Partitioning of Afghanistan and the creation of Pashtunistan: Ex-US War Adviser

[53fd]

This will result in total anarchy in the whole region, affecting both South Asia & Central Asia.

A Pashtun state cannot just be carved out of Afghanistan by dividing the Pashtun majority areas), Afghanistan is an extremely diverse country. Refer to this map:

While there is little Al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan, there are a lot of Al-Qaeda affiliated groups currently residing in Afghanistan. Like the IMU, ETIM & others. There are few Al-Qaeda left in Pakistan as well, & most of them have shifted to the Middle East (AQAP) & North Africa (AQIM, Al-Shabaab). The Afghan Taliban are the ones fighting the US Forces in Afghanistan.

No one in their right mind in KPK or FATA would want to join Afghanistan's Pashtun population. As the recent FATA operations have proved, the people of the FATA fully back the Pakistan government against the Afghan terrorists.

 

[jayron]

I don't know how that will solve the US goal of not letting Taliban harbour terrorists. What if they protect another Osama in Pashtunistan?

 

[muse]

In memorial -- just a guess, but I think more than one party will be singing this song, of a memory:

 

[yousaf goebbels]

this old man should send his children to afghanistan to facilitate the partition of afghanistan.

 

[happycanuck]

The Uzbek and the Hazaras wont have it at any cost..
plus our dealings with Afghanistan have bought us nothing but devastation and destruction.. and our establishment in its foolish need for strategic depth has literally destroyed the very foundations this country was built on.
Maybe if they had tried Iran instead of Afghanistan for strategic depth it would have been better.. and had thought of using the VAST area of Balochistan as strategic depth.. inducing development there so that by now there would be a vast network of roads and rail in Baluchistan.. multiple cities and garrisons.. you have all the strategic depth you need.
Even if a large swath of Punjab was lost to an onslaught.. there would have been a large area to regroup in.. and Id be damned if any Indian ever made it past the attock bridge alive.. they would be slaughtered in the terrain.. it doesn't favor Invading armies.
Yet..we are blessed with plentiful idiots in our nations.. and somehow its always the idiots taking the decisions at every level.

Instead of doing the deal with the devil in Baluchistan and keeping quiet early on with the Sardar's.. we could have now had a very developed section in that area..

Here is Santro with a vision for Pakistan. I agree with your views and hope you can find a leader of your fortitude. One who can see the wrongs and rights as well tell it as it is with a straight face.

Thank you .

 

[Al Bhatti]

Pakistani governments, leaders, politicians and the people (i am referring to people also as they are the ones who keep electing the same faces again and again) are not able to run Pakistan let alone if new area is added to Pakistani territory.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Santro, the Balochistan thing you brought up was very appropriate; a good way to look at it.

yes there has been short-sightedness. In my humble opinion, "good relations" based on trust are enough strategic depth. But Afghanistan is sadly a factionalized and broken country. In our case, just having even a "semi-friendly" regime in power (one which was non-hostile) was in our interests at the time.

the knee-jerk actions in 2001 caused everything to spiral out of control....

 

[Subramanian]

i think a partition could work.The lower Afghanistan can be made Pashtunistan and there is no need to give up KPK along with it.

But the problem is that state ll be too strong for pakistan to control and they may want to take up kpk or even join pakistan both of which ll be bad for rawalpindi to handle.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

the borders are fine as is; they just need to get grip of themselves and take charge of their country so that others don't have to ''interfere''

 

[Vassnti]

Santro, the Balochistan thing you brought up was very appropriate; a good way to look at it.

yes there has been short-sightedness. In my humble opinion, "good relations" based on trust are enough strategic depth. But Afghanistan is sadly a factionalized and broken country. In our case, just having even a "semi-friendly" regime in power (one which was non-hostile) was in our interests at the time.

the knee-jerk actions in 2001 caused everything to spiral out of control....

Never could understandthe strategic depth in Afghanistan argument, lets face it if India invaded and your army is fighting from Khost youve had your *** kicked. That aside i am supprised that almost every one is against the idea it might give some hope for the end to the civil wars between the north and south, its a dog of a soulution but perhaps better than a repeat of 1992 in 2015.

The case of Pakistan was always to have a friendly in control the problem is will any one be in control once the US leaves?

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Never could understandthe strategic depth in Afghanistan argument, lets face it if India invaded and your army is fighting from Khost youve had your *** kicked.

india would never be given the chance to invade; at least not succesfully.

active service members, reserve members, not to mention well-armed civilian vigilantes are enough of a deterrence

the latter 2 aren't even required, but they are there.

That aside i am supprised that almost every one is against the idea it might give some hope for the end to the civil wars between the north and south, its a dog of a soulution but perhaps better than a repeat of 1992 in 2015.

it's been a wish of ours since the 1960s that they do unite and operate as a country, rather than operate as a group of different war-lords fighting over turf

Pakistan has the biggest stake in Afghan peace and reconciliation, and we've made that clear time and time again.

The case of Pakistan was always to have a friendly in control the problem is will any one be in control once the US leaves?

knowing that they will leave one day, we are working out contingencies.....NATO and Afghans are also playing their parts in this gradual process

 

[Subramanian]

India would never invade pakistan,it is a waste of time and resources.

 

[apophenia]

This is nothing more than fantasy to cede the south to the Taliban with the understanding that they can play at creating a "Pashtunistan" if they let the US keep the predominantly Tajik north. However, they are forgetting about the **** YOU from a choir comprising of Pakistan, Russia, China and Iran.

Neocon should just admit that the war is lost and quit fantasizing about victory in defeat.

 

[Subramanian]

I think Russia can co-operate with USA and they have sort issues out with Iran.China is anyway dependant on US consumption and Treasuries and wouldn't mind a compromise.That leaves Pakistan,which doesn't matter anyway.