What's new

Ahmed Rashid: "A real meltdown".

The following conversation with Rashid is actually quite interesting and he offers a, IMO, balanced approach towards resolving the problems in the region, and is critical of both the US and Pakistani policies in the region so far.

Some key points from the video:

1. There needs to be a political settlement in Afghanistan and power sharing between the Afghan Taliban and other groups

2. The US needs to speed up the process of talks and develop the will to make some concessions and reduce military operations on its side in exchange for reduced violence from the Taliban

3. The US approach so far has been fragmented, confused and short term

4. The Afghan and Pakistani Taliban are distinct and separate entities, with the PT enhancing links with AQ and associated groups, while the AT are distancing themselves from AQ

5. The PT derive their influence and raison d etre from the US presence in Afghanistan, and a political settlement in Afghanistan with the Taliban would go a long way in undermining the Pakistani Taliban

U.S. Foreign Policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Date: March 19, 2012 from 7:30 PM to 8:30 PM
Location: The Italian Academy, 1161 Amsterdam Avenue
This World Leaders Forum program, titled "U.S. Foreign Policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan," will feature a conversation between Ahmed Rashid, Pakistani journalist and author, and Steve Coll, staff writer for The New Yorker and President, New America Foundation, followed by a question and answer session with the audience. Opening remarks will be made by Bill Grueskin, Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor of Professional Practice, Columbia School of Journalism.


U.S. Foreign Policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan | Columbia University World Leaders Forum

World Leaders Forum: U.S. Foreign Policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan - YouTube

This discussion is very haphazard, & all over the place. They touch a wide range of issues, without really deeply analyzing any one of them. A disappointing event. At the end of the day, Ahmed Rashid rehashed some of his old conspiracy theories & baseless claims (like the lack of economic growth in the Musharraf era), & did not provide any new insight.

Ahmed Rashid underestimates the Pakistani military, & the support it has within Pakistan even today. He seems to overplay the role of the civilian society as a counterweight to the Pakistan security establishment (military, ISI). His views also cater the Western audience, & the Pakistani liberal elites (not the masses of Pakistan or Afghanistan). His failure to interpret the WOT & conditions in Pakistan is because of his assumption that the US's intentions in Afghanistan are noble (just like his implication that a war with Iran would undermine all the 'positive work' done by the US, by restoring 'democracy' in the Middle East through the Arab Spring), & failure to understand what the US wants out of Afghanistan. The policy of the US in Afghanistan was always a military one, not an economic one. The US has from the beginning, tried to military root out the Taliban. When they have failed to do that, they are scampering back to hold onto whatever military gains they have (which they will try to do by having permanent bases there). The US has clearly failed to influence itself in Afghanistan, & the only way to have a presence there is by having permanent military bases there.

To summarize, Pakistan is successfully coming out from the WOT, severely weakening the TTP (even if it comes at a hefty price). The US has failed to do that in Afghanistan. This is the crux of the argument.
 
I didn't bother reading beyond the names Ahmed Rashid and Bruce Reidel.

Without reading a single word of the article, let me predict the main thesis:

Pak army/ISI are covertly controlling the country and are supporting Islamist extremists against India and NATO.

Precisely.

Known state 1: Islamophobia (which by definition includes Pakistanphobia).

The other most common known state:

Known state 2: Indiaphobia

Of course that these both esteemed names are far more credible and in the know of things than almost anyone on this forum is supposed to be besides the point?

What a level of discourse!
 
This discussion is very haphazard, & all over the place. They touch a wide range of issues, without really deeply analyzing any one of them. A disappointing event. At the end of the day, Ahmed Rashid rehashed some of his old conspiracy theories & baseless claims (like the lack of economic growth in the Musharraf era), & did not provide any new insight.

Ahmed Rashid underestimates the Pakistani military, & the support it has within Pakistan even today. He seems to overplay the role of the civilian society as a counterweight to the Pakistan security establishment (military, ISI). His views also cater the Western audience, & the Pakistani liberal elites (not the masses of Pakistan or Afghanistan). His failure to interpret the WOT & conditions in Pakistan is because of his assumption that the US's intentions in Afghanistan are noble (just like his implication that a war with Iran would undermine all the 'positive work' done by the US, by restoring 'democracy' in the Middle East through the Arab Spring), & failure to understand what the US wants out of Afghanistan.

Mostly whining!

The policy of the US in Afghanistan was always a military one, not an economic one. The US has from the beginning, tried to military root out the Taliban. When they have failed to do that, they are scampering back to hold onto whatever military gains they have (which they will try to do by having permanent bases there). The US has clearly failed to influence itself in Afghanistan, & the only way to have a presence there is by having permanent military bases there.

They have achieved their primary goal of dislodging AQ and rooting our the openly terror supporting Taliban.

Anything else was at best a secondary goal, if ever they were even serious about that.

To summarize, Pakistan is successfully coming out from the WOT, severely weakening the TTP (even if it comes at a hefty price). The US has failed to do that in Afghanistan. This is the crux of the argument.

Good for you.
 
They have achieved their primary goal of dislodging AQ and rooting our the openly terror supporting Taliban.

The primarily goal was destroying the Al-Qaeda & the group that gave it support: the Taliban. They have failed to do that. Their other goal was to keep the Taliban out of power, but today they are the ones that are desperate to leave, & want to negotiate a power sharing deal with the Taliban; whereas the Taliban are shunning talks. The Taliban certainly have the momentum, as most of the country is under their control.
 
The primarily goal was destroying the Al-Qaeda

Well OBL is in hell and AQ can't mount a serious operation in the West. It is a broken organization for now.

it's not going to raise it's head in a hurry as there is no state sponsor now.

& the group that gave it support: the Taliban. They have failed to do that. Their other goal was to keep the Taliban out of power, but today they are the ones that are desperate to leave, & want to negotiate a power sharing deal with the Taliban; whereas the Taliban are shunning talks. The Taliban certainly have the momentum, as most of the country is under their control.

Taliban was at best a secondary target. As long as they kill only other Afghans, USA can live with that.

Actually Taliban momentum should be a worry for you. Guess who is the next target for the Taliban ideology if Afghanistan ever falls to them?
 
Well OBL is in hell and AQ can't mount a serious operation in the West. It is a broken organization for now.

it's not going to raise it's head in a hurry as there is no state sponsor now.



Taliban was at best a secondary target. As long as they kill only other Afghans, USA can live with that.

As long as the Taliban host other international militant groups, they are a trouble for the US. And they continue to do that. Which is why the Taliban was never a secondary target, but the primary one.

Al-Qaeda was always weak inside Afghanistan (even pre-9/11), which is why the 9/11 attacks were organized & planned inside the US & Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. They were under the custody of the Taliban because they were weak, residing in a foreign land being protected by the hosts. The Taliban were ready to hand over OBL pre & post 9/11, all the US had to do was provide proof of his complicity in terrorism, & they did not do that. All of this mess could have been avoided from Day 1 (10 years of losses socioeconomic, political losses for the US & the world) if they had done that, but they thought they could win militarily in Afghanistan, & maintain a permanent presence there. They failed to do that.

Actually Taliban momentum should be a worry for you. Guess who is the next target for the Taliban ideology if Afghanistan ever falls to them?

The Taliban are the Afghan people. The Taliban consider themselves a Pashtun nationalist resistance movement. Their agenda is for Afghanistan & Afghanistan only, not Pakistan nor Iran. Which is why the Afghan Taliban have never been responsible for violence inside Pakistan. They do not have an international agenda, & are focused on Afghanistan & Afghanistan only, their home country.

The threat Pakistan faces from ideologically is the TTP, & at the end of the day, Pakistan is successfully coming out from the WOT, severely weakening the TTP (even if it comes at a hefty price). The US has failed to do that in Afghanistan. This is the crux of the argument.
 
As long as the Taliban host other international militant groups, they are a trouble for the US. And they continue to do that. Which is why the Taliban was never a secondary target, but the primary one.

Which international terrorists are they hosting now?

Their leadership is being hosted as of now in Queta and FATA!

Al-Qaeda was always weak inside Afghanistan (even pre-9/11), which is why the 9/11 attacks were organized & planned inside the US & Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. They were under the custody of the Taliban because they were weak, residing in a foreign land being protected by the hosts. The Taliban were ready to hand over OBL pre & post 9/11, all the US had to do was provide proof of his complicity in terrorism, & they did not do that. All of this mess could have been avoided from Day 1 (10 years of losses socioeconomic, political losses for the US & the world) if they had done that, but they thought they could win militarily in Afghanistan, & maintain a permanent presence there. They failed to do that.

They overestimated their hand. You have to read what Musharraf has written about them.

The impact of 9/11 was lost on Mullah Omar and the Taliban. "It was God's punishment for the injustices against Muslims," Mullah Omar said. God was on their side and Osama bin Laden was a superman. Thus, negotiating with Mullah Omar was more difficult than one can imagine. It was like banging one's head against a wall. We have two entirely opposite worldviews. Whereas I believe that one must exhaust every avenue to avoid war and the death and destruction it entails, Omar thinks that death and destruction are inconsequential details in a just war.

The Taliban are the Afghan people. The Taliban consider themselves a Pashtun nationalist resistance movement. Their agenda is for Afghanistan & Afghanistan only, not Pakistan nor Iran. Which is why the Afghan Taliban have never been responsible for violence inside Pakistan. They do not have an international agenda, & are focused on Afghanistan & Afghanistan only, their home country.

Pashtuns on both sides of Durand are the same people and Pushtun nationalism is not good for Pakistan at all.

If Pushtuns West of Durand fall to the Taliban ideology, you can be sure what will happen next.

The threat Pakistan faces from ideologically is the TTP, & at the end of the day, Pakistan is successfully coming out from the WOT, severely weakening the TTP (even if it comes at a hefty price). The US has failed to do that in Afghanistan. This is the crux of the argument.

It is upto you what "crux of argument" you choose.

USA can walk away from the region. They have achieved their most important aims.

I am glad you are so looking forward to the return of Afghan Taliban. Hope they meet your expectations. ;)
 
Which international terrorists are they hosting now?

The IMU, ETIM & various other ones in Northern Afghanistan. Just a few days ago, the IMU struck in North Western Afghanistan, facilitated by the Taliban.

Pashtuns on both sides of Durand are the same people and Pushtun nationalism is not good for Pakistan at all.

There is no separatist movement in KPK or FATA. The Pakistani Pashtuns are happy to be with Pakistan.

If Pushtuns West of Durand fall to the Taliban ideology, you can be sure what will happen next.

The threat of the ideology comes from the TTP, the Afghan Taliban has not attacked Pakistan, ideologically & otherwise.
 
The IMU, ETIM & various other ones in Northern Afghanistan. Just a few days ago, the IMU struck in North Western Afghanistan, facilitated by the Taliban.

Don't know much of them and that probably means they are not important to the wider world still

There is no separatist movement in KPK or FATA. The Pakistani Pashtuns are happy to be with Pakistan.

The threat of the ideology comes from the TTP, the Afghan Taliban has not attacked Pakistan, ideologically & otherwise.

Things may change pretty quick if and when the Pushtun nationalist Taliban is back in power.

In fact, one can almost guess this would be the next logical step once they have subdued Afghanistan (or broken it along ethnic lines).
 
Pakistan on the Brink: The Future of America, Pakistan and Afghanistan by Ahmed Rashid

Reviewed by Brian M Downing

With the United States ensnarled in the Afghan insurgency and Pakistan headed toward implosion, AfPak and the countries around it are in crisis.

Renowned journalist Ahmed Rashid offers a series of essays drawn from his connections to figures in the state, army, and insurgent groups which succinctly and engagingly analyze the regional troubles. His insights are remarkable, his candor and courage all the more so. As he notes more than once, the Pakistani army has been known to treat roughly, or even kill, turbulent journalists - including in all likelihood Asia Times Online Pakistan bureau chief Syed Saleem Shahzad last May.

Pakistani political and military elites, he argues, have failed their country in four interrelated regards. First, they have failed to build a national identity embracing the Pashtun, Punjabi, Sindhi, and Baloch ethnic groups. The military has instead only built an identity based on opposition to India, while militants have recently begun building an Islamist one.

Second, elites have fixated on national security and allocated exorbitant funds upon the military at the expense of education, healthcare, and infrastructure - a predilection that civilian leaders dare not challenge. Third, elites have encouraged or at least tolerated jihadi groups that strike targets in the region and occasionally turn on Pakistan as well.

Fourth, elites have allowed the country to fragment along ethnic lines. Punjabis are over-represented in the army and state to the resentment of other peoples. The Balochs have begun their fifth insurgency and many Pashtun tribes are at war with the government.

With its politicians drawn from corrupt family dynasties and its generals obsessed with their immense budgets, the country has failed to develop politically or economically. While India and other countries in the region have won places in the global market, Pakistan's belligerent policies in Afghanistan and Kashmir have cut the country off from commerce with Central Asia and India. Much of its industry remains state-owned and uncompetitive. The two foes could have benefited from trade. Instead, India has developed exports in manufactured goods and technology; Pakistan is still selling rice and cotton.


Rashid has long argued that the army supports the Afghan Taliban and he makes his strongest case here. Though nominally supportive of US/International Security Assistance Forces efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan's then ruler General Pervez Musharraf was dismayed by the Pashtun Taliban's ouster in late 2001 and the attendant rise of northern peoples tied to India. Musharraf was certain that India and its northern allies would seek to destabilize Pakistan's Pashtun and Baloch borderlands, endangering Pakistan's territorial integrity.

Musharraf reasoned that the US would soon tire of Afghanistan, all the more so once it had invaded Iraq (2003) and a bitter insurgency soon developed. Better to back the Taliban and guide them back to power. Pakistani intelligence (Inter-Services Intelligence - ISI) helped secure funding for the Taliban from wealthy Gulf donors and built camps for their fighters in northern Balochistan, not far from Quetta where Taliban leaders were safely ensconced.

Rashid is also sharply critical of the US, especially of President Barack Obama whom he sees as even less interested in AfPak than his predecessor. George W Bush, Rashid rather puzzlingly insists, showed considerable interest in Afghanistan; Obama handed off AfPak to others, especially the military, where artfulness in political development and diplomacy is limited and where reliance on force is not. Whether Afghanistan's lack of priority is true of the new administration as a whole or just the president, who after all faces pressing economic problems, is unclear - probably deliberately so.

The new administration began with high hopes of negotiating a broad regional settlement, including the decades-long conflict over Kashmir. But when India objected to linking Kashmir to the war in Afghanistan, the Obama administration backed down. This fueled a new wave of conspiratorial speculation inside Pakistan: Indians had become the Israelis of the region, lavished upon by gullible Americans, and Pakistanis were becoming the Palestinians of South Asia, innocent victims of foreign lobbies and nefarious intrigues.


Rashid argues that it was a bad idea for the US to insist on elections in Afghanistan back in 2009. As much as this goes against the faith in democratic processes, he makes strong points. The Afghan parliament was essentially functionless, the parties were weak and not well known, and the public was more attached to well established patronage networks than to newly-minted political processes.

United States pressure for candidates to run against President Hamid Karzai convinced him that Washington was determined to unseat him. He responded by rigging the election with the help of warlords, drug racketeers, and a legion of corrupt officials who wished to retain their jobs. Owing to the strength of the insurgency in the south, the Pashtun vote was low and the non-Pashtun northerners enjoyed disproportionate success, which had the adverse consequence of strengthening ethnic mistrust.

Rashid looks at attempts at counterinsurgency in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Although a Pakistani army study in 2000 saw serious internal dangers, the generals refused to reorient from conventional warfare with India to counterinsurgency efforts toward internal groups.

A few years later, the US pressed Pakistan to retrain two divisions (about 45,000 troops) of its 29 divisions to conduct counter-insurgency campaigns in Pashtun tribal regions against the Taliban. The army, however, refused, citing the need to defend against an Indian invasion, which of course is highly unlikely now that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

The US was only able to retrain Frontier Corps units - Pashtun tribal units that stretch along the Durand Line. This proved short-lived as the special forces advisers were ordered out of the country after the US raid on Osama bin Laden's home near an army compound in Pakistan in May of 2011.

The US was able to persuade the army to go after militant groups in the tribal areas of South Waziristan, but the operations did not use counterinsurgency techniques. They relied instead on heavy firepower, which caused large numbers of civilian casualties and turned more locals against them.

To the north in Afghanistan, American counter-insurgency efforts have not brought appreciable success. There is little economic activity unrelated to the war or foreign doles. The enclaves carved out of former Taliban areas aren't secure and locals are reluctant to cooperate with the US or Kabul officials. Indigenous military units are not effective.

The army and police have high desertion rates and exhibit no fighting spirit. General David Petraeus pressed hard for building up local militias and won, despite Karzai's opposition to what he thought would become more warlord bands. Thus far, these militias have accomplished nothing as they are viewed with suspicion by locals.

Karzai's state remains both corrupt and inept. Ten years after the Taliban's ouster, many districts do not have a government court. Taliban courts have established themselves there.

Rashid sees the Taliban leadership as war-weary, perhaps even more so than their opponents. It was the Taliban, after all, who approached the US for peace talks. ISI, however, opposes peace until its regional agenda on India and Kashmir is guaranteed to be a central part of negotiations. Last year, ISI arrested the Taliban's second in command, Mullah Baradar, as he was embarking on peace talks that the generals had not approved.

As a result of at least somewhat diverging interests with the Taliban, the generals may be placing more emphasis on the Haqqani network, an insurgent group which is only partially integrated into the Taliban and which has been close to ISI since the old days of the Soviet war. The Haqqanis are thought responsible for most of the assassinations, suicide bombings, and terrorist strikes into major cities - including the coordinated attacks in Kabul and other cities last week. (As an insurgent offensive has recently begun, it will be interesting to see if the Taliban send signals through relative inaction in the south, contrasting with Haqqani boldness in the east.)

The Taliban's war-weariness and their disagreements with ISI offer some prospects for negotiations in the near term. Rashid suggests that the Taliban and the US negotiate a confidence-building arrangement whereby the US foregoes the night raids on Taliban commanders and the Taliban forego the assassinations of government officials. In this respect, Rashid offers some hope in his bleak yet compelling account of the region.

Pakistan on the Brink: The Future of America, Pakistan and Afghanistan by Ahmed Rashid. (New York: Viking, 2012). ISBN-10: 0670023469. Price US$26.95, 256 pages.


Asia Times Online :: Anti-India agenda costs Pakistan dearly
 
What a load of lies...This Anti India attitude had done wonders for Pakistan...
 
What a load of lies...This Anti India attitude had done wonders for Pakistan...

The truth is always somewhat in the middle.

Being aware of Indian intentions and cautious of them is not all bad.
but those misadventures spawned due to such perceptions have been horrible.
 
india started nuke race not us, india is the biggest arm importer, now who is the lesser of two evils??

surly shining bharath
 
In short, it is the military's fault that there is no healthcare, no education, no electricity, total failure of law and order, and absolutely no governance. Well done Ahmad sahib.

It would be very wrong to say that the politicians have a hand in this!!!
 
I guess most of the posters will enjoy this verse:

-- Dono taraf hai aag braaber lagi hui

translation:
-- Both sides "love" each other "to death".

or perhaps

-- It takes 2 to tango.

Anyone accusing Pakistan for anti-India must realize that India is much much much larger than Pakistan in every respect.

And Pakistanis fully realize it.

so if someone says "Pakistan has anti-India agenda"

must realize that

" India has anti-Pakistan agenda as well.

So to my beloved Indian posters, my cousins from across the border, I have one request. Please take an honest look on India's behavior in the last 60+ years towards Pakistan while we do the same from Pak side.

Thank you and peace to you all.


p.s. Ahmad Rasheed is no Divine prophet. Anyone who follows him closely knows that he is a rabid "anarchist and leftist.

He hates Pakistan's pro-US prolicies for the last 60 years. And he hates USA almost at the level other anarchists like Castro, Chavez, Ahmadenejat etc. etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom