Terror activities of Indian consulates in Afghanistan

[S-2]

A.M. my comprehension is fine. Indian officials are pumping money into Baluchistan. So? Did Ms. Fair say from where? I saw her mention definitively Zarhedan.

That's in Iran.

Perhaps you recall me writing this-

"Why would I know or care what happens in Baluchistan from Iran? Isn't that where Ms. Fair saw such operations? Isn't Zahedan in Iran? Is Iran a friend of America?"

Ms. Fair goes on to SPECULATE about Kandahar and Jalalabad without elaboration.

Let's assume you're correct. What do we have from Ms. Fair? Money? For Baluchistan?

Think of it as long-overdue FDI from a nation who may care more for the Baluchis in a demonstrated manner than Pakistan has to date. That still makes no case for Kandahar and Jalalabad.

Worse, there's no significance equating with Afghanistan's experience in the last seven years.

Anyway, I believe you.

Yup. No doubt.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Think of it as long-overdue FDI from a nation who may care more for the Baluchis in a demonstrated manner than Pakistan has to date.

Rather twisted interpretation of FDI when the money is used for weapons and explosives used to kill Pakistani soldiers, police and government workers, and blow up infrastructure.

Pakistan and the Baluchis can definitely do without such generosity.

Anyway, I believe you.

Thanks, I knew the truth would prevail - now get back to that Ayatollah as$ kissing!

 

[Hellfire]

Muse



I hope you will have the opportunity to talk and to observe, local afghan nationals in Afghanistan -- you will note that the social and religious attitudes between the Pashtun and the tajik in the countryside are indistinguishable.

In the city the differences are marked - university educations for the tajik and the especially the Hazara, not so for the pashtun - city life for the Tajik, outskirt slums for the Pashtun.

Actually have had interaction with Afghanis in general and spent quite a lot of time with few in Moscow (but then those were the ones who left with Soviet troops pullout) so have some idea of the tribal denomination which is not different from other regions of South-Asia ..... North-East India has multiple tribes still existing ....


NA tolerant of religious diversity??

may not be by choice but by the pressure from countries which supported them

Look, I am trying to be patient, so let me see if I can recap with you what the Talib NA conflict was about

Thanks for your patience, that is needed for a discussion.

-- The NA, AKA mujahideen, had earned a repuatation as degenerates after the fall of Najib's regime, Talib were welcomed as reformers, in the sense they would right the Mujahid wrongs - it had nothing to do with who was tolerant of what religion or sect.

Talib punished what they percieved as curious loyalties of tajik and hazara (read Iran - read India) and by the way, if you are ever in Afghanistan and want to press a button, let your interlocutor know you thought he or she was a sh'iah - remember the Tajik, speak Dari a farsi type but they are Sunni.

With a great start you just managed to obfuscate the point. The point is NOT that Taliban was fighting NA for its supports from Iran/India/Russia/Turkey, but that it was being financed by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for establishment of strict Islamic state with control of power by these countries and that was something which was purely to do with - for Saudi case - Iran and for Pakistan - the oft touted concept of attaining a "strategic depth" vis-a-vis India and in turn there was no option but to support NA. At the same time the popular support that the Talibs got for establishing a peaceful Afghanistan for once and managinig to unite the majority of country in one administrative rule, it got carried away with implementation of Shariat on lines of Wahab interpretations which are distortion of the basic rules at best. Radicalisation of religion and usage of the same for achievement and maintenance of power to govern was always fraught with danger and the effect can be seen. My point was always that the governance was made subservient to religion (the radicalised interpretation at that) which was bound to have great repercussions .....

 

[muse]

MoS 9B? I'm unfamiliar. Could you help?

Alas, he said something opsec or some such - but I recall him mentioning arms caches and how they seemed to be from the West.

Based upon what, if you don't mind?

Well, I think a bunch of things together:
1. Financial crisis -- It's misdiagnosed the problem is not that a stimulus is need - it is a credit crunch, which Obama wants to redefine in a effort to rip the Europeans, Chinese and Russians one more time, this time by not accepting their $ surplus and instead printing $$ himself, further eroding the value of the $$ the rest of the world holds -- but this is a great gamble, it is not that there is much doubt that he can pull the world out of depression, but congress is a player and if the Europeans make common cause with any of the other $$ malcontents, it will be interesting.

2. The urgency to hold the Afghan experiment togther -
3. The urgency to train Afghans and to Afghanize the conflict
4. Statements which seek to redfine "success" in Afghanistan
5. The American people have had enough - see the election of Obama
6 The Army is stretched thin - this is now longer than ww2 aqnd so poorly defined - the enemy stared out being AQ, then AQ plus talib, then it took a detour in Iraq and that was about .... weapons of Mass deception.

7. Now bottom line negotiations are near - appointing a special envoy, read "Ok, What will it take..." Problem is that the Pakistanis will Open with a $$ position but all along it's the strategic position they will settle for -- something the US had not counted on.

In view of the bottomline negotiations, it is alos rthe negotiation Kissinger has held with the Russian.

Now if you ask me whether this marriage for the kids should continue, I would say, no. Let Pakistan alone with no money and no trade consessions and be ready NOT to conduct predator attacks. Here's the essential, Pakistan will never again have a reasonable relationship with the U.S. - it just will not, there will not be the kind of alliance that saw the U.S. labeled the "Traditional ally" - but good correct relations with mutual respect are nothing to sneeze at.

Mr. Obama in Turkiye says U.S will transform it relations with Muslim countries and that these relations are about more than WoT -- I don't know...but ...he needs to make those statements and efforts inside the U.S, let his populace to understand and buy into this and then it may carry more weight in Muslim majority countries.

In Afghanistan, the US is a pawn as much as it is player, and in this way not much different than other plqyer/pawns -- it's not where the U.S. wants to be.

 

[Hellfire]

That is the key here - Western societies and systems have evolved over hundreds of years into what they are today. What the West has attempted to do in Afghanistan is try and shove a system obtained over hundreds of years onto a tribal society.

To that end, perhaps Obama's lowering of the goal posts and talk of a decentralized Afghanistan is perhaps more in line with the reality of Afghanistan's society.

while what you say is true regarding requirement of time and space for the acceptance of the democratic ideals into a tribal soiety, the fact remains that till such a time is attained where a central authority is able to impose its writ in all territories of Afghanistan .... a helping hand in every form, be it developmental/security/administrative is needed to be provided in order for the nascent stage to have a chance to succeed. Also the lack of a powerful central government has led to these very tribal differences being given greater importance (like here in the forums too) and not being relegated to background in lieu of national identity. External forces, and be they any country, have ensured that underlining these basic differences and allowing hardened stance to be adopted by these tribes has led to inability of Afghanistan to achieve its place as a unified and single entity.

The NWFP has always histortically been similar. Infact whole of Indian subcontinent and present territories of Pakistan-India-Bangladesh-Myanmar have always been divided on the basis of tribal lands and grazing areas unique to a tribe and fiercely defended. Naga problem in India also has roots in this philosophy. But if you play on the fact then you are definitely undermining the concept of nation states ......

 

[muse]

that it was being financed by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for establishment of strict Islamic state with control of power by these countries and that was something which was purely to do with - for Saudi case - Iran and for Pakistan - the oft touted concept of attaining a "strategic depth" vis-a-vis India and in turn there was no option but to support NA.

At the same time the popular support that the Talibs got for establishing a peaceful Afghanistan for once and managinig to unite the majority of country in one administrative rule, it got carried away with implementation of Shariat on lines of Wahab interpretations which are distortion of the basic rules at best. Radicalisation of religion and usage of the same for achievement and maintenance of power to govern was always fraught with danger and the effect can be seen.

Do you know what "drinking one's own bath water" refers to?

Talib were stars, march on Mujahdeed and winning them over --- See, Hikmatyar was always the choice for the religious hardliners, not the Talib - however; once the Talib began to realize who the opposition was and who was supporting them....it encouraged them to not just punish but to popularize the idea that Tajik belonged in Tajikistan, and turkoman in Turkmenistan and Uzbek in Uzbekistan and the Hazara in Mughulistan

Let me also help you avoid drinking the aforementioned bath water with regard to Strategic depth - think: ballistic missiles -- now the Pakistan Army may not have the brightest bulbs among it's leadership, but essentials of ballistic missiles and their reach had not escaped even the dullest among the leadership. Bythe way know about "Manifest Destiny"?

With regard to getting "carried away" - they did not get carried away, they were and are utopians and millenarians and at least in my opinion, actually a kind of khemer rouge of Islamism -

My point was always that the governance was made subservient to religion (the radicalised interpretation at that) which was bound to have great repercussions

American Puritans would have appreciated that bit of foresight, as would have the calvinists of Geneva, and the mormons.

 

[Hellfire]

Let me also help you avoid drinking the aforementioned bath water with regard to Strategic depth - think: ballistic missiles -- now the Pakistan Army may not have the brightest bulbs among it's leadership, but essentials of ballistic missiles and their reach had not escaped even the dullest among the leadership. Bythe way know about "Manifest Destiny"?
.

well let me help you too to avoid a common mistake made by self styled defence analysts - afghanistan is the search for Pakistan's strategic depth ..... something that it lacks purely in geographical terms ...... and so the concept holds .... its something even PA and ISI understand ........ forget that you get it from the ballistic missiles you mention .... they dont provide you with strategic depth but the ability to threaten your opponents' ..........

as for Manifest Destiny, it is the forefather of Monroe Doctrine ... and akin to what some say Indira Doctrine (something a certain Mr Munshi quotes very frequently as proof being its author) ..... and best left to those who want to believe it ..... a fantasy world .....

 

[muse]

Hellfire

What I am trying to get thru to you, is that strategic depth is a oxymoron in a ballistic missile regime. And that as you put it

best left to those who want to believe it ..... a fantasy world

 

[S-2]

"What I am trying to get thru to you, is that strategic depth is a oxymoron in a ballistic missile regime."

Really? Sell that to CENTAG during the cold war?

Where strategic parity is achieved the competition slips to the sub-nuclear level. The challenge becomes-will you destroy your country to save it from an overwhelming conventional assault?

Many hesitated to such in western Europe. As a result, rather than face that potential dilemma, the U.S. and, subsequently, NATO anted-up the necessary conventional forces to redress the balance.

A nuclear umbrella is not necessarily stabilizing and "strategic depth" possesses some rationality.

 

[muse]

The European Landmass (WE) offersa political and stragegic continum that simply not available to Pakistan via Afghanistan and Pakistan and Afghanistan are a different geographical challenge.

These two outstanding features negate strategic depth in a ballistic missile regime, at least where Pakistan is concerned.

I do take your point about conventional forces and would pointto the conventional rearming process underway in Pakistan, now that it is possible

 

[S-2]

"These two outstanding features negate strategic depth in a ballistic missile regime, at least where Pakistan is concerned."

The Rhine crossings create a critical bottleneck that made very difficult any ability to conduct a strategic retrograde at operational tempos. Our armies would have been destroyed east of the Rhine with their backs to the river, especially if a good portion of those bridges were dropped. Even without, we couldn't have retreated behind the Rhine in good order.

We didn't have the strategic space.

Europe, of course, hoped that France and the Canadians would hold the bridges, they'd stay intact, and a retrograde would leave more than vestiges of coherant forces on the west side of the Rhine with the French. Too, we'd be falling back on French ports if all went well/bad.

Without such, CENTAG and NORTHAG would have been destroyed east of the Rhine.

The only sure alternative was to meet the Warsaw Pact on roughly conventional terms and make the cost of such an advance conventionally prohibitive. They'd have to go tactical nukes from the get-go to achieve their operational intent of sundering our forward defenses. That would transfer the conflict, again, to the nuclear level and allow deterrance to seek it's rightful place.

"I do take your point about conventional forces and would pointto the conventional rearming process underway in Pakistan, now that it is possible"

That too is your only choice. I shouldn't wish to be retreating through the Hindu Kush into Afghanistan were the Punjab and NWFP lost. Afghanistan offers no practical recourse as a final redoubt.

The heart of "strategic depth" to Pakistan is denying of such Afghani space to India as a means of strategic envelopment. Without a compliant Afghan gov't, i.e. one NOT sufficiently self-assured and independant to pursue it's own foreign policy objectives with confidence, Pakistan can't be assured of politically denying India a toe-hold in Afghanistan.

Trade and diplomacy is all India needs to do in that regard to assure a presence in Afghanistan today. By itself, that alone constitutes a grave nat'l security threat to hyper-attenuated Pakistani sensibilities.

 

[muse]

Thank you for that excellent exposition. I would like to comment one a ponit that you have not discussed sufficiently in so far as Pak abilities are constrained by the US presence:

Without a compliant Afghan gov't, i.e. one NOT sufficiently self-assured and independant to pursue it's own foreign policy objectives with confidence, Pakistan can't be assured of politically denying India a toe-hold in Afghanistan

Were a U.S umbrella not available to the the Indian, I think it would a considerably diferent eqaution in Afg.

 

[S-2]

"Were a U.S umbrella not available to the the Indian, I think it would a considerably diferent eqaution in Afg."

Yes but that is all the difference in the world. It's the intent of the U.N. mission to leave a "stabilized" Afghanistan behind. Frankly the true intent is to accomplish as much as humanly possible under the trying circumstances in which we find ourselves before emotional and/or physical exhaustion.

America will be last to tire. Having said that, Pakistan must wonder what will be left behind and how long before departure. Each day that the U.N. is active and working makes a corrupt and ineffective Afghan gov't just a tad less so, or so we hope/believe.

If true, it's conceivable that Afghanistan will be sufficient to resist such forays from Pakistan- particularly with Indian assistance. Whether India is conducting operations from Afghanistan or not (I clearly believe not), there will be a presence there as things currently stand.

As others leave, India would be smart to fill the civil aid vacumn. If, in the end, it's America that leaves behind Afghanistan, there will likely be an Indian or two waving us off.

I don't think Pakistan has done a real good job of assessing which way the wind is blowing and mitigating damage correctly. You've done a HORRIBLE job of advertising the $200m in aid over the last seven years. It's not all that much but it's hardly peanuts and constitutes a huge gift to them from a nation not entirely able to really do so.

That's been grossly undersold. No need to stretch truth but it'd be nice to advertise the truth as we all know it. Just an example of why you're losing in Afghanistan. It's little to do with bullets and everything to do with relationships.

Just a couple of thoughts.

 

[muse]

Under ideal conditions what you suggest may be cause for concern -- conditions are far from ideal - and it's not as though there is not cause for concern, there is. The minute the second gthe INtl community exits and the interests of Pakistan or Iran Or Uzbekistan or India or China or Russia are uncertain, there will be armed "unrest".

The ambition of the US is now confined to assuring that radical groups bent on attacks on US and Western targets do not find a home in Afg - everyone can agree to that and it's a non-issue.

In the past the US bought into Pakistani assurances, it will not do so again, today it is buyiung into Indian assurances, but not entirely, trust me on that, thinking is replacing sentiment.

Have Pakistan read the writing on wall correctly? time will tell, and I do agree that Pakistan have less than confidence inspiring record on that count.

However, those Indians waving "bye" will be running for the first helicopter out to Tajikistan before the last c130 makes a circle above the airfield - you are absolutely mistaken in thinking Pakistan have no friends in Afg, after all Afg is more than just NA remnants -- these same feed the horse ---- to US friends and rush back to their families in Hayatabad, to their shops in Lee Market -- you just do not realize the many strings that bind them into Pakistan and Pakistan to them.

As others leave, India would be smart to fill the civil aid vacumn. If, in the end, it's America that leaves behind Afghanistan, there will likely be an Indian or two waving us off.

Touching imagery

Reality will be more "brutish".

 

[S-2]

"you are absolutely mistaken in thinking Pakistan have no friends in Afg, after all Afg is more than just NA remnants..."

No. I understand that the ruling elite don't hold the plurality. I also understan the predisposition to begin, again, the civil war-which it would be.

The issue I raise is IF, just if, the Afghani gov't/ANA/ANP/Border Police have improved and IF the Indians are engaged in a mutual defense pact or some such then that brutal reality comes a tad differently perhaps and without quite the same assurances as once before.

I dunno. Lots that has to be accomplished to make an independant Afghanistan resistant to the pashtu/taliban challenge. The best would be to co-opt most afghani pastu into the government fold one way or another.

The best way would be elections and pashtu political dominance of the afghan milieu.

I'd still like to see a greater pastu participation in this upcoming election.