Afghan officials accuse Pakistan of Indian embassy attack

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The motive is to destabilize the Karzai regime.

Doesn't it make sense for Pakistan to do so, considering the hostility between Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Also, the Taliban, who usually boast of their exploits, have denied this one.

Well, this isn't the first time that Indian assets have been attacked, and it is definitely not the last.

Also, Kashmir is a perfect analogy because even there it is in Pakistan's interest to destabilize the Indian establishment and turn the locals hostile.

Why would they deny this one then?

Karzai's regime is being destabilized by homegrown Taliban - he isn't called the "Mayor of Kabul" for nothing.

Considering the spate of bombings, attacks, drug and weapons mafia's, and corruption that members of his own adminsitration are involved in, there is very little in the way of destabilization that Pakistan needs to do.

One bombing on the Indian embassy is not going to "destabilize" Afghanistan (which it pretty much already is, in case you didn't notice) given the plethora of other problems it faces.

This argument of destabilization after this particular attack is nothing but a red herring, and completely ludicrous.

Why are the Taliban denying it? I don't know, perhaps it is AQ, perhaps teh NA, perhaps they are lying.

As far as I know no one has accepted responsibility for the Islamabad or Karachi bombings either, so I suppose that has to be India then, since who else would gain from Pakistan being destabilized?

 

[blain2]

As far as I know no one has accepted responsibility for the Islamabad or Karachi bombings either, so I suppose that has to be India then, since who else would gain from Pakistan being destabilized?

Very well said!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

From the ISSA report, which I posted on another thread - on the pathetic state of Afghanistan, and the poor effort at controlling any of the remaining destabilizing factors (since all attention is on the Taliban and only the Taliban and how Pakistan can "do more"):

One reality is that ISAF has only some 47,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and not all of those are along the Pakistan-Afghan border. Moreover, quite separately from anything which could be blamed on Pakistan, the Afghan Helmand province is home to a significant proportion of ISAF troops and yet still cultivates some 50 percent of the opium poppy produced in Afghanistan. Some 70 percent of the opium coming from Afghanistan — and funding the Taliban and al-Qaida/Iranian-linked terrorist movements in the region and as far afield as Kosovo and Bosnia — is produced in five Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan.

These are provinces “controlled” by ISAF, not by Pakistan, and the nexus between the drug mafia and the Taliban/al-Qaida is evidenced by the amount of money which Taliban members are paying to defectors from the Afghan security forces and other officials, as well as in the purchase of weapons for their own use. Indeed, the Taliban/al-Qaida ability to generate income and control derives not just from trafficking in narcotics on their own account, but also on their ability to charge “transit fees” and to demand payments for protection.

The whole process of poppy cultivation, transportation, processing, and the like is more than merely a Taliban/al-Qaida event; it is pervasive through much of Afghan society, and divides the population from both ISAF and national governance. Opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan rose from 104,000 hectares in 2005, to 161,000 hectares in 2006, to 193,000 hectares in 2007, despite the fact that 13 out of 34 Afghan provinces have been declared to be “drug free”. In terms of quantities produced, opium production rose by 59 percent from 2005 to 2006, and 30 percent from 2006 to 2007.

Afghanistan’s internal opium economy is worth some $4-billion, some 53 percent of the Afghan GDP (and some $50-billion on the international market). Clearly, if the bulk of the Afghan economy is narcotics-driven, then the ability of either the Afghan Government or ISAF to control the situation is limited, quite apart from the Taliban/al-Qaida input.

It is not surprising, therefore, that some 60 to 70 percent of the Afghan Parliament is occupied by former mujahedin, ex-communists, drug barons, and warlords, who not only control both houses of Parliament but, as a result, prevent the establishment of the Central Government’s writ across the country. It is clearly not in the interests of most of the lawmakers that the national Government should exercise law and order across the land, and, meanwhile, Pres. Hamid Karzai is hardly in a position to marginalize these lawmakers.

Also read the Afghan Heroin to Kalashnikov thread on how badly Afghanistan is already destabilized.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Also read the Afghan Heroin to Kalashnikov thread on how badly Afghanistan is already destabilized.

The link for that:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...-turning-afghan-heroin-into-kalashnikovs.html

 

[Flintlock]

Karzai's regime is being destabilized by homegrown Taliban - he isn't called the "Mayor of Kabul" for nothing.

Considering the spate of bombings, attacks, drug and weapons mafia's, and corruption that members of his own adminsitration are involved in, there is very little in the way of destabilization that Pakistan needs to do.

I could argue that his weak hold would make it easier for Pakistan to rile up things even further, thus dealing the death-blow to his regime.

Why are the Taliban denying it? I don't know, perhaps it is AQ, perhaps teh NA, perhaps they are lying.

Precedent tells us that terrorists love to boast about their "accomplishments". It would be unusual for them to deny it.

As far as I know no one has accepted responsibility for the Islamabad or Karachi bombings either, so I suppose that has to be India then, since who else would gain from Pakistan being destabilized?

One could argue that the motive in Pakistan is to create confusion and weaken the state. Which it is, by the way.

In such a scenario, the militants would not like to draw attention to themselves by claiming responsibility.

In a recent poll in Pakistan, most Pakistanis accused the government or intelligence agencies for carrying out the attacks. So seems like its working.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

All I say is watch the space!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Enough of accusations.

It does not solve anything.

It is time to act!

Salim,

My one complaint is that all you have done on a forum elsewhere is exactly what you are suggesting we not do here - blame the ISI.

 

[EagleEyes]

Karzai is an asshole he has a personal grudge against Pakistan now. It is very clear. This dude needs to be taken out of the government of Afghanistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

One could argue that the motive in Pakistan is to create confusion and weaken the state. Which it is, by the way.

In such a scenario, the militants would not like to draw attention to themselves by claiming responsibility.

In a recent poll in Pakistan, most Pakistanis accused the government or intelligence agencies for carrying out the attacks. So seems like its working.

That argument is flawed since the TTP has never backed away from claiming responsibility for attacks on SF's.

Keeping that in mind, the only party that has the most to gain from weakening and destabilizing the Pakistani State is India.

And please read the links I gave regarding Afghanistan's already extremely destabilized state. The argument of a motive of "destabilization" is becoming ridiculous in the light of facts on the ground regarding the conditions in Afghanistan. Any more destabilization and the place might actually erupt ala Vesuvius.

That argument is also wrong when considered in the light of the fact that Pakistan stands the most to lose from Afghan destabilization - we have a huge interest in becoming a corridor for energy links and trade between the CAR's and the rest of the world. Whether there is a pro-Western or pro Indian government in Afghanistan does not matter as much, so long as that government acts in Afghanistan's interests, which is to allow such projects and gain from the transit fees and investment that they bring.

With Iran out of favor with the West, Pakistan remains the most viable route for all of that trade - so it is Pakistan that has the most to lose form destabilization, both from the internal repercussions due to the spread of extremism, drugs and weapons, and the loss in investment and revenue.

On the other hand, given the small size of the CAR markets, India has very little to gain economically from traditional, non-energy industry exports, which are its hall mark. While pipelines from the CAR to India would be useful, India has not shown any urgency towards the IPI despite its growing needs, and has indicated that it can match its energy requirements via other means (LPG, Nuclear - especially with the 123 deal).

Therefore India would in fact have the greatest interest in keeping Afghanistan destabilized as it hurts Pakistan economically and destabilizes it politically.

 

[Munir]

One cannot take a corrupt and world leader in producing heroin serious... India is abusing Kashmiri much worser then ever thought... They even rape and murder old women. So attacking them in other nations seems to be correct. And since Afghanistan blames others for their own mistakes we should skip that part.

 

[Flintlock]

That argument is flawed since the TTP has never backed away from claiming responsibility for attacks on SF's.

Keeping that in mind, the only party that has the most to gain from weakening and destabilizing the Pakistani State is India.

That's the whole point. The Taliban would never shy away from claiming responsibility for attacks on military forces and other official targes.

However, attacks on soft civilian targets are meant to create confusion and distrust. It would be foolish to claim responsibility and turn the population against the prepetrators.

That argument is also wrong when considered in the light of the fact that Pakistan stands the most to lose from Afghan destabilization - we have a huge interest in becoming a corridor for energy links and trade between the CAR's and the rest of the world. Whether there is a pro-Western or pro Indian government in Afghanistan does not matter as much, so long as that government acts in Afghanistan's interests, which is to allow such projects and gain from the transit fees and investment that they bring.

With Iran out of favor with the West, Pakistan remains the most viable route for all of that trade - so it is Pakistan that has the most to lose form destabilization, both from the internal repercussions due to the spread of extremism, drugs and weapons, and the loss in investment and revenue.

Oh please, there is one thing Pakistan hates at the moment...and that is the Karzai Regime.
Pakistan would gain immensely if Karzai goes and the Taliban comes back to power.

When has Pakistan ever put economic gains in front of its political ends? Never. It has always discouraged trade and commerce with India on the ground of kashmir issue.

On the other hand, given the small size of the CAR markets, India has very little to gain economically from traditional, non-energy industry exports, which are its hall mark. While pipelines from the CAR to India would be useful, India has not shown any urgency towards the IPI despite its growing needs, and has indicated that it can match its energy requirements via other means (LPG, Nuclear - especially with the 123 deal).

Therefore India would in fact have the greatest interest in keeping Afghanistan destabilized as it hurts Pakistan economically and destabilizes it politically.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard.

Do you have any idea how many millions of rupees India is spending on building crucial infrastructure like roads, hospitals and schools in Afghanistan?
How much effort is being put into training Afghan troops and police?

You mean that India would deliberately sabotage all its reconstruction efforts? Or are these efforts simply a ruse to confuse all?

Also , India gains tremendously from a stable Pakistan. The last, very last, thing India wants is an extremist state in its backyard with an unchecked flow of mujahideen into kashmir.
Nor does India want Pakistan's nukes to fall into the hands of extremists.

The current regime in Pakistan is the friendliest ever since independence, and India wants it to stay right where it is.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That's the whole point. The Taliban would never shy away from claiming responsibility for attacks on military forces and other official targes.

However, attacks on soft civilian targets are meant to create confusion and distrust. It would be foolish to claim responsibility and turn the population against the prepetrators.

So that would explain why they are not taking responsibility in Afghanistan either then.

Oh please, there is one thing Pakistan hates at the moment...and that is the Karzai Regime.

Pakistan would gain immensely if Karzai goes and the Taliban comes back to power.

When has Pakistan ever put economic gains in front of its political ends? Never. It has always discouraged trade and commerce with India on the ground of kashmir issue.

Actually Pakistan's support for the Taliban initially was also attached to economic gains. The destabilized nature of Afghanistan was not conducive to establishing trade links and becoming an energy corridor - which at that time was the TAP pipeline. Both Ahmed Rashid and Steven Coll discuss that in their books Taliban and Ghost Wars.

There was also the benefit of having a government friendly to Pakistan, but the primary goal was stability through the Taliban.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard.

It is no more ridiculous that suggestions that the ISI is actively supporting destabilization (which it already is) in a country when that destabilization has severe repercussions for Pakistan, and Pakistan is already suffering from them.

Your destabilization argument has been shown wrong - if you read the ISSA report and others, it also talks about how Karzai is extremely unpopular because of the corruption and drugs and weapons trade. He has an extremely strong interest in deflecting attention away from all of Afghanistan's internal problems by blaming them on Pakistan, as does India since it pressures Pakistan.

 

[Energon]

Does it really make a difference who was responsible for the bombing? Even if there is evidence pointing to a certain group its not as if they are going to be dragged into court to be prosecuted; nor does it change the fact that Indian assets in Afghanistan will remain a prime target.

The only thing to do here would be to shore up the defenses and make sure these attacks are kept at bay.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Regarding the cost of destabilization for Pakistan, and its efforts to help Afghanistan.

At the same time, Pakistan, now facing a major food and energy shortage, continues to pump economic and other aid to the Karzai Government in Afghanistan. Pakistan has committed some $300-million to reconstruction in Afghanistan, and even while I was with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on May 22, 2008, he was called by Pres. Karzai asking for Pakistan to release a further 30,000 or more tons of wheat aid to Afghanistan. Apart from that, however, the well-financed Afghan black market has the ability to finance wheat and flour smuggled across the border from Pakistan, causing Pakistani domestic prices and supply into a precarious position.

 

[Energon]

Actually Pakistan's support for the Taliban initially was also attached to economic gains. The destabilized nature of Afghanistan was not conducive to establishing trade links and becoming an energy corridor - which at that time was the TAP pipeline. Both Ahmed Rashid and Steven Coll discuss that in their books Taliban and Ghost Wars.

There was also the benefit of having a government friendly to Pakistan, but the primary goal was stability through the Taliban.

This is true. Pakistan's support of the Taliban was pure and simple for their interests (something every nation has). The only problem is that they backed the wrong horse and most of all, a wrong strategy that has now resulted in more harm than good. But that is a topic for another thread altogether.