Has Pak. been sidelined by the Indo-Afgh. Strategic Agreement?

[Vinod2070]

No It can't. Not on the whole country. How much of Afghanistan is under control of ANA? Less than 30%. And compare it to that of Taliban rule and you'll have your answer.

Taliban controlled 95% of the country but it control by fear and murder. They indulged in genocide of ethnic minorities like the hazaras etc.

The percentage itself doesn't matter much. Taliban was not a popular government, it was a militia. Same as AN was a militia. Taliban got more external support at a critical time and that helped it make gains. It was also repulsed as quickly.

And what available info is that exactly apart from the word of Karzai regime? Like I said, Pakistan or ISI cannot impose any govt. on any country. You are giving them too much of credit.

Available info about liking for India and Indian cultural products? That doesn't come from Karzai government (which GOP recognizes along with 200 other countries as someone mentioned here).

ISI can't impose a government. I agree.

It just took advantage of a certain situation of civil war and made the crucial difference at that time. In normal times it can't do it.

Remember 70% of Afghanistan is still under Taliban control according to Nato. You and I both know that no insurgency can go on for that long without local support. So how would you explain this?

Yes, there has to be local support as well. The external sanctuaries are definitely helpful though and can make the crucial difference.

No I was referring to the latest accusations of US that Haqqani network (and by extension, Taliban) is supported by Pakistan.

two different things. Pakistan supporting Haqqanis or Taliban is one thing, Afghans supporting Pakistan is another.

 

[karan.1970]

So in essence, the only thing that has changed is that 'appearances are not being kept anymore with respect to Pakistani sensitivities'.

And yes, 'appearances' are indeed 'no skin off of the back of policy makers', since it is actual policy that counts, not rhetoric or appearances.

So allow me to paraphrase your comment, 'if Indians are happy viewing a shift in appearances as meaningful change, despite almost no tangible change in policy on the ground, then more power to you ...'

Let me repeat what I said since your paraphrasing is as off mark as Pakistani diplomacy is in Afghanistan

"Simply that something that began as sensitivities to Pakistan's security interests is no longer being kept up as even appearances"

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 PM ----------

Nopes its not a dream. Do you believe once US leaves and negotiate with Taliban, they are gonna mend their ways?

Absolutely not.. But your statement has a big ONCE, where I think an IF would fit in better..And the answer to that IF is NO

You didn't get my point. And by the way Pentagon is searching for a scapegoat for bringing American economy where it is.

Didnt see that in their daily briefings.. That is they looking for a scrape goat..

 

[Rafael]

Taliban controlled 95% of the country but it control by fear and murder. They indulged in genocide of ethnic minorities like the hazaras etc.

The percentage itself doesn't matter much. Taliban was not a popular government, it was a militia. Same as AN was a militia. Taliban got more external support at a critical time and that helped it make gains. It was also repulsed as quickly.

You are contradicting yourself here. On one hand you agree that they controlled 95% of the country and on the other you believe they were nothing more then a militia. No country with the population of over 30 million can be governed by rag tag militia no matter how much support they get from other countries.

Available info about liking for India and Indian cultural products? That doesn't come from Karzai government (which GOP recognizes along with 200 other countries as someone mentioned here).

You didn't answer my question here. I repeat what available info do you have that majority in Afghanistan support India and Nato.

ISI can't impose a government. I agree.

It just took advantage of a certain situation of civil war and made the crucial difference at that time. In normal times it can't do it.

Yes, there has to be local support as well. The external sanctuaries are definitely helpful though and can make the crucial difference.

It was more internal and less external support. Glad that we agree.

two different things. Pakistan supporting Haqqanis or Taliban is one thing, Afghans supporting Pakistan is another.

Aren't Haqqanis/Taliban Afghans?. To me its one and the same thing. Pakistan is supporting Haqqanis/Taliban (according to US) for a reason.

 

[Rafael]

Absolutely not.. But your statement has a big ONCE, where I think an IF would fit in better..And the answer to that IF is NO

Well atleast their official policy to date is in accordance with my statement. Remember pull out starting from 2014? Don't tell mw you know more then Pentagon about their own policies.

Didnt see that in their daily briefings.. That is they looking for a scrape goat..

As If they are gonna admit it. :=)

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Let me repeat what I said since your paraphrasing is as off mark as Pakistani diplomacy is in Afghanistan

"Simply that something that began as sensitivities to Pakistan's security interests is no longer being kept up as even appearances"

Let me repeat my point which you keep glossing over, or perhaps just do not understand - whether Afghanistan keeps up 'appearances' or not makes no difference so long as its policies do not change.

And in terms of policy, until Indian forces step into a large training role on Afghan soil with the resulting military bases in Afghanistan to support that 'increased training role', the 'strategic agreement' means nothing.

 

[karan.1970]

Well atleast their official policy to date is in accordance with my statement. Remember pull out starting from 2014? Don't tell mw you know more then Pentagon about their own policies.

wasnt that supposed to 2011 earlier.. And didnt i see a news item today that had the general incharge of Afg Ops that next 10 years probably wont see a troop withdrawl..??

---------- Post added at 09:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 PM ----------

Let me repeat my point which you keep glossing over, or perhaps just do not understand - whether Afghanistan keeps up 'appearances' or not makes no difference so long as its policies do not change.

And in terms of policy, until Indian forces step into a large training role on Afghan soil with the resulting military bases in Afghanistan to support that 'increased training role', the 'strategic agreement' means nothing.

who says that these were appearances when they began??

 

[Vinod2070]

You are contradicting yourself here. On one hand you agree that they controlled 95% of the country and on the other you believe they were nothing more then a militia. No country with the population of over 30 million can be governed by rag tag militia no matter how much support they get from other countries.

But the Taliban were not exactly governing!

They were controlling like they supposedly control 70% Afghanistan now. That doesn't mean they are running schools and dispensaries. It just means they are blowing up schools and market places like they used to whip women on their behinds and massacre minorities then.

And yes, a band of 50000-60000 motivated and armed killers and psychopaths can do it in a country like Afghanistan. They were the most organized force in Afghanistan at that time and they were being supported by PA officials who helped in some of the initial fights that built their momentum.

You didn't answer my question here. I repeat what available info do you have that majority in Afghanistan support India and Nato.

We are talking two different things here. You said Afghans hated India "more". From whatever I read and see, they love our culture and have no issues with India. They are grateful for all the help that we are providing them.

I don't care for what they think of NATO.

It was more internal and less external support. Glad that we agree.

The external support made the crucial difference.

Aren't Haqqanis/Taliban Afghans?. To me its one and the same thing. Pakistan is supporting Haqqanis/Taliban (according to US) for a reason.

I am talking of average Afghans.

 

[lem34]

Let me repeat my point which you keep glossing over, or perhaps just do not understand - whether Afghanistan keeps up 'appearances' or not makes no difference so long as its policies do not change.

And in terms of policy, until Indian forces step into a large training role on Afghan soil with the resulting military bases in Afghanistan to support that 'increased training role', the 'strategic agreement' means nothing.

If it happens I look forward to seeing what afghanis will do to indians. Where russians and americans have failed Indians....

 

[Vinod2070]

If it happens I look forward to seeing what afghanis will do to indians. Where russians and americans have failed Indians....

You are going to wait a very long wait.

India is not about to send soldiers to control the Afghans. Our plans are much smaller in scale. We just help them avoid being a "strategic depth" and a terror heaven.

That doesn't need boots on the ground.

PS: In your eagerness to "look forward to seeing" "what afghanis will do to indians", have you given a though to what happens to the "afghanis"?

Whatever may have happened to the Russians or the Americans was a negligibly small fraction of what happened to the Afghans. A million plus Afghans were killed against 10000 Russians then and less than a thousand Americans against a much bigger number of Afghans now.

But of course, for you guys Afghan lives are cheap enough and well worth the price for the "thrills".

 

[Emmie]

Gilani plays down India-Afghan strategic partnership

From Rezaul H Laskar
Islamabad, Oct 5 (PTI) Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani today sought to play down the strategic partnership agreement signed by India and Afghanistan, saying he did not think it would have any adverse impact on Pakistan.

"Both (India and Afghanistan) are sovereign countries, they have the right to do whatever they want to," Gilani said during an interaction with journalists on the sidelines of an official function this evening.

He was responding to a question on the agreement signed by the two countries yesterday.

Asked specifically if the agreement inked during Afghan President Hamid Karzai''s visit to New Delhi would have any adverse effect on Pakistan, Gilani replied: "No, I don''t think so. We are all in the same region and...we want to work together for peace and prosperity in the region. I think we should work together."
Responding to another question on whether the reconciliation process with the Taliban in Afghanistan was now dead, Gilani said: "Karzai said something else with me. In my view, he is of the view that there should be a meeting between me and him very soon."
He did not give details.

The strategic partnership agreement, especially a provision on India training and equipping the Afghan armed forces, has been viewed with concern by some Pakistani security analysts.

Pakistan has for long said that it will back an Afghan-led process for peace and reconciliation in the war-torn country.

Gilani plays down India-Afghan strategic partnership -  

 

[HAIDER]

Karazi actually act like little baby, when Pak govt stop paying attention after weeks of rhetoric , he went to India. Wonder why Manmohan Singh was lauhing when he was talking. He got lolly pop and happily came back.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Karzai strikes softer tone on Pakistan | Newspaper | DAWN.COM


Stupid fag puppet.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

who says that these were appearances when they began??

Because the policies themselves never changed ...

 

[Seaman]

Karazi actually act like little baby, when Pak govt stop paying attention after weeks of rhetoric , he went to India. Wonder why Manmohan Singh was lauhing when he was talking. He got lolly pop and happily came back.

by the way what is lauhing?

 

[Bapu]

No worries brothers, this strategic alliance means nothing.

It's only a matter of time when Hindu Kush in Afghanistan will be kushing Hindus again.

Just wait and watch.