US threatens Taliban airstrikes in Quetta

[PostColonial]

Your post is more a statement of hope, than a statement of fact.

The only way Afghanistan would be held together is by Pashtun nationalism. A multi-ethnic state is completely unviable.

Also, you seem to have completely misunderstood my point, but never mind.

 

[Fracker]

what had happened with baitullah mehsood with considering the fact that he was targeted by US after being identified[/qoute]

I just know that it was US officials and TTP who were denying the Pakistani official's claim that BM is history.. which clearly indicate they were expecting someone else..

But yeah you are right BM was used by US, and then thrown him...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Michael Semple, a former U.N. official in Afghanistan now based in Islamabad, described the Quetta region's refugee camps as "a great reserve army" for the Taliban. He said Pashtun tribes in the Kandahar region of Afghanistan, the Taliban's ethnic and spiritual base, have strong ties with those on the Pakistan side...

"They are intermarried, they have Pakistani ID cards, and you can't tell the difference," Semple said. On the other hand, he said, reports of Taliban leaders living openly in Quetta, even attending weddings, are nonsense. "They are deeply suspicious of the Pakistanis, and they have their own agenda," he said.

... ...Asked about the names of Quetta Shura leaders provided by Afghan and U.S. officials, he said: "Six to 10 of them have been killed, two are in Afghanistan, and two are insignificant. When people call Mullah Omar the mayor of Quetta, that is incorrect."

U.S. Says Taliban Has A New Haven in Pakistan - washingtonpost.com

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Your post is more a statement of hope, than a statement of fact.

The only way Afghanistan would be held together is by Pashtun nationalism. A multi-ethnic state is completely unviable.

Also, you seem to have completely misunderstood my point, but never mind.

Rather rich to dismiss my post as hope instead of fact without actually offering any reasoning or rebuttals as to why. Perhaps because what I pointed out is true.

And why so shy of elaborating on your 'misunderstood point'?

And do you really think the Tajik, Uzbek and other non-Pashtun warlords (the likes of Dostum) are going to sit quietly while the Pashtun take charge?

A multi-ethnic state may be nonviable, but you would have to partition Afghanistan to achieve the viability of a state that was controlled by one ethnicity.

 

[PostColonial]

Rather rich to dismiss my post as hope instead of fact without actually offering any reasoning or rebuttals as to why. Perhaps because what I pointed out is true.

You hope that Afghanistan would be a "multicultural" state, while the facts point the opposite way. You hope that the Pashtun nationalism would remain within Afghanistan and not infect the Pashtuns of Pakistan.

Your reference to "Ghost Wars" is completely inconsequential, because irrespective of what the Taliban did to woo Pashtun leaders, the fact remained that its central ideology was based on fundamentalist Islam, and not Pashtun ascendancy. If Pakistan had supported a movement that directly promoted Pashtun nationalism (like Baloch nationalism) then it could have some weight.

Why would a stable Afghanistan be pro India? What a strange question. It already is - Karzai is extremely pro-India, and you'd be had pressed to explain why ANY non-Taliban Afghanistan leadership would choose to be anything but best-friends with India.

Your last para very succinctly indicates your "hopes" and "dreams" of a "responsible and peaceful" Afghanistan that will "not destabilize its neighbours". Such idealistic hopes are completely divorced from the reality, and there are plenty of Pakistanis who realize this, including those who are, in spite of American pressure, still supporting the Taliban and hedging their bets for when the Americans decide to leave.

And why so shy of elaborating on your 'misunderstood point'?

And do you really think the Tajik, Uzbek and other non-Pashtun warlords (the likes of Dostum) are going to sit quietly while the Pashtun take charge?

A multi-ethnic state may be nonviable, but you would have to partition Afghanistan to achieve the viability of a state that was controlled by one ethnicity.[/QUOTE]

 

[pakdefender]

You're missing the big picture here.

The fact is that a stable Afghanistan would be built largely on Pashtun nationalism, which is something that Pakistan would avoid by any means possible. Afghanistan still claims a huge chunk of Pakistani territory, and a stronger Afghanistan would invariably try to resolve this dispute on its own terms.

Secondly, a stable Afghanistan would also necessarily be pro-India, there's no two ways about it. No Pakistani nationalist would like to see that happen.

Conclusion? Pakistan would rather support a fundamentalist regime like the Taliban, which it can use for both "strategic depth" and to fund various insurgencies in the east, rather than see a stronger Afghanistan that is capable of acting independently for its own interests.

stoking pashtun nationalism is an old indian trick to destablise Pakistan , it has failed in the past and it'll fail now , following documetns show that india has used every oppertunity and every moment to use pashtun nationalism against Pakistan.







Everyone knows that we fought off the indians in 1965 , what most people dont know that there was another War that Pakistan was engaged in on its Western front around the same time. The Daud Khan government of Afghanistan was actively involved in Pashtunuistan propaganda and was also supporting militancy in the triabal belt. Interestingly the biggest rout of the afghan lasker at the hand of Pakistani forces took place in Bajur. Wonder why always Bajur ? any how the pashtun in Pakistan have by and large rejected the idea of a seperate pashtunistan. The fact that there is no pastunistan now even after 30 years of instigation is proof of what I say.

By the way also note in the above docuemnt that the use of the term A f - P a k is not new in US diplomatic circles , so the US is up to its old tricks too

 

[pakdefender]

In view of the above US Emabssy report its clear that subsequent Indian as well as Afghan governments have supported terrorism in Pakistan in the past and they continue to do so now.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You hope that Afghanistan would be a "multicultural" state, while the facts point the opposite way. You hope that the Pashtun nationalism would remain within Afghanistan and not infect the Pashtuns of Pakistan.

Given that neither the 'pashtun nationalist' nor 'multicultural' state exist, either POV could be dismissed as 'hope'.

What I am pointing out is that trying to impose the will of 40% of the population on the other 60% will mark a return to the days of the past ethnic violence and tensions, especially given the fiercely independent and brutal non-Pashtun war lords like Dostum, which makes the idea of a 'pashtun nationalist state' based in the current boundaries of Afghanistan non-viable.

Your reference to "Ghost Wars" is completely inconsequential, because irrespective of what the Taliban did to woo Pashtun leaders, the fact remained that its central ideology was based on fundamentalist Islam, and not Pashtun ascendancy. If Pakistan had supported a movement that directly promoted Pashtun nationalism (like Baloch nationalism) then it could have some weight.

Agreed on the nature of the Taliban, but my point was that Pakistan does not have issue with 'Afghan-Pashtun nationalism' to the extent that it remains limited to Afghanistan, sort of like the Turks and the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

Why would a stable Afghanistan be pro India? What a strange question. It already is - Karzai is extremely pro-India, and you'd be had pressed to explain why ANY non-Taliban Afghanistan leadership would choose to be anything but best-friends with India.

I am not viewing this as a 'zero-sum game' - your suggestion of 'pro-India' to me implied 'anti-Pakistan' (perhaps an incorrect assumption) - my point was that a stable Afghanistan does not have to inherently be anti-Pakistan.

If it is anti-Pakistan then it will be solely because of Afghan irredentism, and then Afghanistan herself is responsible for whatever comes its way and does not deserve to be a stable nation since its 'stability' will be a cause of instability in other nations.

Your last para very succinctly indicates your "hopes" and "dreams" of a "responsible and peaceful" Afghanistan that will "not destabilize its neighbours". Such idealistic hopes are completely divorced from the reality, and there are plenty of Pakistanis who realize this, including those who are, in spite of American pressure, still supporting the Taliban and hedging their bets for when the Americans decide to leave.

So are you suggesting that Afghanistan as a state will always destabilize regional nations? Why should it be stabilized then?

 

[PostColonial]

Given that neither the 'pashtun nationalist' nor 'multicultural' state exist, either POV could be dismissed as 'hope'.

What I am pointing out is that trying to impose the will of 40% of the population on the other 60% will mark a return to the days of the past ethnic violence and tensions, especially given the fiercely independent and brutal non-Pashtun war lords like Dostum, which makes the idea of a 'pashtun nationalist state' based in the current boundaries of Afghanistan non-viable.

The only viable Afghanistan is one dominated by Pashtun nationalism in which other ethnic groups are bought over by giving their warlords key positions in the government. Such a situation is not at all desirable for the current crop of Pakistani nationalists.

Whether this is viable at all, is a completely different question.

Agreed on the nature of the Taliban, but my point was that Pakistan does not have issue with 'Afghan-Pashtun nationalism' to the extent that it remains limited to Afghanistan, sort of like the Turks and the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

Since you brought up the Kurds, they are going to get an independent state sooner or later. They have already managed to get regional autonomy, and have started to control the oil flow from their territory. There's no going back now.

Paksitan does have issues with Pashtun nationalism. Your argument that since it hasn't affected Pakistan's boundaries till today (mostly due to the fact that the boundary is essentially non-existent except on paper) has little bearing on how things will turn out in the future. Why would Pakistan encourage something that is even remotely detrimental to its own (perceived) interest?

I am not viewing this as a 'zero-sum game' - your suggestion of 'pro-India' to me implied 'anti-Pakistan' (perhaps an incorrect assumption) - my point was that a stable Afghanistan does not have to inherently be anti-Pakistan.

Irrespective of whether 'pro-India' actually means 'anti-Pakistan', that is exactly how it is being viewed within Pakistani nationalist circles. That is a fact.

If it is anti-Pakistan then it will be solely because of Afghan irredentism, and then Afghanistan herself is responsible for whatever comes its way and does not deserve to be a stable nation since its 'stability' will be a cause of instability in other nations.

Again you are missing the point and trying to fix blame. Whose fault it is has nothing to do with all of this.

The fact is that Pakistan's western border is not really a border at all, and any attempts to make this a real border will result in massive instability within Pakistan, because dividing the Pashtuns has never worked, and never will work.

So are you suggesting that Afghanistan as a state will always destabilize regional nations? Why should it be stabilized then?

That is precisely the question that was asked within Pakistan. And you already know the answer.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The only viable Afghanistan is one dominated by Pashtun nationalism in which other ethnic groups are bought over by giving their warlords key positions in the government. Such a situation is not at all desirable for the current crop of Pakistani nationalists.

Whether this is viable at all, is a completely different question.

It's an experiment either way - but common sense would dictate that whether the non-Pashtun are bought out or not, a state based on the ideology of one ethnic group dominating the rest will eventually fall into ethnic strife - that means in the long run (or short - depending on how soon things fall apart) it isn't really a viable policy at all.

Since you brought up the Kurds, they are going to get an independent state sooner or later. They have already managed to get regional autonomy, and have started to control the oil flow from their territory. There's no going back now.

Perhaps, and perhaps that suggests the division of Afghanistan as a viable option - maybe then the Pashtun areas can have a referendum to merge with Pakistan as autonomous provinces - access to the ocean, the Pakistani market and as an ethnic group they would rival the Punjabis in size and carry a lot of influence .

Paksitan does have issues with Pashtun nationalism. Your argument that since it hasn't affected Pakistan's boundaries till today (mostly due to the fact that the boundary is essentially non-existent except on paper) has little bearing on how things will turn out in the future. Why would Pakistan encourage something that is even remotely detrimental to its own (perceived) interest?

We have issues with Pashtun nationalism in terms of 'separatist sentiment' (which state would not have issues with another nation instigating part of its population to separate from it). And why should a state based on an expansionist ideology (which is inherently destabilizing for the region) be tolerated or propped up by the global community? Isn't the goal regional stability?

Irrespective of whether 'pro-India' actually means 'anti-Pakistan', that is exactly how it is being viewed within Pakistani nationalist circles. That is a fact.

Well the current view in Pakistani nationalist circles is that the current GoA is pro-India to the extent of being anti-Pakistan, through support for both Pakistani Taliban and Baluch insurgents. Whether you agree with the latter is not the point, but it is an important point when one talks of why 'pro-India' is frowned upon by those circles.

Again you are missing the point and trying to fix blame. Whose fault it is has nothing to do with all of this.

The fact is that Pakistan's western border is not really a border at all, and any attempts to make this a real border will result in massive instability within Pakistan, because dividing the Pashtuns has never worked, and never will work.

Fixing blame? Arguing that the Afghan state to not seek to destabilize its neighbors, as it has done in the past, is a rather rational argument, not 'fixing blame'.

Pakistan is pretty happy with the current status of Afghan-Pashtun and Pakistani Pashtun relations - barring the Taliban insurgency, the porous Afghan-Pakistan border has not been an issue, and there is no reason to 'divide the Pashtun' any more than they are.

That is precisely the question that was asked within Pakistan. And you already know the answer.

That an Afghanistan that destabilizes Pakistan would not be viewed positively in Pakistani circles is obvious - but why should NATO support the idea of an expansionist Afghanistan that destabilizes the region?

As I asked before, isn't the goal some form of regional stability?

 

[PostColonial]

It's an experiment either way - but common sense would dictate that whether the non-Pashtun are bought out or not, a state based on the ideology of one ethnic group dominating the rest will eventually fall into ethnic strife - that means in the long run (or short - depending on how soon things fall apart) it isn't really a viable policy at all.

That depends on what the official documents state. There can definitely be a "multicultural" constitution, but the state would encourage Pashtun nationalism as the glue that binds the country together, along with bought loyalties from other ethnic groups and various peace treaties.

In any case, that is the future that the US sees for Afghanistan, and Pakistan is clearly not buying it.

Perhaps, and perhaps that suggests the division of Afghanistan as a viable option - maybe then the Pashtun areas can have a referendum to merge with Pakistan as autonomous provinces - access to the ocean, the Pakistani market and as an ethnic group they would rival the Punjabis in size and carry a lot of influence .

That is one possible outcome, however, the USA and certainly no western power will ever support an enlarged Pakistan. India for one, will never let this happen if it has anything to say on the matter.
You could speculate a future role for China in such a scenario, but I think this would be pure speculation (i.e. wish-thinking) because there are no indications that China is currently interested in anything to do with the ****** border, beyond its attempts to curb the Uyghur movement.

[/QUOTE]
We have issues with Pashtun nationalism in terms of 'separatist sentiment' (which state would not have issues with another nation instigating part of its population to separate from it). And why should a state based on an expansionist ideology (which is inherently destabilizing for the region) be tolerated or propped up by the global community? Isn't the goal regional stability?[/QUOTE]

Statements like "expansionist" are highly subjective, and considering the realities on the ground, an Afghan "expansion" is one of the possible outcomes that will lead to long-term stability in the region, although Pakistan will lose heavily in the bargain.

Well the current view in Pakistani nationalist circles is that the current GoA is pro-India to the extent of being anti-Pakistan, through support for both Pakistani Taliban and Baluch insurgents. Whether you agree with the latter is not the point, but it is an important point when one talks of why 'pro-India' is frowned upon by those circles.

Well whatever the justifications are, the fact is that a pro-India government in Afghanistan is seen as extremely undesirable by Pakistan.

Fixing blame? Arguing that the Afghan state to not seek to destabilize its neighbors, as it has done in the past, is a rather rational argument, not 'fixing blame'.

Its not an argument at all. Its er...a request? A demand? One which will most certainly not be humored by the current regime in Afghanistan if it manages to overcome the Taliban.

Pakistan is pretty happy with the current status of Afghan-Pashtun and Pakistani Pashtun relations - barring the Taliban insurgency, the porous Afghan-Pakistan border has not been an issue, and there is no reason to 'divide the Pashtun' any more than they are.

That's exactly my point. A Taliban-dominated Afghanistan with a porus border with Pakistan (i.e. the pre-2001 status quo) is what Pakistan wants. Any attempts to form an Afghan state will lead to possible future territorial losses by Pak which is unacceptable.

That an Afghanistan that destabilizes Pakistan would not be viewed positively in Pakistani circles is obvious - but why should NATO support the idea of an expansionist Afghanistan that destabilizes the region?

NATO believes that a stable Afghanistan is the first step to regional stability, because a lawless Taliban dominated Afghanistan becomes a safe-haven to islamist groups of all stripes that endanger the security of America and its allies, a view which is supported by India as well.
Of course, this is American's interests, and the larger interest of the world, and not necessarily Pakistan's interest which is to preserve and expand its territory.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Statements like "expansionist" are highly subjective, and considering the realities on the ground, an Afghan "expansion" is one of the possible outcomes that will lead to long-term stability in the region, although Pakistan will lose heavily in the bargain.

NATO believes that a stable Afghanistan is the first step to regional stability, because a lawless Taliban dominated Afghanistan becomes a safe-haven to islamist groups of all stripes that endanger the security of America and its allies, a view which is supported by India as well.
Of course, this is American's interests, and the larger interest of the world, and not necessarily Pakistan's interest which is to preserve and expand its territory.

I'll come back to the other points later.

I am not sure how a violent separatist movement that attempts to rip apart a nation of 170 million, and will be opposed tooth and nail by that nation and its institutions, can in any way be considered as contributing to 'regional stability'. Your argument makes a leap of faith decades into the future and assumes such a move will:

a. Unite Afghanistan long enough for the GoA to cause a Pashtun insurrection (something they failed at when they tried it the last time, when Afghanistan was stable and Pakistan was probably pretty close to it in terms of development.

b. Somehow contain the violence and instability from such a move to divide Pakistan, and not create an even larger lawless and unstable region for Al Qaeda and other extremists to thrive in - i.e the opposite of regional stability.

I rather doubt NATO is contemplating such absurd thinking, but given the Iraq fiasco one never knows.

 

[PostColonial]

I'll come back to the other points later.

I am not sure how a violent separatist movement that attempts to rip apart a nation of 170 million, and will be opposed tooth and nail by that nation and its institutions, can in any way be considered as contributing to 'regional stability'.

I'm not sure either, but if it does happen (i.e. after the fact), then the resulting geopolitical scenario would definitely be more stable than the current one.

[/QUOTE]
Your argument makes a leap of faith decades into the future and assumes such a move will:

a. Unite Afghanistan long enough for the GoA to cause a Pashtun insurrection (something they failed at when they tried it the last time, when Afghanistan was stable and Pakistan was probably pretty close to it in terms of development.

b. Somehow contain the violence and instability from such a move to divide Pakistan, and not create an even larger lawless and unstable region for Al Qaeda and other extremists to thrive in - i.e the opposite of regional stability.[/QUOTE]

I'm not making any leap of faith at all. I am simply stating one of the possible outcomes of the current situation.

Infact, my whole point is that Pakistan is trying NOT to let this scenario play out by trying to undermine NATO efforts in Afghanistan, so essentially we are in agreement.

I rather doubt NATO is contemplating such absurd thinking, but given the Iraq fiasco one never knows.

NATO isn't thinking beyond the question "how to stabilize Afghanistan". That is its primary concern. Of course, there are dozens of papers by various American analysts and other think-tanks that outline a number of political scenarios, but they have little or no bearing on its current decision to try and create an independent, democratic Afghanistan with a strong central government.

 

[Righteous_Fire]

I'd just like to hijack this good debate for a few moments, If I may.....


This dude, PostCol or something, in one of his last posts stated ....

The fact is that a stable Afghanistan would be built largely on Pashtun nationalism, which is something that Pakistan would avoid by any means possible. Afghanistan still claims a huge chunk of Pakistani territory, and a stronger Afghanistan would invariably try to resolve this dispute on its own terms.

Secondly, a stable Afghanistan would also necessarily be pro-India, there's no two ways about it. No Pakistani nationalist would like to see that happen.

Conclusion? Pakistan would rather support a fundamentalist regime like the Taliban, which it can use for both "strategic depth" and to fund various insurgencies in the east, rather than see a stronger Afghanistan that is capable of acting independently for its own interests.

Now, there are so many points in there that I can use to contradict his point of view and generalization, BUT, I think that, since he's an Indian, he like all the statesmen of his country have one major flaw in their naive desi Machiavellien aka Chanakya influenced foreign policy and perception.



They basically think that, somehow, they can project the image of Pushtuns as anti Pakistan or not aligned in their truth to it. as they like to portray the founder of ANP with one or two twisted truths. (I do not support ANP).

Such dudes have never been to this part part of Pakistan and even to the Pushtun parts of Afghanistan. Sir! We are Proud of being Pushtuns but if you think you can manipulate that to separate us from Pakistan then you dont know nothing about us. Pakistan is Fatherland to us, and our Pushtun brothers in Afghanistan even realize and have come to accept this. In our Pushtunwali, love of the Fatherland comes before anything else.

You will never succeed in making us do anything against our fatherland Pakistan nor can you incite the Pushtuns on the other side to do the same.

Yes, there have been foreign funded puppets like Karzai who incite the Pushtunistan fancy, but every Pushtun knows they are just that, your sponsored puppets.

It only suits us to go along with these puppets since that way we have our fingers in your pies. Otherwise, The Pushtuns dont even give respect to their Maliks when it comes to getting rid of their tyranny.

and one more thing, rather than in an event of the so desired and fabled ultimate Indo-Pak showdown as some here like to fancy, instead of the Afghan Pushtuns becoming your pawns and fighting against Pakistan will ........... ........ more realistically be seen crashing some Indian Skulls across the LOC or the International border.

You just dont know us !!



PS: sorry for the graphic Skull part! I cant help it, I am a Pakistani Pushtun!

 

[PostColonial]

Sorry to disappoint you "righteous_skull", but whether Pashtuns crush Indian or Pakistani skulls in the future largely depends on how the current political scenario plays out, and, not by your personal loyalties.