Solving Afghanistan?

[muse]

TS

See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/o...p=3&adxnnlx=1238432741-jndCv5ZxDWUmdMIMh5EVAQ

Kissinger proposed that a working group of Afghanistan’s neighbors, India and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council be established to begin this process. This is an appropriate grouping, with the addition of Afghanistan, and it should be convened under the auspices of the U.N. secretary general.

The goal would be a multilateral accord that establishes principles and guarantees for Afghanistan’s long-term status, to include agreements:

- by all the parties to declare Afghanistan a permanently neutral country;

- by Afghanistan not to permit its territory to again become a haven for terrorist activities or to be used against the interests of any of its neighbors;

- by Afghanistan’s neighbors and near-neighbors not to interfere in Afghanistan’s internal affairs or to allow their territory to be used against Afghanistan;

 

[TruthSeeker]

TS

See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/o...p=3&adxnnlx=1238432741-jndCv5ZxDWUmdMIMh5EVAQ

Yes, I have read that. But I am hung up on your word "guarantee". Can Pakistan, today, guarantee that its territory will not be used by terrorists to attack another state? It seems to me that this "concept" is just a way of trying to bring India into the equation in a constructive way. I just don't think the neighbors have the capacity to make Afghanistan be what the proposal says it would be.

 

[blain2]

Blain2 and I have just had this conversation about the pashtu. He's also had the opportunity to read a recent and comprehensive poll that indicates the support for the taliban and others is nil and that while NATO and American support has eroded since 2002, it is still considerable the gap among afghan people WRT the taliban and ISAF. No comparison.

Is there a serious objection to the data, blain2?

Nothing denies the pashtu the right to PARTICIPATE. They chose not, largely, and are naturally under-represented. There's nothing that the U.N./ISAF/America wouldn't like more than strong pashtu electoral participation this time around.

Clearly, the more afghani pashtu whom are politically invested, the less traction is provided to those in Pakistan promulgating rebellion as the alternative.

There is no guaranteed seat at this table. You pay to play as a voting constituency and it's an artform of which the pashtu need to become more comfortable.

S-2,

I did look at the data in the poll. Actually I was quite surprised to see sentiments mirroring what I said about the desire to see occupation end sooner than later.

There are a few things that arouse my curiosity about where the sample came from. As an example, the country most favorably viewed by those who are polled includes Iran and India. I know that Tajiks have always been close to both going back in time. Secondly there are other questions about the threat of Taliban attacks and intimidation and the answers are essentially very little concern (I can pull the question #s). The point I am making is that this poll seems to have been conducted in and around the vicinity of Kabul with all of the security and a vastly Tajik population.

While I am not negating all of the information in it, I do see that some things seem to point to certain demographics which are not very representative. I could be wrong but at least that is how I feel (I will tell you that I have friends from the Tajik as well as the Pashtun side from Afghanistan and their views are vastly different on many issues thus this comment).

Pakistan being viewed so unfavourably is definitely a Kabul/Tajik phenomena.

The most important thing to me in the poll is the high number of yeas to a negotiated settlement with those fighting against the US/ISAF. I am suggesting the same with a more inclusive approach. If Pashtuns are taken in, Pakistan's concerns go away as well.

 

[blain2]

TS

See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/o...p=3&adxnnlx=1238432741-jndCv5ZxDWUmdMIMh5EVAQ

This would allay Pakistan's concerns greatly.

 

[S-2]

"Is it the system set up by the US they do not care for? Why force it upon them then?"

Strawman. Set it up, twist the intent, and knock it down. Please stop with the dissemblance again.

It'll be helpful when you understand that uzbeks, turkomen, hazaras, and tajiks need a voice in Afghanistan that will be protected from pashtu dominance. Until that's assured, there'll be no peace.

Nothing stops pashtu participation, A.M., save the proclamations from Quetta to do so at risk of life and the shabnamah that shows up in villages enforcing such. We've a huge security issue in the south of which you're well aware. Until this is resolved such that pashtu men of good will feel safe to participate without harm to their families and themselves, it will be difficult.

Omar has made clear that he brooks no support for participatory politics. It will be a dictatorship should he again regain power. Likely the same were it Hekmatyar or Haqqani too.

Do you favor this?



Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Strawman. Set it up, twist the intent, and knock it down. Please stop with the dissemblance again.

Pot calling the kettle black again I see.

You can't even respond to simple questions anymore without jumping at your self created 'Irhabi' shadows.

It was a follow on question to my first one - the answer to the first may or may not have negated the follow on - you chose to avoid the whole thing and then set up not just a strawman, but a patent lie suggesting I would rather not see the other ethnicities represented or have them suppressed under yoke of Pashtun domination.

I have called you out on this lie before, yet you insist on regurgitating it repeatedly.

All that dissembling nonsense from you when you could have easily responded with just the following, which was the response to the first question.

Nothing stops pashtu participation, A.M., save the proclamations from Quetta to do so at risk of life and the shabnamah that shows up in villages enforcing such. We've a huge security issue in the south of which you're well aware. Until this is resolved such that pashtu men of good will feel safe to participate without harm to their families and themselves, it will be difficult.

Omar has made clear that he brooks no support for participatory politics. It will be a dictatorship should he again regain power. Likely the same were it Hekmatyar or Haqqani too.

Do you favor this?

As I have often mentioned before, and Blain pointed out again, there is no 'central command' for the insurgency. The Taliban from FATA fight ISAF, Pakistan and themselves when they feel like it.

So Shabnamah's perhaps, but attributing them solely or primarily to Quetta is to delude yourself.

I favor broad engagement - public demands and statements will be maximalist and uncompromising to ensure no loss of stature if negotiations fail. Only engagement can answer that question, and no I do not favor a 'dictatorship' - how many strawmen was that now?

 

[S-2]

I suppose I'm not surprised by your comment.

Do you have better information than February 2009 and ABC/BBC? They've been doing this poll for awhile. Maybe you could write and find out their polling methodologies?

Afghanistan Poll February 2009-ABC/BBC/ARD

Question #18 was salient to me but evidently left little impact with you-

"Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the presence of the following groups in Afghanistan today?"

Most won't read so forgive me-

73% strongly or somewhat supported the presence of NGOs. 63% strongly or somewhat supported America's presence. 59% strongly or somewhat supported ISAF's presence. 11% strongly or somewhat supported irhabi fighters from foreign countries. Only 8% strongly or somewhat supported the presence of the taliban.

I'm sure this is the source of your concerns for "demographics".

I hope you'll reconsider this poll and what it says. Demographics, skewed or otherwise, show from this poll a decline in support for America, NGOs, and ISAF since 2002.

They also show an increase in support for irhabists. Despite those increasing and decreasing conditions, the above numbers are the current prevailing condition.

There's no love for the taliban.

It certainly suggests, also if skewed, that tajiks, hazaras, uzbeks, and turkomen are less resistant to western influence and aid than pashtu.

I absolutely believe its possible to poll Kandahar, Sangin, Musa Qala, Tarin Kwot, Lashkar Gal, and even Garmsir to have some sense of Pashtu sensibilities. That, btw, would constitute a huge portion of the afghan pashtu population in these cities. So I'm not convinced that the pashtu are utterly inaccessible.

Go poll in the villages, probably not. I'm certain that nobody is polling in the Korengal valley. As for the rest of the country, I see no reason why polling wouldn't be possible beyond Kabul. Mazur-I-Sharif and Herat both have viable and relatively secure populations who'd also be accessible. Jalalabad and the immediate surrounding environs would be heavily pashtu, I'd think. I don't imagine that to be inaccessible.

I obviously think there's more validity here than you allude. This poll tells me that if NATO can restore security in contested areas, it can restore it's diminishing image. So have it however you wish, I suppose, but despite a serious taliban/pashtu insurgency from Pakistan eroding trust by the increased security risks to all, reflected in the diminishing ISAF/U.S. support, there seems no compelling support for the enemy.

 

[S-2]

Strawman.

You ask a question that premises a failure then posture our forced mandate upon the afghani.

If you've read my posts here at all, you know that I'm a tad aware of Haqqani & Son and Hekmatyar as sources of funds and weapons to groups also in Afghanistan. You know that I'm aware that both Nazir and Bahadur send men across too.

You'd also know that I understand the temporal and semi-independant nature of many of these groups. Allegiances shift or converge temporarily-particularly with those in Afghanistan who never make use of sanctuary.

Those that do come under the influence of the key leaders.

So the ebb and flow of afghan irhabi politics dictates that nothing is certain and that many temporary alliances of convenience arise. All are opposed to the afghan vote and pashtu participation.

I've no objective to a pashtu plurality asserting itself electorally. The more it does so, the greater it's investment in the political future and resolution through process and discourse instead of by the point of a gun.

Thanks.

 

[roadrunner]

I suppose I'm not surprised by your comment.

Do you have better information than February 2009 and ABC/BBC? They've been doing this poll for awhile. Maybe you could write and find out their polling methodologies?

Afghanistan Poll February 2009-ABC/BBC/ARD

Question #18 was salient to me but evidently left little impact with you-

"Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the presence of the following groups in Afghanistan today?"

Most won't read so forgive me-

73% strongly or somewhat supported the presence of NGOs. 63% strongly or somewhat supported America's presence. 59% strongly or somewhat supported ISAF's presence. 11% strongly or somewhat supported irhabi fighters from foreign countries. Only 8% strongly or somewhat supported the presence of the taliban.

I'm sure this is the source of your concerns for "demographics".

I hope you'll reconsider this poll and what it says. Demographics, skewed or otherwise, show from this poll a decline in support for America, NGOs, and ISAF since 2002.

They also show an increase in support for irhabists. Despite those increasing and decreasing conditions, the above numbers are the current prevailing condition.

There's no love for the taliban.

It certainly suggests, also if skewed, that tajiks, hazaras, uzbeks, and turkomen are less resistant to western influence and aid than pashtu.

I absolutely believe its possible to poll Kandahar, Sangin, Musa Qala, Tarin Kwot, Lashkar Gal, and even Garmsir to have some sense of Pashtu sensibilities. That, btw, would constitute a huge portion of the afghan pashtu population in these cities. So I'm not convinced that the pashtu are utterly inaccessible.

Go poll in the villages, probably not. I'm certain that nobody is polling in the Korengal valley. As for the rest of the country, I see no reason why polling wouldn't be possible beyond Kabul. Mazur-I-Sharif and Herat both have viable and relatively secure populations who'd also be accessible. Jalalabad and the immediate surrounding environs would be heavily pashtu, I'd think. I don't imagine that to be inaccessible.

I obviously think there's more validity here than you allude. This poll tells me that if NATO can restore security in contested areas, it can restore it's diminishing image. So have it however you wish, I suppose, but despite a serious taliban/pashtu insurgency from Pakistan eroding trust by the increased security risks to all, reflected in the diminishing ISAF/U.S. support, there seems no compelling support for the enemy.

Polls, surveys, reported by western journalist X, commissioned by western organization Z. Should the Taliban ever learn any Statistics, they too could easily create polls showing 95% of Afghanistan believes the world ends at the Hindu Kush, and Mullah Omar has developed a high tech laser that can cut the earth in half!

This is the bottomline. Afghanistan needs to be left alone by you, the Americans, and whoever else. It doesn't need foreign interference from any Americans anymore, since the Americans are responsible for creating this whole mess in the first place. Leave it alone, let it evolve. Eventually it will.

 

[S-2]

Leave it alone? They didn't LEAVE us alone.

We're responsible, eh?

Didn't like the poll? I explained my thoughts on why it could be a reasonable reflection of matters. blain2 disagreed but in somewhat better fashion than you.

Maybe with your profound think-tank skills you can find something of greater accuracy and fresher than February. Maybe you can avoid the jingoistic S. Asian media bandwagoning and explain, on it's merits your objections.

Here's what the BBC says-

"In assessing the results, David Cowling, the BBC's editor of political research, said people certainly seem to have lower expectations than four years ago and feel a lot of the changes they had hoped for have not materialised.

'They are trapped...They feel less certain about the way ahead. But they're absolutely clear the one path they don't want to return to is the Taleban.'"

The Afghan Centre for Social and Opinion Research in Kabul carried out the fieldwork, via face-to-face interviews with 1,534 Afghans in all of the country's 34 provinces between December 30 2008 and January 12 2009. The poll was commissioned by the BBC, ABC News of America and ARD of Germany.

 

[Tang0]

If you make the price to painful, he will lay down his arms. he can hate America for the rest of his days- but those will be days he has to watch his kids grow, to practice his trade and find what ever life has in store for him. Germany and Japan were flattened to a level Pakistanis have never seen- they laid down their arms because the war had gotten to painful to continue.

On a historical note. Strategic bombing was never really effective at destroying enemy moral unless it was heavy enough to kill a significant portion of the population and almost all of the industrial/transportation capacity. Furthermore, strategic bombing far away does not break the moral of people living in a diffrent city.

The Efficacy of Strategic Bombing: World War II to the Kosovo Campaign

The Japs quit because they thought that the US could build nukes indefinitely. They had also run out of most strategic supplies of fuel and metal by the time of nuclear bombardment. We simply killed most of the military experience Germany. 5,533,000 millitary deaths/ about 10% of the population and a significant chunk of the males fit for military service.

The manufacturing capacity of Germany actually increased throughout the war, they just couldn't transport and use it.

World War II production statistics of the Second World War: Aircraft, ships, fuel, food, rifles and other material."

Also, Poland did not fold. They killed 16,000 Nazis in under 4 weeks. They were out gunned and outclassed, running into enemy motorized infantry with calvary and lance (Look it up, I am not joking).

Please cite data for use in supporting arguments, it raises the level of discussion amazingly.

 

[Tang0]

Polls, surveys, reported by western journalist X, commissioned by western organization Z. Should the Taliban ever learn any Statistics, they too could easily create polls showing 95% of Afghanistan believes the world ends at the Hindu Kush, and Mullah Omar has developed a high tech laser that can cut the earth in half!

This is the bottomline. Afghanistan needs to be left alone by you, the Americans, and whoever else. It doesn't need foreign interference from any Americans anymore, since the Americans are responsible for creating this whole mess in the first place. Leave it alone, let it evolve. Eventually it will.

Responding to an attempt at discourse with "Leave it alone" is perhaps representative of how you feel, but its not convincing anyone of anything, and furthermore, does nothing to support your status of "Think Tank" on this forum.

I admit you are not going to convince S-2 of anything anyhow, but he is not the one you should be "Talking" to anymore than politicians really speak to each other when they debate.

I understand you might be trying to point the thread in a diffrent direction, since it has gotten so very far off target.

I can certainly understand why you would dislike it when a thread about the deaths of Pakistani soldiers somehow turns into a thread about how the PA is not trying hard enough.

 

[S-2]

"I admit you are not going to convince S-2 of anything anyhow..."

No tolerance for B.S. I've offered roadrunner or anybody else here the opportunity to provide something more up to date or reasonable. What do I receive? Dissemblance of what's provided...which, btw, has been done by the BBC/ABC/ARD since 2005.

So provide me with a lucid argument why the mechanics behind this poll are inadequate and, more to the point, not reflective of ground conditions.

Unfair. I'm not responsible for his demonstrated inadequacies.

 

[Tang0]

"I admit you are not going to convince S-2 of anything anyhow..."

No tolerance for B.S. I've offered roadrunner or anybody else here the opportunity to provide something more up to date or reasonable. What do I receive? Dissemblance of what's provided...which, btw, has been done by the BBC/ABC/ARD since 2005.

So provide me with a lucid argument why the mechanics behind this poll are inadequate and, more to the point, not reflective of ground conditions.

Unfair. I'm not responsible for his demonstrated inadequacies.

Seeing as the precise mechanics of the polling are not disclosed by private polling companies for the most part, how are we to do this? It is beginning to sound a bit like "Prove the ISI is involved with..." You can't really do it unless you are part of the agency making the accusation, in which case you won't reveal your source...

It is sufficient to say that so long as the poll was not conducted by an impartial source that discloses its method "UN, RAND, Amnesty International..." (Lets not discuss the true biases behind these sources either...) the data is subject to second guessing.

I personally find it difficult to believe an insurgency could continue to exist if the support of the population was so small, and the forces arrayed against it so large.

This discussion is productive, but very off-topic, might a moderator move it?

 

[batmannow]

horrible, indeed !
PAKARMY has to understand that , they need a new kind of superior force to tackle the issue of TALIBANS!
How fast they understand it, it would be better for pakistan & for the rest of the world, a force of 200000 strong mens, fully equiped with a seprete command from army, should be stationed & there shouldnt be any talks with any one of these B@STRRDS(TALIBANS) , any more.
DAY NIGHT, OPREATIONS should be carried out , with full force.thats it, the ultimate solution!