Afghan wants 150 Battle tanks and 1 Squadron of Attack choppers from India

[Kompromat]

@janon

We won't arm anyone. We will let them be butchered by the hash addict North's Army.

We will only intervene when it means business to us.

Fact remains that Pashtuns back the Taliban for no other reason than tha army that is supposed to represent them is made up of people that have historic animosity towards them.

Pashtuns may not like the Talibs, but they'd rather have men of their own than the ones from the other side of oxus.

@capt.pop eye

Fact is that you have zero leverage in Afghanistan, and arming the north isn't going to win you the sort of foothold you desire.

Not to forget....we will deliver the 'meal' to you if and when its needed.

 

[janon]

Here was the situation as I see it...

Early on ie 2001-2004ish, Pakistanis has still support for taliban but it was diminishing in some areas and rising in others.

By 2007, the troubles began in Pakistan and a great deal of people began to oppose them.

But now, the will to fight the never ending enemy in a war that is not ours has let Pakistanis look for a solution. Also, the treachery of Karzai (Mayor of Kabul) and his government, along with our allies, who profess to be fighting on the good side, have been accused of supporting the TTP and the BLA, the two major parties that are to blame for the security hell in most of the country (excluding Karachi).

Just a few weeks ago, the US caught Afghan intel red handed aiding TTP senior militants, not only safe passage but valid travel documents, Karzai it seems was only displeased by the fact that the US named and shamed them very openly.

Now why would any sane, self-respecting Pakistani who wants improvement support the status quo?

Now ask yourself, what alternative the Pakistani sees, he says, days were good before and after the arrival of foreign troops and maybe days will be better after they are gone once again. But with Karzai and his mercenaries in the picture, those wont come.

Pakistan does not want Afghanistan to suffer, it only wants it's interests secured so that it does not suffer. You cannot so plainly pick a side and claim the moral ground in this game, too many factors come into play.

This is why in that post of mine that you quoted, I said specifically to keep geopolitics aside for a moment. Keeping geopolitics aside, merely from a principled POV, is it ethical to support a group that you know wants to impose medeival barbarisms on your neighbours?

From a selfish pakistani POV, there may be justification (and even on that I'm not sure). But I find it disturbing to see how so many pakistanis view those talibs as some heroic and invincible warriors, when they are neither heroic nor invincible. And, what is more relevant, the kind of society they imposed in the past.

Look, let me give you an analogy with Indians. Since pakistan is our number one enemy, many Indians may rejoice to see pakistan getting weakened by the TTP or BLA. (I'm not saying I do.) But do Indians really want anybody to live under the sort of society that the TTP wants to bring to pakistan? Hell, no - not even for our worst enemies.

And yet, there are many pakistanis who would like to (and expect to) see taliban ruling afgh again, and some even want that kind of a society in pak.

 

[anjaneyashruti]

No; that is not possible.
Uncle Santa's Bag is not big enough for all that and his Sleigh's Payload is restricted. Plus his neighborhood Walmart has limited inventory.

Oh well, Dhruv & Rudra need some more export customers anyway

Let ungle Samy jingle all the way.

 

[Kompromat]

@jannon

Its funny how Indians claim 'moral high ground' for N.Alliance's warlords. Not surprised, given your own moral compass.

 

[Hashshāshīn]

That's because Pakistan thinks that Afghanistan is Pakistan's own property, its protectorate, a State of Pakistan. So according to it, India has no business transferring any warlike equipment that may hurt Pakistani interests.

Secondly, it says they have requested for 82 mm mortars. We don't have any! What we have are 81mm mortars!

Funny because last I heard, Afghanistan is claiming Pakistani territory as its own.

 

[Jungibaaz]

They did.

Oh no they didn't.

Wow no, they didn't.

They routed and ousted the "invincible" talibs/mujahideens from power, and gave the country to a different regime.

Here's what actually happened, Early 2002: The US and allies were feeling quite pleased with themselves, ready to call it as a war 'mission accomplished', if you'd asked any of the pro-American military analysts, they would have said that withdrawal was in sight, possibly between 2003/4.

Then what happened?

Come 2003/4, renewed insurgency, the taliban rise from the dead. In one of the greatest military comebacks in modern history.

And last I checked a great deal of Afghan land is classified as 'Taliban controlled' or 'contested control'.

Sure, the talibs can keep waging a guerilla war - but that doesn't mean that they were not routed from power in the first place.

The war isn't over that's the point, so how can one claim mission accomplished?

And they aren't gone, they are still there, they lose land, they gain, they die and somehow they come back. But they're still there.

After all, the coalition of the greatest powers achieved what they came to do, which was to dislodge the talibs from power and install a favourable regime.

No that's the easy part.

Tell me, would you call the Soviet effort in Afghanistan through to the Najibullah era a success?

Well, sure they installed a government dislodged all their political opponents, but in the end, we know who actually won.

As to how long they will want to keep that regime in power, how long they will be interested, that is a good point, but my guess is that it will be for a long time. They have a lot invested there, to simply let taliban come to power again in 2014.

True, I don't claim that they wont have interests but look at the scenario, growing discontent in the West about our involvement in far away lands, economic decline, strategically Afghanistan is of 0 interests to the US or Western Europe that was true in 2001, true now.

On the other hand you have an enemy that withstood unimaginable odds, and now the lone ANA with substantial backing is set to take them on.

And do not think that the end game lies around the corner, the talibs are a stubborn enemy, unless you defeat them 100%, the problem and war will remain.

The new democratic regime is there to stay, unless voted out by the people - which is the way it should be. US special forces, well trained ANA and USA's global reach can ensure that the talibs will not do more than keep waging geurilla war.

Ye know the US armed forces, NATO, ISAF and to an extent the ANA's war doctrine follows?
It is not the same way we do things like in Swat op, there's involves a lack of will to take the fight beyond their controlled territories, I see no scenario in which they are willing to end it.

For what it's worth, I cannot see the ANA winning on the ground, either the taliban win or a political settlement is reached (which I can tell you is very difficult, the issues don't just go back to 2001, but far far back).

Doing hit and run attacks is one thing, but winning territory is another.

Well, take a look at it this way.

American objectives in Afghanistan were to rid the land of the taliban and al qaeda, Mr Bush insisted initially 'we do not negotiate with terrorists'. New government installed, I agree on that it was a success but with some kinks such as the prevalence of war lords and drug lords in government and not a representative government which has a strategic effect. But today, the taliban are still around, and the al qaeda went from a few hundred in Afghanistan to many hundreds globally and the most dangerous of all, they went from an isolated fringe ideology to being integrated with others eg the taliban, as a result you have more radicalised people, suicide bombings for example are a product of this fact.

Now notice the U turn, they are negotiating with the taliban, somewhat desperately, they are negotiating, Obama came to his senses, calling it a 'hearts and minds' conflict, though his actions couldn't be farther from it.

The taliban went from seemingly complete defeat, and objective of survival, owning tiny fractions of land, those too being contested to as I said above: One of the greatest military comebacks in modern history, they are thriving some places, they have taken much land.

So how can you call this war a success?

 

[janon]

@jannon

Its funny how Indians claim 'moral high ground' for N.Alliance's warlords. Not surprised, given your own moral compass.

I did not claim any high ground for any warlords, nor did I say anything about them. I only spoke about the taliban, and the sort of society and practices they followed when they were in power, and will bring back if they retain power.

It is the system I am talking about, not any fighters or warlords. As of now, afghanistan is a democracy - a flawed one no doubt, but one that can improve and people can have self governance, like all other civilized places. Under talib rule, there is not even a chance for that.

As of now, girls can go to school, and get jobs. They can d nothing of the sort under talib rule.

As of now, there is some freedom of information, especially with the internet. Under talibs they will have none of that.

As of now, there are no bearded babboons roaming the streets to flog anybody violating their moral code. Under the talib regime, that was a common sight.

As of now, afghan society has at least hope for progress. There will be none under talibs.

So understand this: I am not speaking for or about the fighters of the NA, I am talking about the kind of society that they have now, they had in the past, and they can have in future. It is the very system I am talking about, not individuals.

 

[Jungibaaz]

This is why in that post of mine that you quoted, I said specifically to keep geopolitics aside for a moment. Keeping geopolitics aside, merely from a principled POV, is it ethical to support a group that you know wants to impose medeival barbarisms on your neighbours?

From a selfish pakistani POV, there may be justification (and even on that I'm not sure). But I find it disturbing to see how so many pakistanis view those talibs as some heroic and invincible warriors, when they are neither heroic nor invincible. And, what is more relevant, the kind of society they imposed in the past.

Look, let me give you an analogy with Indians. Since pakistan is our number one enemy, many Indians may rejoice to see pakistan getting weakened by the TTP or BLA. (I'm not saying I do.) But do Indians really want anybody to live under the sort of society that the TTP wants to bring to pakistan? Hell, no - not even for our worst enemies.

And yet, there are many pakistanis who would like to (and expect to) see taliban ruling afgh again, and some even want that kind of a society in pak.

You cannot mix these complex matters into black or white, maybe read my reply again and understand the last part especially.

Know why it happens. And also realise that in some places you can draw parallels between us and you and in other places you can't.

You are misinformed,the afghan govt only collapsed after the russians stopped ammunition and fuel subsidies.Before that despite predictions of collapse immediately after soviet departure,it fought on well for 3 years,inflicting heavy defeats as in battle of jalalabad,they were still supported by the russians.Only when russians totally stopped any aid did govt collapse.
But most important of all,it was the afghan people that welcomed taliban back then,thinking these pious fellows will bring justice and order to a war torn country ruled by warlords and total chaos.
Now its different,afghans have seen the true face of taliban and comeback is unfeasible even without any external help.In any case USA not india will remain primary backer of afghanisthan,even though their troops are leaving.Advisors and airpower will remain.Meanwhile the nascent afghan airforce will be slowly growing up.

Exactly, my point, the previous case was propped up by a foreign power and so is this one.
It is not sustainable.

 

[janon]

Oh no they didn't.

Wow no, they didn't.



Here's what actually happened, Early 2002: The US and allies were feeling quite pleased with themselves, ready to call it as a war 'mission accomplished', if you'd asked any of the pro-American military analysts, they would have said that withdrawal was in sight, possibly between 2003/4.

Then what happened?

Come 2003/4, renewed insurgency, the taliban rise from the dead. In one of the greatest military comebacks in modern history.

And last I checked a great deal of Afghan land is classified as 'Taliban controlled' or 'contested control'.



The war isn't over that's the point, so how can one claim mission accomplished?

And they aren't gone, they are still there, they lose land, they gain, they die and somehow they come back. But they're still there.



No that's the easy part.

Tell me, would you call the Soviet effort in Afghanistan through to the Najibullah era a success?

Well, sure they installed a government dislodged all their political opponents, but in the end, we know who actually won.



True, I don't claim that they wont have interests but look at the scenario, growing discontent in the West about our involvement in far away lands, economic decline, strategically Afghanistan is of 0 interests to the US or Western Europe that was true in 2001, true now.

On the other hand you have an enemy that withstood unimaginable odds, and now the lone ANA with substantial backing is set to take them on.

And do not think that the end game lies around the corner, the talibs are a stubborn enemy, unless you defeat them 100%, the problem and war will remain.



Ye know the US armed forces, NATO, ISAF and to an extent the ANA's war doctrine follows?
It is not the same way we do things like in Swat op, there's involves a lack of will to take the fight beyond their controlled territories, I see no scenario in which they are willing to end it.

For what it's worth, I cannot see the ANA winning on the ground, either the taliban win or a political settlement is reached (which I can tell you is very difficult, the issues don't just go back to 2001, but far far back).



Well, take a look at it this way.

American objectives in Afghanistan were to rid the land of the taliban and al qaeda, Mr Bush insisted initially 'we do not negotiate with terrorists'. New government installed, I agree on that it was a success but with some kinks such as the prevalence of war lords and drug lords in government and not a representative government which has a strategic effect. But today, the taliban are still around, and the al qaeda went from a few hundred in Afghanistan to many hundreds globally and the most dangerous of all, they went from an isolated fringe ideology to being integrated with others eg the taliban, as a result you have more radicalised people, suicide bombings for example are a product of this fact.

Now notice the U turn, they are negotiating with the taliban, somewhat desperately, they are negotiating, Obama came to his senses, calling it a 'hearts and minds' conflict, though his actions couldn't be farther from it.

The taliban went from seemingly complete defeat, and objective of survival, owning tiny fractions of land, those too being contested to as I said above: One of the greatest military comebacks in modern history, they are thriving some places, they have taken much land.

So how can you call this war a success?

A lot of points that I disagree with, I'll reply soon - need to get something done.

One thing though - the USA's mission WRT al qaeda was to eliminate its capability to strike the US ever again. Which they did. 9/11 has not happened again, and the al qaeda network is impotent today, all their leaders were killed. On paper they may look bigger today, but that is because various jehadi groups assumed its name around the world, from yemen to pakistan - but none of them can touch the USA, like they bombed USS cole or the WTC. The groups that call themselves al qaida today would have existed anyway, just by different names.

If USA killed a potent group, but a hundred new ones with the same name spring up again, but none of them can touch the USA, who won?

 

[Kompromat]

@janon

Your country fed the 90's civil war and its going feed another. Please keep these good talk lectures to yourself as Afghanistan watchers know that the Afghan cocktail smells saffron.

 

[janon]

@janon

Your country fed the 90's civil war and its going feed another. Please keep these good talk lectures to yourself as Afghanistan watchers know that the Afghan cocktail smells saffron.

All right, this is not really a discussion. At least, not on a level that is fruitful. I take it that you have no response to my very valid point, that the talibs imposed an odious society, and that nobody should be cheering for that kind of a society.

If your only response is to bad mouth India and bring in saffron...Enjoy.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Great response! He actually totally forgot that his country is so much edged out this time and involved withing that it could hardly make any stance on Afghanistan - loads of crap will be coming like his sort from other Pakistani members too but the reality is far different. I am very glad that whatever they laughed, rejected, joked upon couple of years ago, today is buzzing the alarms in GHQ!

There is much more coming for Afghanistan in 2014 it's like a child passing from primary school to secondary; lets concentrate on developments between Afghanistan and India, hopefully we can secure our nations from the wrath of our bad wishers and enemies together.

Just to bring an objective perspective to the issue.
Pakistan crafted an Afghanistan Policy way back in the 1980-90s. Then has steadily persisted with it. Now the problem is; the guys who would be the foot-soldiers to carry out the policy on the ground and who were the crucial bed-rock components of execution of that Policy have changed; and have changed in some ways to an unrecognisable extent. Now that is the Smaller Picture.

Lets move on to the Bigger Picture: the world (notably the US whose predominance in world affairs is uncontestable) viewed Pakistan and its importance to Afghanistan and the region differently then and unrecognisably differently now. While other external players who dabbled in Afghan matters have changed their stance dramatically. The upshot of it is that Pakistan is now considered to be far less crucial to Afghan matters than before.

Pakistan has overlooked both the Smaller Picture and the Larger Picture while choosing to persist with a Policy that has run out of steam (or worth-while traction)

I have not even mentioned Afghan-Pakistan relationships or mutual views; since that can be touched upon better by our colleagues from Afghanistan like @Sher Malang etc.
But I do think that Afghanistan is more cognizant of its own interests than ever before. And if Afghanistan believes that its own interests will not be served by relations with India for instance; will simply not hesitate to sever them.
Believe me: we are now dealing with a more assertive Afghanistan which will not just become somebody's lackey just like that. Today; Afghanistan is different from the eras of Muhammad Daoud Khan, Babrak Karmal, Najibullah or Mullah Omar. Anybody who overlooks that will do so at their own peril.

Times really changed; all of us in the neighborhood will be wise to note that fact.

 

[SrNair]

Give them what they want.We must deepen India - Afghan relationship.Anyone in PDF has any idea what is the decision are going to taken by our indian government?.Please reply.

 

[jhungary]

Let me tell you what I think

Been in Afghanistan myself, I can tell you one thing, many people is misinformed

US enter war in Afghanistan not because anything they want to fix, but simply to pay deuce to one guy (OBL) US enter the war without any concern from Afghanistan and any surrounding country in mind.

Fact is, if US want Taliban gone and to achieve a stable Taliban, they would have another approach than what they did now. Which is simply push them back into Pakistan.

The sad but true truth is, afghani would accept Taliban to be back if that mean they would stop the sectarian violence. Same way they open the door to Taliban after the rusky gone

From what I see, whatever vibe the Afghanistan give out is a farce if you ask me. Now you see people come out and talk bad for Taliban because American is there. But what happen when they were gone? The country would go straigh back into sectarian violence.

Pakistan in this sense already say they will do nothing more than they already did to control Afghanistan (last time they got involved didn't do them any good.)

Unless you can find another country as strong as US to take the beam, you are guarantee to have a civil war 2.0 happening in Afghanistan, it will be of India interest not to get engage unless you think you can do a better job than the American.

Otherwise, you need to make sure you are betting on the right horse...as far as I see, the whole thing can go either way...

 

[Agent_47]

India shall give some Ajun for free to Afghanistan for test to see whether it works

Just like china give JF-17 to Pakistan rite?