US vacates checkposts ahead of SWA operation

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

S-2:

Hypothetically, if Karzai refuses a runoff, and refuses to share power, what does the US do? Bow to Karzai?

The turnout was already very low, confidence in the GoA tanking, perceptions of a fraudulently elected President is not going to help achieve what is the only viable exit plan - have a functioning government capable of some sort of control over its territory.

So then what? Do we start looking at variations on Biden's plan for Iraq?

A division of Afghanistan?

An independent Pashtunistan will not sit pretty with Pakistan, but merging the Pashtun areas with Pakistan will not necessarily be welcomed with open arms either, given the exorbitant social and economic costs associated with integrating a war-ravaged territory and people.

And how exactly does 'sharing power' work with Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah? There can only be one president, and AA has already spent time as a Karzai cabinet member.

Would he want to return to a similar position, when he was disillusioned with Karzai's leadership to begin with?

 

[S-2]

"I can't agree that it may not be in the works at any point in the future."

You'll have no reason to if my recommendations were followed. Nazir/Bahadur will have attained their objectives. Thought that Nazir was killed in a tribal ambush with Mehsudis last summer, btw?

Obviously not, eh?

"That presumes that the only objective in front of Pakistan is 'taking Afghanistan' - a stable Afghanistan with a neutral government is an acceptable objective as well."

There'll be an afghan face in either form but there's little need in our absence to accomodate elements dangerous to Pakistani interests so take you will, figuratively. That will be the surest path to stability in a manner that's acceptable to your leadership and you'd be remiss if you didn't do so, IMV.

"I am not certain Karzai and the people put in place by him (that evil looking Intelligence director for one), are up to being that neutral state."

Some more than others when the hand-writing on the wall is seen. After all, political accomodation/flexibility is an afghan tradition-particularly when the tide is rolling against you.

Saleh IS EVIL LOOKING. A perfect spy, IMHO with all that latent malevolence behind those calm viper eyes. It was another impressive performance for FRONTLINE (I've seen him before and was impressed then with his ability to project fear behind a calm and reposed demeanor). He's a dead man or leaving, if there's a shift in the tides. No room for him that I can see in anybody's agenda.

As to the neutral state, Karzai will buckle, I believe, in the end. America's views on the election will hold ascendancy. I wish they wouldn't. As usual, Obama is half-way there. Withholding troops is something Shek and I agree upon in the absence of a viable social contract. That's obviously long been the case and is beyond salvation without Karzai bending to the wind.

He will. Whether that means a runoff for all the marbles or a gov't of nat'l salvation to expedite matters, I don't know but I'd guess runoff with Karzai holding out for civil war of his own if he loses.

I can't imagine a coalition as I don't know that Karzai has anymore to give away. Think he's given all he can steal already.

That leaves Biden and I on the outside looking in unless the latter and the attendant civil war.

"...Afghanistan did try a failed attempt at instigating a Pashtun insurgency...,"

Not anytime in recent memory, still I understand that the Durand line remains an issue for both sides. So too the tribal traffic both ways. Might want to suggest these things to IceCold when talking about land mining the border.

That would be disastrous and, IMV, ineffective in anycase. The only people at risk would be the simple folk. I digress...

"he pretty much avoided the question."

"Never threaten what you can't deliver", Richard Armitage

"Afghanistan needs to determine what it is in her interest..."

Won't comment for Pakistan. Maybe you've done so but that's certainly true for Afghanistan, America, and much of NATO. Also the U.N., IMV.

 

[insight-out]

Nothing if not predictable.

I, naturally, won't be holding my breath awaiting the onslaught upon Omar, Hekmatyar, Haqqani, Bahadur, and Nazir anytime soon.

Recommendation from S-2?

Withdraw from Afghanistan.

Immediately and en toto.

Embargo all purchases of Pakistani goods and services.

Cut off all aid as presently projected to both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Await the next A.Q. attack upon our lands.

Return with something a bit more flavorful than popcorn and beer and without the benefit of an Armitage moment.

Thanks.

I would be the happiest person alive if the US take S-2s advice. The US needs to get out of the region and mind its own damn business.

 

[S-2]

"US simply can't afford to do that for so many reasons"

Most would agree with you.

I don't but I'm a distinct and crazy (or not) minority.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I would be the happiest person alive if the US take S-2s advice. The US needs to get out of the region and mind its own damn business.

And we go back to an Afghanistan in civil war?

It took hundreds of millions, if not billions, in funds from the Saudis and UAE to train and arm tens of thousands of Taliban to take on the NA, and at a huge social cost to Pakistan, as we can now plainly see with the extremism rampant in our society.

Do you really think that assistance will be forthcoming again? And more importantly, do we really want to go through that again? There is no avoiding the spillover of extremism into Pakistani society if that is the path we choose - history has shown that.

So what next, if the US leaves? We just learn to live with an Afghanistan constantly in chaos? The impact of THAT on Pakistan?

 

[S-2]

"The US needs to get out of the region and mind its own damn business."

Not quite but close.

The US needs to get out of Afghanistan until it knows best its business to mind.

We're presently rudderless. Leaving will help to clarify both costs and opportunities in stark and clear fashion.

 

[PakSher]

The swamp needs be cleaned before everyone decides to leave Afghanistan.

 

[insight-out]

And we go back to an Afghanistan in civil war?

It took hundreds of millions, if not billions, in funds from the Saudis and UAE to train and arm tens of thousands of Taliban to take on the NA, and at a huge social cost to Pakistan, as we can now plainly see with the extremism rampant in our society.

Do you really think that assistance will be forthcoming again? And more importantly, do we really want to go through that again? There is no avoiding the spillover of extremism into Pakistani society if that is the path we choose - history has shown that.

So what next, if the US leaves? We just learn to live with an Afghanistan constantly in chaos? The impact of THAT on Pakistan?

The initial chaos after the US leaves will eventually die down and things will stabilize. Whether Pakistan decides to be on the US' side or simply refuses to fight their war, in both cases Pakistan stands to suffer and face huge challenges. The difference is that with the US, it is very likely to end in civil war, and possibly the break up of the country, not to mention a profound damage to the people's self esteem.

By not cooperating with the US, we will suffer in the short term. But we we will be able to sort out our affairs eventually. In the long run, sanctions and embargoes don't work, and the US knows it. We have examples in the Sudan, North Korea and Iran. Nations adapt, learn to be more self reliant and find new allies. We need to be less fearful of the unknown, be more confident in our own abilities, and stop thinking of the US as our saviour. Because it simply isn't.

 

[logic]

US should stay in Afganistan for the security of the US citizen and that of the world atleast for 20 odd years to come.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The initial chaos after the US leaves will eventually die down and things will stabilize.

How?

They didn't stabilize the last time the US left - it took a lot of blood and treasure from at least three different nations for the Taliban to get any semblance of stability in around 90% of Afghanistan, with a brutal war, and that was a suffocatingly brutal and intolerant stability.

I am not concerned as much about US sanctions on Pakistan as I am about the fallout from the chaos in Afghanistan, both direct and indirect.

Whether Pakistan decides to be on the US' side or simply refuses to fight their war, in both cases Pakistan stands to suffer and face huge challenges. The difference is that with the US, it is very likely to end in civil war, and possibly the break up of the country, not to mention a profound damage to the people's self esteem.

The Pakistani Taliban are not going to vanish because the US will leave - the TTP has outlined its long term goal, as did the TTP-Swat before they were destroyed - turning Pakistan into a "true Islamic State" - that is not a position open for compromise.

Pakistan's war with extremists bent on overthrowing the state will continue regardless of whether the US stays or leaves, so why add on the additional headache of having an Afghanistan in chaos?

 

[S-2]

"...if Karzai refuses a runoff, and refuses to share power, what does the US do? Bow to Karzai?"

It's more than hypothetical. This variant is a very real possibility. If Obama thinks that a corrupt host-nation partner isn't a viable basis upon which to go All In, then why would he settle for half-in? Seems to me that the question is less our ability to sustain the projected troop levels and more the inability of any amount of troops/aid to offset the corrupt/inept GoA.

And we need and deserve a viable host. I was fully for this war so long as we had a mandate, the support of the GoA, and the backing of its citizens. The U.N.'s handling of this election is very disturbing to me, our citizen support is eroding because of the GoA and any good work done by NATO/ISAF/America WILL be offset by thieves, brigands, and crooks.

That's no pathway to success even with 1,000,000 troops.

Thus OUT.

"A division of Afghanistan?"

I actually think Afghanistan is a more culturally amenable state, historically, than Iraq. There's a legacy of self-governance of sorts and ethnic accomodation that I'm unsure really has ever existed in Iraq. As such, I'd be very opposed to partition and believe it economically unsustainable.

Maybe carving it up and assigning portions to the CARs, Iran, and Pakistan might work but that would also be a hell of a border confluence and might only exacerbate matters of ethnic strife.

"merging the Pashtun areas with Pakistan will not necessarily be welcomed with open arms either, given the exorbitant social and economic costs associated with integrating a war-ravaged territory and people."

No. I bet it wouldn't after the euphoria wears off. If FATAville has proved impossible to raise the lot of those poor souls, adding another 10-15m pashtus from Afghanistan can only make it worse.

"And how exactly does 'sharing power' work with Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah? There can only be one president, and AA has already spent time as a Karzai cabinet member.

Would he want to return to a similar position, when he was disillusioned with Karzai's leadership to begin with?"

I don't know. A.A. always impressed me more than Karzai. I don't think I'd want the stink of that regime on me were I A.A. but power has an odd attraction that often creates strange bedfellows.

I think that both the U.N and America are looking for face-saving expedient accomodation there for different reasons but, regardless, I don't think that'll happen.

I'm off into pure speculation with no more insight here, though, than anybody else.

 

[insight-out]

How?

They didn't stabilize the last time the US left - it took a lot of blood and treasure from at least three different nations for the Taliban to get any semblance of stability in around 90% of Afghanistan, with a brutal war, and that was a suffocatingly brutal and intolerant stability.

I am not concerned as much about US sanctions on Pakistan as I am about the fallout from the chaos in Afghanistan, both direct and indirect.

You've answered your own question. It took a decade but Afghanistan did stabilize. And you can't argue with the fact that as far as Pakistan's interest is concerned, the Taliban were better than the current hostile regime allied with India and the US. With time, the Afghan Taliban would have mellowed down or would have been replaced once the people had become more accustomed to a stable Afghanistan. Even if it remained a suffocatingly intolerant regime, frankly, that's not our problem. We are concerned with Pakistan's interest.

The Pakistani Taliban are not going to vanish because the US will leave - the TTP has outlined its long term goal, as did the TTP-Swat before they were destroyed - turning Pakistan into a "true Islamic State" - that is not a position open for compromise.

Your fear that the Afghan Taliban's ideology would spill over into Pakistan and that the TTP will remain a threat is not unfounded. But with Pakistan not cooperating with the US, it would be much more difficult for them to recruit, and that would make them easier for Pakistan to contain.

Your argument is based on the belief that the US is part of the solution. My argument is based on the belief that the US is part of the problem. The TTP does not make its own weapons. It does not print its own money. It does not have its own gold mines. They are receiving help from somewhere. It may not be directly from the US. But it certainly is being facilitated by the US, through India and Afghanistan. Of course you may label me a conspiracy theorist. But an alternative explanation will be as much a conspiracy theory.

Anyways, we have gone quite a bit off topic.

 

[PakShaheen79]

And we go back to an Afghanistan in civil war?

It took hundreds of millions, if not billions, in funds from the Saudis and UAE to train and arm tens of thousands of Taliban to take on the NA, and at a huge social cost to Pakistan, as we can now plainly see with the extremism rampant in our society.

Do you really think that assistance will be forthcoming again? And more importantly, do we really want to go through that again? There is no avoiding the spillover of extremism into Pakistani society if that is the path we choose - history has shown that.

So what next, if the US leaves? We just learn to live with an Afghanistan constantly in chaos? The impact of THAT on Pakistan?

Longer US MILITARY stay in Afghanistan more unstable region would be. US used Pak soil to nurture Jindullah and now Iran is also blaming us like Indians. Indians themselves got this brazen courage from US policies towards Afghanistan and Pakistan in WoT. Next, Afghanistan well it already has turned into a epicenter of terrorism for Pakistan.

Billions dollars can be ceased without a war as well. Problem is US military presence in Afghanistan. What US has really done in order to win heart and minds of Afghans... let alone any Pakistani?

Lol...they even can't run a fair election there. I know and agree that there are problems but as far as extremism is concerned check out history and you will agree that it raised manifold after US invasion into Afghanistan despite the fact it was envisaged other way around. This is why people thinks (and rightly so) and US must pull military out of Afghanistan and then provide support to common poeple there in making their lives better with business and trade activities. Pakistan has learned hard lessons and now i believe that military and intelligence establishment will think twice before letting any aid going into Madrassahs who trained militants of any factions be it Taliban or other groups and send them into Afghanistan. Believe me, once US pull its forces out of Afghanistan but vow its resolve to combat root causes politically it will earn support of common people in Afghanistan and Pakistan much more easily.

 

[insight-out]

I actually think Afghanistan is a more culturally amenable state, historically, than Iraq. There's a legacy of self-governance of sorts and ethnic accomodation that I'm unsure really has ever existed in Iraq. As such, I'd be very opposed to partition and believe it economically unsustainable.

You might want to do some reading about Iraq's history. Iraq has a very rich and diverse history. Look up Baghdad, Basrah, Kufa. They were some of the most modern and enlightened cities in the world.

 

[PakShaheen79]

How?

They didn't stabilize the last time the US left - it took a lot of blood and treasure from at least three different nations for the Taliban to get any semblance of stability in around 90% of Afghanistan, with a brutal war, and that was a suffocatingly brutal and intolerant stability.

I am not concerned as much about US sanctions on Pakistan as I am about the fallout from the chaos in Afghanistan, both direct and indirect.


The Pakistani Taliban are not going to vanish because the US will leave - the TTP has outlined its long term goal, as did the TTP-Swat before they were destroyed - turning Pakistan into a "true Islamic State" - that is not a position open for compromise.

Pakistan's war with extremists bent on overthrowing the state will continue regardless of whether the US stays or leaves, so why add on the additional headache of having an Afghanistan in chaos?

Bro in Swat there was a history behind all this enforcement of Sharia law since 1990s situation in FATA is totally different. Now Tribal are with Army do you why? because they have seen what TTP did to them under the slogans of Islam. Problem is US military presence and on top of its policies towards WOT are creating two fold crisis. On one hand US carry out drone strikes and provoke tribal and then from Afghanistan these locals recieve money and weapon to take revenge from US ally Pakistan. This mess can only be dressed if US pull its military out of Afghanistan otherwise this cycle will continue forever.