happens, our armed struggle will increase from day to day. Again, Mr. Obama appears to be optimistic about the Kabul government's ability to assume the responsibility of security by 2014.
Mr. Obama completely avoided mentioning an almost-forgotten pledge that the former U.S. President George W. Bush made in the halcyon days of the war, that the U.S. would someday consider a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. He, instead, pleaded that this is a time of rising debt and hard economic times at home and he needs to concentrate on rebuilding America. The Afghans fear that western aid and projects would dry up. If that happens, Afghanistan will revert to the late 1990s when the Taliban regime first accepted the financial help offered by bin Laden. All hope now hinges on the international conference that Mr. Obama will be hosting in May next year in Chicago.
However, there is no need to press the panic button. A repetition of the civil war scenario of the 1990s appears a remote possibility. The Taliban's ascendancy in the 1990s was more an outright Pakistani conquest of Afghanistan in which the Pakistani air force, artillery, armoured corps, regular officers and intelligence agencies directly participated. The Taliban was a cohesive movement. Besides, there were regional powers determined to provide assistance to the non-Pashtun groups. In all these respects, the situation is radically different today. Pakistan hadn't yet known at that time the blowback of terrorism. The very fact that Pakistan learnt about the secret talks between the Taliban and U.S. representatives from news reports speaks volumes of its command and control of the Quetta Shura.
Pakistan cannot be so naïve as not to factor in the fact that a revitalised, triumphalist Taliban just across the Durand Line (which, by the way, has all but disappeared) could ultimately prove a headache for its own security. Pakistani commentators candidly admit that the Afghans deeply resent Pakistan's interference. There has been an overall political awakening among the Afghan people and a replay of the old Pakistani policies will be challenged. The gravitas of Afghan domestic politics has shifted. Thus, all things taken into consideration, Pakistan will see the wisdom of allowing a kind of intra-Afghan equilibrium to develop rather than try to prescribe what is good for that country.
Mr. Karzai has proved to be a remarkably shrewd politician gifted with a high acumen to network and forge alliances. He has emerged as a pan-Afghan leader who maintains working relationships with influential figures cutting across ethnicity and regions Mohammed Fahim, Karim Khalili, Burhanuddin Rabbani, Rasul Sayyaf, etc. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-i-Islami, which is a Pashtun-dominated group antithetical to the Taliban, already forms a part of Mr. Karzai's government. Mr. Karzai has his own bridges leading toward the Taliban camp to which he once belonged, after all. There will always be disgruntled elements, but then there are the traditional Afghan methods of patronage and accommodation. Mr. Karzai takes an active interest in regional affairs. His bonding with Pakistan and Iran shows that his political antennae are already probing for openings in anticipation of the U.S. withdrawal.
In this complex setting, India's own policy orientations are realistic and near-optimal. The primacy on building warm and cordial ties with the government in Kabul; nurturing people-to-people ties; contributing significantly to reconstruction; non-interference in internal affairs; an aversion to Indian military deployment; a non-prescriptive approach to an Afghan settlement and the insistence on an Afghan-led reconciliation process; and, most important, the trust that Mr. Karzai knows the red lines these parameters of policy are eminently sustainable.
However, a couple of points need to be made. India should establish communication lines with the Taliban assuming, of course, it wants to talk with us. After all, we talked with Mr. Sayyaf, leader of the Ittehad, which Jalaluddin Haqqani served as commander. It is inconceivable that any Afghan could harbour ill will towards India and the Indian people. The rest is all the disposable stuff of how the Afghan has been manipulated by outsiders through the 30 years of civil war including when he vandalised the Bamiyan statues. But in the kind of Afghanistan Mr. Karzai wants his country to return, it becomes possible for us also to rediscover the Afghan we knew before foreigners came and occupied his country. (Incidentally, this is also the basis of Mr. Karzai's optimism when he reacted on hearing about Mr. Obama's drawdown plan: This soil can only be protected by the sons of Afghanistan. I congratulate the Afghan people for taking the responsibility for their country into their own hands Today is a very happy day.)
And, our dialogue with the Taliban must go hand in hand with a policy to do all we can by word and deed to instil confidence in the Pakistani mind about our intentions that for the foreseeable future, Afghanistan's stabilisation can become a shared concern for the two countries. Much has changed already in the most recent months in the prevailing air. No one talks seriously that the drawback of Mr. Obama's drawdown plan could be India-Pakistan rivalry in Afghanistan. There is actually no scope for zero-sum games, since Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan are legitimate and are reconcilable with India's concerns.
Second, Indian diplomacy should utilise the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) process to evolve a new strategic culture of collective security for the region, which it lacks. Mr. Obama's words should be properly understood, when he said that the U.S. can no more over-extend confronting every evil that can be found abroad. As India and Pakistan move to a new trajectory of growth, a favourable regional environment becomes the imperative need. India can learn a lot from the Chinese technique of creating synergy between the SCO track and Beijing's bilateral track with the Central Asian capitals and with Moscow which till a generation ago were weaned on unalloyed anti-China dogmas of the Soviet era. Indian diplomacy can do one better. It can adapt this technique to normalisation with Pakistan and with China.
(The writer is a former diplomat.)
Taliban's return and India's concerns
M.K. Bhadrakumar
While there is no evidence that Barack Obama consulted New Delhi about the impending shift in U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, India must now begin a dialogue' with the Taliban along with a policy to instil confidence in the Pakistani mind about our intentions.
The United States President, Barack Obama's announcement regarding the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan was not India-specific, as compared to Washington's initiative in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to bar the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technology to New Delhi. But it is more lethal, casting a shadow on India's regional strategies.
Why Mr. Obama took such a decision doesn't actually need much explaining. Put simply, his sharp political instincts prevailed. He had a pledge to redeem; he sensed the public mood; he heard bipartisan opinion in Capitol Hill that the soldiers be brought home; he faces an adverse budgetary environment and he understood that his priority should be to mend the U.S. economy rather than wage wars in foreign lands. The surge may have made gains, arguably, but gains are reversible; so, what is the point? Meanwhile, Afghan opinion is turning against foreign occupation and the killing of Osama bin Laden offers a defining moment.
On the diplomatic front, regional allies proved exasperatingly difficult, while European allies got impatient to quit. The regional opinion militates against a long-term U.S. military presence, while the contradictions in intra-regional relationships do not lend easily to reconciliation. The foreign policy priorities need vastly more attention: exports and investment, upheaval in West Asia, China's rise, etc.
There is no evidence that Mr. Obama consulted New Delhi about the impending shift in the U.S. strategy in India's immediate neighbourhood. We need to calmly ponder over what the U.S. means when Mr. Obama calls India its indispensable partner in the 21st century. In the period ahead, keeping the dialogue process with Pakistan on course; pursuing normalisation of ties with China; consolidating the gains of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's path-breaking visit to Kabul all these templates of our regional policy assume great importance. Indeed, the raison d'être of a new thinking in policymaking cannot but be stressed.
The implications of Mr. Obama's drawdown decision are far-reaching. The U.S. has accepted the Taliban as being a part of the Afghan nation and concluded that it does not threaten America's homeland security. No segment of the Taliban movement that is willing for reconciliation will be excluded. Mr. Obama expressed optimism about the peace process. He estimated that al-Qaeda is a spent force and any residual war on terror will be by way of exercising vigilance that it doesn't rear its head again. The timeline for the drawdown 10,000 troops by end-2011, 33,000 by mid-2012 and the bulk of the remaining 70,000 troops at a steady pace through 2013-14 plus the change of command necessitated by David Petraeus's departure in September as the new head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) hardly leaves scope for keeping a high tempo of security operations. Obviously, the Taliban has borne the brunt of the U.S. firepower and has survived.
The stunning geopolitical reality is that the U.S. is barely staving off defeat and is making its way out of the Hindu Kush in an orderly retreat. The Taliban responded to Mr. Obama's announcement saying, The solution for the Afghan crisis lies in the full withdrawal of all foreign troops immediately. Until this happens, our armed struggle will increase from day to day. Again, Mr. Obama appears to be optimistic about the Kabul government's ability to assume the responsibility of security by 2014.
Mr. Obama completely avoided mentioning an almost-forgotten pledge that the former U.S. President George W. Bush made in the halcyon days of the war, that the U.S. would someday consider a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. He, instead, pleaded that this is a time of rising debt and hard economic times at home and he needs to concentrate on rebuilding America. The Afghans fear that western aid and projects would dry up. If that happens, Afghanistan will revert to the late 1990s when the Taliban regime first accepted the financial help offered by bin Laden. All hope now hinges on the international conference that Mr. Obama will be hosting in May next year in Chicago.
However, there is no need to press the panic button. A repetition of the civil war scenario of the 1990s appears a remote possibility. The Taliban's ascendancy in the 1990s was more an outright Pakistani conquest of Afghanistan in which the Pakistani air force, artillery, armoured corps, regular officers and intelligence agencies directly participated. The Taliban was a cohesive movement. Besides, there were regional powers determined to provide assistance to the non-Pashtun groups. In all these respects, the situation is radically different today. Pakistan hadn't yet known at that time the blowback of terrorism. The very fact that Pakistan learnt about the secret talks between the Taliban and U.S. representatives from news reports speaks volumes of its command and control of the Quetta Shura.
Pakistan cannot be so naïve as not to factor in the fact that a revitalised, triumphalist Taliban just across the Durand Line (which, by the way, has all but disappeared) could ultimately prove a headache for its own security. Pakistani commentators candidly admit that the Afghans deeply resent Pakistan's interference. There has been an overall political awakening among the Afghan people and a replay of the old Pakistani policies will be challenged. The gravitas of Afghan domestic politics has shifted. Thus, all things taken into consideration, Pakistan will see the wisdom of allowing a kind of intra-Afghan equilibrium to develop rather than try to prescribe what is good for that country.
Mr. Karzai has proved to be a remarkably shrewd politician gifted with a high acumen to network and forge alliances. He has emerged as a pan-Afghan leader who maintains working relationships with influential figures cutting across ethnicity and regions Mohammed Fahim, Karim Khalili, Burhanuddin Rabbani, Rasul Sayyaf, etc. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-i-Islami, which is a Pashtun-dominated group antithetical to the Taliban, already forms a part of Mr. Karzai's government. Mr. Karzai has his own bridges leading toward the Taliban camp to which he once belonged, after all. There will always be disgruntled elements, but then there are the traditional Afghan methods of patronage and accommodation. Mr. Karzai takes an active interest in regional affairs. His bonding with Pakistan and Iran shows that his political antennae are already probing for openings in anticipation of the U.S. withdrawal.
In this complex setting, India's own policy orientations are realistic and near-optimal. The primacy on building warm and cordial ties with the government in Kabul; nurturing people-to-people ties; contributing significantly to reconstruction; non-interference in internal affairs; an aversion to Indian military deployment; a non-prescriptive approach to an Afghan settlement and the insistence on an Afghan-led reconciliation process; and, most important, the trust that Mr. Karzai knows the red lines these parameters of policy are eminently sustainable.
However, a couple of points need to be made. India should establish communication lines with the Taliban assuming, of course, it wants to talk with us. After all, we talked with Mr. Sayyaf, leader of the Ittehad, which Jalaluddin Haqqani served as commander. It is inconceivable that any Afghan could harbour ill will towards India and the Indian people. The rest is all the disposable stuff of how the Afghan has been manipulated by outsiders through the 30 years of civil war including when he vandalised the Bamiyan statues. But in the kind of Afghanistan Mr. Karzai wants his country to return, it becomes possible for us also to rediscover the Afghan we knew before foreigners came and occupied his country. (Incidentally, this is also the basis of Mr. Karzai's optimism when he reacted on hearing about Mr. Obama's drawdown plan: This soil can only be protected by the sons of Afghanistan. I congratulate the Afghan people for taking the responsibility for their country into their own hands Today is a very happy day.)
And, our dialogue with the Taliban must go hand in hand with a policy to do all we can by word and deed to instil confidence in the Pakistani mind about our intentions that for the foreseeable future, Afghanistan's stabilisation can become a shared concern for the two countries. Much has changed already in the most recent months in the prevailing air. No one talks seriously that the drawback of Mr. Obama's drawdown plan could be India-Pakistan rivalry in Afghanistan. There is actually no scope for zero-sum games, since Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan are legitimate and are reconcilable with India's concerns.
Second, Indian diplomacy should utilise the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) process to evolve a new strategic culture of collective security for the region, which it lacks. Mr. Obama's words should be properly understood, when he said that the U.S. can no more over-extend confronting every evil that can be found abroad. As India and Pakistan move to a new trajectory of growth, a favourable regional environment becomes the imperative need. India can learn a lot from the Chinese technique of creating synergy between the SCO track and Beijing's bilateral track with the Central Asian capitals and with Moscow which till a generation ago were weaned on unalloyed anti-China dogmas of the Soviet era. Indian diplomacy can do one better. It can adapt this technique to normalisation with Pakistan and with China.
(The writer is a former diplomat.)
Irfan Baloch
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 20,975
- Reaction score
- 214
- Country
- Location
Similar threads
