What's new

Afghan-Pakistan Relations After Rabbani Assassination

^^ So many "senior American officials" make so many "direct quotes". The overall policy approach is not based on cherry picking one quote.

When did the US engagement of China start? Much after the 60s?

When and how did Chinese economy start growing, how, with whom it is most engaged even now?

Things are a bit more complex than the simplistic "NATO did it for incredible India".

But one needs to get rid of the tinted glasses and that "mental make up" to understand facts.

PS: BTW, what an amazing phycho portrait of some people here. ;)

Describes their lives and tactics here in one simple verifiable post.

Now that is a fact.
 
.
ap_logo_106.png
By DEB RIECHMANN and RAHIM FAIEZ - Associated Press

55742501229c6816fa0e6a706700ed7a.jpg
Afghan men shout anti-Pakistan slogans during a rally
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The Afghan government urged neighboring Pakistan on Sunday to take concrete steps to help end the Taliban insurgency and use its influence to bring the militants to direct peace talks.
The appeal follows accusations that Pakistan, through its historical ties with some of the militant groups, has played an active role in supporting attacks across the border on U.S. and Afghan targets — a charge it denies.
The allegations against the country and the calls for its help reveal a central quandary in trying to end the decade of fighting that began with the U.S. invasion after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: Pakistan, even if it has ties to groups behind the insurgency, would be of central importance in any effort to bring about a negotiated peace.
Afghan leaders, however, are growing impatient.
"Afghanistan has invested a great amount of goodwill and political capital to create an atmosphere of trust and confidence and to try to improve relations with Pakistan over the past three years," Foreign Ministry spokesman Janan Mosazai told reporters in Kabul.
"Unfortunately, we have not been witness to the type of concrete progress that we were expecting — that was promised to us by our brothers and sisters in Pakistan," he said.
In particular, Afghanistan wants its neighbor's help in the "facilitation of direct negotiations with the Taliban leadership and with any other insurgent leaders who are prepared to join the Afghan national reconciliation process," Mosazai said.
Pakistan's northwest tribal region serves as a haven for insurgents fighting Afghan and U.S. forces across the border as well as the Pakistani government. Pakistan has ties with some of the militant groups dating back to the war in the 1980s against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Afghan and U.S. officials, long frustrated at Pakistan's failure to wage an all-out battle against militants on its soil, have recently accused Islamabad of supporting attacks across the border, including an hours-long assault on the U.S. Embassy last month in Kabul.
Reflecting the deepening frustration, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said over the weekend that he was giving up on trying to talk to the Taliban directly and that the key to ending the war is mediation by Pakistan.
At the same time, Karzai has suspended a series of meetings between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States because of the fallout over accusations that Pakistan is playing a double game. The Afghan government said it had evidence that Pakistan played a role in the Sept. 20 assassination of former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani.
Karzai's office said a special commission investigating Rabbani's death had concluded the attack was planned in Quetta, the Pakistani city where key Taliban leaders are based. The delegation also said the primary assailant was a Pakistani citizen.
Interior Minister Bismullah Khan Mohammadi said Saturday in an Afghan parliamentary session that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency was involved in the killing.
Pakistan denied the allegation the allegation Sunday, calling it "baseless" and "irresponsible." It said the evidence given to Pakistan consisted of the confession of an Afghan national, Hamidullah Akundzadeh, accused of masterminding Rabbani's assassination.
"Instead of making such irresponsible statements, those in positions of authority in Kabul, should seriously deliberate as to why all those Afghans who are favorably disposed toward peace and toward Pakistan are systematically being removed from the scene and killed," said Pakistan's Foreign Ministry in a written statement.
Meanwhile, the members of the High Peace Council that Rabbani had headed met with Karzai and asked for a full review of the process. They said they do not want to waste time trying to reconcile with insurgents on the Pakistani side of the border who have not renounced violence, according to a presidential statement and members of the council.
That would be a major shift for the council, which was formed to try to find a way to get the Taliban leadership to the negotiating table.
"Those groups that are hiding in Pakistan, they are sending terrorists at us. So how can we have peace with those people?" said Ismail Qasemyar, one of the members who met with Karzai.
There is debate over how much influence Pakistan actually has with the Taliban, but most analysts believe that the country is vital to the success of any peace talks.
"My own sense is that Pakistani influence and connections and its clout is largely exaggerated," said Riffat Hussain, a professor of defense studies at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad. "But if there is any player who can act as a bridge to bring these guys on board, it has to be Pakistan." Specifically, he said, the powerful Pakistani intelligence service must be involved.
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari responded to the growing criticism in a weekend editorial in the Washington Post in which he said the U.S. was spending too much time dictating to Pakistan rather than treating its government as a partner.
 
.
Afghanistan puppet government and NATO forces should openly accept their defeat and their failure than come begging for help and Peace. Currently Pakistan is busy in more important things happening inside Pakistan.
 
.
Afghanistan really shouldn't be telling Pakistan anything, when Karzai, the mayor of Kabul is being threatened to being dethroned from that post too.
 
.
Enough of the BS .Stop fighting others war. We have sacrificed alot hell more than anyother invovled ut even then we are to be

blamed for everything.So please stop doing it and let the world blame everything on us.

Please kick all of the Afghanis in Pakistan back to Afghanistan.We are not a good host so we shouldnt be hosting them any.

Beleive me we will be better off without these Afghanis -

BTW Thanks to Afghanis for bringing few gifts to Pakistan.Gun culture,Drugs,Terrorism, smuggling. We are very thankful to you.

and plz GOP mine all of the possible border with Afghanistan.Enough is Enough.
 
.
Zia ul Haq ibn shaitaan al-kafir is the root of all terrorism :mad:
 
.
you are well off topic here. I cant believe you indians are getting so excited do you not understand its a puppet regime in afghans that represents american soldiers not afghanis. Oh and the americans are leaving

This is the combination of shock and self-grandeur I was speaking about.

As I said these are text book examples of the reactions of the bully who just got owned by the smaller on. :D

---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 AM ----------

It's tiresome to spoonfeed the "Incredible India" bubble crowd, but just a starter...

http://www.apcss.org/Publications/Edited Volumes/RegionalFinal chapters/Chapter5Layne.pdf

When all is said and done, it is apparent that there is a mainstream consensus view about the future of the Sino-American relationship, and that within this consensus the differences between containers and engagers are of degree, not of kind. US policymakers and foreign policy analysts broadly agree that China’s emergence as a great power would threaten America’s post-Cold War hegemony. The debate in policy circles is not about whether China’s greatpower emergence is inimical to American interests, but rather, what Washington should do about it.

And, of course, good old Hillary...

As China looms, Hillary Clinton tells India "it's time to lead" - The Economic Times

(of course the "Incredible India" crowd will say she is talking about "east" not "west". sigh...)

good old zion hamid tactic of saying "if my aunty had a mush she would be my uncle". :lol:

America invades afg for one reason and these guys start giving motives to it which can be easily attained through other options with far lesser material and human cost.

Epic fail

---------- Post added at 03:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 AM ----------

Hehe.. yep can be seen here. Read Vinod's post above. it might actually give a hint to find a cure for your incredible disease. :lol:

Always, our sympathies are with you and your incredible country. :lol:

with due respect, count me out of that "our".

i am indifferent to them......
 
.
^^ So many "senior American officials" make so many "direct quotes". The overall policy approach is not based on cherry picking one quote.

When did the US engagement of China start? Much after the 60s?

When and how did Chinese economy start growing, how, with whom it is most engaged even now?

Things are a bit more complex than the simplistic "NATO did it for incredible India".

But one needs to get rid of the tinted glasses and that "mental make up" to understand facts.

PS: BTW, what an amazing phycho portrait of some people here. ;)

Describes their lives and tactics here in one simple verifiable post.

Now that is a fact.

What an Islamophobic, Sinophobic, Arbiphobic incredible indian delusionist you are to talk about the truth ? Dont you see its dirrectly pricking the raw nerve of the closet mullahs ? :lol:
 
.
This Analysis should be sobering to all parties and it should make clear that informed Indians have a very different take on the issue than the one offer by US media outlets:


Karzai trapped in no-man's land
By M K Bhadrakumar

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has made his first political move a week after the assassination of the head of the Afghan High Peace Council and former president, Burhanuddin Rabbani.

Following a meeting in Kabul that included tribal elders, legislative chairmen, cabinet ministers, former mujahideen commanders and his two vice presidents, Karzai's office issued a statement on Wednesday admitting that a question mark should be on the Taliban's capacity to take independent decisions, implying they were merely a Pakistani proxy.

The statement suggested that Karzai no more regards the Taliban as his errant "brothers", which used to be his preferred epithet to describe the insurgents. "During our three-year efforts for peace, the Taliban has martyred our religious ulema, tribal elders, women, children, old and young. By killing Rabbani, they showed they are not able to take decisions. Now, the question is [whether we should seek] peace with whom, which people?”

Karzai's retraction

It is a belated confession by Karzai, necessitated by the force of circumstances, as he gropes for a way forward. Conceivably, it need not be taken as the final word. Karzai is grandstanding. Rabbani's departure has left Karzai stranded in a no-man's land where he stands all by himself - derided by the Taliban, disowned by the United States and despised by the many fuming detractors within the erstwhile Northern Alliance (NA) groups whom he sidelined and kept out of office.

Karzai has been one of the first and consistent advocates of peace talks with the Taliban. His speech at the London conference in January 2010 bears eloquent testimony to Karzai's deep-rooted conviction that Taliban are a part of the Afghan nation and should be allowed to participate in mainstream Afghan life. Many countries were not convinced that was the case but still went along since it was Karzai's Afghan initiative (backed robustly, of course by Richard Holbrooke, the late US special representative for AfPak).

By Karzai's own admission, Rabbani's assassination puts a question mark on his power of judgment
. Which is an unfair self-indictment because he was fundamentally right in his judgment that the war was not getting anywhere and only through a political settlement with the Taliban can it be brought to an end.

His bete noir, Abdullah Abdullah, the former Afghan foreign minister and presidential candidate, has seized the moment and was in an incendiary mood this week. He said Taliban have "not demonstrated even one sign of interest in seriously coming to the table to discuss a political settlement ... They think that using this strategy will allow them to gain power in Afghanistan."

Abdullah is riding the wave of indignation among Rabbani's followers. He knows it makes good politics to do some more Karzai-bashing when Washington is listening: "Day by day, the government is losing people's support an trust. Government bodies like the police and military have not been developed, and there is no rule of law. So, this encourages the Taliban to continue terrorist attacks and bring harm to the people of Afghanistan."

But what is the alternative that Abdullah would suggest? Karzai had sensed all along that there was widespread opposition to his peace plan among the non-Pashtun groups belonging to the erstwhile Northern Alliance, which Abdullah was tapping into for mounting a political challenge to his presidency. Karzai was wary about Abdullah's channels to influential quarters in Washington.

Karzai's trump cards were two. One, he had Rabbani with him. Karzai counted on him as a political bridge to the non-Pashtun constituencies as well as to the mujahideen. With Rabbani gone, he has a problem connecting with the anti-Taliban constituency in Afghanistan, leave alone bringing them on board a broad-based settlement.

The president's other trump cards have been his two vice presidents, who are powerful satraps in the non-Pashtun political domain. One is Mohammed Fahim, the strongman from Panjshir who inherited Ahmed Shah Massoud's war machine .and the other is Karim Khalili, leader of the Hazara Shi'ites. Both have everything to lose in a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan

Karzai has also been indulging in a delicate exercise in the past few years building bridges with the Pashtun tribes and carving out a base in the southern regions. He depended heavily on the ruthless skills of his half-brother Wali Karzai on this front, but his assassination in July of Kandahar's mayor has thrown Karzai's stratagem into shambles.

If the peace process had progressed, a new political dynamic would have emerged that strengthened Karzai, but with Wali and Rabbani removed from the scene, he is forced to gravitate toward the non-Pashtun camp, although it isn't his natural constituency.

Peering into a bottomless pit

Ideally, this is a moment when the Americans should raise his comfort level. On the contrary, they are looking away and are consumed by their own problems. The latest United Nations Report on secretary general Ban Ki-Moon's desk says Afghanistan is witnessing "considerable political volatility and disconcerting levels of insecurity".

Former commander of US forces in Afghanistan David Petraeus' claims regarding the encouraging results of the US's surge seem an obfuscation of the harsh ground reality. The UN report says there has been a 40% increase in the monthly average number of "security incidents" in the first eight months of 2011 as compared to the same period last year.

More important, it says the southeastern region which was the theatre for Petraeus' surge remains the "focus of military activity" accounting for two-thirds of all violent incidents, and that even where the US handed over responsibility for security to the Afghan forces, a "resilient insurgency" is challenging the efficacy of the transition.

On top of this, the US is barely coping with Pakistan's blunt refusal to act against the Haqqani network. The standoff can turn into a confrontation any day from now if the US decides to put the Haqqanis on the list of terrorists.

Chairman of the US Senate Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein has written to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that on the basis of the testimony given by the outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs of staff committee Mike Mullen, the Haqqani group "meets the standards for designation" as a terrorist organization. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has agreed with Mullen's testimony.

In such a scenario, logically, the US would have to consider at some stage declaring Pakistan as a state sponsoring terrorism, putting at risk the entire future of the "war on terror".

Put plainly, the US-Pakistan relationship is peering into a bottomless pit. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani was not far off the mark in his remark that the US's Afghan policy shows "confusion and policy disarray"
.

At such a juncture, where is the time or inclination for the Barack Obama administration to come to Karzai's rescue? On the other hand, Washington is resorting to blame game accusing Karzai's government for ineptitude and corruption and as responsible for all that is going wrong.

The biggest danger in Karzai's gravitation to the NA camp is that it would exacerbate ethnic polarization in Afghanistan. The strengthening of the NA hold on the power structure in Kabul at this juncture virtually forecloses any scope for reconciliation with the Taliban.

As the US drawdown accelerates through the coming months, Karzai will face the dilemma of having to depend more and more on the military muscle of the NA groups. That would be a recipe for another round of civil war.

Regional politics is bound to play a decisive role in what lies ahead. Karzai understands that Pakistan is central to any peace process with the Taliban. He already met Gilani last Thursday when the Pakistani prime minister traveled to Kabul. Gilani is expected in Kabul again in early October.

Pakistan can be expected to do all it can to kickstart another round of peace process. Its interest lies in preventing Karzai becoming a prisoner of the anti-Taliban NA groups, which is to say to prevent a return of the NA's dominance of the Kabul government. But in the present political climate in Kabul, the task of finding another consensus candidate to replace Rabbani will not be easy.

Meanwhile, Karzai is heading for New Delhi next week, his first visit abroad after Rabbani's assassination. It is a scheduled visit apparently for delivering a memorial lecture in New Delhi on regional politics, but Karzai would seek India's support with the expectation that it might give him leverage vis-a-vis Pakistan in the coming period and it has a degree of influence with the NA groups. India, however, would prefer to stand on the sidelines and it remains wary of another civil war in Afghanistan.


India's warnings of the shape of things to come are indeed coming true but this is hardly the moment for self-gratification. Delhi is exasperated with the inconsistencies and disarray in the US's policies. The aggravation of the US-Pakistan rift may appear to work to India's advantage but on the contrary, there is a sense of disquiet in Delhi over the talk of possible military strikes against Pakistan.

The point is, the result of any such US incursions into Pakistan cannot be far different from what happened in Cambodia following the US invasion in April 1970 - namely, a radicalization of the entire region. Just as the Cambodian incursion couldn't salvage the Vietnam War, in the present case, too, staving off defeat in Afghanistan is going to be very difficult for the US
.

All the same, Indian commentators have almost in unison pointed out that Rabbani's assassination shows there has been hardly any change in the Taliban's mindset, which militates against the idea of any from of power sharing with other Afghan groups.

Having said that, New Delhi is also keen to build on the current atmosphere of cordiality with Pakistan and encourage Islamabad to draw a line under cross-border terrorist activities. The standoff with the US, ironically, may make Islamabad more receptive to Indian concerns. Karzai will receive renewed assurances of Indian support during his visit next week, but on balance India will not allow itself to be sucked into the Afghan endgame.

Fatal mistake

The point is, Karzai's predicament is also the manifestation of a much bigger crisis that is enveloping Afghanistan. The Afghan body polity is virtually crumbling and the US neither has the energy nor the resources and the will to fortify the Afghan state when such support is needed more than ever in the past decade.

The meltdown leading to a civil war can be rapid if the ethnic rift widens in the coming period. The signs are not good in this regard.
Rabbani's assassination has torn asunder the fragile crust that was forming on the ethnic divides in the country. Karzai's dependence on the "warlords" of the NA will set the clock back in Afghan politics. Parliament is already at a standstill. There is great political uncertainty. Abdullah was echoing a widely held perception among the Afghan politicians when he said that Rabbani's is not going to be the last political assassination.

But overarching all this is the disintegration of the US's alliance with Pakistan. The US needs to grasp that it has no alternative but to concede Pakistan's legitimate interests in Afghanistan. Pakistan is not going to blink since it has high stakes on the Afghan chessboard and Washington is nobody to dictate how to frame its interests.


Any US incursion into Pakistan is sure to bring forth a furious backlash that will dwarf the Beirut Barracks Bombing in October 1983, which killed 241 American servicemen. And that will be the end of the Obama presidency. Make no mistake about it.

The only course available for the US is to rein in the irreconcilable NA elements (many of whom were foolishly propped up by the US as the "anti-thesis" to Karzai and have no standing of their own) and allow Karzai and his Pakistani interlocutors to kickstart another effort within the framework of the Afghan-Pakistan peace process.

It should allow Karzai to select his own nominee to replace Rabbani with whom he can work closely - and whom Pakistan is comfortable with. That should be the first necessary step in the coming days. A vacuum should not be allowed to develop.

Equally, there should be a change of heart on the part of the US and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies; they should not interfere with the intra-Afghan peace process. Despite whatever inadequacies he may have, Karzai is still the most credible figure to lead the Kabul set up in the peace process.

Again, he deserves to be given more space to do the sort of Afghan-style networking that he is good at, and create his own coalition and establish his credibility with the Taliban. This is simply not the time to apply Western norms of politics. Simply put, there has been far too much US interference.


The US and NATO's attempt to establish a parallel track of their own has been at the root of the discord between Washington and Islamabad. If and when the veil lifts on Rabbani's assassination, it is more than probable that his recent proximity with the US turned out to be the ultimate fatal mistake on the part of this extraordinary politician, which cost him his life.
 
.
i just found this on bbc if already posted mod can edit it

South Asia

2 October 2011 Last updated at 13:38 ET
Afghan aide Burhanuddin Rabbani's killer 'Pakistani'

The Afghan government says its investigations show that the killer of Burhanuddin Rabbani, its negotiator with the Taliban, was a Pakistani.

BBC News - Afghan aide Burhanuddin Rabbani's killer 'Pakistani'
Evidence from the case showed the murder was plotted in the Pakistani city of Quetta, a statement said.

Rabbani was assassinated on 20 September by a suicide attacker who purported to be a Taliban peace envoy.

Kabul has often accused Pakistan of supporting militants but Islamabad has denied any role in Rabbani's death.

After the killing, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said his government would no longer hold peace talks with the Taliban, but would focus on dialogue with Pakistan.

'Message of peace'

The Afghan government statement quoted its investigators as saying: "Documents and evidence together with the biography, address and phone numbers of suspects involved in the incident have been submitted to the government of Pakistan in order to arrest and hand [suspects] over."

A spokesman for Mr Karzai, Siamak Herawi, reiterated on Sunday that peace talks with the Taliban were suspended and that a new peace strategy would be spelled out "very soon".

Afghan men in Kabul take part in an anti-Pakistan protest
On Friday, Mr Karzai made it clear where the efforts should focus.

He said: "[Taliban leader] Mullah Omar doesn't have an address... their peace emissary turns out to be a killer, whom should we talk to?

"The Afghan nation asks me who's the other party that you hold talks with? My answer is, Pakistan."

Both Afghanistan and the US have accused Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, of supporting militant groups.

In particular, the ISI is accused of backing the Haqqani network, said to be behind a series of high-profile attacks on US and Afghan government targets in Kabul.

On Saturday Afghan Interior Minister Besmillah Mohammadi said that "without doubt" the ISI was also involved in Rabbani's killing.

On Sunday, Pakistan's foreign ministry issued a statement calling the allegation "baseless and irresponsible", saying that Rabbani had been Pakistan's friend.

Rabbani was the leader of the Peace Council, constituted by Mr Karzai and tasked with negotiating with the Taliban.

Rabbani was killed in his own home while meeting two men claiming to be from the Taliban, one of whom had a bomb hidden in his turban.

The Peace Council said it had been in touch with what it believed to be the Taliban high command based in Quetta, and was told a messenger would be sent to Kabul.

The attacker purported to have a "message of peace" and had sent a CD which even the president heard, to get access to Rabbani.

Officials say they believed the message would signal a major breakthrough, but it proved to be a trick.

The Taliban have said so far only that they do not wish to comment on the killing.
 
.
In addition to the "incredible India" phobia, there is also the "more loyal than the king" syndrome at play here.

In this case it takes the shape of actually believing that they care for Chinese interests more than the Chinese themselves, or being more Arab than the Arab.)

No ones more effected by the 'loyal than the king' syndrome than the indians. Esp since past this week, after the Mullen statement. Indians became more Americans than the American themselves. Heck, Indians were asking themselves their media is going overboard with this issue.
And now after karzais statement, Indians have become more afghani than the afghans.
 
. .
Seal the border. Put a wall between the two counties. Stop all the Afghan transit coming through Karachi, Problem solved. No cross boarder problems and Pakistani roads won't be worn out because of Afghan trade.
Food prices will come down in Pakistan as no food will be going out to Afghanistan and send all three million Afghans refugees living in Pakistan back (as Iranians did with their Afghan refuges) so Population load will come down, less load on electricity too.

No talk no trade
 
.
Except the Afghani innocent civilians there is no other scapegoats in this whole tangled web , All others are selfishly looking out for their own benefit out of it !!!
 
.
Except the Afghani innocent civilians there is no other scapegoats in this whole tangled web , All others are selfishly looking out for their own benefit out of it !!!

Congratulations, you just restarted a 3 year old thread, now everyone will think these are brand new statements from Karzai!
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom