What's new

Getting it Right in Afghanistan: Prospects for 2014

pakistani342

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
3,485
Reaction score
6
Country
United States
Location
United States
Excellent, commentary at the United States of Peace.

Panelists include:
  1. Ghost Wars author Steve Coll, former Afghan Ambassador
  2. Omar Samad, former advisor to the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
  3. Moeed Yusuf.

The first 13 minutes of so of the video are blank, please skip over them

 
Quick summary please.

What are they saying

It was quite the tour de force ... you had many heavyweights from the think thank community in the US.
I would set aside the 2 hours or so needed and watch it.
Moeed's analysis was extremely sophisticated - I knew he was well spoken but I think this was the first time
I realized how intelligent and articulate he is.

Moeed's main point's were:
1. That Pakistan thinks that a fragmented Afghan polity balanced between the Taliban, HIG, NA will be most beneficial because it will lead to a weak Afghan center. A Talibanized Afghanistan or an India leaning Afghanistan will be disastrous for Pakistan.
2. The thinking in Pakistan's strategic community has changed (strategic depth has been dispensed with) however the sought result by the new mode of thinking is the same as was of the old thinking -- a fragmented Afghan polity.

I was a bit disappointed by Ambassador Omar Samad, he was not his usual self.
In part he was gloomy and said he has never seen Political Kabul this depressed in recent times (he had just come back from Cabul)
Ambassador Omar Samad's main points were:
1. Karzai is fully in control of his faculties and is playing a complex and dangerous game.
2. He does not think Karzai is going to sign the BSA anytime soon.
3. He also emphasized HIG gaining prominence in the palace
4. Political Kabul was extremely tense and gloomy.

There were some hopeful notes but the overall prognosis was gloomy.

Afghans in the audience were very suspicious of Pakistan ... but we already know that ... quite a stupid point by one of them: India is winning in Afghanistan ... it felt as the chap was more concerned about India winning at Pakistan's expense as opposed to Afghanistan getting back on her feet ... but I guess we already knew that too.

The Afghans in the audience were also very negative on the prospects of Afghanistan -- they may not have used these words but their questions implied uncertainty of the future.

Another note: you may have noted that Afghans often get irked by Moeed - I've seen them complain why he was addressing Afghan issues - he's handled them with reasonable grace but from a defensive position. I think it would not hurt him to label stupidity as stupidity.
 
Last edited:
It was quite the tour de force ... you had many heavyweights from the think thank community in the US.
I would set aside the 2 hours or so needed and watch it.
Moeed's analysis was extremely sophisticated - I knew he was well spoken but I think this was the first time
I realized how intelligent and articulate he is.

Moeed's main point's were:
1. That Pakistan thinks that a fragmented Afghan polity balanced between the Taliban, HIG, NA will be most beneficial because it will lead to a weak Afghan center. A Talibanized Afghanistan or an India leaning Afghanistan will be disastrous for Pakistan.
2. The thinking in Pakistan's strategic community has changed (strategic depth has been dispensed with) however the sought result by the new mode of thinking is the same as was of the old thinking -- a fragmented Afghan polity.

I was a bit disappointed by Ambassador Omar Samad, he was not his usual self.
In part he was gloomy and said he has never seen Political Kabul this depressed in recent times (he had just come back from Cabul)
Ambassador Omar Samad's main points were:
1. Karzai is fully in control of his faculties and is playing a complex and dangerous game.
2. He does not think Karzai is going to sign the BSA anytime soon.
3. He also emphasized HIG gaining prominence in the palace
4. Political Kabul was extremely tense and gloomy.

There were some hopeful notes but the overall prognosis was gloomy.

Afghans in the audience were very suspicious of Pakistan ... but we already know that ... quite a stupid point by one of them: India is winning in Afghanistan ... it felt as the chap was more concerned about India winning at Pakistan's expense as opposed to Afghanistan getting back on her feet ... but I guess we already knew that too.

The Afghans in the audience were also very negative on the prospects of Afghanistan -- they may not have used these words but their questions implied uncertainty of the future.


Thanks for sharing.

So far it doesn't look like many heavyweights from the think thank community in the US are talking.

Reason!


They should be talking about the following topics instead of saying Pakistan this and India that.


1. Afghan army and its status from 2014 and 2020 (weapons needs, training, funding, and most importantly numbers)
2. Afghan economy now and near future (budget needs, and how will the needs be met via local and foreign sources)
3. Reconciliation between different Afghan regions.


That's what is really needed,.

Not some empty talk about others.

Thanks again for posting summary., Let me know if I missed something
 
Thanks for sharing.

So far it doesn't look like many heavyweights from the think thank community in the US are talking.

Reason!


They should be talking about the following topics instead of saying Pakistan this and India that.


1. Afghan army and its status from 2014 and 2020 (weapons needs, training, funding, and most importantly numbers)
2. Afghan economy now and near future (budget needs, and how will the needs be met via local and foreign sources)
3. Reconciliation between different Afghan regions.


That's what is really needed,.

Not some empty talk about others.

Thanks again for posting summary., Let me know if I missed something

No no, Andrew Wilder, Scott Smith and Steve Coll were all there and made good points - however I felt they like most Americans were just tired of Afghanistan.

Further, I might have misunderstood your prescription but I disagree. Afghanistan's problems are very deep - structural and systemic - the points you mention are important but if these items may simply not be addressable:

1. They talk about how the Afghan army has been unnaturally put up in a short time.
2. The economy, the proposed budgetary support is roughly what the Soviets gave to Najeeb, but he had a very developed state at his disposal - [and he was only able to hold onto main cities and road]
3. The Taliban have not shown any real signs that they are keen to negotiate.
4. They also noted that defeating the Taliban or the Haqqani Network is no longer a military goal.
5. They also noted that Pakistan has tactically outlasted everybody again.
 
5. They also noted that Pakistan has tactically outlasted everybody again.

50,000 dead, GHQ and air/naval basis destroyed, ISI offices bombed
Malalas shot in the head

I seriously doubt these eminent scholars know what they are saying.
 
50,000 dead, GHQ and air/naval basis destroyed, ISI offices bombed
Malalas shot in the head

I seriously doubt these eminent scholars know what they are saying.

Well to achieve their Strategic goals in WWII, the Soviets lost almost 9 million of their citizens, roughly 10% of their population.

I'm no Fauji historian but it seems 50,000 casualties and poor Malala getting shot by a misogynist Taliban was not really what I suspect the eminent scholars had in mind -- I'd highly encourage you to watch the video. Perhaps these eminent scholars' stature pales in comparison to yours - however they seemed to know orders of magnitudes more than me.
 
Well to achieve their Strategic goals in WWII, the Soviets lost almost 9 million of their citizens, roughly 10% of their population.

I'm no Fauji historian but it seems 50,000 casualties and poor Malala getting shot by a misogynist Taliban was not really what I suspect the eminent scholars had in mind -- I'd highly encourage you to watch the video. Perhaps these eminent scholars' stature pales in comparison to yours - however they seemed to know orders of magnitudes more than me.

Sorry no youtube in Pak
 
Moeed's analysis was extremely sophisticated - I knew he was well spoken but I think this was the first time
I realized how intelligent and articulate he is.

Moeed's main point's were:
1. That Pakistan thinks that a fragmented Afghan polity balanced between the Taliban, HIG, NA will be most beneficial because it will lead to a weak Afghan center. A Talibanized Afghanistan or an India leaning Afghanistan will be disastrous for Pakistan.
2. The thinking in Pakistan's strategic community has changed (strategic depth has been dispensed with) however the sought result by the new mode of thinking is the same as was of the old thinking -- a fragmented Afghan polity.
Whats your thoughts on Moeed describing Pakistan's concerns regarding India's intentions in Afghanistan as "paranoia or insecurity" or Pakistan's doctrine of using Afghanistan for strategic depth as " a big mistake" or Pakistan playing spoiler in Afghanistan peace process in the past?


Cole also mentions Pakistan was openly supporting Taliban politically, financially and logistically since atleast 1989.So much for Pakistani posters denying that(as ususal)
 
Last edited:
Whats your thoughts on Moeed describing Pakistan's concerns regarding India's intentions in Afghanistan as "paranoia or insecurity" or Pakistan's doctrine of using Afghanistan for strategic depth as " a big mistake" or Pakistan playing spoiler in Afghanistan peace process in the past?


Cole also mentions Pakistan was openly supporting Taliban politically, financially and logistically since atleast 1989.So much for Pakistani posters denying that(as ususal)


Is hamam main sub nangay hain

(there is not a single forking angel in this debate) including Indians.


So please go easy on topic.

Thank you
 
It was quite the tour de force ... you had many heavyweights from the think thank community in the US.
I would set aside the 2 hours or so needed and watch it.
Moeed's analysis was extremely sophisticated - I knew he was well spoken but I think this was the first time
I realized how intelligent and articulate he is.

Moeed's main point's were:
1. That Pakistan thinks that a fragmented Afghan polity balanced between the Taliban, HIG, NA will be most beneficial because it will lead to a weak Afghan center. A Talibanized Afghanistan or an India leaning Afghanistan will be disastrous for Pakistan.
2. The thinking in Pakistan's strategic community has changed (strategic depth has been dispensed with) however the sought result by the new mode of thinking is the same as was of the old thinking -- a fragmented Afghan polity.

I was a bit disappointed by Ambassador Omar Samad, he was not his usual self.
In part he was gloomy and said he has never seen Political Kabul this depressed in recent times (he had just come back from Cabul)
Ambassador Omar Samad's main points were:
1. Karzai is fully in control of his faculties and is playing a complex and dangerous game.
2. He does not think Karzai is going to sign the BSA anytime soon.
3. He also emphasized HIG gaining prominence in the palace
4. Political Kabul was extremely tense and gloomy.

There were some hopeful notes but the overall prognosis was gloomy.

Afghans in the audience were very suspicious of Pakistan ... but we already know that ... quite a stupid point by one of them: India is winning in Afghanistan ... it felt as the chap was more concerned about India winning at Pakistan's expense as opposed to Afghanistan getting back on her feet ... but I guess we already knew that too.

The Afghans in the audience were also very negative on the prospects of Afghanistan -- they may not have used these words but their questions implied uncertainty of the future.

Another note: you may have noted that Afghans often get irked by Moeed - I've seen them complain why he was addressing Afghan issues - he's handled them with reasonable grace but from a defensive position. I think it would not hurt him to label stupidity as stupidity.

thanks mate for the summary, really gave some perspective.....
 
Expecting Afghanistan to have functioning government is

like expecting New Orleans to have functioning police department during Hurricane Ketrina.

peace


p.s. watching the video
 
watched it.

not impressed.

like one of the topics though

That Pakistan has changed its ways.

The rest was just rehashing history



Afghanistan badly needs ELECTED state legislature like America or at least provincial assembly like Pakistan.

right now everything is concentrated in Kabul.

Elections means ZERO

As it just produces a king with votes instead of old kings without.
 
Whats your thoughts on Moeed describing Pakistan's concerns regarding India's intentions in Afghanistan as "paranoia or insecurity" or Pakistan's doctrine of using Afghanistan for strategic depth as " a big mistake" or Pakistan playing spoiler in Afghanistan peace process in the past?

Cole also mentions Pakistan was openly supporting Taliban politically, financially and logistically since atleast 1989.So much for Pakistani posters denying that(as ususal)

I think you may have missed the part where Moeed responds that no matter how you game it -- the playing out of history would have been more or less the same -- I personally tend to agree with his assessment (admittedly, my agreement does not add any weight to Moeed's assertion, I am a nobody, he's an authority on the subject).

I think most of the players have played their cards to hedge -- the structure of the Afghanistan / Pakistan problem would have resulted in more or less the outcomes that have played out -- not because Rawalpindi has great love (or has not) for the misogynist Taliban -- they in this round just happened to to be the least of the worst choices the gurnails thought they had available to them.

Pakistan has lost 50,000+ citizen to the Afghan mayhem, and sadly it seems the toll over the next decade is only set to climb -- however one should remember Afghanistan's antics have cost the lives of millions of Afghans (for a nation that even now only has a population of 30 million). The point is simply this: when crying foul over the 50,000 dead Pakistanis, what people fail to remember is the toll for Pakistan could have been may times that. As one of the commentators quipped, "not infrequently there are no good options" or something to that effect.

Now on to your "Pakistani as spoiler" comment -- You must remember (well a god-of-war certainly must):
1. It was not Pakistan that interfered in Afghanistan first -- it was Afghans starting from almost the founding of Pakistan.

2. It was not Pakistan that invited the Soviets to invade Afghanistan -- it was the Afghans.

3. It was not Pakistan that refused to honor the peace agreements between the Mujahadeen factions -- it was the Afghans

4. Until 2004 or so, there was no support for the Pakistani Taliban. Pakistani elites decided to hedge using the Taliban after what they saw was a hostile Afghanistan -- you may not remember the attitude of the Afghan elites towards Pakistan in 2002--2005 but I suspect most Pakistanis who track Afghanistan do -- Abdullah Abdullah, Amrullah Saleh, Hanif Atmar, Saikal's contempt and snubbing of Pakistan has few parallels. Their posture towards Pakistan, IMHO, deserves a chapter or two in Pakistani school textbooks so Pakistani children know what coin the Afghans paid the poor Pakistani people who hosted them for over 30 years. But I guess tarikh has few takers in Pakistan.

5. Pakistan does not want the Taliban to take over Afghanistan -- it will only spell disaster for Pakistan -- they want a fragmented polity in Afghanistan that will be weak and consumed by internal bickering -- this seems to be self fulfilling prophecy given the way things are headed.

6. Further, in case his divineness, the godofwar has forgotten what the Taliban think of Pakistan, I would like to refer him to Mullah Zaeef's autobiography "My life with the Taliban" -- he states: “Pakistanis can get milk even from a bull. They have two tongues in one mouth, and two faces on one head so they can speak everybody’s language; they use everybody, deceive everybody. They deceive the Arabs by using the name of Islam, they milk America in war against terrorism and they have been deceiving Pakistanis in the name of Kashmiris, but behind the curtain they have been betraying everyone". Taliban are no friends of Pakistan - there is no Afghan who is a friend of Pakistan (to their defense it seems there is no Afghan who is a friend of Afghanistan either -- lol)

I wonder if his divineness, the godofwar remembers that the Mujahadeen factions committed gross crimes against humanity -- rapes, mass killings, etc. -- The Norther Alliance that India supported grew out of these groups. One could argue that the Taliban's record on war crimes (minus the massacre of the Hazara people) was most times better than that of the Northern Alliance and that they brought some semblance of peace and admittedly a backward 7th century order to Afghanistan.

Even thought all regional hands are dirty where Afghanistan is concerned, The principal tormenters of Afghanistan are Afghans.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom